In Santa Clara County, with no experience, starting salary is $71000. It increases on a schedule each year up to over $131000.
Honestly, the job security, structured pay, and 3 months vacation per year is a pretty darn good deal.
[1] - https://www.santaclarausd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ash...
Redwood City: https://www.rcsdk8.net/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?modul...
San Mateo: http://www.smfcsd.net/en/assets/files/Employment%20and%20HR/...
San Francisco: https://archive.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/contract%20a...
Another issue is the commute. Traffic is really bad, so finding a cheaper place farther away from work will cost you in time and energy, especially if you have to cross a bridge.
It's so bad that some districts, including San Mateo, are building their own housing for teachers. https://edsource.org/2019/in-need-of-teacher-housing-more-ca...
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/20/20814179/housing-crisis-teac...
This perception is usually pretty inaccurate. There's no time given during the school year for essentials like curriculum development, continuing education requirements, training new teachers, etc, so that eats up time during the summer 'break'.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/myth-o...
> Klem says she’s spending the rest of her summer this year attending meetings, developing school curriculum, helping train new teachers, and contacting families of her students, among other tasks. Past summers, she says, have been equally busy: graduate-school coursework to complete her master’s degree (which isn’t required but can mean higher pay), classroom organization or relocation, and so on. While some of these responsibilities come with a stipend, teachers say they’re relatively negligible given how much time they take—no more than $1,000.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/hold-on-before-you-get-too-j...
> As an educator you constantly have to be on top of trends, so it’s not like it’s just six weeks of me laying by the pool,” said Sara Holloway, a fifth-grade English language arts teacher from Monongahela, Pa.
> “You are taking classes in the summer, or you are reading material, or you are conferencing or blogging with other teachers, you are planning for the next year,” she said.
Then there were other teachers at the school who took off on the last day of school and you didn't see them again until the week before school started. Those were the teachers that were still teaching material from 30 years ago that all the parents dreaded their kids getting.
Just like any job, if 90% of what you're doing is new to you or something you have to develop yourself if vastly different than if 10% of what you're doing is new or something you're developing yourself. Given the actual in class time doing the lesson plans is fairly static, that means the non-classroom hours of the day, or your own time, is what is required to make up the slack.
I imagine teachers of fields that have lots of changes (or of districts or states that adopt whole new curriculums) have it worse than some others. At least if they care about doing a good job.
It would be interesting to hear what your family members have to say about their first few years teaching compared to later years, and what period your memories correspond to.
1. Teachers in positions new to them probably do have more work to do
2. A lot of that work may be due to their own inefficiency having not yet learned the role.
3. That inefficiency ends up being paid for with a) time and b) stress, including family stress.
4. Even still, I sincerely cannot remember a single time in my childhood where we were not traveling all summer long.
5. Fortunately budget cuts can end nonsensical programs and save everyone the hassle :-/
What a weird period of time that was.
The idea that most teachers are attending conferences or blogging about teaching all summer is odd though.
I come from a family of teachers. My mother started teaching later in life, got her Masters and was hustling when I was a teenager. After a decade teaching, I don't think she spends even a minute thinking about school during the summer.
My dad is now retired and has probably the best sort of pension imaginable in this country. Certainly nothing like that safety net will ever exist for me. I can't really compare his experience though because it was a different generation of teachers. He was very involved with his union too.
Teaching just seems like a varied profession based on where you are. I hear and believe the talk about teachers being undervalued, underpaid, overworked etc. But my family has done very well for themselves back in NY, with a lot less uncertainty than a lot of other professions.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/finance/salary/sched...
Don't make the assumption that throwing more money at teachers will improve our schools. Zuckerberg tried that with little success, as have many before him.
I'd rather a focus on ensuring every kid has a healthy meal at the table. A support group who's invested in tbe individual kids success. A family that encourages and supports during the best and worst of times.
Arguably the "advantage" well to-do middle class families get.
