Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high school freshman wants to keep the early start mainly because he likes getting out earlier in the day.

Mine too.

Same here.

I don't like the change for selfish reasons....We live near the HS, but 7 miles from the MS. DD will have to get up at 5:30 next year, instead of six. In HS, she will be able to sleep to 6:30 though.

Bigger problem is the fact that it means I will have to get up at 5:30 to make sure DD gets up at 5:30. Yeah...I am selfish.

Anonymous wrote:Why can't schools move to a structure where students can choose to have early or later classes? That way the morning students can start @7am and the non-morning students at the same school can start @9 or something. A blanket early morning or late morning start won't work for all families, obviously.

Hmmm, I wonder why . . . . Oh, wait I can think of a few reasons right off the top of my head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that sports are great. I had one who did sports and one who did not. People might be surprised to know that there are a lot of activities other than sports that are going to be negatively impacted by the new times.

The new times shouldn't have a negative effect on extracurriculars. TJ runs from 8:30 to 3:50, with sports and many other extracurriculars starting about four and going till about six. Lots of very involved kids there, with long commutes to boot, and they manage to get it all done.

+100
Honestly, I can't stand listening to the Chicken Littles who insist the sky is falling with every change FCPS implements. Some of these changes are for the BETTER.

Why can't schools move to a structure where students can choose to have early or later classes? That way the morning students can start @7am and the non-morning students at the same school can start @9 or something. A blanket early morning or late morning start won't work for all families, obviously.

Anonymous wrote:Agree that sports are great. I had one who did sports and one who did not. People might be surprised to know that there are a lot of activities other than sports that are going to be negatively impacted by the new times.

The new times shouldn't have a negative effect on extracurriculars. TJ runs from 8:30 to 3:50, with sports and many other extracurriculars starting about four and going till about six. Lots of very involved kids there, with long commutes to boot, and they manage to get it all done.

Anonymous wrote:My high school freshman wants to keep the early start mainly because he likes getting out earlier in the day.

Mine too.

Agree that sports are great. I had one who did sports and one who did not. People might be surprised to know that there are a lot of activities other than sports that are going to be negatively impacted by the new times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My middle school student loves the early 7:20 start time because it leave plenty of "free" time in the afternoons. Sports, Homework, Outside, Friendships, etc...

Too much free time for teenagers cause problems

My teenager can barely get his homework done with 2 hours a day of sports practice, I don't know about yours.

Solution: TAKE HIM OUT OF SPORTS - they are optional

Sports are important for good health and fitness. Colleges like applicants who have shown that they can achieve high GPAs and test scores while spending two hours a day on sports. They love kids who have high academic stats without spending every second of the day to achieve them. Colleges know that kids who participate in sports are learning a lot about working with a team and how to be a good leader.

So, if you have a kid who aspires to go to a good college, no, sports, or other activities that take an equivalent amount of time and teach teamwork and leadership, are not optional. Not really optional at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 6th grader currently gets 10-11 hrs of sleep per night. She'd have to go to bed earlier than a toddler to get more than 9 hrs sleep. MS is hard enough. Why are we turning kids into sleepwalking zombies?

Why are we fairfax county parents insisting on more and more school and forcing the kids into a 9-5 work day?? They will be working soon enough. The fluff needs to be cut and these kids need to spend less hours in school. This is a big problem.

Fewer hours in school? You must a SAHM, or think US education is still world class or something.

You must be an idiot or have reading comprehension problems. Didn't you see where PP said the fluff needs to be cut?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they actually make the full changes that would truly address the issue? This half-a$$ compromise doesn't do enough for the high schoolers, makes middle school worse, and leaves so many elementary schoolers sitting around waiting somewhere instead of in the classroom, learning, during their most alert hour of the morning!

No, no, my elementary aged children are not "naturally" up earlier. I am not for earlier start times for elementary at all.

They would be naturally up earlier if you put them to bed at a decent hour.

You can think that if you want, but when my dd was born, she would stay up from 9 pm to 5 am every night. As she progressed to toddlerhood, she would routinely stay up until 2 am. I wish you could have been there to fix this problem for me. She has always had a hard time going to sleep. Sure I could put her in bed at 7 pm, but she won't go to sleep then even if I do it consistently for many nights.

OK, so your DD is different from every other child out there. Then why bring her up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they actually make the full changes that would truly address the issue? This half-a$$ compromise doesn't do enough for the high schoolers, makes middle school worse, and leaves so many elementary schoolers sitting around waiting somewhere instead of in the classroom, learning, during their most alert hour of the morning!

No, no, my elementary aged children are not "naturally" up earlier. I am not for earlier start times for elementary at all.

They would be naturally up earlier if you put them to bed at a decent hour.

You can think that if you want, but when my dd was born, she would stay up from 9 pm to 5 am every night. As she progressed to toddlerhood, she would routinely stay up until 2 am. I wish you could have been there to fix this problem for me. She has always had a hard time going to sleep. Sure I could put her in bed at 7 pm, but she won't go to sleep then even if I do it consistently for many nights.

Have you tried to get a student into U.VA or William and Mary lately with no extracurricular activities, just grades and SAT scores?

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they actually make the full changes that would truly address the issue? This half-a$$ compromise doesn't do enough for the high schoolers, makes middle school worse, and leaves so many elementary schoolers sitting around waiting somewhere instead of in the classroom, learning, during their most alert hour of the morning!

No, no, my elementary aged children are not "naturally" up earlier. I am not for earlier start times for elementary at all.

They would be naturally up earlier if you put them to bed at a decent hour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just think it's funny how so many people are worried about their up-coming ms students having to go to school at 7:30, when thousands of ms students in FCPS have been doing this for the last 40 years! Like you never noticed that other kids (at the secondary schools) had a raw deal? And suddenly now that it's your kid, it's unacceptable?

Suck it up. It's your kids' turn to catch the 6:40 a.m. bus.

So true. Once it affects someone personally, then it becomes unacceptable, but if it's someone else's kid waiting outside in the dark? Oh well, too bad.

Our middle school has always started at 7:40am, so 7:30 won't be a huge difference. The kids will still be waiting outside in the pitch dark for a 6:20 bus.

It's always been unacceptable, no one thinks otherwise. Many of us were hoping for an across the board improvement. I don't know why people think it's about "turns" or "sucking it up" because things were done a certain way in the past, everyone deserves to suffer at some point. It's faulty thinking. There isn't one way that will work for all students and families, but it is ironic that a mission to start school later is actually starting school earlier.

Well, it's not about "turns"--- but the proposal IS an improvement for the majority of kids affected by early schedules now. It's not a 100% improvement, but it IS progress. So, the complaining we see here appears to be more about NIMBY (or not in my kid's schedule). There will be fewer kids with early schedules than there are right now. It's good for the majority... just not for you who have ms kids (not at secondary schools).

That's a pretty big negative to be spending $5.5 million for.