The Impact of School Start Times on Adolescent Health and Academic Performance

“Hopefully, in the near future, increased awareness of the sleep problems faced by teenagers should motivate schools across the country to synchronize school schedules with students’ circadian clocks. That way, teenagers are in school during their most alert hours to achieve their full academic potential.” ⁽⁵¹⁸⁾—Saiprakash B. Venkateshiah, M.D., F.C.C.P., Assistant Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine.

CDC scientists report, “Delaying school start times is a demonstrated strategy to promote sufficient sleep among adolescents.” ⁽²⁶⁾ While some schools have implemented sweeping start time changes (see, e.g., n. 519 [New Zealand high school delayed start time by 90 minutes to 10:30 a.m. for year 12 and 13 students]; see also, ns. 325.5, 519.5 [Univ. of Oxford assessing effects of 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. delay in 100 British secondary schools]), in most U.S. jurisdictions, achieving meaningful change in secondary school scheduling has proven exceedingly difficult. (See, e.g., Appen. A, infra, Schools Recently Delaying Start Times, etc. [Northampton Public Schools, Mass., Fairfax County Public Schools, Va.]; Appen. B, infra, Schools Recently Advancing Start Times, etc. [Washoe County School District, Nev.]; see also, n. 520 [benefits of 20 minute delay may be difficult to ascertain]; but see, ns. 107 [daytime sleepiness, depressed mood, and caffeine use significantly reduced when private school start time delayed 25 minutes to 8:25 a.m.] and, 41 [alertness, mood, and health improved among boarding school students following 30 minute delay to 8:30 a.m.].)

“The attempt to make significant changes in education systems is often likened to trying to change the course of a supertanker ship – with the inertia for the present course being extraordinarily powerful and with changes often occurring only in small degrees. Such is the case for attempting to change the current start time for high schools. The path toward making that change is replete with real and presumed obstacles in the form of facts and misperceptions.” (Wahlstrom, Accommodating the Sleep Patterns of Adolescents Within Current Educational Structures: An Uncharted Path, publish. in, Adolescent Sleep Patterns, Biological, Social, and Psychological Influences (Carskadon, edit., Cambridge Univ. Press 2002) p. 172.)

The National Sleep Foundation recognizes eight potential obstacles to adjusting school schedules (i.e., restoring historically prevalent later school scheduling; see, § III, supra), and proposes possible solutions for each problem. ⁽⁶⁸⁾

Transportation & Economics

Transportation is the first obstacle noted. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ Fredonia State College Associate Professor Charles Stoddart observes, “The tail of transportation wags the dog of the educational system.” ⁽⁵²²⁾ For districts utilizing tiered busing, on a webpage authored many years ago, the National Sleep Foundation proposes “flipping” the schedules of primary and secondary school students since most young children can rise early without difficulty — provided they get to bed early enough to ensure the 10-11 hours of sleep they need ^(68; see ns. 9.5 [Foundation revised recommendation for school-aged children (ages 6-13) to 9-11 hours in 2015, noting as few as 7-8 hours or as many as 12 “may be appropriate” (chart here)]; 225.7 [CDC advises “[a]t least” 10 hours]) — and, most very young children are biologically able to advance their bedtimes. ^(522.5) The Foundation notes the “direct flip cannot work unless all start times are reasonable[,]” ⁽⁶⁸⁾ but does not state what reasonable start times may be. Moreover, in discussing obstacle number 3, “Other Students and Programs,” the Foundation appears to challenge its own advice, noting, “Research is lacking on the effect of school start times on younger students, so it is hard to justify their earlier start.” ⁽⁶⁸⁾

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adolescent school start time “Policy Statement” lists the “effects on sleep duration in younger children if elementary school schedules are ‘flipped’ with those of middle/high school students[]” among eight “[p]erceived barriers” to later secondary school scheduling. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ In assessing these “[p]erceived barriers[,]” the AAP states, ”to our knowledge, there have been no published studies that have systematically examined the impact of school start time delay on these parameters, although anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these concerns are unfounded[.]” ^(54, italics added.) Remarkably, in support of this proposition, the AAP cites to the Foundation’s home page. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ In fact, recent studies suggest “flipping” secondary and elementary school schedules ⁽⁶⁸⁾ “may simply be shifting the problem from adolescents to younger children, instead of eliminating it altogether.” ⁽⁶⁹⁾

Although some sleep scientists report that elementary school students are biologically able to begin school by 7:30 a.m., ⁽¹⁴⁾ consideration must be given to the effects of long bus rides, ^{(1, 305.5;} § III, supra), and care must be taken to ensure young children will not be left unattended to await transport in darkness. ⁽²⁰⁾ A 7:30 a.m. elementary school start time makes 6:15 a.m. a viable rise time ⁽⁵⁾ (possibly earlier for bus riders), ^{(3, 301)} meaning students would have to be in bed (and asleep) by 7:15 p.m. in order to obtain 11 hours of sleep; perhaps biologically possible, ^(523.5) but impractical in many socially disadvantaged households. ^(523.6) As with adolescents, ⁽²²⁹⁾ “[s]leep in children is sensitive to cultural and psychosocial influences.” ^(524.5)

In a recent debate among sleep scientists concerning optimal sleep duration for children and adolescents, Professor Buckhalt cited Stanford Psychology Department Chair Lewis Terman and his co-author Adeline Hocking’s description of the ideal circumstances for children’s sleep:

“In 1913, Lewis Terman expressed a common opinion that ‘…physicians and writers on school hygiene agree that children are less likely to receive less sleep than is needful to them. [¶] As regards the school child, the wisest course in all probability is for us to make the conditions such that the child will spontaneously sleep as many hours a day as he wants to sleep, while avoiding all conditions which would tend to abbreviate or unduly prolong the sleep beyond the standard. Liberal allowance should also be made for individual differences, for not all the range of variation which we have found in the hours of sleep for children at any particular age can be accounted for on the basis of habit and environment. There are undoubtedly physiological idiosyncrasies which make nine hours for one child equivalent to eleven hours for another.’ ” ^(224, quoting Terman & Hocking, The sleep of school children; its distribution according to age, and its relation to physical and mental efficiency (1913) J. Educational Psychology, pp. 138, 208, italics added.)

