Stop the Berkeley Heights BOE from Canceling Busing
Stop the Berkeley Heights BOE from Canceling Busing
The Issue
Over the last few months many articles have been written regarding the issue of school busing in the Berkeley Heights school district by a particular group that is well known in town. While that group can be informative at times, they almost never give those in its’ audience the full details of their argument. Often times, they give the reader vague arguments based on innuendo, slim empirical data, little to no research, all wrapped in the personal opinion of whoever is their writer of the day. With that said I agree with the fact that busing in Berkeley Heights is not always fair and equitable for those who need and those who want. So, let’s take a deeper dive and explore the current system and why it needs to stay in place until a more constructive conversation can be had amongst the current contentious school board membership.
At the crux of the busing issue is Policy 8600. This policy includes a Hazardous Roads policy which the district did not previously have. To understand this better let me explain. The roads listed as Hazardous under the policy were roads that were deemed unsafe. Students that lived on these roads received courtesy busing from the district in the spirit of making a child’s safety first. That courtesy busing was done in lieu of the child’s mandated required proximity to the school he or she was attending. For instance, a child that lived on Diamond Hill Rd, Twin Falls, Glenside or any other road in that immediate area technically do not live more than 2 1/2 miles away from Governor Livingston High School but because those roads have no sidewalks, heavy traffic and children would need to cross under underpasses it is deemed unsafe. Under past Board leadership the busing was given as courtesy and the district picked up that cost. Because no prior board member delved into this issue for the last fifteen to twenty years no hazardous road policy was written, thus causing money to be left on the table that could have been used to subsidize this cost to the district by the State. When this was realized a Hazardous Roads policy was written so the cost incurred by the district to bus this segment of the town’s population could be offset with State funding, thus saving the district money, and preventing families from incurring any potential costs associated with the rise of transportation. This hazardous road policy also encompasses students with Special Needs children that live on these streets. In case there is any confusion as to what the policy states I have attached the link where the policy can be found. It is on the Board’s website under Meeting Schedule & Agendas, March 18th meeting (where it was ultimately struck down the first time). The language is clear, and the streets listed (except for a few) are hazardous and you can read it in its entirety starting at page 69.
Determination for school busing in its’ current form was determined by an outside consulting group that chooses not to disclose to the public how they determine which roads are too hazardous for children to utilize in order for them to safely get to and from school. Considering Berkeley Heights has many roads that not only cross some very busy main streets, but they also have several main roads that have no sidewalks. Streets like Diamond Hill Road, McMane, Valley and Glenside should be a no brainer when it comes to seeing how hazardous they are. If we took common sense one step further most of the side streets that connect to these roads are also hazardous enough that all students that live in this area should be one step down from the 2-mile mandate that requires mandatory busing. I don’t think I need to spell out why a hazardous road could be a potential problem but in case anyone is confused take a look at Diamond Hill and Mountain Ave at 7:30 am in the middle of December and let me know if you would let your child walk from Diamond Hill to Mountain to get to school.
As much as I’d like to stay on this tangent as to why this is an asinine idea let us go a step further. Let’s look at the bigger problem that could be created if busing is taken away from these students because the road they live on is too hazardous for them to get to school safely except by car. If Policy 8600 is taken away, subscription busing may not even be an option for them. Did I mention that some of the families who pay for subscription busing may lose that option because the district won’t have enough seats available because of the downsize in the number of buses the district will now have available to them. Do I have your attention? I thought so. So now that I have it lets look at Policy 8600 which is the key to this issue and several others. Policy 8600 allows for that particular set of students, and others, who live on roads deemed hazardous to receive the same busing that is mandatory for students who live two or more miles away from the elementary school or two and half miles or more from the high school. This has been in place for the last fifteen years at least, as I’ve lived in the district on one of these hazardous roads and had two kids go through Governor Livingston. But because previous board members (probably from fifteen years ago) allowed nepotism to come into play busing that was meant to alleviate a safety burden for those who need it was justified for some who needed the convenance. Was this right? Absolutely not, but this decision was done by a board whose members probably have grandkids or friends with kids that no longer live in the district. Unfortunately for those of us who are left holding this leaky bag we have a board who can’t seem to agree on anything because of animosity between its’ members. This animosity will create a situation where we will have well over a hundred or so students and their families put in a hardship by the denial of Policy 8600 because the current board members who are not in agreement with the current busing system will never be affected by this; none of their kids live on a hazardous road. What is truly ironic here is that the four members likely to vote against the policy will be leaving state money on the table because as we all know the state subsidizes the busing cost for those who live on hazardous roads. Fact check that because those numbers don’t lie. At the end of the day the busing system in town has been unfair in terms of being distributed equitably long before any of these board members came into play but to create a possible financial hardship or a hardship regarding getting their kid to and from school is NOT acceptable either. Every family situation is different, and the assumption should not be made that just because you live in this town means you are not living paycheck to paycheck because that would be a fallacy. I have not even touched on how striking down Policy 8600 would affect families that are dependent on subscription busing by possibly taking away their option. Yes, you heard right…even if you can afford to pay to have the bus take your child to school when Policy 8600 goes away you might not have that option. Take that lifeline and now you have a situation where some people may have to take a lesser paying job because that city commute can’t happen when they are dealing with the logistics of getting multiple children to school each day.
Again, busing needs to be fair and equitable but taking the rug out from under the families who actually need it makes this new board no better than the Superintendent they have slammed the last four years. One of their gripes was the way she rolled out full day kindergarten because she took the rug out from under the families affected, but I guess it’s ok for them to now do the same thing. When the first child gets injured let Natasha, Sai, Dipti, Tom and whoever else who can’t seem to sit down and have a civil discourse be the ones who wear the lawsuit; because if it was my child, they would be named front and center in that lawsuit. If they had a solution other than staggering school times ( because you have to get that through the Teachers Union first) then at least a plan would be in place to minimize the impact, but to take away something like busing that is necessary for so many with nothing to replace it with is never good business; but it seems no one is actually taking into account the school budget bottom line as well as families. Leaving state money on the table isn’t good business either but I’m sure Dipti has this under control as she is the chair of the finance committee. If we are going to be transparent then be fully transparent and check all egos at the door because every decision made affects families and those families will remember what affected them come the next election. No one should ever put a price on kids’ safety and that is exactly what striking down this policy will do.
Listed below are the board email addresses of those who have already struck down this policy:
Sai Bhargavi Akiri - sbhargavi@bhpsnj.org
Tom Foregger - tforegger@bhpsnj.org
Natasha Joly - njoly@bhpsnj.org
Dipti Khanna - dkhanna@bhpsnj.org
The next Board of Education regular meeting with be held on Thursday, April 18 at 7:30pm. This meeting will take place at Governor Livingston High School in the Cafeteria. The agenda for Thursday’s meeting has been posted on the district website and Policy 8600 is up for a second opportunity to vote for approval. Stop by, make your voice heard and urge these board members to support Policy 8600 so you won’t lose your courtesy and subscription busing!
121
The Issue
Over the last few months many articles have been written regarding the issue of school busing in the Berkeley Heights school district by a particular group that is well known in town. While that group can be informative at times, they almost never give those in its’ audience the full details of their argument. Often times, they give the reader vague arguments based on innuendo, slim empirical data, little to no research, all wrapped in the personal opinion of whoever is their writer of the day. With that said I agree with the fact that busing in Berkeley Heights is not always fair and equitable for those who need and those who want. So, let’s take a deeper dive and explore the current system and why it needs to stay in place until a more constructive conversation can be had amongst the current contentious school board membership.
At the crux of the busing issue is Policy 8600. This policy includes a Hazardous Roads policy which the district did not previously have. To understand this better let me explain. The roads listed as Hazardous under the policy were roads that were deemed unsafe. Students that lived on these roads received courtesy busing from the district in the spirit of making a child’s safety first. That courtesy busing was done in lieu of the child’s mandated required proximity to the school he or she was attending. For instance, a child that lived on Diamond Hill Rd, Twin Falls, Glenside or any other road in that immediate area technically do not live more than 2 1/2 miles away from Governor Livingston High School but because those roads have no sidewalks, heavy traffic and children would need to cross under underpasses it is deemed unsafe. Under past Board leadership the busing was given as courtesy and the district picked up that cost. Because no prior board member delved into this issue for the last fifteen to twenty years no hazardous road policy was written, thus causing money to be left on the table that could have been used to subsidize this cost to the district by the State. When this was realized a Hazardous Roads policy was written so the cost incurred by the district to bus this segment of the town’s population could be offset with State funding, thus saving the district money, and preventing families from incurring any potential costs associated with the rise of transportation. This hazardous road policy also encompasses students with Special Needs children that live on these streets. In case there is any confusion as to what the policy states I have attached the link where the policy can be found. It is on the Board’s website under Meeting Schedule & Agendas, March 18th meeting (where it was ultimately struck down the first time). The language is clear, and the streets listed (except for a few) are hazardous and you can read it in its entirety starting at page 69.
Determination for school busing in its’ current form was determined by an outside consulting group that chooses not to disclose to the public how they determine which roads are too hazardous for children to utilize in order for them to safely get to and from school. Considering Berkeley Heights has many roads that not only cross some very busy main streets, but they also have several main roads that have no sidewalks. Streets like Diamond Hill Road, McMane, Valley and Glenside should be a no brainer when it comes to seeing how hazardous they are. If we took common sense one step further most of the side streets that connect to these roads are also hazardous enough that all students that live in this area should be one step down from the 2-mile mandate that requires mandatory busing. I don’t think I need to spell out why a hazardous road could be a potential problem but in case anyone is confused take a look at Diamond Hill and Mountain Ave at 7:30 am in the middle of December and let me know if you would let your child walk from Diamond Hill to Mountain to get to school.
As much as I’d like to stay on this tangent as to why this is an asinine idea let us go a step further. Let’s look at the bigger problem that could be created if busing is taken away from these students because the road they live on is too hazardous for them to get to school safely except by car. If Policy 8600 is taken away, subscription busing may not even be an option for them. Did I mention that some of the families who pay for subscription busing may lose that option because the district won’t have enough seats available because of the downsize in the number of buses the district will now have available to them. Do I have your attention? I thought so. So now that I have it lets look at Policy 8600 which is the key to this issue and several others. Policy 8600 allows for that particular set of students, and others, who live on roads deemed hazardous to receive the same busing that is mandatory for students who live two or more miles away from the elementary school or two and half miles or more from the high school. This has been in place for the last fifteen years at least, as I’ve lived in the district on one of these hazardous roads and had two kids go through Governor Livingston. But because previous board members (probably from fifteen years ago) allowed nepotism to come into play busing that was meant to alleviate a safety burden for those who need it was justified for some who needed the convenance. Was this right? Absolutely not, but this decision was done by a board whose members probably have grandkids or friends with kids that no longer live in the district. Unfortunately for those of us who are left holding this leaky bag we have a board who can’t seem to agree on anything because of animosity between its’ members. This animosity will create a situation where we will have well over a hundred or so students and their families put in a hardship by the denial of Policy 8600 because the current board members who are not in agreement with the current busing system will never be affected by this; none of their kids live on a hazardous road. What is truly ironic here is that the four members likely to vote against the policy will be leaving state money on the table because as we all know the state subsidizes the busing cost for those who live on hazardous roads. Fact check that because those numbers don’t lie. At the end of the day the busing system in town has been unfair in terms of being distributed equitably long before any of these board members came into play but to create a possible financial hardship or a hardship regarding getting their kid to and from school is NOT acceptable either. Every family situation is different, and the assumption should not be made that just because you live in this town means you are not living paycheck to paycheck because that would be a fallacy. I have not even touched on how striking down Policy 8600 would affect families that are dependent on subscription busing by possibly taking away their option. Yes, you heard right…even if you can afford to pay to have the bus take your child to school when Policy 8600 goes away you might not have that option. Take that lifeline and now you have a situation where some people may have to take a lesser paying job because that city commute can’t happen when they are dealing with the logistics of getting multiple children to school each day.
Again, busing needs to be fair and equitable but taking the rug out from under the families who actually need it makes this new board no better than the Superintendent they have slammed the last four years. One of their gripes was the way she rolled out full day kindergarten because she took the rug out from under the families affected, but I guess it’s ok for them to now do the same thing. When the first child gets injured let Natasha, Sai, Dipti, Tom and whoever else who can’t seem to sit down and have a civil discourse be the ones who wear the lawsuit; because if it was my child, they would be named front and center in that lawsuit. If they had a solution other than staggering school times ( because you have to get that through the Teachers Union first) then at least a plan would be in place to minimize the impact, but to take away something like busing that is necessary for so many with nothing to replace it with is never good business; but it seems no one is actually taking into account the school budget bottom line as well as families. Leaving state money on the table isn’t good business either but I’m sure Dipti has this under control as she is the chair of the finance committee. If we are going to be transparent then be fully transparent and check all egos at the door because every decision made affects families and those families will remember what affected them come the next election. No one should ever put a price on kids’ safety and that is exactly what striking down this policy will do.
Listed below are the board email addresses of those who have already struck down this policy:
Sai Bhargavi Akiri - sbhargavi@bhpsnj.org
Tom Foregger - tforegger@bhpsnj.org
Natasha Joly - njoly@bhpsnj.org
Dipti Khanna - dkhanna@bhpsnj.org
The next Board of Education regular meeting with be held on Thursday, April 18 at 7:30pm. This meeting will take place at Governor Livingston High School in the Cafeteria. The agenda for Thursday’s meeting has been posted on the district website and Policy 8600 is up for a second opportunity to vote for approval. Stop by, make your voice heard and urge these board members to support Policy 8600 so you won’t lose your courtesy and subscription busing!
121
Supporter Voices
Petition created on April 15, 2024