It is New Canaan’s budget season again and it appears we are having the same debate over the same start time proposal as last year.
The world has changed since a year ago, but the proposed scenario has not. The Board of Education has included $450,000 in the current budget which represents only 50% of the total cost for the proposed three-tier scenario. Note this is a 136% increase in the cost of the scenario as once thought. This is the scenario much debated across town that swaps our youngest students for our oldest students. Few schools in Connecticut have made a change to later start times and those that have led the charge (Greenwich, Westport and Norwalk) have not done it at the expense of the youngest. Weston is working on scenarios to improve start times but it will be required to be budget neutral to move forward in an attempt to better align school funding and lean town budgets.
It has been said we should trust the process that has been conducted and while yes it has been three years of much research, public forums and debate we still have missed the mark on solving for an overwhelming majority of our student body. There is no debating the need for teens to sleep which is where the discussion started and why there is such a focus on an 8:30 start time in which everything else revolves. Much of this research and data can be found on the BOE website.
What also has been called out in the same research on sleep is that our youngest need 10 to 12 hours of sleep (three hours more than adolescents) This is harder to find in the callouts and documentation presented around the initiative. You can find the sleep tables here from the AAP American Academy of Pediatrics and AASM American Academy of Sleep Medicine (“Recommended Sleep for Pediatric Populations”). (Spoiler alert – website coming soon where all information including research on younger children can be seen in one place) Academic research based on more than 700 elementary schools and 300,000 elementary school children clearly warns of potential academic and behavioral issues when swapping high school and elementary school times. Simply put, there are numerous studies indicating that younger children have not developed the emotional maturity or mental ability to recognize or deal with sleep deprivation.
So, in the end sleep is important for all children. That changes the initial problem to solve. We have proved sleep is important so instead of solving just for later times for teens—we have proven that sleep equity for all children is critical to set them up for success. This change in focus and reorienting of the problem to solve is rooted design thinking problem solving.
Leveraging design thinking starts with the human problem—in our case, originally, more sleep for teens. Typically, you find you need to go back to defining the problem to solve based on inputs in the process. In this case, sleep for all children not just teens. When design thinking is employed you ensure you have the right questions being asked, embracing simple mindset shifts and tackling problems from a new direction. The result are solutions that are desirable from a human point of view that are logistically possible and economically feasible. This we did not employ.
A red flag that would have caused the process conducted to date to pause and re-evaluate the true problem to solve were the murky results from town surveys to start with. Two separate surveys were taken, the initial “Hanover Study” (June 2019) was commissioned by the BOE and funded by our tax dollars. This survey of over 3,200 stakeholders (parents, teachers and students) provided 5 start time scenarios to the respondents. The results of the survey appeared clear. The current option was the most opposed of all the options, with more than half of respondents opposed. The BOE followed this up with another survey that October and the current scenario again scored the lowest of 3 options provided. It should be noted that in the June 2019 survey of the 2,854 parents surveyed (page 8 of the survey) 73% had children in grades 7-12 compared with the actual school population of 48% in this age group i.e. significant over representation by that subset of parents with older children.
Instead of restating the problem, an additional bus consultant was called in to verify the optimization of our current bus routes. When questioned about solving for a start time beneficial to all students, the consultant confirmed that was not the problem he was asked to analyze. Red flag number two (this also ignores the public forums where the scenario was opposed by the majority and a petition). Should have gone back to redesign the issue to solve.
One of the reasons a solution was pushed through a year ago was a budgetary fit. At the time (one year ago) the cost estimated for a three-tier solution was $400,000. The budget for the current scenario is now $950,000 at minimum. The BOE has approved a budget for 2021-2022 year that is an increase in taxpayer funding by 5% this upcoming year. Note that between 2001-2019, New Canaan Public Schools per student spending increased by an annualized growth rate of 4.22%, well above inflation in this period averaging ~2% (Source: http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. Yet later starts for all kids has never been included in this extremely high amount of taxpayer spending. The budget for the current scenario represents 1% of the total budget.
Staring in the face is a two-tier solution that was more well liked per the surveys than the current scenario that represents just 1.3% of the total budget. Start time for grades 7-12 would improve from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and K-6 would start at 9:10. Not perfect (nothing will be) but so much better and within a stones throw of the current scenario’s budget. There are for sure efficiencies to be gained whether it is through more combined resources with the town or building lease for the BOE ($300,000 alone). This solution seems to much better address the human issue (sleep), logistically possible (new cut through at Waveny from HS to limit traffic) and fiscally reasonable compared to the current scenario.
While not explored here, the two-tier scenario also is much kinder to the business community that has been hit so hard by COVID. The dramatic changes that are proposed to be implemented in February of 2022 cause additional disruption to many of our local businesses which is the last thing they need. Our children’s ability as well to get “back to normal” will also be terribly disrupted as many of our 5-6 grades will not be able to attend after school activities since some won’t get home until close to 5 p.m. Little has been done to address this part of the school population and the consequences for them. Stability is what we all crave.
The Two Tier scenario addresses so many issues that have surfaced from the Three Tier proposal. And it re-centers our focus on the true problem to be solved – sleep equity for all. Just because there was a process doesn’t not mean when given the chance to learn and adjust is given, we shouldn’t act.
I sincerely hope the various boards in town can adjust and proceed with the solution that causes the least disruption to our children and overall community. We have the solution—we just need the courage to act.
