My initial concern was related to budget and the secondary issue is future cost and the impact of the Intermediate School.
Based on the materials I received, materials I already had, and a phone call with Tom Ochs of Jennings Transportation I found the following:
- Non-Public student transportation for past 10 years has been consistently around 500.
- Public student transportation has increased from 3054 to 4277 during same time.
- The percent of public students bused has increased from 76% to 89%.
- The cost per student (public and non-public combined) has increased from $494 to $627.
- We use 26 buses for elementary and 36 for secondary.
- A single run (elementary and secondary) costs $241.30 per day x 180 days = $43,434.00
- 26 full and 10 half or 31 full runs = 31 x $43,434 = $1,346,454 to transport regular public students.
- Cost per student is $1,346,454/4201 (public students buses) = $321.00 per student.
The question is what are we spending the rest of the budget on and how efficient are we there if only $1.3 of nearly $3M is spent on transporting most of the students?
Moving forward the NASD has stated a 3rd bell will be added for the Intermediate School. The Jennings Contract states that the contract will be renegotiated if a two-bell system is altered. Jennings has 10 buses available (the 10 more secondary than elementary) and those could roster up to 720 (10x72), but the timing would be critical. IS would have to run around the elementary schedule and teachers are contracted between 7:30 am and 3 pm.
Further, if more buses are purchased outside the contract I'd imagine Jennings would want increased pay to cover the additional cost. If NASD opts for new carrier, it would be a major transition, and either way costs will increase as more buses will be needed.
It would seem the 3rd bell will be a self generated headache for the NASD that negatively impacts, the bus company, taxpayers, and parents who will have to figure out how to get one kid to elem, one to IS and maybe another to the MS in a morning.
Again, though, the costs ought to be the highest concern because this cost does not improve education, each increase only takes away from what we can offer.
On a final note, had an email from a reader whose child missed the bus this week (elementary 42) because the pick-up time changed and apparently the driver told the kids, but notification was not made to the parents. Anyone else aware of this? Thanks!
10 comments:
Maybe the timing issues can be solved by altering the clocks in all of the buildings the way they do in the MS right now. For example, maybe when it is 8 a.m. at the Elementary School, it can be 8:10 at the IS, 8:20 at the MS, and 8:30 at the HS.
Ross, you developed a good analysis based on the information you were working with. It would seem to me that there might be a piece missing-I can't imagine such a large discrepancy. In addition to costs & timing associated with transportation to an IS, has anyone considered the more immediate cost impact of bussing now that NASD has implemented redistricting? I'm just curious because it would seem to me that we will have 2 busses going to the same developments (like Creekside, for example) but headed to 2 different schools.
Anon 10:24-
You raise an interesting point. And yes, I believe it was raised at one of the board meetings regarding redistricting. If I remember correctly, NASD was aware that there would be "some" additional costs, but no hard numbers. However, it was stated that (I'm paraphrasing here) we have to get the kids to school and there will be costs associated with that. Okay.... what exactly are they?
My opinion: NASD doesn't have these numbers yet. I have repeatedly asked at board meetings about transportation specifically regarding the new MS/IS and a possible 3-bell schedule and have been told that "we're working on it".
Perhaps a bigger question to ask is whether the increase in transportation costs associated with the new ES/IS/MS/HS has been factored into the reported $2.0M/year operating costs for the new MS. My guess, is that they are not. If they were, I would think that NASD could provide some insight (or better yet hard numbers) as to the costs. And whether it's Jennings or some other busing company that handles transportation in the future, there has to be additional costs when we move to an IS. I cannot see anyway around it.
I know there are some costs the school picks up in regard to training for drivers, but since the buses and drivers are employees of Jennings, most of their costs go there.
Fuel? I believe we pay a portion of the cell phone bill, I'd have to check the contract on that, but wouldn't know the cost of the bill in the first place only if NASD pays a percent.
There is a secretary, the software we just bought, and an administrator (though only half should go to transportation).
Fuel is the only real big one I can think of.
Special needs is real expensive because you have small minivans and cars chauffeuring kids around. This is a result of IEPs being written that state the child can't be on a regular bus.
Again as you say, given the information I had...and maybe these things add up, but it does seem that the ratio is a bit out of whack.
To Brad's point they did say at the Board meeting there would be some extra cost but not much. Again, no specifics.
Bus driver notifies elementary students of bus pickup time change? And parents must rely on students (K-5) to accurately communicate information? So I ask, WHY did we create a "Director of Transportation" costing taxpayers over $86,000??? Just another example of wasteful spending at central admin. I recommend eliminating that position and redirecting that position's costs to directly benefit students (ie. smaller class sizes, laptop computers, oh, I could go on.....) C'mon School Board-take a hard look at central admin positions! Let's revamp the budget and trim overhead (a few admin positions) which will then allow for allocating the funds where it will DIRECTLY benefit the children and our future. All in favor?
Brad noted on a different post that there will be a special budget meeting in April (25th I believe). If you want to make sure something is included or cut that is the place to be.
My guess is they will won't cut, but will add everything they want and go over the 4.2% increase because they can, and that would be a shame.
In regards to the cost per student as stated by Tom Ochs, we pay for the students who fail to use the bus system as a way to school. we need to find a better way to narrow it down so that we are only paying for thoes who actually need to use the system. This would reduce our cost tremendously. Why have the additional cost for students who may use the bus for only a few times of the year.
To clarify, I discussed the busing with Tom Ochs, but it was the NASD who (eventually) provided the numbers to me, though I would imagine they got them from him.
Maybe the software that was purchased will help in this regard, I think it cost over $10,000.
Under the existing system though, we do at least get reimbursed from the state by those students who don't ride.
How does the Nasd know how many students ride and don't ride. Do they have a system that calculates this information? If the district does get reimbursed, where does that money appear on the finacial end, where is that extra money being spent, and how much are we reimbursed??? The students have to hand in the card mailed to the parent prior to school year beginning, most of these kids ride once. The drivers do not keep track of who rides and who doesn't, so how does the district know?? The new software purchased is going to be used for what purpose?
A few times a year the drivers have to complete ridership counts. These counts are on a random day and show how many riders there were on each bus run. By looking at attendance that day and average attendance you can assess that it was a normal day (ie no flu outbreak or some such).
At a certain date, there is a state form that must be completed. It calculates for every bus used to transport students, the mileage (again logged by drivers using odometer readings) from the moment the bus leaves the garage to when it returns at end of the day, how many miles the bus drove total and how many of those miles were driven with students on board and without students on board.
The roster count, how many are assigned to that bus, is then considered based on the highest number at any point in time for that bus. So if there are 72 elementary students rostered for bus 1, and 10 secondary students for bus 1, bus one can use 72 rostered students for its calculation.
The reimbursement then considers miles with and miles without plus the number of students. For this reason the actual ridership 'doesn't matter.'
However, and going a bit off topic, the person that noted earlier cutting buses to get ridership up would reduce costs, but only if you could eliminate entire bus runs and still be able to provide service to those who don't always or rarely use it but have a seat saved for them.
Back to your questions, the money is then received from the state and is shown in the revenue portion of the budget.
The software will most likely replace the existing software, it is to develop/track bus routes. The software utilizes mapping technology coupled with road information, speed limits, stop signs, hazardous roads, no turn areas and then populates the map with the students. You can use it to create routes or consider alternatives, at least that is what the last system did.
Where the money between the full expenditure and regular student busing as I noted in the post goes, that is tough to tell with the available information.
I'd guess a lot goes to the special needs, where one or two kids are personally driven because they don't want them on a bus with other students. If this gets put in an IEP the district has to comply. Maybe we need to reinterpret how we can comply in a more cost effective manner.
Of course it is speculation on my part that this is where the bulk of the money is being spent, but it would be interesting to see the cost per student to transport: 1. regular public student, 2. regular parochial student, and 3. special needs student.
Post a Comment