SPECIAL REPORT
A Fact ‘Funding’ Mission
Student transporters nationwide are doing what they can to reverse the trend of their operations being chronically short-changed for years by their school districts and by their state lawmakers when it comes to funding their departments, but it’s still a daunting task
Written by Art Gissendaner
S
ome student transportation directors and con- sultants appear to be fighting an uphill battle in their efforts to secure the financial respect student transportation deserves in the educational pro-
cess. Transportation directors are caught in a Catch-22 of trying to demonstrate that their operations are cost effec- tive while crusading for more dollars to cover operational costs, maintenance, facilities and salaries. Funding formulas for either state aid or reimbursement
vary from state to state and can be based on variables such as average daily ridership, student population density, and overall enrollment. Some states fund school districts based on a percentage of their demonstrated transportation costs, and some states base the reimburse- ment on a dollar amount established by set criteria. In addition to the varying funding models, there is a pot- pourri of different state requirements bus manufacturers
16 School Transportation News • APRIL 2023
must adhere to, based on individual orders, which drives up the cost of buses. No state covers a district’s total cost, and percentages and dollar amounts are capped. For example, West Virginia reimburses its coun- ty school districts at a range of 87.5 percent up to 95 percent. But this is deceptive because transportation op- erations are still struggling. Arizona, meanwhile, caps its funding at $2.3 million per district, while Texas offers no state funding because school districts there are indepen- dent, operating as their own governmental agencies and relying heavily on voter support for funding. In Ohio, the minimum transportation state share percentage increas- es from 33.33 percent in fiscal year 2023 to 37.5 percent the following year and 41.67 percent after that. Districts there still need to raise local funds or identify other ways to pay the bills. Last year, California, whose support for school districts
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
