Petition: Later MCPS school start times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The "start ES first" solution has already been assessed and rejected, for reasons that are just as valid now as they were 11 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Boy did you read me wrong! I’m in favor of a later start time for high school students. I even posted an alternate suggestion earlier in this thread. I’m just pointing out why you can’t just swap elementary and high school start times. We don’t have enough buses to transport all of the elementary students at the same time. We’ve staggered the start times for elementary schools and buses do multiple runs for elementary schools. How would you accommodate multiple elementary schools runs prior to the middle school and high school routes and have no schools start before 8:00?

[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 will not. This is MCPS where the mantra is “we’ve always done it this way”. They still make teachers use paper time sheets! They are stuck in the dark ages

[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 your argument that you're putting forth is that we MUST acquiesce to your proposal of shifting start times back, even though you acknowledge it might not have the advertised benefits you're crowing about, and you can't articulate any meaningful answers to the logistical and regional logistical and resource hurdles we face, because you said so?

You think that's a compelling argument?

Don't run for political office. You suck at persuasion and engendering buy-in from stakeholders. And I hope you're not a leader in whatever you do for a living if this is how you lobby for a cause or position.

[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!

So your argument that you're putting forth is that we MUST acquiesce to your proposal of shifting start times back, even though you acknowledge it might not have the advertised benefits you're crowing about, and you can't articulate any meaningful answers to the logistical and regional logistical and resource hurdles we face, because you said so?

You think that's a compelling argument?

Don't run for political office. You suck at persuasion and engendering buy-in from stakeholders. And I hope you're not a leader in whatever you do for a living if this is how you lobby for a cause or position.

DP. You know not everyone is trying to run for political office. What an unnecessary statement, PP.

[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!

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.

You just want to ignore science. Got it.

[Anonymous]

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

It was addressed years ago. It wasn't "settled".

[Anonymous]

As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

Kids graduate and move on and new kids enter the school system. Nothing is settled for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

Nothing is settled. This issue will keep resurfacing until something is done.
It is that important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

Nothing is settled. This issue will keep resurfacing until something is done.
It is that important.

Then bring forth some substance in your recommendations. You all have localities where it's been implemented. There should be a plethora of best practices, accountability measures and implementation processes to share that we can examine and see if they make sense for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

So your argument that you're putting forth is that we MUST acquiesce to your proposal of shifting start times back, even though you acknowledge it might not have the advertised benefits you're crowing about, and you can't articulate any meaningful answers to the logistical and regional logistical and resource hurdles we face, because you said so?

You think that's a compelling argument?

Don't run for political office. You suck at persuasion and engendering buy-in from stakeholders. And I hope you're not a leader in whatever you do for a living if this is how you lobby for a cause or position.

DP. You know not everyone is trying to run for political office. What an unnecessary statement, PP.

The poster you are replying to is almost certainly a lawyer who gets off on arguing with people on topics that she understands only at a surface level, thinking that her unnecessarily verbose and jargon-y language will disguise the fact that she is really not comprehending the issue, and when she gets pushback from people who are more knowledgeable than she is (and therefore see her BS for what it is) she gets hyper defensive, loses composure, and that’s how you end up with classic playground insults like “Don’t run for political office!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

Kids graduate and move on and new kids enter the school system. Nothing is settled for eternity.

The constraints remain the same, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as MCPS is concerned (and many of us parents who are tired of the wasted time and resources addressing the same thing over and over again), it IS settled

Nothing is settled. This issue will keep resurfacing until something is done.
It is that important.

Something was done about it. Because you find it inconvenient, you are ignoring this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

You just want to ignore science. Got it.

Yes, science says all kids need sleep. Stop cherry pickingyour facts and learn to set you clocks ahead or parent.