donutsweeper (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
donutsweeper) wrote2013-08-14 04:37 pm
donutsweeper) wrote2013-08-14 04:37 pm
Entry tags:
Just when you think life can't get more annoying....
So, in what I assume is a cost cutting measure, the local high schools (high schools are for students age 14-18 in the US) have gotten rid of their busing system and are providing cards that can be used for city buses (aka metro transit) instead.
Logic seems to be that: a) This enables kids to come to school early or stay late and still have transportation and, in general makes transportation easy and accessible. This is mentioned no less that four times on the informational webpage. (And is, in various wording, three of the four 'benefits to the program' bullets) b) "The program supports improved student attendance and retention." (Somehow. I have no clue how or why they think this will be the case; they don't go into specifics in the final 'benefits' bullet.)
Now to understand the fallacy in their logic picture this. School buses had picked up kids within the 'transportation range' (a certain geographic area of the city in relation to each of the seven high schools) at their assigned bus stop (usually within a quarter mile of the student's home) and dropped them off at school in the morning and then did the reverse at the end of the school day. If a bus was late all the kids would get slips as they left the bus so they wouldn't be marked tardy. Schools don't like tardy or missing students because they get state/federal money for each attending child and how much depends on how long the child is in school for (so tardy = reduced funding, absent kids = a lot less money).
Now... first let me explain that metro transit here isn't great. If you want to go downtown it's awesome. (None of the high schools are downtown.) The system has often been described as a wagon wheel- tons of routes head to the center, but going around elsewhere things get a little difficult. It's doable... just not easy or all that quick to do so.
Second, not all the kids who go to school used school buses in the first place. If you lived within a 2m radius of the school you didn't get a school bus so you walked, biked or took the city bus. Also, there were already a bunch of kids who used public transportation to and from school because a lot of kids lived outside of the transportation range for one reason or another. Often, these kids would be late because they'd missed their bus or a connecting bus or one of the buses would be full so just continue past scheduled stops even if there were people waiting because it couldn't take on other passengers, etc. And even if everything did work out it was still a 3 block walk from the bus stop to the school, not awful, but when no one's shoveled and there's a foot of fresh snow that's just fallen... (this and further specifics from my kids' school, I can't speak for the other 6 high schools) Also, any kid had the option of driving their own car (within age/driving laws and car ownership aspects of things) and there's a decent amount of street parking available (when there's not construction going on or a snow emergency has been declared or it's street sweeping or something) so a decent number of the older kids always did that.
Enrollment at my kids' school is just under 2k, assuming maybe 1/4 will be going early/staying late and another good chunk already use some other sort of transportation... that still leaves HUNDREDS, if not close to a THOUSAND students or more cramming onto an already full transportation system, all trying to get to the same specific destination at exactly the same time. Metro transit has issued a statement it will be adding routes and additional buses 'as deemed necessary' to meet demand. Methinks they're underestimating how much of a problem this is going to be.
Previously, my kids had it lucky and their school bus stop was only a half block away. Now? To get to the route that goes to their school it's a 1.2 mile walk. In MN. Where it's sometimes -10 in the morning before windchill. Or pouring. Or a foot of snow has recently fallen and it's still coming down. There are a few options of walking less and risking taking a closer bus and then transferring to that bus and hope that it all works but...
To me, this just seem like the epitome of penny-wise, pound foolish. Yes, the district will save money in transportation. They probably got a great deal on the student bus passes they'll be handing out and running and maintaining school buses are expensive (although they will still run buses for elementary and middle schools, probably assuming kids under 14 are too young to navigate city buses, so it's not like they can get rid of their buses entirely) and parents and students will nowt bear the brunt of gas costs assuming kids drive themselves or get rides but how many kids will be late while they figure out the new system or just miss a bus here and there? And how many kids are going to just decide skipping school is easier and not show up at all? Every kid that falls into either of those categories costs the school district money. A *lot* of money.
I will concede to the fact that school busing had not be available for extra curriculum/ before or after school activities so the option of city busing then it nice. However, it doesn't make up for the complete chaos that the normal busing times is going to be.
