The inequitable and unsafe restrictions imposed on the Rutland School District's bus service for open enrolling students from Madison have drawn have drawn lots of attention and commentary from you, dear readers.
One eager reader points out that Madison has help in its sour-grapes imposition on Rutland's efforts to provide safe transportation to its students. The Brookings School District was prepared to allow three Rutland stops in the Brookings metro area. But then last month, Superintendent Roger DeGroot changed his mind:
Brookings Superintendent Roger DeGroot at first recommended the board agree to all three locations. But Thursday, he advised the board to approve just one site, saying he didn't want to set a three-stop precedent.
"If we allow Rutland three stops, we would have to allow every other school district three stops, and the law doesn't require us to approve three stops," DeGroot said. "It only makes sense as we look forward ."
Brookings does not want to encourage "door to door" recruiting of its students, DeGroot added. Brookings and other larger districts cannot do such recruiting, so it is unfair that smaller districts do so, he said.
DeGroot said he has talked with the superintendent of a nearby district, which is also allowing only one stop to Rutland and other districts that pick up students there [Charis Ubben, "Only One Rutland Pick-up Site Allowed," Brookings Register, 2011.07.08].
The Brookings School Board approved Rutland's single bus stop, at the Casey's gas station in southwest Brookings, on July 7. At its July 12 meeting, the school board at nearby district Madison Central refused to accept Rutland's proposed three-stop compromise and asked the state Department of Education to approve its one-stop restriction on Rutland. Thank goodness Madison Central didn't have to explain away some three-stop precedent set in some neighboring community.
Small credit to Superintendent DeGroot: he at least is honest about the restriction. It's not about safety; it's about preventing smaller schools from recruiting Brookings's students.
Next up: expect Madison and Brookings to further strengthen safety and reduce traffic congestion by requiring university students and professors to park at a single location outside of town and ride an underground train to campus. Also on the horizon: the Chamber of Commerce will set up checkpoints on Highway 34, Highway 81, and 233rd Street at the old fireworks stand to check for groceries from Hy-Vee. All cars carrying such groceries will be directed to a single location at the airport industrial park, from which Hy-Vee shoppers will be required to walk home with their out-of-town groceries.
Why can another superintendent tell Rutland how to run their school. If they are doing a bad enough job that people are leaving is a good enough sign they have problem managing and should not be making bad decisions for others either. If Madison and Brookings school superintendants can not make decisions that are good for the kids, are they in the right job.
It is much larger than the simple thought that we must do what is "best" for our kids. Every school district has a specific taxable perimeter that provides the income to pay teacher salaries, make repairs, provide special ed services and pay utilities. As smaller districts market themselves and try to penetrate the larger districts for their survival, it chips away at the larger district's taxable income because the money follows the kids, about $5000 per student per year. The last thing small districts want to do is to kick the sleeping dog hard enough that larger districts begin a strong marketing campaign touting their educational and cultural advantages into the small markets. There is a certain respect among districts that understands the need and benefit for open enrollment for some students, but when the smaller districts get greedy, stepping over the normal line, it strains that relationship.
No, Rod, I think this bus isue really doesn't extend any farther than doing what's safest for kids. Madison and Brookings can't offer one good justification for their interference in the decisions of another district.
If there is some strained relationship, then I would rather see the districts go balls to the wall with straight-up competition than with this petty legal maneuvering and interference in each other's decisions. Go ahead, Madison: advertise. Make your case. Tell the world why you're the best school and why enrolling here is the best option for our kids. And while you're at it, pour on the funding for AP classes, more diverse course offerings, a full English department (i.e., hire that fourth English teacher!), a newly reinvigorated debate program, and other opportunities that will serve kids well. That's real competition. Bring it on!
It's not about greed RGoeman...it's about the small district offering more one on one to those students who need it and are not getting it from the larger districts due to class sizes, etc. Guess what needs our new enrollees this year have and take a guess as to why they are leaving your larger school district. These parents and students are making their decisions to come to Rutland because of what they have heard about what we have to offer. They didn't make their decisions based on the additional funding Rutland is receiving for a new OE.
Door-to-door recruiting? The more accurate term would be parent-to-parent recruiting. It's not the school doing the recruiting...it's the parents wanting more for their children and telling others about what their own child is receiving.
Rod,
Let me see if I have this correct. Smaller districts (such as Rutland) are "greedy" because they are trying to get more students? Yet larger districts (such as Madison and Brookings) are not greedy because they are wanting to keep those students because they come with a $5000 check to go towards teacher pay salaries, repairs, etc (expenses that smaller districts don't also have?).
Yes, as Rod stated, the money follows the child, but only the state aid portion of the per student allocation. The property taxes paid in the Madison school district (which is the local effort part of the per student allocation) stays with the Madison school district regardless of which district the student attends. The following site explains this. For this school year the per student allocation is set at $4,390. 53.8% of this follows the student to whichever district is attended; 46.2% of this stays with Madison district regardless of where the student attends. So Madison does not lose $5,000 per student that open enrolls; it loses approximately $2,361.
http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/documents/StateAid_IssueBrief.pdf
School Year State Share Local share
2006-2007 52.5% 47.5%
2007-2008 55.1% 44.9%
2009-2010 56.4% 43.6%
2010-2011 56.1% 43.9%
2011-2012* 53.8% 46.2%
Thank you Linda M. for pointing out that the state portion of state aid is only about one half of what Rod had reported. As a school board member himself he must have know this too? Also let's all remember that the other school property taxes levied are independent of student numbers (Capital Outlay, Sped, Pension). This "other money" stays with the resident district.
So the state money that follows the open enrolled student does not even come close to what Rutland actually spends on this same student. This includes the controversial SSF (small school factor) by the way. Our per-pupil expenditures are several $1,000 higher than Madison but this "extra" money is our local money. Rutland patrons generously continue to fund their school, believing that we have an important mission to serve local and area school children and this is seen as a threat?
Rod continues to insist that we must have a protected monopoly for the delivery of public education. This "protection racket" mentality does nothing for accountability, customer service, or program development. The longer this discussion drags on, the more obvious this becomes.
Thank you for putting those numbers out there Linda! So if the Madison School District is still receiving money for these 34 kids in their school district that are not attending school in the said district does that not still make them responsible for them while in their school district? Wouldnt it be easier to address this safety issue and be responsible adults?