64 Comments - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:08 pm: And wealthier area could move to stretch limos with food and beverage service, WiFi, etc Great idea Matt - Confused - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:08 pm: Tax increase. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:09 pm: If the reimbursement amounts are changed, then the free ride requirement should be changed. - The KQ - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:21 pm: I voted yes, but with a disclaimer. In some poorer areas where parents would not be able to afford paying for bus service and if there are busy roads, no sidewalks, or the distance is unreasonable, how would those kids get to school? The other side of the coin is what I see every morning. Parents and kids (high school age) parked in cars waiting for the bus. If you are already IN the car, why not just drive the rest of the way to school? Seems a little crazy to me. As always, there is no simple answer. - Liberty_first - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:21 pm: The trouble is the legislature micromanages everything so now they have to micromanage the budget. Rural schools will likely have a worse burden than urban schools. - Ellen Beth Gill - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:23 pm: Nice way to segregate the kids by class. Nice way to create animosity among students and foster bullying. Have we really become this mean? - Bobby Hill - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:24 pm: Sure, I could support it. Heck, I would support a system where people actually pay for all the services they use, if they are able. But proposals like moving pensions to local districts or consolidating districts will never get any traction. The backlog of bills could be $5.5 brazillion dollars and our elected official would still not touch them. - BuckStar - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:24 pm: End result is that “good parents” pay for their childtren to ride and “bad parents” tell their child to walk to schoool?. - Freeman - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:35 pm: Our society has an obligation to get our kids to school and provide them an opportunity at an education. Wealthy or poor, that is a basic service and function of government as earned by virtue of paying taxes. Those kids haven’t made any choices in their lives yet, and should not bear consequences based upon the wealth (or lack thereof) of their parents. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want families choosing between groceries or monthly school bus fare. If forced to choose, I’d rather see slightly increased class sizes before eliminating children’s school transportation. At least give the kids a chance. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:36 pm: Of course. The Illinois Constitution entitles you to a free public education, not a free ride to school. Kids in the city and suburbs take PACE and the CTA to both public and private schools. I see kids on METRA clearly on their way to Catholic high schools. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:37 pm: This is a urban vs rural issue. In cities, with neighborhood schools, it makes some sense. Of course, with many wanting kids in magnet schools since many of the remaining 80% of schools are horrible, they may not like the idea. In rural areas where the KQ mentioned, no - Timmeh - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:49 pm: Looking back on my high school days, I had a 30 minute bus ride. Take that for whatever amount of days I went to school and consider that the costs would be shared between all students riding the bus… still turns out to be quite a bit of money. That’s probably one of the worst case scenarios you’re going to get, but I can see a huge gap between amount of students/amount of money spent for transportation between urban/rural schools. I wonder how much of these transportation costs are driving kids to and from school and how much of them are for extra-curricular activities. For extra-curricular, I don’t mind the idea that there might need to be a fee or a fundraising effort tied to it. But for riding to and from school on a bus, that should be something that is guaranteed, and if the state has the primary responsibility for ensuring our childrens’ education, then they should be the one who has to pay for it. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:51 pm: word: That is a ridiculous argument. Transportation to school is part of education. Get a clue. ***** I voted no. This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Either we are going to support education and fund it adequately, including getting kids to school, or we are not. Pick one. If we are not going to fund it then give me back my money and let me send my kids to whatever school I want. Stupid ideas like this one are one of the reasons we are pulling our kids out of the public school system and home schooling them beginning next year. The entire system is a failure and this is just more evidence of that. Apparently we have completely given up on public schooling in Illinois. This idea is assinine. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:53 pm: “Kids in the city and suburbs take PACE and the CTA to both public and private schools.” Yes, but in our northern suburb the district has to pick up the tab for students living further than 1.5 miles away; they get a free bus pass. Is it fair to charge parents of students who live over a certain distance a fee while students living closer to school escape this cost? - 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:56 pm: No There are enough people already who drive their kids to school and mess up traffic. Lets encourace less traffic by getting all the kids on the bus. - TCB - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 12:58 pm: It’s pretty simple, the current system places no accountability on the districts….it’s pretty much a reimbursement of the costs of transportation. It’s a system that rewards inefficiency, really. The goal isn’t to make anyone pay, it’s to keep districts accountable….and if they want to pay their bus drivers more money & make 40 stops per route then they are welcome to…..at a cost to their students. I’m sure most parents would rather drop their kids off or have them walk to the nearest pick-up spot rather than paying this fee…..so in most cases, things will take care of themselves. Of course there are rural areas that this won’t work in….but I’m confident that there will be some sort of solution here. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:00 pm: When I worked in the city, I saw kids all the time on it going to school. While I understand things are different in rural areas, I have to wonder, how many families that live in isolated rural areas actually rely on bus service today for schools? And how many of those families are rock bottom poor? I think the more likely problem area will be trailer courts too far from the local school (they frequently put them on the edges of towns for zoning reasons). Couldn’t that problem be solved by having income checks? If you are receiving free/reduced lunch you receive free/reduced busing? - Downstate - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:01 pm: I voted yes! In the 1930s, our rural area offered no busing. Amazing how people were able to cope. Several kids might pool together in a vehicle. Other’s that lived more than 10 miles from school ended up staying in town with a relative or friend. It didn’t seem to diminsh the number of doctors, lawyers and succesful indidivuals that our area produced. - Timmeh - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:08 pm: =While I understand things are different in rural areas, I have to wonder, how many families that live in isolated rural areas actually rely on bus service today for schools?= Consider: Where do rural parents work? Perhaps on a farm, but the majority of them need to commute to a town in order to work. Are they going to have the logistical ability to bring their children to school and still fit within regular working hours, even if they had the financial ability to? - cover - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:10 pm: I voted yes, but I do recognize that it’s not entirely clear cut what the current proposal entails, and what the unintended consequences might be. “cermak_rd” @1:00pm has a reasonable idea, students receiving free/reduced lunch also get a school bus subsidy. Many students could be dropped off by a parent who is on the way to work, which for those students would alleviate half of the cost to the school district. A number of commenters have noted that this proposal is more of a problem in rural areas, and I tend to agree. I’m sure something reasonable could be worked out, if people are willing to spend some time sorting out the various pitfalls. - Dan Johnson - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:11 pm: We should be integrating public transit districts into school transportation needs, and this is an opportunity to continue to do that. - Kasich the Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:46 pm: There are too many variables for a yes/no vote. In most rural and suburban districts, heathy students in grades 3 and above — maybe even younger — who live within a mile of their school should be walking along parent-school approved routes. Get older students as patrol guards or hire crossing guards and/or walkers. Some hire walkers for dogs. For distances of a mile or less, it’s cheaper than a bus company contract, is less likely to involve significant kickbacks or “favor” exchanges, and gives more students exercise. - so.... - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:52 pm: I voted yes. The school bus is a convenience that allows the kids to avoid walking and/or the parents avoid dropping them off and picking them up. It’s far better to make people pay for the convenience than cut education spending to balance the books. - mythoughtis - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:57 pm: The reason that parents can wait with thir kids in a car at the bus stop before work is that the bus comes early enough that they can then leave for work. Unless the school offers before school care, they can’t drop their kids off at the school early enough to still get to work. Many rural schools start their before bus routes much earlier than they allow students at school. Similar time frames in the afternoon. Also, in rural districts, the students can’t walk to school… unless you really do want them to walk 5 miles each way on country roads? And, no, sending one’s child to board in a home closer to the school during the week is not an acceptable solution. Do you want hands-on or absentee parents? The first time scmeone’s child gets hit by a car or snatched off the street while walking home from school because no free bus service was available, the lawsuit alone will eat up any savings the district gets from eliminating free bus service. - Louis Howe - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 1:59 pm: Downstate….In 1940 60% of the US population had an 8th Grade education or less. Many, many people never graduated from highschool and only 5% completed college. Today, we need a better educated population, and paying for reasonable bus transportation costs at the state level is money well spent. - Countryboy - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:08 pm: If you live outside the safe walk zone, and are pre-billed by the semester, yes. Any other method, no. How might this impact special ed mandated door to door service? - Freeman - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:15 pm: While my earlier comment was more eloquent, I am reminded of the premise for our most recent tax increase. Pat Quinn: “I want a 1 percent surcharge for education.” IL Gen. Assembly: “Tell you what, Pat. We’ll give you double.” And now, 1 year later, we’re sitting here discussing whether our kids and families should have to pay to attend public school for the first time in Illinois’ history. So much for the “education surcharge”, huh? Others may see this differently, but it’s frustrating to no avail. - G Whiz - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:17 pm: NO. Our rural district has a lot of square miles and low EAV (equalized assessed value) already suffering with 70% poverty and if the already financially struggling school doesn’t provide the transportation, many kids just won’t be in school. We don’t have enough soccer moms with minivans and hummers to drive them to school. This is classic Chicago urban thinking applied to the rest of the sorry state of Illinois and the current power players simply don’t care beyond Cook County. - Confused - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:17 pm: “Of course. The Illinois Constitution entitles you to a free public education, not a free ride to school.” Does that mean I can stop paying my property tax? If it’s free and all… - Irish - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:19 pm: There has to be an understanding of what is involved in this proposal. And I hope those proposing this change will seek input before pushing something through. In our area, north central Illinois, kids might be on a bus for over an hour and a half on their way to school or home. One small school in our area is on a state highway. There are no shoulders, there are no sidewalks. Kids walking to this school would be walking the shoulder of the road, in winter, with speeding cars passing them inches away on a snow packed roadway. Would you allow your child to take that walk twice a day? I wouldn’t. One mile south of this school is an interstate, that same interstate passes within a mile and a half of three other amall schools west of the above school. each of those schools is about eight miles apart. Since the regulations changed on how tall semis could be and bridges had to be altered, several overpasses were eliminated to save money. So kids living a mile and half from these schools have to walk maybe a mile maybe two before they can get to a road that crosses the interstate or they can take their chances running across four lanes of traffic and two fences. Would you want to see those kids making a mad dash twice a day to save money on transportation? Also in our area there are many farmers that have a second job and their wife also works. Unless you have a very large farm you can’t make it on farming alone. Also many people are moving out of the cities and building in rural subdivisions. Most of these folks work. So there aren’t a lot of homes where someone can drive the kids to school. Transporting students is not a one size fits all proposition. All of these things have to be taken into account before we start making policy that drastically reverses a program that people have set their lives around. - ilvalleygal - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:21 pm: Students in my local school district live as far as 12 miles from the school. Get out of Chicago and you will find this is more common as districts consolidated. Schools in the ’30s were one-room and centrally located throughout the townships so the old joke about walking 10 miles up hill both ways is not true. Some of you need to go back and read the original question. For distances of 1.5 miles or less there is NO bus transportation unless a state waiver has been issued. That is based on hazardous traffic conditions such as young children crossing major highways in order to get to school. So, parents can drop the kids off on the way to work? School here starts at 8:05 and the kids aren’t allowed on school grounds before 7:50. Try telling your shift supervisor you won’t be showing up until 8:15 a.m. and somebody else has to cover the first 45 minutes. Bus transportation is not a privelege. We already pay for it through our