partial exportA text-only export of a page: its wording is searchable and citable, but it is not the full page (links, tables and images are not part of it).text-only export: The archive holds only the text of this page.text-only exporttext export from the supplied archiveno event daterevision 323
Stored text
1,253 characters, exactly as stored
I write regularly about boys needing 90% minimum (approved leave) attendance. Rarely, if ever, is this a problem in junior or prep. It is a senior issue that centres on an apparent unwillingness among around 100 boys out of 1200 to commit properly to the College, while expecting to take full advantage of association with us. This is poor form and unacceptable. It is a simple matter of courtesy to inform the College of an upcoming absence and have that absence approved as leave beforehand. Boys who attend 70% and less almost invariably underperform academically and miss vital commitments to school and house. They let themselves and others down. They create unnecessary burdens on teaching faculty and administration. We appreciate the increasingly complex demands placed on senior boys inside and outside the College, but proper attendance is a non-negotiable condition of enrollment and day parents or guardians have a responsibility to ensure their boys attend or explain absences. An obvious corollary, one would not leave work without informing an employer. Accordingly, excessive non- attendance carries consequences. Accordingly, it should not come as a shock when the College suspends boys from events for major breaches of non-attendance.