Parents, teachers and health professionals urge board to rethink proposed 2026 school start-time changes

Members of the Fairport Central School District Board of Education heard more than a half-dozen public comments Tuesday calling on the board to reopen or delay a plan to change school start times beginning in 2026.

Those who spoke said the changes, which the district says are intended to align secondary start times with adolescent sleep research, would shift burdens — particularly on families with elementary‑age children — without clear mitigation plans. Concerns included sharp increases in aftercare demand and cost, the loss of student workers who staff afterschool programs, transportation effects and disruption to extracurricular participation.

The issue drew speakers across the community. Becky Urlocker, identified herself as a parent of three district students and a long‑term observer of special‑education classrooms. “As a parent of a student who cannot come home and tell me what happened during the day, who cannot advocate for himself, I have to put so much faith and trust into the staff of these classrooms,” she said, arguing that the district must consider the different, more intensive supports required in self‑contained special‑education rooms.

Sarah Osterlingmaine, who identified herself as a Fairport graduate and parent, told the board she supports later start times for adolescents in principle but warned the district’s current proposal would disproportionately hurt families. “Five days of aftercare is currently priced at $187 per child per week,” she said. “For a family with two children, that’s nearly $1,500 added to their monthly budget.” Osterlingmaine also said shifting clubs and activities earlier could negate intended sleep benefits for secondary students.

Amy Bridal, who spoke as a parent and district educator, said the district’s suggested 9 a.m. start for the high school is later than the “sweet spot” many in the community expect. She said the district’s planning appears to favor a three‑tier bus schedule that changes elementary start times, and urged board members to consider a two‑tier approach that keeps younger students’ hours intact while still moving secondary starts earlier.

Second‑grader Macy (last name given in the meeting record) addressed the board from the audience. “If the time changes, kids will not be able to see when crossing for the bus in the dark morning,” Macy said. She also said earlier dismissal would force many children into aftercare far longer than they are now and could separate families at dinner time.

Dr. Daniel Trigg, a pediatrician and a new Fairport parent, said he supports evidence‑based approaches to adolescent sleep but asked the board for further research into the policy’s likely effects on working families. “After‑school care is hard to come by. It’s often inaccessible. It’s very expensive,” he said, and he urged the board to study downstream impacts and survey families before finalizing the change.

Superintendent Brett Provenzano told the board the district has been studying start‑time adjustments as part of larger planning for 2026–27 and has begun discussions with potential partners, including the YMCA, to provide expanded aftercare. Provenzano said the district has prepared an FAQ document and a transition plan and that the YMCA has not yet released per‑child rates because it is in the middle of its current enrollment cycle.

Board members did not take a final vote on the start‑time proposal at the meeting. Several trustees and the superintendent described additional analysis underway — including transportation logistics, collective‑bargaining implications and summer orientation planning tied to other district reorganizations — and said staff will return with more details for discussion before any implementation.

What happened next The board moved on to other agenda items. The start‑time change remains at the planning stage; the district anticipates continued public outreach and more detailed cost and scheduling analysis before any vote or final policy decision.

Why it matters The proposed schedule change links to research on adolescent sleep and aims to improve secondary‑student outcomes, but public speakers said the district’s present plan shifts substantial costs and logistical burdens onto families with younger children and potentially reduces student access to after‑school activities and employment. The comments underscore a common tradeoff districts face when aligning policy with research: potential benefits for one cohort may create hardships for another.

Sources and next steps Speakers urged the board to delay or reopen the discussion until the district publishes clearer cost estimates (including YMCA partnership rates), a more complete bus/transportation model and a plan for preserving extracurricular access and student worker opportunities. The board indicated staff will return with additional analysis and that parents, students and staff will have further opportunities to comment before the district finalizes any schedule change.