South Orangetown Central School District

At Tuesday evening’s BOE meeting, we watched as the numbers from the various voting districts were posted on a screen at SOMS.  While the number of those who chose to exercise their right to vote was down – a pattern observed throughout the region – 71% supported the district’s budget and 81% voted in favor of a security upgrade to our facilities.  Typically, a little over 60% of SOCSD voters officially register their support of the school budget.

 

Those who follow the district’s budget process understand that the planning is not reactive but done with a multi-year set of plans and projections factoring fiscal parameters and regulatory obligations both old and new.  While we try to help folks understand requirements and priorities, as well as limitations, each voter comes to the process with a different perspective formed by personal circumstance.

 

On the day of the budget vote, I had a conversation with a taxpayer who was curious as to why those with no children had to pay school taxes.  This is an annual question that calls out the importance of a strong public education system.  In a past blog, I made the following comments:

 

The American philosopher, John Dewey, argued that “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” If we believe that public education is for the common good and for ensuring that all Americans have equal opportunities to maximize their individual potential that will positively impact our society and culture, then we will also agree that supporting one’s public schools is to the mutual benefit of all, even those whose children have passed through the schools or those who have never had children attending.

 

An educated society – and again there are debates about exactly what should be included in a public education – is for the good of all who dwell in it. Individuals may personally benefit from a quality school experience, but it is the society that profits from a better informed citizenry and a highly skilled workforce. It is the society that prospers from its scientists, researchers, and engineers who have the preparation to innovate or problem solve, and leaders who are prepared to manage the complex problems of our time.

 

I want to thank those who came out to vote on Thursday and encourage those who had difficulty getting to the polls to try to do so in the future.  Society benefits when each of us makes our contribution – big or small – for the good of the commons and all who reside in it. 

 

There was also a changing of the guard on the BOE – the first in six years.  Dan Lamadrid was appointed as a replacement for the retiring Steve Spiro until the end of the school year but was also elected by the community to serve a three-year term as a BOE trustee. 

 

Steve Spiro, a long-time resident of Blauvelt, served three terms on the BOE while volunteering in other service organizations in town.  When interviewed by the BOE in 2007, I recall Steve asking how my work as superintendent will consider the needs of the “average” learner.  My first impression of him was that of a guy who looks out for the under-represented. Steve has been consistent in pursuing this agenda. 

 

As Steve departs, I want to thank him for his volunteerism (BOE membership is unpaid and requires a tremendous amount of work and “some” aggravation.) from which it is hoped he has been “paid” in knowing that he has contributed to the greater good and helped to make SOCSD a better place for our current and future students.  I also want to wish Dan Lamadrid well and thank him for making the sacrifice to represent the children and residents of the South Orangetown Central School District.

Previous Common Core State Standards (CCSS) blogs examined the changes, promises, and possibilities of the CCSS. The last piece concluded with questions about the research and evidence for their implementation. These included the following:

 

• What is the research behind the claims that the CCSS will improve student learning?

 

The CCSS have consumed the focus of schools across the nation, especially since they are linked to a new testing and accountability system. States and local school districts have and will continue to pour time and resources into the programs, products, services, and testing tools to be “Common Core Ready”. So how do we know that these new learning standards will improve student learning?

 

The Common Core Mission Statement describes the standards as being “robust and relevant” and a way to prepare our students to compete in the global economy. The vendors who designed the CCSS claim that they are “internationally benchmarked” or that they have been designed in comparison to the learning expectations of academic standards of school systems abroad.

 

Yet, educational researchers have raised concerns that the CCSS have not been scientifically tested or piloted before being used to create high-stakes assessments. The research behind the CCSS, in fact, does not provide evidence that these new standards, or any learning standards for that matter, will improve student learning while the rationale for the CCSS is based on U.S. student performance on international tests.

 

It is, however, ironic that the nations cited as exemplars, including Canada, Singapore, and Finland, have rejected the use of testing for accountability. According to Pasi Sahlberg, the Minister of Education for Finland, in his country, they prepare children to learn how to learn, not how to take a test. He writes:

 

“The irony of Finnish educational success is that it derives heavily from classroom innovation and school improvement research in the United States. Cooperative learning and portfolio assessment are examples of American classroom-based innovations that have been implemented in large scale in the Finnish school system.”

