Dear Editors:

In response to Allie Colella’s March 22 article, I would like to talk about WS being an open or a closed campus. I think that WS should be an open campus because it will let students have a little free time and leave the campus and students can find much healthier, better-tasting food than the cafeteria’s food.

As long as students get back to the school on time, WS should be an open campus.

Many students don’t bring lunch and have to eat cafeteria food or don’t eat lunch at all. Every student needs to eat lunch, though. Open campus would let students explore their food interests and even eat healthier.

For example, if WS was an open campus, students could go to the many restaurants surrounding the high school like Panera, McDonald’s, Subway and Einstein’s. Many of these fast food restaurants have healthy choices. At Subway, students can get sandwiches and at Panera, a tasty salad.

Even though an open campus might be dangerous, it would still be effective in many ways. Students would just have to be extra careful when they left campus to get food. If the school is an open campus and the students got hurt in a car accident, it should not be the school’s responsibility; it should be the students because they chose to leave the school. Students should not have to sneak out to get the food they want. FCPS should make all of the high schools open campus.

The other negative effect of an open campus would be many students gaining weight. If the students do go out for lunch somewhere, they need to limit their calories.

An open campus should be allowed for WS. If students would be allowed to leave campus, the school could place some restrictions on the students like a time limit, and they should be required to sign in and sign out on a sheet in the front office so the administration would know who is still out at lunch.

The Oracle should write an editorial explaining why an open campus should be allowed for students.

Sincerely,

Lindsey Rodgers