Transportation Alternatives Offered

There is a petition out there on this issue with over 500 signatures.  I have Tweeted this and there is also a link for Facebook. 

Eric B. has a proposal for transportation:



 School Bell Times – A New Proposal 

Seattle Public Schools currently operates under a multi-tier system for yellow bus arrivals and school starts. High schools and middle schools start at about 8:00am or 8:30am. K-8 schools generally start at about 8:20am or 9:15am, and K-5 schools start between 8:50am and 9:30am. The varying start times allow several schools to share the same bus,reducing overall costs.

 District staff recently proposed a revised schedule, which would reduce the number of buses used even further. The staff proposal would have high schools, middle schools, and K-8 schools on a three-tier system, sharing the same group of buses. Start times would be approximately 7:25am, 8:20am, and 9:15am for the various schools. The K-5 schools would be on a 2-tier system, with start times at approximately 8:40am and 9:35am.

 As parents, we propose an alternative system. Under the proposed system, all schools would be divided into two tiers of bus arrival times. The first tier would serve only K-5 elementary students, and would have a target arrival time of 8:00am. The second tier would serve all remaining elementary schools plus K-8, middle, and high schools, and would have a target arrival time of 9:00am. Departure times from schools would be approximately 2:35pm for the first tier and and 3:35pm (elementary) or 3:55pm (secondary) for the second tier.

For simplicity, we would retain some aspects of the staff proposal. Assumed bus capacities are the same as the staff proposal. The planned bus ride time is also the same, at 45 minutes. Some of these factors could be tweaked as needed in developing the plan if it is adopted.

Benefits
The main benefit is to move secondary students to a start time later in the day and elementary students earlier in the day, aligning the school times with optimum learning times in the average student’s body clock. The best current research shows that these students have better academic outcomes across the board when school times are aligned this way. For this reason, the Board (at the fall retreat) asked staff to consider ways to move secondary start times later. The Washington State PTSA recently voted on a measure recommending that the start times for secondary students be moved later. This proposal would improve academic outcomes.

 In addition to the main benefits listed above, there are several side benefits:
  • The current late start time for third-tier elementary schools places significant strains on families with two working parents. These families have to choose between asking their employer for an extremely late start time (eg 10:30am) or paying for before-school child care. While many businesses offer flex time to professional employees, few are willing to flex that far. Flex time is often unavailable for shift workers. The staff proposal would bring this late start time to about half of the elementary schools in the District.
  •  Under the new system, bus and start times for most schools would be standardized, and would be quite predictable. While one or two elementary schools might have to switch tiers in a given year to even out the numbers of buses in each tier, the vast majority would stay constant. 
  • With only two tiers, buses would be more available in the middle of the day for field trips. Under the current multi-tier system, it is very difficult for school staff to get a bus assigned for a field trip more than a couple of hours long. This would likely become worse under the system proposed by staff. 
  •  Buses are more likely to be on time. Under the new proposal, bus drivers would have approximately 15 minutes between delivery of students at the first tier school and beginning the second tier route. This compares to 10 minutes in the staff proposal. The extra few minutes will increase system reliability and reduce the number of students delivered late to the second tier school.
Drawbacks

As with any plan, this proposed plan has some drawbacks.  These are addressed in turn, with ways to mitigate them.  

Civil Twilight: Under this proposal,elementary students would be waiting for the bus before civil twilight in the morning for some of the year.  With an estimated ride time of 45 minutes,the earliest bus stop would be at 7:15.  This is before civil twilight from the last week of October to the first week of March.  This could be mitigated by locating bus stops at well-lit intersections and as much as possible where there is a safe place for students to wait for the bus.  Issues with civil twilight are not unique to our proposal.  The staff proposal would have the first bus stop for elementary students at 7:40.  This is before civil twilight from mid-November to mid-February.  The net difference to our proposal is only about 4 weeks of class time, one of which is traditionally occupied by mid-winter break.  Also, the plan proposed by staff could have some K-8 elementary students picked up at 6:25, which is before civil twilight from mid-September to late March.

Cost: This proposal is expected to be cost-neutral for elementary schools as compared to the staff proposal, since both plans use two tiers of buses for elementary school transportation. It would likely cost somewhat more than the staff proposal for middle and high school transportation. However, the number of middle and high school students transported on yellow buses is far lower than the number of elementary school students, since most high school students are transported on Metro buses. This has the effect of reducing the overall cost difference. A full cost analysis is still needed, and would likely need staff input. We also propose other cost-saving measures to reduce costs elsewhere in the transportation budget. These savings may offset the increased cost of yellow bus transportation.

After-School Activities and Sports: With middle and high schools releasing students near 4:00pm, the time available for after-school activities and sports is substantially reduced under this proposal. However, some of these programs could move to before school, and others could move later in the evening. Also, we note that the staff proposal has the third tier of K-8, middle, and high schools released at about 4:00 as well, so the same accommodations would need to be made at those schools under the staff proposal.

Other Potential Cost Savings
Some other areas of cost savings and/or revenue enhancements are as follows:

  • Reducing truancy and dropout rates among secondary students would increase the number of students in school overall, resulting in an increase in state funding. Grants may also be available to improve educational outcomes by aligning school schedules to the average student’s body clock. 
  • Surveying parents to determine if they plan to use yellow bus transportation may allow the District to reduce unneeded bus stops. Many students are transported to school by parents or other caregivers. Removing students who will not ride the bus from the rolls will allow more efficient use of buses and scheduling of stops. 
  • Increased reliability of buses will result in fewer “emergency” calls to replace a late or no-show buses. 
 Summary
This proposal attempts to follow best practices as defined by research data to align the school day to the average student’s body clock. Current research indicates that this will improve academic outcomes, from test scores to absenteeism to dropout rates to school nurse visits. There are other ancillary benefits as well. The drawbacks are relatively minor, and compare relatively favorably to the staff proposal already presented to the Board. Costs would increase somewhat, but the overall cost impact would be relatively minor. Overall, we believe that the potential benefits far outweigh the costs. We appreciate your time in reviewing this proposal and hope that you will recommend that District staff review it for inclusion as an option when the Board votes on May 16.

Comments

Eric B said…
Thanks for posting, Melissa. Comments and feedback are welcome, since I haven't forwarded this on to the Board/staff yet.

Does anyone know if the state cuts off funding for dropouts immediately, or if the District continues to get the state's share of funding for the entire year? If it's the latter, reducing the dropout rate through changing bus times would have a material impact on District finances.

Thanks!
I also realized that I had offered to put up bullet points on this issue. Help me out with more than just these:

- changing transportation times AFTER Open Enrollment
- creates chaos for the thousands of children and their families who use the bus
- difficult to understand proposals
- no public engagement or early warning
mirmac1 said…
Remember, when the first budget buster bomb fell on Feb 8, state budgets were unknown and the board was presuming a gap to close. Since then the presumed gap of $21M shrank to $0? So now it is simply, cut because we are the uber managers and insist on maximal efficiency and living within our means (that means YOU, Spec Ed students!) In the end, will the turmoil and angst be worth it?

DeBell can blithely talk about continued investment in language immerssion as an "intervention" strategy at a handful of schools while we still don't have RTI at all schools! Look at what you would save, Director, if you would help children at K-1 stay at grade level. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Anonymous said…
Apparently K8s have similar talking points swirling around. Just got one in my email.

Here is a question and it is honestly not meant to be snarky.

If at least 2 and probably more wide swaths of the community can come together with initial proposals that at the outset at least seem sensible instead of flat out insane (not that there wouldn't be problems to resolve, but the starting point seems so much more logical), then why can that SPS transportation'taskforce', or JSIS staff - or board - have not at the outset done the same.

What I am wondering is whether we really are broken beyond repair downtown. Will we ever get actual quality service in SPS? I think this issue may be the one that has convinced me that SPS has jumped the shark. I feel so frustrated and powerless.

Dismayed
Dorothy Neville said…
Eric. Nice job here. Apportionment is calculated monthly so you are correct that reducing drop outs increases revenue.
Anonymous said…
I also believe there is a great deal of brain research around school performance improving with physical activity. Moving secondary athletic practices before school (as a result of changes in busing schedules) may also lend itself to some improved academic outcomes.

-rudy
Steve said…
Thanks Eric. I like it. Clearly articulated, and seems to make sense. And as Dismayed says, I would be surprised if the district transportation people didn't first consider something simple like this. Given that you've provided more information than the public has been given (or at least more information that I can understand) about the proposed District plans, I can't be sure that they have already considered this.
mirmac1 said…
Well, it all comes down to bus counts, baby. So as long as you propose something less than three tiers, they'll be plugging their ears and go "nah nah nah nah".

Of course, IF our key performance indicators are at or better than other comparable districts (transpo $/student), why can't we have two tiers? Where in their analysis do the KPIs for attendance, tardiness, performance etc factor in?
Po3 said…
I think the board has gotten a pretty clear message that the 7:10 drop off for MS and HS and the 9:45start time for elementary is not acceptable.

What will they do about it is the question.
Maureen said…
I noticed that some districts had a different number of tiers in the a.m. and p.m. I wonder if Eric's proposal (with later HS/MS start times AND longer HS/MS days AND less of a problem to have MS/HS kids standing around waiting for the bus after school) might make it possible to run three tiers in the afternoon?
Anonymous said…
Interesting proposal - it's not disimiliar to what used to be.

Part of the current issue is that the powers that be in Transport. seem to be stuck on finding a way to make the 3 tier system work. Regardless of whether that's prudent.

In an ideal world - one would acknowledge this, rather than being "stuck" on manipulating things to fit a preconcieved notion. Especially as it's creater is gone now...

There is at least one MAJOR roadblock to returning to a 2 tier system - it actually requires TWO bus companies (more routes, more additional coverage - ie after school events etc).

And gee, don't we wish we hadn't fired Peterman, the company that used to be #2 company?

Coming together on a common plan is an excellent idea.