 

In addition Finland has invested 30 times the amount of money on professional development than the U.S. currently spends on testing. In China, the former premier, Wen Jiabo, puzzled over his country’s lack of innovation, raised concerns with China’s educational leaders about an overemphasis on testing declaring that the nation needed to cultivate the same kind of innovation that is prevalent in the United States. Such innovation is exemplified in the following ways:

 

o The United States consistently leads the world in utility patents – or patents for innovation;

 

o The U.S. has placed 2nd out of 142 nations on the G.C.I. – Global Competitiveness Index – over the past 17 years;

 

o The U.S. leads the world in GDP – a measure of economic strength – 3X that of China and 5X that of Germany.

 

These statistics have been consistent for decades while U.S. schools have done poorly on international comparisons, since they began using such benchmarks in the 1950’s. Perhaps the U.S. students experienced a comprehensive and varied curriculum, albeit not a perfect fit for every student, while other countries prematurely sorted and selected students to provide a narrowed curriculum that ensured good test results. It is somewhat ironic that at a time when the United States is calling for a need to be globally competitive and need to maintain our innovation, we seem to be taking a path that is being abandoned by other nations.

 

• Will simply “raising the bar” through differently designed and more difficult tests get students to “jump higher”?

 

Most educators welcome rigorous curriculum and challenging learning activities for their students but through lessons and units of study that consider the extent to which students are ready for higher levels of learning and vary according to such readiness.

 

Many elementary teachers are concerned that the CCSS do not consider cognitive development – that natural human growth cannot be accelerated. Just as individuals physically grow at different rates beyond their control – some walk later than others; some gain weight and height faster than others – cognitive maturation cannot be rushed. Requiring students to jump higher or think abstractly is futile as they cannot respond until they are ready. Yet, in the most effective classrooms, while the expectations should be set high for all, teachers know that there varying levels of readiness, especially in the earlier years of learning.

 

• What have been the outcomes of previous improvements or changes in state standards? What is the evidence for their success?

 

Without field-testing and a collection of student data over time, it is impossible to make the determination that the new Common Core Standards and the “cut-points” on the associated high-stakes assessments are properly gauged. The initial set of metrics is arbitrary yet will define students and teachers as underperforming – but in comparison to whom or to what standards?

 

After thirty years of standards-based learning and testing, there is no research to show that the use of standards have improved student learning. A ten year study on high stakes standardized testing conducted by the National Academies Research Council found that there is “little or no effect on students learning and are counterproductive.” According to the Center for Education Policy, five years after the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 60% of districts reported increased instructional time for math and ELA with a 44% decrease in all other subjects.

 

In many schools curriculum has been narrowed to accommodate such an emphasis but at a cost of the loss of diverse and potentially life-altering learning opportunities for many students. While the shift to a more standards-based approach to teaching was part of an effort to close the achievement gap between poor and minority learners, this gap has actually widened.

 

Summary
Many educators have acknowledged that the skills and thinking abilities that the vendors and advocates of the CCSS have promised are worthy objectives but question whether or not the CCSS, as they are currently being rolled out, represent the answer. CCSS are untested and unfunded, making the work to incorporate them into classrooms both controversial and difficult. They are tied to high-stakes assessments for students and staff while being rushed into implementation.

 

A significant financial and political investment, the CCSS will be here for awhile, at least until the next reform. It is important that here in SOCSD we ensure that implementation occurs with an understanding of how student learning can be rich without allowing our concern about student and teacher assessment distort the purpose of an education for a better life and society, not a higher test score.

The nation’s schools are going through a profound and quite rapid transformation – perhaps the most radical in the nation’s history. In an April 20, 2013, editorial, the New York Times referred to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as “the most important education reform in the country’s history”. Forty-five states have adopted CCSS.

 

Even before they have been fully implemented, the CCSS are serving as the foundation upon which a range of education reforms are being made. Throughout the 2012-13 school year educators have been scrambling to keep up with the changes. In New York, the State Education Department began providing samples of CCSS materials during the fall and winter.

