[HN Gopher] New California law requires high schools to start later
___________________________________________________________________
New California law requires high schools to start later
Author : thnaks
Score : 161 points
Date : 2022-07-01 20:12 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| antonymy wrote:
| Works for California, I suppose. Where I grew up buses were
| shared between schools so start times had to be staggered between
| school levels, and because it was above the 45th Parallel North
| our days were a lot shorter than the ones in California
| especially in the winter. So there's only so many practical start
| times you can have, and somebody's going to be getting up and
| going to school before sunup or going home during sundown.
|
| While letting yawning teenagers get more sleep seems obvious, the
| lesser evil is having them get up while it's dark out instead of
| making 10 year olds walk to the bus stop in darkness, or walk
| home in twilight. Folks would drive their kids to school if they
| could, my dad did for me and my little brother as much as
| possible, but in a household where both parents have jobs, it's
| not a realistic solution, and that was the reality for most
| people in the district I lived in.
| t_mann wrote:
| There are probably few public policies that are so easy to
| implement, have such consistent research backing and yet so often
| go ignored than having school start later than 8pm.
| [deleted]
| adrr wrote:
| Reason is based around science. This seems like something that
| can be easily tested with a high school where you can starts some
| kids later and measure grade/test performance.
| kpennell wrote:
| One of the hardest times in my life was being 14 and absolutely
| exhausted in school. I also added to it by signing up for an
| early morning workout class. That combined with a dose of
| adderall each day had me absolutely tired and wired. I got hurt
| 3x in football and it just sent me into a spiral.
|
| All that to say, glad to know that future generations of high
| schools will be getting more rest.
| kibwen wrote:
| Same here, school started at 7:34 and the first period was
| always a complete wash. Might as well have called it napping
| class, or as close as you can get to napping while keeping your
| eyes just open enough that the teacher doesn't call you out.
| I've just looked it up, and it looks like my old school
| district got the memo because these days the bell rings at
| 8:09.
| wnevets wrote:
| I would've done much better in high school if I was able to start
| later. Its absolutely insane this isn't nation wide.
| bdowling wrote:
| Does this affect private schools or home schooling?
| adamw2k wrote:
| 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...
| ravitation wrote:
| 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.
| hedora wrote:
| I remember when they cut most of the busses in California. They
| claimed it reduced their carbon footprint.
| quartz wrote:
| I hope this law doesn't prevent early morning extra-curricular
| classes.
|
| My high school started at 8:20 but we had a 0-period option at
| 7:15 which is when we were able to take other arts classes like
| concert band.
|
| I ultimately was in 3 music related classes in high school:
| concert band at 0-period, jazz band at 4th period, and a small
| combo band after school 3-days per week.
|
| I loved having a longer day when it meant I could do more of what
| I wanted to do and also get some flexibility around the school's
| otherwise rigid schedule but looking back I really appreciate
| that the longer day was at least partially from starting earlier.
|
| Starting these longer days early meant I still had a lot of free
| time after school as well to spend with friends even if they were
| involved in the "standard" day and gave me unstructured free time
| before my parents came home and before I had to worry about doing
| things like homework.
| tronicdude wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31711020
| sva_ wrote:
| I fully understand that some people are seemingly genetically
| predisposed to get up later, and in puberty this effect is
| exacerbated (puberty seems to cause people's circadian rhythm to
| make them stay up later). I'm probably one of them, looking at my
| sleeping habits.
|
| So while this will obviously have a positive effect on 'night
| owls', may it have a negative effect on 'early birds'?
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| the chronic lack of sleep in highschool probably set back my
| intellectual development a decade. These days I genenrally sleep
| from midnight to 10am and that seems to be what I need to perform
| in my job. Its crazy that my paid job is happy to accommodate me
| while highschools continually disrespect their students with wake
| up times that set them up for failure.
| MikePlacid wrote:
| My public-schooled daughter (now doing PhD in game theory in
| UCSD) has a best friend (now doing PhD in meteorology in
| CalTech). The best friend was home schooled - as they do it now
| in California, i.e. she participated in a rather intense network
| of online and offline study groups and community college courses.
| They compared notes. The conclusion: the quality of the education
| was the same. But in our - rather good - public school my
| daughter had to participate in a lot of useless and boring tasks
| and activities - a tremendous waste of time in her opinion.
|
| So I guess the time that kids spend in public schools can be cut
| tremendously, instead of its start being shifted from early
| morning to a bit later morning. But I doubt that useless time
| elimination can be achieved via legislation.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I'd be interested in seeing some kind of study on this. Before
| high school, yeah, there's lots of time wasted on watching
| videos and coloring pages, but I don't remember high school
| being so bad. Unless the teacher was really lazy, we usually
| covered lots of material.
| blendergeek wrote:
| When we follow this up with year-round "Day Light Savings Time"
| will we move school a second hour forward?
| cbhrocks wrote:
| Nothing will change. Kids will just take advantage of the late
| start by staying up even later.
| rr888 wrote:
| I dont understand this either. Yes teenagers are tired in the
| morning and hard to get out of bed. My daughter and her friends
| go to bed at midnight, 1am, often later.
| khazhoux wrote:
| It doesn't really work like that for those of us who aren't
| "morning people." I will feel exhausted if I have to get up
| at 7:30, but will feel _amazingly awake_ with the same number
| of hours if I can sleep in till 9am. It 's not just the
| number of hours, but how they align to the daily clock.
| dang wrote:
| > _Let me guess, you've always been a morning person?_
|
| Please don't cross into personal attack.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| khazhoux wrote:
| rephrased
| dang wrote:
| Yes, that's much better. Thanks!
| tomtheelder wrote:
| That's not what the research says. They aren't just
| implementing this policy for no reason. It's a complicated
| topic, but there's really good reason to believe that this will
| be beneficial.
|
| A few sources, there are _tons_ more:
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15402002.2014.96...