Word is the Board has started to hear parents loud and clear and has let Transportation know they are NOT happy with new plan....

in the know
mirmac1 said…
Well, I hope those board directors who were jumping up and down to cut cut cut (even when they did not have to) wipe the egg off their faces and refocus.
Anonymous said…
Elementary schools in other cities do start as early as 7:45, but where do they start as late as 9:45??

-common sense please
Charlie Mas said…
I signed the petition and tweeted it. Nice work.
RosieReader said…
Last night our principal (Martin Floe) made some excellent points about unintended consequences with the types of changes proposed here. I'm not saying the changes are good or bad, but the petition language really glosses over any potential problems.

For example, your high school students will only get more sleep if they keep going to bed at the same time they do now, but just get up later. But in reality, if high schools ends at about 4, instead of 2:30, students who have after school practices or activities won't get home until 6 or 7. And even for kids who head straight home on Metro, they are more likely to face longer rides because traffic gets heavier as it gets closer to 5. Either way, family dinners (for those of us who still have them) will be later, and homework won't get started and completed until later still. So will kids really get any more sleep? Personally, I'm doubtful.

Switching athletics to before school would have a huge impact on those high schools that have active music programs before school. Sure, forcing kids to choose music or sports is not the worst thing we could do to them, but it could come to that, at least for some. Do we want to encourage that choice?

Because of the share agreements with Parks, games/matches will still probably have to start at about the same time as they do now. So now student-athletes will miss more school time on game days. Is forcing athletes to sacrifice more class time worth it?

And what about students who have after school jobs? We'll be cutting 1.5 hours out of the time they are available to work. For some kids, those jobs are important economically to them and their family.

All of which leads me to say there's probably no "best" solution here. Just an awful lot of tradeoffs.
Eric B said…
So my theory on cost is that every dropout cost the District $X. The District has an empty space in that classroom, they're paying the teacher, and they're not getting the state revenue. for the sake of argument, let's say that the cost per student is $3K.

My transportation proposal costs more. Let's say for the sake of argument that it costs $150K more. If we can reasonably expect based on other studies that 50 students would not drop out, we've got ourselves a break-even program. The student success is a freebie.

For most projects, I want to make it so an accountant tells the District that they can't afford not to do it.
Kathy said…
Eric,

Thanks for your work on this issue.

I support later start times for HS students, but would like to see costs incorporated into a plan. Transportation and operations can not be looked at in a vacuum.

What are the costs of implementing this system? Would implementing this system result in laying off staff? I think I heard DeBell say something about cutting transportation to avoid laying off staff? If I recall correctly...the district is already thinking about cutting 16 positions, which include counselor positions. Would the benefit of late start time be done at the cost of support services?

Pros and cons would need to be debated.
Po3 said…
"All of which leads me to say there's probably no "best" solution here. Just an awful lot of tradeoffs."

Two years ago MS/HS started at 8:05and there were no reported issues with this start time. Students were much happier.

I guess it's one of those, oh look it's not broken, so let's break it.
RosieReader said…
Good point PO3. But Eric's not suggesting a 15 or 20 minute change like happened two years ago at some high schools. Eric's suggesting a high school bus drop off time of 9, which probably means a 9:10-9:15 start to the school day. That's 65-70 minutes later than the current start time. So I'm not sure past is a good predictor in this specific instance.
"Switching athletics to before school would have a huge impact on those high schools that have active music programs before school. Sure, forcing kids to choose music or sports is not the worst thing we could do to them, but it could come to that, at least for some. Do we want to encourage that choice?"


Yes, because life is full of choices and the transportation issue is not just one for the students but for entire families.

"Because of the share agreements with Parks, games/matches will still probably have to start at about the same time as they do now. So now student-athletes will miss more school time on game days. Is forcing athletes to sacrifice more class time worth it?"

That was worth noting about the share agreements with the City and that would be something to keep in mind.

You do not see this teeth-gnashing over sports, music, etc. in Europe.

But again, what is the core purpose of SPS? Academics. What are we working towards? Better academic outcomes for all students.

I believe in sports and arts and after-school activities. But I believe academics should always come first.
"Switching athletics to before school would have a huge impact on those high schools that have active music programs before school. Sure, forcing kids to choose music or sports is not the worst thing we could do to them, but it could come to that, at least for some. Do we want to encourage that choice?"


Yes, because life is full of choices and the transportation issue is not just one for the students but for entire families.

"Because of the share agreements with Parks, games/matches will still probably have to start at about the same time as they do now. So now student-athletes will miss more school time on game days. Is forcing athletes to sacrifice more class time worth it?"

That was worth noting about the share agreements with the City and that would be something to keep in mind.

You do not see this teeth-gnashing over sports, music, etc. in Europe.

But again, what is the core purpose of SPS? Academics. What are we working towards? Better academic outcomes for all students.

I believe in sports and arts and after-school activities. But I believe academics should always come first.
Anonymous said…
Nathan Hale starts at 8:30. The only athletics I know that practice before school is swimming. Hale has been starting at 8:30 for some time now and is actually a draw for that school. I think, once the kids switch over to that time start, they adjust and like it.

Also, teenagers won't necessarily be getting more sleep but the sleep start and end times will be aligned with their circadian rythyms. My kids have complained about trying to go to bed earlier so they get more sleep but they can't fall asleep until a certain time anyway.

FHP
word said…
I sent a note to the School board along with several peer reviewed papers showing clear correlations with reduced performance, sleep deprivation and early school start times. One interesting paper that I found showed a statistically significant increase in traffic accidents among students during a two year period after a switch to early school start times.

Certainly, if I had a sleep-deprived student who was driving his or herself to school that had an accident, I'd be out looking for blood - school district/board blood.

If the school district is willing to overlook the health and welfare of the students and family needs - perhaps the fear of litigation will have an impact.
FHP, exactly. It's not that they will get more sleep but the time they go to sleep is more in line with the time they get up.

Word, I saw a report where the driving accidents had gone down (and not just at school) with a later high school start time.

One more good reason to have a later start time for high school.
Po3 said…
Rosie Reader, do you support the current SPS proposal? Or are you rejecting Eric's B proposal?

And I agree with Melissa - Academics First and Foremost. Sports and Music etc. will always find a way to practice as seen by Hale and their 8:30 start.
Anonymous said…
A couple of posters noted that the Bd is "getting the message" that parents are unhappy with this proposal and the way they are trying to push it through so quickly. Am I reading correctly that likely this proposal will be tabled until it is tweaked to be more (IMO) reasonable? How do pple know what the feedback is, if you have some connection with Admin or the Bd - is our grassroots activism on this issue actually, possibly, working? There are still plenty of parents and schools who have no idea this is happening - shouldnt the Times have an article on this by now?
- MS parent
Anonymous said…
I am not even sure the schools are aware of this. I talked so a staff member at Hale and they had no idea what I was talking about. They assured me that Hale's start time would not change no matter what.

FHP
MS, I think the Board is hearing this loud and clear. At the last Board meeting, it was clear that staff wanted one thing and the Board wanted to see a couple of proposals, not just one.

Okay, here's one more thing you can do to get their attention.

Send the Board (in their entirety) a postcard. Any one will do. Write anything that bothers you the most about the plan. Tag line:

Not my kid.

or

Is the best SPS can do?

(Or help me out with a good one; I'm hungry so not thinking creatively.)

First of all, they get hundreds of e-mails. They get charted for sure but I'm not sure if all get read by the Board.

Second, the snail mail is a lot less. Imagine if they got hundreds and hundreds of postcards. It would send a good message.

Tell your PTA to have a postcard table and put them out for everyone to grab.

Go to the Saturday meetings - that would Carr and Smith-Blum - in numbers (grab a friend, a spouse but don't go alone). When one person stands up to say something about transportation, EVERYONE stand up. Let them know this cannot just go through because staff let it get to this point.

They are say 1-2 years under this plan. I wouldn't trust that statement at all.

Fight back NOW.
Anonymous said…
test scores may improve too...

http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/later-start-time-might-be-boon-for-test-scores-study-finds/

now we're talking the language the board will hear.


just a mom
mirmac1 said…
How about:

"Not in my lifetime!"

"you and what army?" etc etc

there's lots of silly things to say (not in a mean way).
Anonymous said…
If I were a Board member, I'd like to know how the current 3 tier system compares in cost to a 2 tier system, using the current state funding formula. Are we forced to stick with a 3 tier system and make some tweeks, or should it be abandoned and there be a return to the 2 tier system?

The problem seems to be that tiers are so close together that it's hard to make all the routes on time, hence earlier starts and later starts on either end. They also want to make longer routes to eliminate some buses (which really means drivers, yes?).

Does the Superintendent review staff proposals prior to them being posted for Board Introduction? The whole thing just boggles my mind.

tired parent
Anonymous said…
"Have YOU ever tried to get a xx year old out of bed at 5:30?"

"My kid should be sleeping at 6:10, not on a bus."

"Welcome to Zombieland."

this will get good !

*katie
Anonymous said…
I am also wondering exactly what percentage of students are expected to ride busses in 2012-13. Didnt the NSAP eliminate much of the need for bussing to school? Say if 25% of kids are eligible for yellow bus service, and say if only 20% use that service (I am completely estimating - these figures could be totally wrong but where is the info posted??), then are they proposing to shake up the schedules and lives of the bulk of families to save $1M of the cost of transporting 20% of the kids? For the record, my kids DO ride the bus and I'd be willing to pay a nominal fee for bus service if it meant a decent schedule for us and for everyone.
- MS mom
Po3 said…
I also would be willing to pay some $$$ towards transporation each year in return for a later MS/HS start time.

See now, here's the problem with no community engagement - parents are willing to roll up their sleeves, pitch in and help solve the problem.

Wonder if things under Banda will get better in this regard.
Anonymous said…
Eric, Please let us know when you send your proposal to the board so that we can email the board with reference to your plan.

I agree with Po3, I'm willing to do some work and some compromise to make a solution that is reasonable in regard to school start times, bus ride times, school activity concerns etc. Yes there will be some sacrifice somewhere, but let's find a least bad alternative.

I also wrote to the board that it doesn't seem like they have thought out that this coming year is the last year of grandfathered busing. They should keep that future savings in mind and not make a drastic change for 1 or 2 years that will be very disruptive to families.

Tier Challenged
Anonymous said…
"ZOO WEE Mama!"

Rowley
Jan said…
Great job, Eric. I signed, (and emailed to others who I think will sign too).

RosieReader: I think the "later bedtime" thing is, in fact, an issue of circadian rhythms -- and if a specific family wants to have a dinner hour together, or a kid has after school/evening commitments that push study time later -- then that one kid may need to get up earlier (assuming they have different circadian rhythms). But on the whole, we need to do what is right for ALL teens, and then let individuals figure out how to work it out for their own lives and activities.

On the sports/music thing -- many schools already have sports and music conflicts after school (Garfield's B and C jazz bands, etc.) as well as HUGE performance conflicts for kids who need to be at games and performances at the same time, so many of those kids already have this choice. Also, if sports take place before school, maybe some of the music groups (fewer kids?, not sure) move to after school. There is no question that people will need to think flexibly and creatively about how to make this happen -- but we are already having to do this with the current schedule -- it's just different problems.

I dont know enough about after school job issues (how many kids, what jobs they are doing, whether there are not also opportunities for early morning part time work) to comment on that.

I see it NOT as a trade off between the obvious benefits of Eric's system (better for HS/MS and better for elementary as well) vs scheduling difficulties. I see it as better for all school groups from a health/safety/circadian rhythm perspective -- and then you have the CURRENT tradeoffs/accommodations that people are making versus the NEW tradeoffs/accommodations that will be required under Eric's plan. Leaving out cost (which is not a valid thing to leave out, but I don't have any numbers), my sense is that Eric's plan is a better one than the District's alternatives.

And on cost -- by the time you factor in drop outs AND if you took into account the huge costs for families buying daycare hours for elementary kids with late start times -- well, it would be an interesting set of numbers to crunch.
Maureen said…
I also wrote to the board that it doesn't seem like they have thought out that this coming year is the last year of grandfathered busing. They should keep that future savings in mind and not make a drastic change for 1 or 2 years that will be very disruptive to families.

Yes, this.

Also:

I believe I read that the problem here is that they counted on the 11-12 plan saving $3million and it only saved $2million. Some of the reasons for that are identifiable (TOPS was supposed to share north end buses with Lowell, so the capacity screw up and move to Lincoln cost at least $50-100K.) I wonder (and none of us have any way of knowing) how much of that plan was actually implemented?
Maureen said…
I found the petition on Facebook, but here is a live link to the Start Time Petitionfor people who have managed to avoid it.
SP said…
Eric B- Before you submit your proposal, please be aware that ALL middle & ALL high schools are considered in Tier I by the district (even though there are some exceptions such as Hale & Center School), and this may impact your proposal. The SPS proposal is to have busses arrive at 7:10am (and thus, start time at/before 7:30am) for ALL middle & ALL high schools.

As a high school & middle school parent, the current 8:00am starting time (with yellow busses arriving 15 minutes before that) is right in an acceptable groove, with most high schools ending at 2:30pm-- I would prefer 8:30 starting but my kids say "NO way!!!"--- that getting out at 3:00 (instead of the current 2:30) would be unthinkable in their opinions.

We've gone through previous years of 7:40am starting time that was the pitts, but honestly Eric's proposed 9:00am bus arrival time (school starting at 9:15am and thus finishing at 3:45pm) would NOT be ideal either! That just is too late for so many reasons, including coordination with Running Start classes, Skill Center blocked class requirements, required after school tutoring, besides all of the after school activities, including drama rehersals (it's not just sports which drive the schedules!).

But, speaking of sports, it's bad enough now when kids have to leave 30 minutes early (1/2 of the class) in 6th period for sports, I can't imagine how it would work on a later schedule with games in other districts on the traditional schedule.

Let's be realistic- the end of a teen's day would be pushed back by 1-1/2 hours with Eric's proposal, getting home that much later & going to bed later so there would be no improvement on the sleep issue at all. My kid doesn't get to bed until 11:00pm many nights as it is...

Yes, academics should be the focus & major concern for bell schedules, but realistically HS kids have to engage in some kind of after-school activities in order to get into college these days. So, a late 9:00 bus arrival/9:15am start time would be a difficult sell to many families.
mirmac1 said…
Don't forget that K-5 STEM added $396K for 8 bus routes in WS.
basically said…
Part of the reason kids have to leave high school early for track meets and stuff is, you guessed it, because of the buses! They are only available at a certain time, so that determines the schedule.

I agree that the 8AM start time is just fine for us. Maybe 8:15 or 8:20, but that might make the elementary times too early. Would 7:30 be too early for an ES? My kids have always slept in, so 7-anything sound unreasonably early to me, but maybe not for the majority....
Anonymous said…
No kid, elementary especially because of safety, should be waiting for a bus prior to 7 a.m. I know a kid run over by a bus and killed. Do you? Do you want to?

Want to cap bus rides at an hour instead of the PROMISED 25 minutes this year (which never-ever materialized). Then say hello to 8 a.m. earliest start times for K-5s and K-8s.

Also, do not let the district or other communities divide us amongst ourselves. If something does not work for a K-5, 6-8, or 9-12 or K-8 grouping, then we should not force another grouping to eat that dog food.

The earliest and latest proposed arrival times should be off the proposal for everyone.

-skeptical-
SP said…
Mirmac1- That's interesting---at the last Board meeting the district said that Cleveland's bussing costs added "hundreds of thousands of dollars extra" because of their extended school schedule. The district did not even come up with an exact amount, yet they surely should know this- are they afraid to tell the Board?

It seems as if the STEM schools are untouchable, and all the other schools have to grin & bear the additional costs to carry those schools.

BTW- Cleveland's extended school day adds 30 minutes/per day and ironically each day has a 30 minute advisory. So the daily advisory is what is costing the district "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in extra bussing costs? Why doesn't their 3 year SIP Grant cover the extra cost for the extended day instead of our transportation budget?
Anonymous said…
I would HAPPILY go back to an 8 or 8:05 start time for high school and middle school. I think that even 8:30 could work - if Hale gets to do it, why can't we all?

I love Eric's idea, but 9:15 is too late for high school for many reasons - sports, drama, music, etc. not to mention service hours. High schoolers all need at least 60 service hours to graduate. Many work after school for these - its a bit hard to get service hours in the morning.

So I think we push back hard on this, and accept an 8:05 compromise.

Just my opinion
RosieReader said…
Po3 - this is a hard one for me. I know for sure I don't like Eric's proposal. It just strikes me as too late for high school to start. I don't like the image of family dinner at 8 every night, and homework getting finished at midnight.

Even though I agree with Melissa's point that academics should be first and foremost, that's not the school system we've built, and every time there are efforts to skinny down sports, music or the arts folks in Seattle (me included) go crazy.

I don't like the complexity of the District's two alternatives. Complexity is a very bad signal in my book. And I fear that Tier3 schools will get totally screwed with always-late buses, etc. But cutting more out of the non-academic side of things resonates with me.

As always, I'm hoping for a middle way. A plan that saves some money over the current system, is less complex than current proposals, and lets our high school students work, or work out, after school.
SP said…
Well said, Rosie Reader & Just My Opinion!

Eric, before you submit your proposal, PLEASE talk to all ten of the high school principals (and not just Hale's) as well as parents, students & teachers from each of these schools.

I think you will find a large majority will agree with Rosie Reader that 9:15am starting time & 3:45pm finish would just be too difficult on high school students.

I've been told that principals were totally blindsided by the district's 30 minute earlier proposal last week, and that the high schools have already confirmed their bell schedules. Our principal cautioned that any changes would have huge inintended consequences. This would apply equally for later start times as well, especially 1-1/4 hours later than the typical 8:00am start time currently.

It is also mind boggling that with the NSAP "neighborhood" plan that our bus needs are so much more expensive (and more complicated) than other districts.
"..every time there are efforts to skinny down sports, music or the arts folks in Seattle (me included) go crazy."

When did that happen? I know there has been discussion in the past but I am not aware of any time it actually happened.

Again, this is why some of the rest of world does better academically than the US. Too many "priorities" and then you send out the vibe to the kids about what is really the reason they go to school every day.

As for the community service, I wish they would have kids have a choice of easy to reach/fulfill projects. I think it's just one more thing to tick off the list instead of the learning experience it is supposed to be.
Here is a link to an excellent tip sheet from the National Sleep Foundation about how to address obstacles to later school start itmes:

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/hot-topics/eight-major-obstacles-delaying-school-start-times

It covers concerns about transportation, sports, after school activities, concerns of techers, stress on families.
GreyWatch said…
Given how I've seen these things work in the past, the board is unlikely to approve, let alone consider, any alternative strategies presented by the community at this point in the process.

Strategically, it may be better to ask the board to not approve any of the plans for next year. Request that they focus staff energy on identifying a long term solution rather than implementing a one year short term solution which no one likes while they try to think of something better.

Simplifying it may be a better use of our energy:

"Dear SPS and Board,

Spend the time needed to develop a reasonable transportation plan in accordance with your own rules (approved by the board before open enrollment). No one year "temporary fixes" while you attempt to figure it all out. KEEP START TIMES THE SAME FOR 2012-13.

Respectfully Yours,

Tired parents and students"
Po3 said…
Personally I would be happy with 8:15 or 8:30 start for MS/HS.

I am not sure that any "proposal" will save $$$. It maybe this is just what it costs to transport students.

I received some email this week that clearly showed that principals at middle schools were very surprised at this proposal.

Really hoping for a change in the culture downtown. This example of staff not knowing what was coming relects poorly on Enfields leadership skills.

And I am tired of these spring surprises.
Jim said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric B said…
Thank you everyone for your feedback. I'll re-write some portions of this and will likely send it in tomorrow.

One clarifying item: I didn't write the petition that's circulating. I agree with it, signed it, and passed it along to our PTA group, but it's not my work. Thanks to those who put it out there.

