Privatized school bus/budget cuts blamed for fatal school bus accident

[Hannah Bell]

As a retired driver with 25 years on the job I know driving a school bus can be very rewarding and at the same time very stressful. Drivers are constantly under the gun to transport children as quickly as possible and to get to a second or third school. At the same time they are transporting anywhere from 25 to 40 students without any type of assistance.

Due to the continuous downsizing and budget cuts, in the early 1980s the school board eliminated transportation aides who were there to monitor and protect the children on buses. If an aide had been on the bus last week this tragedy would never have happened. Because of the law there are still aides on buses transporting special education students—at least for now—but not on regular routes.

In addition, the school authorities have been outsourcing transportation services to private companies for years in order to cut costs. These for-profit bus companies pay lower wages and are under pressure to cut corners on safety and training. The bus Tiffany was on was not a Detroit Public School bus but belonged to a subcontractor DHT Transportation. Because their pay is so low many drivers for the subcontractors do several runs in order to earn a 40-hour a week paycheck.

Now the school system’s Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb is outsourcing all student transportation, a move that will throw hundreds of experienced, professional drivers out of their jobs. Bobb says this will save $49 million and improve safety. Tell that to the family of Tiffany Lynn Ross-DiCicco!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/mary-m27.shtml

[jody]

1. Many states use contractors for school bus service. Is it inherently more effective & efficient

to let government do that job than private businesses as the OP article implies?

[Hannah Bell]

3. it is when the privatizers cut reasonable safety features & lower wages.

[jody]

8. As with any contract for services, the contractee is responsible for insuring relevant goals for

cost, schedule, and performance are including in the contract and for insuring the contractor satisfies those requirements.

I see no reason to believe management, i.e. contractee, can insure government employees meet cost, schedule, and performance goals but mysteriously becomes incapable of insuring contractors meet those same cost, schedule, and performance goals.

[Hannah Bell]

16. that sentence doesn't even make sense.

because government workers are paid to do a job, not to make a profit.

that's why social security has been run cheaper, more efficiently, & with fewer scandals & frauds than any private operation in history.

that's why the parks department was a model for 50 years.

it's when private contractors get involved that troubles begin: i.e. the military, health care, parts of agriculture, the new privatized research sector, etc.

corruption up to your neck.

[jody]

18. "that sentence doesn't even make sense" is why you and I disagree on the issue. We interpret facts

differently.

I've worked in the private and public sector as perhaps you have also.

Out experiences lead us to different conclusions and that's what makes politics so frustrating because divisive issues can become polarizing.

In this case one either opposes privatizing bus service or supports it or as a compromise position agrees that privatizing a formerly public service is acceptable if studies show that it is the most effective alternative.

I support that last option and others may push 100% public or 100% privatizing.

[Hannah Bell]

20. i meant i had to read it three times before i understood what you were

trying to say.

"if studies show" -- studies done by who?

why don't we just look at history?

[jody]

22. OK, you lost me, I did not use the phrase "if studies show" on this branch of the thread. Did I say

that on another branch?

[Hannah Bell]

25. you used it in post 18, this thread:

In this case one either opposes privatizing bus service or supports it or as a compromise position agrees that privatizing a formerly public service is acceptable if studies show that it is the most effective alternative.

[jody]

26. Thanks. In context "if studies show" is whenever a study shows one option, public or private, is

more cost effective than the other, then that alternative should be chosen.

In fact there have been many such studies showing public services can be provided more effectively and efficiently by private sources than public sources.

One obvious set of examples is every federal contract awarded under Circular A-76 given particular emphasis by President Carter and every subsequent president.

The A-76 program is governed by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, "Performance of Commercial Activities." The basic tenant of the A-76 program is that functions should be performed in the most efficient and cost effective way regardless of whether that is with government employees or contractor personnel. In accordance with OMB Circular A-76, this determination is made by conducting a competition for the function(s) under study between the government and private contractors.

