Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Start Times topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates proposed shift in school start times; no formal vote taken
Summary
Superintendent Mister August presented a draft start-time schedule on Feb. 10 that would push secondary schools to later start times and elementary schools to mid-morning; the board discussed logistics and academic impacts but took no vote.
Get email alerts on the School Start Times topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superintendent Mister August presented a draft adjustment to start times for the 2025–26 school year that would move secondary start times later in the morning and shift elementary start times to mid-morning. Under the draft, Shippensburg Area High School and the middle school would begin at 8:05 a.m.; elementary schools would begin between 9:05 and 9:15 a.m., depending on the building; the administration included sample schedules with the proposal.
Teacher Sharon Lawrence, science department chair and AP instructor, told the board the plan as drafted would shorten many instructional blocks. “The consequence of cutting 30 minutes out of our day is that the block will have to shorten,” she said, adding that AP class blocks could shrink to about 28–32 minutes in the proposed models and that the change could reduce the district’s ability to align block schedules with Shippensburg University’s dual-enrollment offerings. Lawrence said hands-on science instruction, which the district is implementing under new state science standards, requires longer blocks for experiments and could be harmed by shorter class times.
Superintendent August answered that the proposal was designed to follow sleep-research recommendations for secondary students while remaining within contractual and transportation constraints. He said buildings would still meet state-year-length requirements and that the change would create more planning time for teachers because the teacher workday would not shrink even if some student-contact minutes changed. August said the district performed three community surveys and held a town hall but that earlier surveys showed mixed results; he described the current draft as the least-intrusive option explored.
Board members sharply debated the proposal. Dr. Goats (board member) and Dr. Lyman described national health associations’ recommendations for later secondary start times and said the research supports benefits including improved sleep and academic performance. Other board members and community speakers raised concerns about lost instructional minutes for elementary grades, the logistics of transportation routes and the impact on dual-enrollment and AP scheduling. One board member summarized a quick social-media poll of 189 respondents showing 77% opposition, and another said he had received no community contacts in favor of the change.
Superintendent August said the district is arranging additional outreach and work, including conversations with transportation staff, building administrators and the union; he said the district also will continue to refine building-by-building schedules if the board directs the administration to move forward. No formal board vote was taken on the start-time proposal during the Feb. 10 meeting; the item remained in discussion.
Why this matters: Research groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the CDC have recommended later start times for middle- and high-school students to align with adolescent circadian rhythms. The district’s proposal forces tradeoffs among transportation, collective bargaining, instructional minutes and extracurricular schedules. Board members said implementation would require building-level scheduling changes and coordination with the career-technical center, Shippensburg University dual-enrollment courses and extracurricular schedules.
Next steps: The superintendent said the administration will continue building-level schedule development, work with transportation and seek additional stakeholder input; the board did not vote on the proposal on Feb. 10.