To address some of the concerns:
Sports/Activities: If the current proposal goes through, many high schools will start at 7:30, leaving no time for sports or other before school activities. This is much the same, in the other direction, but some schools also have opportunities to have activities later in the evening than they do in the early morning. Some kids will have to make hard choices. Many kid shave to make hard choices now.

Details of start times: This is tough. I'd be happy with moving start times a little earlier for high school, but that pushes the elementary schools earlier. That said, I don't see why family dinners would have to be at 8:00 unless the students are doing three hours of after-school activities, since most students would be home by 5:00 on the standard bus schedules.

Homework time: The Minnesota study I saw referenced showed that students went to sleep at about 11:00 whether the school day had been moved later or not. The big difference was that they got enough sleep at night. Some homework might well have to move to the 8:00-10:00 timeframe.

I'm the first to admit that this is a completely unfinished proposal. It needs study. It needs input from community and staff. It might even need to be delayed for a year so we can talk. Those same complaints apply to the staff proposal.

I'm not going to let our choices be defined as laying off teachers or moving to a 7:30 start time for high schools. The 7:30 start time is what we get if we ask "How can we save money on transportation?" We need to ask "How can we change transportation to improve our schools at a reasonable cost?" This proposal is a shot across the bow that shows that there is another way.
Anonymous said…
@Eric B.

All fine clarifying points but you still are hedging on elementary start times. You will divide our community if you say "darn...don't understand what will happen with elementary school" but isn't it great we have a better way for high school?!

It is in no way OK to have young elementary kids on buses before 7 a.m. And frankly, safety and liability issues will end up trumping your proposal if we have to jockey against each other. So let's not jockey and put something forward that is somewhat workable for all 3 grade areas from the outset.

-skeptical-
Anonymous said…
@Po3.
No it does not reflect poorly on Enfield's skills. Cmon - she is basically outta here. It reflects poorly on the 7 board members.

Very. Very. Very. Poorly.

Why the direct tie-in? Because the BOARD asked staff for this work to be done, and then heard the results back from staff at their ALL SEVEN MEMBER committee of the whole.

THE BOARD requested, reviewed and as a full committee passed it through to be publicly introduced and quietly voted on.

I think some board members are generally better on details and on considering family impacts more than others, but in this case it is a clean sweep of horrid judgment and horrid community engagement. They all deserve a metaphoric kick in the butt.

(That doesn't mean that the transportation department or committee or whoever delivered the proposal is off the hook. Really- are they insane? Did you READ their reasoning for moving forward and having the board adopt this next week? Ghastly. But, the board is the bookend and support shelf to the debacle.

-skeptical-
mirmac1 said…
skeptical,
Unfortunately, directors have self-identified that which is "in their bailiwick". This leaves some degree of trust among their six other members to carry their load with EVERYONE's consitutents in mind.

I hope that this board adopts an effective, workable model of this tag-teaming. And by that, I don't mean DeBell lobbing it to Carr (and media) to "set the stage..."
mirmac1 said…
And skeptical, I'm not sure about the committee of the whole thing with this proposal. I was present at the Finance Committee when the 45-min and preschool start time alignment was discussed for next year. There was NO mention of radical changes to start times (if there was, it would've been vague like "oh we'll have to tweak the start times). Finance Committee is the chief proponents of this debacle DeBell and Carr, (with Patu)
Anonymous said…
Am I right to understand that all the chaos and proposed schedule shifting is over a $1-2 million budget miscalculation? In a district that seems to waste (and mismanage) money right and left, this is hard to believe. I'm sure there a numerous other places to save money...

So it sounds like the transportation staff saw half-empty buses and figured the solution to filling them is to cut some buses, make the routes longer and, thereby stretching out the schedules. What about trying to keep buses similar to what they are currently and using a different strategy to fill them--such as having school start times more bunched in a reasonable window? For example, there are 2 different buses that come down my little street, approximately an hour apart, and both are fairly empty. If those two nearby elementary start times were similar, maybe the kids could all take the same bus, which could stop at two schools. I'm sure there are problems with that approach, but I seriously doubt the district really thought through all options before arriving at their insane proposal.

Or here's another idea. How about the district says "Sorry folks, we blew it. We thought we planned appropriately, but apparently our planning and reasoning skills are insufficient. Since we know there are a lot of smart people out there in Seattle, we're making all the necessary data available to you and will offer a $10k bonus--a consulting fee--to anyone who can solve this problem for us." I'm sure there must be someone out there at least as capable as the district. :)

Bussed Off
Eric B said…
@skeptical:

I am in no way proposing that elementary students get on the bus before 7:00. My first run at a proposal was for bus dropoff at 8:00 with a 45-minute ride, for a first pickup at 7:15. Some commenters said that this puts the high school start time too late. I should have been more specific in my post last night, but I was thinking along the lines of 15 minutes earlier.

Getting back to my original idea, I'm proposing a positive solution. I have a potentially-workable proposal on the table for review and study. It's not the One True Way. It may not work for the majority of parents and schools. It may cost $5 million, in which case it doesn't work. I'm OK with it being rejected because it doesn't work. If you have an alternative idea, please put it out there. Maybe we go back to a two-tier with secondary schools (and some elementaries) at 8:00 and elementary at 9:00. Maybe we do something else.

