As a majority of the students are aware, MHS has added a new stipulation to its seemingly ever-growing tardy policy. New, random hall sweeps are now being executed throughout the week, in an effort to get students to show up to class on time. Upon the announcement of the new act, many students thought back to the days of middle school, when a similar action was used. Within my own class, many commented on how pointless the sweeps were, and how much time they wasted.

            I asked a student who had recently been swept about their experience with the new program. They said that they were swept a matter of seconds after the bell rang and that, given a couple more seconds, they would have been in class. They then told me how they, along with other tardy students, were rallied toward a point where names were taken down, for a detention after school. They reported to me that the whole process took about 10 minutes. 10 minutes! Why should a student who is a couple of seconds late to class be ten minutes later? I then asked them if the detention had made them think about getting to class more quickly, they replied a simple "no," saying that their tardiness was not really that detrimental to their learning career.

            The problem with these hall sweeps is the timing. As many complained in middle school, and are now complaining in high school, the sweeps do not target people who are chronically late, but instead those who happen to be a slightly tardy. I realize that students coming into class late disrupts lessons, but I challenge the administration to find one teacher in the entire building who starts teaching 10 seconds after the bell.

            The reality is that these hall sweeps should be held off a few minutes, so that the real problem of tardiness can be addressed. People who are running a few seconds late are not going to change their methodology completely, just for a few seconds.

 When the student I interviewed returned to class, they had to get information from the teacher, information they would have received if they had not been swept. If the goal of these sweeps is to increase learning, this then seems contradictory and counter productive. Student attendance is a very important issue, but the new amendment to the tardy policy is counter productive and wastes class time. It could, however, be slightly reworked to truly accomplish its goal, instead of becoming an inconvenience.

The goal of the administration is indeed, a good one, but they fail to address the problem, and instead, add to it. By conducting these random sweeps as soon as the bell rings, people who are running a little late are being unnecessarily punished in order to reform truly problematic, tardy students.