I 1..“hwoq‘,“ - '5 AN ANALYSIS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION Thesis for flu 009m of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY John B. Murray I964 JlliiiiiiiiiiiiiiliifiiliiiiiiiL 3 1293 01072 1847 Li L IF R A R Y ; f‘.1i«.:hi;;3.n State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Analysis of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation presented by John B. Murray has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. Education degree in 1 Major professor All A3133: aphasia 1; tether or not Sta it: could be prof 337339.51, thus pro stffes of this 12;: LA! ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION by John B. Murray Ihe Problem Emphasis in this study was focused upon determining whether or not State plans for financing pupil transporta- tion could be profitably analyzed, using a particular approach, thus providing a possible pattern for future studies of this type. No attempt was made to evaluate the strengths and/or weaknesses of any single State plan. To accomplish this end, it was necessary to: A. Identify and analyze the common characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the fifty States; B. Ascertain the current status of certain previously validated criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation; C. Analyze in detail the State aid plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin, specifically in terms of: the statutory basis, the relationship of State transportation aid to the total State program, the State aid distribution plan (formulas) for allocating pupil transportation aid, and i.‘ l;......_.'.;fi.~..‘_nr" ' WW 1!“ i In relati and criteri 2. Determine, or. a: recon-3:21: ‘ tartaticn in y. Eli's John B. Murray in relation to the aforementioned characteristics and criteria; and finally D. Determine, on the basis of this analysis, whether or not recommendations could be evolved for the possible improvement of State plans for financing pupil trans- portation in the United States. r ced so u a d ata Identification and analysis of characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation was made on the basis of a survey of the fifty States. Twelve considerations (criteria), representing basically those developed by Covert in 19h6, were submitted to the fifty State directors of pupil trans- portation in order to determine their current status. Certain data were collected on the State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States and analyzed in terms of the aforementioned characteristics, criteria, and their State aid distribu- tion plans. In applying this technique certain generalizations were noted concerning the characteristics of, and the criteria for evaluating State plans which could aside from the findings summarized below also prove helpful in appraising State plans. mm o 'h d n 1. State plans for financing pupil transportation can be .'IIII; . ‘S ' ‘wkuw If“- im_m__d_;;_ profitably ana uteristics, ( (cl their dist. gartttion aid. 3:9 titty Sta: tion do reccgn ia~n ~ “Usage: tie th- I Ilium}: 2%.. RIIOcatzng ‘ 3'9 by Dad exPev more en Fanatic— 3L5 . «Vre at. John B. Murray profitably analyzed in terms of: (a) their char- acteristics, (b) the twelve evaluating criteria, and (c) their distribution plans for allocating trans- portation aid. The fifty State plans for financing pupil transporta- tion do recognize by various means and to varying degrees the twelve evaluating criteria that a majority of the fifty State directors generally agree should be recognized in any adequate State plan. Each State has a unique problem with respect to the development of its State plan for financing pupil transportation. Consequently, it is questionable whether any one plan or formula could completely meet the need of each of the fifty States. Various methods are employed by the fifty States in allocating State aid support for pupil transportation. Different approaches to the problem may well strengthen the evolutionary process since diversity provides for broad experimentation that is essential in developing more equitable methods of financing pupil trans- portation. There are definite limits to the use of complicated formulas. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to combine all factors affecting the cost of trans? portation into a State aid formula. Most recent studies have been directed toward the developing of school transportation formulas of relatively simple design. qt N M I Arrest, rele transportaticr. oprtezt and :a‘. State aid for: Procedures e22; lie-um. um tr“Vitrtat.ict‘. . Si Atation tho: PhIIOSOpny Jehn B. Murray Current, reliable, and reasonably detailed school transportation cost data are essential to the devel- opment and maintenance of an objective and equitable State aid formula. Procedures employed to promote safety, efficiency, adequacy, and economy in the operation of school transportation must be based upon a sound philosophy of the social and educational role of pupil trans- portation. State plans for financing pupil trans- portation should encourage and support this philosophy. Copyright by JOHN B. MURRAY 1965 AN .__ ‘t‘Q: ANALYSIS ‘4. ‘qci‘ -__ . AN ANALYSIS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION By John B. Murray A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Ekpartment of Administration and Higher Education 1964 h ._ -'-' ,.,. i B J h. , a“ ‘ - ' . t ' ' “—9—. “In! "'-‘-' ' m author the silence. P“- ‘- ‘zis n10: adviser, titers of the C108 3:. habit 0. E31] utter is also in: 3:13:53 for assis the author is par u. .. mentors of sch: 191; and coopera‘. ;:-ss'.bie. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation for the guidance, patience, and encouragement extended by ‘his major advisor, Dr. William H. Roe, and the other members of the doctoral committee, Dr. Julius E. Barbour, Dr. Archie O. Heller, and Dr. Jehn E. Jordon. The author is also indebted to innumerable colleagues and friends for assistance and encouragement. Finally, the author is particularly grateful to the fifty State directors of school transportation, for without their help and cooperation this study would not have been possible. 11 .L““0-¢h I73] “lift-”"33 . 'Qa‘ “I“ U 232:5 C.“ R as), U? “21""QH- “Wu". fl_‘ utter I. ERRED-2:": >0 a a r-a a a TABLE OF CONTENTS AC“ MOMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LI ST OF TABIIES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 LI ST OF AP m I cm 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Chapter I 9 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . Significance of the Study . . HyPOth631s O O O O I O O O O Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Procedure, Techniqu , and Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . Organization of Remainder of the Study II. THE EVOLUTION OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR PUPIL TRANSPORTATION . . . The Early Period-'18h0-1869 . . . . . . The Service Wins Acceptance-'1870-l920 The Emerging State Aid Programs of the 1920's . . . . . . . . . . . . The Search for Equitable Methods of Allocating State Transportation Aid . The Burns Study-'1927 . . The Johns Study--1928 . . The Evans Study-'1930 . . The Lambert Study--1935 . The Hutchins Study--l938 iii Page ii viii 00003qu w I--‘ 10 16 18 18 22 26 3o 32 35 39 h6 TV? 0A.. Financi¥ Trans The C. H: :I‘TW V» LIL/.5.” '|\'RV\ ‘0 L‘U‘. State Tr I Poucie Hethods Chapter Page Financial Support Programs for Pupil Transportation in Transition . . . . . SO The Cox Study-"1951 . . . . . . . . . . 55 III. CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION . . . . . 60 State Transportation Aid and the Foundation Program . . . . . . . . . . 61 Methods Used for Distributing State Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . . . 67 Pupil Transportation State Aid Formulas . 72 Factors Affecting the Cost of the SOI‘VICO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 75 Requirements to Qualify for State Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . . . 83 IV. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION . . . 91 The Evaluating Criteria . . . . . . . . . 92 Group I Criteriar-Assessing the State Plan's Over-all Adequacy and Equitableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Sufficient State Support . . . . . . . 93 Provision for Capital Outlay . . . . . 96 Cost Factors Considered in the Formula . . . . . . . 9 An Objective State Aid Formula . . . . 9 Flexibility of the Plan . . . . Subsistence in Lieu of Transportation . 99 Group II Criteria--Assessing the State Plan's Provisions for Stimulating the Attainment of Desirable Goals and Standards . . . . . 100 Safe, Efficient, and Economical Programs . . . . . . . . . . 100 Desirable School District Organization . . . . . . . . 100 Broadening and Extending the Educational Program . . . . . . . . lOl Adequate Records and Reports . . . . . 101 iv fhpter Chapter V. Page Viewing the Criteria in Terms of Frequency of Acceptance and Specific State Recommendations . . . . 102 Further General Comments by the State Directors Relative to the Twelve Criteria . . . . . . . . . . 109 The Extent to Which State Plans Currently Recognize the Criteria . . . 112 Recognition of Criteria in State Plans 19h6-l962--A Summary . . . . . . 116 AN ANALYSIS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN THE GREAT LAKES STATES . . . . . . . . 123 The Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation in the Great Lakes States . . . . . . . 12h Qualifying for State Transportation Aid 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 121* Transportation Aid and the Foundation Program . . . . . . . 125 Method of Distributing State Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . . 126 Factors in the Formula . . . . . . . . 126 Statutory Basis for Transporting Pupils in the Great Lakes States . . . 128 Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 I111n°18 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 13h Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Ohio 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 137 Wiscon' 1n 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 139 The Relationship of Transportation Aid to State Aid Programs in the Great Lakes States . . . . . . . . . . 1&0 M1Ch18an e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1b.]. 111 111018 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e m3 Indiana e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 11-11:): 01110 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e "186008 in e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 114-5 The Distribution Plans (Formulas) for Allocating Transportation Aid in the Great Lakes States . . . . . . . . 1A6 V Irv Chapter Page Formulas for Allocating State Transportation Aid in the Great Lakes States . . . . . . . . . . 148 Michigan C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 m9 Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15h Ind 1‘na O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 165 Ohio 0 e e o o o e o o o e o o e e o e 171 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18A The Five State Plans in Terms of the Twelve Evaluating Criteria . . . . . . 191 Group I Criteria for Assessing the State Plan's Over-all Adequacy and Equitableness . . . . . . . . . . 192 Sufficient State Support . . . . . . 192 Provision for Capital Outlay . . . . 195 Cost Factors Considered in the Formula . . . . . . 199 An Objective State Aid Formula . . . 201 Flexibility of the Plan . . . . . . . 202 Subsistence in Lieu of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 202 Group II Criteria for Assessing the State Plan's Provisions for Stimulating the Attainment of Desirable Goals and Standards . . . . 203 Safe, Efficient, and Economical Programs . . . . . . . 203 Desirable School District Organization . . . . . 205 Broadening and Extending the Educational Program . . . . . . . . 206 Adequate Records and Reports . 207 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 209 The Current Characteristics of State Pl‘ns O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 210 State Provisions for Transporting Pupils . . . . . . . . . 210 The Relationship of State Transportation Aid to the State Aid Program . . . . . . . . . . 211 vi Qatar 1‘ (D (/1 1? Cf g," t 7' (Ya (DO (I: (f {D (‘3 O :7 m {1‘ (v (fa! m Tie Cr”. State Asses and Fla Asses Pla At: Goa Conclus Reco:;g :10, h ~~~. OJRAPEY Chapter Page Methods Used for Distributing State Transportation Aid . . . . . . 211 ' State Aid Formulas for Pupil Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Cost Factors Incorporated into the Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 The Criteria for Evaluating State Plans 0 e o e a e e o o e o e e 0 21’4- Assessing the Over-all Adequacy and Equitableness of a State Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessing Provisions in a State Plan for Stimulating the Attainment of Desirable Goals and Standards . . . . . . . . . 215 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Recommendations for Further Study . . . . 217 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 I 0 218 vii 3th 4. \I‘ . The Per Ce Expanded in 5 New .J . hug-r3 Us}. 5’ Amount 21; in Vera: 1:-;=.---;g Tra“3?0Tte The vlt‘io‘. AllOcat Aid, 19 calculati 0‘ Pups Smary ‘ Distfi? Purtl B881: :0 Trans; State A' 19L9-- The in A141 5 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The Per Cent of the Total Amount Expended for Pupil Transportation in 5 New England States between 1888-89 and 1901-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Amount Expended per Pupil Transported in Vermont and Connecticut between 189“:- 95 and 1901- 02 O O O O O I O O O O O 2h 3. Transportation of Pupils, 1920 . . . . . . . 27 h. The Various Methods Employed in Allocating State Transportation Aid, 1928-29 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 32 5. Calculation of the Recommended Cost of Pupil Transportation . . . . . . . . . ha 6. Summary of the Methods Used for Distributing State Funds for Pupil Transportation in 1938 . . . . . . . 52 7. Basis for Computing Aid for Pupil Transportation, 19h8-h9 . . . . . . . . . 56 8. State Aid for Pupil Transportation, 1914'9-50 C C O O O C O C I O O O O O O O O 59 9. The Extent to Which State Transportation Aid Has Been Recognized as an Element in State Foundation Programs since 1932 . 68 10. Current Bases for Allocating State Aid Funds for Transportation in the hh States that Provide Specific State Support for This Service, 1963 . . . . . . 71 11. Factors Cited as Important Predictors of the Cost of Pupil Transportation by Certain Selected Authorities, 1930-60 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 77 viii ’4 U1 - 1%. 1?. 13 \9 lie Extent in the 2 State St :ecifi S Administ in Order TTACStcr Character! P135231: The Aces:- Certai; Table Page 12. The Extent to Which State Aid Formulas in the 27 States That Distribute State Support for Transportation on the Basis of a Formula Currently Recognize Certain Factors in Determining the Transportation Needs of Local School Units, 1963 . . . . 79 13. Specific State Requirements that Local Administrative Units Must Adhere to in Order to Qualify for State Transportation Aid, 1963 . . . . . . . . . 8h 1h. Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation, 1963 . . . 87 15. The Acceptability and Recognition of Certain Selected Criteria in State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation in the 50 States, 1963 . . . . . . . . . . 9h 16. Ranking of Criteria in Order of the Frequency of Acceptance by the 50 State Directors of school Transportation 1963 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 113 17. Evaluation of Provisions for Financing Pupil Transportation in 20 States . . . . 115 18. Characteristics of the State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation in the Five Great Lakes States (Requirements-- Methods of Distribution), 1963 . . . . . . 129 19. Characteristics of the State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation in the Five Great Lakes States (Factors in Formula), 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 20. State Provisions for and Practices in Transporting Pupils for Curricular or Extracurricular Purposes in the Five Great Lakes States . . . . . . . . . 208 ix 1355111 A. COVGT Let: Collecti Tran Q“ F “cry. Portulas Great Lg G! 0 Cover Hezc U388 1C CharlCtt for Fin Transzc 5- ICQuiry 9 Tables 1 L1 "‘1 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Cover Letter and Format Guide, Used in Collecting Data on the Pupil Transportation State Aid Formulas in the Five Great Lakes States . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 B. Cover Memorandum and Circular No. h58, Used in Collecting Data on the Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2h? C. Inquiry Form and Response Tabulation Tables, Used in Collecting and Tabulating Data on the Status of Certain Selected Criteria for Evaluating State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 D. Map of the United States Divided into Nine Regional Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Education loceptmcs of £311 :11: laticn's lonJ Preserve and porn precipitated to n establiShment of '111 the peoolo." «mm in major 1movement of 81 Fine the twentj has not Yet row I 1 “'1 mu oduoat; CHAPTER I INTROWCTION Education [is] an investment in people.1 The acceptance of this premise by the American people and this Nation's longstanding democratic commitment to preserve and perpetuate ”the worth of the individual” precipitated to no smalldegree our emphasis upon the establishment of adequate educational opportunities for ”all the people.” This national commitment, in turn, Accounts in major part for the gradual broadening and improvement of State financial support for education during the twentieth century. Although this commitment has not yet resulted in the full attainment of adequate 1nd equal educational opportunity for all, the trend t“\vnlrd this end, as reflected in the general strengthening 01‘ State finance support programs for education, is quite' °szlous. Education provides the most effective means by "hich a Nation and its people can meet their changing Mada. If one accepts this, it is reasonable to conclude that State financial support programs for education, both g 1United States Chamber of Commerce, Education--An Investment in Peo 1e (Washington: Governmen r nt ng ce, . ‘ 1 general and for s: portation, will 0‘ {meat interval:- hoi'ever, seldom t Tigress. Tao oo: rams. pro gum 1m 801116 rose”. 1331mm collec evaluation of , c Fri-om elements in the tavern t Silt x general and for such special purposes as pupil trans- portation, will of necessity be changed or modified at frequent intervals . Change merely for change '3 sake, however, seldom brings about sound solutions or lasting progress . The continued improvement of State financial support programs for education depends, in large part, upon sound research. Of particular importance is the systematic collection, compilation, analysis, and evaluation of a comprehensive body of knowledge on the various elements, principles, and practices incorporated in the several types of general- and special-purpose State aid programs and their interrelationships . State programs for financing pupil transportation in the fifty States and the over-all relationship of these programs to other State aid allocations currently represents an area in need of further research and study. Since 1869 when the legislature of the Commonwealth of uaaaachusetts first authorized the expenditure of public fSands for the daily transportation of pupils, the States hare gradually accepted some responsibility for pupil transportation. At the present time State funds are made avgdilable for pupil transportation purposes in a vast “1‘3 ority of the States. The tremendous growth in school transportation since the close of World War II, plus the 1'Bxst that more and more of the cost of this service is b01113 provided from State funds, has focused particular 8attention in the last few years on State plans for a financing pupil ~ the: tete aid f. sinister the S.’ trezeoortetiou be to guide then. ‘r. eiequete em'. rein used by the mil transports mile‘ele a curr of their over-u. set or generuu this study “in ‘3?er focus 1 evaluating (1.. P‘Utioulu 3*»! a! “‘5- Slate Willem“ a; ‘ Meme 1:: financing pupil transportation and their relationship to other State aid programs. State education agencies which administer the State aid programs for financing pupil transportation have very little current research available to guide them. There is no single source which summarizes in adequate detail the current State aid plans and for- mulas used by the States to distribute State aid funds for pupil transportation. Furthermore, nowhere is there available a current analysis of these State plans in terms of their over-all characteristics or on the basis of a set of generally acceptable criteria. It is hoped that this study will, at least in part, fill this need. The Primary focus of this study, however, will not be in evaluating the possible strengths and/or weaknesses of Particular State plans, but rather in determining whether or not State plans can be profitably analyzed using the Particular approach developed in this study, thus providing ‘l possible pattern for further studies of this type. W figgigmfin&_2£_§hgggrghlgm."The purposes of this Btnady are to: A- Identify and analyze the common characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the fifty States; B. Ascertain the current status of certain previously validated cri financing up. 3 halite in de pupil transpo- iichigan, 111 Specifically _ the eta: transports the State ' Allocatin: in rela‘. and crite. ll validated criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation; 0. Analyze in detail the State aid plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin, specifically in terms of: the statutory basis, the relationship of State transportation aid to the total State program, the State aid distribution plan (formulas) for allocating pupil transportation aid, and in relation to the aforementioned characteristics and criteria; and D. Evolve on the basis of this analysis recommendations for the possible improvement of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the United States. Significance of the study.--It is not always feasible or educationally sound to maintain ‘schools in the immediate vicinity or within walking distance of all °h11dren. It was recognized at a relatively early period in the development of public education in the several States that some children who lived great distances from the nearest school would have to be transported to and from school if all children were to be afforded educational °PPortunities . The degree to which publicly supported pupil trans- POrtation has been accepted and the impact that this 8OI'Vice has had on our system of public elementary and Secondary education in the United States become obvious he: he look at t {airtr years. I: ni secondary on; 333,633,330. 31 eleven million o; :"." 3 e 5 when we look at the growth of this service over the past thirty years. In 1925-26, about 1,100 ,0002 elementary and secondary pupils were transported to and from school in the United States at a public cost of about $35,600,000. By 1957-58, we were transporting more than eleven million pupils at a cost to the taxpayer (not including capital outlay) of more than $14.19 million.3 During the 1962-63 school year, we transported over fourteen million pupils. This year we will trans- port an estimated 15.5 million pupils at an estimated cost of approximately $600 million. Expenditures for school transportation, therefore, must be seriously considered by any district that transports children to school in analyzing its annual operating budget. Inasmuch as the 8tune factors which caused pupil transportation services to grow are still in operation, in addition to a number of new factors which have emerged in recent years, this Elervice will probably continue to increase. By 1965-66 "9 well may be called upon to transport over sixteen million pupils daily to and from school and to expend for this service (not including capital outlay) an estimated ¥ S 2David T. Blose, ”Some Consolidation Statistics,” ._°hool Life, April 1936;. . 3John B. Murray, ”Statistics on Pupil Transporta- tion, 1961-62," United States Office of Education, OE20022-62 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963) . Growth of pupil transportation in the United States based on annual statistical reports published in s series and on projections prepared by reference "timates and projections section of U. S. Office of Education . 5:33 zillion. If path cont inues . its 300 ,000 addi ineiiately sheaf. Providing become a protlen eially in those stymied and 12;: substantially in authorities in t of dilemma. 0n cement and 3-; itProved school hand. they ‘QQ' for school tra $700 million. In other words, if the present rate of growth continues, we can expect to be transporting more than 500,000 additional pupils each year in the years immediately ahead.l" Providing bus transportation for students has become a problem in many local school districts, espe- cially in those districts where increasing demands for expanded and improved services cannot be met without substantially increasing the cost of education.5 School authorities in these districts are caught on the horns of dilemma. On one hand, they are confronted with the constant and ever-increasing demand for expanded and improved school transportation services. On the other Ihand, they know only too well that excessive expenditures .for school transportation can drain.needed funds away Afrom the instructional programs The demand for pupil transportation services is increasing as a consequence of: the phenomenal growth of our suburban areas, school district reorganisation, the increased demand by school patrons for better or expanded services (sdhool patrons are requesting transportation services today, not only on the basis of such long-accepted factors as distance, ”Ibis. 5The term "school district” refers to that admini- strative unit at the local level which exists primarily to operate schools or to contract for school services, or a geographical area which for specific school purposesis under the supervision or control of a single board of education and/or administrative officer. population spars because of fact: to urban traffic of an apparent as walking whenever increased annual is be am am: realizes that u the attending 1 “uported by A out“ the Deed of de' population sparsity, and educational opportunity, but because of factors often directly or indirectly related to urban traffic problems, and often, it seems, because (:f‘an apparent aversion our society seems to hold against walking whenever it is possible to ride), and finally increased annual school enrollments--generally estimated to be h6.2 million by 1970 (a frightening figure when one realizes that currently approximately two children in every ifive attending public elementary and secondary schools were transported by their school districts last year). A number of States are currently confronted with the need of developing a more scientific and equitable method of allocating State funds for pupil transportation. Education is a function of the State, and it is the obliga- tion of the State to see that school facilities are within reach of every child. Since it is generally agreed that a better Job of providing education for children can be done when they are congregated in larger groups, providing transportation service is essential. States cannot rid themselves of the obligation to provide this service simply by delegating it to local units. It is a State's responsibility in many respects. One of the most pressing aspects of this responsibility, however, is that of financing the service. Engthegig.--(l) The State plans for financing pupil transportation can be profitably analyzed in terms of certain selected characteristics and criteria, E . .1; w!_ (2} recomendati. aiith will contr‘ {hinting pupil rathod of analysi farther studies c Assmrntio: directors of pup: filteertain CPi‘ plan for financi fifty State plan wreath “C05: d5Fees certain of mpu tans: z‘ecogmz8C1 in a PTOcc ., % Certain ( 2) recommendations can be evolved through this process which will contribute to improvement of State plans for financing pupil transportation, and (3) this particular method of analysis can provide a possible pattern for Ihurther studies of this type. Assumptions.--This study is predicated in part on the following assumptions: (1) that the fifty State <11rectors of pupil transportation will generally agree that certain criteria should be incorporated in any State plan for financing pupil transportation, and (2) that the :rifty State plans for financing pupil transportation do currently recognize in a number of ways and to varying degrees certain criteria that the fifty State directors of pupil transportation will generally agree should be recognized in any adequate State plan. Procedure, technique, and data.-- Certain basic data were collected on the State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and‘Wisconsin6 and organized to indicate the statutory basis, the relationship of State transportation aid to the total State aid program, and the distribution plan (including formulas) for allocating State trans- portation aid in these States. The identification and analysis of the current characteristics of State plans for financing pupil 6Appendix A . trmportati' of the fifty Amber J representing 1168 for em trmportati' tincture or order to (let criteria}; The five 0! the am, As a re: mandaticms State gm transportation were made on the basis of a survey of the fifty States.7 A number of important considerations or criteria representing basically those developed by Covert in 1914.68 for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation were submitted to the fifty State directors of pupil transportation for evaluation in order to determine the current status of these criteria.9 The five State plans were then analyzed in terms of the aforementioned characteristics and criteria. As a result of this analysis, a number of recom- mendations evolved for the possible improvement of State aid plans for financing pupil transportation in the United States. Limitations.--A complete and comprehensive study involving all of the financial implications of pupil transportation in the United States has many ramifications and is beyond the scope of any one study such as this. It is recognized that a close relationship exists between State and local support and the administration, organiza- tion, and operation of pupil transportation programs in 8Timon Covert, State Plans for Financi Pu 11 Trans rtation, Federal Security Igency, 5111595 States 5??!“ of Education, Pamphlet No. 99 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19146) . 9Appendix C . the fifty States other: such as s responsibilities etccation in pa; very emery mar. and} will consi 53559 Plans for . United States. Furthemo the collection, basic data parts mil tranmrt‘ “mean. 111:3- “? I brief an 6 «er-:3 or “he the A nme he defw Pu“il t mph; . ea 10 the fifty States. These considerations, however, and others such as school district reorganization and the responsibilities and services of State departments of education in pupil transportation will not, except in a very cursory manner, be pursued in this study. This study will consider only the financial aspects of various State plans for financing pupil transportation in the United States. Furthermore, this study is confined primarily to the collection, organization, and analysis of certain basic data pertaining to the State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin, with only a brief analysis of the remaining State plans in terms of whether or not State plans are a part of the foundation program, the basis for allocating State aid funds for school transportation, factors incorporated in the State aid formula for determining the transportation needs of local school units, and the requirements to qualify for State funds for transportation. Definition of Terms A number of terms which are used throughout this study are defined as follows: Pupil transportation.--The transportation of pupils to and from school and to authorized school activ- ities and/or functions. State plan for financing pupil transportation.--The statutory basis, # including the re (including for-r; Iprticuler Stet tion aid. Basic 81‘: unit at the loca‘ school: or to co “328 can be 16V P‘L'POBes . Rose A mm” City, 01 11 statutory basis, the administrative rules and regulations including the requirements to qualify, and the method (including formulas) normally taken into consideration by a particular State in the allocation of State transporta- tion aid. Basic administrative unit.--The administrative unit at the local level which.exists primarily to operate schools or to contract for school services. Normally, taxes can be levied against such units for school purposes. These units may or may not be coterminous with county, city, or town boundaries. Operatipg costs.--All costs (excluding capital outlay) pertaining to the Operation, maintenance, inspec- tion, and supervision of school transportation programs. Maintenance costs.--All cost involving the main- tenance or upkeep of school buses. (This item could in some cases include certain expenditures involved in the maintenance and operation.of school bus-garages.) Qgpital cutlay.--The nonoperative expenses of pupil transportation, which normally include the cost of school buses, school bus garages, and such other tools and equipment as are associated with.the school bus trans- ‘portation program. School bus depreciation.--(l) The decrease in 'value of a bus as a result of age, miles of operation, or other factors; (2) A planned devaluation of the bus so that the investment in the vehicle will reach a zero nice at approx: value or useful: School b‘. seating capacity figs-ed on the b 5?“) ‘90? pupil. tier vet “----.. tus,and carry: rated 593th; cs in“ basis or not SPECS per pupil) in lCEiSlatiVe a Pepfiissi 930713: ~ ‘0“ cm: 110‘ 12 value at approximately the time the bus has no further value or usefulness. School bus.--A vehicle with a manufacturer's rated seating capacity of twelve or more. (Seating capacity figured on the basis of at least thirteen inches of seat space per pupil.) Other vehicles.--Vehicles such as station wagons, cars, and carryalls normally having a manufacturer's rated seating capacity of less than twelve (figured on the basis of not less than thirteen inches of seating space per pupil). State statutory provisions.--Provisions included in legislative acts passed by State legislatures. Permissive legislative provisions.--Legislative provisions granting school districts the power to act but not compelling action (enabling powers). Mandatorylegislative provisions.--Legislative provisions imposing an absolute and unequivocal obligation to act. State aid allocation.--The allocation and/or dis- tribution of financial grants by the State to local school administrative units for the support of education. Privately operated school transportation.--A plan under which a school bus is owned and operated by an :hndividual or corporation rather than by the public school district. Publiclz operated school transportation.--A plan mile? limb I 5:. board of edncsti financial assist . :eliste school an en attention pro tate tra by a State, anon school districts The four? authorities in Program or eon: 132' eqsalizatic (2) the basic t anteecl under t “39m; and I “1830!! stud. ‘ 1.1313111: in 13 under which.a.schocl bus is owned and operated by a board of education, a municipality, a State, etc. . State aidgprggpgp.--The over-all State plan for financial assistance by the State to local or inter- mediate school administrative units for the support of an education program. State transportation aid.--Financia1 aid granted by a State, amounting to all or a portion of the cost, to school districts for the purpose of transporting pupils. The foundation progpam.--(l) A term used by authorities in school finance to describe the minimum program of education.that should be accepted as a basis for equalization in a State aid or Federal aid program; (2) the basic educational program that should be guar- anteed under the State or Federal program of school support; and (3) a given expenditure in dollars per weighted student or classroom unit per year accepted as a minimum in a State aid or Federal aid program. General-ppppose State aid grants and/or alloca- tions.--State aid allocations distributed to all school systems within a given State in support of a basic program of education. These funds are normally allocated 'with.little instruction as to their use at the local level and may normally be expended for all the purposes for ‘which.boards of education may legally expend funds. Special-ppppose State aid grants angler alloca- 'tions.--State aid allocations which.restrict the use of per my; ' .1 [J _ .i 1.... .; -”_—‘—A——A—I—c__4_ the me: to co. to a particular certain specifi districts thick entitled to ape; Flat Sta listribntions w‘: Frown-tion to c: 112”“) in the teach“, class the financial ' “‘5 in Calm; e 1h the funds to certain specific items in the school budget, to a particular portion of the school program, or to certain specific school districts or kinds of school districts which the legislature may determine are entitled to special support funds. Flat State aid grants andZor allocations.--State distributions which are allotted to school districts in proportion to or normally on the basis of certain factors inherent in the program such as the number of pupils, teachers, classrooms, miles, buses, etc. No estimate of the financial ability of the school district is normally used in calculating the amount of flat grant allocation for a particular school district. Egpalizipg State aid grants and/or allocations.-- State distributions which, although certain program factors may be taken into account as in flat grant dis- tribution, also provide for certain adjustments relative to the financial abilities of school districts within the State. Under these distributions school districts that are able to provide more local revenue by a given standard tax rate normally receive proportionately smaller amounts of State money than do school districts which are less able on the same basis to pay for the same program of school services. In addition to the classification of distributions by two kinds of purposes, general and special, and by the two kinds of methods, flat grant and equalizing, combinations of purpose and method yield four other classes of funds. There are: general-purpose flat grants, general moss flat gr grants. Assessed 15 grants, general-purpose equalizing grants, special- purpose flat grants, and special-purpose equalizing grants . Assessed valuation.--The value placed on a building or other place of real property for purposes of taxation. Local tax len.--A tax levied by a local admini- strative unit of government such as a school district as distinguished from a State or Federal unit. Average daily attendance (ADAl.--A statistic com- puted by the formula: the sum of the days attended by each student enrolled divided by the number of days school is in session; this statistic is usually figured for the period of one school year. Avergge daily membership ans/or enrollment (ADM or ADE) .--The aggregate of the daily membership for the school year divided by the actual number of days school was in session. The State aid formula.--The mathematical procedure employed to calculate the State aid allowance made available to local school districts for approved educa- tional programs and/or services. The State aid formula for determining pupil transportation allowances, for example, may recognize one or more factors such as the financial ability and effort of local school districts, number of pupils transported, density and sparsity factors, miles the school buses are operated, expenditures for equipment or allowances for depreciation, drivers' 55183193: md ll" specified in the rules and reg "L agency involved. State aii: assistance the 1 receive fro: the progren and/or 1 Urgent Chapter st l..erature in 1 lfi’te‘mprzeata i. 5‘11? to State ' ‘fih‘re- Nat-adding 8 two‘s: ‘ u‘ in men deal a O & pe or : reliant: is a“ . ale “,1 . s caapter defile» :J'azent O 16 salaries, and numerous other factors which may be specified in the State statutes and/or administrative rules and regulations of the particular State educational agency involved. State aid allowance.--The amount of financial assistance the local school district may be eligible to receive from the State in support of an educational program and/ or service . Q_1;ganization of Remainder of the Study Chapter II will consist of a review of the related literature in terms of the major research and important develOpments which have had a reasonably direct relation- ship to State plans for financing pupil transportation, including studies, books, periodicals, and pamphlets which deal specifically with State aid plans and formulas for financing pupil transportation in the United States. This chapter also presents a historical review of the development of financial support programs for pupil transportation in the United States. Chapter III will contain an identification and analysis of the current characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the fifty States. Chapter IV will contain a summary of the current status of certain criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation. Chapter V will consist of the presentation and “513515 of Sta‘~ C ‘ | R ' in tree fzve ore: 515, and (2) the criteria, Chapter '| followed by rec: 17 analysis of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin in terms of (1) the statutory basis, the relationship of State transportation aid to the total State aid program, and the distribution plan (including formulas) for allocating State transportation aid, and (2) the aforementioned characteristics and criteria. Chapter VI will contain a summary of the study followed by recommendations and conclusions. . .-| ”2" ya “H'VU‘ 'l'ne S‘dbie broadest Sense 543.13: tration. c0363 “able: 1‘ e' mention 5, “More focuse Newman), (13.: t12.-arming pen; or the st‘ddie ha" dealt . 5‘. Rally with : 34911 trans; This CHAPTER II THE EVOLUTION OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR PUPIL TRANSPORTATION The subject of public school finance in its very broadest sense permeates the literature of educational administration. Any attempt to review all the research conceivably related to this study would not only be impractical but, in a real sense, inappropriate. This chapter focuses basically upon the research which.has a reasonably direct relationship to State plans for financing pupil transportation. It provides an analysis of the studies, books, periodicals, and pamphlets which have dealt generally with State aid programs and specif- ically with State aid plans and formulas for financing pupil transportation. This review, furthermore, will concern itself with the historical development of pupil transportation in the ‘United States only as it may relate to the development of State aid plans and formulas for financing school trans- ;portation and then only to the degree necessary to fix this study in its appropriate historical perspective. The Earl: Period--lB§O-1862 The conviction of the American peOple that 18 edncational on; children slouly ”here is ram educational Opp Ewmphical 10 tion.‘1 SchOOlm ‘1“)! feasible 1'i‘vhln walking 1’ em, as 163 318mg 0n th e to a°°°m0date Edition 13 81:. 19 educational opportunities should be available to all children slowly but persistently evolved in this country. "There is firm evidence that quest for improvement of educational opportunity of children, regardless of their geographical location, is even older than our Constitu- tion.”1 Schoolmen discovered very early that it was not always feasible nor educationally sound to locate schools within walking distance of the children they were to serve. As early as 1838, Horace Mann pointed out this educational dilemma on the American scene when he said, "In attempting to accomodate all with a school house nearby, the accom- modation is substantially destroyed. In many cases, the pursuit of the incident works forfeiture on the princi- ple.”2 While it was recognised quite early that many children would need some kind of transportation to and from school, until relatively recent time it was commonly held that public funds should not be used to provide transportation services. Hassachusetts was the first State to authorize pupil transportation at public expense by law. In 1869 the Massachusetts legislature passed an Act authorizing lNational Education Association, Department of Rural Education, Pupil Transportation, Yearbook l¥§3 (Washington: Depar men 0 ura uca on, , p. 32. 2Austin R. Meadows, Safet and Econo in School Transfirtation (Netumpka, AIaBama: "stumpka EEtIng 0. g , pa 12. h. .‘oo g-g'r‘vxn'. you local corrsniti' support of echo copy of this lc provaeii While SECT. “Mags . is Ac 20 local communities in.that State to levy taxes for the support of school transportation services. The following copy of this Act, with comments, was published in the Thirtybthird.Annual Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education. [Chapter 132] An Act relating to the Conveying of Children to and from the Public Schools. Be it enacted, etc., as follows: SECT. 1. Any town in this commonwealth.may raise by taxation or otherwise, and appropriate money to be expended by the school committee in their discretion, in providing for the conveyance of pupils to and from the public schools. ' SECT. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. [Approved April 1, 1869.] This Act was introduced into the legislature through the efforts of a practical man from one of our rural towns of large territory and sparse population, where the constant problem is, how to bring equal school privileges to all without imposing undue taxation. In too many cases the towns seem to have forgotten that the most important element in the solution of the problem has been the character of the school, and have bent their efforts to making them accessIEIe to all. This has led to such.an unwise multiplication of them, as not only to shorten.the time of their con- tinuance, but greatly to diminish their efficiency, while at the same time the expense of maintaining them has been largely enhanced. The Act recognizes the fact that it is a far better policy for the town to spend a few dollars in con- veying in severe and stormy weather and through drifts of snow, children who have no means of conveyance to a well appointed and good school, rather than to waste hundreds in planting small and feeble schools at their doors. I have little doubt that the future history of not a re: of them will amply Justify the wisdom of the gran . ‘ It is to be remembered that the law is not com- pulsory. It simply gives the power to the towns, whose citizens are amply qualified to judge as to the propriety of exercising it. Certainly there is little danger of its abuse. , The following paragraph of a business letter to this office, written by the chairman of the school .