Parents, students and teachers urge USD 383 to reopen school start-times decision

Public commenters pressed the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education to reopen a recently approved three‑tier schedule that would move some elementary school start times to 7:30 a.m., saying the decision lacked adequate community input and risks student safety and extracurricular participation.

Anton Kucherov, a resident, told the board he reviewed the primary research and said the paper the district cited “resulted in 0 benefit for the high schoolers” and was underpowered for elementary‑age children. He urged the board to “read the primary sources” and to repeat the district survey because, he argued, it was not conducted fairly.

Several teachers and parents described practical consequences they said the earlier elementary bell would impose. Middle‑school teacher and parent Amanda Kump said later dismissal times for older students would push extracurriculars and coaching into family dinner hours, potentially forcing volunteer coaches to stop and risking loss of programs. “If we lose these educators and these coaches and these sponsors, we don’t just change schedules. We lose programs, we lose mentors,” she said.

Student speakers and parents also raised safety and sleep concerns. Seventh‑grader Julian Stafford said he rides a bus that would require him to be outdoors at about 6:30 a.m. and pleaded for a later start: “I don’t want to go in the freezing cold and it’s really dark.” Another commenter cited sunrise data and warned that 7:30 a.m. bell times would leave many young children waiting at dark bus stops.

Some commenters proposed alternatives and process fixes rather than opposing the larger goal of later start times for older students. Jordan Shin Stock, who said they served on a committee of local realtors, asked the board to reopen discussion now that a new board majority will implement changes and requested a follow‑up survey that lists concrete start‑time permutations for families to evaluate.

Board members acknowledged the concerns and the limits of current research, while differing on next steps. One board member said, “07:30 in the morning is too early to be starting school, in my opinion,” but also emphasized the need for a three‑tier bus system and thorough vetting. The board did not take formal action to change the approved schedule at the meeting; public comment rules were reiterated and the clerk said items raised would be referred to administrators for further research.

The board will meet again on Feb. 4 at 6:30 p.m.; several trustees indicated they would consider whether to place start times back on a future agenda for fuller community review.

Ending: The board received requests to pause and reexamine the implementation plan but left policy in place for the time being, directing staff to accept further input via email and follow up in future meetings.