benefit from special education.” IDEA also states that the decision on vehicle selection for transportation is at the discretion of IEP teams. These provisions have in part given rise to companies
that offer non-school bus vehicles under contract with school districts to transport some students with disabili- ties and with IEPs that call for transportation as a related service (as well a students experiencing homelessness). For any number of reasons—length of ride limits, a more
comfortable ride because of a medical condition, the use of specialized equipment, etc.—these services have gained in popularity with school districts. But the leading reason cit- ed repeatedly by school districts that School Transportation News has spoken to is school bus driver shortages. While IDEA explicitly states that cost to school districts
must not be a factor when making decisions on provid- ing transportation as a related service, funding or lack of it inevitably creeps in. Certainly, operational efficiency does. For at least the past two decades, an open secret throughout the industry is that school buses are not a fiscally sound mode of transportation for all students, even though federal crash statistics prove school busing is the safest method to get them where they need to go. Perhaps they live in far-flung parts of the county, where no other students who need transportation live nearby. They might require transportation to a medical or thera- py appointment during the school day, and a school bus or driver or both are unavailable. Whatever the reason, school districts have employed various solutions, from entering transportation agreements with neighboring school districts to contracting with taxicab services. The school bus driver shortage seriously hampers the
former and, though still widely used, many transporters have misgivings about the latter. They cite the con- stant flux of different taxicab drivers because children, especiallystudents with IEPs, need consistency. Enter the alternative transportation company, the TNC, and a growing number of school districts operating in-house fleets of sedans, minivans and SUVs for home-to-school travel that don’t need a driver with a CDL.
Definitions Ask any student transporter the difference between
an alternative company and a TNC and you are bound to receive incredulous looks. While the two are different, there are similarities. The most succinct comparison to make between the two types is, according to various state laws reviewed by STN, TNCs operate similarly to Uber and Lyft, whereas alternative transportation companies essentially act as brokers for school districts and connect them to local transportation companies and their driver-employees. The comparison is an over-
generalization, but it is a start. Both companies, however, use drivers that are vetted to
a higher degree than those used by Uber, Lyft and other rideshare companies. Uber and Lyft have traditionally had policies that prohibit them from transporting students. But last fall, Boston Public Schools was reportedly in conversations with Lyft about providing student service, despite the TNC stating on its website that passengers must be 18 years old to create an account. BPS did not respond to questions from STN. Then, this past spring, Uber announced it was testing rideshare services in select cities like New York for 13- to 17-year-olds who ride with- out their parents but are added to a family app profile. Alternative transportation companies and TNCs
working with school districts must vet their drivers to a higher standard than “traditional” app-based, on-de- mand rideshare services. This includes fingerprint and background checks. Alternative transportation com- panies either contract with third-party transportation providers that employ their own professional drivers or fully operate the service themselves. Ostensibly, these drivers are full-time employees using company vehicles. TNCs, however, use independent contractors that drive their personal vehicles. These companies also offer pro- prietary technology that routes the vehicles and tracks them as well as the students. In either case, proper documentation of background checks and vehicle safety are necessary, making it vital for school districts contracting with these companies to conduct regular audits, several transportation consul- tants have told STN. HopSkipDrive is perhaps the most visible TNC to
student transporters nationwide. Where required by the state or school district, CareDrivers—the company’s term for drivers with at least five years of caregiving experi- ence–are required to take advanced in-person or virtual training in some areas. To drive for Seattle Public Schools, for example, CareDrivers must complete an annual driver education course and disclose any new criminal charges or convictions as well as moving violations. Then there is the question of driver training. HopSkip-
Drive provides what it terms “best practices” for transporting students with IEPs, such as ensuring open communications between parents and school districts, offering consistent drivers when possible (a company representative noted to STN last year that students riding school buses do not always have the same driver), and using an app for planning rides in advance as well as tracking rides in real time. Meanwhile, EverDriven—an alternative transportation
company formerly known as ALC Solutions—announced an agreement last month with the School Bus Safe-
www.stnonline.com 15
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 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
