The Nevada State Board of Education is trying to force another bogus initiative on the K-12 public school system. Under the guise of supporting the health and welfare of students, the Board imposes mandatory minimum start times for public high schools in Nevada.

There is a consensus that teenagers are not getting an adequate amount of sleep each night, which is approved by pediatricians. There is no proven causality that high school start times are responsible and a lack of evidence that changing them will alleviate this problem. A change may result negative consequences for most students.

There is a consensus among pediatricians that teenagers do not get an adequate amount of sleep each night. But there is no proven causality that high school start times are responsible. Such a change may have negative consequences for most students.

Students will have extended school days. Athletics and extracurricular activities will be extended later into the evening. However, there is no guarantee that changing school start times will leads to academic improvement.

Families that rely on older siblings to supervise younger siblings until parents get home will be adversely affected. This is especially true in low-income families. Extending the school day will disrupt those with family responsibilities after school; such as working at their parents’ restaurant or pushing cattle on the family farm.

A fake poll has been made available online to help drum up support for a silly initiative. It was a purely 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 false data. Similar to the scientists employed by the tobacco companies in the 1970s, they concluded that “smoking does not cause cancer”.

There is no conclusive evidence that changes in the high school curriculum will correct adolescent sleep deprivation or sleep problems. Only one study (of those presented to the Board in 2023) semi-recommended later school start times. It came with two major caveats; that more research is needed and pilot studies (with careful data measures to prove efficacy) should be done before full implementation.

There are many other factors that cause sleep deprivation in teenagers. Caffeine intake. An excessive amount of time spent on social media sites, texting, messaging, and online games. And of course, a lack of family and parental control. Some international studies have directly suggested that family solutions are needed, not school solutions.

Being on time and fitting in a productive learning environment are positive habits. Most students have successfully adapted to present bell times.

One of the duties of public education is to help form cooperative and productive citizens. The high school experience provides a transition to real-world responsibilities where commitment is necessary for success. Colleges, employers, and the military do not specifically cater to the sleep needs of individuals.

There is no professional credibility in this recommendation. Despite the severe lack of evidence of any effectiveness, it is the same proposal presented to Board members last year. Again, without any plan to evaluate positive or negative effects on student outcomes or pilot programs.

Adequate start times are necessary to effectively and efficiently manage a high school building. Bell programs should fit the needs of the school community. These should be determined by each school district; especially in rural counties and those with a four-day program.

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

In CCSD, it will inconvenience those who have successfully adjusted to current schedules, cause significant disruptions to athletic programs and other extracurricular activities, and create additional transportation costs for an already financially challenged CCSD.

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

Both have previously advocated replacing the ACT with an unknown and unrecognized (by any colleges or universities) college entrance exam designed by a private testing service. This initiative also lacked organizational support and reeked of incompetence and corruption.

Is this really a “no-brainer” decision, as the President of the State Council suggested last year? Not. It seems like a brainless 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. Please be careful when voting for candidates seeking a seat in the current election.