On Jan. 3, 2022, administrators Alvin Lewis and Jonathan Weintraub sent an email to students and their families regarding a new attendance policy. The policy had been previously taken away due to Covid-19. Students are encouraged to arrive at 8:25, 10 minutes before class begins and will receive disciplinary corrections directly after 8:35. One tardy constitutes a warning but two will result in lunch detention. After three tardies, the student will receive detention after school. The fourth tardy will result in having a personal conversation with either Lewis or Weintraub.

This policy was taken away during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic and was only recently restored. Despite its past place in the rules of RMHS, the world has a new normal which should also include evaluating unfair policies.

Making someone stay after school for an hour isn’t going to shorten the line of cars outside in the morning. It’s also not going to help students who have to get to work directly after school. It’s not going to encourage learning, but instead, it’s a hands-off method of punishment for administration to show their higher ups. Some students take care of their siblings or even provide for their families. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but the reality of life prevents some students from prioritizing their high school education for outside work.

While I have strong opinions on this matter, I also took the opportunity to speak with both Lewis and Weintraub to understand the thought process behind re-implementing this policy. During the 2021-2022 year, Lewis reported 150-200 students, about 10% of RMHS was tardy on some days before the policy was reinstated. This number dropped to 2% only a few days after the tardy slips were handed out again.

“We want to be able to teach a lesson that what you’re learning is important,” Lewis said.

After learning over Zoom for nearly one and a half years, Lewis explained the factor of accountability in school which starts with punctuality. He also addressed the issue with the black and white wording in the initial email. I worried that administration would not work with those in special circumstances where a family or work issue required a student to be tardy every day.

“We fully recognize it’s not going to work for everyone,” Weintraub said. “Fully understanding that there are situations out of students’ control. That’s why we’re here. We’re here to help those students so that they’re not inadvertently consequenced for something that’s out of their control.”

I was relieved to understand that there was nuance in this situation. My greatest concern was initially that this specific tardy discipline fed into the idea of the school-to-prison pipeline. This is when students, usually minorities, are consistently disciplined with the mentality that they are delinquents. These students may be disproportionately affected by financial issues, documentation or other race-specific factors that play into their performance at school.

“It’s not necessarily a “Gotcha!” It’s a navigation tool in order to help us get to where we need to be,” Lewis said.

This caused me to reflect on my original opinion of the policy. While I remain concrete in my opinion that modern day schooling systems across the United States need to change to fit students’ needs, I also acknowledge that RMHS specifically has taken the steps to make that true for many students.

“That’s what this is all about. Do we provide the opportunity for our kids to learn? To learn uninterrupted.” Lewis said.

Both administrators are fully equipped to work with students and families who require accommodations. Their main concern is with students who have not been required to show accountability through the pandemic. While I disagree that detention is an effective punishment in general, it seems to be working for the students it’s designed for. I propose another solution to tardiness, though.

We know that the policy is not new, but what if it was different? Two tardies is not a lot of leeway before a detention which is grounds for punishment at home; especially if a student has extremely strict parents. My proposal is that the numbers should increase to three tardies and a warning, four and a conversation with either Lewis or Weintraub and after that, it should be a collaborative effort between parents, the student, a counselor and either Lewis or Weintraub.

I learned a new perspective with only two conversations. If we continue to open dialogue with each other, we will always end up with a new understanding of those we feel far apart from. I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak my mind about this tardy policy and I hope to continue being a voice for the student body in my last semester here at RMHS.