Transportation expenses cost schools a lot of money

You never really know what the public is thinking unless you ask.

So we asked.

The latest poll question on the newspaper's Web site -- www.gcdailyworld. com -- asks: Indiana's schools face some tough financial decisions in the near future. To help your school save money, would you be willing to take your child(ren) to school if schools did away with bus service?

The results so far may surprise some. I thought the overwhelming response would be no. But that's not the case.

Through noon Wednesday the results were 49.8 percent yes and 50.2 percent no.

The question was raised because schools do face an unstable financial future. Hundreds of thousands of dollars may need to be cut from school budgets over the next couple of years. Ask any superintendent and they'll tell you they're counting their pennies.

I didn't know until last year when Bloomfield Superintendent Dan Sichting told me that schools aren't required by the state to provide transportation for students to and from school.

Let's hope the current bus transportation system can stay the same for many years to come. It would be a major inconvenience for a lot of people to make such a drastic change.

But I can understand if schools decide to go in that direction. All you have to do is look at how much is spent on transportation to figure out it's a major cost to schools.

The following is a list of the School Transportation Fund for area schools, as recorded in their most recent budget:

* Bloomfield -- $696,660

* Eastern Greene -- $1,493,284.

* Linton-Stockton -- $596,740.

* Shakamak -- $307,297

* White River Valley -- $1,035,000.

Anything to do with transportation is paid out of the School Transportation Fund, including school-owned and contracted bus routes.

Some comments on the Web site poll have suggested that athletics be cut instead of transportation. That's a legitimate suggestion.

So I asked Linton-Stockton Superintendent Nick Karazsia how much money from the school's budget -- from taxpayer's money -- actually goes to the athletic department. He said between 80 and 90 percent of the athletic department is funded by the athletic department (not tax money).

The 10 to 20 percent that isn't funded by the athletic department comes from the school's budget, and most of it is used for maintenance of the athletic fields and gyms. That 10 to 20 percent also includes salaries, though extra-curricular activities salaries have been frozen at Linton-Stockton "through a number of contracts (with the Linton-Stockton Teachers Association) ... two or three contracts," Karazsia said.

"They're still getting paid, but at a level from five, six or seven years ago."

The costs to transport athletic teams is mainly paid for from the athletic department, Karazsia said, though a small portion comes from the school budget.

"Primarily your athletic departments are self-funded. The money they bring in, they in turn put back into the department for the students to provide uniforms and equipment needs," Karazsia said.

He added that workers at all athletic events are paid for by the athletic department.

Though a school's budget does provide maintenance costs for the athletic fields (including lights) and gyms, Karazsia noted that the gyms are used for more than athletic events.

"Yes we have practices and games in the gyms, but we have PE classes, concerts and other activities in the gym. It's not just for athletics," Karazsia explained.

One way schools could save some money is to make the athletic department pay for everything. Will that become a reality? Only time will tell.

The following are some of the comments from the Web site concerning the poll question: