Hollister trustees’ cancellation of school bus service in response to a state cut will not only hit home harder than other reductions in recent years, but it also puts the district in a precarious position when it comes to offering equal access to public education.
Hollister and other districts throughout the state should start planning for the possibility of having a requirement to offer transportation – there is a proposal in the Legislature to replace general funds with earmarked transportation dollars – because it obstructs a basic, constitutional tenet that every child is entitled to have access to public education.
Hollister trustees took a big step in the wrong direction this week by canceling bus service for general students while maintaining plans to seek bids for special education transportation. The budget this year for bus service was $312,790 for general education students and $547,666 for students with special needs. The state was set to provide $327,036 to the district for transportation funding. With the mid-year cut, that has been reduced to $163,969.
It was the wrong direction because trustees should understand the severity of the negative impact in comparison with other potential reductions. Above all, it will lead to increased truancy because some parents will either not care enough to hold their children accountable or simply do not have access to a vehicle.
It was also the wrong direction because it underscores a lacking sense from trustees and other officials that the district must plan for varying scenarios and not simply choose easy street.
First off, there is a reasonable chance that school officials will have no choice but to offer bus transportation.
Second, and most important, local school leaders should have a desire to maintain bus service. They should understand the resultant impacts are inevitable and potentially disastrous. It is not too late, though. Trustees should start planning for possible scenarios.
A fee-based transportation program, for instance, makes a lot of sense. The district could subsidize the shortfall by charging a modest fee for students whose families can afford it, while there would have to be a reduced charge or no charge at all for those who can’t. As for the difference, the district would need to either eat the cost or find other places to make reductions.
The district also could start looking into potential partnerships with organizations in the county, such as the transit system or others, even to merely provide advisement on safest practices. And why not look seriously into partnering with San Benito High School, which oversees its own transportation service?
Meanwhile, district officials and Hollister’s classified staff must resolve a long-delayed contract renewal – one that needs to include six-figure reductions in line proportionally with cuts previously accepted by teachers and others. We would hope the cut to bus service isn’t an intentional political maneuver meshing into the context of the classified talks.
Simply put: Despite its financial hardship, cutting bus service is not in the best interest of the district. Ultimately, trustees’ primary obligations are to make decisions that are best for the public and decisions that strive to improve the quality of local education. Their action this week runs in direct contrast with both of those responsibilities.
