You nervously stand before the attendance committee. Your dreams of Ivy League Schools and summers without classes quickly fade as the gavel swings down with a crushing sound; the decision: no credit. Your girlfriend sits in the corner crying; she just received the same punishment. Then your parents rush in to see what the verdict was. You have to tell them the bad news. Your father’s eyes burn with anger at the thought of shelling out more money to get you into a summer program. Your heart sinks, all because of a few beautiful days in May. And the worst part? That friend who you know skipped as much as you, no, more, doesn’t even have to appeal for credit.

This year if you have four or more unexcused absences you can not receive credit for the class, no matter if you have an A and notes for the rest of the eight days and all your assignments in on time and a five on the AP test and…No! No credit.

You still have to get 12 absences of any kind before you have to appeal for credit this year, but god help you if four of them are innocent unexcused absences. However, your best friend can get 11 free skip days, one absence short of 12, and not even have to appeal for credit.

There is something unfair about the whole appeal for credit process this year. The administration tried to make it clear, simple and easy to understand, but it’s not. The administration itself has been shrouded in an enigma, so why do they have the right to think they can make a document that is clear and concise? The explanation of the new truancy policy has been less than brilliant. The administration has published the policy in the most unlikely to be read spot they could, the student planner. They might as well have dropped it in Timbuktu, because students would be more likely to find it on some random web site, madly searching for information on a late research paper. Honestly, what student can say they’ve read the first twenty-some-odd pages of the student planner, containing those pages about what not to do and what to do, the stuff that would take a law degree to comprehend. Do the letters and numbers, “RCW 28A.27.225,” really belong in a student handbook?

It also seems that Washington State Law is different than our school, but their law must take precedent, right? According to RCW 28A.225, “after seven absences in one month or ten in one year, the school districts must file a ‘truancy’ petition’.” What happened to 12 absences in one semester?

Under the subheading of “STATE TRUANCY LEGISLATION” it says that you have to get your parent/guardian to send a note to school two days after the absence, but later in the written policy it says, “notes not received within 5 days are not accepted; the absences are unexcused.” Which one is it two or five? On page nine of your student handbook it says, underlined, “If you have more than one unexcused absence in a course during a semester, you are not eligible to submit an attendance appeal.” I thought it took more than three sunny days to deny you credit.

The rubric also featured on page nine of your student handbook is supposed to clear up all the fights over the sometimes random decisions made by the truancy board. It is supposed to be objective, but it’s not. Words like “effort,” “behavior” and “reasons” are not objective; they are words that are intrinsically the opposite.

Until the administration and the truancy board make up their minds about what exactly constitutes a rejection of credit, the old system should be reinstated. Furthermore, the administration should make their best effort to announce how the system works to the student body, so the phrase, “I didn’t know that,” comes up as little as possible.

What needs to be understood about teenagers, especially ones with four AP classes, three sports a year, church on Sundays, a job and a car, or hell, any of the above, is that they will not take the time to read an attendance policy unless they are specifically told to do so. If students genuinely don’t know the attendance policy, in a clear way, not through hearsay, then who can blame them for not following the rules?