Boston Public Schools has just approved and published its list of new school start times, with 85 percent of its 125 schools moving to a new schedule this fall.
I always respected (and even advanced) the arguments that moving school times is challenging because it involves rearranging bus schedules, after school activities, renegotiating teacher and other contracts. etc.
But if Boston can do this with 125 schools, why can’t Newton, with 15 schools?
Really, why is this taking so long?
Good for Boston. I hope the new faces on the School Committee will take on this challenge with new found determination because it’s clear we’ve been let down by the incumbents, whose “complicated logistics” excuse just went flying out the window.
There is already a petition by elementary school parents. The Boston plan would move elementary school opening to 7:15, with dismissal at 1:15.
The research on high school kids may be convincing, but there has been very little actual research done regarding the sleep schedules and needs of elementary school kids. It is simply harder to do the experiments. A recent peer-reviewed paper in Sleep Health observed behavioral problems in elementary school children that may be correlated to early start times:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28346157
This paper and other studies have led to a call for more research in this area specifically because many school districts are moving elementary schools earlier to accommodate later high school times.
This specific approach has a huge potential for unintended consequences, especially in the northeast where seasonal effects on sleep are very pronounced. The potential risk of making a bad decision is greater for the developing brains of younger kids.
I appreciate Newton’s more comprehensive proposed plan, which won’t adversely affect elementary school kids.
We can, however, take easy steps right now to address other sleep-related topics for everyone: greater awareness the importance of individual sleep habits, the effects of blue light and late screen time, the influence of daylight on sleep schedules. Such a public education program can start today with no negative impact.
“Why is this taking so long?” The answer is simple. Parents have not held School Committee members accountable. They keep reelecting excuse makers who have failed to adequately address this issue that’s so critical to the health and well being of students.
I still can’t get over the fact that Mr. Striar brought up the issue in 2005 and the School Committee didn’t establish the Start Time Working Group until 2015.
It’s about time! My daughter it continually exhausted.
My prediction: Fleishman and the school committee will continue to hem and haw over this until my elementary schooler is in college.
@MMQC — Any bets as to whether later school start times or zoning reform will be accomplished first? 🙁
@Robert: Or a redesigned Needham Street?
Here’s the answer to your question, Greg:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/08/parents-blast-bps-plan-for-new-school-start-times/lhCarvnATG4R1vqgm67f2N/story.html
We’re taking a deliberate approach because changing start times dominoes a lot of other changes. Some have to be negotiated with the teacher’s union, and all need to be thoughtfully done so that when we upend families’ current lives we know why. I know it might be hard to believe if you just read the online world, but there are many NPS families who do NOT want to change the school start times, and many of them have understandable reasons for that opinion. Once we know what the actual costs of the change will be, dollars and otherwise, the school committee will decide if the benefits are worth it. My prediction is that a decision will be made during 2018-19, and implemented (change/no change) in fall of 2019.
Good answer Jon.
Allow me a moment to respectfully disagree with Jon’s answer.
Jon, correct me if I am wrong, but you say that some families will be inconvenienced if school starts later. There is no denying that. However, when viewing this question we must first ask if any students will be hurt by not moving the start times. The answer, supported by the vast majority (99%+) of studies (ex. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/shpps/pdf/shpps-508-final_101315.pdf) is YES. Will any families be hurt by a later start time? Inconvenienced yes, hurt no. That is a big difference.
What we must also remember is that most of our METCO students wake up at ridiculously early hours (some before 5am). Now I understand that a few lucky people live near the high schools, including Jon, but more than 75% of students stated they do not get to school in some sort of active manner (walking or biking).
The evidence is crystal clear and the prices already calculated by the SC are low (some at no additional cost). The net positive effect on moving the start times tomorrow will be significantly better in terms of the health of our children. While everyone supports exploring ways to minimize the inconvenience (perhaps traffic or work related?) to the small minority of our impacted parents & citizens, the evidence states that holding a ideology counter to later start times is nothing more than a selfish position.
I am going to let it rip. Sorry.
No excuses. The NPS has mismanaged things drastically. We need to hold everyone accountable for subjecting our children to poorer academic performance, worse mental health, worse physical health, and a higher frequency of automobile accidents.
Jon Basset’s comments feature fatally flawed comparisons that the NPS keeps throwing out that need to be dispelled. We are talking about the health of our children. If we know smoking is bad, would we let the NPS force kids to smoke, because we want to be “deliberate” or because we want years and years to negotiate with the teachers’ union? Speaking of the union, does the Boston Public Schools not have a teachers union? Has the NPS even STARTED to negotiate with the teachers’ union?
Should we continue to risk our kids’ health because a minority of people may be inconvenienced? Of course not. Equivocation of mental, physical health, education performance, and auto-accidents with afternoon yoga classes or a drop off time is a perfect example of false-equivalency.
The NPS wasted a full year with surveys. If you look at the NPS own surveys, respondents with an opinion overwhelming agreed with starting high school late. Again, I don’t’ really care about a popularity contest since we are talking about health and education. That being said, it is a myth to suggest that the masses are happy with the NPS start time disaster.
The evidence implies that as we have deliberated over the last 5 years, teenagers in Newton have been involved in 120 extra automobile accidents that could have been avoided if high school started later. What would happen, if the tables were turned and David Fleishman’s, Toby Romer’s and the School Committee members’ children were involved in two automobile accidents per month while the NPS carefully deliberated, conducted surveys, and day-dreamed about making a change? What if their kids were subject to worse mental and physical health, and worse academic performance? The answer is we would have already voted for a late start time–just like Boston Public Schools and the other schools in the area that have shown leadership.
@temporarily anonymous: Could you please direct me to a specific part of the CDC document you linked to? I can’t find anything about start times in it.
sigh
I feel compelled to point out once again, under our City Charter the Mayor has the authority to determine the opening time of ANY municipal building, including the two high schools. If Setti Warren had shown even a lick of leadership on this issue, start times could have been changed years ago. Now, Ruthanne Fuller has an opportunity to deliver. She promised Newton the “best schools in the state.” The very first thing on her to-do list, should be changing high school start times.
@Newtoner, I think I may linked the wrong study (Although I am to busy to look into it).
Here are two statements in support of later start times. The first from the AAP:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/19/peds.2014-1697.full.pdf
The second from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0806-school-sleep.html
I would quote certain parts, but they are all important. A start time of no earlier than 8:30 is recommended (NOT as close to 8:30am as possible, as some SC members have been saying).
Current start time risks include obesity, car accidents, Emotional dysregulation, higher rates of caffeine consumption etc. etc.
The benefits of later start times are settled law.
Boston “figured this out” by having a bunch of elementary schools (and at least one K-12 inclusion school for students with special needs) start at 7:15am. Does anyone really think that’s a great idea?
Tricia, it is better idea than what NPS is doing right now. Boston-Newton is only one comparison. There are a slew of effective schools districts that we can copy.
We have also been talking about Full Day Kindergarten for at least a decade.
I don’t support starting any public school at 7:15am. It’s absurd! Any school committee member who tells you we have to start elementary school at 7:15 in order to change high school start times in Newton, is either lying or too intellectually challenged to be an effective office holder…
Is this really the most perplexing problem faced by mankind?? Some school committee members might lead you to believe that it is. Because how else could they explain why it’s taken more than a decade to fix what is essentially a scheduling issue? Unfortunately it’s a scheduling issue with very serious consequences.
That brings me full circle to my first comment on this thread. At this point I have to blame the parents. If they demanded change, and used the ballot box to facilitate change, high school start times would change.
I am well aware that other districts have gotten this right, and I’m in complete agreement that this has taken way too long. (Personally, it’s already too late for two of my three kids, and it’s not looking good for my middle schooler.) My point was that Boston “figured this out” quickly because they did it on the backs of some of their youngest and most vulnerable students who will have to get up before 6am and get on buses in the dark. All because the algorithm they used is about the efficiency of the bus schedule (the vans for the inclusion students will get through their runs quickly at the crack of dawn.) And no, it is not a better idea than what Newton is doing; it’s just changing which population is more negatively impacted.
