In another example of South Dakota's rejection of local control in education, the state Department of Education has ruled that Rutland School District can pick up students at only one location in Madison rather than the three that Rutland wanted to use.
I'm still trying to figure out how state statute can authorize any school district or the Department of Education to interfere in the travel plans of any other school district. Madison Central, which is just huffy about losing students via open enrollment to smaller districts, claims it is worried about traffic and the safety of students. Wouldn't the safest transportation solution be to allow out-district buses to pick up and drop off at each student's home, just as we do in the country?
Purely in terms of authority, if we're governing traffic on public roads, shouldn't the rules at least come from the Department of Transportation, rather than the Department of Education? Do folks in the Pierre office of the Department of Education have the data necessary to look at a map of Madison (or any other town) and say, "Oh, yeah, buses driving up this street and stopping here will create all sorts of traffic headaches"?
One more wrinkle: if Madison Central and the Department of Education can impose their will on Rutland's busing decisions, can they also govern field trips? Madison and the state are allowing Rutland one pick-up site in Madison, next to the Wesleyan church in the old Lincoln School. If buses can cause traffic issues at 7:45 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., surely they can pose hazards at other times of day. Perhaps when Rutland or Chester or other schools come for field trips to the Mundt Library or the Dakota Prairie Playhouse or the Lake County Courthouse, we should require them to park their buses at their appointed pick-up stations and walk the kids to and from their actual destinations in town.
Bottom line: if I'm running a school district (and heaven help us all if I ever am), I decide where my buses go. The state can set speed and width and load limits (might have to take those heavy football players over some roads in separate vehicles), but if a school district tries telling me I can't send my buses on certain public roads, I will laugh and do what I think is best for the students counting on me for service.
Whoa Cory: Because I know you appreciate input from both sides, I will take the time to point out the following:
This is a direct result of a bill that passed this past session. The issue is the taxpayers seeing buses from two, three, or four districts driving past their door every morning. It’s hard to convince those taxpayers of school budget troubles when they observe that duplicative spending of transportation dollars.
In an effort to cut down on some of the bus traffic, the bill said that school districts have to agree between themselves upon designated pickup points within city limits, but it didn’t force consultation or agreement on routes over our disintegrating township roads. In rural areas, there are many situations where the student is closer to a school other than the home district. That and several other factors (e.g. the advisability of forcing school districts to engage in nonproductive discussions that would only serve to irritate and escalate tensions among neighbors, which is what had evidently happened in Madison) made the legislature back away from a complete fix, and left us with this “six of one, half dozen of the other†compromise.
The gist of the legislature’s thinking is this, if I may be so bold: “Open enrollment is good, but the taxpayers should not be paying for duplicative busing efforts.†What we ended up voting for was something closer to: “You can have open enrollment, but we need to make it look like the taxpayer isn’t paying for duplicative bus service. “ Buses from more than one district are still going to be covering lots of the same miles every day to carry out the goal of open enrollment. It’s just that we’ll cut down on the highly visible duplicative town and city bus traffic that gets voters irritated.
And, to your specific situation, the bill also said that only if the two schools can’t agree would the Department of Education become involved. If the Department got involved in Madison, it’s because Madison and Rutland couldn’t play nice.
Reasonable points, Rep. Wismer. But I haven't heard Madison and Rutland talking about cost and multiple buses. It's supposedly all about safety. What if Rutland wants to send one bus, but they want to provide service to the door, or to multiple pick-up spots that keep kids from crossing busy highways?
And is it really Madison's place to tell Rutland how to spend its tax dollars, or to have veto power that forces Rutland's decisions to the state DoE?
The DOE ruling was 100 % political as was Ms. Wismer's attempted explanation of what has now become a full blown charade. The legislation that was passed specifically required that issues of student safety were to be the primary consideration for any mutually agreed upon plan. Rutland submitted a detailed request to the DOE for the 3 points based on multiple student safety considerations. I'll send this to Cory so he has the full story and he can take it from there. Having 35+ OE students using one stop cannot be justified as the best (only) option from a student safety standpoint. Wow were we ever naive..... and this has nothing to do with "playing nice". We were (still are) simply advocating to provide reasonable, reliable and safe transportation services for those families in Madison choosing to open enroll their children.
Growing up my friend Mike lived 3 miles east and .25 mile north of the Ward exit rest area on I-29. He had the following buses drive by his house every morning.