Oddly, parents ability to work is actually beneficial towards kids ability to eat regularly and healthy. Especially for poor famillies.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
Of course investing into the future (kids and environment) has the biggest long-term impact and should be top priority.
As she was a special ed teacher, she also had a whole slate of other meetings with parents to go over IEPs and testing, and if those were before 8 am or after 3 pm, she was paid an hourly rate for those meetings.
My family has deep ties to local education infrastructure and its well known that most of the advocates for these policies are trying to keep poor kids out of their schools. While they don't say it in public forums they're generally more than happy to tell you in private.
We're also already into 'projects' - more hours of work, more resources to buy. "oh you can do it with stuff around the house" (no you can't)
No one wants to talk about it and it infuriates me. There are kids who are just out of the running from the moment they enter kindergarten, and everyone is going to blame their parents or their 'culture' and refuse to see what's right in front of them.
There is no more 'public' education, only middle-income private education. It's a disgrace.
edit: raspberry pi
A lot of middle class parents I know would spend 10 minutes trying to understand the raspberry pi site and give up. HN tends to vastly overestimate people's technical skills. For poor parents with no tech background - forget it.
Because the teachers and education department are useless. My nephews had to get an iPad for their programming class, an expensive device (and all the problems with that) that is less capable and far less practical to learn programming on.
Imagine how much better school could be if kids had raspberry pis and and use free tools like gnuplot in their maths and physics classes.
Then it should be provided to the kids by the school. My girlfriend works at a poor school where a lot of the students don't even speak english and they provide laptops to all the kids whose parents cannot afford one.
A friend of my son has a laptop provided by the city, presumably because his family is too poor. And because it's a laptop, he takes it with him when he comes over to play Minecraft. My son is a bit jealous, because despite his access to two excellent desktop PCs and numerous tablets, he doesn't have his own laptop. (I'll probably have to get him one when he goes to secondary school.)
edit: not to mention internet, router, wifi dongle or ethernet cord, etc.
Any assignment that makes use of a proprietary software that the school has purchased.
That is to say that there are plenty of times when a student _must_ use X software that only runs on platform Y, and the school very rarely takes into account what platforms the student may have available to them.
I ran IT support for a Prepatory <-> Year 12 school. The number of times I had to gently remind the early grade teachers that not every child has access to an iPad at home and that an Android tablet cannot run iPad software was quite frequent.
Example: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-11-6-chromebook-intel-cele...
And for older kids, there’s Linux support, etc.
Of course, in the context of low income, ideally the district would provide standardized choices or offer crossover as a supported alternative.
I’m not familiar with this program, but it seems like Google has made efforts in this direction: https://edu.google.com/products/chromebooks/
A lot of schools do generally offer standardised hardware & software. For example, at the last school I was admin at, we had a Lenovo range, and a series of programs to help poor families afford them. (Tablets at primary school, one kind of laptop at middle school and a more powerful laptop at senior school).
However, I still, in three years, could not force around a dozen teachers to understand the limitations of their platform. Official policy was actually that a teacher may not use a piece of software without getting it approved by IT - so that we could check it was compatible, and automate rollout across all the devices.
The problem, most simply put, is that teachers would get excited about a piece of software, build their entire curriculum around it, and not involve IT at any point in the process whilst simultaneously having no idea how software works.
This sore point wasn't isolated at all either, at conference when the entire town's IT teams got together (we exchanged talking points, software and regularly donated our older hardware to less-well-off schools), it was the most common anecdote, followed up by most school administrations being entirely unwilling to have IT's back when we would be unable to deploy a particular teacher's favourite software that wouldn't run on the accepted platform.
If the assignment involves a computer, the materials were probably not developed or tested on a Pi or anything similar, so, yeah, they probably often can't reasonably be completed on a Pi or lower as assigned, even if there is no technical reason that they couldn't have been developed with that in mind.
They are also bathed in advertising, which drowns then in guilt at not being able to afford a multi-thousand dollar Windows or Macintosh rig, when a $40 Arm64 rig hooked up to a discarded flat screen TV and keyboard/mouse would be a superior learning option for their child.
There likely are some parents who can’t afford those, but those parents are vanishingly small. Often times parents think that they “provide” the child and the school does the rest. Good parents, poor or otherwise know that it’s mostly on the parents to guide the kids.
As someone who occasionally has to work with the working poor, I can tell you this is completely false.
Here's one example: I work in healthcare. We can't send text messages to people about their medical conditions, etc... because a startling number of working poor families not only have only a flip phone, but that phone is shared among several families.
Let me state that again: A single flip phone will be used by eight to ten people in three or four different families.
To think that anyone with a job just has a computer/table/smartphone lying around for their kid to do his homework on is just living in a fantasy land.
Truly, your comment does reflect the attitude of much of the teaching establishment: if children can't learn to read from their parents, they're hopeless [1]; if children can't learn math from their parents, they're hopeless. It's a total abdication of the vocation of teaching, and it's not universal. In Finland it's accepted that teachers teach children how to read, and accepted that every kid needs a good lunch in order to be able to concentrate. That's 'obvious' in their cultural context, but in the US cultural context poverty and struggle are just signs that God doesn't love you (the prosperity 'gospel' in action).
[1] https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-a...
So I'm gonna make the assumption that "teacher" still somewhat means the same thing in the US, and that they must be teaching the kids something.
What in goodness sake are they teaching the children if not how to read? Isn't that the very first thing you should be teaching them after kindergarten?
If there is ONE thing a kid could learn in school. Wouldn't you pick how to read over literally anything else?
The second thing would imho be math. But on that point people may say geography and history are also important and I can't really disagree cause I happen to be good at math and shamefully bad at the other two.
Why can't they bear the load?
- Because they are underfunded and understaffed
- Because society doesn't think it's the school's responsibility to teach
If society decided that reading and writing should be taught in school, then it would be taught in school and the system would be designed such that teachers would easily handle it.
Your "parents have a load to carry" in this case is throwing people under the bus like single mothers who are working two or more jobs just to put food on the table.
Your attitude is that their children should be left behind because those children belong to the unlucky sperm club.
And those children grow up to be disadvantaged and poor and the cycle continues indefinitely. I find it vile and revolting that HN can talk about the wonders of Elon Musk disrupting the automobile industry, can debate whether scooters will disrupt the ride sahring industry, which in turn disrupted the taxi industry, and so on...
And then when it comes to poverty, the attitude is, "C'mon, carry your load or fall behind."
This community talks a good line about disruption, but if the only kind of disruption that interests us is the disruption that happens to make people into billionaires, it's time to stop pretending that we're "hackers" and start calling ourselves capitalists.
The education system needs to be disrupted from the bottom up, but it needs people who actually care about educating children more than negotiating term sheets.
I think of it that parents need to teach their kids how to behave, not math. Kids who come to class and don't listen, talk when the teacher is talking and disturb the other kids is going to be a problem. Children who act out violently or with screaming when confronted create big problems. Children who are not adjusted to being respectful towards other children and grownups will ruin any school.
That job is in my mind the job of the parent, the teacher should not have to use math class to try and get a child to be respectful. This is what it in my mind means when you tell someone that parents need to "carry their load".
If the teacher needs to do all these additional jobs, then I think we need to change the whole institution of school.
Those engaged parents will also be the first to complain if the teachers spend too much time with the children who don’t get that at home. So without engaged parents and a supportive home environment, children are at a significant disadvantage.
I mean, society could also decide that houses shouldn't have roofs, but then they wouldn't be houses would they.
The word for "school where you don't learn to read" in the rest of the educated world is "daycare".
I'm scanning that article and I'm being aghast.
There's a bar graph that mentions 4th and 8th grade, what ages do these grades roughly correspond to? Not that it really matters because the percentages are roughly equal, meaning they didn't improve their reading skill in 4 years. Guess that answers my first question.
Guys you need to fix this. Education is the future, there's literally no better place to dump money and resources on.
A place where affluent Palo Alto teens made fun of me (an adult) for driving a “2012 VW”...
Even in My grandfathers day (Head teacher in WW2 era) all the poor kids left school at 14.
And only a few smart and lucky kids from better off working class families made it to apprenticeships and the really lucky ones Grammar school.
If I had stayed in Birmingham (UK) my mum told me they would have tried to get me into King Edwards and use Granddads Influence to help.
BTW this is The King Edwards that Tolkien went to and is normally in the top 3 selective schools in the UK
And that the problem of poverty is overemployment, not underemployment?
In a district in the bay area, one of the elementary schools was given a certain special designation that allowed them to accept kids from the district by lottery. The condition of entering the lottery was as follows:
1. A parent must take a 2 hour tour of the school, tour times were between 9 am and 3 pm.
2. A parent must sign an agreement to volunteer at the school at least 3 days a year.
Number 2 was unenforceable, and many flouted it, but poorer (mostly non-white) families who actually managed to schedule the tour generally backed out upon hearing that requirement.
Diversity plummeted, the school went from 60% white to 90% white in 5 years (though the district as a whole became less white).
This lasted over a decade, and only recently was the system overturned by popular vote. Every incoming class since then has been significantly more diverse.
--------------
The point is that those who can afford to live in the bay area and not work every weekday are the well to do. As a software engineer I can usually just tell my boss "I've got an important personal matter" and get the day off. People I know who work as janitors or barista's often get told "well, if you don't show up you're fired" for the same request.
Another one that's more art focused and requires 4 hours of volunteering PER WEEK is majority white even though whites are 1/3 of the population.
It's bad enough that the school enforces a school uniform in the first place, let alone has the nerve to make parents pay for it.
Uniforms actually help with socio-economic gaps: everybody dresses the same, regardless of whether you can afford more expensive status symbol clothing or not.
fwiw, I'm also a big fan of uniforms and the uniform separates can typically be purchased at places like Old Navy or Target for <$10/item (compared to my kid's soccer uniforms, which run $300-400 for the kit and have to be refreshed every year).
It is much harder to tell the poor child from the one who may not have eaten today and might not tomorrow.
It is harder to tell the well-off child from the super-rich child, because the status symbols are in reach of both.
It's not a perfect fix, but it reduces the gaps.
In particular, justifying school uniforms because "you can't tell the rich kids from the poor kids" deprives both poor kids from learning how to positively interact with rich kids and rich kids from learning how to positively interact with poor kids. Being able to interact with people of wide socioeconomic diversity is a valuable skill.
I've also heard a lot of anecdotal evidence about school uniforms being problematic in inner cities because they'll inadvertently align with gang colors, meaning that students walking to/from school would have to either bring a change of clothes (and change at school twice a day) or risk being targeted for gang violence.
I don't necessarily disagree, but you can really form any number of arguments and reach wildly different conclusions (try it, for a few you don't like). Without evidence (not anecdotes) to prefer one over the other, you're really biasing yourself to how you feel the world ought to work.
Various community facebook groups and "buy nothing" facebook groups facilitate giving away items you no longer require. That the items be given for free, no strings attached is often a firm requirement.
School uniforms are a common item to be given away because children frequently outgrow uniforms long before they wear out.
Its very helpful for families with young children as they outgrow clothes incredibly fast and also don't yet have any resistance to the idea of second hand clothing.
I'd like to see how that requirement would work on the rural poor. I have a suspicion they are far more acquainted with the difference between making a rule and enforcing a rule.
Consider an example. A "good" school might have 100 slots for out-of-area kindergartners, distributed via a lottery system. However, the lottery system uses a biased distribution which preferentially selects from students who have been on the waitlist longer. This system is easily defensible by school administrators in the name of "fairness" to students who have waited longer.
