Your school has decided to confine all students to the school grounds at lunch time. Students will not be allowed to go home or eat out and may only have lunch supplied at the school caterer. As President of your Students’ Association, write a letter to your school principal protesting against the new rule. Provide three reasons why you and your fellow students oppose this plan.
Dear Principal, Bereaving students of choices- A leap in the dark In consideration of the school’s prime principle of nurturing an environment in which students play a pivotal role, the recent proposal put forth to confine students to school grounds for lunch really leaves me in perplexity. It is claimed that the initiative is in the interest of our students. Be that as it may, as President of Students’ Association, Judging from the recent poll on students’ preference, it appears that the plan runs in contradistinction to the stereotyped way the school perceives.
Prior to probing into the possibility of putting the restriction into practice, it would be better- off apprehending the drawbacks deep down. The Justifications to which students’ opposition to the act can be ascribed are manifolds. Probably the first recurring to my mind is the students’ freedom of choice. Gone are the days when teachers assume an overwhelmingly dominant part in implementing school’s policies. These days, with the great strides in the promotion of equality, it should be noted that students deserve considerable respect in the decision-making process in school.
Confining them to school grounds without much regard to students’ perception, irrefutably, is tantamount to depriving them of liberty for the plan limits the variety of food, in turn marring the relationship and mutual trust between students and teachers, both of which constitute an inextricable affiliation with the school’s success. Do unto others as they would have done unto you. Should teachers put themselves into students’ shoes, isn’t it nerve-racking if students show disrespect for their teaching and feelings? The same simply applies.
It is beyond doubt that the policy serves as a kind of discrimination against the impoverished students, regardless. As one of the most prominent schools in the territory, it is always our school policy of granting admission to students of sundry capabilities that contributes to our renown. And it should be noted that some of those plagued with a complicated family background, inclusive of family weightlifting and poverty, always dine at home to save expenses, while some may opt for restaurants with food proffered at low prices.
The stark fact that the sole school caterer has a propensity to maximize revenues simply adds a significant toll to their financial burden, adding salt to the wounds of their penury. In this regard, an outright ban spells a discriminatory and derogatory attitude towards their financial inferiority, in turn battering their self- esteem. With this in mind , it seems that the move causes irretrievable damage to the harmony of our school and goes against the very intention of our school—promoting quality and doing away with discrimination.
Nonetheless, these are by no meaner the only slight blemishes. Alongside financial concern, in no way should we overlook the abysmal impact inflicted on students—the proposition brings about twin repercussions: The first one is the physical health problems. More often than not, with a view to catering to students’ preference, the food offered by school caterers is high in calorie, sugar, salt and saturated fat content, but lacks the recommended dietary allowance of protein and vitamins.
This, indisputably, poses a grave damper to students’ health for it asses the proneness of students to obesity-induced complications. Diarrhea and Hand Foot Mouth Disease may also spring up given a cramped environment. Another should be the mental health problems. Based on a host of scientific research, only if students get physical stretching can their antibody level be strengthened if they engage themselves in long lessons.
A plus is that they can reap a sense of satisfaction provided that they have time to interact with their friends and so forth. For this very reason, with the ban in place, students stand much chance of having their well-being adversely affected. Without a desirable physique, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to concentrate on lessons; without enough concentration, they are doomed to experience a slide in academic performance; without satisfactory results, a shadow is bound to be cast on the school’s prestige.
Advocates may counter our stance, claiming students may risk dangers if they are allowed to go out for lunch as they may meet with gangsters and triad activities. This assertion, though of certain validity at first glance, is fundamentally groundless. When it comes to crime in Hong Kong, the cases happening at lunchtime embroiling students are sporadic; or rather, negligible. Granting students the right to eat outside precisely provides a chance for them to learn to be independent, an element of which students are starved stemming from parent’s’ indulgence.
Most importantly, what really makes a profound impact on students’ behavior hinges, to a large extent, on the quality of moral education of our school rather than the only one hour at lunchtime. Could the school keep track of students’ deportment after class? It seems that the school authority is putting the cart before the horse without noticing the root recipes for students’ disciplinary matters. Taking all aspects into meticulous account, it is lucid that an out-and-out ban will do more harm than good.
Beyond gainsay, the school makes every effort to guard students against any potential evils putting them in peril. Nevertheless, when sophisticated analysis of students’ interests in different fields is employed, the proposition could be counterproductive. We have to bear in mind the crux of the matter depends not on our restraint on their lunch places but proper guidance on how to eliminate the possibility of the sinister. In this respect, teachers can hold some talks and offer tips on the keys to preventing them.
Should the proponents still stick to their mind, that is Just wishful thinking and will only crush us into an no-win, where students, teachers and the school stand to be tormented Witt a multitude tot problems. On the evidence of the abovementioned rationales, it is earnestly hoped that the school could retreat from its thought and act in accordance with students’ hope, which is a wise decision no one will hold peradventure over.