Don't make big mistake with busing

At the Dec. 10 meeting of the Coeur d'Alene school board, the issue of contract busing was discussed. After the issue was presented, the decision was made to put out bids for contractors to provide for the Coeur d'Alene District school busing.

Surely the decision to pursue this course of action was not one taken lightly by the school board members. And we understand this issue came on the heels of looking into the difficult reality of a $3 million shortfall which faces the board in the coming fiscal year. The presentation for contract busing purports to save the district $1.1 million dollars in the first year of a five-year contract. On the surface, this looks like a no-brainer. Our school board is there to make wise decisions on our behalf.

But if history holds true, what is purported to happen is not what in fact does happen in most instances where contract busing is tried. There is a voluminous amount of information and studies which have been done which indicate that it is vital to look at all the facts surrounding contract busing and the whole issue of outsourcing. These facts were not presented at the school board meeting. What was presented was a very rosy picture of money saved and excellent service provided.

This is the rest of the story. Contract busing is widely touted as a way for school districts to save money, increase efficiency and improve the quality of services that are provided to the district. It is thought that this is a way for educators to concentrate on their primary mission of educating our children rather than dealing with non-instructional responsibilities.

To be honest, there are cases where school districts have found outsourcing to be mutually beneficial. However, in most cases contracts have produced lower savings and less freedom from administrative burdens than were promised in the sales pitch. In fact, many school districts discovered that their costs became higher for a more inferior product.

Not only that, private contracts created new issues for school leaders who are held legally responsible for a vital public service but in fact have lost control of the very responsibility which was given to them. In many instances, the response from the community was one of resentment and disappointment which affected their voting when the time came for the passage of much needed levies. School boards must carefully look at ALL of the facts before they decide whether the promised benefits are likely to materialize and whether the gains outweigh the losses.

Our schools are a vital link to our community. A school is more than just a collection of sub-contractors providing services at a central location. If local parents and community members are put out of work by an out-of-state or international contractor, or if they suffer a cut in wages or health insurance, the community at large suffers and the welfare of the community is diminished. It is crucial that our school board gives careful consideration to how contract busing will enhance or detract from the complex and mutually reinforcing connections of school and community.

Before this decision is finalized, it is important to look at the history of contract busing across America. Despite the come-on by contract busing salesmen, the reality is that most districts have not saved money by outsourcing. In fact, many districts have lost money. The ideal does not always turn out to be what is real. One of the biggest problems comes when it is time to renew the contracts. Typically, the initially low contracts for bus driving can only be renewed at much higher rates. By then, it is almost impossible to go back to in-house busing. The bridges have been burned and we are backed into a corner.

One of the ways school bus contractors can reduce their cost and increase their profits is through the reduction of personnel expenses. Contractors often pay low salaries and offer few benefits. They also cut back on the number of employees and fail to rehire when employees leave. They save considerable payroll costs because of their constant high turnover rate. This allows them to rehire at a lower hourly rate.

They also tend to rehire with inadequate background checks or training which increases the turnover and becomes a revolving door. In comparison, the present bus driving crew for the Coeur d'Alene district consists primarily of long-termers with an extremely low turnover rate. Every driver is a solid, family-oriented person and a solid citizen. It is very difficult to assure a high quality driving staff when you have lost control of the hiring, training and supervision of those who are actually doing the work.

We want to recommend that careful scrutiny is given to the reason our district is considering contract busing. At the present time, we have one of the lowest operating costs per unit in the entire state. Perhaps it would be a good decision to bring in an outside auditor or investigator to review our practices as a district and make recommendations for change from within to save the district money. This certainly seems more prudent than backing ourselves into a corner which has no escape.

We currently have a busing staff that in many people's opinion is second to none. There is not the usual adversarial feelings between staff and management but an unusual desire to work together to accomplish the task of getting our children to school safely and efficiently. It is impossible to put a price on the safety of our students because it is precious cargo that is being transported to our schools. It doesn't make sense to do it on a low budget and by someone who may be a total stranger to us and our community. If we want to gamble, we should go to the casino but we should never gamble on our children's safety.

If you agree, let our school board know what you are thinking. Your voice needs to be heard!

Bob Schneiter and Pete Clemens are both Hayden residents and bus drivers for Coeur d'Alene School District.