Brookings
Elkton
Egan
Coleman
Flandreau (the one he got on)
It wasn't an issue then and I honestly think it should be less of an issue now with open enrollment. Yankton just approved a number of drop off and pick up spots for Gayville/Volin school.
This plays out like Madison School Board is just pouting.
Rep. Wismer is correct in that this is a direct result of a bad bill passed this session; however, it was actually the schools that were losing students that wanted this, not the taxpaying parents.
Before we had schools competing to provide the best services to the taxpayers. Buses were picking children up at their residents and taking them to the school of their parent's choice. Now? We are requiring children to wait at bus stops that their parents must bring them to or have them walk to.
I had a bus driver, that was so opposed to this bill, that he wrote me several times correctly pointing out that this bill was not in the best interest of the safety of our children. Clearly it is MUCH safer for the children to be picked up at their homes vice walking to or being deposited at a bus stop to wait in the SD weather. He asked why would we want to make it so easy for those that would prey on children. I read portions of his letter on the House floor while standing against this bill.
As Rep. Wismer so aptly pointed out, the same relative expenses will still be there. We only made it more inconvenient for those families that want to open enroll and partially relieved the schools of having to compete for students. In the process of them passing this bill, they sacrificed the safety of the children, reduced services to the taxpayer, all without saving a dime. To purportedly appease the wrongful perception of a few?
The cost discussion was in the legislature last winter. The State is the entity that is assuring that each school district has a basic amount to spend (the per student allocation), both in setting the amount and kicking in a substantial equalizing percentage of it. How much extra cost should the State allow for the privilege of open enrollment?
The safety discussion is local, where it should be. They talk about safety because it’s important and it’s less inflammatory than talking about how integral to open enrollment bussing is, or who’s robbing whose students. Madison isn’t telling Rutland how to spend their dollars: the State is making this rule because the locals need a little nudge to convince them to run their districts in a way that doesn’t waste tax money in this very public way. Voters have to be able to see how severely underfunded schools are. Three buses running past my door every morning are counterproductive to that understanding. So schools must make these cosmetic changes, even though, in the broad scheme of things, the dollars spent on real duplicative bussing are small compared to the dollars it would take to bring our schools up to the funding they truly need. Sending a bus to Madison to pick up 20 kids more than pays for itself in additional student funding, so Rutland doesn’t see it as a waste of money. Madison, on the other hand, who is losing the per student allocation on all of those Rutland bound students, could have educated those students, at least the ones in town, without incurring the extra bussing costs.
ah now the truth gets out "it was actually the schools that were losing students that wanted this, not the taxpaying parents". Oops. How about this instead- all public schools openly (shamelessly) compete for a limited number of students. Do not allow us to rig the game by putting up roadblocks to keep kids from leaving. School children are not somehow ripped involuntarily out of their homes to another school district by the suction of a passing school bus. Their parents rather as competent, consenting adults make a well thought out choice to open enroll their child(ren) based on what they feel is best for the needs of the child. These "turf warfare" arguments between schools are dumb if we are to take open enrollment seriously. Rutland's continuing success and very existence as a independent school district will continue to depend on our ability to build, maintain and market programs that are uniquely attractive to area families. We find this to be very motivating if not down right exciting. Why can't we have a more friendly competition-based environment between public school districts?
Just so I understand this, some of the parents that have open enrolled their kids to another school district are concerned that their kids are walking too far to get to one bus stop? What about the kids going to Chester getting to Classic Corner? What about the kids going to Oldham getting picked up at Pizza Ranch?
These parents , and the Rutland super, think having these busses driving the streets of Madison in a random manner is better than one location? All parents need to make arrangements to get their kids to the school of their choice. If parents choose to send their kids out of town, they should be prepared to make sure their kids get to the bus on time. Someone else thinks getting picked at home is the best answer. Really? We need 34 stops in town, when in-town students are walking to their schools? That is safety?
Please explain how the kids that have been open enrolled are the responsibility of the Madison School District. I am not saying they are forgotten, but their parents have decided to send them on the busses to another school district. Sorry, but the Madison School District has to consider their own students before the needs (or wants) of others. For the record, I am in favor of open-enrollment, but there are certain costs associated with it that some people just do not understand when they sign on the dotted line.
