Transportation Changes May Be Coming
In starting this discussion, I will make a point about transportation in SPS that was made at the Work Session on the Budget.
Overall, SPS transports many more students than the average district does. My understanding of that meaning is that many other districts do not provide transportation to schools outside of your neighborhood and the amount of transportation available to middle/high school students is far less in other districts.
I understand the concern about limiting transportation especially when so much has been provided in the past. I also understand that it can be seen as a social justice issue when cutting off transportation makes it harder for some families to access programs. But this is the way it is in most urban cities and students are still able to access schools via public transportation. (I know in NYC that many students take the subway or bus - for an hour or more each way - in order to access speciality programs.)
So what is to follow here may seem a shock to the system but really, it's actually being more in line with what other districts do.
To first understand, SPS is estimated to spend nearly $31M on transportation this school year. That's a fair chunk of change. It breaks out to nearly $16M for Gen Ed, $14M for Special Ed and about $970K for homeless students.
Bob Westgard, the head of Transportation, seems completely serious about trying to rein in these costs and his presentation to the Board reflected that.
Options:
1) Limit transportation to neighborhood schools for elementary and K-8. This is estimated to save about $3M.
2) End transportation for Option School Gen Ed students. This could save about $1.7M. In surveying 27 other districts, Mr. Westgard said that 60% do not provide transportation to option schools.
3) and 4) would limit transportation to neighborhood schools for middle and high school students. The savings here is not as great as many of these students already use public transportation, bike or have a car. For secondary, it looks like it would save about $700k. But it would end giving ORCA cards out.
5) Try to find out the numbers of Special Ed students by May, rather than in July/August which creates more of a scramble. Cost savings TBD.
6) End Head Start busing unless externally funded. Savings = $220k. One issue here is that SPS receives some matching funds for which the transportation costs are included and so that could change that match number.
7) End busing and ORCA cards for APP and IB programs. Savings = $700k.
8) Alternative funding for crossing guards. As you may recall, the City used to pay for this and stopped and it became another transportation cost for SPS. One thought for funding is to have the bus "paddles" have cameras and the City could give out tickets for people who do not obey the paddle signal. In order to fund the crossing guards, I don't think this is a bad idea at all.
9) Only permit late arrival/early release when district-wide OR externally funded. I'm sure many parents would say "great" on this one because of the varying number of dates at each school. The district can't afford this added cost if it is school-generated. It has cost up to $200k but has gone down somewhat but it all depends on what is scheduled.
10) The biggie - Move to a 3-Tier schedule with one-hour intervals (7:30 am, 8:30 am and 9:30 am) - this could save over $2M. This means flipping the schedule with high school students going later and elementary students going earlier.
11) contract out bus monitors (about $100k). I didn't even know SPS used bus monitors.
Clearly, #10 would mean the biggest changes and it was noted that there would have to be negotiations with labor as well as meeting RCW requirements.
What was stressed in the discussion by both Westgard and various Board members is what could be implemented next school year versus those that need more planning time.
Several of the Board members liked the idea of the 3-tier system including Director Peaslee. Westgard said it wasn't so much a challenge to Transportation as it would be to Enrollment.
President Smith-Blum pointed out that it seemed wrong to not give transportation to APP and IB students who don't really have a choice of where to go to access these programs. Westgard seemed to think that APP middle and high school and IB could forgo the transportation but not APP elementary.
She also pointed out that the district gets transportation dollars for APP so she was confused about the costs here.
One issue that Directors wanted to see clarification on is how many students live in the boundaries of each school and how many need transportation.
Director McLaren made the good (and obvious) point that it would be good - if SPS moves to a 3-tier system - to do this in conjunction with the new boundary work that Enrollment is doing.
Director Patu was asking about the various transportation options and Mr. Westgard said there were 27 exceptions to their transportation standards and they need to start daylighting them for examination.
He pointed out that in Minnesota, all secondary students take public transportation and go to neighborhood schools and, if not, their parents figure out the transportation.
Director Martin-Morris asked if the 3-tier system could be put in place for the coming year, 2013-2014. Mr. Westgard said yes but to plan it, the decision would need to be make within a month.
Superintendent Banda offered that he had been through a 3-tier transportation change and that it was important to make sure parents understood it clearly.
Director Peaslee asked a question that many parents ask - why is there any yellow bus service for high school? The answer is because of Special Ed and that directly affects the start times. Westgard pointed out that they use a number of cabs to transport Special Ed students and they had eliminated the use of 85 cabs (but he didn't note how many are still being used).
