California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am • Hacker News Board

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#381

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #365

boomboomsubban wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 does…

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…

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.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#382

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #381

ThomPete wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 man…

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.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#383

Post by sologoub » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #245

sologoub wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why Chromebooks are a lot better choice - $150 buys you a reasonable example and you also don’t have to worry about kid breaking it and loosing weeks of work. Example: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-11-6-chromebook-intel-cele... And for older kids, there’s Linux support, etc.

Teachers who cannot understand why you can't use the Apple Store on an Android fare no better at understanding that they can't run X proprietary Windows program on a Chromebook.

That could be solvable with something like cross-over: https://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover-chromeos

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/

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#384

Post by shakna » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

sologoub wrote: post #383

shakna wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teachers who cannot understand why you can't use the Apple Store on an Android fare no better at understanding that they can't run X proprietary Windows program on a Chromebook.

That could be solvable with something like cross-over: https://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover-chromeos 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/

Generally speaking, proprietary educational software cannot run under Wine and friends, mostly because it tends to be rather poorly written in the first place, full of Undefined Behaviour.

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.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#385

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #382

boomboomsubban wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 man…

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.…

>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.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#386

Post by rubicon33 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #208

rubicon33 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children can still wake up early. They're just not forced to PERFORM well early. You have to understand that not everyone does well in the morning. It's completely unfair to expect everyone to get up and be functioning at the same level in the early morning. That's going to advantage some, and disadvantage others. That's what this is about. Nothing stops the early bird from getting up early and doing all the things y…

It’s not about fairness. Why is everything about ‘fairness’? It’s not a biological impediment. Getting up early is not a super power nor is childhood a disability. Getting up early and getting an early start gives you a buffer towards the end of the day. If you start late and run out of time, the whole rest of the day will be derailed. Anyways..just my 2c. I am not here to argue because I have no dog in this fight.

> It’s not about fairness. Why is everything about ‘fairness’?

Is that not a worthy ideal to strive for, as a community?

Wouldn't you prefer a world where we all have equal opportunity? Where, it comes down to who wants it more, not who had the best start?

...

The rest of what you have to say is clear evidence that you've always been naturally a morning person. You don't understand what it's like to perform at 50% of your ability just because you're forced to be awake at that hour.

I'd personally love to see all these pro-morning people espouse the non-biological bull rhetoric, when they're asked to stay up until 4am. Lets see you perform your best, passing tests, focussing in class, etc, at 2am in the morning.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#387

Post by notfromhere » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

chris11 wrote: post #284

archi42 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enen with tech workers complaining about the high rents, I wonder how bad teachers fare? Or are these districts in "cheap" areas?

San Mateo and Redwood City are both expensive, but not as bad as SF. One article reported median rents were about 2.4k, which makes sense. There a few places advertising lower rents, but not many, and at that price you are giving stuff up. SF is worse. 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 cros…

2.4k on rent when you're making between 31-3700 post-tax is kinda brutal.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#388

Post by creatornator » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #343

dsalzman wrote: post #4

School children are sleeping on average 1 hour less than theirs peers did 50 years ago. This has been driven by earlier and earlier school start times. Sleep deprivation in school age children has been linked to lower test scores, lower knowledge retention, higher rates of "trouble making". Really happy to see these laws getting put in place!

>School children are sleeping on average 1 hour less than theirs peers did 50 years ago. And how much of that is due to - Social media - Gaming - SMS/MMS/Marco Polo/etc ... I'm guessing quite a bit. Until I was 12 you were in bed, lights out, no tv by 8pm PERIOD for me and many of my friends. Past that if I wasn't in bed at 10 it was "why aren't you in bed? Turn the computer and TV off and if I pick up the phone you…

I'm 22 right now--when I was in middle and high school, I didn't have TV, video games, a phone, or a computer. But I still had to get up at 6 to get to school on time. Combined with late nights doing homework, it was miserable. This opinion about gaming and media is such a "kids these days" meme. I was mature enough to be capable of self-regulation but that didn't help the sleep deprivation due to early school start times.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#389

Post by tripzilch » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:10 AM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #169

mc32 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people with jobs —even low paying jobs have newish smartphones and tablets. 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.

In some countries, schools exist to teach students, rather than simply warehousing them and saying it's parents' fault for not teaching everything in the hours from 3 pm - 10 pm and weekends. 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…

Wait. Is that for serious? Kids in the US don't learn to read in school??

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.

Re: California’s new law bans schools from starting before 8am

#390

Post by tripzilch » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:32 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #183

kaitai wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some countries, schools exist to teach students, rather than simply warehousing them and saying it's parents' fault for not teaching everything in the hours from 3 pm - 10 pm and weekends. 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…

Teachers can't bear to carry that load themselves. That's ridiculous. Parents have a load to carry. Parenting isn't easy. I know people whose idea or rearing is limited to feeding, dressing and sending their kids to school. "Kids are not expensive" is what they tell me.

> Teachers can't bear to carry that load themselves.

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.