The Madison Central School Board met behind closed doors last night to accept a settlement with Rutland School District over Rutland's open-enrollment bus stops in Madison. The school board is remaining tight-lipped, saying it won't comment until the Rutland School Board has had a chance to vote on the settlement at its December 19 meeting.
If I were on the school board, you'd know what's going on. There is no reason to keep this settlement relating to a very public matter under wraps.
There would appear to be two possibilities: either Madison is playing hardball and demanding Rutland scale back its bus stops, or Madison is finally admitting it's wrong and backing off its demands. One can only hope.
Let's hope the latter is the case. At its December 1 meeting, Rutland tabled its double-compromise proposal to scale back from three bus stops in Madison to two. At that meeting, the Rutland board heard nothing but positive input from Rutland School parents who appreciate Rutland's service and want to keep the three bus stops.
A friend points out that Madison Central currently provides not just numerous bus stops but to-the-door bus service for another competitor school, the private St. Thomas school right here in Madison. Such bus service seems to defy every traffic and public safety argument that Madison has offered to justify its sour grapes treatment of Rutland. I would welcome Madison's school board to explain that dichotomy.
St. Thomas has their own bus? I did not know that. I will keep my eyes open for it.
As far as the Madison School Board being mum, why should they blurt out the specifics? Sounds to me like they are giving the Rutland School Board the courtesy of having time to discuss it, then vote, without outside influences trying to start another non-existant problem. Maybe the Rutland super will "spill all" before the board meets. If he doesn't, will he also be keeping this settlement relating to a very public matter under wraps?
It is quite efficient for one bus system to pick up all the kids in one city and deliver them to all the schools in that city. They have been doing that in Minnesota since the price of gas started to go up in 1969.
But for one school district to be able to make any rules at all for another school districts busses is absurd.
Jim, St. Thomas doesn't have their own bus; Madison provides them bus service.
They should blurt out specifics because they are our board, working for us, spending our money. Little thing called open government. Rutland will receive the same criticism if they don't be open with the public about what's up.
Yea, I knew that. Guess I forgot the emoticon. See, I just did it again.
Guess I fail to see the issue with St Thomas kids riding the buses, and getting dropped of at-the-door. I am sure you will fill me in with your interpretation of why this travesty is allowed to happen. While you are at it, explain how it is similar to the Rutland/Madison situation. Like you said, St Thomas doesn't have their own bus. That would be a prerequisite to requesting bus stops. St Thomas has not done that.
Wow, talk about sour grapes. <<insert "rolling eyes" emoticon
I understand the open government thought, but there is also a confidentiality factor that needs to be recognized. Again, I see nothing wrong with the Madison School Board deciding to lay low until after the Rutland School Board has had time to discuss the matter.
There you go again, Jim.
In the zero-sum thinking that lies behind the new law that allows school districts to meddle with other school district's busing decisions, St. Thomas and Rutland are both competing for students that "belong" to Madison. Madison tries to restrict transportation that one competitor is providing on its own, while it offers free bus service to a much closer competitor. The travesty is that Madison does offer even a quarter of the consideration to Rutland (permission to run its buses where it wants, in the interest of student safety) that it offers to St. Thomas.
Confidentiality: what requires confidentiality here? Whom does confidentiality in this instance protect? Government affairs should be public unless someone can demonstrate a need for confidentiality. Demonstrate that need.
You demonstrate the NEED to reveal everything about a matter that another governing body has yet to meet on, and make an unprejudiced decision on. Because you despise everything the Madison School Board does, you are making this into something it is not. Beg your sponsor to reveal the details. I am sure he is sitting in the wings wanting to comment, but I would think he is excercising some professional prudence and will wait until his board has reviewed the information you so badly want to get your hands on.
Cory, early on I was leaning towards allowing Rutland to have 2 stops. After hearing the concerns of parents of the transferring students, I believe 3 stops may be needed. Give these 2 boards a chance to do what they were elected to do, serve their school district. Stop trying to stir the pot.
How does a governmental body approve something by a majority vote without details forthcoming? How do you place into record by approved minutes an item that has no details? Was there public notice of a special school board meeting on Sunday afternoon, Dec. 4th? Did media print or broadcast such notice to the public?
Jim, reread: government actions have a presumption of openness. You have to demonstrate the need to keep what the government is doing secret. That's what the open records law signed by Governor Rounds in 2009 was all about. Go ahead, look it up. Show me the specific exemption that allows the Madison Central board to keep this matter secret. If you can't, then keeping this secret violates the open records law. And that pot needs stirring.
Allowing Rutland free reins to pick up students wherever it wishes is like Charlie Johnson allowing other farmers to use his driveway to pull into his fields, combine a portion of his corn and beans and take it elsewhere for processing and sale. I don't think Charlie would care for that. Remember, Madison and Rutland are two separate taxing school districts and when Rutland buses our kids to their school, it costs our District around $150,000 a year.
Cory, contract negotiations under Executive Session are protected, which is what Madison and Rutland are doing. They are negotiating an agreement. It will be made public once Rutland has time to respond.
Cory, it's about allowing other people to confer. Madison isn't giving public pressure. Jim said something reasonable, mostly without attitude. Maybe he'll do it again! Then again, without last names, why does it matter?
No, Rod, that's contract negotiations with personnel and vendors. I think this interdistrict, mandated by that silly new law, is a different beast.
And no, Rod, Madison's actions are nothing like the analogy you construct. Charlie's driveway is private property, and you're discussing private, profit-making business activity. Through Senate Bill 77, the Madison Central School District is asserting authority over public roads paid for by public taxpayers inside and outside the district. In other words, Charlie's assertion of control over his driveway is perfectly legal and just, while Madison's control over transportation on public roads is utterly absurd and probably unconstitutional.
But John, the board is acting in our name. They ought to tell us what deal we just accepted. (And do you seriously think Jim opened his comments without attitude?)
And did Madison grant similar confidential conferral time this summer when it launched this fracas with its sour grapes? Rod, if this is a contract negotiation, why didn't Madison maintain strict confidentiality this summer? You're going to need to find a more valid exemption in the open records law.
I would never compare students to corn and beans and the public streets and roads of this state to a private driveway. I will say this once again, open enrollment is about students and their families making the best choice for their situation. It is not a child custody battle nor should it come anything close to it. Open enrollment when studied and considered may be chosen and acted upon by a caring family. Madison School District seems to have an obvious problem with families that make that serious and thoughtful decision. Often students/families feel like second class citizens in their own commnity and neighborhood. Let's just be glad and thankful that a student can succeed no matter where they attend.
Where was the outrage from the larger schools about the funding for open enrollment back when it was first introduced? The rules were the same then, and I seem to remember the smaller schools bringing up the possible problems with funding then. The larger schools didn't seem to feel there was a problem with the policy, and I was told that "if we educate the child we should get the money". Of course, that was from someone who also told me the little schools would all close once everyone had a chance to go to a bigger school. Bigger is not better for everyone, and it's time the state stops pitting schools against each other in this funding "war". As concerned citizens we should be concerned that every child in our state gets the best education possible, at whichever school best fits his or her needs, and not fighting to keep "our" kids locked into a certain school or school district because we need the money they represent.
Cory, why can't you and everyone else give the respect the two school boards deserve and let them finish the process working within the current law to come to an agreement?
I respect open government.
Rod said above, "...when Rutland buses our kids to their school, it costs our District around $150,000 a year." Wrong! I think it was about 30 students who open enrolled to Rutland last year; I can't find that statistic right now so am relying on my memory. The amount of state aid that follows 30 students to Rutland amounts to $70,410 to the general fund, not $150,000. The local effort remains with the Madison district. I am not sure if special ed state aid follows the student or not, and even if so, not all of these 30 kids would be special ed anyway.
Remember that for this school year the per student allocation is set at $4,390. 53.8% of this amount (the state aid) follows the student to whichever district is attended; 46.2% of this amount (the dollars raised thru local effort, i.e. property taxes) stays with Madison district regardless of where the student attends.
But another interesting statistic I found on the following website (http://www.doe.sd.gov/ofm/documents/Profl2011.xls) states that Madison receives 44 open enrolled students from other districts. So through open enrollment Madison would be receiving approximately $100,000 from other districts TO the Madison district.
I realize that Madison also loses state aid thru open enrollment to at least two other school districts nearby for a total open enrolled out of the district about 50 (again if I remember correctly). BUT we gain about 44 open enrolled according to the above statistical report. So based on this, in actuality with the open enrollment program Madison school district actually loses about $14,000.
If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.
Linda,
That's a very interesting point. So the effective per pupil funding increases as students open enroll elsewhere and decreases as students open enroll in Madison. (i.e. if per pupil funding is 0.5 state + 0.5 local and you have 100 students you get a funding rate of (100*0.5+100*0.5)/100=1. If you have 10 of those students open enroll you get (95*0.5+100*0.5)/95=1.026! So the more students that open enroll elsewhere the greater the per pupil funding!)
You lost me completely, Tony. The simple fact is this. If a student open enrolls elsewhere, Madison loses 53.9% of $4,390. If a student from another school district open enrolls in Madison, we get 53.9% of that student's $4,390. It doesn't affect the actual per pupil funding whatsoever. It only affects where the state aid portion of that $4,390 goes.
Sorry, 53.8%.
Students are not commodities for processing and sale- Rod's analogy equating the choices made by open enrolled families leaving the district to the stealing of corn and beans is outrageous. On top of this he continues to deliberately exaggerate the financial loss to Madison from open enrollment. Thank you Linda for your patience in continuing to offer correct scenarios of state aid vs. local money. At some point though you may need a bullhorn and/or club?? Repeated, detailed explanations with correct facts and figures seem to have no effect- the misinformation just continues.
Rod worries that people's access to true public school choice (busing allowed) via open enrollment will somehow deteriorate into a "free for all feeding frenzy". I prefer to give people more credit than this. More often than not, people do know what they are doing and parents can (and should) be trusted to make the right choice(s) for their own children. The movement of school children between districts in all directions is not a "free for all feeding frenzy". I believe this should be characterized instead as "market forces at work". Why are we so worried about protecting our local public schools from the consequences of competition?
Hello Linda,
To clarify my point, think of it like this. For every student from Madison that enrolls in Madison, the district receives $4,390. That means that if there are 10 students from Madison that enroll in Madison the district gets $43,900. So, the district receives $43,900/10 students or $4,390/student.
Now let's consider what happens if there are 10 students from Madison but only 9 of them enroll in Madison. In that case, the district receives 9*$4,390 + 1*$4,390*46.1%= $39,510 + $2023.79 = $41,533.79. But now since there are only 9 students at Madison to calculate the per pupil rate we do $41,533.79/9 = $4,614.87 which is a higher per pupil funding rate. Remember that the absolute amount of money received by the school is meaningless. It costs a fixed amount of money per pupil to educate them, a larger number is not always good. For example, the state per pupil funding could decrease to $1,000 but if Madison had 100 students as opposed to 10 that would mean Madison would get $100,000 which is obviously more than $43,900 it would receive from 10 students with the current funding. Open enrolling students out of Madison actually increases the per-pupil funding rate. The other communities accepting our students are, in effect, subsidizing Madison students. This is not a net loss, it's a net gain from Madison. Madison should encourage this to the greatest extent possible.
Rod and I have known each other since 7th grade language arts, Section 7C, under instructor, John C. Scott. I know that he and his wife, Cheryl care about education. They have contributed time, energy, and money numerous times to many causes. When comes to OE and OE busing, we will have to agree to disagree. While neither one of us will most likely change our view point, I'm sure nothing short of duct tape will stop either one of us from expressing our thoughts and concerns.
I see OE as an opportunity for students/families to make a viable choice for themselves. I also know that every school district can not be everything to everybody. I also know that each school district and it's governing board has every right and responsibility to conduct their own business of affairs. A state law such as SB 77 which allows one district to have control or veto power over another is irrational and most likely unconstitutional. What is most important is that we(family,adults, school boards, administrators) work in a spirit of cooperation, perhaps partnership to provide what is best for EACH student. When we fail just one student, we fail ourselves. Let's keep the focus on the students and their welfare/safety.