IMO, competition between positive ideas is not division. Division is when we stop promoting solutions and why one solution is better than another and fight about which of the community proposals should be the only one to face off against the staff proposal.
kellie said…
One thing that I have learned about transportation over the years is that there is often a huge gap between how they count a cost and then how they describe a cost. The descriptions tend to collapse a fair bit of complex data, rather than presenting the detail of the data.

This happened quite a bit during the 09 closure rounds when the same costs were assigned to multiple schools. For example, AS1 and Summit shared transportation. However, the saving was always the entire amount on each program, rather than a per-student calculation.

I suspect that the same bad accounting is here once again. There are clearly, easy to document cost increases for this past school year. New programs were added that we not in the original budget. There was a new cost APP North as the previous cost was bundled with TOPS. There is a new cost to the STEM programs. This was a new contract and likely it was not fully understood. There are new costs associated with the increased enrollment, etc, etc, etc.

Without a transparent breakdown of costs and expenses, the assignment of the $1-2M as savings not realized seems speculative at best. Is there a full break out of transportation expense anywhere that we can review?
Maureen said…
One plus of having the K-5s in the 1st Tier is those kids in general live closer to school than the MS and HS kids so would be able to catch buses later and avoid more of civil twilight in the a.m.. K-5 stops are closer to houses than MS and HS and when older kids take Metro they often have to walk several blocks to the school as well.

Also, while I think it's terrible to have any kid crossing streets in the dark, I believe statistics would show that MS and HS kids are more likely to be involved in pedestrian accidents than younger kids (I would guess because they are more likely to walk alone, wearing headphones/texting and not being careful.)
TechyMom said…
So, I have to say... 8:00 is too early for ANY kid. We struggle to make an 8:20 bus for an 8:55 elementary start now. Last year, when some option schools were moved to 8:00, there was a similar outcry from elementary parents about disturbed sleep.

If you need your child to be somewhere so you can go to work early, put them in before school care. That's what those of us do who need our children to be somewhere in the afternoon while we work.

Some people are morning people, some people are evening people. The way this is handled in the business world is to schedule meetings at times that everyone can live with, usually between 10:00AM and 4:00PM, and then let people do their individual work before or after that, whatever works for them. We should be doing the same with schools. Since little kids are more likely to be morning people than adults, it makes sense for the core hours to be earlier than in the working world. 8:30-9:00 seems like a resonable time that everyone can make. It's earlier than I'd like, later than others would like. If we need multiple tiers, they should be later and for older kids, who can get themselves to school.

If busses are what is keeping us from having a reasonable schedule, then we should get rid of most of the busses. Only supply busses to SPED, homeless, and option programs. Neighborhood schools are close enough to walk or bike. Don't get me wrong, I like the school bus. It's very convenient, even if it leaves our stop 35 minutes before school starts, when I can drive in 5 or walk in 30. If we go to an earlier start time, I'll be driving anyway, to get back that 30 minutes of sleep. We may as well just tell parents in neighborhood schools to walk or drive their kids to school, since many will anyway with the new schedule. That would actually save A LOT of money on transportation, where this saves a tiny fraction of the overall SPS budget.
Anonymous said…
I saw this in the comments on the petition site last night... helped put the cost in perspective. (

"$1,000,000 (savings per year) divided by 47,000 (number of SPS students) = $21.28 savings per student per year divided by 180 (number of school days per year) = less than 12 cents saved per student per day. Not much of a payoff."


katie
mirmac1 said…
Now, for some information from Banda's district, Anaheim City. From a study performed in 2008:

Transportation staff schedule bus routes manually with the assistance of Map Point, a software system that only allows the operator to plot stops on an electronic map. The system does not optimize or electronically route stops based on efficiency criteria. The district previously used an electronic routing system called VersaTrans (what SPS uses), but this was never fully implemented or used to its full extent by staff.

The district has recently purchased an industry-standard transportation software system called Trans Track, which has modules for school bus routing, vehicle maintenance tracking, field trip scheduling and driver training record maintenance. However, only the vehicle maintenance module of the Trans Track system has been implemented to any extent. Most school districts with transportation programs of comparable size to Anaheim City use some type of electronic routing software to make routing quicker and easier and optimize routes to ensure the greatest efficiency based on parameters the district inputs. This type of software also enables transportation schedulers, dispatchers and supervisors to rapidly provide cost scenarios in case of boundary changes, new school openings or increases in nontransportation zones. (emphasis added)

So, my question is - does SPS just throw something at the wall to see what sticks? Does their system have the functionality to test/price different scenarios? Does that explain failing to make the 25 min standard, and retaining 37 more buses than thought?
Erin said…
How about just getting rid of the bus system for elementary students and having them walk to school? Those who get bused more than 1.5 miles can take the city bus with a parent/guardian, and the school district could pay for that. My kindergartner walks 2.5 miles everyday and is fine

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?