What Tricia and Jon said. The parents of elementary school parents are just beginning to weigh in on this issue because this change may have serious consequences for their children’s health and safety.
My greatest concern is the increase in the cost of aftercare on families of elementary school parents. What will happen to young children whose families can’t afford the increased cost? Are we sending the most vulnerable young students back to being “latchkey children”? How about reading a few studies about the affect of leaving young children unsupervised and unattended for many hours?
Yes, Jeffrey, we’re talking about the health and safety of our children – All of them, Kindergarten through grade 12. Quick and dirty isn’t the right approach to this issue.
Newton has been looking at this since 2005 when my sophomore in high school was 3 years old. My kid will suffer and graduate before the high school start time is changed! And full day kindergarten is another topic the school Committee talks about but nothing has changed. Change is hard. Back in the 1990s we made policies in my high school that prevented teachers from smoking in the school (previously there had been a smoking room) and I am sure some teachers didn’t like it. Change is hard but later start times for high schoolers and full day kindergarten would benefit students.
Jane, I am advocating getting it done in one decade not two decades. To call one decade “quick and dirty” is absurd. Again, there are plenty of examples of schools that moved to a late high school start time, without starting grade school early.
As Mike said, we have to blame ourselves for not holding the SC accountable.
All that I am saying is that even if we did start elementary school early (again, we don’t have to do it) we would be improving the health, well-being, and education of our high school students. Also, we will improve the achievement gap! I have not read any evidence that starting elementary school early has an adverse effect on elementary kids. Mike Halle has a link to study that might be the only study in the whole world that suggests a minor correlation. I still need to read it, but it seems unimportant in the big scheme of things.
Again, we don’t have to change elementary times at all. That is not the hold up. The hold up is extremely poor decision making at the NPS.
One more thing. Maybe Jane can talk to Mike Zilles, the Teacher’s Union president about this. NPS will grasp for any excuse about why their situation is so much more complicated than everywhere else. An obvious target is the NTA. I can already imagine people from the NPS saying, “Keep this on the QT. We are ready to move to a late start time, but the NTA is holding things up by demanding a $5 trillion deal first.” Mike Zilles should strategically avoid being the scape goat and pro-actively announce something like the following. (Feel free to copy and paste).
“The NTA believes the science that documents the destructiveness of early high school start times. We hope the NPS can follow the lead of other school districts in making a change. Although a change will be beneficial for some of our teachers and an inconvenience for others, we promise the community that we will support any NPS proposal that does not increase teachers’ working hours. We invite the NPS to joins us in advocating for the health and well-being of students. “
Jeffery, please don’t go down the road of downplaying the potential risk of earlier elementary school start times. Any parent with young kids knows how sleep affects them. Suggestions for adequate sleep for young kids have been around for years. While the effect of school start times may have not been studied extensively, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if more research confirms it.
But if that’s not good enough, put aside cognitive issues for a moment.
Early elementary school start times, requiring walking in the dark in a community with a high percentage of walkers and bikers, poorly lit neighborhoods, and notoriously bad drivers, would be an overwhelming safety risk that would put more kids at physical harm’s way and more vehicles into our already chaotic school zones. School zones are already one of the most dangerous traffic locations, and early morning driving is part of the reason that there are more crashes involving teenage drivers.
Remember that Cyrus stated in a public debate in his previous School Committee run that fixing HSST would be “easy” with an elementary/high school switch. The idea has certainly been on the table in the past, and I am happy that Newton thought about it long enough to realize its consequences.
And to be clear, I find the pace of change for these kinds of issues (start times, full time kindergarten, early release) as frustrating as anyone. Old friends with kids in other communities give me a stunned look when I describe these things. I just acknowledge that there are complexities in the decision-making.
Look, the best time to address later start times and full day kindergarten is right NOW. We have contract negotiations coming up and I hope we can include this in the discussions. We should have contingencies in the NPS contracts… pre-later start times/post later start times…same for Full day Kindergarten. It might seem more complicated, but atleast no one can use negotiations as an excuse any longer. These issues should not be taking anyone by surprise.
