SB 328 SPARKS CONTROVERSY OVER SCHOOL START TIMES
Later school starts may seem like a good implementation at first glance, but the effects that they could have on students’ daily lives and overall society could be more impactful than anticipated. On Sept. 20, California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill (SB) 328, which would require middle schools and high schools in the state to start school no earlier than 8:30 a.m., except in rural areas. According to U.S. News and World Report, he opposed the “one size fits all” approach to the regulation of school start times, meaning that he believes that start times should be decided by individual school boards rather than the state government. While at first glance the bill may seem like a good idea, the busy lives of teenagers were not taken into account, as well as the schedule that the rest of our society revolves around. Therefore, SB 328 would do much more harm than good for not only students, but also for California residents as a whole.
The lives of students at Peninsula and other schools in California revolve around their school schedules, but many also have particular interests and wish to take extra courses. According to California Legislative Information, the bill does not mention anything about altering the total amount of school hours in a day, and it can be inferred that school would run later into the afternoon given that the school day would start at a later time and class periods would be the same length. Activities such as sports teams, student government programs and music are just a few commitments that take place after school and run late into the afternoon. If school times coincided with the time students spend pursuing outside interests, it could affect not only the extracurricular activities in which they participate, but it could also result in the loss of personal expression and individuality. Without the time to pursue their interests, students could have less opportunities of exploration, which could have deleterious ramifications on personal expression and their future career pathways. If activities ran later into the night to prevent any overlap with school, it would also result in less time to complete homework, and could result in poor performance in classes, or a continuous lack of sleep, which could negatively impact the health of students. Although one could argue that, since school would start at a later time, the law would benefit the sleep schedule of students, almost the exact opposite could occur. If students get out of school later, then many may simply stay up later to finish their work. For example, students such as sophomore Brandon Marr, who participates in Peninsula football and baseball programs after school, would be severely impacted by this law.
“Having less time to do homework would affect my grades because getting home later than everybody else already gives me a small window to complete all my assignments,” Marr said. “If I got even less time with the bill I would most likely have to take easier classes to keep up with the workload.”
The bill also includes the statement that schools would be required to dissolve the idea of a zero period, or an extra period offered before the start of the regular school day. In the busy lives of high school students, many students trying to take another course or participate in another extracurricular activity would have a disadvantage since they would not have the option to take an additional class early in the day. Sophomore Paulina Garmute, among other students in similar positions, would need to completely revise her schedule to accommodate the change.
“Without a zero, I would not be able to accomplish as much during the day, or leave early so that I could attend tennis and speech and debate,” Garmute said. “Students like me take a zero so they can go to their other activities. Losing the ability to take part in my interests would not only affect my high school life, but could negatively impact my college applications and life for years to come.”
Not only would the bill affect students, but it could also have severe negative consequences when it comes to the convenience of parents and staff. By moving the school start time to later in the morning, many working parents would struggle to find a solution to dropping off their children at school while also meeting their busy work standards.
Sophomore Ronjini Chatterjee, who has to wake up early to get to school in order to accommodate her parent’s work schedules, would be one among many students whose parents would be negatively impacted by the change.
“It was the right choice to not pass this law, as it is impactful to such a broad range of people and would ask many to change important aspects of their lives,” Chatterjee explained. “For those whose parents rely on school starting early, passing a law like this could completely change their schedules.”
By vetoing SB 328, Gov. Jerry Brown has preserved the regularity in both the lives of students and parents. The government should not have control over school start times, as they cannot predict or understand the environment and varying circumstances prevalent in student’s lives. California should continue to protect its students by offering individual school districts the choice on how to regulate their schools and by providing students with the time and freedom to explore various interests.
“In the end, vetoing the bill was the right call,” Chatterjee said. “Students will continue to have the time needed to participate in activities while also getting their homework done and have the necessary ability to establish and handle problems locally for years to come.”