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1111/sbr.12003
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07420528.2012.65...
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1540200070126380...
| synergy20 wrote:
| I never understand the schedule for schools:
|
| 1. elementary school starts at 7:30AM, middle school at 8:20,
| high school at 9:10 here. So, the youngest kid gets up at 6:50AM,
| older ones at 7:50AM, oldest at 8:40(assuming you're not too far
| from school that is). why the youngest ended up getting up the
| earliest puzzles me.
|
| 2. School is off in hot summer and cold winter, I would prefer
| they study on campus then, so they can enjoy longer break in
| spring and fall, where outdoor weather is much better to get
| around.
| [deleted]
| fossuser wrote:
| 1. It's way better for younger kids to start earlier than older
| kids, gives time for parents to get them out the door before
| work (older kids can manage themselves). There's also some
| evidence that older kids have more trouble getting up super
| early.
|
| 2. Highly regionally variable (California summer is the best
| season by far, east coast summer is much worse than fall) -
| summer also has the longest daytime light which is nice.
| thehappypm wrote:
| East coast summer is much worse than fall? What do you mean?
| fossuser wrote:
| Generalizing a bit, but the east coast in the summer is
| often very hot, humid, and buggy. The east coast fall is
| often less humid and more temperate (more pleasant to be
| outside).
|
| The west coast summer can be hot, but is rarely humid.
|
| Middle of the country varies too much to really generalize
| imo.
| ghaff wrote:
| Depends on a lot of things of course--including where on
| the East Coast and the activity. (I wouldn't make such a
| categorical statement about Maine for example.) But not so
| hot and humid. Not so buggy. (Also fewer people.) In
| general, I'd say that September/October are the ideal
| months for much of New England (and a lot of the West Coast
| as well.)
| bluGill wrote:
| Schools reused school buses, once they deliver the elementary
| school kids it is back out (different route) for the next
| grade. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other schools in
| your district with other start times.
|
| If the school system would team up with public transit, they
| are already a quarter of the say to all day bus service for
| everyone.
| itronitron wrote:
| In many European cities all public school students use the
| existing public transit (buses, trams, subway). Very young
| children are typically dropped off and picked up by a parent,
| but beyond second grade they are usually traveling with their
| peers.
| EUROCARE wrote:
| "all" is hyper-optimistic. I live in such city, and it's
| half at best, the rest needs a car to get around anyways;
| and most schools require parents to pick up children at
| least until third grade.
| chefandy wrote:
| For us in high school we started the earliest. I think the idea
| was that older siblings might need to care for younger ones
| when they got out of school. Being a night owl, I'm 100%
| positive it was a driving factor in my disengagement and
| eventual expulsion (for truancy) from public school.
| least wrote:
| > why the youngest ended up getting up the earliest puzzles me.
|
| I think there's been quite a few studies indicating that
| teenagers benefit the most from later start times due to the
| shift in their internal clock. Little kids can deal with
| earlier start times.
|
| Staggered start is frequently due to logistics; they don't want
| to pay for a larger fleet of school buses and drivers to
| facilitate the schools starting at the same time.
| chucknthem wrote:
| Helps working parents with logistics too. High school kids
| can dress themselves and get themselves to school.
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| "why the youngest ended up getting up the earliest puzzles me."
|
| It's so parents who have to go to work, can drop their kids
| off. The youngest are the ones who shouldn't (in most cities
| unfortunately) be going by public transports by themselves.
| While teens can just take the bus or subway.
| InefficientRed wrote:
| _> why the youngest ended up getting up the earliest puzzles
| me._
|
| I've always heard teenagers need more sleep than younger kids.
| I've never actually verified this claim.
|
| In my area it's the opposite, and the reason is simple: high
| schoolers don't need childcare.
|
| _> School is off in hot summer and cold winter, I would prefer
| they study on campus then, so they can enjoy longer break in
| spring and fall, where outdoor weather is much better to get
| around._
|
| That's a pure anachronism, but switching costs are genuinely
| high so not totally irrational.
| bilsbie wrote:
| It may not be that teenagers need more sleep rather that it's
| harder for them to get enough sleep because they don't have
| someone else controlling their sleep schedule like children
| do.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| It's neither. There have been studies that showed that they
| don't need more sleep, but are naturally on a later
| circadian rhythm. Young kids are on a early cycle. Once
| they become teens the cycle shifts to later hours and then
| in the 20s starts moving forward again.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648699/
| subsubzero wrote:
| Its totally designed for working parents, little kids need the
| most attention and therefore have the earliest start times. As
| kids get older they are more self sufficient hence the later
| school start times. But I think the reason for these times
| primarily is for parents where both of them go to work early. I
| am glad to see high schoolers start later as I remember having
| a very hard time getting up early during my teenage years.
| [deleted]
| KMag wrote:
| I've heard that adolescents'/early adults' biological clocks
| skew later. In my cohort, there are lots of parents annoyed
| that early elementary school kids wake up before them on
| weekends. Adolescents on the other hand are notorious for
| sleeping in. Anecdotes don't make data, but I've heard second
| hand that data backs up these stereotypes.
|
| Supposedly Summer break is so that kids can help with harvests
| on family farms.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| If I let my body clock do what it wants, I sleep from about
| 3am - 11am. This has been my tendency since high school age.
| I'm 56 now. My memory of the 22 years I had kids living in
| the house is slightly fogged by me always being tired from
| having to get up early to be sure they got to school and me
| to work.
|
| With the pandemic and WFH I shifted much closer to my natural
| schedule.
|
| We're officially back in the office now, but nobody is really
| taking attendance so I get up at around 11, do some email
| while I eat breakfast, then head in to the office until about
| 6pm. I'm still getting as much or more done as I ever did,
| because I was too tired to be effective when I was coming in
| at 8:00 and basically just stared at the screen for two or
| three hours until I really woke up.
| gruez wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/06/23/californi...
| thehappypm wrote:
| 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
| [deleted]
| kshacker wrote:
| Your parent comment said
|
| > the youngest kid gets up at 6:50AM, older ones at 7:50AM,
| oldest at 8:40
|
| The comment you posted said
|
| > High-schoolers are usually picked up first, then middle
| school, to prevent elementary pupils from waiting in the
| morning darkness.
|
| They seem opposite, no?
| lcvw wrote:
| Depends on the school district. Growing up my district did
| it younger->older, my partner's did it the reverse. I think
| it's considered my progressive to do older kids later since
| they tend to go to bed later.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.h...
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau6200
| veilrap wrote:
| The fact that "late bedtimes" is listed as a cause is telling -
| shifting the start time later isn't likely to help if it just
| allows/causes people to shift their bedtimes later in response.
|
| Teens who go to bed at a reasonable hour are getting enough
| sleep and performing well.
| cma wrote:
| Reasonable is arbitrary according to your own
| preference/chronobiology most likely.
| theptip wrote:
| Diurnal cycles are a thing. (Some people naturally are night
| owls.)
| kingrazor wrote:
| I had bad insomnia in high school and often went to sleep quite
| late. This probably would have helped me a little.
| Barrera wrote:
| > "We know that teenagers are the most sleep-deprived age group,
| and the cause is our own public policy," said Joy Wake, who
| helped lead the efforts of the "Start School Later" group in
| California.
|
| I really doubt that. Sleep deprivation comes in large part from
| online behavior (source: personal anecdotes). Whether or not
| anyone wants to talk about that is another matter.
|
| The new law is unlikely to change the sleep-deprived status of
| students. Parents taking responsibility can.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| Online behavior is not the cause. It might be an aggravating
| factor, but teenagers have been sleep deprived for a lot longer
| than the internet has been around [1]. If we want to talk
| personal anecdotes, I _definitely_ never slept enough as a
| teenager despite not having internet access at that point. I 'd
| be up reading books and stuff like that.
|
| There are a lot of factors that go into adolescents not getting
| enough sleep, and it's pretty clear that early school start
| times are one of them: and one that can be controlled.
|
| Also I think suggesting that parents can take responsibility
| for the bed time of their teenagers is more than a little
| unrealistic.
|
| [1]
| http://www.sleepforscience.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/94a9f6...
| (from 1990 about sleep deprivation in adolescents)
| msbarnett wrote:
| > Sleep deprivation comes in large part from online behavior
|
| Longitudinal studies observing that teenage circadian rhythms
| shift towards sleeping in later long predate "online behavior".
| iso1631 wrote:
| [deleted]
| lasfter wrote:
| It is well documented since before the smartphone age that
| adolescence comes with changes to circadian rhythm (e.g., [0])
| which makes teens want to stay up late at night.
|
| It is certainly stronger evidence than personal anecdotes about
| "teens are always on their phones".
|
| [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19546564/
| bragr wrote:
| My highschool started at 7:15AM. I have no memory now (~15 years
| later) of any first period classes. I can remember things for 2nd
| period and later, but first period? Not even vague memories.
| texaslonghorn5 wrote:
| Related earlier discussion on the California law?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31711020
| CivBase wrote:
| Why did this need to be a law? If it was so obviously beneficial
| like many commenters make it out to be, why didn't California's
| public schools already schedule high schools to start later on
| their own? Something doesn't add up.
| ar_lan wrote:
| This seems crazy late. IIRC I had a 0-period class starting at
| 6:00am. Starting 2.5 hours later is surprising.
|
| If I were back in high school, all this would have told me is
| that I'm staying up until at least midnight, if not later. I was
| usually good about sleeping around 9:30pm which gave me roughly 9
| hours sleep.
|
| Since I assume this means school will end later in the day, this
| just means homework gets pushed much later too. My parents were
| very strict about homework being done the same day, so there's no
| chance I would have been able to keep my old schedule and do
| homework in the mornings.
|
| I'm curious what the effect is on the average and median kids.
| This would have been incredibly annoying for me.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Fr lol all this will do is make kids less disciplined. They
| need to be forced to go to bed and get up early precisely
| because it is harder than getting up late and staying up late.
| Inertia says its easier to stay up late than get up early so
| since we need to put discipline into kids we should do the
| opposite. Kids will otherwise just stay up late watching TV and
| smoking marijuana.
| closeparen wrote:
| Kids exercising this discipline have lower cognitive
| performance and more health problems.
| crooked-v wrote:
| There are plenty of people for whom 'discipline' will never
| be able to overcome the effects of teenagers literally having
| a different biological clock than either children or adults.
| khazhoux wrote:
| > I had a 0-period class starting at 6:00am
|
| Your school admins were assholes. What unholy sadists would
| start school that early??
|
| What country was this?
| veilrap wrote:
| In the US, I had similar (not quite as early) optional
| 0-period classes in high school that started around 6:45AM.
| It was awesome, small class sizes (because it was optional),
| interesting useful topics (Math and Philosophy).
|
| I'm happy my school admins made this available to us. I don't
| understand your rage.
| khazhoux wrote:
| The rage is because the commenter didn't say it was
| optional (I guess I've never heard of "0" period). The
| implication was that 6am was the standard at his school.
|
| But if anyone _wants_ to get to school at the crack of
| dawn, have fun! Just don 't impose that on those of us with
| different internal clocks.
| ar_lan wrote:
| This was California.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Wow... so assuming 0-period was optional (per another
| commenter above), your first mandatory class was 7am every
| day? That's still insane for a school district to demand
| all kids and their parents to be up at 6am. Terribly
| inconsiderate.
| robswc wrote:
| "Studies show" that kids will not stay up later. I don't have
| the time to really look into it but I guess I'll trust it for
| now. I know 100% that I wouldn't have been disciplined enough
| to go to sleep sooner though.
|
| I would always pretty much get as little sleep as I could
| function with because at that age, video games were more
| important, lol. But I don't want to extrapolate my experience,
| I'm sure most kids will adjust... but I can see a fair amount
| having even worse sleeping schedules.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| 8:30 or later. Good. I say start it at 10. Let the kids sleep in
| and be happier for it.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| As a former child, I truly understand that a lack of sleep is a
| problem in teens, but I think this solution is probably worse
| for everybody.
|
| 1) The flipside to starting much later is that kids will be
| exiting schools later. Want to participate in some after school
| activities or clubs that aren't physically in school? A HS kid
| wants to hold down a little part time job so she can save to
| buy that first car or afford that summer trip she wants? Any
| activities out of school become much more difficult to manage
| if the exiting time moves any later. And these extracurriculars
| are also a big part of many peoples' lives.
|
| 2) I think it's naive to think that kids will get much extra
| sleep regardless of the school starting time. Their need for
| socialization and leisure activities out of school doesn't
| suddenly vanish if school starts later: they just get shifted.
| If you tell kids that they can manage to wake up at 9 instead
| of 7 and still make it to school on time, they'll just tend to
| stay up about 2 hours later playing games, watching movies, or
| chatting with friends. The end result might be about the same
| amount of sleep.
|
| 3) Logistically, it's hard enough for most parents to see their
| kids for a few minutes and deal with getting their kids out of
| the door in the morning (or driving them to school) when their
| wakeup times roughly coincide and they can get a little
| breakfast together or have a few minutes to chat. Trying to
| arrange a much different school schedule for kids is going to
| present a lot more difficulties to working parents,
| particularly if the kid has some special needs, is a tad
| rebellious about going to school, or you have to drive them for
| some other reason.
|
| Just thinking out loud here, but I'd say that getting rid of
| the nightly busy work (homework) is a better way to fix teens
| schedules. They already spend enough time at school learning.
| Stop forcing them to waste an hour or two every night
| regurgitating mostly busy work and then feeling like crap and
| needing to stay up another few hours decompressing. Let them
| get their fill of fun and socialization after a long day.
| Without the burden of homework, most teens have enough extra
| time in the day to get a little extra rest and still have
| enough to unwind and feel like a human.
| eikenberry wrote:
| 1) They wouldn't need to get out any later. Most of the
| school day is basically baby sitting and they could easily
| fit the actual teaching in <4 hours.
|
| 2) There have been bunches of studies that show teenagers
| don't get proper sleep specifically when they get up early.
| There is something about that age that requires sleeping
| later to get good rest. No matter when they go to bed.
|
| 3) Who says their waking coincides with the current times?
| Doesn't for us. Something like 9:30 or 10:00 would.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| > 1) They wouldn't need to get out any later. Most of the
| school day is basically baby sitting and they could easily
| fit the actual teaching in <4 hours.
|
| You have reinvented the German Gymnasium (grammar school).
| Congratulations.
| dqpb wrote:
| > The flipside to starting much later is that kids will be
| exiting schools later
|
| Or they could just give that time back. Maybe things have
| changed, but back when I was in school, almost every class
| was a waste of time.
| harmon wrote:
| Even if you only take courses that aren't wastes of time,
| there just isn't that much to do on a typical day. I
| remember when I was in school I was taking something like 5
| AP courses senior year but still had multiple study halls
| per day, a useless homeroom which was basically a buffer
| for people getting to school late, a gym class, and a 40
| minute lunch. Almost half the day was time not spent in
| lecture. A lot of the time is literally babysitting.
|
| This is how people can go to college and spend
| comparatively little time in class yet learn more than they
| did in high school.
| collegeburner wrote:
| No young people need to get up early to build character. If you
| let them stay up late they will get into trouble and become
| lazy watching TV and playing video games or whatever or worse
| they will be out late drinking and smoking marijuana. High
| school especially should start at 7:00 AM.
| smm11 wrote:
| Yeah, because they won't just stay up later then.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Some of them may, but many more will wake up comfortably due
| to more sunshine flooding through the window.
| april_22 wrote:
| Exactly. Sunshine is proven to supress melatonin production
| (no matter whether night owl or early bird). Melatonin is
| usually produced at night and encourages you to feel
| sleepy. So later waking up times are certainly helpful,
| even if the person goes to bed a bit later.
|
| https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/0006-32
| 2... https://you.com/search?q=light+melatonin+production
| jwilber wrote:
| Their parents will still likely wake them up when they go off
| to work.
| smm11 wrote:
| I am VERY close to this situation, I'm married to a
| California teacher. Most of the kids hate this idea.
|
| 1. They know they and everyone else will just stay up
| later. 2. School will go on too late in the day, sports
| participation is dropping appreciably. 3. Those who work
| after school or school/sports are quitting sports to work,
| and planning ways to leave when they did previously to go
| to work.
|
| This is incredibly short-sighted, and will not last a year.
| troupe wrote:
| It feels like something that might better be decided at
| the local school district level.
| alistairSH wrote:
| The problem with that approach is the debate tends to be
| led by football parents who want to make sure there's
| ample time for the kids to beat each other senseless on
| the field. Literally, that's the argument we got in
| Fairfax County when similar proposals were floated.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This sounds like a vast over simplification and plain
| scapegoating. All the school start time surveys I've seen
| typically have an even split up to moderately favoring
| normal start times. Half the school is not on the
| football team.
| smm11 wrote:
| Good thing they'll graduate and have kind bosses who are
| okay with them rolling in at 10.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Education is more important than playing football.
| Working is more important than playing football (for
| those who need the money).
|
| Anecdotally, when I was in high school, with a 7:30 AM
| start, around 25% of the class was asleep through 1st
| period. And this was in honors/AP courses with the kids
| who wanted to learn, get good grades, and generally be
| successful.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Football (and its school attendance and passing grade
| requirements) might be the thing keeping a kid in school
| and getting an education.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Maybe. But, we're not talking about eliminating sports.
| Or after-school employment. Only shortening the window to
| do both. And the Venn diagram of kids that "need" to play
| sports and need to work pales in comparison to the total
| student body, who all (in aggregate) benefit from more
| morning sleep.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That doesn't match my experience at all. I started at
| 7:15 (special elective) and school started at 8. The only
| kids who would fall asleep were the kids that stayed up
| late playing videogames, abusing caffeine (and/or other
| drugs), and didn't care about grades.
|
| So my anecdotes don't match your's.
| httpz wrote:
| That won't work for young kids if the parents have to go to
| work by 9.
| baby wrote:
| let's make people start work later!
| dwighttk wrote:
| Mandatory blue laws before 9am!
| MBlume wrote:
| If a high schooler needs to be driven to school by their
| parent, there is a serious street safety/transit problem
| which should be solved.
| ravitation wrote:
| Most of America is a serious street safety/transit problem
| which should be solved.
|
| A plurality ~35% of high school students are driven to
| school, though not necessarily by a parent.
|
| https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X177251
| 4...
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/how-
| dista...
|
| EDIT: This is nationwide, there's reason to believe this
| percentage is probably higher in California.
| robswc wrote:
| I was one of those kids. Only because taking the bus was
| a pain in the ass and my parents loved me enough to put
| up with it, at least until I could drive.
|
| Bus was awful. Kids had no respect for the driver or
| other kids. Plus it easily tripled the commute time.
| ravitation wrote:
| > Bus was awful.
|
| Exactly. Similar to the problem many adults have trying
| to get to work by bus, it often doubles or triples a
| commute time.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes. The bus my kids would have to take to High School
| served both middle and high school. They would have been
| on the bus for about 40 minutes and arrived at school 30
| minutes before the first period started. School was about
| 15 minutes away by car.
|
| If I drove them (or when they were old enough to drive on
| their own), they could sleep nearly an hour later than if
| they had to take the bus. Since it wasn't much of a
| detour on my way to work, that's what I did.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think the bigger issue is unsupervised minors. Not all
| high schoolers are mature enough to be left alone and go to
| school. I suppose this could be solved by pre-care, but
| that make this bill completely moot.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >Not all high schoolers are mature enough to be left
| alone and go to school.
|
| That's insane. I walked to school at 6. At 8, I walked to
| the bus stop and rode a public transit bus to school. The
| helicoptering has gone way to far and it is creating
| generations of crippled kids. I wonder if this is solely
| caused by the media pushing fear or if there are other
| factors.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I agree. We need to change the laws, case law, and
| societal expectations to stop threatening parents over
| lack of supervision.
| krasin wrote:
| >Not all high schoolers are mature enough to be left
| alone and go to school
|
| As an anecdote, 100% of my class was coming to the school
| and back without being supervised since age 8. This was
| in 90s and not in the US, but the gap of "mature enough
| to go to school" between my experience and the statement
| feels a bit high, somehow.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yes, maturity in the US seems delayed compared to many
| places. I feel it's because the laws and nosy neighbors
| have basically made it impossible to give kids
| responsibility. Nobody wants to hire kids because of the
| labor laws. Kids don't want to work because they get
| everything handed to them or the cost of stuff like
| transportation is too high. Let your young kid play
| alone? You might have the cops called on you.
| fleddr wrote:
| Late 80s, Netherlands. As of the age of 6, I was free
| roaming on my tiny bicycle. I could go wherever I please,
| zero supervision, just be back in time for diner. And of
| course without any technology (smartphone).
|
| Modern parents would have a heart attack.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yep. And it's 100% normal for early prior year school
| aged kids in Japan to cross town on the subway on their
| own. The American obsession with helicoptering their kids
| all the way through their first job is super weird and
| unhealthy.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Could we just stop? Please? I know it's cool to talk shit
| about Americans _constantly_ but it gets old. I want to
| expect better from HN.
|
| > The American obsession with helicoptering their kids
| all the way through their first job is super weird and
| unhealthy.
|
| My kids, along with many others, were getting themselves
| to & from school without my supervision starting in third
| grade. Earlier, even, for my son since his sister is two
| years older and was with him.
|
| This is _normal_. What is the fascination that so many
| Europeans (and others) have with making wild unsupported
| assertions about what Americans do and then build an
| entire critique from that?
| em-bee wrote:
| the fascination comes from all these stories here:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| que...
| alistairSH wrote:
| I'm American and I've seen enough helicopter stupidity
| over the years to be confident saying it's a problem. Is
| it the norm? Maybe not. But it's common enough to be a
| thing.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Most of the helicopter stupidity i see comes from people
| without kids. As in, you're a terrible parent because you
| weren't constantly watching your kids and they did
| something kids do that I don't like.
| alistairSH wrote:
| We're talking about a pretty small window of time. 2
| hours at most. And a kid who's going to willfully skip
| school is going to do so whether or not school starts at
| 8:30 instead of 7:30.
|
| In most cases, this should work out better for parents.
| With elementary school starting latest (as was the norm
| in many places a decade ago), the little kids end up in
| pre-care AND after-care. Now, they'll start earlier,
| possibly avoiding pre-care.
| freedomben wrote:
| Two hours is plenty of time for mischief, and skipping
| school isn't the concern. Source: Made a lot of mischief
| in my youth.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Sure, but you probably would have gotten up to mischief
| regardless of the first bell. And in the case of the
| morning, would you choose mischief or an extra hour of
| sleep? Just a guess, but I bet most kids take the sleep.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| If you can't trust a highschool aged kid to go to school
| on their own, early start times aren't going to change
| anything. Heck, you can drive them to the building and
| watch them walk inside and they'll just walk right out
| the back. Delinquent kids dgaf. Now for the not totally
| delinquent but still up for sketchy borderline behaviour
| kids, finishing early and having couple hours between the
| end of class and when their parents come home from work
| is when all the dumb stuff happens. Sleeping in and
| getting home around the same time as their parents leaves
| a lot fewer opportunities for hijinks.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If the kids really have a hard time waking up (the point
| t of this law), then it's possible they over sleep. Many
| parents might not be comfortable with their kid cooking
| breakfast unsupervised too.
|
| If they're in after school activities and/or have a job,
| then it seem unlikely that they would get into trouble
| anyways. Pushing the time back will make these after
| school activities unfeasible for many, and limit
| opportunities.
| throwaway742 wrote:
| These are high school students they are going to be
| living on their own soon. I think being able to feed
| themselves is a skill they should probably develop.
| giantg2 wrote:
| One could argue that being at school at 8am is a valuable
| skill they should since most jobs require that (or
| earlier) start time.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Use an alarm. Eat cereal. Use the microwave. These are
| all non problems that any half functioning adult or high
| school kid can think of solutions to.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If the kids are really so sleep deprived that we need a
| law about it, then it's likely some will sleep past their
| alarms.
|
| Dictating diet by limiting options doesn't sound like a
| great plan to me.
|
| You know what else is a non-problem? The current start
| times.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| I see the argument you are making and just want to
| suggest that this law is trying to help out the kids who
| are both capable of getting to school on their own
| regardless of start time, who would also benefit from the
| extra sleep. I suspect that this is the majority of the
| population of teenagers. Public schools are not really a
| free market where kids get to pick and choose based on
| features like start times. Most are selected because it
| is the only practical option for the family's means. In
| the absence of market pressure, using legislation to
| improve people's lives isn't wrong.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If this is such a contentious issue, then why not allow
| the parents in each district to decide? That's really
| what I'm getting at - the state is making this decision
| for everyone by usurping the parents representation at
| the district level.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| If it is such a contentious issue, then why go through
| all the extra time and effort to decide it for each and
| every district? Parents still have a voice and vote at
| the state level do they not?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Because what works for one district might not work for
| another based on the demographics and culture of the
| location.
|
| Their voice at the state level is highly diluted by non-
| interested parties. Voting for school board members tends
| to be more focused and doesn't have as many people voting
| based on non-school issues like you would for a general
| representative.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| I'm failing to reconcile the image of a hypothetical
| teenager who is both so irresponsible and incompetent
| that you can't trust them to get up or make breakfast on
| their own without burning down the house while
| simultaneously being capable of having an after school
| job.
|
| If you can't leave them unsupervised in the mornings,
| surely they can't be left alone after school either. Net
| net, there's going to be some time they're unsupervised.
| May as well let them get some rest. Maybe the lack of
| sleep deprivation will even encourage better decision-
| making.
| giantg2 wrote:
| They don't need to be the same kid.
|
| After school has after school activities. It also
| typically means they don't need to cook if the parents
| are home for dinner.
| em-bee wrote:
| my ten year can cook breakfast, on a gas stove too. and
| besides there are plenty of breakfast options that don't
| require cooking. worst case, they reheat in the microwave
| what parents cooked earlier.
|
| if a 15 year old can't be unsupervised at home, then
| their parents have different problems besides letting
| them cook for themselves.
| mrits wrote:
| I'm not sure we need public transportation to pick up 3
| kids on top of a mountain.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Ok, well it's not going to be solved. So what's your view
| on it now?
| treesprite82 wrote:
| A school day ending at 2pm already has this issue - this
| just splits it between the start and end of the day. For
| some parents that may be better, for some it may be
| worse. There's also the possibility for before-school
| activities or in-school breakfast.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This is for high school. But not all high schoolers are
| responsible enough, so still a point. Also, the majority of
| people have to be at work at 8am or earlier.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Who has to be _at_ work nowadays, other than people who
| tend to work in jobs which mean shift patterns.
|
| Sometimes I have to start work at 4am, does that mean that
| schools should start at 3am to make it convenient for me?
| What about when I finish at 11pm? What if I'm working
| overnight?
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Who has to be at work nowadays,"
|
| That sounds incredibly privileged.
|
| https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-
| finds-th...
| giantg2 wrote:
| Ten sounds like a nightmare for working parents. Eight seems
| like a completely reasonable start time to me, yet this law
| prevents that. Schools should be able to decide for themselves
| based off of the parents and what works for those in the
| district.
| throwaway2016a wrote:
| 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.
| jghn wrote:
| I walked by myself a quarter mile to kindergarten. I walked
| by myself to a bus stop through the rest of my school days
| until myself & friends started driving. Most of those years
| I came home to an empty house at the end of the school day.
|
| Not sure why this is a big deal. Kids can manage on their
| own.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I'm a bit older than you, and when I was 10 my parents had
| no qualms with leaving me home alone (along with my younger
| sister).