The unspoken desire, however, is to preferentially select students with a higher socioeconomic index, because such students tend to score higher on standardized tests (and therefore maintain the school's current "good" ranking). Asking for this information explicitly is, naturally, forbidden.
Instead, the school waits for parents to come for site visits during working hours. These visits are attended overwhelmingly by stay-at-home parents, which correlate with socioeconomically-advantaged families, for the simple reason that they can afford to have a parent stay at home (the -economic side of socioeconomic). Underemployed parents cannot attend, because they are still working, but usually at jobs which do not offer flexible work hours. Unemployed parents can attend, but rarely do so, because the chronically unemployed statistically come from lower social backgrounds (the socio- side) that either do not value education as highly, or may not know that the concept of "school visits" even exist.
Then, when these parents visit, the schools inform them of the existence of the waiting list. However, information about the wait list (and especially details about its biased selectivity) will not be available by phone or website until enrollment opens. Thus, parents who attend the tours will be preferentially selected, since they are on the waiting list first, and the school can put their finger on the socioeconomic scale without ever asking parents for sensitive information.
For purely public schools which do not allow out-of-area students, this approach isn't relevant, because they are required to accept students from the local area and only the local area. These schools don't care, because the locations themselves correlate with socioeconomic factors, due to property values tracking school achievement.
For charter schools, which pass all students through similar systems, it allows them to accept statistically-advantageous students across all levels, leading to better outcomes overall (and shifting the remaining disadvantaged students, and the correspondingly lower level of achievement they statistically will achieve, to low-income public schools).
Same thing right? There's a large underclass in the US that simply cannot take part in public society activities because they are indentured?
Poverty is a complex issue that cannot be summarized in a single word.
The effect is more pronounced in high school aged kids.
Additionally, there is something to be said for accommodating kids who don't have a stable enough home life or parents that care or realize the damage caused by not enough sleep.
There are many benefits to getting an early start in the morning as ling as you have had a long nights sleep. So i would like to see the base if those studies as they dont reflect the reality and statistics i know of.
Edit to those who claim it's anecdotal: Their school network is Success Academy.
And I was originally responding to the claim that you can't be fresh as a kid at 7 if you go to bed in proper time which is simply wrong.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/more-on-the-phenomenal-eye-po...
... presumably they, then, can explain to you the difference between anecdote and data.
A school network applied to all of New York state is hardly an anecdote and it's frankly telling how quick you and others where to jump onto that idea.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/more-on-the-phenomenal-eye-po...
It's probably physiologically accurate that later start times are better for children. This bill is research-backed. It also makes things harder for parents who will then need to find long before-care options or start their own commutes later.
Also anecdotally, I have two children in elementary school, who also play competitive soccer with training 4 days/wk. Soccer is typically 1.5hr at a time, and either 4:30-6pm or 5-6:30pm. Training fields are 15-20min drive from our house. School gets out at 2:15, but we have to pick up our 2yo from daycare before the older ones get home (no bussing service because we're <1mi from the school). The result is that the older ones get home, unpack their backpacks, change into soccer gear, have time for a snack and perhaps 15-30 minutes for homework (besides written homework, they also have to read 30 minutes every day) before leaving for soccer. My wife thankfully works from home and is able to handle the afternoon routine after having shifted her work schedule 3 timezones (5am-2pm). I pick everyone up from soccer practice and then we get home, shower and eat dinner from around 6:45-7:45. Then it's time to finish homework and reading. I'm lucky they get to go to bed by 8:30-9:00pm. Then I wake them up at 6:15 to get ready for band practice at school @7:15.
This is an anecdote about an 8 & 10 year old in the bay area, and we have excellent work situations (I work for a flexible tech company, and my wife works a shifted schedule from home). If we both worked traditional 8-5 schedules, the majority of what our kids are able to do now would not be possible: they'd go to YMCA before care on campus around 7am and then to aftercare until 5:30pm. Sports would be out of the question unless we made arrangements with friends. There would be no decompression time after school and before home/family/activity time.