The available evidence suggests many school-aged children, like the great majority of their older peers (see, §§ I, III, IV.D.), continue to receive “less sleep than is needful to them.” ⁽²²⁴⁾ Moreover, opportunities to “spontaneously sleep as many hours a day as [one] wants to sleep,” ⁽²²⁴⁾ appear to decrease in frequency until high school is completed. ^(523.8) “[R]educed or disrupted sleep, especially if it occurs at key times in development, could have important impacts on health throughout life.” ^(523.6)

Boston University scientists recently presented findings from a survey of students in grades 3-5 before and after a 35-minute start time advance, from 8:20 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. ^{(524, 524.3)} Following the schedule change, third-graders reported actually gaining an additional 24 minutes of sleep, increasing their weeknight sleep to 10 hours, 35 minutes. ^{(524, 524.3)} Fourth and fifth grade student sleep, however, declined by 4 minutes (to 9 hours, 59 minutes), and by 9 minutes (to 9 hours, 40 minutes), respectively. ⁽⁵²⁴⁾ The researchers attribute the longer sleep among third graders to “heightened community awareness[.]” ^{(524, 524.3)}

All elementary school students went to bed earlier following the start time change (3rd and 4th graders at 8:22 p.m., 5th graders at 8:43 p.m.; 15, 30, and 27 minutes earlier, respectively), but third-graders, unlike their fourth and fifth grade peers, actually rose 8 minutes later, at 6:57 a.m. ^{(524, 524.3)} Fourth graders awakened at 6:22 a.m., 34 minutes earlier, fifth graders awakened at 6:23 a.m., 36 minutes earlier. ^{(524, 524.3)} Notably, the number of third graders awakening without assistance following the change increased from 44% to 70.8%. ⁽⁵²⁴⁾ By contrast, only 21.9% and 22.6% of fourth and fifth graders, respectively, awakened independently after the start time shift, declines of 16.9% and 9.1%, respectively. ⁽⁵²⁴⁾ Forced awakening signals insufficient sleep. ^(535.5) 

The percentage of fifth grade students reporting “never” feeling sleepy fell — both during (from 11.2% to 9.1 %) and after school (from 44.2% to 31.6%). ^(524.3) The reduced sleep and increased sleepiness among fifth grade students, owing in part to later bedtimes (by 21 min.) than their third and fourth grade peers, ⁽⁵²⁴⁾ may be consistent with a 2000 study of 140 students in grades two (M=7.9 years), four (M= 9.7 years), and six (M=11.8 years), which found “an ongoing and gradual process of sleep-phase ‘drift’ occurring earlier than has been previously reported.“ ^(524.5, emphasis in original.) Professor Avi Sadeh, Sc.D., et al., reported that students’ sleep onset time in second grade (7:36 p.m.) was more than 1 hour earlier than in sixth grade (8:43 p.m.). ^(524.5; see also, n. 522.5 [sleep onset time later for sixth graders than fourth graders].) Sleep for the older students was “reduced accordingly, because the morning awakening time was quite stable and determined by the fixed school schedule.” ^(524.5) Older children reported significantly increased morning drowsiness, and their parents reported them to have a significantly increased tendency for unplanned daytime sleep episodes. ^(524.5)

“These findings suggest that the age-related significant delay in sleep onset and the shortening of sleep lead to chronic partial sleep deprivation and increased daytime sleepiness even in this age group preceding adolescence, where such a tendency has already been established. [¶] These children are thus at risk of being chronically sleep deprived, which may have adverse cognitive, behavioral, and emotional consequences.” ^(524.5)

A longitudinal study published in 2014 utilizing wrist actigraph data obtained from two cohorts of children and adolescents living in the northeastern United States found even later average weeknight sleep onset times than those reported in the Boston University study, supra, ⁽⁵²⁴⁾ or by Sadeh, et al., supra; ^(524.5) i.e., age 9, 9:28 p.m.; age 10, 9:44 p.m.; age 11, 9:59 p.m.; age 12, 10:07 p.m. ^(523.8) A 2009 three-year longitudinal study of 94 students (first year, ages 9.9-11.2 years, M=10.52) from five elementary schools determined that “adolescent changes in sleep (delayed sleep phase and disrupted sleep) are evident prior to the bodily changes associated with puberty.” (Wolfson & Richards, Young Adolescents: Struggles with Insufficient Sleep, publish. in, Sleep and Development (Oxford Univ. Press, El Sheikh edit. 2011) p. 268, citing, n. 250.5.) Loyola University Professor of Psychology Amy Wolfson, Ph.D., noted among the AAP Policy Statement’s contributing authors, ⁽⁵⁴⁾ points to a 1998 study of 811 fifth graders (ages 10-12) attending 18 Israeli schools finding significant sleep deprivation for students starting school twice weekly at 7:10 a.m. or 7:15 a.m. as “demonstrat[ing] the importance of delaying start times for pre- and early adolescents.” (Wolfson & Johnson, Sleep and School Start Times, publish. in, Principles & Practice of Pediatric Sleep Medicine, 2nd ed. (Elsevier Inc., Sheldon, Kryger, Ferber, & Gozal edits., 2014) p. 391, citing n. 525.)

While very young children tend to be larks, ⁽⁵²¹⁾ by school age (6-12 years), most children manifest some preference for morning (larks) or evening activities (owls). ^(528; see, §§ II.B., III.A., supra.) “Older school aged children … typically show a lifestyle and bioregulatory sleep delay.” ⁽⁵²⁸⁾ Young owls, like their older peers, may be most susceptible to weekday sleepiness and sleep loss. ⁽³³³⁾ Brown University School of Medicine Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Mary Carskadon, Ph.D., also among the AAP Policy Statement’s contributing authors, ⁽⁵⁴⁾ and Zurich University Children’s Hospital Professor of Pediatric Medicine Oskar Jenni, M.D., assert that “considering the biological variation in circadian phase preference[,] determining the ‘normal’ bedtime for all children at a specific age is not possible[.]” ⁽⁵²⁸⁾ Wake time, however, generally may be readily determined as a function of travel distance, travel mode, and the hour of the opening bell. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

According to the National Sleep Foundation 2004 Sleep in America Poll, more than 25% of school-age children (first grade to fifth grade) obtain less than the recommended daily amount of sleep. ⁽⁵³⁷⁾ ”In reality, because of the fixed school schedule, children are exposed to remarkable sleep loss at entry into primary school.” ⁽⁵³⁵⁾ In school-age children, mild sleep loss increases the likelihood of behavioral problems, ^{(526, 527)} and produces marked deficits in cognitive development and functioning. ^{(526, 527, 529, 530, 531)} Even 27 minutes additional sleep for pre-adolescent students results in significant improvement in their ability to regulate emotions, including limiting restless-impulsive behavior in school. ⁽⁵³⁶⁾ A 2013 study of school age Chinese students found that children starting classes at 8:30 a.m. slept longer and reported less daytime sleepiness than children starting at 7:30 a.m. or 8 a.m. ⁽⁵³⁵⁾ 

Sleep specialist Dr. Jana Kaimal believes 7:30 a.m. is too early for kids to begin absorbing classroom information. ⁽⁵³²⁾ A 2014 study of 718 Kentucky public elementary schools evaluating student performance on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment (reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing), would appear to support this contention, finding “that—at least for middle and upper class students—earlier school start times can be associated with poorer school performance in elementary schools.” ⁽⁶⁹⁾ Unlike their middle school peers, ⁽⁴⁴⁾ disadvantaged elementary school students saw no improvement in performance as a result of later school scheduling. ⁽⁶⁹⁾

“A 1-hr difference in school start time was associated with school rank improved by 14 percentile points, and an attendance rate that was .32 units higher. [¶] The relationship between earlier start times and poorer academic performance may be explained by the physical, behavioral, and psychological ramifications of sleep deprivation. [¶] Significant relations between early school start times and poor school performance were found only for schools with a lower percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced-cost lunches (e.g., for schools with a wealthier student population). [¶] [A] delay in school start times may not be sufficient to overcome the numerous other obstacles that children in poverty face, including obstacles to obtaining adequate sleep.” ⁽⁶⁹⁾

A 2017 study found that early starting elementary school students evidenced a greater prevalence of behavioral problems than their later starting peers. ⁽⁷⁰⁾ The national advocacy group Start School Later (whose advisory board includes several prominent sleep scientists), ⁽⁵³³⁾ proposes that no student at any grade level begin morning classes before 8 a.m. ⁽⁵³⁴⁾ As discussed in Appendix C, infra, and elsewhere, ^{(2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 54, 100, 305, 341)} 8:30 a.m. is the earliest start time suggested by any sleep expert for middle or high school students. Notably, an 8:30 a.m. start time represents a compromise between adolescent sleep requirements and societal demands, insofar as “the average teenager in today’s society … is best suited to wake at 8:00 AM or later.” ⁽⁵⁴⁾ CAREI‘s 2014 multi-state study found that 8:35 a.m. was the first point at which more than half of all students managed to obtain eight or more hours of sleep; ⁽³⁰⁹⁾ i.e., “borderline” sleep ⁽²⁶⁾ or more, well short of the 9 to 10 hours adolescents are said to need. ^{(225.5, 225.7)}

Scientists from Harvard Medical School, the University of Nevada, and the University of Oxford, urge 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. start times for 10-year-olds, and much later starting hours for older adolescents, contending that previous studies “significantly underestimated the scale of the change needed.” ⁽⁶⁵⁾

“Astronomical time data and changes in sleep patterns from international studies show at the age of 10 biological wake time is about 06:30, so synchronized school starting times would be 08:30-09:00. At the age of 16 biological wake time is about 08:00, and synchronized school start times 10:00–10:30, and at 18 biological wake time is about 09:00, and synchronized education start times 11:00–11:30[.]” ⁽⁶⁵⁾

In 1913, during the era of the one room schoolhouse, Terman and Hocking urged retention of a 9 a.m. start time in the western United States. ^(290, quoting Terman & Hocking, The sleep of school children; its distribution according to age, and its relation to physical and mental efficiency, supra, J. Educational Psychology, p. 271; see, § III, supra.) A century later, economists anticipate fiscal and academic gains for schools starting all students at “roughly” 9 a.m. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Assuming aggregate costs of $150 per student per year over the thirteen years a student is in a K–12 system, ⁽³⁵⁴⁾ in 2011 (i.e., prior to release of the 2014 study of 718 public elementary schools, supra), ⁽⁶⁸⁾ Brookings Institute economists Jacob and Rockoff arrived at an increase in transportation costs of $1,950 over a student’s K-12 school career to move to single tier busing. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Notwithstanding utilization of the most expensive transportation method generally available, the benefits to cost ratio is estimated at 9 to 1 for districts delaying start times from “roughly 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.” ^(49, pp. 5-11, 21, n. 7.)

In reviewing data from start time studies undertaken by fellow economists (see, § III.A., supra), the biological evidence, and data reflecting the prevalence of sleep deprivation among adolescents attending early starting schools, the economists “conservatively” estimate middle and high school academic achievement will increase by 0.175 standard deviations on average, with effects for disadvantaged students roughly twice as large as advantaged students. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ This may be significant for schools attempting to meet minimum competency requirements. ^{(44, 354)} Following the “methodology used in Krueger (2003),” the economists estimate an increase in individual student lifetime earnings of approximately $17,500 in 2011 dollars. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ As previously noted (§ III, supra), the National Center for Education Statistics reports that for the years 2011-2012, only 3.8 percent of U.S. junior and senior high schools began at 9 a.m. or later. ^(20.5)

For districts electing to “flip” school schedules, ⁽⁶⁸⁾ although anecdotal evidence suggests the initial financial impact may range from substantial expense to windfall savings (see e.g., n. 68, infra), economists point out that changing the ordering of elementary and high schools in a tiered system should have little, if any, direct financial cost to school districts. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Consistent with this observation, neither the suburban school district of Edina (6,800 students), nor the urban district of Minneapolis (50,000 students), found that the change to a later start increased transportation costs. ⁽³⁷⁾ The same buses and routes were used, the only changes made were the times the buses used the routes. ⁽³⁷⁾ By contrast, moving from a multi-tiered system to a single tier system would entail an increase in transportation expenditures, albeit at a 9 to 1 benefits to cost ratio, when middle and high school start times delay from “roughly 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.” ⁽⁴⁹⁾

In order to manage school budgets, many administrators reconfigure bus schedules to advance start times for secondary school students. In the larger picture, however, any realized savings may be undone by the diminished academic performance associated with early start times; ^{(24, 323, 354)} i.e., lower academic achievement means slower growth in the economy. ^{(323, 324, 325)} There is a “strong relationship” between academic achievement, cognitive skills, and national economic growth. ^{(323, 324, 325)} In addition, as discussed earlier (see, § III, supra), Assistant Professor Troxel advises that advancing start times to save money represents “short-sighted” thinking, and will, “in the long term, cost … far more in terms of lost wages, higher rates of crime, more motor vehicle accidents and increased rates of obesity and associated health complications.” ⁽³¹⁷⁾ The Rand Corporation estimates that the improved academic achievement and decreased automobile crash rates associated with later school scheduling could add billions of dollars annually to the U.S. economy. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Baylor University Economist Finley Edwards observes that eliminating tiered busing and moving all students to the same schedule (i.e., 9 a.m. start time) may provide a much less expensive means of improving academic performance than reducing class size. ⁽³⁵⁴⁾

“With approximately 100,000 students per year divided into three tiers, it would cost roughly $150 per student each year to move each student in the two earliest start-time tiers to the latest start time. In comparison, an experimental study of class sizes in Tennessee finds that reducing class size by one-third increases test scores by 4 percentile points in the first year at a cost of $2,151 per student per year (in 1996 dollars). These calculations, while very rough, suggest that delaying the beginning of the school day may produce a comparable improvement in test scores at a fraction of the cost.” ⁽³⁵⁴⁾ 

As previously noted (§ III.A., supra), University of California and U.S. Air Force Academy economists found a later start time of 50 minutes “has the equivalent benefit as raising teacher quality by roughly one standard deviation. Hence, later start times may be a cost-effective way to improve student outcomes for adolescents.” ^(24, italics added.) Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek calculates that replacing one average teacher with one above average teacher (one standard deviation above the mean) for a class of 20 “will—each year—raise students’ aggregate earnings … by more than $400,000.” ⁽³²³⁾

Objections & Responses 

During his recent tenure as National Sleep Foundation Chairman, Russell Rosenberg, Ph.D., encouraged teachers to “embrace” later start times “given the positive impact they have on students.” ⁽⁵⁴⁴⁾ Although two national educational organizations have recently lent their support to later starting hours ^{(57, 57.5} [Resolution C-3]), the evidence thus far suggests that with rare exception (e.g., Seattle Education Association), later school scheduling proposals find few allies among public school teachers. Private school instructors, by contrast, may be more welcoming. (See, e.g., Appen. A, infra, Schools Recently Delaying Start Times, etc. [Campbell Hall, Cal.; Hampton Court House, England; Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry, Canada; St. George’s School, R.I.].) Many teachers oppose starting later due to concerns they may have to commute during peak traffic, ⁽⁶²⁾ or may have less time with their families, ⁽⁶⁸⁾ or because they believe students cause their own sleepiness by regularly going to bed too late, etc. (Roenneberg, Internal Time: Chronotypes, Social Jet Lag, and Why You’re So Tired (DuMont Bucherverlag 2012) pp. 110, 113.)

In January of 2011, Anne Pasco, President of the Fairfield Education Association, actually urged the Fairfield Public Schools Board of Education to advance high school start times from 7:50 a.m. and 7:40 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. so that the district might save $500,000 in transportation costs. Pasco opined, “$500,000 is a lot of money to allocate to give a child an opportunity if he wants 10 minutes more of sleep a day or 20 minutes.” (See, Appen. G, infra, Incognizant “Educators” [Conn.].) In January 2012, Sacramento, California teachers “attacked the research” ⁽⁵⁴¹⁾ before disapproving a contract modification which would have allowed a start time change, 7:50 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. (See, infra, Appen. G [Rio Americano High School, Cal.].) In the spring of 2012, Barrington High School teachers voted overwhelmingly against changing the 7:40 a.m. start time ^{(538, 539)} following a presentation by Brown University Professor of Medicine Richard Millman supporting a one hour delay. (See, Appen. L, infra, Schools Recently Going Nowhere [R.I.].) In early 2015, several months after publication of the AAP start time policy statement, ⁽⁵⁴⁾ teachers in Montgomery County, Maryland, strongly opposed a proposal to delay the 7:25 a.m. high school start time by even 20 minutes, expressing disbelief the change would positively impact student health or achievement. ⁽⁵⁴⁰⁾ The head of the Montgomery County Public Schools teacher’s association referred to the proposed schedule change as a “distraction from teaching and learning[.]” ⁽⁵⁴⁰⁾ In 2016, the California Teachers initiated its opposition ⁽⁵⁴²⁾ to a California bill proposing middle and high school classes begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m. ⁽⁵¹⁾

