1

1

Transportation Service Plan

Full Implementation: 2013-14 School Year

February 1, 2011 Committee of the Whole

2

Outline

• Context, Framework, and Timeline

• Community Engagement

• Year 1 Recommendations: Fall 2011

• Future Vision: Fall 2013

• Next Steps

• Board discussion and feedback

2

3

Context, Framework, and Timeline

4

Why Change Transportation?

Over the next three years:

• Routes will change so bus services

support the Board of Education’s

strategic plan commitments

• Services will be reduced to minimize the

use of general fund budget

contributions for transportation

3

5

Policy Framework

• Support choice in student assignment as a tactic for creating diversity

• Provide reasonable access

• to English Learner pathways

• from CTIP 1 areas to city-wide schools and programs

• to attendance area school

• Support middle school feeder patterns

6

Current Budget

$6.0 millionTotal funds

$2.30 millionTitle 1(Current NCLB law: 20% of Title 1 funds for transportation

or Supplemental Education Services tutoring for students

attending Program Improvement schools)

$0.14 millionDCYF (field trips)

$1.39 millionTIIBG (Consent Decree)

$2.17 millionState Categorical (can only be spent on transportation)

AmountCurrent Funding: Gen Ed Transportation

3,300 K5 riders + 358 middle school riders = 3,658 ridersCost per student: $1,640 (approx)

4

7

3 Year Budget Reduction Goals

$6.0

$5.16

$4.38

$3.42

8

Assumptions about Budget Reductions

1. State categorical funds will continue at current rate

2. Title 1 funds will continue at current rate anda) By 2013-14 NCLB is reauthorized and funds can be repurposed

for uses other than transportation and supplemental services

or

b) 20% of Title 1 funds must continue to be dedicated to transportation or Supplemental Education Services, and the Board wants to repurpose some Title 1 funds from transportation to expand Supplemental Education Services

3. Any increases in expenses will be offset by increases in revenue

5

9

3 Year Service Reductions

Aligned with Budget Reductions Goals

43% reduction

in service by

2013-14

(19 fewer

buses)

10

Assumptions about Service Reductions

1. Middle school feeder patterns will be

established and will require limited

transportation

2. After school services will be realigned

and will require limited transportation

3. Bell times may need to change to

support the strategic use of limited buses

6

11

Community Engagement

12

Learn More and Provide Feedback

• Transportation Workshop at the School Planning Summit– Saturday, February 12 8:30 am to 12:30pm

– Everett Middle School 450 Church Street

• At each school site– Letter for families– FAQ– Feedback Form– Meetings as requested

• Identifying a dedicated phone number

• Web site www.sfusd.edu/enroll - review information and provide feedback online

7

13

How Will Feedback be Incorporated?

• All feedback received in February 2011 will

be reviewed by SFUSD staff.

• Any changes to the vision for 2013 and/or

routes for 2011 will be finalized and shared

with the public by May 2011.

• We will consider the Board of Education’s

strategic plan commitments and budget

reduction goals.

14

Supporting Families

• Staff from Child Development Programs, After School Programs, and the Educational Placement Center will work together with principals to support families.

• Once we have identified families who will be impacted next year, we will:– help families explore after school options available at

their elementary school or at a nearby Child Development Program;

– assist families who may wish to enroll in a different elementary school for 2011;

– share information about alternative transportation options.

8

15

Alternatives to Yellow Bus

Safe Routes to School provides opportunities at 15 of our elementary schools to make walking and bicycling to school safer and more accessible. Some parent initiated alternatives include Walking School Buses and Bicycle Trains

• www.sfsaferoutes.org

511 School Pool Matching is a free service that helps parents share the responsibility of getting children to school by matching parents with similar school trips.

• www.schoolpool.511.org

MTA/MUNI

• www.sfmta.com

16

Year 1 Recommendations

Fall 2011 for the

2011-12 School Year

9

17

Approach

• Identify service reductions that are aligned

with the vision for 2013 and that minimize

the number of families impacted in the fall of

2011

• Avoid the need to change any school’s bell

schedule for fall 2011

18

Questions Explored

• Which schools will lose service by 2013 and currently have:– few students using the services;

– no/few stops in CTIP1 (low test score) areas; and

– no/few stops at after school programs?

• Which schools will have redesigned routes by 2013 and currently have stops that

– are not at an after school program,

– are not in CTIP1 areas,

– have few riders?

10

19

Recommendations for Fall 2011

• Remove services to 11 elementary schools

• Reduce services to 4 elementary schools

• ½ mile between stops

• Status quo in 2011 for remaining 44 schools

20

Schools Losing Transportation in Fall 2011

2914016270Total

4543799:20 AMYick Wo

1160178:30 AMSutro/ Peabody

200438:30 AMSunset

705147:40 AMMiraloma

00067:40 AMKey

40048:30 AMParker

1270297:40 AMGrattan

10388627:40 AMGarfield

050168:30 AMChavez/ Marshall

# Riders to

CTIP1 Stop

# to Private

After School

# to SFUSD

CDC

Total #

of Riders

Start

TimeSchool

11

21

Chavez/Marshall

22

Garfield

12

23

Grattan

24

Key

13

25

Miraloma

26

Parker

14

27

Sunset

28

Sutro/Peabody

15

29

Yick Wo

30

Schools Reducing Transportation

in 2011

16

31

Approach to Reducing Services

• Begin to redesign stops for schools that will experience a shift in routes by 2013

• Maintain stops to

– SFUSD CDC after school programs

– private after school programs

– CTIP1 areas of the city

• Eliminate stops

– with fewest riders

– relatively close to school

32

Schools Reducing Services in Fall 2011

00090Total

000167:40 AMRooftop

000157:40 AMLilienthal

000279:20 AMClarendon

000329:20 AMAlice Fong Yu

# Riders to

CTIP1 Stop

# to Private

After School

# to SFUSD

CDC

Number

of Riders

Start

TimeSchool

• Existing services for 330330 students at these four

schools may be maintained in 2011-12.

• Additional changes, aligned with the future vision,

will be developed for fall 2012.

17

33

Alice Fong Yu

34

Clarendon

18

35

Lilienthal

36

Rooftop

19

37

After School Services Impacted

Unclear how many students attend after school, but

• 26 students disembark at an SFUSD CDC– Tule Elk: 8 students from Garfield

– San Miguel: 5 students from Miraloma

– Kate Kennedy: 3 students from Yick Wo

• 140 students disembark at a private after school– Columbia Park CC: 5 students from Chavez/Marshall

– Telegraphic Hill CC: 29 students from Garfield and 45 from Yick Wo

– Cross Cultural CC: 3 students from Garfield

– Salvation Army CC: 6 students from Garfield

– JCC: 24 students from Grattan and 3 from Sutro/Peabody

– Booker T: 3 students from Grattan and 3 from Sutro/Peabody

– Salem Boys Club: 9 from Yick Wo

38

Future Vision: Fall 2013

Elementary Schools

General Education Students

20

3939

General Vision for Fall 2013

TodayToday

• Designed in 1980s to support Consent Decree

• $6 million

• 44 buses

• 59 elementary schools

• No enrollment process

In 2 In 2 ½½ Years Years –– Fall 2013Fall 2013

• Designed to support

Board’s current

priorities

• $3.42 million

• 25 buses

• 33 elementary

schools

• Enrollment process

40

Recommendations: Administrative

Develop and implement:

1. Enrollment process for transportation

services

2. Infrastructure for gathering, evaluating, and

responding to requests from the

community

3. Annual evaluation of routes and services

21

41

Which Schools will be Impacted?

• All schools currently receiving services will be impacted:

•Phased out, or

•Redesigned

• Changes will be phased out/in over three years

42

Schools with Redesigned

Transportation by 2013

22

43

Policy Framework

• Support choice in student assignment as a tactic for creating diversity

• Provide reasonable access

• to English Learner pathways

• from CTIP 1 areas to city-wide schools and programs

• to attendance area school

• Minimize the use of general fund budget contributions for transportation

44

Schools with Transportation in 2013

WebsterWebster

Tenderloin, Mission, South of Market, W. AdditionSpring Valley

Treasure IslandSherman

Chinatown, Ingleside, Excelsior, Vis ValleyMoscone

Bayview, MissionMilk

Bayview, Excelsior, Mission, Vis ValleyMEC

Tenderloin, South of Market, MissionLau

Bayview, MissionLakeshore

Treasure IslandChin

Excelsior, Ingleside, Vis ValleyCEC

Proposed area of the city that services may come from

Elementary School

23

45

Schools with Transportation in 2013

Sanchez

Muir

Malcolm X

Harte

Drew

Cobb

Carver

To be determined.

Limited services will be designed to support each

school's academic vision.

Bryant

Proposed area of the city that services may come

from

Elementary

School

46

Schools with Transportation in 2013

xSF

Community

xxRooftop

xRevere

xxLilienthal

xxLawton

xxCarmichael

xxAlice F Yu

WAdditionV ValleyT IslandTenderloinPotreroMissionBayviewK8 Schools

24

47

Schools with Transportation in 2013

xMonroe-S

xxxAlvarado –S

xxxxClarendon-J

xxSF Public

Montessori

xxxWPortal –C

xFlynn-S

xxFairmount-S

xxxCIS@

DeAvila –C

WAdditionVValleyTIslandTenderloinPotreroMissionBayviewK5 Schools

48

25

49

Schools Losing Transportation in 2012 or 2013

SheridanHillcrest

Vis Valley ESReddingGlen Park

UlloaParksEl Dorado

TenderloinOrtegaCleveland

TaylorNew

Traditions

Buena Vista

StevensonMcKinleyArgonne

Starr KingLafayetteAlamo

50

Why Phase Out These Schools?

• We have to reduce the transportation budget by 44% over the next three years; this requires reducing the bus fleet from 44 buses to 25 buses.

• In addition, we need to redesign services to align them with the Board’s current priorities; existing services were designed in the 1980s to support the Consent Decree.

• We identified the services needed to support these two goals. Unfortunately given our budget constraints we are unable to maintain services for all schools.

26

51

52

Next Steps

27

53

Next Steps

• February – share information and gather feedback

– School Planning Summit, February 12

– School level

• Letter to parents, FAQ, Feedback Form

• Meetings as requested

– Web

– Phone

• March and April – review feedback

• May – share any revisions with the Board

54

Board Discussion and Feedback