Cover photo from Pexels by Pixabay.

Derek Zhang and Disha Deepak

On September 3, 2024, 1,562 students walked through the doors of Hamilton High School (HHS), largely unaware of the changes awaiting them. Within the first few weeks, HHS students were introduced to our entirely new administrative team, along with many noteworthy changes to Hamilton policies and their enforcement. As is the case with most major changes, the new policies have resulted in a number of student and staff opinions.

As upperclassmen at Hamilton, the changes were startling compared to our prior years. However, the most startling change was perhaps the atmosphere within the school. For the first time, we noticed students who were passionate about their education and wanted to advocate for their learning environment. As a result, in September we surveyed 526 Hamilton students who were asked to rate their feelings about the new changes on a scale of 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly favor).

Of the 526 students surveyed, 128 (24.3%) are seniors, 147 (27.9%) are juniors, 130 (24.7%) are sophomores, and 121 (23%) are freshmen, brand new to the building. It’s important to note that this is a sample population of HHS students, and this article does not represent the views of the entire student body. Additionally, 64 Hamilton staff were anonymously interviewed with an identical survey, providing a stark contrast to the student opinions.

This article, the first in a series of documentation, aims to shed light on the reception of the new policies as well as how students’ perceptions change over the course of the year. As a result, later articles detailing the continued settlement of the changes will include updated data on points similar to that of this article’s. Sections within this article are organized in the following order: Subtitle, context, student poll results, analysis of student opinions, teacher poll results, and analysis of teacher opinions.

In addition, interviews with our new administration on their rationale of these policies are also to be published at a later date in response to these results.

Policy 1: Phone Caddies

In previous years, teachers have always held the choice of whether or not to collect students’ phones in a caddy during class. New to this year, collecting phones is now a school-wide mandated rule that prohibits students from accessing their phones while class is running. This change applies to all classes, advisements, and Focus blocks.

A majority of the student population had a strong dislike towards this policy, with approximately 330 students rating their feelings below 3, the neutral position. On the other end, only 11 students stated a strongly favorable feeling towards this policy, and 28 students expressed slight favor. 158 students had no noticeable opinions on this matter.

Much of the student feedback to this policy listed preferences that teachers should have the autonomy to decide how their classroom is run, phones should be allowed once students are completed with their work, and AP students specifically should be trusted with their phones throughout the entire block. Some also noted that the policy didn’t affect them since they wouldn’t use their phone in class regardless, most likely the students who gave a favorability rating of 3.

Still, some students seemed to support the phone caddy policy and its purpose: “I think that there are serious benefits to not being on your phone in class. It helps improve retention of the material and foster collaboration between classmates. However I think that there should be some leeway given to teachers to decide how strictly they want to enforce this. I think that most students, especially AP students, can be trusted to keep off their phones in class.”

Many of the stronger student opinions on this policy stemmed from the removal of phones in advisement and Focus blocks (see Policy 7).

While the student opinions on this policy were largely negative, HHS teachers’ opinions drastically differed, trending much more towards a positive reaction of the new phone caddy policy. 100% of teachers surveyed voted on the positive side of the rating scale, and their comments further justified their overwhelming support. Teachers expressed past difficulty enforcing their decisions on classroom policies, where inconsistent rules throughout the building caused conflict between students and teachers alike. Now, a standard rule across the board ensures a smoother process throughout all classrooms.

“Phones can be a big distraction to learning on most days in my classroom. It was becoming difficult to enforce with students who were ‘allowed’ to use their phones in other classes. The schoolwide policy has made the issue much easier to enforce and follow up on.”

“I have not seen students this focused and engaged on their school work in years. It is refreshing to see kids are not rushing through their work to go on their phone and actually talking to one another in their free time. The caddy system leaves zero gray area and it takes away the constant battle and trying to sneak the phone around. It takes out the question of me, one particular teacher, being the bad guy and standardizing everything across the building.”

Policy 2: Music Prohibition

Another in the long list of new rules, music and music-related devices were initially blocked during class, advisement, and Focus. However, a recent change was made to create an exception for Focus, allowing participants to listen to music as they wish in the study-hall-like environment. For everything else, students are unable to play music through earbuds, headphones, airpods, or any other speaker device.

