Every two weeks D219 parents and guardians receive an email from the attendance office informing them about their children’s current attendance records. The email lists every absence, grade and percentage of school missed. If that percentage reaches ten percent, then that student is deemed “Chronically Absent.”

The first problem with our attendance policy is laid out in the definition of “Chronically Absent.” A “Chronically Absent” student is one whose absences total 10% or more of school days of the most recent academic school year, including absences with and without valid cause, and out-of-school suspensions” (D219 Student Handbook). It doesn’t stand to reason that absences that have “valid cause,” meaning that the student’s guardians consented to the student not attending school, would count towards being “Chronically Absent.” Why should a student be denied going on field trips and more sick days due to being “Chronically Absent,” even when they couldn’t control being absent, and their guardian verifies it? If a student is chronically sick, or are experiencing a family emergency which would take more than ten percent of the semester, why should they suffer the repercussions of being labeled “Chronically Absent,” when their guardian has already confirmed that their absences are unexpected and severe circumstances? 

The use of this policy is to ensure that students get a proper amount of time in school, but I believe that if a student has been frequently absent that they would have the foresight to decline going on field trips and instead catch up on school work. It should not be within the school’s rights to deny students more days off just because they deem the student’s attendance less than ideal; that responsibility should be on the guardians and students. The only reason that a student should be deemed “Chronically Absent” and should face the consequences is when they have missed ten percent of the semester with unexcused absences, because that means that their guardian didn’t call them out, meaning that they are being irresponsible and as punishment, should have privileges taken away. 

Another problem is that some reasons for missing periods are now deemed invalid. “Please note the previous explanation of excused reasons. ‘Oversleeping,’  ‘car trouble,’  ‘missed bus’ or ‘personal’ are not valid excuses for missing classes” (D219 Student Handbook). Again this goes back to the idea that D219 shouldn’t get the right to dictate what the student and their guardian deem as valid reasons to miss school.

Some of the reasons listed above are little mistakes that everyone makes, leading to some missed school. Nobody is asking for a “free pass” from school. A guardian is telling the school why their student is late and missing some periods; it’s not anyone’s fault or intention to miss school but rather the result of a mistake. Why shouldn’t those reasons be enough to excuse a student’s absence for a period, when there is literally no way for them to get to school and their guardian is backing up their statement?

I believe that D219 needs to be much more cautious on labeling students “Chronically Absent” and denying them access to field trips and necessary days off. In life there are unexpected circumstances, people make mistakes, and these absence guidelines don’t reflect those possibilities.