Voice Your Concerns: BOE Meeting 3/1/16 at 6 p.m., BHS Cafeteria

It is important that your silence does not equal assent to Iput220's three proposals and all the drastic changes that are a consequence of those proposals. Please attend tonight's BOE meeting at the BHS Cafeteria, Open Session at 6:00 p.m. Make sure your understanding and the Administrations' definitions of the language being used to define the proposed curriculum structure changes across the middle and high schools are the same by reading the District's plan, specifically starting on pages 6-7, and 17-19. http://www.boarddocs.com/il/barrington220/Board.nsf/files/9ZYUZK6CB102/$file/Barrington220BlendedPlan.pdf. Below is BUE's open letter to the BOE dated 3/1/16 (reformatted for posting here): March 1, 2016 Board of Education Barrington Community Unit School District 220 310 James Street Barrington, IL 6010 Delivered via email Re: Input 220 Start Time Proposals Dear Members of the Board of Education: On behalf of Barrington United for Education, we are writing in response to the presentations by the Input 220 Committee and the high school administration during the board’s February 16 and 23 meetings, and the numerous public comments expressed at both. With this letter we also are submitting updated signature and comment lists regarding online petition initially shared with you in our letter of February 16. As of February 29, 430 persons had signed the petition and left 142 comments.(1) It is our continuing hope that this information will provide the board with additional insight into the potential impacts of the recommended time changes and the depth of concern they have raised among District 220 parents and teachers. We would like reiterate that we dispute neither the body of science that supports later middle and high school start times, nor the desirability of altering District 220 school day schedules to allow for later starts, particularly at the high school level. This view appears to be widely shared, even among individuals who publically have objected to the three specific start proposals presented to the board. This underscores the need for the board to find a balanced approach that will yield sleep ­related benefits without undue costs such as the loss of instructional time, the imposition of a block schedule, and intrusion on students’ ability to participate in extracurricular activities. High school teacher feedback To that end, we urge the board to give full consideration to the views of District 220 teachers shared during the February 23 meeting, which provided a perspective that largely seems to have been absent from the discussion. The information presented cited the results of a recent survey of 142 Barrington High School teachers, which included findings that: ● 33% of teachers surveyed felt they cannot fulfill their job requirements with a compressed school day ● 65% felt that it is very important to retain current length of class period ● 40% believed instructional efficacy will decrease with a compressed class time schedule of 43 minutes ● 66% disagreed with the block schedules proposed ● Of the staff that had opinions about block scheduling, 68% felt that academic achievement will decrease These results parallel the concerns about the loss of instructional time and impacts on academic quality voiced by parents since the first three start time proposals were made public on January 27. They contradict the assertions that the loss of instructional time can be regained through gains in efficiency of teaching and learning. In addition to academics, the survey results raise serious doubts about the continuing vitality of BHS co­curricular and extracurricular activities under the three proposals. Among the relevant results: ● 72% of teachers believed co­curricular activities would run too late for students ● 77% believed that 9:00 to 9:30 start times are too late to accommodate after ­school clubs and sport activities ● 63% of the 102 teachers who sponsor a club or coach a sport said that the change in start time will affect their ability to continue in their role Leaving aside the substantive views behind the survey results, the fact that large majorities of BHS teachers have serious misgivings about the proposals indicates that implementing a restructured high school day will be much more tenuous and complicated than asserted by the high school administration. The significant doubts raised by teachers expressing their professional judgment also indicate that the three proposals before the board are not workable in their present form without compromising both academic quality and extracurricular offerings. Accordingly, we urge the board to either reject the three proposals and start anew, or embark on a process with sufficient additional data collection, research, consultation with classroom teachers, and other input to craft reasonable alternatives. It is also important to note the survey findings regarding teachers’ views about the responsiveness of the district’s administration to their concerns: only 42% of responses/reflected a belief that the administration has been sensitive to the opinions of the teachers, and 58% felt their voices have not been heard when they expressed their professional opinions. We have no insights into the “hows” and “whys” underlying this perception, but as current and future high school parents it is extremely disconcerting that a sizeable portion of the high school teaching staff does not appear to be on the same page as the administration; nor do they believe that the valuable insights from their daily experience in high school classrooms are being considered. Addressing this crisis of confidence should be a matter of urgent priority. This perception also suggests that the failure to include more classroom teaching staff on the Input 220 Committee was a design flaw that helped lead to three proposals that a majority of teachers view as unsound. The public reaction We are acutely aware that