Parents Support Later Start Times for High School

A new, national survey released by the University of Michigan has found that 50 percent of parents who have teenage children would support later start times for high school.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


A new, national survey released by the University of Michigan has found that 50 percent of parents who have teenage children would support later start times for high school. That number might not impress you. But it is much higher than even a few years ago, when many parents felt that such a change would cause practical problems. A steady drumbeat of studies showing that teens who start school later are healthier, safer and smarter is having a real affect on public opinion. As a result, more and more school districts across the U.S. are beginning the day later or are considering doing so.

The university conducted the survey of 636 parents of teens in November and December 2014 after the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement saying that middle and high schools should begin class at 8:30 a.m. or later. The recommendation brought a lot of attention to the issue, which has simmered for years. Although the Michigan study found that only 20 percent of parents had heard about the academy’s recommendation, when the pollsters told parents about it, 71 percent agreed with the endorsement.

The growing awareness is opportune because a different study released Monday by the Columbia University School of Public Health reported that American teens have become increasingly sleep deprived over the past 20 years. In 1991, for example, 72 percent of 15-year-olds reported getting seven or more hours of sleep regularly; in 2012 only 63 percent of that age group slept that much. The National Sleep Foundation recommends that teens get nine hours a night—more than adults or younger children.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Studies demonstrating the benefits of later high school start times are piling up. That’s because biological research confirms that circadian rhythms shift during the teen years, pushing boys and girls to stay up later at night and sleep later into the morning. Forcing them to start school early—before 8:00 a.m. in many districts around the country, cuts into their natural sleep cycles. That, in turn, makes them groggy during early morning classes and can undermine their attention the entire day.

A large examination last year by Kyla Wahlstrom at the University of Minnesota that tracked more than 9,000 students in eight public high schools found that grades earned in math, English, science and social studies typically rose after just one semester of delaying the opening bell to 8:35 a.m. or later. A 2012 survey of North Carolina school districts found that later start times correlated with higher scores in math and reading. Other recent investigations link later starts to higher school attendance and lower depression rates among teens, all because they are getting more of the extra sleep they need.

In Fayette County, Kentucky, crash rates of teenage drivers dropped 16.5 percent in the two years after start times were delayed one hour (which happened 10 years ago), compared with the two years before the change. Data provided to Sleep Cycle by teens who use its smart-phone app indicate that those who get less sleep have greater levels of stress than those who sleep even just a little longer.

What’s more, communities find that the usual worries about starting school later do not pan out, according to an analysis by the National Sleep Foundation. Students still succeed in holding part-time jobs, and after-school programs such as sports and theater still run well.

“I get tired of the argument that these kids have to do all these activities and community service and therefore can’t start school later,” Wahlstrom told me for a story I wrote on this topic last August. “The issue is not the start time,” she said then. “It’s that the students are overly busy. There is too much pressure to cram it all in just to have a good resume to get into college.” Students, parents and school advisors should all be more judicious with what students choose to participate in, she said, with emphasis on doing certain activities well rather than compiling a long list.

Photo courtesy of Send Me Adrift on Flickr

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe