So, we have three items we wanted to point out about the vote on the transportation policy.
The Transportation Coordinator and Ms. Stanley both held the routes determined as hazardous by the consultants as the final word on the matter. Given the consultants ‘ expertise, they argued, we did not need to see the rubric or data.
Here is a compilation of nine clips of the Transportation Presentation where the consultants advised that it was up to the District to determine/define hazardous routes and to use the rubric (which we don’t appear to have) in doing so:
Before this meeting, a former BOE Member allied with Ms. Stanley provided more disinformation in Facebook groups – citing that BOE members opposed to the policy only represented 30 people (we suggest he look at the election results for the four BOE Members he was referencing).
In the end, four BOE members opposed the policy for reasons related to fairness and transparency.
How can a BOE ensure that this policy is really in the best interest of students when the rubric driving the policy and the data supporting it are not accessible to anyone—including the very policy committee recommending it?
Courtesy Busing represents a cost, and money is not infinite. When we put money into one area, we are taking it away from another. The questions, when it comes to policy approval, should always be:
What is the logic?
What is the evidence?
This ensures that policies do what they intend to do with the maximum benefit. This is not about politics—it’s about good decision-making for the benefit of ALL our students.
Simply show the rubric and the data – if both support the policy, we imagine both the community and the BOE will support the policy. This is a lot more effective than asking a former BOE Member you are friendly with to bump up your posts on Facebook with cheer-leading comments.
Secondly, we want to point out Ms. Stanley’s argument that because the District does not have a policy on courtesy busing, if the proposed policy did not pass, it will continue as it has been.
Let that sink in.
There is no policy on Courtesy Busing.
In the real world, without a policy, the practice of Courtesy Busing should cease to exist. That’s how it works.
However, according to Ms. Stanley, the lack of a policy justifies why it should continue.
Here’s the clip:
This seems like a disingenuous tactic that feels akin to “give me what I want, or you will be forced to continue an unfair, shrouded policy that is potentially costing the District hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue while forcing some parents to pay for transportation and giving other parents the service for free with no criteria.”
Again, it is also wrong – no policy means the service does not exist. It never should have.
We’ll repeat- simply show the rubric and the data. Seriously, what’s the big deal?
Lastly, Since the 03/18/2024 meeting, we received numerous reports of concern and confusion regarding bussing and transportation from parents in our community. Looking closely at the materials presented by the transportation consultants, several ambiguities have come to light. The issues surrounding these ambiguities are regarding the maps used to drive the recommendations for the policy.
Several students deemed ineligible to receive bussing under the proposed policy (voted down Monday) are over the 2-mile allowance designated by the state. Some of these streets (regarding CMS) are Cambridge, Delmore, Kline, Balmoral, and Bristol.
We are looking into this matter, as the transportation consultants were responsible for a comprehensive transportation plan the district is looking to implement. Our initial research demonstrates that some of the maps’ addresses show some holes in the presentation, which we are investigating. If you believe your address is incorrectly represented, please email [email protected]