How much momentum is there behind (attempting) to change school start times (again)? Is there a line for it in the budget just released by Garza? Any idea (1) if it will fly and (2) what it will cost?

The issue is back with a link on the FCPS home page and this article in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-officials-to-hear-progress-report-on-study-of-teen-sleep-and-high-school-start-times/2014/01/12/f56b1464-7bb1-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

Not sure. The science behind later starts for HS is clear, but right now the focus is on avoiding huge class size increases which trumps everything else IMO.

Well, that's parents' focus. I have no clue what the school board thinks about. Maybe the next bullshit reason for an extra day off.

The last time they proposed this a couple of years ago, there was overwhelming opposition (according to a school system poll) from all stakeholders in the community: parents, students, teachers, and business leaders. High School students were for the change, until they discovered that if school started later, it would also end later.

The people behind this change will not give up. If this does go through, I hope that the parents of high school students make their children go to bed instead of staying up an hour or more later, which has happened in the the school districts where this has been implemented.

Very soon start times and class size won't matter. Beginning in fall 2014, FCPS will make first period attendance optional for all high school students if their first period class is an elective. In addition, beginning with the 2014/2015 school year, FCPS will offer non-core classes on line to high school students. Students will only have to attend high school 2 - 3 days a week depending on their core class load. Students will be required to attend school on scheduled test days every four weeks. This will enable FCPS to cut teaching and staff positions by 25% - 30% and to cut transportation costs by 15% - 20%.

school guy do you have some sourcing for that?

School Guy you dumb nigger they started doing that this year now I have the opportunity to wake up an hour late and rub one out before going to school in the morning.

The optional first period started this year. I actually think it's a reasonable alternative for those who do want to sleep in.

The opposition to the last proposal was the insanity of the new schedules. They wanted to move elementary kids to the old high school times, high schools to the middle school times, and middle schools to the old elementary times. This meant little kids getting on buses roughly at 630am and getting out at 230. You think it's bad for a high schooler to stand outside in the dark at the crack of dawn? It's worse for a little kid. Not to mention with dual income households, elementary kids getting home at 230/3 creates a daycare nightmare with no parent at home that early and there'd be no older siblings to watch the kids since they would all be at school still. SACC programs already have waiting lists. Pushing middle school so late meant they didn't get home until 430/5. After school activities would have been almost impossible.

The fact of the matter is the county would have to pay for more buses to make it work and there's no money for that right now. I believe they are just in the planning phase now. A school board vote last year basically said it WILL happen, they're just trying to find a way to make it work.

Here's what I dont get. If they move the start time to later, wont kids just stay up later?

Optional first period attendance only applies to seniors during the 2013/2014 school year. Starting with the 2014/2015 it will be available to all high school students. Info on online courses came from a staff briefing with the new Superintendent on the budget earlier this month.

Still no decision on Fairfax start times, budget impact unknown
Fairfax County school officials are still weighing their options as they consider delaying start times for high school students.
http://www.wtop.com/149/3541573/Still-no-decision-on-Fairfax-start-times-budget-impact-unknown

WASHINGTON - What time students start the school day was a contentious issue in 2009 for Fairfax County Public Schools. But this time around, school officials promise that community involvement will be a priority as the county considers changes to the school schedule.

On Monday, a progress report on teen sleep and delaying start times for Fairfax County high school students was presented to the school board and Superintendent Karen Garza.

There's talk that the later start times could be phased in over a two-year period. But right now it is not known when the new schedule would start or how any changes would be rolled out.

"That still is yet to be determined how much we can accomplish by next year," Garza says.

She says a lot of work has been done behind the scenes to look at a variety of options.

The final report is expected to include how much it will cost to change when high schoolers begin their day. The price tag will vary depending on which option the school system chooses to implement the delayed start times.

Meanwhile, the school system is facing a major budget shortfall for the new school year.

Delaying the start of the school day is a complex issue involving buses schedules, school facilities used by adults, sports practice schedules and other after school activates and even the amount of homework students receive.

School board member Megan McLaughlin calls it a herculean task involving "180,000 kids, 200 schools and a bus fleet second to Greyhound.

The board must move forward urgently on the proposal to change start times. The change is needed so that students can get more shut eye and not only improve their classroom performance but avoid the dangers from sleep deprivation, she says.

Experts say the dangers include obesity, high blood pressure, strokes and suicidal thoughts.

The $143,000 study, which began in April 2013 and is a work in progress, is being done by the Children's National Medical Center's Division of Sleep Medicine.

"What we're about here is the greater good for the greatest number of students," says the center's director, Dr. Judith Owens.

In studying 88 other school districts nationwide on pushing back school start times, Owens says one of the most important things learned was, how important is it to give families, students, principals and everyone involved "ample time to adjust to any changes."

She says providing enough time to get used to the new schedule will be one of the recommendations in the report. The final report could be out in the next few months.

"We are very, very interested in doing what's right for our students first and foremost," Garza says.

"We want to make a decision well enough in advance so that parents, families and the multitude of adult activities that we affect have plenty of time to adjust," Garza says.

Should they or shouldn't they?

Listen to your responses from the WTOP Talkback Line...
http://media.dev-cms.com/wtop/32/3224/322430.mp3

Please do some research, look at the science before posting. Starting later doesn't mean staying up later. Circadian rhythms dictate what time an adolescence sleeps.

How is class size or budget concerns more important than a child's health!?

The debate should center on 'how' not 'if' High school kids should start later. And the priority should be to make this happen before September 2012, regardless of cost. This is a health issue, NOT a financial issue.

oops '2014'

"Experts say the dangers include obesity, high blood pressure, strokes and suicidal thoughts."

Strokes in high school kids?!? I guess they really are out of shape.

mcmurphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please do some research, look at the science
> before posting. Starting later doesn't mean
> staying up later. Circadian rhythms dictate what
> time an adolescence sleeps.

This is a common rant of the SLEEP crowd, the assumption that those who oppose the initiative to have high school students start later are uninformed. Many of us are just as aware of the research as the SLEEP crowd is. We simply evaluate the data differently and give different weight to the different criteria involved, and as a result come to a different conclusion.

If you are serious about health impacts though, I would suggest you review some of the growing body of research showing how exposure to light at night adversely affects health. This research suggests that we would be better off switching off the TVs, computers and even artificial lighting and that we go to bed earlier. This of course runs counter to the primary argument of the SLEEP advocates, namely that high school kids need to stay up later in order to complete their school work. If kids are going to school later, then they are coming home later, putting even greater pressure on them to remain in lighted environments later at night.

> How is class size or budget concerns more
> important than a child's health!?

Why not simply say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". Surely you aren't that stupid. If you are going to make change happen you are going to have to build bridges to other constituencies. That includes those who are concerned about cost and those who are concerned about overall impact on the quality of education. If you run around flipping the bird at everyone who disagrees with you, then don't be surprised if they don't get together and respond with a chorus of FUCK YOU.

"Please do some research, look at the science before posting. Starting later doesn't mean staying up later. Circadian rhythms dictate what time an adolescence sleeps."

What about the farm teens in the past? It's called adaptation. Turn off the screens and the lights, and the kids might go to sleep. And, why did we have to pay over $100000 for another study? The SB wants to do it, and they paid for another study to justify it.

Bill N.

Hey Bill! unless you hadn't noticed, this isn't about you. It really is about the kids. Regardless of how it may or may not inconvenience you or cost you, it is a children s health issue.

If you check the posts that precede mine you will notice a distinct lack of knowledge from some, and considering you didn't comment im surprised you took it so personally.

thanks for the light info. but im not sure that this negates a later school start time. If i'm reading your 'exposure to light' argument correctly, your saying that if my kids finish their homework earlier, and go to bed earlier without any lights or TV etc, then we don't need to change the start times. Unfortunately this argument runs counter to the abundance of science fact. I would give you some links but i know you are already well informed.

Anecdotal i know, but my motivation for having a later start time stems from my Freshman son's dramatic mood swings, depression, sudden drop in grades, and sudden lack of interest in playing soccer. He finds it hard to sleep when he goes to bed between 8:30-9pm even though tired. And every morning my wife and i have to drag him out of bed. Weekends he tries to catch-up with sleep, but as you know from reading the science this is impossible. so forgive me for not trying to win your favor and build bridges but i am too busy trying to limit the effects of sleep deprivation on my son's brain. Now, perhaps this could be the because he has suddenly had an adverse reaction to a prolonged exposure to lights at night, but i dont think so. What's your motivation?

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcmurphy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Please do some research, look at the science
> > before posting. Starting later doesn't mean
> > staying up later. Circadian rhythms dictate
> what
> > time an adolescence sleeps.
>
> This is a common rant of the SLEEP crowd, the
> assumption that those who oppose the initiative to
> have high school students start later are
> uninformed. Many of us are just as aware of the
> research as the SLEEP crowd is. We simply
> evaluate the data differently and give different
> weight to the different criteria involved, and as
> a result come to a different conclusion.
>
> If you are serious about health impacts though, I
> would suggest you review some of the growing body
> of research showing how exposure to light at night
> adversely affects health. This research suggests
> that we would be better off switching off the TVs,
> computers and even artificial lighting and that we
> go to bed earlier. This of course runs counter to
> the primary argument of the SLEEP advocates,
> namely that high school kids need to stay up later
> in order to complete their school work. If kids
> are going to school later, then they are coming
> home later, putting even greater pressure on them
> to remain in lighted environments later at night.

Don't forget that it is cooler at night and therefore the air is more dense. This means that more oxygen is available to the brain and the rest of the body making it run more efficiently. Are you serious with this crap about light?

"Anecdotal i know, but my motivation for having a later start time stems from my Freshman son's dramatic mood swings, depression, sudden drop in grades, and sudden lack of interest in playing soccer. He finds it hard to sleep when he goes to bed between 8:30-9pm even though tired. And every morning my wife and i have to drag him out of bed. Weekends he tries to catch-up with sleep, but as you know from reading the science this is impossible. so forgive me for not trying to win your favor and build bridges but i am too busy trying to limit the effects of sleep deprivation on my son's brain. Now, perhaps this could be the because he has suddenly had an adverse reaction to a prolonged exposure to lights at night, but i dont think so. What's your motivation?"

Anecdotal, I know. But, my kids managed to get up and go to school every day on time. It has served them well in college and the work force. I suspect that the parents who are pushing this are those who go to work later. Personally, I don't like the idea of the kids getting themselves off to school after the parents have gone to work.......

Also, mcmurphy, I think you may be a little simplistic if you are blaming your son's problems simply on a lack of sleep. And, you can't let teens stay up all night on Friday and Saturday and expect them to adjust on Sunday night for the week.

Board

pushing this? I assume you are aware that we are talking about empirical science and not WMD's in Iraq right?

Good for your kids, im glad they adapted so well to the early start times. However, its not working for mine and 1000's of others. So why would you oppose later start times for those kids who are struggling? Is it because your kids managed to get up and go to school every day on time? A little immature don't you think?

And why are you making suppositions about my life, what time i go to work, that i let my teens stay up late on Friday & Saturday? All you know about me is my motivation for supporting this initiative. Whats your motivation to oppose?

Unlike your attitude, the issue of sleep deprivation on a teenager is far from simplistic. Far be it from me to 'suppose' that you are ill informed but your posts on here sound less than educated.

mcmurphy,

I am really sorry that your son is struggling. However, do you really think an extra hour of sleep will make the difference? Dramatic mood swings? Those could be due to lots of things besides lack of sleep.
Would my kids have liked an extra hour of sleep? Of course, they would have. Were my kids perfect? NO. Did they want to get up and go to school? Probably not. But, they did. I'll even admit to sometimes coaxing them with a loud voice. One was a super student and one was not--but they both went to school. They both had outside activities which took lots of time.
I actually have experience with reading studies. I understand the "science". However, I also understand how these studies work. It is very difficult to get a good control in studies such as this.

I have no objection to school starting later--except that we have gone through this before and there is no easy solution. In fact, there was overwhelming outrage at the proposals. I taught in a system that tried this--it didn't work and they switched back a year later.

If you want to blame your son's problems on the early start, then I hope you get a later start and that it makes a difference. However, I suspect there is another reason he does not want to play soccer.

This isn't the first thread on school start times Mac, or the second or third for that matter. Pretty much everything that was said in this thread has already been said in prior threads, including the "look at the research" argument. I didn't take your comment personally. It simply responded to that point as I have on other occasions when that same argument was raised. In reviewing the comments above I was actually surprised how few seem uninformed, or for that matter adverse to your position.

I am not saying that Light At Night research negates the research relied on by the SLEEP advocates. What I am saying is that LAN research is suggesting the issues raised by SLEEP advocates may be more complex than simply that kids have to get up too early to go to school, and that the solutions may also involve more than simply delaying high school start times. "I can't get to sleep earlier" is a common statement from teens, but LAN research suggests getting more sleep may not be the only benefit of an earlier lights out policy.

My motivation is probably far less relevant than my agenda. I favor an approach which balances the interests of all concerned. If there was a way to allow for later start times while still permitting the same level of post school activities for high school students, which didn't adversely affect the start or end times of lower grades and which didn't impose a significant financial cost on the taxpayers, I'd be all for it.

Bill N., you won't want to hear this, but look at the research.

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

Particularly the section about melatonin production.

Oy vey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you serious with this crap about light?

Serious in the sense that there are studies out there which appear to credibly indicate that light at night has an effect-yes. Serious in the sense that I believe those claimed effects are conclusively proven facts-no. However I would say the same about much of the SLEEP data.

If you want to see one of the possible effects of LAN per these studies, check out the Wikipedia article on melatonin.

Nothing scientific to add, but we have been through this before, we will go through it again, and nothing will change because there is too much money spent by the parents on after school activities and after school care. Kindercare, soccer teams, karate schools, swim, gymnastics, arts and crafts, etc., etc. They will all have a big voice in the decision-making process, as well they should.

This effort continues to be pushed by a tiny minority that seems to think the entire county should revolve around them. The obvious evidence is that the vast majority of Fairfax students not only survive but thrive on the current schedule. SLEEP and their supporters have yet to answer basic questions (like how much is this going to cost?) or address any of the numerous problems later start times will cause. I honestly doubt many of the start later supporters have even read the actual research and assessed whether it really applies to Fairfax (here's a hint: it doesn't). We also have the continuous supply of anecdotal evidence of teens that just can't get up, ignoring the many thousands more that can and do every day.

In short, there are almost zero benefits to any start time change, lots of costs, and numerous unsolved problems.

SLEEPing Idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This effort continues to be pushed by a tiny
> minority that seems to think the entire county
> should revolve around them. The obvious evidence
> is that the vast majority of Fairfax students not
> only survive but thrive on the current schedule.
> SLEEP and their supporters have yet to answer
> basic questions (like how much is this going to
> cost?) or address any of the numerous problems
> later start times will cause. I honestly doubt
> many of the start later supporters have even read
> the actual research and assessed whether it really
> applies to Fairfax (here's a hint: it doesn't).
> We also have the continuous supply of anecdotal
> evidence of teens that just can't get up, ignoring
> the many thousands more that can and do every
> day.
>
> In short, there are almost zero benefits to any
> start time change, lots of costs, and numerous
> unsolved problems.


