One Destructive Course Option: Zero Period

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence on teenagers’ need for sleep, the profound impact of sleep deprivation and an alarming rise in teen anxiety, depression and suicide, high schools continue to offer what has come to be known as “zero periods.” A zero period is a class period scheduled before the official start of the regular school day — usually starting between 7 and 7:30 a.m.

These classes are popular among ambitious students who wish to add classes to their schedule, perhaps another Advanced Placement course, an appealing elective or even a core class. They also are attractive to students who want to leave school early at the end of the day for jobs, sports or escape as well as for students who just want a free period later in the day.

So what’s the problem with this scheduling option? If kids enroll in zero period, can’t they just go to sleep earlier? Shouldn’t it be their choice to take zero period?

An Arms Race

As a superintendent who eliminated zero period over the vociferous objection of several students at Henry Gunn High School in Palo Alto, Calif., amidst intense community debate and discussion, I came to understand both the perceived benefits of zero period and its detrimental impact. The impact far outweighed any of the above benefits.

I am a staunch supporter of student voice, interscholastic athletics and especially part-time work as a growth opportunity. However, zero period has become one more nuclear weapon in the destructive “performance arms race” in secondary school education today. As such, it ought to be disarmed.

At Gunn, one of two high schools in the Palo Alto district, students who enrolled in zero period classes already were high-achieving, yet most believed the extra AP class or additional elective would make them more appealing to top-tier colleges with their increasingly selective admissions practices. Not having zero period put them at a competitive disadvantage, Gunn students argued.

With their school literally in the long shadow of Stanford University, the students’ high school experience was being driven by college admissions and the intense pressures they felt from parents and peers, as well as those self-imposed, to be accepted through early admission by Stanford, MIT, the Ivies, Cal Tech and the University of Chicago — or better yet, all of the above.

Students were sacrificing sleep and much more in this arms race. The “much more” was serious. The levels of depression, the hospitalizations for suicide risk and documented suicide ideation were alarming. To be sure, zero period was not the single cause but was undoubtedly one contributing factor, one more ICBM, one more warhead, one more weapon of destruction.

Visible Harm

Zero period also was creating caffeine-dependent kids. Getting the least amount of sleep became an admirable mark of honor as did the creative ways of staying awake that relied on coffee and, likely for some, stimulants.

Not every student managed to stay awake, however, and student survey data showed that sleep deprivation was causing students to fall asleep in class, to make some really poor choices outside of class and even to miss school. The additional homework load also led to more cheating on homework, which in turn became the gateway to a culture of academic dishonesty.

Zero period also was inherently inequitable. Buses did not operate for zero period so students needed their own transportation, a luxury not afforded to many of our less-affluent families.

Moreover, free breakfast was not available prior to or following zero period so students from families that qualified for free and reduced-price meals would need to forgo breakfast. This was a choice they were not inclined to make, so zero period classes became the realm of the affluent. Zero period was one more opportunity denied to the poor who already struggled for a modicum of equitable access.

A Preservation Fight

I knew all of this but still could not fathom why students supported it so strongly. They let me know.

As the superintendent, I spent a lot of time at Gunn High School and knew many students. Following a suicide cluster, I met with several in large and small groups where I heard about the stress, the competition, the extraordinary pressure to achieve and excel to get into the top-tier colleges. Students told me that, yes, their parents were the source of some pressure but often they were their own worst enemies.

Admission to their top college choice, they admitted, was a driving factor and from their perspective, zero period would give them one more leg up. They spoke of having to take as many AP courses as possible, to include electives that would “look good” on college applications and to pack their resumes with activities, athletics and service work. Thus, they needed zero period to fit all of this into their traditional six-period day.

From personal conversations, focus group sessions and surveys, I also learned that the primary reason for taking zero period was to have a break during the school day. Students complained that the traditional schedule wore them out, that they did not have an open period to complete homework, meet with a teacher or just “chill.” They were physically and mentally exhausted.

My “aha” moment arrived when I realized we should both eliminate zero period and create a block schedule. With the support of some members on the Palo Alto school board, most administrators and a few faculty and students, in a matter of six months we were able to do so, but not without consternation and courage.

At the board meeting following the announcement that zero period was being eliminated, more than 20 students lined up to vent their anger, and they were joined by a handful of parents and even a couple of faculty members. They started an online petition for reinstatement and launched protests.

Offsetting the complaints, however, was solid support from pediatricians, Stanford professors and several other parents. At a board meeting, medical professionals delivered compelling testimony supporting the decision to end zero period with more than 80 signing a letter in support. The highlight of the evening came in the wee hours following the meeting when a parent emailed: “Thank you for sticking to your decision to eliminate zero period academics. We appreciate the respect you showed the students who attended, your honest and direct response and your desire to keep the dialogue moving in a positive direction. It’s so important for the community to see concrete action.”

Positive Aftermath

As a result of eliminating zero period and adopting a block schedule with four courses per day, Gunn changed for the better.

A year later, students reported during focus groups they had less regular homework and were getting more sleep. Student surveys indicated that fewer than 10 percent still had concerns about homework being manageable. Parents remarked that the school felt tangibly different — less pressured, more friendly, more supportive and more caring. Teachers were not affected and even those who initially opposed the block schedule found they could do more with longer classes and could use the longer free periods to grade, to do professional learning community work and to meet with students.

Gunn’s graduating seniors continued to get into the most selective colleges, to receive exceptional scores on SAT and ACT exams and to retain their ranking as the No. 1 high school in California, according to Niche, a Pittsburgh-based company that generates comprehensive rankings. As for after-school jobs and extracurriculars, students managed to find time for both, and more students than ever received athletic scholarships. The perennially challenged varsity football team even won as many games in 2017 as they had in 2013, 2014 and 2015 combined!

Powerful Countermeasure

Zeroing out zero period was one of the more challenging decisions I faced as superintendent in Palo Alto, but I’d consider it one of my best toward supporting student mental health and wellness. Parents wrote: “Thank you for your fortitude in limiting/eliminating zero period and keeping the focus on the wellness of our kids.” 

Likewise, in their letters of support, the 93 pediatricians, psychiatrists, therapists from private practices, the Stanford School of Medicine, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, UCSF Hospital and elsewhere called the scheduling move a “necessary public health measure.” Their endorsement cited the American Academy of Pediatrics’ view that it is “an effective countermeasure to chronic sleep loss” and “has a wide range of potential benefits to students with regard to physical and mental health, safety, and academic achievement.”

Given what they knew and what we all should know about the need for sleep, it is time for education leaders to stand up to vocal objections from various factions to eliminate zero period. I, for one, slept well after making the decision … and more importantly, so will your students.