Saint Louis Public Schools may be on the verge of a schedule reset that sleep researchers and pediatricians have urged for years: Moving middle and high school start times later, away from the district’s earliest 7:15 a.m. bell that currently puts some teens at bus stops before sunrise.
In preliminary discussions, district leaders have floated a two-tier system with start times around 8 and 9:30 a.m., a significant shift that proponents say could improve attendance, first-period learning, and student well-being.
The proposal—framed locally as Healthy Start Times and recently rebranded “Thrive Times” by district leaders—draws on a growing body of evidence that adolescent circadian rhythms naturally run later. For many teens, early mornings are biologically misaligned.
“When we send teenagers to school at 7 a.m., it can feel like 3 a.m. to their brains,” says Dr. Yo-El Ju, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Washington University in St. Louis. “Their biology is simply not aligned with those early start times.”
Your guide to a healthier, happier you
Sign up for the St. Louis Wellness newsletter and get practical tips for a balanced, healthy life in St. Louis.
National medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend middle and high schools begin at 8:30 a.m. or later. Real-world studies help explain why: When Seattle delayed high school start times by nearly an hour, students slept longer without significantly shifting their bedtimes. In Wake County, North Carolina, on the other hand, when high schools moved start times earlier, tardies increased by 48 percent and absences rose by 10 percent.
Ju notes that today’s early bells are not necessarily the norm people remember. “School start times have gradually moved earlier over the past 20 or 30 years,” she says. “So when adults say they managed just fine, they may not realize students today are often being asked to start even earlier than they were.”
For Hanley Chiang, an SLPS parent and social scientist who helps coordinate the Healthy Start Times effort, the evidence has long felt too strong to ignore. “The 7:15 a.m. start time is not aligned with the recommendations of major medical associations,” Chiang says. “And we have strong evidence that later start times improve attendance and academic outcomes.”
Parents in the district first began organizing around bell schedules more than a decade ago, forming task forces and surveying families. What started as a small parent-led effort in the early 2010s has evolved into a formal proposal now in front of the Board of Education.
A change that brings operational challenges
SLPS currently operates on a three-tier system, with schools beginning around 7:15, 8:15/8:30, and 9:15 a.m. The proposed shift would move the district to a two-tier schedule, with start times around 8 and 9:30 a.m.
The change would not take effect this school year but is being considered for 2026–27. Superintendent Myra Berry is expected to make a recommendation to the board in April, following further community feedback and survey results scheduled to be presented at Tuesday’s board meeting.
“We want to make decisions that are grounded in data and what’s best for our students,” Berry said during a recent community conversation about the proposal. “But we also have to consider the operational realities.”
Those realities are significant. If the science appears straightforward, the implementation is not.
Moving from a three-tier to a two-tier system would require additional buses and drivers, with district officials estimating costs between $3.5 million and $5 million. Transportation routes would need to be restructured, and adjustments would be required for athletics, extracurricular activities, and before- and aftercare programs.
District leaders have pointed to a recently awarded federal grant supporting electric buses, which could offset some long-term transportation expenses. Still, upfront costs and coordination challenges remain central to the debate.
Advocates, however, argue the conversation is about more than convenience.
Research suggests later start times can yield the largest academic gains among students who were previously lower achieving, Chiang says—potentially narrowing achievement gaps between more and less advantaged students. Families with lower incomes are also more likely to experience disrupted sleep due to work schedules, housing instability, or neighborhood noise—factors that early school bells can exacerbate.
In districts that have shifted start times later, improvements in attendance have been particularly pronounced in schools serving economically disadvantaged populations. Like districts nationwide, SLPS has faced persistent attendance challenges that have only grown since the pandemic. Ju adds that studies suggest even modest increases in sleep—another 30 minutes per night, for example—can translate into measurable improvements in attendance and classroom performance.
In contrast, districts that have moved start times earlier have documented immediate spikes in tardiness and absences, particularly in first-period classes, Chiang explains. Missing consistent instruction early in the day can ripple into later coursework, especially in subjects like algebra, where concepts build sequentially.
Still, not all families are convinced a later start is the right solution.
Some parents have raised concerns about coordinating elementary and high school schedules, particularly in households where older siblings provide after-school care. Others worry about athletic schedules or students who hold part-time jobs. A frequent question at community meetings: If many college classes begin at 7:30 or 8 a.m., shouldn’t high school prepare students for that reality?
Supporters counter that most colleges offer greater scheduling flexibility than K–12 systems and that adolescence represents a uniquely sensitive biological window.
“Teenagers aren’t lazy,” Ju says. “Their internal clocks are wired later. If we want them alert and ready to learn, we have to align school schedules with that reality.”
The chance to join a national movement
St. Louis is not alone in the debate. California passed legislation requiring most middle and high schools to begin no earlier than 8 or 8:30 a.m., and districts from Seattle to Minneapolis have reported gains in sleep duration and attendance after shifting bell times.
The local discussion also arrives as March marks National Sleep Awareness Month—a reminder that sleep is not a luxury but a foundational pillar of health. Ju explains that insufficient or irregular sleep has increasingly been linked to higher risks of heart disease, depression, and cognitive decline. For teens, the effects are more immediate: Mood regulation, reaction time, attention span, and academic performance all hinge on adequate rest.
For now, the proposal remains under review. District officials are encouraging families, staff, and students to complete surveys and attend the live stream of Tuesday’s board meeting, when additional details about transportation, athletics, and projected costs will be shared.
If the board ultimately approves the shift, the first bell of the 2026–27 school year could ring later for thousands of St. Louis teens. On paper, the proposal would simply move a bell from 7:15 to 8 or later. In practice, it could mean fewer students fighting biology before sunrise—and more walking into first period, ready to learn.
“The science has been consistent for years,” Ju says. “This isn’t a trend—it’s a correction. We’re finally aligning school schedules with what we know about adolescent biology. The question now isn’t whether later start times help—it’s whether communities are willing to act on the evidence.”
The change, Ju adds, isn’t just about the daily grind of the moment. “Sleep is one of the few health behaviors that helps immediately and over a lifetime,” Ju says. “When we protect teenagers’ sleep, we’re investing in their future.”
