Petition: Later MCPS school start times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You realize that may be the number of students who actually need that program? ES 8yr old in MD can go home and be alone at home until their HS sibling or parent gets home? You realize this, don't you?

You don't think changing bell times such that older siblings would not be able to care for younger siblings would create additional needs?

Also, many elementary schools are not served by the community centers that do have these small after-school programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same buses.

Swap ES and HS start times.
ES has a start time of 9:30 now.

Parents that walk or drive kid to school and they work in the 8am hour can get the ES child to school without needing before care.

School bus riding ES students can be monitored by an upper ES student (bus patrols) at the morning bus stop if an adult is not present. Adult should be at the school bus stop for younger ES students anyways.

ES or community centers have after care and after school programs.

It’s not as simple as elementary and high schools swapping start times. Right now, buses finish their high school routes and then immediately start their middle school routes, and when they complete those routes, they immediately start their first elementary routes (for the elementary schools with 9:00 start times) and when they complete those routes, then they do their second elementary school routes (for schools with 9:30 start times). We don’t have enough buses to transport all the elementary school students at the same time. To qualify for bus service, you must live further than 1 mile from your elementary school or 1.5 miles from your middle school or 2 miles from your high school. A higher percentage of elementary school students qualify for bus service because of the shorter distance required, plus elementary schools cover 6 grades plus Pre-K — so there are more elementary schools and more elementary students than at the middle school or high school levels.

If elementary schools had the earliest start time, we’d have to have buses do both elementary school routes before the middle school routes, which would either push back the middle school start time and make the high school start time even later than 9:00 OR the elementary schools with the earliest start times would have to start a half hour earlier than high schools currently do, which would mean elementary school kids walking and taking buses in the dark, having a start time of 7:15, and having to be at bus stops before 7:00. It’s not feasible to just swap elementary and high school start times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the argument is that some kid's sleep takes precedence over other kid's sleep?

No, it’s that we should have a schedule that benefits the most kids. If school start time was only pushed back by half an hour, no one would shift extracurriculars to the morning.

What accountability measures are in place or will be put in place to make sure we get the adolescent sleep increase you state is essential and will come from making this costly and burdensome shift?

If you are so concerned about the cost and burden, why are you adamant that we must make it MORE costly and MORE burdensome with “accountability measures”? Would you propose changing that the start time to be earlier if sleep metrics didn’t hit what ever targets you deem satisfactory?

The fact that I have to explain to you why we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources actually says everything about you, your proposal and your integrity.

How could we possibly measure what happens BEFORE spending the human and financial resources? If you want to measure what actually happens, you cannot do that until you have already implemented the changes (and therefore spent the human and financial resources). Adding “accountability metrics” is simply adding MORE human and financial resources after the fact. I am curious what the ultimate point of such metrics would be? If it turned out to not have an impact would you then want to spend EVEN MORE human and financial resources to change everything back?

Please do explain because I legitimately don’t understand what you are proposing and how it would possibly be cost effective.

I didn't say we should measure before. I said the MEANS to measure need to be put in place before. And yes, if it does not in fact improve sleep, we should reverse course.

That's usually how things work. If you try something and it fails to accomplish what you hoped it would, you stop doing it. I guess that's breaking news to you.

And you have 99 questions for me but no answers to the questions that have been posed to you about:

- How the increased sleep you're claiming teens will get will happen with pushing start times back without a mechanism to ensure kids don't squander the extra 30 minutes
- How even if we believe the claims, we'll measure the impact of the change on teens' health and sleep and academic performance (these are the benefits YOUR side is claiming so you need to prove and validate them in order for people to feel justified in going through the inconvenience you're proposing)
- What threshold percentage wise of the teenage population we need to comply with getting more sleep to see the purported benefits you claim will come from pushing back start times

Answer these questions instead of asking me questions.

“we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources”

That may very well be what you meant, but it’s not what you said.