The remaining obstacles or objections to later school scheduling include resistance to change, concerns that students will be in school too late in the day to reasonably participate in sports, jobs, internships, and other extracurricular activities, ^{(12, 62, 68, 545, 546)} daycare plans being interrupted, ⁽⁵⁴⁷⁾ and, parents failing to address proper sleep hygiene with their children. ⁽⁵⁴⁸⁾ Certainly, parents should ensure reasonable bedtimes, ^{(121, 122)} impose limits on technology use, and encourage exercise in children to help them get the sleep they need. ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ 

“We can also help teenagers gain control over their own sleep patterns by teaching sleep and circadian principles in middle and high school health education. Minimizing exposure to light at night, as well as reducing computer or TV usage immediately before bedtime can naturally advance circadian phase. Similarly, incorporating outdoor morning activity into a teenage schedule can reduce trouble falling asleep at night.” ⁽¹⁰³⁾ 

Economists ⁽⁴⁹⁾ and sleep scientists ^{(6, 100)} note that “many of the conflicts associated with later start times could be minimized if the change in school schedules took place at a regional” ⁽⁴⁹⁾ or state level ^{(6, 100)} rather than at the district level. ^{(6, 49, 100)} Until then, facilitating participation in after school activities requiring daylight may mean students with study hall or free periods in their schedules have to calendar those periods for the end of the day in order to participate in extracurricular activities. ⁽²⁹⁵⁾ Student athletes could be made exempt from physical education requirements, providing additional room in the schedules in order to arrange for an early dismissal. ⁽²⁹⁵⁾

Brookings Institute economists propose districts “consider installing lights for athletic fields that allow students to practice later in the day. While this would certainly be an additional expense, a back-of-the envelope calculation suggests that the benefits of later starting times would outweigh the costs. Officials in the Ann Arbor Public Schools, for example, estimate that it costs roughly $110,000 to erect lights for an athletic field, and $2,500 annually to operate such lights. Even if a district had to construct and maintain lights at multiple high schools, this investment certainly seems worthwhile compared with the estimated $17,500 per student benefit of later start times.” ⁽⁴⁹⁾

In 2011, scientists writing for the journal Educational Researcher responded to many of the remaining objections:

“Many who oppose changing school start times cite the disruption of extracurricular activities as a prohibiting factor. Some school boards have successfully implemented a start time change without disrupting extracurricular activities—and, ironically, without having to schedule after-school activities before school—simply by scheduling events later. In fact, results from the Minneapolis study show that later start times did not significantly affect student participation in after-school activities (Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, 1998b). The only problem was that some children were pulled out of class early for away-from-school sporting events (e.g., Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, 1998a; National Sleep Foundation, 2005e).

“Perhaps the most important consideration is that the schools that have successfully delayed school start times with minimal complications had adequate time to prepare, which they spent engaged in research, policy analysis, and a healthy discourse with the public. However, it should be noted that, in any school district where the start times are changed, it is likely that those directly and indirectly involved in the school system will need to make some degree of sacrifice for the benefit of the students. [¶] [T]he inconvenient consequences of changing school start times can be attenuated. There is evidence that with adequate planning and preparation, school boards have been able to delay school start times at acceptable monetary cost (given the enormous potential payoff) and tolerable disruption of community functioning.” ^(63, italics added.)

A recent unpublished study undertaken at Winona Senior High School in Minnesota found no adverse impact on student-athletes’ academic performance, despite a 9 a.m. start time and as many as 15.1 school periods missed to attend sports contests. ⁽⁵⁵⁰⁾ An earlier published study comparing preseason and postseason grades in English, math, science, and social science courses found that playing sports had no impact on academic achievement for students from four rural high school districts. ⁽⁵⁵¹⁾ 

Mark Mahowald, Professor of Neurology at the University of Minnesota Medical School and Director of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center, reminds school leaders that despite formidable opposition from tradition and inertia, they must remember what is best for students. ⁽²⁰⁾ “Of all the arguments I’ve heard over school start-times, not one person has argued that children learn more at 7:15 a.m. than at 8:30.” ⁽²⁹³⁾ Mahowald has been involved in many school start-time debates, and he dismisses claims there are too many obstacles to changing school start times. ⁽²⁹³⁾

“Not a single excuse we’ve heard relates to education. None of the excuses have the word ‘education’ in them. We should send kids to high school in a condition that promotes learning rather than interfering with it.” ⁽²⁰⁾

Implementation vs. “ABC” Management 

Writing for Time Magazine, two Harvard educators propose national “collective action: we’d all have to make the switch together.” ⁽⁵⁵⁶⁾ 

“Until the late 1960’s, the people of Sweden all drove on the left side of the road, like they do in England today. Then, one day, overnight, all the road signs in Sweden were changed, and everyone — together — started driving on the right side of the road. There were very few accidents and many benefits. Any major change in the social status quo is hard, but it is not impossible, and it often needs to be dramatic.” ⁽⁵⁵⁶⁾

While the article’s authors are joined by many Harvard colleagues in endorsing later secondary school scheduling ^{(65, 319, 352, 476, 533,} Coch, Fischer, & Dawson, Human Behavior, Learning, and the Developing Brain: Typical Development (Informa Healthcare 2010) pp. 382-383; see, Rauch, What is Normal Sleep for Children and Adolescents? publish. in, Attention Deficit Disorder: Practical Coping Mechanisms (Fisher, edit., Informa Healthcare, 2nd ed. 2007) p. 175), implementation of the Swedish solution assumes at least two things yet to be demonstrated by the great majority of school administrators: (1) sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to be persuaded of the need for change; and, (2) a willingness to undertake the work necessary to make the change, even when persuaded of the necessity. ^{(12, 20.5)}

When asked about adjusting school schedules to comport with adolescent phase delay, former San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools Floyd Gonella, Ed.D., responded, “Trying to adjust school times to sleep patterns has no validity. And even if it does, scientific facts come out and then three days later, there’s another study countering that.” ⁽¹⁸⁴⁾ Edmond Burnes, principal of Battery Creek High School in South Carolina, said he’s not convinced delaying start times would have much effect on students at “his school.” ⁽⁵⁵²⁾ Mr. Burnes explained that the research with which he was familiar involved different demographics than those of Battery Creek. ⁽⁵⁵²⁾

In defending Greenfield High School’s 7:10 a.m. start time, School Board President Bruce Bailey asserted, “Students need to ‘join the real world,’… and get used to rising early to be successful[.]”  ⁽⁵⁴⁹⁾ When Westchester schools declined an initiative to start high schools later, then-superintendent Karen McCarthy, Ph.D., explained, “There’s still something that doesn’t click for me.” ⁽⁶²⁾ Following students’ assertions that the plan to advance high school start times to 7:35 a.m. would run counter to findings from studies conducted in other districts, Parkway School Board Member Bruce Major responded, “I can Google right now, and come up with research that will say just about anything.” ⁽⁵⁵³⁾ 

Even after the American Academy of Pediatrics released its start time “Policy Statement,” ⁽⁵⁴⁾ many school leaders continued to reject the medical evidence. (See, e.g., Appen. G, infra, Incognizant “Educators [e.g., Ill., Iowa, Ky., Ohio, Md., Pa., Va.].) Walt Whitman High School Principal Alan Goodwin, apparently persuaded of Maryland students’ biological uniqueness, advised the Montgomery County Public Schools School Board that district principals believed delaying the 7:25 a.m. high school start time could be “detrimental[.]” ⁽⁵⁵⁹⁾ Goodwin invited board members to visit first period classes to see that students “are alert and engaged in learning[.]” ⁽⁵⁵⁹⁾

In his Preface to the Stanford Sleep Book, Professor William Dement notes the “stunning truth” of this observation by former United States Senator Mark Hatfield: “America is a vast reservoir of ignorance about sleep, sleep deprivation and sleep disorders.” As Professor Wolfson points out,

“Although sleep consumes approximately one-third of our lives (50% at early school age), it is often ignored by developmental psychologists, pediatricians, educators, and others who devote their lives to working with children and adolescents. For example, sleep is rarely mentioned in textbooks on adolescent development, child-adolescent sleep topics are infrequently presented at the Society for Research on Child Development meetings (.3% of presentations at the 1995 biennial SRCD meeting), and pediatricians get very little training in sleep medicine.” ⁽⁵⁶⁰⁾ 

CAREI Director Kyla Wahlstrom suggests that “pairing the growing body of medical research with the educational outcomes seems to be the logical path to argue for changing to later start times.” ⁽²⁹³⁾ Dr. Venkateshiah adds, “Sleep specialists can play an important role by educating school administrators about the potential adverse outcomes of very early school start times.” ⁽⁵¹⁸⁾ School administrators, however, may have little interest in disturbing the status quo, and as previously noted (§ III, supra), may ignore the pertinent science as well as the pleas of scientists. ^{(322, 323)}

In the Okaloosa County School District, for example, where high schools begin as early as 7 a.m., physicians’ extended efforts have been unsuccessful in persuading the school board to consider later start times. In a November 14, 2011 presentation to the board, joined by Doctors Lynn Keefe and Deb Simkin, Dr. Eleanor McCain asked, “Why am I still here talking to you about this problem? The only conclusion I can (draw) is that you don’t believe the medical data.” (Tammen, Area doctors press for later start for high schools (Nov. 15, 2011) NewsHerald.) Dr. McCain noted it has historically been difficult for society to accept new knowledge that challenges traditional beliefs, but the changes, once made, have always been for the better. (Ibid.) “Worldview and beliefs do evolve over time as our knowledge expands.” (Ibid.)

To illustrate the point, Dr. Simkin, a local psychiatrist, touched on all the innovations in science that have allowed doctors and scientists to study the human brain and how it works. (Ibid.) Dr. Simkin explained that research has shown, time and time again, that most teenagers cannot get enough sleep with early school start times because their bodies typically don’t allow them to go to bed earlier than 10:30 p.m. (Ibid.) Early start times contribute to a whole host of preventable physical and mental problems from obesity to depression to substance abuse problems. (Ibid.) Simkin noted medications exist to correct all these problems, but an easier and healthier remedy exists. (Ibid.) “The only way to fix the problem, whether you go to sleep earlier or not, is to have later start times.” (Ibid.)

In 1907, historian Henry Brooks Adams, son and grandson of two U.S. Presidents, wrote, “Practical politics consists in ignoring facts, but education and politics are two different and often contradictory things.” ^(557, italics added.) Exemplifying Adams’ principle, on August 26, 2014, the day after the AAP released its “Policy Statement” concerning secondary school start times, ⁽⁵⁴⁾ Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, charged with appointing the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) School Board and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), told the press the research was “preliminary” and “not conclusive[.]” ⁽⁵⁵⁸⁾ Reiterating the same spurious theme, CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett stated, “There’s a lot of research and it’s all pretty contradictory about children needing to start their high school day at a later start time. And I don’t think the research is conclusive on that.” ⁽⁵⁵⁸⁾

Weeks earlier (and apparently escaping the attention of the Mayor and his CEO), researchers from Harvard, Oxford, and the University of Nevada offered a contravening view of the evidence:

“Studies of later start times have consistently reported benefits to adolescent sleep, health and learning using a wide variety of methodological approaches. In contrast there are no studies showing that early starts have any positive impact on sleep, health or learning.” ⁽⁶⁵⁾

