Anonymous wrote:People that cite family values refuse to read scientific research. Remember..they don't believe in science.

IMO the goal of a public education system is to actually teach the students and foster a good learning environment. This means you set appropriate start times. Sleep deprivation not only affects academic performance but it increases the chances for depression.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have read in a long time.
People who have family values don't believe in science? That doesn't make any sense. Evidently for people who believe in science, believing in science is a family value? Do you need scientific research to tell you that family values come in all flavors depending on the families?
I don't even have a dog in this fight, but that was a truly stupid-a response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not support the later start time for high school kids. Sports will run over so much later and we all know they will only go to sleep later.

This is all based on helicopter mommies who kids complain they are tired because they are jacked up on electronics. What would our parents have said? Go the F bed earlier!!!

My school day started at 7:10am in the late 80's and I survived. You little teen babies will too.

As a parent of a high schooler, I agree with you. People keep saying that the research says that later is better. That's not what it says. It says that later starts are easier for kids. Whether or not we ask kids to do things that are hard for them is an issue of family values, not something that is necessarily better or worse.

As a parent in a W school, I see the degree of parent coddling every day, and it's absurd. On one hand, we create this immense academic pressure on kids, and then we reduce all other demands on the kids to the point that they aren't learning anything important. It's absurd.

Amen

Anonymous wrote:What does this even mean? Implement the changes then study the impact? If so, yes, that would be prudent to measure the impact - pos or neg - of such changes. However, if he's still punting on making a decision, how much more evidence does he need. Physicians have weighed in on this and there is mounting evidence about adolescent brains and why this makes sense. I know not all agree, but the science supports this, so why keep delaying. If these result in unforeseen negative impacts, then change it back.

The press release is very clear on what it means.

“I am making this recommendation because I believe it is in the best interests of our students. There is extensive research that demonstrates that adolescents are simply not getting enough sleep. This is a public health and safety issue,” Dr. Starr said. “If we are truly committed to the well-being of our students, we must consider the feasibility of adjusting our start times to support their health and success.

“At the same time, I realize my recommendation may have a substantial impact on the lives of our students, staff, families, and school communities,” Dr. Starr said. “Therefore, we must take the time to determine the costs and operational impact of my recommendation and gather input from as many stakeholders as possible before we make a final decision next year.”

People that cite family values refuse to read scientific research. Remember..they don't believe in science.

IMO the goal of a public education system is to actually teach the students and foster a good learning environment. This means you set appropriate start times. Sleep deprivation not only affects academic performance but it increases the chances for depression.

Anonymous wrote:Where is the scientific research to back this up...I here about it but have never seen anything! Instead of changing start times parents need to take away the all the electronic devices and tell their kids to shut the light off and go to bed at a reasonable time. All this BS about sleep cycles is just that! I am over 40 and i still can barely drag my ass out of bed, hmmm...

Not that you'll read it. But here - teen circadian rhythms simply CANT go to sleep earlier. It's biological and evolutionary.

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/hot-topics/backgrounder-later-school-start-times

This has the academic research citations, so you can go look it up if you care to, which I doubt you will, but surprise me.

There are kids at the busstop near my house by 640am every day - that's insane. It's also dangerous, because many of them are crossing a busy street in the pitch dark. I also had early school starts as a kid, but I lived in a town of 10k people, it took 5 minutes to get to school. MoCo is a different beast. I totally support the change (and my 2 kids, one of whom is in MCPS elementary, have literally never slept past 6am in their lives.)

Anonymous wrote:I do not support the later start time for high school kids. Sports will run over so much later and we all know they will only go to sleep later.

This is all based on helicopter mommies who kids complain they are tired because they are jacked up on electronics. What would our parents have said? Go the F bed earlier!!!

My school day started at 7:10am in the late 80's and I survived. You little teen babies will too.

As a parent of a high schooler, I agree with you. People keep saying that the research says that later is better. That's not what it says. It says that later starts are easier for kids. Whether or not we ask kids to do things that are hard for them is an issue of family values, not something that is necessarily better or worse.

As a parent in a W school, I see the degree of parent coddling every day, and it's absurd. On one hand, we create this immense academic pressure on kids, and then we reduce all other demands on the kids to the point that they aren't learning anything important. It's absurd.

Anonymous wrote:If smartphones were turned off at 6pm they would not even be talking about changing start times.

I have interviewed hundreds of kids about how much they use their Iphones in the evening and nearly everyone admits to using it about every five minutes while studying or doing homework.

