Attendance policy

[Anonymous]

I don’t think mcps needs to worry about this until we see large numbers of Asian kids at Wooton missing tons of classes. Then we can be confident it’s a widespread issue in need of a hardline approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Disagree.

They cherry-picked a soundbite so they could say it isn’t just a black and brown poor thing. Letting a straight A student skip a day to recover from or prepare for rigorous exams, etc. isn’t an issue in need of intervention.

It’s ridiculous to equate many dozens of poor kids with horrible grades who routinely skip and have checked out parents with the kids taking multiple AP classes who headed to college in a year or so.

The latter will graduate and go on to college. They don’t present a threat to our community or economy.

The former? That’s a different story. That’s the problem in need of a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Go read the older data from Kennedy and the county that was linked in the other truancy thread.

The issue is we used to be a majority white, majority affluent school system a number of decades ago. Chronic absenteeism existed back then, but in smaller numbers.

ICYMI: we are no longer a majority white, majority affluent student body. So why is anyone surprised that absenteeism has increased…in correlation with the increased diverse student body…especially at schools like Kennedy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Disagree.

They cherry-picked a soundbite so they could say it isn’t just a black and brown poor thing. Letting a straight A student skip a day to recover from or prepare for rigorous exams, etc. isn’t an issue in need of intervention.

It’s ridiculous to equate many dozens of poor kids with horrible grades who routinely skip and have checked out parents with the kids taking multiple AP classes who headed to college in a year or so.

The latter will graduate and go on to college. They don’t present a threat to our community or economy.

The former? That’s a different story. That’s the problem in need of a solution.

I’m not sure why you’re digging your heels here. I conceded your point that the absenteeism issue is more pronounced for black and brown and lower income populations.

But it IS still an issue with schools with majority white populations too. Walter Johnson has a 15 percent chronic abstruse rate, according to the latest data. Is that ok? Do we as a school system or community have a standard of all of our schools having a chronic absenteeism rate of 10% or less? Or is that number more like 5%?

We all need to engage in these conversations as a school community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Disagree.

They cherry-picked a soundbite so they could say it isn’t just a black and brown poor thing. Letting a straight A student skip a day to recover from or prepare for rigorous exams, etc. isn’t an issue in need of intervention.

It’s ridiculous to equate many dozens of poor kids with horrible grades who routinely skip and have checked out parents with the kids taking multiple AP classes who headed to college in a year or so.

The latter will graduate and go on to college. They don’t present a threat to our community or economy.

The former? That’s a different story. That’s the problem in need of a solution.

I’m not sure why you’re digging your heels here. I conceded your point that the absenteeism issue is more pronounced for black and brown and lower income populations.

But it IS still an issue with schools with majority white populations too. Walter Johnson has a 15 percent chronic abstruse rate, according to the latest data. Is that ok? Do we as a school system or community have a standard of all of our schools having a chronic absenteeism rate of 10% or less? Or is that number more like 5%?

We all need to engage in these conversations as a school community.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04424.pdf

So, WJ has a FARMs rate of 17% and the black/brown student body is north of 30%.

A 15% chronic absenteeism rate in 2023 isn’t surprising.

I bet it was closer to 5% in the 1980s.

If they break it down by demographics and it’s mostly affluent whites and Asians, then we have a problem that the new hardline approach could address.

But if the problem is poor kids with checked out parents, then I don’t see how the new policy will fix it.

Will the aunt with whom the truant Latino kid is staying show up at school and rein in the kid’s behavior? Doubtful.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Unpopular opinion but I think it's incredibly valuable for immigrant children to get a chance to visit their home country and practice a different language than English. They will learn far more doing that than they will sitting in a classroom. It's an actively good thing when that happens imo. [/quote]

They have 2 and half months to do that during the summer.[/quote]


Maybe that's winter where they come from and a lame time to visit. Or maybe it's missing a major holiday. Or maybe flights are more expensive then other times or it doesn't work for their family or whatever. Travel like that is a life changing valuable experience that just doesn't hold a candle to sitting in a classroom doing worksheets. Not saying there aren't downsides but and it's obviously inconvenient for the teacher but maybe mcps should get out of the business of moral panic over expanding kids' horizons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Go read the older data from Kennedy and the county that was linked in the other truancy thread.

The issue is we used to be a majority white, majority affluent school system a number of decades ago. Chronic absenteeism existed back then, but in smaller numbers.

ICYMI: we are no longer a majority white, majority affluent student body. So why is anyone surprised that absenteeism has increased…in correlation with the increased diverse student body…especially at schools like Kennedy?

This must be done if the strength that I keep hearing diversity brings.

[Anonymous]

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/SpEdglance/currentyear/schools/04815.pdf

Kennedy

70%+ FARMs

68% Hispanic

Less than 5% White

Nobody should be surprised about truancy at Kennedy. Nobody.

But the hardline approach won’t fix the problem.

The county should be concerned…and not just mcps.

We have a growing population of poorly educated students who may or may not graduate. They aren’t all newcomers; some are first or second generation American citizens. That means they are eligible for public benefits.

That area has transitioned to a majority Latino area coupled with a longtime poor black population (garden apartments). It’s an entire community surrounded by other communities with similar demographic shifts.

Affluent families are moving to the western side of the community or the northern parts. Some are leaving the county altogether…meaning our tax base is shrinking.

Big problems.

I bet you a million bucks if Kennedy and its feeder schools converted to a Cristo Rey holistic education approach (with wrap-around anti-poverty efforts for the families) you would see dramatic results. It would be money well spent.

Someone should get Soros funding for a pilot and study the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it motivate parents? If it’s a hassle to re-enroll, won’t they just let Junior move on without school

The second goal you mention is just about getting around publishing unpleasant data. That can’t be a stated goal.

I’m still confused.

Do you really think a child who is unenrolled from school and not reenrolled elsewhere won’t have consequences?

You’re either too ignorant to engage in the conversation and need to educate yourself before you ask questions so they can be rooted in some foundational level of understanding, or you’re playing dumb to question the policy in a passive way.

I am trying to educate myself. I’ve researched the MD state rules on expulsions, the MCPS attendance policy, and asked here. What education would be useful? What consequences does a family or child face from being unenrolled?

Several posters in this thread spelled it out for you. Even in numbered bullet form. READ.

You should educate yourself. According to Maryland law. Only parents with children aged 15 or younger can be held responsible for not enrolling their children in school. Again, I fail to understand how this policy achieves any goals. Except making data look better, perhaps?

Legal Consequences
Any person with legal custody or care and control of a child who 5 years old or older and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by Maryland law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

https://www.peoples-law.org/truancy

I believe past 16, they will put an ankle monitor on the kid and they’ll be tracked by the truancy officers.

So I think from 16-18, more of the consequences for not going to school starts to fall on the kids themselves and not just the parents, but there are consequences. I know this because there were a few truant kids in my kids’ high school who had the monitors on due to excessive skipping.

Which school?

And were the kids from affluent families?

DCC high school. Kids weren’t from affluent families, but some were average middle class. Some of them might have been low-income, but the I don’t know each kid’s individual story.

White?

Latino?

Black?

Asian?

Was it Kennedy? The data provided compared Kennedy a few decades ago to now, and that area had a dramatic shift in demographics.

Yes. It was Kennedy and yes, it was a mixture of black and Latin kids.

But how does this change the conversation about whether or not there are consequences for truancy?

Since I went down a research rabbit hole, it’s obvious to me that shifting demographics are fueling new issues or exacerbating issues that used to impact a tiny subset…yet mcps is (unsurprisingly) taking a widespread approach that will (let’s face it) unnecessarily worry the good parents while the checked out parents simply won’t care.

It’s not surprising that certain kids at Kennedy are on ankle monitors. Some of the Latino kids don’t even have parents in the country. They are here to work and send money home. Why should mcps perseverate over serving these kids if they have zero interest in school? I hope they actually take the bold step of kicking them out of school if they create problems or rarely show up.

This is a big issue in certain schools…and we know why. But instead of hammering the nail, mcps has opted to use a sledgehammer.

Truancy is a big problem at Kennedy and some of the demographic issues you raise do apply, but it’s also a problem at schools with majority white populations too, like B-CC: https://bcctattler.org/3237/opinion/not-so-great-expectations-a-feedback-loop-sending-b-cc-in-a-downward-spiral/

Another B-CC parent who also wishes to remain anonymous said, “If my child has a good grade in the class and isn’t going to miss anything in the class, then I’m okay with them not going.” As for the rationale behind this, she explained, “It’s honestly the culture kind of in the area. Kids take hard classes and do well in them but just don’t go to all their classes.”

So while schools with black and brown students may have higher absenteeism rates, it is a problem in white schools too, particularly as some parents enable or overlook their kids skipping class because there are no consequences for doing so or their kids are doing well enough in the class, so they don’t see the harm.

Disagree.

They cherry-picked a soundbite so they could say it isn’t just a black and brown poor thing. Letting a straight A student skip a day to recover from or prepare for rigorous exams, etc. isn’t an issue in need of intervention.

It’s ridiculous to equate many dozens of poor kids with horrible grades who routinely skip and have checked out parents with the kids taking multiple AP classes who headed to college in a year or so.

The latter will graduate and go on to college. They don’t present a threat to our community or economy.

The former? That’s a different story. That’s the problem in need of a solution.

I’m not sure why you’re digging your heels here. I conceded your point that the absenteeism issue is more pronounced for black and brown and lower income populations.

But it IS still an issue with schools with majority white populations too. Walter Johnson has a 15 percent chronic abstruse rate, according to the latest data. Is that ok? Do we as a school system or community have a standard of all of our schools having a chronic absenteeism rate of 10% or less? Or is that number more like 5%?

We all need to engage in these conversations as a school community.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04424.pdf

So, WJ has a FARMs rate of 17% and the black/brown student body is north of 30%.

A 15% chronic absenteeism rate in 2023 isn’t surprising.

I bet it was closer to 5% in the 1980s.

If they break it down by demographics and it’s mostly affluent whites and Asians, then we have a problem that the new hardline approach could address.

But if the problem is poor kids with checked out parents, then I don’t see how the new policy will fix it.

Will the aunt with whom the truant Latino kid is staying show up at school and rein in the kid’s behavior? Doubtful.

You keep saying a hardline approach, but the attendance policy is not new or changed.

What is changing right now is ENFORCEMENT of the policy, which MCPS relaxed post-pandemic in the name of easing kids back into in-person learning. But that decision to be lax with attendance resulted in soaring absenteeism rates and slow gains in reading and writing scores, so now MCPS is going back to basics and returning to pre-pandemic attendance policy expectations.

Why is that a bad thing in your eyes? Why should MCPS continue to maintain its lax post-pandemic attitude about attendance and why is that a good thing for our school system as opposed to returning to our pre-pandemic expectations? I don’t get what you’re fighting for.

[Anonymous]

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MP_TrendsReport_final.pdf

Hispanic population has tripled in the last 30 years and projections have MoCo being more than 63% POC by 2025 and more than 70% POC by 2045.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but I think it's incredibly valuable for immigrant children to get a chance to visit their home country and practice a different language than English. They will learn far more doing that than they will sitting in a classroom. It's an actively good thing when that happens imo.

If they’re here for asylum doesn’t mean it was too dangerous to be in their home countries?

Yes, the vast majority of the immigrants are not legitimate asylum seekers.

Your blinders are showing.

I don't have blinders. This is a fact. And true asylum seekers aren't going home for a visit. They are grateful to get over the border into a different country. I'm thinking maybe you have blinders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that this isn't about your child that is truly sick. This is about the parents who allow their children to stay home for weeks without any sort of notification to the school. This is about the parents that take their children out of the country for weeks at a time to visit their native country. It is about the children who are actually truant. There are parents who never notify the school of why their child is not in school. They don't call, they don't sent in a note. They just ghost the school. You can understand how this can have a negative impact on the child who is not receiving an education. You can see how this is going to impact your child because when the student does return for a prolonged absence the teacher has to catch that student up.

If this was about a concern for children actually getting an education, they would have some meaningful oversight for homeschoolers, which they don't.

What do you consider to be meaningful oversight?

[Anonymous]

OP-- Not sure if you're still reading after so many pages of responses.

But MCPS is starting to install health clinics in some schools. Surely not your ES, but perhaps in a nearby HS.

I don't recall details, but it's something to look for. If you really have trouble scheduling sick visits due to insurance, I'd reach out to the school counselor and ask about it.

Also, the rule you're referring to has been there since long before Covid, but I've never been asked for a note. If they view you as a reliable person, they are unlikely to ask (and if you are on the record asking about the health clinics due to this policy, they are also unlikely to ask).

[Anonymous]

I’m actually now coming up on this rule. My kid called me to pick them up early on Friday as they felt ill. They tested positive for covid Sunday so will be out at least this week. But it would be utterly ridiculous to take her to the doctor—she feels fine. So I guess I’ll see what happens! The five day rule is dumb because it doesn’t really give you enough time to get through a case of covid. They should give you one chance per year where you can be out up to two weeks with no doctor’s note. Every kid in McPS is going to get covid at least once this year, I bet.