New school start times survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

[Anonymous]

Is SB voting on this or they decided to pass on it this year because of cost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

Yes it does matter. If you shift it to noon and make them study till 7 pm, it’s not 6 pm when they will get tired..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

Yes it does matter. If you shift it to noon and make them study till 7 pm, it’s not 6 pm when they will get tired..

+1

I have said this before:
I taught in a school that tried 7 a.m. for elementary. The kids were fine all day.
They stopped it because of the busing in the dark morning. But, it is definitely better than starting late for the attention spans.

[Anonymous]

At this point you're all just spinning your wheels because they are very clearly not making any changes for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is SB voting on this or they decided to pass on it this year because of cost?

I can't remember if it was in one of the board meetings or one of the e-mails sent, but I believe they were taking this off the table now because of a.) there wasn't a good, cost neutral option and b.) they admitted there was too much else going on regarding the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

Yes it does matter. If you shift it to noon and make them study till 7 pm, it’s not 6 pm when they will get tired..

+1

I have said this before:
I taught in a school that tried 7 a.m. for elementary. The kids were fine all day.
They stopped it because of the busing in the dark morning. But, it is definitely better than starting late for the attention spans.

Elementary kids would do much better with 7 am starts, but parents do not like it. They are wired to be early risers and be most productive earlier in the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

Yes it does matter. If you shift it to noon and make them study till 7 pm, it’s not 6 pm when they will get tired..

+1

I have said this before:
I taught in a school that tried 7 a.m. for elementary. The kids were fine all day.
They stopped it because of the busing in the dark morning. But, it is definitely better than starting late for the attention spans.

Elementary kids would do much better with 7 am starts, but parents do not like it. They are wired to be early risers and be most productive earlier in the day.

Yours are, not mine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people have to pay for more child care, they may as well put their kids in private schools. I suspect that is why some of our enrollment is going down.

That doesn't make any sense - most private schools don't offer before and after care. If they do, it's far more expensive than SACC or the local TKD or gymanstics place.

The point is they won’t need before care if they do private school because they would have more reasonable start times.

I don't understand. Are private schools holding class for more than 8 hours per day?

I don't think so. I also don't think that (private school tuition) + (after care costs) < (before care costs) + (after care costs).

So switching to private school just to save money seems like a silly idea.

It’s definitely not cheaper to pay for private school tuition & aftercare. I don’t know what those posters are talking about. I’ve researched this before. The cheapest tuition are parochial schools that charge around 11-12k on tuition alone, and then you need to pay around 6-7K for aftercare. On top of that you have to pay for uniforms and registration fees every single year. There is also a technology fee charged every year. It is about 17K-20K per kid total at the least expensive private school. There is no way before and aftercare costs that much even if it’s not SACC.

There is also the convenience and what is best for your child. Going to gymnastics at 7 and to school at 10 is not exactly good for kids.

Why not?

Because the kid will have started the day early--as most elementary kids do--and exhausted by noon when they still will have four more hours of school.

Do you even have kids?

Yes. And mine went from elementary school (they got out at 3:30pm) to their gymnastics class that ran from 4:00 to 6:30pm. I would've much rather had the gymnastics class in the morning!

So, you really do not understand how tired the kids would be in the afternoon? That doesn't matter to you?

Believe me, it matters to most parents and to teachers.

I guess it depends on your kids. Mine prefer to do active stuff in the morning rather than in the afternoon. Regardless, it looks like nothing will be changing.

This makes sense but then academics will suffer since they will be tired afterwards.

No, I would think that kids would be more focused and less wiggly/distracted with a gpod round of morning exercise.

Come visit my class after recess. Kids are done by 3.

And if elementary school went from 7am to 2pm, the kids would be "done" by 1pm.

Thank you. It doesn't matter what time of day you shift, the last hour is always going to be torturous as the kids have all hit their limits.

Yes it does matter. If you shift it to noon and make them study till 7 pm, it’s not 6 pm when they will get tired..

+1

I have said this before:
I taught in a school that tried 7 a.m. for elementary. The kids were fine all day.
They stopped it because of the busing in the dark morning. But, it is definitely better than starting late for the attention spans.

Elementary kids would do much better with 7 am starts, but parents do not like it. They are wired to be early risers and be most productive earlier in the day.

Yours are, not mine

And elementary school spans K through 6th! Your 6th graders are not "wired to be early risers" who suddenly need 12 hours of sleep a night the minute they start 7th grade.

[Anonymous]

Kyle McDaniel sent out this update on the topic in an email. No vote occurred yet to my knowledge.

School Start Times
Conversations on changing middle school start times have been ongoing for many years now, dating back to 2011. Earlier this year, an outside consultant presented their findings which, in my opinion, were lacking a realistic approach to changing the middle school schedule. More importantly, the conclusion drawn from their analysis was that there are only two ways to change middle school start times: 1) change start times for all grade levels; or 2) increase the transportation budget by $6.4-$17.3 million to acquire and run 75-100 additional busses.

I will not support option 2, which is not grounded in fiscal reality. As a result, and as I made clear back in February when this was presented to the School Board, if we have to shift all school start times, it is no longer a conversation on changing Middle School times, it is a conversation on changing all start times. As a result, the School Board tasked FCPS staff with developing options to shift all start times, and to collect community feedback on the most viable options.

The two options that were presented were: 1) All Elementary School start times are shifted earlier (7:45-8:10am); or 2) All school start times are shifted 30 minutes later which would have some Elementary School not starting to nearly 10am.

Based on analysis and community feedback, neither of these options are realistically viable. To put it more plainly, the only way to shift Middle School start times without causing significant disruption to the other 11 grade levels is to increase the transportation budget by ~$15m.

With those being the only two options, I do not support moving forward with changing any start times right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is SB voting on this or they decided to pass on it this year because of cost?

I can't remember if it was in one of the board meetings or one of the e-mails sent, but I believe they were taking this off the table now because of a.) there wasn't a good, cost neutral option and b.) they admitted there was too much else going on regarding the boundaries.

Wow all the money, research and surveys to do nothing in the end. What a waste of resources. Good job FCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel sent out this update on the topic in an email. No vote occurred yet to my knowledge.

School Start Times
Conversations on changing middle school start times have been ongoing for many years now, dating back to 2011. Earlier this year, an outside consultant presented their findings which, in my opinion, were lacking a realistic approach to changing the middle school schedule. More importantly, the conclusion drawn from their analysis was that there are only two ways to change middle school start times: 1) change start times for all grade levels; or 2) increase the transportation budget by $6.4-$17.3 million to acquire and run 75-100 additional busses.

I will not support option 2, which is not grounded in fiscal reality. As a result, and as I made clear back in February when this was presented to the School Board, if we have to shift all school start times, it is no longer a conversation on changing Middle School times, it is a conversation on changing all start times. As a result, the School Board tasked FCPS staff with developing options to shift all start times, and to collect community feedback on the most viable options.

The two options that were presented were: 1) All Elementary School start times are shifted earlier (7:45-8:10am); or 2) All school start times are shifted 30 minutes later which would have some Elementary School not starting to nearly 10am.

Based on analysis and community feedback, neither of these options are realistically viable. To put it more plainly, the only way to shift Middle School start times without causing significant disruption to the other 11 grade levels is to increase the transportation budget by ~$15m.

With those being the only two options, I do not support moving forward with changing any start times right now.

SB should have known and anticipated these changes would come at some cost and adjustments to all schools. It’s common sense. Also 15mil is a drop in the bucket for fcps.

[Anonymous]

Start time update at tonight’s board meeting which I guess is the “not now” report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Start time update at tonight’s board meeting which I guess is the “not now” report?

Yup, it's going to be "we studied this, we can't come to an agreement, we're keeping everything as is until we have more money for more busses"

This is what I wanted.