Just having gotten the news today, we're not sure what we'll be doing here. I see a lot of extra driving in my future though. *sigh*
eta- oh and I just realized- those city bus pass cards? Must be picked up at the school during a specific hour of a specific day. (and different hours for different grades just to make life difficult) Working? Don't have transportation there? Not their problem!
Logic seems to be that: a) This enables kids to come to school early or stay late and still have transportation and, in general makes transportation easy and accessible. This is mentioned no less that four times on the informational webpage. (And is, in various wording, three of the four 'benefits to the program' bullets) b) "The program supports improved student attendance and retention." (Somehow. I have no clue how or why they think this will be the case; they don't go into specifics in the final 'benefits' bullet.)
Now to understand the fallacy in their logic picture this. School buses had picked up kids within the 'transportation range' (a certain geographic area of the city in relation to each of the seven high schools) at their assigned bus stop (usually within a quarter mile of the student's home) and dropped them off at school in the morning and then did the reverse at the end of the school day. If a bus was late all the kids would get slips as they left the bus so they wouldn't be marked tardy. Schools don't like tardy or missing students because they get state/federal money for each attending child and how much depends on how long the child is in school for (so tardy = reduced funding, absent kids = a lot less money).
Now... first let me explain that metro transit here isn't great. If you want to go downtown it's awesome. (None of the high schools are downtown.) The system has often been described as a wagon wheel- tons of routes head to the center, but going around elsewhere things get a little difficult. It's doable... just not easy or all that quick to do so.
Second, not all the kids who go to school used school buses in the first place. If you lived within a 2m radius of the school you didn't get a school bus so you walked, biked or took the city bus. Also, there were already a bunch of kids who used public transportation to and from school because a lot of kids lived outside of the transportation range for one reason or another. Often, these kids would be late because they'd missed their bus or a connecting bus or one of the buses would be full so just continue past scheduled stops even if there were people waiting because it couldn't take on other passengers, etc. And even if everything did work out it was still a 3 block walk from the bus stop to the school, not awful, but when no one's shoveled and there's a foot of fresh snow that's just fallen... (this and further specifics from my kids' school, I can't speak for the other 6 high schools) Also, any kid had the option of driving their own car (within age/driving laws and car ownership aspects of things) and there's a decent amount of street parking available (when there's not construction going on or a snow emergency has been declared or it's street sweeping or something) so a decent number of the older kids always did that.
Enrollment at my kids' school is just under 2k, assuming maybe 1/4 will be going early/staying late and another good chunk already use some other sort of transportation... that still leaves HUNDREDS, if not close to a THOUSAND students or more cramming onto an already full transportation system, all trying to get to the same specific destination at exactly the same time. Metro transit has issued a statement it will be adding routes and additional buses 'as deemed necessary' to meet demand. Methinks they're underestimating how much of a problem this is going to be.
Previously, my kids had it lucky and their school bus stop was only a half block away. Now? To get to the route that goes to their school it's a 1.2 mile walk. In MN. Where it's sometimes -10 in the morning before windchill. Or pouring. Or a foot of snow has recently fallen and it's still coming down. There are a few options of walking less and risking taking a closer bus and then transferring to that bus and hope that it all works but...
To me, this just seem like the epitome of penny-wise, pound foolish. Yes, the district will save money in transportation. They probably got a great deal on the student bus passes they'll be handing out and running and maintaining school buses are expensive (although they will still run buses for elementary and middle schools, probably assuming kids under 14 are too young to navigate city buses, so it's not like they can get rid of their buses entirely) and parents and students will nowt bear the brunt of gas costs assuming kids drive themselves or get rides but how many kids will be late while they figure out the new system or just miss a bus here and there? And how many kids are going to just decide skipping school is easier and not show up at all? Every kid that falls into either of those categories costs the school district money. A *lot* of money.
I will concede to the fact that school busing had not be available for extra curriculum/ before or after school activities so the option of city busing then it nice. However, it doesn't make up for the complete chaos that the normal busing times is going to be.
Just having gotten the news today, we're not sure what we'll be doing here. I see a lot of extra driving in my future though. *sigh*
eta- oh and I just realized- those city bus pass cards? Must be picked up at the school during a specific hour of a specific day. (and different hours for different grades just to make life difficult) Working? Don't have transportation there? Not their problem!
no subject