Wrapping up six months of research and community outreach regarding the possibility of moving back high school start times, the High School Start-Time Committee recommended to the Mercer Island School Board on Thursday that no changes be made to current high school bell times.

Although the committee determined more sleep would be beneficial for high school students, it stated in a report presented to the board that the “benefits are outweighed by undesirable consequences that would impact the large majority of our high school students.”

Committee member Frances Osman said discussions with faculty members brought concerns that a later start could mean students leaving school early for after-school activities would stretch further back into the school day, as well as school commute times moving into rush hour.

“They certainly understand and realize the benefit of having a later start time and in an ideal world, would love to have kids start later so they could sleep later in the morning,” Osman said. “However, there were substantial concerns amongst the administrators and I would say all of them feel it would be difficult thing to do at this time.”

Committee member Gavin Cree said there was significant concern from Mercer Island music instructors about the continuity of the band and orchestra programs. Performance times already run on a tight schedule, and teachers have to accommodate band students who participate in multiple extracurricular activities.  Paige Behrbaum said the general consensus among discussions with students was the current system works, so why change it.

“Common themes in their feedback were that 15 minutes later didn’t seem like very much and 30 was too much and too disruptive to all the things they were trying to do after school, and they didn’t want to make activity choices,” she said.

In a survey of over 1200 respondents taken by the committee, gathering input from high school students, staff members and parents, more than half of those surveyed were opposed to moving back start times to 8:30 a.m. for the 2016-17 school year. A total of 44 percent of respondents answered they were strongly opposed, while 8 percent said they were somewhat opposed.

High school students were the most likely to oppose the change, with nearly 54 percent responding strongly against later start times. The majority of parents of high school students also opposed the change, with 48 percent saying they were strongly against it. Parents of younger students (elementary and middle school) were the most likely to support it, with 61 percent saying they were strongly in favor.

But members of the School Board weren’t quick to dismiss later start times. Responding to a remark that the structure of the band program would be in jeopardy with later start times, board director Dave Myerson weighed the return of such a change.

“[Later start times] will apparently alter the structure as we know it, everybody has testified to that,” Myerson said. “But the actual value of starting late is still clear, so the conclusion that I draw is that we should alter the structure as we know it, and yes, it’s going to take time and effort.”

Board member Adair Dingle noted many of the concerns made for pushing back start times were the same issues that arose when the district moved from 7:20 a.m. to 8 a.m. high school start times over a decade ago. She added what is different now is the amount of evidence recommending an 8:30 a.m. start time, citing the recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which was released in a 2014 policy statement.

“It’s fairly common now to read how 8:30 a.m. is the push the high schools are going toward across the country because that is the earliest recommended start time for high schools,” Dingle said. “I agree with the concept there has to be a little more education made so that the value, which is much more indisputable than it was 12-13 years ago, takes precedence over adherence to a current schedule.”

Superintendent Dr. Gary Plano called the problem a “technical problem in a political sphere,” and asked the board to think about what additional information they would want moving forward. He said the board could potentially discuss the topic at its board retreat June 25.