Exactly. And many students don't realize that a later start time means a later finishing time. That will interfere with their sports, activities, after-school jobs, and on and on. Don't fix what you can't prove is broken. To those parents who want a later start time, find a private school that starts later, or home school your kids.

What? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Experts say the dangers include obesity, high
> blood pressure, strokes and suicidal thoughts."
>
> Strokes in high school kids?!? I guess they really
> are out of shape.

Have you seen High School kids lately. Thye make the Pillsbury doughboy look buff
Attachments:

SLEEPing Idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This effort continues to be pushed by a tiny
> minority that seems to think the entire county
> should revolve around them. The obvious evidence
> is that the vast majority of Fairfax students not
> only survive but thrive on the current schedule.
> SLEEP and their supporters have yet to answer
> basic questions (like how much is this going to
> cost?) or address any of the numerous problems
> later start times will cause. I honestly doubt
> many of the start later supporters have even read
> the actual research and assessed whether it really
> applies to Fairfax (here's a hint: it doesn't).
> We also have the continuous supply of anecdotal
> evidence of teens that just can't get up, ignoring
> the many thousands more that can and do every
> day.
>
> In short, there are almost zero benefits to any
> start time change, lots of costs, and numerous
> unsolved problems.

Wow! your ignorance is astounding. This thread is the first ive posted on this subject and i totally understand why people are tired of the cyclical arguments. How you can make these statements with the amount of scientific evidence that supports later start times is beyond belief. Let me guess, you think climate change is a hoax.

Before posting, look at the studies, look at the evidence, look at the amount of people who support it, look at how many other districts have adopted later start times, look at the results, look at how they continue to have successful after school curricula activities, look at the long term benefits in costs. Once you have done this then perhaps you will put the health benefits of our county's children above your concern over short term costs.

All these people who want high school to start at 9 should think about the traffic issues. Elementary schools are usually in the neighborhoods where the children live and they do not go as far. Just think of the kids at Oakton getting out at 4 and joining the traffic on I-66? How about Chantilly and Stringfellow Road and 50? Fairfax High--on 50 and 29 in the middle of afternoon rush hour.

What time will the buses have to pick up kids in the am in order to get to school on time? This is Fairfax County. Not Loudoun.

FYI, the parents overwhelmingly support later start times, so it must be other 'stakeholders' who want things to stay the same.

"PTA Survey Shows Overwhelming Parent Support For

Later High School Start Times in Fairfax County"

http://www.fccpta.org/resolutions-positions-official-letters/positions

"FYI, the parents overwhelmingly support later start times, so it must be other 'stakeholders' who want things to stay the same.

"PTA Survey Shows Overwhelming Parent Support For

Later High School Start Times in Fairfax County"

http://www.fccpta.org/resolutions-positions-official-letters/positions"

Yes. They support it until they see the options that will be put forward. Just wait.

reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All these people who want high school to start at
> 9 should think about the traffic issues.
> Elementary schools are usually in the
> neighborhoods where the children live and they do
> not go as far. Just think of the kids at Oakton
> getting out at 4 and joining the traffic on I-66?
> How about Chantilly and Stringfellow Road and 50?
> Fairfax High--on 50 and 29 in the middle of
> afternoon rush hour.
>
> What time will the buses have to pick up kids in
> the am in order to get to school on time? This is
> Fairfax County. Not Loudoun.

This is about children s health not commuter convenience, so it trumps traffic congestion issues. Accommodations need to be made, school bus lanes at certain times are one option. Car pooling another. There is something perverse with a society who feel that traffic congestion is more important than childrens health. It's going to happen anyway, so the sooner people try work with it and try and find solutions the better it will be for all.

mcmurphy said: "This is about children s health not commuter convenience, so it trumps traffic congestion issues. Accommodations need to be made, school bus lanes at certain times are one option. Car pooling another. There is something perverse with a society who feel that traffic congestion is more important than childrens health. It's going to happen anyway, so the sooner people try work with it and try and find solutions the better it will be for all."

Mcmurphy, I suggest you put on your "thinking cap". High school kids ARE commuters. Do you really want your kid on the road an extra hour or so a day, just so he can sleep in a little later?

you got me there 'reality', my point is totally invalid because i failed to distinguish between school commuters and non-school commuters.

But ya know, being pedantic doesn't change the fact that we need to find solutions. Re-read the post, I made a suggestion that we have school bus-only lanes at certain times of the day, then kids won't be on the bus an extra hour. Maybe not a great suggestion, I'm not a transportation expert. But im sure there are many creative ways to find a solution.

Mcmurphy,
Do you even live in Fairfax County? You must work from home if you think a "school bus only" lane will be implemented. Let's see--I 66 or 495 at 4 p.m.? Really? Highway 50 or Jermantown Road at 4? Really--some of the roads are two lane. Have you been on Union Mill by Centreville High. Or Braddock Road between George Mason University and Robinson SS? Good grief. Transportation is the number one concern of many, many citizens in this area. Oh, yes, I can see Georgetown Pike by Langley High right now. Just close it down to commuters. Let the CIA adjust. Or Marshall on Highway 7--right by an exit for 495. Let's make a bus only lane right there. Gosh, how about Dranesville Road by Herndon. Or Franconia Road by Edison. Let's not forget 50 and 495 at Falls Church. Or Telegraph Road for Hayfield.
Are you serious?
And, for what it is worth, many, many high school kids drive themselves. The "Bus only" lane sure won't help them--or the rest of the commuters. As to the health of the kids--I'm a lot m ore concerned about teen drivers in HEAVY traffic than I am an hour extra sleep.

