To the editor:

It’s true. The total number of votes cast in favor of the most recent School Committee (SC) position elections dwarf the total votes in favor of the school budget cuts last week. Some SC members received upwards of 5,500 votes, while only 401 votes were cast in favor of reducing the budget. Based on votes, it seems that the people had already spoken in November. But had they?

In the general election, the quantity of votes for SC were similar to those cast for Governor, Senator, and other positions. Were all of those votes for SC truly a referendum on this singular issue? Do many people vote solely along party lines? Did all of those people research the candidates? If not, how do we parse all those votes for a mandate?

Contrast that with what occurred last week. The auditorium was full of people who will be directly and profoundly impacted by the outcome of a single line item in the budget. They have much to gain or lose with the change in School Start Time (SST). Nearly 700 of those individuals showed up on a busy midweek night and spent 3-plus hours waiting to cast a vote on a single issue. This was a referendum. 

The SC is now not only ignoring it, but they are ignoring the unintended consequences of cutting faculty and athletics. Combined with creating schedule conflicts that will lead to more fatigue, they will actually reduce the very mental health outcomes they are hoping to improve. They ignore the fact that this change will positively impact such a small percentage of students that it is negligible relative to the school population at large. They ignore that their agenda comes with a forced sacrifice to the majority.

They cite studies from other districts with different demographics, time zones, and daylight hours. Their research fell short of including other scientific studies that state circadian rhythms and sleep habits may be more tied to daylight than to time, and other sleep expert opinions counter to the AAP. They ignore that the science they cite is inexact at best because it is confined by numerous variables.

They ignore the personal responsibility of a student and role of a parent to control bedtimes.

They ignore that their positive forecasts will not likely be measurable in any tangible way, but the negative impact will be felt immediately and acutely.

Ultimately, the SC believes that they have a higher moral authority and intelligence to make these decisions than parents, students, teachers, and the electorate. The condescension is clear when they seek to “assuage our anxieties” if they could “communicate better”. This egotistical attitude demeans opposing opinions, especially the teachers, by assuming that they cannot clearly comprehend what is happening despite numerous meetings and published documents by the SC on the matter. 

It isn’t a communication problem. The problem is that the SC doesn’t acknowledge opposing views. They may hear them, as they heard the referendum, but they refuse to listen.

Neil Yee

Barrington