Search

The mismatch between teenagers’ late sleep phase and early school start times results in acute and chronic sleep reductions. This is not only harmful for learning but may reduce career prospects and widen social inequalities. Delaying school start times has been shown to improve sleep at least short-term but whether this translates to better achievement is unresolved. Here, we studied whether 0.5–1.5 years of exposure to a flexible school start system, with the daily choice of an 8 AM or 8:50 AM-start, allowed secondary school students (n = 63–157, 14–21 years) to improve their quarterly school grades in a 4-year longitudinal pre-post design. We investigated whether sleep, changes in sleep or frequency of later starts predicted grade improvements. Mixed model regressions with 5111–16,724 official grades as outcomes did not indicate grade improvements in the flexible system per se or with observed sleep variables nor their changes—the covariates academic quarter, discipline and grade level had a greater effect in our sample. Importantly, our finding that intermittent sleep benefits did not translate into detectable grade changes does not preclude improvements in learning and cognition in our sample. However, it highlights that grades are likely suboptimal to evaluate timetabling interventions despite their importance for future success.

Early school times fundamentally clash with the late sleep of teenagers. This mismatch results in chronic sleep deprivation posing acute and long-term health risks and impairing students' learning. Despite immediate short-term benefits for sleep, the long-term effects of later starts remain unresolved. In a pre-post design over 1 year, we studied a unique flexible school start system, in which 10–12th grade students chose daily between an 8:00 or 8:50AM-start. Missed study time (8:00–8:50) was compensated for during gap periods or after classes. Based on 2 waves (6–9 weeks of sleep diary each), we found that students maintained their ~ 1-h-sleep gain on later days, longitudinally (n = 28) and cross-sectionally (n = 79). This gain was independent of chronotype and frequency of later starts but attenuated for boys after 1 year. Students showed persistently better sleep quality and reduced alarm-driven waking and reported psychological benefits (n = 93) like improved motivation, concentration, and study quality on later days. Nonetheless, students chose later starts only infrequently (median 2 days/week), precluding detectable sleep extensions in the flexible system overall. Reasons for not choosing late starts were the need to make up lost study time, preference for extra study time and transport issues. Whether flexible systems constitute an appealing alternative to fixed delays given possible circadian and psychological advantages warrants further investigation.