President Smith-Blum is very in favor of doing what can be done to encourage/aid walking and biking to school. She was also questioning eliminating transportation to some students on a bus line but not others.
Director Carr seemed very on-board with getting something into play by next school year and asked many pertinent questions on this issue.
So weigh in and not just here. Let the Directors know your thoughts about any or all of this because I think it will help inform their vote.
Bottom line through is that I believe district leaders - both hired and elected - believe that transportation costs MUST be cut.
I also note that Governor Inlsee's budget plan would FULLY fund a new transportation formula for 2013-2014 at about $198M. But we have to wait until the House and Senate budget come into play (this by April 10th) to see if any changes in the state budget could help the district's budget.
Overall, SPS transports many more students than the average district does. My understanding of that meaning is that many other districts do not provide transportation to schools outside of your neighborhood and the amount of transportation available to middle/high school students is far less in other districts.
I understand the concern about limiting transportation especially when so much has been provided in the past. I also understand that it can be seen as a social justice issue when cutting off transportation makes it harder for some families to access programs. But this is the way it is in most urban cities and students are still able to access schools via public transportation. (I know in NYC that many students take the subway or bus - for an hour or more each way - in order to access speciality programs.)
So what is to follow here may seem a shock to the system but really, it's actually being more in line with what other districts do.
To first understand, SPS is estimated to spend nearly $31M on transportation this school year. That's a fair chunk of change. It breaks out to nearly $16M for Gen Ed, $14M for Special Ed and about $970K for homeless students.
Bob Westgard, the head of Transportation, seems completely serious about trying to rein in these costs and his presentation to the Board reflected that.
Options:
1) Limit transportation to neighborhood schools for elementary and K-8. This is estimated to save about $3M.
2) End transportation for Option School Gen Ed students. This could save about $1.7M. In surveying 27 other districts, Mr. Westgard said that 60% do not provide transportation to option schools.
3) and 4) would limit transportation to neighborhood schools for middle and high school students. The savings here is not as great as many of these students already use public transportation, bike or have a car. For secondary, it looks like it would save about $700k. But it would end giving ORCA cards out.
5) Try to find out the numbers of Special Ed students by May, rather than in July/August which creates more of a scramble. Cost savings TBD.
6) End Head Start busing unless externally funded. Savings = $220k. One issue here is that SPS receives some matching funds for which the transportation costs are included and so that could change that match number.
7) End busing and ORCA cards for APP and IB programs. Savings = $700k.
8) Alternative funding for crossing guards. As you may recall, the City used to pay for this and stopped and it became another transportation cost for SPS. One thought for funding is to have the bus "paddles" have cameras and the City could give out tickets for people who do not obey the paddle signal. In order to fund the crossing guards, I don't think this is a bad idea at all.
9) Only permit late arrival/early release when district-wide OR externally funded. I'm sure many parents would say "great" on this one because of the varying number of dates at each school. The district can't afford this added cost if it is school-generated. It has cost up to $200k but has gone down somewhat but it all depends on what is scheduled.
10) The biggie - Move to a 3-Tier schedule with one-hour intervals (7:30 am, 8:30 am and 9:30 am) - this could save over $2M. This means flipping the schedule with high school students going later and elementary students going earlier.
11) contract out bus monitors (about $100k). I didn't even know SPS used bus monitors.
Clearly, #10 would mean the biggest changes and it was noted that there would have to be negotiations with labor as well as meeting RCW requirements.
What was stressed in the discussion by both Westgard and various Board members is what could be implemented next school year versus those that need more planning time.
Several of the Board members liked the idea of the 3-tier system including Director Peaslee. Westgard said it wasn't so much a challenge to Transportation as it would be to Enrollment.
President Smith-Blum pointed out that it seemed wrong to not give transportation to APP and IB students who don't really have a choice of where to go to access these programs. Westgard seemed to think that APP middle and high school and IB could forgo the transportation but not APP elementary.
She also pointed out that the district gets transportation dollars for APP so she was confused about the costs here.
One issue that Directors wanted to see clarification on is how many students live in the boundaries of each school and how many need transportation.
Director McLaren made the good (and obvious) point that it would be good - if SPS moves to a 3-tier system - to do this in conjunction with the new boundary work that Enrollment is doing.
