2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > June > 26 > Entry
Susan Haverkos: Transportation guarantee unfair
Susan Haverkos
Susan Haverkos is the new representative for much of the Dayton area on the Ohio Board of Education, elected last February. She called me last week with a high concern — the state has a plan to guarantee district receive no fewer transportation dollars next year than they did last year.
Haverkos doesn’t like the idea of a guarantee. She believes the funding should be based on service provided. School districts say they have seen their transportation aid from the state dwindle continuously through the years and that the guarantee helps stabilize funding for shrinking districts, even if the dollars involved are not huge.
Here is Haverkos’ statement to an Ohio Senate committee. Give it a read and let us know where you come down on this issue:
My name is Susan M. Haverkos. I am an elected member of the State Board of Education, representing the counties of Butler, Montgomery, Miami, and part of Darke. I am also a parent of a high school student. My comments today regarding the student transportation guarantee represent my personal opinion.
As you know, Ohio requires school districts to transport students K-8 who live more than two miles from their school for both public and non-public students. The state reimburses districts for all eligible students transported over one mile to school, K-12. State reimbursements to local school districts for transportation expenses prior to the guarantee represented approximately 60% of their transportation expenses.
The current budget bill includes a student transportation guarantee which increases transportation funding for each district by 1% in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, notwithstanding the statutory transportation funding formula.
Simply put, state funding of student transportation for the next two years will not be directly related to the number of students transported. This means districts receive state transportation funding even if they reduce busing. This is not student centered funding.
Fast growing districts will suffer because their cost will rise with each additional student and the transportation guarantee will not offset these increased expenses.
Some school districts have used this guarantee as a tactic to penalize their community for not passing levies. Usually the first cut made is busing. Prior to implementing the transportation guarantee in House Bill 66, districts that cut transportation to the state minimum could possible lose more state reimbursement than the potential savings. Reduction in services without a significant reduction in spending could result in a net loss of funds to the district.
One would think that when you reduce services, you receive less state reimbursement. Not true with this guarantee. Total Ohio Students who have lost busing due to the consequences of this guarantee are: 84,290 in 2006 and 68,147 in 2007 for a total of 152,437 students.
The transportation guarantee was never meant to be a disincentive for student busing, but districts quickly figured out how to use the guarantee as an arm-twisting levy tool. When a district cuts busing to state minimums, they put the safety of our teenagers at risk. A study done by the National Academy of Science and the Transportation Research Board concluded that the risks to teenagers who drive to and from school are greater than any other mode of transportation. Nationally, 800 school aged children are killed in motor vehicle crashes during school travel hours each year.
Fifty five percent of those deaths occur when a teenager is driving. Only 2 percent are related to school bus accidents. When districts cut high school busing they are putting our most vulnerable drivers on the road.
A transportation policy that guarantees funding without proving services makes not sense, especially when we are striving to increase student attendance and graduation rates. These cuts affect many families, especially those with the least resources.
When parents realize their district is still getting reimbursed for busing that was cut, they become frustrated and angry. They feel betrayed. We will continue to loose public support for our schools if the situation is allowed to continue.
I appreciate that the governor, the house and the senate have included the new transportation formula that was recommended by the state board of education in the budget. I urge the Senate to delete the student transportation guarantee and to simply implement the new funding formula.
The new transportation formula does not increase funding for student transportation. The new formula matches current year funding to current year services provided and was designed to be scaled to fit within any appropriation amount as approved by the general assembly.
Please consider removing the transportation guarantee and simply implementing the new formula. This is about the safety of our students. This is about fiscal transparency. We need to regain support for our public schools by making our funding student centered, efficient and effective.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By School Supporter
July 2, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this
Oh dear, Oldprof! You have misconstrued my (favorable) critique of Ms. Haverkos’ logic as a “rambling attempt at refutation.” I merely graded her remarks like I’d grade a student paper. Given we disagree about how to ensure “high quality public education” which prepares students “to carry out the duties of citizenship,” how can the state be expected to cost it out? You accuse Haverkos of “really intending a conservative agenda” without offering support. You dismiss ninth grade social studies skills from Ohio’s Academic Content Standards as an “overused bromide about organizations attempting to promote their own political agenda.” If the National Academy of Science outsources its evolution education to a group of humanists, should we dismiss the entire Academy as “attempting to promote their own political agenda” or judge their work on its merit? Should we dismiss the American Association for the Advancement of Science through guilt by association for providing a forum for George Coyne’s claim that Biblical literalists are a “plague in our midst,” or should we examine the efficacy of their professional development? Are you claiming that Coyne and colleagues’ failure to endorse Haverkos makes her a stealth conservative unworthy of serving on the state board? I gather you won’t be “producing a critique of your own comments based on Ohio’s academic content standards.” Will you be sharing your concern’s about the Achieve study (e.g. student-centered funding) with the state board per their request? How will we be assured that students are prepared “to carry out the duties of citizenship” if we can’t concur on the application of the state’s official civics skills?By Oldprof
June 30, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this
Well, SS, “some” would include those who find those who promote intelligent design in the curriculum to be unworthy of directing a science curriculum—as well as the DDN editorial board itself, which I recall raised such questions about Haverkos vis a vis her more experienced opponents. As for the rest of your rambling attempt at refutation, I stand by my comments and add that running as a moderate in favor of transparency is hypocritical when you’re really intending a conservative agenda; tying funding to students has led to fraud at all levels of education; if you want to promote effective public education, start at the top by reducing the complexity of funding and mandates for needless administration, and create legislation that permits faculty and principals to enforce discipline—after that, improving teaching and curriculum might be high on the agenda. Oh—and as for that overused bromide about organizations attempting to promote their own political agenda—if you don’t like politics, quit playing it yourself.By School Supporter
June 29, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this
My goodness, oldprof! You say, “some suspected that Haverkos was uninformed when she ran for this post.” Would that “some” be unionized public employees who oppose government transparency and wield political power through fear of enrollment on their enemies list? Or would the “some” be lackeys of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who demand schools adopt curriculum designed to confront religious beliefs they deem inimical to the state’s interest? Ms. Haverkos ran as a moderate supporting transparency; one couldn’t hope for a board member more representative of a board district. She made transparency the core of her comments. She successfully invoked both student safety and student-centered funding (which was highlighted in the $500,000 Gates-funded Achieve study). You could reasonably find fault with the speculative nature of her comment, “We will continue to loose public support for our schools if the situation is allowed to continue.” You could point out the need for “inducements,” given the immediate need of districts to fund public schools using an unconstitutional over-reliance on property tax. But instead you have produced an unwarranted attack on a public servant. Whoever the “some” you invoke are, let’s hope they are not the dedicated educators Ohio relies upon to prepare future voters by evaluating their work based on its merit. If we are to have confidence in K-12 and postsecondary education in Ohio, please consider producing a critique of your own comments based on Ohio’s academic content standards. As things stand now, your actions document indifference to the role of education in a democracy along with certitude that your readers are unable to recognize writing unbecoming an Ohio high school graduate. Presumably, your certitude is based on extensive, first-hand experience with Ohio high school graduates. If that is the case, Ohio’s taxpayers have been cheated. I eagerly await your suggestions restoring the credibility of Ohio’s education system.By Oldprof
June 28, 2007 10:32 PM | Link to this
Yes, Mary. Public agencies—including schools—are going to have to continue to keep track of expenditures. The state auditors have a great track record of rooting out any irregularities in the way schools handle monies: I still recall one audit where my professorial colleagues and I had to list the state i.d. tag number on each piece of furniture in our offices. The necessary accounting is in place. My objection is that Haverkos wants a byzantine system of funding state-mandated transportation by bean-counting every mile and every student-minute and every drop of fuel. This sort of proposal is to accountability what the copy-counter on the office xerox machine is to corporate profits—something so nitpicky and stupid as to warrant more scorn that I can generate at this hour.By Mary
June 28, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
“oldprof”, your comments seem to make a better case for keeping track of transportation/fuel/ maintenance/wear and tear/liability costs and priorities - that is unless you subscribe to the belief that money resources and the public largesse are unlimited. Most school districts spend millions each year on transportation. There should be an accounting system to know how the money is being spent.By Oldprof
June 28, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this
And now for the other view: some suspected that Haverkos was uninformed when she ran for this post; now she’s opened her mouth and proved it. Haverkos seems blind to the fact that transportation costs are skyrocketing with (a) cost of fuel (b) requirements to transport children to charter schools—which do not locate in places or schedule for times that permit efficient transportation. Rather than carping about a guarantee, a sensible board member would be working hard to provide 100%—not 60%—of the costs of mandated transportation. And let’s not run down the merry path of creating an Excel spreadsheet nightmare of itemizing and assessing and justifying every transportation dollar—just fund the schools, won’t you—let the state auditors find misuse of funds in the few cases when it might happen.By Mary
June 26, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
Kudos for Susan. She has my vote of confidence on this issue. Sounds as if she is a clued in State Board of Education member on this issue. I would have also liked for her to mention that while cutting school busing to classes and class field trips for levy tactics, the same school districts will drive the basketball team to Wapakoneta and back, the band and football team and cheerleaders to competitions or games, etc. For the fiscal transparency she mentions, I think school districts ought to have to itemize tranportation expenses used for busing students to classes versus other activities. There should also be an assessment on how the added nighttime, after hours, and weekends transportation and long distance drives up liability insurance costs for the district and overtime pay for bus drivers.By Laura
June 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
It seems to me that there are basically four issues in the statement made by Ms. Haverkos. First is that the school district could conceivably receive money it would not actually use towards transportation. Second, a concern that there is a significant increase in the number of teenage deaths during hours that students would be driving to and from school, especially when districts cut busing to the bare minimum. Third, cutting busing at a time when districts are struggling to keep students in school. Fourth, parents who feel betrayed when the schools could have provided transportation but didn’t and therefore are less likely to be supportive of the schools. Her recommendation is that the Senate delete the line guaranteeing that the districts won’t lose money. I would propose that a better recommendation would be for the state board of education to change the policy and require districts to transport students to school and to adequately fund it. It might not be a big issue with wealthier districts because parents will find a way to get their children to school even if it means buying them a car. However, in a district like Dayton where education is not as highly valued and parents simply do not have the means to buy their children a car and often don’t have one themselves, the drop out rate is going to sky rocket. Allowing them another loophole to drop out is inexcusable. All Ohio students should be required by law to complete high school (eliminate drop outs) and the state should be responsible for making sure they can get there.By Skeptic
June 26, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
That’s the most sensible thing I’ve read all year. Finally, a reasonable voice in the wilderness. What else can we put her in charge of, and how soon can we do it?