Submitted by benpinette t3_11sgnxb in Maine
figment1979 t1_jceoh31 wrote
Reply to comment by Sixfeatsmall05 in Do you think Maine should mandate later start times for high schools? by benpinette
It shouldn't be the "tail wagging the dog" though - sports shouldn't be the primary concern in this issue, it should be what is ideal for students to learn, because that's what they go to school to do in the first place.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcev4bk wrote
Yea if you were going to create school out of nothing it would be the correct choice. But now you have other considerations like sports that are culturally just as important.
Right_In_The_Tits t1_jceyglt wrote
> culturally just as important.
That's part of the problem.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcf05iw wrote
It’s the reality. In the us we have school sports. To have school sports you need time in the afternoon which means an earlier start. Your argument refuses to acknowledge reality based on a single factor.
figment1979 t1_jcf17q4 wrote
I’m so sorry that “single factor” happens to be the most important one - kids actually learning things. How inconvenient, I know.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcfa8hx wrote
Do kids not learn now? I missed where huge percentages of kids are leaving Maine schools without graduating or not going on to excellent colleges and careers. We balance everything in life. Does the data show that “optimal” education would include a later time? Sure. It doesn’t show the counter factual tho that no kid can succeed in the current system, it’s just not the most optimal. But the data also shows well rounded kids are more successful, so the system takes that in to consideration
figment1979 t1_jcfcr8n wrote
So we should just ignore “optimal” and aim for “convenient”?
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcfuagy wrote
We should decide the cost benefit for incremental increases. What do we lose when we improve the system a small amount. Is it worth losing school sports to increase individuals focus a few percentage points? I don’t think so, not when we haven’t maxed out non structural improvements such as higher teacher wages, smaller class sizes, more technology etc.
thesilversverker t1_jcf7lc6 wrote
Why not do sports before school? Early start for sports, school at 9. If it's important, your kid will get up early, and kids who want to prioritize learning can do that.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcfaz8b wrote
You clearly didn’t play sports in Maine in high school. Teams travel 1-2 hours for games. Your point is exactly the same point against the data- those who want to prioritize learning will do so regardless as to whether it’s a little harder because their bodies clocks aren’t aligned to the system. Kids succeed now, they go on to great schools etc. we could make it more optimal with a different time start but we would lose other aspects, like school sports, that are important parts of their growth. Instead we ask them to work a little harder to overcome the time issue and most do very well.
thesilversverker t1_jcfgau7 wrote
School sports arent important for their growth, and they are clearly less important for the student body than academics. You're suggesting its good to make learning harder, because sports kids and parents dont want to bother with any effort.
Why not make the volunteers (athletes) put the extra work in, rather than everyone?
I also did sports, but it's absurd to suggest those are a valid reason to disadvantage 95% of the student body
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcfuyde wrote
It’s cost benefit. A 2018 study on this found a 4.5% increase in grades between early and later starting times. We aren’t talking huge changes here. I would think that as a culture we see school sports as at least a 5% net positive or growth for adolescents.
thesilversverker t1_jcfwpeg wrote
> I would think that as a culture we see school sports as at least a 5% net positive or growth for adolescents.
I think you're right on this, as far as cultural perceived benefits.
Proving that our populace is bad at math, and should have played fewer sports.
50k in sports, 175k total students. We should disregard the minority interest, sports would need to be like a 17% bump to break even.
Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcg2pbl wrote
But if we are saying that at best a later start is going to net us only a 5% increase in scores, which is what data shows, is that worth all the structural changes we would need to make to Get there when we haven’t fully made all possible changes within the current system such as more teachers, more technology etc?
wormpussy t1_jcg9hm3 wrote
A 5% increase in scores across the state of Maine would be a huge benefit to our communities, if people like you didn’t keep holding these poor kids back intellectually then we could probably snowball it into a higher percentage. Why do you see an issue with a more educated population?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments