School or sleep?

All throughout high school,I was unable to sleep before midnight or one, which was a little hard on me, because I had to leave for school before 7 am. I became rather too adept at dressing in my elevator. In college, I became a nocturnal creature, going to bed around 3 or 4 and rising around noon.

Apparently, this is natural (I now get up between 7 and 8 without an alarm); teenagers are simply naturally nocturnal for some strange reason. Matt Zeitlin wonders why we don't use this information to schedule school:

In middle school and the high school I would have gone to, class starts at 8:05, while at the school I attend now, classes start at 8:35, and if you’re lucky, you can a first period free at least once a week. Speaking as a sleep starved teenager, those extra 30 minutes in the morning are incredibly valuable. How any school could ever start before 8:00 is simply astounding and probably proof that teachers or some other force has become too powerful in the district, because starting times that absurdly early are never in the interest of the students.

I've often wondered about this in New York City, where staggering school schedules to start at, say 10 would not only let teenagers sleep, but also smooth the usage of the trains rather than crowding kids on at the same time as rush hour commuters. I initially theorized that they were matching the schedules to parents, but by middle school, this isn't a consideration in New York . . . and I doubt much of one in the suburbs either, where I presume most kids take the schoolbus or drive. So how come school starts so early?

Comments

No, you're simply wrong. It is to match the schedule to parents, mostly. It's also to allow time after school for the all-important extracurriculars.

In the boonies there are also considerations for getting the farm kids home when it's still light. In northern climes there's the consideration of being able to call off school early on snow days, and so give parents time to make arrangements...

There are lots of reasons. And besides, if you'd been leaving for school at 10 instead of 7 you'd have been up until 3 instead of midnight.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 16, 2007 9:26 PM

I believe most public-school districts in the U.S. stagger their start times so the same yellow buses and cranky drivers can work in shifts to deliver kids to more than one school. Having a 1:1 ratio of kids to bus-seats is awfully expensive. So getting up kind of early or horribly early is just the luck of the draw.

I'm glad to say that my school, a charter school with no yellow school buses -- some kids take city buses -- starts regular classes at 9:00, so I don't have much trouble with sleepy students. (Even better, as a part-time teacher I get to sleep late, since I don't have to teach until 1:00, though I do have to be there at 12:30 to supervise a 'designated lunch area'.)

Posted by Dr. Weevil | October 16, 2007 9:45 PM

"I do have to be there at 12:30 to supervise a 'designated lunch area'."

Do the kids know you call yourself "Dr. Weevil"?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 16, 2007 9:57 PM

Agree with Dr W's comment - a lot of it has to do with managing school buses and drivers. Arguably, the big school districts in the suburban counties around Washington DC, for instance, are in the transportation business and teaching is what they do between bus rides.

These large (huge?) school systems stagger high school, middle, and elementry schedules so each bus can make 2 or even 3 runs. Our local elementry school (walking distance for us, thankfully) has a "late" schedule compared to most of the county to allow the bus drivers to complete their high school and middle school runs. Attempts to get onto the main schedule (so kids going to after school activities don't show up late all the time) have been unsuccessful - not enough bus drivers and buses is the reason given every time.

[Aside - this may be an argument in favor of higher density, geographically smaller districts or just smaller schools - students spend less time commuting and more time in class.]

While the oldest kids may benefit from the most sleep, they're also the ones deemed safer standing out at a dark bus stop at 6:30AM. Sometimes earlier - my daughter had to be at her bus stop by 6:15-6:20AM for 7th & 8th grade (long route and she was near the start). She can actually sleep in 30 minutes longer, as the high school is closer and her brother drives her.

Posted by do_not_spindle | October 16, 2007 9:57 PM

My High School started at 7:26 in the morning, and I had to be at the bus stop at 6:20. The neighboring district flipped their schedule, with the elementary schools starting that early, and their High School starting at 9:00. There was a big uproar from the parents of kids who played sports saying it didn't allow for enough daytime to practice. That seemed pretty ridiculous to me, but they went back to the early schedule the next year.

Posted by mad6798j | October 16, 2007 10:04 PM

A factor unmentioned up until now: high school football. As the obsession with football has grown and grown, and athletic directors have become more and more powerful, high school start times have been pushed earlier in order to accomodate football practice. The earlier you start, the more daylight you have to practice, and the better the odds you'll beat Rival High (supposedly.)

It's especially sad because teens need more sleep, not less. Some high schools start lunch at 10 am. 10!

Posted by Freddie | October 16, 2007 10:21 PM

Cripes, my HS started ~ 7:45 and we had the option to take "zero hour" gym at 7 to free up an hour for study hall or an extra class. I loved it. Seriously, is it that hard to go to bed at a reasonable hour? If you're not tired, run around the block or do pushups or something.

Is this phenomenon worse on the coasts? Schools start pretty much the same time everywhere, but TV schedules run an hour later, so I reckon kids are typically up later in Eastern/Pacific time zones.

Posted by Matt B | October 16, 2007 10:31 PM

Seriously, is it that hard to go to bed at a reasonable hour? If you're not tired, run around the block or do pushups or something.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember how much your average high school student has on his plate now. Everyone has to be in a million clubs, sports and activities, with "volunteer" work on the side, while maintaining academic perfection--with more homework now than ever before-- and perhaps holding a part time job, in order to get into college-- and, oh yeah, being social and having fun while they're young and beautiful. (I should really, really write a book about how the college admissions process is destroying American high scohol education. But I digress.)

Personally, during swim season I literally would not be outside of school while the sun was up. I had morning practice at 6:15, so it was dark when I left the house, got out of class at 2:06 and straight into the pool until 5:30, so it was dark by the time I got out. Then a shower, drive home, dinner, and hour and a half or so of homework, doing work for the school paper for at least an hour a night (I was an editor, and we were one of the best in the country), trying not to get kicked out by my wicked stepmother, and a little time for relaxation, socialization and TV.

And I still didn't get into Columbia.

Posted by Freddie | October 16, 2007 10:39 PM

Freddie, I was in a similar position as you (except practice was only once a day*). And yeah, I had some late nights, but I don't think that's what MM was getting at. If you start later, then the kids up late studying will just study later into the night, and be no less groggy the next morning.

I think MM is referring to the phenomenon of HSer's circadian rhythms being out of phase with daylight by a few hours. So the ones *not* studying are on the phone, watching the tube, IMing, etc until 1 AM regardless of the time school got out. They're the ones that need to run some laps.

*and it was Stanford that rejected me, the dimwits.

Posted by Matt B | October 16, 2007 10:55 PM

Actually, it wouldn't work. Here's why.

The change seems to have to do with circadian rhythm, meaning that teenagers' sleep/wake cycle is set for ~25 hours rather than 24. If you start school later, they'll just stay up that much later at night and be just as sleepy in the morning, and you won't have accomplished anything. The only solution would be to start school one hour later each day, which would be impractical for obvious reasons.

Posted by wahoofive | October 16, 2007 10:59 PM

I think I begin to understand why no reform ever happens in this country - so many people are simply ignoring Ms. McArdle's evidence! Sure, it may be easy for you and all of your friends to get to bed early. However, we have pretty conclusive evidence now that for most teenagers it's really difficult, running around be damned. As well, we have lots of evidence on the importance on sleep to teenagers and their development. So, unless one has a compelling reason (like football practice, or entrenched interests with bus drivers), simply complaining that teenagers really don't need that sleep is not an appropriate response.

Posted by Vermando | October 16, 2007 11:00 PM

I'm not denying the phase lag, just saying that it can be overcome. Goddamn kids these days are too lazy to do so. And would they please get off my freakin' lawn?!

Posted by Matt B | October 16, 2007 11:12 PM

This is a big factor in why a lot of families choose to homeschool. For younger kids, it the desire to not be dumping them at the bus stop at 0 dark 30, with teens it's the ability to have a flexible schedule to accommodate the kids schedule and interests.

We "do school" whenever it fits into the other more interesting stuff we want to do. Some days early, some days late, some days not at all.

Posted by COD | October 16, 2007 11:16 PM

Huh. When I was in high school, I went to bed at 9:00 and got up at 5:00. Now (at 26) I have trouble getting to sleep before midnight.

Posted by Brandon Berg | October 16, 2007 11:22 PM

"In the year preceding the time change, math and verbal SAT scores for the top 10 percent of Edina’s students averaged 1288. A year later, the top 10 percent averaged 1500, an increase that couldn’t be attributed to any other variable.”

This is in that New York article that everyone's quoting about teens and sleep. I know it's been covered in the comments of another blog, but this statistic strikes me as incredibly bogus. If anyone has the cite for the paper this is based on, I'd love to see it.

Posted by Klug | October 17, 2007 12:05 AM

Maybe because part of the problem is that if we allowed our country and schedules to be ruled by the schedules of teenagers nothing would get done.

Part of growing up is getting off your rear-end in the morning, and putting yourself to bed at a reasonable time in the evening. Early to bed, early to rise has been around for a LONG time. Teenagers are LAZY, it's not that they're nocturnal it's that they can focus on Halo 3 for 10 hours stay up till 3 in the morning and then they want to have no consequences for their lack of sleep the night before.

Sorry scheduling around teenager's whims seems like a bad idea.

Posted by Joel B. | October 17, 2007 12:32 AM

Joel B wrote: Maybe because part of the problem is that if we allowed our country and schedules to be ruled by the schedules of teenagers nothing would get done.

Haven't looked into the operations of the US Congress much, have we?

Posted by anony-mouse | October 17, 2007 12:56 AM

Freddie writes: "I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember how much your average high school student has on his plate now. Everyone has to be in a million clubs, sports and activities, with "volunteer" work on the side, while maintaining academic perfection--with more homework now than ever before-- and perhaps holding a part time job, in order to get into college-- and, oh yeah, being social and having fun while they're young and beautiful. (I should really, really write a book about how the college admissions process is destroying American high scohol education."

Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. I think hysterical parents and insecure kids are doing it to themselves. If kids were encouraged to get very good at a few things they're actually good at instead of trying to fill their "plate" up they'd be better off and they'd have a better shot at impressing admission committees. Hundreds of thousands of little brown-nosers or kids driven by insane parents are doing endless activities they suck at/have no real interest in because they think it will help. That time would be better spent upping the SAT score by 100 points or getting 5's instead of 3's on the AP exams, but few people seem to believe it.

(Of course I had the best SAT score in a graduating class of over 400, and 3 5's on the only AP exams I took, and I got into my first choice, and only applied to 3 schools, but that was 1979, and I'm pure of heart.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 17, 2007 1:07 AM

"In the year preceding the time change, math and verbal SAT scores for the top 10 percent of Edina’s students averaged 1288. A year later, the top 10 percent averaged 1500, an increase that couldn’t be attributed to any other variable.”

This is in that New York article that everyone's quoting about teens and sleep. I know it's been covered in the comments of another blog, but this statistic strikes me as incredibly bogus. If anyone has the cite for the paper this is based on, I'd love to see it.

My first reaction was that the SAT recentering was a significant variable, but the article is recent and the recentering was over a decade ago, so that couldn't be it. But I looked up Edina High School, which has a nice web site, and even a page on "Later Start Info." And I saw this: "The decision to change the Edina High School start time from 7:25 to 8:30 was made in the spring of 1996 and implemented in the 1996-97 school year." The SAT recentering was in 1995, and it was in 1996 that the recentered data was first reported, so I don't know if it was a factor, but it was, it's a biggie.

I also see little reason to think that performance within the past school year would affect performance on an aptitude test given on a Saturday, especially to the extent of an increase of one standard deviation.

Posted by Kwyjibo | October 17, 2007 1:22 AM

For some reason, my sophomore year in high school started at ~ 9 AM. The other years, same school, started at 8 or 8:30. I remember showing up that late starting year happy to be there rather than sighing with relief I wasn't late. So I wouldn't just defend tradition. Circadian rhythms are set by the sun; that's why night shift workers never fully adjust. It's not unreasonable to think that there are perhaps diferently timed rhythms associated with different times in life.

Posted by michael | October 17, 2007 1:38 AM

"If kids were encouraged to get very good at a few things they're actually good at instead of trying to fill their "plate" up they'd be better off and they'd have a better shot at impressing admission committees. Hundreds of thousands of little brown-nosers or kids driven by insane parents are doing endless activities they suck at/have no real interest in because they think it will help."

This is the first time I've read anything by ML&J that I agreed with, and it brought back a recurring image from the second of the two high schools I attended. The first was a predominantly black one, and the second was predominantly white with a large (~20%) Asian population, and a significant number of Jews as well. At this school, at any one time, there were at least three male or female 'scholar athletes' ambling around on crutches with a leg in a cast; it was as if they were literally breaking their legs to get into the school of their choice.

Posted by Fred | October 17, 2007 1:45 AM

I agree that it's the packed schedules doing this, at least at the college prep high schools. I don't think I ever spent as much time on all the school stuff in college or grad school as I did in high school. I'm surprised I never drove my car off the road on the way to school, and we started at 8:40. And I had no parental pressure, unlike the guy with six tutors.

Posted by Kwyjibo | October 17, 2007 1:58 AM

Fred gets a shot in the head: "This is the first time I've read anything by ML&J that I agreed with"

Let there be more. I take it as a sign that you're getting better, Fred. Winning hearts and minds one at a time, that's my mission.

But I think my point is valid - the best way to get into "good" schools is by actually knowing things. Being perpetually busy doesn't do much when you're up against so many other kids who ride the minivan express to pointless events.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 17, 2007 2:22 AM

Do we agree that to get into good schools, it's better to be smart and rich, then smart, and then rich?

Posted by Kwyjibo | October 17, 2007 2:41 AM

Kwyjibo says: "Do we agree that to get into good schools, it's better to be smart and rich, then smart, and then rich?"

Being able to distinguish between "then" and "than" counts a lot, too.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 17, 2007 2:58 AM

Freddie,

This is off-topic, but I thought you might find it of interest, based on your zealous participation in the recent thread here on race and IQ: "Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans less intelligent than Westerners":

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Posted by Fred | October 17, 2007 3:03 AM

Being a youthful college student, I feel qualified to say that dozing off is a really, really big hindrance to learning in courses beginning before, say, 10:00-- I need a good dose of coffee for anything before that. I myself have had many interesting dreams infested with the sound of my Chemistry professor's voice talking about t2g bonding orbitals.

The explanation that teenagers have 25-hour sleep cycles is an interesting one, but I don't think it's correct. It seems to me that college underclassmen are close enough to the age group we're looking at to be representative of what high school kids would do, if only they could-- after all, they exhibit the same nocturnal behavior. So if the 25-hour cycle was the main explanation for teenagers being late-risers, then we shouldn't see college students preferring later-starting courses to earlier ones. After all, the 25-hour cycle would simply move up to that point in a few days, and late-waking students would end up equally miserable as the 8 AM Organic Chemistry folks-- but this doesn't occur, at least not to judge by the disproportionate whining of the early risers. Given that, I think most students are just attuned to waking at 11:00, sleeping at 2:00.

Posted by 25Hour | October 17, 2007 3:08 AM

the real question is obscured by all the competing parties involved. How much sleep does a particular student need? IIRC middle school still needs 10 and high needs nine... Sure, we can operate on less. We get trained to operate on less, but then we are talking in terms of optimum here right? Do the math. In high you will need to be in bed at 9 to get up at 6am... is that really working in the great scheme? If you have to be at school at 7:20, leave the house at 7, get up at 6 depending... are you beginning to see a problem with the originating question?

Instead of figuring out what the kid is likely to need and then working backwards, we have football, or extras or afterschool work, or parents schedule. I'm not saying school kids don't often need a kick in the pants especially in their teen years, but what is it we are trying to do here? Give the kid the best possible edumacashen we can before we kick them out the door to work 50+ years of their life. Do we really want to undercut them for the sake of bus schedules?

But then obviously the answer is yes, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. The can make the school day shorter, but last more days, but that would be more expensive, wouldn't it? Make core curricula start at 10am with rextras earlier in the morning, instea of junior AP Calculus at 7:30am. It's probably supposed to make you tough or something... because we all know from our parents that the only way to grow character is to do something insanely hard for no apparent reason and with little eventual gain.
right?

Posted by D | October 17, 2007 3:34 AM

D, just a little suggestion - don't have 17 beers before the next time you post. It didn't help you much.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 17, 2007 3:41 AM

MoeLarryAndJesus,

I find your "contributions" (if that is what you think of your snide comments) to be less than insightful.

Posted by HappyConservative | October 17, 2007 4:42 AM

Hey... I can still focus on Halo 3 for 10 hours straight (if I ever get 10 hours free - and my body hurts from sitting still for so long).

We might as well get kids used to sleep deprivation and having to get up early since the working world uses the same schedule...

Personally, I think everyone should start their day around 9 AM. Or perhaps we should all take afternoon naps. I have room for a small cot in my cubicle.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 17, 2007 9:48 AM

About the alleged 25 hour cycle: my experience is that that changes with how much exercise I get. No exercise and I have trouble going to sleep, chop a big bunch of firewood and I'm ready to go to bed early. Now, I didn't notice that when I was a teenager - but since I was living on a working farm, maybe I was always getting sufficient exercise. It was difficult to meet the school bus at 7:00 am, but that was because feeding the cows and then changing to non-manure-smelling clothes took time, not because of trouble getting up. (And for the record, my SAT score was 1590 out of 1600.)

The circadian cycle is also linked loosely to exposure to daylight, but I do wonder how that applies to kids who are catch a bus before the sun is fully up most of the school year, and only get out into the sun after 3:30 PM. Is their circadian cycle trying to adjust on the assumption that noon was somewhere in the middle of those few hours of sunlight?

Of course, the 99% of adults who work inside have the same problem, or worse. Living this far north, I never see the sun during weekdays for four months out of the year, and I leave for work in the dark for another four months.

Posted by markm | October 17, 2007 10:38 AM

Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. I think hysterical parents and insecure kids are doing it to themselves. If kids were encouraged to get very good at a few things they're actually good at instead of trying to fill their "plate" up they'd be better off and they'd have a better shot at impressing admission committees.

I'm sorry, but while I agree with you guys about the worth of this idea (and I actually indicated something similar above), but as far as a matter of achieving the goal of getting into college, you're just wrong. That's the system, unfortunately.

Posted by Freddie | October 17, 2007 10:55 AM

I just know that if school started 2 hours later when I was a teenager, I would have been going to bed around three in the morning rather than one.

Posted by Yancey Ward | October 17, 2007 10:55 AM

HappyConservative posts: "MoeLarryAndJesus,

I find your "contributions" (if that is what you think of your snide comments) to be less than insightful."

Of course you do. Have some more pretzels, George. Wash them down with vodka.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 17, 2007 11:17 AM

MLJ: he was correct to use "then" rather than "than". Reread the comment, carefully.

Posted by Devilbunny | October 17, 2007 11:50 AM

"D, just a little suggestion - don't have 17 beers before the next time you post. It didn't help you much." - Moe

since I don't drink, I would suggest that YOU have the 17 beers, since you obviously need the help more than I.

Posted by D | October 17, 2007 11:52 AM

"I'm sorry, but while I agree with you guys about the worth of this idea (and I actually indicated something similar above), but as far as a matter of achieving the goal of getting into college, you're just wrong. That's the system, unfortunately."

Where is that true? What tier of schools are you talking about? I know a bit about admissions at high Ivy and similar schools and you're just wrong. I wouldn't have any idea if it's true at top liberal arts colleges or non-top-10-type universities, but at, say, H,Y, or S, the preference is for those who excel in something over those who do a lot without excelling at anything.

Now, given the choice between the concert pianist who does nothing else, and the concert pianist who plays a competitive sport AND works on the newspaper, of course the preference is for the comparably accomplished student who does a number of things. But participating in a bunch of activities just for the sake of checking the box? That doesn't work, at least at the most competitive schools.

Posted by zaleriana | October 17, 2007 12:02 PM

I graduated from high school 10 years ago, and on school nights I would normally be in bed around 11 or so, and would get up around 6 am to be at school for the first bell at 7:20 am.

And I remember that the days in which we had 2-hour delays due to inclement weather were heavenly. Those 9:20 starts felt fantastic.

At the time the head of the English Department lobbied heavily to switch start times with the elementary schools. It was roundly rejected, with the most common reason given that it would be inconveient to kids who had after-school jobs that started at 3 pm (we got out at 2:10).

Posted by Christina | October 17, 2007 12:17 PM

Part of the problem here is that we're still operating, in part, on the cultural assumptions that made sense when artificial light was a lot less good and "wasting daylight" was a Bad Thing.

If the point of the operation is (as I think it should be) ensuring optimum education, then allowing variant starting times, as well as cutting BACK on extracurriculars, would make a lot of sense. As an "owl" myself, being forced out of bed before I was ready only made me hate and resent the "larks" who bounced out with a shout of joy at the crack of dawn.

As for "get them used to it now; this is how the work world works," I should point out that teenagers are still, in many ways, growing children, and their bodies and needs _Might_ be just a tad different from an adult's.

Posted by Technomad | October 17, 2007 12:42 PM

25-hour cycle: That's a rough figure for a free-running circadian clock in humans. In the presence of light-dark cycles, the clock will set itself relative to them (the geeky term is that the the light pulse, called a "zeitgeber", "entrains" the clock.)

There are also other light-triggered hormonal changes which can have a serious effect on ability to learn. For those interested, the Sept. 14 issue of Science has an interesting article on misalignment of circadian rhythms and the sleep-wake cycle; the mental health implications are significant.

Anecdotally, I'm a big believer in the influence of light on mental state. Last November/December, I spent five weeks in 24-hour sunlight. I was hugely productive, perfectly capable of working at 2 AM, and as cheerful as all get-out. When I returned to New York, I dropped into my usual winter depression and got almost nothing done for months. You better believe I'm buying some full-spectrum bulbs this winter.

Posted by Dictyranger | October 17, 2007 1:31 PM

zaleriana:

Now, given the choice between the concert pianist who does nothing else, and the concert pianist who plays a competitive sport AND works on the newspaper, of course the preference is for the comparably accomplished student who does a number of things.

And if you don't fall into one of these two classes, you're supposed to give up? This may well be how the system works, but it's not surprising that a lot of people try to push themselves in other ways that are more within their capabilities, even though it's probably not good enough.

Anyway, without all those no hopers applying, how would the top schools acheive their microscopic acceptance rates? All part of their system.

Posted by BP Beckley | October 17, 2007 1:54 PM

Dictyranger wrote: Anecdotally, I'm a big believer in the influence of light on mental state.

Actually, there are a number of people with borderline depression who find it necessary to take antidepressants in the winter, but not the summer. Light is not the only factor but it is a strong one, and exposure to light also influences the melatonin cycle.

Posted by anony-mouse | October 17, 2007 5:54 PM

It isn't staggered bus schedules. You can still stagger and have the elementary kids go early (they wake up early anyway) and the teenagers go late.

High school starts early for two reasons: jobs and sports.

If school starts at 8:30, it isn't over till after 3, and no one can work a 3-6 shift.

Similarly, after school sports can't start until after 4:00. The other team has to get dressed, get there, and get warmed up. That means the games aren't over until 6 and kids are home later than that. Even worse is when the varsity and the junior varsity play one after the other.

But if school starts at 7:45 and ends at 2:15, there's no problem getting to a job ready to go at 3:00 or to a game at 3:30.

Posted by Roger Sweeny | October 18, 2007 6:12 PM

MLJ, your point is partly valid, I think.

On the other hand, one has to ask if being perpetually busy doesn't do much when you're up against so many other kids who ride the minivan express to pointless events is entirely correct. True, you won't stand out, but if you do fewer events, could you stand out in a bad way?

That is , do we have a "Red Queen" situation here?

Posted by Glaivester | October 21, 2007 2:34 PM

Us teens NEED ALOT more sleep now these days so why have school stsart early when we all know that we really need sleep.

Posted by Paula | December 4, 2007 5:03 PM