|
| But this was a time when neighbors knew each other well and
| you could go next door for help if you needed it. (and also
| if you did something dumb, you could count on your mom
| finding out from a neighbor)
| feet wrote:
| That's because the law is based around what's been observed
| behaviorally/biologically. Not what's good for working
| parents
|
| Schools shouldn't be forcing developing humans into a
| schedule that impairs their ability to learn and function, no
| matter what they want to decide
| koolba wrote:
| If they do enough physical and mental labor during the day
| and turn off their smart phones at night, they'll have no
| issue going to sleep early enough.
|
| On the other hand if you do nothing mentally stimulating or
| physically tiring all day long, then of course you won't be
| able to sleep till late.
| KMag wrote:
| That's no joke. I did tree removal for a few weeks one
| Summer while waiting for my Summer camp counselling job
| to start. I slept a solid 10 hours every night and felt
| awesome every morning. "Guiltless sleep of the righteous"
| and all of that. If they could bottle that sleep in a
| pill without having to drag downed trees all day, it
| would be crazy addictive.
| heretogetout wrote:
| Have you read the relevant research on the subject?
| crooked-v wrote:
| Teenagers literally have different sleep rhythms than
| either children or adults, so in the average case staying
| up late is a symptom, not a cause.
| feet wrote:
| ITT: people who haven't read the research decide they
| know what is best based on personal anecdote
| Salgat wrote:
| I'd rather just stick to what studies find as best
| instead of anecdotes about needing to physically exhaust
| children to force them into the desired sleep schedule.
| Also there's research showing humans have varying natural
| times they ideally sleep at, and they suffer outside
| those hours.
| giantg2 wrote:
| What is behaviorally/biologically beneficial varies by
| individual. Societal life should be a factor as that does
| factor into the holistic well-being of the student. Not
| just some myopic rule about start times that negatively
| impacts everything else (after school activities, jobs,
| parent schedules, etc).
|
| "Schools shouldn't be forcing developing humans into a
| schedule that impairs their ability to learn and function,
| no matter what they want to decide"
|
| If you actually believe that, then you have to be against
| this law. Any schedule will negatively affect someone. A
| later schedule would have been terrible for me.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > A later schedule would have been terrible for me.
|
| Me too. I have always been an early riser, early sleeper.
| Forcing me to go to school later in the day would have
| been awful.
| least wrote:
| In what way would it have been awful? Even if you shifted
| schools several hours ahead of your wake time, it just
| means that you have more time in the morning and less
| time in the afternoon, but still well within your normal
| hours.
|
| I think the goal of these sorts of policies is to
| increase the breadth of students which can benefit from
| you know, actually being well rested inside school hours.
| A person that sleeps later and wakes up later (which
| studies that justify these sorts of policies indicates
| teenagers largely are) would benefit from a later start
| time.
| least wrote:
| > What is behaviorally/biologically beneficial varies by
| individual.
|
| As someone that has sleep issues that deviate vastly from
| the norm, I empathize with this point, but it doesn't
| really mean much when it comes to designing policy, which
| is supposed to serve its demographic broadly.
|
| > Societal life should be a factor as that does factor
| into the holistic well-being of the student. Not just
| some myopic rule about start times that negatively
| impacts everything else (after school activities, jobs,
| parent schedules, etc).
|
| The rule being set by the state or by the local school
| district is hardly of consequence. You're okay with
| painting broad strokes about parents' lives but then make
| an argument about individual students.
|
| > If you actually believe that, then you have to be
| against this law. Any schedule will negatively affect
| someone. A later schedule would have been terrible for
| me.
|
| Unless you're suggesting that the start times be adjusted
| to cater to every single individual's needs, this is just
| pointing out that the start time the school you attended
| coincided with what worked for you personally.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "which is supposed to serve its demographic broadly."
|
| Which the current times do.
|
| "The rule being set by the state or by the local school
| district is hardly of consequence."
|
| This is totally untrue. At the district level, parents
| have more say in creating the rules that work for them
| (their local demographic!).
|
| "You're okay with painting broad strokes about parents'
| lives but then make an argument about individual
| students."
|
| Either one is broad. I'm pointing out that the very
| argument you make can be used against the position you're
| defending.
| least wrote:
| > Which the current times do.
|
| According to... what? The whole reason that California
| passed a law like this and why it's been suggested to
| push up the start time for high school is largely because
| the time that many school districts started their high
| schoolers at was of _negative consequence_ to the
| children.
|
| > This is totally untrue. At the district level, parents
| have more say in creating the rules that work for them
| (their local demographic!).
|
| Are you saying that you'd have no objections if the local
| school district chose to start high school at a later
| time? I might agree with you that the state is
| overstepping its bounds by mandating an earliest start
| time, but that doesn't seem to be what you're complaining
| about. It seems more that you disagree that a later start
| time is beneficial to students (because you personally
| benefitted from the early start time of your high school)
| and that it's inconvenient to parents because they have
| to figure out the logistics of getting their kid to
| school at a later time.
| elil17 wrote:
| Schools ending at 3 pm is also a nightmare for working
| parents. But most high schoolers can get on the bus
| themselves. After care, sports exists in many places for
| those that can't/whose parents are against it. Now you can
| just move some of those after school activities before school
| for kids whose parents won't let them take the bus
| themselves.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| But if all schools have to start later, employers will need
| to work around that
| wccrawford wrote:
| No they won't. They'll still keep their same schedule, and
| parents will have to figure out how to deal with it. Some
| don't have family members that can help, and some
| enterprising daycares will open up early for school kids to
| deal with them before school.
|
| Of course, the buses won't run that early, so only well-to-
| do parents will be able to use those daycares in the first
| place, leaving poor parents even worse off than they were
| before.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Some might. I bet many won't. Good luck doing business with
| the east coast if your office doesn't open until 11 am
| pacific.
| ironmagma wrote:
| If you're doing business with the east coast, you
| probably don't need to be in the office for that.
| guelo wrote:
| Don't working parents already have a nightmare with school
| day ending around 2pm? This would just shift some of that
| nightmare from afternoon to morning.
| bluGill wrote:
| They already have daycare picking the kids up. Now they
| have to drop the kids off, and the kids can't really do
| anything at daycare because they are quickly getting into
| the bus to get to school, then when off school there is
| less time to do anything before their parents pick them up
| again.
| imadethis wrote:
| No high school student is going to daycare though, and
| this law is specifically for high school students.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This is a bit anti-DEI. Special needs and kids with
| behavioral issues do need that. Now they would need it
| twice a day.
| lcvw wrote:
| High school has sports and activities though. I know many
| families that use the sports team as if it were a day
| care. If they do sports the kids usually get out
| somewhere between 4:30 and 5:30. Where I live now, a lot
| of the high schoolers are in school 7:30-5:30. It's
| pretty ridiculous, since they also have homework. Many
| high schools seem to be in the process of transforming
| themselves into juvenile prisons designed to keep
| teenagers away from the rest of society.
| elil17 wrote:
| Sports can happen before school
| tshaddox wrote:
| It must be a fairly low portion of high school students
| who do after-school activities every single day, right?
| barry-cotter wrote:
| It's not an analogy. One of school's main purposes along
| with sorting and ranking and reducing their tendency to
| creativity and independent thought is day care.
| freedomben wrote:
| not really, it doubles it. Instead of having to arrange for
| care/transportation/etc once for a few hours in the
| afternoon, now you have to arrange for it twice for an hour
| or two in the morning and an hour or two in the afternoon.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not with after school activities like sports or clubs.
|
| The bigger issue is requiring some sort of pre-care. Which
| if necessary, makes this whole law moot because you're
| waking the kid up for that.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Why? We're talking high schools - which I believe in the US
| is about age 15 onwards, nothing to do with parents
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| 13,14, or 15. Source: I was 13 when I started high school
| in 9th grade. Not all high schools start at 10th grade
| [deleted]
| chrononaut wrote:
| It can be age 13 onward, although your point is still quite
| valid, even at 13.
| giantg2 wrote:
| How do you think this has nothing to do with parents? You
| do realize that 14-17 is still a minor?
| ghaff wrote:
| I wouldn't say "nothing to do with parents." But kids in
| that age range can do quite a few things on their own. I
| was in college in a different city at 16.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm not just talking about the getting to school part.
| I'm also talking about setting the time part via parents
| at the board meetings.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's not so much them getting to school on their own, yes
| they can easily do that. It's making sure they are
| actually awake. When my kids were teens, if someone was
| not there to make sure they got up, they would sleep
| until 10 or 11. Alarms, etc. had basically no effect they
| could sleep through a tornado.
| elil17 wrote:
| The later you start school, the less of an issue this
| will be.
| ghaff wrote:
| Fair enough. I was driven to high school by my mother.
| 9am classes in university were tough and they were just a
| short walk away :-)
| elil17 wrote:
| The idea that just because you're a minor you can't take
| a bus, a bus specifically for children, in fact, is
| ludicrous. Can't coddle kids forever. Except for special
| needs people should be able to do basic things by
| themselves at age 13, earlier in most cases.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| There's a reason that age is called "young adult" . Only
| helicopter parents can't handle the idea of a 13 year old
| not being okay on their own for an hour or so after they
| head out to work. I was riding my bike to school at 9 and
| I survived, kids haven't changed that much in 15 years.
| Obviously there are exceptions like for special needs
| children, but those are pretty rare.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The laws and case law say otherwise.
| iso1631 wrote:
| If your 14 year old is not capable of sorting themselves
| out for a couple of hours you've failed as a parent, and
| your idea that a 17 year old needs a parent to wipe their
| bottom is hilarious?!
|
| Do you think something magically happens on their 18th
| birthday?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not
| what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| alar44 wrote:
| And are fully capable of walking, riding bikes, or
| waiting for the bus on their own. The permanent
| infantilization of America is fucking insane and
| dangerous.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Parents get forced into it due to the laws and societal
| expectations (juries/civil cases). Guess who can go to
| jail if their teenage kid doesn't go to school? Fix that
| law, and then we can start talking about these.
| elil17 wrote:
| Yes we should fix those laws. But now most schools let
| you stay late, no reason they won't be able to let you
| come earlier for those who need it.
| cortesoft wrote:
| You can have before school programs for people who have to
| get their kids to school early. It can replace after school
| care
| eikenberry wrote:
| I work remotely and start my day at 10am. I've done this for
| years and the only reason I ever got up early was to drive
| kids to school. As a working parent starting at 8 was a
| nightmare for my wife (who works similar hours) and I. We
| alternated so neither of us would be to sleep deprived as
| it's really hard to get back to sleep after driving your kids
| to school.
|
| It's to late to help us.. my youngest just turned 16 and will
| be able to drive themself to school next year and we'll
| finally get decent sleep during the school year. But this
| would be a big boon to lots of people.
| greatpostman wrote:
| They should also outlaw busy work. Just wasted human life comes
| from that
| khazhoux wrote:
| You'll need to be more specific.
|
| School curricula have changed significantly the last couple of
| decades, esp. in california.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If the afternoon nap is the issue, then how about siestas?
| khazhoux wrote:
| In my country, we'd get an hour (or more?) to walk home for
| lunch every day.
| sharadov wrote:
| 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..
| JJMcJ wrote:
| 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.
| sharadov wrote:
| 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..
| _trackno5 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| dredmorbius wrote:
| This issue was discussed about 20 days age with 394 comments:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31711020
|
| Based on an _Atlantic_ piece:
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/06/american-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-01 23:01 UTC)