Notably, the poor attendance and performance of CPS high school students beginning morning classes at 8 a.m. ⁽³¹⁸⁾ influenced the Brookings Institute 9 a.m. start time recommendation. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Administrators persuaded by the science may nonetheless find the issue of delaying start times politically untenable. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ Changing times may be the subject of some acrimony, with parents and coaches often vehemently opposed. ^{(24, 564)} In some districts, superintendents and board members pressing for the change have been replaced by those opposing it. ⁽⁵⁵¹⁾ Thus, the initiative to adjust start times may be undertaken by legislators, ⁽⁵⁰⁾ or by community constituents such as parents, ^(564.5) physicians, ⁽¹⁰⁾ PTA’s, ^{(565, 565.5)} voters’ groups, ^{(566, 566.5)} or by the students themselves (see, e.g., Appen. K, infra, Student Advocacy), rather than by school leaders. ^{(58, 293)} 

“[T]o do nothing [i]s really to do harm.” ⁽⁵⁶⁷⁾ There is, however, no mechanism presently available forcing “educators” to follow the science. The available evidence would suggest that for most district superintendents, adolescent sleep sufficiency is not a pertinent scheduling consideration, ⁽¹²⁾ yet most school board members look to the superintendent for leadership direction. ^(567.1) “School boards are looking for God — on a good day.” ^(567.2) 

Beginning in the 1870’s, school boards began moving from serving individual schools to serving entire school districts. ^(567.3) In 1910, one-room school districts numbered more than 200,000. ⁽²⁹⁹⁾ By 2008-2009, the number of school districts in this country had fallen to 13,809. ^(567.1) The decline was almost entirely accounted for by the consolidation of one-room, parent-managed, rural schools into larger school districts. ^(299, see, Ravitch, A Primer on America’s Schools (Terry Moe, edit., 2001, Hoover Inst. Press Publication) p. 7.)

School boards today may be charged with managing instructional curricula, operational logistics for thousands of students in dozens of schools, and every aspect of a district’s often complex, multi-million dollar business affairs. Despite the breadth and scope of the charge, school board members, generally voted in by the community at large, qualify for office based upon residency, not knowledge or expertise. ^(567.1) Board members may be required to fulfill de minimis continuing education requirements, ^(567.4) but they are not subject to licensing standards. While the National School Boards Association would likely disagree, Chester Finn, senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, believes local control of education has outlived its usefulness.

  “None of the civic reformers who dreamed up public education’s governance system in the late 19th century pictured such a creature. What we have today in the local school board, especially the elected kind, is an anachronism and an outrage. A dinosaur indeed. We can no longer pretend it’s working well or hide behind the mantra of ‘local control of education.’ We need to steel ourselves to put this dysfunctional arrangement out of its misery and move on to something that will work for children.” ^(567.6; see, n. 567.1, pp. 6-7.)

School scheduling directives from legal or legislative sources, however, appear to be no more forthcoming than effective school leadership. “[A]sking policy makers to bring coherence and stability to education policy at the state and local level is akin to trying to change the laws of gravity.” ^(567.6) Some state legislatures have passed toothless resolutions, but otherwise every legislative attempt to compel later start times has failed. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ Although mounting evidence associating early school start times with increased automobile accidents among adolescents ^{(31, 46, 315, 420)} may provide Congress with authority under the Commerce Clause to intercede in school scheduling, federal intervention seems highly unlikely for several reasons.

First, educational authority, not having been granted to Congress (U.S. Const., 10th Am.), is reserved to the states. (20 U.S.C. § 3401, subd. (4).) “By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.” (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 104.) Second, the current political environment is “awful[.]” (Mann & Ornstein, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks (Basic Books 2012) p. 201.) Third, the House of Representatives has thus far declined to: (a) offer even its “sense” that secondary schools should begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m. ⁽⁵⁷²⁾ or 9 a.m.; ^{(50, 573)} or, (b) agree that schools transitioning to a 9 a.m. start time should receive $25,000 in federal grants to help cover any associated administrative costs. ^{(184, 574)} The U.S. Senate, while rather vocal about many issues in education, has been silent on this subject. Finally, no controversy involving start times has been brought before any judicial officer. “Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, 393 U.S. at p. 104.)

While still in office, a now former U.S. Secretary of Education signaled his support for later school scheduling, ^{(574.5, 574.6)} noting too many school systems are designed to be good for buses rather than children, ^(574.6) but the matter is beyond the Secretary’s control. (20 U.S.C. § 3401, subd. (4).) Although existing laws, regulations, and appellate decisions may be leveraged to persuade educators of the need to change school hours, extending school liability beyond the duty of providing education in a safe environment seems “improbable as a practical matter.” ^(574.8) In the absence of laws, courts, or sanctioning bodies to compel healthy start times, the hour when school begins will be determined by the whims of local school boards. (See, Bd. of Educ. v. Pico (1982) 457 U.S. 853, 863 [“… local school boards have broad discretion in the management of school affairs”].) While the sagacity of at least one literary giant suggests little cause to be sanguine that school boards will apply reason to school scheduling, ^(567.5) as bases for making the change, proponents can point to overwhelming scientific evidence, the uniform support of sleep scientists, ^{(2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 30, 52, 63, 103, 315, 317, 352, 423, 575)} and significant economic benefits for the district and its students. ^{(24, 44, 49, 354)} Despite this, Wahlstrom cautions:

“[C]hanging a school’s starting time provokes the same kind of emotional reaction from stakeholders as closing a school or changing a school’s attendance area. A school’s starting time sets the rhythm of the day for teachers, parents, students, and members of the community at large. The impact of changing that starting time is felt individually, and the individuals who are affected need to have their views heard and legitimized so that the discussion can move forward in search of common ground. [¶] High school starting time is a seemingly simple issue with prickly political dimensions, and there is no single solution that will fit all districts. Only through open discussion of their concerns can stakeholders develop a shared understanding of the facts that will lead to a reasonable—but purely local—decision.” ⁽⁵⁸⁾ “Incorrect assumptions, the use of only partial facts, and hasty implementation are frequent reasons that cause the defeat or demise of a local decision to change the start time.” ⁽²⁹³⁾ 

