The School Committee approved an updated attendance policy for Chelsea High School at its first meeting of the new year last week.
Commonly referred to as the e-policy, over the past year, students have campaigned for changes in the attendance policy to make it fairer for students. Under the policy, students receive a grade of 60 percent, or an E, for a class where they have three or more unexcused absences during a quarter.
Students have appeared before the School Committee in recent months reciting personal experiences of how the policy can seem arbitrary and unfair to students who need to work to help support their families or are undergoing mental health issues.
Over the past several months, students, staff, parents, and administration have been meeting to create an updated policy.
The updated policy creates easier mechanisms for parents and guardians to excuse a student’s absence, and it also creates a three-person review board where parents and students can appeal the E grades.
The composition of that review board – and whether one of the high school’s two family liaisons should be on it – was the major point of debate with the School Committee last week. The committee ultimately voted to approve the updated attendance policy as originally presented.
“Over the last couple of months, Chelsea High students have united and led an effort to change the attendance policy,” Chelsea High senior Jimmy Merino stated in a letter to the School Committee. “Students have collaborated with school administrators, members of the School Committee, the superintendent’s office, parents, and community members to amplify the voices of students and their needs for an improved education.”
Merino said the students were appreciative of everyone’s efforts, but stated that there are still changes that need to be made to the attendance policy.
He stated that the review board should consist of five members, and include a family liaison staffer and a teacher, in addition to the administrator of social work and the administrator of guidance.
Merino also stated that the school attendance officer was part of the review board, but assistant superintendent of schools Adam Deleidi noted that the third member of the review board is actually an assistant principal and not the attendance officer.
“We believe a five representatives on the board, excluding the attendance officer, will be a fairer process,” stated Merino.
The updated policy also fails to adequately address how students can appeal Es that are given at the end of the school year or for the second quarter of a semester-long class.
“Lastly, our school administration and central office must appropriately roll out this new policy,” stated Merino. “We would also like a chance at the end of the year to review the effectiveness of the policy and work on making amendments to the policy if needed for the next school term.”
School Committee member Roberto Jimenez Rivera initially made a successful motion to amend the policy and add the family liaison to the absence review board.
However, the committee then unanimously voted to return to the updated policy as originally submitted after several administrators said including the family liaison officers to the board would place an unfair burden and workload on those employees.
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Tamara Blake-Canty also noted that having the family liaisons rule on the attendance policy could damage the relationship between the liaisons and the families and students they work with.
“The relationship between our family liaisons and our families is of the utmost importance,” she said.
The updated policy is scheduled to go into effect on the first day of the third quarter on Jan. 30.