Jeffrey – This is not the only issue that’s been on the NPS plate for however many years HS start time has been discussed. We have seriously inadequate school facilities that required replacement – two are complete, one is in the works, and there are plans for two more buildings that are almost as bad as the first two replaced. If you think that doesn’t take time and effort, you’re way off base. If you had a child in one of these dilapidated buildings for 6 hours a day, you may have a different set of priorities.
The faculty and staff have spent an enormous amount of time dealing with issues related to diversity, over the last 4 years. If your child was a target of one of the many incidents, you may have a different set of priorities.
The curriculum has changed dramatically in the last 10 years due to an overemphasis on standardized test scores. Maybe you think it’s easy to rewrite unit at every grade level so they align with a new set of standards, or that it’s a snap to prepare kids for these tests, but it’s not. This work is the heart of the school system and affects every child.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point. This is your priority, Mike Striar’s priority, and that of many high school parents. But you can’t expect everyone else to have the same set of priorities. My priority? I want to be assured that elementary children, no matter what their family’s economic situation may be, will be cared for after school by a competent adult.
Jane has opposed later start times for years. She’s never posted a single comment in support of later start times, while she’s posted numerous comments in support of School Committee members on this issue. Anyone who read Jane’s comments as a Charter Commissioner, should recognize she’s completely tone deaf to public opinion. Worse, Jane thinks that her years of experience as a teacher somehow affords her a better perspective on this public health issue than the Center for Disease Control, which has advocated for later high school start times based on numerous studies. Jane is entitled to her opinion. But it’s worth noting that her opinion is completely contradictory to all the scientific evidence related to later start times.
Print this page
Back to top
New AMA policy encourages middle schools and high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m.
CHICAGO – As sleep deprivation continues to negatively impact the health and well-being of adolescents in the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) today adopted policy during its Annual Meeting to encourage reasonable school start times that allow students to get sufficient sleep. The new policy specifically calls on school districts across the United States to implement middle and high school start times no earlier than 8:30 a.m. The new policy also encourages physicians to actively educate parents, school administrators, teachers and other community members about the importance of sleep for adolescent mental and physical health based on their proven biological needs.
“Sleep deprivation is a growing public health issue affecting our nation’s adolescents, putting them at risk for mental, physical and emotional distress and disorders,” said AMA Board Member William E. Kobler, M.D. “Scientific evidence strongly suggests that allowing adolescents more time for sleep at the appropriate hours results in improvements in health, academic performance, behavior, and general well-being. We believe delaying school start times will help ensure middle and high school students get enough sleep, and that it will improve the overall mental and physical health of our nation’s young people.”
According to recent studies, only 32 percent of American teenagers reported getting at least eight hours of sleep on an average school night. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that teenagers between 14 and 17 years of age should get 8.5 to 9.5 hours of sleep per night to achieve optimal health and learning. Studies have also shown that puberty is accompanied by a biological delay or shift in circadian rhythm, contributing to later bedtimes and wake times among teens.
Over the past several decades, school start times have become increasingly early as school districts try to make time for additional classes, sports, and extracurricular activities. Nearly 10 percent of U.S. high schools today begin at or before 7:30 a.m. However, research has found that not allowing more time for sleep hinders health, academic performance, behavior and general well-being. Mental manifestations of inadequate sleep often include poor memory performance and mood disorders. Symptoms of depression and anxiety are also more evident with those who get less than six hours of sleep each night.
Sleep is also essential for healthy physical development. Studies have found that sleep deprivation may result in hypertension, metabolic disorders (including diabetes) and impaired immune function. Additionally, unhealthy body mass index is directly related to sleep, and those with shorter sleep durations are more likely to be underweight, overweight or obese.
“While implementing a delayed school start time can be an emotional and potentially stressful issue for school districts, families, and members of the community, the health benefits for adolescents far outweigh any potential negative consequences,” said Dr. Kobler.
Great posts Mike and Tom. Jane, not so much.
Jane, you are making NPS-style excuses. All the other hoards of school districts that are moving (or have moved) to a late start have had to also deal with buildings, diversity, curriculum, and blah-blah-blah. They have the grit to navigate things. We don’t.
My priority is the health, well-being, and education of our children. Nothing the NPS has done is more important. At the rate that the NPS is moving, the NPS may never accomplish anything this important.