Are you sure you are a Fairfax County citizen?

Show me the research that the overall health of FCPS students has suffered over the past 15 years or so solely due to earlier starting times. Do kids need more sleep? Certainly, but the research I hear and read is that our whole society is sleep deprived. Not good, I grant you, but that's just the way it is.

mcmurphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLEEPing Idiots Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This effort continues to be pushed by a tiny
> > minority that seems to think the entire county
> > should revolve around them. The obvious
> evidence
> > is that the vast majority of Fairfax students
> not
> > only survive but thrive on the current schedule.
>
> > SLEEP and their supporters have yet to answer
> > basic questions (like how much is this going to
> > cost?) or address any of the numerous problems
> > later start times will cause. I honestly doubt
> > many of the start later supporters have even
> read
> > the actual research and assessed whether it
> really
> > applies to Fairfax (here's a hint: it doesn't).
>
> > We also have the continuous supply of anecdotal
> > evidence of teens that just can't get up,
> ignoring
> > the many thousands more that can and do every
> > day.
> >
> > In short, there are almost zero benefits to any
> > start time change, lots of costs, and numerous
> > unsolved problems.
>
> Wow! your ignorance is astounding.

No, I've actually read the studies, have you?

> This thread is
> the first ive posted on this subject and i totally
> understand why people are tired of the cyclical
> arguments.

I'm tired of the arguments because the SLEEP drones just throw stones instead of answering simple questions, like "How much is this going to cost?" or "When will my kid get home?"

> How you can make these statements with
> the amount of scientific evidence that supports
> later start times is beyond belief.

What about the evidence that disproves later start times? Like the continued success of FCPS with its "too early" start times? You explanation is what?

> Let me guess,
> you think climate change is a hoax.

Irrelevant.

>
> Before posting, look at the studies,look at the
> evidence,

I did and found it completely underwhelming. Most of studies do not apply to Fairfax or had very minimal impact. Costs are completely ignored. Nor is there any explanation for the already superior results with the current schedule.

> look at the amount of people who support
> it,

Yes, a tiny minority support it, way less than 1% of Fairfax has even bothered to sign an online petition.

> look at how many other districts have adopted
> later start times,

Irrelevant. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?

> look at the results,

Fairfax has superior results to those systems.

> look at
> how they continue to have successful after school
> curricula activities,

We have those now, but until an actual later schedule is produced, it's hard to say if we'll keep them.

> look at the long term
> benefits in costs.

What long term cost benefits? We don't even know how much this will cost next year!

> Once you have done this then
> perhaps you will put the health benefits of our
> county's children above your concern over short

Nice, a "think of children!" closing statement. The sign of a desperate argument.

mcmurphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But im sure there are many creative ways
> to find a solution.

Im sorry, but NOVA ran out of creative ways to solve traffic problems long time ago. So far the only solutions used is build more lanes which immediately become clogged with more cars.

SLEEPing Idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcmurphy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SLEEPing Idiots Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This effort continues to be pushed by a tiny
> > > minority that seems to think the entire
> county
> > > should revolve around them. The obvious
> > evidence
> > > is that the vast majority of Fairfax students
> > not
> > > only survive but thrive on the current
> schedule.
> >
> > > SLEEP and their supporters have yet to answer
> > > basic questions (like how much is this going
> to
> > > cost?) or address any of the numerous
> problems
> > > later start times will cause. I honestly
> doubt
> > > many of the start later supporters have even
> > read
> > > the actual research and assessed whether it
> > really
> > > applies to Fairfax (here's a hint: it
> doesn't).
> >
> > > We also have the continuous supply of
> anecdotal
> > > evidence of teens that just can't get up,
> > ignoring
> > > the many thousands more that can and do every
> > > day.
> > >
> > > In short, there are almost zero benefits to
> any
> > > start time change, lots of costs, and
> numerous
> > > unsolved problems.
> >
> > Wow! your ignorance is astounding.
>
> No, I've actually read the studies, have you?
>
> > This thread is
> > the first ive posted on this subject and i
> totally
> > understand why people are tired of the cyclical
> > arguments.
>
> I'm tired of the arguments because the SLEEP
> drones just throw stones instead of answering
> simple questions, like "How much is this going to
> cost?" or "When will my kid get home?"
>
> > How you can make these statements with
> > the amount of scientific evidence that supports
> > later start times is beyond belief.
>
> What about the evidence that disproves later start
> times? Like the continued success of FCPS with
> its "too early" start times? You explanation is
> what?
>
> > Let me guess,
> > you think climate change is a hoax.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >
> > Before posting, look at the studies,look at the
> > evidence,
>
> I did and found it completely underwhelming. Most
> of studies do not apply to Fairfax or had very
> minimal impact. Costs are completely ignored. Nor
> is there any explanation for the already superior
> results with the current schedule.
>
> > look at the amount of people who support
> > it,
>
> Yes, a tiny minority support it, way less than 1%
> of Fairfax has even bothered to sign an online
> petition.
>
> > look at how many other districts have adopted
> > later start times,
>
> Irrelevant. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would
> you?
>
> > look at the results,
>
> Fairfax has superior results to those systems.
>
> > look at
> > how they continue to have successful after
> school
> > curricula activities,
>
> We have those now, but until an actual later
> schedule is produced, it's hard to say if we'll
> keep them.
>
> > look at the long term
> > benefits in costs.
>
> What long term cost benefits? We don't even know
> how much this will cost next year!
>
> > Once you have done this then
> > perhaps you will put the health benefits of our
> > county's children above your concern over short
>
> Nice, a "think of children!" closing statement.
> The sign of a desperate argument.

