Richard Montgomery High School teacher complains about chronic absenteeism

[Anonymous]

I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

I can buy the argument that early start times are negative in the ways you say, but I don't buy that pushing the start time back 30 minutes would help. Kids will inevitably just stay up later.

So then you get to the question what level of start time would help and align with adolescent development. My guess is 1-1.5 hours, but I can't how the system could function with a start time that delayed for high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

Pushing back the start times is not going to address the issues you are discussing and its going to hurt kids who work and have after school activities. For kids in MCPS sports and sports related activities, it would also be a problem as not all the schools have outdoor lights/facilities to make later in the evening practices happen and some kids are aready there from the beginning of the school day to 9-10 PM at night, especially on game days.

For those kids, there needs to be a better focus on addressing the learning and mental health issues and actually making these schools more inclusive and safer. These are two seperate issues and moving the start times isn't going to fix that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

I can buy the argument that early start times are negative in the ways you say, but I don't buy that pushing the start time back 30 minutes would help. Kids will inevitably just stay up later.

So then you get to the question what level of start time would help and align with adolescent development. My guess is 1-1.5 hours, but I can't how the system could function with a start time that delayed for high schools.

They would have to move sports and activities to the mornings before school starts, but I'm not sure how that would work for kids who already have sports before school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

I can buy the argument that early start times are negative in the ways you say, but I don't buy that pushing the start time back 30 minutes would help. Kids will inevitably just stay up later.

So then you get to the question what level of start time would help and align with adolescent development. My guess is 1-1.5 hours, but I can't how the system could function with a start time that is delayed for high schools.

Between activities, sports and homework, if schools started an hour later, they'd have to stay up an hour later to fit everything in or get up even earlier to do sports before school which defeats the purpose. On game nights, they may not get home till 10 and then still have homework, so that pushes games back to what 11?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

I can buy the argument that early start times are negative in the ways you say, but I don't buy that pushing the start time back 30 minutes would help. Kids will inevitably just stay up later.

So then you get to the question what level of start time would help and align with adolescent development. My guess is 1-1.5 hours, but I can't how the system could function with a start time that is delayed for high schools.

Between activities, sports and homework, if schools started an hour later, they'd have to stay up an hour later to fit everything in or get up even earlier to do sports before school which defeats the purpose. On game nights, they may not get home till 10 and then still have homework, so that pushes games back to what 11?

Yup. That's why I think the start times conversation, while it might have merit, doesn't really have a solution. You just have to decide which negative externality we're more comfortable with: Early school start times or late end times.

[Anonymous]

Or MCPS could consider doing what my family member's school district in the Midwest does.

Middle school goes first, then high school and then elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First period? Of course! High school starts way too early for teen brains. Science has already told us that teens experience a change in their circadian rhythms during adolescence that makes them fall asleep and wake up later than at other periods of their lives.

It was torture for my sleep-apnea suffering son to wake up on time. It's his worse memory of high school. He finally got an accommodation to skip first period in 12th grade.

My 15 year old DD gets to school on time, but reports that they're all super sleepy in first period. So teachers can have butts in seats, but no one's paying much attention at that time in the morning anyway.

I don’t think Ms. Lyons would be going to the news about it if the chronic absenteeism was only relegated to her first period. I also don’t think the school would be holding makeup days for the overwhelming number of students who are behind.

Isn't it sad that she even had to go to the media ?

Her going to the media to do what? Tell MCPS and everyone in the nation something they already know. How was that helpful?

If you're asking this question, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

How? My kids are getting to school and class on time. And I don't have to drop them there everyday to make it so. And I see you didn't answer the question, which is what did her going to the media do? Its not like this is a secret problem in MCPS or the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get when you have unmotivated students from poor families. You think this is happening at Whitman or Churchill?

Sooooo my kid goes to Churchill and it's true that kids are pretty on the ball and the classroom culture is pretty conducive to learning. Part of that is that the principal and most teachers actually enforce things like the cell phone policy and wearing lanyards.

But on the rare occasion that I am dropping my kid off at 7:44 or 7:45, there are still a lot of kids in the drop off line. I think 1st period it's pretty typical to have kids roll in 5-10 minutes late. Not good. But it happens.

Part of it is that Churchill has kids with means, for the most part, so they have their own cars or friends with cars or parents who have the time and/or flexibility to get them to school on time. They don't (generally) have to care for siblings or work PT jobs that make them exhausted in the way that physical labor does. So yeah. It's definitely an equity issue.

+1

This is spot on. The reality is, in order for your kids to be successfully in school, you need at least ONE parent who is either a stay-at-home parent or has a flexible schedule to be able to support kids like this. Too many parents make the mistake in believing that kids need no support from them past elementary school, but that is not the case. The successful kids have parents who have resources and time to provide safety nets and guidance that allow their kids to have the best outcomes from high school.

No you need at least ONE parent or guardian or adult to actually parent. That person can have a set work schedule, be a stay at home, or have a flexible schedule, but the underlying need is parenting. As in someone who follows up, enforces rules and boundaries, and sets expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what you get when you have unmotivated students from poor families. You think this is happening at Whitman or Churchill?