And if we changed it and it wasn’t as effective as effective as hoped, then who gives a sh!t? (FYI this is what we call a rhetorical question. I’m not asking YOU a question.) That’s the new time table. You may not be aware, but the current start times are ARBITRARY. It’s not a question of “stopping” something - it’s reverting to the prior state which requires the same resources and effort a SECOND time. There would be no point… unless you are theorizing that later start times would be actively harmful versus merely ineffective.

As for your other questions, I have answered elsewhere in this thread but since you’re slow/obstinate…

I DO NOT CARE how many teens “squander” their extra time. I want ALL teens to have the OPTION to get adequate sleep with appropriate school start times, based on the existing science which indicates that teens’ natural circadian rhythm shifts later into the evening. The data is clear, and endlessly studying this because you and some other selfish adults want to throw a tantrum about it would be a waste of resources.

I DO believe that your main objection to this is the inconvenience it will somehow cause YOU. You do not care about the cost or effort a change would necessitate, and you have made it very clear you could not care less about what’s best for the kids.

Sorry you might have to spring for a babysitter for your younger kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the argument is that some kid's sleep takes precedence over other kid's sleep?

No, it’s that we should have a schedule that benefits the most kids. If school start time was only pushed back by half an hour, no one would shift extracurriculars to the morning.

What accountability measures are in place or will be put in place to make sure we get the adolescent sleep increase you state is essential and will come from making this costly and burdensome shift?

If you are so concerned about the cost and burden, why are you adamant that we must make it MORE costly and MORE burdensome with “accountability measures”? Would you propose changing that the start time to be earlier if sleep metrics didn’t hit what ever targets you deem satisfactory?

The fact that I have to explain to you why we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources actually says everything about you, your proposal and your integrity.

How could we possibly measure what happens BEFORE spending the human and financial resources? If you want to measure what actually happens, you cannot do that until you have already implemented the changes (and therefore spent the human and financial resources). Adding “accountability metrics” is simply adding MORE human and financial resources after the fact. I am curious what the ultimate point of such metrics would be? If it turned out to not have an impact would you then want to spend EVEN MORE human and financial resources to change everything back?

Please do explain because I legitimately don’t understand what you are proposing and how it would possibly be cost effective.

I didn't say we should measure before. I said the MEANS to measure need to be put in place before. And yes, if it does not in fact improve sleep, we should reverse course.

That's usually how things work. If you try something and it fails to accomplish what you hoped it would, you stop doing it. I guess that's breaking news to you.

And you have 99 questions for me but no answers to the questions that have been posed to you about:

- How the increased sleep you're claiming teens will get will happen with pushing start times back without a mechanism to ensure kids don't squander the extra 30 minutes
- How even if we believe the claims, we'll measure the impact of the change on teens' health and sleep and academic performance (these are the benefits YOUR side is claiming so you need to prove and validate them in order for people to feel justified in going through the inconvenience you're proposing)
- What threshold percentage wise of the teenage population we need to comply with getting more sleep to see the purported benefits you claim will come from pushing back start times

Answer these questions instead of asking me questions.

“we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources”

That may very well be what you meant, but it’s not what you said.

And if we changed it and it wasn’t as effective as effective as hoped, then who gives a sh!t? (FYI this is what we call a rhetorical question. I’m not asking YOU a question.) That’s the new time table. You may not be aware, but the current start times are ARBITRARY. It’s not a question of “stopping” something - it’s reverting to the prior state which requires the same resources and effort a SECOND time. There would be no point… unless you are theorizing that later start times would be actively harmful versus merely ineffective.

As for your other questions, I have answered elsewhere in this thread but since you’re slow/obstinate…

I DO NOT CARE how many teens “squander” their extra time. I want ALL teens to have the OPTION to get adequate sleep with appropriate school start times, based on the existing science which indicates that teens’ natural circadian rhythm shifts later into the evening. The data is clear, and endlessly studying this because you and some other selfish adults want to throw a tantrum about it would be a waste of resources.

I DO believe that your main objection to this is the inconvenience it will somehow cause YOU. You do not care about the cost or effort a change would necessitate, and you have made it very clear you could not care less about what’s best for the kids.

