|
Post by warriorpride on Nov 12, 2008 6:49:27 GMT -5
Because the costs should have gone DOWN with 3 HS instead of 2. Not as much so in '09 or even '10 - still need to double-bus a number of areas (a few areas to both NV and WV and a number of areas to both WV and MV).
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Nov 12, 2008 8:36:10 GMT -5
Because the costs should have gone DOWN with 3 HS instead of 2. Not as much so in '09 or even '10 - still need to double-bus a number of areas (a few areas to both NV and WV and a number of areas to both WV and MV). Good point. It's amazing to be able to keep the cost so close to this year's.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 12, 2008 9:04:58 GMT -5
So all the talk about lower transportation costs with a third HS was bunk?
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Nov 12, 2008 9:14:17 GMT -5
So all the talk about lower transportation costs with a third HS was bunk? How could there be lower costs the first two years when buses are still running the old routes plus the new ones? Also - lower costs with the 3rd HS than now, or lower costs with the 3rd HS than without a 3rd HS? I still fail to see how it could be the former.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Nov 12, 2008 9:15:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 12, 2008 11:01:50 GMT -5
Regarding that thread/analysis, can someone explain how the distance for WE is the same (1.25) for both BB and AME? Clearly that is flat out wrong.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Nov 12, 2008 11:54:51 GMT -5
Regarding that thread/analysis, can someone explain how the distance for WE is the same (1.25) for both BB and AME? Clearly that is flat out wrong. I believe GD was saying that the "as the crow flies" distance to BB for WE was 1.25 miles and the distance to WV is also 1.25 miles.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Nov 12, 2008 12:12:13 GMT -5
Regarding that thread/analysis, can someone explain how the distance for WE is the same (1.25) for both BB and AME? Clearly that is flat out wrong. Sure, I can explain the difference. No, its not flat out wrong. Read the definition I used in starting the thread....for distances I looked at a map, used WE ES as the starting point definition, and swung a compass. I just double-checked it. It is darn near on the same compass radius from WE ES to WV as it is to the BB farmland. Therefore, for the analysis I did, by my definition they are the same. Yes, I picked the definition to a large degree because it was easiest. And BG did the same thing in 2006. In fact, as was discussed, this definition probably systematically favored BB, when being compared to the AME boundaries. Is it the very best definition? Nope. If you want to spend more time and improve the definitions you are welcome to. I dont think the district-wide results would change much, so I dont think its much worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Nov 12, 2008 12:16:47 GMT -5
Regarding that thread/analysis, can someone explain how the distance for WE is the same (1.25) for both BB and AME? Clearly that is flat out wrong. I believe GD was saying that the "as the crow flies" distance to BB for WE was 1.25 miles and the distance to WV is also 1.25 miles. thanks, Weneed, for reading the definition! Whoa.....school lunch thread and we are talking Brach Brodie mileages.....yikes :
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Nov 12, 2008 13:45:12 GMT -5
Whoa.....school lunch thread and we are talking Brach Brodie mileages.....yikes : Yes, GD, I thought the same thing. As for bussing, I think it would make sense to stay with an entity that is familiar with our routes etc. since we are going to be going through some major changes in the next year with the new school. I see people complaining why we can't do two things at once. I could also see the complaints when we hire a new firm to do our transportation with the new school and there's havoc on the first day. Guess I know who would get blamed for that too. Getting back to the school lunch thing, I got this from the blue board courtesy of doc..... ************************************************** Okay - new consultant in the game - Mr Burgess brought in to examine why the 204 program is losing money. ( see below) Well here is some feedback from the working session yesterday that explains some of the issues:
99% of public schools participate in the NSLP program (Dist. 203, Plainfield, Oswego, etc., all participate). It is not a quality issue but a quantity issue. Terry Burgess suggested that Sodexho currently provides school lunches to other districts as well and in all likelihood already receives commodities (flour, cheese, etc) from the NSLP program. The government sends the commodities directly to the food service provider. He indicated that the flour and cheese, as an example, would be used by Sodexho to make pizzas. Schools are given highest grade products to use. When asked why IPSD 204 is among the 1% not actively participating in the program, he said he had a one word answer: “Tradition.” There seems to be nothing to lose by participating in NSLP and everything to gain. Quality is not sacrificed; it appears we are missing out on an opportunity to be reimbursed by the government for the food we purchase. Us taxpayers are paying 100% of the food service bill.
Made known was the fact that $600,000-$700,000 a year is paid to lunch room monitors. This seems like a large amount. Mr. Burgess seemed surprised at this figure as this is apparently not the standard. The example given was that typically there are two lunchroom monitors for 150 kids in the lunchroom, which would be fair example of our ES scenarios. Instead, we employ anywhere between 4 and 10 monitors depending on the ES (hearing Patterson has had up to 10 during a lunch period). He also indicated that he observed that the monitors job sometimes extended to the playground. These monitors are not employees of Sodexho but in all likelihood the majority are parents. When the question was asked how many monitors were represented in the $600-700,000 figure, the information was not available.
Mr. Burgess also indicated that he was surprised at the low participation rate in our lunch program at all levels -- reasons ?
I had one thouht. When I did a shadow day @ Hill they release the kids to the lunch lines by table -- there are maybe 30 tables (?) - if you are at one of the front tables - this is certainly no issue as lunch was retrieved in maybe 3-5 mins from getting inline. However if you are one of the tail end tables - the end of lunch period comes very quickly - so I am sure the kids would rather start eating right away than wait to gobble it down- especially say one has gym afterwards. I don't pretend to have a solution to this, just a thought on one of the reasons participation may be lower.**************************************************** I know my daughter only buys lunch on the days that her table gets to go first otherwise she doesn't have time to eat and chat. I also think the 60% number mentioned in the article is a bit ambitious. Given what my daughter explains is her "lunch" which is usually a soft pretzel and some other garbage and then given what that "lunch" costs, I can see this luxury only going down in participation percentages.
|
|