Proposed school day changes by District 203 administrators have faced pushback from some members of the public, with dozens packing the Feb. 3 Board of Education meeting to speak against the changes. A smaller group was also present at the Feb. 18 board meeting. Many staff members also spoke against the changes.
After an almost two hour long presentation by district administration to the board at the Feb. 3 meeting, over 25 members of the public spoke during the public comment time, with an additional 78 pages of public comment submitted via written communication, the vast majority of whom were against some element of the proposed changes. A video produced by the district about student perspectives of the changes was also shown.
The proposed changes are three pronged. The proposal seeks to change the internal school day design across all levels, including a shift at the high school level to a modified block schedule. It also looks to shift start and end time across all levels, with elementary starting and ending first, followed by high school starting and ending second, and middle schools shifting to start and end last.
“It’s abundantly clear that the parents and staff have fundamental concerns with being excluded from participating in the decision-making process from the beginning,” board member Melissa Kelley Black said. “They do not feel that the plan is developed enough to be properly implemented next year and that the hardships created for our families as well as staff far outweigh any potential benefits at this time.”
Many members of the public also voiced concerns over the implementation timeline for the proposal, which seeks to implement the changes for the 2025-26 school year.
“I do support the recommendation because I do like how it addresses time but I am concerned that we might be doing this too quickly,” Board President Kristine Gericke said. “I’ve shared this with [the] administration. Maybe we do part of the change in [2025-26] school year and then the [2026-27] school year.”
A survey by the Naperville Unit Education Association, which represents District 203 teachers, found that 77.9% of elementary staff were not in favor of the proposed start and end times. For the elementary school day, the proposal would shift it to a 7:45 a.m. start and a 2:12 p.m. end time from its current 8:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. school day. When asked about the additional 15 minutes in the elementary school day, 63.5% were not in favor of the change.
“Starting the elementary school day at 7:45 puts us way out of line with neighboring districts and will make it challenging for young students to get enough sleep,” said Julia Alamillo, a parent of an elementary student in District 203.
Other speakers also voiced concerns over logistical challenges with childcare due to the shifted start and end times.
When asked for their opinion about the junior high start and end times, 82.2% of junior high staff were against the change, which would shift the school day to 8:50 a.m. to 3:40 p.m., while the current school day lasts from 8 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. Responses were mixed among staff regarding the shift to a modified block schedule at the junior high level, with 31.2% of respondents selecting “I do not want to go to modified block at all.”
“After thorough discussions with our coaches, intramural supervisors and fellow athletic directors, the shift to a 3:40 p.m. dismissal will present considerable challenges that could negatively affect participation, program sustainability, and overall student experience,” all six junior high athletic directors wrote in pre-submitted public comment for the Feb. 3 meeting.
Due to the changes, some staff members’ stipend positions may be impacted if they coach or sponsor activities at schools whose dismissal will now fall before that of their own.
“We can never promise positions, however, we will work with all level administrators and athletic directors to ensure that those who have stipends for coaching or sponsoring within our district continue to have that opportunity if they so desire,” Superintendent Dan Bridges wrote in an email sent to staff on Jan. 24.
Parents who spoke at the meeting also voiced concerns over logistical challenges stemming from the proposed 50 minute later start time.
“This does not work for working families and therefore our children,” said Jill Sowell, a District 203 parent and teacher. “Students likely won’t be getting the benefit of additional sleep as they’ll have to be woken up before their parents go to work to ensure that they are up and ready to go to school before their parents leave.”
The high school survey had much more parity when compared to some of the middle or elementary level questions asked in the NUEA survey. In response to “How do you feel about moving to the proposed modified block schedule,” 28.8% of respondents were not in favor, while 21% were. This data is similar to an anonymous voluntary survey conducted by the Central Times to Naperville Central staff, where 30.1% of respondents were largely favorable to the modified block schedule, while 25% were largely unfavorable.
“It’s just too abrupt,” Central junior Deven Patel said. “They are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. Block schedules have shown to be somewhat ineffective, especially for schools in our area. Local SAT scores have declined with the block schedule as well as in-class test scores just because of the lack of repetition that these classes have, meeting every other day.”
Ben Berkoff, a Central junior, attended the Feb. 18 meeting in opposition to the changes.
“This will be very harmful to AP classes, fast-paced courses and honor courses that have a very strict curriculum,” Berkoff said at the Feb. 18 meeting. “Let’s not forget the amount of time that will be missed from our students’ poor attention spans.”
The proposal will shift high school classes to two 85-minute blocks, as well as an anchor day on Wednesday with 46 minute periods where all classes meet.
“I am also concerned about the amount of time and effort it will take for us, as teachers, to retool everything we do to fit within 85 minute blocs,” wrote Central Social Studies teacher Lynne Hanley in a written comment submitted for the Feb. 3 meeting. “We will need to redesign lessons, rebuild calendars and rethink assessments, especially because the loss of instructional time will also mean we need to cut content. That will take a considerable amount of time. In the new schedule, our prep time will also be reduced by 20 minutes per week.”
The NUEA contract ends at the end of the 2024-25 school year, and any change to instructional minutes will require changes in the bargaining agreement.
“To be able to hear something out there in a propaganda video about something that hasn’t been negotiated and needs to be negotiated and is really kind of is upsetting,” said Dan Iverson, NUEA second vice president and a Naperville North teacher.
After some community members voiced concerns and reports of administration members at the building level calling in employees who spoke out against the changes, Bridges said that after an investigation there was no evidence to support punitive actions or reprimands against staff voicing concerns.
There will be an update to the proposal timeline at the March 10 board meeting, according to Bridges. After the board voiced concerns at the Feb. 3 meeting, the proposal was listed as a discussion without action item on the Feb. 18 agenda.
