The cost of regular bus service (excluding SPED) will be almost $1.3 million in FY '11.
The State requires that the Schools provide free bus transportation to students in grades K-6 who live more than two miles from the school. It also provides that each student's bus stop must be within 1 mile of their house. (See MGL 71:68)
There is no requirement to provide free bus service for grades 7-12.
Given the condition of the roads and the lack of sidewalks in Sandwich, it is neither safe nor practical to expect every kid to walk to school. But given the budget situation the Town is facing, I would suspect a reduction in transportation, or at least a reduction in FREE transportation is unavoidable.
Some options:
1) Provide only the state-mandated minimum service and eliminate bus service for anyone after 6th grade or within 2 miles of the building. The District would have the option of selling any "surplus" bus seats to parents at their full cost (including program administration charge).
2) Eliminate bus service for high school students entirely. This would be easier to implement than measuring mileage between individual homes and schools and dealing with the segregation of grades 6-8 in our K-8 schools.
3) Provide only full cost paid bus service for high school. This assumes that high school bus riders would bear the full cost of the bus operation including the cost of the administrative labor to sell the tickets, and enforce their use.
4) Do nothing. Continue to pay full fares to operate partially full buses. Fund the transportation budget by laying off some more teachers or eliminating some academic or extra-curricular programs.
5) Review the current bus contract and bus routes and ensure that buses are optimally routed based on the current student census and usage. Consolidate nearby bus stops to reduce frequent stops which waste time and fuel. Eliminate or consolidate any routes with insufficient ridership. (This should be done on a regular basis -- maybe it is?)
Transportation fees are never popular -- but this is another example of one of the many budget priorities the School District will need to face in the coming year.
10 comments:
I hate fees (which we all know is a tax) BUT this charge would only be paid by the people who actually benefitted from the service. It is more fair than raising everyone's taxes or (more likely) making more education cuts.
People who dont want to pay can drive their kids -- or buy them sneakers and/or a bike helmet.
What happened to a free public education? First we have to buy all the school supplies -- pencils, paper, paper towels, soap, etc.... now, we don't even get a school bus.
no wonder the foreign kids are beating ours!
If you are going to suggest a bus fee, then enforcement will be critical. Word is that last time we had a bus fee, not all drivers checked bus passes and many kids rode without ever paying the fee. Kind of frustrating for those who did pay.
Bob, how much would be saved by eliminating high school bus service? I don't think the number of busses would not be reduced since they are needed for the K-8 runs. So, I guess the question is how much do you save by eliminating the high school runs?
Also, please do not suggest any additional fees on parents until we see concessions from the teachers union.
10:42 raised 3 Excellent points:
Enforcement will be crucial --- nobody should pay a fee unless everyone does.
I dont know exactly how much would be saved -- we would still need k-8 buses, but there would be less hours of driver time, and less miles on the vehicles. This would have to be determined when the new bus contract is negotiated later this year.
I agree no fees or overrides until teachers union takes a freeze. It is unfathomable to me that the SC would ever consider settling a contract without a freeze. (But it is also unimaginable to me that the union leadership was so willing to shoot the entire District in the head by not volunteering to take a freeze last year. They killed any hope of additional funding.)
Fees aren't the answer -- there will need to be some cuts. I would hope the SC takes a hard look at other areas first.
Two other money saving options the Board should consider:
1. Run all buses on the same routes as the High School pick up and drop off. By eliminating stops you improve bus efficiency which would allow for fewer buses (and drivers) to be used daily. Every bus taken off the road saves the District roughly $50,000. It’s been estimated and previously reported to the Board that at least 3 buses could be eliminated by implementing this change.
2. Change how the bus gas is purchased. The town should consider purchasing school bus fuel in addition to the fuel purchased for the police, fire and DPW vehicles. Bulk purchasing would reduce fuel costs and save money.
Mr. Guerin
Please tell me why the savings in #1 was not implemented. How long ago was this reported to the Board.
Thank You
The suggestion to alter (eliminate) bus stops has been raised at least twice in public meetings with separate School Boards.
Both times the idea was not acted on because the Administration and Boards felt that the disruption to families resulting from the change would be too significant.
The suggestion to alter how bus gas is purchased has also been vetted publically. But, there are serious questions about where gas could be stored/delivered in town (the town pumps at the DPW are too small to accommodate additional fuel and the driveway and turn around areas are not designed to accommodate buses and increased traffic) there are also questions about if gas could be stored and accessed out-of-town.
Obviously, as budget pressures mount those prior decisions could and should be reconsidered.
Bobby -
With regard to your Option #4, why do you always equate forgoing additional fees to teacher or program cuts? Although I am against a geographically-biased bus tax (my kids would have to walk a state highway without sidewalks to get to school, but we are within the 2 mile radius), I think we could explore some other options to offset rising costs. How about eliminating the tuition reimbursement policy?
Fair question.
I don't think anything is off the table or safe from cuts.
The reason I use classroom-based costs is because payroll is the biggest part of the school budget. And, because we all want to protect the classroom as much as possible, I see this as the worst case scenario.
I also know non-teaching costs are a tiny part of the budget without a lot of "wiggle" room.
We need between $1.5 and $2.5 million in savings next year. I know the "teaching and learning/professional development budget was already reduced from $412k in FY '10 to $245K in FY '11.
There's some tuition reimbursement money in individual contracts -- but it's small potatoes and would require that several contracts be re-negotiated --- just not worth the brain damage or legal fees (particularly since those involved have ALREADY given up 2 years of raises).
You raise a good point on safety and geographically-based taxes. I would hope that they look at decreased athletics funding which impact less people before implementing transportation fees which have a much wider impact.
Framingham recently revised its Free Bus policy. the uproar was not unexpected.
See -- http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/education/x1170511704/Framingham-parents-angry-over-new-bus-rules
Post a Comment