Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no rigor behind it. They don't scan or check every kid individually. They just rely on admin and security to eyeball the kids as they come in. As you can imagine, there is enough admin and security to do this thoroughly for all kids so some kids can and do get by the so-called ID badge entry requirement.

Richard Montgomery's student newspaper quoted a student who pointed out how easy it was to bypass the ID requirement and still get into the school: https://thermtide.com/18687/news/rm-ramps-up-hallway-security-measures/

Meanwhile, other students think the cards could be a good thing but are not used properly. “I think [the ID cards] would help. However, I do think security does a bad job of checking them. Today I walked into school without showing my ID card because there was no security guard there,” sophomore Coby Ritter said. “If the ID cards implemented it right it will go well but that takes effort.”

MCPS isn't a jail.

How does that response address the fact that the solution has Swiss cheese-sized holes in it? And if you don't actually intend for the solution to be resourced seriously and with fidelity, why implement it? People aren't stupid.

As a teacher, if I see a student doing something dangerous and I don't know the student's name, a readily seen student ID card helps teachers report the incident. If you want to close Swiss-cheese holes in the MCPS student-ID practice, you will find that difficult. The schools aren't detention centers.

And that’s fine. The student ID badge system doesn’t have to be 100% airtight to be valuable.

The issue is that MCPS and school leaders present this student ID badge as if it were to be implemented with tight fidelity to assuage community concerns about safety. MCPS should manage expectations around it and be honest instead of pretending that the ID badge requirement will be something it’s not.

Policy without meaningful enforcement has long been what ails MCPS.

You're are the one saying that. You're the one trying to find faults in anything and everything

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no rigor behind it. They don't scan or check every kid individually. They just rely on admin and security to eyeball the kids as they come in. As you can imagine, there is enough admin and security to do this thoroughly for all kids so some kids can and do get by the so-called ID badge entry requirement.

Richard Montgomery's student newspaper quoted a student who pointed out how easy it was to bypass the ID requirement and still get into the school: https://thermtide.com/18687/news/rm-ramps-up-hallway-security-measures/

Meanwhile, other students think the cards could be a good thing but are not used properly. “I think [the ID cards] would help. However, I do think security does a bad job of checking them. Today I walked into school without showing my ID card because there was no security guard there,” sophomore Coby Ritter said. “If the ID cards implemented it right it will go well but that takes effort.”

MCPS isn't a jail.

How does that response address the fact that the solution has Swiss cheese-sized holes in it? And if you don't actually intend for the solution to be resourced seriously and with fidelity, why implement it? People aren't stupid.

As a teacher, if I see a student doing something dangerous and I don't know the student's name, a readily seen student ID card helps teachers report the incident. If you want to close Swiss-cheese holes in the MCPS student-ID practice, you will find that difficult. The schools aren't detention centers.

And that’s fine. The student ID badge system doesn’t have to be 100% airtight to be valuable.

The issue is that MCPS and school leaders present this student ID badge as if it were to be implemented with tight fidelity to assuage community concerns about safety. MCPS should manage expectations around it and be honest instead of pretending that the ID badge requirement will be something it’s not.

Policy without meaningful enforcement has long been what ails MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no rigor behind it. They don't scan or check every kid individually. They just rely on admin and security to eyeball the kids as they come in. As you can imagine, there is enough admin and security to do this thoroughly for all kids so some kids can and do get by the so-called ID badge entry requirement.

Richard Montgomery's student newspaper quoted a student who pointed out how easy it was to bypass the ID requirement and still get into the school: https://thermtide.com/18687/news/rm-ramps-up-hallway-security-measures/

Meanwhile, other students think the cards could be a good thing but are not used properly. “I think [the ID cards] would help. However, I do think security does a bad job of checking them. Today I walked into school without showing my ID card because there was no security guard there,” sophomore Coby Ritter said. “If the ID cards implemented it right it will go well but that takes effort.”

MCPS isn't a jail.

How does that response address the fact that the solution has Swiss cheese-sized holes in it? And if you don't actually intend for the solution to be resourced seriously and with fidelity, why implement it? People aren't stupid.

As a teacher, if I see a student doing something dangerous and I don't know the student's name, a readily seen student ID card helps teachers report the incident. If you want to close Swiss-cheese holes in the MCPS student-ID practice, you will find that difficult. The schools aren't detention centers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

Columbine HS wasn't dangerous either until that day in April 1999.

Columbine was shot up by a kid with a student id.

Stoneman Douglas?

And nobody wore IDs in '99

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

Columbine HS wasn't dangerous either until that day in April 1999.

Columbine was shot up by a kid with a student id.

The point is that the PP wrote their kids don’t go dangerous schools. Columbine was in an UMC suburb and I’m sure those parents thought it was perfectly safe too. With people easily able to get guns and are getting them in droves, teens everywhere can get their hands on them. I’m airport schools don’t have metal detectors in this area. They should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

Columbine HS wasn't dangerous either until that day in April 1999.

Columbine was shot up by a kid with a student id.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

My school is not dangerous. And this new rule will help us be even safer.

People who use the word "even" mark themselves as cowardly clowns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

My school is not dangerous. And this new rule will help us be even safer.

Even though students are telling you that there are serious gaps in enforcement?

If it’s not an actual policy, and only implemented in a fraction of the schools, then yes, there will be gaps. But it seems as if this will be a system-wide implementation. It might take a few to get everyone used to wearing one and a routine established, but it will become the norm.

I don’t understand. What does it being done at a fraction of the schools have to do with whether there are gaps or not?

The point of the student ID badge pilot is to prove out the model and then scale it. But if there are gaps in the pilot, then why are we scaling it systemwide without addressing the gaps that were revealed in the pilot?

