Letter: A 'solution' in search of a 'problem'

Posted 5/7/19

To the editor:

An Open Letter to the School Committee,

Many years ago, when our eldest child was about to enter kindergarten, we moved to Barrington from another Rhode Island community. We …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Letter: A 'solution' in search of a 'problem'

Posted

To the editor:

An Open Letter to the School Committee,

Many years ago, when our eldest child was about to enter kindergarten, we moved to Barrington from another Rhode Island community. We chose to raise our family in Barrington almost singularly because of its reputation for educational excellence. Over the years, our children have attended five of the six schools in the district. We have been very happy with the opportunities (both educational and extracurricular) that have been available to our children. We never questioned our decision to move to the Barrington Public Schools. We never questioned whether the schools would prepare our kids for college (our eldest graduates from BHS this year) or life beyond school. 

Until now. 

Over the last several years, we have attended many school committee meetings, meetings to give feedback, and the most recent “listening session” regarding the wildly unpopular initiative to delay school start times for high schoolers. Still, years since attending our first meeting on this topic, we have more questions than answers. Our first and most overarching question is why is the school committee pushing this forward so fervently?

Recently, US News and World Report published its rankings of 17,245 public high schools across the nation.  Barrington High School ranked #189. That is in the top 1.1 percent of over 17,000 schools! Furthermore, of the top 1,000 public schools, it was identified as #182 in STEM high schools (science, technology, engineering and math education). US News and World Report stated that schools were ranked “on their performance on state-required tests, graduation and how well they prepare students for college.” The publication noted that BHS’s graduation rate is 96 percent, with students solidly outperforming other schools in the state with regard to math and reading proficiency. Moreover, over 60 percent of Barrington students take and pass at least one AP exam while in high school. These statistics are phenomenal. The teachers, students, and principals of the Barrington Public Schools ought to be lauded. They are in the top 1.1 percent of public schools, nationwide!

Instead of appreciating this achievement, however, the school committee seems intent on pushing a divisive and expensive initiative forward, at all costs. It seems, unfortunately, like a “solution” in search of a “problem.” 

We deserve better.

Recently, we went to the “listening session” on the start time initiative, organized by the school committee. We were disappointed to learn that there seemed to be no concrete plan to deal with the practical and logistical impacts of an initiative that is set to go into effect in a few short months. 

Unfortunately, we were left with the honest belief that the current initiative, which does not seem to have the support of the majority of teachers, students or parents is going to significantly affect the reputation of the schools. 

Quite logically, the schools cannot offer (nor can the kids participate in) all the clubs, sports, and rigorous classes that they do now in less allotted time. The goal of the administration (per the listening session) is to keep the varsity sports schedule the same (no later) and not to shift activities to before school, which they acknowledge would defeat the purpose of the initiative. The result is that to keep everything as is, it has to fit into the more condensed afternoon time frame. 

Obviously, and logically, something has to give. 

We were quite disgruntled at the listening session where "hope" was hands down the word of the day. As in, "it is our hope that"...other districts will work with us for athletic contests (the failure mode, mind you, is kids being dismissed from school early to play sports, which will erode both the academic experience and our reputation for excellence). “It is our hope that…” teachers will stay later for after school help (they are apparently not contractually obligated to do so, even now, and some teachers have already expressed an inability to do so with the start time change)…etc. etc. 

Hope. Hope that all these issues which have been foreseeable for years will suddenly, somehow, be solved without undue expense to our wallets or student achievement. Frankly, there was no good plan. In fact, the plan seemed to be “hope it works out and somehow work out the kinks on the way.” Not satisfying (especially for those of us who have rising juniors...not the time to be a guinea pig in this huge experiment)!

Finally, at the “listening session” we heard some further surprising things that left us questioning the wisdom of this expensive initiative. We heard the sleep expert provided by the school committee acknowledge, in response to questions, that sleep schedules could be adjusted by behavior (for example, by limiting electronics late at night). She also stated that bright lights in the classroom could be a possible solution in lieu of delaying start times (incredibly, she then deemed that “too expensive.”(!)).  

Significantly, the sleep expert, in response to concerns raised by attendees, stated that delaying start times “only works if the community is behind it.” As previously stated, it is clear that the community is not behind this initiative.  

Instead, one need only look to two separate petitions on Change.org, which have cumulatively gathered over 1,800 signatures from teachers, students and community members. We also heard several distressing things related to the cost of the initiative. The budget adds almost $250,000 this year for a “two-tiered bus system” which has the primary (if not sole) purpose of supporting this initiative. As anyone who attended school committee meetings in the recent past will recognize, however, a major discussion point had been “capturing efficiencies” (and increasing costs) so that no child in the district was riding a bus for more than 30 minutes.  Projections for the two-tiered system, however, reportedly have routes where kids, only a year later, are riding buses for 45-50 minutes in order to make the start time initiative work!  

Either we are unclear as to our district’s goals (and their financial impact) or the busing issue has been simply a means to an end in order to disguise the actual financial burden of the initiative. 

As taxpayers, we deserve better. Further, as discussed above, there were many other unknowns regarding the actual logistical impacts of the delayed start times. In short, there are some foreseeable issues and costs, and an undetermined number of “work out the kinks” costs which are unknown and unaddressed. For example, when questioned, after acknowledging that some sports will be impacted by sunlight (or the lack thereof), the administration revealed that an estimate for additional lighting of fields would be one half of one million dollars! (If “hope” does not work out, and fields need additional lighting, will taxpayers be footing this bill…or will kids no longer have all the opportunities that made our high school recognized as being in the top 1.1 percent of public high schools in the nation?)  

Perhaps one of the hardest things to witness during the “listening session” was the large number of educators in the district that felt strongly enough to attend this meeting (which lasted until almost 10 p.m. on a school night.)  Significantly, we heard a high school educator ask the superintendent why, when tasked with making potential cuts to the budget, cuts were threatened to teachers and athletics….but NOT to the almost $250,000 allotted for buses (to support a later start time).  

This unrelenting insistence on pushing the initiative, which is not supported by the majority of parents, students or teachers, is clearly in danger of alienating the teachers who play a large part in making our high school a nationally recognized institution. Ninety-eight point nine percent of public high schools in the nation would love to be in our position. Why on earth are we even entertaining this initiative with so many risks, unknowns and no clear plan?

Respectfully, we ask that the school committee and superintendent listen to the very rational and serious concerns of all of the community stake holders. To continue to push through this wildly unpopular initiative, we are risking great expense, both financially and to the student achievement that has made our district a nationally recognized example of success.

Parisa and Greg Beers

Barrington

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
Jim McGaw

A lifelong Portsmouth resident, Jim graduated from Portsmouth High School in 1982 and earned a journalism degree from the University of Rhode Island in 1986. He's worked two different stints at East Bay Newspapers, for a total of 18 years with the company so far. When not running all over town bringing you the news from Portsmouth, Jim listens to lots and lots and lots of music, watches obscure silent films from the '20s and usually has three books going at once. He also loves to cook crazy New Orleans dishes for his wife of 25 years, Michelle, and their two sons, Jake and Max.