Hardly a desperate argument considering its already won, school start times will be later its just a matter of this year or next. My only disappointment is that it looks like it will be next. So this pissing contest is moot really.

I could go on to challenge your points, but the issue now is finding solutions, and its clear that those opposing the late start times are not on this forum to find solutions. It appears you'd rather work yourselves up into a frenzy because of commute times or fiscal concerns, or 'it was ok for me and my kids'. give it up, later start times are coming Mr. Idiot

RE later start times are coming. I doubt it. They will have their hearings and let people whine, issue some kind of report, and everything will stay the same.

reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mcmurphy,
> Do you even live in Fairfax County? You must work
> from home if you think a "school bus only" lane
> will be implemented. Let's see--I 66 or 495 at 4
> p.m.? Really? Highway 50 or Jermantown Road at
> 4? Really--some of the roads are two lane. Have
> you been on Union Mill by Centreville High. Or
> Braddock Road between George Mason University and
> Robinson SS? Good grief. Transportation is the
> number one concern of many, many citizens in this
> area. Oh, yes, I can see Georgetown Pike by
> Langley High right now. Just close it down to
> commuters. Let the CIA adjust. Or Marshall on
> Highway 7--right by an exit for 495. Let's make a
> bus only lane right there. Gosh, how about
> Dranesville Road by Herndon. Or Franconia Road by
> Edison. Let's not forget 50 and 495 at Falls
> Church. Or Telegraph Road for Hayfield.
> Are you serious?
> And, for what it is worth, many, many high school
> kids drive themselves. The "Bus only" lane sure
> won't help them--or the rest of the commuters. As
> to the health of the kids--I'm a lot m ore
> concerned about teen drivers in HEAVY traffic than
> I am an hour extra sleep.
>
> Are you sure you are a Fairfax County citizen?

unreality, surely you mean Fairfax resident.

You also seem to be missing the point, its gonna happen. The issue is finding a solution. The effects of sleep-deprivation-on-teens argument has been won, and far outweighs the traffic issues you've stated.

This is getting very boring. little factoid for you, Teen drivers who sleep less than 8 hours nightly are one-third more likely to crash than those who sleep 8 or more hours nightly - http://www.teendriversource.org/stats/support_teens/detail/65

In fact, accidents decrease in congestion, http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2010-12.pdf so you should feel less concerned, if in fact that is your concern.

Here's a factoid for you, mcmurphy,

There will not be more hours in the day. Kids will start homework later and go to bed later. They will not get more sleep. That is a bogus argument.

xtchr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RE later start times are coming. I doubt it.
> They will have their hearings and let people
> whine, issue some kind of report, and everything
> will stay the same.

help me to understand your virulent and passionate opposition to later start times?

My motivations are plain to see, the health of my kids. If i didnt have a son in High school i would probably still be oblivious to the debate and would moan when traffic became congested, and complain if my taxes went up to pay for the changes.

But i would never be so virulent in my opposition as to try and derail the changes at a public hearing because it may 'inconvenience me'. Even if i, like you, disagreed with the parents(88%), teachers, school board, superintendent, doctors, and scientific research.

I don't believe I have ever stated any position in favor of or opposed to later starting times. I am just expressing what I feel is likely to happen after having lived here for 42 years. I did say don't fix what's not broken. If you or anyone else can prove that earlier start times have had any detrimental effect on FCPS students, then have at it in the proper forum, i.e. a School Board hearing. Don't whine here on the underground. Notice that I am an ex teacher. I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I taught through later starting times and earlier starting times, and I can't say I saw any difference.

reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a factoid for you, mcmurphy,
>
> There will not be more hours in the day. Kids will
> start homework later and go to bed later. They
> will not get more sleep. That is a bogus
> argument.

which argument is bogus? finding a solution? The effects of sleep-deprivation-on-teens outweighs traffic issues? Driving drowsy is like driving drunk? Accidents decrease in congestion? That your only concern is personal inconvenience? Your boring?

Its not about the amount of hours in a day but when they are used for sleep, if you'd read anything about the teen circadian rhythm you would understand this.

Mcmurphy,

The point I made about the traffic affects the teens themselves. It will put an extra hour of commuting on some kids--and certainly add at least a half hour to almost all students. That kind of eats into your extra sleep.

You are making a sad mistake in assuming that kids will get more sleep with a later start. That is not a given. What is a given is that it will make them spend more time on the road and less time at home. It may require some to give up after school activities. Some kis work after school. Has that occurred to you? One of the options will be to have little kids go to school earlier--what a safety issue that will be. Do you really want very young kids walking in the dark? Waiting on dark corners?

