Amendment to the GCE Code of Conduct

To conclude Unit 2 our action project was to amend the current GCE Code of Conduct. This process brought together everything that we have learned in the unit because we had to come up with a formal argument on why our idea was right and had to defend it. I think the main concept that I learned from doing this project was that there is not always one argument describing things. The current section about food has two arguments behind why it should be in place and at first I had integrated them into one argument because I did not realize but through discussing it with my teacher I realized there were two arguments to be made. This made it easier later on to find flaws in the arguments because they were simpler.

The GCE Code of Conduct is filled with rules and guidelines on how to operate the school. To ensure that students feel safe and equal a code of conduct is necessary. However, some of these rules are flawed and contradict each other. For example the rule addressing food is as follows, “No food is allowed during class or in the classrooms…” The only arguments that could be made against allowing food in class are:
P1: Eating in class causes a distraction to the student and his peers.

P2: Students are supposed to be focused on class.
C: Students should not be allowed to eat in class because they will be distracted.

The other one being:

P1: Students eating in class will not pick up after themselves.

P2: The classroom will be messy if the students don’t clean up.

C: Students should not be allowed to eat in class because the classroom will be messy.

The first argument is made invalid by another section of the code of conduct. The Disruption section states,  “Any disruption, which interrupts or interferes with teaching or orderly conduct of school activities, is prohibited....” Eating does not interrupt or interfere with teaching unless the person is being malicious and purposely making loud noises with his or her food or, their food has a strong odor. These are the only times that food is a disruption to class so food should not have its own section but should instead be included in the disruption section and be at the teachers discretion.

The second argument is contradicted in the Code of Conduct’s Students Responsibilities. The students responsibilities state at the end of the Code of Conduct, which says that students are responsible to clean up after themselves. Kids are already expected to be responsible for their own stuff. They should be able to be responsible for their food waste. The argument made for not allowing students to have food in class is already covered in the Code of Conduct and is contradictory. Students should be allowed to eat in the classroom.

The argument for why students should be able to eat during class is very simple:

P1: Eating in class does not disrupt class except in the rare case of a loud or odorous snack.

P2: Disruptions are already covered in the Code of Conduct.

P3: Students are responsible for cleaning up for themselves as stated in the Code of Conduct.

C: Eating in class should be allowed because it does not disrupt class except very rarely, which would be considered a disruption and students are already expected to be responsible enough to clean up after themselves.

This is an example of an acceptable snack in class that would not distract or detract from the learning experience of the student
Katie Warner