What Confederacy of Imbiciles Is Working To Prevent A Later Start Time For MCPS High Schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, the irony of someone not being able to spell imbecile

You beat me to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When you do, you should also ask yourself whether policies are paying lip service to helping the most vulnerable members or whether those most in need of support are really being served. How do teens and their families compensate for lack of sleep? Who is most likely to be most harmed by unhealthy start times?

On the subject of health, also think about what populations are likely to suffer the most when younger kids come home from school at an hour that allows very little daylight time for part of the year? If you are worried about childhood obesity, think about whether getting home at at 4:20 is really good for kids.

Speaking of the big picture - if we had safe streets and a good public transportation system, then most kids wouldn't need a school bus to get to or from school, and then MCPS wouldn't have to arrange school start times around school buses. To say nothing of the additional benefits for children's health and family stability.

You sure have a point here. The reason school bell times are staggered is school bus shortage, plain and simple. If there were enough buses for everyone, every student would start at the same hour, around 8 30.
This is how they do things in Europe. Only in this country -- and in suburban areas - kids of different ages start school at different times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When you do, you should also ask yourself whether policies are paying lip service to helping the most vulnerable members or whether those most in need of support are really being served. How do teens and their families compensate for lack of sleep? Who is most likely to be most harmed by unhealthy start times?

On the subject of health, also think about what populations are likely to suffer the most when younger kids come home from school at an hour that allows very little daylight time for part of the year? If you are worried about childhood obesity, think about whether getting home at at 4:20 is really good for kids.

Speaking of the big picture - if we had safe streets and a good public transportation system, then most kids wouldn't need a school bus to get to or from school, and then MCPS wouldn't have to arrange school start times around school buses. To say nothing of the additional benefits for children's health and family stability.

You sure have a point here. The reason school bell times are staggered is school bus shortage, plain and simple. If there were enough buses for everyone, every student would start at the same hour, around 8 30.
This is how they do things in Europe. Only in this country -- and in suburban areas - kids of different ages start school at different times.

That's correct. In addition, we don't have walkable communities, so that even kids who live fairly close to their schools can't safely walk there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably includes working parents of young children who’d rather not have to cover another hour of childcare in the afternoon. High school athletes who get home late enough as it is already. High school students with after school jobs. Is that enough imbeciles for you?

Not to mention all of the families that rely on older siblings for childcare. That was a major factor in the 2015 report if I recall correctly. Between older siblings providing care, and kids who needed money from after-school jobs, the later start time was going to have a severe effect on the financial well-being of some of the most vulnerable families in the district.

As a parent of an ES student, I have a hard time following the childcare piece. Our bus does not come until 9am- what parent can wait until 9am to start their commute to work (in normal times)? Most families end up utilizing before AND after care. And are there really that many young kids with teenage siblings to watch them in the afternoon?

I thought it was really more about preserving time for after school jobs and sports. But the trade off is not enough sleep and lower school performance.

When DD was in elementary school, we used before care because we could afford it. The low income parents dropped their kids off an hour early, and the kids had to wait outside the school in all weather for the doors to open. Everyone doesn’t live like you do.

DP. Our school does not allow kids to loiter outside for an hour. So do these kids just stay at home on their own and get themselves to the bus now? Seems like the low income families are going to have childcare issues regardless because school is fewer hours than a typical workday.

[Anonymous]

"loiter"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably includes working parents of young children who’d rather not have to cover another hour of childcare in the afternoon. High school athletes who get home late enough as it is already. High school students with after school jobs. Is that enough imbeciles for you?

Not to mention all of the families that rely on older siblings for childcare. That was a major factor in the 2015 report if I recall correctly. Between older siblings providing care, and kids who needed money from after-school jobs, the later start time was going to have a severe effect on the financial well-being of some of the most vulnerable families in the district.

As a parent of an ES student, I have a hard time following the childcare piece. Our bus does not come until 9am- what parent can wait until 9am to start their commute to work (in normal times)? Most families end up utilizing before AND after care. And are there really that many young kids with teenage siblings to watch them in the afternoon?

I thought it was really more about preserving time for after school jobs and sports. But the trade off is not enough sleep and lower school performance.

When DD was in elementary school, we used before care because we could afford it. The low income parents dropped their kids off an hour early, and the kids had to wait outside the school in all weather for the doors to open. Everyone doesn’t live like you do.

