- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
corner peel


bedroom, bath


4 bedroom, 4 bath

New Middletown

4 bedroom, 4 bath

- Advertisement -

« Polls

Should public school districts be required to transport parochial students directly to their schools?

2261 total votes


1Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

You pay tax to use the public schools
Use them or pay . And that is for all private schools not just parochial.
Stop sucking off the taxpayers
And then say(Lie) how good you are.

Suggest removal:

2taxpayer1001(274 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

the school district should only be responsible if the kids go to school in their district. outside of it, transport your own kid!

Suggest removal:

3NoBS(2841 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Separation of church and state, anybody?


It's kind of long, but it's an interesting history.

Parochial schools pay a token amount (at least they used to) to the public school systems in order to have use of the public school buses. If we need to tighten our collective belts, then the parochial schools and private schools can either pay the full amount it costs for a bus and driver, or they can buy and maintain their own bus fleet.

Suggest removal:

41loaf(100 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

BS You seem to forget the taxes that fund the school coming from those parents. But of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

Suggest removal:

5seagull173(5 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Parochial school parents pay taxes for the public schools therefore they should be allowed busing or a refund of taxes. If all these parochial kids ended up going to public schools, property taxes would increase big time to accomodate their attendence. Parochial parents are saving the taxpayers money by sending their kids to private schools.

Suggest removal:

6Education_Voter(1174 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Sure they can use them to reasonable schools. Not schools they choose to go to that are miles outside of the school district borders.

Suggest removal:

7Westsider(269 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I can't believe the sense of entitlement some people possess.....

Suggest removal:

8georgejeanie(1543 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

If all the parochial kids went to the public school imagine how many more union teachers we would have to hire. Then e verybody could be as uneducated taking remedial classes in college, dropping out of school like many in the Youngstown area. getting "A's" just to pass them along, then realinzing that the public education system they were in was not doing the job.

Suggest removal:

9NoBS(2841 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

1loaf(76 comments)posted 1 day, 11 hours ago

BS You seem to forget the taxes that fund the school coming from those parents. But of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

loaf - yeah, those taxes go to support public schools and all their ancillaries. Those taxes entitle their kids to go to public school. There's no provision for anything other than the local public school.

And, loaf, WHAT agenda is that, that you claim I have?

Suggest removal:

10doubled(210 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Freeatlast -- you're a moron. The people that send their kids to parochial schools pay the same property taxes you do. Which go towards supporting the schools district. So when you tell them to pay for it if they want to use it -- they already are. Get a freaking clue.

Suggest removal:

11Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Then send them to the public schools
That is what your taxes pay for .
I put 4 kids thought private schools
( non Parochial ) and paid for them BECAUSE that was my choice .I did not want them in the Boardman ( Drugman) schools One was in Pittsburgh and 3 in Cleveland and I did did not ask or think you should pay for it . I DO HAVE A CLUE . You are just looking for a hand out

Suggest removal:

12NoBS(2841 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

doubled, you're the one who needs to get a freaking clue. Parents of parochial school kids choose to send their kids to schools outside of what's provided by taxpayer dollars. They pay for PUBLIC school educations, buses, and all that. If they sent their kids to the same school system they send their money to, they could use what they pay for. Nobody's stopping them. They choose to do something that taxpayers are not responsible for funding. That's on them, not everyone else.

Suggest removal:

13gopherjr(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Get your own ride

Suggest removal:

14Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

That also means if you do not drive you should not pay tax for the roads , If you have a gun you should not pay for the police or if you have a hose no tax for fireman .
Tax is not a Ala Carte system , if you live in a community you pay the going tax ,it is up to you if you wish to take part .

Suggest removal:

15poland21(108 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

The real question is if public schools should be required to bus students to ANY school or just within their city or township borders.

How are all the students utilizing open enrollment handled? Does Austintown but them from their home district? Or does their home district bus them to Austintown?

Suggest removal:

16valleyred(1103 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Absolutely yes. They are transporting them to a school building, they are not teaching them anything on the bus.

These parents pay taxes to the public school district and are required by law to receive safe and timely transportation of their children.

Suggest removal:

17poland21(108 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

But let's say you live in Struthers but want your child to go to Austintown should busing be provided?

Now what if it the scenario was changed to be you live in Poland but want your child to go to St Nick's in Struthers instead of Holy Family. Should busing be provided?

There has to be a line somewhere or a single school district could be running shuttles all over the county.

I don't know the background of this Austintown decision, but I am curious what the actual number of children who are without transportation is. There may be 50 elementary kids from Atown going to St Christine's, but were they all being bussed?

WRTA via the downtown terminal is not a safe option, but if bussing to St Christine''s was not an option ever, would these kids even be going there in the first place?

I might be wrong, but when a child opts out of public school to go to a parochial school, the public district loses $5100 or something close to that. That amount is far more than that family likely paid in school property taxes, so should they be expected to bus out of district too?

Suggest removal:

18doubled(210 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

freeat last - nobs -- are you that stupid that you can't grasp the concept that parochial parents pay property taxes that fund their public schools BUT they don't use the resources of the public schools b/c they pay for their children to go to a parochial school...So if parents pay 5800 a year in local taxes that go to support the public school -- but their children don't use the public school --- then the local community is getting a big boost b/c they get the tax money but don't have to educate the children....Do you even remotely grasp that concept --- if so, THEN GIVE THEM A FREAKING SAFE WAY TO GET TO SCHOOL

Suggest removal:

19valleyred(1103 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Why not read the law folks... It states the following:

A board of education shall not be required to transport elementary or high school pupils to and from a nonpublic or community school where such transportation would require more than thirty minutes of direct travel time as measured by school bus from the public school building to which the pupils would be assigned if attending the public school designated by the district of residence. Where it is impractical to transport a pupil by school conveyance, a board of education may offer payment, in lieu of providing such transportation in accordance with section 3327.02 of the Revised Code.

Suggest removal:

20Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

doubled @
I do grasp the concept .
They choose to send their kids OUTSIDE the township.The township must provide for all kids and from what I read they DO. You may not like how they do it , so if you live in Austintown get out and vote and change the board . That is how we do things not by calling names . Hope you have a nice day.

Suggest removal:

21Bobcat(2 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I am tired of the "I pay taxes so..." talk. I have paid taxes for over 50 years. My children are long gone from the public schools, but I still pay my taxes. It is because of a concept called "For the common good" that people without direct benefit from a tax still pay that tax.

I have never needed the services of the fire department, and have needed the police only once. Should I demand a refund because my tax money has been used but not by me?

If Austintown is following the law by what they are doing, there should be no complaints. If you don't like how they are transporting kids, transport them yourself. Or, as others have said, vote out the BOE.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes