Prior to the current 2011-2012 school year, there were only a few requirements a UCHS student needed to fulfill to qualify for a home period. Essentially, the student had to be either employed or, in rare cases, required by family to be at home, and the student needed to score a “proficient” or above on their core CST scores. Abruptly this year, however, these requirements blossomed into a daunting 13.
Effective fall 2011, seniors who want a short day will have to “…be in the process of completing 13 [out of 16] steps/indicators” of success, as stated in the application form. These requirements are not only foreign, but have also more than doubled in amount since last year, leaving many students trying desperately to get their home period approved. Despite being mere weeks into the school year, seniors are already scrambling to meet their new requirements and secure a home period.
The new additions, according to Head Counselor Sherryl Godfrey, aim to confirm that any student with only five periods has what it takes to succeed beyond high school. Unfortunately, while raising the standards ensures students are ready to have a short day, more problems appear to have been created than solved.
For one thing, it is important to remember what home periods were initially designed for– extreme situations. According to Godfrey, “[Home period] was originally built for kids who couldn’t stay all day because they were supporting their family or had a job.” It was introduced for students who were frequently needed outside of school during the day, whether they met the academic standards or not. With such cases, it is hardly practical, let alone fair, to require the completion of 13 different “steps.”
There is also the matter of time, something both students and counselors do not have to spare. “It’s kind of ridiculous,” said Senior Taylor Christensen, one of many students trying for a home period. “I don’t understand why just having a job shouldn’t work. … [The added requirements] only make it harder on the counselors and everyone else who have to go through all the proof.” In fact, according to Christensen and Godfrey, during the first week of school, the Counselor’s Office was filled with seniors stuck waiting to pick up, turn in, or discuss their requirements — an overall colossal waste of time. The fact that students were informed of the changes a mere eight days before school began only served to magnify the problem.
This transition could obviously have been better handled. The idea behind it was fine. Every UC campus member, whether part of the student or faculty, are in favor of ensuring student success; it was the execution that was faulty.
At this point, it is too late to remedy the hasty introduction, though everyone might have benefited had the requirements been introduced to the juniors a year before. At least the other difficulties, (the ridiculous amount of requirements, for example), can be amended. Hopefully, next year will be a little easier for seniors, since they will be familiar with the changes, and there will be chances to amend the required total amount of “steps” so that they serve their purpose without the time wasted during the first weeks of school.