The School Committee meets Wednesday (6 p.m. at the Bolling Building in Dudley Square). Parents upset about new elementary-school starting times as early as 7:15 a.m. are planning a large display of displeasure.
The parents say the changes - spit out overnight last week by computers at MIT - are simply too extreme for little kids, and their parents.
Organizers of the nascent anti-early-starting-time protest have already collected more than 5,300 signatures on an online petition and are planning to stand outside supermarkets to collect signatures on paper.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
High School times are horrible also
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 11:18am
Not sure how anyone thinks that letting high school kids out of school at 330-4pm is good either. They have a ton of homework, after school programs and sports, and 330pm is way too late. I have asked my kids and all of their friends and NONE of them want to go in later in the morning. They are up between 6am and 630am, and were perfectly fine with getting to school between 730-750am. It seems as if they asked people that only really cared about sleeping in, rather than waking up like you have to in the real world.
Yeah
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 11:53am
I see the research but at the end of the day, a K-5 kid needs a shorter day more than a teenager. As the busing issue hasn't magically been fixed, we need to account for the fact that most kids get on a bus 30-60 minutes prior to school so you're asking kids (and parents) to get up at 6am or earlier which is too damn early.
Sorry but 6am is not that
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 1:01pm
Sorry but 6am is not that early to wake up. And the high school start time was pushed back. So you are still getting unsupervised time, now the kids parents might not even see if they leave on time in the morning. This did not add any more time to a high school day, just made it extra long in terms of waiting for it to begin and what time these kids will get home at night if they have after school things to do. And let me not even start on how it stinks for a kid that might have a job afterschool that they are somewhat dependent on for money in their pocket.
Yes?
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:13pm
Reread my comment and you'll see that I think the elementary school kids should be prioritized. So if high school kids have to get up early, fine with me if the 7 year old doesn't have to get up at 5:45am to sit on a bus.
330 or 4 reduces unsupervised
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:38pm
330 or 4 reduces unsupervised time in the evening, great for everyone in society, and is a consequence of pushing back start times as the vast majority would benefit from due to increased sleep etc (see studies). If sports are impacted? Too bad.
"Great for everyone in
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:06pm
"Great for everyone in society?" What about the kids who are "supervised" because they have after school jobs but now can't get to their job on time? Or the kids who are doing the supervising because they have to pick up and watch their younger siblings? Doesn't sound great to them.
Pushing back start times in
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:40pm
Pushing back start times in order to increase academic results at a cost of after school jobs is not really a top concern of mine.
On point 2, ideally they are all getting out around the same time. We should not be setting school hours such that we can rely on Boston teens as caretakers.
How does that reduce
By Lmo
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:15pm
How does that reduce unsupervised time? The teenagers will be better supervised when they get out later, what about all of the young children who will be dismissed before 2 pm?
How does teens getting out at
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:24pm
How does teens getting out at 4 when a huge segment of the working population leaves work at 4 or 5 reduce unsupervised time?
No idea. /s
Ideally young kids should be getting out around the same time (aside from those half day ones of course). People tend to worry alot more about ensuring the young uns have proper after school supervision, but it is the teens that cause the most societal ills.
Teens that may have after
By Lmo
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:49pm
Teens that may have after school jobs, social/study programs, sports will now get home even later, start homework later... what a win. I’m not sure that reducing unsupervised time of teens is really a goal for city parent. It is not a goal of any parents of teens in BPS that I know.
It IS a win!
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:59pm
Because that is what THEIR BODIES ARE TELLING THEM IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING.
They finish later and go to work and do homework and FALL ASLEEP right away. Instead of going to bed earlier and fighting awake earlier.
READ THE DAMN STUDIES ALREADY.
You can chill with the CAPS.
By Lmo
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:51pm
You can chill with the CAPS. We won’t know if kids will actually sleep any longer or improve academically until this takes effect. If I was still in HS; this would probably prompt me to stay up later, but I’ve always fought sleep even when my body told me to go to sleep. Do you happen to have a link to the actual study? I have been unable to find online.
Actually, we will know if
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:30pm
Actually, we will know if changing start times will have a positive effect on student performance, as well as crime, this has been studied for a reason.
If you cannot find the study it is because you have failed to seek them out.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=delayed+school+start+academic...
Seriously....
By Lmo
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:43pm
The study/ data from MIT related to Boston. Not looking for a general late start time search, but thanks for all of your efforts.
Boston?
By anon
Tue, 12/12/2017 - 1:29pm
Boston students are biologically different?
I know y'all want to pretend that ...
What are you talking about?!?
By Lmo
Tue, 12/12/2017 - 4:34pm
Who is ya’ll?
I’d like to read the study conducted by MIT that is going to have an impact on BPS students. You do realize more went into this study than the circadian rhythm/sleep patterns of teenagers? There were surveys conducted and algorithms used. I’d like to read more about that info. Any idiot can google studies re:late school start times. I’m specifically taking about the MIT study done for Boston. I’m more interested in the data that led to the change in start times of the younger students.
The unsupervised time is not
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 1:07pm
The unsupervised time is not about the parents benefit, but everyone elses.
Disgusting
By Real life BPS h...
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 1:30pm
I'm glad that me leaving school and going to my job at Roche Brothers is causing the good citizens of Boston "societal ills." People wonder where the Boston rascism is and here it is in full force: after school, the BPS high school attending kids such as myself, who are primarily minorities, need "supervision" and this school proposal is great because it reduces our "unsupervised time." Would one of the above commenters like to cite occasions on which their lives have been negatively impacted by BPS high school students between 1:40 and 4? CRICKETS CHIRP. We are members of this community too. I am far from the only kid who reads UHUB, I know this for a fact. Talking about us in this tone is the definition of disrespect.
Are teens a race? Teens
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:27pm
Are teens a race? Teens getting into trouble is a universal truth across all races last I checked...
Increased parental supervision is a very secondary benefit to the reality that late starts help the students themselves. I suggest you read the studies.
Read his comment, please
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:36pm
Most teens in Boston are not white.
Teens also need unsupervised time so that they can grow up someday. No magical fairy flies in and grows them up magically.
Most teens in MA, are however
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 7:57pm
Most teens in MA, are however white, and I would support this action across the board.
Pointing out that unsupervised teens are a societal ill is not racist.
Societal Ill?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 8:37pm
Really?
It would seem to me that the Extreme Nanny State that would have them in diapers is the societal ill.
Particularly when so many Nanny Ninnies then turn around and whine whine WHINE about how "kids aren't blah can't do blah today blah blah can't seem to grow up blah avocado toast blah blah pampered blah" .
Cause and effect, maybe?
But, hey, I've just raised two young men, one of which is about to graduate college early without debt and both of whom are very responsible and independent, so don't mind me.
I thought you were a
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 10:28pm
I thought you were a pathologist of some sort? Anecdotes are not data. Data was conveniently provided below.
They should teach research skills in the BPS
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:42pm
Here is a report, albeit dated, on the issue of teens and out-of-school time in the afternoon. In the intro it notes
The statistic noted was cited later-
I feel for ya, kid, going from school to work at the end of the school day, but according to this, not all of your cohort is doing the right thing when the final bell sounds, so you might want to tamper the racism talk.
So if some kids are acting up
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:53pm
So if some kids are acting up at 2:00pm, what is to stop them from acting up at 330pm? So we should cater to the needs of the worst kids and the ones that just can't drag themselves out of bed at 6 or 630am? The same teens that are getting screwed by this, are the ones that the BPS should be catering to, not vice versa. Why are they listening to, and changing things, for the kids that act stupidly in the afternoon and cant wake up early in the morning?
If you bothered to read the report noted
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 7:28pm
You would know that your question was the overarching issue, not when high school kids should start school. Their idea is that by and large the high school kids of Boston are good, decent kids, but like any impressionable kids could possibly be lead astray during the time between when they leave school and when their parents get home from work (simplified as the 2 to 6 time) if that time is filled with nothing other than the influences of less than reputable people. The Boston Foundation (authors of the report at the urging of Mayor Menino (it is an old report, as noted before)) set out to establish programs to enrich the youth of the city and to keep them from falling by the wayside.
Again, I feel for the student commenter, since he is doing everything right, and hopefully will succeed because of it. The reality is that the time between when kids get out of high school until when they meet up with their parents is a big opportunity for bad things to happen. I would posit that this is the case in towns like Marshfield and Lynnfield as much as it is in Boston, but the stakes in Boston are a bit higher. Moving the end of school to 3:30 thus takes 1.5 hours of temptation away.
Couple of issues going on here
By Smart Arse
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:45pm
First of all, Studies Have Shown syndrome. Look at the science from The Studies! Lookit Lookit! Concrete evidence that teenagers need to be allowed to sleep in, not be responsible for going to bed early and getting up early. See the Studies? Take that Ben Franklin! Early to bed early to rise my a$$! In your face! Oh by the way, did I mention there are Studies? That Have Shown?