The science does not take all of the "unintended consequences" into account. And, there are many.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I went through this the last time, but am no longer affected. However, the arguments are the same. Every one is for it until they see the options. I understand this is something that you really, really want. However, you need to see that it is not without disadvantages that may well outweigh any advantage.
As a former teacher and a parent, I see lots of problems with this change. I taught in a system that tried flipping start times--it didn't work. The next year the system changed back. This was many years ago. The problems are the same.

There is a lot that makes a "whole" child. Sleep is part of that equation. So are outside activities. Which is more important to their health?

xtchr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe I have ever stated any position in
> favor of or opposed to later starting times. I am
> just expressing what I feel is likely to happen
> after having lived here for 42 years. I did say
> don't fix what's not broken. If you or anyone
> else can prove that earlier start times have had
> any detrimental effect on FCPS students, then have
> at it in the proper forum, i.e. a School Board
> hearing. Don't whine here on the underground.
> Notice that I am an ex teacher. I really don't
> have a dog in this fight. But I taught through
> later starting times and earlier starting times,
> and I can't say I saw any difference.


How did your kids do in the FCPS school system?

Im a parent who is concerned. I would imagine you have come across many concerned parents in your time. If you dismissed their concerns the way you dismiss mine as whining then we should think our selves fortunate that you are an ex-teacher. If this forum enlightens and educates then it is valid, and serving its purpose, as does a board meeting.

As you can tell from my previous post, i was trying to understand your position when you suggested nothing will change.

I am not dismissing you. I am just asking, for the third time, proof that earlier starting times have had any detrimental effect on FCPS students. Put up or ........

My kids did great in the FCPS school system. One was particularly successful academically. They did fine in good Virginia colleges. They participated in activities at school. One reason I am against the change is that it would have really disrupted this part of their school career and I think the activities were very important. If the activities started later, it would really interfere with time together as a family: dinner, etc. It interfered with it then, but an hour delay would make scheduling family time more difficult. That is also important to the health of kids. Eating properly also contributes to health and grabbing something to eat on the run would increase with a delay.

As an educator and in grad school, I learned that you have to look at studies with skepticism. You have to question it. I find these studies slanted. I do agree that kids need more sleep. I disagree with some of the "science" that says they cannot go to sleep earlier. I think it can be adjusted. My kids managed to do so. Maybe it is genetics, maybe it is training. I do know that a later start time would have been detrimental to:
activities
family time
homework
commute time
diet
To me, these outweigh the advantage of a later start time.

A final word. My years of teaching experience tell me that you are a mom whose kid or kids didn't really do well, or are not doing well, in FCPS and it is much easier to lay the responsibility on circadian rhythms rather than on the kids themselves, their study habits, their attendance, or their overall intelligence and abilities.

Quote

Show me the research that the overall health of FCPS students has suffered over the past 15 years or so solely due to earlier starting times.

good lord. if you were a teacher i sure hope you didn't teach science.

show me definitive proof that a cancer patient received the disease solely from cigarettes. show me definitive proof that illegal short selling is the sole reason that a stock crashes. show me definitive proof that your astounding incapability to think logically is the sole result of too many bad acid trips in the 60's.

i think some data has been linked in this thread. there's plenty more if you'd like to search for it. alas, i don't think it will do any good since you apparently have a 3rd grader's grasp of causation.

I have a good grasp of causation, thank you. And you expressed the same point I did, thank you again. There is no proof, and there are so many other factors involved in a student's success in school, that there is no way to point to one thing, excluding prolonged injury or disease, of course, and say it is the cause of a lack of success. Given that fact, does it make any sense to incur the costs and disruption of later starting times? Like I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is more than just a one dimensional issue. How's that for logical thought?

reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My kids did great in the FCPS school system. One
> was particularly successful academically. They did
> fine in good Virginia colleges. They participated
> in activities at school. One reason I am against
> the change is that it would have really disrupted
> this part of their school career and I think the
> activities were very important. If the activities
> started later, it would really interfere with time
> together as a family: dinner, etc. It interfered
> with it then, but an hour delay would make
> scheduling family time more difficult. That is
> also important to the health of kids. Eating
> properly also contributes to health and grabbing
> something to eat on the run would increase with a
> delay.
>
> As an educator and in grad school, I learned that
> you have to look at studies with skepticism. You
> have to question it. I find these studies
> slanted. I do agree that kids need more sleep. I
> disagree with some of the "science" that says they
> cannot go to sleep earlier. I think it can be
> adjusted. My kids managed to do so. Maybe it is
> genetics, maybe it is training. I do know that a
> later start time would have been detrimental to:
> activities
> family time
> homework
> commute time
> diet
> To me, these outweigh the advantage of a later
> start time.

You posted this because all of Fairfax County have the same schedule as you and your family. Talk about a lack of reality!

Xtchr, by your definition there's never definitive proof of anything, and nothing should ever be improved or changed. That's nonsensical. Is sleep time the sole factor affecting performance? Of course not. Does it have an effect? Yes.

mcmurphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> effects of sleep-deprivation-on-teens argument has
> been won,

Isnt it self induced by staying up all night on the phone, on Facebook, Twitter, or gaming?