during the past month, school start times have emerged as a hotly debated issue in the community. We recognize that there is a degree of surprise that this issue has stirred so much passion. We also are aware that some may disagree with our role in seeking to raise awareness of the proposals and in calling attention to defects that threaten to compromise educational quality in District 220. We cannot apologize for our efforts, but we will endeavor to foster civility and mutual respect as the board wrestles with this complicated issue. We believe that the board’s attention should focus on identifying the way forward. However, an assessment of how to move forward often must be accompanied by an examination of the question, “how did we get here?” In the interest of helping the board answer that question, we offer the following observations: ● In our discussions with other District 220 parents, we have found the concerns about instructional time and quality to be widespread and heartfelt. The educational quality of District 220 schools is a, if not the, driving motivation for many families to live within district boundaries. For many parents, a perceived threat to the schools is not a matter of personal discomfort, it is a foundational issue. ● As we explained earlier, many parents both understand the scientific basis for shifting start times later, and generally support measured approaches toward that goal. ● Accordingly, the public reaction has not centered on the prospect of change itself, but on the manner in which that change would be accomplished. Before January 27 there was no information conveyed to the broader public that shrinking the high school day by 57 minutes was not just under consideration, but would be a central feature in all three proposals released by the Input Committee. (2) ● Despite the efforts of the board to define the scope and details of the Input 220 Committee’s role in a four ­page charge, we believe there is widespread confusion about the role of the committee and its interaction with the board. This has been aggravated by the degree to which the committee has shifted from an advisory role to an advocacy role, with committee members making strong public statements in favor of the swift adoption of a proposal and working to refute the legitimate concerns raised by other parents. ● In addition to this, many parents with whom we have spoken believe the District 220 administration also has engaged in aggressive advocacy in support of the proposals, and has done so through provocative emotional appeals, selective use of information, and emphasizing the perceived benefits of the proposals while failing to acknowledge their costs. These parents have cited this advocacy as a source of distrust of the administration. Some parents have told us they believe the advocacy approach of the administration and Input Committee is a sign that adoption of one of the three recommended proposals is a “done deal.” We have tried to counter this myth. (It is difficult to encourage people to engage in public discussion if they believe the issue under consideration is a fait accompli.) Cynicism about the board of education, the district, and the process related to start time changes is to no one’s benefit. Our public schools are one of this community’s most treasured public institutions, and they require protection, not derision. In order to turn the page, we hope the board will speak, and speak soon, about how it views the proposals, how it intends to proceed, and how it will preserve the educational excellence of District 220 as it moves forward. We urge that in determining its next steps, the board should acknowledge the impacts of the current proposals on District 220 schools, recognize the high level of concern in the community, commit to collecting broad (and informed) public input, and taking a rigorous cost­benefit approach to developing any plan to adjust school start times in the district. Thank you for your consideration. Christine Bedard BUE Founding Member Cristina Chmiel BUE Founding Member David Holtermann BUE Founding Member FOOTNOTES 1. https://www.change.org/p/petition­objecting­to­2015­2016­cusd­220­late­start­proposals­by­input220 2 Without restating any pro or con arguments, it is worth noting how unusual these proposals are compared to the baseline of start time changes implemented in other school districts. The Input 220 Committee cited the April 2014 report issued by Children’s National Medical Center’s Blueprint for Change Team, which has assisted in start time change proposals in the Fairfax County (Virginia) Public Schools. (See http://www.barrington220.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=20413&dataid=30618&FileName=Blueprint­Change­School­Start­Time­Change­ReportFinal4­14­14.pdf.) That report includes a “grid” with data from dozens of school districts nationwide that have implemented later start times. Of the 30 districts for which comparative high school start time data was presented, 18 districts changed start times without any impact on the duration of the school day. Eight districts reduced the school day, in increments of: 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes (in three districts), 7 minutes, 15 minutes, and 45 minutes (in one instance). Four districts actually increased the length of the high school day by: 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and 20 minutes respectively. Next to these districts, all three of the original Input 220 proposals are outliers, and the 21­minute reduction proposed by Option H still exceeds the reduction in all but one district. Even parents familiar with this literature would have had little reason to expect proposals to cut nearly an hour from the high school day. 220 schools, recognize the high level of concern in the community, commit to collecting broad (and informed) public input, and taking a rigorous cost­benefit approach to developing any plan to adjust school start times in the district.