IBJNews

  • Home

Indiana lawmaker says school bus fees increase danger

Associated Press
February 8, 2012
Keywords
Department of Education, Education & Workforce Development, Government, Government & Economic Development, K-12, Legislature, Public schools, State Budget, State Government
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana's public school districts wouldn't be able to end school bus service for their students under a proposal advancing in the General Assembly after protests from parents in a suburban Indianapolis district who now face annual bills of more than $400 a child for rides to and from school.

The fees started in the Franklin Township district last fall after voters rejected a referendum to raise property taxes to help close an $8 million budget shortfall and the district turned its buses over to an outside agency that now provides transportation — leading some other districts to consider a similar money-saving step.

Republican Rep. Mike Speedy, whose Indianapolis district includes the Franklin Township district, told the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday that not only can many families not afford to pay the fees, there has been a great increase in traffic around schools as many more parents are driving their children and more students are walking along roads without sidewalks.

"As a result of charging fees, you create a dangerous mix of cars and students and buses in the morning when it's dark, when it's snowy," Speedy said. "It's just a matter of time before someone gets hurt."

Speedy argued that school districts are prohibited from charging bus fees and that they shouldn't be able to bypass that law by following Franklin Township's example of turning its transportation services over to an educational services cooperative controlled by it and other districts.

Franklin Township officials didn't speak during Wednesday's legislative hearing, but have maintained their decision is legal despite an opinion from the state attorney general's office that the district's action violates the state constitution and a lawsuit filed in November by a parent challenging the fees.

District Superintendent Walter Bourke has said that a law requiring school districts to transport students could force struggling districts into bankruptcy.

School officials say many districts around the state are facing budget troubles due in large part to statewide property-tax caps passed by the Legislature in 2008. Schools' transportation budgets, along with school bus replacement and construction projects, are funded entirely from property taxes.

Messages seeking comment were left for Bourke and the school district's attorney

The House voted 92-2 last week in favor of banning the bus fees. The Senate committee is expected to vote next week on whether to advance the proposal to the full Senate.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • too many buses
    rickFebruary 9, 2012 5:01 PM
    Public schools are designed for socialization first and education second. Other than safety in the school, there's really not much beyond that that they should be their responsible for. Parents should be able to handle the transportation situation.
    Fueling and maintaining all those buses eats up a lot of cash. Kids used to walk to school much more than they do now. Just because they ride a bus doesn't mean they won't get kidnapped, beat up or bullied.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Busses
    TomFebruary 9, 2012 1:43 PM
    Yeah, again: Which would you prefer a school provide: A) great teachers in a reasonable learning environment, but no transportation; B) reasonably good teachers in a great learning environment but no transportation; C) Mediocre teachers in an average learning environment, but free transportation; D) Great teachers teaching under the old apple tree but free transportation provided; E) Great teachers in a great learning environment bot no free transportation? Can't have 'em all under present financial strictures. And the voters in Franklin Township chose the limit on money. If the legislature wants to mandate bus transportation, then the legislature needs to FUND that mandate. It's that simple. We get enough unfunded mandates from the Feds as it is - in fact way too many unfunded mandates... but that's another topic.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Hmm
    HS parentFebruary 9, 2012 1:22 PM
    Where was this line of thinking when the legislature hurried through - at the urging of the insurance company lobby, and on no evidence that it matters - the new law delaying the driving age to 16 1/2 (meaning more parents drive kids to school) and also delaying the time when kids can drive each other (meaning more kids drive to school separately)
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • todays bad students
    substituteFebruary 9, 2012 10:45 AM
    these parents of today have taken the free education for granted . else their kids would not come to school abusing and insulting staffs , and teachers on a daily basis , throwing dangerous objects at teachers etc mocking adults . and at the same time they children underperform academically . may be if you guys paid from your pockets , a stiff fee , you will make sure that they excel academically and also have their behaviors in check .
    All the same i am for free education , but parents of nowadays should start paying serious attention towards proper parenting of their children
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Safety is not the issue
    RussFebruary 9, 2012 9:57 AM
    I've heard the reason why kids can't walk to school is because schools have been sued by parents whose children were molested and bullied on the way to and from school. I'm not positive on that, because there is a neighborhood next to my daughter's school that has a sidewalk inside the community to the school. Kids are always walking to school through there, but I think most of them are still accompanied by their parents.

    I laughed last fall when Franklin Township had these traffic jams. For one thing, it proves that no matter what kind of threats and tactics the school district wanted to pull on the parents to get their money, people will always find a way around it. Not only that, the fact that the district sold the rights to an asset for $1 shows that they have absolutely no fiscal sense whatsoever.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Why?
    City LadyFebruary 9, 2012 8:07 AM
    Why do kids who live within walking distance of a school have to be bused to a school too far to walk to? I understand why kids who live in the country have to be bused, that is a choice made by their parents to live that far out, it does cost more to live in the country. I just don't understand busing in the IPS school system, why upgrade some schools, only to shut them down?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ

    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT