Elmbrook board hears new bus, safety and budget analysis as start-time change remains undecided

The School District of Elmbrook Board of Education on July 14 received a detailed update on a years-long school start-time study and did not take action, instead asking for additional work sessions and analysis. The presentation summarized committee recommendations to move from the district’s existing three-tier bus schedule to a two-tier model that would pair middle- and high-school routes and shift elementary start times earlier; committee leaders said the change aims to align middle- and high-school bell times with research on adolescent sleep. The start-time update outlined four operational components: verification that route times would meet district targets (about 30 minutes for elementary routes and 40 minutes for middle and high school routes), a review with the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department of potential no-transport (walk) zones for high school students, an assessment of driver staffing and turnover at the district’s bus terminal, and separate modeling for private and parochial school transportation. Chris (staff member) presented the findings and asked the board whether to pursue next steps, including budgeting and community communication. The discussion matters because altering bell times affects daily routines for thousands of students and families, changes transportation costs, and would require coordination with the district’s contractor and private/parochial schools. Committee materials showed a roughly 20% reduction in high-school bus ridership under a two-mile no-transport radius for each high school; presenters estimated that reduction would eliminate about six buses and drivers and reduce the budget impact by about $350,000. Isolating private/parochial transport under a two-tier model was estimated to cost about $525,000 more annually (roughly $1,200 per rider under that scenario) versus current private/parochial costs of about $200,000. The committee also identified that GoRightway terminal staffing experienced about 70 hires or departures in the past year out of roughly 85 employees, a turnover level the presenter described as “tenuous.” Board members, parents and residents raised safety, equity and financial concerns. Diane Sherwin (resident) said many committee members stopped attending and criticized the presentation for not fully addressing after-care costs and longer-term enrollment impacts if families choose other options because of earlier elementary dismissal. Angie Pingle (resident) urged the board to consider effects on families of students with special needs, saying some providers have already declined to serve certain children and that families would lose essential options if schedules shifted and middle/high school students were dismissed after elementary students. Board members asked questions about who lives within a two-mile radius, the sheriff’s pedestrian-safety analysis and whether walk-zone boundaries could be adjusted; presenters said the sheriff’s assessment used a two-mile radius (the statutory maximum) while excluding crossings of major arteries such as Blue Mound Road, Capitol Drive and railroad tracks. Trustees voiced differing views on next steps. Several board members — Mary (Board member), Preetha (Board member), Wes (Board member) and Jean (Board member) — said they want more work, including a board work session and additional community engagement, to examine variants (for example, flipping which tiers run first or targeting an 8:00 a.m. middle- and high-school start). Sam (Board member) said the committee had produced substantial work but recommended ending the effort because of the estimated $600,000–$1,000,000 cost range and other district priorities. Multiple trustees emphasized the research on adolescent sleep and mental health as a rationale for pursuing later starts for older students while acknowledging that any change will be disruptive. The board did not take a vote. Chris presented several possible next steps on the slide deck — including seeking budget approval during the district budget cycle, pursuing targeted walk zones for high schools only, or isolating private/parochial transportation — and asked trustees for guidance. Several trustees asked that the administration return with a timeline and clarified decision points for the board, and at least one trustee proposed scheduling a dedicated work session to dig into multiple interdependent topics (start time, middle-school program review and facilities) so that the board can assess capacity and timing before any formal action. The discussion will continue. Board members said a work session and additional committee review are next likely steps before any formal change, and the administration said a budget decision for implementation would need to be aligned with the February–May budget cycle so that funding and contractor planning could be accomplished.