Richard Montgomery High School teacher complains about chronic absenteeism

[Anonymous]

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?

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

Parents and schools are more lax. It starts at home, the school.

[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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

[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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

You know what helps more, being engaged in things they enjoy. My kids should not be going to bed at 12-1 pm because you refuse to enforce bedtime. Mine should not give up their activities and sports because you refuse to parent.

[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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

You know what helps more, being engaged in things they enjoy. My kids should not be going to bed at 12-1 pm because you refuse to enforce bedtime. Mine should not give up their activities and sports because you refuse to parent.

The entire state of CA delayed their HS start time to 8.30 am or later and somehow their kids are still able to handle jobs and sports and school work. Think about that for a minute

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

You know what helps more, being engaged in things they enjoy. My kids should not be going to bed at 12-1 pm because you refuse to enforce bedtime. Mine should not give up their activities and sports because you refuse to parent.

The entire state of CA delayed their HS start time to 8.30 am or later and somehow their kids are still able to handle jobs and sports and school work. Think about that for a minute

They have a different climate and probably stadium lights. They don’t need to worry as much when is colder out. But, we have friends in CA and they did not like it as all it did was shift back everything so kids got home later and went to bed later. Or, sports annd clubs early in morning.

Is it really that hard to take electronics and send your kids to bed?

[Anonymous]

And, the other advantage of early start is parents can drive the kids to school if they miss the bus or there is no bus. Many of us cannot do that with an 8:30 start and long commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, the other advantage of early start is parents can drive the kids to school if they miss the bus or there is no bus. Many of us cannot do that with an 8:30 start and long commute.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

Teachers can't make kids and parents care.

If the kids care but the parents don't, social services and exceptional transportation can get the kids to school. If they both don't care, it's a free country, let them fail.

[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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

You know what helps more, being engaged in things they enjoy. My kids should not be going to bed at 12-1 pm because you refuse to enforce bedtime. Mine should not give up their activities and sports because you refuse to parent.

This has nothing to do with what PP wrote. You could also "parent" your kid unit other biologically hamrful thins like changing their handedness. It's still unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

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.

The article is poorly written, but switching tardy students' 1st period to study hall is an easy fix for *tardiness*.

[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?

Yes, that’s the whole point. For the majority of teenagers, both starting and ending their day later better aligns with their circadian rhythms. The idea is to fit their schedule to their optimal sleep patterns instead of fighting biology by trying to fit their sleep into a schedule that prioritizes the convenience of adults.

You know what helps more, being engaged in things they enjoy. My kids should not be going to bed at 12-1 pm because you refuse to enforce bedtime. Mine should not give up their activities and sports because you refuse to parent.

They don’t need to give up any activity or get less sleep. You just shift everything by a modest amount of time. There are still 24 hours in a day. They’ll get home one hour later, go to bed one hour later, get up in the morning one hour later. It’s no different that when our clocks change by an hour to switch from standard time to daylight savings time and back. If you enforce a bedtime, there should be zero issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, the other advantage of early start is parents can drive the kids to school if they miss the bus or there is no bus. Many of us cannot do that with an 8:30 start and long commute.

Some people want to base the school bell times on what is most beneficial for the largest number of students, not what is convenient for parents.

[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?

Obviously preserving the sanctity of 3 hour game nights on school nights should be top priority for educating our children.

[Anonymous]

Somehow it looks like people are trying to use this issue to push school start times later.

So wanted to copy and paste the 2023-2024 attendance rates for high schools in the surrounding counties from mdreport card. I also looked up the bell times for the first three high schools for each school district. And I think it's safe to assume all of the high schools within a school system have the same bell times. So Montgomery County high schools have a 7:45 start, Frederick 7:30, and Howard 7:50.

Some things to note is that Richard Montgomery, 91.4, and Churchill, 93.4, only has a two percent difference in attendance rate.

And Howard County did try to implement later start times a year or two ago. But that and combined with outsourcing bus service, resulted in a diaster in bussing services and is likely one the reasons that resulted in the superintendent leaving. Kids were getting picked up and dropped off up to an hour late. And some of it was due to the smaller turnaround times for buses to go from school to school. ie buses usually do their high school routes first, then middle schools, then elementary schools.

And also MCPS did do a study on possibly changing bell times a while back, when families would protest in front of Central Office. It was determined it wasn't worth the cost or effort. But the parent groups kept protesting, so MCPS changed the bell times slightly to appease them.