Question to Mike S. and Jeffrey P. — Of the proposals set out by the High School Start Time Working Group, is there a scenario that you prefer over others? Recognizing that you both are strong supporters of a later high school start time, which (if any) proposal do you believe is the best one?
George. If we get something it won’t be any of the proposals that the NPS showed the school committee. Any proposal that starts school later will improve the health, well-being, and education of our students.
Why do you think it won’t be one of the proposals shown to the committee (and to the public)? And don’t you mean “any proposal that starts school later FOR OUR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS will improve their health, well-being, and education?” Do you have an opinion on middle an elementary school start times, and it’s impact on those students? I ask these questions not because I don’t support later high school start times – I do, and I believe it’s way overdue. But I’m concerned because the easiest and cheapest way to get later high school start times is to give elementary and middle school those early start times (see Boston) and I’m afraid that after all these years of foot dragging and study, they will end up deciding to do the easiest (read cheapest) thing.
@Jane: The most vulnerable children in Newton are already often unsupervised and unattended to. In my experiences as someone who was one of these kids in Newton from pre-K at Head Start through senior year at Newton North, the benefits of later start times would considerably outweighed your concerns.
Tricia. The NPS has a committee that is carefully thinking about ( code word: taking a lot time) coming up with a plan to even-out the school day at both high schools and (hopefully) coming up with a plan that extends the high school start times. From everything I have seen, if there is a final plan it won’t have a material impact on middle and elementary schools. My confidence stems from the fact that NPS loves to get as many people involved in a decision as possible (except parents). Both high school principals are on the committee but there are no middle or elementary school representatives.
BTW, Weston is yet another district that rolling out a later high school start. The superintendent made himself the chair of the planning committee–a great example of leadership. For NPS, Toby Romer is leading the committee. Watch the SC meeting where they gave him this assignment and you will see a man who really does not want to be on this committee, let alone be the head of it. I hope I am wrong. Like everyone else (Fleishman and the entire SC), he has never said, loud and proud, “Students’ health and education is our first priority. Let’s start high school later ASAP.” When Romer was given the assignment someone on the SC should have told him that if was not energized enough they would pass the football to someone else. The SC had the opportunity to publicly articulate the importance of this endeavor to Romer. They did not.
Tricia, I meant what I said, “our students.” If you have kids, they will be in high school someday. Since you are pressing. My opinion is that, in order of importance, we should 1) have a later start time–ASAP and I don’t care how we do it and 2) do so without having a material impact on when middle and elementary schools start.
If anyone wants high school start times to change, please email me at [email protected] and I will add you to an email list.
Jeffery,
Weston may not be your best example.
July 2012 Globe article : “Weston High may change high school start time so teens can get more sleep”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2012/07/25/weston-may-change-high-school-start-time-teens-can-get-more-sleep/SOSV2GasQGxcHdo6LyBtRK/story.html
Oct. 2017 Weston Schools blog: Proposed Change to School Start Times:
https://www.westonschools.org/blog/2017/10/23/proposed-change-school-start-times/
I appreciate the tone of this posting (acknowledgement of the issues, expression of care and concern, desire to be a local leader on this issue). However, it indicates they only formed their “Start Time/Scheduling Innovation Steering Committee” in Jan. 2017. They are just starting public comments now (public meetings, surveys, email), and express no clear schedule of intended decision date.
They may be diligent and concerned, but there’s no evidence online they are ahead of Newton in planning or have moved especially rapidly so far. Weston is also 1/8th the side of Newton in population, with fewer schools.
Jeffrey, my concerns about elementary start times is not personal – two of my kids are in college, and the youngest will hit high school next year. (In fact, if I were making this personal I would be advocating a later HS start time regardless of the impact on elementary kids, because of my three, the youngest has the hardest time with getting to sleep at night and getting up early.) So I very much want this to happen next year; NPS should be able to come up with a proposal that does not negatively impact middle and elementary schools and find the money so it can happen. But if they come out with a proposal that negatively impacts the elementary school population and families (who have been paying little to no attention up to this point) we’ll just get mired down again.