 

Thus far, CCSS have been developed in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. Science and Social Studies Standards are in development. New York’s 2013 ELA and math assessments were based on CCSS. Teachers and principals will be evaluated on the results of these new tests.

 

In order to be eligible for a piece of the pie from the $4.3 billion dollars in federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant money, states had to comply with certain criteria, such as the development of teacher evaluation systems that use the results of student assessments. States that chose to adopt the CCSS would receive extra points in their RTTT applications. (With limited funding, the U.S. Department of Education has achieved a higher level of compliance by dangling the RTTT dollars to all states driving them to adapt their state education systems to be eligible to compete for the money.)

 

Under the terms, all new assessments would have to be aligned with the CCSS, which are broad learning standards, not specific curriculum. State agencies and testing companies would provide information about the curriculum and assessments. In the case of New York, Pearson, an educational publishing and testing corporation, has developed the assessments. Some materials and examples have been provided via on-line resources.

 

In addition districts would be required to purchase other assessment materials for local assessments, but these would have to be on a state-approved list. While districts could develop their own assessments, these would need to hold up against rigorous measurement standards to prove that they are reliable and valid measures of testing. Most districts do not have the expert resources to make such a determination.

 

School districts, especially those in states that have been granted Race to the Top funds, have been struggling to comply with recently mandated requirements that require new curriculum, student testing tools and processes, teacher and principal evaluations, new training, and the expansion of data management systems. While Pearson and other publishing companies also sell instructional materials (textbooks, etc.) to support teachers and schools as they adapt their classrooms to the CCSS, the fiscal environment has made it difficult for districts to provide such funding.

 

Within the education community there have been concerns about these reforms, specifically, the top-down process, rate of change, unfunded cost, minimal time, effectiveness, participation of education entrepreneurs, and the unintended consequences on students and public education. However, others, especially those driving the change, see CCSS as having tremendous potential for preparing students for college or a career.

 

The focus of Part II in this blog series on the Common Core will address the potential of CCSS.

 

WHAT ARE THE PROMISES AND POSSIBILITIES?

 

The Promises

 

The proponents of the CCSS have made certain claims:

 

• CCSS are “internally benchmarked” K-12 academic standards that will establish what students should have learned upon graduation for the K-12 system;

 

• CCSS will make students globally competitive;

 

• CCSS will provide greater collaboration among schools and among states;

 

• CCSS will have fewer standards but deeper learning for students;

 

• The CCSS will necessitate a greater focus on literacy across disciplines (science, social studies, and technology).

 

The Changes

 

Operating on the assumption that the following do not occur in public schools, the developers of the CCSS call for the following instructional “shifts” in English Language Arts and mathematics:

 

ELA Shifts will result in the …

 

• building of knowledge and understanding via content-rich nonfiction texts;

 

• development of reading, writing, and speaking skills via an approach based on text evidence;

 

• increase of reading and writing with complex texts and higher level vocabulary.

 

MATH Shifts will result in…

 

• a focus on the standards;

 

• the development of thinking across grades with linkage to major math topics;

 

• the development of fluency, application, and deep understanding of concepts as well as skill development.

 

Possibilities & Promises

Rebecca Mieliwocki, the 2012 National Teacher of the Year, remarked that “Common core is the marlin that’s been out to sea and we’ve been reeling it in and it’s almost here. It’s just beside the boat – it’s huge, it’s beautiful and it has a lot of power. But how we bring it on board, how we handle it, that will require incredible skill, patience, vision, and expertise. Because, if we get that wrong and the fish starts flopping around, it has the power to destroy everything.”

 

Few can question the value of strengthening the reading and writing skills of our students. We want our students to be able to access text that will help them learn across all disciplines and prepare them for technical reading that many may encounter in college or the workplace.

 

There is certainly value in getting our students to think as mathematicians by understanding the concepts behind the algorithms and formulae. No one will argue that the application of math with a basis of strong fluency and conceptual understanding will make our students better prepared for a data-driven world that is becoming more technologically complex – in both work and societal contexts.