Perhaps the most unpopular change, 361 Hamilton students out of 526 surveyed strongly disliked the repeal of listening to music independently during class blocks. Of the students ranking this policy, 87.8% showed unfavorability, 9.7% were largely neutral, and only 2.4% shared a positive opinion.

Students’ comments further emphasized this opposition, stating that the lack of music negatively affects their education and ability to focus. However, many students demonstrated an understanding of the motivations behind the policy, suggesting alternatives to allow music/headphones solely during work time or leave music policies up to each teacher’s discretion.

“Many students use headphones to concentrate during advisement and focus so headphones being banned is just harming people's abilities to get work done. In addition there were no plans to accommodate students with sensory issues, and I personally had to get a doctor's note (which costs money) to be able to accommodate myself, when I've been fine wearing headphones for the past three years at this school.”

The outlier portion of students who rated the policy positively had largely apathetic feelings, stating that they personally weren’t affected by the new change or that they only agree with the repeal in the case of instructional learning time.

“Banning headphones during times of instruction is understandable … [but] during work time is not because some students use headphones and music to cancel out distractions and focus on their work.”

Teacher opinions seem to, again, contrast those of the students, with a majority of the staff favoring the policy一albeit much less so than for the phone caddies. This time, opinions were placed on both ends of the spectrum, with 70.4% still favoring the change and 4.7% actually pivoting to the opposition. A quarter of teachers took on the neutral stance, seeing the positive and negative aspects of the rule.

Sharing similar viewpoints as the students, some teachers believe that “music may be calming for some” and see the “benefit during structured work time.” One noted that the benefit of music could be a “student by student case,” considering that there may be underlying complexities behind this policy. However, a much larger portion has expressed frustration from past experiences of trying to lecture or simply converse with students and then being outright ignored due to students’ headphone and music usage:

“I've had too many negative experiences with students who tune me out and don't pay attention to anything happening in class when they listen to music.”

“You can’t even say good morning to a student because they’re listening to the music and they tune everything else out.”

Given these scenarios, it makes all the more sense why teachers would believe that “human brains, especially adolescent brains, are not as good at multitasking as we think.”

Policy 3: Phone Access During Hall/Bathroom Breaks

Going along with the new phone caddy mandate, students are not allowed to retrieve their devices during class even when taking a hall pass to go to the bathroom, printer, etc. This rule ensures that phones remain in caddies during the entirety of each block.

Deviating from the previous policies, we begin to see more students shift into the neutral stance, making up 43% of the total polled. However, there still remains more negative opinions than positive, 44.4% vs. 12.6% respectively.

Emphasizing a previous point, many more students “don’t really care” as they have “never really brought [their] phone” anyway, explaining the sudden surge in neutral stances. However, some of the opinions mention more serious matters, a handful stating “potential safety concerns” in the event of school shootings. Others similarly—although much less dire—say that they “sometimes need to text parents but can’t due to [the] phone ban.”

Students have also expressed mental health being an important factor to consider but are aware that such a reason could be abused: “I guess it depends on the student and whether or not the privilege is abused. But for me, getting to go into the hall and take a walk with my phone after sitting for an hour and a half actually helps me calm down.”

The teacher opinions returned back to a primarily favorable stance, with a landslide coming in for the “strongly favorable” category. Only one teacher (1.6%) took on the neutral stance, a far cry from the student side’s 43%, and there was not a single negative perspective on the topic.

Likewise, many of the comments mentioned phone access being “simply an excuse for students to spend more time outside of class.” They say this rule prevents students from “[texting] friends and [arranging] times to meet up during class,” reducing hallway distractions. In the end, “many [students] abuse this privilege.”

On the topic of physical health, teachers pointed out the obvious: “You do not need your phone to go to the bathroom!” Bringing phones to the bathrooms would be “unhygienic” and could even cause ‘other’ issues down the road.

It is important to note that among all the teacher comments, not a single one voiced security concerns, a result that could be because of changing generational circumstances or students simply being more motivated to find reasons against the policy. Either way, security is a valid concern, but alternative solutions may be needed to prevent a loophole abuse.

