Petition: Later MCPS school start times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Later? My kid's school doesn't start until nearly 9:30!

If we're going to push back high school, we need more buses to at least avoid needing to do two runs for elementary schools.

It is a petition for HS, but I've seen it and it does not grapple at all with any of the issues raised by the Bell Times Report. It makes a good case for the science behind teen sleep, but that doesn't answer the problems that have already been raised with making high schoolers start later. It's my opinion that MCPS won't meaningfully engage with this question until/unless someone comes up with some solutions for those barriers.

MCPS has bigger fish to fry at the moment. They should care but we all know. ES parents - yours will be in HS sooner than you know it!

I'm the PP and I think MCPS did engage on this, produced a report, and moved bell times by like 15 minutes. If parents want them to reconsider, they need to show new information. That means either new research (does not exist) or new solutions to the barriers identified in the earlier report. It's not as easy as "we want it." That's not how good policy advocacy works. You have to help the policymakers identify solutions.

Or they look at the issue a decade later and even based on the same data and concerns, priorities have changed.

Which priorities have changed, whose priorities have changed, and how have they changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Later? My kid's school doesn't start until nearly 9:30!

If we're going to push back high school, we need more buses to at least avoid needing to do two runs for elementary schools.

How do you feel about that start time? My kids had it, and I can't even describe how difficult it made my life while they were in elementary school. Of course, I didn't work at home at all back then, which was part of the problem.

9:25am is pretty awful. I don't understand how before-care isn't overflowing. 7:45 would mean a lot of people wouldn't need before care. I kind of doubt just doing aftercare would be much cheaper, though.

I think with wfh a lot of people are making it work. If you live close to the school you can drop off when the doors open and be “at work” by 9:15.

I support moving ES times earlier, but I wonder if the later schedule is ideal for people working from home because you get coverage during core hours without having to do after care. Uninterrupted time theoretically 9:15-3:45ish and then fake it a bit before and after.

How many people really have jobs where they rarely/never have work obligations before 9:15? Professional telework-friendly jobs will still have travel and meetings before 9:30. And many other jobs, like doctors/nurses, can't telework at all.

We did this pre-pandemic with 2 kids. We mostly did split shifts - one parent left early and came home early. It must be so much easier now with more flexible schedules and more remote work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many decisions are made based on free transportation. Snow days, flooded roads, start times, end times. It’s ridiculous. We need to do away with school buses, boost the public buses and make decisions based on what’s best for our kids.

You want elementary school kids to get on RideOn buses alone?

Even if you limited it to HS, RideOn routes could never scale up to meet the demand before and after school.

In plenty of cities ES kids get in the bus. At the very least MS/HS kids get on the bus and train.

I have a hard time imagining my 6-year-old getting on a city bus. Actually no, I know exactly what would happen.

Regardless, let's say, as you seem to suggest, we keep buses for ES, and have MS/HS ride non-school public transportation.

How would that work? RideOn only carries 57,000 riders per day. MCPS reports 100,000 students ride the bus, typically twice per day. That's an extra 200,000 rides.

Now, obviously not all of those are middle/high school students, but you're still looking at increasing rides per day by 3-4x.

Worse, those rides obviously aren't spread throughout the day or throughout the system. Most of the riders would be going to a handful of places. But they'd need to get picked up from wider range of bus stops than currently exist. So many, many more buses would be needed. For only on some routes that pass schools, and only for a couple hours each day.

In an area of higher density housing, workplaces, and transit, this could be workable. You would expect a higher percentage of walkers. And higher-capacity rail service carrying some of the burden. But this wouldn't work in a place like MoCo.

I don't think you're familiar with how RideOn and Metrobus work in Montgomery County. You go to a bus stop, you get on the bus, you take the bus until you get to your stop, then you get off. And many of the routes have different frequencies, depending on time of day.

I don't think you understand the massive increase in resources that would be necessary to accommodate potentially 200,000 more rides each day. And high schools and middle schools aren't transit hubs in the current county bus routes.

And what about the wide swaths of the county that aren't anywhere near a bus stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Later? My kid's school doesn't start until nearly 9:30!

If we're going to push back high school, we need more buses to at least avoid needing to do two runs for elementary schools.

How do you feel about that start time? My kids had it, and I can't even describe how difficult it made my life while they were in elementary school. Of course, I didn't work at home at all back then, which was part of the problem.

9:25am is pretty awful. I don't understand how before-care isn't overflowing. 7:45 would mean a lot of people wouldn't need before care. I kind of doubt just doing aftercare would be much cheaper, though.

I think with wfh a lot of people are making it work. If you live close to the school you can drop off when the doors open and be “at work” by 9:15.

I support moving ES times earlier, but I wonder if the later schedule is ideal for people working from home because you get coverage during core hours without having to do after care. Uninterrupted time theoretically 9:15-3:45ish and then fake it a bit before and after.

How many people really have jobs where they rarely/never have work obligations before 9:15? Professional telework-friendly jobs will still have travel and meetings before 9:30. And many other jobs, like doctors/nurses, can't telework at all.

We did this pre-pandemic with 2 kids. We mostly did split shifts - one parent left early and came home early. It must be so much easier now with more flexible schedules and more remote work!

If both parents have flexible work schedules, then I guess that could work. But you're basically screwed if one person works in health care or some other job with strict shifts.

[Anonymous]

I still haven't seen anyone who supports changing the bell times respond to the fact that many high school students have after-school jobs, and many others look after their younger siblings after school. Are people saying we should just ignore the needs of these families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Later? My kid's school doesn't start until nearly 9:30!

If we're going to push back high school, we need more buses to at least avoid needing to do two runs for elementary schools.

How do you feel about that start time? My kids had it, and I can't even describe how difficult it made my life while they were in elementary school. Of course, I didn't work at home at all back then, which was part of the problem.

9:25am is pretty awful. I don't understand how before-care isn't overflowing. 7:45 would mean a lot of people wouldn't need before care. I kind of doubt just doing aftercare would be much cheaper, though.

I think with wfh a lot of people are making it work. If you live close to the school you can drop off when the doors open and be “at work” by 9:15.

I support moving ES times earlier, but I wonder if the later schedule is ideal for people working from home because you get coverage during core hours without having to do after care. Uninterrupted time theoretically 9:15-3:45ish and then fake it a bit before and after.

How many people really have jobs where they rarely/never have work obligations before 9:15? Professional telework-friendly jobs will still have travel and meetings before 9:30. And many other jobs, like doctors/nurses, can't telework at all.

I made that comment having observed my neighbors. I’m surprised how many FT working parents are getting by without before/aftercare. Though of course not all.

I still think they should change the times. Actually to be clear I’m a SAHM with younger kids and I love the schedule but I think the data shows that high school should start last. Looking ahead, I hope this changes before my kids are in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? It’s good practice for high schoolers to be prepared for 8am classes in college or the workforce.

Exactly what I was thinking! I remember that 8am Chemistry class freshmen year.

I told my kids this would happen but they proved me wrong. Both my college kids have successfully avoided 8 am classes. As a matter of fact, even as freshman they worked their schedules to start classes much later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? It’s good practice for high schoolers to be prepared for 8am classes in college or the workforce.

Exactly what I was thinking! I remember that 8am Chemistry class freshmen year.

I told my kids this would happen but they proved me wrong. Both my college kids have successfully avoided 8 am classes. As a matter of fact, even as freshman they worked their schedules to start classes much later.

Lucky..

Every. single. semester. I had an 8AM class at least two days a week. And I would have avoided it if I could have. Even in grad school I often had 8am classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the down county consortium should test this approach and use a later start time at one of the DCC high schools. The density of ES is high enough here that you might even be able to free up the right number of busses by give people a choice between a late vs early ES. This would let MCPS test the idea without forcing anyone into it. If enough people want it, you can grow the number of schools doing it and if it causes issues or no one actually wants to live with what a later hs start time means, they can discontinue it.

How about HS 9:00a-3:45p. Is that really too late to start practice for athletic teens?

It’s not. DC is at a magnet elsewhere and schools let’s put about 4. They still have sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? It’s good practice for high schoolers to be prepared for 8am classes in college or the workforce.

Exactly what I was thinking! I remember that 8am Chemistry class freshmen year.

I told my kids this would happen but they proved me wrong. Both my college kids have successfully avoided 8 am classes. As a matter of fact, even as freshman they worked their schedules to start classes much later.

And my sophomore in college has 8am classes twice a week. He leaves his apartment at 7am to drive, get coffee, and make it to class a few minutes early.

My mcps high school student gets up at 7am and hustles out the door by 7:15ish. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And an adult should be waiting with your ES student at a bus stop in the dark or light.

That depends on the age of the child, the maturity of the child, and the specifics of the bus stop.

And subcultural norms. Plus reality.

You ever see a bus stop in a Title 1 school area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many decisions are made based on free transportation. Snow days, flooded roads, start times, end times. It’s ridiculous. We need to do away with school buses, boost the public buses and make decisions based on what’s best for our kids.

You want elementary school kids to get on RideOn buses alone?

Even if you limited it to HS, RideOn routes could never scale up to meet the demand before and after school.

In plenty of cities ES kids get in the bus. At the very least MS/HS kids get on the bus and train.

I have a hard time imagining my 6-year-old getting on a city bus. Actually no, I know exactly what would happen.

Regardless, let's say, as you seem to suggest, we keep buses for ES, and have MS/HS ride non-school public transportation.

How would that work? RideOn only carries 57,000 riders per day. MCPS reports 100,000 students ride the bus, typically twice per day. That's an extra 200,000 rides.

Now, obviously not all of those are middle/high school students, but you're still looking at increasing rides per day by 3-4x.

Worse, those rides obviously aren't spread throughout the day or throughout the system. Most of the riders would be going to a handful of places. But they'd need to get picked up from wider range of bus stops than currently exist. So many, many more buses would be needed. For only on some routes that pass schools, and only for a couple hours each day.

In an area of higher density housing, workplaces, and transit, this could be workable. You would expect a higher percentage of walkers. And higher-capacity rail service carrying some of the burden. But this wouldn't work in a place like MoCo.

I don't think you're familiar with how RideOn and Metrobus work in Montgomery County. You go to a bus stop, you get on the bus, you take the bus until you get to your stop, then you get off. And many of the routes have different frequencies, depending on time of day.

I don't think you understand the massive increase in resources that would be necessary to accommodate potentially 200,000 more rides each day. And high schools and middle schools aren't transit hubs in the current county bus routes.

And what about the wide swaths of the county that aren't anywhere near a bus stop?

You make this statement like increasing ridership and transit routes/capabilities should not be a key priority for a county that wants to grow and keeps building dense housing. For that matter a county that has Sustainability goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many decisions are made based on free transportation. Snow days, flooded roads, start times, end times. It’s ridiculous. We need to do away with school buses, boost the public buses and make decisions based on what’s best for our kids.

You want elementary school kids to get on RideOn buses alone?

Even if you limited it to HS, RideOn routes could never scale up to meet the demand before and after school.

In plenty of cities ES kids get in the bus. At the very least MS/HS kids get on the bus and train.

I have a hard time imagining my 6-year-old getting on a city bus. Actually no, I know exactly what would happen.

Regardless, let's say, as you seem to suggest, we keep buses for ES, and have MS/HS ride non-school public transportation.

How would that work? RideOn only carries 57,000 riders per day. MCPS reports 100,000 students ride the bus, typically twice per day. That's an extra 200,000 rides.

Now, obviously not all of those are middle/high school students, but you're still looking at increasing rides per day by 3-4x.

Worse, those rides obviously aren't spread throughout the day or throughout the system. Most of the riders would be going to a handful of places. But they'd need to get picked up from wider range of bus stops than currently exist. So many, many more buses would be needed. For only on some routes that pass schools, and only for a couple hours each day.

In an area of higher density housing, workplaces, and transit, this could be workable. You would expect a higher percentage of walkers. And higher-capacity rail service carrying some of the burden. But this wouldn't work in a place like MoCo.

I don't think you're familiar with how RideOn and Metrobus work in Montgomery County. You go to a bus stop, you get on the bus, you take the bus until you get to your stop, then you get off. And many of the routes have different frequencies, depending on time of day.

I don't think you understand the massive increase in resources that would be necessary to accommodate potentially 200,000 more rides each day. And high schools and middle schools aren't transit hubs in the current county bus routes.

And what about the wide swaths of the county that aren't anywhere near a bus stop?

You make this statement like increasing ridership and transit routes/capabilities should not be a key priority for a county that wants to grow and keeps building dense housing. For that matter a county that has Sustainability goals.

You say this like you have zero clue about the size of Montgomery County - 500 sq miles. You really think there's capacity to have ride-on buses to accommodate every public school student in every corner of the county?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many decisions are made based on free transportation. Snow days, flooded roads, start times, end times. It’s ridiculous. We need to do away with school buses, boost the public buses and make decisions based on what’s best for our kids.

You want elementary school kids to get on RideOn buses alone?

Even if you limited it to HS, RideOn routes could never scale up to meet the demand before and after school.

In plenty of cities ES kids get in the bus. At the very least MS/HS kids get on the bus and train.

I have a hard time imagining my 6-year-old getting on a city bus. Actually no, I know exactly what would happen.

Regardless, let's say, as you seem to suggest, we keep buses for ES, and have MS/HS ride non-school public transportation.

How would that work? RideOn only carries 57,000 riders per day. MCPS reports 100,000 students ride the bus, typically twice per day. That's an extra 200,000 rides.

Now, obviously not all of those are middle/high school students, but you're still looking at increasing rides per day by 3-4x.

Worse, those rides obviously aren't spread throughout the day or throughout the system. Most of the riders would be going to a handful of places. But they'd need to get picked up from wider range of bus stops than currently exist. So many, many more buses would be needed. For only on some routes that pass schools, and only for a couple hours each day.

In an area of higher density housing, workplaces, and transit, this could be workable. You would expect a higher percentage of walkers. And higher-capacity rail service carrying some of the burden. But this wouldn't work in a place like MoCo.

I don't think you're familiar with how RideOn and Metrobus work in Montgomery County. You go to a bus stop, you get on the bus, you take the bus until you get to your stop, then you get off. And many of the routes have different frequencies, depending on time of day.

I don't think you understand the massive increase in resources that would be necessary to accommodate potentially 200,000 more rides each day. And high schools and middle schools aren't transit hubs in the current county bus routes.

And what about the wide swaths of the county that aren't anywhere near a bus stop?

You make this statement like increasing ridership and transit routes/capabilities should not be a key priority for a county that wants to grow and keeps building dense housing. For that matter a county that has Sustainability goals.

Except adults wouldn't be going to the same place as kids, so those new buses would take awfully circuitous routes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't seen anyone who supports changing the bell times respond to the fact that many high school students have after-school jobs, and many others look after their younger siblings after school. Are people saying we should just ignore the needs of these families?

No one is saying we should ignore any needs. But they are saying that concern shouldn’t be a primary focus/priority for a school system that allows it to overrun student academic and health concerns and data.

After school jobs exist from 5-9. Additionally, students can buckle down so they get graduation requirements done by Junior year, such that they can have a half day schedule with work for Senior year.

Looking after siblings after school is a community problem not a school district problem. The county (ie DHHS and other departments) should partner with recreation, boy and girls clubs, non profits and the school district to provide after school programs. These could last for one hour maybe two. In some where needed they could provide school buses. This would allow these kid to get home at the same time as the HS kids.

All decisions and changes impact people. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t occur. It means you solve the issues and address the concerns raised.