4
news Panther Prowler • Sept. 14, 2018
School start time to be pushed to 8:30 a.m. Hannah Gross Staff Writer Students slumped over their desks, struggling to stay awake is not an uncommon sight. Rolling out of bed before the sun rises is just a part of daily life for middle and high school students. Last year, Senator Anthony Portantino aimed to change that. Sen. Portantino’s bill, Senate Bill 328 or SB 328, proposes that California middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. It failed to pass last year after backlash from school boards and teachers. However, on Aug. 31 the bill received enough votes to pass and is heading to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk to receive a signature or a veto. If the bill goes into effect it would not include optional zero or first periods that commence prior to the mandatory school day, and schools in rural communities would be exempt from the changes. In addition to these changes, the Department of Education would be urged to publish
information about the importance of a healthy sleep schedule on their website. Many current NPHS students would not experience the effects of the bill as California schools have three years to implement the changes. The majority of the bill’s leverage comes from a statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending the shift in school start times to 8:30 a.m. or later. Supporters also cite several studies linking sleep, or lack thereof, to academic success. The Center for Disease Control, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association endorse the bill. These groups assert later start times lead to higher attendance, less traffic accidents and improved student performance overall. Cali Greenidge, senior, was enthusiastic about the possibility of school starting later. “I think that is the most amazing thing ever,” Greenidge said.
Like Portantino, Greenidge feels the change would have a positive impact on learning. “I’ve heard that your brain is not fully functioning before 9 o’clock. I think (students) would perform better in school and academics.” Organizations such as Start School Later, have rallied around the bill. Start School Later consists of parents, doctors and other concerned community members supporting SB 328. Terra Ziporyn Snider, the executive director and co-founder of Start School Later said, “Moving school start times is no guarantee that most teenagers will get the sleep they need. But not moving school start times is a guarantee that most won’t.” However, not everyone supports SB 328. Some claim the bill places an additional burden on working families who drive their children to school as well as district employees such as bus drivers. Connor Thorup, senior, expressed concerns about the implications of the bill. “I don’t (think
the bill should pass), because I am a morning person, and I enjoy having morning classes before 8 o’clock.” A later start time may also affect extracurriculars, such as sports. As a student athlete, Thorup expressed concerns about how later start times could negatively affect his schedule. “I personally would not like to have to leave earlier. I would like to miss less class if possible, and I don’t want to get home later.” Even if the bill did pass, it would not necessarily provide students with more time to sleep. Some are already up early for religious reasons. “I have morning seminary, so it might not affect me that much,” Thorup said. Others insist the bill poses a threat to school districts’ autonomy, which Brown has supported in the past. One of these opposing groups is the California Teachers Association (CTA). CTA’s spokesperson Claudia Briggs said, “It should be a conversation that should be had by school dis-
trict officials, parents, students and educators.” Opposers such as Briggs claim that for a state as vast as California a generalized start time is less than ideal. “We shouldn’t have a one-size fits all approach for all school start times based on how geographically diverse and large our state is,” Briggs said. Despite its past failures Sen. Portantino’s belief in the bill remains unwavering. Brown has until Sept. 30 to reach a final decision. “I’m hoping that people look at the science and put the best interest of kids first,” Portantino said. “We want healthy kids to do well and this is a three-decade peer reviewed research way that has results to back it up.” Greenidge has a similar point of view, “Early in the morning your brain is not fully awake. You can walk, and talk and breathe, but you’re not ready to learn.”
Nike launches new Students question school board candidates ad campaign Maya Chari Online Editor With the school board elections in the two board members will be in attendance; near future, several organizations are holding Jenny Fitzgerald, who has a prior family candidate forums to interview prospective engagement, and Amy Chen, who did not board members. Newbury Park, Westlake RSVP to the invitation. and Thousand Oaks High School journalism Each forum will begin with a brief programs recently co-hosted their own panel personal statement from candidates, followed interview, inviting all eight candidates to by generic questioning and time allocated for join. Sitting board member Mike Dunn, who public questions. Community members are is running for re-election this November, welcome and encouraged to attend. declined the invitation and all further attempts to interview him. T H R I V E Conejo will also be hosting a community-friendly forum on Sept. 27, which will be held at the Lundring Events Center within California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks. Another will be held on September Questioning- Chiefs from the Westlake Arrow, Thousand Oaks Lancer and 15th, by the Conejo Newbury Park Panther Prowler newspaper staffs gather to interview board Council PTA. As candidates on Tuesday, Sept. 4. The panel convened over a period of three reported by the days, interviewing all candidates, aside from Mike Dunn, who declined the Acorn, all but invitation. Maya Chari/Prowler
Rahul D’Souza Front Cover Editor Protesting racial injustice and police brutality, Colin Kaepernick, former quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, knelt during the National Anthem on Aug. 14, 2016 at the beginning of the first game of the season. On Sept. 4, Nike released a commercial celebrating their 30th Anniversary of their Just Do It campaign, with Kaepernick as the face of it. “He has showed us all that police brutality and oppression exist to this very day,” said Ido Dukler, Junior. Dukler also believes that Nike made a great decision in Kaepernick and because many people use their products, their message will spread quickly. Since Kaepernick’s protest, players such as Marshawn Lynch, the entire Raiders’ offensive line and numerous other players have followed suit, kneeling with their arms enlocked with their teammates during the National Anthem or staying seated on the bench. This has prompted responses from fans, politicians and NFL officials alike. Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract that year, but found no other team willing to sign him. “They are just exercising their first amendment rights and I think that it is wonderful that they are using that platform,” said Willa Stonecipher, senior. Although students may be in support of Kaepernick’s decision, many do not share the
same sentiment. President Trump claimed that Nike made a terrible decision and they are “getting absolutely killed.” Nike did experience a 3.2% drop in sales that day, but also gained roughly $43 million worth of media exposure. Seven days later, their online sales have jumped over 31%. “I think a major corporation like Nike supporting social justice is great for the movement,” said Colin Cremault, senior. Cremault also supports players’ right to protest, even if that means kneeling during the national anthem. Nike’s release of their campaign sparked outrage but also widespread support. Many people were in favor of Nike and their rights as a private company, standing behind their message: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” Others, however, couldn’t accept that Kaepernick was the face of their campaign and began boycotting and burning their own Nike products. This is not the first time Nike has used its brand to advocate social change. The company has also run campaigns centered around AIDS stigma, gender equality, disability, religion, and many other controversial problems, drawing support and attention from consumers everywhere.
MarlijDavis/Prowler
