For the teachers in the audience - thoughts on this?

[professionalhenchman]

The NY Times has an article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kalish.html?ex=1201150800&en=26905c2556c4c72a&ei=5070&emc=eta1
It's suggesting having school run later for all students, and start later for teenagers because of the various studies showing that they don't learn well in early mornings and generally need more sleep. It sounds like a good proposal to me, but I thought I'd ask those of you who are/have been teachers for your thoughts on it.

Comments

[fools-and-irish.livejournal.com]

I heard a story a number of years ago, on NPR I think. An experiment. Some community in Colorado, I believe, took all of its "at-risk" students--the drop-outs and drop-out potentials, the D and F students--and gave them the option of a school that ran from 11 AM to 5 PM.

The students were highly successful almost immediately. They had been sleep-deprived. On the new schedule, they could get enough sleep and STILL have time to finish homework in the morning before school.

I think it's a good idea, and Gods know I'd welcome a chance to start later myself.

Two practical problems. First, how will kids get to school after their parents have left, in areas without busing (more and more common)? Second, is it really a good idea to leave children and adolescents alone, en masse, like this?

If I ran the world, schools would run from 9 until 5, paralleling a regular workday for most parents. The first hour of that time would be unstructured; for all of me, kids could nap. But they would be in a place with supervision. The last hour would be a study hall for students, to get work done with help available.

Key to this is that we keep kids supervised. Highest rates of property crime are between 3 and 5 PM, when kids are loose from school but parents are shackled to work. That is absolutely fixable.

My two cents.

[masterfiddler.livejournal.com]

That's a different idea than the ones I've heard that simply propose to extend the student day without paying the professionals extra for it. Yes, I mean the teachers, the custodial staff, the secretaries, and so on. This would simply shift the day. interesting idea. I'm going to have to think about the ramifications of such an idea a little longer, though. Can you imagine trying to tack on Staff Development or Staff Meetings after 5 PM, or having to deal with teachers like me who have an absolute limit of 5 PM to retrieve my kid from daycare?

[emilia-romagna.livejournal.com]

with a later start, couldn't you do them before school then?

[masterfiddler.livejournal.com]

That would suppose crossing Logic with Education. (*grin*)

[emilia-romagna.livejournal.com]

So, its a no-go then? ;)

[fox359.livejournal.com]

Hm. Well, I mostly taught college students not high school students, but my gut instinct says *yes*, it's a fantastic idea.

From my own experience of going to early classes and teaching early classes, attendance (my own and theirs) is much higher for late morning/afternoon classes.

Personally, I'm a fan of:

- Year-round schooling.
- Longer hours (i.e. 9-5pm) with less frantic time constraints. (Make the day more relaxed.)
- Less "condensed" periods. (Less pressure to "squeeze in too much" into a lecture.)
- No homework. (Basically, with longer hours, spend maybe 1 hour on lecture [attention spans apparently drop off after that anyway] then 1 hour on work, under the guidance of tutors and teachers.)
- After school activities that emphasize not only sports and music, but gaming and socializing and interacting with adults. (Maybe interaction with teachers, police... people in the community. Get into search and rescue. Firefighting. That sort of thing. Let the kids know that they're contributing to the community themselves.)
- Different teacher requirements. Some people have only a bachelor degree, but I personally believe that's all you need to teach at the high school level. Teacher certification and all that jazz is sorta' a icky subject for me. I mean, hell, I never did it but taught at the college level just fine. It seems like one more hurdle that people have to push past in a profession that's short on teachers anyway! Something *must* be done to assure quality teachers, however. Mayhaps a student review or an "in-class" observation, along with subject tests for the teachers. (i.e. why should an english person who knows nothing about math be teaching math? A periodic subject examination should see to it that people who shouldn't be teaching the thing aren't teaching the thing. Much like a "Flight Review" for pilots.)

Anyways, my own opinions. I should probably quit before this reply gets too long. :) I'm fairly verbal about this sort of thing, as you can see!

[elhoff.livejournal.com]

I'm not a teacher but seems to me that shifting schedules does not necessarily mean the students get more sleep. Example:
- I know I should be in bed by 10, so I can get 8 hrs of sleep and be up at 6, at work at 8. I actually get to bed between 11 and 12, and therefore only get 6-7 hrs sleep.
- If I knew that I did not have to be at work until 10, I could sleep until 8. My logic would say that I need to be in bed by 12. More than likely, I would still get to bed 1-2 hrs later than I should (1 to 2am) and still only get 6-7 hrs of sleep. Shifted schedule accomplished nothing.

It might help some people, but overall, I am not convinced.

[ealasaidh.livejournal.com]

Actually, there's some evidence from what I hear that the circadian rhythms of adolescents are such that they naturally stay up a bit later and get up a bit later, while forcing them to get up early does not actually make it any easier for them to get to sleep earlier. As adults, our circadian rhythms shift again so that we're a bit more flexible. For teens, though, it is often literally impossible for their brains to be fully online before 8am or so.

I think a shifted school day is a great idea. I certainly did better my frosh year of college when my earliest class was at 9am. I'm not convinced I was getting much more sleep, but I was more awake at 9 after 6 hours of sleep than I was at 7 after 6 hours of sleep.

[groblek.livejournal.com]

Having read through some of the scientific literature surrounding this a couple of years ago, as I recall, ealasaidh's correct that this would have more of an effect of lining up education with the natural circadian rhythms for teenagers about when they learn best, and it's more about that than specifically making sure they get more sleep. Their brains just aren't ready to learn as well, even if they're up and moving earlier vs later in the day.

[elhoff.livejournal.com]

Where As I have always been more of a morning person and 8AM is a great time of day for me. Then I am ready for a nap about 3PM. Oh well, can't develop a schedule that suits everyone.