Me too, man
-
Hey what's wrong with going to bed at 8pm
Well, when you get out of your after school activities around 1700-1800 hours, and then have to spend another hour or two, minimum, on homework and projects, and then want to have a little bit of socializing and play squeezed in after the required time spent with family....
Yeah, good luck with that 8pm thing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Every year I tell timetabling "don't inflict 9am classes on my students, it provably punishes poorer students (commute costs) and drives poor engagement", every year they ignore me.
Many of your teachers hated morning classes too.
-
"Should" is doing some heavy lifting here.
Sleep patterns start changing around puberty. Young kids tend to get up earlier, naturally; teenage biorhythms are tuned to stay up later, and sleep late.
But we don't have a society where it's safe to let teens run around by themselves, except for some rural communities, so schedules are based - as GP says - around parent's schedules. And because of workplace demands, whether it's a reasonable requirement because the job demands an in-person presence like the service sector, or because of idiotic, arbitrary in-office policies, that usually means parents need to have their kids in school before 8, or 8:30 if they're lucky, so they can be at their desks by the standard 9am.
Little kids, this is less of an issue, but it really fucks with teenager's biorhythms, because they're designed to be sleeping until 10 and going to sleep at midnight at that age.
There's a ton of studies about this, and there's been a lot of work by K-12 to figure out how to accommodate a balance; and some companies even have policies allowing for flex time to help, but on average - as usual - Corporate America fucks it up.
But we donβt have a society where itβs safe to let teens run around by themselves,
Really? By all accounts it is safer now than ever AND has tracking if you want. Add to that the fact that every teen I know left to their own devices would not bother running around anyways. They would stay at their computer/tablet/phone as long as they could.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Schools near me have shifted high school start times to later. Its been that was for years now.
It is really weird to see it in mainstream news now, and even RFK is for it (that fucking weirdo).
I thought letting teens sleep in late was blue state woke and would never be nationwide.
Fox news found a Hypnotist that said teens should sleep later. A hypnotist... really fox? Even when they are right they are still stupid fucks.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Highschool used to start at 7:00 for me. Then I got into college and I could make my own schedule, so I picked a lot of afternoon classes, it was awesome.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
That's about how ours went. I usually went to bed around midnight, and usually would fall asleep during some class or another.
I recently found a report card from my senior year, apparently I took AP Economics that year and it was the last class of the day for me. I don't remember doing it at all, but I was getting an A- at the time.
I'm sure those two little personal stories are unrelated.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.
If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.
-
One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.
If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.
If I remember correctly most of the suggestions to account for that actually has elementary and middle schoolers start before high schoolers since high schoolers are the ones that need the most sleep while also struggling the most to go to sleep early
-
Yea that only happens because capitalism needs your parents to slave their ass off which can only happen if their kids go to school earlier than their already early starting job
Generally, I don't think that applies to high schoolers. They can manage themselves in the morning. We should have their school start last
America also has some deep structural issues that children aren't able to get to school by themselves. In Japan, grade school children are able to get to and from school by themselves in most of the country. In America, parents aren't allowed to leave children unattended, and certainly aren't allowed to let them go to school alone
-
One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.
If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.
My school district solves this by not having busses at all
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I was in my late 20s when I realised just how much stress morning stuff is causing me, and had caused me for two decades.
(my solution was just to come to the office at 11 most days & now I also sleep more hours on average, but that's is a separate issue for me) -
This post did not contain any content.
Now think about what your parents went through
-
One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.
If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.
They don't need to push everyone later, they just need to start the younger kids early, and the older kids later, which is the opposite of what most districts do now. Pre-teens have no problem getting up at 6AM.
-
But we donβt have a society where itβs safe to let teens run around by themselves,
Really? By all accounts it is safer now than ever AND has tracking if you want. Add to that the fact that every teen I know left to their own devices would not bother running around anyways. They would stay at their computer/tablet/phone as long as they could.
Oh? What's your source for that claim?
The US population in 2014 was 318.3M. In that year, 186 amber alerts for children were issued. Last year (2024), the population was 340.11M, and there were 188 alerts. That's almost unchanged (0.56/0.58) in the past decade. In 2011, there were onu 158 alerts in 311.56M people, lower than today (0.51) (amberalert). There have been years where there were more, and years when there were less; 2006 was pretty bad (0.87).
I can't get reliable statistics from 1880, when 72% of the population lived in rural communities. The population flipped from predominantly rural to urban in 1920 (1910: 54% rural; 49% rural in 1920, c.f https://www.seniorliving.org/ has a handy yearly breakdown), but the next best thing is to count alerts per million by demographic, and the metrics don't break it down like that, unless you count % alerts by state, and measure the population in each state and the rural/urban breakdown. I'm not sure that'd be valid for extrapolating back into history to estimate how much safer children might have been from strangers in 1900. Anyway, amber alerts don't tell us anything about stranger danger, since abductions are as likely to be by family members as not.
The point is, from amber alerts alone, 2011 was safer than 2024. The alerts/pop/year are all over the place, and claiming that it's safer than it ever has been is wild, and I'd like to see some substantiation before I swallow that - even if we count only recent history for which we have reliable metrics, which is necessarily going to exclude anything earlier than, say, 1950.
-
Oh? What's your source for that claim?
The US population in 2014 was 318.3M. In that year, 186 amber alerts for children were issued. Last year (2024), the population was 340.11M, and there were 188 alerts. That's almost unchanged (0.56/0.58) in the past decade. In 2011, there were onu 158 alerts in 311.56M people, lower than today (0.51) (amberalert). There have been years where there were more, and years when there were less; 2006 was pretty bad (0.87).
I can't get reliable statistics from 1880, when 72% of the population lived in rural communities. The population flipped from predominantly rural to urban in 1920 (1910: 54% rural; 49% rural in 1920, c.f https://www.seniorliving.org/ has a handy yearly breakdown), but the next best thing is to count alerts per million by demographic, and the metrics don't break it down like that, unless you count % alerts by state, and measure the population in each state and the rural/urban breakdown. I'm not sure that'd be valid for extrapolating back into history to estimate how much safer children might have been from strangers in 1900. Anyway, amber alerts don't tell us anything about stranger danger, since abductions are as likely to be by family members as not.
The point is, from amber alerts alone, 2011 was safer than 2024. The alerts/pop/year are all over the place, and claiming that it's safer than it ever has been is wild, and I'd like to see some substantiation before I swallow that - even if we count only recent history for which we have reliable metrics, which is necessarily going to exclude anything earlier than, say, 1950.
abductions are as likely to be by family members as not.
So if it is family members, it really doesn't matter if they are out and about does it?
Can we take a minute to say how something is very fucked up in Texas? People have talked about his before here. Texas is a fucked up state for children. 54 Amber alerts in Texas in 2024. California, Ohio, and North Carolina have the bulk of the rest, but they are like 15 and 16, not 54!
Remember I said Teens. So looking at Amber alerts as a statistic: the VAST bulk of the kids are 0 - 6 years old. For teens (ages 15-17+) there were only 12.
So have you compared the teen rate over time?
-
One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.
If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.
East Asian countries solve this by having the kids take public transit; just run a few extra buses and trains on the routes kids take, then you don't need dedicated vehicles that sit idle all day.
-
They don't need to push everyone later, they just need to start the younger kids early, and the older kids later, which is the opposite of what most districts do now. Pre-teens have no problem getting up at 6AM.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Parents fight that because then they can't have the older kids take care of the younger kids when they get home from school.
-
East Asian countries solve this by having the kids take public transit; just run a few extra buses and trains on the routes kids take, then you don't need dedicated vehicles that sit idle all day.
Not sure which ones you're talking about, but in Hong Kong, schoolchildren just walk to school. There's usually a school attached to each housing estate.
-
Many African American slaves did not know they were slaves until about age 6, because they were not given work when too young to be useful. Sounds familiar...
Going to school is not comparable to literal slavery
-
East Asian countries solve this by having the kids take public transit; just run a few extra buses and trains on the routes kids take, then you don't need dedicated vehicles that sit idle all day.
With trains all you have to do is add an extra passenger car or two for the peak times and keep the number of trains running the same. You could also increase frequency during peak times if you have the track, train and driver availability to do that