And BTW, according to the Weston Public Scools website, two School Committee members co-chair the steering committee, with the superintendent (Dr. Midge Connelly), other SC members, as well as principals, teachers, and parents from all grade levels as members. I agree that this is a much better approach than what’s happening in Newton.
I wholeheartedly support later high school start times sooner than later. It’s imperative to have these students getting up later after a decent nights sleep. I too think it’s lack of passion in the SC for the changes that have kept them from being implemented. No more study is needed – the facts continue to substantiate the change.
Later high school start times have nothing to do with “going back to” having latchkey kids – there are still many vulnerable students alone at home until their patent or parents come home. These changes will not increase their numbers. A better solution to that is NPS providing care for children after school as other school districts do and providing full day kindergarten. These and other excuses concerning the difficult balancing act are just delay tactics from instituting later high school start times.
Get it done. It’s the priority.
The purpose of the School Committee’s “working group” was to give the appearance of action while taking none. I wrote exactly that at the time on V-14, and their actions [or lack thereof] have proven me correct. What the School Committee did accomplish is to convince enough people that the issue of start times is SO complicated that it justifies their inaction…
I know that people want to give SC members the benefit of the doubt. Parents trust them to make good decisions, especially when it comes to the health of students. But it’s worth remembering, these are the same elected officials who were completely taken by surprise that lead was in the drinking water at a dozen Newton schools. Should it have taken them years to recognize that problem? At least it didn’t take them decades to address it after the problem was discovered.
It is clear reading some of these posts that there are parents who are rightfully concerned about changing start times for their younger children. I do not support “solving” the high school start time issue by shifting the problem to lower grades. Even though sleep deprivation has been proven to have the worst effect on teens, no child’s health or safety should be compromised in this process, and there’s absolutely no reason for that to happen.
I’m putting my hope in our new Mayor, who identified this specific issue [high school start times] as part of her promise to deliver the “best schools in the state.” She has the authority to fix the problem. The question is, will she?
Mike Striar, I appreciate your sensitivity to the issues about younger kids.
The school start time issue that you’ve championed is compelling enough. I don’t think trying to draw connections to lead in school drinking water is necessary. It took the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan to trigger lead testing on a faucet-by-faucet and water fountain-by-water fountain basis in communities across the country. Would be nice to have been ahead of the issue, but we were hardly alone. Old schools, pipes with lead solder. If anything, it was an operational issue.
I’m still bothered by the fact that NPS had to remedy this emergency public health issue out of their regular budget. It was a public health issue that should have been addressed and paid for across all public facilities as a whole.
Mike Halle– Of course I’m sensitive to the needs of younger children. My youngest was in elementary school when I ran for mayor and put high school start times front-and-center. She’s graduating from Indiana University this week. That’s how long the School Committee has failed to address the start time issue…
I mentioned the drinking water issue to contrast the urgency it was dealt with to the lack of urgency the SC has demonstrated dealing with start times. Both pose serious health consequences.
@Mike Striar,
I’m very intrigued and curious about your statement that the Mayor can change the school start times. The Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education is authorized by statute, G.L. c. 69 Section 1G, to issue regulations applicable to public schools. Under that authority, the DESE has issued regulations (Code of Mass. Regulations, 603 CMR 27:03 (1)) which provide that “Prior to the beginning of each school year, every school committee shall establish school year schedules for each of the public schools under its supervision and control …” In light of the regulations, what would be the source of the Mayor’s authority to establish school year schedules?
@Lisap– Thanks for your question…
The City Charter gives Newton’s Mayor authority over all municipal buildings. That includes the authority to determine what time of day any city building including schools can open. I have suggested in the past that the Mayor use this scheduling power as leverage to force the School Committee to change high school start times by a date certain…
For example, if Mayor-elect Fuller were to tell the School Committee–“you change high school start times by the beginning of the 2019 school year, or I will change the time of morning the two high school buildings can be opened,” I’m personally convinced that would be enough to get the time change made.
Today’s lesson: Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.