They are addressing gaps in the pilot by having students wear the ID visibly all day, instead of just checking at the door.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

My school is not dangerous. And this new rule will help us be even safer.

Even though students are telling you that there are serious gaps in enforcement?

We haven’t started it yet so how can there already be gaps 🤔

Kids will rise to the standard you hold them to.

Well, it seems if kids are allowed to attach the IDs to their backpack, then there is a gap in the standard, unless they are required to keep their backpack with them at all times.

I’m not sure what school your children attend but at least at my kid’s school there are no lockers assigned. So yes, students almost always have their backpack in arms reach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

My school is not dangerous. And this new rule will help us be even safer.

Even though students are telling you that there are serious gaps in enforcement?

If it’s not an actual policy, and only implemented in a fraction of the schools, then yes, there will be gaps. But it seems as if this will be a system-wide implementation. It might take a few to get everyone used to wearing one and a routine established, but it will become the norm.

I don’t understand. What does it being done at a fraction of the schools have to do with whether there are gaps or not?

The point of the student ID badge pilot is to prove out the model and then scale it. But if there are gaps in the pilot, then why are we scaling it systemwide without addressing the gaps that were revealed in the pilot?

Because if it’s not consistently enforced because it really doesn’t have to be, then there will be gaps. Kids know. They won’t do it if it’s not done everywhere. Also, kids and adults forget if it’s not consistent. It’s really not a big deal that there are gaps. They most likely were figuring out what worked overall and what didn’t. Thats a goal of a pilot.


Not sure why OP even posted this here. All the DCUM hens come out and start pecking.

This makes zero sense. You’re saying staff at RM didn’t enforce the student ID pilot because it wasn’t being done at their neighboring high school, like say Wootton?

The pilot was done consistently for the whole school year at RM. Consistency was not the gap the student pointed out. It was a lack of sufficient staff to do the ID check. That does not seem like it has anything to do with what you’re saying.

We’ll set aside that what you’re saying makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry it went over your head Jan. You obviously don’t work for a school. MCPS has new ideas every single year that never lead to fruition. I’m sure it was lax enforcement. Why is this so hard to grasp. MCPS is reactive, not proactive. Look what happened at Kennedy. Of course now they are making it official even with “gaps”.

At least at my kids school they said security was quite rigid about making sure kids had IDs. Realistically the purpose of IDs is to ensure that only kids that attend the school are at the school. If security knows the child because they have been attending four years, and the child clearly has an ID in case someone who doesn’t know them stops them, I’m not sure they really need to do a daily TSA level comparison of the ID to the facial structure of each child to accomplish the goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like your school is dangerous. No, our school doesn't do this.

My school is not dangerous. And this new rule will help us be even safer.

Even though students are telling you that there are serious gaps in enforcement?

If it’s not an actual policy, and only implemented in a fraction of the schools, then yes, there will be gaps. But it seems as if this will be a system-wide implementation. It might take a few to get everyone used to wearing one and a routine established, but it will become the norm.

I don’t understand. What does it being done at a fraction of the schools have to do with whether there are gaps or not?

The point of the student ID badge pilot is to prove out the model and then scale it. But if there are gaps in the pilot, then why are we scaling it systemwide without addressing the gaps that were revealed in the pilot?

Because if it’s not consistently enforced because it really doesn’t have to be, then there will be gaps. Kids know. They won’t do it if it’s not done everywhere. Also, kids and adults forget if it’s not consistent. It’s really not a big deal that there are gaps. They most likely were figuring out what worked overall and what didn’t. Thats a goal of a pilot.


Not sure why OP even posted this here. All the DCUM hens come out and start pecking.

This makes zero sense. You’re saying staff at RM didn’t enforce the student ID pilot because it wasn’t being done at their neighboring high school, like say Wootton?

The pilot was done consistently for the whole school year at RM. Consistency was not the gap the student pointed out. It was a lack of sufficient staff to do the ID check. That does not seem like it has anything to do with what you’re saying.

We’ll set aside that what you’re saying makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry it went over your head Jan. You obviously don’t work for a school. MCPS has new ideas every single year that never lead to fruition. I’m sure it was lax enforcement. Why is this so hard to grasp. MCPS is reactive, not proactive. Look what happened at Kennedy. Of course now they are making it official even with “gaps”.

Taylor's memo to the board states "Last year, five high schools, Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Walter Johnson, Richard Montgomery, Quince Orchard, and Rockville, implemented a pilot student identification program. This school year, the student identification program will be implemented in all high schools by the end of November 2024."

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/D87PE763E3F5/$file/00%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Update%20240820.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha! When I googled it came up with this from 1999 that said it would be implemented soon.....wow!

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=106

MCPS in a nutshell…constantly reinventing the wheel.

Or starting things it never finishes.

Anonymous wrote:Ha! When I googled it came up with this from 1999 that said it would be implemented soon.....wow!

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=106

MCPS in a nutshell…constantly reinventing the wheel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our new principal just sent this out in the weekly communications:

Student IDs: This year student IDs must be visible throughout the day, particularly when students are in the hallways. Students may wear their id on a lanyard, clip it to their clothing, or attach it to their backpack. Underclassmen pictures will be taken on 09/06-09/11, which means we expect to fully enforce this rule as of 09/16. As always, student ids will be required to attend school events.

This is new for our school.

Question: Do other schools implement this? Does it actually work? What are the consequences if kids do not comply?

Better than a student entering their school by waving a chipotle gift card at the person/administrator "checking" student IDs at doors.

Yes, I read about the Chipotle gift card being used to substitute for student IDs someone too. Do you remember school this was? I think it was in another MCPS student newspaper.