Petition Closed


This petition had 488 supporters

Scroll Down to bottom to sign Petition, to see Comments and Post Updates.

BUE web site: You're Not Alone.

All D220 Teachers across all levels reject Input220 proposals, reduced or compressed instruction time, and block schedule. Former 12 yr BOE member rejects proposal and objects to cut instruction, and states that was not the Vision of the prior BOE. Comments are at end of BOE presentation--and after all the "sleep" presentations"  at the February 23, 2016  BOE meeting. (Full transcript of BEA statement and former BOE Member statement attached below after Petition.) Watch for 2 BEA union representatives statements and former board member here: .

NEXT BOE MEETING: Watch for updates from this petition site and/or confirm on District website.

See what high school students are actually saying:

See Comments Input220 page: Other Objector's Comments and on Facebook Dist 220 web site.                               

PETITION OBJECTIVE: Barrington United for Education (BUE) advocates for the following:1) A holistic and balanced approach to school start times and end times, which take into account the "whole" student, the needs of the family and siblings, and the needs of the community and local businesses; 2) No reduction in current levels of face-to-face instructional time, school instructional time, curriculum options, or extracurricular opportunities.



BACKGROUND : In late January/early February Input220 disclosed for the first time in public their recommendations that call for a drastic change to our current school start and end time. At the same time, Barrington High School Administration (BHS) disclosed a "Working Draft of Example Barrington 220 Start- and End- Time Schedules as of 1/27/16" (BHS Schedules) that would drastically alter our school's instructional time. The Input220 proposals (which reflect the proposed BHS Schedules) will be presented to The Board for consideration on 2/16/16 at 7 p.m. in the BHS cafeteria. It is unknown when The Board will vote upon implementation of Input220's proposals.

INPUT 220 CURRENT PROPOSALS (2/10/16 Summary Per Daily Herald): All three options would set the elementary school day from 8 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. and the middle school day from 8:50 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. The only differences among the plans are at the high school level.

Option D School day: 9 a.m. to 3:18 p.m.Cost: About $841,000 more in annual transportation fees for additional bus routes, vehicles and drivers.Class periods: Would be cut from 49 minutes to 43 minutes.

Option E School day: 9:30 a.m. to 3:48 p.m.Cost: About $58,000 more in annual transportation fees because some drivers would have to work longer days.Class periods: Would be cut to 43 minutes.

Option H School day: 9 a.m. to 3:52 p.m.Cost: About $845,000 more in annual transportation fees for additional bus routes, vehicles and drivers.Class periods: Would be cut to 47 minutes.


ISSUE STATEMENT:  Input220's current proposals result in extreme and drastic changes to the entire school district's instructional, curricular, and extracurricular structure that is unprecedented and untested. Input220 has failed to demonstrate:

1) why later time starts for high school students should result in fewer educational opportunities and less instructional time;

2) an adequate investigation of the effect their proposals will have on the "whole" student, the family and siblings, community and local business;

3) that the purported benefits outweigh the harm those proposals may create;

4) that late start times will result in more time for teens to sleep given that proposed schedules could shift p.m. activities to before school time slots;

5) that there does not exist more cost effective, less harmful, and/or less disruptive alternative available for those student's who choose more sleep.

The proposals of Input220 do not meet the needs of the "whole" student, the needs of the family and siblings, the community, and local business. The proposals reduce current instructional time, curriculum options, and extracurricular opportunities.Further, these leave too many un-addressed issues and un-answered questions.


BUE request The Board:

1) maintain the current D220 school schedules;

2) take a holistic and balanced approach to school start times and end times, which take into account the "whole" student, the needs of the family and siblings, and the needs of the community and local businesses;

3) reject any proposal for change that results in a reduction in current levels of:

a) face-to-face instructional time;

b) school instructional time; curriculum options; and extracurricular opportunities.

4) Alternatively, if The Board proceeds with these proposals, then BUE requests that The Board direct there be an objective, full and complete:

a) investigation of all options and the potential effects of those options on all stakeholders;

b) discussion;

c) public input.



Ron Metcalf, Input 220 Advisory Committee Member and President of Barrington Education Association (BEA), the local teacher's union, Verbatim (Phonetic) Transcription of Statement to the Board of Education Open Meeting on February 23, 2016, regarding Input 220's late start proposals and District 220's School Administration's block scheduling proposals

[Introduction...un-intelligible on recording] ....I've worn that hat proudly. I want to commend the, the, other members of the Committee. I feel a great sense of pride of the work that the Committee has done. But, as you all know, I wear another hat in the community, in the District, and that's the President of the Association. As such I've heard from a lot of the teachers in Barrington, once the Input220 Committee made their recommendation and the Administration, specifically the high school, presented the possible plans for the implementation of their recommendations.

Also note, the Administration and the BEA has been in discussion regarding contract implications of this change, and there are implications that must be addressed and resolved before the BEA could agree to any changes. Because of the level of concern, the BEA leadership team queried the high school staff with a short survey. And I would like to present some of the results of that survey. And I think Kristin (phonetic spelling) presented some already, so please forgive me if some of these things are repeated.

142 high school teachers, out of the 207, responded to the, to the survey about start times.

Here's some results.

Uh, almost 90% of the responsive...uh...responses... showed attendance at one of informational meetings...uh... in their departments. And over 90%...uh...of those respondents have recei...reviewed...the data of the 220 Committee regarding sleep needs of adolescents.

And while 65% of them agree with the need for a start time change, 82% have some sort of objection with the proposals.

Included in these are: 25% disagree with need for Barrington to adjust the school schedule;

24% believe high school students need to adapt to the schedule given them;

33% believe they cannot fulfill their job requirements with the compressed school day;

72% of those teachers believe the co curricular activities would run too late for kids;

45% of the respondents believe that the co curricular activities would run too late for them;

66% of the teachers disagree with the block schedule proposal;

78% believe the high school should start later, but most in that 8 to 8:30 range;

77% believe that 9:00 to 9:30 start times are too late to accommodate the after school clubs and sport activities;

Uh...Mr. Ruffalo...commented asked about extra curricular issues. Here's some really important details:

72%, or 102 of the 142, respondents either sponsor a club or coach a sport;63%, or 64 of those 102 teachers, said that the change in start time will affect their ability to continue in this activity.

62%...uh, 63%....felt that this change would affect their ability to continue to offer sponsorship or coaching activities.

Of the BHS staff with opinions about block scheduling, 68% felt that academic...academic achievement would decrease.

To be fair, 17% felt perform... performance would improve, and 15% felt performance would not change;

65% of teachers fee...feel it’s very important to retain the current length of the class period; whereas, only 9% of the teacher's feel it’s unimportant;

Almost 40% of the staff believe instructional efficacy would decrease with the reduced...uh...compressed class time schedule of 43 minutes.

Also of great importance, only 42% of the responses reflected a belief that the Administration has been sensitive to the opinions of the teachers.

58% felt their voices have not been heard when they expressed their professional opinions.

Through open-ended comments made on the survey, teachers feel greatly concerned about the inability of meeting students’ needs outside of class under any of the three proposals.

One other comment...uh...from a teacher was: Barrington used to have block scheduling and switched back due to limitations in scheduling choice and declining test scores. I would like to mention that surveys were also conducted at the other levels.

Pre-k level a 177 teachers responded to the survey regarding start time.

And while most, 70% of those teachers, recognize the need to adjust start times in the district, 37% of those teachers object to the change.

For the middle schools, 100 teachers responded. 73% of the teachers have objections to the change.

In summary, BEA has significant concerns about a change to the schedule in the near future. While science around this issue is clear...I, I learned it.. I went into this Committee with the belief that nothing should change...there’s too many, too many obstacles...we can't do it. And I learned that the science is clear. So while the science is clear, the solution to the issue in Barrington is not. While it is the Board's domain to make changes, it must be considered that: there are contract implications, significant staff concerns, as noted just now, and such great possible cost...when just tonight the Administration presented to the Board over 2.6 million dollars in reduction. These three points warrant a slow down of the start time change. The last point. The BEA is committed to working with Board, and the Administration, for a successful resolution to this very, very complicated issue.

Thanks for letting me go over (clapping).


{copied but re-formatting upon conversion--signature redacted}


My name is Jeff Nordquist, a Lake Barrington resident and former District 220 Board member. The topic of school start time is very close to home for my family, especially with 2 current high school students and a rising Kindergartner.During my 12 years on this Board, I had the privilege to serve alongside Dr. Tom Tonniges. "Dr. Tom" was a key leader for the American Academy of Pediatrics and was posthumously honored by having the AAP Lifetime Achievement Award for Vulnerable Children Advocacy named after him. I believe "Dr. Tom" was the first to bring the issue of school start times and pediatric health to this District's attention in the late 90's. He advocated on the issue several times, and we spent deliberate Board time discussing the science and practical limitations and challenges to making such a change. Given that understanding, I applaud the current Board and the dedicated volunteers of the Input 220 Advisory Council for their diligence and research.Unfortunately, there are several fatal problems with the current recommendations.

