Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Cars and Parts Swap Meet
E-mail 
E-mail 
E-mail Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > June > 26 > Entry
How important is high school busing?
On today’s opinion page, the DDN’s editorial board asks if the school board is doing enough to save high school busing.
The editorial notes that dropping the district’s RTA bus contract will have two big effects — it will almost certainly lower the district’s attendance and it will put thousands more kids downtown every day. A consequence of lower attendance could be a decline in academic achievement. Kids can’t learn if they aren’t in school.
The big question is whether the district can let that happen or if it can (or should) rework its budget to make high school busing a higher priority.
The editorial board argues that the consequences of dropping high school busing potentially are very serious and asks why there isn’t more urgency for the board to solve this problem. Some of the parties that came together last year to help — especially the city and the RTA — are not in a fiscal position to offer assistance this year. And they’ve been direct with the school board about that for a year.
But the school board’s financial woes are real. At the board’s finance committee meeting this week, finance officers were scrambling and scraping to hold the financial ship steady until the June 30 end of the fiscal year. And the district cut it very close this year, finishing the year with just a small surplus of cash.
Still, all budgets are built on priorities and a fair question has been asked by the DDN and by some readers here at GOTB — if busing really matters, how can the $2 million cost not find its way into the district’s $180 million budget for next year?
Is it really impossible to find something else that can be traded out for $2 million?
Let’s take sports, for example. The district has not announced any change to its athletics program, so if they follow last year’s plan there will be at least five varsity sports teams at the high school level. Now, the value of sports has been debated a lot here, but let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume all the good things about sports are true — that they help kids build character and obtain useful life skills.
Even so, is that more important than getting kids to school so they can learn in the first place? I don’t have the figures in front of me, but wouldn’t the money for sports make a decent dent in the busing deficit?
Some time back, the district presented a potential plan to curb spending on the operational side by extending the rotations for some routine functions. For instance, the proposal suggested cutting grass every other week instead of weekly. That plan dissolved and has never been heard from again. Could the district adjust maintenance, custodial and groundskeeping routines to save money for busing?
The DDN editorial questions whether the district has really dug for money by reprioritizing in this way.
What do you think? Is high school busing important enough to make these moves? Or is it fair to ask the kids to find their own ways to school?
Permalink | Comments (30) | Post your comment | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By collegestudentc/0 2009
August 18, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
i believe that the board of education should cut some of the sports becasue getting the kids to school is more important. the board has set up truancy laws against parents who do not send their childrent to school, then they turn around and make it impossible for some students to attend. The children are our future and without them getting their educations, what will the future of America hold. The majority of the students in the sports programs graduate high school, and never play a sport again. How many students have become professional athletes from dayton schools? Only two that i know of, Daequan Cook and Nashawn Goddard. Also, how is it that the school can provide busing to and from games but not to SCHOOL, the board of education needs to get their priorities straight.
By retiredteacher
July 16, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
Who decides where the new high schools are being built? North Dayton has lost 4 high schools and NONE are being rebuilt. They are Fairview, Kiser, Colonel White, and Julieanne/Stivers. Why not build the schools where the kids live?
By Mary
July 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this
Joe, per customary operating procedures for board members, you are misleading the public. You could “incentivize” a lot of foreign language students with trips to their countries of interest for the money you are spending on coaches, referees, trainers transportation, athletic directors, sports facilities, etc. If all you know is a few sports salaries, you need to ask some more questions.
By Joe Lacey
July 6, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this
We do not buy trips to Europe, Asia or Africa because of the cost. What you are trying to portray doesn’t seriiously compare to a few part time coach salaries, immaterial in context of the whole budget.
By Mary
July 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Joe, just about everything in life could be portrayed as a learning and educational experience. Why not add a trip to Europe, Asia, and Africa for some students? When resources are limited, you have to assign priorities and stick to what your primary job is. Boards of education that hide behind apple pie generalities without a discussion of specific costs and benefits are not doing a responsible job with education tax dollars. On these issues, you are insensitive to the majority of the students and their education while playing favoritism and providing special “entitlements” for the relatively small minority. You still have not provided numbers and percentages that give the public the real picture of what is going on whith tax dollars for these “incentives”, earmarks, pork barrel, or whatever you want to call the system you defend.
By Calvin
July 2, 2008 7:51 PM | Link to this
In Japanese schools athletics are not overemphasized as in American schools. The goal is for many students to participate rather than spectate…from Japanese and American Education: Attitudes and ractices by Harry Wray 1999. Found by google search for athletics japanese schools as google books result. Odd that here success of certain Japanese aspects are thrown up at teachers as examples but we don’t want to follow their example on inclusion of more students in atheltics and continue to serve the few with a lot of money. To wit DPS kept athletics with director salaries and expenses at the expense of more teachers in the classroom for “ordinary” students. Shameful.
By Joe Lacey
July 1, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this
Athletics is an academic incentive. Music, art and athletics enhance the educational experience. And if you want to argue that athletics takes away from the classroom, the same could be said for serving food in the cafeteria. This is not an choice between athletics and classroom instruction but between athletics and high school transportation, without which districts have had success.
By Mary
July 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
Joe, one thousand athletes out of how many students? If board members like you were as open to expenditures on academic incentives for all students, our education system might not be on the ropes. You still are not forthcoming with the total expenditures for these 1000 athletes and the adverse financial impact on the classrooms. Have you sold your soul to the athletic boosters?
By Joe Lacey
June 30, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this
Dayton Public Schools did not send a sports team to Florida. Thurgood Marshall’s ROTC competed in Daytona but they got there on there own, not with Dayton Public Schools help. Mary tries to characterize school sports as an extravagance for a priveleged few but that’s not the case. We had about a thousand students participate in athletics this past year and we had opportunities for more. Athletics is a learning opportunity and a school without athletic opportunities would be a tough sell to a student body that needs the incentive.
By Laura
June 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Regarding a previous post about school choice in other developed countries, I contacted a friend who is stationed in Germany. She checked around and found out this info for anyone who is interested: Students in Germany are only required to go through the 9th grade. If they quit, they usually go on to a paid apprenticeship. If they elect to continue on they go to a college prep high school where transportation is subsidized, but they do have to pay some portion as attendance is then voluntary. I will ask a few more questions and if I get any more interesting info, will pass it on.
By dayton teacher
June 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
One good thing about going through financial hardship is that it can bring about an epiphany regarding priorities. Are the benefits worth the cost of providing high schoolers a way to school? What is the consequence if we don’t? I don’t know how tough it would be for a high school kid with no help at home to get to school on their own. Maybe it would be the straw that broke their back. Maybe it would be just another roadblock to get over. Maybe there should be strings attached to who gets the transportation - but then you pay for oversight and you alienate students who are trying to do the right thing and go to school. For me it is a no brainer - morally and economically to invest in children and youth. Attempting to educate, imprisoning and rehabilitating adults is extremely costly as is supporting their offspring. Alternative methods of education for some youth & children, especially those who are unmanageable in school - such as long distance learning by computer or DVD and home instruction need to be in the mix.
By dkzody
June 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
All us, all over the country, are pondering how to pay for school buses. Yet we know, if we cut the bus transportation, the kids will not come to school, and we will receive even fewer funds from the state. It is very much a catch-22. I am way out in California, at an inner city school, and when I mention walking to school, my students gasp.
By Rick
June 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Steve, it is YOU who need to step up and buy your daughter a bus pass. You are her parent.
By Mary
June 27, 2008 10:56 PM | Link to this
And Joe, I should add that valuing young people as students first and making the school day of higher quality would be the correct “incentive” for even more students, and I think should be the real focus of a school board rather than providing recreational services for a select group of students. They grow up to be voters, taxpayers and parents and should not expect recreational entitlements at the cost of others and their education.
By Mary
June 27, 2008 10:47 PM | Link to this
Joe, why don’t you mention all the other associated costs with interscholastic sports for these small numbers of students including bus driver overtime,liability, coaching, umpiring, medical trainers and facilities. What about “incentives” for the vast majority of students who do not participate or who are not allowed on the traveling teams? Didn’t I just read about one Dayton area school team on its way to Florida for a tournament? Why do school board members mainly invest in sports as the incentive for students when the vast majority of students do not receive these costly services? Why does the education system continue to more heavily invest in its student athletes as opposed to its other students? Do you value a student athlete in Dayton schools more than you do its other students? How do you justify the difference in investment and services provided for the quality of the school day for all students versus the recreational services for small numbers of athletes? What messages are you sending to the students who are not athletes and need school tranportation?
By Old Teach
June 27, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this
I agree with Joe…Far to long in DPS we have fostered the mindset with some parents that we as a school district need to provide everything. (food, dental care, vision care, babysitting, and even underwear) There are certainly exceptions, but I have parents who will not give up 1 pack of cigarettes per week to help provide for their child’s needs.
By deb
June 27, 2008 7:38 PM | Link to this
First - i want to apologize for my typo in my first post….I wanted to say that “….attendance would DECREASE…” and i typed “increase by mistake…. To the person that suggested only 1 principal in a building…that would be suicide!!! One of the middle schools was reduced this past year to the principal and 1 assistant principal…There were many days that all the 2 administrators did was address discipline issues. Attendance in this building was also lower this past year with the theory that with the loss of the 2nd assistant principal, there was also the loss of the person who spent alot of the time following up on absent students and getting them back in the building….Thank you Mr Lacy for your insight on the transportation issue.
By Old Coach
June 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
I might be going back a little further than Skeptic, but in the 60’s I attended Fairview Elementary. I lived down by Main and Siebenthaler. We didn’t have bus service, we walked. I don’t remember if it was as a school or if I was out of range. I recently checked it out and it was just over a mile with short-cuts. I would like to see what our attendance was like.
