THE GAZETTE
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 g
Page A-13
LETTERS TOT HE EDITOR
Without proof of a benefit, district shouldn’t change bell times
As a parent of a Montgomery County Public Schools ninth-grader, I would like to add my perspective on changing to later high school bell times — and as a Montgomery County resident, I am very concerned about any additional cost (or the diversion of current funding) of some of the options. Changing bell times is very “complex,” as acknowledged by MCPS in its 2015 summary analysis. However, this issue may be simplified by determining: “What’s driving this need?” As reported in internal MCPS reports and analysis, increasing sleep is the driving force. Although not explicitly stated, more sleep leads to greater academic achievement and increases the general health of high school students since their circadian rhythm results in a later time when they fall asleep. However, the independent Hanover Report conducted for MCPS states “...there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates that later high school start times result in improved academic achievement for students.” While a later bell time facilitates getting
up later, it also means that school ends later. Given the rigors of high school — academics, clubs, sports, jobs — does ending the school day later “push” these activities back with no increase in sleep? To address this, MCPS cites a 2002 study by Kyla Wahlstrom (“Findings from the First Longitudinal Study of Later High School Start Times”) that indicates some increased sleep. It is based on districts with a total population of less than 700 students, with 467 students in a later start time (Minneapolis) versus 169 students in an earlier start time (anonymous District B). However, much has changed since the 2002 Wahlstrom study, led by an explosion of electronic devices, streaming video, and especially social media that high school students use frequently (much to my chagrin, that’s my daughter!). For MCPS to leverage a decade-old study from a vastly different information/entertainment age — a study with less than 700 students and an “anonymous District B,” so that no socio-demographic comparisons can be made — is not a strong business case for change.
My concern is MCPS may be “experimenting” with later bell times without supporting evidence that links greater student achievement or indicates this provides more sleep. Additionally, given the economic headwinds for MCPS’ funding, any option that carries a cost should not be considered. Since the board and MCPS are charged with optimizing student achievement and being sound stewards of taxpayer (funding) dollars, especially as these dollars become ever-more scarce, initiating a costly change without much assurance of student achievement gains and increased sleep is pure folly. All this points to a strong “no-action” by MCPS and the board of education. Changing bell times is complex given the various stakeholder concerns, interests, and the massive disruption to 154,000 students and their families. However, the decision is simple: Do not change bell times unless there is compelling evidence of increased student achievement and increased sleep for MCPS high school students. Rob Lao, Laytonsville
Giving thanks to the teachers who made me one As another year came to a close, I thought about people who have shaped my path. As a Latina, first-generation American, I didn’t have a ton of role models outside of my family who shared my backgrounds and experiences. But where society and media came up short, incredible teachers at Blake High School made the difference. Because of them, I made my way to college. I attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Now, because of them, I teach, too. Allison Finn, Claire Kodan, Rudy Tyrell, Cindy Loveland, Leigh Tinsley, Joseph DuBois, Carole Goodman, Kim Tolbert, Kathy Moore, Denise Ramos and many more recognized what college could do for me, long before I did. They knew it would stretch me academically
1934062
and challenge me personally. It wasn’t until my senior year that any of us knew exactly where it would lead me. As an undergrad, I volunteered with disadvantaged Baltimore students — many of whom had special needs. I grew increasingly frustrated with a system that didn’t grant the same opportunities to all my students. They struggled not because they weren’t capable, but because of systems not set up to address their unique needs and situations. As my time with UMBC came to a close, I knew I wanted to continue public service work — to create meaningful change I deeply believe in. I thought about my Blake teachers and knew I needed to get into the classroom and pay forward all that those teachers gave me.
I joined Teach For America, which enlists college graduates and professionals to teach in low-income communities and advocate for equity. I am teaching in Baltimore with a vow: never let a student get pushed through an education system without keys for opportunities. I set high goals for all my kids and expect them to meet them. Many students may be low-income, or first-generation Americans, or have special needs, but I refuse to let those be reasons they don’t succeed. My kids and I talk about leadership coming from within and how to see yourself as a leader. For many, this isn’t easy — they don’t see many people in positions of authority or influence to whom they relate. As a teacher, I strive to create lessons that not only allow my
students to explore various leaders, but also develop their own leadership skills. I want every kid in Baltimore to have the choice to go to college. I believe every single student in Baltimore has incredible potential, and I want them to believe that, too. My own teachers showed me excellent teaching, and I want to replicate that for the next generation. Every morning in the classroom, I strive to teach as they taught me: with passion, excitement, humility and understanding. Together, we can give our kids the futures they deserve. Micaela Perez Ferrero, Baltimore
The writer used to live in Olney. She graduated from Blake High School in 2009.
152582G
Airpark criticism ignores actual and potential benefits Brian Benhaim’s calls for “real reforms” in the wake of the tragic plane crash near the Airpark in December [Jan. 7 Forum] lack benefits to the community while greatly benefitting Mr. Benhaim and any of his neighbors who chose to move to a house near the Airpark. As a pilot for a major airline who started his career at the Airpark, I find Benhaim’s “reforms” overreaching. His plans are not real solutions. They are a veiled attempt by a NIMBY citizen to promote a selfish cause springboarded by a tragic accident. Banning touch-and-go operations because they are a nuisance to “legitimate commercial traffic” is like asking Mr. Benhaim to drive off to the shoulder of Route 124 whenever he sees a commercial truck, bus, or limo in his rear-view mirror. Airplanes already in the pattern have the right of way, and all jet pilots know this and adjust accordingly. After all, they likely became jet pilots by practicing touch-and-goes at the local airport. Attempting to ban jets that don’t have a qualified copilot is not something that local government can police. That’s the jurisdiction of the FAA, who certifies airplanes to be flown by a single pilot versus two. Singlepilot jet operations have been in use for more than 30 years. Trust me, because of this accident, the NTSB and FAA will be looking far more closely at this exemption. His final proposal to simply close the airport would be a boon for the value of nearby homes, perhaps including his. But, municipal airports are a part of the National Airspace System. In the event of disaster, that single runway at the Airpark may serve as a lifeline for Montgomery County residents
as supplies fly in and injured are flown out to safer areas. And let’s not forget the air-ambulance flights, Angel Flights, pet-rescue missions and many other good-cause flights that take place at the Airpark, but are sadly under reported. Benhaim also has his facts wrong about other issues. First, the traffic at the airport fell precipitously after 2000 because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the establishment of highly restricted airspace overlying the Airpark. Many operators moved their airplanes to get out from under the bureaucratic burden of the airspace and risk of fighter intercepts, not because of higher risk factors from overflying the rampant development around the Airpark. Second, Benhaim says eminent domain was used to “expand operations at the airport, so bigger jets could land here.” This is flat-out false. The runway at the Airpark has been the same length since 1971. If he’s referring to the development of the Webb tract, that is a county building under construction there and has nothing to do with the Airpark. The reality is that any proposal to expand or improve the Airpark has been reliably shot down for the last 40 years thanks to residents like Benhaim and their tactics. Compared to other small airports in the area, our Airpark has seen very little improvement. Few businesses keep airplanes here because the runway is too short and there’s no instrument landing system to guide airplanes in during low weather. Instead of protecting and embracing the airport, politicians, developers, and NIMBY residents have for years attempted to strangle the life out of it. So far, it’s working. Peter A. Bedell, Gaithersburg