And secondly, let's not forget how the actual workplace has evolved. The phrase
applies less and less these days. Workplaces are allowing flexible hours and telecommuting, which allows people to keep New High School Sleeping Schedules well into their adulthood. So in a way, Boston is actually cutting edge in that regard. Preparing children for the 'real world' of the future.
Ever heard of Pub Med? Google Scholar?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 8:39pm
You should try them sometime.
Oh, but doing your homework wasn't one of your strong suits? Reading is hard!
No thanks; Not a fan
By Smart Arse
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 9:37pm
of all-inclusive vacations, or oligarchic big brother tech companies.
lol when I was in high school
By anon
Tue, 12/12/2017 - 8:12am
lol when I was in high school (not in massachusetts) we went from 7:30 - 3:30, every day. and didn't have as many breaks as the calendar up here has - "February vacation" mystified me when I moved. and it's not like I'm ancient, either, so it's a more regional difference than anything else.... but I just don't understand how short the school days / weeks here are.
Lock 'em up!
By Hugo
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 11:29am
Yes, there is merit to the fact that teenagers in general need more sleep than younger children.
That said, ONLY IN BOSTON would it happen that school start times are upended because of the city's inability to provide efficient and timely bus transportation to its students.
So while I'm sure the folks working on this at MIT are incredibly smart, they should spend more time away from the ivory tower before submitting the solution.
I can imagine the anger of parents who are trying to balance work/family/leisure and the city tosses them a 2 hour change to the school schedule. The School Committee should be ashamed.
Saving Money?
By Residente
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:17pm
I have heard that one reason for time changes is so that the school district can save money on busing costs. I also heard that they are only saving 3 million dollars. Is this true? If so, that's pathetic. 3 million is not worth the effect this will have on children.
I'd be happy if the city spent an extra 15 million so that more students can start at 8:00 or 8:30. And don't forget that the city pays for charter school students to be bused all over the city. The charter schools write their own rules, have their own start times, and the city has virtually no say in when they start or finish.
Only in America
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:23pm
Can you give a kid an education worth $350k for free and the recipients bitch about having to get up a little earlier.
Worth and cost aren't the same
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:32pm
Is a non-high performing BPS kid getting a $350k education or is that just what it costs?
A high school diploma is
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:34pm
A high school diploma is worth a hell of alot more than $350k, worth is up to the student, that so many squander such a great opportunity is a pretty large blight on society. .
A high school diploma is
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:34pm
A high school diploma is worth a hell of alot more than $350k, worth is up to the student, that so many squander such a great opportunity is a pretty large blight on society. .
A high school diploma is
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:34pm
A high school diploma is worth a hell of alot more than $350k, worth is up to the student, that so many squander such a great opportunity is a pretty large blight on society. .
Oh dear.
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:34pm
Oh dear.
Happens to the best of us
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:41pm
And the worst.
I just really, really, wanted
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:43pm
I just really, really, wanted to communicate the point.
And that you did
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:50pm
:-)
Got it
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:15pm
although it kind of feels like you were trying to say you think a high school diploma is worth $105000?
Are you replying to me?
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:20pm
Are you replying to me?
as a joke, yes
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:43pm
350x 3 = 1050...
Woosh.
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:57pm
Woosh.
I am feeling a bit slow today :)
Too much Trillium.
Only in America
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:57pm
Will stingy haters demand that everything be monetized and whine about educations scores in terms of their taxes.
Just move to the South already and ENJOY THE CHEAP EDUCATION!
Boston spends 20k a year per
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:28pm
Boston spends 20k a year per pupil and has inferior results to surrounding areas.
Taxpayers have every right to call into question how dollars are spent, IMO delaying school start (even if it costs more) is well worth it. Better spending the dollars here than on school sports etc.
Boston spends 20k a year per
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:28pm
Boston spends 20k a year per pupil and has inferior results to surrounding areas.
Taxpayers have every right to call into question how dollars are spent, IMO delaying school start (even if it costs more) is well worth it. Better spending the dollars here than on school sports etc.
Actually a lot more than that
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:01pm
When you add in everything the city spends on schools it's closer to $28k (pensions, retirement benefits, capital expenses, grants, imputed rent on school buildings and more are all under separate budgets (or in no budget when it comes to imputed rent) and add about 50% to the "cost per pupil".