Policy 4: First/Last 10 Minutes in Class

Between each block exists passing time, a 7-minute window for students to travel from one class to another. After this, students are expected to be within their respective class. New this year, however, is the enforcement of a locked 10-minute period both before and after passing time where students may not leave the classroom with a hallway pass. To clarify, students must wait 10 minutes upon arrival to class before they are able to attain a pass to travel the halls, and once there is less than 10 minutes remaining of class, students must wait until passing time to leave.

It is to be noted that this has always been in the handbook but was never enforced.

Unlike the previous new change, data on this seems to be skewed towards the left with a supermajority (71.3%) at least disliking the rule. There still seems to be some support with 4.4% favoring and 1% strongly favoring the change, but it can be seen that these opinions appear to be the outliers in the data.

Students, in general, are expressing opinions ranging anywhere from the neutral “doesn’t affect me” to a frustrated “what if it’s an emergency?” Those expressing concern for the rule state that “passing time is not enough time to get to class and use the restroom.” A few also made the noteworthy realization that “there is an almost 30-minute period where you can’t use the bathroom.”

Others note that “especially girls … [will be disadvantaged because] there is always a line during passing time.” In addition, the female population has other things to deal with that make adhering to this rule all the more difficult: “As a girl who gets her period every single month as per usual, sometimes it’s out of my control and becomes an emergency. Unlike having to go pee, we can’t just hold stuff like that, and it’s very difficult to handle our problems if the first 10 and last 10 minutes of class are off limits for bathroom usage.”

Besides debating the consequences of such a ruling, others criticize the logistics of making the lockdown period the first/last 10 minutes of class:

“I believe that actually the most beneficial [period] is in the beginning and middle parts of class. Considering the last ten minutes tend to be work time, I feel we should be allowed to use the bathroom.”

“This is actually the best time to go since the first 10 minutes are usually introductions to the lesson, and the last 10 minutes are usually work time for students. If anything, the middle of the class is the most important time to not leave since the bulk of the teaching happens at this time.”

“The first 10 minutes make sense, but in most classes, the last ten minutes is quiet work time, and there are no important instructions.”

Representing only a small portion of similar responses, these quotes show that many disagree with the rationale behind enforcing limits on the last 10 minutes of class especially. Previously at both the Junior & Senior meetings with administration, it was presented that the first 10 and last 10 minutes of class were the most important. However, many students say these periods consist largely of warm-ups/practice and work time respectively and believe that going to the bathroom then would be better than to “use it in the middle of class and accidentally miss something when a teacher is giving a lesson/lecture.”

A small handful, however, justified the administration’s rationale: “I think that this rule is good especially because it assures that you won't be in the bathroom when the bell rings or when a teacher is taking attendance.”

Opposing the student views, HHS teachers had primarily favorable stances on this policy, with only 4 (6.2%) expressing negative opinions. Many teachers expressed positive opinions about the first ten minutes of class being mandatory, directly countering students’ views of it being unimportant. One teacher provided a rationale: “I understand this is to reduce hallway traffic around passing time - meaning students are in the rooms when the bell rings, not in the hall/bathroom. It also makes attendance and the start of class more efficient.”

However, they expressed some leniency regarding the last ten minutes, such as allowing students to leave during work time or after they’ve completed their work, as well as possible adjustments to the time frame. One teacher stated, “Teachers need to focus on taking attendance and getting the lesson started, not talking to several students about who is running to the bathroom. However, I could see this being reduced to 5 minutes.”

Some teachers did, in fact, express an understanding of the student perspective on the policy, especially the female students. “[The] first 10 and last 10 minutes are teachers' time to check in and make sure students learned what they needed to. That being said, I do think there can be some leniency as the bathrooms, especially the girls get extremely backed up during passing time.”

Lastly, a few teachers noted, “That has always been a student handbook policy. It was just never enforced.” Educators have already made this remark to many of the “new” policies this year, demonstrating a stark contrast between student and staff anticipations regarding these changes. It’s important to note that this trend of staff being largely unsurprised by these new changes could play into the uproar in student opinions because while these new changes came as a shock to many students, the HHS staff were already well-versed in some of the policies.