- '7 QTJJQ~ ‘41 corrittee o snows what ‘ of this Act district :3 wearing or. high quarts Pristion, c; the Childrs. (1011838 pep Several ,. «19 provisions 320.0213 0! the schools “tire is mils .‘LL 21 committee of an important town in Worcester Count , shows what has already been accomplished by the aid of this Act and of the Act to abolish the school district system, and is a sufficient reply to the sneering criticism to which it has been exposed in high quarters:-- "We have been consolidating and grading since spring. Instead of eleven schools of the old gig; months' grade, we have now five primary and two grammar, and shall be able to keep at least eight months this year, with no addition to the appro- priation, though we pay better wages, and transport the children in two districts, at an expense of ten dollars per week."3 Several towns in Massachusetts took advantage of the provisions of this Act soon after its passage. The records of the town of Greenfield show that three small schools were united in 1869 and ”a savings of $175 accomplished after paying $127.50 for conveyance of pupils."h One of the first documented instances of the operation of a publicly supported pupil transportation program occurred somewhat later in Quincy, Massachusetts, lam-75.5 By 1893, 120 towns and cities in Massachusetts reported that they were paying for the conveyance of 3Thirty-third Annual Report of the Board of Education, together with the Thirty-third Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board. Commonwealth of Massachu- setts (Boston: Wright and Potter, 1870), p. 107. This reference, rather than Chapter 132, Public Laws, Massachu- setts, 1869, is cited because of the discussions of the Act which are embodied in the report. “Bulletin of the Department of Education, No. 6 (Boston: State Department of Education, 1920), p. 8. 5Addresses and Proceedings of the National Educa- tion Association, 1897, pp. 515-516. a;;roxi-:ately E transportation miss-Year '99-? Tao Sel other Re sstts' lead in responsibility . school distrio mils. Kaine to close schoc 'iith'm a few 1 of education ' i. t ; Lssricts had mpil tI‘QImp-Q 1559' v : emon‘ U 22 approximately 2,000 pupils to and from school.6 School transportation services had made it possible for these towns and cities to close 250 outlying schools over a twelve-year period. The Service Wins Acceptance--l810-1220 other New England States soon followed Massachu- setts' lead in accepting pupil transportation as a public responsibility. In 1876 Vermont enacted a statute giving school districts the permissive authority to transport pupils. Maine followed in 1880 by permitting districts to close schools and spend money for transportation. Within a few years, official reports of State departments of education indicate that in at least four States, school districts had reported expenditures of public funds for pupil transportation: New Hampshire, 1885; Massachusetts, 1889: Vermont, 189h; and Connecticut, 1893. Table l, which.is reproduced from the 1902 Report of the Commissioner of Education, indicates the amounts expended for transportation by local school districts in five States for the school years 1888-89 to 1901-12, ‘while Table 2 indicates the average per pupil cost in ‘two States during this same period. 6.1. F. Abel, Consolidation of Schools and Trans- ortation of Pu ils, Bureau of Education, UEIted States &partment of tfie Interior, Bulletin No. 14.1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 13. _ _ h h -l n 11 Arlyn... chstTZ: 49.2.... A CCTZlJLCAM H.~J.J Calm-.JLCA wrzu Cd :Zuc QQLCQ ~91?!» .uC 2:..0 IB.3..LJ L3.“ .uo JCCO 1.22:4 L0H .uO 0:60 Insaka Lek kc 0:00 Inna-who L0.“ ho QCCU lh~ao~u Lash L563. LLnH m... 57.1qu Ltrm E.~.Cil¥.h~ LCLI L... z. .222th L2?” holfitslxx I. .CCAXLK NOQCQ] _ V .v \fl'lLfi-no Inez diedJOowEOU N BfixbuflnunLC-whnflz N Opuofo> \ OCHQ: \ ccuct..L.i n...Il.v’.*s|-rh anneal-10‘s I :3. II! I . duo-um , . ta . I 2 Wu and” nueufisv'ou Oensaouav daflagz (menu w..vuoflu§vs&u6- Ogden-i .H'tha and. new h: 1;.» rust... . d ~5st swoonw . :58 o fink «K 23 on. .NRH soc ooooom 55 559:8 co nosfiom o co o5 33 you 8.33:3 co soooaoossoo on... «o phonon map co HHH cocoono no postdoc . ”copmaagoozv :oaeoosom Ho smog mopopm woe—ED 6.395 No coapcnho 23.5 on» one maoonom «0 53.33038 05. “season mo. mm:.o -- --- mo.H amm.moa am.m mom.om os.m mafi.~o «o-HomH oo. H~4.4m mm. mnm.~H so.H maa.ama om.~ :mo.~m ma.m pmo.:m Ho-oomfl -- --- Hm. sflm.m mo.H ama.aaa ~;.~ ~a:.o~ mm.~ omo.am coma-mama -- --- en. «ma.oa mm. moa.awa aa.~ Ham.o~ o~.m mHH.om mm-mmwa -- --- mm. oas.aaa om. ~no.mwa om.H oom.ma H:.~ Hom.mn mm-ammfi -- --- -- --- mm. sam.moa ao.~ awm.mfl Hm.a mflm.m~ am-ommfl -- --- -- --- as. ons.am ma.H m~;.wa Hm.“ mm~.~;a om-mmmH -- --- -- --- we. woo.oa H4.H Ham.maw -- --- mm-amoa -- --- -- --- do. mHo.mo -- --- -- --- :m-mmwa -- --- --. --- mm. omm.om -- --- -- --- mm-mmma -- --- -- --- «4.. o-.mm -- --- -- --- «m-Hmma -- --- -- --- on. mae.om -- --- -- --- Hm-oama -- ---- --- ---- mm. m:e.s~ -- ---- -- ----- oa-moma -- --- -- --- mm. mHH.- a -- --- -- --- mm-ommH H33 composed H38. 5338c H33 soapofioc h .33 833.com H33 833.com No name luddhé .HOH We have lacuna, .HOH Ho awn—00 land-S. .HOH MO #50 lush». HO.“ Mo 0550 luau». no.“ Hag new womcoewml pom popconxm mom commoam mom common?“ nick Botswana- . Hoonom .houaou 3oz psoauoocsoo opponsneeemmx pcosno> cede: mo-Homa use mo-mmmH 5953 393m osmium 3oz m 5. 5333353 dash new @3598 mucosa H33 23 no ammo pom can-A 5mg. ‘- 1£ " - fly.- ., no: 14m- ELSE 20"“:0‘11”. and C, sshool yes: list-95 l-SsS-ss Loss-q- 1697-98 1398-99 1399-1900 1900-01 1901-02 2h TABLE 2.--Amount expended per pupil transported in Vefmont and Connecticut between 189h-9S and 1901—02 Vermont Connecticut School number of Number of year pupils Average pupils Average transported cost transported cost 1891-95 921 $1h.oS - - 1895-96 1,3h7 13.68 - - 1896-97 1,309 lh.l§ - - 1897-98 1.57h 11-15 3H9 $13oh5 1898-99 1,652 12.6u 773 13.91 1899-1900 2,062 12.85 639 15.36 1900-01 2,5h0 12.61 780 l6.h6 1901-02 2,517 1h.53 - - 1The Consolidation of Schools and the Trans orta- tion of PE IIs United States Bureau of Education (Washington: government PrIHEIag Office, 19555, p. 2353. Reprint of Chapter III of the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1901 and a portion of Chapter LIII, Report for 1902. From the New England States the trend toward publicly supported pupil transportation slowly spread westward. Certain local school boards in Indiana were providing trans- portation at public expense without expressed statutory authority in 1888 and possibly even earlier. Transporta- tion was generally considered as a key to school district reorganization in Ohio as early as 1893. The following report by 0. J. Kern, Superintendent of Winnebago County, Illinois schools, describes a visit :jj M_j'_"‘.‘a-* ‘m‘ up TIE—JR" I-I :- . .I- '- ‘ V . 's'- z .. '~.- m‘uw.w to one of the n northeastern 0‘2. portation nor-tor. in nurzber , "Y: Etll‘tf until hg a- Tnen he dr Chiliren’ 25 to one of the newly centralised school systems in northeastern Ohio and points out the status of the trans- portation movement in the Midwest in the fall of 1900. So we drove on to North.Madison, in Madison Townmhip where three wagons are used. On our way . there we saw the first wagon. We stopped at the farmhouse and talked with the driver. He carried all the children from one district, about twenty in number. His route was 5 miles long. That is to say, starting at the first home to pick up a child until he arrived at the central sdhool was 5 miles. Then he drove back home after delivering the children, thus covering 10 miles in the morning. Of course, he traveled the same ground after school, thus making 20 miles in all. He got $1.20 a day for his work. We asked him if he made any money at it. He said he did, as he was working a small farm that did not require all the time and labor of'himself and team. We asked.him if he had any trouble with the children and he replied none. He said.he was employed by the township board of education, who put him under bond to be careful with the children; to have a safe team; to provide a suitable wagon, covered and provided with curtains, containing coapstones and lap robes for the severest weather. We asked what objections the parents along the route had to the new plan. His reply was that the only objection was on the part of two or three at the beginning of the route, as they had to get their children ready somewhat earlier than they used to when they went to the district school. Of course, the children must be ready when.the wagon came. He aimed to start at 7:30 and arrive at the building not later than 8:hS. Thus, there were no children tardy; none came with wet feet or clothing; the attendance was greatly increased and much more regular. The driver believed the movement had come to stay; that the peeple would not consent to go back to the old way . . . Between 189k and 1910, twenty-five States enacted laws that provided for the use of public funds for pupil transportation, and by 1910, fourteen States were reporting local expenditures for pupil transportation as a separate 71b1de , ppe 161-62 e itss. 31-71921 existing had o. portation. De Table 3 in the United In Spit “3 “135 expo. the United 3:. local reSponsj school distpi. Stfite aid :0? icut, New 3e: State aid to. at least “to aid fer pa“; belief that not, Only or tiOn as tea ties that c was quite f 26 item. By 1920, all of the forty-eight States then existing had enacted legislation authorizing pupil trans- portation. Delaware in 1919 was the last to do so. Table 3 indicates the status of pupil transportation in the United States by 1920.8. In spite of the fact that by 1920 over $lh million was being expended annually for pupil transportation in the United States, the service was commonly regarded as a local responsibility to be financed entirely by the local school districts. Nonetheless, a trend toward providing State aid for pupil transportation was evident. Connect- icut, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin had been providing State aid for pupil transportation prior to 1910. By 1922 at least twenty States were providing some type of special aid for pupil transportation. Thus, in.the 1920's, the belief that the State should contribute to the support not only of such.direct educational activities of instruc- tion as teachers' salaries but of certain indirect activi- ties that contributed to the over-all educational program was quite firmly established. The Emer in State Aid Pro ams of the 1925‘s The conflicting theories prevalent in the 1920's relative to the purpose of State aid for education must 'be reviewed prior to any consideration of the problems :raised in providing State aid for pupil transportation 81bid., p. 58. i o. l States TABLE 3.--Transportation of pupils, 1920 Dgte of F Per cent Per cent , irst irst Per cent of the of total D888 01 available reported Amount of total Number Of average enroll- COSt Of States flTSt data on amount spent for current children daily ment in tran5por- transpor- amount spent for transpor- expense trans- attend- consoli- tation tatlon spent for transpor- .tatlon of the ported, ance of dated per pupil law transpor— tation In 1920 schools 1920 the schools per year tation State 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Continental 15 2, United States .---— ---- ---- $11,511,511 41.8 356,161 ’5.6 ---_ ---- / / Alabama . . . 2/1915 £51918 8 9.770% 171,925 2.2 7,058 1 9 19 5 3.33 Arizona . . . 1912 --—- ---— -——— ---_ __-- ___- ---- ___- Arkansas . . 1911 ---- ---- -—-- -——— 1,032 .3 ___- ___- California . 1901 1918 272,782 630,797 --_- ---- ---- ___- Colorado. . . 1909 ---- -—-- ---- -—-- 6V’7 11,100 7.5 39-3 ---- Connecticut . 1893 1898 11,116 311,310 2.2 6,030 2.9 -—-~ ---— Delaware .. 1919 1920 68,101 71,111 1.6 ---- . ---- ---- ---- Florida . . . §/1889 1901 3,225 216,691 3.6 7,966 1.8 ---- 27.20 Georgia . . . 1911 1911 19,339 69,177 .8 9,199 2.03 ‘ 52.1 12.10 Idaho . . . . 1913 1911 35,000 301,315 1.5 1,526 1.8 ---— ---— Illinois . . 1911 1912 16,987 163,251 .2 -—-- ---— --—- -—-— Indiana . . . ‘ 2/1899 1901 590 1,921,035 6.6 w,112 13.1 ——-- -——- Iowa . . . . 1897 1907 25,758 1,351,051 1.1 $31 713 8.5 50.6 o/ --_- Kansas . . . 1899 --—- —-—- —--— ---- 8/1,000 1 3 33.7 ,.16-0.23 Kentucky . . 1912 1911 15,222 95,785 1.3 ---- ---~ ---- .10- .19 Louisiana . . 11/1916 1909 15,808 171,059 5.1 18,229 7.1 16.9 26.00 Maine . . . . 1880 1896 17,739 296,651 1.9 8,869 7.6 ---- 33.37 Maryland . . 1901 1905 l_/508 61,731 .8 137 --—- ---- ---- 7‘ O. --— Massachusetts 1869 1889 22,118 858,810 2.1 -/25,935 5.0 --—— ‘1. .20-.21 Michigan . . 1903 1911 19,197 155,116 .1 ---- ---- -——— ‘ —-—- Minnesota . . 1901 , 1901 9,258 976,175 3.1 Z/2o,150 5.1 ---~ 5,---- Mississippi . 1910 g 1911 _/315 216,078 5.5 30,772 11.8 19.7 _/3.18 Missouri . . 1907 ; --—— ---- —--- ---- --—- ---— —--- 101"‘ Montana . . . 1903 g 1911 26,636 297,796 2.9 /3,293 3.5 27.1 __/.33 Nebraska . . 1897 ‘ 1920 --—— 127,500 .7 l/3,517 1.5 ---— —-—- Nevada . . . 1915 1920 -——— 31,115 2.8 -—-- --—— . --—- ---— New Hampshire 1885 1906 38,527 195,127 5.3 ---- ~—-- ———— --—~ New Jersay . 1895 1901 1,121 719,895 2.1 21,727 1.5 -—-- -~—- New Mexico . Lh/I9I7 1918 20,855 136,881 3.8 5,119 8.6 ---- ---- New York . . 1896 1913 65,115 170,185 .1 —--- ' -——— -—-- ---- North Carolina 1911 -—-- ---— --—- ---— 7,936 l 6 ---- : -—-- North Dakota 1899 1906 28,896 876, 876 7.0 21,153 16.1 -—-- 7 --—— Ohio . . . . 1891 1915 173,170 11,651, 157 2.9 ———- ---- ---- } ---- Oklahoma . . 1905 1920 -—-— LH/22 ,397 1.2 ,8,120 2.3 -—-— 107--; Oregon . . . 1903 1920 ---- 2, 286 .02 1 2,029 1.1 —--— ( ».35 Pennsylvania 1897 1913 125 83,962 .1 Z/1,520 .35 __-- i --—- Rhode Island 1918 1918 21 633 ,32 190 .7 ,--—— —--- ---- , ---- South Carolina L9 1912 1911 11:927 11/25:121 .1 11/1,723 .51 . --—- 21/13-29 South Dakota 1899 1913 51,399 211,917 2.3 2,388 2.1 27 5/ ---— Tennessee . . 1913 1915 18,920’ 88,883 1.1 5,870 1.2 --~- 1.00-9 00 Texas . . . . 133/1915 1917 29,631 70,088 .2 2,683 .3 -——— ---- Utah . . . . _L9 1905 1916 93,091 170,286 2.7 5, 000 5.1 ---- ——-— Vermont . . . 1 1876 1893 9,133 228,532 6.51,1,L67 8.8 -—-- ---- Virginia . . i 1903 1906 0/ 2,102 153,796 1.5 8 ,885 2.5 ---- ---— Washington . 1901 32/ 1911 34117523 _--- .._..- _..-_ ____ _..-- -....- West Virginia 1908 ——-— _--_ _--_ __-_ _--_ _-__ __-- -_-_ Wisconsin . . 1897 1912 36,168 225,699 .9 --—- -——- ---- ---- Wyoming . . . 21/1919 7 1918 29,255: 71,128 2.3 ---- ---- ---- —--— _/Computed on returns of 10 States. 2/Computed on returns from 31 States. 3/‘Permitted in Mobile County at an earlier date. E/Mobile County only. 5/Per month. B/Estimated. 7/Data Ior 1921. 8/Assumed in powers of county boards. 9/Transportation was carried on under general powers of township boards as early as 1888. lO/Per day. ll/Transportation also dates to 1902 under general powers of parish boards. lg/Baltimore County. lg/Data for 1919. lh/Not a specific authorization. boards created. lS/Special report for 98 schools. lg/Permitting State aid for transportation. 176Data lor 1918. :E/A law of 1905 was also construed as permitting transportation. l9,In powers of county district board. 20/Special report. 21/Not specific, assumed in powers of district —board. County Source: J. F. Abel, Consolidation of Schools and Transportation of Pupils. Bureau of Education, United States Department of the Interior, Bulletin No. 11 (Nashington: Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 58. 5‘3 28 during this-period. Updegrarr" proposed in 1922 that State aid be distributed on the basis of relative effort made by communities to support a program of education. He assumed that the primary purpose of State aid was to reward or stbmulste local effort. Strsyer and Haig,10 and Mort,11 on the other hand, took the position that the fundamental purpose of State aid was to "equalize educa- tional Opportunity" and to secure "equalization of finan- cial support of education.” Strayer and Haig12 pointed out that the use of State funds to reward or stimulate locsl effort actually results in unequal financial burdens. It is quite evident that Strayer and Haig and Mort drew heavily upon Cubberly.13 In 1905, Cubberly had pointed out vast inequalities in the burdens resting upon school districts to support their education programs. He identified six States that were giving some consideration in the distribution of State aid to the equalization principle. In 1920, at least twenty States recognized . 9Hsr1an Updograrr, Financial Su art in Rural Survey of New York State (EEIlsdeIpEIa: Wm. F. Fell Co., 1 9 DP. 1 " 0 10George D. Strsyer and Robert Murray Hsig, The Finsnc of Education.in.the State of New York, Educa- tional fiffience Inquiry (New YbrE: The fieEEKIIEn 00., 1923)! I, 171... 11Paul R. Mort, The Measurement of Education Needs (New York: Teachers College, ColumEIs UEIversIty, I92E3, Chapters I and II. 1ZStreyer and Haig, op. cit., p. 175. 13E. P. Cubberly, State School Administration (Boston: Boughton Mifflin 50., I927), chapter V. My." »_Ot .5 3 a-T'l _. 4‘. l 4 the principle Miran The ov made sone pro mg school sistmcy of 1 Singer and 1 13mm :15 “lunatic: undoubtedly Period. m for 39331301 tems of l‘ ”Planet. 29 the principle in one way or another, according to Hamil-9.1“ The over—all plan proposed by Updegraff in 1922 made some provision to equalize the burden of support among school districts, but it also introduced the incon- sistency of attempting to reward effort at the same time. Strayer and Haig15 attempted to define the issues involved in State aid and laid down certain principles by which equalization could be obtained. The Hort study was undoubtedly the most noteworthy in the field during this period. This study pioneered in identifying standards for measuring the educational needs of communities in terms of ”weighted pupil--typical teacher" and in devising a plan of equalizing the burden of support. New implications of the principle of equalization of educational opportunity were first clearly stated by the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission in 1923.16 Following the formulation of the equalization principle, a long series of individual studies explored various techniques of setting up finance programs within the State to equalize a minimum educational opportunity for all the children. The Strayer-Haig New York State Education Finance 1‘48.H.'McGuire, Trends in Princi les and Practices of E ualization o ”.111me WW, I). 31. 15Strayer and Haig, op. cit., p. 17h. 162.12. 5 3 Report in 19 tion progr ' pattern for 192.; were t program to State Io‘mé Prepare f 30 Report in 1923, which first introduced the State founda- tion program concept in such a way that it became a pattern for other similar studies, and Hort's study in 19214. were to have an almcst immediate effect on State pragrams for financing education. The impact of the State foundation program concept has, of course, by no means diminished over the years and is today an extremely potent force in any serious consideration of State support programs for education in the United States W o ocatin tate Transportation Kid It became obvious to certain authorities in school finance soon after the Strayer-Haig report and Hart's study that pupil transportation should be one of the elements included in any State foundation program. In general, the State aid allowances for pupil transportation during the early 1920's made excessive local effort almcst mandatory. The methods used by most of the States both for determining local need and for arriving at a rea- sonably equitable method of distributing the available State funds for pupil transportation left much to be desired. Flat grant State aid allocations represented, by and large, the method employed to distribute State transportation aid in the few States which provided such aid in the early 1900's. In 1906 New Jersey and Wisconsin were allocating State transportation aid through flat grants based on 3 ..-—.._ Aha—o1 .wmwz-n" ‘ "f. 43"“ prescribed p early as 191 transportatf match " or exceed a p: grants base 31 prescribed per pupil allowance, while Connecticut as early as 1903 and Vermont in 1906 were distributing State transportation aid in the form of flat grants based on matching or a percentage of the local expenditure not to exceed a prescribed maximum.17 The allocation of flat grants based on per pupil allowances, matching, or per- centage of actual expenditures still represents the basic methods used today in a number of States to distribute State transportation aid. An increasing number of States began to allocate State aid_for pupil transportation during the 1920's, and the methods employed to allocate these funds became somewhat more refined. According to Covert's study18 the seventeen States which.allocated State aid funds for pupil transportation in the late 1920's were allocating State transportation aid on at least four distinct bases (Table h). It soon became evident in a number of States that the allocation of State matching funds or Stage aid allowances distributed on a per capita basis invariably introduced inequalities at the local level and resulted all too often in the promotion and expansion of those 17Arvid J. Burke, Financing Public Schools in the United States (Rev. ed.; New ork: arper an ro hers, ’ p. O 18Timon Covert, State Aid for School Consolidation and Pupil Transportation, ce 0 uca on, n e States Department of the Interior, Leaflet No. 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931), pp. 6-7. A fl ._..—---=—-" 4' a; ._,_h- -.‘.-;;_-_'L‘1‘.~»"" '1 \ activities an: in those loca match State 1 and tho aqua themtora, t thing the allocating - H.313 “In": 1 § Percentage 0! cost \_ Wctm has” Kaine I" Jet‘Se 39" York To 32 activities and services such as pupil transportation only in these localities which were financially best able to . match State funds. With.the spread of transportation aid and the equalization programs, it was only natural, therefore, that interest would be gradually centered on finding the most equitable and defensible methods of allocating these State aid funds. TABLE u.--The various methods employed in allocating State transportation aid, 1928-29 Actual cost Percentage not to exceed Not Flat Actual extent of cost a prescribed specified grants of program maximum Connecticut Delaware Indiana Michigan South Carolina Kansas New Hampshire Minnesota Wisconsin Maine Vermont Massachusetts New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Texas Wyoming The Burns studz--1221.19--Burns' study is generally credited with initiating the search for more refined and equitable methods for measuring local pupil transportation needs. It provided a basis for determining reasonable operating costs for pupil transportation services, which in turn created.the foundation for a more realistic approach to the distribution of State aid allocations. 19R. L. Burns, Measurement of the Need for Trans- orti Pu ils (New‘York: Columbia.UEIversIty, 1527’, pp. 5-7- . ,._.--—‘~ 3a., i “La-#4" ' harm-rm Burn: local trans failed to i a State to tion on | a with the ; tional op; of Egg; 3 prleten 01’ educat 33 Burns attempted to develop an index for measuring local transportation need, one of the areas that Mort had failed to include in.his pioneer study, which.would enable a State to apportion school moneys for pupil transporta- tion on a more equitable basis and in a manner consistent with the principle of a greater equalization of educa- tional opportunities. In a real sense, Burns, as a student of Hort's, set about to develop an.index which.wou1d supplement or complement Hart's study of the measurement of educational need as related to the transportation of school children.20 ' In Burns' search for a statistical measure of the transportation need in a given locality, he accepted two factors as being important elements in such.a measure: (1) the percentage of the average daily attendance trans- portation, and (2) the density of school population. Burns found that these factors when.weighed by such variables as the average distance children were trans- ported and/or number of small schools or the size, geographically, of attendance areas of school units in a given county in.New Jersey, had a high degree of validity insofar as ascertaining the local transportation need. Students of school transportation.had recognized for some years that sparsely settled rural communities needed to ‘transport a larger per cent of their children than urban districts in order to maintain centralized schools that i zolbid. _ . M an L. ‘. ..o ' rum,” 1‘s ‘ L% I as flLpared ' .‘s ‘ 0 lead fdens' , it .t: eraga cl co 1 title: a :arsal‘y Warn 8 one to s t‘. high er 1 fl...) 3a ; compared favorably with the urban districts. Following this lead, Burns made a careful study of the association of density of school population with the per cent of the average daily attendance transported in New Jersey counties and found it to be quite high. Believing that sparsely settled comunities transported children longer distances on the average than dense communities, and that due to this fact the per pupil cost of transportation was higher in the sparsely settled comunities, he sought a measure of the average distance children were transported in each county to introduce in his index as a weight factor associated with cost. Burns admitted that there were a number of variables involving certain locally directed policies and programs which caused some statistical departure from his afore- mentioned index. After developing a measurement of trans- portation need in terms of transportation need units, Burns then attempted to translate these units into dollars and cents by calculating the cost of the minimum program of transportation to be equalized by the State. Burns' approach to this aspect of the problem was the same approach as had previously been used by Hort, which put simply was: "Inasmuch as the central tendency of expendi- tures in the State as a whole may be expected to approx- imate the expenditures in communities of average wealth, 1 i .w- , _,;_,,,3,.._,,._. such seas According trapper: the unit Burns, 0' coat of 35 such.measures can be reasonably accepted as unit costs."21 According to Burns, the central cost tendency for pupil transportation in New Jersey could be used in determining the unit cost of the minimum transportation program. Burns, on this basis, determined that $20 represented the cost of supporting one unit of the minimum transportation program and thus the cost of the minimum transportation program in any given county in New Jersey could be computed simply by multiplying the unit needs of a particular county by 20. Burns recommended that it appeared quite Justifiable to place transportation wholly on a county basis, to equalize the burden among the counties by use of his index, to place the burden of supplementing the State's contribution on the whole county, and finally to lodge complete supervision of transportation and apportioning of State and county funds received for this purpose in the office of the county superintendent. He finally sug- gested that his index for measuring transportation need could be incorporated into a minimum foundation program through use of the weighted pupil principle in a manner similar to that which.had been previously advocated by Hort. The Johns studz--1228.22--The earlier study by 21Paul R. Hort, State Su ort for Public Schools (New York: Columbia'UnIversIty, I523), p. 25. 22Roe Lyell Johns, State and Local Administration of School Trans ortation, ontr butions to ducation, No. 335 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928). .W‘! lfi—v-vriiaz—sa m rs: _ Barns was to another stude farther l‘Ofil portation no Proposed bot defensible 1 NM would lo “9 Fla: relative t tho attend factor in t° Johns , independs (2) Balms with My tributefi 36 Burns was to serve as a point of departure for Johns, another student of Mort's, who was to contribute to a further refinement of techniques for determining trans- portation need during the late 1920's. Johns, in 1928, preposed both a measure of transportation need and a more defensible method of allocating State aid funds which.he hoped would remedy certain deficiencies and limitations in the plan proposed by Burns, namely, (1) the limitations relative to the relationship between cost variations and the attendance area per school building used as a weighing factor in measuring transportation need, which, according to Johns, was out of proportion to actual cost variations independent of the controls of the community, and (2) Burns' failure under his plan to provide the State with adequate administrative controls over moneys dis- tributed as transportation aid. Johns felt that Burns' plan did not furnish.the State with adequate administra- tive controls for the distribution of State aid for trans- portation but rather only a minimum transportation program in terms of hypothetical need units representing dollars of State aid. It was quite possible under Burns' preposal, Johns concluded, to actually subsidize a type of trans- portation program that should not be included in the State minimum program or be otherwise eligible for State support. Johns pointed out, for instance, that two counties in New Jersey, each.with similar factors affecting cost, might be spending widely different amounts in effecting the same ”a. a, ‘M .1. 35551557 L__l ”firg‘wj transports :aragezenl repress: that axis atteria: tion (5:) factor 1' single n tI‘L‘ZSpop control :0? (1.13: 37 transportation due to variations in efficiency of local management. Obviously, the State should not encourage inefficiency in its State aid program. Johns' study represented a further attempt to find.the relationship that exists between the per cent of the average daily attendance transported and the density of school papula- tion (Jehns accepted density as the major controlling factor in determining transportation need and as the single most important independent variable for predicting transportation cost) and to set forth State standards for control of the quality of the local program. The standards for quality control enumerated by Johns were as follows: (1) The State should recognize the transportation being carried on in the average community in a group of communities whose needs for transportation were similar due to the equal effects of factors beyond the control of these communities, as the basis of the minimum.program it will recognize in terms of number of students transported. (2) The State should recognize as the per pupil cost of its minimum program the price paid by the average community in a group of communities whose costs for transportation are affected similarly by factors beyond its control. (3) The State should recognize in its program of support the transportation done with the minimum determined on the basis of (l) and at a cost within the legitimate minimum determined by (2). (h) State aid for transportation should not be computed independent of the rest of the State's program of support, but should be combined with it and distributed on the basis of the community's ability to support education. (5) The State in administering its program of support should not by its administration of those funds encourage local inefficiency or extravagance or render the community inflexible to educational change or reorganization as the science of education pro resses. 6) If it is shown in the administering of the plan that communities by reason of factors beyond F_—.—— their con with teat variable, included There eo-called at Samrt for some eo-call standards. Johr. tmsportat in term ea “than?“ more 151] cost of t} Pupil cos the to re corral”: member. 0: lllowab; to the a ”elated are, c. to be C “7th v. ‘ \ 38 their control have a transportation need at variance wdth that predicted by the selected independent 13333:? 13211:“ 331:3; greener” ”m” b° There is nothing startlingly new or unusual in these so-called standards of Jehns'. In reading Mort'sau'Stggg Support for Public Schools, one notes the similarity of some so-called principles advanced in that work and Johns' standards. Johns also recommended that the minimum program of transportation should be determined in a given locality in terms of the per cent of the average daily attendance transported as related to the average daily attendance per square mile. He further recommended that the calculated cost of the program be determined by computing the per pupil cost of transportation in.a number of communities due to factors beyond their control through the use of correlations and regressions and by multiplying by the number of students eligible for transportation aid. The allowable State aid in Johns' proposal was to be equal to the actual cost if such cost did.not exceed the cal- culated cost. In.oomputing the transportation expendi- tures to be allowed each.local district within a county to be counted in its total minimum or foundation program, Johns recommended the following procedure: 231b1de, ppe m-15e 2“Mort, op. cit. r 34‘?" ‘1 "a H ""ht- j ‘M. .e. flfjfi’ 39 If a county is transporting equal to or less than its minimum, allow each district all its expenditures for transportation. If it is transporting more than its minimum, divide the minimum program for the county among the several districts on.the pro rata basis according to the amount each is spending. State aid for transportation is to be distributed in com- bination with the other elements of educational neg? on the basis of the community's taxpaying ability. This is done by dividing the State aid allowed by the cost per weighted pupil as determined by Nort's technique and adding together various elements of educational need [into one State aid allocation]. The Evans study-~1930.26--Two years after Jchns' study, Evans published a study which was to make an impor- tant contribution to the fund of information available relative to the problems associated with accurately measuring local transportation need and responsible operating costs and thus to the improvement of State aid plans for financing pupil transportation. Evans in his study proposed, among other things, to find a satisfactory basis for comparing pupil transportation costs and a means of standardizing the cost of pupil transportation on the basis of cost norms in California. The study indicated.that the probable causes for cost variations in pupil transportation included such factors as: (1) length of routes and distances children 251nm. , p. 131. 26Frank 0. Evans, Factors Affect the Cost of School Trans ortation in California, 5?%¥ce of Education, ‘fiaited States Department of the Interior (washington: Government Printing Office, 1930). 4 “fl, “fin-'be, a' 4 F..— I‘ ‘1'-' “3’ .IQ' are trampc portation : ('4) owners traneporti versus hi; (7) Size t canary a a: blver for servi [12) P01: Portatio; all equa indicate it extra no are transported: (2) number of children-for whom trans- portation is furnished; (3) type of equipment used; (h) ownership of equipment or letting contracts for transporting children; (5) age of children-~elementary versus high school; (6) density of.schocl population; (7) size of the school district; (8) topography of the country and type of roads in use; (9) type of persons used as drivers, and wages paid; (10) methods used in providing for service; (11) system of accounting in use; and (12) policy used in determining those entitled to trans- portation. These factors, Evans pointed out, were not all equally adopted to objective measurement, and he also indicated that the interaction between these factors made it extremely difficult to separate and weigh the effects of any one factor independently. Evans' study, therefore, represented an attempt to select those factors which appeared to be essential and pertinent and to measure their effect on the cost of pupil transportation. It is interesting to note that Evans was unable because of a lack of adequate data to evaluate the effect or influence of density on school transportation cost (need) according to the methods previously proposed by Burns or Johns. Evans made an analysis of those elements which.contribute to the over-all cost of service, such as depreciation, interest, insurance, fuel, lubricants, tires, repairs and upkeep, and wages. He found certain limitations inherent in this type of approach to the study cost variations between 3 Ev cost of c interest, these ite of reel, were dir readily drivers Ihould 1 factors. 1 11.1 between given localities within a State. Evans found that mileage did not influence the cost of certain fixed charges such as depreciation, interest, and insurance; thus any attempt to standardize these items on this basis could be misleading. The cost of fuel, lubricants, tires, and upkeep, on the other hand, were directly dependent on mileage and therefore could be readily standardized on this basis, while the wages of drivers did not belong in either of these two groups and should be considered independently of the other cost factors. Evans, in this study of transportation in Califor- nia, found that: (l) 33 per cent of the expenditure for transportation was chargeable to depreciation; (2) 12 per cent to other fixed charges such as interest, storage, and insurance: and (3) 25 per cent to the cost of operation and upkeep. Evans concluded that norms based upon the total cost per day for routes of given lengths and conveyances of given size were much more practical and reliable as predictors of cost than norms based on the cost per mile or on various units derived from the cost per mile. This was due to the fact, Evans felt, that much of the expense involved is not dependent upon mileage. Evans also discovered in his study that: 1. There was a great lack of prOper accounting in California at the time of his study with regard to M“ m. " .<. '5. i '. . , ._, .r. L“ 1‘ I‘nV—WLL— the exp promote Opinior with de qaentlj The 1 11m: be 3. due eXPl to d SiVe Plan RVeP 03.316 10‘ 't h2 the expenditures for transportation. Attempts to promote better accounting had been hindered, in Evans' opinion, by the introduction of forms requiring too much detail and the use of derived units which fre- quently make the better management appear the worst. A good accounting system for school°transportation, Evans pointed out, must be simple, must present the facts about each project separately, and must show the total cost and exact service rendered; Pupil transportation costs increase approximately at the same rate as the square root of the pupil miles. Evans felt that this was an argument not only against the small project but against small administrative units and the separation of elementary schools and high schools; The variability in wage payments and in the amounts invested in equipment showed that these items should be standardized. Excessive costs, Evans concluded, due to business management were most frequently explainable in terms of unnecessarily high wages paid to drivers or an investment in equipment more expen- sive than the situation demanded; The case for school ownership rather than the contract plan seemed to be clear. When length of routes and average load were taken into consideration, buses owned by high schools showed costs ranging from 8 to 10 per cent lower than similar projects carried out (Fa I... fir7f+wfi“‘_‘fl7q H th’. hB under contract with.private parties. This difference, Evans found, was further emphasized by a lower average cost per mile and per pupil when equipment is owned by the school; 5. Only in extreme cases, Evans found, did the size of the district appear to add materially to the cost of transportation. There was no consistent relation between the cost per pupil and the size of the district except in districts with an area of more than 625 square miles; and 6. Mountainous and unimproved roads added to the expense of providing transportation in approximately one-third of the high school districts in California, Evans determined, and the average difference in cost due to this factor ranged from 10 to 15 per cent. ghe Lambert study--l935.27--Lambert in 1935 seriously challenged the widely accepted reliance on the findings and work of Hort, Burns, Johns, and others con- cerning the effect of density or sparsity of population in predicting local pupil transportation need and/or costs. .Lambert questioned the validity of Burns' and Johns' findings on the basis, at least in part, of certain statistical liberties he felt had been taken, and on the 27A. c. Lambert, ”A Study of Some Factors that .Effect the Need for the Transportation of Pupils to and from School at Public Expense with Special Reference to Certain Alleged Affects of the Density of POpulation.upon this Need” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford ‘University Press, Stanford, California, 1938). "3 ‘fl-M-nu'm-L h n- ub- a-..“ "J 3' i‘.‘uene We ww—o general a close or or expert reeearc’: {actors Elven I factor “Lin (3) t: Villaé was: the Lela general contention that density per as did not have as close or reliable a relationship to the necessary quantities or expenses of pupil transportation as certain previous research had indicated. Lambert28 contended that there were a number of factors which determine the transportation needs of a given locality, such as: (l) the school-organization factor; (2) the limits fixed for a reasonable maximum walking distance for pupils of various ages and grades; (3) the number of pupils in the several cities, towns, villages, and open country who live beyond the accepted maximum walking distances; (1;) the time factor as it operates with respect to the actual number of minutes expended in travel and the earliest hour in the morning at which pupils who are picked up for the first delivery can be expected to leave their dwellings 3 (S) amounts, quality, and configuration of the roads and highways in the region considered; (6) the various capacities of the vehicles that can be used; (7) the mean running speed of the vehicles ; (8) the patterns in which dwellings are scattered over the land surface; and (9) natural barriers and civil boundaries that are often changed independently of educational considerations. He also felt that at least the more important factors included in the above list influence the need for pupil transportation 28Asael C. Lambert, School Trans ortation (Stanford, California: Stanford Univers y Press, . ATP—”.3"? To] ‘pe’uam sawmi- .‘ . . .' .- _ Jm‘“ indepen rent of transgc were cc tent i: or den trans; 13 giv walk t inhere 3° poi 01110 being #5 independently of the density of population factor. The major contribution of Lambert was the develop- ment of techniques in effectively mapping and determining transportation routes, in which walking distance policies were considered along with a number of other items impor- tant in the establishment of pupil transportation services. Morphet,29 evaluating Lambert's attack on the use of density of population as a factor in.measuring pupil transportation need, contended that if proper consideration is given to uninhabited areas and to areas in which pupils walk to school, Lambert's objections to the limitation inherent in this factor for determining need can be met. He pointed to the plans in operation in Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Oklahoma as evidence that the objection was being met successfully. Morphet further stated: The most important single factor in a plan for apportioning State funds for transportation is the density of transported population. In fact, prac- tically all other factors are digsctly related to and involved in this one factor. Probably one of the most progressive plans31 for 29Edgar L. Morphet, "Problems Invalued in Providing .Efficient School Transportation Service," American School and‘Universit (Eleventh Annual Edition;.New York: .AmerIcan School Publishing Corp., 1939), pp. 539-550. 3oEdgar L. Morphet, "Basic Considerations in the .Apportionment of State Funds for Pupil Transportation," .Addresses and Proceedings, LXXIX (l9hl). 55k. 3114. o. S. Noble, Pu 11 Trans ortation in the United States (Scranton: International Textbook Company, ‘IEWEST'ST‘I7B. ‘ . ' nun“ ‘ma‘-'*‘ .~ l“ (2"- - no allocating State aid for pupil transportation that had been proposed thus far was developed by Hutchins32 in 1938. The Hutchins study-~1938.--Hutchins( findings were in substantial agreement with the research of Burns, Johns, and others, that density was an important factor in determining the transportation costs of a given locality. -Hutchins' study supported the wisdom of Evans' ‘multiple factor approach by concluding that there were a number of other significant factors which of necessity must be taken into consideration along with.the density factor if a defensible method was to be developed for the measurement of transportation need and the allocation of State aid funds for pupil transportation. Hutchins found in reviewing the literature, for example, that approximately 70 factors were credited, by one authority or other, with.influencing to some extent the cost of pupil transportation.33 Through a process of elimination, Hutchins finally reduced his original list of seventy factors to ten factors which he found to be of appreciable significance in affecting the cost of pupil transportation and which could reasonably serve as the elements in a formula for allocating State aid funds for pupil transportation. These 3201ayton D. Hutchins, ”The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation”.(unpublished doctoral disggrtation, The Ohio State University, Athens, Ohio, 193 . 33Ibid., p. h8. ,‘nt—J -,. ; 31' Ir,~Fv-'— e “Ana‘- ten factors on the heel of the lore three uncor. ported, (2) consisted e (1) pupils Nil, (3) “Plcity u 0f buses o Hatching e I"v‘E-“eseion cost per. F Optima 1: But “leulace Vim Var: exam, ( in hi! 8t \ 31'. M7 ten factors, Hutchins found, fell into two major groups, on the basis of whether or not they fell within the control of the local board of education. Group I consisted of three uncontrolled factors: (1) number of pupils trans- ported, (2) density, and (3) condition of roads; Group II consisted of seven controlled or managerial factors: (1) pupils transported per bus, (2) average investment per pupil, (3) number of trips per bus, (h) per cent of capacity used, (5) average number of bids, (6) per cent of buses owned by board, and (7) seating arrangements. Hutchins employed the three uncontrolled factors in a regression equation in order to determine a right or basic cost per pupil per month for a given locality, assuming optimum local management policies conditions. Hutchins employed the seven controlled factors to calculate further adjustments in the basic cost to alle- viate variations due to poor local management and thus to discourage costly and undesirable local practices. An example (Table 5) of a typical calculation under Hutchins' formula for a local school district in Ohio is described in his study as follows:3u 3hibid., p. 102. ‘Mfl'nfi7 "en-A ”all? =-_4" ‘ j‘ ' .,.. . in”... ~ ._ .. f1 ‘7‘“ arc—— Cons! Huzbe tre Densf Road Inve. m l?