|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
50 States of Ed Policy: What could California's decision to delay the morning bell mean for other states?
A law delaying start times signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this
month will put communities to the test and could inspire other states
to follow suit.
Naaz Modan
Oct. 30, 2019
This latest column focuses on some of the key takeaways from the debate
on later school start times and what California's new law means for
other states considering the shift.
A nationwide movement to delay school start times gained fuel this
month after California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill
mandating later start times for most middle and high schools.
SB 328, the first legislation of its kind, requires public and charter
middle schools in California to start no earlier than 8 a.m. and high
schools to begin at 8:30 a.m. or later, with the exception of rural
schools. Under the law, optional early classes will still be allowed.
Until recently, the later-start-time movement nationally had been a
slow-burning local issue for more than two decades. “Most of the
communities that have adopted this have done so voluntarily and have
done it with a process that has included buy-in building within the
community,” Deborah Temkin, a director for the national research
organization Child Trends, said.
But with the mandate coming for the first time from a state capitol
instead of the grassroots, California's top-down overhaul is expected
to garner some resistance from key community stakeholders.
While health experts and educators overwhelmingly agree later start
times come with a slew of scientifically proven benefits for teenagers,
whether that change should be made on a district-by-district basis or
on the state level has polarized communities and even educational
coalitions that are usually in alignment otherwise. At the crux of the
policy debate lies the issue of local versus state control.
Stacy Simera, a spokesperson for Start School Later, said this has been
a "policy priority" for advocates for a quarter of a century, but only
a statistically small number of schools have made the switch. Putting
in place a state policy takes the burden off individual school
districts, establishes a framework for districts to follow, and frames
the conversation as a public health issue rather than strictly an
educational one, experts say.
But Troy Flint, a senior director of communications for the California
School Boards Association, which opposed the bill, said a
“one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento” will not suit California.
“Because of the diversity in our local communities and the variety of
student and family needs, the question of school start times should
really be one that’s decided locally in concert with the community,”
Flint said.
The legislation will have a “disproportionate impact,” according to
Flint, on families with adults working in retail, the service
industries, the construction trades or in agriculture because they have
less schedule flexibility. SB 328 could force those families to choose
between going to their jobs on time or dropping their children off at
school later. Also, students who have a delayed last bell will have to
make arrangements with their afterschool job employers.
For districts that have already made this shift, “It took about a year
for families, workers, parents, childcare adjustments to align,” Kyla
Wahlstrom, a senior research fellow at the University of Minnesota,
said.
But even in some districts that independently changed start times, the transitions were volatile.
“It was an uphill battle for many, many school districts,” Wahlstrom
said. “I know four superintendents across the U.S. who lost their jobs
over initiating this change.”
Early benefits
The initial benefits of later start times in a small Minnesota district
Wahlstrom studied in the mid-'90s included fewer disciplinary issues
and fewer students with self-reported peer-relationship problems.
Teachers reported that, in their first hour of the day, the 20% to 25%
of students who were usually asleep at their desks were now awake, and
92% of parents said their kids were easier to live with.
When Minneapolis decided to delay start times to 8:30 a.m. or later
soon after, Wahlstrom followed the results for five years. She found
later start times were linked to a plethora of benefits including
significantly less depression; less interest in using drugs, cigarettes
and alcohol; increased school attendance and decreased tardiness.
Since then, pockets of districts nationwide have made the shift to
later start times. As early as 2005, the National Sleep Foundation,
which had been keeping track of district time changes across the U.S.,
said the number exceeded 500.
But the foundation has stopped counting as the shift in a few hundred
districts turned into a nationwide movement that became difficult to
track. Wahlstrom’s lower estimates place the number of districts
between 800 and 1,000.
With California’s new law, that number is expected to skyrocket.
Looking to California
“A lot of states are going to be looking to see what happens,” Temkin
said. “If California can pull this off without many negative
consequences, other states will follow suit.”
And while California school districts have three years to do that (July
2022 is the deadline), its statewide viability is still uncertain.
A key part of the local implementation process, experts said, will be
creating a committee including community stakeholders — from parents,
teachers and students to employers, public transportation
representatives, law enforcement and health agency representatives.
Transportation costs, including potentially adding bus drivers and
purchasing or contracting additional buses, will have to be taken into
account as well. In communities that use the public transportation
system, districts may have to negotiate route changes with the local
bus or light-rail service.
Plus, many districts will have to renegotiate teacher contracts with unions to ensure staff starts at the new times.
It's unclear if district costs will go up or stay the same, experts
agree. If they do rise, some leaders hope the funds will be provided by
the state to help defray the extra costs, though that's not specified
in the law.
A national context
Lisa Lewis, a parent advocate and the writer who sparked the debate in
California, said she now hopes other states follow in her home state’s
footsteps. Those hopes may not be far off.
Hawaii, Minnesota, Maine and Rhode Island are considering a shift to
start times. While previous efforts in those states failed, it is
possible for the matter to be renewed if California's effort succeeds.
Several years ago, New Jersey directed its Department of Education to
conduct a study on the issues, benefits and options for instituting a
later start time in middle school and high school. It culminated in a
2017 report that said while pushing back start times would present
logistical challenges, it would result in positive outcomes for
“students’ health, safety, well-being, and academic performance.”
However, the study ultimately concluded that school start times should
not be mandated by the New Jersey Legislature or the New Jersey Ed
Department but should be determined by local school districts.
Indiana urged its Legislative Council to study the issue in 2016.
Maryland required its Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to
conduct a similar review in 2014, and in 2016 provided incentives for
schools to push their morning bells.
In Pennsylvania, a joint commission released its findings this month on
the detrimental effects of sleep deprivation for teenagers following a
resolution passed last year. Local advocates are now working to pull
together a stakeholder committee, which is expected to meet before the
new year. They are hoping Pennsylvania will incentivize later start
times to push districts that have played hot potato with the topic
until now.
On the federal level, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren from California
introduced H.R.1861 to the House Committee on Education and Labor in
March, though no action has been taken since.
"People don’t like change," Wahlstrom said. "You have to move people
slowly to [accept] the idea that we’re going to have some bumps in the
road, but the bumps aren’t going to stop the journey."
|
|
|
|
