Special Commission on Improving
Efficiencies Relative to Student
Transportation
FINAL REPORT
Pursuant to Section 77 of Chapter 154 of the Acts of 2018
December 10th, 2020
 Table of Contents
I. Commission Members………………………………………………………………. 3
II. Legislative Charge…………………………………………………………………… 4
III. Overview…………………………………………………………………………….. 5
IV. Findings and Recommendations
o Part A…………………………………………………………………………… 7
o Part B…………………………………………………………………………… 9
o Part C…………………………………………………………………………… 9
o Part D…………………………………………………………………………… 10
o Part E…………………………………………………………………………… 10
V. Conclusion and Next Steps………………………………………………………… 12
VI. Appendix A: References to Statute………………………………………………… 13
VII. Appendix B: Historical Spending …………………………………………………. 14
VIII. Appendix C: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 – Transportation; Part 605 –
School Bus Operations …………………………………………………………….. 16
IX. Appendix D: Meetings of the Commission ………………………………………... 22
PAGE | 1
 Acknowledgments
The Special Commission on Student Transportation Efficiencies is grateful to the many individuals
and organizations that contributed to the completion of this study.
The Commission thanks its members who provided policy expertise and insight through
presentations at various Commission meetings including: John J. Sullivan from the Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education; Joseph Maruszczak, Governor Baker’s appointee from the
Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents; and Holly McClanan from the
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools.
The Commission is appreciative of everyone who testified at the various public hearings: William
Bell, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE); Colleen Cavanaugh,
Massachusetts Association of Pupil Transportation; State Auditor Suzanne Bump; David Ferreira,
Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators; Superintendent John Evans, Keefe
Regional Technical School in Framingham; Superintendent Richard Martin, Franklin Regional
County Technical School in Turner Falls; Edward J. Carr, MetroWest Regional Transit Authority;
Susan Downs, JSC Transportation Services, Inc.; Kate Machowski, MCJ Transportation; David
Strong, School Transportation Association of Massachusetts; Kevin Hinkamper and Janice
Brochu, VanPool; Superintendent Michael Morris, Amherst-Pelham Regional Public Schools;
Brian Foulds, Chair of Concord’s Climate Action Advisory Board; Matthew Casale, MassPIRG
and Eugenia Gibbons, Green Consumers Alliance.
Thank you to the staff at Monument Mountain Regional High School who hosted the Commission
for its second public hearing.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the remaining members of the Student Transportation
Commission who contributed valuable knowledge, experience, and perspective throughout the
Commission’s work including Representative Bradford Hill, designee of House Minority Leader
Brad Jones; Thomas Moreau, designee of the Secretary of Education; Superintendent Brian Forget,
Designee of Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr; Stephanie Fisk, Appointee of Governor Baker
from the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials; Daniel Hayes, Appointee of
Governor Baker from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees; and Patricia M.
Lowell, Appointee of Governor Baker from the Massachusetts Association of Special Education.
Senator Adam G. Hinds Representative Alice H. Peisch
Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin & Hampden District 14th Norfolk District
Co-Chair Co-Chair
PAGE | 2
Special Commission on Improving Efficiencies Relative to Student
Transportation Membership
Commission Chairs
Senator Adam G. Hinds, Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on Revenue
Representative Alice H. Peisch, House Chair of the Joint Committee on Education
Commission Members
Thomas J. Moreau, Designee of the Secretary of Education
John J. Sullivan, Designee of the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
Superintendent Brian Forget, Appointee of Senate Minority Leader
Representative Bradford Hill, Appointee of House Minority Leader
Stephanie Fisk, Appointee of Governor Baker, Massachusetts Association of School
Business Officials
Holly McClanan, Appointee of Governor Baker, Massachusetts Association of Regional
Schools
Joseph Maruszczak, Appointee of Governor Baker, Massachusetts Association of
School Superintendents
Daniel Hayes, Appointee of Governor Baker Massachusetts Association of School
Committees
Patricia M. Lowell, Appointee of Governor Baker Massachusetts Association of Special
Education Administrators
Commission Staff
Nicole Venguer, Research Analyst of the Joint Committee on Education
Danielle Allard, Legislative Director and General Counsel for Senator Adam G. Hinds
PAGE | 3
 Legislative Charge
Chapter 154 of the Acts of 2018
SECTION 77. (a) There shall be a special Commission governed by section 2A of
chapter 4 of the General Laws to study and make recommendations to improve efficiencies relative
to transportation for the following: students attending regional schools; students in special
education out of district placements; students attending out of district vocational and technical
schools; and students attending out of district agricultural schools; and any other student
transportation the Commission deems appropriate.
The Commission shall consist of 1 member who shall be appointed by the senate president,
who shall serve as co-chair; 1 member who shall be appointed by the minority leader of the senate;
1 member who shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, who shall serve
as co-chair; 1 member who shall be appointed by the minority leader of the house of
representatives; 1 person who shall be appointed by the secretary of education; 1 person who shall
be appointed by the Commissioner of elementary and secondary education; and 5 persons who
shall be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a representative of the Massachusetts
Association of Regional Schools, Inc., 1 of whom shall be a representative of the Massachusetts
Association of School Committees, Inc., 1 of whom shall be a representative of the Massachusetts
Association of School Business Officials, Inc., 1 of whom shall be a representative of the
Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, Inc., and 1 of whom shall be a
representative of Massachusetts Association of Special Education Administrators. Members shall
not receive compensation for their services but may receive reimbursement for the reasonable
expenses incurred in carrying out their responsibilities as members of the Commission. The
Commissioner of elementary and secondary education may furnish reasonable staff and other
support for the work of the Commission.
(b) The Commission shall study and report on: (i) a review of methods districts use to
transport said students, including current costs and bid processes in procuring transportation; (ii)
a budget assessment for said costs; and (iii) recommendations for improving transportation
services. The Commission, in formulating its recommendations, shall take into account the best
policies and practices in other states. The Commission shall hold at least 5 public meetings and
may hold hearings and other forums as it considers necessary.
(c) The Commission shall file its report and recommendations with the clerks of the Senate
and the House of Representatives who shall forward the same to the senate and house chairs of the
joint committee on education not later than December 1, 2019.
PAGE | 4
 Overview1
Student transportation has become a significant challenge for all school districts across the
Commonwealth. As Massachusetts has a diverse array of districts – including urban and rural, well
resourced and underserved, as well as regional, vocational, technical and agricultural – different
districts face their own distinct difficulties. A myriad of factors contribute to these difficulties,
including, but not limited to increased costs, driver shortages, geographical distances, and
procurement issues. The Commission was created to conduct a comprehensive study of school
transportation issues and to make recommendations for efficiency improvements. In addition to
the topics listed in the above legislative charge, Chairs Peisch and Hinds directed the Commission
to study ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributed to student transportation.
Current Student Transportation Funding and Governance Structure
There are several line-items in the state budget dealing with specific types of student
transportation: in-district transportation (7035-0004), regional school transportation (7035-0006),
non-resident vocational student transportation (7035-0007), out-of-district placement special
education reimbursement (7061-0012), rural transportation (7061-9813), and homeless student
transportation (7035-0008). If sufficient funds are appropriated in these line items, districts are
reimbursed for their eligible expenses. However, as each of these line-items are “subject to
appropriation,” if the respective appropriations fall short, local reimbursements are prorated based
on statewide transportation expenses.
Student transportation requirements are governed by both state and federal statutes and regulations.
Different statutes pertain to different classifications of districts, students, or types of transportation.
See Appendices A, B, and C for details regarding relevant statutes and regulations, as well as
historical spending for budgetary items as referenced in this report.
Methodology
The Commission met six times between March and December of 2019. Throughout this time,
members reviewed the following: existing statutes relating to student transportation; current bid
processes undergone by municipal, regional, vocational and agricultural school districts;
perspectives of the school bus industry; the role of regional transit authorities in student
transportation; and green initiatives and alternatives to the current student transportation system.
The Commission solicited testimony from various experts and stakeholders, including state and
1
All meetings, subsequent research, and the majority of the drafting of this report took place prior to the March 10,
2020 State of Emergency and the disruptions caused by COVID-19. The Commission acknowledges that some
observations, recommendations, and conclusions drawn within this report, as written, may be less applicable due to
the constraints of the pandemic. New issues relative to student transportation that have arisen due to COVID-19 are
outside of the scope of the Commission’s charge and this report.
PAGE | 5
local officials, transportation company operators and advocates from across the Commonwealth. 2
The Commission also discussed how to provide greater incentives for efficient student
transportation systems and support for creative solutions to transportation problems. Additionally,
time was set aside at each meeting for a public hearing.