The Rutland super mentions a safety factor for the 34 kids open-enrolled to his district. Perhaps Rutland should provide and pay for crossing guards and monitors, or have the parents form a volunteer system of providing supervision instead of making it sound like Madison School District is throwing safety under the bus, so to speak. The perceived prestige of snubbing noses at the Madison School District does not automatically come with the same benefits.
Once again politics takes precedence over our children's needs. Safety.....that is your primary reason for limiting the number of bus stops in Madison? We all know different. Let's take away all the political mumbo-jumbo and you have the truth. Who really is complaining about the number of stops in Madison? The real issue is open enrollment. The right to choose the right school for your child's educational, not to mention, personal success. My husband and I moved from Knoxville, Tennessee so our children could have a better education and a genuine good old-fashioned upbringing! I live in Madison but my children go to Rutland and I thank God it was a choice I had. I am also the bus driver that transports the children from Madison to Rutland to attend our wonderful school. My husband and I made the choice for our children to attend Rutland but the majority of the children I transport made that decision themselves along with their parents. Why is that? Well you would have to ask the children I transport. Shouldn't we listen to what our children are saying? As parents it's our job, as administrators is it not? Sugar coating and excuses doesn't change the facts. Our children have the right to their opinions but did anyone ask them during this decision making process what the wanted or needed? Remember it's supposed to be about the children.
Thank you Jim for your questions. You raise a number of issues that need clarification. 1) The safety of Chester's "one stop" at the Classic Corner has been called into question by a number of concerned citizens, including the recent public comments of a Madison School Board member. 2) Numbers matter. Ramona's single stop at the Pizza Ranch may well safely serve the needs of a handful of students, though 30+ students congregating at the same location may not be a wise thing. 3) we are not proposing that buses "drive all over town in a random manner". Our plan was for 3 stops based on regional areas of town. This would be a huge reduction in town miles and visibility from our past practice of having 12-15+ separate door to door stops. 4) you are mistaken that "in town students walk to their own school". Madison maintains an elaborate system of over 2 dozen bus stops for transporting students within the city limits of Madison. They added additional in town stops just this year citing student safety as one of the main justifications. How can the safety of in-town busing be required for some students and denied to other students for political reasons? 5) Open enrolled students are not the responsibility of the Madison district. We are just asking Madison to "allow" us to provide a similar level of busing service to OE students that they provide for their own students. 6) you imply that families choosing open enrollment must somehow be made to "pay a price". Why? Is open enrollment only intended for the comfortably middle class families with an extra SUV or minivan and convenient work hours, etc.? 7) I simply don't understand your comment, "The perceived prestige of snubbing noses at the Madison School District". Why would you imply such bizarre motives for open enrolled families? Whether or not the bus stops at their door, families make a lot of sacrifices to open enroll their children. There is no prestige in being abused and despised by you (and others) for choosing a different public school other than their "home" district.
"random manner"? Jim, you make it sound like bus drivers are crazy drivers. They're better trained and more accountable than 95% of the drivers on Madison streets. They also behave much less erratically than kids crossing streets.
Just pick up the students where necessary---the bold arrogance of this bill/arrangement is terrible. As far as I know, public roads and streets are still passable to any legal vehicle and/or driver. If necessary, Rutland should just pick the students up at their homes. If questioned, just for the record--"We're heading in the direction of the "one stop". No further answers needed.
Carl- according to the website Madison offers 11 bus stops, not over 2 dozen. Hardly elaborate.
If I remember right, the problem at Classic Corner is with the speed the bus driver feels is needed to drive through the parking lot, and some parents feeling Classic Corner is a babysitter for their kids. First hand I have witnessed the bus going too fast to stop if one of the kids did happen to run out in front of it. I have also witnessed kids running around the store interrupting customers, and the workers. Most of the kids there are with their parents until the bus arrives. Some are left unsupervised.
Won't having one stop result in a "huge reduction in town miles and visibility from our past practice of having 12-15+ separate door to door stops"? You had 12-15 stops for 34 kids, when Madison has 11 for how many kids?
The "costs" I referred to are not always monetary, and what does having a SUV or mini van or convenient working hours have to do with anything? Simply put, if a parent chooses to opt out, fine, no problem. Get your kid to the school you decided they should attend. I work out of town and make what arrangements are needed to make sure my kids get to school. You did not address my suggestion of parents monitoring the pick up location. That would be another "cost", but they would be able to feel safer about their kids.
Where in my post could anyone think I made anyone feel "abused and despised by you (and others) for choosing a different public school other than their “home†district"? As far as the snubbing of the nose comment, I have talked with several parents of open-enrolled parents and a recurring theme when they are asked what prompted the decision to open-enroll is their hatred of a teacher, administrator, or the district itself. I said I am in favor of OE. I do not despise or abuse any parent for choosing to send their kids to another school. Having the option to do that is great. Please do not turn this into your perception that everyone is against you, your district, and the families whose kids attend your school. I am concerned for the safety of my kids. Having more busses on the city streets decreases their safety.
Cory- how does a random manner equate to a crazy driver? The comment had nothing to do with the skills of the drivers, and you know that but yet you decided to make the assumption that is what I was making it sound like.
You are someone that makes a living correcting others, but yet you failed to dissect anything Carl had to say because you feel Rutland is being told what to do by Madison. It went to the state, who decided the matter. Rutland was not told to stop driving on the streets of Madison. They were told how many bus stops they could have for the 34 kids OE. In my opinion, having one stop should be enough for the kids needing rides. It would give parents the option of taking turns giving kids rides to the same
stop. Now, if in the future more and more kids OE, the matter can again be addressed between the school boards, and if needed, the state DOE.
"random"= willy-nilly, without plan or pattern. You seem to be trying to portray these buses as chaotic elements on the road. I made my assumption based on the word you chose, a word which creates a false impression.
Now Jim, you might be technically right in saying Madison Central and the state aren't telling Rutland what streets they can drive on. I guess technically Rutland could still drive its buses on any Madison street it wants; it just can't stop anywhere but the Wesleyan church. That's still unnecessary state control that puts politics over real safety and equal access to open enrollment and educational opportunities. The facts about safety don't back up the argument you're stretching, Jim. Buses are safe, more stops are better, and the state DoE doesn't have the information necessary (and shouldn't have the authority) to make local safety decisions.
Jim- we are not all entitled to our own facts.... Madison makes 26 stops in town by 5 different buses in am and 30 in-town stops by 5 buses in the afternoon. I guess some of the stops are at the same location but different buses come and go at different times, etc. Maybe this is how we are interpreting things differently. If they only "need" 11 stops why do different buses have to stop at different times? I imagine this has something to do with student safety and the number of students there, elementary vs. jr/sr high or other such factors. This information went out in the District's August newsletter and is also available on their website. To save you some trouble though here is a link:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_MafF0WfiPlODEwMTg3MmQtNDg1Zi00MjgzLThiOGYtODdmZjAwNGM0MjA5&hl=en_US
How does one stop equate to unequalled access to open enrollment? I am not stretching any argument. Carl stated figures and opinions, so did I. He feels Rutland needs more than one stop for safety reasons. I feel one stop is enough for the current number OE kids. I do not have a magical number in mind that might warrant additional stops, but it seems to me that the ability to maximize the stops per bus, and minimize unneeded in-town travel time, should play a factor in the equation also.
Willy-nilly, really? Chaotic? Your word, not mine. Random, as in no direct plan, purpose, or order, is what I wrote. Random, as in driving through town to many stops, possibly not in the same order every day. I would not have used elaborate, and thought random was best. Probably should have used "pre-determined".
Carl-
I checked the district website earlier for my information. I did not see Ace Hardware or St Johns listed as stops. I question why Ace, when Hope Studios is 3 blocks away. So that means 13 places for buses to stop. Still not the over 2 dozen you first mentioned. How many students fit in a bus? Will all 34 fit in yours? I know for a fact that elementary school kids have had to take another bus because of too many riders on the bus their parents understood they would be riding.
I feel like you & Cory are treating me like the enemy. I am stating my opinion. I am not saying you are crazy because of yours. You feel 3 stops are needed, I feel one is enough.
Jim, I'm not enemizing, but I feel there's a need to point out the meaning of the words you used. You seem to want to portray these buses as a hazard, or at least an inconvenience, when in fact they provide safer transportation for all concerned. There is no practical reason to deny buses from other towns access to more stops in Madison. If Madison wants to keep kids from open enrolling elsewhere, Madison should offer better programs. If the state really feels open enrollment causes inefficient use of resources, then the state should simply end open enrollment rather than trying to shift inefficiencies to individuals (remember, it's still cheaper for one bus to pick up 35 kids at 20 homes than for a bunch of families to drive kids to one pickup point.
