The state Department of Education's decision to restrict Rutland School to one bus stop in Madison has drawn some pointed discussion here on the Madville Times. Two state legislators, parents, and Rutland superintendent Carl Fahrenwald are all weighing with their take on the new state law that essentially gives districts like Madison a sour-grapes veto power over neighboring districts' busing decisions.
To shed some light on the situation, let us turn to the letter Superintendent Fahrenwald sent to the Department of Education to make his case for the compromise busing plan Rutland wanted. Yes, compromise: Rutland was willing to step back from its previous door-to-door bus service for open enrollers to a three-stop plan in Madison. The August 1 letter contends that South Dakota's commitment to safety and equity in access to education should trump the political motives behind this very bad state law.
The letter contends first that, if the state is going to allow open enrollment, it has an obligation to make that choice equally available to all families. Parents who work odd hours, who don't have a big network of family and friends to help with the kids, or who can't afford reliable transportation need good school bus service for their kids. Telling kids who live on Southeast Third that they have to walk 1.3 miles each morning to get to the Rutland bus on Northwest Third creates a barrier to access that other kids don't have. If we really believe in open enrollment, then we must ensure that every student has equal access to open enrollment. Neighborhood bus stops improve that access at minimal cost.
The letter then states that bus transportation is the safest way for kids to get to school. School buses aren't great canisters of death careening randomly down the highway. They are highly visible vehicles driven by trained individuals who are probably obeying the speed limit more consistently than a number of other vehicles on the streets. Madison Central evidently recognizes this, as it maintains numerous bus stops around town. Madison certainly doesn't require its high school and middle school students to walk to and from a single bus terminus at Madison Elementary.
A single bus stop heightens safety risks by conglomerating nearly three dozen students of different ages at one site with no official supervision. We love kids, but we also know that when you put a bunch of them together, their IQ decreases, and their tendency to make trouble increases. With multiple stops closer to home, kids spend less time on foot and waiting around with other kids.
Rutland is willing to compromise and make three stops: the Wesleyan church on the west side of town, the community center on the north side, and Flynn Field on the south. That plan serves kids better than a single stop at the Wesleyan church. There is no student-centered reason to deny kids more neighborhood bus stops.
Either they want open enrollment to motivate schools parents and teachers or they don't.
The fact that this busing move speaks increasingly of sour grapes doesn't help MSD public relations. These 34 OE families are still tax payers and more importantly voters in the MSD. With a possible public vote on future renovations to the MHS to occur sometime in the future, leaving a sour taste in 34 households is not good for positive voting results. This conflict should not be happening. The school board needs to review this issue-ASAP. The outflow of OE will only increase for MSD if they don't show more maturity.
Open enrollment serves a purpose for families who feel their child will benefit by attending a school district other than the one they live in. Sometimes it is job-related or perhaps student-driven. I'm all for student open enrollment, but what rankles people in Madison is when Rutland and Oldham-Ramona take out quarter-page advertisements and run radio ads trying to lure more of our children to their schools so they can keep the doors open and chase the cash that follows those students. In Rutland's case, it becomes a matter of survival to stay above the previous student threshold set by the State. Does that mean the Madison district should lay down and do nothing? If we did to Rutland or Ramona what they do to Madison (newspaper and radio advertising, direct mail and phone calls) and tried to lure THEIR students to our larger market with numerous educational and activity opportunities not currently offered in those smaller towns, we'd take massive criticism...But nobody is supposed to say anything when those small schools are trying to take our students and the $5000 per student that goes with them. 34 Open Enrollment students represents $150,000 gone from our district budget, or four full-time teachers. Those kinds of dollars are worth having these discussions and involving the State. I think Madison has taken the high road for years on this issue.
I do not think that causing hardship on families that have decided to open enroll their child is " taking the high road", it is more like a kick in the butt. Don't make Madison look entirely innocent because they certainly are not.
I think we've had this discussion before Rod.... go ahead and advertise what you've got and we'll do the same. What's wrong with a healthy, full-blown competitive atmosphere for a limited number of students where area public schools develop and market specialized programs or their unique educational atmosphere to attract (and keep) students? Madison has a good school. Rutland has a good school. But in many ways the comparison is "apples to oranges"- it just depends on what families may prefer for their children. Madison has programs and services not available in Rutland. Likewise Rutland offers a educational setting not possible in Madison. Competition is good for public education just as it is for industry and other services. Area families can only benefit from having true public school choice. You cannot "sort of" be in support of open enrollment by saying it's fine for a few to leave but beyond a certain number is not acceptable or that it is somehow shameful to advertise. It's true that open enrollment is keeping Rutland's doors open but what is wrong with this? We find this to be highly motivating.... we can take nothing or no one for granted. Maybe your district should try this approach? Our staff earns every bit of what we have by their energy and love for children, and their complete dedication to our small school. Subtract 34 students from Rutland and we close- if not then Madison does indeed lose the $150,000 but don't blame us. Remember it's real families that are making the public school choice. Don't patronize these open enrolled families by assuming they are somehow pawns in this whole matter or that they have somehow been tricked into open enrollment by one of our ads.
Some people in Madison may be rankled by Rutland's and Oldham-Ramona's aggressive advertising. But that's their problem. Carl's right: no one gets tricked into open enrollment. Ads make people aware of options. People choose those options. If people in Madison don't like that, they should either (a) do a better job of getting the word out about the options at Madison Central, (b) improve the options at Madison Central to attract more patrons, or (c) get Russ Olson to sponsor a bill repealing open enrollment (and be prepared to explain why South Dakota students and parents should be denied that option).
I can understand concerns about the money spent on ads. One could argue that the money Rutland spends to place an ad on this blog might be better spent buying books for the library. But Rutland patrons could complain that the thousands of dollars Madison spent buying and painting a tour bus for athletes and advertising its $17M bond issue last winter could have been better spent on bonuses for teachers. We can gripe about certain expenditures by any school district, but is it really one district's place to try dictating to another district how it spends its resources?
As member of the new building committee, Charlie makes an excellent point. This fiasco is one more example of Madison Central acting according to an agenda that has something other than the best interest of students in mind. Madison is deliberately making life harder for the parents of 34 open enrollers. Madison is thus blowing on a losing battle (this bus snark won't keep folks from open-enrolling) political capital that it will desperately need to sell us on the next big building renovation plan.
I find it rather insulting that people assume we are some how not aware of the Madison school district and what they may have to offer students. You can run all the ads you want, you can drive a bus past my driveway, and those are not the deciding factors when I choose a school for my child. I choose a school that fits our needs, educational first, extra curricular and social atmosphere next and a caring community that backs the school is a big plus. It seems pretty insulting to imply an ad or a bus pickup is all that a parent considers when deciding on a school for their family. It seems counter productive to me---insult the people into staying in your school. Concentrate on putting forth what you consider the positive things you offer, otherwise the conversation seems a little like a young child's my dad is better than your dad kind of thing...your dad is the best dad for you, but may not be the right "fit" for everyone.
Ask the kids what makes them happy about their education at their school. We photograph seniors almost every day at the studio this time of year. During their session we find out much about their lives and what they hope for the future.
As parents we can argue back and forth about open enrollment, but it's the kids that can give you the insights you are looking for to make each school better.
I wonder what percentage of Madison students open enroll elsewhere and how those numbers stack up to other districts around the state? Just curious, if anyone comes up with these number I would be interested in seeing them. Note to Madison school board...try spending some time figuring out what we could do differently as a district to keep these student from going elsewhere instead of wasting time on how to block their routes out. Any good business operator knows that the key to a successful business is keeping your existing customers happy...(that turns them into repeat customers). Address their needs and they will not feel the need to go elsewhere. I really think Madison is focusing way too much time and energy on the wrong issues. The way to keep them from leaving is by improving what we have to offer them, not by limiting where they can be picked up at (and the safety and traffic excuse is really pretty lame. I'm not too worried about a Rutland bus causing a traffic jam or major pileup in Madison). The fact of the matter is, if they are happy with where they are at no amount of advertising in the world will "lure" them elsewhere.
With all do respect Mr. Goeman, your comment makes no sense to me. I have read and re-read your comment and keep coming to this conclusion... It is your opinion that we needed to get the state involved in the issue of how many stops Rutland can make in Madison because we are angry that Rutland has taken out radio and print ads? I would welcome a response to that. Once again I will reiterate, if the school district was fufilling the needs of these 34 students this wouldn't be an issue.
...and let's not forget that not every case of open enrollment is a sign that a school district has somehow failed. Different schools offer different advantages. School X may be a really good school, but School Y may offer certain benefits that are simply better for a particular student and family. It doesn't have to represent a loss.
That said, the fact that overall Madison loses more students than it gains through open enrollment (see the stats for 2010 here, James!) suggests that, at the very least, neighboring schools are doing a much better job of getting out the positive messages about their advantages... while Madison mires itself in sour grapes that don't make our district look good. The best thing Madison could do in this situation is say, "Go ahead, open enroll if it's the right thing for your kids... but here are all the things we can do for your kids" instead of trying to throw up (literal?) roadblocks to choices made by parents who are still paying taxes in this district.
As I stated on a earlier post if Madison had fought as hard to keep Davin (my grandson) as they are fighting to make the busing situation miserable for the students leaving Madison every day our family would not be in the position that we are. Both sets of his grandparents and his mother are tax payers and voters in the Madison school district because we live in school district. Everyday we have Madison, Rutland and Oldham Ramona buses going by our house out here on 457th ave so why can they not go by your house in town?
The day that we took Davin to the Rutland School to look at the school to see if he really wanted to make the move this year in the first 15 minutes in that school he was more relaxed than we had seen him in a long time. By the time we were half way through the school he was in the gym playing basketball with 2 other boys that he knows from Sunday School at Lake Madison Church. That would have never happened in the Madison Elem School. A smaller school is what he needs with a lot less politics. We are hoping this will be what he needs to get him completely out of the "special education" label that he carrys on his shoulders in Madison.
Rod....It is not the perfect fit for everyone but we feel it is for him and I think that you know me well enough to know that this decision was not made lightly or over night. This had nothing to do with an ad in the newspaper it had everything to do with the physical and mental well being of my grandson. He will be going there whether Madison lets a bus pick him up or not....the whole focus on the safety of the children has been lost and replaced with a power struggle AGAIN.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm all for open enrollment. I understand the need for some kids to work in a different environment for schooling. The student's best interests need to supercede all other arguments. I'm also for creating any activities co-ops that allow students from the smaller schools to participate in Madison's programs such as tennis, golf, show choir and others that Rutland and other surrounding schools may not offer. Years ago, we discussed the possibility of a Public Relations/Advertising position at Madison Central...Some sort of part-time position that would produce news releases, create advertisements and promote our district's positives. Obviously, budget restraints got in the way.
Have any of the school board members taken the time to meet with these families and ask what their major concearns are? Is there a questionnaire sent out to find out why they feel the need to open enroll elsewhere? Have any local businesses been approached to help sponsor an ad in a paper or on the radio? These are all ideas that would cost the school district no money, could be done without creating a new position and would help promote and showcase our school district in a positive manner. Crying to the state about how many stops Rutland makes in Madison only does the opposite. And Rod, if you truly do believe that the students best interests need to supercede all other arguments then it really shouldn't matter how many stops Rutland makes should it?
As I posted elsewhere, 34 open enrolled students does not take $150,000 from Madision and divert it to Rutland. It takes 52% or so of that amount. The other 48% represents local effort (property taxes) that stay with the Madison school district regardless of where the students open enroll to.