taxes. Taking an average of transportation costs and then determining that rural school districts covering 20 or more square miles can only get a fraction of what it costs a suburban district where kids all live well within the 1.5 mile radius is not fair to taxpayers or our children. As far as the number of families that rely on bus transportation for their rural students, pretty much all of us do. The majority of rural residents are no longer farmers. Even the handful that still farm must work day jobs and those day jobs do not fit within the hours of a typical school day. I don’t want 5-year-olds walking 5, 10 or 12 miles along a busy state highway to get to and from school. The state budget mess is not a reason to discriminate against downstate residents. This proposal would do exactly that. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:25 pm: –That is a ridiculous argument. Transportation to school is part of education. Get a clue.– It’s a matter of who pays. Local districts are free to pay for their own bus service, are they not? Or is free rural bus transportation one of those entitlements Sen. LaHood was talking about? - mokenavince - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:28 pm: I voted yes when I was going to high school I paid a students ticket on the CTA. From the looks of all the SUV’s at suburban schools it looks to me most parents could afford carfare for their kids. Irish has a point that this is not a one size all fit.I know my folks would be considered the working poor, so I figure most folks would have the fare. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:35 pm: –”Of course. The Illinois Constitution entitles you to a free public education, not a free ride to school.” Does that mean I can stop paying my property tax? If it’s free and all…– You really Confused, dude. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:38 pm: I voted yes because I paid to ride the bus to Oak Lawn High in the 70s. It was a Suburban Transit Big Green Limousine. I’m not sure how this would work in rural areas though. And for whoever said that about people driving their kids to the bus stop way up thread, I have a friend who drives one kid and her husband drives their other kid to their stops. Her kid gets picked up by the bus and then she drives to work–if she drove him to school she’d be late. Their other son goes to a different school and I guess the same holds for her husband. Because they don’t go to neighborhood schools, the stops are kind of far to walk. - southof80 - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:46 pm: Schools “south of 80″ are not built for that many parent drop-offs; the expectations of transportation over the 200 square mile school district; and safety. In addtion, ISBE would not allow free/reduced lunch students to be levied a fee to ride, so over that 200 square miles how many free/reduced students are grouped together???? - AC - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:50 pm: Voted no, this is a convoluted tax increase with high overhead, is difficult to manage, and becomes yet another thing parents with children need to manage. If property taxes need to be increased, I’m all for that, but this seems like a lot of work for a relatively small amount of revenue. - Stateline - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:53 pm: ‘Downstate’, your comment reminds me of the SNL Dana Carvey skit. “We walked three miles to school and we liked it!” The question should be, “How can we increase education opportunities for the children of Illinois?” Instead, we are doing just the opposite. Seventy plus years ago our grandparents realized the importance of providing transportation in order to maximize education opportunities. That generation had a lot less expendable income then than we have today. Their children’s education was near the top of their priorities. Today, our priorities focus on items such as 300 channel televisions, 12 mpg SUV’s, $250k+ homes and telephones with many gadgets. We have become detached to the services provided by our taxes; items such as education, good roads, clean water, public safety, court systems, health, defense, penal system and public transportation. We have the mindset, “if it is government funded then it must be bad and its costs must be cut or eliminated.” Companies are constantly telling our legislative leaders they can not find an adequately trained / educated workforce and at the same time they ask for more tax abatements; the very source that has helped provide school funds for most of the last century. We seem to be going backwards. - ChicagoR - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 2:58 pm: I’m fine with subsidizing school buses if people from downstate are ok subsidizing the CTA and other urban costs. - Bill - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:15 pm: So we are back to the same dilemma. Nobody wants anything cut and nobody wants to pay for anything…and no, selling the state plane won’t solve the fiscal crisis. Either pay more income, sales, and/or property taxes or get your kids to school without state subsidy. What’s it gonna be? - MarkT - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:15 pm: Voted no. Not quite clear what problem this proposed solution addresses. Shifting costs doesn’t reduce them, at least to taxpayers at the bottom of the hill. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:15 pm: ChicagoR: Downstate does subsidize the CTA and other urban costs. Tax dollars go to all of that. ***** The arguments made by some of you about transportation are simply laughable. You are the reason that the education system is so screwed up. Nobody wants to pay for it. Whine, whine, whine is all you do. Pathetic. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:19 pm: Ah, the 30s. And with all those people dieing of polio, pneumonia, tuberculosis, etc, we didn’t have to pay nearly as much for health care for the elderly, either. Those were the days! - ChicagoR - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:20 pm: Demoralized: I know that, and that’s why I think it’s fine. I just get sick of people from downstate complaining about ’subsdizing’ Chicago and proposing that we spin off into our own state. - Shore - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:28 pm: charge wealthy and middle class students, not poor kids. Next. - ChicagoDem - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 3:41 pm: FYI–We all,including downstate taxpayers, subsidize the cost for chicago public school kids who ride the cta!!! these kids get a discount fare!!!! - Robert - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 4:04 pm: Tough choice - yes because it doesn’t seem right for state to pass more costs to the local districts and also not let them implement user fees. But no because this is a horribly regressive tax/user fee on poor families and single parents who work jobs that don’t allow them the flexibility to drop their kid off at school. So I voted no. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 4:17 pm: More infighting among the 99%. Everything is going according to plan for the plutocrats. - Freeman - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 4:43 pm: 1.) Income taxes increase for an “education surcharge” 2.) Property taxes will likely increase if Illinois proceeds with making local school districts take on certain pension obligations 3.) Families may now, for the first time in state history, pay charges for their kids to use school buses. In addition to the income and property tax increases. Why stop there? We atill need revenue, so let’s: - increase school lunch fees - begin charging extra for participation in extracurriculars - raise the prices for admission to athletic events and plays - charge athletes rent for using athletic equipment, and club members for using school facilities - charge for in-person parent/teacher conferences (webchats are more cost-effective and do not require keeping the school open after hours) - offer premium dek and chair rental for students and teachers (since they can learn or teach just as well from mats on the floor, as millions across the world currently do) - begin charging students for Internet access - charge teachers “electric/utility fees” for staying in class after hours to grade papers they could be doing at home We’ll call it education a la carte. As for those kids born into lower-income families? Those who cannot afford the monthly bus fare or Internet fee? They can cut back on groceries. Or skip a few days of school. And they sure won’t be able to afford participating in any activities with classmates. We’ll still take their parents’ tax money, though. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 4:44 pm: I voted yes. Transportation costs could be on a sliding scale so that low-income students pay little to nothing for transportation. Wh - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 4:53 pm: I voted NO. There are a lot parents whose income is at such a low level that their children qualify for free school lunches. How are these parents going to pay for the bus? They won’t. The costs will be passed onto those who can afford it. This is the same end result that we now have with medical costs - those that don’t have it get treated at no cost while all others pay a jacked up fee because we have insurance. So who will end up truly paying for the bus rides? - johhnypizza - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 5:13 pm: I believe that a means test could be readily devised that would allow all to ride, but some to pay - up front at the school. Everyone who has paid or been given a pass could be issued some type of pass to present ono boarding. Of course, figuring out how first and second graders would not lose the pass is another story. Scan code embossed on backpack? - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 5:18 pm: In 30 or 40 years we will be scratching our heads, wondering how the rural residents of IL held onto their bricks and mortar and school buses for so long. Now the buildings stand empty or have been converted to other uses, with most students being tutored online. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 5:47 pm: — increase school lunch fees - begin charging extra for participation in extracurriculars– Haven’t had kids in school for a while, I take it. The fees I pay for my kids free Illinois education are through the roof. And kids have been paying student fares on Metra, Pace and the CTA for some time. - oneman - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 6:37 pm: In the 30`s. Seriously? Most kids didn’t even graduate HS did they back then. Lets not kid ourselves, this “average cost” thing is a move to jerk over rural and large geographic districts. if you are going to cut the payment again you have to move the 1.5 mile limit. But the “stay with family in town”. Give me a break - Freeman - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 8:05 pm: @word - you mean the income tax “education surchage” didn’t help? I’m stunned… stunned I tell ya First and last emoticon from Freeman. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 8:05 pm: For the record, I’m no fool, and I understand that there can be a real hardship for both local districts and rural parents to provide transportation to school. I grew up on a farm, work mostly in the city and live in the suburbs. I understand what’s what in this state and the necessary division of resources to make the best for our statewide community. As an old farm boy, though, the regional and racist divisiveness served up by Sen. LaHood today, and by the Downstate secessionists seemingly every other day, makes my blood boil and deserves to be smacked down as hard as possible. Is breakfast for a hungry kid in Englewood an entitlement? Is a safe ride to school for a farm kid in Macoupin County an entitlement? The answer is no. I’ll work, pay whatever and whistle zippe-do-dah out my old Norwegian backside to pay for education anywhere in the state. I rode the country bus. Old Ivan would pick up everyone from kindergarteners to seniors just out of jail, then roar down those gravel roads like a bat out of hell. The big kids used to steal our lunches and toss the fruit and sandwiches at Ivan while he was driving. To his credit, Ivan never put us in the ditch. After high-balling down the gravel roads in the morning, Ivan would steady his nerves with some highballs and load up at the roadhouse on the county line before loading us all up for the after-school pickup. - MontgomeryCo - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 8:52 pm: Well, if anything, this discussion makes it clear who is from the Chicago area and who isn’t… You need help if you think rural schools are freeloading or mismanaging with regards to their busing systems. It’s hard enough to get kids to school and keep them there on a regular basis. In the district I taught in we had parents who couldn’t/wouldn’t drive 10 miles down to the consolidated high school to pick up a puking kid because they didn’t have a car or didn’t have gas money. - Concerned Parent - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 9:23 pm: Absolutely not! Cuts need to be made in the top heavy administration first and foremost! Superintendents and their retired “assistants” are sucking the bank account dry and the burden as always is pushed on the parents to cough up the money. Governor Quinn is right on to make the local government shoulder the burden of these salaries because it will make them more accountable and not easily hidden in the bureaucracy of the board of education. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 10:15 pm: –In the district I taught in we had parents who couldn’t/wouldn’t drive 10 miles down to the consolidated high school to pick up a puking kid because they didn’t have a car or didn’t have gas money.– That’s a problem. Call Sen. Lahood and see if he thinks it’s a state problem or an expected entitlement. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 10:15 pm: My family paid for bus service all through high school until cars became part of the package about age 16. Grade schools was close enough to walk. But I was a suburban kid then. The bus issue in Oak Park is totally different than busing in Vandalia or Carlinville. This is just another fine example the state simply pushing off responsibility to locals so the state can stay within the tax increase limits. The fact the locals will be forced to raise local taxes to cover the new costs will simply be blown off by the state as not the state’s problem. It’s now a local issue. Tax payer still pays regardless of where it is local, state, county, or federal. - reformer - Tuesday, Apr 24, 12 @ 11:00 pm: State transportation funding has been slashed by 42% since 2010. IL ranks 50th in state funding for K-12 public schools. Yet half the people taking the poll want to prevent school districts from charging fees. Where do they expect the money to come from? - MontgomeryCo - Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 7:46 am: reformer, I’m not against the districts being able to collect fees. What I do know is that any plan or attempt at implementing this is going to most likely meet disastrous results. It will be a nightmare. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 25, 12 @ 9:40 am: Talk to administrators in non-wealthy, low-income schools..they will tell you the troubles they have getting many students to school as it is let alone if the parents had to bring them. For those that live in a city, move to rural for a week and see what happens. Kids aren’t allowed to walk (no sidewalks and unsafe). Either support public education or don’t but transportation for children (do you want the 6 year old walking a mile to school on the side of a road) is part of the education process. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.