Duh, duh, double-duh. But it'll never happen.

So, starting the school day later benefits teens, huh?

You're kidding. Here's the scoop:

A study of teens at a Rhode Island boarding school found that pushing back the school day by 30 minutes improved concentration, mood and even encouraged students to consume healthier breakfasts. It also reduced tardiness.

The results of the study appear in the July edition of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, which also ran an editorial that said a "growing body of evidence that changing the start time for high schools is good for adolescents."

Researchers believe that teens have trouble falling asleep before 11 p.m., and they are often in their deepest sleep at dawn, when they need to rouse for morning classes.

This is one of those obvious findings- and yet this policy will probably not be implemented. Why? Here's three reasons why:

1. An early start time means more time for practice for athletic teams after school-- and NEVER underestimate the power of high school sports.

2. A change to the high school schedule necessitates a change in the elementary and middle school schedules due to transportation issues. Other research has indicated that the little kids should actually go to school earlier, so some school districts have suggested flipping the high school and elementary schedules. However, many parents resist this because their high schoolers are then not home to watch the little ones, who would also get out in the early afternoon, when mom and dad are still at work.

3. An early school day also means more time for after school jobs. Thus teens, their families, and their employers are therefore going to resist the scheduling consequences.

So I personally plan on seeing groggy, half-comatose students in my classes for the rest of my teaching career. And I'm not being cynical --I've seen these changes proposed about every four years or so, and shot down just as quickly over the reasons listed above. But let's face it-- it's a hallmark of modern culture to choose expediency over what's right.

A four day school week?

I've heard about this before. But not in schools.

Facing a crippling increase in fuel costs, some rural U.S. schools are mulling a solution born of the '70s oil crisis: a four-day week.

Cutting out one day of school has been the key to preserving educational programs and staff in parts of Kentucky, New Mexico and Minnesota, outweighing some parents' concerns about finding day-care for the day off.

"For rural school districts where buses may travel 100 miles round-trip each day, there certainly are transportation savings worth considering," said Marc Egan, the director of federal affairs at the National School Boards Association.

Egan said about 100 schools in as many as 16 states have already moved to a four-day school week, many to save money on transportation, heating and cooling.

Nevada's White Pine School District switched just one of its schools to a four-day week three years ago. Now, with energy costs soaring, four other schools in the district are following suit.

"We're looking at it district-wide with energy costs being at the forefront of the conversation," said Bob Dolezal, superintendent of Nevada's White Pine County School District, which is facing a 14 percent budget cut due to a shortfall in state funding.

MACCRAY Public Schools in Minnesota, which voted to switch to a four-day week in May, expects to shave 10 percent off transportation costs, which have risen unexpectedly in recent years as fuel costs have shot up.

"The savings for a four-day week just on the transportation alone were $65,000," said MACCRAY superintendent Greg Schmidt.

The plan initially did cause alarm among some parents, who were concerned about finding child-care, but most have managed to find place their kids in day care or with relatives, Schmidt said. In addition, MACCRAY plans to institute a child-care certification program for older students to offer day care for younger kids on the day off.

One of the pioneers of the four-day week, the Cimarron, New Mexico school district, is looking to cut energy costs by getting back to its roots.

Cimarron Public Schools moved a four-day week when energy prices shot up in the early 1970s, but has become more "complacent," letting the heating and cooling systems run even during the day off since the end of the OPEC oil embargo, Cimarron's superintendent James Gallegos said.

With soaring energy costs, that will no longer be the case: "As we start the next school year, it's going to be very minimal on the Fridays that we are off," Gallegos said.

Webster County School District in Kentucky switched to a four-day week four years ago under economic duress -- a state budget crisis left the school in limbo, leaving the district with the option of dropping school days or cutting staff and programs.

The district ended up saving tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and energy costs, helping to cut total costs by 3.5 to 4 percent, said James Kemp, the superintendent of the Webster County School District.

The shortened week at Webster also brought unexpected benefits such as improved attendance and a boost in student performance.

"If we were to go back to a five-day week, the school board and I would be run out of town," Kemp said.

When I was in college during a summer break, I worked at a job where I could work thirty hours a week in any way I wanted. So I worked three ten hour days. It was wonderfully liberating to have the ability to work but still have entire days to myself. I wonder how this impacts kids' abilities to cover material and handle homework, however. But, wow! This sounds tempting! And think of the gas we teachers would save not having to drive to work one day a week.

Fascinating. Hey, y'all remember when gas was $1.40 a gallon? Back before January 20, 2001? God, I love how a weak dollar caused by debt from overspending by "conservatives" and two "oil men" in the White House has turned out, don't you?