What's wrong with "shift schedules"? (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That this 3rd world solution is being discussed in one of the wealthiest counties in the US makes me so angry I can barely see straight.

I hear you. It is inconceivable, in a county that has the budget Arlington has. Such a lack of planning, vision, and foresight. Such squandering of taxpayers' money for vanity projects just a few years ago (and continuing through last year), when they KNEW the numbers.

Seriously, Arlington Co. is still dominated by aging boomers who want nothing more than to be a way station for upwardly mobile college grads. Planning is f'n easy when you have a transient population of well off people on prime real estate. It's hard when resources get stretched and push comes to shove. Families require services and parents make noise. So the thinking is, build that lazy river for the grannies and let the schools deteriorate and voila, problem solved. The reason we're in this mess is that a mess is the point.

Every school bond gets passed by voters, many of whom are people you are calling aging boomers. The reason we are in this mess is poor planning and lack of coordination between CB and SB, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That this 3rd world solution is being discussed in one of the wealthiest counties in the US makes me so angry I can barely see straight.

I hear you. It is inconceivable, in a county that has the budget Arlington has. Such a lack of planning, vision, and foresight. Such squandering of taxpayers' money for vanity projects just a few years ago (and continuing through last year), when they KNEW the numbers.

Seriously, Arlington Co. is still dominated by aging boomers who want nothing more than to be a way station for upwardly mobile college grads. Planning is f'n easy when you have a transient population of well off people on prime real estate. It's hard when resources get stretched and push comes to shove. Families require services and parents make noise. So the thinking is, build that lazy river for the grannies and let the schools deteriorate and voila, problem solved. The reason we're in this mess is that a mess is the point.

Every school bond gets passed by voters, many of whom are people you are calling aging boomers. The reason we are in this mess is poor planning and lack of coordination between CB and SB, pure and simple.

You mean like, when the boomer dominated county board urbanizes the county while ignoring the burden it placed on schools and pretending it's a school board problem?

[Anonymous]

Shift schedules aren't going to happen. They'll create trailer villages at W-L and WF before they put anyone on a shift schedule because the costs of shift schedules would be substantially higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a large (4,000+ students) high school with shift schedules. From sophomore year onward, my classes began around 7 and ended around noon. The last period was lunch and that wasn't mandatory. Getting up at 5 am wasn't fun but otherwise, I loved it. It made it easy for me get to an after school job, do an extracurricular, and still have plenty of time to do homework.

There's nothing wrong with shift schedules. It's good solution to student overpopulation.

Same here. By default, 9th graders had second shift, 10th was split, and 12th had 1st. JV sports and lower level band were in the morning, varsity were in the afternoon. Clubs went where the majority of students were. It all worked out well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a large (4,000+ students) high school with shift schedules. From sophomore year onward, my classes began around 7 and ended around noon. The last period was lunch and that wasn't mandatory. Getting up at 5 am wasn't fun but otherwise, I loved it. It made it easy for me get to an after school job, do an extracurricular, and still have plenty of time to do homework.

There's nothing wrong with shift schedules. It's good solution to student overpopulation.

Same here. By default, 9th graders had second shift, 10th was split, and 12th had 1st. JV sports and lower level band were in the morning, varsity were in the afternoon. Clubs went where the majority of students were. It all worked out well.

I'm curious if your high schools still use split schedules, 20 years on?

It seems to me split scheduling is worth considering if there is simply a short term demographic bulge that needs to be accomodated, without building permanent infrastructure that won't be needed later. That's why we have community centers; boomers went to school in them as children then moved away to have children elsewhere, so the population here sank in the 1970s.

However, if the understanding is that the school-aged pop. is never going to go down, then what is being suggested is that shifts become a permanent condition. That won't happen, I think. People will simply leave and ease overcrowding that way. Is there any case of a district using shifts for a decade or more? I'd be interested to read that as a case study. My guess is that it's pretty rare because shift scheduling probably depresses demand. It's a last resort to a crisis, not a strategic decision, whatever it's merits.

[Anonymous]

The problem with a slit schedule is that it can easily be gamed by the privileged.

There has been alot of research about late risers sleep schedules being unchangeable and a greater increase in accommodation in the workforce for people who have a doctor's note identifying a later sleep pattern.

There has also been alot research about how bad an early start is for teenagers in general in terms of their cognition and emotional development.

If assignment of schedules was random - I could see alot of people with the means finding a doctor to write a note so they could get the preferred schedule.

[Anonymous]

Don’t make the split schedules random then— 9/10th gradehas first shift, 11/12 has second. That way it’s equitable too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That this 3rd world solution is being discussed in one of the wealthiest counties in the US makes me so angry I can barely see straight.

I hear you. It is inconceivable, in a county that has the budget Arlington has. Such a lack of planning, vision, and foresight. Such squandering of taxpayers' money for vanity projects just a few years ago (and continuing through last year), when they KNEW the numbers.

Seriously, Arlington Co. is still dominated by aging boomers who want nothing more than to be a way station for upwardly mobile college grads. Planning is f'n easy when you have a transient population of well off people on prime real estate. It's hard when resources get stretched and push comes to shove. Families require services and parents make noise. So the thinking is, build that lazy river for the grannies and let the schools deteriorate and voila, problem solved. The reason we're in this mess is that a mess is the point.

Every school bond gets passed by voters, many of whom are people you are calling aging boomers. The reason we are in this mess is poor planning and lack of coordination between CB and SB, pure and simple.

I think you are both right.