Sorry you might have to spring for a babysitter for your younger kids!

So, basically, you want to cop out of parenting by making excuses and letting your kids do what they want and accommodate their poor behavior regardless of who else it impacts. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same buses.

Swap ES and HS start times.
ES has a start time of 9:30 now.

Parents that walk or drive kid to school and they work in the 8am hour can get the ES child to school without needing before care.

School bus riding ES students can be monitored by an upper ES student (bus patrols) at the morning bus stop if an adult is not present. Adult should be at the school bus stop for younger ES students anyways.

ES or community centers have after care and after school programs.

They have already looked at this and have rejected it for all the reasons mentioned here by many who were around when it was brought up the furst time. But sure, keep pushing for something that won't happen waste your time and energy, and the time of those who have to keep listening to the already rejected idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the argument is that some kid's sleep takes precedence over other kid's sleep?

No, it’s that we should have a schedule that benefits the most kids. If school start time was only pushed back by half an hour, no one would shift extracurriculars to the morning.

What accountability measures are in place or will be put in place to make sure we get the adolescent sleep increase you state is essential and will come from making this costly and burdensome shift?

If you are so concerned about the cost and burden, why are you adamant that we must make it MORE costly and MORE burdensome with “accountability measures”? Would you propose changing that the start time to be earlier if sleep metrics didn’t hit what ever targets you deem satisfactory?

The fact that I have to explain to you why we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources actually says everything about you, your proposal and your integrity.

How could we possibly measure what happens BEFORE spending the human and financial resources? If you want to measure what actually happens, you cannot do that until you have already implemented the changes (and therefore spent the human and financial resources). Adding “accountability metrics” is simply adding MORE human and financial resources after the fact. I am curious what the ultimate point of such metrics would be? If it turned out to not have an impact would you then want to spend EVEN MORE human and financial resources to change everything back?

Please do explain because I legitimately don’t understand what you are proposing and how it would possibly be cost effective.

I didn't say we should measure before. I said the MEANS to measure need to be put in place before. And yes, if it does not in fact improve sleep, we should reverse course.

That's usually how things work. If you try something and it fails to accomplish what you hoped it would, you stop doing it. I guess that's breaking news to you.

And you have 99 questions for me but no answers to the questions that have been posed to you about:

- How the increased sleep you're claiming teens will get will happen with pushing start times back without a mechanism to ensure kids don't squander the extra 30 minutes
- How even if we believe the claims, we'll measure the impact of the change on teens' health and sleep and academic performance (these are the benefits YOUR side is claiming so you need to prove and validate them in order for people to feel justified in going through the inconvenience you're proposing)
- What threshold percentage wise of the teenage population we need to comply with getting more sleep to see the purported benefits you claim will come from pushing back start times

Answer these questions instead of asking me questions.

“we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources”

That may very well be what you meant, but it’s not what you said.

And if we changed it and it wasn’t as effective as effective as hoped, then who gives a sh!t? (FYI this is what we call a rhetorical question. I’m not asking YOU a question.) That’s the new time table. You may not be aware, but the current start times are ARBITRARY. It’s not a question of “stopping” something - it’s reverting to the prior state which requires the same resources and effort a SECOND time. There would be no point… unless you are theorizing that later start times would be actively harmful versus merely ineffective.

As for your other questions, I have answered elsewhere in this thread but since you’re slow/obstinate…

I DO NOT CARE how many teens “squander” their extra time. I want ALL teens to have the OPTION to get adequate sleep with appropriate school start times, based on the existing science which indicates that teens’ natural circadian rhythm shifts later into the evening. The data is clear, and endlessly studying this because you and some other selfish adults want to throw a tantrum about it would be a waste of resources.

I DO believe that your main objection to this is the inconvenience it will somehow cause YOU. You do not care about the cost or effort a change would necessitate, and you have made it very clear you could not care less about what’s best for the kids.

Sorry you might have to spring for a babysitter for your younger kids!