 

The Questions
The 2012 National Teacher of Year is hopeful about the Common Core, but she raises the same concerns that many other educators across the nation and in New York have about them. How well are we “reeling in” the potential of the CCSS?

 

While it is difficult to argue with a vision that purports to enhance literacy and mathematical abilities and make students better prepared for college and careers, there are questions about the basis on which such claims have been made and the ways in which the CCSS and the associated reforms are being implemented. The following will be examined in subsequent blogs:

 

• Will simply “raising the bar” through differently designed and more difficult tests get students to “jump higher”?

 

• What is the research behind the claims that the CCSS will improve student learning? Have the new standards been field-tested over time?

 

• How will instruction have to change in order to teach the new standards? How well have educators been prepared for such a change? How much time have they been given for the changes? What resources have been provided to teachers and principals in order to make such changes?

 

• What have been the outcomes of previous improvements or changes in state standards? What is the evidence for their success?

 

• How have other nations, particularly those deemed as leaders in education reform, made changes to improve their schools?

 

• What are the costs for such changes? What are the projections for the return on investment for such a major change? (This is particularly important during a time when public school funding has been impacted by the economic crisis of a few years ago and the loss of state aid.)

 

• What are the concerns that educators in New York and across the nation have been raising about the consequences of the new reforms as they relate to the implementation of the Common Core?

 

• What are the alternatives proposed by those in the field that state and federal officials and politicians might consider in an effort to find compromise?

 

The implementation of the Common Core State Standards are estimated to cost New York’s taxpayers as much as $583 million dollars (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation) and the nation as much as $16 billion dollars when factoring in the cost of on-line testing that is scheduled to begin in 2014-15 (The Pioneer Institute).

 

It is hoped that those responsible for the decision to make such reforms – our political leaders and state and federal education officials – have made them on the calculus that any business owner would, which is that there are some pretty good assurances that there will be a return on the investment. This will be the ultimate assessment for all of us.

On April 4^th, the SOCSD Board of Education adopted the budget for 2013-14.  The following summary provides an overview of how the Board of Education has worked to balance its fiscal responsibilities with its legal obligations to provide students with a sound and basic education.  This has become increasingly more difficult with reduced state aid, no mandate relief, and new education regulations and laws that are costly yet unfunded by the state.

 

During the past five years the SOCSD has experienced decreases of school aid and the minimal restoration of promised aid for a total cost of approximately $24 million dollars at $7,000 per student.  Though leadership in Albany proclaims that school aid is being increased, in fact, it is merely being restored at a rate that will take over a decade before such aid is at the rates of 2009.  This loss of funding, along with the new tax cap legislation, is making it increasingly difficult to fund both mandates and valued programs in our school district.

 

While there are educational and legal obligations, with the loss of funding and the understanding that there are limits to what taxpayers can afford, SOCSD has developed a fiscally responsible budget that continues to delay any impact to the instructional core.  In addition, our district is experiencing an enrollment decline that affects both the current budget and future planning.

 

The SOCSD 2013-2014 budget represents comprehensive planning that involved numerous public meetings and presentations since the beginning of the school year.  Budget planning is multi-year in its fiscal design and driven by a set of guiding principles that reflect a long-term approach as well as current realities:

 

• Preserve the quality of instruction and student learning;
• Protect the instructional core;
• Prevent unnecessary long-term costs through multi-year planning;
• Establish priorities based on NEEDS versus WANTS
• Prevent costly academic failures through early and intensive intervention;
• Preserve dollars through systemic efficiency reviews.

 

Including this year’s proposed fiscal plan, the last five budgets have preserved instructional and program quality and supported needed enhancements in technology and program development.  We also completed major renovations to the schools, including the replacement of all roofs.

 

During this period, budget and tax rate increases have been historically low for SOCSD; however, the budget and tax rate increases that were once used as benchmarks for managing fiscal change are no longer relevant.  With the mandated tax cap, we are now more regulated by the formula that controls the levy.  While the district may override the levy cap by seeking 60% voter approval, we do not believe that at this time it will be necessary to seek more than a simple majority vote. Once again, the district will stay within the legal tax cap formula. 