As a voter that's the type of decision I expect my representatives to make and to appoint managers to public positions in which they serve as stewards of public funds.

[donco6]

33. I can make anything look "cost-effective."

I'll bet BP can, too.

There's more to transporting children than going with the lowest-bidder.

[jody]

40. If you can "can make anything look 'cost-effective'" then you will certainly win many contracts.

Here's to your success with your business ventures. :toast:

[donco6]

42. Yeah, sure.

If I had no scruples, I'm sure I'd be as successful as BP. Fortunately for my 6000 kids, I'm not that unscrupulous.

[LWolf]

6. Privatization focuses effectiveness and efficiency on cost, not on safety. nt

[jody]

7. Not necessarily. Federal Performance-Based Services Acquisition (PBSA) focuses on cost, schedule and

performance as do contracts in general.

I see no reason to believe privatization is inherently less effective and efficient than government run programs particularly since "safety" is a fundamental part of any contract definition of "performance" and also included in any definition of "effectiveness".

[LWolf]

9. A comparison

between privatized services and public services, at least in the public ed sector, which I have seen for myself, might help illuminate the point. In the end, though, private companies exist to make money. Public services exist to serve.

Two different priorities.

[jody]

10. You seem to be saying that ALL privatized services are inherently less effective/efficient than

public services.

I assume that includes such government services as USPS. :shrug:

[LWolf]

15. I seem to be saying that, having worked in public education for 27 years,

and having seen and experienced the difference between privatized services and district provided services, including transportation, over 27 years, in 2 states, and large and small districts, I find the district-provided services to be safer and higher quality.

[jody]

19. I'll accept your experience "district-provided services to be safer and higher quality" but that

only prompts an obvious question, "Why are district-provided services safer and higher quality than privately provided services?"

Perhaps the public agency responsible for contracting a service is staffed with incompetent managers but one then wonders how those same managers if they are incompetent can manage a public organization performing the very same service?

[LWolf]

27. The answer seems clear to me.

They have different priorities. Money-making vs. service.

[jody]

28. Do you then oppose federal contracts under A-76, see # 26 above, that were emphasized by Carter and

every subsequent president?

[Catshrink]

34. I find the USPS very efficient.

and economical. I can mail a BD card on a Monday and it will reach its destination on Wednesday all for 44¢. UPS, DHL, or FedEx would cost substantially more. I get mail everyday, if I have a package my carrier walks it to my door and conceals it so it isn't visible from the street.

I absolutely hate it when people beat up on the PO. Is it perfect? No. But it's pretty damn good.

And BTW, my dad worked for the PO for 33 years - a union job that put me and my sibs through school. We had a nice little house and although at times we struggled to make ends meet, it was a living wage. He retired with an adequate pension (no SS with the PO) that enabled my parents to live comfortably frugal until they died. Leave this to private enterprise and there is no living wage, no retirement, just a permanent under class.

[jody]

37. Then how can UPS, FEDEX, et al private mail services survive and why is USPS operating at a loss? nt

[readmoreoften]

11. Yes. What will a private company do except cut salaries and costs? How else would they get profits?

:eyes:

[jody]

13. IMO government organizations producing the same service as private organizations fear competition

and vice versa only when one group can do the same job more efficiently while maintaining the same level of effectiveness.

As I said in #8 "I see no reason to believe management, i.e. contractee, can insure government employees meet cost, schedule, and performance goals but mysteriously becomes incapable of insuring contractors meet those same cost, schedule, and performance goals."

[Hannah Bell]

17. imo the private sector fears competition, that's why they rig everything.

[jody]

21. The OP was about bus service and our exchange has broadened to privatizing all government services.

If you are convinced that the private sector rigs everything then the only solution is for society to own and operate the means of production of all goods and services.

Seems to me that was tried by Russia and China and after acknowledging it's failure they reverted to a competitive economic system.