This opinion piece contains much misinformation about Dr. Luizzi’s recommendation for changing school start times and his years of work and expertise in evaluating different options for our district. As an example, the author links to “Academic Research” and states it “clearly warns of potential academic and behavioral issues.” Much has been written from health experts on how this particular research has serious flaws (includes 6th graders who accounted for 50% of the behavior problems, did not define when schools started, etc). Since its publication, many districts have changed to very similar schedules as proposed in New Canaan disproving any notion that Dr. Luizzi is recommending a school schedule that has rarely been implemented before. Additionally, I think most would find it a stretch that Dr. Luizzi would recommend anything that had the possibility of “academic issues” or would cause harm to kids. Although the author states her opinion that he should have instead proposed a 2-tier solution – Dr. Luizzi has repeatedly explained publicly how a 2-tier solution is not logistically feasible for our district. He has stated even if it were feasible, there are other significant drawbacks that would make it a less desirable recommendation. His extensive process was iterative – and evolved from surveys done at different points in time. It is exactly what we would want our Superintendent and BOE to do – brainstorm all of the options and then carefully evaluate each one. Lastly, Dr. Luizzi has stated he will optimize the proposal and try to move elementary closer to 8am. I would challenge this author to suggest a solution that he has not already thoroughly evaluated and one that actually can work.
Hi Anne,
I encourage you to look at this website https://www.ncstarttimeequity.org which has a good deal of very factual information about the issue of sleep, as well as the specific proposal from the NC BOE (you can compare this with the NC BOE page especially regarding K-6th graders which are a majority of the district enrollment khttps://www.ncps-k12.org/Page/6554). The proposal from the BOE, in addition to being implemented mid-year (which is abnormal in and of itself – also when we are not sure we will have 5 full days per week in person school next year – and will only find out in the summer), is not inline with similar towns to New Canaan in the region, state, nationally or internationally, nor is their any evidence that a 7:45 start time helps student learning of any age. I am sure we can find a solution that works for all, or almost all in New Canaan, – what the BOE has proposed is however not it.
Thank you Giacomo. I would also like to point out in a recent Town Council meet where the Town a council weighed heavily on the opportunity to move closer to 8am Dr. Luizzi admitted with the current plan he will only find a few minutes. It is time to stop talking in generalities. To get close to 8am more busses are required (per the last bus consultant) and traffic logistics need to be addressed and there are traffic and transportation experts willing to participate. These are solutions that need to be explored for the sake of the overwhelming majority.
Parents magazine just published an article on the same finding of the need for sleep for all children – appropriate sleep. Research abounds yet little has been cited in our town for the youngest. There is no misinformation. Please stop spreading those rumors. It doesn’t help anyone.
It is time to stop attacking but rather look to align a better objective that serves a majority. Starting pre-K at 9:15, then elementary at 7:45, 5/6 back to 9:10, and HS at 8:30 wreaks havoc on families and the community. Children going into confirmation at St A’s for example may have to choose between sports and confirmation as they were not consulted on the effects to their programs which serve a large number of children.
At the end of the day, all parents want the best for their children, families want to feel supported in their community and to feel welcomed. This subject has caused great divides, intimidation and worst women bullying others on social media. How can we set the examples for our children if we as parents and leaders not compromise, not set a good example of communication and transparency. Why ask of them so much when we can offer so little?
We do have solutions and we are close – I have said it before it takes courage and empathy of our leaders in the community and our administration to do this – I am confident they can if they are just willing to take the first step.
Mr. Landi – the website you share contains similar misinformation and omits many facts. I am assuming that’s because the authors of that site are not aware of the facts or understand the work and research that has been done and is not an intentional attempt to mislead anyone about the many districts that have successfully changed to similar schedules. I know some are “sure we can find a solution that works for all,” but Dr. Luizzi has stated that is simply not possible.
It is only not possible if 8:30 for the high school remains the single objective.
Dr. Luizzi has stated that there was not a single objective with his work on this topic – a goal was aligning the elementary schedules. Another goal was ensuring that no K-12 student would ever be on a bus in the dark. Furthermore, scenarios have been evaluated that did not have NCHS at 8:30. Those were either ultimately not logistically feasible or deemed not to satisfy a greater majority of all stakeholders. There were many scenarios evaluated and then determined as less desirable or unworkable – even if some of us found them personally preferable.
Anne, “Facts are Stubborn things” and simply stating that something is false or incorrect does not make it so. We are always glad to correct or address anything that is false, but unfortunately you seldom specify what you think is untrue. If you can be more specific we would be glad to address. So do you disagree that 1) This would be the earliest start time for our youngest learners in all of Connecticut? 2) That this would be on average an hour earlier than other top 20 elementary schools in the state (Including Westport, Darien, Greenwich) BTW 2 of these schools have already made the change and not at the expense of elementary school children, but all the data on this is on the ncstarttimeequity.org website for you to review and again we are happy to make any corrections 3) Proponents would like to cite a specific start time changes from other states, however there appears to be no state school system ranked in the top 30/50 that has an average primary school start time before 8:00AM. Actually the Top 3 ranked state school systems have average primary school start times of; MA 8:35, NJ 8:32, CT 8:41. Or 4) Do you disagree there are studies that indicate potential academic and behavioral problems with swapping early times as is being proposed? There are so many more facts that simply indicate this time is too early for a 5-6 or 7 year old. I respect what you are trying to do in principle, but wish you would at least consider what this will do to so many children and families.
However, I think we all know what this is truly about and that is an uncompromising strict adherence to the 8:30AM HS start time. Refusal to budge as little as 15 minutes from that is in every every every way the issue here. Why must elementary school children fight for a few minutes from what would still be the earliest start time in all of Ct to guarantee one of the latest start times for High Schoolers. I would love to hear how that is at all fair or equitable.
Thank you, this comment thread is now closed.