The new bus routes were highlighted in the district news letter that was sent out in the mail....it may not be on the website but the newsletter is. My grandson, Davin will be attending the Rutland School for the first time this year in the 5th grade...it was a hard decision for our family to make. We all had to be committed to do this. Nothing to do with hatred for a teacher, school or anyone in particular. The teacher he had last year was exactly what he needed but he could not stay with her for the rest of his school days. Davin has a IEP which means that he has a disability that makes him eligible for special education services...and the only thing that I can say about this whole thing is last year we were going to move him but did not and the Elementary school was aware of this. I wish the Madison School District had fought as hard to keep him as a student as they are fighting to not provide him a safe place to leave and come back to Madison. As both sets of his grandparents and his mother all own real estate in the Madison school district a part of our real estate taxes are paid to the Madison school district so that does not matter? Maybe our real estate taxes to the school should go to Rutland school along with his IEP funding. We only want what is best for him... we have fought for him since the day he was born and will until we can not anymore. He is only 10 years old and should not have to struggle as he does to go to a school that he will be comfortable and tolerated. This not going to be easy for all of us as his family to adjust to the move to Rutland but we are willing to do this for him and I think what is more important than anything else in this whole situation has been lost and they will end up being the losers again....the CHILDREN!
By the way my full name is Deb Blanchette....and I am not afraid to print that to the above message!
I agree that the children are the ones being hurt here. My children have gone to Rutland for several years now, two have graduated from there. We won't be requiring a bus much longer, but we would have open enrolled with or without a bus. Sometimes you have to do what is right, be it is easy or not. We have discussed with many of our friends how we would have loved for Madison to have a new gym or to renovate the high school, we have voted to support everything that has come along. We, too, realize that our tax dollars are supporting one of the things that keeps a town alive - the school. So even though it is not a good fit for our children, it is for many, and that is great! I just wish the same respect and care regarding the busing issue would be reciprocated. I know it would not be easy for Madison to reconsider and allow the three stops requested, but I think it would be the right thing to do.
As an afterthought I would also like to mention that Davin has never walked to a bus stop in Madison or been dropped off at one. That has never been an option that we felt safe with. If my daughter or Matt were unable to get him to school or pick him up if needed a grandparent on either side or other friends or family got to their home and got him to or from school. The only time that he ever used a bus was to go from school to the Community Center after school to the after school program which we PAID for that after awhile was not an option either. When we started exploring the Rutland School and made the application they were able to pick the child up at the home.....taking Davin to a bus stop and leaving him there with 33 other children unsupervised is not a safe option for him. One of us will have to be there as we have in the past and we WILL do this if we need too! Or the other option that we have discussed is Davin coming to our house during the week as we live closer to Rutland than his mother, step father and brother do. That means taking him away from them during the week...how many of you as parents or grandparents have had to discuss that as an option to get a child a chance? Never thought we would but we WILL! No one will accuse this family of dropping him off and expecting someone else to "babysit" him on taxpayers dollar. He not only deserves to be safe on his way to and from school he is entitled to it. SO are the other 33 children that LIVE in the Madison School district but CHOOSE to go to Rutland School or whatever school. In tonights paper Oldham- Ramona agreed to let Lake Preston drive in to Oldham and pick up students at their homes.....no politics involved there! Now lets talk about the CHILDREN involved in this........
My guess is that people seeing buses from other school districts picking up kids from multiple places in another community causes them to wonder what is wrong with their local school. This drives school administrators and school boards half nuts...the other half is often there previously.
This is another unnecessary law from the legislature that prides itself in small government and local control.
Can we all spell "H Y P O C R I T E S"
Seeing 30+ kids going outside the Madison district certainly raises questions about the directions of the Supt. and school board. Our current Supt.( V.S., as I guess he identifies himself) has done more to alienate local support than anyone for a long time. And, Jim, maybe you should include your entire name or is V.S. writing out what you should say.
Also, placing kids going to two different districts at the same gathering place to load does not make any sense at all. Will Madison move to another location? Many times parents send their child to another school to stop the "bullying" that they have had to endure in the former school. Now they possibly place them at the same loading place, without supervision. TIME for the school board to step up and say, "drop this whole thing before some child gets hurt."