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?


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.


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcftrk8 wrote

But we are pointing out all the realities of the situation that make also factor into the equation. A later start time would improve their learning, but learning is not currently failing so you then need to say what would be the cost of this incremental adjustment, and that’s where all of these other points come in. Then it’s a cost benefit of “is this incremental improvement worth getting rid of school sports, screwing up bussing etc” to which we are saying no it’s not worth it. No one is arguing with the premise of the data we are arguing whether the implementation is worth it


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.


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcfaiuj wrote

Because I thought you might have had a rational reason not “child labor”,. A quick google search tells me that less than 20% of high schoolers have pet time jobs, so that’s obviously the devious reasons we start high schools early, to capitalize on less than a quarter of the students


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


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jcf1a0p wrote

Except that’s not the main reason anymore the main reasons are bussing and school sports. The same busses are used for younger and older kids. Earlier times for younger kids has more of an effect on parents who need to actively get those kids on busses. That’s much harder with a younger kid at 630am than it is at 8am. And school sports need earlier dismissals to allow practice and games.


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jbi568z wrote

And a whole lot of anti war people were extremely outraged about Syrian refugees and assad’s gas attacks. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t want us to help get those peoples homes back and punish Assad while also not having troops there to do it. This isn’t empire, we have less than a BCT of SF and support troops, they are helping the people of Syria not invading the country.


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_ja04ucc wrote

Understanding there are dems that don’t support legislation, there is no upside for any republican to vote for this with the direction of much of their base and their most popular politicians going in a polar opposite direction. Their support for any legislation will be used against them in primaries to elect candidates who see no distinction between pot/fentanyl/legal immigration/and crime. They don’t care about how much revenue it can generate or the difference between pot and hard drugs. Casual correlation is enough


Sixfeatsmall05 t1_j9zwayp wrote

Neither of these are legit. Why were passports anywhere except under lock and key. Second, again, no private citizen has the authority to destroy a passport. “Oh look at all these passports, they must be fake” is ludicrous and criminal because again, property of the government that issued. So no mistake here