Those parochial school buses
With inflation dipping to an historic 0.1 percent low in the fourth quarter of 2008, local school districts will see their property tax revenue remain nearly static in 2009, prompting both D99 and D58 to look at ways to reign in spending.
At D99, a projected $250,000 surplus has dwindled to almost nothing. “We’ve never had such wild swings in one year,” said Controller Mark Staelin. “In June and July that CPI-U was 5.6 percent to 5.7 percent — the largest it’s ever been. It went from the highest to the least variation in two consecutive quarters.”
In February, district administrators recommended $750,000 in reductions in the $75 million budget for 2009-10, including the $175,000 spent to provide parochial school busing to about 100 in-district students.
Also taking a hard look at the service is D58, which spends $393,000 per year to transport 500 parochial school students on 20 buses.
The practice has been in place for so long, few can pinpoint how or why it was started. “We went back and found information from the early to mid ’80s, when there was a large legislative push to require public schools to pay for parochial buses within 10 miles of their districts,” Staelin said.
“The law says parochial students can ride any regular route within the district and public schools may for safety reasons or efficiency run separate routes for parochial students.”
D99 has chosen to run separate routes to Benet Academy in Lisle and Montini Catholic High School in Lombard, which are each located about one mile outside the district’s borders.
Beginning next school year, parochial school students who reside in the district will be offered busing to North and South high schools. The district will leave it to Benet and Montini to shuttle the students on from there.
Staelin acknowledges that may not be much of a solution for Benet, which starts earlier than District 99 schools, although Montini has been providing shuttle service for students from other districts for some time, he said.
Providing the service has always posed challenges. With a district measuring 32 square miles, D99 used three buses to transport students to each school. “To run two buses with a 45-child capacity, the kids wouldn’t get to school for two hours,” Staelin explained.
In contrast, busing is only provided to public school students who live farther than 1.5 miles from school, as required by state law.
“We’ve not even been able to provide for our own students, even at a price,” Staelin said. “Up until a couple of years ago, we haven’t had the space on site to park additional buses.
Nor would it be possible to pass the full cost of busing along to families who live within the 1.5 mile mark but would be willing to pay extra for transportation, Staelin said.
“This is not the year to add new services.”
I love the idea. It’s their choice to go to private High School and it should be their families job to get them to school.
As far as the school districts being financially strapped, oh well. Sharpen those pencils school boards and administrators, don’t go passing the buck to the tax payers. No more pay increases for teachers and staff either. They are lucky to have jobs with such great benefits. More money is not always the answer people. Lets get creative.
So the last benefit of the thousands of dollars that the families of parochial students pay in property taxes to the public schools each year goes away?
What would be the cost of absorbing those 600 students into the schools? If the cost of educating a student at D58 and D99 is, say (as a low estimate) $5000 per student, adding those 600 students to the public schools would add $3,000,000 to the combined cost of the two districts. So the $600,000 cost of transportation is a bargain.
If they go ahead with this, I think that all the parents of parochial school students should register their children at their local public school for the fall…and see what kind of uproar 600 new students causes.
And, no, “BooHoo”, we’re not all rich. We buy used cars, take sack lunches to work, don’t go out to dinner much, and save our money for the important things–like making sure that our children have the option to go to the schools that will best serve their needs. We don’t denigrate the public schools–Downers has tremendous schools, and many of our friends (even those wealthier than us) send their children to those schools.
And I agree that the public schools should sharpen their pencils…just like the parochial schools have always done. Creative fundraising, lots of parent volunteer hours, class sizes up to 30 students, and dedicated teachers and staff allow some parochial schools to educate students at a lower per-pupil cost than most public schools.
You make some intriguing points, Bob. I’m especially interested in how the parochial schools make 30 kids in a classroom work. Class size is one of the biggest concerns in the public schools — members of the audience raised the issue at last week’s candidates forum — and typically the last option considered. I’m curious what your take on it is.
I suppose somebody has to take the extreme positions so it’s nice of Boohoo and Bob Lemay to stake them out for us.
Having said that let’s see how we can fix this problem without closing Benet and Montini and suddenly dumping 600 more kids into the public school system or financially crippling their already hard strapped parents.
I’m a baby boomer born in 1956. I don’t remember a time we didn’t have 30 kids per class in public grade school even when they built 3 new schools in Worth before I went to second grade. We were so over crowded in the 4th grade we had half day sessions. I had to get up before dawn to be at school by 6am and got out at noon. I learned to diagram a sentence, multiplication tables and how to cook my own eggs for breakfast. Didn’t hurt me any but for a lot of other kids who got lost in the shuffle it sure did.
Parochial school is a choice. Why should the district provide buses for children who do not attend thier schools? People without children have to pay property tax without added benefit. What about thier money?
It sounds like D99 is making a responsible fiscal decision. Bussing kids from our district to another district doesn’t make sense, especially if our district is bearing the entire cost.
Public education is available to all and is part of the American dream. If 600 children suddenly had to enroll in the public schools they would be enrolled and educated. ( I wouldn’t use the word “dumped,” Mark, because that sounds negative. Trash gets “dumped.”) It would be managed. That is not the case everywhere but it is here because our schools are good.
The students in private schools, or home schooling, or any alternative, have made a choice, but I don’t think the particular alternative they have chosen is important. It is their right to choose, I wish them the best, and it’s really none of my business or my place to judge.
But their decision did involve rejecting a benefit that was available to them, so I think it would be inappropriate to complain about not getting it, or the cost of the benefit they chose not to use. You can’t go to a store offering a rebate and demand the rebate without buying the product. Well, you could try, I guess…
Anyway, I agree with Pete Craven, let’s not forget our fiduciary responsibilities. If the decision to provide the buses was made in order to avoid a lawsuit the district figured it would lose anyway, that’s more complicated. This was a hot issue so long ago I don’t remember the details.
because we pay a couple thousand dollars a year in real estate taxes to District 58 KellyDGM… wise up.
This comment has been removed by the editor. Make your points without getting personal, Monk
Wise up to what? Every homeowner pays real estate tax. I would imagine everyone who does not have a child in school would like thier money directed to suit thier individual choice.
Exactly! Every homeowner pays real estate taxes which is why parochial school children should be able to use district busing.
KellyDGM…
My kids go to one of the best public elementary schools in the state…but I think every homeowner should have a choice in where their money goes or doesn’t.
People who don’t use the public school system shouldn’t “have” to pay for public schools. They may, however, “choose” to do so because its beneficial for their community, or their property values or their moral sensibility.
Just because the “system” is this way, doesn’t mean it has to be this way. Unburdened choice would be real freedom.
Imagine that some people had a choice to live in a community where they didn’t pay for extras. Some would seek out those communities, and some would choose to live in the communities where extra money was spent on schools. A retirement village like Sun City, could have no schools, and instead allocate money for some other mutually beneficial service.
Businessman…your analogy is wrong. The system as it is, is like making a someone at Aurelio’s pizza pay for part of your meal at Angelo’s, or get thrown in jail.
Our community forces residents to pay, no matter what.
The district should pick our children up in limousines… we are subsidizing a system we don’t use.
what was personal about my remark Elaine?
Perhaps I was not clear enough stating my opinion, which was that those who don’t have kids don’t or don’t live here but just own property here don’t have a choice, so why should those that do have children have a choice because they chose religious education or to home school? It appears unfair for both sides, so why should one side have special treatment? It is a higher issue than the district should be forced to resolve.
Mark, you better watch your choice of words and thought process or you may face the wrath of your own Democratic party for even suggesting that kids can still learn in larger classrooms.
When I ran for D99 board 2 years ago, I answered a question raised in a forum about enlarging class sizes. When I asked conjecturally as to how “boomer” children and especially those of previous generations were able to learn and excel in classes of 30, 40, and even 50, I was castigated by the incumbents as reactionary; a dinosaur, even though I proceeded to say that it is obviously the lower the teacher/student ratio the better the learning experience for a child. Is it no wonder that private tutoring services are in demand and that home-schooled children rank in the highest percentiles on standardized tests?
In terms of who pays for what in our educational system, most comments seem to make good points for tax vouchers, credits, or even privatizing all schools. As Scott Theisen points out, every homeowner would then have “unburdened” choice and in turn real freedom. What are the chances, however, of a competitive educational industry ever happening in light of the special interest parties who like the current public monopolies as they currently exist?
Scott, You’re a funny guy. I like your pizza and jail analogy, but I like Giordano’s, so your analogy is wrong!
KellyDGM – I commend you on your passion for the subject. We obviously both feel strongly about this issue.