I wasn't even introducing the idea of performance. I was responding to a blanket claim about performance with a rather non-anecdotal example of SA schools dominating the performance list yet having one of the earliest times of school attendance. If you haven't seen it click on the link and if that doesn't convince you that it's more than anecdotal then I just don't know what will.
All the studies is fundamentally about sleeping time NOT about at which hour it's optimal to be in school which is exactly my point yet somehow it gets completely ignored and everyone just yells anecdotal.
It's not anecdotal it's statistical with a sample of more than 2000 schools and SA dominating almost all the top 30 results and that with schools that have a majority of black and hispanic kids.
Maybe another thing your top performing students in their top performing school network can explain to you is the difference between evidence and irrelevancy; specifically, that, with California being the first state to mandate a later start time, its unusual for schools to start later (New York is experimenting with some later start times, but very few schools have them [0]), so, really, neither your sons’ status nor those of their network indicate (as evidence or even anecdote) anything contrary to the research at issue here (nor, to take the next step, necessarily would their school even if a sizable number of others did start significantly later unless it was similar to those later-starting schools in all other respects besides start time; for some reason you've posted an argument from a libertarian propaganda mill which does nothing relative to the discussion but make a case as to why you raising it in this discussion is the farthest thing possible from relevant for that reason.)
I get that you are proud of your sons and like their school network. I can't figure out why you think either are relevant to the matter at hand.
If you can't see the relevance then perhaps my boys should teach you about statistical significance you are clearly confusing it with arrogance.
We are talking about 2400 elementary schools and SA being in the top 30 dominating almost every position there.
I would have that would be obvious to a HN reader.
Show me the research and we can debate it, until then the primary problem in the us is that parent put their kids to bed too late.
There are so many confounding factors that could be causing students to do better in those schools.
Here is my take away from your 'data': Imagine how much better those students would be doing if they also weren't getting up earlier than is natural or recommended.
Here is the journal article referenced: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/12/eaau6200
Here is the CDC's summary referencing further studies: https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html
1) The study doesn't conclude what the parent was claiming and what you seem to think it's claiming. 2) It's only for high school students and its sample is pretty small. 3) It actually supports my point of enough sleep more than anything else which seems to be completely ignored of course. 4) Here is my evidence https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/more-on-the-phenomenal-eye-po... my sons are Success Academy.
What do you suggest I conclude from that?
5) Just saying something is science isn't enough and just saying it's science because someone did some studies isn't enough either. I read through the paper and it wasn't even close to being anything but a very small sample especially when you factor in that two different schools yielded two different results. So perhaps rather than just scream science, it would help if people took a deep breath and looked into what they hold in front of them as science cause that wasn't it.
6) I was responding to a claim about not being fully awake in the morning with a simple observation that if you go to bed early you are not going to be tired in the morning. That was then challenged with a completely new challenge which was that kids perform better when they are in school later to which I know for a fact that's not true and from the article you are referencing that's not what's being said either.
But claims of anecdotal evidence are simply factually wrong.
Then, I hope that everyone makes the obvious blunder of categorizing the target population according to the results of the study. Because it’s “scientific”, am-I-rite?
Finally, I harvest the crackerjack-smart, hard-working people from the (now) under-appreciated group.
My team wins; the scientism-ists get the lazy offspring of the wealthy elites protected by “science”.
Everyone wins!
Page 92:
"Adolescents face two other harmful challenges in their struggle to obtain sufficient sleep as their brains continue to develop. The first is a change in their circadian rhythm. The second is early school start times."
Also:
"... the circadian rhythm of a young child runs on an earlier schedule. Children therefore become sleepy earlier and wake up earlier than their adult parents. Adolescent teenagers, however, have a different circadian rhythm from their young siblings. During puberty, the timing of the suprachiasmatic nucleus is shifted progressively forward: a change that is common across all adolescents, irrespective of culture of geography."
