I'm having a hard time putting this into words but your viewpoint really feels like, to phrase it as a software engineering analogy, a new developer that comes into a 20 year old project, looks at what currently exists, calls it all trash, says the people that came before you were dumb and didn't know what they were doing, and you just start rewriting all the code.
Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random? Do you really think you know better than all those states and people? Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then? Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
that assumes that science had a factor at all in deciding when school should start.
let's look back at the 1800s when school became commonplace. at that time science decided what was the best time to get up and milk the cows. and how to make the most of the available daylight. work and school had to fit into that schedule. so in a way science was used to decide school times indirectly. what is important is to consider that school has not changed since then.
however in the meantime new research suggests that we should rethink schools, and so here we are questioning whether current school starting times are still adequate. this is not saying that in the past people were stupid or picked the times at random, only that the factors that led to those choices have changed.
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then
Yes. Why do you believe otherwise?
> or just picked start times at random
No, they chose based on when they needed daycare to start, because the workday was starting. Or, because the children needed to be available to work the fields during certain hours. Things have changed.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people
Yes.
> Did the science change since then
Yes.
> you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear"
Does every discussion need to re-articulate the accumulated evidence? Can't there be some assumption of informed debate?
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then
I don't really disagree with your point, but... Have you looked at the overall quality of the decisions those people made?
They were not stupid, but the overall amount of real information they dealt with was ridiculously low. And the overall amount of fake information they dealt with was ridiculous high. The odds of any random choice they made being a good one aren't very high.
I am opting to interpret your response in the best way possible and am responding in kind spirit.
> your viewpoint really feels like, to phrase it as a software engineering analogy, a new developer that comes into a 20 year old project, looks at what currently exists, calls it all trash, says the people that came before you were dumb and didn't know what they were doing, and you just start rewriting all the code.
Do you think society has peaked and our understanding of civics hasn't evolved? That nothing can ever be better? To continue your analogy, your (unstated) viewpoint is like the stodgy programmer stubbornly sticking to PHP "because it works" and refusing to accept that webtech has evolved and there are better tools. Or a more contemporary way, an old C programmer stubbornly refusing to learn Rust because "C just works". Does it make sense to put Rust into the project? Possibly not, there are many excellent reasons not to. But its a discussion worth having.
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random?
If I were to hazard a guess, I imagine most school systems are still bound by the legacy of farmwork and the start/end times are holdovers from that. I doubt the timing has significantly changed since schooling became a primary factor of our lives. But that's just a guess. I would certainly hope that the people who start a new school district are taking into account many factors before dictating a start time.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people?
I do not feel the need to be beholden to history for history's sake. My own post acknowledged (one) challenge with changing the start time. But...
> Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then?
This is exactly what I and others have posited, yes.
> Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
Others in this thread have posted extensive good research on this very subject for your consumption. I myself have posted a reference to a book I found useful and entertaining. Not every single comment needs to be a doctoral thesis containing every possible scrap of information or interpretation on a subject. This, and other subjects of the like, are artifacts _with context_. Within context of this post, it is in direct response to an article that explains the reason with even more links and a friendly bulleted list.
A mildly provocative analogy is demanding a link to every peer-reviewed journal when discussing climate change. I don't feel the need to point out every scrap of research to state a claim that "Climate change is real". I will merely state, especially in a comment to an article discussing legacy policy around climate change, that climate change is real.
Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random? Do you really think you know better than all those states and people? Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then? Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.