Area-wide schools & the transportation burden

Many of our small rural communities have been able to keep an elementary school, after having relinquished their high school. Which prompts me to ask: why the difference? Even if the numbers appear depleted, why can't we, in this age of electronic media connectivity, accommodate the high school kids even in areas sparsely populated?
Remember the days when we saw the creation of the Lac qui Parle Valley high school? There was pain and controversy as we saw those wheels turn in an atmosphere of small town parochial interests. Wasn't a legislator's car vandalized at a meeting re. this? Wasn't the "Valley" tacked on to the school name for reasons of political sensitivity? Wasn't that petty and stupid? Reminder: "Valley" was added to make clear, lest there be a tiny bit of doubt, that the new school would be a completely new entity. "Lac qui Parle" had been the name of the area's combined wrestling program - why does wrestling always foment strong emotions? - and that program was based in Madison. There was a fear that people might think Madison was in a preferred position for the new school. So we got "Valley" even though there's no discernible valley.
"Valley" gives a sentimental ring like it's a sentimental movie in a rural setting (like "Spencer's Mountain").
Why am I broaching the subject today? We need to again weigh the pros and cons with these big area-wide schools, once thought so progressive. You were regressive if you pined to see the small rural schools nestled into pastoral communities, a la Norman Rockwell. Today I'd push a whole new factor to weigh: the sheer danger in having our kids spend so much time in transit to and from school.
In the first place, all that travel represents dead, wasted time. Secondly, buses are a prime place for kids to be bullied. Kids engage in bullying behavior partly because they are bored. I was a target myself, such as with the finger-flick of the ear, painful. If you complained to the driver you'd be a "snitch." Worse things could come.
But the third factor I'll cite here is fresh and highly relevant. It is based on the horrific recent accident involving the Hancock school van. The incident is an example of the sheer risk embedded in motorized transportation. Other horrific accidents have happened over the past few months in this general area, accidents that took lives, accidents with details that are so unpleasant, I don't wish to review them here.
I would argue that our dependence on motorized transportation is too great.
Transporting kids over a lengthy distance to and from school is a tedious and unnecessary task for which there is always risk of disaster. Those poor kids. I have checked on those two girls periodically on the Caring Bridge site. So unspeakably sad. We can hope for a miracle. I'd say "pray" but that word gets overused so much, and I personally doubt that prayer does anything except calm the feelings of the person doing the praying. I count on medical science.
I am disappointed there has not been more media follow-up since the initial reports of the accident. We'd like to learn more about whether there is an explanation at all for the van driver's lapse. We can immediately wonder if it was distracted driving. In the absence of a true media report, I simply must ask around. What I have heard is that the semi was mostly white colored which in winter, I suppose could be an issue? But it does not seem a sufficient explanation of course.
The accident happened in Swift County at County Roads 20 and 63 near Benson. I have read that the kids were open-enrolled to Hancock. I'm curious why they were open-enrolled. Were they traveling a longer distance under this arrangement than they would have otherwise? Jeremy Beyer is the poor semi driver who had the right of way - poor because this faultless individual got dragged into the whole thing. I'm sure the company that employs him grilled him to make sure the facts clearing him were clearly on paper. The stakes are great re. insurance payments.
Based on what we've read, shall we assume that the Hancock school's liability policy is in play? The cost would have to be huge.
We must pause and wonder, all of us, if we should continue relying on motorized transportation so much. Police officers will pull you over for no seat belt and lecture you on the dangers of a collision even at a speed of 30 MPH. If driving is so inherently dangerous, let's maybe back off from it some. Let's allow high school-age kids to attend school close to home, even in places like Appleton. The Internet reduces our dependence on the bricks and mortar education model.
Isn't it true that Dawson-Boyd came close to joining that expansive LQPV effort - yes, "Valley" - then backed out and today is very thankful they did so. So we are still blessed by having a school in our area with the "Blackjacks" nickname!
The rhetoric back then was so strong for suggesting that bigness was necessary, as if it was forward-looking as apposed to the Norman Rockwell-esque attitude. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is simply wrong.
I have read that the young generation of today has become somewhat averse to using auto transportation at all. The reason: it seems too dangerous. It should be obvious to all of us now. Tech has enabled us to get all the entertainment and fulfillment we need right at home. Endless TV channels and the Internet via a simple laptop. Things like banking can be done without going to a bricks and mortar place. These shifts in society can begin slowly, drifting iceberg-like, so we may not realize it's even happening.
Boredom was once a threat for all of us - today it's "data overload" which means our brains are overloaded. It's a nice new world albeit with some shortcomings. We must re-think our prevailing education model. Whether we're in a "valley" or not!
 
Addendum: "Spencer's Mountain" had perhaps the saddest movie scene of all time, where the tree falls on the old man, remember? 
 
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com