The Bus Stops Here

President Obama cautioned opponents of his economic stimulus package in Congress not to simply object, but to offer alternative solutions to problems everyone agrees the country is facing. They are wise operating instructions. All too often, people are happy to oppose ideas and/or efforts to solve problems, but, when pushed, are unable or unwilling to offer alternative solutions for further discussion.

NoStringsGeneva strives not only to identify problems but also to offer real and workable solutions. And we do it in a way that is fact-based, tied to reality, and brought forward as reasonable opinion. So while we may have a ‘wish list’ (as we will share in an upcoming lakefront post), we are also able to find ways to synthesize economic realities with the community values contained therein.

Our recent posts on the school district’s elementary realignment proposal have conveyed our bottom-line, fact-based point of view on that proposal: it will not achieve the stated objectives of the district. Of course, it’s been difficult to know exactly what those objectives are because the Finger Lakes Times has only recently seen fit to cover the issue in any meaningful way. We keep waiting for them to delve into the Superintendent and School Board members’ thinking on the matter. The only facts we’ve been able to gather have come via the Superintendent’s comments in the Panther Pride newsletter, the public meeting regarding the realignment proposal, and the more recent newspaper articles.

In other words, what is the problem they are attempting to solve? As far as we can tell, the school district’s pressing issue is a possible budget deficit for 2009-2010 that could be as high as $2.4million. How was such a massive deficit not foreseen in the 2008-2009 budget year, or earlier? After all, this is a major discrepancy for a district of this size, and we would hope that the numbers don’t just creep up on us all and take the district leaders totally by surprise.

Assuming that this financial problem is both real and immediate, we have some ideas that the district might consider:

1. It came as a shock to read the Superintendent’s statement that almost 200 elementary students are bussed every day from their home to the school across town, at the request of the parents. (You can read the District's own data analysis on that point here). This means that students who live in neighborhoods where they are supposed to attend North Street are bussed to West Street, and vice versa, at the parents’ request. That is the equivalent of five classrooms of students being shuffled around the City each morning! That impacts pick-up times for other students and creates routing headaches for drivers. We cannot find any State Education law that requires the district to provide door-to-door transportation for ‘traditional learners’ (those students not receiving special education services) who opt-out of their geographically aligned school building. How much does that extra busing cost?

2. While we’re on the topic of transportation, we have to say that the transportation data that was provided to the realignment committee did not make a compelling case for any cost savings resulting from the change. The proposal indicates that all students—regardless of age—in a particular area will be transported by bus to one school (for students near West Street, that will be the first stop, likewise for students near North) where those who attend are dropped off and then the remaining students will travel on to the next school. In theory, this increases the number of cross-city bus trips as every bus will be required to stop at both buildings. It also raises questions with regard to start times and the need for more monitors to ensure that students, especially kindergartners, find their way OK. But this policy, too, makes the assumption that door-to-door transport is a District requirement. If you’ve ever been out during morning pickups or afternoon dropoffs, you’ll know that the district expects drivers to not only stop at every student’s house on the route, but if the student is not out front (in the morning) or an adult is not out front (in the afternoon) then the driver is expected to beep and wait until the student emerges or the parent waves them on. In the afternoon, this sometimes results in the driver having to continue on with his/her route and return to the student’s home later.

Not that long ago, as a school girl, Augustine rode the bus, both during her elementary years in Geneva and her intermediate years at Midlakes. Rather than door-to-door pickup, both districts used a general bus stop program. Back in the 1980s, for example, the bus stop for students living on her street (State) was the corner of Exchange and Toledo. In Seneca Castle, which is more rural in character, students living within a few houses of one another were told to gather in one person’s driveway for pick up. While it’s true that these routes were less forgiving, no driver was expected to track you down, bussing was more streamlined and less costly! It also meant less time on the bus for all kids! Although it may be unpopular at first, we think that District parents might eventually warm to the idea of more centralized bus stops, especially within the City limits.

3. Additional cost savings might come in the form of administrative down-sizing. Just last year, the Superintendent proposed an ‘executive principal’ arrangement for the elementary grades. Under this arrangement, there would be one principal charged with overseeing curriculum for the K-5 grades and an assistant principal at each building (North and West) monitoring day to day activities of the students. A ‘teacher on special assignment’ might also be used at each building to augment the assistant principal’s duties. The cost savings under this plan would be one principal’s salary minus the stipend for each ‘TOSA’, so roughly a $100,000 savings inclusive of salary and benefits.

4. The District Office might also review its operations. The human resources function is one that had been traditionally handled by a non-administrator professional. Going back to this model, with the Superintendent and building leaders taking a larger role in hiring decisions would be a step in the right direction, in our view. Speaking of the District Office, the building itself is a case study in excess. Of all the locations within the district where the central administration might be located, a lakeview parcel with a prime location near 5 & 20 seems to be the least likely. The City lawsuit with Farrish that brought that development about wasn’t an ideal circumstance by any means, and now that the new lakefront plan correctly reidentifies that area as part of a (taxable) downtown redevelopment strategy, it seems a good time for the District to consider relocating. Even renting space downtown on an interim basis would be less expensive than the maintenance and utilities of the freestanding office space. Moving out of those offices and selling that building could yield a good net return for the District.

5. When it comes to staffing, we have just one point to make. The Superintendent stated at the public meeting about the realignment that he had asked Faculty and Support Staff to forego or forestall their latest salary increases. Some mention was also made about the perpetually rising cost of health insurance. We always believe that creative solutions to salary and benefits should be on the table, but in any organization it is critical that the culture of change, or in this case—of sacrifice—must come from the top. So before it is asked what the teachers and staff can go without, we should ask first if those at the top have done their own trimming.


These are by no means all of the possible ideas for solving the school district’s financial troubles, but the first task of any government agency should be to examine its current expenses to see if smaller policy shifts might lead big results. In the case of transportation, office space, and central staffing, we believe the positive results would be significant without negative long term effects on the quality of education.