Richard Montgomery High School teacher complains about chronic absenteeism

[Anonymous]

The biggest problem is parents excusing this nonsense. You see it even in this thread.

[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?

In that case, kids are doing too much and we should re-evaluate our expectations around sports, jobs, and other activities.

If school started at 8:30 and ended at 3:15, there is plenty of time for sports practices, games, a part-time work shift, and other activities. None of those should take up more than 3-4 hours, ever. Evening games should be scheduled on Fridays and Saturdays -- weekday meets and games should start by 4 or 5 at the very latest so that kids can be home at a reasonable time. No kid should be getting home at 10pm (much less 11pm) on a weekday due to a school sponsored event.

It is absurd to posit that HS students have no choice but to work a 12-13 hour workday between their various commitments, and therefore we cannot possibly have a reasonable AM start time in order to encourage kids to be on time and well rested at the beginning of their school day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In that case, kids are doing too much and we should re-evaluate our expectations around sports, jobs, and other activities.

If school started at 8:30 and ended at 3:15, there is plenty of time for sports practices, games, a part-time work shift, and other activities. None of those should take up more than 3-4 hours, ever. Evening games should be scheduled on Fridays and Saturdays -- weekday meets and games should start by 4 or 5 at the very latest so that kids can be home at a reasonable time. No kid should be getting home at 10pm (much less 11pm) on a weekday due to a school sponsored event.

It is absurd to posit that HS students have no choice but to work a 12-13 hour workday between their various commitments, and therefore we cannot possibly have a reasonable AM start time in order to encourage kids to be on time and well rested at the beginning of their school day.

That means kids don’t get home till 4 if on the bus. Yes, kids have school sponsored activities that get out that late and outside activities. It’s not absurd. There are more teams than fields. You know nothing about hs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The solution is to leave things as is and you get off here and parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, your kids did no sports or activities, so the rest of ours should not. Selfish. Why aren’t your kids doing things. You?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

To say that RM is a "fairly urban area" is laughable. Kids are walking in late with Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. Parents pull into staff parking spots when staff *are trying to park in their own spots.* Parents let kids out of cars at undesignated spots, thus slowing down all traffic patterns.

Saying that kids who don't take honors courses aren't motivated is just lazy and incorrect. What triggers you about my response to this mess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP here. For recognized problems, the media can shine a light on aspects of them, or their scope, or their urgency. For unrecognized problems, the media can do even more. MCPS is a large system that can take years to respond to problems. I appreciate the media's role in educating the public about current events and in holding government accountable.

[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. I can't speak to her entire schedule but Ms. Lyons teaches at least one AP class.
2. Parking is definitely a problem at RM. My own kid...she would drive to school at a "normal" time but had to park far away due to lack of parking so was late to 1st period more than I'd like! Kid #2 now drives to school much earlier in the morning to get a good parking spot and isn't late to 1st.

[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. I can't speak to her entire schedule but Ms. Lyons teaches at least one AP class.
2. Parking is definitely a problem at RM. My own kid...she would drive to school at a "normal" time but had to park far away due to lack of parking so was late to 1st period more than I'd like! Kid #2 now drives to school much earlier in the morning to get a good parking spot and isn't late to 1st.

If only there was a bus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. I can't speak to her entire schedule but Ms. Lyons teaches at least one AP class.
2. Parking is definitely a problem at RM. My own kid...she would drive to school at a "normal" time but had to park far away due to lack of parking so was late to 1st period more than I'd like! Kid #2 now drives to school much earlier in the morning to get a good parking spot and isn't late to 1st.

If only there was a bus!

Not all students have access to a bus and sometimes those buses are late too. RM pulls from a large catchment area as well as IB where kids are coming from all over the county. Plus many of you dont think about divorced families. Some kids are inboundary one week and then with the other parent the next without access to an mcps bus. Public buses also run late due to traffic in downtown rockville area and feeder roads like Wootton Pkwy, Falls Rd and West Montgomery with traffic from the courthouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are many kids who do activities just not after school/weekday evenings. Later HS start time can be changed. Learn how to schedule to those parents who are obsessed with practice and sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

To say that RM is a "fairly urban area" is laughable. Kids are walking in late with Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. Parents pull into staff parking spots when staff *are trying to park in their own spots.* Parents let kids out of cars at undesignated spots, thus slowing down all traffic patterns.

Saying that kids who don't take honors courses aren't motivated is just lazy and incorrect. What triggers you about my response to this mess?

Schools need to hold the parents and students accountable. If a kid is regularly late, they fail the class or get refused to attend school thatt day. Clearly the parents are ok with it. Parents want to change the start time so its easier on them, not whats best for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are many kids who do activities just not after school/weekday evenings. Later HS start time can be changed. Learn how to schedule to those parents who are obsessed with practice and sports.

How would you do it at the HS level if it wasn't after school/weekday. How would you say the schedule can be changed? Your kids aren't in activities so you seem to think its best for all not to do it and its unfortunate you don't encourage your kids to do these things. Many of us aren't obsessed and its our kids choice. I'm not going to refuse my kids sports/activities because you refuse to enforce bedtime and wake up time and want whats easy for you.

Sports cannot just have a one day a week practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. I can't speak to her entire schedule but Ms. Lyons teaches at least one AP class.
2. Parking is definitely a problem at RM. My own kid...she would drive to school at a "normal" time but had to park far away due to lack of parking so was late to 1st period more than I'd like! Kid #2 now drives to school much earlier in the morning to get a good parking spot and isn't late to 1st.

If only there was a bus!

Not all students have access to a bus and sometimes those buses are late too. RM pulls from a large catchment area as well as IB where kids are coming from all over the county. Plus many of you dont think about divorced families. Some kids are inboundary one week and then with the other parent the next without access to an mcps bus. Public buses also run late due to traffic in downtown rockville area and feeder roads like Wootton Pkwy, Falls Rd and West Montgomery with traffic from the courthouse.

There is also generally a two mile rule for high school. Some areas have exceptions but many don't and walking means crossing dangerous roads.

Complaining about kids not getting parking spots is silly as kids don't need to drive except if they need to leave campus for classes/work/internships during the day and MCPS doesn't provide transportation and bus is not available.

[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?

There are many affluent high achieving families at RM. Students across the county have become more lax with attendance since Covid.