DP. Our school does not allow kids to loiter outside for an hour. So do these kids just stay at home on their own and get themselves to the bus now? Seems like the low income families are going to have childcare issues regardless because school is fewer hours than a typical workday.

Which is why many parents drop their ES kids off, but have the HS or MS siblings pick them up after school. It used to bug me that the MS students wouldn’t stay for clubs or even tutoring, but I didn’t know they were racing to get to the ES by dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, ladies, enough already. The science is in:

https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html

This staggering of start times is 100% bass-ackwards.

Board of Education Approves Later School Start Times
Level Time Length of Day
High School 7:45 a.m.–2:30 p.m. 6 hours, 45 minutes
Middle School 8:15 a.m.–3:00 p.m. 6 hours, 45 minutes
Elementary School Tier 1 9:00 a.m.–3:25 p.m. 6 hours, 25 minutes
Elementary School Tier 2 9:25 a.m.–3:50 p.m. 6 hours, 25 minutes

I don’t know why the HS and ES times aren’t flipped. We do that in Loudoun County and it’s the best.

Having read this thread, the only explanation that makes sense is that MCPS is just way too solicitous of the needs and interests of low-income families. That's just the way it is here--that's why school boundaries are so clearly drawn in the interest of educational equity.

Nothing to do with wealthy sports-moms and their schedules.

Laughing/crying. I love you, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.

I was taught younger kids need more sleep. I would rather a high schooler start early than ES. My high school started at 8, but I think all the levels started around the same time.

Younger kids need more sleep and go to bed earlier. This is directly backwards to the known, proven teen healthy sleep patterns. Links to the relevant data on that have already been posted here.

The idea that high schoolers should have to be at school at 7:30AM every day because their parents feel entitled to use them as free babysitters is asinine.

What is entitled and asinine is assuming that families whose older lids are watching the younger have a true choice. For many of my students, it is helping keep the family afloat financially because aftercare is both expensive and in short supply.

Yet another example of thinking that the health of ALL kids should suffer because no one can be bothered to think of other ways to address social problems. There is no dispute that later is better for all teenagers. It's one of the few things that is universally agreed upon.

+1. I have no doubt childcare is a big issue for many low income families-but not all of them have an older child to watch the younger ones in the afternoon, so there’s still a gap there too. If childcare was truly the limiting factor to changing start times, why not address that head on and come up with ways to provide/fund aftercare programs for these families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.

I was taught younger kids need more sleep. I would rather a high schooler start early than ES. My high school started at 8, but I think all the levels started around the same time.

Younger kids need more sleep and go to bed earlier. This is directly backwards to the known, proven teen healthy sleep patterns. Links to the relevant data on that have already been posted here.

The idea that high schoolers should have to be at school at 7:30AM every day because their parents feel entitled to use them as free babysitters is asinine.

What is entitled and asinine is assuming that families whose older lids are watching the younger have a true choice. For many of my students, it is helping keep the family afloat financially because aftercare is both expensive and in short supply.

Yet another example of thinking that the health of ALL kids should suffer because no one can be bothered to think of other ways to address social problems. There is no dispute that later is better for all teenagers. It's one of the few things that is universally agreed upon.

+1. I have no doubt childcare is a big issue for many low income families-but not all of them have an older child to watch the younger ones in the afternoon, so there’s still a gap there too. If childcare was truly the limiting factor to changing start times, why not address that head on and come up with ways to provide/fund aftercare programs for these families.

It seems like the issue is that people with kids in HS not ES feel the current start time is inconvenient for them so everyone else needs to cater to their whims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.

I was taught younger kids need more sleep. I would rather a high schooler start early than ES. My high school started at 8, but I think all the levels started around the same time.

Younger kids need more sleep and go to bed earlier. This is directly backwards to the known, proven teen healthy sleep patterns. Links to the relevant data on that have already been posted here.

The idea that high schoolers should have to be at school at 7:30AM every day because their parents feel entitled to use them as free babysitters is asinine.

What is entitled and asinine is assuming that families whose older lids are watching the younger have a true choice. For many of my students, it is helping keep the family afloat financially because aftercare is both expensive and in short supply.

Yet another example of thinking that the health of ALL kids should suffer because no one can be bothered to think of other ways to address social problems. There is no dispute that later is better for all teenagers. It's one of the few things that is universally agreed upon.

+1. I have no doubt childcare is a big issue for many low income families-but not all of them have an older child to watch the younger ones in the afternoon, so there’s still a gap there too. If childcare was truly the limiting factor to changing start times, why not address that head on and come up with ways to provide/fund aftercare programs for these families.

