Bell Schedule Proposal Information
TL;DR
What’s changing (per the memo + newsletter)
Proposed instructional day: 8:15am–3:15pm
“7-hour instructional day” (7.5 total hours including arrival/dismissal windows)
Drop-off: 8:00–8:15am
Pick-up: 3:15–3:30pm
Kindergarten orientation: Aug 17–18; first full day for K is Aug 19
Grades 1–5 start: Aug 17, 2026
What’s staying the same (as stated)
No weekly early release days (for now)
Before/after care maintained: 7:00am–6:00pm
School year start aligned with Denver Language School
Recess + lunch not planned to be reduced
Calendar meets/exceeds DPS + CDE requirements (memo claims “24+ days above requirements”)
What’s still unclear (from what’s been shared publicly)
The actual “before vs after” math (current schedule, proposed schedule, and the delta by grade)
The evidence behind the big claims (the memo references “research” and “extensive data,” but doesn’t cite specific sources)
The survey details: how many people responded, what the results actually were, and what issues/concerns families raised (including how the proposal addresses—or doesn’t address—those themes)
Actual turnover/retention risk: what hard data points to this risk beyond general concerns and reliance on visiting teachers
Financial impact (cost/savings, staffing implications, and before/after-care economics)
These details, which are hopefully in the Board materials, have not been shared with the Community and it is less than a day before the Board will vote on these matters. For vote items that affect every family, it’s reasonable to expect the same non-confidential materials the Board is using.
Parent Recap
The school has posted an additional Board meeting (Jan 8) where the Board will consider a proposal that combines: a new SY 2026–27 calendar and a new bell schedule.
The memo frames the proposal as a balancing act:
student learning + student well-being + teacher sustainability + family childcare coverage.
The memo’s themes (paraphrased) are familiar and reasonable on their face:
“Align with norms” (DPS/DLS and DLI comparators)
“Protect student focus” (reduce cognitive fatigue; build in breaks)
“Support teachers” (planning/collaboration/PD; prevent burnout; improve retention)
“Reduce disruption” (no weekly early release next year; keep before/after care)
The challenge is that the memo is light on the things that help families evaluate the tradeoffs — very little data and no specific sources were shared to support the largest claims.
For a change that affects every family’s schedule (and the core academic model), it feels reasonable to share with the Community:
the before vs after minutes table
the survey details
the research citations
the financial/staffing implications
The “Since You’re Here…” Section
Unofficial reflections — offered in good faith (and with a grain of salt)
I’m trying to stay constructive here, because I can see the intent: fewer moving parts, less chaos, and a more sustainable model for staff.
That said, this is becoming a process + trust issue for me.
I’ve been asking for supporting data on this proposal since October. I formally requested the December Board packet earlier this week, and followed up again once the special meeting appeared.
So far, what’s been shared publicly feels… thin. Big conclusions. Minimal math. No citations. A fast-moving vote.
Even if the Board can revisit decisions later, the better pattern is simple: share the packet, show the math, cite the sources, and invite meaningful input before voting.
Here’s one idea on what the Community can do:
If you have bandwidth, email Kathy (kathy@fasdenver.org) and the Board (Board@fasdenver.org) with one clear question (examples below). A handful of specific, respectful questions can do more than a hundred vague complaints. It’s reasonable to expect our Board to make decisions based on clear data and logic — not vibes or “every other school is doing this.”
Questions worth asking (feel free to copy/paste one into an email)
What non-schedule options to support teachers and retention were considered (e.g., staffing/support/comp), and why were they rejected?
What hard evidence supports the turnover/retention risk being addressed by this change?
Can you publish the simple before/after schedule + minutes table (by grade)?
How does planning/collaboration time compare to benchmarks — and what is the actual target?
What financial impact should families expect (net cost/savings + staffing implications)?
What specific research is being referenced (links/citations)?