Policy 5: Electronic Passes

In prior years at HHS, the building followed a standard practice for passes. Yellow paper passes were provided to each teacher, allowing passes to be written for students at teachers’ discretion. Teachers also had red laminated passes (usually 2) that students could use during class. While the yellow paper passes were to be used for longer periods of time (i.e. missing an entire advisement period) or for last minute arrangements, the red hallway passes were intended for short breaks from the classroom, such as going to the bathroom, a student locker, printers, or to ask a quick question to another teacher.

This year, the use of yellow paper passes has been eliminated entirely. The allocations of red hallway pass uses are primarily the same; however, students are no longer permitted to use red hallway passes to visit another teacher’s room. Instead, they’re encouraged to have an email from a teacher explicitly stating the intent of their visit or have a Google Calendar invitation to be shown to hall monitors via Chromebook. Rules of the previously mentioned policies still apply to red passes.

This policy bears a strong resemblance to student opinions on the first/last ten minutes rule, with a supermajority of 70.5% of students surveyed expressing negative views. While 5.3% of students felt positively, 24.1% of students were fairly neutral on the electronic passes. Students in the supermajority seemed to have issues with the repetitive minor inconveniences caused by the new system. Many feel that email and Google Calendar passes cause a level of complication that is unnecessary: “Personally, the use of paper passes added much more flexibility to the pass system, allowing kids to move more freely.

Additionally, many students said they didn’t understand why the system was changed in the first place.

“I just think it's outrageous and impractical that students have to carry their chromebook around in the hallways rather than a simple paper pass. I just don't understand how or why they would implement this because there was never an issue with paper passes in the past. It's not like students are able to forge their own passes.”

We as writers, however, have noticed that in the past, some students saved paper passes to reuse (NOT an intended function), even going so far as to disregard the date & time teachers wrote in. Students would carry the same pass on different days just for the sake of the illusion of having a pass. It is possible that the electronic system was then created to put a rest to this guise.

With the most polarizing results for the Hamilton staff, the electronic passes appear to have 29 (45.3%) supporters against the 11 (17.2%) opposing views. The first policy where a majority of the teachers are not on the positive side—factoring in those with neutral stances—comments mention the “ease of a paper pass” and how electronic passes “complicated the process of sending kids to places like the healthroom, student services, or the IMC.” “Email is often difficult to check constantly” and some are even concerned about the accessibility “with wifi in the building being spotty in some places.”

However, a good number of comments show support as well, favoring the “idea of saving paper” and saying that this “much clearer system” can give “parents, teachers, administrators and students … real time access to what is going on.” Some even go on to say that this policy “creating the habit of checking emails and calendars … is preparing students for the working world.” In addition, teachers believe these passes have “saved so much time for our administration assistants” although with “more work for the teachers.” In the end, a few teachers see that this will “take time to get used to.”

Policy 6: >15 Minutes Late Results in Absence

New to this year, an excused tardy of more than 15 minutes will result in an excused absence. Meanwhile, arriving late—once again by more than 15 minutes—to a class unexcused will result in an unexcused absence, both of which will be marked in your attendance record. However, the time spent at school will still be included for the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) regardless of how late a student arrives to a class.

For example, if a student were to have an unexcused tardy of 20 minutes, they would obtain an unexcused absence in the attendance record (i.e. Infinite Campus), but the 63 minutes spent in class would still be included in their documented time for the DPI.

Please note that there may have been confusion in the student data, since many have had misconceptions about the policy’s intricacies.

Student opinions on this policy were well-distributed throughout all the five stances, with a slight concentration in the negative side. However, a significant 20.7% (109) took on the positive stance, more than any other mentioned policy for the students. As such, opposing views took up a little less than the majority of votes at 47.7% (235). 182 (34.6%) students remained neutral.

Many comments frustratingly said, “If you come to school late you should be marked tardy because you still came to school.” They commented that this new policy “makes you want to not even show up” as you would essentially still “be there for 80% of the class and be absent.”

A few also noted that this absence policy could provide a hard time for athletes as being “marked absent for even one period of the day [means that] you are not allowed to participate in the next competition.”

