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.
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.