On the other hand if you do nothing mentally stimulating or physically tiring all day long, then of course you won’t be able to sleep till late.
You heard it boys and girls, back to ploughing the fields it is!
"Schools shouldn't be forcing developing humans into a schedule that impairs their ability to learn and function, no matter what they want to decide"
If you actually believe that, then you have to be against this law. Any schedule will negatively affect someone. A later schedule would have been terrible for me.
As someone that has sleep issues that deviate vastly from the norm, I empathize with this point, but it doesn't really mean much when it comes to designing policy, which is supposed to serve its demographic broadly.
> Societal life should be a factor as that does factor into the holistic well-being of the student. Not just some myopic rule about start times that negatively impacts everything else (after school activities, jobs, parent schedules, etc).
The rule being set by the state or by the local school district is hardly of consequence. You're okay with painting broad strokes about parents' lives but then make an argument about individual students.
> If you actually believe that, then you have to be against this law. Any schedule will negatively affect someone. A later schedule would have been terrible for me.
Unless you're suggesting that the start times be adjusted to cater to every single individual's needs, this is just pointing out that the start time the school you attended coincided with what worked for you personally.
Which the current times do.
"The rule being set by the state or by the local school district is hardly of consequence."
This is totally untrue. At the district level, parents have more say in creating the rules that work for them (their local demographic!).
"You're okay with painting broad strokes about parents' lives but then make an argument about individual students."
Either one is broad. I'm pointing out that the very argument you make can be used against the position you're defending.
According to... what? The whole reason that California passed a law like this and why it's been suggested to push up the start time for high school is largely because the time that many school districts started their high schoolers at was of negative consequence to the children.
> This is totally untrue. At the district level, parents have more say in creating the rules that work for them (their local demographic!).
Are you saying that you'd have no objections if the local school district chose to start high school at a later time? I might agree with you that the state is overstepping its bounds by mandating an earliest start time, but that doesn't seem to be what you're complaining about. It seems more that you disagree that a later start time is beneficial to students (because you personally benefitted from the early start time of your high school) and that it's inconvenient to parents because they have to figure out the logistics of getting their kid to school at a later time.
That hasn't been proven yet. I guess we'll see with the next year's test scores compared to this year. I don't expect much to change test-wise. I do expect extracurricular partipation will drop.
"Are you saying that you'd have no objections if the local school district chose to start high school at a later time? "
Yes, I would be fine with districts starting later if the district was the one deciding it based on parental representation. At least then we could have a local discussion and do what works best for us.
Not really, tehre seems to be 3 groups of people:
1 - Adults that get some kind of power trip out of tyrany and making kids miserable and justifying it by 'toughening them up'. They deman respect and dicipline while demonstrating total disrespect towards kids and usually have little dicipline themselves. They will have endless stories about how their childhood was tough, and they had to talk to school and home 10 miles, alone, thorugh the snow, and it was uphill both ways
2 - Adults that 'care', by helicoptering over kids and try to shape them into a career they wish they pursued themselves. These guys are hardly better.
3 - Adults that actually respect children as people with independant thoughts and emotional needs
Your list also entirely excludes neglectful parents, whose lack of presence and guidance can be of great detriment to their children's progress in life.
I think that there are a lot of parents who might encompass all sorts of different stereotypes as they try to raise their children the best they can. "Toughening up" children is important. Building up resiliency in a controlled and safe environment is necessary for a person to navigate regular life. Showing compassion and interest in your children is important because it allows them to live their most honest selves. Providing structure for children is important because it helps them succeed in a world that very much relies on various constructs.
I think ultimately, parenthood is hard and finding the right balance of things is hard and unfortunately, you can't just undo the mistakes that can have lifelong impact on your children. I don't think my parents raised me the best they could have, but I don't doubt that they definitely tried.
Me too. I have always been an early riser, early sleeper. Forcing me to go to school later in the day would have been awful.
I think the goal of these sorts of policies is to increase the breadth of students which can benefit from you know, actually being well rested inside school hours. A person that sleeps later and wakes up later (which studies that justify these sorts of policies indicates teenagers largely are) would benefit from a later start time.
Schools shouldn't be forcing developing humans into a schedule that impairs their ability to learn and function, no matter what they want to decide