Others pointed out that difficulties with transportation and believed that some factors in arriving late were beyond their control; students mentioned “getting stuck by a train,” “buses running late,” and traffic in the parking lot as examples.

Despite all these negative comments, a noticeable portion still said that the policy “doesn’t matter” to them, hence the 182 (34.6%) neutral views. One comment also agreed with the policy, stating, “The school has always been extremely [re]lax[ed] and being punctual isn’t a horrible thing,” showing that there may be some in support of the more involved role administrators are taking.

Returning back to the positive majority, an overwhelming 89% (57) teachers supported the new attendance policy, with 9.4% (6) and 1.6% (1) being neutral and negative respectively. Comments were vastly different from those of the students, claiming that “15 minutes is way more time than necessary to get to class.” Teachers believed that it was important to be on time as “about 30 people in an average class [are] affected by each disruption” and “as adults, you won’t be able to show up late for work.” This policy could also help with issues in the past where “students who would be gone almost a whole block and then show up the last 10 minutes of class and … would just be marked as tardy.” In all, staff were largely agreeing on how 15 minutes was more than enough time and that students being late for any more than that should have a valid excuse.

Policy 7: Changes to Advisement and Focus

Many of these policies are changes that are taking place within the classroom, and one important distinction is that both advisement and Focus count towards this. This means that all the new changes apply within these periods too, as many have come to see. However, music accessibility has been restored for Focus students as mentioned.

As a reminder, the data shown in this section is all-encompassing; some specific areas were of greater concern in the comments, which led to an uneven distribution of commentary.

As expected, many more students opposed this policy, coming in at 82.3% (433) of the total votes versus the negligible 3% (16) by comparison. Even the neutral stance consisted only of 14.6% (77), highlighting just how unfavorable this decision is with the student body. Many believed that “advisement and Focus classes are our own time … [and] people should be able to use their time how they want to.”

Students said that the policies can even limit the work they get done during study hall periods: “Lots of times people need things like earbuds to listen to a video for a class but cannot because of the no earbuds/headphone rule. Also, if a student needs to go to another class for help, they cannot because the electronic passes do not work and the people cannot go in the hall during the first 10 and last 10 minutes of advisement makes it so difficult to see a teacher besides your homeroom teacher.”

Another student made a similar comment about the lack of flexibility in advisement regarding bathrooms: “Not being able to use the restroom/leave class during the first & last 10 minutes of advisement only gives you roughly 10 minutes left.”

Some talked about Focus especially, with the backlash mainly targeting the music policy: “Advisement is a bit more understandable, but Focus is truly outrageous. Without headphones specifically, it is hard for me to zero in on my work.”

The intensity of the complaints and student advcacy is what most likely caused a change to allow music in Focus. Students were also upset that it seemed as if AP students “can’t be trusted” to use their Focus time wisely.

“The majority of us [in Focus] are dedicated to our academics and are high achieving individuals. If we choose to waste the period that we opted to take, then that is something that we have to face the natural consequences for. But, many of us are responsible enough to make informed decisions for ourselves and use our time wisely.”

“I think the main thing that needs to be reflected in school policy is that we are meant to be preparing for the "real world", where our every action is not closely regulated and controlled. The consequences of a student being on their phone should be reflected in their grades, so students can learn how to manage their time. In college or at work, people will [not] be asked to put their phones in a caddy. Someone who wasn't taught self responsibility will not be able to succeed in the ‘real world’ that we are preparing for.”

Teachers once again are largely in support of the decision. Only 3 (4.7%) dissented against the 41 (64.1%) who showed favor, and 20 (31.3%) took on the neutral perspective. Many teachers stated that the policies should be consistent throughout all classes, including advisement and Focus blocks.

The purpose of Focus blocks seemed to be contested between teachers and students. Many AP students stated that they chose to take rigorous courses, and as such, were granted their Focus block. The students in Focus blocks believe that they should be permitted to use the block as they see fit, whether that be for studying or as time to destress and relax. However, some teachers stated opposing opinions. One stated, “Both of these times are supposed to be focused on academics. If you were to use the AP Focus time to go on your phone, I would argue that AP Focus probably isn't a necessary component of your schedule.” Many teachers seemed to agree with this perspective, stating that Focus blocks should be treated the same as any other class.

