Sweet Home board approves new 2025-26 start/stop times; mixed busing measure passes 4-2-1 after extended debate

The Sweet Home Central School District board voted 4-2-1 to approve item I, a package of revised start and stop times for the 2025–26 school year that will change busing runs and in some cases place sixth‑grade students on the same buses with upper‑grade students.

The decision followed a public comment from resident Josh Korman, who said he is “very worried” about sixth graders being bused with older students and warned of bullying and other safety risks if younger students ride with seniors. A student speaker, Maisha, told the board the change could increase high‑school participation in after‑school activities but acknowledged concerns about mixed busing.

Why this matters: the board and speakers said the plan affects roughly 3,800 students districtwide and is tied to efforts to add 15 minutes of instructional time at every school building and to create more after‑school runs. Board members split over whether to delay the decision for broader community and student outreach; the final vote approved the measure, with four board members in favor, two opposed and one abstention.

Board members and commenters questioned whether the building‑use committee had directly surveyed students and families before finalizing its recommendation. Multiple board members urged additional outreach: one called for a broader survey of affected families and the student body, while others argued the district has already used multiple communication channels and that delaying the vote would complicate planning for routes, childcare and budget preparations.

During the meeting several practical details and tradeoffs surfaced. Board members noted a shortage of bus drivers as the main operational constraint and discussed options including contracting additional runs or using reserves to cover temporary costs. The recommended walking eligibility in the plan is a 0.25‑mile radius for walkers (board members said the committee considered a 0.5‑mile option earlier). Some board members asked that the committee consider exceptions where walking distance is longer in practice because of barriers or routing.

The board rejected a motion to table consideration of item I (the motion to table failed), and proceeded to a recorded vote on item I. The board announced the final tally as 4 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain; the presiding official stated, “the motion carries.”

Next steps and monitoring: board members who supported the timetable asked district staff to prioritize communicating specifics to families, to track bus referrals and incidents closely, and to report data back to the building‑use committee and the board. Supporters emphasized that aligning elementary start times and consolidating runs would allow the district to add after‑school busing and expand extracurricular access. Opponents said the district should maintain flexibility to adjust routes or driver staffing and urged additional student and family input.

No change to policy or contract language was adopted at the meeting beyond the approved start/stop schedule; the board directed staff to proceed with routing and operational planning under the approved item.

Votes at a glance: Motion to table discussion — failed (vote count announced during meeting). Approval of item I (start/stop times and revised routing) — approved, 4 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain.

The board moved on to informational items and planning for the budget calendar and other district business after the vote.