It goes on to explain why this is the case, and the impact on your sleep schedule.
Also page 308-16 there's an entire chapter on Sleep and Education, and the problem of schools starting progressively early, mostly for the convenience of society at large, rather than a net benefit of the kids.
The book has been largely discussed on HN before; definitely worth reading.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501...
, my two sons are top performers in their school and the school network is top 3% performing in NY state.
I wasn't just talking about my two sons but about the school network in New York state. That's not anecdotal what so ever.
Here are the actual results from Success Academy: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/more-on-the-phenomenal-eye-po...
How is that anecdotal?
I can live with that as a significant sample size and control group ESPECIALLY since I never said that the earlier you are up the better but simply that it's not a problem if you get early enough to sleep.
The study you refer to compares 2, TWO schools and doesn't come to any conclusion that contradicts mine in fact it support it. More sleep means better performance most of all.
But sure keep on claiming I am the one who is making anecdotal claims.
You are. This doesn't mean they are for sure wrong, but you are looking at the success of one school system and saying that means that the start time does not matter. For all you know, that school system could change to starting at 8:30 and rank even higher. It is a textbook anecdotal claim.
>The study you refer to compares 2, TWO schools and doesn't come to any conclusion that contradicts mine in fact it support it. More sleep means better performance most of all.
That study doesn't compare two schools, it compares two classes in both of the schools against each other. This let's them better isolate the start time as the variable responsible for the change. It also references other studies with similar results. And it does disagree with you, the later start time was associated with kids getting 30 more minutes of sleep.
It's not just one school system it's various school systems Charter school vs. elementary school vs. different start time vs. different income groups etc.
You are just moving the goal post. For all intents and purposes what I am citing is as good if not better than the study you seem to think is more accurate.
With regards to the study, it compares two classes in two schools in high school. Yet somehow that's not anecdotal?
Furthermore no it actually says that the amount of sleep is what leads to better performance. NOT the time in the morning which was the entire claim of the parent I was answering so it does, in fact, agree with me even though it's, of course, actual anecdotal using two classes and it certainly isn't proving anything with regards to general performance or optimal time of day that kids can learn.
I am not even sure what we are debating anymore. But claiming my example is anecdotal is simply not true. It's much less anecdotal than any of the other studies being done here when it comes to performance which was what I originally responded to claims about.
You what? Come on man. There aren't degrees of "anecdotalness". That doesn't even make sense. Neither does calling a study anecdotal. I'm starting to think you don't know what the word means. I'll give you one hint: it does not have as much to do with the meaning of the word "anecdote" as you seem to think, but with the way factual evidence is collected and being compared.
You should have learned this in school.
So here is the statistics for you.
2400 elementary schools in NY state,
ALL 30 SA schools is in the top 3% and 2/3s of the top 1.5% is SA schools.
The claim was that the time you meet in school makes you perform poorer.
17% of NY elementary schools meet after 8.30, most meet between 8-8.30, SA schools meet 7.45.
In what universe is that anecdotal?
By all means.
If the SA schools perform consistently higher, and assuming for a school to be "SA" involves a bit more then starting at 7.45, then you need to compare the performance of SA schools that start at 7.45 with the performance of SA schools that start at 8.30. There aren't any? Then there is no way to tell. Not via statistics, at least.
Your comparison of statistics changes way too many variables to make any conclusion.
There's simply no way to tell if an SA school might not perform even better if they started later. Especially since the statistics you quote are not objective but "top X", which if they're already near the top, you couldn't measure improvement even if it was there.
Similarly, without quoting the proper statistics, there is also no way to tell if the schools starting at 8.30 might not perform worse if you changed nothing but starting them at 7.45. The numbers you quote simply do not say anything about this.