But as shown in the numbers below, Frederick County has earlier start times, and schools with higher attendance rates to MCPS. So I don't think the answer is pushing back bell times.

Link to the file with attendance rates is here:
https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/#/DataDownloads/datadownload/3/17/6/99/XXXX/2025


By county (sorted by attendance rate descending):
LEA Name School Number School Name School Type Attend Rate Pct Bell time
Frederick A All Frederick Schools High 93.1 7:30
Howard A All Howard Schools High 92.5 7:50
Montgomery A All Montgomery Schools High 89.7 7:45




By school (sorted by attendance rate descending):

LEA Number LEA Name School Number School Name School Type Attend Rate Pct Bell time
13 Howard 0308 Marriotts Ridge High High >= 95.0 7:50
10 Frederick 0713 Urbana High High 94.9 7:30
10 Frederick 0912 Linganore High High 94.5 7:30
10 Frederick 0920 Oakdale High High 94.5 7:30
10 Frederick 0226 Monocacy Valley Montessori High 94.4
13 Howard 0214 Centennial High High 94.3 7:50
13 Howard 0524 River Hill High High 94.2 7:50
15 Montgomery 0427 Walt Whitman High High 94.1 7:45
10 Frederick 0313 Middletown High High 94
13 Howard 0404 Glenelg High High 94 7:50
15 Montgomery 0234 Thomas S. Wootton High High 94 7:45
13 Howard 0203 Howard High High 93.4 7:50
15 Montgomery 0152 Poolesville High High 93.4 7:45
15 Montgomery 0602 Winston Churchill High High 93.4
13 Howard 0509 Atholton High High 93.2 7:50
10 Frederick 2503 Brunswick High High 93
13 Howard 0207 Mount Hebron High High 93 7:50
13 Howard 0527 Reservoir High High 93 7:50
10 Frederick 1509 Catoctin High High 92.7
10 Frederick 2610 Walkersville High High 92.6
13 Howard 0619 Hammond High High 92.3 7:50
10 Frederick 2307 Tuscarora High High 92.2
15 Montgomery 0406 Bethesda-Chevy Chase High High 92
10 Frederick 0213 Gov. Thomas Johnson High High 91.9
13 Howard 0626 Guilford Park High High 91.6 7:50
15 Montgomery 0201 Richard Montgomery High High 91.4
10 Frederick 0209 Frederick High High 91.2
13 Howard 0623 Long Reach High High 91.2 7:50
15 Montgomery 0249 Clarksburg High High 91.1
15 Montgomery 0246 Northwest High High 91
15 Montgomery 0503 Sherwood High High 90.8
15 Montgomery 0424 Walter Johnson High High 90.7
15 Montgomery 0701 Damascus High High 90.5
15 Montgomery 0230 Rockville High High 90.4
15 Montgomery 0315 Paint Branch High High 90.3
13 Howard 0611 Oakland Mills High High 90 7:50
15 Montgomery 0104 Seneca Valley High High 90
15 Montgomery 0125 Quince Orchard High High 89.8
15 Montgomery 0916 Rock Terrace School High 89.4
15 Montgomery 0965 John L Gildner Regional Inst for Children & Adol High 89.1
13 Howard 0516 Wilde Lake High High 89 7:50
15 Montgomery 0757 Montgomery Blair High High 88.7
15 Montgomery 0798 Springbrook High High 88.7
15 Montgomery 0782 Wheaton High High 88.5
15 Montgomery 0321 James Hubert Blake High High 88.3
15 Montgomery 0510 Col. Zadok Magruder High High 88.2
15 Montgomery 0789 Albert Einstein High High 87.6
13 Howard 0522 Cedar Lane Special Center High 87.3
15 Montgomery 0951 Longview School High 86.5
10 Frederick 2613 Rock Creek High 86
15 Montgomery 0796 Northwood High High 86
15 Montgomery 0815 John F. Kennedy High High 85.9
15 Montgomery 0545 Watkins Mill High High 85.1
15 Montgomery 0799 Stephen Knolls School High 84.8
15 Montgomery 0551 Gaithersburg High High 83.8
10 Frederick 0208 Heather Ridge High 75.6
13 Howard 0080 Homewood School High 69.8

[Anonymous]

Forgot, that Howard County has always outsourced bus service. That year Howard County outsourced to a specific nonlocal company that was supposed to be cutting edge, very technology focused. That offered things like an app to show real time bus locations.