It seems like the issue is that people with kids in HS not ES feel the current start time is inconvenient for them so everyone else needs to cater to their whims.

Actually, my child is in ES right now but the research in this is pretty clear. Later start times are better for HS students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.

I was taught younger kids need more sleep. I would rather a high schooler start early than ES. My high school started at 8, but I think all the levels started around the same time.

Younger kids need more sleep and go to bed earlier. This is directly backwards to the known, proven teen healthy sleep patterns. Links to the relevant data on that have already been posted here.

The idea that high schoolers should have to be at school at 7:30AM every day because their parents feel entitled to use them as free babysitters is asinine.

What is entitled and asinine is assuming that families whose older lids are watching the younger have a true choice. For many of my students, it is helping keep the family afloat financially because aftercare is both expensive and in short supply.

Yet another example of thinking that the health of ALL kids should suffer because no one can be bothered to think of other ways to address social problems. There is no dispute that later is better for all teenagers. It's one of the few things that is universally agreed upon.

+1. I have no doubt childcare is a big issue for many low income families-but not all of them have an older child to watch the younger ones in the afternoon, so there’s still a gap there too. If childcare was truly the limiting factor to changing start times, why not address that head on and come up with ways to provide/fund aftercare programs for these families.

It seems like the issue is that people with kids in HS not ES feel the current start time is inconvenient for them so everyone else needs to cater to their whims.

Uh, no, most ES parents hate the current set up too. The average elementary student is up at first light. Those of us who work business hours need to be at our desks by 9 if not earlier. A 930 start time gets me to work closer to 10. We would LOVE to get our kids off to school earlier. It makes sense to send the kids who wake up early and need parental supervision getting out the door to school earlier than they go now. It makes sense to send the older kids, who wake up later and DON'T need help getting to school, later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, no, most ES parents hate the current set up too. The average elementary student is up at first light. Those of us who work business hours need to be at our desks by 9 if not earlier. A 930 start time gets me to work closer to 10. We would LOVE to get our kids off to school earlier. It makes sense to send the kids who wake up early and need parental supervision getting out the door to school earlier than they go now. It makes sense to send the older kids, who wake up later and DON'T need help getting to school, later.

Yes, it does make sense to do those things. There's general agreement about that. There is not general agreement about HOW to fix the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably includes working parents of young children who’d rather not have to cover another hour of childcare in the afternoon. High school athletes who get home late enough as it is already. High school students with after school jobs. Is that enough imbeciles for you?

Not to mention all of the families that rely on older siblings for childcare. That was a major factor in the 2015 report if I recall correctly. Between older siblings providing care, and kids who needed money from after-school jobs, the later start time was going to have a severe effect on the financial well-being of some of the most vulnerable families in the district.

As a parent of an ES student, I have a hard time following the childcare piece. Our bus does not come until 9am- what parent can wait until 9am to start their commute to work (in normal times)? Most families end up utilizing before AND after care. And are there really that many young kids with teenage siblings to watch them in the afternoon?

I thought it was really more about preserving time for after school jobs and sports. But the trade off is not enough sleep and lower school performance.

When DD was in elementary school, we used before care because we could afford it. The low income parents dropped their kids off an hour early, and the kids had to wait outside the school in all weather for the doors to open. Everyone doesn’t live like you do.

Some of these parents work in the service industry anyway so can take later shifts. So they don’t necessarily need morning coverage- not everyone works as early as you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, no, most ES parents hate the current set up too. The average elementary student is up at first light. Those of us who work business hours need to be at our desks by 9 if not earlier. A 930 start time gets me to work closer to 10. We would LOVE to get our kids off to school earlier. It makes sense to send the kids who wake up early and need parental supervision getting out the door to school earlier than they go now. It makes sense to send the older kids, who wake up later and DON'T need help getting to school, later.

Yes, it does make sense to do those things. There's general agreement about that. There is not general agreement about HOW to fix the problem.

Oh ffs, stop being condescending and read the thread. there SHOULD be agreement about that, but there isn't, bizarrely enough. The above poster was replying to this gem: "It seems like the issue is that people with kids in HS not ES feel the current start time is inconvenient for them so everyone else needs to cater to their whims."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the issue is that younger kids are wired to sleep from about 8 to about 7.

Older kids are wired to sleep from about 12 to about 8.

Is it typical to have teens sleeping at 12? I was expected to sleep by 10.