Transportation News Release

Here is the press release from Seattle Public Schools today regarding the Transportation Plan. This is a remarkable piece of dis-information that absolutely begs for critical review.

Proposed modifications to transportation service standards: New proposal calls for return to current 2011-12 transportation plan and minimal impact to current bell times

May 11, 2012 | Audience: Families, Community, Staff | Contact: Communications (206) 252-0200

Each year, the School Board approves transportation standards — the times at which the “yellow” school buses drop students at school and pick them up after school. Transportation standards are adjusted for many reasons, including when routes change or when new schools are opened. 

The quotation marks around the word "yellow" are because this is all student transportation, not just traditional yellow school buses. It includes METRO, ORCA, taxis, vans, and more. It is true that the Transportation standards have been adjusted each of the past several years. Prior to the NSAP, they were very stable. It is also true that they are adjusted for many reasons, but route changes and school openings and closings are not primary drivers of change. The budget drives a lot more change. The big changes - community stops, reduced service areas, and changes in pick up and drop off times - are not driven by route changes or school openings. It's a bit disingenuous - and misleading - to list those as reasons.


The current (2011-12) year’s transportation standards changes were expected to save the District approximately $4 million; however, due to enrollment growth, changes in programs and routing challenges, approximately $2 million is being realized from those changes. 

Due to enrollment growth? That's not the reason given by Transportation staff. That's a pure invention and a misleading statement - if not an out-and-out lie. The truth is that the District staff admits that they don't know why they overspent their budget, that they lack the tools or sophistication to closely estimate their costs, and they had previously indicated that Special Education, ELL, STEM, and other specific programs were the cause of the overspending (or under-saving).


Given the District’s continuing budget shortfalls, it was hoped that the transportation standards adopted for 2012-13 would generate additional savings to balance the budget. However, given our growth in enrollment, the additional projected savings are minimal as more students needed to be accommodated on the buses. 

"It was hoped... " Nice use of passive voice to hide the actor. Who hoped this? The Board? The superintendent? The COO? The Transportation program manager? And what was the source of this "hope"? I have a real problem with hope. Hope is not a plan. Again, the District blames the unexpected costs on completely expected enrollment growth. How did the District know to have teachers and classrooms for these students if they didn't know to have buses for them? It's not a credible excuse.


This spring, we worked to develop a balanced budget for the 2012-13 school year, with a goal of keeping budget cuts away from the classroom. To that end, the School Board requested an analysis of options that could generate more savings from transportation. 

"we worked... " Even if your English teacher didn't caution you away from passive voice, I'm pretty sure you were told not to use pronouns without antecedents. Who is "we"? This is not a generic "we" meaning the whole community or everyone at Seattle Public Schools because the claim is that "we worked to develop a balanced budget", and surely it was not the whole community nor was it everyone at Seattle Public Schools who did that work. So who is "we"? It also says that "the School Board requested... ", but it was not the School Board, it was two members of the Board. Only when the Board votes does it speak with the voice of the Board. This was not a vote, this was an act of micromanagement by two Board Directors - Carr and DeBell. It is incorrect and misleading to write that the Board requested this.


We restructured the Transportation Office and asked staff to both continue researching the adopted standards and also to research new cost-saving options for Board review. That research resulted in proposed modified standards for 2012-13, which were introduced to the School Board on May 2. 

"We restructured... " Another pronoun without an antecedent. Again, who is included in "we"? This is not the same "we" referenced in the previous paragraph. It couldn't be. This "we" restructured the Transportation Office. The only people with the authority to do that are Bob Westgard, Ms McEvoy, and Dr. Enfield. Which of them are part of the "we" in this case? Why not name them? Why the royal we? This "we" also asked staff to continue researching the adopted standards and research new options. Why continue researching the adopted standards? What was to be gained from that research? Research it for what? And was the staff "asked" or were they, more accurately, directed to new cost-saving options? Why pretend it was a request rather than an order? I love how the multiple adjectives ("proposed modified") reflects an effort to diminish the significance of the turd they requested and distance them from it. You don't have to be around the District for long to hear them say something like "Why take it so seriously? It's just a draft." Nor do you have to be around them for long to see a draft become the rule without much warning. This was a motion before the Board. That's as serious and real as anything can get.

The timeline for this research was very short, and community engagement is occurring during the two weeks between introduction and the Board taking action. We have received numerous comments about this plan, and have used the feedback in our continued analysis. 

I have heard this a lot since 2008, the idea that "community engagement is occurring during the two weeks between introduction and... action." That's not much community engagement. In fact it is none since no one actually engages the community. They passively receive complaints or praise, but no one engages.


