When new legislation passes, PSBA is seen as the leader in analyzing it and helping members make sense of it.

Student Transportation, Walking Threshold

House Bill 2679
Aug. 29, 2006

Presented to the House Education Government Committee
by Wayne B. Johnston, Director of Pupil Transportation, Springfield Twp. SD

INTRODUCTION
Good morning, my name is Wayne B. Johnston and I am the Pupil Transportation Director for the Springfield Township School District . I would like to thank Chairmen Stairs and Roebuck for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) on House Bill 2679.

STUDENT TRANSPORTATION IN SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
I want to begin my testimony by providing you with some background regarding Springfield Township School District 's transportation program. Springfield Township transports 2100 students. We utilize 50 school buses to transport our students each school day.

Our overall transportation budget for the upcoming 2006-07 school year is $2,551,744. Last year, we spent 2,168,603. Our pupil transportation reimbursement is $ 456,818, while for the 2005-06 school year it was $422,098. The state's reimbursement covers approximately 18% of our transportation costs for the 2006-07 school year. Additionally, we transport 730 nonpublic school students to 98 nonpublic schools. We estimate that the transportation of nonpublic students accounts for 40-50% of our total transportation budget.

Springfield Township School District's transportation policy requires that we bus elementary children who live more than a half mile from school, middle school students who live more than one mile from school and secondary students who live more than one and a half miles from their schools. The district's mileage thresholds for student walking distance have been at these levels since 1983. The decision to establish these thresholds was made by our district with the input of our community with the knowledge that the district has the financial capacity to make this a priority. But more importantly, the decision to provide more transportation than is required was our district's choice. School-busing decisions should remain at the local level. We recognize that the other five hundred school districts in this Commonwealth are unique and may not be able to mirror Springfield Township 's transportation policies. Each district must be able to consider its own needs and capacities in meeting its students' transportation requirements.

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
There are other avenues available if the state legislature chooses to encourage greater safety of students walking to school while respecting local communities' traditions and needs. First, the Commonwealth could increase the state reimbursement for pupil transportation by amending Section 2541 of the Public School Code. Some school districts have voluntarily lowered their walking distance threshold below one and a half miles in order to provide the Commonwealth's youth with safe passage to school everyday. These school districts have done so with the knowledge that the Commonwealth would not provide reimbursement for such additional expenses and that their transportation costs will consequently increase the burden on local property taxpayers. Increased reimbursement would be an incentive for other school districts to lower their walking distance thresholds.

Second, the state could provide reimbursement for school crossing guards. Some local governments have recently cut crossing guard programs from their budgets. This forces school districts to redesign busing routes or create their own crossing guard programs without any financial assistance. Allowing districts to apply for reimbursement for costs incurred for school crossing guards would encourage districts to request additional crossing guards, alleviate a financial burden, and provide additional adult supervision when students are en route to and from school.

Finally, the legislature could provide a supplemental transportation reimbursement to districts in recognition of the high fuel costs. The significant rise of fuel costs for reasons outside districts' control were not anticipated and the volatility in prices means some districts could face further significant and unpredictable increases in transportation costs that were not anticipated when boards adopted their 2006-07 budgets. For example, Springfield Township School District budgeted $85,000 for diesel expenses in the 2005-06 school year. Due to the sudden increase in natural gas prices, actual diesel expenses totaled $111,000. Consequently, the school district budgeted $200,000 for diesel expenses for this school year. This is an $115,000 increase for a school district that is only six and a half square miles. PSBA maintains that a supplemental reimbursement is necessary to offset unusually high gas prices, and in light of the budgetary restraints placed on school districts by Act 1 of the Special Session.

HOUSE BILL 2679
Finally, I want to raise our concerns regarding the bill's drafting. House Bill 2679 purports to reduce the walking distance for students from schools to their residences. Our review of the legislation leads us to believe that House Bill 2679, as currently drafted, accomplishes two things. First it reduces the distance by which a student must walk from his residence to a bus stop, with the result that school districts that provide transportation will have to redesign their routes, increase stops, increase service and reduce efficiency. Second, it increases the Pennsylvania Department of Education pupil transportation reimbursement to school districts that transport their student by reducing the mileage for elementary student from one and a half miles to three-quarters of a mile and for secondary students from two miles to one and a half miles. It does not reduce a student's walking distance to and from a public school.

Under Pennsylvania law, certain school districts are required to provide transportation at the expense of the school district to and from a school with the proper grade levels to any resident child who does not reside within two miles by the shortest public highway of the residence of that child. Additionally, for those school districts that are not required to bus pupils, but choose to do so, they are authorized to use district funds to provide for the free transportation of students provided certain conditions are met. There are also certain restrictions on districts' free transportation. These are: 1) a student cannot be required to travel by public highway more than one a half miles in addition to the transportation offered by the district; 2) there must be proper bus shelters and 3) the walking cannot constitute a hazard to the safety of the child as certified by PennDOT. If a district satisfies these conditions and restrictions, it is eligible for reimbursement under Section 2541.

PSBA does not support any change in the threshold for pupil busing and opposes this portion of the bill. The bill does not change the reimbursement level for both elementary and secondary students to three-quarters of a mile. It only does so for elementary students. The reimbursement level for secondary students is set at one and a half miles. The bill should be amended to actually accomplish the prime sponsor's objective, adequately funding this mandate. However, we would still have concerns that while the reimbursement increases, it does not do so at a rate to fully fund the mandate.

CONCLUSION
PSBA maintains it is unnecessary to alter the maximum student walking distance because:

Parents have the opportunity to request that school districts' seek the Department of Transportation's opinion on the safety of walking routes. If the Department of Transportation declares a hazardous walking route, school districts are required to bus children if the district provides free transportation to its students;

House Bill 2679 does not correspond with intent of Act 114 of 2006, an act aimed at encouraging student nutrition and health in Pennsylvania's public schools; and

Communities, including parents and school districts, are responsible for the safety of students. There has been no documentation or research that demonstrates the need for the state legislature to mandate a maximum walking distance in order to provide student safety.

We hope to work with Representative McGill and the members of this committee to find further ways to promote student safety that respect local communities, taxpayers and the fiscal restraint of school districts. Thank you for your consideration of PSBA's concerns. I would be happy to answer any questions.

24 P.S. § 13-1331 This section speaks to children in a district of the fourth class, or in a township which is a school district of the third class, or in a borough which has five hundred inhabitants or less per square miles and which is a school district of the third class. (If transportation is not feasible, then the district must pay for suitable board and lodging for any such child.)

24 P.S. § 1361 This section requires districts that choose to offer free transportation to meet the following conditions: 1) bus resident pupils to and from a school where the resident pupil is enrolled; 2) bus resident pupils to a school that is not operated for profit; and 3) the school must be situated within the districts' boundaries or no more than ten miles outside the district exclusive of vocational-technical schools. Schools are also authorized to bus school students for field trips for any purpose.

24 P.S. § 13-1362.