How about the option of privatizing buses, or the county creating bus stops at each school, so that FCPS no longer has to foot the bill for buses. ES, MS, HS can be at the same times, no crazy bus schedules. Kids that can walk, walk. Kids whose parents want to pay for the year can pay (I can't imagine it would be that much, seeing as though there are so many people that would use it), and other kids can use public transport.

Has anyone delved into the cost savings/benefit of this?!

The cost of implementing full day Mondays does not come out of the existing budget (as I understood it). The County Board of Supervisors has told the school board that they would come up with the $$ for implementing full day Mondays b/c they knew it was something most of their constituents favored.

The cost for implementing later start times for HS is different -- but it wouldn't take effect until a year from this fall, so the dollars would be part of the next budget cycle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neither an option nor most popular.

Well, it may not be an option, but it should be. And, if you took a survey of the community, you would find it is the most popular.

I think this is why it wasn't an option this time. The School Board has already decided to change the start times, they were just searching for how to do it- not make the decision all over again. The Washington Post article yesterday has Garza endorsing Option 3.

I would prefer no change, but I can live with Option 3. I hated the options that had the HS start closer to and after 9:00am.

Me again. I also want to know what gets cut to pay for the $5m+ cost.

That's at least $5 million on top of the $7 million a year that full day Mondays will now cost.

For a School Board that claims it doesn't have enough money, it sure loves to spend money.

SLEEP assured us this would be a no-cost or even a cost saving change. Maybe the SLEEP crowd can come up with the $5 million?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neither an option nor most popular.

Well, it may not be an option, but it should be. And, if you took a survey of the community, you would find it is the most popular.

I think this is why it wasn't an option this time. The School Board has already decided to change the start times, they were just searching for how to do it- not make the decision all over again. The Washington Post article yesterday has Garza endorsing Option 3.

I would prefer no change, but I can live with Option 3. I hated the options that had the HS start closer to and after 9:00am.

Me again. I also want to know what gets cut to pay for the $5m+ cost.

Anonymous wrote:

It is neither an option nor most popular.

Well, it may not be an option, but it should be. And, if you took a survey of the community, you would find it is the most popular.

I think this is why it wasn't an option this time. The School Board has already decided to change the start times, they were just searching for how to do it- not make the decision all over again. The Washington Post article yesterday has Garza endorsing Option 3.

I would prefer no change, but I can live with Option 3. I hated the options that had the HS start closer to and after 9:00am.

It is neither an option nor most popular.

Well, it may not be an option, but it should be. And, if you took a survey of the community, you would find it is the most popular.

Anonymous wrote:

As I understand it, keeping things as they are (which is my preference) is "Option 5" (As I heard the teen from Chantilly HS mention at the school board meeting in June).

And, that is the most popular option.

It is neither an option nor most popular.

As I understand it, keeping things as they are (which is my preference) is "Option 5" (As I heard the teen from Chantilly HS mention at the school board meeting in June).

And, that is the most popular option.

Anonymous wrote:Every school, every grade should have a reasonable start time. I don't see transferring the problem as a common sense approach. Personally, I voted for Option 1 or 4, and find Option 3 to be the worst - would rather keep things as they are.

As I understand it, keeping things as they are (which is my preference) is "Option 5" (As I heard the teen from Chantilly HS mention at the school board meeting in June).

Every school, every grade should have a reasonable start time. I don't see transferring the problem as a common sense approach. Personally, I voted for Option 1 or 4, and find Option 3 to be the worst - would rather keep things as they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UGH. Why is it ok to stick MS students with the crappy early time? If it's not a good time for HS students, it's not good for MS students either.

+1.

-2.

Literally. It's two years vs. four years, not to mention that the academic demands are less likely to keep students up later at night.

So glad that Dr. Garza brings a common-sense approach to this.

How do you count for 2 people (-2)?

Not all the inside-the-Beltway middle schools are three years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But MS is only 2 years. And it has the advantage of not moving the ES bell schedules at all.

Our MS is one of the 4 that currently already starts early (7:20) and it does truly suck. But I'll trade 2 years of that if it means my kid can have 4 years of HS at a more reasonable time!

Not all MS in the county are 2 years only. The Old Cluster 3 is grades 6-8 for MS. Not that anyone here cares about us Cluster 3 people probably.

Exactly! I love how on DCUM they act like all of the inside the beltway schools (with three years of middle school) don't even exist.

Fair point, but that's three middle schools out of 25 (Poe, Holmes, Glasgow) and three years is still less than four years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But MS is only 2 years. And it has the advantage of not moving the ES bell schedules at all.

Our MS is one of the 4 that currently already starts early (7:20) and it does truly suck. But I'll trade 2 years of that if it means my kid can have 4 years of HS at a more reasonable time!

Not all MS in the county are 2 years only. The Old Cluster 3 is grades 6-8 for MS. Not that anyone here cares about us Cluster 3 people probably.

Exactly! I love how on DCUM they act like all of the inside the beltway schools (with three years of middle school) don't even exist.

Yet you think Frost MS does not exist. Consider SIX years of early start times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UGH. Why is it ok to stick MS students with the crappy early time? If it's not a good time for HS students, it's not good for MS students either.

+1.

-2.

Literally. It's two years vs. four years, not to mention that the academic demands are less likely to keep students up later at night.

So glad that Dr. Garza brings a common-sense approach to this.