 

SOCSD posted a budget Q&A on the district website.  We will be using common questions from past years that have been updated to reflect current numbers or changes.  We have also added or incorporated information based on questions that we received during the process.  Click here to view.

 

The 2013 Budget Vote will be on Tuesday, May 21.  Additional information will be forthcoming.

 

 

In April students in grades 3-8 across New York State will experience a new kind of test that will be based on a new set of standards adopted by 46 states. These standards, known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), are designed to drive changes in teaching and learning. According to a recent memorandum from the NY State Education Department, the CCSS promise to do the following:

 

"Changes to NYSED Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Tests: Assessing the Common Core"

"Beginning with the current school year (2012-13), NYSED is re-designing its assessment program* (http://engageny.org/resource/common-core-implementation-timeline) to measure what students know and can do relative to the grade-level Common Core State Standards. Specific changes to the Grades 3-8 ELA and math tests (http://engageny.org/resource/test-guides-for-english-language-arts-and-mathematics) include the following:

 

1. Increases in Rigor – The CCSS are back-mapped, grade-by-grade, from college and career readiness. Many of the questions on the Common Core assessments are more advanced and complex than those found on prior assessments that measured prior grade-level standards.

 

2. Focus on Text – To answer ELA questions correctly, students will need to read and analyze each passage completely and closely, and be prepared to carefully consider responses to multiple-choice questions. For constructed response items, students will need to answer questions with evidence gathered from rigorous literature and informational texts. Some texts will express an author’s
point of view, with which not all readers will agree.

 

3. Depth of Math – Students will be expected to understand math conceptually, use prerequisite skills with grade-level math facts, and solve math problems rooted in the real-world, deciding for themselves which formulas and tools (such as protractors or rulers) to use."

 

Most would agree that an academic program should be rigorous with a focus on skills along with depth of content. Arguably, a strong academic program should also be accompanied by fair and valid assessment measures that are both meaningful and balanced. While there has been debate over the amount of assessment and use of the data garnered from the exam results, this spring’s Grades 3-8 ELA and Math assessments, developed in accordance with the CCSS, are being presented as new assessments rather than modified or recalibrated editions of prior assessments. New York State has also informed districts that the results will serve as a baseline from which future progress will be measured.

 

These changes will be profound. Not only will students be subjected to new tests based on a new set of standards, but at this time little is known about the design of the assessments – the test items, content, and other dimensions. Some samples have been made available, but these have not been comprehensive nor did they become readily available prior to the school year but, rather, were disseminated as the year has progressed.

 

School districts across the state have also been forewarned by state officials that we are to expect a drop in test results given the extent of the changes. These officials cited Kentucky, the first state in the nation to adopt the CCSS back in 2010. In the initial year of implementing the new assessments, the percentage of students reaching proficiency dropped by over a third.

 

In 2011 76% of Kentucky’s elementary students demonstrated proficiency in reading while in 2012 only 48% hit the mark. In math the proficiency level dropped from 73% to 40%. The middle school scores also showed a decline. In reading the proficiency levels dropped from 70% to 46% and in math from 65% to 40%.

 

It is anticipated that New York students will experience similar declines. Two major reasons for a drop in scores will be due to the lack of time and information that teachers have had to implement the CCSS and the significant changes in the assessment design and content. A curricular and instructional transformation of this magnitude requires planning and preparation.

 

Some of the changes within the CCSS represent improvements, but there are concerns. For the past two years, many of New York’s education leaders have requested sufficient time to allow principals and teachers to adapt existing curriculum and instruction to prepare the new assessments. There have been requests for a pilot period before instituting a high-stakes accountability system for students and teachers. Implementation has been rushed with inadequate state funding for the mandated changes. School board leaders, superintendents, principals, parents, teachers, and now some legislators from across the state have called for a phase-in schedule, but at this time such requests have been rejected by officials at New York’s State Education Department. This rush to implement the expanded testing is mostly unfair to our students.

 

In future blogs we will explore more of the changes, the related testing, the research, and recommended alternatives. We will also share how South Orangetown is attempting to be compliant to prepare students and staff for the associated changes.

 

(*These changes in assessment reflect one aspect of the overall shift. As many parents and students know, there have been pre- and post-assessments added to every discipline. In the 2014-15, districts will be asked to add a comprehensive on-line assessment system to support yet another shift in testing. Districts have just received word that this additional testing will require between eight to 10 hours, depending on the grade level and test. School districts have also been asked to begin budgeting to accommodate the technology required to support the new tests.)

 

Next: (Part II – The Promises)

Since last May the district has been involved in an analysis of the sleep research that provides a preponderance of evidence showing significant health benefits for teenagers when schools start later. In addition to conducting a review of the literature from which summaries were provided to the community, along with links to authoritative websites and testimony from sleep researchers, physicians and pediatric institutions, the district administered an informal community survey to engage students, teachers, and parents and to assess understanding and opinions about potential changes in times and the benefits for students.

 

As part of the work, a tentative schedule was proposed. It recommended starting the middle and high schools at 8:20, leaving TZE and CLE on their current schedules, and changing the WOS start time to 7:50 from the current time of 8:30.

 

While it was hoped that the plan would be established by mid-winter, when community members raised questions about the impact on families and concerns about sleep schedules of younger children at WOS, a decision was postponed in order to further explore the issue, seek additional research on concerns, and, if possible, find a solution to meet all needs.

 

Throughout this process there was an effort to keep community members informed by trying to respond to as many questions as possible through blogs, references to the collected research posted on the website, and general responses to questions that were, in some cases, idiosyncratic to one’s situation. And while it seemed frustrating to some members of the community who thought we were reactive to concerns that were not based on the sleep research, others were equally upset by their perceptions that we were being insensitive to their needs or their beliefs.

 

At the February 21st BOE meeting, I shared that having heard all of the concerns, even from skeptics who simply do not believe what the sleep researchers have recommended, the district would be making an effort to find a solution – perhaps a compromise. The following is what we hope will begin the process of achieving the goal of improving sleep times for our adolescents while considering the impact on the community:

• Beginning in the fall of 2013, Tappan Zee High School will begin classes at 8:15 a.m. The elementary and middle schools will remain on their current schedules.
• Depending on the recommendations related to an update of a recent transportation efficiencies study and a demographics and space utilization study that is currently being conducted, SOMS will begin classes at 8:15 in either 2014 or 2015. At that time the elementary schools will move to a 9:10 starting time.

 

The matter of sleep deprivation is not solely the concern of schools. In the March 11, 2013, edition of The New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert, in “Up All Night – The Science of Sleeplessness” provides a brief history of sleep research and a summary of sleep problems and their causes. I share an excerpt in which she quotes Till Roenneberg, a sleep researcher from the University of Munich:

 

“…age also has a big influence on chronotype. Toddlers tend to be larks, which is why they drive their parents crazy by getting up at sunrise. Teen-agers are owls, which is why high schools are filled with students who look (and act) like zombies. Roenneberg advocates scheduling high-school classes to begin later in the day, and he cites studies showing that schools that delay the start of first period see performance, motivation, and attendance all increase. (A school district in Minnesota that switched to a later schedule found that the average S.A.T. scores for the top ten per cent of the class rose by more than two hundred points, a result that the head of the College Board called “truly flabbergasting.”) But, Roenneberg notes, teachers and school administrators generally resist the change, preferring to believe that the problem is insoluble.”

 

For the full article go to:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/11/130311fa_fact_kolbert#ixzz2Mtt2q6g4

 

The article provides a concise and timely overview that may be of interest to both the skeptics and the believers. If nothing else, it is hoped that we will all come out of this with a better understanding of the importance of healthy sleep.

Over the past few weeks, we have received additional comments, questions, and research about the potential changes in school start times. This blog will serve to share the new research and address concerns.

 

There is an assumption that a final decision has been made. That is not the case. It would be accurate to say that the administration believes that there would be significant health benefits to middle and high school students with a later start time. This belief is based on a review of the scientific and medical research that has been shared with the community and posted on the website.

