What’s your control? Do other schools in or out of the top 3% have earlier or later start times? How do you account for confounds like socioeconomics and demographics? If you don’t, what you have is an anecdote, not evidence. Others are pointing you to studies that look at real data and apply statistical rigor. You are arguing that your knowledge of a single example outweighs that evidence. That is precisely what people mean when they accuse you of using ‘anecdata’.

17.3% of schools in New York start later than 8.30, the majority starts between 8-8.30 SA starts at 7.45 yet they dominate the Top 30 out of a sample of 2400 schools.

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.

>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.

I am comparing +2400 schools in New York state with each other based on the stats I told you and with Success Academy both being the earliest and dominating the top of that list (two thirds of the top 1.8% of the school. And that's with a majority of the children being black and Hispanic and from less financially well of homes.

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.

> It's much less anecdotal than (...) studies being done

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.

Huh? I learned in school that sooner or later anecdotes become statistics. If you didn't learn that you are missing something.

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.

It was anecdotal because your example started as a story about your kids. The statistics you quote here are pretty much meaningless, so it doesn't change a thing. Let me explain why.

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.

Here's the definition of anecdotal

>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.

2400 schools and exactly the same school system the “scientific studies” are based on, so yes you are moving the goal post. What i have is a pretty clear indication that meeting early in school does not affect your abilities to perform well in fact when you compare SA which have the earliest meeting time they dominate of a top 30, 20 of those are SA. I was responding to a claim that Later was better for performance.

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.

>What i have is a pretty clear indication that meeting early in school does not affect your abilities to perform well in fact when you compare SA which have the earliest meeting time they dominate of a top 30, 20 of those are SA.

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.

Of course there are other factors, but what I was responding to what the claim that meeting early lead to poorer performance. THATS the context here.

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.

The mistake I admitted I made in my last post and gave context as to why I made the mistake? The mistake that doesn't even matter, as your evidence would still be defined as "anecdotal" either way? That says it all?