Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government

MIT's Elegant Schoolbus Algorithm Was No Match For Angry Parents (bostonglobe.com) 399

"Computers can solve your problem. You may not like the answer," writes the Boston Globe. Slashdot reader sandbagger explains: "Boston Public Schools asked MIT graduate students Sebastien Martin and Arthur Delarue to build an algorithm that could do the enormously complicated work of changing start times at dozens of schools -- and re-routing the hundreds of buses that serve them. In theory this would also help with student alertness...." MIT also reported that "Approximately 50 superfluous routes could be eliminated using the new method, saving the school district between $3 million and $5 million annually."

The Globe reports: They took to the new project with gusto, working 14- and 15-hour days to meet a tight deadline -- and occasionally waking up in the middle of the night to feed new information to a sprawling MIT data center. The machine they constructed was a marvel. Sorting through 1 novemtrigintillion options -- that's 1 followed by 120 zeroes -- the algorithm landed on a plan that would trim the district's $100 million-plus transportation budget while shifting the overwhelming majority of high school students into later start times.... But no one anticipated the crush of opposition that followed. Angry parents signed an online petition and filled the school committee chamber, turning the plan into one of the biggest crises of Mayor Marty Walsh's tenure. The city summarily dropped it. The failure would eventually play a role in the superintendent's resignation...

Big districts stagger their start times so a single fleet of buses can serve every school: dropping off high school students early in the morning, then circling back to get the elementary and middle school kids. If you're going to push high school start times back, then you've probably got to move a lot of elementary and middle schools into earlier time slots. The district knew that going in, and officials dutifully quizzed thousands of parents and teachers at every grade level about their preferred start times. But they never directly confronted constituents with the sort of dramatic change the algorithm would eventually propose -- shifting school start times at some elementary schools by as much as two hours. Even more... Hundreds of families were facing a 9:30 to 7:15 a.m. shift. And for many, that was intolerable. They'd have to make major changes to work schedules or even quit their jobs...

Nearly 85% of the district had ended up with a new start time, and "In the end, the school start time quandary was more political than technical... This was a fundamentally human conflict, and all the computing power in the world couldn't solve it."

But will the whole drama play out again? "Last year, even after everything went sideways in Boston, some 80 school districts from around the country reached out to the whiz kids from MIT, eager for the algorithm to solve their problems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT's Elegant Schoolbus Algorithm Was No Match For Angry Parents

Comments Filter:
  • Optimal Busses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @06:39PM (#57361672) Homepage Journal

    What about providing optimal bus routes without changing start times? Or what about factoring in a cost for changing start times to only do so when the new start time makes a huge difference in the bussing cost? They just need to take into account the political cost of moving start times as another set of parameters.

    • Re:Optimal Busses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @06:47PM (#57361692)

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - parametrize the costs of change. It's actually a pretty big blind spot that they missed this, but it's understandable. They tried to fix their issues in one giant step, which naturally flopped.

      Instead, tune that algorithm to make very small, yearly changes that move things in the desired direction. Essentially, they need to factor in the human / political element of this, which states that people resist change of all sorts. So the challenge then is to find a path which minimizes the pain of this transition for the most people. So it's a ten year plan instead of getting fixed in one shot.

      • Re:Optimal Busses (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:01PM (#57361732) Homepage

        Changing things a little each year for ten years won't fix problems like school times that sharply conflict with work schedules. It will, however, make a bunch of people raise a stink for each of those ten years, and increase the total cost of the transition because you're changing things every year.

      • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - parametrize the costs of change. It's actually a pretty big blind spot that they missed this, but it's understandable. They tried to fix their issues in one giant step, which naturally flopped.

        Instead, tune that algorithm to make very small, yearly changes that move things in the desired direction. Essentially, they need to factor in the human / political element of this, which states that people resist change of all sorts. So the challenge then is to find a path which minimizes the pain of this transition for the most people. So it's a ten year plan instead of getting fixed in one shot.

        The basically used an incomplete objective function. I'm not sure the small yearly changes would help since instead of one big headache you're creating a moderate headache each year. Plus, your problem between the current state and the optimal state probably isn't convex, ie there may not be a series of incremental steps that don't incur some major costs along the way.

        I think the better strategy is to look for situations when the routes and/or schedules need to change anyway and take the best smallest modif

      • Re:Optimal Busses (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sjames ( 1099 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:49PM (#57362076) Homepage Journal

        Actually, it flopped because they, like you, didn't consider the full effects of the change.

        You see, if school starts 2 hours early, it means it lets out 2 hours early. No big deal if the high school student gets home at 2:30 or so when mom and/or dad don't get home until 6:30, but it's a really big deal if the kid is 5 or 6 years old. That's not minor adjustment level changes either.

        So that's the real reason it failed, they failed to codify all of the constraints when they optimized the problem. They now need to either stay where they are, try again with the constraints corrected, or come up with a practical way to loosen the actual constraints that costs less than the current non-optimal scheduling.

    • Re:Optimal Busses (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @06:49PM (#57361696)

      Rule of thumb: People will complain about changes.

      Later start times are correlated with better student performance. It also saves many parents money because they don't need daycare for after school, since the school day will end later. It also saves money on buses. For high school students, later start times are correlated with lower pregnancy and arrest rates, since they have less time after school to get in trouble before their parents come home.

      But the people that don't like the change complain, and the (more numerous) people that benefit mostly stay silent.

      • Re:Optimal Busses (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sjames ( 1099 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:54PM (#57362098) Homepage Journal

        But this plan was burning parent's money. It would make the older kids who would be fine at home alone for a few hours get home later and the young kids who shouldn't be alone that long get home earlier.

        So take a single parent that's just managing and impose that on them and now they're fiscally sunk. I'm betting you'd complain about that too if you were in their position.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        The problem is that they'd need daycare for before school instead of after. If the bus here had changed from just before 8 till after 9, it would have screwed a lot of people. It seems easier to arrange for the kid to spend an hour or 2 at the neighbours after school then in the early morning. Perhaps if more workplaces were flexible or there wasn't such a need for dual incomes, things would work better.

    • Part of the problem is that they wanted to reduce the number of buses needed for everyone. If everyone's school day starts about the same then all the buses have to pick up all the kids at about the same time too.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Hundreds of families were facing a 9:30 to 7:15 a.m. shift. And for many, that was intolerable. They'd have to make major changes to work schedules or even quit their jobs...

    This sounds like a perfectly legitimate argument against the plan. The plan wasn't nixed because people were angry to it, the people were angry because it's a bad plan.

  • Given there have only been around 4.3 x 10^17 seconds since the big bang, it seems unlikely that they actually sorted through 10^120 options.
    • Given there have only been around 4.3 x 10^17 seconds since the big bang, it seems unlikely that they actually sorted through 10^120 options.

      They could do it with aggressive pruning of the search tree.

  • by Artagel ( 114272 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:15PM (#57361786) Homepage

    Another case where the installed base wins over new things because it is too disruptive to change it.

    The school scheduling equivalent of COBOL.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:16PM (#57361790)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Easy. You're a Mom who HAS TO GET TO WORK by 8am or you're fired! To do this you need to drop off your kid by 7:15am. That is the problem.

      I see comments here whining about change, but it is simple economics. You don't show up to work at 8am you won't have a job for long. If people can't work you bet your ass they would freak out as they are just shifting the costs from the school district to the parents aka tax payers who now can't work.

      High school kids are independent enough to get to school and prep them

      • I mean, what nation decides to place a higher value on an arbitrary start time for work than it does at making certain its children are able to attend school?

        Oh. Wait. That would be our nation.

        It's downright silly to put such demands on people. To tell them simultaneously that they must ensure proper care and education of their children and that they have to be employed while being without recourse or protection of the law should the first priority come in conflict with the second. Only psychopaths demand t

        • That's great. My boss would fire you. Infact, I was denied being hired full time because I was 8 minutes late one day, 22 one other day due to an accident, and 9 the rest. I learned my lesson.

          The boss who signs your checks tells you what to do an when to come in. Do not like that then die as you starve. That is just reality. I studied International Marketing in College. The US, Sweden, and Germany have more clocks than anywhere and tardiness is never acceptable PERIOD in our cultures. You can rebel all you

      • So if the change is to 7:15, how does mom now drop off her kids at 8:45 for school starting at 9 AM if she's already working at 8AM? Your post is nonsensical.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:18PM (#57361802)

    Programming would be so much easier without the damn user!

  • The big question being: Are you really willing to stomach the results? So optimsing school bus usage for highest effciency brings morning schedule out of wack by 2 hours and more for on the far ends of the queue? Gee wizz, what a surprise. Who would've thunk?

    In other words: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    • Highest efficiency brings the least resilience.

      The first bus to stall at a traffic light is going to bring the school system to a halt.

  • by diamondmagic ( 877411 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:29PM (#57361834) Homepage

    Too-early start times, especially for high schools, are a well known reason for poor academic performance:
    http://time.com/4741147/school... [time.com]
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s... [cbsnews.com]

    • Early start times are a problem for highschoolers. This plan started high school later - but started elementary school earlier. That's a better fit to young kids' sleep schedules but would've wreaked havoc on their parents' schedules.

  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @07:29PM (#57361838)

    Nearly 85% of the district had ended up with a new start time, and "In the end, the school start time quandary was more political than technical... This was a fundamentally human conflict, and all the computing power in the world couldn't solve it."

    No, it wasn't 'political'. The algorithm successfully computed an optimal schedule for the students with regards to bus transport, but did not include any data at all about the optimal schedule for the parents.
    If they wanted to find the optimums, they should have included the whole system and not just the least impactful part. The parents schedules are the most important ones since they are responsible for making it all happen; from breakfast to dinner to bedtime.

    I see this all the time. Brilliant programmers and mathematicians that think they can just throw the data into an algorithm and get an answer without understanding the data itself or how to interpret it medically/biologically.

    • TFA said that the algorithm suggested multiple solutions based on different parameters
      optimizing cost (but that annoyed the most parents and gave fewer high school students late starts)
      pleasing the most parents and giving all high school students late starts (but this cost way more)
      balancing those factors

      The compromise was chosen and apparently pleased nobody. I'm reminded of the engineering slogan "fast, cheap, good - pick 2". It doesn't sound like a problem with the algorithm technology, rather how it was

  • by m00sh ( 2538182 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:35PM (#57362026)

    MIT's algorithm wasn't elegant. It was a complete failure. Still, it is being spun as some sort of success. They're blaming the field of algorithms. The brilliant and elegant men of MIT could not fail.

    All this university branding ...

  • School starting at 7:15 is ludicrous. Especially for older children for whom getting up early is counter-indicated by biology. (There are studies but I can't be bothered looking up references for a /. comment.) And wouldn't that mean school is then getting out for the day at 1:30 or so? Or do school days run longer in the US than I'm familiar with from when I went to school. Where and when I went to school, it ran from roughly 8:45 or 9:00 to about 3:15 or so, which meant I could get up at 7:00, do the nece

    • I used to get on the bus at 7:02am (home at 2:45pm), every school day for four years. 8:02am prior to that for middle and elementary school. If you stick to a routine your body adapts and biology doesn't suffer. As for parents and work time conflicts, this was back when one parent could be a homemaker while the other, yes usually the father, could support an entire family with one full time lower middle class blue collar job. There was even enough for college and retirement because they didn't live beyond t

    • There are pedophiles out today and it is dangerous in urban areas with traffic. The reason they start that early is not just because Mommy has to be at work by 8 but because you would increase bus drivers by 300%. Think about it?

      You can have the same bus driver drive preschool, elementary, middle, and high school. If they all started the same time you would then need to hire 4 times the amount of bus drivers for each shift.

      • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @10:16PM (#57362360)

        Traffic is no more dangerous than 30-40 years ago, in fact, it's safer. I don't think a larger % of the population has a proclivity to kidnap and abuse children than before, either.

        You sound like part of the problem. In normal places like NYC or parts of Europe, kids walk, bike, or take public transit to school, and parents aren't quaking in their boots in fear.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:40PM (#57362050)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • My first thought. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:49PM (#57362080) Homepage
    Is that problems like this didn't happen when only one parent had to work to support a family. The 'homemaker' stayed home and handled things like weird school times, plus you know, actually teaching their own kids about life. Now both parents have to work, isn't it nice that now it takes two people working full time jobs to earn enough that used to be done by ONE full time parent? This tells me that your job is only worth half the value it used to be! Progress for corporations, at the expense of your family, indeed.
    • Now both parents have to work...

      No they do not. It's a choice to live in a certain manner. You pare back the wants from the "needs". I was a single parent and went that world just fine. I dealt with stupid rules by basically saying in a courtly manner "I'm a single parent you imbecile, I can't."

      Having single parents, by the way, was something this algorithm obviously did not take into account.

    • by Terry Carlino ( 2923311 ) on Sunday September 23, 2018 @12:13AM (#57362722)

      I call BS.

      The duel income family is not a result of two parents having to work to meet needs. Its the result of two parents having to work to meet wants.

      Why the hell do 2 adults and a kid need 2500 sqft of house? Is it really necessary for each kid in a family of four to have their own room? Why the hell does every member of the family need a $1000 iphone?

      The difference in family incomes from 30 years ago isn't that families have half the buying power. Its that they spend twice as much. Most of the increase is for stuff they wouldn't have had 30 years ago.

      Let me run down some examples. 30 years ago no one needed an ISP. Most people pay >$150 a month for internet access. No one 30 years ago had a cell phone. Unless you're on Cricket you're paying ~$80-100 a person for a smart phone date plan. You can throw in the difference in price for an 1800 sqft to a 2500 sqft house. Two new cars, vice one new car and a beater. Laptops, tablets, heck desktops, if anyone still has them, none of which a household had 30 years ago.

      Now don't get me wrong. Lots of that stuff is nice to have. Some of it, like Internet access and connected devices are even pretty close to necessary today. But it is stuff in excess of what the single income household use to have 30 years ago.

  • shifting school start times at some elementary schools by as much as two hours. Even more... Hundreds of families were facing a 9:30 to 7:15 a.m. shift.
    Elementary school kids should start at 7:15???

    When are they supposed to leave the house? 6:45?
    When are they supposed to get out of bed? 5:45?
    When are the parents supposed to get out of bed?

    Hello!!! That is torture!!

  • "Computers can solve your problem.

    Computers do not solve problems. Computers run programs written by humans. Those humans try to solve the problem via computers. When (if?) humans take responsibility for the problems they tell the computers to create, then and only then will we be able to better resolve the problems that face us.

  • by craighansen ( 744648 ) on Saturday September 22, 2018 @09:54PM (#57362290) Journal

    ....it was the choice of cost function. They could have chosen the cost function so that no school had their time moved up more than, for example, 30 minutes. The end result might not have saved as much in bus costs, but by removing the objectionable results, they might have successfully implemented the optimized schedule. If they had asked parents about acceptable start times in the surveys, surely they should have exposed the problem up front.

  • If you've ever worked with a fresh college grad, you know that they are very, very junior. College does not teach students how to be software engineers, it only teaches them how to write code, and maybe a bit of logic theory. To be worth much in business, it takes a few years of experience.

    Missing the actual reaction of humans who use a system (in this case, parents dealing with bus schedules) is very typical for a young person just out of school, or in this case, still in school.

    • Or maybe they're not so jaded that they don't think they can't knock the bloody system to the ground and help to rebuild it. If we get HS kids used to starting school at 9 am, not 7 am, they'll be less likely to want to take crap from a PoS boss down the road. Maybe we'll finally go back to actual 9 to 5 working times rather than having employees bending over backward to accomodate their bosses.
      • Get "back" to 9 to 5? Study history. Before Henry Ford, people commonly worked six day weeks, 10-12 hour days. We have it pretty darn good these days.

      • If we get HS kids used to starting school at 9 am, not 7 am

        So you missed the whole part about shifting the start from 9:30AM to 7:15AM? This is what happens when you view everything through radical agenda.

  • by kmoser ( 1469707 ) on Sunday September 23, 2018 @12:03AM (#57362694)
    "It's just want I asked for, but not what I want!"
  • by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Sunday September 23, 2018 @02:10AM (#57362990)
    We don't really have those problems here.

    In first world countries, it is assumed that people work for a living and that the average work day spans from around 7am to 5pm with a little time for drifting. As such, in first world countries we have government subsidized day care that operates from 7am to 5pm. This means that everyone should be able to make their work window happen during those hours.

    For children who are too young to be home alone before and after school, the schools are open early and there are people watching the playgrounds. Then there are programs sponsored by the government to provide after school activities (similar to day care) for kids up to around 6th grade until 5pm.

    In these environments, we don't have school buses... we simply have public transportation. The parents drop off and pick up using public buses... even if you live on a farm 500km from civilization... there should be a regularly serviced bus stop nearby.

    Parents often make groups to walk kids to and from school each day... and the single parent with a long way to go to get to and from work generally don't have problems because no one would consider making one of their child's friends mother have to quit their job.

    Then there's the issue of making sure that mom or dad don't have that problem. Whether you're a 1%er or you're the bottom 1%, the government pays your child welfare to make sure their have what they need. This pops an extra $300-$500 a month into your bank account. So you can afford to have a slightly more flexible job or even to be a student long enough to make things easier later on.

    We pay for this as tax payers in the first world and don't think anything of it. It doesn't matter whether we choose to have children of our own or not. What matters is that the people we work with need to be healthy. The people who work for us need to be healthy. The people who pick up the trash on the road need to be healthy. The people who we pass on the street need to be healthy. Otherwise, you get second world problems like school shootings because people aren't healthy. Or equally disgusting... people live in neighborhoods with security gates and guards because they're terrified of their own lives.

    The first world is willing to live with a little less to get a lot more. We have governments with parties who we don't trust, but are smart enough to make sure there are enough parties that they can't make any choices without actually debating those laws openly. So while we don't trust the people in the government... we trust their enmity towards one another to keep them from hurting us. We also trust the government to make sure our tax payer money is spent in a way that will get them reelected because we can see, touch and feel how much better our lives are than the second world Americans on TV.
  • by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Sunday September 23, 2018 @08:59AM (#57363904)

    A long long time ago, known as the '80s, we still had people called "general business consultants". These people were hired by businesses, for lots of money, purely to look around and make decisions. They didn't justify those decisions (with any sort of data) at all. They simply said thing like "I believe this is the best course of action.". You believed them because they had a good track record and experience in the field, or you didn't.

    Nowadays, general business consultants have been replaced by data engineers -- people who like to collect huge amounts of data points, and have dumb-ass machines make decisions based on those data points. Alas, like every study that's ever been done with data points, it all comes down to whether or not you have enough of the right data points, and not too many of the wrong data points. And that's a skill that absolutely none of these data engineers has ever had.

    I can make the cost of transportation absolutely $0. It's really easy. I'll just cancel all of the buses. Oh, wait, you actually want buses? I hadn't thought about that. Okay, I'll take your children at midnight. Oh? You don't like that either? Here's a thought, I'll get more buses, not stagger anything, and you'll be happy. Oh wait, we don't have that much money?

    Look at that. Balancing costs and services can't make everyone happy. Maybe happiness costs money, or customers. Shock of a lifetime.

    Maybe one day, data engineers will be able to put in the very important data point that says we're never trying to solve a problem. Solving any problem is ridiculously easy. We're always trying to solve a problem within another problem -- within a context. Like, in this case, within a parent's business day. That's hard, if not impossible, every time.

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik

Working...