Anonymous wrote:I suspect the institutional inertia on this has a lot more to do with parents of high-school kids (for whom the evidence of benefits is overwhelming) being outvoted by elementary and middle school parents, who find their own later start times to be a convenience they don't want to part with.
I think you are wrong. As an ES (and MS) parent, I think the 9:20 start date is WAY too late and misses a lot of productive time for the little kids to learn. By the time they get home at 4:30, they are a mess.
But....even though I know the schedule is not convenient for anyone, I also understand why it is necessary.
Anonymous wrote:I’m in a neighboring county where this was implemented. It’s really impacting the elementary kids and their families. There aren’t older kids out at 2:30/3 and parents are struggling to pick them up. Parents get out of work at 3:30 and only need 30 min of aftercare. Aftercare schedules still aren’t up to full capacity yet because of covid too. Maybe aftercare is nbd for most of dcum but it’s just another expense that lower income people can’t afford. Lots of kids are walking home to empty homes.
Eliminate the need for both before and after-school day care (e.g., start school early enough
for working parents to drop off students on the way to work); several commenters reported
that after-school child care was easier to arrange than before-school child care, and early
start times were more compatible with the needs of working parents than later start times.
However, eliminating or reducing the need for before-school child care may be offset by
an increase in after-school child care costs if the elementary school day ends in the early
afternoon.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So who's going to pay for all the new busses and drivers to make sure these start times are convenient for you?
Get rid of high-school busing and make students and families responsible for their own transportation. Problem solved.
I suspect the institutional inertia on this has a lot more to do with parents of high-school kids (for whom the evidence of benefits is overwhelming) being outvoted by elementary and middle school parents, who find their own later start times to be a convenience they don't want to part with.
Anonymous wrote:It’s “Confederacy of Dunces.”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.
PP, you may be surprised to learn that all of these issues were explicitly addressed when MCPS made their bell time decision in 2015.
Sure, it's too bad the kids' weren't prioritized over the convenience of adults back then.
https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html
^^^How not to persuade decision-makers to change a policy.
Very true. These decisions aren't made based on the evidence. They're oriented around satisfying a few well-connected interest groups.
Ah yes. The vast reach of low-income parents as a powerful constituency.
Much like the entrenched opposition to automated traffic enforcement, there's nothing more heartwarming than watching wealthy white parents don the robes of Social Justice Warrior when the interests of the poor occasionally intersect with their narrow self-interests.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.
PP, you may be surprised to learn that all of these issues were explicitly addressed when MCPS made their bell time decision in 2015.
Sure, it's too bad the kids' weren't prioritized over the convenience of adults back then.
https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html
^^^How not to persuade decision-makers to change a policy.
Very true. These decisions aren't made based on the evidence. They're oriented around satisfying a few well-connected interest groups.
Ah yes. The vast reach of low-income parents as a powerful constituency.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So who's going to pay for all the new busses and drivers to make sure these start times are convenient for you?
Get rid of high-school busing and make students and families responsible for their own transportation. Problem solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, the science is pretty clear that sending High School students to school at 7:45 is damaging. At the bare minimum the start times should be reversed. HS students should start at 9, elementary schoolers at 7:45. As far as after school jobs and sports, I would think that education and student's mental health should be the priority here.
PP, you may be surprised to learn that all of these issues were explicitly addressed when MCPS made their bell time decision in 2015.
Sure, it's too bad the kids' weren't prioritized over the convenience of adults back then.
https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html
^^^How not to persuade decision-makers to change a policy.
Very true. These decisions aren't made based on the evidence. They're oriented around satisfying a few well-connected interest groups.
Anonymous wrote:So who's going to pay for all the new busses and drivers to make sure these start times are convenient for you?
Anonymous wrote:So who's going to pay for all the new busses and drivers to make sure these start times are convenient for you?