Brazilian researchers share this perspective. “[A]pparently simple modifications such as delaying the beginning of morning classes … involves the participation of the whole community—parents, teachers, and transport service providers—and should be discussed and planned before implementation.” ⁽⁵⁷⁵⁾ In 1999, psychologist Gordon Wrobel distilled seven points to be addressed by administrators when presiding over a start time change: (1) inform and involve all stakeholders; (2) allow ample time [between informing stakeholders of the decision and implementing the new times]; (3) provide justifications for decisions based on research data; (4) support families in the decision process; (5) involve the community; (6) don’t forget school staff; and, (7) commit to providing follow-up regarding the change. ⁽⁵⁷⁶⁾

More recently, Phyllis Payne, M.P.H., co-founder of Start Later for Excellence in Education Proposal (SLEEP), addressed the nuts and bolts involved in making a start time change, noting that in some districts zero periods have been added to increase scheduling flexibility. ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ Although “zero hour classes negate for participants the beneficial effects of a later school starting time[,]” ⁽⁵⁸⁾ Payne has found that zero periods may be utilized for a number of purposes, including, “remediation, enrichment, teacher conference periods, testing, or to provide additional options for students with specialized curricular needs[.]” ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ In addition, after-school remediation may be replaced with during school (e.g., lunch) or before school help. ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ With respect to meeting the needs of student-athletes, Payne found, inter alia, that some districts schedule PE classes for athletes at the end of the day, “releasing them early to go to competitions/games.” ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ Athletes can save additional time by taping up on the bus ride to the competition, etc. ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ Overall, implementing later start times may require focusing on meeting the needs of the largest number of students first, while attempting to resolve other scheduling conflicts, recognizing that the new schedule may not meet the needs of all students, at least not all year long. ⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ 

Many districts charge ad hoc committees with the task of determining whether a start time change may be worthwhile, or, if such a determination has already been made, with the task of developing plans to implement the change. (See, Appen. A, infra, Schools Recently Delaying Start Times, etc.; Appen L, infra, Schools Recently Going Nowhere.) Such undertakings, however, hardly ensure positive outcomes, as children’s interests may yet yield to political considerations (e.g., parental disapproval, teachers’ preferences/unions), administrative ineptitude, perceived cost (transportation) excesses, perceived scheduling conflicts (e.g. with athletics, extracurricular activities), etc. (See, infra, Appen. L [Temecula Valley Unified School District, Cal., Northampton Public Schools, Mass., Rochester School Department, N.H., Rootstown School District, Ohio, Derry Township School District, Pa.]; see also, ns. 12, 58.) The “health and alertness of students” tend to be overshadowed by “bureaucratic priorities.” (Terman & McMahan, Chronotherapy: Resetting Your Inner Clock to Boost Mood, Alertness, and Quality Sleep (Penguin Group 2012) p. 216.)

The Connecticut League of Women Voters utilizes the services of a “school start time change specialist” to assist communities in making the change. ⁽⁵⁶⁴⁾ The state league embraces efforts to change school start times because it sees the change as “a way to improve communities that is both nonpartisan and research-based.” ⁽⁵⁶⁴⁾ In early 2007, Professor Wolfson noted the National Sleep Foundation’s informal data put the number of districts implementing later start times at 80, with 140 considering. ⁽²²⁾ Since then, and for several years now, the National Sleep Foundation has reported that “individual schools or districts in 19 states have pushed back their start times, and more than 100 school districts in an additional 17 states are considering delaying their start times.” ⁽⁵⁷⁸⁾ In August of 2012, Kyla Wahlstrom reported that “more than 250 schools throughout the country have changed to a later school start time.” ⁽³²²⁾ Two years later, an article in Student Science alleged that “about 1,000 U.S. schools — out of nearly 25,000 — have shifted to later start times.” ⁽⁵⁶²⁾

While some urge these reports show that “a small but growing number of school districts have undertaken initiatives to delay start times and systematically examine the impact on students[,]” ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ a clear view of incremental start time changes may be difficult to obtain. (See, Wolfson & Richards, Young Adolescents: Struggles with Insufficient Sleep, publish. in, Sleep and Development (Oxford Univ. Press, El Sheikh edit. 2011) p. 275 [noting need for “empirically based monitoring and reporting system” to track start time changes; reported delays in start times may be as short as 7:15 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. versus 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.].) As previously discussed (see, § III, supra), data from the National Center for Education Statistics reflect that from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012, the average start time for U.S. junior and senior high schools advanced by one minute to 7:59 a.m. ^{(20.5, 291)}

Notwithstanding the often complex and challenging scope of the task, St. George’s School headmaster Eric Peterson, J.D., contends that finding ways to adjust start times is the “job of talented, smart school administrators.” ⁽⁵⁶³⁾ Chris Belcher, superintendent of Columbia Public Schools, puts it this way: “My whole position on this, and I hope people get this, is we should design our high schools around our students. We shouldn’t make our students come in and do their schedule around adults.” ⁽⁵⁷⁹⁾ Mel Riddile, Ed.D, Associate Director for High School Services at the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Virginia (2005) and National Principal of the Year (2006), has little patience for school administrators adhering to early secondary school scheduling.

“You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of Management–Administration By Convenience. One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice.[¶] Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.” ⁽⁶⁰⁾

If Dr. Riddile is correct, the available data would suggest “Administration By Convenience“ prevails among U.S. school districts as the current strategic plan. ^{(20.5, 53.5)}

“It’s a bad plan that admits of no modification.”—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave and poet.