Q&A From the Field

McKinney-Vento (Transportation)

To search for specific keywords, use the Ctrl+F (Windows) or Cmd+F (Mac) function.

Because both school staff and the parent agree that the lack of transportation is a barrier to attendance due to safety, the district should provide an alternative, such as helping arrange a walk buddy or walking school bus, transportation from the bus stop to home, or even a taxi. Please also see this Q&A for the legal citations.

Yes, you certainly can use McKinney-Vento funds to provide transportation for parents experiencing homelessness to attend your parent group. That would fall under this allowable use of funds from the law:

“(10) The provision of education and training to the parents and guardians of homeless children and youths about the rights of, and resources available to, such children and youths, and other activities designed to increase the meaningful involvement of parents and guardians of homeless children and youths in the education of such children and youths.” 42 USC §11433(d)(10).

No, a formula for transportation is not allowable. Transportation has to be based on the requirements in the law, which include transportation to the school of origin (42 USC §11432(g)(1)(J)), and also transportation as needed to remove barriers to enrollment in school, which includes attending classes and participating fully in school activities (42 USC §11432(g)(1)(I)). This includes transportation to extra-curricular activities, as well. Each LEA has to consider whether transportation is a barrier to enrollment for each McKinney-Vento student. Most students can walk to school if they live in the walk zone. However, for some, the lack of transportation may be a barrier. This may be due to dangers such as having to cross a dangerous intersection or a domestic violence issue, or other barriers. If that is the case, then the school would need to remove the barrier. That might mean providing a bus or taxi; it might mean providing a gas voucher; might include providing a bike, as long as it’s safe and appropriate; it might mean providing a crossing guard or helping create a walking group for safety.

With respect to paying for store cards for gas for students to get to school and school activities, LEAs have the flexibility to use regular district funds, McKinney-Vento funds, Title I Part A funds, and ARP-HCY funds. It is important to note that all of the federal funds are to be used for the excess cost of transportation, so depending on the situation, general funds would be the first option to consider.

This falls under 42 USC §11432(g)(1)(I), which requires LEAs to “review and revise policies to remove barriers to the identification of homeless children and youths, and the enrollment and retention of homeless children and youths in schools in the State.” Enrollment is defined as “attending classes and participating fully in school activities.” 42 USC §11434a(1). Taking assessments that are required or necessary for the student’s academic program (ELL, special education, etc.) is part of “attending classes and participating fully in school activities.” If the lack of transportation is a barrier, the LEA must remove that barrier.

No it does not. The McKinney-Vento Act requires LEAs to provide transportation to the school of origin at the request of a parent or guardian or, for unaccompanied youth, at the McKinney-Vento liaison’s request. 42 USC 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii).

Transportation services must rest on the individualized and student-centered best interest determinations, not on blanket mileage limits. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A). Applying local policies that establish blanket limits on transportation to students experiencing homelessness would violate the McKinney-Vento Act. The federal law supersedes any contrary state or local policies.

Yes. The U.S. Department of Education clarified this policy in its guidance. On page 29, the guidance states:

“J-11. Must LEAs provide transportation to and from extracurricular activities for homeless students?

SEAs and LEAs have a broad, ongoing requirement to review policies or practices that may act as barriers to, among other things, the enrollment of homeless children and youths. (See, e.g., sections 721, 722(g)(1)(I)). Enrollment includes attending classes and “participating fully in school activities.” (Section 725(1)). The McKinney-Vento Act further emphasizes that homeless students must not face barriers to accessing extracurricular activities. (See section 722(g)(1)(F)(iii)).

Therefore, to the extent that lack of access to transportation is a barrier to extracurricular activities for a particular student, an LEA would be required to provide this student with transportation to or from extracurricular activities.”

For transportation that is not to the school of origin, local educational agencies are required to provide transportation that is comparable to that provided to housed students. 42 USC 11432(g)(4)(A). Therefore, the same policy on walk zones would apply to McKinney-Vento students. However, the McKinney-Vento Act also requires LEAs to eliminate barriers to the school enrollment and retention of students experiencing homelessness. 42 USC 11432(g)(1)(I), (g)(7). So if there is something about this particular family’s homelessness that is a barrier to walking to school within the 1.5 miles, then the school district would be required to eliminate the barrier, potentially through transportation, depending on the exact situation.