(also you're never going to prove anything about an effect in highschoolers by quoting irrelevant statistics about elementary schools)
Either way, your numbers don't prove what you are claiming, yet you still hold to this claim. If your claim is not anecdotal, then it is simply wrong.
>Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
You're basing it off your own casual observation of one school system. Nobody is moving goalposts.
>With regards to the study, it compares two classes in two schools in high school. Yet somehow that's not anecdotal
Because they actually ran an experiment where they tracked and controlled as many variables as possible. It had scientific rigor.
>Furthermore no it actually says that the amount of sleep is what leads to better performance.
It also says the later start time gave children thirty more minutes of sleep. So yes, it does say that a later start time is better.
Whatever that stude had in scientific rigor it lagged in sample size, if anything that was the very definition of anecdotal no matter how deep itcwent it was still only two classes on two different schools. Also notice how it talks about the sociodemographic reality as a way to explain some of thecredults yet SA is mostly from exactly that sociodemographic group yet outperform 98.2% of all other elementary schools in new york state.
And no the later time is only better because they got more sleep, but that can wasily be solved by going to bed earlier.
I dont for a second believe you cant see that your positive is simply not supported by your evidence and if you really cant see the holes in your position then i guess there is nothing more i can do. You are the one supporting anecdotal evidence, however detailed it is, not me.
You loterally started claiming i was talking about one school only, then you just kept moving the goal post. That’s intellectually dishonest and not something i care continuing supporting. Thanks for the talk.
All this shows is that there are more things that impact performance than start time. Those SA schools could still be performing better with a later start time, you have no idea.
>anything that was the very definition of anecdotal no matter how deep itcwent it was still only two classes on two different schools.
I gave you the definition of anecdotal, and it was not "based off of a small sample size." Only using two classes makes it a smaller experiment, but it still provides reliable data and it still cites other studies that have similar results.
>And no the later time is only better because they got more sleep, but that can wasily be solved by going to bed earlier.
Right, because children always do what is best for themselves and would never stay up later than they should.
> You are the one supporting anecdotal evidence, however detailed it is, not me.
I still can't believe you do not understand what anecdotal evidence is.
>You loterally started claiming i was talking about one school only, then you just kept moving the goal post
It was my mistake not to realize you were talking about a group of schools, I live in a rural area and a "school system" just means the elementary, middle, and high school in town. I have never moved the goalposts though, your statement was anecdotal whether talking about one school or a group of schools.
You are moving the goalpost whether you want to admit it or not. You made the mistake and you can't even live up to that. That says it all.
But sure if they are put to bed at 9-10 then its going to be tougher.
8pm bedtime is great with no other obligations, but I was regularly at school events past then (lacrosse games, robotics, quiz bowl, etc.), so that schedule would have prevented me from doing a lot of things I enjoyed in high school
So they have plenty of obligations we are just very strict with when they go to bed which means that in general we don't have an issue with getting them to sleep.
Putting the kids to sleep at 8 doesn't mean going to bed at 8pm myself.
Again we keep a strict schedule. Dinner at 6, bedtime reading at 7.30, light out at 8.00.
Weekends we are a little less strict yet they normally wake up at 6 anyway because they are used to it.
All it requires is the same kind of prioritization and effort we put into so many other things we care about.
The moment I got into university and could move my schedule my GPA went up two grades.
Depending on the school district 7am start times means busses are going to start their pickups much earlier, sometimes as early as 6am for some students.
"or a job structure that allows parents to have time off and not be penalized for it."
For this there's an easy fix: mandatory, with company-closing-fines-if-not-accepted, days off for employees for a number of school activities per year (with school provided documentation).
Yeah, but not every day. Just take half a day off, or arrange to work 4 days a week, like many Dutch parents are doing.
It's one thing to say that, as a society, it would be beneficial to make sure that all people have the opportunity to make these choices. Because currently a large amount of people in the US do not.
It's IMO not right to say that parents should just "arrange" having more time off. That's not how US job culture works.