In May 2023, Florida passed a law modeled on California’s landmark legislation to set minimum start times for public secondary schools. Though the law was later weakened, some districts continue efforts to align school schedules with adolescent sleep needs. And that’s a good thing.
The Florida Law: What Changed—and What Didn’t
In May 2023, Florida passed a law modeled on California’s landmark legislation setting minimum start times for public secondary schools. The original version required middle schools to start no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m. It also required that districts educate their communities about the health, safety, and academic consequences of sleep deprivation—and the benefits of later start times.
But just two years later, the law was essentially neutered. A new bill allowed districts to opt out simply by filing a report claiming logistical or financial hardship. There was no mechanism to review these claims or require updates in future years.
Despite widespread claims that the law was “repealed,” it stayed on the books. True, it was crippled. True, it was absurdly easy to get out of following it. But the original standards remained. So did the requirement to educate communities about sleep health—and about the benefits of later school start times.
Districts Still Trying
Some districts got the message anyway. Osceola County, for example, is currently weighing four options—some more promising than others. A few involve extremely early elementary start times (hardly ideal), and others come with seemingly steep costs. One option maintains the status quo, which—as experience shows—almost inevitably gets plurality vote when pitted against multiple options for change, especially options that come with price tags.
Efforts to start high schools later in Osceola long predate the law. Back in April 2016, the district proposed pushing high school start times (then as early as 7:00 a.m.) fifteen minutes later and moving middle schools to 9:15 a.m. The board rejected the plan—even though it would have saved $420,000 in transportation costs.
In 2019, the board considered another proposal to adjust bell times, estimated to save $2.2 to $2.5 million annually. This time, sleep wasn’t even part of the conversation. Officials cited neighboring counties using staggered three-tier schedules: high schools at 7:30 a.m., elementary at 8:30 a.m., and middle schools at 9:20 a.m. That plan fizzled too.
Then in 2020, the board floated a flex schedule inspired by a Michigan pilot program, allowing high schoolers to start as late as 3:00 p.m. The teachers’ union opposed it, and that idea also died.
Now, in late 2025, Osceola is trying again—this time to comply with the original Florida law. That’s encouraging, especially considering that buses were reportedly picking up students as early as 4:52 a.m.
Orange County is also seeking public input on ways to start high schools later. Their proposals would bring them into compliance with the original law, though they’d require earlier elementary start times.
Like Osceola Count, too, this district has a long history with failed attempts to high school start times school start time change. It flipped high school and middle school start times in 2009 to save money, then flipped back. Coverage by Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell in 2015 reignited interest in delaying high school start times to accommodate adolescent sleep needs, and the district revisited the issue again in 2019.
Meanwhile, many Florida counties already comply. A 2023 Florida House staff analysis found that nearly a quarter (24%) of Florida’s high schools and 91% of its middle schools were already meeting the law’s standards. Other districts, including Martin County, already changed their start times to comply with the 2023 law before the 2025 amendment.
Other Doors Opening
Of course, a skeptic—and alas, I’ve become one—might wonder whether some of these efforts, especially those involving community surveys, are just clever ways to preserve the status quo. After all, the amended law requires districts to file reports citing obstacles to change, including public resistance. So polling the community may be a way to justify inaction.
There’s some evidence supporting this suspicion too: districts looking for a way out need to file a report documenting “any identified consequences to the school district, students, and the community from implementing the law.” And really—has there ever been a community survey that didn’t turn up at least some concerns about changing school hours? (And has there ever been a meaningful change of any sort that didn’t have “consequences”?)
Give me a break!
In its introduction to survey takers, Orange County Schools literally arm objectors by reminding them: “Such a change may present challenges for our community, including adjustments to family routines, childcare, transportation, after-school activities, work schedules, and potential financial impacts.”
So, yes, it’s possible that all this drama is about placating diehards who insist this change should—and can—be made, while quietly continuing to do nothing. But here’s the thing: given how easy it is to opt out, such elaborate gestures seem unnecessary unless they reflect at least a flicker of good faith. And in districts with a history of trying to shift start times, that history matters. It suggests that the message is still getting through—and that, as the law still requires, communities are being reminded that these hours are better for students.
So we can always hope. Because law or no law, communities may be starting to see that aligning school schedules with adolescent sleep needs isn’t just smart policy.
It’s being on the right side of history.