Additionally, many teachers noticed an improvement in the environment with the lack of phones during advisement. One teacher noted, “I have already noticed better collaboration in both settings. I have noticed better behavior in advisement. Time is being used productively, students are getting more work completed.” Teachers also noticed a continuation of the earlier trend after removing phones; students seem to be interacting more with their peers and working together, creating a positive atmosphere.

Policy 8: Removal of After-School Detentions

In the past, detentions would scale up in severity as one would expect. The most minor offense would incur a simple lunch detention, and after that, an after-school detention. However, these after-school detentions will cease to be held anymore this school year as per the policy.

With an overwhelming 69.4% (365) of votes, the removal of after-school detention provides the first policy at which a neutral majority dominates the stage. No other stance came close, with the rest of the votes appearing to be somewhat evenly distributed among the remaining four choices. Looking at just positive vs. negative views alone, there were nearly four times the students in support of the policy (128 votes or 24.3%) rather than opposing it (33 votes or 6.3%), making this policy also the first to be more accepted than rejected by the student body. In this dramatic turn of events, let’s take a look at some of the comments students left.

Most likely accounting for the poll results, a very large portion of the comments were simply, “I've never gotten detention before, so I don't really care.” This pattern could simply be due to the type of classes/students surveyed who most likely aren’t those that are issued detentions often.

In this vast sea of impartiality, one supporter pointed out that the change was “less frightful for those who ride the bus and lack a form of transportation,” which is very much true as students generally have 10 minutes after the 2:25pm bell to board the buses; an after-school detention would’ve almost surely meant missing the bus. Another comment mentioned something along a similar line although in a more general sense: “It's ok because some people are busy after school and can't come to detentions after school.” This could be referring to extracurriculars, athletics, or other commitments.

Unlike students, the teachers continue to follow their pattern of supporting the various policies, with 43 (67.2%) in favor against a small trio (4.7%). Similar to students, however, this policy does appear to be one of the few more neutral ones with 18 (28.1%) reporting no bias.

Supporters of the piece shared how futile previous methods of handling behavior were: “I personally love not having to supervise detentions. Ultimately, this was a punishment that was ineffective since students could play on their phones, watch movies on their Chromebooks, or put their heads down and sleep. It was not a deterrent for any kind of behavior.” At times, “students didn’t show up anyway,” further contributing to the fruitless efforts of supervisors.

Others took a step back and remained “undecided until [they] see other consequences in action.” After all, the removal of after-school detention begs the question, “What are we going to do now?”

Two teachers actually reintroduced some of the previous students’ comments, saying, “Not only is it difficult for some students to attend after-school detentions due to sports and rides, but it is also a hardship for parents and staff.”

There were no comments on potential negative impacts of removing after-school detention.

Policy 9: Administration & Staff Visibility

A more minute change to the school atmosphere, administration and staff have strived to be more visible in the hallways, greeting students at times. As a result, many more students have begun seeing staff in the hallways as they are walking by.

Note: This poll was conducted on a scale of 1 (Didn’t notice at all) to 5 (Noticed immediately).

Student responses vary greatly for this change, with near equal percentages for both sides (39.9% who didn’t notice vs. 36.5% who did notice). Looking specifically at the two poles, there were many more, nearly double, students who didn’t notice at all compared to those who claimed to have noticed immediately. Shifting to compare the results for 2 vs. 4, more students slightly noticed the change than those who mostly didn’t notice. Interpretations of this could vary, but it could be reasoned that those who suspected increased administration/staff visibility were not completely sure, leading to fewer who noticed immediately. There still remains a decent 23.6% (124) who found themselves on the middle of the scale, neither noticing immediately nor not noticing at all.

Comments appear to be just as scrambled as the poll results, with students saying anything from, “It feels the same as last year,” to, “They’re honestly everywhere.” A few of the more subjective comments were concerned with this change: “At the end of the day they are trying to make sure everyone leaves, [and] usually people can just walk around with their friends but not anymore,” and, “Honestly it makes me feel uncomfortable and I don’t like it but yes I do see them more in the halls I guess.”