No one is arguing against kids having more sleep. That is a fact. The question is whether changing the schedule will allow for more sleep.

Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Xtchr, by your definition there's never definitive
> proof of anything, and nothing should ever be
> improved or changed. That's nonsensical. Is sleep
> time the sole factor affecting performance? Of
> course not. Does it have an effect? Yes.


Show me where I said nothing should ever be improved or changed. I never said any such thing. This thread is about school start times, not everything in the world. In fact, a later start time might or might not improve student performance. But would that be worth all the cost and disruption?

Assuming change is to 9 a.m.--

Unintended consequences of change:
Rush hour traffic for teenagers--depleting free time and adding to already stressed traffic problems in a.m. and p.m.
School buses caught in rush hour traffic
Afternoon jobs diminished for teens
Disruption to afternoon school activities
Possible elimination of swimming program
Additional disruption to mealtime in families
Parents leaving home for work before teens are out of bed.....

If elementary goes earlier--i.e. "switches" with high school
Young kids walking to school in dark or waiting on dark corners for school bus
No teen babysitters for after school care--my neighbor currently uses teens to watch her elementary kids after school

Sure, it sounds good to change--but there are lots of unintended consequences. The question is "is it worth it?" Will this really result in more sleep?

Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill N., you won't want to hear this, but look at
> the research.
>
> http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/hot-topics/
> backgrounder-later-school-start-times
>
> Particularly the section about melatonin
> production.

This is a prime example of what I am talking about when I said "Many of us are just as aware of the research as the SLEEP crowd is. We simply evaluate the data differently and give different weight to the different criteria involved, and as a result come to a different conclusion."

Melatonin production. Circadian rhythms. SLEEP advocates think their opponents are ignorant of them. Many of us know of them. However we argue that rather than being purely biologically driven, that environmental factors are also playing a large role. Here's a quote which I think sums up our view:

"One of the significant changes is related to sleep pattern alterations. Sleep patterns change during adolescence because the brain’s circadian system (biological clock) changes. This change occurs as a result of a complex dynamic interaction between genetically determined brain development and the impact of the environment. During the teen years the usual childhood pattern of 'getting up early and going to bed early' changes, to a 'go to bed late and get up late' pattern. This natural change in circadian rhythm IS ACCENTUATED BY THE TEEN ENVIRONMENT. (emphasis added) Teens are often awash in bright lights late at night, electronic and social stimulation that keep them active into the wee hours, and weekend gatherings that push well into early morning. These factors all converge to set a new go-to-sleep-late and wake-up-late cycle." (Forgot where I got this, but it came from a group advocating later start times.)

Further the success of light treatment to reset circadian rhythms and the ability of certain teens to thrive despite having to get up early for before school activities suggests that environmental factors can have a positive as well as a negative impact on sleep cycles. Then you have the fact that many teens actually do function adequately on the existing school schedules and the fact that a delayed school start for some may simply shift those negative environmental factors even later into the night.

Delaying high school start times will have a negative impact on many, including teens, other kids, parents, school employees, taxpayers and others. Delaying school start times will have a positive impact for some kids. For other kids the later school start times won't be late enough. Then for some there will be no effect because starting the day later will end it later. The question isn't whether some will benefit. The questions are whether those who benefit will receive a benefit great enough to offset the detriment suffered by everyone else, and whether those same benefits could be obtained by those kids and their families to address the negative environmental issues affecting those kids' sleep patterns.

@more reality: You stopped your comment "Parents leaving home for work before teens are out of bed....." too early, omitting that this would lead to increased late arrivals and increased truancy. It sounds ridiculous but I have a friend living in Stafford who had to hire a neighbor to be on stand by to take his kid to school if the kid missed the bus.

Great post, Bill N. And, you are right about the comment. I assumed that others would figure it out, but thank you for emphasizing that. When they tried this a few years ago, the "solution" was to have middle school kids go to school later, and that was one of the arguments against the decision. Who wants middle school kids getting themselves off to school?

My kids went to school on time. However, I must admit to frequent "coaxing".

Sometimes I wonder if the Sleep supporters are parents who do not want to rise early themselves.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It sounds ridiculous but I have a friend living in
> Stafford who had to hire a neighbor to be on stand
> by to take his kid to school if the kid missed the
> bus.

This ^.

The bottom line is many, many kids are lazy and their parents let them get away with it. It wouldnt matter if school started at noon, they would still be late or not go at all.

stabitha knows this because he's hiding in the bushes near the bus stops..looking at the school-aged kids..

Quote

Show me where I said nothing should ever be improved or changed. I never said any such thing.

Where you talked about the sole cause.


Bill n. I disagree with your conclusion but you laid out a legit argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2014 06:40PM by Curmudgeon.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It sounds ridiculous but I have a friend living
> in
> > Stafford who had to hire a neighbor to be on
> stand
> > by to take his kid to school if the kid missed
> the
> > bus.
>
> This ^.
>
> The bottom line is many, many kids are lazy and
> their parents let them get away with it. It
> wouldnt matter if school started at noon, they
> would still be late or not go at all.


Sounds like Stabitha's kind of kids.