[Hannah Bell]

29. because you broadened it. immediately.

[jody]

30. If you mean #1 in which I mentioned "school bus service" and then asked "Is it inherently more

effective & efficient to let government do that job than private businesses as the OP article implies?" then I plead guilty.

However, ether my question is legitimate relative to the OP or one must believe the answer to my question is "no".

I again ask the same question but don't expect an answer because federal, state, and local governments contract for all types of services for the simple reason it is cost effective.

If one wants to focus on a specific case where fraud, corruption, and mismanagement were part of a services contract, then there are many examples but that does not mean that privatizing public services is not cost effective.

[donco6]

32. It's much safer for schools to perform this task.

I have no profit motive (but that's not saying I'm not cost-concious).

I can personally monitor all the drivers and their training programs. I get to hire the drivers and monitor them personally as they come to work each day. I get to monitor the buses and the maintenance logs. I get updates from the Dept. of Education transportation dept regarding new recommendations and how to implement them. I'm accountable to the parents directly for anything that happens.

Privatization of busing is a huge mistake. I do it better.

[jody]

38. Why is it "safer for schools to perform this task"? n/t

[donco6]

41. For the reasons I just gave. n/t

[jody]

43. Thanks but many private school bus companies do the same job effectively and more efficiently. n/t

[donco6]

44. I disagree.

That's why we won't use them.

[jody]

45. Interesting, is that a local or state decision "we won't use them"? n/t

[donco6]

47. Local. Other districts do it.

Denver uses Mayflower. I won't, because I don't think their training program is nearly as rigorous as ours. Also, I don't like not being able to hire the drivers or the bus paras that ride and monitor the special ed students. Finally, I don't think their drug monitoring program is as thorough as ours. Finally, I've not had anyone show me how they could actually save us any money at all, and I've had them try. They come up with these ridiculous calculations, and when you poke at them, you find all sorts of assumptions (we'll just cut the routes at 1.5 miles, even if it means the kids have to cross Washington Street at 104th Avenue on foot). Stupid and unsafe.

[jody]

49. What percentage of your state's school buses are provided by private companies? n/t

[donco6]

50. Pretty low, but I don't know.

I just know what I see driving around the metro area, and that's probably the only area that could be profitable. I know DPS has Mayflower, as I said. Maybe Springs . . . ? But I haven't seen any there. I haven't seen Jeffco with any, but that's a big county.

[jody]

51. Thanks. n/t

[Catshrink]

52. By slashing drivers' wages.

Just like Walmart. Who cares if someone can earn a living wage?

[Catshrink]

35. Let's cut to the chase here

Do you believe in a liveable wage?

[jody]

39. What does "liveable wage" have to do with the OP? The OP blames private school buses for accidents.

You now want to use "liveable wage" as a cause of a "fatal school bus accident"!

[Tansy_Gold]

2. Recced it up to -0-

shit.






TG

[bluestateguy]

4. Ambulence chasers

nt

[NotThisTime]

5. Our town used private companies, that bus was unruly. Our private bus for our private school had a

mandatory aid and the students were kept safe... the aid on said bus literally saved my daughters life when she was 6 and needed the Heimlich because she was eating on the bus when she shouldn't have and the food got caught in her throat. Every bus private or public for school children should have an aid that has first aid training, schools should demand it.

[thelordofhell]

12. It's not only transportation

Private companies are wining and dining school administrators and school board members so they will roll over on privatizing all non-teaching aspects of a school. Cafeteria services, janitorial services, transportation services are all becoming privatized.

[DebJ]

14. What a sad world when aides are even needed. I went to

school in the 1960s and 1970s, and no bus ever had any aides. We were baby-boomer students; those buses were packed completely full all of the time. Never needed an aide. We had self-discipline, respect and concern for the safety and happiness of others.

What a sad, sad, sad world.

[jody]

23. Agree, I started riding a school bus 1 hour each way in 1941. Troublemakers were disciplined in

school and again when they got back home.