After eight months of discussion and deliberation, the Commission developed the
recommendations contained in the following pages in response to its primary charge. The
Commission’s recommendations do not propose a singular approach to promoting efficiencies in
the student transportation system, nor do they include a comprehensive analysis of the merits of
improving the current structure. The recommendations presented in this report are solutions
identified by various stakeholders, which include incorporating efficiency strategies into existing
student transportation models and identifying practical solutions to existing fiscal, educational,
and capital issues. More specific research and analysis may be necessary to implement many of
the proposed recommendations.
2
For a description of Commission Meetings, please see Appendix D.
PAGE | 6
 Findings and Recommendations3
The Commission’s findings and recommendations are listed below. They are generally organized
based on the topics included in the legislative charge, with the addition of recommendations
pertaining to the reduction of emissions related to student transportation. Additional information
related to the findings and recommendations is available in the attached appendices.
A. Generally Applicable Operational Efficiencies
The Commission was tasked broadly with making recommendations to improve efficiencies
relative to student transportation. In the process of studying specific student groups and
transportation-related topics, the Commission discovered a number of issues that were applicable
across the scope of its purview. There are many potential opportunities for districts to increase
efficiencies that may require additional guidance from state policymakers. The following findings
and recommendations relate generally to procuring and providing transportation services.
i. Procuring Transportation Services
Findings
Procuring transportation providers is a significant challenge for school districts. The school
transportation industry is often opaque, making it difficult to find qualified vendors. Furthermore,
even if a qualified vendor is found, the current shortage of bus drivers increases costs and limits
the availability of transportation services.
State policymakers could also help school districts fulfill their transportation needs by amending
two specific aspects of state law. First, current state law limits the availability of state funding to
start school bus services when private transportation companies are available.4 Given the
uncompetitive school transportation market, this makes little sense. Second, Massachusetts limits
the number of years for which a school bus or van may operate. This means that vehicles used for
student transportation may be replaced more frequently than necessary. Extending the service life
of student transportation vehicles would reduce costs, so long as proper safety standards are
maintained.
Recommendations
• Amend Chapter 71, Section 7C of the Massachusetts General Laws to allow for more
competition in the school transportation vendor contract process.
• Create a statewide registry of school transportation vendors.
• Permit transportation vans to be in service for a longer time period.
3
While a majority of the Commission members support the findings and recommendations of this report, not all
were unanimously accepted.
4
See: M.G.L. c. 71 § 7C
PAGE | 7
• Incentivize Commercial Driver’s License trainings to encourage people to join the bus driver
workforce.
• Require faster turnaround time from the RMV for Class D licenses for school operators.
ii. Providing Transportation Services
Findings
Increasing collaboration and consolidation within and among districts can greatly improve
operational efficiencies for student transportation. For example, transportation collaboratives
already exist for out-of-district special education placements. They provide for efficient and cost-
effective administration of the complex transportation needs associated with out-of-district
placements. Districts could see similar benefits if collaboratives were utilized for general student
transportation. Additionally, consolidating bus routes within districts can reduce costs while still
allowing students to get to school on time. This can be encouraged by allowing districts to provide
transportation only to students who will use it. However, it is worth noting that there may be
limitations and additional unique obstacles for rural school districts to implement these and other
changes.
Rhode Island has created a program to “[c]onserve valuable natural resources by reducing the
number of vehicles necessary to transport pupils to school.”5 The state allows parents or guardians
to opt out of student transportation and adjusts routes accordingly in order to minimize empty bus
seats and develop the most efficient bus routes.
Efforts at the district level can assist with the timing and management of transportation costs.
Revolving transportation funds are a specific example of this. The South Middlesex Regional
Vocational Technical School District recently established a Transportation Revolving Account
through a vote of the school committee. The account was funded with a portion of the district’s
year-end surplus. When the district received reimbursement from the state for the cost of
transporting pupils, the amount offset by the funds in the Transportation Revolving Account was
deposited for future transportation costs, along with some additional year-end surplus funding.
South Middlesex Regional Vocational Technical School District ensured that at no point could the
funds in the Transportation Revolving Account, exceed the state’s reimbursements for transporting
pupils to and from the regional school district.
Recommendations
• Direct DESE to conduct a feasibility study of transportation collaboratives.
• Consolidate similar existing bus routes and permit students from different schools to ride the
same bus. Because districts may have varying levels of flexibility, this process should be done
in consultation with members of the community.
• Encourage districts to gather and analyze ridership data to maximize efficiency.
5