Parents, teachers urge Manhattan-Ogden USD 383 board to pause or reopen 3‑tier start‑time plan
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Dozens of parents, teachers and staff told the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education that a recently adopted three‑tier start‑time schedule — which would move many elementary schools to a 7:30 a.m. start — was rushed and based on flawed survey data; officials said the board previously adopted the plan but could reopen it if directed.
Dozens of parents, teachers and district staff urged the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education on Wednesday to pause or reopen its recently adopted three‑tier school start‑time plan, arguing the change would upend family routines, increase childcare costs and put young children at safety and developmental risk.
Jordan Schinstock, who identified herself as the daughter of a retired district teacher and the spouse of a current teacher, told the board: "What is in question is the process and justification used to arrive at these start times." Schinstock said a petition opposing the change has "more than 900 signatures," and asked the superintendent to put the matter back on the agenda.
Why it matters: The plan shifts many elementary schools to a 7:30 a.m. start time. Speakers said that earlier bell times would force families to pay for after‑school care, complicate work schedules, increase the likelihood that elementary students would wait for buses or walk in the dark, and create stress for teachers and coaches who now work late afternoons.
Several commenters criticized the district’s community outreach and data. Amber Wilson, who reviewed the district survey, said the district used ParentSquare to distribute the questionnaire and "less than 25% of recipients out of 12,578 even responded," adding that the way options were aggregated inflated apparent support. "Calling this community input is generous at best," she said.
Teachers and coaches warned of program losses and resignations. Eric Altavote, a veteran teacher and coach, said earlier start times would force extracurricular supervisors to choose between coaching and family obligations and urged the board to reconsider. Kelly Carmody, a longtime teacher and foster parent, said the decision was "voted on just before the holiday break" and that the community’s momentum and input had not been fully reflected.
Superintendent Eric (identified in the meeting) acknowledged the public concerns and described operational details about the survey platform and data handling, saying ParentSquare’s responses include personally identifiable information and that staff are working to remove that before wider summary release. He also noted that "the board has taken action and they passed that. If the board chooses to open it up again, I'm willing to take that direction."
Board reaction and next steps: Board members repeatedly acknowledged the intensity of public comment and described a range of options. Several members said the decision to adopt a three‑tier system had been discussed for months at committee level and noted a prior board vote on the schedule; one board member said the board previously acted 5‑2 on a related decision at an earlier meeting. The board did not immediately reopen or reverse the action at this meeting.
Community concerns raised in public comment included: possible increased monthly childcare costs, the safety of children walking or waiting before sunrise, the impact on middle‑ and high‑school dismissal times (and downstream family logistics), limits of the district’s survey methods, and potential effects on staffing and extracurriculars.
Direct quotes from the public and officials include:
"What is in question is the process and justification used to arrive at these start times," Jordan Schinstock told the board.
"In effect, our youngest learners become subjects of an experiment," Gavin Hampton said, summarizing his review of the research and local implications.
"Less than 25% of recipients out of 12,578 even responded," Amber Wilson said in criticizing the district survey.
"The board has taken action and they passed that. If the board chooses to open it up again, I'm willing to take that direction," Superintendent Eric said in response to public concerns.
The meeting left the question of whether the board will formally reopen the start‑time decision to a future agenda. Several board members suggested practical steps that could soften effects if the plan proceeds — for example, exploring route consolidation, pre‑enrollment with Boys & Girls Club or Parks & Rec for before/after care, or small time adjustments (some members suggested 07:40–07:45 as an alternative to 07:30). The board did not schedule a specific follow‑up at the meeting’s close.
Ending: The board closed public comment and proceeded with remaining business; district staff said a cleaned, de‑identified survey summary will be prepared for public review, and the superintendent said he would act if the board formally directed reopening the item.