WOWWWWW. What in the rage bait???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know Ms. Lyons so I suspect she teaches on level classes? With the stratification that's available in HS, the on level classes have a lot of kids that just don't want to be there and aren't motivated. I think if you teach on level, you just need to accept that and search out the kids that really do want to learn and cater to them. The on-level kids that do want to learn shouldn't be penalized -- if the other kids don't want to be there, that's on them. Teachers can inspire and support kids, but they can't really force teens to do something they don't want to do, and I think the system spends probably too much energy trying to force kids who are almost adults to do things they just aren't going to do -- to the detriment of the kids that do want to learn. When I was in HS, kids could drop out at 16 if they wanted. Anyone with a 16-18 year old knows that you can't force them to do something that they don't want to do.

Also, if we are talking about 1st period, RM has basically no student parking and the bus lines to get there are weirdly inconvenient. So there are lots of kids that are circling looking for parking in what is a fairly urban area -- it doesn't surprise me if they are then late for first period.

1. You're a horrible person who is lacking in any sort of nuance when it comes to critical thinking.
2. How about leave earlier and stop letting your kids off illegally in the street or cutting through the staff parking lot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or MCPS could consider doing what my family member's school district in the Midwest does.

Middle school goes first, then high school and then elementary.

It's basically impossible to compare a school district like MCPS (full-county) to anything in the Midwest, where a single town might have two districts. Within the confines of our reality, and without purchasing and staffing another 100+ busses, what we have is as good as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

I can buy the argument that early start times are negative in the ways you say, but I don't buy that pushing the start time back 30 minutes would help. Kids will inevitably just stay up later.

So then you get to the question what level of start time would help and align with adolescent development. My guess is 1-1.5 hours, but I can't how the system could function with a start time that is delayed for high schools.

Between activities, sports and homework, if schools started an hour later, they'd have to stay up an hour later to fit everything in or get up even earlier to do sports before school which defeats the purpose. On game nights, they may not get home till 10 and then still have homework, so that pushes games back to what 11?

Because the majority don't do sports or game nights. Mine didn't and none of their friends did. My kids are 20 and 15 and none of their activities were or would be impacted by a later high school start. It would actually be extremely beneficial.

I am ALL for a later start to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this problem is at all limited to first period, but I do think having such early start times might contribute to overall truancy because for parents who struggle to get their kids to school on time (or kids who struggle to get there on their own) it starts the day off on the wrong foot.

I've worked a lot with kids who have school avoidance issues. One thing you discover is that for a kid who is has a lot of reasons for not wanting to be at school (the most common are social issues or learning problems that make school a stressful and unwelcoming place for them), how the day starts matters. You can turn around a kid who is very school avoidant with a good homeroom teacher who starts the day off on a good note, for instance. It doesn't change the rest of the day at all but it will help that kid get through the door and in the seat, and once he's there, he is way less likely to leave.

If, on the other hand, there are major obstacles to the very first part of the day, the avoidance is triggered first thing in the morning, and it's hard to get that kid to go in even after that initial obstacle is over (i.e. to get the kid to go to 2nd period even if it's a class they like okay and it doesn't have the issues that homeroom does).

So having an early start time and a culture of absenteeism in homerooms, and then the school just tacitly overlooking that absenteeism, is going to impact the full day attendance because for any kid who has reasons for wanting to avoid school, you've just provided them with multiple reasons not to show up for the start of school, which is going to roll into the rest of the day for these kids. You need to find a way to get them sitting in that homeroom seat to start the day.

I think pushing start times back 30 minutes would help a lot. I know there are issues with buses and coordinating with elementary and middle school start times. But that doesn't change the fact that the early start is likely contributing to overall truancy.

HS teacher here. The above post is exactly right. And I agree that pushing start times by 30 minutes would be helpful. Even the kids who make it to first period are not getting much out of it. They are mostly asleep. Teachers who have AP classes period 1 complain about it all the time. Most states have shifted to a later start time and are seeing positive results. If the MCPS community refuses to budge on the early Hs start time, then we should get rid of first period altogether. Have a total of 6 periods and make period 1 club time or study hall or office hours for teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know Ms. Lyons so I suspect she teaches on level classes? With the stratification that's available in HS, the on level classes have a lot of kids that just don't want to be there and aren't motivated. I think if you teach on level, you just need to accept that and search out the kids that really do want to learn and cater to them. The on-level kids that do want to learn shouldn't be penalized -- if the other kids don't want to be there, that's on them. Teachers can inspire and support kids, but they can't really force teens to do something they don't want to do, and I think the system spends probably too much energy trying to force kids who are almost adults to do things they just aren't going to do -- to the detriment of the kids that do want to learn. When I was in HS, kids could drop out at 16 if they wanted. Anyone with a 16-18 year old knows that you can't force them to do something that they don't want to do.

Also, if we are talking about 1st period, RM has basically no student parking and the bus lines to get there are weirdly inconvenient. So there are lots of kids that are circling looking for parking in what is a fairly urban area -- it doesn't surprise me if they are then late for first period.

1. You're a horrible person who is lacking in any sort of nuance when it comes to critical thinking.
2. How about leave earlier and stop letting your kids off illegally in the street or cutting through the staff parking lot?

Why did that post trigger you? That poster isn’t wrong