Well, I should have gone to the public hearing, but I never thought the school board would charge taxpayers again by imposing a fee for home-to-school bus transportation. And according to news reports at least, the main point of debate was framed as bus expenses encroaching on instructional programs. Bus expenses encroach on the general fund, of which instructional programs are a part. One could have just as easily said they are encroaching on administration or maintenance or employee salary increases.
Another way to look at it is that the programs that don't produce any revenue encroach on the programs that do. What would be the impact on attendance revenue if there were no busing? It would probably exceed $1 million. One could have easily argued that the bus transportation program is a significant revenue producer, so don't mess with it. Why weren't programs that produce zero revenue - the real encroachers - looked at?
And regarding the service itself, how about the comment that long bus rides provide more hours for bus drivers and a valuable baby sitting service for parents? This is obviously not a student-centered comment, which is reflective of most of the debate on this issue. Why don't we have a real debate on what is best for the students regarding busing?
The very first concern would be the safety of our children, which does not mean longer bus rides. It means shorter bus rides. It means convenient service so more students attend school. It means removing barriers that reduce ridership and school attendance.
The new busing fee will reduce ridership, school attendance and revenue while creating new expenses to collect the fee. There's going to be some bad will created also. Just wait until the folks start writing checks. And how about the additional bad will when the check writers are told that the transportation fee will not be used for transportation - it will be used for reducing the long-existing "encroachment on instructional programs."