A Pine-Richland School District committee formed to study school times and whether they should be changed to accommodate teen body clocks has been dissolved and school officials do not plan any changes.
Superintendent James Manley will take the issue to the Allegheny Intermediate Unit and the Western Pennsylvania Forum for Superintendents for further study.
While district officials did not endorse the idea, they did study it and concluded that any changes would have to be made regionally in order to be effective.
A group of parents brought the issue before the school board earlier this year, arguing students would be well-served academically if they started classes later, which would allow them more sleep time.
National studies show that teens, while often as busy as adults, have different biological clocks requiring more sleep and, therefore, later starting times for high schools.
While some school administrators find the argument valid, they encounter a myriad of hurdles — including busing issues and sports scheduling — that have blocked them from changing the time for high school classes. Yet others believe the data, even if it's valid, isn't worth a major reorganization of schedules.
Based on a National Sleep Foundation study, people 12 to 25 years old require 8 1 / 2 to 9 1 / 4 hours of sleep each night. But getting that much sleep does not necessarily negate the effects of daytime sleepiness, the study said.
What's more, adolescents tend to stay awake until after 11 p.m.
The report said only 15 percent of adolescents nationwide reported getting 8 1 / 2 hours of sleep.
As a result, the foundation advocates legislation encouraging high schools to start no earlier than 9 a.m. Pine-Richland High School starts classes at 7:35 a.m.
Manley said the issue came up about three years ago at a meeting of the Western Pennsylvania Forum for Superintendents.
District spokeswoman Judi Boren said the issue, for now, is being put to rest in Pine-Richland.
"I think that we realize that that issue is bigger than we are," Boren said. "There are compelling arguments all around it, but it is just a bigger issue than we can take on.
"We're not claiming victory or defeat there. It's just probably an idea whose time hasn't come here."