 

There will be no rush to a decision. When questions have been raised, the district has sought additional information. The district continues to seek answers to questions and solutions to address the needs of the whole. In addition, when parents claim that they have additional research, the district has requested that it be submitted for review.

 

Most recently, we received information from Dr. Douglas Puder of Clarkstown Pediatrics and an Executive Committee Member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a body that is also supportive of such changes, that the medical evidence for later adolescent school start time is overwhelming. According to Dr. Puder,

 

“Every study on the subject documents health improvement with later school start time. A multitude of outcome measures were chosen in different studies and benefits were consistently seen. Teenage students are less sleep deprived, have lower rates of depression/suicidal ideation/car accidents/obesity. Their grades improved, SAT scores rose, and they were more engaged in school activities. There is really no longer any debate in the medical community, and it is established fact that the adolescent "bio-clock" or circadian rhythm runs two hours later than the elementary school child's clock.
http://www.clarkstownpeds.com/Clarkstown_Pediatrics/Downloads_files/Schoolstarttime.pdf
 

 

There is no published data suggesting that a slightly earlier elementary school start time will adversely affect students. As a pediatrician I would be opposed to any change which I thought would harm a young child's early education.
 

 

Dr. Puder’s testimony aligns with the research that we have reviewed and gathered from experts in the field of sleep research and the benefits or problems for children of all ages. According to a report by the University of Pennsylvania Sleep Center, elementary schools should start no earlier than 7:30. No school is scheduled to start earlier than 7:50 with the schedule under consideration.
 

 

According to Dr. Rhoda Au, a research neuropsychologist, at Boston University School of Medicine, “There is no research on elementary start times and sleep from which to do a meta-analysis. The biology doesn't support a theoretical basis for doing so.” Dr. Au also shared that attempts to seek funding to conduct research with young elementary students has not met approval from the scientific community because of established biological evidence.
 

 

In the past few days, we have been following up with pediatric sleep researchers and major research institutions, such as the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania to probe more deeply into some of their findings. It is hoped that we will have additional information to help us with this decision.
 

 

In spite of the abundant research that has been collected, studied, and shared, the district has delayed any final decision in an effort to answer questions and try to find solutions to mitigate the impact on families. For example, when asked if we would be able to add buses so that all three elementary schools could have the same start time, we analyzed the possibility and learned that the fiscal impact would be about $900,000.
 

 

Parents have expressed concerns that this change will pose challenges to the family schedule. As has been previously noted, accommodating every family’s schedule in a school district of over 3400 students is not possible; however, the district has included as part of its review ways in which families might be supported. We want to be sensitive to those needs while trying to improve the sleep health of students.
 

 

While we will continue to study the problem to see how we can design a schedule that can maximize the health benefits for all students, we also ask those who are concerned about the proposed changes to read the literature that is on the district website. Again, no decision has been made nor is there a rush to make one as we continue to study a possible change. We want to do this right. We want to ensure that we have sufficient evidence and have studied all possibilities.

Post-Survey Questions & Responses

Subsequent to the posting of the Start Times survey results, we have received email with opinions, questions, and suggestions about the potential change in start times.  The following is a composite response that attempts to address some of the key issues:

 

"I do not agree that later start times will improve teen sleeping."

While there are many opinions – both in support or with skepticism – the preponderance of the research supports increased sleep time and improved health for adolescents.  
 

"There is no evidence that five and six year olds benefit from earlier start times." 

This is true.  It is also true that there is no evidence to show that the children will be negatively impacted by the potential times that are being considered.  

 

"This is unfair for our youngest children. The district is putting the needs of older children over younger children."

The district would make no decision that puts the health and safety needs of one group of students over another.  In this situation, as has been cited in the literature and at meetings, the sleep habits of children can be best managed by parents while adolescent sleep is affected by natural internal time clocks.  Again, the research is very clear on the benefits in terms of physical and mental health.

 

The purpose of this change is to enhance the well-being of our students.  There is no fiscal savings nor is there any agenda to raise test scores by providing longer sleep time, although some of the cited