Peggy Revell
Updates to the Rainy River District School Board’s transportation policy are on their way but whether they’re the solution parents are looking for remains up in the air.
The school board moved to send proposed changes to Transportation Policy 7.1 for stakeholder consultation at last week’s meeting—a step that follows vocal criticism from parents across the district over the current policy’s inability to accommodate such issues as child care, custody arrangements, work schedules, and emergencies.
While glad to see some changes coming forth, Stratton resident Jackie McCormick said the proposed policy still doesn’t address many of the issues she brought forth to trustees at the board’s meeting in December—and urged parents and community members to get in touch with school councils and other stakeholders to voice their concerns.
“I’m hoping that as many people as possible can get some input into the policy and hopefully we can get it clarified,” said McCormick, who spearheaded and submitted a petition to the board with more than 400 names asking that its transportation policy be revisited.
The deadline for stakeholder feedback is March 25.
“I’m optimistic,” said local parent Andrew Labbe, who has resorted to driving his children to and from school when he has custody of them.
Under the old policy, Labbe’s four-day on, four-day off work schedule was deemed to be not regular enough to have his children dropped off at his home by the school bus—something he hopes will change under the proposed new policy.
“I’m glad to see that the wheels are turning, but I’ll believe it when I see it,” he remarked.
The proposed changes to the busing policy fall into three main areas: regular and fixed patterns, alternative addresses, and courtesy transportation.
Instead of defining what a regular and fixed pattern is, the proposed policy states that when it comes to a child’s schedule, “Parents are encouraged to work with the board to try and adjust schedules to establish a regular and manageable weekly schedule for busing.”
“Schedules are to be submitted to the transportation department well in advance of the start of the school year,” it adds. “The transportation department will work with parents and principals well in advance to try and establish a regular manageable schedule to accommodate custodial arrangements while maintaining student safety.”
Under the proposed new policy, the alternative address must be on the student’s present route, and must not result in a route extension or an additional stop.
Or if another bus is required for an alternative address, this may be provided if there is room on the other bus.
Three days to two weeks’ notice would be required for changes, except in the case of emergencies.
“I think that it’s a good thing that they’re going to allow alternative transportation,” McCormick said.
But instead of the three days to two weeks’ notice, she felt the board should set an exact time—or better yet, allow requests to be made up to the time of dismissal on the day in question.
“Information flow” from transportation office to school, and vice-versa, was the reason she was given as to why this time frame was needed, McCormick noted.
“[But] we live in an age of pretty much instantaneous communication, that in my mind that doesn’t hold much water,” she reasoned.
The proposed policy also defines “emergency” as death or severe illness with the student’s immediate family.
“I have huge issues with the emergency guidelines that they’ve put forth,” McCormick said.
“It’s often not a student’s immediate family who is receiving a child off the bus,” she reasoned, citing the example of how a baby-sitter having to be rushed to the hospital wouldn’t count as an “emergency” in this situation.
The current policy—and definition of “emergency”—also doesn’t solve the issue if parents are called into work unexpectedly, McCormick added—something the board’s own employees—such as educational assistants and substitute teachers—even experience.
“They don’t meet the three-day requirement, it’s not an emergency, what are they supposed to do?” she wondered.
An alternative of getting someone else to meet the child when they’re dropped off isn’t feasible, either, for parents such as herself, McCormick explained, noting those she would ask have their own kids they have to meet at home.
As well, McCormick said privacy should be respected when it comes to the nature of an emergency, and that the reason behind the emergency shouldn’t have to be shared to the board.
McCormick also is skeptical about safety being cited as the reason why certain changes can’t be made.
“If they say it’s unsafe, we need to have some evidence, but I’ve asked on several occasions and they can’t provide any evidence,” she remarked, stressing that numbers or written documents should be provided for these decisions.
She also said more evidence is needed on the issue of bus drivers being upset if drop locations for students change—but no questionnaires, testimonials, or other evidence has been provided for this reason.
Also updated as part of the proposed busing policy is courtesy transportation, with secondary school students being allowed to receive courtesy busing for employment or academic programming if the request is on an existing route, results in no additional stops or route extensions, and is accompanied with written information of employment and permission of the parent/guardian.
As well, secondary students may use busing for medical appointments with two weeks’ notice—again if there is no route extension or additional stop.
The policy also saw the addition of a subsection which states that, notwithstanding the above cases, “the board is not obligated to provide transportation and may refuse to do so in specific cases where the distance is deemed excessive, the cost prohibitive, or where the pick-up/drop-off point is dangerous to the safety of those concerned.”
Since issues concerning the transportation policy were brought to the newly sworn-in trustees in December, revision of the policy has been underway by both the board’s transportation and policy committees.
The board also has gathered input from parents, parent councils, principals, bus operators, transportation partners, individual trustees, and the ministry, board chair Michael Lewis said during March’s meeting.
“The goal is to try and provide a transportation policy that would provide safe arrival and transportation to students, and one that tries to fit as many individual needs of parents as possible, and a policy that has to be interpreted and used by many different schools, small and large, throughout the district,” Lewis noted.
Lewis also stressed it’s not possible to meet every single demand when it comes to busing.
“However, trustees and the transportation department have been working very closely together to try and accommodate as many individual demands as we can,” he remarked.
