The Rochester School Board's attempt to save money by stepping up enforcement of the district's transportation policy may actually result in more spending in the end.

And the process has exposed the clear disadvantages of poor urban children compared to their suburban peers, and shows a School Board that addresses major operational issues - first food service and now transportation - under the floodlight of public emotion.

In a special session on Tuesday, November 10, Board members agreed to offer busing to as many K through second graders as possible by filling existing buses on their current routes to full capacity. No new routes or buses will be added.

While the Board did not vote to change the district's transportation policy, which only allows busing for students living more than 1.5 miles from school, members essentially agreed to overlook the policy, at least temporarily.

The decision, though well-intended, won't please everyone, since some parents who may want transportation for their children won't get it.

It's an anti-climatic ending to weeks of haggling that began with an emotional - and, some Board members say, politically motivated - pitch by Board member Cynthia Elliott to bus all of the city's K through eighth-grade students.

The sometimes heated debate over the district's transportation policy revealed several other issues bubbling just below the surface: the far-reaching cost of violence and neighborhood decline, and the surprisingly thin understanding among some Board members of the district's near $700-million budget.

Transportation is one of the district's most complicated and costly operations. The district buses nearly 27,000 mostly elementary-grade students round-trip every school day to the cost of about $29 million annually. The district's total annual transportation budget is approximately $49 million.

The transportation policy and budget are largely built around the district's school choice policy, which is designed to encourage parents to select the schools they want their children to attend. There are three geographic zones and parents have to pick from schools in the zone where they live. But that zone policy isn't always enforced.

Busing became a hot issue this school year when officials began enforcing the district's 1.5 mile transportation policy more consistently. That policy, says Jim Fenton, the district's supervising director of operations, had up to that point only been loosely enforced at best. As a result, 840 students lost transportation this year.

Even though enforcing the busing policy was expected to save the district more than $1 million this year, Superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard bristles at the suggestion that the district was saving money on the backs of children. His goal, Brizard says, is to provide equal access to parents who need the most help.

The district's policy isn't based on state law, however, which led some Board members to question why there isn't more room for flexibility.

Cold weather and heavy traffic aside, expecting kindergartners to traipse through some of the city's least safe neighborhoods is an emotionally charged issue for parents and Board members. Still, it doesn't qualify as an exception to the district's transportation policy.

"There is no factoring in of safety in neighborhoods," Fenton says.

None of the state's Big Five urban districts consider safety as a factor in their busing policies, Brizard says.

While officials say that the recent decision to transport more K through second graders shouldn't cost more money, some Board members and community groups are already pushing to expand busing even more.

Money remains the major obstacle to any new and ambitious busing plans. The district is already anticipating $8.1 million in mid-year cuts from the state.

It would cost the district an additional $5.3 million in non-reimbursable state funds - on top of its $49 million annual transportation budget - just to offer busing to all students in K through sixth grades, Fenton says. And that assumes that about 20 percent of the students offered busing wouldn't use it. It would cost more than $600,000 to bus all kindergartners.

And adding more students will eventually mean adding more buses. Depending on how many grades are added, the district could require as many as 11 new school buses. Add fuel, maintenance, and employees, and the true cost of busing begins to escalate rapidly.

Some Board members are pushing to dig deeper into the district's total budget to find ways to expand busing. Board member Allen Williams, for instance, suggested using recent cost-saving measures for funding. But much of that money was already used to close spending gaps in the current budget.

And various interest groups are lining up to tell the superintendent where spending can be cut in order to expand busing services.

One step that could produce savings, Fenton says, is to toughen enforcement of the school choice policy. When students go to schools that are outside their zones, it increases the district's transportation costs and builds in some inefficiency. Some buses end up filled to capacity, while others operate partially filled. Some students, Fenton says, depart from Charlotte and arrive across town and out of their zones at School No.1 near Cobb's Hill Park.

Any significant expansion of busing would ultimately require cutting programs and as many as 70 employees, Brizard says. Help from the city is the only other, though unlikely, possibility.

"Has anyone talked to the mayor or Chief Moore?" Board Vice President Van White said at the November 10 meeting. "After all, these are city streets. I don't think City Hall should get a pass on this."

White asked for stronger police presence in the city's worst neighborhoods while children travel to and from school. He also said that he wants more crossing guards.