While I support later start times for high school students, the way Boston did this was by imposing really early start times for elementary school start times. I heard through Facebook this morning that a friend who teaches kindergarten and sends his kids to the Boston Public Schools will be among many, many parents of elementary school students opposed to early start times for their children at a public hearing at to night’s School Committee meeting. As a teacher and parent, he KNOWS this will be bad for younger children like his own.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/15/boston-school-officials-reconsider-new-start-times/LhjGUz10LWdQ2B0WvuTpPO/story.html?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter
Boston has no officially reversed its plans to change start times for next year. They will look into considering changes for future years.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/22/boston-schools-boss-halts-plan-change-school-start-times/Z0pAKKcF3ggCL0mkgeBPiM/story.html
So it turns out that the premise of Greg’s question was wrong: Boston hasn’t figured this out.
Yep
This is the situation that Newton is trying to avoid. As happened in Boston, the parents of elementary students aren’t likely to focus on this issue until the possible changes are made public. At that point, I’d expect them to be fully engaged in the conversation.
@Jane Frantz – You’re right. The general citizenry never becomes full engaged until they are confronted with a concrete detailed plan that will affect their lives. The one thing you can count on is that regardless of the details of that plan there will be a loud and contentious uproar as parents and students figure out how whatever changes are made will affect them individually – as we’ve seen in Boston.
The plan is never the end of the process, its the beginning of the next stage of the process. That’s why after all these years of consideration, study, evaluation by the school department, it’s time for them to put a plan on the table and get this moving. This is not a matter of not having enough time to put a plan together (years), its either a matter of lack of political will or not wanting to deal with inevitable difficult process that begins the day that plan is announced.
Again, [and again]… Later start times for high school students do NOT necessitate earlier start times for elementary grades. This bs has been used ad nauseam by School Committee members and their excuse makers. It’s a LIE!
Did anyone really expect Boston to “get it right”? Their school system is such a mess that they have to send thousands of kids out of the city everyday to get a decent education. Newton is not Boston. We have the brains and resources to get this done. Unfortunately, we have had the wrong people on the School Committee to get the time change made.
I’m hoping Ruthanne Fuller puts the power of the Mayor’s Office where her mouth is. She was right to make high school start times an issue during the campaign. Now it’s time for her to deliver!
It would be a serious mistake for any mayor to use the “power” of the office to make a unilateral decision on an issue that will have a serious impact (well beyond inconvenience) on different segments of the school population. While Mike would like the mayor to use his/her power to make changes, I’d be adamantly opposed to what I consider to be an abuse of power. So there you have the continuum on the use of unilateral mayoral power to make changes, and I suspect that residents would .
The school department has a full plate, with a new state test to implement, other unfunded mandates from the state requiring a great deal of time and effort to plan for and implement, several building projects, dealing with increased enrollment, significant space issues in a number of schools, and I could go on. While this is the top school issue for people on this blog, others may have different priorities. I suspect people would be surprised at how many “top priority” items the NPS community has.
Oops. Last paragraph should end with “most residents would fall somewhere between Mike and me.”
@Jane Frantz – You are absolutely right that there are all sorts of other important matters that the school department has to deal with. If anyone was suggesting “drop everything and deal with school start times now” I’d be in general agreement with you.
That’s not the situation. This issue has been discussed FOR YEARS. There will ALWAYS be lots of important matters before the school department.
So yes, many people are getting quite impatient. Not impatient in the sense of ‘something just came to my mind and I want everyone to drop everything’ but impatient in the sense that our elected officials and school department has been promising us FOR YEARS that they are working on this issue. If after years, the answer to why has nothing been done? is ‘they have a lot of other important issues to deal with’ then there’s no reason to believe that will change in the forsee’able future.
The school department has never said “no, we’re not going to deal with this issue, we have other priorities”. They have said just the opposite. Citizens have taken them at their word and are wondering now why there has been no apparent visible progress, AFTER YEARS.
Jane thinks it would be “an abuse of power” for Mayor-elect Fuller to change high school start times. I think it’s a dereliction of duty for School Committee members to NOT change high school start times…
Jane’s position on start times is supported by the same School Committee members who have failed to correct the problem. My position is supported by the Center for Disease Control. I think most people can figure out which side is right in this debate.