An important preliminary question for this answer is when the school knew the student was experiencing homelessness.  If the school knew earlier, and knew the parent was transporting the child to the school of origin, then reimbursement is the school’s responsibility.  The school should have provided the parent with information on the reimbursement procedures from the outset. It would violate the McKinney-Vento Act for the school to deny her reimbursement now, when they’ve known all along that the parent was providing transportation to the school of origin. (See citation below.)

This also would be the case if the district should have known the family was homeless.  For example, if the district’s identification strategies are not robust and they missed a student they should have found, then again, they need to support the family.  The legal references would be the duty to identify homeless students, and the requirement to transport to the school of origin (language pasted below).

If the district told the parent she would need to turn in receipts, and she simply failed to do so, that’s a bit more complicated.  Still, given the stress and upheaval of homelessness, it’s a lot to ask a parent to save receipts and turn them in. It’s a very common practice for districts to estimate the transportation cost and provide gas cards or funding commensurate to those estimated costs.  The federal government has a website to estimate trip costs based on a car’s gas mileage. Some districts use this to calculate school of origin trip costs because it can be so hard for parents to save gas receipts.  You just need to find out what kind of car she was driving; the website will calculate her gas mileage against the trip distance to determine the gas cost.  If you multiply the roundtrip cost, including tolls, by two (for the morning and the afternoon), and then multiply that by the number of days the student attended school after becoming homeless, that would give you an excellent cost estimate.

“(6) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY LIAISON-

`(A) DUTIES- Each local educational agency liaison for homeless children and youths, designated under paragraph (1)(J)(ii), shall ensure that–

`(i) homeless children and youths are identified by school personnel through outreach and coordination activities with other entities and agencies;”

42 USC 11432(g)(6)(A)(i).

“(iii) The State and the local educational agencies in the State will adopt policies and practices to ensure that transportation is provided, at the request of the parent or guardian (or in the case of an unaccompanied youth, the liaison), to and from the school of origin (as determined under paragraph (3))….”

42 USC 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii).

You are right, there is language on this in the law. It is in the section on quality of subgrant applications:

“(3) QUALITY- In determining the quality of applications under paragraph (1), the State educational agency shall consider the following: …

(G) The extent to which the local educational agency will use the subgrant to leverage resources, including by maximizing nonsubgrant funding for the position of the liaison described in section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) and the provision of transportation.”

The citation for that language is 42 USC 11433(c)(3)(G).

No. In fact, the McKinney-Vento Act is clear that transportation assistance is required for unaccompanied youth:

“Each local educational agency liaison for homeless children and youths, designated under paragraph (1)(J)(ii), shall ensure that–

…(viii) the parent or guardian of a homeless child or youth, and any unaccompanied youth, is fully informed of all transportation services, including transportation to the school of origin, as described in paragraph (1)(J)(iii), and is assisted in accessing transportation to the school that is selected under paragraph (3)(A).” 42 USC 11432(g)(6)(A)(viii).

Unaccompanied youth must receive transportation assistance, just as parents or guardians.

The school district is required to provide transportation to the school of origin.  Paying for gas is an excellent and cost-effective way to do that. The district can align the reimbursement with attendance as a means to address the accountability concern.  The student would be reimbursed for gas for the days he attends school. Going forward, the district can give him gas cards ahead of time. It might help the youth to have the gas cards ahead of time, since he probably has very limited cash flow.

Several provisions of the McKinney-Vento Act apply here, including the requirement that students remain in their school of origin if in their best interest (42 USC §11432(g)(3)(A)-(B)), and that schools provide transportation to and from the school of origin (42 USC §11432(g)(1)(J)(iii).  The bottom line of the legal requirements is that the district has to provide transportation to the school of origin. The only legal reason not to provide transportation to the school of origin is if a determination is made that it is not in the child’s best interest to remain at the school of origin.

A discipline issue may rise to the level of changing the best interest determination, but there would be many other factors involved in that determination. In addition, since data show that McKinney-Vento student receive more suspensions and expulsions than their housed peers, we encourage schools to engage in positive discipline practices as an attendance and graduation strategy, as well as to comply with the McKinney-Vento Act’s requirement to remove barriers to enrollment and retention in school.

The district is not necessarily required to continue to transport the student on the school bus. The McKinney-Vento Act does not supersede discipline policies, so a bus suspension can stand.  However, the district may wish to pursue forms of discipline that do not keep the child off the bus. It usually is in both the district’s and the student’s best interest to try to find a way to make the bus transportation work, considering cost and logistics.  If it is a serious safety issue, then the district may have to remove the student from the bus. In that case, the district will need to find another transportation option. If a parent driving is not an option, they may need to look at a taxi or other arrangement.

In situations like this, schools cannot require the address of the shelter.  Many or most domestic violence shelters do not allow residents to share the address.  That is a critical element of safety for all the families staying there. If the school were to require the parent to share the address, the parent most likely would be forced to leave the shelter, and all the residents of the shelter could be at risk.  Even though the school would keep the address information confidential, there’s no way to know if an administrator or other person with access to the information could be an abusive spouse, or relative of an abusive spouse who might share the location information.

Those safety reasons and shelter rules mean it would be a barrier to identification, enrollment and retention in school for the school to require the parent to reveal the address of the shelter.  Since the McKinney-Vento Act requires the school to remove those barriers, the school must allow the student to enroll and attend without that information. The bus will have to pick the student up at a mutually-agreeable location.  If the parent wants the donut shop, considering the age of the student, that seems like a reasonable request. Considering that this is a domestic violence situation, the parent presumably is choosing a location where she believes her child will be safe.  If there is a concern about potential liability, the parent could sign a release/consent to have the student picked up and dropped off at that location. If the school requires another pick-up location, and the abuser shows up and abducts the child, the school likely would be at much greater risk of liability.  If needed, the school and parent can work together to find a suitable location (not the shelter), that would be agreeable to both parties.

McKinney-Vento does permit schools to require contact information, but the school cannot require information that would be a barrier to identification, enrollment or retention in school, which the shelter address would be in this case.  So a phone number for the mother, and secondary contact information of the mother’s choosing, would be appropriate.

I think you can maintain the same transportation arrangements at least until the end of the quarter. While the school can’t force a parent to participate in the after-school program as a condition of transportation to the school of origin, the school does have some flexibility in providing transportation, as long as it is safe and appropriate. In this case, the boys will continue to be safe staying at school until after the tutoring program. The school can tell the parent that the transportation will continue to run after the program. As you know, you are “required to ensure that transportation is provided” to and from the school of origin.

The only caveat would be if there is some safety reason, or other reason related to homelessness, that the parent wants the boys home earlier.  For example: if they are staying in an unsafe area, and as it is getting darker earlier, the boys would have a dangerous walk from the bus stop to their home.  Or, for example, they are staying at a shelter that requires the whole family to be at the shelter by a particular time to access the shelter. If there is a safety or related issue, that could present a barrier to enrollment and retention (and potentially put the school district at risk for liability).  In that case, the district would need to get them home immediately after school.

There are two separate issues here. One is whether the student should be transported to school. The answer to that is yes. The district has placed the student in this program, and transportation is a barrier to her enrollment and retention in the program. Therefore, some transportation assistance must be provided. This is a district placement (via contract notwithstanding), so transportation needs to be arranged/provided if it is a barrier. It is unclear whether this is a special education placement, but if it is, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act also would apply.

The second and separate issue is who pays. The McKinney-Vento Act would not dictate who pays in this situation. It appears as if this is a question for the district and the program to jointly resolve. It depends on the MOU or contract between the district and the program, their practice, etc. The bottom line is that this a district student, so, ultimately, the district has the legal responsibility to address barriers. However, we can’t really opine about whether the program should provide or pay for transportation. This is probably a question for the school district’s special education department and/or other administrators.

No, transportation cannot be contingent on a family going to the homeless office. If the student has been missing excessive amounts of school, the school is within its rights to re-evaluate whether it is in the student’s best interest to remain in the school of origin (while recognizing the presumption in favor of keeping the student in the school of origin and the priority given to the parent’s or unaccompanied youth’s wishes).   42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(31)( BJ)(iii). The school must involve the family in that discussion.  However, the school cannot require the family to meet in person at the homeless office, since homeless families commonly do not have transportation and may have work or other basic needs issues that prevent them from attending a meeting.  The school may be able to help the parents attend by providing transportation and offering the meeting at a convenient time.  The school also may offer the parents another means to attend, such as by phone. Ultimately, if the school is totally unable to reach the parent to discuss best interest, the school can make its best interest determination without the parent’s involvement. But then the school would be required to provide the parent with written notice of its decision and ensure the parent can access the dispute process. 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(B)(iii) and § 11432(g)(3)(E)(ii).

