Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New California law requires high schools to start later

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 267 posts

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#231

Post by sharadov »

_trackno5 wrote: post #187
sharadov wrote: post #120

Elementary school kids have an easier schedule and tend to go to bed early. Teens in high school tend have a more intense schedule ( academics, sports, other activities). The teen body is growing more quickly and they need about 8 to 10 hrs of sleep. I know high schools that start at 7:50 am, that is criminal. Let the teens sleep in..

This argument makes no sense to me. How is it criminal to start at 7:50am? Kids can sleep early and get their 8-10 hours of sleep just the same.

But they don't - screens being a major culprit.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#232

Post by spc476 »

thehappypm wrote: post #112
gruez wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A recent economist article explains it well: >Since the 1950s Americans have been moving away from cities to sprawling suburbs with limited public transport. Families became car-dependent and buses were used to get pupils to school. But to save money schools often have to share bus fleets. High-schoolers are usually picked up first, then middle school, to prevent elementary pupils from waiting in the morning darkness…

It’s less about “saving money” IMO than about wastefulness. Every student going at the same time is just a waste of busing resources. Staggering it a bit is more efficient, which sure saves money but also just prevents waste

I attended elementary school (age 5-10, grades 1-5) in a small town. Each bus did four trips---two in the morning, and two in the afternoon. The morning trip wasn't bad as the kids needed to be at the stop in time for the bus to pick them up. It was after school that was bad for "second load" kids---they had to wait maybe half an hour (or more) for the bus to finish the route for the kids in "first load".

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#233

Post by daveoc64 »

WalterBright wrote: post #205
throwaway2016a wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While as a parent myself I agree but this is high school. Generally speaking someone who's 13 or older should be able to make their way onto a bus without an adult. When I was that age (granted this was the 90s) I had a key to the house and was trusted to let myself in when I got back. What's worse is the end of day. My kid is younger and I need to be at the bus stop at 3:50 PM every day to meet her.

> 13 or older Jeez, we've really infantilized our kids.

Well, yes, we do tend to treat children as children.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#234

Post by ironmagma »

frumper wrote: post #213
ironmagma wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're doing business with the east coast, you probably don't need to be in the office for that.

Bosses beg to differ. Seats aren't going to warm themselves.

The labor market you’d be missing out on by not hiring any parents whatsoever is enormous. They will find a way.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#235

Post by skeaker »

ravitation wrote: post #144
adamw2k wrote: post #134

Many folks are talking about bus schedules, but California hardly offers transporation in most districts. Only 9% of children take a bus to school [1] and that's been trending down for decades. Pay more, get less; sad state of affairs. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-03/californ...

Finally. There are these long comment threads talking about high school students taking public transit/school buses, but that just isn't how most high school students get to school. It is unfortunate that mid/late teenagers are so dependent on cars, which often means dependent on a parent or other adult, but that's the type of cities we've built in this country.

Another thing to note is that none of this is new information. This trend has existed for perhaps a decade or two, and the ignorance to that in this thread is really showing the age of the users on this site.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#236

Post by JJMcJ »

sharadov wrote: post #147
JJMcJ wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used to be bedtime for even high schoolers would be 10 PM or earlier. No computers, one TV for the whole house. So getting up at 7 to make an 8:30 start wasn't so bad. My high school was a fifteen minute walk, or a similar bus ride in the winter. So it wasn't so bad.

Were you a 90s kid? I remember going to bed between 9 and 9:30 PM in high school, and being up at 6 am - since I went for a morning run, school did not start till 8:30 am..

Even earlier.

Still living the old ways like you see in old TV shows.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#237

Post by collegeburner »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #219
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a catasrophic level of disrespect for the younger generation. It is clear by looking at the tone in the media, the derision with which issues that affect them are treated and the level of devastation we are leaving for them to handle, both in financial debt and climate change. I don't know if it's envy, if they oldies are uncomfortable with change, or they just feel incomplete if there isn't someone lower do…

There seem to be 3 attitudes to kids: 1 - Adults that get some kind of power trip out of tyrany and justify it by 'toughening them up'. They demand respect and dicipline they never had 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 a…

No post body was provided.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#238

Post by sdf4j »

collegeburner wrote: post #237
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seem to be 3 attitudes to kids: 1 - Adults that get some kind of power trip out of tyrany and justify it by 'toughening them up'. They demand respect and dicipline they never had 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 a…

Quoted post unavailable.

Can't tell if it's sarcasm or not.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#239

Post by polski-g »

spc476 wrote: post #232
thehappypm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s less about “saving money” IMO than about wastefulness. Every student going at the same time is just a waste of busing resources. Staggering it a bit is more efficient, which sure saves money but also just prevents waste

I attended elementary school (age 5-10, grades 1-5) in a small town. Each bus did four trips---two in the morning, and two in the afternoon. The morning trip wasn't bad as the kids needed to be at the stop in time for the bus to pick them up. It was after school that was bad for "second load" kids---they had to wait maybe half an hour (or more) for the bus to finish the route for the kids in "first load".

Seems like they could just pick up all aged kids at the same time and make multiple drop-off points at the various schools.

Re: New California law requires high schools to start later

#240

Post by derekp7 »

collegeburner wrote: post #237
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seem to be 3 attitudes to kids: 1 - Adults that get some kind of power trip out of tyrany and justify it by 'toughening them up'. They demand respect and dicipline they never had 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 a…

Quoted post unavailable.

I can't say if your opinion is supported or refuted by biological science facts, but I can give you a piece of anecdata. I tended towards being a night owl in my teens up through maybe mid 30's. In high school I'd stay up late reading, or watching episodes of Dr. Who on PBS, or pounding away on my PCjr figuring out 8088 assembly language programming. I guess that you can say that was about as useless as "staying up late playing video games", however it did lead to a successful computer career. But the reason for working into the night was that my brain would start to kick into high gear after the day's activities. I would get into a "flow" state, and want to keep going. In the mornings I could barely think straight enough to tie my shoes, and was always tired. Even if I went to bed early I couldn't fall asleep because my mind kept racing.

Now I did fairly poorly in high school, but things turned around dramatically when I started community college. Two reasons -- first, I was treated like an adult. Didn't have to ask for the teacher's blessing so that I may use the washroom. Could set my own class schedule, where taking evening courses allowed me to work during the day and got me out of the TV habit at night (that is where I learned that "Prime Time Fall Lineup" really didn't mater if I missed it).

But the biggest change for me (that really doesn't work for kids these days) is that my job paid enough that I could pay my school tuition. And let me tell you something, when it was my hard earned money paying for the classes you can bet your bottom dollar that I worked my posterior off to get good grades.

Post reply on HN