The Nevada State Board of Education is attempting to impose another false initiative on the K-12 public school system. Under the guise of supporting student health and well-being, the Board imposes mandatory minimum start times for Nevada public secondary schools.

There is a consensus that adolescents do not get enough sleep each night, which is endorsed by pediatricians. There is no proven causal relationship that high school entry times are responsible and there is a lack of evidence that changing them would alleviate this problem. A change may result negative consequences for a majority of students.

There is consensus among pediatricians that adolescents do not get enough sleep each night. But there is no proven causal relationship that high school start times are responsible. Such a change could have negative consequences for the majority of students.

Students will see their school days extended. Athletics and extracurricular activities will be extended later in the evening. However, there is no guarantee that changing school start times will have an impact lead to academic improvement.

Families who rely on older siblings to provide supervision over their younger siblings until the parents arrive home will be negatively impacted. This is especially true in low-income families. The lengthening of the school day will disrupt those who have family responsibilities after school; like working at their parents’ restaurant or pushing cattle on the family ranch.

A fake survey was posted online to help garner support for an absurd initiative. It was purely a political exercise. Decisions should not be based on biased surveys or anecdotes from a few disgruntled parents and students.

Much of the research provided was unrelated or contained misleading data. A bit like the scientists hired by tobacco companies in the 1970s who concluded that “smoking does not cause cancer.”

There is no conclusive evidence that schedule changes in high school will correct sleep deprivation or sleep problems in adolescents. Only one study (among those presented to the Council in 2023) recommended later school start times. It came with two major caveats: that more research is needed and that pilot studies (with careful measurements of data to prove effectiveness) should be done before full implementation.

There are many other factors that cause lack of sleep in adolescents. Caffeine consumption. An excessive amount of time spent on social media sites, texting, messaging, and online gaming. And of course, a lack of family and parental control. Some international studies directly suggest that family solutions were needed, not school solutions.

Being on time and being part of a productive learning environment are positive habits. Most students have successfully adapted to current bell times.

One of the tasks of public education is to help develop cooperative and productive citizens. The high school experience provides a transition to real-world responsibilities where commitment is necessary to succeed. Colleges, employers, and the military do not specifically address individuals’ sleep needs.

There is no professional credibility in this recommendation. Despite a distinct lack of evidence of any effectiveness, this is the same proposal presented to board members last year. Again, with no plan to evaluate positive or negative effects on student outcomes or pilot programs.

Proper start times are necessary to effectively manage a high school building. Bell schedules must meet the needs of the school community. They should be set by each school district; especially in rural counties and those with four-day schedules.

Attempt to cure perceived ills Clark County School District (CCSD) comes at the expense of the county’s 16 other school districts. No school district in Nevada supports this change.

At CCSD, this will inconvenience those who have managed to adapt to current schedules, cause significant disruption to athletic programs and other extracurricular activities, and create additional transportation costs for an already financially struggling CCSD.

All 17 Nevada public school districts and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (NASS) are against this mandate. As usual, educational expertise is being ignored by the President of the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

They both previously favored replacing the ACT with an unknown and unrecognized (by all colleges or universities) college entrance exam that would be administered by a private testing service. This initiative also lacked organizational support and reeked of incompetence and corruption.

Is this really an “obvious” decision, as the President of the Council of State suggested last year? No, this seems like a stupid suggestion based on emotional feelings.

The Nevada State Board of Education would make a decision based on misinterpreted research. Its impact should not be minimized.

Unfortunately, the State Council has some voting members who may naively follow an ineffective and inappropriate recommendation. Be careful when voting for candidates seeking a seat in the current election.