‘“: Nqu Per u8 {PABLE 5.‘-Ca1culation of the recommended cost of pupil transportation 11 2 3 u Per Pupil Factors Status Per Month Constant - $+5.1h Number of pupils transported (a) 205 '3.77 Density (a/j) 3.1 - .Oh Road condition (1) Knox Co. +1.h6 Pupils per vehicle (a/b) hl ' .08 Investment per pupil (c/a) $25 - .02 Trips per vehicle (d/b) l + .06 Per cent of ca acity utilized (a/E) 9h% + .00 Per cent of buses owned by board (h/b) 0 + .15 Number of bids per route (l/b) 1 ' .05 Per cent of seats facing forward (b/e) u5% + .01 Total amount per pupil per month $ 2.86 Number of pupils (a) 205 Asaun&_£22_sae_man£h $586-30 Number of months (k) 9 Total amount for one year $5,267.70 Actual cost reported for 1937-38 $5.1h8.00 1Factor values and/or adjustments listed by Eutchins in Column 1 have not been included inasmuch as tile dtta is meaningless in the absence of certain statis- 1 cal tables and indexes developed by Hutchins and “chided in his study. " w—-‘—--—-— I-—;.——-.— A u could be a lO-factor l. The a: fitted three adjus recto 20 A 8mg 3. dist: Pepe: The } PPOd‘ and - to t. the PeVe ECO! 1&9 A number of important advantages, Hutchins felt, could be secured through the adoption of his so-called lO-factor plan, such as: 1. The amount determined for the district is accurately fitted to the local program since it recognizes the three most significant uncontrolled factors and makes adjustments for the seven most influential managerial factors. A small amount of data is required from each school district. Only ten items of information need be reported. The plan encourages local responsibility since it produces a total amount for the district for one year and requires the local board to apportion this amount to the individual bus drivers. If more is needed, the additional cost can be supplied from local revenues. It is flexible in that other managerial factors may ‘be added or some may be eliminated by the State department of education at any time without changing the total amount spent for pupil transportation. This enables the department to constantly reappraise the transportation program and make changes which ‘will obtain safe, comfortable, efficient, and economical transportation. 50 Financial Suppgrt Programs for Pupil ransportat on n rans on Lambert35 in 1938 pointed out the fact that largely as a result of the influence of Mort and the work of Burns and Johns concerning the association between density or population and necessity for school transportation, a number of State aid plans and formulas for financing pupil transportation.had.incorporated at least to some degree this concept. To illustrate the influence of this concept, a number of studies have been cited, for example, the State aid studies conducted in Pennsylvania in 1927,36 inNebraska37 and Kansas in 1928,38 in Colorado39 and 6&6 3§Lambert, School Transportation, cp. cit., PP- ' 36Paul R. Hort, Increased State Aid for Public Schools, Report of the Governor's Commission to Study the Distribution of State Subsidies to School Districts (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1927). 37Idem, A Plan for Provigfigg Egfialiti of Educa- tional O ortun Nebraska, esear e No. 3 (5525a, Nebraska: State T E eac ers Association, 1928), ppe 16: 31, 1‘30 38Idem, A Plan for Providi E alit of Educa- tional OpportunIt In Kansas, Report 0% the State School Case Commission of Kifisas, Supplement to Volume II, 1928, also in Complete Report, 1929. 39Idem, A Prelimin: ' Re-ort on the Reconstruction of the S~stem o F aanc -; ’ b c choo s . -e ‘sate of o oraoo, ouca ona ' nance omm Colorado: Education Association, 1929), pp. 5, 1h, 15. .—.A ‘ . m6. Flor as a n r such as Coloradc EQZEEEJ °f Educ SUbsec' tion 0 tional 0“ Sta Need I PPOCQC (unput DGQVeI cests “test: F~9 Pupil 51 and Florida in 1929,ho and in Ohio in 1935.h1 as well as a number of studies completed in the early 1930's, such as Jones and Holmstedt's Indiana study,’42 Gordon's Colorado study,”3 and Tonkinson's work in Oklahoma.hu The various State aid plans for financing pupil transportation could be classified by 1938 into six distinct groupings (Table 6):")5 hoEducational Survey Commission and Survey Staff Report to the Legislature (Florida, 1929): pp. 162-163. hlc. D. Hutchins, Administration of Pu 11 Trans- pgztgtigp, Bulletin No. 2 (Columbus, Ohio: Department of Education, 1935): p. 7; and Ohio G. C. 759S-lc, Subsection d. hZJ. H; Jones and R. W. Holmstedt, "The Distribu- tion of State Funds for the Purpose of Equalizing Educa- tional Opportunity in Indiana," A Report of the Commission on State Aid for Public Schools in Indiana, 1930, p. 18. h3Gary Gordon, "A Technique for Determining the Need for School Transportation in Colorado and A Suggested Procedure for Administering State Aid for This Need (unpublished master's thesis, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, 1930). huGlen E. Tonkinson, "A Measure of Transportation Costs in Consolidated Schools" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1930), pp. 9, 12, 18. “SHutchins, "The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation," gpg_gi§., p. 26. (VI A. . = 8 fi ‘ I 0.: .69,“ he d AM P. «\u pu Pu a o I v: to. s'u'dnrfinllll‘vlss’ial! tiw Co CE \ n... F. u... C 0 sea 52 TABLE 6.--Summary of the methods used for distributing1 State funds for pupil transportation in 193 (1) State funds only to poor districts Indiana Maryland New Hampshire Utah “4) Cost, but not exceeding a maximum paid by State Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Ohio Oklahoma (2) Flat rate per pupil paid by State Arkansas Tennessee Texas Wisconsin (5) Factors related to the cost recognized Alabama Minnesota South Carolina Washington (3) Per cent of cost paid by State Mississippi Montana New Jersey New York Pennsylvania (6) Entire cost financed by State Delaware North Carolina lflutchins, "The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation," 92, cit., p. 26. ‘MJ . ,7 ‘1 -— r ""“4._ 114""— ' 7-41;. V m '4‘- I 'IY. V.‘ flacm . auzwa' under _. g.- hit-Inn 53 i For illustrative purposes the following six summarizations may be typical examples of State provisions under the aforementioned six categories: mater-gs State funds for pupil transportation are allowed only to the State school Relief Districts. Such districts are required by law to advertise for bids. Reimbursement for transportation expense, not exceeding schedules approved by the State Department of Educa- tion, are made from State aid funds. Arkansas In distributing the Equalizing Fund the State recognizes ”. . . $12 per pupil per year for the average number of pupils transported for the first seven months. Children who live within two miles of the school which they attend must not be counted in determining the average number transported.” Mississippi The State recognizes the cost of transportation along with.other items of current operating expense in distributing State money to the counties for school purposes. Bids are required prior to the signing of transportation contracts. Massachusetts The Commonwealth reimburses local districts for the expense of transporting high school students to the extent stated in the following schedule: Expenditure per pupil for oath $1000 of Reimbursement taxable valuation .00 to .99 1/2 cost of transportation 5.00 to 5.99 3/h cost of transportation The reimbursement is based upon not more than $.h0 per pupil a day for transportation. 5&22223 On February 8, 1936, the Alabama State Board of Education adapted a new plan of distributing about $1,500,000 annually for a minimum program of pupil —.-__ transpc number cost of limitec "Saturs The tion pq i ch11: Which I BOII‘d l the b0 'priva At ’0? pupil one~half o t’mporta third or t Allowances Special.‘m States All in the for The that, 1132:: um e thpOug throng \ its 5h transportation. The method recognizes density and number of pupils as the chief factors affecting the cost of transportation. The rate of increase is limited for any district by its proximity to the "Saturation Index." Delaware The State Board of Education issues a "transporta- tion permit” to each pupil entitled to transportation. A child holding a permit may ride the school buses, which.are routed, operated, and financed by the State Board of Education. In addition to this bus service, the boards receive funds Egon the State for necessary "private transportation.” At least thirty States were providing State aid for pupil transportation in the 1930's. Approximately one-half of these States included State aid for pupil transportation in their State foundation programs.""7 One- third of the States during this period provided State aid allowances for pupil transportation in the form of special-purpose matching grants, while the remaining States allocated State aid funds for pupil transportation in the form of special-purpose flat grants. The Council of State Governmentshe in l9h9 revealed that, State aid for transportation is now well estab- lished in all but eight States . . . Eighteen States provide aid through special-purpose flat grants, sixteen as part of their foundation program, two through special-purpose equalization fflgds, and four through some combination of the above. hélbld. , pp . '11.— 19 . h7Burke, op. cit., p. 621. ”Francis 3. Chase, The Fort -Ei t State School sttems (Chicago: Council of State Governments, I959), p. e ”91mm , p. 103. *5 m“ “L‘— 55 The Cox studl--12§ .5°--In an analysis of the State aid formulas in 1951, Cox found that the basis for allocating State transportation aid could be generally classified into one of five ways: 1. Counting of one or more factors in the transporta- tion program such as number of pupils transported, number of miles pupils were transported, etc., and allowing a certain amount for each.unit thus counted. 2. Measuring the need for transportation by formula, using objective factors that are present in all districts. 3. Analyzing costs by applying standards to all costs or certain selected costs. h. Approval of costs and allowances of all or a certain prescribed percent of costs as reimburse- ment. 5. Allowances on a flat amount per pupil in average daily attendance or number of teachers, factors that have little if any relationship to trans— portation need.51 Cox summarized (Table 7) the basis used in the various States for computing aid for pupil transportation in 19h8-h9.52 In analyzing his findings as to the basis for allocating State transportation aid, Cox concluded that, from.the standpoint of providing State aid on a sound objective basis in terms of need with equality among districts, the methods employed by the various States at that time, 19h8-h9, could be rated in accordance with the ‘ a ‘b _. soRonald'w. Cox, "The Determination of State Reim- burseable Costs of Pupil.Transportation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1951). 511b1d., p. 108. 521b1d., p. 107. 1 Basis Number of 1 Faber of 1 Density 01‘ Per cent 0: Cost of pr. Items of c Deprecieti Number of ' Condition Budge: app Distance 3 \ f (3110me “Dre SentG 56 TABLE 7.--Basis for computing aid for pupil transportation, 19118-113 Number of States Basis used using basis Number of pupils transported 28 Number of miles traveled 11 Density of pupils transported 8 Per cent of cost 8 Cost of previous year 9 Items of cost 2 Depreciation 6 Number of buses 3 Condition of roads a Budget approval 2 Distance from school 20 State average cost 1 following descriptive rating scale. A State aid formula represented, in Cox's view, the most objective method that a State could employ, while flat grants based on ADA or some such factor or factors was the least desirable method States could employ as a basis for allocating State aid funds for transportation. 1. Measuring the need for transportation by formula. 2. Counting one or more factors in the transportation program. 3. Analyzing costs by the application of standards. 'x‘FA—"-*‘ ‘ ‘7 5. Will's s. n m n +0 an n . .v 0 o a D p 1 EDIE. .flUAUunfll'n-I .Illr he... 57 Approval of actual, or a per cent of, cost. Flat grants awarded in lieu of transportation based on average daily attendance or number of teachers, etc. Cox pointed out that Mort, Noble, Morphet, Johns, Burns, and others agreed that measuring the need for trans- portation by formula most nearly reached complete equity.53 3. Cox further concluded that: Counting one or more factors has the advantage of dealing with districts without apparent discrimination but disregards the important factors that should be used to measure need. Analyzing costs by the application of standards, in addition to being a long tedious task, tends to level down the quality of transportation service as standards are generally set in terms of norms. However, when standards are on careful cost analysis of efficient and adequate systems, they are likely to be reasonably sound and certainly an.improvement over any subjective plan of providing State aid. Grants based on approved costs or a per cent of approved costs have a limited advantage of providing a.means for the State to share in transportation costs. They do not promote efficiency. They reward extravagance and inefficiency and provide that the wealthy school district will receive more than others. 53Ib1d., p. 110. A”; .._;3 Wm”... h.“..~‘.“s ~“ “. . J : - ' g u; ' gets-um These 1 by the of cost I). let 3: portatf take 11 distril varies Cox sway, of rOrmules 1_ “P l 58 These facts are increasingly true when reimbursement by the State becomes an increasingly larger per cent of cost. A. Flat grants based on factors unrelated to trans- portation needs are low in equity for they do not take into consideration the actual need of the district for transportation services, a need that varies greatly among districts. Cox provides us, in his study, with an excellent summary of the status of school transportation State aid formulas in 19h9-50 (Table 8).Sh 5h1bid., p. 80. ‘L- 1-1.} “In-nut. a“... an... Amy "4—.-. _ TABLE 8.~-State aid for pupil transportation, l9h9-50 States Type of State aid Major basis for computing aic Part of foundation Special purpose equalizing Special purpose flat grant "JO e of Lens. {Fer trans. cent gprev. ailesgpupils cost Cost I _ } year tion b I-T I‘I O s :- 0; uses 0 Budget approval State aver. cost (1) Alabama . . . . Arizona . . . . Arkansas. . . . California. . . Colorado. . . . Connecticut . . Delaware. . . . Florida . . . . Georgia . . . . Idaho..... Illinois. . . . Indiana . . . . Iowa. . . . . . Kamas.. . .. Kentucky. . . . Louisiana . . . Maine . . . . . Maryland. . . . Massachusetts . Michigan. . . . Minnesota . . . Mississippi . . Missouri. . . . Montana . . . . Nebraska . . . Nevada. . . . . New Hampshire New Jersey. . . New Mexico. . . New York. . . . North Carolina. North Dakota. . Ohio. . . . . . Oklahoma. . . . Oregon. . . . . Pennsylvania. . Rhode Island. . South Carolina. South Dakota. . Tennessee . . . Texas . . . Utah Vermont . . Virginia. . Washington. program 2 (3) (h) UNI“ I M I x I I x N I I I N in N N INNNN NNRIH X N N I I I N N N H N N N I x 1:4le (6?; m ININI I I x N fig) 1 k9) (12) (1h) I I ' N I N N I I I N I I I I I I a N N a N x N I I I l (MN! I I M I x I (16) west Virginia . . . x — - — — .WiSCOnSin . . . . . — X _ x X - - — - - - — .. Wyomg e e e e e e t — . _ ’ X 1 y a i. z I ; I . . ‘z I E . I j i ‘I i I . i , . N x I I I I N I I I N I é, 2 I 3 i ll/Allowances to districts for limited-to costs in districts owning transportation systems. contracted transportation l/Number of pupils (average daily attendance) used to and operating their own determine amount of fund. g/Actual replacement allowance granted when bus is . . replaced by a new bus. lg/For non-resident high school pupils only. l3/Costs of a designated prior year changed periodically are usga. The year 19h5—h6 was used as basis for allowances in l9h9-50. é/FOr district owned transportation. g/For contract transportation. direct. State pays contractor Source: Ronald W. Cox, "The Determination of State Reimburseable Costs of Pupil Transportation," doctoral dissertation (California: 1951), pp. 252—55. A composite of two tables appearing in Cox's study. é/Maximum set by State Department of Education. é/Applies only to contracted transportation. Z/For resident pupils. §/For non-resident pupils. g/For current expenses only. lQ/For bus purchase only. CHAPTER III CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION The important characteristics or elements of State plans for financing pupil transportation which.will be discussed in this chapter represent basically those con- siderations contained in a survey of the current char- acteristics of the fifty State plans for financing pupil transportation which.was conducted in connection with this study.1 Such basic considerations will be considered as: (l) the relationship of transportation aid to the State foundation program, (2) the various methods used to distribute State aid allocations for pupil transportation, (3) school transportation State aid formulas and the factors affecting the cost of the service incorporated into these formulas, and (h) the various eligibility requirements for receiving State transportation aid. In.this chapter we propose to do three things: 1. To set forth these common elements or characteristics which according to a number of authorities are the important considerations in any State plan for financing pupil transportation. 1Appendix B. 60 H l a: ‘3' 4:52.; 4' ‘3 I ‘C 'V' 5".-"ww' " 2. To pre plans these 3. To pr acter Sch ' $30 . . P 01 1 Q neati b G076? ' 61 2. To present the current status of the fifty State plans for financing pupil transportation in terms of these elements or characteristics. 3. To provide a cursory analysis of some of the strengthes and/or weaknesses inherent in certain of these char- acteristics. State Transportation Aig_ggg e oundation Progggm Forty-four States now expressly allocate State aid 2 and in a number of the remaining for pupil transportation States certain State aid funds may be expended for this service even though they may not have been expressly allocated for this purpose. The States that allocated State transportation aid are almost equally divided as to whether or not this State allowance is allocated separate from or included as a part of the State foundation program.3 A State foundation program for education represents a program of State aid support for public education in terms of a level of financial support for certain basic and special services available to all children of the State, financed through some combination of State and 2Table 10, p. 71. 3Albert R. Munse, and Eugene P. McLoone, Public School Finance Pro rams of the United States,l¥5;:§¥: Office of Education, United States 5epartment o e th, Education, and Welfare, Misc. No. 33 (washington: Government Printing Office, 1960). W "' l“."', local ec State a State I also up progrm viewed l numb also b 18 the that t ineluc‘ actua] 6‘7le£ round: 62 local equalized effort.h‘ While a foundation or minimwm State aid program may represent a single comprehensive State aid program, other types of State aid programs are also quite often viewed as State foundation programs. For example, while the complete State-supported programs of Delaware and North Carolina may normally be viewed as State foundation programs, the combination of a number of special and general State aid allocations can also be considered, in total, as a foundation program, as is the case at the present time in a number of States.5 Although.students of school finance have agreed that the transportation.needs should be one of the elements included in any State foundation program of education, in actual practice State aid for pupil transportation has evolved in many States without reference to the State foundation pragram.6 In the 1930's, during the depression, when local school districts were finding it difficult to obtain necessary revenue at the local level, State legislatures began to apprOpriate State funds for the purpose of relieving local tax burdens as well as increasing the level of State aid for education. It soon became evident in a number of States that the special-purpose State aid allocations and the general State aid support programs hIbid., p. 2. 51bid., p. 3. 6Department of Rural Education, Op. cit., p. 2. ‘fl 3'. 4". - Inc ‘21:?“ e-I‘j r" is. j i I ‘x ~—.... . .Aur.a. t4...l|i| 63 for education, which.had evolved from the earlier permanent endowment allocations, should be included in one broad single State aid program. These single fund State aid plans or programs became known generally as State minimum or foundation programs.7 A State aid allocation for pupil transportation may be distributed in a number of ways. One method employed is to make the State aid payment to the local school district in support of the transportation program without regard for any other State moneys paid to that district. .Another method commonly used in a number of States is to include in.the State foundation program an amount for transportation as may be determined by some method of :measuring the local need and/or cost for this service. .At least two approaches are available in this regard, (1) the so-called "lump sum plan,"8 whereby the State aid allocation is computed on.the basis of an allowance per pupil or classroom unit, or (2) the ”item plan,"9 in which.the State aid allocation.is computed for a number of separate and specific budget items with perhaps separate allowances provided for each budget item. When.these :methods of computing State assistance are used, the State may or may not indicate in the State aid allowance that a certain amount of the State funds allocated was for 7Munse and.McLoone, op. cit., p. 2. 81b1de, Po 3. 91b1d. transpom foundath addition: whereby . equaliza district A inasmuch constitu the need tramp” district. for a 397 01' “Deck ”Dante PPngm. Cost or . 61;, 'l transportation or for any other specific item in the foundation program.1o Further, in several States an additional provision is made for State aid equalization whereby a wealthy district may on the basis of the State equalization formula receive less State aid than a poorer district. A number of States operate under the premise that, inasmuch as the expenses and/or costs of general education constitute a major portion of the school budget and since the need for such special services and programs as pupil transportation may vary considerably between local school districts, there may be considerable merit in providing for a separate computation and/or allocation for a number of special services and programs somewhat apart or separate from the so-called State foundation or minimum program. While it may be generally true that the necessary cost of transportation is obviously influenced by a number of factors not necessarily related to the various measures of educational need mich may be incorporated into a general State aid or foundation program, there is the point of view that transportation can be readily included and should be included in a single State aid computation.11 certain authorities contend, on the other hand, that the complete equalization theory of central finance in a 10Department of Rural Education, op. cit., p. 22. n'Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Horphet, Financipg the Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs, l. J.: Prent ce-Ha , nae, 9 p0 350' system uh budgets c then app] operatim be extra] applied dine PUP financis and not 65 system which provides for locally adopted and administered budgets can be administered with a degree of equality only when applied to certain common recurring annual local operating expenditures . This same approach, however, may be extremely difficult to administer, they point out, when applied to the total over-all school expenditures, inclu- ding pupil transportation, which may represent a major financial item in certain localities or operating units and not in others.12 Although some authorities indicate that the trend has been toward including State transportation aid in the State foundation program}3 it is evident that at least in recent years this trend has been somewhat stabilized. Perhaps the reason for the stabilization of this trend has been a greater general acceptance in recent years of the aforementioned theory that the over-all State aid program may be somewhat more easily administered and that the results will normally be the same, regardless of whether or not a State allocates a single or a number of separate State aid allocations, if the sum total of all allocations are combined in the final analysis into a single State aid program, and if the amount of over-all State support remains the same. This may account, in part, for the fact that the State aid allowance for 12Arvid J. Burke, Financi Public Schools in the United States (Rev. ed.; New iork: Harper and Brothers, 9 P0 0 13Ib1d., p. 620. trsnSportetic pendently rs' sum' toundst In as unease over-s11 ef net the Ste 01‘ 88 part plan“ appr. using the aPproach, allowance I“’éfif‘dles: matching, ”1d test.I determim A find/g, t s t°unds “tights, desirab: real is pal‘ticu Vhe ther \ 66 transportation in several States is now equalized inde- pendently rather than.through a "single fund" or ”lump sum” foundation program. In summary it would appear that, if the amount of State aid allowance for transportation is the same, the over-all effect can be the same regardless of whether or not the State transportation aid is allocated separately or as part of the foundation program as in the ”item plan” approach or as a part of the foundation program using the so-called "single fund" or "lump sum plan" approach, The basic formulas for computing the State aid allowance for transportation in the foundation programs, regardless of the approach employed are often based on matching, or on a number of specific measures of need and cost,1u to somewhat the same degree as computations determined apart from foundation programs. Although some authorities question the desirability and/or the practicability of including transportation in a foundation program on the basis of classroom units or 'weighted pupils,15 a number of studies have indicated the desirability and practicability of this course.16 The real issue, however, may not be centered around the ‘particular method employed but rather on the question of ‘whether or not any foundation program.which excludes 1h1b1d., p. 62h. 15Johns and Morphet, op. cit., p. 176. 161bid. 7‘7— ! “a “V“ ‘ . ‘ essentis foundeti itself 1 E allocate been a 1 service toward . foundat Portati tions 1 011 the °D8Patj or the ””6 t} “id us. tiOn n! number ceilin 6? essential elements of school costs is an incomplete .foundation program inasmuch as the word "foundation" itself implies a comprehensiveness.17 Regardless of the various methods employed to allocate State aid for pupil transportation, there has 'been a growing trend toward greater State support for this service.18 Table 9 illustrates the stabilization of the trend toward including State transportation aid in the State foundation program. Methods Used for Distributipg tate Transports on A__ The basis on which.State aid funds for pupil trans- portation are allocated varies from the flat grant alloca- tions in a few'States19 to State aid allowances allocated on.the basis of the actual, approved, or average cost of operating a local program, or some prescribed percentage of the local cost, in a somewhat larger number of States.20 Snore than.half of the States that allocate transportation aid use some type of formula for computing the transporta- 'tion need of the local administrative units, although in a :number of these States the formula is used only to set a ceiling for the cost for whidh the State will reimburse. 17Ibid. 18Department of Rural Education, cp. cit. 19Table 10, p. 71. ZOIbid. “J '-—--"— - m '2": || 193 1: Sta: irgarsas ‘0. MD a Wilbur: . . Am an fi‘afii“ Insane ' s . $031513.) ‘V'PQEIIH. 11.34.“. l‘ississ: North 3; Ohio Oldahor. Rhoda I South 3 Tenness Utah 'e'es: Ti TABLE 9.--The extent to which State transportation aid has been recognized as an element in State foundation programs since 1932 1932l/ 19u9-SOE/ 19552/ 19Saa/ 19622/ (15 States) (19 States) (20 States) (21 States) (22 States) Arkansas Alabama Alabama Alabama Alabama Delaware Delawarg, Florida Florida Florida Florida Florida_/ Georgia Georgia Georgia Indiana Georgia Idaho Idaho Idaho Iouisiana Idaho Kansas Indiana Indiana Maryland Kansas Kentucky Kansas Kansas Mississippi Louisiana Louisiana Kentucky Kentucky North Carolina Maine Maryland Louisiana Louisiana Ohio Maryland Michigan Maryland Maryland Oklahoma Michigan Mississippi Michigan Michigan Rhode Island Mississi pi Missouri Mississippi Mississippi South Dakota Missguri_f Ohio Missouri tMissouri Tennessee Ohio_/ Oklahoma Ohio North Dakota Utah Oklahoma Pennsylvania Oklahoma Ohio west Virginia Tennessee Rhode Island Pennsylvania Oklahoma Texas Tennessee Rhode Island Pennsylvania Utah Texas Tennessee %Rhode Island Washington Utah Texas Tennessee West Virginia West Virginia Utah Texas Wyoming West Virginia Utah Myoming “West Virginia Wyoming l/Arvid J. Burke, Financing Public Schools in the United States. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), E. 621. 2 Ronald W} Cox, "Determination of State Reimbursable Costs of Pupil Transportation." doctoral dissertation (Berkeley: University of California, 1951), pp. 25h-55. é/E. Glenn Featherston, Office of Education, United States Department of Health, (washington: Office of Education, October 1955). g/E. Glenn Featherston, "Characteristics of Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and welfare, (Rev. ed.; Washington: ngohn B. Murray, Office of Education, United States Department of of Education, 1963). Office of Education, November 1958). "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation, Health, Education, and Welfare, (Washington: Office é/For resident pupils. Z/For non—resident pupils. 8/For current expenses only. "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation,” Education, and Welfare, Circular No. h58 State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation," Circular No. h58 H *It is not perfectly clear as to whether or not State transportation aid represents a part of the foundation program in this State. ' 69 As pupil transportation services have expanded, it has become apparent in a number of the States allocating State aid for transportation on the basis of) matching special-purpose grants that this method introduces many inequalities. The districts most in need of providing the service are often the very districts least able, ‘ because of a low tax base, to match the State funds for which they were eligible. At first glance, it would appear that the shortcomings inherent in allocating State aid funds for pupil transportation on the basis of matching special-purpose State aid grants would not be found in those States that allocated State transportation aid on the basis or special purpose per capita flat grants. As a matter of fact, this method actually had a similar effect because all too often State aid allocated on the basis of per capita State aid flat grants tended to be insufficient. In some States the allowance consisted of a percentage of the actual cost and often in no way was the State aid grant Preportionate to the actual expense for this service at the local level; thus many inequalities resulted. The reaction of some authorities in the field to the Vtrious methods employed in allocating State school trans- Portation aid can be summarised as follows: State aid for pupil transportation in the form of flat grants is not equitable because of per pupil cost variations resulting from factors beyond local control such as sparsity. 21.1mm- and Horphet, op. cit., p. 3&8. a c: may may abl was in the is ind 70 State aid reimbursement allocated on the basis of a certain percentage of total cost2£or this service may reward uneconomical practices. The most serious defect in this method, however, may be in the fact that poorer districts which are able to support thg program are treated equally with wealthy districts. 3 There may be a greater tendency to impose undesirable State controls in those States that distribute State transportation funds on the basis of expenditures or a percentage of the expenditures. Research concerning various methods for determining the most equitable basis for allocating State aid funds for transportation has been chiefly centered in the last 25 years in developing gnd refining various indexes of transportation need.2 A number of States allocated State transportation aid on.the basis of a percentage of the allowable cost to encourage economy and efficiency. States employing this method may require the maintenance of certain standards. Although States have employed a variety of methods for allocating State aid funds for pupil transporta- tion during the past 25 years, there does not appear to be any agreement as to which is the best method.26 The status of the various methods currently employed in the fifty States to distribute State transportation aid is indicated in Table 10. y 25National Conference of Professors of Education Administration, Problems and Issues in Public School F1 2 nance (New York: Columbia University, I552}, pp. 210- 2(William E. Rosenstengel and Jefferson N. Eastmond, Sthool Finance--Its Theor and Practice (New York: The Ronal Press cmpany, l9 7 , p. 9 . B Flat gr: flat 9: lppme men. P 0111112 Flat g of c Flat g aver fom Flat I 32"; 3:11 Flat. : fer I. “We 21;; \ TABLE lO.-—Current bases for allocating State aid funds for transportation in the Mk States that provide specific State support for this service, l963_/ Basis for allocating State aid funds States employing this method Flat grant Iowa, Kansas / / Flat percentage of cosga Colorado, Connecticut,2/ Maine,2/ Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island, wyoming Approved actual or average h’ 5/ expenditure Alaska,—/ Delaware,_Massachusetts,-J Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,é/ South Carolina Formulaz/ Alabama, arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, louisiana,§V Mississippi, New Mexaco, North Daxota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia Flat grant and flat percentage of cost Minnesota (in some cases) Flat grant, approved actual or average expenditure, and formula Wisconsin Flat percentage of cost, approved actual or average expenditure 6/ 9/ and formula California,— Idaho—/ Flat percentage of cost and formula Illinois, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington Approved actual or average 5/ expenditure and formula Maryland, Michigan, New York,— Ohio l/Arizona, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Vermont do not provide State aid. g/Sometimes with a top limit or ceiling. é/Variable. g/Approved contract. é/Minus local contributions. é/Superintendent of Public Instruction must approve cost. Uses formula to determine excessive expense. Z/Sometimes used only to calculate ceiling on cost or payment. §/Formula is only used to compute the minimum salary schedule for school bus drivers. 2/Ninety per cent of difference between allowable costs and required local levy according to formula. Source: John B. Murray, "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation," Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and welfare (Washington: Office of Education, 1963). 72 Pupil Transportation State Aid Formulas One of the major difficulties confronting the State departments of education has been the development of a sound method for determining a reasonable and equitable basis for allocating State aid allowance for pupil trans- portation.27 As a result of the limitations inherent in many of the earlier methods States employed to finance pupil trans- portation, such as per pupil flat grant allowances, matching State aid allowances, or allowances based on a percentage of the cost of the program, a number of States sought to develop State aid formulas for the more equitable distribution of State support. These State aid formulas were viewed as a means by which a State could determine, in a more equitable manner, local need and ability according to a prescribed and predetermined set of criteria. The various State aid formulas are designed primarily to measure Justifiable costs, and in several of the for- mulas the actual cost of the program at the local level represents a direct factor in computing the State aid a.llowance. State aid formulas vary as to the number of 1'8.<:tors to be taken into consideration in calculating the allowance for pupil transportation.28 Most of these formulas, however, take into consideration such factors ‘ 27Ibid., p. 90. ZBTable 12, p. 79. ”We!" . A ‘ C 44 - .'" -uv-u' wt _ as the buuu road cc tranSpc that c< the ne' local I resear agenci with t now ca number the St four 3 Culate to a p formul much P aid 1.0 that t n°t in an one \ 73 as the number of pupils transported, the number of school buses utilized, the number of bus miles traveled, density, :rosd conditions, and the depreciation of equipment.29 The advantages of being able to allocate State transportation aid on the basis of an objective formula that could incorporate a number of factors which influence the need for and the cost of Operating programs at the local level appealed immediately to a number of earlier researchers in this field and eventually to State education agencies and State legislatures grappling with this problem, With the result that pupil transportation allowances are snow calculated on the basis of a special formula in a number of States.30 As a matter of fact, a majority of tale States, or approximately twenty-seven of the forty- rour States that provide State transportation aid, cal- clxlate their State aid allowances to some extent according to a prescribed State aid formula. The complexity of these formulas varies considerably among the States. Although unach progress toward the development of an equitable State aid formula has been made over the years, it is doubtful tfiaat there is currently in existence a formula which.may not in some respect be improved.31 Some current State formulas, for example, require an onerous amount of record-keeping and reporting, while ‘ 29Ibid. 30 Rosenstengel and Eastmond, op. cit. , p. 90. 31Department of Rural Education, op. cit., p. 21;. it -~.' a' ' I. .:.,..,.(m.._—_— others Some f distri atom porta1 for tl same 1 vealtl tion, aervi Frog? Prov: 18Ve1 for I for 1 ted 1 is re dint! 7h others involve the rendering of subjective judgments. Some formulas may work equitably in a majority of the districts in a State, but there are the exceptions, where for a number of reasons local costs are either unusually low or high.32 It is extremely difficult to develop and incorporate a formula in the State aid plans for financing pupil trans- portation which provides a reasonable State aid allowance for the poorest district within a given State and at the same time avoids waste and inefficiency in the relatively wealthy districts.33 In these districts required to provide transporta- tion, budgetary inequalities and the possibility of the service's imposing a financial burden on the instructional program may occur if additional State aid allowance is not provided for this service beyond the basic minimum State level of general educational support. In many school systems, the current expenditure for pupil transportation is second only to the expenditure for teachers' salaries.3h In certain very sparsely popula- ted rural areas where a high percentage of the total budget is required for this one service alone, some sdhool districts spend as much as 25 per cent of the total school 321bid. 33Ib1d. 3hHenry'H. Lynn, School Business Administration (New York: The Ronald Press ompany, l9 , p. . ‘17... _ é- —. ; "_-~_‘-;_;’-.. 4- ! ..-;.. .._.-‘ budge1 speci: apparl grant this two d arrec those of g1 Port: affe into dist to a mine 75 budget for pupil transportation. Those States that do not specifically provide State aid for pupil transportation apparently assume that the allocation of general State aid grants will enable local districts to adequately finance this service .35 Factors Affecting the Cost p_the erv ce Numerous studies have been conducted over whe last two decades in attempts to determine those factors that affect the cost of pupil transportation and particularly those that should be considered in arriving at a method of giving adequate financial aid to local school districts. One of the outstanding authorities on pupil trans- portation in the'United States said, ”If all factors affecting the cost of pupil transportation were combined into one formula to distribute aid to local school districts, it would be so complicated as to be impractical to apply."36 Nonetheless, it has been conclusively deter- mined that there are definite relationships between certain factors and costs. An example would be road conditions and the cost of operation. The number of pupils trans- ported per square mile of area served has been very closely correlated with.the per pupil cost of transportation. It 35thns and Horphet, op. cit., p. 176. 36State Department of Education, Division of Pupil Transportation, A Pro osed Trans ortation Formula (Frankfort, Kentucky: State Bepartment of Education, 1958), p. 5. --—.—. v accc Tze anti of1 00m fins gen. ref; 0th. fag 005 not 30¢, ml" 1". aid 76 would appear that some primary factors, therefore, must necessarily be used in calculating the transportation need. Table 11 indicates those factors which were con- sidered to be important predictors of the cost of pro- viding school transportation services at the local level according to a number of early researchers in.the field. The table also indicates the extent to which certain authorities writing in the field have accepted the findings of this research. In spite of the obvious influence that the density concept has had on State aid plans and formulas for financing pupil transportation since the late 1920's and early 1930's and up to the present time, there has been some move away from the single factor approach (density) in measuring transportation need and/or cost, and a more general acceptance of the multiple factor approach, as reflected in the research and writing in the field. In other words, although density as advocated by Mort, Burns, and Johns was still generally accepted as an important factor in measuring or predicting pupil transportation cost, there was more general acceptance that density did not necessarily represent the only significant factor and that in all probability no one single factor could be accepted exclusively as "the one” accurate measure of pupil transportation need and cost in allocating State aid funds for this service". :7 7‘7. an I' 2'. 1 ..—~— —_ V .'\J ..— r ‘E;_- FE (Rev. (Ohio: 77 TABLE ll.--Factors cited as important predictors of the cost of pupil transportation by Certain selected authorities, 1930-60 Selected authorities Cost factor 1/ Johnsgy Rosenstengelé/ Lambert— and and Mo het Eastmond I FACTOR RELATIVE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT land use and nature of housing X -- -- X BurkeE/éReederE/ ‘Butterworthfi/ and 4, Rue se” or Arkansas RobertsZ/’§/ EvansZ/’2/ AmisZ/’$9/ California New York HutchinsZ/:$2/ Ohio Noble! all/ North Carolina FACTORS RELATIVE TO THE LOCAL ROAD SYSTEM Type of road -— —— _- _- Road condition -- X X NM Road and highway system X -- __ FACTORS RELATIVE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION Location of schools in relationship to population centers -- -- -- X Number, type and size of school buildings -— -- -— X FACTORS RELATIVE TO DENSITY' -- X X X FACTORS RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF PUPILS TRANSPORTED X FACTORS RELATIVE TO SCHEDULING AND ROUTING Full utilization of capacity -- -— X X Length of bus routes X X Number of trips per bus -— —_ -_ Number of trips per day -- -- -- Time required to traverse route X -— I -- __ Efficiency of routing -- . -— —- X Number of routes -- —- —- -— Number of bus stops -— -— -_ -_ ESSTORS RELATIVE TO DRIVERS" SALARIES . Age of bus drivers ' -- 5 -— é -- __ Occupation of bus ’ 3 drivers —— -- ‘ -- —- Wages of drivers -- -- -- X Drivers —- -_ X -- Economic conditions -- -- -— -- Location and avail- ability of competent drivers I, -_ z _- _ -- __ I FACTORS RELATIVE TO SCHOOL i BUS EQUIPMENT 5 ‘ I Ownership -- ' ‘" " X Cost of equipment (new buses) _- __ g -_ -_ Age of bus -- 5 _- ‘ -- -- >4 >4 >4 I I I l Average number of bids -— 7 -_ -— -- Method of purchasing , . equipment and supplieSe -— I —— X X Proper equipment —- i _- -_ X Y X Capacity of vehicle Make and type of bus T -— i -- Maintenance of I equipment * -— -- X X Average investment per g 1 pupil 1 -_ __ _- -- FACTORS RELATIVE TO CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ‘Weather conditions LA -- y -- _- -- Amount of snowfall E -- i -- —— —- l/Asael C. Lambert, School Trans ortation. (California: Stanford University Press, 19385, p. 115. g/Roe L. Johns, and Edgar L. Morphet, Financin the Public Schools. (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19505, p. 3N9. 3/William E. Rosenstengel, and Jefferson N. Eastmond, School Finance:-Its Theo and Practice. (New York: The Ronald Press 50mrany: l§375, p. T53- g/Arvid J. Burke, Financing Public Schools in the United States. (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 19 7), PP. 518-19. é/Ward G. Reader, The Administration of Pu 11 Trans ortation. (Ohio: The Educators' Press, 19395, pp. 193-97. é/Julian E. Butterworth, and Virgil Ruegsegger, Administering Pu 11 Trans ortation. (Philadelphia: Educational Publishers, Inc., 19 l , pp. 12 -27. new,” -— . ._.. I __ z -— f l/Sourca: Factors cited in important early studies according to Julian E. Butterworth, and Virgil Ruegseggers Administerin Pu il Transportation. (Philadelphia: Educational Publishers, Inc., 19El5, pp. 1.22-23. §/Rcy'N. Roberts, An Analw is of the Cost of Pu il Trans ortation in Arkansas. (Arkansas: University of Arkansas, April l93§5. 