FIRST, when I served on this Board, we always promoted more rather than less teacher-student contact time. Even with his strong advocacy on this issue, I believe "Dr. Tom" would never have sold out class time for start time. Unwisely, the recommendations presented include an extreme decrease in the amount of class time - specifically 6 minutes per class, equating to 48 minutes per day or the equivalent loss of a full class per day. For the record, the community survey never assessed a trade-off between start time and class time.

SECOND, the potential use of block scheduling to mitigate some of this lost time is ill-advised. While we certainly strive to be the best college preparatory high school, we don't need the high school to run on a college type schedule. For example, I can't even imagine the impact on AP science classes running for a half school day at a time. Also of note, the community survey did not explore block scheduling options.

THIRD, with "zero hour" becoming teacher coordination and team planning time, students will lose the ability to come in before school for additional help.  I know my high schoolers immensely value that option.

FOURTH, starting high school at 9 :30am, 2 hours and 10 minutes later than today, is way too late. The 2014 recommendations from the AAP are for start times of 8:30. In fact, the in-depth nationwide study of start times cited by Input 220 had no school starting as late as 9:30 and the vast majority were between 8:30 and 8:45. Furthermore, often cited District 214 starts between 8:00 and 8:30am. Stevenson moved back their start time by 25 minutes to 8:30 and Buffalo Grove is exploring pushing back 30 minutes to 8:00. All these examples are much more reasonable alternatives.Additionally, under the current recommendation, the school day wouldn't end until almost 4pm. Students are unlikely to effectively utilize the extra 2 plus hours in the morning and thus just end up pushing back bedtime to participate in co-curriculars, work, and complete homework assignments. The new downtown Starbucks will likely profit however...

FIFTH, starting elementary school at 8:00am is too early. The current elementary start time works well - like former Office of Management and Budget Director Bert Lance once said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In addition to exploring start time changes, other no or low cost initiatives exist which the District can easily promote. According to the National Sleep Foundation, the increasing prevalence of electronics in children's bedrooms creates a culture of evening engagement and light exposure that negatively impacts sleep time, sleep quality, and daytime alertness. A study published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences investigated the effects of the type of blue light emitted by mobile devices. The cells at the back of our eyes contain a light­ sensitive protein that picks up certain wavelengths of light. These light-sensitive cells then send signals to the brain's "clock" that regulates the body's circadian rhythms. Normally, blue light peaks in the morning, signaling your body to wake up for the day. Red light increases in the evening, signaling that it is time to wind down and go to bed. By interrupting this natural cycle with the blue light emitted by mobile devices, the normal sleep-wake cycles are altered. Addressing this known scientific issue could certainly help our children's sleep situation through awareness and having parents curtailing their children from playing, texting, talking, watching, and surfing mobile devices at night.

In summary, I support a later high school start as I did as a Board member. However, we need to find an option that does the following:Has high school start times between 8:00am and 8:30am, which would allow 40-70 minutes of additional sleep Has elementary school start times close to those currently, around 9:00am Preserves or expands student-teacher contact time, while not invoking block scheduling Implements "no regrets" moves to improve student sleep, including awareness surrounding the use of mobile devices late into the evening If the start time issue is important for the health of our children and the quality of our education in District 2 20, then the appropriate investment ought to be made to optimally address it the right way - prioritizing recommendations largely on our unique bus transportation challenges is short sighted. This initiative and its merits for investment are really no different than the prioritized investments the District makes in quality teachers, technology, and healthy facilities.

Thank you for your time and attention.



Today: Barrington United for Education, Community Members Dedicated to Promoting and Sustaining Quality in District 220 Schools is counting on you

Barrington United for Education, Community Members Dedicated to Promoting and Sustaining Quality in District 220 Schools needs your help with “PETITION OBJECTING TO 2015/2016 CUSD 220 LATE START PROPOSALS BY INPUT220”. Join Barrington United for Education, Community Members Dedicated to Promoting and Sustaining Quality in District 220 Schools and 487 supporters today.