DP. You say the data is clear, and yet it’s not. I’m one of the posters who actually read some of the posted reports, one of which clearly stated the data in support of a later start time is inconclusive.

And it’s very shortsighted to ignore the fact high school students need to watch younger siblings after school. Not every family in MoCo can easily spring for a sitter, as you suggest they do, and free/reduced rate programs can’t support the needs of the all families who would need them.

The costs far outweigh the benefits, especially since the goal here seems to be merely giving the OPTION for teens to get more sleep.

[Anonymous]

They need the elementary school kids to start at 7:45 and the high school kids to start at 9:30. That is the solution, but this has been going on forever and will not change. The 7:45 start time is later than it used to be. School used to start at 7:15 when my oldest was in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need the elementary school kids to start at 7:45 and the high school kids to start at 9:30. That is the solution, but this has been going on forever and will not change. The 7:45 start time is later than it used to be. School used to start at 7:15 when my oldest was in high school.

Why won’t it change? Life is all about change. Academics and student well being should come before everything else. MCPS is not special. If the entire state of CA can switch over to an 8.30 am start time for high schools as they did a year or two ago, we can do it too. And parents there were worried about the change too but now they are mostly positive about it.

[Anonymous]

What would later start times do for all the kids also enrolled in MC classes? Or Ms kids that have to go to the Hs to take advanced math or WL classes? MCPs has built a very tangled web around the current model of Hs first so that is not changing anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the argument is that some kid's sleep takes precedence over other kid's sleep?

No, it’s that we should have a schedule that benefits the most kids. If school start time was only pushed back by half an hour, no one would shift extracurriculars to the morning.

What accountability measures are in place or will be put in place to make sure we get the adolescent sleep increase you state is essential and will come from making this costly and burdensome shift?

If you are so concerned about the cost and burden, why are you adamant that we must make it MORE costly and MORE burdensome with “accountability measures”? Would you propose changing that the start time to be earlier if sleep metrics didn’t hit what ever targets you deem satisfactory?

The fact that I have to explain to you why we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources actually says everything about you, your proposal and your integrity.

How could we possibly measure what happens BEFORE spending the human and financial resources? If you want to measure what actually happens, you cannot do that until you have already implemented the changes (and therefore spent the human and financial resources). Adding “accountability metrics” is simply adding MORE human and financial resources after the fact. I am curious what the ultimate point of such metrics would be? If it turned out to not have an impact would you then want to spend EVEN MORE human and financial resources to change everything back?

Please do explain because I legitimately don’t understand what you are proposing and how it would possibly be cost effective.

I didn't say we should measure before. I said the MEANS to measure need to be put in place before. And yes, if it does not in fact improve sleep, we should reverse course.

That's usually how things work. If you try something and it fails to accomplish what you hoped it would, you stop doing it. I guess that's breaking news to you.

And you have 99 questions for me but no answers to the questions that have been posed to you about:

- How the increased sleep you're claiming teens will get will happen with pushing start times back without a mechanism to ensure kids don't squander the extra 30 minutes
- How even if we believe the claims, we'll measure the impact of the change on teens' health and sleep and academic performance (these are the benefits YOUR side is claiming so you need to prove and validate them in order for people to feel justified in going through the inconvenience you're proposing)
- What threshold percentage wise of the teenage population we need to comply with getting more sleep to see the purported benefits you claim will come from pushing back start times

Answer these questions instead of asking me questions.

“we should measure if what we're claiming will happen, does happen, before we spend a large amount of human and financial resources”

That may very well be what you meant, but it’s not what you said.

And if we changed it and it wasn’t as effective as effective as hoped, then who gives a sh!t? (FYI this is what we call a rhetorical question. I’m not asking YOU a question.) That’s the new time table. You may not be aware, but the current start times are ARBITRARY. It’s not a question of “stopping” something - it’s reverting to the prior state which requires the same resources and effort a SECOND time. There would be no point… unless you are theorizing that later start times would be actively harmful versus merely ineffective.

