This week, the Howard County Board of Education held a work session to discuss hybrid learning models for the second semester of the 2020-2021 school year. After a long and arduous discussion that illustrates the quagmire that is making education decisions in a pandemic that is worsening by the day, the board voted to maintain a virtual learning model in the third quarter of the school year with the option to bring small groups into school buildings for in-person learning. Five board members voted in favor of this motion, including the Student Member of the Board (SMOB), Zach Koung.
Predictably, many people were angry about this decision, but regrettably, some of them chose to direct their wrath toward Mr. Koung rather than the four other adults who also voted affirmatively. I’m troubled by an increasing pattern of people who disagree with the SMOB’s views demanding that he be stripped of voting rights because they feel this is too much power for a minor. I first saw this in September when Mr. Koung introduced a motion to remove School Resource Officers from HCPSS schools. The motion failed, but several people saw this as reason enough to relegate the SMOB to “children should be seen and not heard” status. In the wake of Monday’s virtual schooling vote, District 5 Howard County Councilman David Yungmann stepped into the fray with a Facebook post on the topic of SMOB voting rights. Mr. Yungmann stated that because his children are grown, he can’t imagine what it’s like to be an HCPSS student learning virtually during this pandemic – and then he complained that an actual HCPSS student had the right to vote on pandemic-related decisions. I probably would have simply shaken my head at the cognitive dissonance and moved on, were it not for Mr. Yungmann’s urging “the new BOE and our State Delegation to address this problem immediately.”
Maryland law establishes the role of the Howard County SMOB and sets forth the implementation details. The SMOB is a high school senior elected by the student body of grades 6-11 and serves for one year. Similar to other Maryland jurisdictions such as Baltimore City as well as Baltimore, Harford, and Prince George’s counties, the Howard County SMOB has partial voting rights; some matters, such as personnel or budget decisions, are reserved for adult members only. The SMOB on the Maryland State Board of Education may vote on anything other than negative personnel actions. Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties take it even further, allowing their SMOBs to have full voting rights. It’s clear that Howard County is by far not alone in wanting students to have a voice and a vote on matters involving their public education experience, to have a role in representative democracy. And yet, some people believe that only adults, with their wisdom, maturity, and experience, ought to be voting on matters of such magnitude.
In Howard County, with its seven-member board, the majority required to carry a motion is four if the SMOB is not authorized to vote, and five if the SMOB is authorized to vote. In any vote in which the SMOB is authorized to vote and a 5-3 majority carries the motion, the motion would still pass with a 4-3 majority even without the SMOB’s vote. In other words, the SMOB’s vote has no impact unless at least three other wise, mature, experienced adult board members vote similarly. So my question is this: why is the SMOB’s vote a problem all of a sudden?
The answer here is obvious. When folks like Mr. Yungmann refer to this “problem” of SMOB voting rights, they’re referring to the fact that a high school senior who is standing on the doorstep of legal adulthood, who is elected democratically by the student body for whom BOE decisions have the greatest impact, has the legal right to vote in ways that run counter to their political ideology. The angry pitchfork mob doesn’t like how the SMOB votes, so the easiest solution is to take his vote away.