The start of a new school year brings with it some changes in Choate’s discipline policy. Choate has revised its absence policy in order to address the ineffectiveness of the previous years’ system. Students absent from any commitment, regardless of whether the commitment is academic or non-academic, will now penalized in an escalation of punishments. Additionally, Sunday detention (Sunday D) has been replaced by Thursday detentions, which are held during the students’ Thursday sleep-in, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. “What hasn’t changed is the notion that you’re responsible for going to class. What has changed is the nature of the response in missing classes,” clarified Mr. Sam Doak, the sixth-form boys’ dean.
The recent changes in Choate’s absence policy have placed greater emphasis on attendance to all commitments. Absences from sports practices, music lessons, school meetings, or academic class are weighed equally now, and the punishment for each absence intensifies very quickly.
The idea of revising the policy was brought up at the deans’ retreat during spring term last year. Mrs. Nancy Miller, the fourth-form girls’ dean, explained the new absence policy in further detail: “The first time a student misses a commitment, the student meets with his or her adviser to talk about the absence. The second time, the student is assigned a Thursday morning detention, and we also notify the student’s parents. The third time, the student is assigned two weeks on Bounds, which is different from the way the Bounds used to work. Bounds in this context means that a student is confined to his or her room on Friday and Saturday nights, for two weeks. The fourth absence, the student receives two weeks of Absence Restriction as well as a Saturday detention for each week. The fifth time, the Absence Restriction is extended, and we begin to discuss the possibility of absence probation.”
Before, the first unexcused academic absence required students to attend Sunday D. From there, the repercussions accumulated. In general, the second academic absence led to two weeks On Bounds; the third absence led to a meeting with the student’s form dean and adviser, as well as two weeks on Absence Restriction; the fourth academic absence led to another meeting and a two-week extension of Absence Restriction; and the fifth academic absence warranted a final meeting, another 2 weeks of Absence Restriction, and 10 weeks on Absence Probation. However, absences from non-academic commitments, including athletic practices and school meetings, were treated similarly, but in a more lenient approach. On the student’s second non-academic absence, he or she would only have another Sunday D and would not be put on Bounds.
After the policy was amended over the summer, all students and parents were notified of this change. Prior to the students’ return, both students and parents had to sign the Statement of Understanding, in which the new policy was listed and explained. Moreover, during form meetings at the start of the year, form deans went over the new responses to unexcused absences and the redefined definitions of Bounds and Restriction. Regarding the student reaction to this change, Mrs. Miller responded, “I think students were singularly sanguine about it after the form meeting. But I think the ramifications will become more obvious when push comes to shove, especially during winter term, when kids begin to cut class. But Sunday D clearly was ineffective, and certainly not a deterrent for kids to miss their commitments.”
Esul Burton ’16 shared her perspective on the new policy: “At first I was a little sad that Sunday D was gone, but I understand why the school decided to go in the direction that it did; the changed policy is much more effective. I also really appreciate the fact that the first time you miss a commitment, you’re not penalized for it. I think everyone, at some point in their Choate career, is going to miss a class, and it shouldn’t be treated as a big deal. I think it’s very reasonable that the punishments get stricter after the first few strikes.” She also pointed out a potential downside to this change: “Most people sleep in not because they want to, but because they’re really tired, and I think taking away a sleep-in sometimes hurts the students. It might just have an even more detrimental effect where it adds to the exhaustion that the students face everyday.”
In general, students—however reluctantly—seem to understand the changes in the absence policy. Zev Nicolai-Scanio ’18 observed, “In the end, I think the escalation of punishments will make it less stressful for the students because, if absences are discouraged, students won’t be under the pressure of having no idea what’s going on in a class. You can almost think of it as trying to help students help themselves stay away from the habit of missing things, as the academic consequences of that are going to be far more damaging than having a detention.”
He continued, “This policy is also coming from an angle of respect for others, as there are certain extracurricular activities, like crew or scenes in plays, where you really need each and every member present. I think a part of the reason behind the new absence policy is valuing non-academic things more highly, but part of it is also saying that it’s not just an obligation to a commitment: it’s also an obligation to other people in the commitment.”
The new absence policy is clearly trying to enforce the importance of individual responsibility and commitment. Mpilo Norris ’18 commented, “I think the new policy is trying to instill this idea that you have to be responsible, not just with academics, but with everything that you commit yourself to. It’s important for the real world, where you have to make sure that you’re living up to the expectations of your commitments, where there would be no such thing as safety nets like Sunday D’s.”
“For the simplicity of it,” said Mrs. Miller, “just go to class.”