As for your other questions, I have answered elsewhere in this thread but since you’re slow/obstinate…

I DO NOT CARE how many teens “squander” their extra time. I want ALL teens to have the OPTION to get adequate sleep with appropriate school start times, based on the existing science which indicates that teens’ natural circadian rhythm shifts later into the evening. The data is clear, and endlessly studying this because you and some other selfish adults want to throw a tantrum about it would be a waste of resources.

I DO believe that your main objection to this is the inconvenience it will somehow cause YOU. You do not care about the cost or effort a change would necessitate, and you have made it very clear you could not care less about what’s best for the kids.

Sorry you might have to spring for a babysitter for your younger kids!

DP. You say the data is clear, and yet it’s not. I’m one of the posters who actually read some of the posted reports, one of which clearly stated the data in support of a later start time is inconclusive.

And it’s very shortsighted to ignore the fact high school students need to watch younger siblings after school. Not every family in MoCo can easily spring for a sitter, as you suggest they do, and free/reduced rate programs can’t support the needs of the all families who would need them.

The costs far outweigh the benefits, especially since the goal here seems to be merely giving the OPTION for teens to get more sleep.

That's probably the poster that thinks you shouldn't have kids unless you've either got the money for a SAHP or a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would later start times do for all the kids also enrolled in MC classes? Or Ms kids that have to go to the Hs to take advanced math or WL classes? MCPs has built a very tangled web around the current model of Hs first so that is not changing anytime soon.

They will figure out that piece once they switch the start times. Look at the bigger picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would later start times do for all the kids also enrolled in MC classes? Or Ms kids that have to go to the Hs to take advanced math or WL classes? MCPs has built a very tangled web around the current model of Hs first so that is not changing anytime soon.

They will figure out that piece once they switch the start times. Look at the bigger picture.

They won't switch the start times until they have figured out how to do it. Look at the 2013 Bell Times report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same buses.

Swap ES and HS start times.
ES has a start time of 9:30 now.

Parents that walk or drive kid to school and they work in the 8am hour can get the ES child to school without needing before care.

School bus riding ES students can be monitored by an upper ES student (bus patrols) at the morning bus stop if an adult is not present. Adult should be at the school bus stop for younger ES students anyways.

ES or community centers have after care and after school programs.

It’s not as simple as elementary and high schools swapping start times. Right now, buses finish their high school routes and then immediately start their middle school routes, and when they complete those routes, they immediately start their first elementary routes (for the elementary schools with 9:00 start times) and when they complete those routes, then they do their second elementary school routes (for schools with 9:30 start times). We don’t have enough buses to transport all the elementary school students at the same time. To qualify for bus service, you must live further than 1 mile from your elementary school or 1.5 miles from your middle school or 2 miles from your high school. A higher percentage of elementary school students qualify for bus service because of the shorter distance required, plus elementary schools cover 6 grades plus Pre-K — so there are more elementary schools and more elementary students than at the middle school or high school levels.

If elementary schools had the earliest start time, we’d have to have buses do both elementary school routes before the middle school routes, which would either push back the middle school start time and make the high school start time even later than 9:00 OR the elementary schools with the earliest start times would have to start a half hour earlier than high schools currently do, which would mean elementary school kids walking and taking buses in the dark, having a start time of 7:15, and having to be at bus stops before 7:00. It’s not feasible to just swap elementary and high school start times.

Posters like this are always unwilling to think of solutions instead they're: this won't work this won't do.

No one would start school before 8am. ESs are not as far for most students and buses don't need to be picking up so early in the morning. Before you say it won't work, tell us if it has been tried for you to know it won't work. 7:45am HS start time wasn't going to work for people like you, until the start was changed from 7:25 to 7:45.

[Anonymous]

This old chestnut again! The matter was settled years ago. Please move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would later start times do for all the kids also enrolled in MC classes? Or Ms kids that have to go to the Hs to take advanced math or WL classes? MCPs has built a very tangled web around the current model of Hs first so that is not changing anytime soon.

why should I care? Look I don't like having to wake up my kid and want the county to adjust to me.