I agree, "What a sad, sad, sad world."

[donco6]

31. Now we have to have video just to prove to parents that Johnny really did something.

They simply won't believe it without video evidence.

[William Z. Foster]

24. get with the program

The government does not have the expertise or equipment to do this job.

If you don't know how to build a school bus, than you have no basis to say anything about this.

Don't worry, we can fine the perpetrators later.

Congress will be working on some legislation about this.

It is not practical or realistic to expect government to do this.

School buses crash - this is the reality and people need to face reality. I know that facts are pesky things. I wish it never happened, don't get me wrong, but it always has and always will.

The government has no authority to take over school buses.

There is no reason to think that government could run this any better than a private company.

This is complicated and it is best of we leave it to the experts.

"We" can't afford to be doing things like this.

If you don't like it, there is a simple solution - don't put your kids on school buses.

It is in the private company's own BEST INTEREST not to kill school kids.

It will take a long time to transfer these things over to the government, and the kids need to get to school right now.

Is it perfect? No. But then what is?

If you think you could do a better job, why don't you start your own bus company?

It is easy to be negative and criticize, but we need solutions!

This is all the fault of Republicans, so you should blame them.

[mwooldri]

36. I'm not against privatization of school buses at all.

In fact I find it a shocking WASTE that school systems purchase a whole great big fleet of buses, exclusively for the use of transporting students to and from school, and for that purpose alone. And when there are these things called school holidays, especially these long summer ones, they just sit there... doing nothing for the most part.

IMO what is needed is for a hybrid school/commuter bus to be developed and put into service. (the bus could be also hybrid or alternatively fueled powered but I'm talking about the extra blending between school bus and commuter bus). Vehicles could be put to more productive use. More people can be employed, using the same buses etc to expand or even introduce public transit systems where they are needed. For safety's sake, seatbels can be installed on every seat which all students would be required to wear - and pressure pads on the seats along with switches in the clips will alert the driver to any unbelted passengers. For efficiency's sake as a transit bus this could be bypassed by the driver (but noted in a bus "black box" which records the buses every move).

Private contractors can then combine some routes to allow their employees to work a 40 hour work week, they can employ extra part time help for special school-only routes, and cities that have inadequate or even no public transit systems now have the resources ironically paid through the school budget to put such a transit system into place (though other funds can be found and made use of). Vehicles would be more comfortable, more accessible, they could have a travelling wifi hotspot on the bus, and actually be made desirable to ride the bus so that high school students aren't running around in cars to and from school.

The buses can still be painted mainly yellow. The buses would still look on the outside like a school bus with a stop arm and flashing lights and "School Bus" on the back and front. But when doing transit duty the School Bus signs change electronically to a route number and destination. Also it can be made hi-tech, so the buses can be tracked by GPS and passengers - students and the travelling public will be able to know EXACTLY where their bus is if it is late etc by going to a website or accessing a mobile friendly site on their mobile phone to see its location, speed, etc.

All that is needed is for the local authority who puts these contracts up to tender make the contract absolutely clear as to what it is for, under what terms, vehicle specifications, working conditions for the operators etc - and see if the bids come in that way. Put in service guarantees in there too, so that if the private contractor fails in their duties they can be fined appropriately.

I had good friends in the UK who worked for a commercial bus company and they bid for and won a number of school bus route contracts. They actually used modified transit buses - seat belts, school bus signage - and employed several part time drivers to operate the routes. The transit buses could also be kept as spares for their main operation of daily transit routes, so if a vehicle is out of service, a "school bus" can be used to fill in whilst the vehicle is being repaired... of course the company had other "spare vehicles", yes at one point they pushed into service a 1930's fully restored bus for weekend transit service ...

Sadly that company made a few bad business decisions and did not win the contracts it expected to keep the revenue coming in and the new contracts provided less subsidy. As such, expenses exceeded revenues, the receivers were called in and the bus company was wound up that very day. The county had to scrabble around other bus companies to get emergency replacement services and ended up paying much more to the other companies to supply the services than what would have been done if they paid the original company more money. The managers and owners of the now defunct bus company had a heart - they paid their drivers more than the big companies, provided more time off, did not operate any Sunday routes, treated their customers with great courtesy, had newer and more comfortable vehicles and lower fares. It was sad to see them go, but I honestly feel they were running the bus company more as a public service than a profit making company - however if the company is losing money hand over fist it either needs more money, to cut costs, or to cease trading. It couldn't get any more money (loss of contracts, contracts renewed at lower subsidy levels, decreasing ridership), some costs were cut but there was not much to pare out there (they leased a lot of their vehicles in the end rather than purchased outright as they did in the past) so the company had no choice but to call in the receivers, and the receivers were cold hearted enough to say "all vehicles come in NOW at 10am... some drivers obeyed, other drivers ran their shift til the end (including the school runs), took the takings from the fares, returned their buses and that was that... calling up the bigger companies asking for work (which a lot of them did... albeit at lower pay and worse conditions).

Private/public partnerships CAN work, if done right.

[donco6]

46. Our buses are busy most of the year.

During summer, they're hardly "sitting around". We have summer school through June for quite a few kids. Then we transport all YMCA kids through a contract we have with them. We hire out for Denver city events to transport convention-goers to attractions. And then there's just some down-time needed to do our routine maintenance on the buses, most of which we knock out during the summer.

Would the public/school buses transport students and the public at the same time?

[mwooldri]

53. That's a good use of the school bus system...

... I'm glad to hear that your buses are actually being used apart from the normal to/from school duties, because there are a lot of school systems to me on appearance that don't do this... our county has "Activity Buses" for some purposes - and definitely not the newer vehicles. Summer School exists, but it's no where near the level of population that goes to the regular sessions, and the Activity Buses do the field trips, so we have these yellow buses parked en masse in parking lots during school time, and for some time after school, and definitely all day weekends. There's all this infrastructure in this county that could be put to good use.

Where I grew up, and this company that went bust, in theory the public could ride the school bus at the same time as the students, but because the route was to school in the morning and from school in the evening - although the bus company would sell you a ticket, they'd advise you they're stopping at XYZ place and that's it for the day. Also some of the public transit routes detour to the schools to pick up students on what would be traditionally a public bus route, and stops off at regular public bus stops - or in certain areas, in a safe place close to their home. Once upon a time I did take a schools bus to work on a regular basis as a fare paying passenger, because the direct way into town was held up with traffic works and the regular route buses are just stuck there going nowhere fast, but the schools bus went a different route and detoured around the traffic jam - allowing me to get to work on time despite the fact that the buses left at about the same time!

Incidentally the colour scheme of this bus company was mainly yellow with a blue stripe in the middle with the company name, and a grey coloured roof. Almost school-bus-color-ish.

[Citizen Worker]

48. The hidden danger of driving/riding in any school bus

There is a far greater danger in school buses, one that is not talked about let alone any remedial action. The hazards associated with exposure to diesel exhaust fumes have been under study for over 20 years and the results reveal long term health consequences for drivers and students. Diesel particulate matter measures 1 micron which means they can be aspirated deep into the lungs and cannot be expelled naturally. Attached to these minute particles are thousands of different chemical compounds that raise the risk of long term health factors for years. Health issues such as lung cancer, myeloid leukemia, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, etc. The particulate matter gets inside the bus through the roof vents aided by the intake fans on the vents, through the non-air tight emergency exit doors and the side windows all to be inhaled by the occupants. Fumes are far worse in the rear of the bus, in rear engine buses, than in the front.

Can't be you say? Google "health hazards associated with exposure to diesel exhaust fumes" and you should get somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 hits. Read a few of the reports and then get your kids off the damn buses.