It’s generally known around campus that students aren’t very big fans of tardy sweeps. When the bell summons students to class and the announcement jingle rings, students wait intensely to see if there’s going to be a tardy sweep. Students who are still in the hallways rush to make it into class before their teachers lock the door, fearing lunchtime detention.
Despite students’ dislike of tardy sweeps, the administration insists that it’s for our own good. Since the establishment of tardy sweeps at McClatchy, there have been significantly less tardies, which means that more students are making it to class on time, and subsequently, the administration argues, their education is improving.
However, there are aspects of tardy sweeps that not only get in the way of education, but also violate student rights. Tardy sweeps would be more effective for student education if they underwent specific reforms that would comply with student rights. Tardy sweeps should focus less on punishing students and more on encouraging student education.
The first aspect of tardy sweeps that violates student rights is the bathroom policy which goes along with it. Teachers are advised not to allow students to use the bathroom during the first ten or last ten minutes of class in order to avoid confusion about who is late to class and who is using the bathroom (even though these students should have passes from their teacher anyway).
However, this policy is a violation of student rights. According to The California Education Code, refusal to allow students to go to the bathroom is considered corporal punishment and is therefore illegal.
Not only is it a violation of rights, but it also disrupts education. The first and last ten minutes of class are usually the best times to use the bathroom because it’s when the least important things are happening. Things are still getting set up in the beginning of class and in the last few minutes things are winding down. But because of this policy, students are forced to wait until the middle of class to use the bathroom, which means they end up missing more important parts of class. This completely negates the point of tardy sweeps, because it makes students miss more important class time than they need to be missing.
The other questionable aspect of tardy sweeps is lunchtime detention. Students who get caught in a tardy sweep automatically receive lunchtime detention for that day. The California Education Code says that students cannot be required to stay in the classroom during lunch, but that a school board may adopt “reasonable rules for teachers to restrict students for disciplinary reasons during recess.” The administration considers lunchtime detentions reasonable as discipline for tardiness.
So while lunchtime detentions are technically legal, they still serve as a punishment rather than a thoughtful way of assisting student education. Students who don’t get lunchtime as a resting period during the day will likely be restless during 5th and 6th period, leading their education to suffer even more.
The tardy sweep system should be reformed so that it no longer violates student rights. But more than just the legal violations, systems put in place by our administration should always have the ultimate goal of improving upon student education, rather than solely punishment. While punishment may be necessary in certain situations, it shouldn’t be the first step in dealing with an issue, especially when the issue might just be a student stepping into class 15 seconds after the bell rang because they had to use the bathroom. When, then, does the administration think students should use the bathroom?
In order to adjust the purpose of tardy sweeps to focus less on punishment and more on education, the administration should first abolish the illegal aspects of the tardy sweep system. Additionally, instead of conducting tardy sweeps directly after the bell rings, waiting even 30 seconds to a minute after the bell rings to do a sweep would be more effective in dealing with students who aren’t even close to being in class on time, and it would cut down on punishing students who step in just moment after the bell rang because their last teacher kept them in past the bell or they had to use the bathroom or get something from their locker. These passing period tasks become especially difficult when you factor in the extensive size of McClatchy’s campus. Students already struggle to make it all the way from the social science hall to the D-wing in seven minutes, so many students don’t consider locker or bathroom stops an option under the current tardy sweep system.
At the end of the day, students who value their education and actively try to get to class on time shouldn’t be terrified of being 10 seconds late to a class. Students shouldn’t be afraid to use the bathroom or go to their locker during passing period. And students who don’t try to be in class on time shouldn’t be subjected to punishments such as lunchtime detention, but should instead be individually consulted with in order to work on getting to class on time.
Last year, McClatchy’s Student Union focused on reforming tardy sweeps. They succeeded in encouraging the administration to abolish first period tardy sweeps, citing them as unfair because of complications out of student control which can occur on the way to school.
Students can always voice their feelings about issues like these in the Shared Decision Meetings of teachers, administrators, and students, which are held every last Monday of the month.