Wow, any citations for that?
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:05pm
Wow, any citations for that? Everything I have found indicates around 20k.
You gotta dig
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:27pm
The number quoted publicly are usually just operating expenses (about $1.1 billion) divided by number of kids - about 56.5k (BPS quotes a slightly higher number than what they report to the state - using that number - apparently they include a few thousand kids that are in other types of schools - might be an adult ed program - not sure - but BPS usually puts out a number to the state of about 53k kids). That's where you get the number slightly shy of $20k.
But:
External funds budget - about $125 million
Capital expenses - varies - about $75 million per year (plus accruing interest of maybe $15 million or so?)
Teacher pensions - hasn't been in the budget docs for almost a decade - but tens of millions annually - maybe up to $100 million now - estimated at double staff pensions
Staff pensions - probably about $50 million estimated at 30% of city pension costs
Retiree benefits - health, dental, life insurance - ??? - need to talk to the CFO - easily tens of millions
Imputed rent - 125 schools times $50 million per school times say 6% gross rent = hundreds of millions
Easily another $500 million in expenses that aren't included in the "published" numbers.
$1.6 billion divided by 56,500 students - conservatively is about $28k per student
They'll never publish that - people would have a fit if they knew the actual cost of "underfunded" BPS.
(you do actually have to deduct about $20 million for transport expenses of non-BPS students in this - but across a number measured in the billions - it doesn't really register - mea culpa).
Jesus.
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:32pm
Jesus.
Sorry
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 4:57pm
he's not allowed in public schools.
:-)
Smoke, mirrors, and lies
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:06pm
Employees paid into those pensions and retirees paid for those benefits.
That's only a start.
Have you perfected the whole pants on fire thing? Great alternative energy source for when you go Galt.
Who owns the liability and the assets
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 6:22pm
If all the teachers walk in front of a bus, who gets the money.
If they all live to 150, who pays?
If there's a shortfall, who makes up the difference.
Sorry dude, it's an expense. And it's accounted for as such, even if the teachers do it outside the operating account.
Imputed rent
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:30pm
So the fact that BPS has (per your figures) $6.2B in schools most of which were built and paid for decades ago is a negative in your worldview? That's just oblivious, Paul Ryan level stupidity about the nature of a public good.
Gosh, the interstate highway system cost a lot to build in the 1950s, why isn't that covered by our modern tolls?
Like it or not
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 6:14pm
There is a hidden cost to owning vs renting. There is an opportunity cost to owning. You want to quantify it otherwise, be my guest. But it is not zero. Far from it.
Not zero is not $6B
By Parkwayne
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 7:45pm
Ok, seeing as you're more or less a nihilist about this - pick one.
Is it better for BPS to own $6b worth of schools (again, your numbers) which are largely paid for by long ago bond issuances, etc... or to pay every year to some real estate group at market rates (which are very high in Boston, did you know?) ? The opportunity cost of having already spent money decades ago on land and buildings is already money gone before we were born so it's a ridiculous point vs. an analysis of whether you or I should own or rent our homes.
If it's better to rent, state your case. I often agree with your assessments of the BPS budget but you've lost me on this one.
Getting away from the point
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 8:18pm
The reason for this analysis is to.detemine the true cost of BPS.
There is a not insignificant cost to owning all of these buildings. Maintenace and capital costs are accounted for in other budgets.
However, in theory if you sold the buildings and rented them instead, what would be the cost of the rent, net of those other expenses ( and you had the cash in your pocket from selling those schhols). Very complicated, but it costs about$100.million or more to build a school. That's $4 million in interest plus say. $1 million in depreciation. Any way you slice it, the opportunity cost to.owning these buildings is $1-2 million.a year per building or $125 million to $250 million. It's not a cash expense, but a real cost of operating the system.
If you have a different way of analyzing it, I'm perfectly willing.to.listen, but owning all these buildings is not remotely close to zero even after netting maintenance.
You're disappointing me
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 8:40pm
Mainly because you are usually good with the city budget stuff.
You know very well that the BPS has a capital budget, and regular maintenance is a part of the BPS budget. Why are you throwing smoke out there when there is no fire?
Look, I bought a car in 2009. Bought it. Took out a loan that was paid back in 4 years. After 48 months, I stopped paying the financial institution who wrote the loan. I did not lease the car. If the car company offered perpetual leases on cars, I'd still be paying them, no? But now I'm in the clear except for maintenance costs. Similar thing with my house. Someday the mortgage will be paid off, and when that is done I will no longer have any costs related to ownership other than maintenance costs (for example, replacing the hot water heater or repainting periodically.) The capital budget covers those costs, and you factored in that $75 million in your sketching out of what the per pupil costs are. Beyond that, you are making up numbers.
And you're better than that.
Why?
By Stevil
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 9:37pm
1) I fully acknowledge that maintenance and capital are accounted for in my second paragraph.
2) Over and above that there is a cost of ownership. Again - my point is to calculate the true cost of BPS to the city (for example - if the system disappeared tomorrow and all the assets were sold off what would be the savings, or another way of looking at it - what if we had to outsource the whole system at cost - what would the city pay for an equal level of services, resources, use of equivalent assets etc.)
3) the key is - what is that cost of building ownership - it's not just the cost of maintenance because you have 125 assets each worth tens of millions of dollars depending on size, location etc. There is an enormous opportunity cost of having these assets tied up in real estate. That cost is the imputed rent. Using your example of your home - you have an asset worth say $500k. You spend say 1-2% a year to maintain that asset (like BPS) - sometimes expenses like painting and sometimes capital costs like a new roof or windows. That's just a cost of ownership. HOWEVER, you have $500k tied up in real estate that could be generating a greater return invested elsewhere (that may or may not be equal to an amount to rent an equivalent space - that's not relevant for this argument). That is your imputed rent for your ownership. We can argue forever about how much that is and whether or not appreciation/depreciation and maintenance should be netted- but it's a significant positive number when you have billions tied up in real estate that could otherwise be invested more productively.
Not an easy concept as it's completely intangible, but you can't argue having a balance sheet with billions tied up in assets that aren't generating cash is "free". At best I put that at about $1 million per school - perhaps as much as $2 million. The cost of holding these assets in real estate instead of investable cash (or perhaps themselves generating rent) probably costs the city $100-$200 million. It may be necessary and there may not be an alternative - but it's real - if intangible.
Oh yeah?
By Smart Arse
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:52pm
Well Phhbbt to that. I have it on good authority that public schools are FREE. Why, I just read it a few posts above yours.
Dropping my 5 year old off with Marty for a few.,,,
By Erin
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 2:40pm
And..... I'm guessing you don't have any kids? It's not about the money. It's about the well being of the child AND the people raising them!
Bad enough kids can't go to schools in their OWN neighborhoods but now some of them have to be at a bus stop at 5:30am to trek across the city! Some of these kids are 4, 5 years old! Then this impacts their after school care and costs because they are getting out earlier. So some kids are out of a parents care for 12 hours!
I have a 5 year old. His start time now is 8:30 and is going to be changed to 7:15am. All these "research" and "studies" did not take into consideration "real life scenarios" how it would effect the working family/single parent households. Maybe if Marty takes my son next year for a few weeks with this new time change and see the havoc it is going to cause, he would have thought twice.
I do not know why people who
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 3:30pm
I do not know why people who have a choice to move out of Boston when they have kids dont.
I grew up in Boston, lived there for my whole life, moved a bit further south now that kids are on the horizon. Not to mention housing costs, traffic, quality of living.
move a bit further south
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:02pm
See what happens when you don't spend shit on education.
Boston spends nearly double
By dm12
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 7:59pm
Boston spends nearly double what my new community does. Yet my new community has much better educational results.
Don't know what planet you are on
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 5:04pm
Look at the MBTA schedules and tell me how the hell you get to work on time with an 8:30 start.
I'd have loved to have had a 7:15 start when mine were young - god knows they were up and running around at 5:30 anyway.
Don’t Mean to Follow a Rabbit Hole Charter Debate But
By hundel
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:42pm
Given that the purpose of charters was to see how a different approach/emphasis than the city currently brings to the table might affect student outcomes, parent involvement, etc for some subset of students I’d think it’d be essential that they have some flexibility, if they’re going to exist at all. Different work schedules (and sleep needs) might be a reason some parents and kids need more flexibility from the city not less, right?
ummm
By anon
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 1:00pm
Starting at 8 is preferable.
Go shove your wallet in your pants.
Charter school kids ARE
By Kelly
Mon, 12/11/2017 - 2:08pm
Charter school kids ARE Boston kids - people always talk about them as if they're some mysterious 'other'. Also - most charter schools have extended day - making start and end times more difficult to manage. I can see wanting to vent frustration - but aiming it at charter schools isn't appropriate..
Pages
Add comment