Few points:
a) I’m specifically talking about busing for D58 children to and from parochial schools – not D99 children “outside” of the district. That’s a more complicated issue.
b) In regards to what’s “fair” and “unfair.” It seems to me that if I’m going to have to pay over $2000 in taxes for D58 even when I’ve chosen to send my child to a Catholic school that the district should at least use a portion of my tax dollars to bus my child to and from school within the district. I can’t figure out how that is “unfair.” What would seem to be “fair” for those of us sending our kids to parochial schools is for us to be exempt from paying D58 taxes? Isn’t that fair. Then, in turn, the District can increase your taxes to make up the difference? But I don’t think any of us are asking for that… instead, we would like the district to continue to bus our children to and from our schools within the district.
Your other comment in regards to it being unfair for residents who don’t send children to D58 schools… I don’t understand your argument? Are you suggesting that since its unfair for them, then is should be unfair for us yet only fair for your children who attend the public schools? I don’t understand that point of view at all. Again, in those cases, it would seem “fair” to exempt both parties from paying D58 taxes entirely.
This stereotype of parochial school parents being “rich” and therefore able to pay for our own transportation is offensive. Are there “well to do” parents who choose to send their children to parochial schools.. well, yes… I’m sure there are. But many of us sacrifice in order to provide our children with a faith-based education. Could we sacrifice more by having to provide for our own transportation? Well… yes… I imagine we would. But it would seem to me that as long as we’re obligated to pay D58 taxes, we should at least be provided bus transportation to and from school.
Again, I commend you on your passion.
I know private school parents pay thier taxes too, but that is not the point. The point is its a cost cutting measure. We have to cut teachers due to a budget shortfall. Maybe we can save some of those jobs if we cut this program. Its just an idea.
Sorry Boohoo… your credibility went out the window with your “rich kids” comment. EJ should have removed that comment – not mine. I know what your point was – it was pretty clear – “rich kids”should bus themselves.
I agree, Monk. I missed the sniping before, but have edited the reference out now.
Wes you seem to missing my point. I said it “Didn’t hurt me any but for a lot of other kids who got lost in the shuffle it sure did.”
I agree with your statement that “the lower the teacher/student ratio the better the learning experience for a child.” I knew a lot of kids in grade school and at DG South where there were 3600 kids in a school built for 2800 the year I graduated in 1974 who got lost in the shuffle. Since the school board wisely redistricted all those Woodridge kids to North it’s been rebalanced.
I think Deb Boyle should have bought a home in Woodridge or the north side of DG if she really wanted her son to go to DG North instead of suing the school board for her family’s personal benefit.
Folks we pay a huge chunk of taxes for public schools for the same reason we pay Social Security taxes. It’s the social compact between generations. I’m paying for everyone else’s kids to get an education so when they grow up they’ll get good jobs and make lots of money and pay taxes commensurate with their paychecks. They in turn will pay for my Social Security when I retire and their kids’ education and keep the compact going.
Home schooled kids may do better academically but I think they miss out on a lot of the socialization that goes on in school. If their parents don’t like much about American society I suppose that’s considered a feature not a bug.
Boohoo Monk, credibility on a blog. Hahahaha, no such thing. Lets just keep on editing the blog Hitler…I mean EJ, that will clean it up and make it a reputable source. NOT!
I’m not going to bother doing the research, boohoo, but I’ll bet that some of the “new faces” commenting on this blog (and then complaining about its credibility, my editorial decisions, etc.) are doing their best to stir the pot during the election season.
You guys all sound the same and I’m sure I’m not the only one to pick up on that.
well… nonetheless… I’ll just stand pat for that limo : )
EJ -
I’m “complaining” and “stirring the pot?”
Mark, I didn’t miss your point at all; that being that some students CAN “overcome” larger class sizes.
Let’s face facts, if a student really wants to learn, he or she can do it in the worst of situations, be they older buildings, larger class sizes, even poor teachers. IMO, success in life, including education, comes from a person’s heart and mind to want to succeed. There are countless examples of people who grew up in less than desirable areas but overcame many obstacles to succeed in school and in life. Is it easier to succeed in “perfect” conditions? Of course, but I know plenty of kids that have gone to our fine district schools with excellent teachers, facilities, and programs, and have little if any future because they did not apply themselves in any area of learning. So, smaller class sizes are no guarantee of success either. The will to succeed and the drive and perseverence needed to meet one’s goals are the key elements to any endeavor in life.
I was speaking of people with no children, as I felt they would be the flip side of people who have children but don’t send them to public school. I commend every parent who is passionate and involved with thier childs education. It’s part of what makes DG a great place to live. I will soon have to grapple with the issue of public vs private. When we moved into the histroic home we wanted we moved out of the PD area by only a couple of blocks.
Several poignant points have been made, and a few missed:
1. Many associate ‘private’ school with wealth. We are not, in most cases wealthy, we just practice our “parochial” beliefs. Why does that exclude us from the small stipend from D99 that represents buses?
2. I believe that my taxes (and yours) make the DG school districts among the best in DuPage county. If we want our property values to stay high, then this trend has to continue.
3. D99 is being faced with tough economic times and needs to tighten the belt. Although my kids are in the parochial schools under debate, I am concerned with some of the other D99 cost cutting measures – like replacing 39 retiring teachers with nothing but recent college graduates, – and like not replacing 2 drivers ed instructors at all. This is the direction that this debate should take. We are starting to sacrifice the quality of education and services.
3. If the district is so cash strapped this year, why did they approve the purchase of land adjacent to DGN for an undisclosed sum of money? I realize that opportunities to expand do not come along often, and that this is capex money rather than operating expense, but it doesn’t seem prudent. Further, the demographics of DG indicate that the schools will be underutilized in a few more years. So why do we need to expand the DGN campus?
4. I know that this busing issue has become a very ‘hot’ topic inside the parochial communities of DG. We tend to be very active in our community, and have long memories on voting day.
You ask how 30 student classrooms work for us? Bob Lemay wrote that it was due to cost cutting from the very beginning, from fundraising efforts, from dedicated teachers who accept less money than they could get publicly, and from parents who are ultra-involved in the school both as parents and as volunteers.
It also speaks to Mark Garrity’s comment because I can guarantee that in the 50′s and 60′s, the teacher was in charge, and was students and parents respected them. Now we have to lower the student/teacher ratio because in times of dispute, only Little Johnny is innocent. Maybe this economic downturn will help us turn back the clock to that 50s-60s public view on public education.
My last disclaimer is that this is not intended to inflame anybody. It I do, accept my apology because I respect your opinion, and only ask that you respect mine.
DGSoxFan:
You may have a winner here, and its good to know that, despite your financial support of private schools, you have the entire public school system in mind when you say “I am concerned with some of the other D99 cost cutting measures – like replacing 39 retiring teachers with nothing but recent college graduates, – and like not replacing 2 drivers ed instructors at all. This is the direction that this debate should take. We are starting to sacrifice the quality of education and services.”
It is hard to imagine the District not being ble to save something by replacing retired teachers, even if experienced teachers are hired. Maybe these savings were already considered when the District negotiated the recent teachers contract.
Sheep or Businessman for 99, since you first had such strong opinions about the topic, do you have any details to offer us on the teachers’ contract? or are you still silient after our first “sting”?
So as not to seem to be “stirring the pot” (EJ and Thoman, if you are out there, please note that even sock puppets can offer intelligent opposing views without disparaging others in the process), maybe Wes Jaros or others can chime in on his/her view?
Better yet, maybe this should be directed to our current candidates and elected officials? Any good forums coming up that sock puppets can attend?
After a false start or two, this thread has really blossomed with many valid points and perspectives offered. As so often happens when people (or in this case, sock puppets) take the time to share well-considered opinions, I find myself rethinking my original position based on the new information.
This is what a local blog should facilitate and I thank Monk, SoxFan, Johnny and all of you who have offered interesting views.
We’ll have many opportunities to continue the conversation as our local school boards start making more hard choices.
Thanks, guys.
1. I do not have children. 2. I went to a public school. 3.I pay taxes too. 4.The idea that homeschooled children do not get socialization is a little dated.
Now that the random facts about sh are done:
I don’t think I have a problem with parochial students using district buses as they are able. It must be terribly awkward for them, but their parents pay taxes to both school districts. It’s their choice to send their kids to the school of their choice… Think about it: They are paying twice for their child’s education. They must have a reason to continue to do so.
But back to the bus issue: it’s a state rule/law whatever you call it. Wasn’t it put into place because certain public schools weren’t cutting it? And kids were having to schlep to school in pretty lousy neighborhoods? I think I remember that being the case… I’m not sure it matters why this rule was put into place rather than it is there. And until the rule is removed, the district is required to comply, no?
EJ…. PLEASE stop using the term sock puppets. I’m glad Thoman has taught you a new web term, but you continue to misuse it.
Then offer the correct usage, why don’t you, DG Resident.
Everyone’s a critic. Especially SOCK PUPPETS.
As I understand it, EJ, it’s a second online persona–a pseudonym that may even interact with his/her real persona.
“A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way.”
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SockPuppet
Thanks, sh. I won’t make that mistake again. I’ll work on coming up with another apt phrase for some of my anonymous “friends.” There are so many to chose from.
There is a somewhat more inclusive definition, in line with the moderator’s usage, here ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Back to the thread. There’s a certain amount of sense that the public schools would be required to make available transportation to their school for students that would normally attend the school and live in the eligible bus area. You pay extra for that still yes? So the private schools, regardless of type will need to get the students from the public school to their own school.
That sounds pretty complicated. The private school attending kid would have to either walk to the public school staging area or pay to take the bus, then take another bus to the private school. And that’s just the morning.
As the public relations director for the National Association for the Promotion of Sock Puppets, I take grave offense at the insensitivity displayed by some of the so-called “real” people who have posted here. As a threshold matter, we now prefer to be referred to as Hosiery Marionettes, and would appreciate being respected as such henceforth. In this regard, we verily protest any efforts to marginalize us by purporting to “define” our kind and creed with specious internet dictionary definitions. We also strenuously object to various other deviant “urban dictionary” uses for the term that both defy common decency and offend our textile sense of morality. To correct this social deficiency, we invite you to attend a sensitivity session with one of my fellow directors, Lamb Chop or Señor Wences. Please, don’t thread on us!
DGSoxFan, yes you have some good points although I take issue with your Issue 3′s…
1. Teachers retire every year. This opens up jobs for new college grads. Doesn’t this happen every year? The 39 teachers leaving this year may be high but I would guess the average is fairly static.
2. Why not outsource Drivers Ed? Isn’t driving a privilege? Like bussing, it becomes low hanging fruit when the belt tightens.
3. I’ve said this before but here’s my take on the land acquisition…Acquiring more land for our land-locked high schools could be paid for by trading our existing D99 Woodridge land. For example, if DG land is worth twice as much as Woodridge, our 45 acres could get us more than 20. Whenever land adjacent to a D99 high school becomes available, Woodridge buys it for D99 and the corresponding D99 Woodridge acreage is given to Woodridge. Maybe we can use the 20 acres for parking!
Sorry about my multiple 3′s. Must be my public education background.
Seriously, I understand retiring teachers and the need to replace them with less expensive candidates. This would be fine if all animals were indeed equal. I don’t think it is prudent to replace, say, a department head, with a new graduate. The discussion at the meeting I attended said that all 39 would be replaced ONLY with new graduates. There has to be some sanity around hiring policies to say that some positions require candidates with experience.
The loss of drivers ed smells the same as our parochial buses. If you lose curriculum, or services, due to a tight budget year, you will never get them back. I feel that driver’s education is a part of a high school education. It may have been a privilege when we grew up, but it is now, in most cases, more of a necessity than Calculus. Raise fees if you need to cover the shortfall but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lastly, concerning 20 acres of parking – if you still think driving is a privilege, then try leaving the North campus lot at the end of the school day.
Did you see that Driscoll HS in Addison is closing. Enrollment dropped from 465 to 301 the past couple of years. I am sure not all of those 301 will go to ther local public schools, but many will. This type of thing could really ding a public school district. Some comments were that IC, Benet, Montini and St. Francis will see an in flux. Hmmm, more likely, it will tax a few public schools. I wonder if District 99 has this type of contingency.
Pete Craven,
Your point 3 refers to “our existing D99 Woodridge land.” I’ve got some bad news for you – we lost the court case and Woodridge owns that land. (appeal still in the works.) Woodridge does not need to buy the land. They have already bought it.
To the broader question that private school students should get buses because their families pay property taxes, two questions come to mind:
1) If their property tax payments entitle them to buses, why stop there? Why wouldn’t their property tax payments require that we buy their textbooks, water the football field, and pay for their electricity and water bills, too?
2) Why don’t kids who live near the high schools get a refund on their property taxes since the buses roll through their neighborhoods without stopping?