Despite this, students had positive comments to say as well: “I like it. It shows that they want to have relationships with the students and aren't just enforcing these laws behind a curtain. They are there and present, willing to talk about it and hear you out.”

Some comments mentioned specifically that they “did notice the assistant principal” who is frequently “saying good morning to everyone when we walk in.” Others contained a mix of students seeing and not seeing the principal, Mr. Bauer, himself.

“I had never seen Mr. Bauer until this morning at the Junior meeting. I had no idea what he even looked like!”

“I have had the principal pop into my classes from time to time, but not at [a] noticeably higher rate than last year.”

“I think I've seen the new principal more in these first two weeks than I ever saw Mrs. Newcomer in at least one month. But I never went past her in the halls, so that might have had something to do with it.”

Based on survey results, teachers were much more prone to noticing the increased visibility, with only two out of the 64 saying that they didn’t notice much of a change.

Alongside this, teachers were much more confident as a whole in the positive aspects of this change compared to the students.

“Compared to the past, I've readily noticed our administrators walking through the halls during passing time and stopping to visit classes. I think it is incredibly important that students see their building leaders and that they are spending time amongst the student body.”

“It is great to see staff and administrators in the hall. It is creating a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. I have had several short positive conversations with students in the hall and it is building positive relationships.”

“As a staff member this is huge for me—students AND STAFF need to know they are being held accountable.”

A few have yet to notice this change but appear to be on board once they do: “I think it's good for staff to be more visible, but I don't know that I've noticed a significant difference thus far.”

Policy 10: Enforcement of Dress Code

Similar to Policy 4, the dress code has, of course, always been in the handbook; however, it was never too strictly enforced for things like backpacks, coats, or even hats sometimes. This year, administration has made it a point to emphasize handbook rules like the dress code, pushing students to only bring class materials along and leave everything else in their lockers.

Students, surprisingly, are not as against this policy as they are with similar policies that also involve a new rule/enforcement of some kind. 46.2% (243) oppose the enforcement compared to a slightly larger 46.4% (244) that are neutral. Once again, positive opinions make up the smallest portion, coming in at 7.4% (39) of students.

Just like Policy 8, some of the neutral views seem to come from students who “don’t care” since it “doesn’t bother [them] too much.” However, some other neutral stances actually involve a lack of observing an increase in enforcement: “I have not noticed an increased enforcement so far,” and, “I mean it seems about like last year to me.”

On another side, negative viewpoints appear to mostly involve backpacks and coats:

“For no coats, I don’t think that’s reasonable because if it’s really cold, even a sweatshirt might not be enough; obviously not a fully puffy coat but a thin coat … should be reasonable.”

“Seen students get in trouble for having backpacks as they are leaving the school for the day.”

“I think no PJ pants is unfair; they aren’t 'distracting' or revealing, and there is no good reason why they are bad. Just let people be comfortable.”

“I don't mind the other parts, but I really don't agree with the backpack rule. I understand not needing backpacks in the classes mid day, but in [the] last hour … the kids who take the bus sometimes need to go from one side of the school to the other … and then all the way back … because that is where they exit the building.”

One criticism drew it back to Policy 4, saying that enforcing both rules at once just makes things harder for the students. “If you want us to be able to use our passing time wisely and use the bathroom during it then you have to let us bring our backpacks to class; it’s the only way that the 10 minute rule would work.”

Still, some students have expressed understanding as to why this policy would be necessary: “Understandable as we don’t want concealed firearms or drugs,” and, “It is better to carry a backpack, but it is a hazard for everyone.”

Continuing to show support, teachers with a positive stance (89.1% or 57 votes) won by a landslide against the—in this case—nonexistent opposing side. Even the neutral stance only made up 10.9% (7) of total votes.

Many commented that the dress code, similar to Policy 4, had already existed and that it was nice to see it actually enforced with greater effort: “These rules are not new. If we have the rules, they should be enforced. It is refreshing to have [the] administration hold kids accountable.”