I also asked them if the phone was put on a table across the room how long would it be before they started to feel anxious. The usual answer is about ten minutes.

If they would turn off their damn phones they would be in bed at a decent hour.

Don't believe me? Find a couple of tweeter accounts belonging to teens that you know (including your own kids). Check out how late at night they are still exchanging tweets. Midnight, one, two AM is not unusual.

AMEN.

I learned to turn off the Atari and go to bed

I do not support the later start time for high school kids. Sports will run over so much later and we all know they will only go to sleep later.

This is all based on helicopter mommies who kids complain they are tired because they are jacked up on electronics. What would our parents have said? Go the F bed earlier!!!

My school day started at 7:10am in the late 80's and I survived. You little teen babies will too.

This proposal gives high schoolers a later start time at the expense of younger ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct, pp. EXCEPT many parents of elementary school kids would welcome the "burden" since it would mean a slightly longer school day...which most working parents (like me) would welcome.

But the real issue remains the teachers contracts for elementary school...no way the teachers union will let this pass.

It would be negotiated like everything else, if it were to to be studied and deemed actionable. The extended ES day would not extend the teachers' work day. Right now, ES teachers generally have 45 minutes of planning/meeting time after dismissal. If the school day is extended 30 minutes, teachers would have 15 minutes after dismissal, but the time would be the same. According to memos put out by Starr and the union, the extra 30 minutes could be used for language instruction or extended specials like art, music, PE. There would need to be increased funding to staff those classes, but teachers' planning time would not be affected. Believe it or not, not all teachers' unions hate change that benefits students.

Where did you see these memos?

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a good fix and would bring MCPS in line with most other school districts. It is impossible to please everyone but the proposal would make the bus schedule work, align the high school with a much better start times and consistent with VA schools, and also make MCPS elementary school day on par with most every other school district in MD and I think elsewhere, though I gather some mothers might resent having to wait 30 minutes for their kids to return home. How someone could oppose 30 minutes longer school day to bring MCPS into the norm is beyond me.

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:Correct, pp. EXCEPT many parents of elementary school kids would welcome the "burden" since it would mean a slightly longer school day...which most working parents (like me) would welcome.

But the real issue remains the teachers contracts for elementary school...no way the teachers union will let this pass.

It would be negotiated like everything else, if it were to to be studied and deemed actionable. The extended ES day would not extend the teachers' work day. Right now, ES teachers generally have 45 minutes of planning/meeting time after dismissal. If the school day is extended 30 minutes, teachers would have 15 minutes after dismissal, but the time would be the same. According to memos put out by Starr and the union, the extra 30 minutes could be used for language instruction or extended specials like art, music, PE. There would need to be increased funding to staff those classes, but teachers' planning time would not be affected. Believe it or not, not all teachers' unions hate change that benefits students.

Correct, pp. EXCEPT many parents of elementary school kids would welcome the "burden" since it would mean a slightly longer school day...which most working parents (like me) would welcome.

But the real issue remains the teachers contracts for elementary school...no way the teachers union will let this pass.

Anonymous wrote:I hate to be cynical but I wonder if Starr is trying to tank this. It sounds odd that he isn't recommending a study to find a feasible way to address high school start times but is prescribing a very specific constrained solution. The alignment of high school and middle school along with an increased day for elementary schools appears to be far more $$ impacting than other options. It looks like he is setting this up to guarantee a study that comes back asking to double the bus fleet and renegotiate work hours/salary with the teacher unions.

This sounds like a dishonest political play. Parents love the recommendation and he knows he's constructed it in a way where it will never be implemented.

I think you've probably pegged this right. He's done a lot of things that people perceived as in their favor (I'm thinking of the do-over of the middle school site selection in Bethesda/Chevy Chase, but there are other lower-profile things as well), only to have it be a big bag of process leading to the same result that MCPS favored to begin with. MCPS is pretty much always going to do what works best and is easiest for it, but Starr has figured out that he has to give some sort of visible acknowledgement of peoples' concerns or the masses will harass him to no end. And engaging in some sort of formal process to discuss and explore an issue will almost always work for him because there will almost never be unanimous consensus among MoCo residents, making it easy for him or the BOE to tip the scale whichever way they want by cherry picking the views expressed that favor their approach or by pointing to the lack of consensus as a reason for maintaining the status quo.

This issue has come up many times and I think the fact remains that the day only has so many hours and the county only has so many buses. This makes for a hard and relatively inflexible reality that in order to give high schoolers a later start time you have to shift that burden to another set of students. It's a math thing.