Director Patu was asking about the various transportation options and Mr. Westgard said there were 27 exceptions to their transportation standards and they need to start daylighting them for examination.
He pointed out that in Minnesota, all secondary students take public transportation and go to neighborhood schools and, if not, their parents figure out the transportation.
Director Martin-Morris asked if the 3-tier system could be put in place for the coming year, 2013-2014. Mr. Westgard said yes but to plan it, the decision would need to be make within a month.
Superintendent Banda offered that he had been through a 3-tier transportation change and that it was important to make sure parents understood it clearly.
Director Peaslee asked a question that many parents ask - why is there any yellow bus service for high school? The answer is because of Special Ed and that directly affects the start times. Westgard pointed out that they use a number of cabs to transport Special Ed students and they had eliminated the use of 85 cabs (but he didn't note how many are still being used).
President Smith-Blum is very in favor of doing what can be done to encourage/aid walking and biking to school. She was also questioning eliminating transportation to some students on a bus line but not others.
Director Carr seemed very on-board with getting something into play by next school year and asked many pertinent questions on this issue.
So weigh in and not just here. Let the Directors know your thoughts about any or all of this because I think it will help inform their vote.
Bottom line through is that I believe district leaders - both hired and elected - believe that transportation costs MUST be cut.
I also note that Governor Inlsee's budget plan would FULLY fund a new transportation formula for 2013-2014 at about $198M. But we have to wait until the House and Senate budget come into play (this by April 10th) to see if any changes in the state budget could help the district's budget.
Comments
Also, by cutting APP service - does that mean they will be redirecting the funding they receive for APP transortation to the general transportation fund? Can they do that?
I am all for the 3-tier system!
Ben
Be careful what you wish for.
po2
MS parent
-parent
Do people who just signed up for the option program at STEM @ Boren or Jane Addams k8 realize they're not going to be getting transportation over the years??
True, may not happen this year, but the writing is on the wall in EXTRA LARGE BLOCK LETTERS so if you just signed up or just switched a kid into either one of those programs, you may want to reconsider. Under NSAP, the good news is that you can easily backtrack and enroll in your neighborhood elementary.
Sorry, but forewarned is forearmed. Your child will be establishing friendships in his/her school, and if you can't maintain them in their option school by driving them to and from school everyday for 6 years, perhaps you should reconsider. Everyone should make their choices with wide open eyes. Try and get the word out, it may save some significant heartburn!
-bussing doomed
(the bus is full)
Will they pull that bus forcing all the students back onto 15th ave watching bussses pass them by?
Or will the problem be resolved if HS started at 9:30?
I am astounded that we are back to talking about 7:30 start times - which is really a 7:10 drop off (so students can get breakfast and get to lockers etc.) So back up 40 - 45 minutes and your are looking at 6:30am pick up.
Remember that scenerio?
Mag Mom
While change are needed, have they completely missed the part where there are large neighborhoods that just don't have schools. Like Mag Mom mentioned, Queen Anne and Magnolia are assigned to Ballard, because there isn't a QA High School.
So if they are serious about transportation costs then they will need to BOTH redraw the boundaries with transportation costs in mind AND add new schools in places to minimize transportation costs.
Projects like two school at Thornton Creek drive up transportation costs because they will take away the walk zone students from the neighboring schools, increasing transportation costs at multiple schools.
Not to mention things like Van Assalt at AAA just a few blocks from another school. So are they considering moving Van Assalt back to Van Assalt so that they can reduce transportation costs.
And then there is West Seattle, where as far as I can tell, the boundaries were drawn to make the most possible expensive transportation.
And Sped, the lets stick sped in any school with open space and worry about transportation later?
Only Seattle would somehow manage to decide that people expect too much transportation rather than accept the fact that decades of bad planning have hinged on transportation being the after thought.
Moving to a 3-tier system is not new; perhaps what could be different is who's on which tier and how far they are spaced apart, but I'm not seeing anything radical by proposing 3 tiers in the future.
I also think that if they cut middle school APP busing, they better plan that into the upcoming boundaries and HIMS/Eckstein/JAMS discussion. I have a 4th grader at Lincoln. I will not be able to driver her to and from HIMS or JAMS every day, so she'd probably end up at Eckstein because she can walk there. They better think this through carefully, openly, and transparently. Moving programs around while simultaneously ending or threatening to end busing means that no one will be able to predict enrollment when drawing up new boundaries next year.
And I'll just add, it never ceases to amaze me how many parts are moving at once in this district. Anyone out there feeling like the new student assignment plan has brought them stability? Yeah, I didn't think so!
Unless there is a huge push, funding and buy-in for walking and biking, this will be a huge drop-off/pick-up cluster and many schools.
We should be better than this.
It'd make parents who really don't need the bus and only use it infrequently (a fair number of kids at our neighborhood elem. use it for fun--"I get to ride the bus today!" rather than necessity. Instead of an option that is always there, parents could formally sign up and pay for the privilege. Some parents may decide not to, thus reducing the number of kids taking the bus and maybe saving a bit there.
For those of us who opt in, a reasonable fee would still be well worth it. And then everyone who uses helps to pay for the service, and you could keep trans. to special programs.
Fire Away
Sniffy
I agree, but I would stick with FRL and the homeless. The rest would be on a financial need basis, perhaps rising scale of cost.
My understanding is that APP is a cost-neutral program for the district because of this - but SPS cannot take money earmarked to transport APP students and then deny those same students transportation.
At the Work Session, I didn't hear any discussion of charging parents although I think that could work if done properly.
Despite the desire for something to be done by next school year, I cannot see how between transportation and boundaries, it could all get done in a fair and coherent fashion.
My older daughter will start kindergarten in 2014, so this doesn't all weigh heavily on my radar yet. But I am leaning in favor of the reference-area school that is in walking distance, partly because I understand that transportation to other schools is uncertain in the long run. I walked to my elementary school (in NYC) as a kid, and I place a high value on that- it's great for the kids to walk together with their friends, it builds community and teaches kids street sense. And I did commute 1 hour + each way on the subway for high school. But we had much better public transportation in NYC than in Seattle. Still, some parents got together and arranged charter transportation for their kids (at great expense). A lot of kids who went to Hunter (in midtown Manhattan) in 7th grade did that.. but by 9th grade we were all capable of figuring out the public system.
Plus I think that an earlier start time for the younger kids would make sense for many working parents. I know people who use before-care starting at 7:30am so they can get to work by 8-ish, and this would really help them. By middle school this is no longer an issue.
~thinking
"Parents would probably drive/carpool before paying for busing. Also, @unknown is right, Seattle's public transit does not compare to that of other large cities. It's pretty lousy by comparision. If students could rely more on public transit, there probably wouldn't be as great a need for district transportation"
And public transit in Seattle is going to suck even more (pardon my french). Arbor Heights has lost most of it's service. The Metro dude said "well, Seattle's had more service and the eastside and the rest of King County want to get theirs". How efficient is it to run transit in Eatonville or Duvall!?
By the way, the same guy told our neighborhood group that Metro loses money on students riding the bus.
And end all yellow busses for high schools - that seems like a no brainer as well. Special Ed excepted.
My kids all walk to elementary/middle school so this does not relate to me personally.
NEmom of 3
-Working Mama
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct01/sleepteen.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/health/24brody.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-sleeper
Or 10:30, which most high school kids would love.
I also wonder what happens when a kid has a daycare location that's not in their attendance area. Can they still get bussing? We were thinking about using this option next year.
http://www.mountaineers.org/seattle/climbing/Reference/DaylightHrs.html
po2
What about the impact of starting late has on extracurricular activities for the older grades. Even though it makes sense from a learning perspective - I thought there was often a fuss about sports practice etc if the high schoolers moved to the later start? ?
I personally don't think extracurriculars should be a consideration for start time anyway - what is best practice for learning should.
I also think it is unreasonable to expect little kids to be up and about and ready to learn at 7.30am (esp in winter). Heck, many adults would find that sort of schedule pretty tough.
I don't think convenience for working parents should dictate start time, and besides -we'll be paying for a lot longer after school care hours if school is out at 2.30. Plus what time bedtime for an elementary kid who has to be dropped at school at say 7.20 for a 7.30 start? Need to get up at 6.30 at latest - prob a bit earlier if take into account travel time, and much earlier if catching the bus. Need 10-11 hrs sleep at least according to National Sleep foundation. So you're looking at a 7.30- 8 bedtime maybe? So you get pick kid up from after care and get home from work at 6, do homework, eat dinner, what else -sports practice? Good luck with that 7.30 bedtime!
