Appeal of DEBORA SHECHTER, on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Lawrence Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,470

(August 19, 2024)

Minerva & D’Agostino, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Christopher G. Kirby, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the transportation arrangements adopted by the Board of Education of the Lawrence Union Free School District (“respondent”) regarding transportation for her child (the “student”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

Respondent provides transportation to approximately 2,000 public school students and 6,000 nonpublic school students.  It utilizes about 500 daily transportation routes to do so.  The student, who was seven years old at the time of the events underlying this appeal, resides in respondent’s district and attends a nonpublic school.  The student is eligible for transportation to the nonpublic school because it is located within 15 miles of her home.

Pursuant to its transportation schedule, respondent picks up the student at 6:41 a.m. and drops her off at home at 5:53 p.m.  The record reflects that the student’s bus ride is at least two hours long each morning and afternoon.[1]

In this appeal, petitioner argues that the transportation provided by respondent does not comport with applicable law and policy as it is unreasonable for a seven-year-old student to spend such a lengthy amount of time on a bus each day.  She seeks a “review of the bus routes and schedules to ensure they meet required safety and reasonableness standards ....”

Respondent argues that its provision of transportation to the student is reasonable under the circumstances, particularly given the long commute to the nonpublic school due to the high volume of traffic in the area. 

A board of education has broad discretion to determine how to provide transportation.  In making that determination, a board may consider safety, convenience, efficiency, and cost (Matter of Rouis, 20 Ed Dept Rep 493, Decision No. 10,493).  “Whether or not transportation arrangements for particular pupils are reasonable depends not only on the amount of time they spend en route but also upon a consideration of the district’s routing policy as a whole and the reasons for the length of a given trip” (id.).  A board has both the authority and the responsibility to resolve difficult questions that arise when balancing the overall efficiency and economy of a transportation system against the convenience of individual students (Appeal of Bougiamas, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,306; Appeal of A.P., 48 id. 380, Decision No. 15,891; Appeal of Brizell, 48 id. 128, Decision No. 15,814). 

The Commissioner will uphold a district’s transportation determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion (Appeal of Bougiamas, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,306; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Respondent has submitted evidence that, due to heavy traffic in the region, even a door-to-door trip from the student’s home to the nonpublic school can take up to 1 hour and 25 minutes.  Respondent further explains that, while the student’s home is within 15 miles of the nonpublic school, that distance is calculated using a busy route, whereas a route using parkways is at least 17 miles long.  Respondent also explains that the district transports six students to the same nonpublic school as the student, and that the bus route at issue serves three other nonpublic schools.  Respondent estimates that the cost to provide a separate bus serving the six students who attend the nonpublic school would be approximately $120,000.

Under these circumstances, respondent did not abuse its discretion in providing transportation for the student.  Petitioner has chosen to enroll the student in a nonpublic school that is a substantial distance from her home.  The length of this journey is compounded by the “notoriously high” traffic on Long Island during the morning and afternoon commuting hours.  Given the disproportionately large percentage of nonpublic students in respondent’s district, I find that the district reasonably considered cost and efficiency in deciding to transport students to more than one school on a single trip (Appeal of Mele, et al., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,260; Matter of Rouis, 20 id. 493, Decision No. 10,493 [“[c]onvenience and economy are both legitimate considerations in arranging school bus routes”]).  Additionally, respondent offered to mitigate the length of the student’s bus ride by assigning the student to a different bus route so that she would be on the bus for less total time—an offer petitioner refused.  For all of these reasons, I conclude that respondent did not abuse its discretion in providing transportation to the student as described herein (Appeal of Mele et al., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,260; Appeal of Byrne, et al., 34 id. 389, Decision No. 13,355; Appeal of Lavin, 32 id. 249, Decision No. 12,821; Matter of Rouis, 20 id. 493, Decision No. 10,493).

I have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE