articles on sleep and cognitive ability in children

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
Donna Metler wrote:
Yet, a lot of the parents on GT boards report that their children sleep
LESS than the typical amount suggested for their age. I don't think my DD
has slept as much as expected for her age since she was 6 months old. At
almost 3, I often end up going to sleep before she does, because she's
perfectly capable of amusing herself, even with the lights off, for quite
long periods of time. She rarely naps anymore, but is perfectly happy
reading books in her room for that time every afternoon (except for her
lovey, we don't have toys in the bedroom, only books-it doesn't seem to
bother her in the slightest. The only time it caused a problem was last
year when she was in an MDO program which expected the children to
nap-and where the teachers couldn't quite comprehend that this young 2 yr
old didn't nap).

When I taught at a 7:45 start school (with homeroom/breakfast starting at
7:15), the kids generally were fine. It was the adults that sometimes
looked like zombies so early. This was an elementary school-high schools
had later start times. I know that the school-based afterschool care
program had a room set aside where the kids could sleep, and many of the
4, 5, and 6 yr olds did at least occasionally nap (as did a few of the
older ones).

I think the support for later start times is for *adolescents*,
not all kids in general. If they go in that direction around here,
the elementary schools will start early and the middle and high schools
will start later (where later is around 8:30-9:00). It's generally
not an issue for elementary school kids to get up early. Mine were
always early risers until the end of elementary school.
Wouldn't suit either #1 or #2 to start at that time. Both have times when
they're up at 7:30, but it's more often they have to be disturbed for school
at 8:00, and #1 will often sleep till 9:00 at weekends. #1#'s better to be
in bed relatively late (8:00pm) and rising at 9:00am or later as it suits
her better and has since she was a baby.
It doesn't make any difference sending them to bed earlier either.
Debbie

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
Beliavsky wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:05 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chris wrote:
Thanks a lot for sharing that. I saw the bit about some schools moving
their start times back quite a few years ago -- about how much better
the students did/functioned -- I've wondered ever since how not all of
them have followed suit. Kind of sad to see it boils down to the
convenience of teacher commutes in, expense of enlarging a bus fleet,
and after-school sports, etc.
I'm in favor of later start times for adolescents, and
I think the research is fairly convincing, but to be fair, these
aren't insignificant issues. Our school system is in the midst
of studying the issue right now, and preliminary estimates attach
a fairly hefty price tag to the required transportation changes.
What school system is s rolling in cash that it's an easy decision
to spend money there instead of on smaller class sizes or other
things that affect students?

I remember that in high school, many of us were only half-awake at
7:30 am, when classes started. It's obviously a waste of time and
money for children to be in school when they are too sleepy to learn
anything. Many states mandate a 180 day school year. Maybe the law
should be changed so that school districts can trade off fewer days in
high school (which would cost less) for a later start time (which
costs more because of transportation issues). I would not be surprised
if 160 days from 8:30 AM to 3:30 AM were as effective as 180 days from
7:30 AM to 2:30 PM.

I'm confused. Why would they have fewer days of high
school with the same length of day? They're having trouble
getting all the material in with the days they have, and it
seems like pressure is towards *more* days in school, not fewer.

I understand this. At my secondary schol the first 3 lessons were 35 minutes
and then after the first break at 11:00 (ish) the rest of the day (5
lessons) were 40 minutes. Apparently this evenned out the loss of
concentration which happened later in the day.
Debbie

Banty wrote:

So, if they can switch between High Schools starting earlier, instead of
Elementary schools, what were the extra transportation costs that your district
were looking at?

The nature of the runs and continuing to have late busses
for after school activities in middle schools and high schools
means that the swap can't be accomplished without requiring some
extra busses.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Welches wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
Donna Metler wrote:
Yet, a lot of the parents on GT boards report that their children sleep
LESS than the typical amount suggested for their age. I don't think my DD
has slept as much as expected for her age since she was 6 months old. At
almost 3, I often end up going to sleep before she does, because she's
perfectly capable of amusing herself, even with the lights off, for quite
long periods of time. She rarely naps anymore, but is perfectly happy
reading books in her room for that time every afternoon (except for her
lovey, we don't have toys in the bedroom, only books-it doesn't seem to
bother her in the slightest. The only time it caused a problem was last
year when she was in an MDO program which expected the children to
nap-and where the teachers couldn't quite comprehend that this young 2 yr
old didn't nap).

When I taught at a 7:45 start school (with homeroom/breakfast starting at
7:15), the kids generally were fine. It was the adults that sometimes
looked like zombies so early. This was an elementary school-high schools
had later start times. I know that the school-based afterschool care
program had a room set aside where the kids could sleep, and many of the
4, 5, and 6 yr olds did at least occasionally nap (as did a few of the
older ones).
I think the support for later start times is for *adolescents*,
not all kids in general. If they go in that direction around here,
the elementary schools will start early and the middle and high schools
will start later (where later is around 8:30-9:00). It's generally
not an issue for elementary school kids to get up early. Mine were
always early risers until the end of elementary school.
Wouldn't suit either #1 or #2 to start at that time. Both have times when
they're up at 7:30, but it's more often they have to be disturbed for school
at 8:00, and #1 will often sleep till 9:00 at weekends. #1#'s better to be
in bed relatively late (8:00pm) and rising at 9:00am or later as it suits
her better and has since she was a baby.
It doesn't make any difference sending them to bed earlier either.

Well, at least around here, they're either going to be
getting up early for elementary or getting up early for middle
and high school, so it's not like there's any way for us to
get out of six+ years of getting up earlier. The only question
is whether it's better for the elementary school kids to get
up early (on average) or the middle and high schoolers. No
situation will be perfect for every individual kid, but it seems
quite clear from the research that on average, it's more detrimental
to get adolescents up early than elementary aged children.
Actually, come to think of it, none of my kids could
get up as late as yours past preschool age. The elementary kids
have to be at the bus stop at 8:10 and the middle/high school
kids have to be at the bus stop at 6:45. Even if they swap,
the middle and high school kids will likely be at the bus stop
at 8:00am, if not a bit earlier. That's still a big difference
from before 7:00.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Beliavsky wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:04 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

snip

I remember that in high school, many of us were only half-awake at
7:30 am, when classes started. It's obviously a waste of time and
money for children to be in school when they are too sleepy to learn
anything. Many states mandate a 180 day school year. Maybe the law
should be changed so that school districts can trade off fewer days in
high school (which would cost less) for a later start time (which
costs more because of transportation issues). I would not be surprised
if 160 days from 8:30 AM to 3:30 AM were as effective as 180 days from
7:30 AM to 2:30 PM.
I'm confused. Why would they have fewer days of high
school with the same length of day? They're having trouble
getting all the material in with the days they have, and it
seems like pressure is towards *more* days in school, not fewer.

The theory is that teachers could move faster and students would
remember more if the high school day were shifted to later hours and
students were more alert.

I don't think that argument holds water. The consequence
today is not so much that teachers go slower. It's just that
kids don't do as well as they might otherwise. Remember--when
it comes to middle and high school, most teachers are teaching
the same or similar classes throughout the day. It's not like
they have different syllabi for 1st period and 7th period. It's
just that the 1st period kids are having a more difficult time.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Oct 16, 11:05?am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chris wrote:
Thanks a lot for sharing that. I saw the bit about some schools moving
their start times back quite a few years ago -- about how much better
the students did/functioned -- I've wondered ever since how not all of
them have followed suit. Kind of sad to see it boils down to the
convenience of teacher commutes in, expense of enlarging a bus fleet,
and after-school sports, etc.

I'm in favor of later start times for adolescents, and
I think the research is fairly convincing, but to be fair, these
aren't insignificant issues. Our school system is in the midst
of studying the issue right now, and preliminary estimates attach
a fairly hefty price tag to the required transportation changes.
What school system is s rolling in cash that it's an easy decision
to spend money there instead of on smaller class sizes or other
things that affect students? And while the after school jobs
issue doesn't affect everyone, it can be a major factor for kids
whose families (or future educational opportunities) rely on that
income. I'm not saying that we shouldn't find a way around those
issues, but I can understand why every school district hasn't
managed to turn their schedules upside down overnight.
We had one year with a lot of snow days, and after much
debate, the school board decided that the only/best way to get
the required hours in before the required statewide testing in
the spring was to extend the school day by something like 45
minutes a day for 2-3 months. You wouldn't believe the uproar
over that change. Obviously, part of the issue was that it
was sprung on people mid-year, but it surfaced a lot of issues
that would be similar to the issue of moving middle and high
school schedules later. It was a rough transition for a lot
of folks.
I think my school district will eventually make later
start times for adolescents happen, but I don't expect it to
be an easy road.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Sorry if you got the impression that I didn't undertand all of that. I
simply had shared that I had wondered why it wasn't widely adopted as
policy. The article that Beliavsky shared explained some of those
reasons, which I find sad. I am aware that school's funds are tight. I
am aware that it would mess with before-school after-school care (not
necessarily a terrible amount of time for a teenager either IMO), etc.
You'll need to bare in mind, however, that I, from 14-18 frequently
came home alone and babysat my 0- to 4-y/o baby sister, but so did my
other sisters who were 1 year younger than me and 3 years younger than
me, for a few hours until mom got off of work. Dad worked second shift
and didn't get home until after we were in bed. Us older kids played
sports as well. Due to child labor laws, I don't see 4 hours a week on
weekdays posing such a big risk either. Basically, I don't see the
problem with a teenager getting home an hour later from school
wreaking havoc on a working parent's schedule or schooling.

On a personal note, however, I want the best for my kids, and if a
little more quality sleep helped him/her be a better student and
person, then I'm all for it, and just like everything else I've had to
do after becoming a parent, I would have to make the proper
concessions to help it along.

On Oct 16, 10:27 am, Chris wrote:
On Oct 16, 9:29?am, Beliavsky wrote:

http://nymag.com/news/features/38951/
Snooze or Lose: Overstimulated, overscheduled kids are getting at
least an hour's less sleep than they need, a deficiency that, new
research reveals, has the power to set their cognitive abilities back
years.
By Po Bronson
New York (magazine)

http://nymag.com/news/features/38979/
How to Get Kids to Sleep More
By Ashley Merryman
New York (magazine)

I thought the articles were informative.

Thanks a lot for sharing that. I saw the bit about some schools moving
their start times back quite a few years ago -- about how much better
the students did/functioned -- I've wondered ever since how not all of
them have followed suit. Kind of sad to see it boils down to the
convenience of teacher commutes in, expense of enlarging a bus fleet,
and after-school sports, etc.

I've gained quite a bit of weight myself and I have heard of the lack
of sleep contributing, but after reading this, I am more convinced
than ever that I need to turn my business around to somehow allow me
to still work around the needs of my family (without daycare) and
still get some sleep.

Not only does lack of sleep hinder normal function but it can lead you
to accelerated aging and an early grave. Imagine people reducing
their sleep so they can live more when in reality you don't gain
anything because mother nature takes it away anyway.

GovernessJoy
http://123kidsoftheworld.blogspot.com