Appeal of K.R. and M.F., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District regarding transportation.

Decision No. 18,547

(February 11, 2025)

Keane & Beane, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Susan E. Fine, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners challenge a determination of the Board of Education of the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District (“respondent”) denying their child (the “student”) transportation to a nonpublic school.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioners and the student reside in respondent’s district.  The parties agree that the student is eligible for transportation to the Hackley School (“Hackley”), a nonpublic school located within 15 miles of petitioners’ residence.

In August 2024, respondent provided petitioners with a transportation schedule indicating that the student would be picked up from Hackley at 2:45 p.m.  Petitioners thereafter informed respondent that the student’s school day ended at 4:30 p.m.  In response, respondent indicated that it could accommodate petitioners by providing transportation at 3:15 p.m.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioners contend that respondent’s decision not to provide after school transportation at 4:30 p.m. was arbitrary and capricious.  They seek an order to that effect for the 2024-2025 school year.

Respondent asserts that petitioners’ request is unreasonable as it does not currently offer after school transportation at or around 4:30 p.m.  Consequently, providing the requested transportation would impose significant labor, fuel and operation costs.

The Education Law does not require a board of education to transport children attending nonpublic school in all circumstances (Appeal of Kjar, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,870; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 55 id., Decision No. 16,394).  Public and nonpublic schools are obligated to cooperate in good faith in the scheduling of classes and transportation (see Appeal of Reilly, 46 Ed Dept Rep 184, Decision No. 15,479; Appeal of Salvia, 36 id. 365, Decision No. 13,750; Appeal of Frasier, 35 id. 499, Decision No. 13,612).  If the schedules of public and nonpublic schools nevertheless diverge, school districts are only required to provide transportation if reasonable under the circumstances (Appeal of Cohen, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,863; see also Appeal of Reilly, 46 Ed Dept Rep 184, Decision No. 15,479; Appeal of Salvia, 36 id. 365, Decision No. 13,750; Matter of Berger, 22 id. 443, Decision No. 11,028).  In determining reasonableness, a board may consider safety, convenience, efficiency, and cost (Appeal of Donn, 49 Ed Dept Rep 187, Decision No. 15,994; Appeal of Reilly, 46 id. 184, Decision No. 15,479; Appeal of Del Prete, 40 id. 148, Decision No. 14,444).  Cost, while relevant, cannot be the sole factor upon which a board bases its transportation decision (e.g., Appeal of Donn, 49 Ed Dept Rep 187, Decision No. 15,994; Appeal of Frasier, 35 id. 499, Decision No. 13,612; Appeal of Post, 33 id. 151, Decision No. 13,006; Appeal of Stickley, 27 id. 328, Decision No. 11,963).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioners have not met their burden of proving a clear legal right to the requested transportation.  Respondent’s schools have dismissal times ranging from 2:24 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Hackley, by contrast, dismisses its secondary students at 4:30 p.m. and its elementary school students at 2:45 p.m.[1]  Respondent asserts that it would require significant resources to arrange for the requested transportation.  Given the varying dismissal times for Hackley and the nearly two-hour difference between respondent’s dismissal times and the time requested by petitioners, I cannot find that respondent acted unreasonably in denying their request (Appeal of Cohen, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,863; Appeal of Donn, 49 id. 187, Decision No. 15,994).  Additionally, the fact that respondent was able to offer transportation at 4:30 p.m. last year does not create a legal entitlement thereto (Appeal of Molignano and Koehler, 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,450; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 43 id. 524, Decision No. 15,073).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

END OF FILE