I understand why the district has to have a tiered system but it is not great for kids ( learning, safety, extracurriculars, sleep etc) or families (fitting in with work, extended childcare costs at either end) to end up with the earliest or latest tier. I'd totally support PFB (pay for bus) to improve transportation coverage/avoid having these tiers.
Sniffy
It would be nice if they could all start at 8:30, with the teens maybe at 9:30. But that's not an option- someone has to take the 7:30 slot, and right now the kids taking it are the kids it most harms. It would be no harm to the elementary kids- in exchange for that early bedtime, maybe they'd get some daylight hours to play outside after school, and it would improve learning outcomes all over the district.
-sleeper
program placement (including Advanced Learning, ELL, Special Ed and international schools)
then
boundaries
then
transportation.
Charlie has been going on about Program placement for years and now would be the time to get on it.
I still advocate that if they are looking at everything, international schools as option schools should be part of that mix.
I see a broad number of views here which is great because it help illuminate the issue. But remember, in the end, it's always about the money.
Sniffy
Little kids definitely do not have the same biological need to go to bed near midnight, and therefore wake up much, much later than those elementary kids. There is scads of research out there that little kids do not do well after about 2 pm, so having them finish earlier is much better. I don't like getting up that early, either, and none of us do now, but I would in a heartbeat for the good of every student in Seattle, including my own when they get to that age. It may be inconvenient for grownups to get up early now, but it's actually bad for a child's educations when they get older.
-sleeper
I have heard people say that teenagers need to sleep in before. I don't know if this is true or not,.sine my kids are preteens. However, I was of the generation that was bused from the north end to Garfield, and school started at 7:45 then so we often had to be ready for the bus before 7. That meant getting up before 6 to eat breakfast and fix our hair. We did okay, got into college and all that. I remember having a 9:30 pm bedtime, which was a pain because I often had to miss the last half of the TV shows. I do not remember having the biological imperative to stay up till 11pm. Not to claim that it was pleasant to wait for the bus in the freezing dark morning or anything like that. But we did what we had to do and it was okay.
CCA
CCA
...most adolescents undergo a sleep phase delay, which means a tendency toward later times for both falling asleep and waking up. Research shows the typical adolescent’s natural time to fall asleep may be 11 pm or later; because of this change in their internal clocks, teens may feel wide awake at bedtime, even when they are exhausted (Wolfson & Carskadon, 1998)...
much more information at national sleep foundation
http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/hot-topics/backgrounder-later-school-start-times
Moving school later in districts in Minnesota & Kentucky has been shown to improve test scores (especially for lowest achievers), lower absenteeism & drop out rates, lower rates of depression/anxiety, & decrease traffic accident rates.
Sure, we can just make them suck it up & keep sleepwalking through their first 3 classes. But why not reap the benefits of later start times for our teens.
-tired
Sniffy
Paying for bussing seems fair (with the FRL, etc, exceptions that other people have mentioned).
As for start times, not all elementary kids are early birds. Mine is a night owl, frequently reading at 9:30 or 10 pm and having to be functional in school at 8:20am because K-8s are on the same schedule as MS and HS. 7:30am start time would be a deal-breaker for us.
FWIW, as a child in Europe I walked to/from elementary school, then took public transportation for the MS/HS years - a combination of walking, buses and trains, depending on the year / school. At that age, I think it's fine; kids have to develop independence sometime anyway.
--ML Mama
I was at a Board work session in January where the transportation budget was discussed. To Melissa's point, cost is what is driving the proposed changes. Though our City, County, and State also have a vested interest to reduce congestion. Are they able to allocate funds to support yellow buses and ORCA cards so we don't add many cars on the road during rush hour?
Also, I don't think it's fair to families that if their kid attends their attendance school and boundaries change and it's no longer their attendance school, that they lose busing unless they transfer their kid which is very disruptive.
I live in the Pinehurst neighborhood. I'm concerned that if the new 680 student Jane Addams (E-STEM K-8) school that is replacing the Pinehurst K-8 building will not have busing since it's an Option school, there will be a lot of congestion through our neighborhood. Pinehurst K-8 has 150 students and the majority take a bus. I wonder if the City of Seattle in the permitting process would require yellow bus transportation for a new school that large. That's what I plan to push at public meetings regarding the new building.
Wasn't it originally two tiers - 8:00 and 9:00? It worked.
old timer
I'm also perfectly happy to pay for bus service. Why is this option never on the table?
CCA
CCA
http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/news/release/2013/April/01MetroTransitPotentialCuts.aspx