And Another Great Example as to Why OPRA is so Important…
Before October 2023, the NJ Department of Education published the DRTRS summary report that anyone could access.
Unfortunately, after multiple Berkeley Heights residents raised questions on the discrepancy in the number of Courtesy busing students reported to the state department of education and by the district last year, the state suddenly pulled the access on this summary-level report.
Instead of answering questions, they hid the data. Why?
Currently, only district administrators and personnel can access this data.
Does it surprise you that families fund the state aid that is given for transportation to all public schools and some qualified schools, yet we cannot access information on how many students actually get transported?
It took over EIGHT OPRA extensions to get the latest DRTRS summary report for Berkeley Heights and Mountainside. We believe the state custodian denied access as they never produced the documents on time. (Another example of why we need stronger OPRA laws)
Why would Berkeley Heights Public Schools never report this data on how many students are being transported under courtesy busing to:
1. Elementary schools – MKM, Woodruff, Hughes, and Mountain Park
2. Columbia Middle School
3. Governor Livingston High School
Two board members asked for this data (DRTRS summary report) publicly this year, and there was a vague response of “that’s something we share with the state”
There was no clarification on why the DRTRS summary report number mismatched the Business Administrators report .
Why would the district NOT share a breakdown of how many students are being transported for FREE, funded by our tax dollars, when they live less than TWO miles to Elementary schools and 2.5 miles to high schools?
Are they afraid that it will show that the biggest percentage of Courtesy busing students go to Governor Livingston High School while hardly any go to our elementary schools?
Former BOE Member Mr. Cianculli should check his timeline for Ms. Khanna’s positions. It is not that she “switched” – she has always been consistent with a more coherent approach to Courtesy bussing. She opposed the reconfiguration- in part- because of the mess it created for our youngest learners in getting to school.
We have had multiple parents reach out to the board asking how Courtesy busing students and routes are determined in 2023
In response, Ms. Stanley, Mr. Ciancull, and Ms. Bradford voted to spend $12000 of our tax dollars to appoint “experts” who would NOT share the rubric or data supporting the designation of hazardous routes.
We should question how these “experts” identified precisely a “few” homes on Mountain Avenue and a “few” homes on Emerson Lane as Hazardous routes in the 65 streets they designated in transportation policy 8600 without designating all of Emerson Lane or Mountain Avenue
Also interesting is they won’t share how, out of 265 streets in Berkeley Heights, they identified some cul-de-sacs, quiet streets off of Emerson Lane (like North Road) as hazardous, but Springfield Ave, Plainfield Avenue, and Snyder did NOT make the cut.
Here is a list of all streets on the proposed transportation policy 8600.
See pages 109-113 in the attached document dump of attachments for the April 18, 2024 meeting
Coming back to the DRTRS summary report (that took EIGHT extensions to get), it’s worth asking the current Board of Education and district administration, the following questions:
Is the data reported on DRTRS summary report to state for 2023-24 school year accurate?
How many students are currently transported under Courtesy Busing this year? What’s the breakdown?
How many are planned to be transported next year?
How are the transportation routes planned, and is there any oversight?
Are the transportation routes solely planned by the transportation department, and is Ms. Sheehan, the only individual who has the final say?
Will the board approve the transportation routes like some of our Neighboring Districts (Westfield for example)?
Many parents impacted by redistricting, who are currently paying for subscription busing as they don’t qualify for free mandated busing, feel the transportation department comes up with courtesy busing routes FIRST and then, based on the availability of seats on traditional school buses, opens up available seats for paid subscription busing.
That is an unfair practice. Denial of students who want to pay for a ride to school impacts many working parents. We know of a few families who live on Emerson, Mountain, who have been denied subscription busing as there is no space available.
At the end of the day we need to focus on our district goals of equity and not give preferential treatment to some because of some historical precedent.
If safety is a concern, our BOE members should come visit Hughes, Woodruff, MKM, Mountian Park, and Columbia Middle School in addition to GL at dismissal times to obtain clarity on how this policy appears to be impacting our youngest students.
Safety should not be a political football, with Facebook posts spreading misinformation from the very same people who refused to provide families with data when they were Board members.
These questions must be answered by the BOE member advancing this policy, and the data should be made available so that the public has confidence that the program truly is about safety and that its application is fair and equitable.
All families in our community should be safe. Transportation should be based on transparent, accessible criteria and data.
Ms. Stanley has an opportunity to provide this information and answer these questions, but time is running out. She cannot just give out this information tomorrow and expect people to accept it – another special Board Meeting may be necessary. She, Ms. Penna, Ms. Bradford, and Mr. Cianculli had all year last year to provide this information – yet here we are.
There may still be time to fix this. The solution is simple- share the data, share the criteria, and give the Board and the public time to review it.