Since introduction of the proposed new standards, staff has been continuing to research the various options with the twin goals of realizing cost savings and being responsive to community feedback. This additional research will result in a new proposal to the School Board on May 16. 

So there will be a new proposal to the School Board on May 16. And will there be two weeks of community engagement between introduction and action for that new proposal? Not bloody likely. So we will end up with a decision made without any community engagement. How is that good?

The new proposal will return to the current 2011-12 transportation plan (and therefore, minimal impact to current bell times) and a return to the 2010 ride times of up to 45 minutes. This new option is expected to save the District between $250,000 and $500,000. 

This may be the most perplexing statement in the whole press release - and that's saying a lot. The new proposal is to do exactly what the District is doing now. This is different from their previous plan for 2012-2013, adopted in February, which was to make some changes in the transportation plan. The communications department tells us that reverting to the current year's plan will save $250,000 to $500,000. Save that money compared to what? Will this be savings compared to this year's expenses? Couldn't be, because they are going with this year's plan. And, since enrollment has increased, the cost could only go up (they have already told us that rising enrollment results in rising transportation costs). So does the current year's system and plan have that kind of savings compared to the plan adopted in February? That would mean that back in February the District was planning to make a change to a more expensive plan than they were currently using. I don't remember anyone saying that at the time. In fact, I remember them saying that the plan adopted in February resulted in reduced costs. This reversion to this year's plan couldn't represent a savings over the recently proposed modified standards since that was the design that was invented to create savings. So how in the world is it possible that re-using the 2011-2012 transportation standards in 2012-2013 will save between a quarter- and a half-million dollars? Compared to what?


While other options might have saved more money, the proposed new option is responsive to the feedback and will impact the students, schools and families the least. Transportation staff are continuing to refine the details of the new proposal, and more information will be provided to the Board and public prior to May 16. 

This paragraph fills me with dread and reflects their utter lack of interest in community engagement. They are going to vote and adopt something in five days, but they can't say what it is yet because they are still nailing down the details. But don't worry, you'll have about twenty minutes to comment on it before we move forward and enact it. This also tells us that it will not, in fact, be a "return to the current 2011-12 transportation plan" as previously claimed. The details of the current plan are known and do not require any refinement. Both of these statements cannot be true. One of them is a lie, and an obvious one because it is contradicted in the adjacent paragraph. Aren't these flaks taught to separate their self-contradictions better than that?


In order to have a more thorough analysis of options for the 2013-14 and beyond transportation standards, the District has identified a task force composed of state and local technical transportation experts to begin making recommendations for consideration. 

What they don't tell you is that the Task Force was formed on February 15 and has yet to meet. The Task Force was supposed to have met several times and already made recommendations for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 by now, but they didn't meet those deadlines because they haven't met at all. And how was this Task Force formed, not in accordance with the Superintendent Procedure for Advisory Committees, 4110SP. Another thing they don't tell you is who formed the Task Force. The credit goes to "the District". Man, that was a collaborative effort, wasn't it? Do you notice the total absence of any names anywhere in this press release? No names for any of the work - though all of it is described as credit worthy.


This task force will begin in May and have recommendations for the Superintendent to review in September, prior to the Open Enrollment period. We look forward to their recommendations and future discussions on this important topic and want to thank the school communities and parents that provided input into our budgeting process. 

Again, the Task Force already began in February, they just haven't met for three months. They will meet in secret over the summer when no one is watching and make these decisions that directly impact your families - no further input from you is needed. Oh, and thank you for your unsolicited input to date. You were a huge pain in the ass. And the Task Force is going to have recommendations for the superintendent to review in September? Really? She's leaving in June. Do you think she's going to call us back from Highline with this? Here is a job - one of several - that are going to Mr. Banda without his knowledge. I have never seen anyone at Seattle Public Schools accept the obligations made by the person who held their office before them. Steve Wilson did not feel bound by the promises made by June Rimmer, Carla Santorno was not bound by his promises, Dr. Enfield was not bound by Ms Santorno's promises, and Mr. Banda will not be bound by commitments made by Dr. Enfield. There are, by the way, a number of them. Read the results of the Board Retreat from September of 2011. It includes a lot of tasks for the Superintendent with deadlines that fall after she is gone. These are big projects that needed nine months to a year of work, but Mr. Banda will only have a couple months to finish them - if the deadlines are kept.

This paragraph gives us another "We" without an antecedent. Who, exactly, is looking forward to the Task Force's recommendations? Certainly not Dr. Enfield. Then who?

This press release does not stand up to much critical review, does it? It does, however, certainly invite it.