Will there be any money saved from school transportation costs if the Wake County school system abandons the socioeconomic diversity policy?
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, supporters of scrapping the policy are predicting that going to community-based schools will lead to savings. But supporters of the diversity policy are skeptical about savings and warn that it could cost more to have transportation under community-based schools.
Wake says $45 million of its $56 million transportation budget comes from the state.
Both school board member Chris Malone and John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation, describe the potential savings as "significant." But Malone backed off the $20 million annual savings he had mentioned during the campaign last fall.
“I believe there will be savings; what the number is, I can’t tell you,” Malone said. “We’ll determine that during the planning process.”
Eric Blau, a member of the Wake Schools Community Alliance's steering committee and the school board's new student assignment committee, stands by his belief that there could be as much as $18 million in savings.
Some disagree with that belief.
“I don’t buy the argument that they are going to save a significant amount of money,” said Tim Simmons, communications director of the Wake Education Partnership. “We already know where the kids live and where the schools are located. There’s a mismatch because of the way the county as grown up and where land is available.
Wake school staff told the old board that eliminating busing for diversity would only save $280,000 annually. But that's for the narrowest possible definition of diversity busing, consisting of kids assigned to remote schools chiefly for diversity.
Wake didn't count the kids who are bused when diversity was not considered the main factor. For instance, the students slated to go to Alston Ridge Elementary from Reedy Creek this fall were officially sent to "populate" the new school. But Laura Evans, senior director for growth management, conceded at Thursday's student assignment committee meeting that the high F&R node was going to "help out Reedy Creek."
Bob Snidemiller – Wake’s senior director of transportation, operations and finance – wouldn’t hazard even a guess for the article as to whether the county can save money by cutting diversity-related busing.
Comments
I think we can all agree
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:46 — JaneknowsbestIf the zone model doesn't take into account the placement of current roads, highways, bridges, lakes, etc. and just draws a "circle", then yes, I'm probably not going to be happy. If, however, some thought is put into the model such as how neighborhood A will actually get to school B, then I think I will be happy. Zone doesn't have to mean "no logical thought involved"
Ideally all those things would be taken into account. They are right now. I've been at CEM's where parents have discussed this in great detail, complete with maps, and later saw changes in the revised assignment plan. But I fear we are in for a huge battle ahead. No matter where the lines are drawn you are going to have thousands of angry parents and property owners who think the lines should be moved to their advantage. It's bad enough in a typical year where 5-6000 kids get moved, just imagine when the whole county is in play.
Wake didn't count the kids
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:21 — jenmanWake didn't count the kids who are bused when diversity was not considered the main factor. For instance, the students slated to go to Alston Ridge Elementary from Reedy Creek this fall were officially sent to "populate" the new school. But Laura Evans, senior director for growth management, conceded at Thursday's student assignment committee meeting that the high F&R node was going to "help out Reedy Creek."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERY important point made by Evans. When diversity policy supporters claim that only 1% or 5% of students are being bused for diversity, they are leaving nodes like this out. Because those nodes were about filling a new school. Yeah, right.
Use common sense
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:53 — wireless200Common sense would tell you that if you have to transport a student 10 or 15 miles twice a day vs only a few miles, it's going to cost more.
Speaking of YR schools -
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:16 — louiselee44I'm hoping that more under-enrolled YR schools will be reverted back to traditional - this is just one of the reasons...
A quote from Don Haydon, passed on to the "old" school board early on:
“Transportation Department staff compared the monthly cost for July & August 2006 [prior to YR conversion] with the same months in 2007 [after conversion of 20+ schools to MYR] to estimate a difference in cost for transportation of year-round students. For July & August 2006, the average cost for each of the 2 months was $232,000 and for 2007, $472,000.”
Additionally, “Ms Lee, my understanding is that the costs were the actual costs for system-wide transportation for the two months. Thus, the data would show the cost for transportation for the schools in session in July/August 2006 as compared with those in 2007; those months were selected because most of the buses would be for multi-track schools.”
Unless I’m figuring something wrong, the system-wide transportation expenses just during the combined two months of July and August more than doubled during the first year of massive YR conversions, rising from close to half a million dollars ($464,000) in 2006 to close to a million ($944,000) in 2007.
By the way, according to data from the US Department of Energy, diesel prices dropped during that interval.
Well,
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:01 — danofncIs it really a shock that the transportation costs increased a lot during the first two months of mandatory year round? When those months previously had very little bus transportation at all? Why is that "news"?
If you look at the chart in today's paper (the linked article), bus costs seem to rise steadily beginning in 2005. There is no big jump in the graph for that year.
Nope -
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:18 — louiselee44Who said it was a shock? It's obvious.
So why continue to pay more (utility and other costs as well) for YR schools that are not accomplishing the goal for which they were established in the first place - alleviating overcrowding? That was THE reason the board gave for the conversions. I'm just saying that they need to study the situation carefully at every school. I'm sure you would want nothing less.
backpedalling
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:10 — JaneknowsbestSo now you all are saying that we dropped from saving 18-20 million to a few million? Let's say the savings is three million (and I don't think there will be any savings) per year. Divided evenly among all schools that's less than $20,000. Not even enough to hire one FT teacher. Or if you spend it just at the 25 high poverty schools we are going to end up with that's about $120,000 per school. That doesn't seem like much. Any sort of pay differential, even a modest one, would wipe that out.
I agree with red balloon. How can anyone have any idea of what the savings will be (or not be) at this point?
I Think They Need To Look At Efficiencies!
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:09 — JanisTangoI think they need to look at efficiencies. We have 2 buses running through our neighborhood for the same school. Both buses are half full. They both arrive at school about 10-15 minutes early and the kids sit there and wait until the bell.
OK..starting tomorrow, half
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:31 — danofncOK..starting tomorrow, half of your neighborhood's kids are going to get on the bus 20-30 minutes earlier, then ride around while the bus picks up its full load of kids. Those kids will likely spend an hour on the bus, but I'm sure you'll be fine with that because it is more efficient, right?
Considering They Are Sitting in Parking Line for 10-15 minutes
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:49 — JanisTangoYeh..that would be fine with me considering they are already sitting in the bus for 10-15 minutes in the parking lane!
"How can anyone have any
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:13 — danofnc"How can anyone have any idea of what the savings will be (or not be) at
this point?"
You can't. You can only function in generalities.
For every bit of "choice" that goes into the new plan, transportation costs go up.
sensible
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 08:13 — red_balloonBob Snidemiller – Wake’s senior director of transportation, operations and finance – wouldn’t hazard even a guess for the article as to whether the county can save money by cutting diversity-related busing.
I am glad Snidemiller had the sense to stay out of this mess. Without knowing at least the high level details, it would be premature to estimate/ guess the economics of the new approach. I wish others would take a cue from this and defer getting into specifics. Now is the time to list the high level options and lay out the plan for evaluating the options. It doesn't help to furnish numbers which have no reliable basis.
Do there really care about busing costs
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 07:47 — TKDMomWhen mandatory year-round was eliminated the staff told them it would increase busing costs. They did not even discuss this component when making their decision to eliminate mandatory year-round.
Do they really care about busing costs or are they just making the people who elected them happy?
Where did you get this from,
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 08:00 — Duhhuh666If all the kids are in
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:11 — danofncIf all the kids are in school at the same time then I believe you would need more buses and more drivers, which increases costs.
The conversation is about hundreds of buses, not "a bus".
All Buses
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:54 — Duhhuh666I am talking about all buses. Unless YR tracks are assigned based on geography, the buses will cover the same area. Since tracks are not equally populated, you cannot fill the buses to capacity. At times the bus will be full when the 2 most populated track and 1 of the less populated tracks are in, and less on the bus when the 2 less populated tracks and 1 more populated track is in. It is not as if busing is decreased by 25% becaause one track is tracked out, the bus still drives the same route. YR does not create a savings.
I'm pretty sure that most of
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:23 — danofncI'm pretty sure that most of the fuel is purchased through the state. I think WCPSS pays for the buses, the drivers, maintenance, etc. for the most part.
Therefore, while saving gas is good, it doesn't really benefit WCPSS.
If every school were traditional, you need more actual buses and drivers. That is expensive.
Let's say there are 30,000 kids on year-round calendars who ride the bus. If only 21,000 of them are in school at any given time, you only needs buses for 21,000 kids. If all of them are on a traditional calendar, you need bus seats for 9,000 more kids every day. If a bus holds 60 kids (is that too many? not enough?), that's a lot of buses.
Let's say there are 30,000
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 15:07 — NWRaleighMom--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm pretty sure that most
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:54 — CaryCurmudgeon"I'm pretty sure that most of the fuel is purchased through the state. .....
Therefore, while saving gas is good, it doesn't really benefit WCPSS."
I get all that, but this
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:56 — danofncI get all that, but this discussion is about saving WCPSS funds. If the state pays for the gas, and we save gas (another thing that is far from assured), that's good, but it doesn't put any more money into any other thing in Wake County.
That is an assumption, not
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:11 — CaryCurmudgeonThat is an assumption, not fact. Unless we know how the state would spend the savings, we cannot assume that we derive no benefit.
On a true separate point, I think we should be trying to reduce cost even if the money does not come back to our county. Our state's finances are in bad shape. Reducing our energy consumption doesn't hurt either.
It is an assumption, but I
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:13 — danofncIt is an assumption, but I think it's a logical assumption.
It is not that simplistic,
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:34 — Duhhuh666It is not that simplistic, you are covering the same geographic area, you have to load the bus for maximum capacity for when certain tracks are in. So you may have 60 on the bus on some days and maybe 20 on other days, it will be unknown based on track assignment. The bus route remains a constant the capacity fluctuates. So there will be very little savings in number of buses and an increase in fuel, maintance and labor. The only way to see savings is to balance the tracks and assign tracks based on bus routes.
Do you really think that all
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:44 — danofncDo you really think that all of that is not calculated when they determine bus routes? They route the buses to try to get maximum efficiency.
I doubt very seriously that there are buses that have that much empty space based on one track-out. That's highly unlikely.
Even still, there's never a time during a YR schedule where you'd need to move all of the kids enrolled.
Varibles
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:54 — Duhhuh666Once again you are taking a simplistic view at a complex problem. We have not added in density and time into the equation. In urban areas this is not as much an issue as in rural areas you can fill a bus quicker with fewer stops. In rural areas if you decrease the number of buses you increase the area each bus covers, unless you then increase the amount of time to cover this route (an increase in fuel, maintance and labor) and you lose the efficencies of having buses run multiple routes and increase the amount of time students spend on the bus. Now you are adding buses back to the fleet to run shorter routes for a longer period of time (9 vs. 12) A YR schedule has more varibles that decrease efficency not increase it.
And yes there is a huge difference in bus capacity because there is a huge difference in enrollment in the 4 tracks.
The heaviest day of YR bus
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:06 — danofncThe heaviest day of YR bus operation is still thousands of kids less than what it would be if every school was TR calendar.
Since you can't run the same bus on two different routes for the same school, each YR school would require more buses if it were traditional. I understand there are some schools with only a couple of track 2 classes, and those schools would likely be exceptions.
I can assure you that time is factored into the bus routing equation. You can find reports about ride time on WCPSS' website.
I'm not totally sure I even understand everything you are saying in your first paragraph. It's awfully hard to read.
The paragraph refers to
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:33 — Duhhuh666The paragraph refers to density of housing. If the houses are closer the routes are shorter. In rural areas homes tend to be space further apart requiring longer routes. You could reduce the number of buses but you would increase the geographic area each bus covers, this would increase the amount of time to cover this area. This increases the amount of time students spend on the bus and increases the cost to run the buses and increases by 3 months the amount of time you pay these increases. If you were delivering packages instead of students time of route is not an issue. But you have to arrive at school at a certain time and get the students home at a reasonable time. This creates a constraint on the amount of time to cover the area with less buses. Unless you are willing to have students on buses for 3-4 hours you will not be able to decrease the number of buses. Because YR tracks are not evenly divided with 25% of students on each track and tracks evenly divided geographically you can not run each bus at maximum capacity.
In theory you can say 1000 kids but only 750 in school at any given time so that means 25% less buses needed. But because of the varibles, it is not this simple and the savings erode as you add the varibles in.
I know about rural areas.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:46 — danofncI know about rural areas. I grew up in Edgecombe County. There were about 5 elementary schools (and I think 4 middle schools and 3 high schools) for the whole county, so people got on the bus and had a ride ahead of them.
Wake County is not rural, and doesn't have any really rural parts. That argument seems like a strawman. There were bus routes in Edgecombe County where every stop was at a house, and they were all a mile or 2 apart. That's rural. Here, the buses hit a few houses like that, run through a couple of subdivisions, and head to school. That's not rural.
Wake has no rural areas?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:56 — Duhhuh666Wake has no rural areas? Please get a map and look again!!! It is not as rural as Edgecombe, but there are large areas that have to be covered that are rural. If all areas are populated equally this would not be an issue.
Wake County rural and real
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:03 — danofncWake County rural and real rural are two different things.
Martin Middle School is located in Tarboro, NC. It's the middle school I attended. Here's one of their bus routes:
BUS 288
5:48 AM MMS
6:08 AM 201 BURNETTE FARM RD
6:19 AM NC 42 E & PARKER LN
6:20 AM NC 42 E & JIMMIE WORSLEY LN
6:22 AM 10859 NC 42 E
6:22 AM 10977 NC 42 E
6:29 AM NC 42 E & JONES TAYLOR LN
6:34 AM 391 FOUNTAIN CROSSROAD RD
6:38 AM 864 N BOWERS RD
6:45 AM MOORING RD & DALTON ST
6:46 AM 972 MOORING RD
6:47 AM 1350 MOORING RD
6:49 AM 2874 ROBERSON SCH RD
7:07 AM NC 111 N & FIRESTONE LN
7:10 AM GREENWOOD BLVD & SIXTH ST
7:11 AM GREENWOOD BLVD & THIRD ST
7:20 AM SCHOOL: MMS
THAT is rural.
More simply put, you do
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:43 — Duhhuh666More simply put, you do increase the possible capacity of a bus with YR but when you try to decrease the number of buses, you still have to cover the same geography. The county doesnt shink in size because the bus capacity has increased. This means increased miles covered by fewer buses, which means increased TIME per route.
Also for a county that is not rural, 64% of all residential building permits are issued in the last 5 years were outside of the jurisdiction of a town or city.
I'm not talking about
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 16:28 — danofncI'm not talking about increasing the capacity of a bus.
I doubt there are that many WCPSS buses that are filled to capacity (elementary, anyway) because of the time concerns....especially since most are doing double duty (if not triple).
In a real rural system, you get on the bus when it comes, and you ride it until you get to school. People in Edgecombe County scoff at people whining about the length of a bus ride.
Of those building permits, how many are for houses that someone just decided to build on their own land? How many for houses in subdivisions? A subdivision with 250 houses that just happens to be between Raleigh and Cary or Raleigh and Wake Forest doesn't qualify as rural.
I doubt there are that many
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 17:43 — jenmanI doubt there are that many WCPSS buses that are filled to capacity (elementary, anyway)
You know, I'd be interested in knowing how full all of the buses are. I've actually asked this before and whoever I spoke with at WCPSS told me that they don't keep track of that. I can't imagine that they don't have *some* idea of how many kids are on each bus.
it until you get to school. People in Edgecombe County scoff at people
whining about the length of a bus ride.
I would agree with your
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:25 — danofncI would agree with your in-laws.
Are those kids going to end up at Heritage or will they continue to go to Knightdale next year?
I just think that there are always going to be those odd assignments. Right now, they are spot nodes assigned to a school that people don't think is right.
In a couple of years, there will be a neighborhood (probably a lot more than one) carved out of one zone and put into another, and it will make a lot of people mad.
It will be interesting to see how much WSCA and all the other anti-busing groups put into righting those "wrongs".
They are supposed to go to
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:59 — jenmanThey are supposed to go to Heritage not next year but the year after, which doesn't make any sense to me. So they organized and spoke at those CEMs this year asking (begging) to be moved to Heritage next year when it opens.
Some of the families are supposed to go to Forest Ridge but now with the delay some are asking to go to Heritage next year instead.
I'm not sure which wrongs you're talking about righting. Personally, I'm an equal opportunity fighter. I'll fight for whoever I think is being treated unfairly regardless of how it affects me. :-)
Sorry Dan after living here
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 17:33 — Duhhuh666Sorry Dan after living here for almost 50 years, I forgot we have no rural areas, everyone lives in 250+home subdivisions that are within 5 miles of a school. And by creating all YR school the county shrinks in size and everyones homes become closer to the school. To continue to discuss this is senseless because you obviously live in a different Wake County than I do.
If you still think this Wake
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:05 — danofncIf you still think this Wake County and the one you've lived in for 50 years are the same, you should stop driving.
If all the schools were traditional, they wouldn't just run the same routes with more stops. They would need additional buses, which means additional drivers and additional maintenance.
No Dan it is not the same
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:50 — Duhhuh666No Dan it is not the same Wake County as it was when I was younger. I have seen it grow and being an evil Developer and Builder have benefited greatly from that growth. I also have driven many many miles throughout the county and know where the "rural" areas you say dont exist are. And once again your solution works great on paper but would never stand up to reality, you are only looking at the capacity of the bus. If you have to drive 100 miles in an car it doesnt become 75 miles because you are driving a SUV (extra capacity does not shorten the distance you must cover) I have had children in YR for the last 14 yrs and have seen the variations in tracks, in my subdivision the majority of kids are Track 1, I can tell which tracks are in based on the number of kids waiting for the bus in the morning. when Track 1 is tracked out there are about 1/3 of the kids at the bus stop compared to when that track is in. I enjoy YR (It was my choice), but I also know that it is not the money saver everyone claims it to be.
If more kids are assigned
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:27 — shearertwIf more kids are assigned closer to their homes, don't you think more will walk or be dropped off by their parents?
I don't know....most parents
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:39 — danofncI don't know....most parents who are able to drop their kids off do so now, I'd think.
Suppose rolling the start times back to 9:30 puts a lot more kids on buses?
Just for the record, I think
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:44 — shearertwJust for the record, I think rolling the start time back for ES is a stupid idea.
All you have to do is claim
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:54 — danofncAll you have to do is claim it was suggested to benefit teachers, and it will die a quick death.
Clarification...
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 07:28 — Eric_BLast year, when I looked at the transportation budget numbers, about $18 million came from local funding. (The article says local funding has been reduced to about $11 million already this year.) It is this number that is a target for potential savings. Do I think we will be able to realize anywhere near $18 million in savings by eliminating forced busing? No, definitely not.
For one, WCPSS must purchase new school buses using local funds. We will never be able to eliminate the need for new school buses to replace aging buses.
Savings of a few million dollars is probably a much more appropriate target.
You can't possibly know
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:09 — danofncYou can't possibly know until the assignment policy is completed.
If JT gets what he has proposed a couple of different times (1 YR choice and 2 TR choices for each family), then busing costs would likely increase, not decrease.
Just so I'm clear
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 08:15 — Dove314The number that has been quoted as the potential cost savings (originally $18 M but now actually $11 M? or $11 M and climbing?) is actually the total local expenditure. And there is no way to realize a 100% cost savings. The potential savings suggested by neighborhood schools is some proporation of the total $11M. Using your estimate of a few million would mean a proposed 10-40% reduction in costs associated with busing (10% is ~ 1.1 million; 40% is 4.4 million)?
Yes. When I spoke to Mr.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:30 — Eric_BYes. When I spoke to Mr. Goldsmith, I mentioned the $18 million in local funding figure and said that amount puts an upper limit on the local funds that can be saved from transportation.
At the same time, I told him that we could not hope to save all of that amount because I know for a fact that school buses are purchased with local funds. If we reduced transportation to the bone (maybe running all express routes) and never bought any new school buses, sure maybe we could save all $18 million, but that would never happen under anyone's plan.
Thank you.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:05 — Dove314Appreciate your response.
Why focus on local
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:22 — shearertwWhy focus on local expenditure only? What if we end up saving state funds as well? One of the reasons we can't get widespread support for increasing local taxes to pay for schools is because the NC taxes are high and climbing. I don't care if the money saved comes from local, state or federal, its all saved money.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter if we save 20 million or 20 cents. Maintaining the diversity policy takes time a resources away from something else that may actually work. The diversity policy doesn't work, so it needs to be ended so those resources (time, money and attention) can go somewhere else.
Isn't the goal to improve achievement?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:13 — Dove314Because the money saved locally is the money available to reinvest elsewhere on achievement. State funds revert back to the state.
My goal is to improve
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:24 — shearertwMy goal is to improve achievement. If we're using state funds to bus rather than improve achievement (and one is not related to the other as we now know), then the money SHOULD go back to the state. If we then have a program that DOES address achievement, we should request more funds for that. To keep a failed policy in place just to keep funds to pay for it is ridiculous and one of the reason's gov't is bloated and inefficient.