5 ms·

Oh I remember this story. Back then when I dug into it, it was a real spin-versus-spin situation. Sure, when you introduce an approach that suddenly creates co

Oh I remember this story. Back then when I dug into it, it was a real spin-versus-spin situation. Sure, when you introduce an approach that suddenly creates considerable inconvenience for some population of parents, sure they complain (no one likes having to drop off kids at ~ vaguely recalling ~ 10 am and pick at 5 pm, sheesh, it was something terrible). Some large portion of working people are fairly dependent their children having ordinary school schedules. Maybe these were relatively better off parents in the public school system - where the actually wealthy use private schools (I know Boston well enough to attest to this). So the algorithm failed to "optimize for those they could effectively screw" but hey, would it be too much to ask to just give all schools a sane schedule? Maybe pony up that extra money, give up the need to optimize everything, keep the tail of bus optimization from wagging the dog of school scheduling?

yardstick 7y ago
For elementary students apparently “Hundreds of families were facing a 9:30 to 7:15 a.m. shift.” That’s a significant change in wake up time. Yeah, I’m not keen on that. It’s a non-starter.
- shoo 7y ago
  Most substantive changes leave some fraction of stakeholders strictly worse off than before.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  It's a change between years, and students moving to high school are already facing the exact same changes. The disparity can't be a non-starter because it already existed. Those early hours exist. Someone has to take them (without doubling the bus fleet size). And it's better for the students if they have the early hours in elementary and not in high school.
  - elcomet 7y ago
    Well yeah but when you choose a school, you choose it based on those criterias. They cannot just change the schedule like this
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      It sounded like the hours were relatively consistent over the whole system. It wouldn't really affect school choice. But fine, if this change is somehow egregious compared to other ones, give a 5 year warning. The schedule benefits their kids, with a net zero change in the convenience of starting hours. What a shortsighted way to complain.
      - cabaalis 7y ago
        > What a shortsighted way to complain. This is not how to build concensus for your argument. I recently moved due to concerns outside my control, and the school time changed from 8:30am to 7:15am for my 6-year-old. This is manageable, but not a minor change at all. These types of changes are very significant for everyone in the region.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        > This is not how to build concensus for your argument. Sure, I'm not trying to convince the population being affected with that. Here's how I would say it: "Your kids are going through 12 years of education. This change to the entire system will make it easier for them to learn, and to be smarter adults with better focusing habits. For some people the hours are tougher right now, I'm sorry, but it's not like those hours came out of nowhere. Your students were going to have school at those hours eventually. We've only changed which years." It's not about how hard the change is. It's that a few years of early school starts are inevitable, so it's a fair trade.
  - yardstick 7y ago
    Rather than penalise subsets of people with early starts, I would rather everyone pay marginally more in taxes for more buses. Also what if your family has both teenagers and preteens? In my family we drove, so the schedule was based on when my parents had to go to work. I’d often arrive at school when the library opened or just before, which is a good hour before when classes started. Then again, my school experience wasn’t in the US, and schools started 8:30am / 8:45am consistently across the city.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      > Also what if your family has both teenagers and preteens? "When I was a kid" preteens and teenagers were expected to be able to get to the bus stop on their own; But maybe that's just because both of my parents worked and left before the bus came.
- deskamess 7y ago
  Wait... I thought they were going to later start times? The article indicated that studies showed start time before 8am were not helpful.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    The studies showed that early start times for teenagers were a problem, but not for elementary schoolers. The schools had previously (and still do) started teenagers very early and elementary students later, and this proposal swapped them.

yardstick 7y ago

For elementary students apparently “Hundreds of families were facing a 9:30 to 7:15 a.m. shift.” That’s a significant change in wake up time. Yeah, I’m not keen on that. It’s a non-starter.

shoo 7y ago
Most substantive changes leave some fraction of stakeholders strictly worse off than before.
Dylan16807 7y ago
It's a change between years, and students moving to high school are already facing the exact same changes. The disparity can't be a non-starter because it already existed. Those early hours exist. Someone has to take them (without doubling the bus fleet size). And it's better for the students if they have the early hours in elementary and not in high school.
- elcomet 7y ago
  Well yeah but when you choose a school, you choose it based on those criterias. They cannot just change the schedule like this
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    It sounded like the hours were relatively consistent over the whole system. It wouldn't really affect school choice. But fine, if this change is somehow egregious compared to other ones, give a 5 year warning. The schedule benefits their kids, with a net zero change in the convenience of starting hours. What a shortsighted way to complain.
    - cabaalis 7y ago
      > What a shortsighted way to complain. This is not how to build concensus for your argument. I recently moved due to concerns outside my control, and the school time changed from 8:30am to 7:15am for my 6-year-old. This is manageable, but not a minor change at all. These types of changes are very significant for everyone in the region.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        > This is not how to build concensus for your argument. Sure, I'm not trying to convince the population being affected with that. Here's how I would say it: "Your kids are going through 12 years of education. This change to the entire system will make it easier for them to learn, and to be smarter adults with better focusing habits. For some people the hours are tougher right now, I'm sorry, but it's not like those hours came out of nowhere. Your students were going to have school at those hours eventually. We've only changed which years." It's not about how hard the change is. It's that a few years of early school starts are inevitable, so it's a fair trade.
- yardstick 7y ago
  Rather than penalise subsets of people with early starts, I would rather everyone pay marginally more in taxes for more buses. Also what if your family has both teenagers and preteens? In my family we drove, so the schedule was based on when my parents had to go to work. I’d often arrive at school when the library opened or just before, which is a good hour before when classes started. Then again, my school experience wasn’t in the US, and schools started 8:30am / 8:45am consistently across the city.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    > Also what if your family has both teenagers and preteens? "When I was a kid" preteens and teenagers were expected to be able to get to the bus stop on their own; But maybe that's just because both of my parents worked and left before the bus came.
deskamess 7y ago
Wait... I thought they were going to later start times? The article indicated that studies showed start time before 8am were not helpful.
- jefftk 7y ago
  The studies showed that early start times for teenagers were a problem, but not for elementary schoolers. The schools had previously (and still do) started teenagers very early and elementary students later, and this proposal swapped them.