It’s one thing to support a boycott that affects businesses.
Peaceful demonstrations and protests are quite rightly an American
tradition and part of our free speech protections.
It’s one thing to support a boycott that affects businesses. Peaceful demonstrations and protests are quite rightly an American tradition and part of our free speech protections. But it’s quite another to boycott public education – and there are a few reasons the decision of parents of more than 1,300 Latino students to keep their kids out of Gilroy public schools troubles us.
Friday’s boycott that closed dozens of Gilroy businesses was part of a statewide effort by the state’s Hispanic population to protest the decision of the state legislature to repeal a law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.
First, the boycott will cost the already cash-strapped district approximately $40,000 in average daily attendance fees from the state.
That’s because unexcused absences aren’t reimbursed, so the district will get between $26 and $36 less from the state for each student who took part in the protest. That’s money the school district can’t afford to lose in any year, but especially when it’s trying to plug a half-million dollar deficit.
Second, keeping children out of school as a form of protest sends exactly the wrong message to students. Education is of paramount importance, and parents need to reinforce that message every day. We can’t tell kids to go to school, to work hard and to learn so they’ll have brighter futures one minute, and then tell them it’s OK to miss school for political protests the next.
Perhaps Latino community leaders could have worked with GUSD officials to spend some time on the issue in social studies classes, to have a gathering during Gilroy High School’s lunch or after school to discuss the issue, but keeping kids out of school sends a bad message. We don’t want to teach our students that political protest is more important than education. We don’t want them to think that hurting their own schools is a proper way to register dismay with Sacramento politicians.
Superintendent Edwin Diaz should send a note home to parents in the district – in English and in Spanish – underlining the importance of school attendance to academic success and highlighting how unexcused absences hurt the school district.
Finally, keeping children out of school punishes the wrong party. School district officials had nothing to do with the issue in question. GUSD officials did not make the decision to repeal the driver’s license law, the state legislature – with the full backing of newly elected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – did.
This boycott hurt school districts across the state while potentially saving the state treasury millions of dollars in money it won’t have to spend on average daily attendance revenue for local schools. It’s ironic that the school protest hurt local schools while helping Sacramento’s bottom line.
It’s great to see California’s Hispanic citizens becoming more involved in state politics and flexing their collective political muscle. But we hope next time, their aim will be truer and their actions will hit the right target. And that target should never be California’s school children.