Also, if the parent or student appeals, the student must remain enrolled in the school of origin, and the school must continue to provide transportation, as the dispute process unfolds. 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(E)(i).

It’s really up to the school district to determine if they want to use ride-sharing services. The district’s lawyers or risk managers may have a position on whether those services are appropriate to transport students. Under the McKinney-Vento Act, the means of transportation is not specified, and school districts can choose how to provide transportation, as long as the methods are safe and appropriate. (The McKinney-Vento Act requires transportation to and from the school of origin for as long as it is the student’s best interest to attend that school, as well as transportation to remove barriers to attendance and participation, as well as any other transportation that is comparable to what housed students receive. 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(A) and § 11432(g)(4)(A)). Uber or Lyft may be appropriate for a parent and student together, or for an older student. But since there are not the same background checks that many taxi companies use, ride-sharing services may not be appropriate for school districts at all.

The parent probably should be reimbursed for the entire time she has been homeless. On one hand, the school district can’t be held responsible for information it did not have, and it can be difficult to go back in time and retroactively identify homelessness. On the other hand, the school district has a legal obligation to identify students experiencing homelessness. So my question would be, is this district engaging in adequate identification activities? Some considerations: -Prior to the family entering shelter, had they been given a meaningful opportunity to identify as homeless? For example, is there information on the district website? Are there posters in school? Is information sent home to parents? -If they were homeless when they enrolled, does enrollment documentation include a questionnaire to identify homeless students? -It sounds like this is a school of origin situation, so the parent must have changed attendance areas or school districts. She may have been afraid to reveal her situation, thinking that her children would be forced to change schools. If the district does not adequately share MV information, it actually could be encouraging families NOT to reveal their homelessness. If the district is not engaging in adequate identification practices, then I think it is responsible for going back and reimbursing the parent for transportation from the beginning. The parent should not be held responsible for the district’s inadequate implementation of McKinney-Vento. However, if the district is doing lots of outreach, awareness, and other identification activities, and anyone would think the parent should have known about McKinney-Vento and the transportation rights, then I could see not going back to hold the district responsible since day one. I would say though, that is a tough argument— because if the parent had information about MV and the transportation rights, why wouldn’t she have stepped up and asked for help from the beginning?

No. Since the student will not be enrolled in an LEA, the school district is not required to transport. McKinney-Vento would not require the GED program to transport either, although you are right that the liaison and student should see if the college or GED program offers any transportation support. We also agree with your suggestion to check local TRIO programs, to see if they may be able to assist with transportation. You mentioned the student was court-involved. We would suggest contacting her lawyer, social worker, or other person involved in her court case. Whether it’s the juvenile or child welfare court, her lawyer could argue that transportation is creating a barrier to this young woman’s earnest efforts to complete her education, which research shows can help keep her out of court in the future. The judge may order an appropriate agency help pay for her transportation.

Yes, the liaison can update the address and rearrange the student’s transportation based on the phone call. Requiring families to go to the central enrollment office before adjusting transportation arrangements will result in students missing school. That is a violation of the McKinney-Vento Act.

The McKinney-Vento Act requires that enrollment be immediate, even if the child or youth is unable to produce proof of residency or other documents. McKinney-Vento families do not have to provide proof of residency, so a requirement that they do so, or sign affidavits, prior to changes in transportation arrangements violates the law. Further, the law requires LEAs to review and revise policies to remove barriers to the enrollment and retention of homeless children and youth in school. A policy requiring parents to go to the central enrollment office in person to change transportation arrangements erects a tremendous barrier to enrollment and retention of children in school. Most homeless families have transportation challenges and are not able to visit an office without expending money and time they do not have available. As you know, the law defines “enrollment” to include “attending classes and participating fully in school activities.” Therefore, the right to enrollment includes the right to attendance. For students receiving transportation to their school of origin, transportation is part of the right to attendance.

