Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > March > 16 > Entry
Oakwood: Getting on the bus?
There was an interesting little story written by my colleague Kelli Wynn in the paper last week. Oakwood, it seems, may be buying its first ever school bus.
And they are none to happy about it.
Oakwood, as many GOTB readers know, is a small wealthy suburban district just over Dayton’s southern city limit. It is so small, in fact, that it has never had need for a bus. Most of the community’s homes are within a short walk from an elementary school and a slightly longer walk to the high school.
In fact, the lack of buses and easy walking is one reason why Oakwood schools rarely close for bad weather. You know its a real snowstorm if Oakwood is closed.
As with most districts, though, Oakwood does occassionally need to move students around. Until now it has gotten by using smaller vehicles, such as vans and sport utility vehicles.
But now the Ohio Department of Education has told Oakwood it must use a school bus for transporting students to neighboring communities for vocational classes not offered at Oakwood. If it doesn’t, the state will stop reimbursing the district with transportation dollars for those students. And the department says Oakwood will take on more liability risk by doing so.
Oakwood is a very fiscally careful school district. The use of more affordable and versatile SUVs in place of expensive school buses is an example of the districts frugality and creativity. But Ohio says in this case they have been a bit too creative.
What do you think of this debate? Should Oakwood be forced to buy its first ever school bus?
(Image credit: FreeFoto.com)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By School Supporter (Classic)
March 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Null writes, “I would just love to see the fur fly if Oakwood had to consolidate with Dayton! … How do we get the ball rolling?” Elect a President who will support the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommendation to “review the definition of racial discrimination used in the federal and state legislation and in court practice.” (That is, appoint Supreme Court Justices who interpret the US Constitution in a manner acceptable to the United Nations Committee.) If the Oakwood-Dayton school district boundary impedes “effective strategies aimed at promoting school de-segregation and providing equal educational opportunity in integrated settings for all students,” then the UN Committee wants the boundary removed. (Feel free to Google the quoted excerpts from the UN Committee report—but you might need to retype the double quotes to keep Google happy.)By kendra
March 22, 2008 7:20 PM | Link to this
Just what we need—another stinky, polluting, slinking slow school bus on our roads.By kendra
March 22, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this
Remember the adage: Give them one bus, and they’ll take 20 more.By null
March 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
HAHAHA, I would just love to see the fur fly if Oakwood had to consolidate with Dayton! I think it’s a super idea. How do we get the ball rolling? I’ll help…after I stop rolling around laughing. Thanks for the chuckle!!!By School Supporter (Classic)
March 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Rich writes, “mindless, bureaucratic response by a state agency … If Oakwood were to fight this directive from Columbus.” The state agency (Ohio Department of Education) has a legal obligation to comply with the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). Since the sensible thing to do may well be for the OAC to allow Oakwood to use vans, and since the ORC (passed by the General Assembly) appears to be silent on the issue, then it’s a comparatively simple exercise to get the OAC changed. I suggest making this a high school civics exercise, possibly coordinated by the Oakwood HS student council or a civics teacher: draft the ten (or fewer) words necessary for the OAC to permit Oakwood’s vans. Vet it past some volunteer lawyers (probably some Oakwood booster parents happy to save money on busses). Then have the state board ask ODE’s specialists whether the proposed changes will get past JCARR. If so, have the board vote to adopt them. As an alternative, you fund an organizer to encourage Oakwood seniors to vote for a presidential candidate who’ll make activist appointments to the Supreme Court—ruling that Oakwood needs to be consolidated with Dayton for desegregation purposes—that’ll fix it too.By Rich
March 18, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
I have to agree with all the criticisms offered so far — this appears to be nothing but a mindless, bureaucratic response by a state agency. If one looks at the actual Ohio Revised Code, here’s the only pertinent passage I was able to find (this comes from ORC 3327.01 — “Transportation of pupils”): “In all city, local, and exempted village school districts where pupil transportation is required under a career-technical plan approved by the state board of education under section 3313.90 of the Revised Code, for any student attending a career-technical program operated by another school district, including a joint vocational school district, as prescribed under that section, the board of education of the student�s district of residence shall provide transportation from the public high school operated by that district to which the student is assigned to the career-technical program.” While common sense doesn’t always rule in such cases, the plain reading of the words “provide transportation” are NOT limited to traditional yellow school buses. The ORC would be much more specific if this had been the legislature’s intent. If Oakwood were to fight this directive from Columbus, I suspect they’d have a fighting chance of winning, simply by citing this ORC passage.By David Esrati
March 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
And now we know why the State can’t solve the unconstitutional school funding issue: they are too busy worrying about Oakwoods choice of vehicles. The representation of a big yellow bus is a bit of a misnomer. They could get away with a smaller commuter bus - all it has to do is seat more than 9. RTA used to have some of these for project mobility before they switched to mini-vans. There are other options- but the State should be shot for this one.By Oldprof
March 17, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Perhaps this bit of questionable regulation will change the minds of some who think Strickland is over-reaching by threatening to make the OBE a purely advisory board?By Mary
March 17, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this
It seems Oakwood could argue, defend, and get waivers, if necessary, for what it is doing. The Ohio Revised Code gives a lot of exceptions that might be interpretable for their situation. The bureaucrats could be at fault in their interpretation. Maybe Oakwood could use the SUVs as long as it does not ask for reimbursement from the state. The SUV’s probably allow students to use seatbelts, are probably more fuel efficient than a large bus, and an argument could be made there, as well.By JT
March 17, 2008 1:03 AM | Link to this
Here’s a good example the state creeping into the affairs of a well-run school district. Doesn’t the Dept. of Education have better things to do rather than worry about how a district transports its students? A 60 passenger diesel school (as pictured)bus does not make sense for the transportation of a small group of students. Why has this become an issue? Has someone within the district complained? My district (Dayton) is so screwed up that I see a large school bus pick up 2 students from my building every day, talk about a waste of money and resources. Instead of requiring Oakwood to buy a bus, the state should be using it as an example of good stewardship of taxpayer monies and giving districts incentives to emulate such cost-saving measures, i.e. using smaller, more efficient vehicles such as vans and SUVs in the everyday transport of students. I know someone will argue that these vehicles are not as safe, but those vehicles do have seat belts and buses do not. In this era of supposed global warming and high fuel prices, school districts would better serve the public by using smaller vehicles when possible.By M
March 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this
No, they should not have to buy a bus and the ODE should be paying more attention to the real issues in education.