By Michael
June 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Sports are important to high school students. I’m a Senior at Stivers and we enjoy attending sporting events like basketball and soccer during the year. It helps build school pride. So the notion that sports isn’t important is wrong. Both are equally important to the high school experience. We need to find a way to get at least Freshman and Sophomore students to school since most of them don’t drive or don’t carpool. The upperclassmen will be okay.
By calvin
June 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
I can’t understand why it’s RTA’s responsibility to supply discount busing for DPS. RTA is funded by tax money via sales tax and other grants from the whole county, not just City of Dayton residents. We now fund the parks within City of Dayton, the fountains if they work, Riverscape, and who knows what else through the county property tax for parks.
By Joe Lacey
June 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Akron Public Schools doesn’t have high school transportion and their worst performing high schools have better attendance than Dayton’s high schools as a whole. High school kids with special needs that require transportation will still be trasported by the district, thats the law. Cutting high school sports cuts into incentive to attend school and I believe we have a bigger problem in our district with incentive than with ability to get to school. Cutting back on maintenance of our property doesn’t sound like a responsible solution. Property that’s not properly maintained actually contributes to health problems. These are tough calls. And Mary, since we are no longer in a league with schools outside the area, those team trips are pretty rare. Cutting them wouldn’t pay for a day of high school transportation.
By Skeptic
June 27, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
How is this even a question for discussion? Kids need to be in school and we need to get them there. Where I grew up, bus service was NEVER in any doubt. It was a given. We had 1600 kids in my high school from all income levels and the majority took the bus. Where is the private sector in all this? Surely some company can provide better bus services at a lower cost. Isn’t that what the charter school supporters keep telling us - let the market compete for education dollars?
By Laura Hill
June 27, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Why does it matter what grade a CHILD is in? Were supposed to teach our children to treat others as equals right? Then why all the fuss and wasting money trying to figure out if a CHILD deserves the right to have consistant reliable daily transportation!?
By MC
June 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Link to this
I think you have already answered the question in your editorial.
By charterschoolhater
June 26, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this
I agree that high school busing is very important. The first thing I would do is eliminate all sports. Then I would put all the teachers on assignment back in the classroom. I would cut all schools to 1 principal. Then I would eliminate all the fat in the administration. Each department needs 1 secretary and a director. Eliminate everyone else. The next thing I would do is rework my bell schedules to put high schoolers on yellow buses and have the drivers drive areas of town just like an RTA route. They would pick all kids along the way, fill up the bus and drop off at schools. Once they are unloaded they would go back and fill up again. Every bus would be on the road from 6Am until 10AM or all the kids are picked up. Repeat the same in the PM. I bet if they eliminated all the unnecessary stuff and loaded up the buses, we could keep High school busing with the resources we have. After all the kids going to school trump sports any way. The kids going to school trump all the extra help that these lazy administrators have. Cut to the bare bones and get the high school kids to school with the money we save. The board of ed won’t do it because it takes guts and involves making hard choices. Guts is something most of them are devoid of. They will not make the hard choices for the sake of the kids. What a sad state of affairs we do indeed have. I challenge the board of ed. Make the administrators earn their inflated wages. Make the needed cuts and get the kids to school. After all we have to do more with less. That is what they say in corporate America every day.
By Mary
June 26, 2008 9:24 PM | Link to this
Well, for sure, busing high school students to classes should have greater priority than busing a smaller portion of high school students to sporting events outside the area to all sorts of places at all times of the day, week, and year - but that is not the priority in most school districts. The editorial did not address that issue. When addressing the “importance” of sports, an explanation of why so few are allowed to participate and receive these sporting services should be addressed. It would also appear that busing for high school classes should have greater priority than all sports services that are not physical education classes. When money gets really tight maybe both busing and sports need to disappear to protect class sizes and the numbers of classroom teachers. The quality of the classroom experience should be of paramount priority for education funds.
By Waiting for the dough
June 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this
The district is simply waiting until the last second, believing that somebody will pony up the money. And somebody will, because the perceived alternatives: kids wandering the streets all day or causing trouble at the downtown bus hub, would be worse.
By deb
June 26, 2008 7:31 PM | Link to this
I do think that if the high school students are left on their own to go to school, the attendance rate is going to increase. I would love to know the numbers if students really went to their neighborhood school…How much(if any) money would really be saved if there were less students being transported across town……I do realize that there are unique things going on at Stivers….and when dealing with special ed students, you might have unique issues there, too….but would that allow for the time necessary to transport the high school students???
By Steve
June 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Link to this
For me it is essential. My second oldest attends stivers and we live in the North Riverdale area…It’s too far to walk for her and both my wife and I have other duties to attend to in the morning. RTA needs to step up and help. Surely some agreement can be reached.
By Steve
June 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Link to this
For me it is essential. My second oldest attends stivers and we live in the North Riverdale area…It’s too far to walk for her and both my wife and I have other duties to attend to in the morning. RTA needs to step up and help. Surely some agreement can be reached.