McKinney-Vento does not dictate how the transportation has to be split or arranged between the districts, simply that it has to be provided. If the two districts cannot agree, they split the cost equally. However, the districts could come up with any arrangement that works for them, depending on the various logistics involved for the districts.

Charter schools are subject to the same transportation provisions as any public school, whether they are their own LEA or part of another LEA. They are required to provide school of origin transportation. In addition, for children for whom the charter is not their school of origin, charter schools are required to provide comparable transportation. Those are two separate and different requirements. (The school of origin requirement is in section 722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of the law, and the comparable transportation for non-school of origin transportation is in section 722(g)(4)(A) of the law.)

Whether the charter school generally provides bussing to students does not matter when it comes to school of origin transportation for McKinney-Vento students, because school of origin transportation is a requirement under McKinney-Vento. It is not a comparable service— it is beyond comparable. The specific type of school of origin transportation provided depends on the age of the child and the options available. For older students who can access the city bus safely, bus passes might work perfectly. If parents have vehicles and are able to transport their children, gas assistance is a great option. Taxis, school buses or other arrangements will be necessary in other circumstances.

For charter schools that are part of your LEA, ultimately your LEA is responsible. Contracts and payment arrangements your LEA has with the charter school are outside the purview of McKinney-Vento; under McKinney-Vento, the bottom line is that transportation is provided in compliance with the law, and internal payment arrangements can work however the charter or your district set that up. For those charter schools that are their own LEA, they are responsible. In those cases, your district may split the cost with the charter, but again, those specifics are up to you to work out.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, special education buses can be used to transport McKinney-Vento students without disabilities, as long as no additional IDEA funds are used to transport those students.  This is true even if the bus was purchased with IDEA funds exclusively to transport children with disabilities, as long as the bus is not full, and it can pick up McKinney-Vento students along the usual route.

This letter provides the legal citations and more information on the use of special education transportation for students who are experiencing homelessness. It is important to note that the memo was written prior to the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act; therefore, some of the McKinney-Vento Act provisions that are cited have changed. However, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, upon which the interpretation is based, has not changed since the date of the letter.

The McKinney-Vento Act requires LEAs to provide transportation to and from the school of origin. At the same time, the McKinney-Vento Act does not override school discipline (as long as the reason for the discipline is not related to the student’s homelessness).  If an LEA is using a school bus to provide transportation to the school of origin, the LEA may wish to pursue forms of discipline that do not keep the child off the bus. If the child is suspended from the bus for safety reasons or other reasons, the LEA must arrange alternative transportation for the student.  If the student lives within the walk zone, the LEA may require the student to walk, as long as it is safe and appropriate.

Generally speaking, when considering disciplinary action involving a McKinney-Vento student, schools should remember the traumatic impact of homelessness, and how trauma affects student behavior. The U.S. Department of Education has emphasized the importance of implementing a schoolwide approach to positive and proactive behavioral support systems and behavioral interventions for at-risk students. USED Guidance, March 2017, pages 34-35 and 46-47.

This probably depends on how reasonable the city bus ride is. For example, if a school bus would take 40 minutes for the trip, but the city bus is going to take 90 minutes, then the father’s objection would be reasonable. However, if the public bus is a reasonable mode of transportation, the McKinney-Vento Act does not give a parent the right to choose the mode of transportation. Perhaps having someone do the ride with the youth on the first day would help. That will have a cost associated with it, but it’s probably cheaper than running a school bus the rest of the year.

The McKinney-Vento Act states that: “The school selected in accordance with this paragraph [either the school of origin or local school] shall immediately enroll the homeless child or youth.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(c). The law then defines “enroll” to “include attending classes and participating fully in school activities.” 42 USC 11434A(1).

These legal provisions require that transportation be provided immediately, as the child cannot attend classes and participate fully in school activities if the child is not at school. While the statute does not define the word “immediately,” in normal usage, immediately means right away. Therefore, delays in transportation do not comply with the federal law.

The law also requires local educational agencies to “review and revise policies to remove barriers to the… enrollment and retention of homeless children and youth in schools….” 42 USC 11432(g)(1)(I).

