| Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 01:48 pm Report on end of busing and impact on neighborhood schools in Columbus, Ohio http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/schools/cpsmain.html
| |
| Monday, July 24, 2000 - 10:24 am An important difference between the situation described in the article and the CH-UH situation is that we are NOT redistricting the schools. In Columbus, the end of busing meant the return of children to their neighborhood schools. In CH-UH children will continue to attend their assigned schools, but the district puts the responsibility for transportation on the parents for all but >2 mi distance from school.
| |
| Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 05:23 pm NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AS DEFINED BY WHO? 16 YEARS AGO THE SCHOOL BOARD CLOSED 2 NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS FOR THE SAKE OF DIVERSITY. THEY INCLUDED BUSING IN THAT PROGRAM. NOW THEY ARE MAKING CHILDREN WALK BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY TO TRANSPORT THE KIDS THAT WOULD NOT NEED TRANSPORTATION IF THERE NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL WAS NOT CLOSED (SOUNDS LIKE A VICIOUS CIRCLE TO ME)
| |
| Sunday, August 13, 2000 - 02:40 pm A Response To The Aug 7th Board Meeting We don’t need a referendum on busing. The community has already spoken. We passed the March levy, wherein the increase of ½ mil was supposedly to restore something that had been cut- and busing would be the obvious choice, given the attention it has received. Yet nothing has been restored—not the guidance counselors nor custodians nor anything else. It is deceitful that once the levy passed this notion of extending the levy to 4 years surfaced and became the excuse that kept busing restoration from happening. Furthermore, a referendum on busing has occurred in the form of public debate and commentary in the media, e-mails, the rally, the submission of 800 petition signatures, and in phone calls all over town. Last of all, our children’s’ safety should not be a matter of public referendum, period. If the Board is into single-issue referendums, let them have one on stretching out the levy monies to last 4 years. Then they’ll at least have someone to run the levy campaign (themselves), and they’ll be putting up a levy issue that they actually support! More troubling than all of this is that they still don’t seem to get it. Were it not for this unexpected “windfall” of ¾ million dollars they apparently would not have reinstated busing. They would’ve ignored the urgings of public officials and public citizens and the pleas of the 3 elementary school PTA’s most affected by this unusual decision. (We were, after all, the only district in Cuyahoga Co. with a 2-mile limit!) Whether the noted appearance of $700,000 represents a way to save face or a serious lack of fiscal accountability remains a mystery to me. But one thing I do know: it is enough money to pay for 2 years of bus service, not one. By their own “guess-timates”, which they lifted from the Petro Audit, the transportation cost is $330,000 a year--a figure that is actually on the high side. If the Edulog routing software system that we’ve owned for 5 years was ever utilized to it’s full potential, the cost could be considerably less. Even so, you do the math. What, I wonder, will the Board decide to do with the other $370,000? This has been the most hotly debated issue in years. It’s time to lay it to rest for a while. I think we should ask the Board to use the money to restore busing for 2 years, not one. This way we won’t have to revisit this subject in 6 months in anticipation of the start of another school year. While this is still only a short-term answer, it at least allows for enough time for strategic planning to occur, and for some new members to come on board who are not entrenched in their positions and who may view safety as a priority. Truthfully, however, even a 2-year guarantee is inadequate: what we really need in these congested inner-ring suburbs is “one mile forever”. Lastly, I would like to encourage the development of a new modus operandi within the school community—a new “culture” if you will. We need more openness in the future--more sharing of information on the part of the Board and more public participation in the decision-making process. There are already many ideas afloat about how the district could save money and be “fiscally responsible” while still not compromising the educational or safety needs of the students. We need to be able to see what’s in the budget, and have an opportunity to participate in determining our priorities. I urge everyone to let the board members know what you think of a referendum and of busing restoration prior to the next meeting on Aug 14th. Nancy Ballou
| |
| Tuesday, August 15, 2000 - 09:42 am I wish to express appreciation for the quality of busing debate that Don Frederich has facilitated. He had that tough challenge of wanting to be sound in his reasoning while feeling passinate for an end result. He dug deeper than most into the details of the issue, presented them for open public information, listened to counter opinions faithfully, and in the end shared his emotions on how strongly he felt about the choices. I support more of that. I think our kids might be positively encouraged by more such citizenship.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2000 - 02:01 pm How many and what other districts have bused students living <2 mi? What date did the Board vote to implement this policy change? When did articles about this appear in the Sun Press? (Any after last October's community meeting at John Carroll on the transportation section of the audit?) It seems to me that cutting the service to >2 mi has been discussed for quite a while and no one should have been surprised by it.
|