Others shared safety risks that this change would help to reduce: “Backpacks are a major security threat to me. Kids having their backpacks increase everyone’s risk as we don't know what is in them. I appreciate having the piece of mind of being able to SEE what everyone brings into my room.” Besides major threats such as that listed above, backpacks pose other obstacles because “classrooms are simply too small to have extra materials in them,” and bags could create a very cluttered environment.

Other Things Noticed

As a followup to all the policies shown, students and teachers were asked, “Are there any other changes you may have noticed?” that may not have been included in the article. Some added on extra comments/opinions on these observations, which are shown below.

Students:

Although not noticing particularly more changes, students felt that “staff seems more strict and apathetic towards students.” With all the newly enforced policies, this will inevitably be the case, especially when compared to the previous, more slack, administration; one even commented, “Now that new policies are in place, students seem more focused on complaining and taking time out of their day to fight against the policy.”

There were also complaints about the removal of commons: “The removal of commons hurts Charger Corner bagel sale, and is unfair to juniors who don't get to experience it.”

Several changes students simply noticed that were not included in this article are displayed in the following: Smart boards, grading scale, A&B day for band blocks, removal of Comm. Arts hallway tables near the printer, and FLEX advisement signup.

Teachers/Staff:

Almost all the teacher comments mentioned “students [being] more engaged and more focused than they have ever been,” with less phone distractions and hallway roaming occuring. They also seem to hold the general consensus that in the “short term and even long term, the benefits will be significant from this change.” In addition, opinions about the administration are largely positive: “The administration has made a huge effort to be engaged, visible and kind. It's changing the culture in the building and I feel that good things are ahead!” All in all, teachers appear to be nearly undivided in their support of the new changes coming to HHS.

Effect of Changes

Both the student and teacher body were asked on how the aforementioned policies would affect different groups in the school over time:

“How do you think these new changes will affect the school if given time?”

Choices were split between a positive, a negative, or no effect for each group (e.g. school board & administration, staff, students, and grades/test scores).

Most of the student responses believed that the changes would have no noticeable effect towards each group except for students who would be impacted negatively, falling in line with the poll results for each policy. After all, many commented on how the increased rules felt like an unnecessary burden that had been tacked onto the student body. Besides the student group, every other category had more votes believing there to be benefit over harm.

Teacher votes were much more extreme, with every single group being rated as a ‘will benefit.’ Only ONE teacher put in a response for the policies hurting a group, and that, understandably, was for the students. School board & administration was the category with the closest rates between ‘no noticeable effect’ and ‘will benefit,’ but even then, more than ⅔ believed that the group would be helped.

Hamilton Atmosphere

Students and teachers rated whether or not the policies would improve the academic & social atmosphere in Hamilton as a whole:

“Do you believe that the above policy changes have created an improved atmosphere at Hamilton academically (i.e. grades, productivity, priorities) and socially (student to student relationships, staff to student relationships, overall environment, etc.)?”

Answered with a simple yes/no/slightly, the question was aimed specifically at how people thought attitudes towards academia and social interactions would grow as a result of the changes.

Students continued their negative trend on the policies, and a majority (56.3%) did not believe that the policies would bring about significant improvement to the atmosphere at HHS. Those who did made up a small 8.6% of the total votes.

Teachers, once again, completely contrasted students with an overwhelming 84.4% seeing hope of improvement. Only one teacher dismissed the potential of the policies out of a total of 64 responses.

Final Comments

Evidently, the people of Hamilton High School have felt the effects of these changes over the course of the first month (polls were conducted in September), and many are willing to share their take on them. As such, teachers express their loyal support, seeing the reason and benefits behind these policies for both the short-term & long-term; however, student beliefs stand almost always on the opposing perspective, a far cry from the staff’s positive reception. Looking back on it all, there exists on one side the relief at the new administration’s more proactive role within the community while on the other, all these sudden enforcements bring on a feeling of dread, leading to these polarizing results. Perhaps after a few more months, these changes will be settling in more comfortably within the student body, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, teachers may begin to see the hidden flaws embedded within.

Change, in any case, will always set out with uncertainty, but it rests upon us to traverse the rocky terrain with an open and understanding mind. Time will tell just how effective these changes can be.