The McKinney-Vento Act requires LEAs (school districts and charter schools) to remove barriers to enrollment and retention in school. 42 USC 11432(g)(1)(I). Sometimes, children experiencing homelessness do not have anywhere to go after school, as many shelters will not allow children into the shelter before a certain time, or a shelter or doubled-up arrangement will not allow the child in without a parent there, but the parent has to be at work. A young child being alone in a motel room could be extremely dangerous. In situations like that, dropping a student at day care may be the only option— the only way to remove the barrier to enrollment or retention in school. There also could be potential liability if the LEA is dropping a student in a location known to be unsafe, particularly if it dovetails with a potential McKinney-Vento violation.

There may be other ways to address the barrier, and this is worth discussing with the parent.

Transportation is required to the school of origin, while the student is homeless and until the end of the academic year in which she finds housing (assuming it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the school of origin). If the family chooses to change to a charter school, the child will receive transportation comparable to what other students would receive. So if the charter school does not provide transportation to its students, this child also will not be entitled to transportation. The only exception would be if the lack of transportation presents a particular barrier to enrollment.

“I look at this in 2 steps. First, what does MV say about paying for school of origin transportation when the student moves out of district: the local educational agency of origin and the local educational agency in which the child or youth is living shall agree upon a method to apportion the responsibility and costs for providing the child or youth with transportation to and from the school of origin. If the local educational agencies are unable to agree upon such method, the responsibility and costs for transportation shall be shared equally.” (42 USC 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)(II))

So the LEA where living is easy— that’s now District B. Second, what is the LEA of origin? The LEA of origin in this situation is District A since that is the school of origin the students are attending. It is correct that the definition of the school of origin includes the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool. So technically, one student can have two “schools of origin”. But when it comes to transportation, the real question is which school of origin is the child attending— i.e. which school are they seeking transportation to/from. In this case, that’s District A. So District A is the only school of origin that matters. So in this situation, District A and District B “shall agree upon a method to apportion the responsibility and costs” of transportation to the District A school. Or the state could establish a policy that one or the other district pays. Or, if there is no state policy and they can’t agree, they can split it 50/50.”

Yes. Page 31 of the US Dept. of Education EHCY Guidance refers to gas cards as a strategy to provide transportation to McKinney-Vento students. There is no requirement that a district provides gas cards. The requirements are to provide transportation to the school of origin, and to provide transportation to remove barriers to full participation. However, it stands to reason that a school district would want to meet those requirements in the most cost-effective manner, and gas cards often are that manner. For that reason, it is extremely common that gas cards are part of a district’s strategy to provide required transportation.

It probably depends on how the position fits into your program. Is a volunteer opportunity of this type usually part of the program? In other words, could it be said that the guardian saved the school some work by finding an appropriate volunteer opportunity, which otherwise the school would have had to secure? If so, I think there’s a strong argument to require the transportation, because this would be considered a school activity as part of the career transition program.

In this scenario, the Boys and Girls Club probably is not an extracurricular activity, because it is not funded or administered by the LEA. The in-kind donation of space to a community agency wouldn’t rise to the level of making it an LEA activity. I don’t think the academic component would be a factor, unless the LEA was providing the academic component. If the Boys and Girls Club is providing an academic component, like tutoring or homework help, then transportation would be an allowable use of Title I set-aside funds. But it would not be required.

You are correct. The McKinney-Vento Act applies to charter schools. The school must provide transportation to the school of origin for the child, as long as continuing to attend the school of origin is in the child’s best interest.

As far as approaching the situation, you definitely should contact your state coordinator first, to ask for her assistance. It would be very good for her to know about this situation, so that she can step in if necessary. You also might reach out to the liaison for your school district, who might have a working relationship with the charter school, and who might be able to step in to help pave the way for a conversation.

This would depend on the nature of the “problems”, and other accommodations that might be put in place to address them. The bottom line is that the district does need to provide transportation to the school of origin. So while McKinney-Vento does not supersede discipline policies, it usually is in both the district’s and the student’s best interest to try to find a way to make the bus transportation work. If it is a serious safety issue, then the district may have to remove the student from the bus. In that case, the district will need to find another transportation option. If a parent driving is not an option, you may need to look at a taxi or other arrangement.

The only legal reason not to provide transportation to the school of origin is if a determination is made that it is not in the child’s best interest to remain at the school of origin. The behavior issue may rise to the level of changing the best interest determination, but there would be a lot of other factors involved in that determination.