this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
1189 points (97.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

9387 readers
2742 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

One reason for the early starts for high schools is that by staggering the start times for high school, middle school, and elementary school, school districts can use fewer buses and fewer drivers. If all the schools started at the same (more reasonable) time, you'd need three times as many buses and drivers and each driver would only get one or two hours a day (and thus would find something else to do, making the existing shortage of drivers even worse). The district I drive for has a transportation budget of about $3 million a year - we would not be able to afford $9 million a year and still afford our administrators' enormous salaries.

If you just started all schools later by an hour, the elementary school kids would start at 9:30 AM which would not work out very well, either.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

If I remember correctly most of the suggestions to account for that actually has elementary and middle schoolers start before high schoolers since high schoolers are the ones that need the most sleep while also struggling the most to go to sleep early

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

East Asian countries solve this by having the kids take public transit; just run a few extra buses and trains on the routes kids take, then you don't need dedicated vehicles that sit idle all day.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

With trains all you have to do is add an extra passenger car or two for the peak times and keep the number of trains running the same. You could also increase frequency during peak times if you have the track, train and driver availability to do that

[–] RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, that sounds like socialism.

Good thing we were saved from the horrors of broadly accessible and efficient mass transit decades ago.

[–] Sirdubdee@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Could you imagine how dangerous mass transit would be if it was full of middle schoolers, calling out your biggest insecurities, while you’re just trying to get to work? John Mulaney educated us on the danger of them years ago.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not sure which ones you're talking about, but in Hong Kong, schoolchildren just walk to school. There's usually a school attached to each housing estate.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

Japan, Korea, mainland China

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think los angeles does this too, now.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You get a free pass as a student, but public transport in most of LA still requires a (relatively) long walk. Depending on where you live, might be a deal breaker.

It is much cleaner/safer than most people think though.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

long walk

Really? Not my experience.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's your definition of long walk? If public transport is your only option, you have to take into consideration the fact you'll occasionally be carrying heavy/bulky stuff.

I usually take 20-80 lbs

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They don't need to push everyone later, they just need to start the younger kids early, and the older kids later, which is the opposite of what most districts do now. Pre-teens have no problem getting up at 6AM.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Parents fight that because then they can't have the older kids take care of the younger kids when they get home from school.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

and those parents should be fought by cps

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not the parent's fault the media has made them terrified of everything that they can't let their kids just go around the neighborhood while they're at work.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yes, but if they're afraid of that they shouldn't be having their other kids watch over their younger ones

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All the highschoolers are at school, the people left over are expensive.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

maybe they should have thought about it before getting a small human

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So your take is that only wealthy people should reproduce?

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if having enough money to stop working to take care of your kid for a few years is considered wealthy, then yes.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Between high rent and low wages, 99% of americans do not and could never have the funds to go 4 years without income. Are you really that disconnected?

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

owning a house eliminates the rent argument and low wages only effects future wealth not current wealth. Wealth has nothing to do with current income.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

My school district solves this by not having busses at all