2/Frank 0. Evans, Factors Affectin the Cost of School Transportation in California. (Washington: GOVernment Printing Office, 1930). IQ/Otis C. Amis, An Anal sis of Factors Affectin the Cost of Trans ortation in the Central Rural School Districts of New York State. (New York: Cornell University, 19395. ll/M. C. S. Noble, Jr., Public School Bus Transportation in North Carolina. (Raleigh: State Department of Public Instruction, 1930-31 . lg/Clayton D. Hutchins, The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation. (Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 19385. table promf one‘ clas that "wag cost £011 are fine trai or I Ind Koa‘ tow, dos; lcc 00p Dor‘ Tab 78 For example, the factor listed in the previous table, the "occupation of drivers," may not seem to be a promising factor with regard to influence upon cost until one learns that drivers, in this particular study, were classified as "patrons," "pupils,” and "teachers," and that the compensations of these varied markedly. As a matter of fact, this was merely another way of indicating ”wages of driver" as a significant factor in the over-all cost of Operating the program at the local level. The following factors, then, it is quite generally agreed, are worthy of recognition in any State aid formula for financing pupil transportation: (1) number of pupils transported, (2) seating capacity of vehicle, (3) length of bus route, (1i) ownership of bus, (5) cost of equipment and depreciation, (6) type of road, and (7) salaries. Most studies made in recent years have been directed toward the deve10pment of a formula of the more simple design. Current State aid formulas generally reflect an acceptance of the importance of the relationship between certain factors and the cost of operating a school trans- Portation program at the local level, as is indicated in Table 12. Enormous amounts of energy have gone into studies to determine the influence of certain factors on trans- Portation costs. It is interesting to note in this connection that quite likely a certain factor or given set of factors will not have exactly the same influence TABLE 12.--The extent to which State aid formulas in the 27 States that distribute State support for transportation on the basis of a formula currently recognize certain factors in determining the transportation needs of local school units, 1963 Factors used in computing States which recognize factor in State aid formula State aid allowance Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Number of pupils , , Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,_f Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,_/ Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin Number of buses Number of bus miles Density of transported population Road conditions Bus depreciationz/ Cost experience relative to certain elements of program Washington Certain other additional factors are I , recognized in the State aid formula l/Enrollment of transported pupils as of September 15. Z/Factor used in calculating both the capital outlay and operation allowances. 3/Used in calculating the sparsity factor. E/Factor used in calculating the per mile allowance and the overall operation allowance. S’Factor used in calculating per pupil allowance. EQPOpulation density rather than density of pupils transported is employed in formula. 7/Checked when bus depreciation may be included in costs on which the State will reimburse. 8/Calculated on the basis of an annual per seat allowanEe. 9/Separate State appropriation allocated on the basis of a State price schedule for equipment and district's valuation per child. lO/Negotiation on publicly owned buses. Area served. /Approved transportation programs are reimbursed by the State on the basis of either 50% of the cost of such transportation according to a State cost formula or at the rate 0f $16-32 per transported pupil as determined by a State density formula whichever is less. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, 12/ 10» . Delaware,-—J lorida, New Mexico,—— North Dakota,._ Tennessee,22 Utah,§l/ Wisconsingg/ Mbntana,__ New Jerseyiz Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Virginia Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,£/ Mogyana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Nashington,‘wisconsin_ Alabama, Ark lsas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,&/ Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee,_! Nest Virginia Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinoig, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,§./ Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio,— Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin,‘wyoming Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Ipdiana,lé/ Kentuck¥,ll/ Louisiana,1h Missouri,l§/ \4/ lé/Pupil per bus mile. Bus depreciation is computed as a part of total operation cost. Formula also includes a wealth factor which is designed to provide more support for less wealthy school districts. lh/Length of bus. lg/Number of pupils per mile of bus route. ZE/One formula for buses. One formula for individual families. 17/Includes cost of new buses. EE/Miles of route. l2/One~half cent per pupil mile. gg/State aid allocation under the foundation program is based on a per capita allowance plus an amount derived from a density formula. gl/State aid allowance is based on the lesser of two computations: (1) an amount equal to $2 per Mile annually for the average number of miles traveled per day by each pupil who is actually transported, or (2) three-fourths of the total actual transportation cost for the State. gg/The amount of the State aid allowance allocated under the flat grant depends on number of miles pupil is transported. Equalization aid if net cost exceeds two miles. Source: John B. Murray, "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation," Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Washington: Office of Education, 1963). 80 in all situations or even in the same situation under somewhat different circumstances or at different periods of time. For example, the question as to whether or not a. particular make of bus will have an appreciable effect upon cost may depend upon a particular model of the bus in question for the simple reason that it is reasonable to believe that one model of 9. given make may prove to be more or less efficient than other models of that particular make. It will also depend upon the conditions under which the bus Operates in a given situation. Roberts37 found in his study that a negative relationship existed as to the capacity of buses inasmuch as the larger capacity did not in all cases haul correspondingly more pupils per day. It is also interesting to note that Evens38 found that only in extreme cases did the size of the district appear to add substantially to the cost of transportation. He . round that actually there was not a consistent relation between the cost per pupil and the size of the district except in districts with an area of more than 625 square miles. Amis39 discovered that while buses making the most k ”Roy H. Roberts, An Anal sis of the Cost of Pu 11 Trans ortation in Arkansas (Fayeéteville: University of W Appendix, Table 5. 8 38Frank 0. Evans, Factors Affecting the Cost of ‘Ohool Transportation in s cm a ssh ng on: overn- men 1' ns 09, 3 p. e 1: 390th 0. Amis, An Anal sis of Factors Affecti 1 1.. Cost of Trmgomtmmmnmai’“ ‘0 str c s 0 New York tate (Ithaca, New York: Cornell nIVOPOIEy, 1539,, PP. 133'1’4-0' ,‘fl’ StO his als poi COS DE vet pa: N61" the dis inc not out Of 1a: to ca] is ca] 8&1 ca: \ .«l m a 81 stops cost more per mile to Operate, the cause for this higher per mile cost is probably the fact that these buses also haul more pupils over longer routes. Noble'suo study points out that, while the daily per capita costs and the cost per mile may increase with the age of the vehicle, there is not necessarily a relationship between age of vehicle and daily cost per bus. The reason for this paradox appears to be the fact that when the average miles per day and average number of pupils transported per bus were computed it was apparent that all too often the older the bus the smaller the load carried and the shorter the distance hauled. Thus, it is quite probable that the increasing cost per pupil and per mile may often be due, not to the age of the vehicle but to the number of pupils and to the distance they are carried. Noble also points out in his study that it should be remembered that buses of the newer type are capable of carrying heavier and larger pupil loads. In fact, size of load per bus seems to be of paramount importance in determining daily per capita costs. From the data presented in Table 11, page 77, there is evidence of considerable general agreement between Certain current authorities in school finance and certain early researchers in the field as to those factors which can be considered predictors of cost of transportation. ‘ “OH. 6. S. Noble, Jr., Public School Bus Trans- ortation in North Carolina (Raleigh: Etate fipartment ° Pu c ns ruct on, 1 ~31). loc toy; ms. sch per to bar fr! at 318: 16 3C? be he. ac 1’1 He at 82 One can readily see that factors pertaining to the local road system could have a direct relationship to topography Of the school district, density, and even to number of pupils transported. Factors pertaining to scheduling and routing, as well as factors pertaining to perhaps even drivers' salaries and school bus equipment, to a somewhat lesser degree can be related, on the other hand, to the topography Of the district, the local road systems, school district organization, density, and number of pupils transported. Although most Of the factors listed in the table may be to varying degrees uncontrollable, or at least the freedom of choice may be somewhat limited in these areas at the local level, there are beyond a doubt a number of managerial and Operational choices required at the local level which could influence the over-all cost of local school transportation Operation. For instance, this would be true in areas such as purchasing of school bus equip- ment on competitive bids, requiring that bids be submitted according to certain specifications, providing for speci- fications that are written in terms Of the specific local needs and requirements, and the develOpment and adOption at the local level of sound practices in purchasing such items as gasoline, oil, tires, and school bus insurance. Pmishaps the development and adOption at the local level °r a specific detailed plan for carrying out the preventive maintenance program and the develOpment of otherwise sound local ache: and! Stat and. do i. tran the: DUpi reco stan em cert 18Ve “hie fl Dtat 6 Stat °f t: meet Enish 83 local policies and procedures in such areas as routing, scheduling, and the number of authorized stops per route and ownership of equipment would also prove productive. Requirements to Qualifi for ta e ranspor at on Although the specific requirements to qualify for State transportation aid may vary somewhat both as to kind and degree in the fifty States, a majority of the States do incorporate into their State plans for financing school transportation certain specific requirements pertaining in the main to such areas as: the eligibility of transported pupils, the required periodic filing of certain State records and reports or the adherence to certain State standards in regard to the purchasing and maintenance of equipment, the selection and training of personnel, and certain Operating procedures at the local operational level. Table 13 indicates that, Of the forty-four States which now allocate State transportation aid, thirty-six States prescribe some distance requirement relative to the eligibility of pupils for State aid support under the State plan for financing pupil transportation. A majority 0:? the States also require local administrative units to nest certain other State requirements in order to qualify for State aid. One of the characteristics which has long distin- guished school transportation in certain respects has been TABLE 13.-—Specific State requirements that local administrative units must adhere to in order to qualify for State transportation aid, 1963 State requirements States which require local administrative units to meet certain State requirements in order to qualify for State transportation aid DISTANCE ‘ Elementary school pupils Less than 1 mile California (grades K-3) ‘ ,/ 1 mile California (grades h-B), Colorado, Delaware, Iowa,l’ Kentucky, Louisiana, 1 Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon 1-1/2 miles Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, j Utah 2 miles Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Over 2 miles Kansas, Montana ‘ Secondary school pupils 2/ I 1 mile Colorado, Iowa,-/ Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon l-l/2 miles Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee 2 miles Alabama, Arkansas, California (grades 9-12), Delaware, Florida, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Over 2 miles California (grades l3—lh), Montana, New Jersey OTHER Must comply with all State requirements Idaho, Iowa, Nevada Must comply with specific State regulations relative to: Drivers Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee Approved equipment Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, ‘Washington, west Virginia, Wisconsin Operating procedures Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Certain required reports j Alaska, Arkansas, Florida Approved routes ; Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, , = Texas, Washington, Wisconsin Eligibility of transported pupils : Florida, Michigan, Rhode Island, Texas Operating costs Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee Letting contracts New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania Maintenance of equipment North Carolina m—a'w ).fl.o 9.: man .oucofiozo 2&3 Ba maze—3200 E 33 E050”; ouco?o:o m:E .5 9: meta—320 cm «5...: ..nTnfiw o ) .— 320 r. ,. c020: —0> {253% “Eu EoEmScw .3 23—3; on .mmocozozo cotohoao 1:0 x2 u mama 32m 0 $0 $9.... of :0 3800— _o cototaoamo 30$ 390a0m© .2100 9+— 503 9.20.3200 E 82.. 533...... I . mocc>>0_ _o .39. ..om 335.5 :0 *0 £33 9: co vflgso—oUII £2.00... 33.5% 9.: mar—c.3200 5 $65 a. 43:39.39»: :23 yucca 5.59.3 uoavdvgou I I. u .5 no v.1 c 3 v23..an 3 52-.«889 ads... 88935 «.5 flutouav 23 3 v2.82 3. 95:88 P3 18a 3.568 E: 330 «228.5- 353 coal-uni uu gawk coded-«15v. 33» 3359-3 3 v0.33 3 53103.1 2.35 we :5 no uncon- 5 coda-Juan .03 I’d-oi In}. 00 \I Ina-I5 nu :8 '5 .5593 531233 83m I5 5 c3395 95. 3 E- cofiflvnonnqcuo anaconda . in». non: .030 38%- all 330333 0.32 no .33ng ...—.553 5 v.53? 3 usage-.5 «3.96 «o 5.333 55 .35: .31ch c3..- .nflofisfifauoo H18" 5.? .9555 :5 Avenu- uou EGG-no- tifian lilac: 15 359.3 3 «in: hudo as Salaam {HafiPfi .mI— Lon-Snow uo n- Jwaz... vague-5 «o gnu-.335 4.3.03.7 83% you 3- 33» 0F} .aoS-fiR—nih 3 v.33... S 3 ~86. 62 a9: :3. n 55 £9. E: Jar—4.5». 125—En anal hypo .3 55.1505 80.0w «a haau - Mac—5:3 cutie-«v - 5 Sign?" «395 .305- fig 4-5.3: H33 33» .5 Inga-anomaly.» 3 2:3:- op 3 H02». 23 Ire Aug 3 328 5 35.35 3 MI. cos-“E as 1.. $30 no:- N :45 PSI In all “85' n 23:30 on: our—:3 $313333 .3 .3an Huh: I»; no 0000 no ”5.33 31.907". 3 bu! vou- '33 553335 1.5. .8 nflu .3 :53 .55.?» b: an 1:13 .5 55.... .53.: SEE. Diana-g .3548 3 $3.— 95 a 5d. .113 I I I I N I I I I I I I H I I I. III-I-o..i .43- ~. 3.85 ...3 ..I 3 3- 83:335.. .313! .5 I35 348:. 85.5.1 ..I ...... . «BBS-51.818 Evan-8821. u u 3- 3.8.52. final-E. u I I \\ I £64 a u I u \m I .588... _ .33» IS «a .3! .3035. uca 3.33 35.3- 5 3 on... Radial-h u u I I I .85: I I ..an n I I I I In ...-3398 ......I. .3553 new «E. In: hliv you 8.? .335 «0 33.3690 36:: .5 you .325 Iroo I: 330 wag-Lune nag unusual VIP—E- :finfl ”-8 Sac-I 33m .0013! n gal-a! :8 3.2.:- 3 an. .83. $539 5 n n .538 .5 no v.8 153 a I I u I I u I a I n I ..I.:§ Incuuang wily—an- .J on 031 I I I I I I u u 4.9.1 u I I I N I III-1:333 I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I ..IIIII\wr§luI> .343 ”5 I8 4.8 5.333355 13a- 38 o .5 «a 6A E S 68.5. .295 5:133 J 2: 3&5 I u an vow-n n.— 35 34 515 I I I N I I n I N I I I IIIIIIIIIIIJ-db I 5|th- aoS-duancuuu c.341— .0235 use Sc 2:- ~ ..I..— ..I I: all as 5 :53 5 959‘ Inca—5. Ila?— anflfl u u I vuuguuu N I u u n N I I I I u ...IIIIIIII-fllr . S 2 w. a 2 2 a S m o F . o m I. n ~ .— hIl 5 9:5 \m Ivccuo» Isl-0n \N 33.. 53.1505 no:- ncusn I395 \M Iadcvaxo anon Ion-.5 3:35:32 use '31 L050 cog-«u Izvcou ushomocuua nan «o no no Eaton «Mr—ii no as: Q- 5 my. Ch -8528 Irauu 3m 32 mo .5328 24.3: unis: Susi .8 158 u .3..- $2953 3 a tub-2n 33.6 rd- . no! .22 as... E 95 E .35 H85. 32 2.... ~19 3 3:32.26: «0 nun»: :eSuaI—oancdua uficffiSou Lay nag-Lou 33m flu Insa- nuSC 33m Dada-09:1 Luv nan no 9:.— . I III‘ 323:8: .fl mans“. CHAPTER IV CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION As an important aspect of this study, a list of twelve criteria which with one exception--Oriterion Number 12--basically represent those developed by Covert,1 was submitted to the fifty State directors of pupil trans- portation for evaluation. The fifty directors were asked: (1) to express an opinion on whether or not each of the twelve criteria should be recognized in a State plan for financing pupil transportation, and (2) to indicate whether or not their State plans for financing pupil transportation did in fact recognize each criteria and if so the means by which this was accomplished. The instrument2 used in surveying the opinions of the fifty State pupil transportation directors contained the following instructions: "After careful study or all the criteria listed in Section I, please indicate in Section 11, Tables 1 and 2, any criterion.which, in your Opinion, should be added to this list, dropped, or *____ ’ 1Timon Covert, State Plans for Financi Pu i1 Errans rtation, Federal Security Agency, 5 nite 5 States OH'Ice of Education, Pamphlet No. 99 Washington. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1914.6). 2Appendix 0. 91 " ’n-V modifi this c entire study of th herea asses mess here asse atte cri‘ l0 92 modified.” References made to individual responses in this chapter are included in the Appendix in their entirety. The Evaluating Criteria The twelve evaluating criteria employed in this study fall in two general categories or groupings. Eight of the criteria, Numbers 1, 2, 3, u, 8, ll, 6, and 9, hereafter referred to as Group I Criteria, pertain to assessing the State plan's over-all adequacy and equitable- ness. Four of the criteria, Number 5, 10, 12, and 7, hereafter referred to as Group II Criteria, pertain to assessing the State plan's provisions for stimulating the attainment of desirable goals and standards. Within.each of these two categories specific criteria were further organized into certain groupings. The Group I Criteria were organized under the following subheadings: (a) sufficient State sgppggt containing criteria 1 and 2; (b) provision for capital outlay con- taining criteria 3 and u; (c) cost factors considered in the formula containing criterion 8; (d) ggobjective State aid formula containing criterion 11; (e) flexibility of the plan containing criterion 6; and (f) ggbsistence in lieu of transportation containing criterion 9. Likewise the Group II Criteria were organized under such sub- headings as: (a) safe, efficient, and economical programs containing criterion 5: (b) desirable school district organization containing criterion 10; (c) broadening and $ 8.1.9 CO.’ 6V! '1' 93 extending the educatiopalprogram containing criterion 12; and (d) adequate records and reports containing criterion 7. This organization of the criteria took place sometime after the survey instrument had been returned by the recipients; and as a result, the original numbered sequence of the twelve criteria was distributed as is evident in the listing of the twelve criteria within the two aforementioned groups. Table 15 summarizes the responses of the State school transportation directors concerning the twelve criteria submitted to them for evaluation. Group I Criteria--Assessing the State Plan's Over-all Adequacy and Equitableness The following represents the responses of the State directors of pupil transportation as to the acceptability of certain criteria in assessing the adequacy and equitable- ness of a State plan for financing pupil transportation. Sufficient State suppppp.--A State plan for financ- ing pupil transportation.should: Provide sufficient funds to enable local units with reasonable local effort to operate safe, economical, and efficient systems of transportation. (Criterion Number 1) Tend to compensate for the additional financial burden that falls upon school districts which must provide pupil transportation. (Criterion Number 2) The State directors in forty-three States accepted 1W2": f his“ 91L TABLE lS.--The acceptability and recognition of certain selected criteria in State plans for financing pupil transportation in the 50 States, 1963 Acceptability of certain criteria in evaluation by the 50 State directors of pupil trans ortation The means by which criteria are currently recognized in the 50 State plans for financing pupil trans ortation ...: Group I Criteria Acceptable Acceptable in part Not acceptable No opinion expressed; Statute and/or State aid formula Administrative rules and regulations (including standards) Recommended practices encouraged through State leadership aptivitigp No data reported Sufficient State support A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 1. Provide sufficient funds to enable local units, with reasonable local effort to operate safe, economical, and efficient systems of trans- portation for all pupils who should be transported 2. Tend to compensate for the additional financial burden that falls upon school districts which mpgtpprovide pupil transportation l/ 2 J35 15 37 31 12 Provisiopp for capital outlay A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 3. Take into account provisions for capital outlay expenditures, such as the purchase of school buses, bus equipment, and the erection of bus shops‘ h. Provide for amortization of capital outlay expenditures of school buses and school bus garages beyond the current year Cost factors included in the formula A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 8. Provide for consideration of factors beyond the control of local units, such as population density, road conditions, and geographical barrigps pp objective State aid formula A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 11. Provide for distribution of State aid upon the basis of an objective formula Flexibility of thegplan A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 6. Permit at the local level ready flexibility in making adjustments in the transportation program, such as in case of consolidation and fires Subsistence in lieu of transportation A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 9. Provide for subsistence for pupils in lieu of transportation wippin reasopgble limitatiqpp EQXBO 27 h? In 31 ; L/éil 16 mg; 11/ -/ 20 21 18 lea/25 8/ " 11 13 13 ll 20 12 j 9/ 411 12 -13 IS’.’ TABLE 15.-~Gontinued 95 f é/Includes six States which do not allocate State aid for transporta- ‘ tion and one State in which entire cost of transportation program borne by State. g/Criterion acceptable if equipment is district owned and operated-- Minnesota. é/Acceptable in North Carolina for buses and equipment only. é/Georgia recognizes criterion in "Statute and/or State aid formula" for school buses only. Acceptability of certain criteria in The means by which criteria are currently evaluation by the 50 State directors recognized in the 50 State plans for financing of aupil transoortation pupil trans ortation Recommended a Administrative Group II Criteria Acceptable Not No 23:52:? rules and 2:223:222d N0 Acceptable 1“ opinion State aid regulations through State data 1 acceptable - - parU expressed formula (including leadership reported standards) activities Safez efficient, and economical programs A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 5. Tend to stimulate the attainment of desirable 3 standards in school bus equipment, maintenance i 3/ operation, and the employment of personnel MS 1 2 — 3 21 29 18 - 7 Desirable school district organization é A State plan for financing pupil transportation 2 E should: § § 1 ‘ i 10. Not tend to discourage desirable reorganization ; 3/ of local units and attendance areas as 2 - 3 12 ,2 19 21 - 1).; “"* “ A ‘ r Broadening and extending the education program i A State plan for financing pupil transportation é should: § 12. Encourage schools to broaden and extend the 3/ school program through the use of school buses € 3h 11 l h 17 2O 15 - 1h Adequate recordpwand reports A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 7. Require the local school district or local ' administrative unit to maintain adequate f 2/ accounting records and reports bk 2 - h i 17 27 1h 10 l/Wyoming reported acceptable with respect to public schools only. , Z/Massachusetts recognizes criterion in "Statute and/or State aid formula" for buses and equipment only. g/Kansas recognizes criteria in "Statute and/or State aid formula" to some degree. B/Massachusetts recognizes criterion in "Administrative rules . . ." only in certain cases. z/Georgia recognizes criterion in "Recommended practices . ." relative to shop and equipment only. lQ/Nebraska, criterion acceptable but not beyond current year. ll/Massachusetts recognizes criterion in "Statute and/or State aid formula" for buses only. lg/“Statute and/or State aid formula" applicable in Kansas only in regard to special education. l. 96 Criterion Number 1 as an important consideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transporta- tion, while the directors in four States accepted it in part. Three State directors expressed no opinion. The State directors in thirty-seven States indicated that Criterion Number 2 was acceptable, while the directors in seven States accepted it in part. The State directors of two States indicated that Criterion Number 2 was not acceptable primarily because it overlapped certain other criteria. Four State directors expressed no opinion. Provision for capital outlgy.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Take into account provisions for capital outlay expenditures, such as the purchase of school buses, bus equipment, and the erection of bus shops. (Criterion Number 3) Provide for amortization of capital outlay expendi- tures of school buses and school bus garages beyond the current year. (Criterion Number h) The State directors in thirty States found Criterion Number 3 acceptable as an important consideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation; the directors in eleven States found this Criterion accept- able in part. Three State directors expressed no opinion. The State directors in thirty States indicated Criterion h ‘was acceptable, while the directors in nine States found this Criterion acceptable in part. Three expressed no 97 opinion. Six State directors indicated that Criterion 3 was not acceptable, while eight State directors took the same position in regard to Criterion h. The reasons given by approximately one-half of the State directors3 for not accepting Criteria 3 and h included: ”Too difficult to administer,” ”State aid for capital outlay could result in excessive expenditures unless safeguards are required," ”Could lead to deficit spending," ”Acceptable relative to school bus equipment but not school bus garages,” ”School bus garages might rather be included in.school plant construction than in transportation costs." Cost factors considered in fine formula.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for consideration of factors beyond the control of local units such.as population density, road conditions, and geographical barriers. (Criterion Number 8) The State directors in twenty-seven States found Criterion Number 8 acceptable as an important consideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transporta- tion. The directors in sixteen States found that Criterion 8 was acceptable only in part but gave no reasons for that response. Four directors indicated that Criterion 8 was not acceptable, while three State directors 3Appendix C contains additional comments submitted ‘by the State directors relative to selected criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation. 98 expressed no opinion. One could reasonably assume that any enumeration of factors that influence the cost of transportation would to a certain extent be controversial and thus attract a certain number of negative responses. 0n the other hand, as indicated in Table 15, the large number of acceptable-in-part responses of any sort, along with.those responses acceptable without qualification, may in fact reflect strong support for this particular criterion. A? objective State aid formula.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for distribution of State aid upon.the basis of an objective formula. (Criterion Number 11) The State directors in forty-seven States found Criterion Number 11 acceptable as an important considera- tion in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil trans- portation. The directors in the three remaining States expressed no opinion, either pro or con, as to the acceptability of this criterion.h Flexibility of thegplan.-—A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Permit at the local level ready flexibility for making adjustments in the transportation program in such cases as consolidation, fires, etc. (Criterion Number 6) The State directors in forty-one States found “Arizona, Colorado, and South Carolina, Appendix G. 99 Criterion Number 6 acceptable as an important considera- tion in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation. The directors in three States found this criterion acceptable in part, and one State director indicated that the criterion was not acceptable. Five State directors expressed no opinion. Subsistence in lieu of transportation.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for subsistence of pupils in lieu of trans- portation within reasonable limitations. (Criterion Number 9) The State directors in thirty-one States found Criterion Number 9 acceptable as an important considera- tion for evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation. The directors in seven States found the criterion acceptable in part, and the directors in eight States indicated that the criterion was not acceptable. Four State directors expressed no Opinion. The following comments represent, generally, the reasons for the unacceptability of this criterion in the opinion of the eight State directors: "Subsistence is responsibility of family and not of school," "We do not believe the school should be made responsible for sub- sistence for school children because of the distance their home is from school," "This criterion is probably necessary in some States, but is not needed in this State at the present time,” "May be desirable in some States with very ...II. .I.’.o .. .5 I'Ttru .vl . 100 sparse population." This reaction would indicate that provisions in the State plan for subsistence in lieu of' transportation do not have the importance which they perhaps once did, in light of modern highways and develop- ments in transportation. Group II Criteria--Assessing the State Plan's 2a2Zl1l9Ea_E22_§E1E2l2£i28_§22.A222i2E22E of Desirable Goals and tandards The following summary reflects the opinions of the State directors of pupil transportation as to the accept- ability of certain criteria in assessing provisions in State plans for stimulating the attainment of desirable goals and standards. SafeI efficientI and economical programs.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Tend to stimulate the attainment of desirable standards in.school bus equipment, maintenance, operation, and the employment of personnel. (Criterion Number 5) The State directors in forty-five of the States found Criterion Number 5 acceptable as an important con- sideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation and the directors in two States found the criterion acceptable in part. No State indicated that this criterion was unacceptable. Three expressed no opinion. ‘Qggirable schoq;_gistrict organisation.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: 101 Not tend to discourage desirable organization of local administrative units and attendance areas. (Criterion Number 10) The State directors in forty-five of the States found Criterion Number 10 acceptable as an important consideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation, and the directors in two States found the criterion acceptable in part. No State indi- cated that this criterion was unacceptable. Three expressed no opinion. Broadening and extending the educational_prggram.-- A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Encourage schools to broaden and extend the school program through the use of school buses. (Criterion Number 12) The State directors in thirty-four of the States found Criterion Number 12 acceptable as an important consideration in evaluating a State plan forfinancing pupil transportation and the directors in eleven States found it acceptable in part. Only one State directOr felt that the criterion was unacceptable. Four expressed no Opinion. Adequate records and reports.--A State plan for financing pupil transportation.should: Require a local school district or local admini- strative unit to maintain adequate accounting records and reports. (Criterion Number 7) 102 The State directors in forty-four of the States found Criterion Number 7 acceptable as an important con- sideration in evaluating a State plan for financing pupil transportation and two State directors found it acceptable in part. No State reported that the criterion was unacceptable. Four State directors expressed no opinion. Viewing the Criteria in Terms Qf_Freguency offilcceptgnce and Specific State Recommendations In an attempt to better understand the significance and interrelationships of the responses of the fifty State directors, the twelve criteria were tabulated in order of their frequency of acceptance. (Table 16, p. 113) This ranking may not have any particular statistical signifi- cance because of, (1) the limited universe involved, (2) some overlapping of the criteria, and (3) the rela- tively close grouping of the responses regarding all twelve criteria. However, on the basis of this ranking some extremely interesting speculations and observations are possible. Ranked No. 1, it is interesting to note, is Criterion Number 11 pertaining to the desirability of an objective formula. Ranked No. 12 and last is Criterion Number 8 which.pertains to the consideration in the formula of factors affecting cost. Now it is rather obvious that when State directors rated an objective formula of primary importance in a State plan for financing 103 pupil transportation, they should have also rated Criterion Number 8 equally high for the simple reason that one of the prerequisites for an objective formula is the incor- poration into that formula of the major or primary factors affecting cost. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is clear, however, when one recognizes first, that Criterion Number r 8 received far fewer responses than Criterion Number 11: second, and perhaps more important, while the State directors agree on the desirability of distributing State “ff. f” "you iv aid on the basis of an objective formula, they are appar- ently in part unable to agree on the specific factors affecting cost that should be incorporated into the formula to insure its objectivity. It is interesting to note the extremely worthwhile suggestion received from one of the States concerning the possible modifications of Criterion Number 11. West Virginia Criterion Number 11 should also provide for a periodic revision of the formula to compensate for increase or decrease of costs of services, equipment and supplies. Ranked No. 2 by the State transportation directors is Criterion Number 5 pertaining to the stimulation of the attainment of desirable standards. This is not surprising in light of the concern of the vast majority of the States in promoting safe, economical, and efficient 101; programs at the local level, which in turn require State direction and guidance in terms of the development and enforcement of reasonable standards. The following suggestion received from one of the States would tend to strengthen Criterion Number 5: Kentucky Criterion Number 5 should require districts to maintain certain levels of service in order to receive State aid. Also ranked in second place is Criterion Number 10 pertaining to the encouragement of desirable district organization. “It should be pointed out that a large number of State directors would view desirable district organization as primarily the organization of school attendance areas with.which.a given school district or county administrative school unit might concern itself. Others would view school district organization as the joining of two or more independent school districts into one new sahool district in.the sense of school district reorganization as conceived in some of the Midwestern States. Ranked in fourth place is Criterion Number 7 per- taining to maintenance of records and reports. Ranked in fifth place is Criterion Number 1 concerning adequate State support. A number of reactions concerning suggested deletions and modifications of Criterion Number 1 follow:5 SAppendix C. 105 Connecticut A State plan for financing pupil transportation should provide sufficient State funds to enable local units with reasonable local effort to Operate [or to contract] safe, economical, and efficient systems of transportation for all pupils who should be trans- ported. Indiana Should take into consideration financial ability of the local school district. (Equalization) _I_o_w_a_ We believe the State should not reimburse more than 50 per cent of the cost of transportation. ‘We prefer a flat rate per pupil rather than a com- plicated formula which would tend to take away local control. we can control condition of equipment through annual inspections. We tried a formula con- taining factors listed in Criterion Number 8, but this did not prove satisfactory. west Virgggig State funds obtained for transportation to be used for transportation only. Ranked in sixth, seventh, and eighth positions respectively are Criterion Number 6 pertaining to program flexibility, Criterion Number 2 pertaining to equaliza- tion, and Criterion Number 12 pertaining to the extension of the educational program. Ranked ninth is Criterion Number 9. 106 Criterion Number 9, provision for subsistence in lieu of transportation, commanded by far the greatest number of negative responses. Reactions concerning suggested deletions and modifications of Criterion Number 9 follow:7 Alabama Delete Criterion Number 9, subsistence responsi- bility of family. Hawaii We do not believe the school should ever be made responsible for subsistence for school children because of the distance their home is from school. 1325 This is probably necessary in some States, but it is not needed in Iowa at the present time. Missouri Criterion Number 9 may be desirable in some States with very sparse population. New Jersey Criterion Number 9 tends to discourage local districts from building adequate school facilities. North Dakota Although it is necessary in some cases to provide for payment in lieu of transportation, we in this State hesitate to make this a part of the State aid program. We find the greatest disregard for law in 7Appendix C. 107 supporting nonpublic schools in those districts which provide payments in lieu of transportation. Parents, and sometimes school boards, will ignore the fact that these payments cannot be made to those attending nonpublic schools. 922.9. Criterion Number 9 should provide for subsistence for pupils in lieu Of transportation within reasonable limitations. We do not recognize the Criterion. Do not approve of such a procedure. west Virginia Criterion Number 9 should provide for the alloca- tion Of specific allowances for in—lieu transportation facilities. Criterion Number 3, the consideration of capital outlay expenditures in the State plan for financing pupil transportation, which ranked tenth along with Criterion Number h, elicited the following responses:7 Kentucky Require districts to purchase school transportation equipment that meets definite safety specifications in order to receive State aid. Missouri Criterion Number 3 is too difficult to administer. State aid for capital outlay could result in excessive expenditures unless rigid safeguards were required. 7Appendix C. a. e f“- 108 ‘Washington Criterion Number 3 is important, but there must be some control prices districts pay for buses and equipment upon which.they receive State reimbursement. Comments received relative to Criterion Number h, pertaining to the provision for amortization of capital outlay expenditure, are as follows:8 Alabama Delete Criterion Number u, could lead to deficit spending. Missouri Delete Criterion Number h because it is too difficult to administer. State aid for capital outlay could result in excessive expenditures unless rigid safeguards were required. New Jersey Building school bus garages might rather be included in school plant construction rather than pupil trans- portation cost. Ranked in twelfth and last position is Criterion Number 8 pertaining to the consideration Of factors affecting cost incorporated in the formula in the fre- quency of acceptance scale. The comments received relative to Criterion Number 8 are as follows:9 8Appendix C. 9Appendix C. "i 109 Arkansas It would be well to include a road factor if you have control over school bus routes. we do not have such.a factor in our formula. Indiana Criterion Number 8 should take into consideration distance from homes to school, route hazards, and age Of children. I Further General Comments b the State Directors Relative to the we ve riteria Arkansas A road factor or a mileage factor would be a good criteria if there is some control over changes in bus routes. 'We have no such criteria. Georgia During the last two years Georgia has conducted studies in lh3'Of our 159 counties. This is a joint undertaking by the State department of education and county boards of education. Local administrators have had a chance to see other programs as well as their own. Common criteria have been used, thereby moving toward common practices in the administration and operation of school transportation program. So far these surveys have removed about 15 per cent Of the excess mileage in our programs and reduced the average route length of the state by about 17 per cent. ‘We believe that ultimately this will result 110 in.more equitable treatment of all counties in the distribution Of State aid by our formula. ‘We are convinced such local studies are the foundation of a much improved school transportation program. However, it is a never ending job. Provide for local studies of local school trans- portation programs to include organizing routing arrangements in accordance with needs of pupils, changes in attendance areas, consolidation of schools, expenditures and budget requirements. This points toward adequate service, equalization of education Opportunities, safety, and economical and efficient operation. Provide for the training of drivers and mechanics in the State plan for financing pupil transportation. Indiana Provision for the selection, training, supervision of drivers, and maintenance of equipment [should be included in the State plan for financing pupil trans- portation]. m we prefer the flat rate method (in our case $30.00 per pupil per year) to a complicated formula. This leaves most of the control at the local level, but permits us to exercise supervision of buses, drivers, routes, etc., through legal provisions and administra- tive regulations. 111 Massachusetts State grants-in-aid for transportation should be equalizing. Missouri Criterion Number 11 should be objective in [regard to] the factors included in the formula, but the amount of State aid should be f1exib1e--not fixed. New‘Hampshire The importance of some of the criteria to a specific situation would need to be judged by the allowance made for other criteria. In short, they overlap con- siderably. New Jersey Provision for stimulating annual in-service training for school bus drivers should be included. NOrth Dakota We believe a criterion could be added in regard to an equalization feature in providing State aid for transportation. It is our belief that a State aid formula which provides most or all of the transporta- tion cost encourages abuse of the vehicles in a public transportation system. It is our belief that the school district should provide some of the support for transportation. In order to make public trans- portation available to all students, an equalization feature must be present. u-v‘i-fl 112 Washington It appears to us that a good plan should recognize the difference between replaced buses and additional buses caused by increase in number of children served or distance traveled. Wyoming In my Opinion the twelve criteria listed will suffice if properly executed. There could be a possi- bility that too many criteria would cause confusion rather than simplicity. The Extent to Which State Plans Currently Recognize thegfiriteria The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to: (1) setting forth the extent to which State plans do in ~fact recognize the twelve criteria and the means by which this is accomplished, and (2) relating the findings in this study to the l9h6 findings relative to Covert's twenty States.lo 10The Covert study--l9h6. Covert employed a questionnaire in his study that identified eleven criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transporta- tion. This questionnaire was directed to State departments of education in order to ”formulate criteria for evaluating State programs for financing pupil transportation." Recipients of Covert's questionnaire were asked to recommend any additional criteria which should be added to the list and suggest any desirable modifications to those listed. Covert received but four replies to this invitation. Three merely stated in effect that Covert's list of criteria appeared to be quite complete and satisfactory. The fourth suggested that Covert add an additional criterion to the list which was stated as follows: Does the general plan for State support of education provide for separate calcula- tion of aid for school transportation: or, if not a sepa- rate calculation, is the financial need of the local unit VT v .evr ’ ' arfi’i 113 TABLE 16.--Ranking of criteria in order of the frequency of acceptance by the 50 State directors of school transportation, 1963 Frequency of acceptance Rank Criteria Acceptable Not NO Acceptable in opinion eBEEt acceptable EEEFessed l Criterion Number ll-—the desirability of an objective formula h? - — 3 2 Criterion Number 5-—stimulation of the attainment of desirable standards NS 2 - 3 2 Criterion Number 10—-encouragement of desirable district organization NS 2 - 3 h Criterion Number 7--acequate records and reports hh 2 - h 5 Criterion Number l--adequate State support N3 E/h - 3 6 Criterion Number 6--program flexibility hl 3 l S 7 Criterion Number 2--equalization 37 7 2 h 8 Criterion Number 12--broadening and extending the educational program , 3h 11 1 h 9 Criterion Number 9——subsistence in lieu ; of transportation 3 31 7 8 h 10 Criterion Number 3--consideration of i 2/ 3/ capital outlay expenditure , 3o - ’- 11 6 3 10 , Criterion Number h--provision for amorti- h/ ; zation of capital outlay expenditure - 3O 9 8 3 i i 12 i Criterion Number 8--consideration of i i factors affecting cost * 27 16 h 3 j l/Wyoming reported acceptable with respect to public schools only. é/Acceptable in North Carolina for buses and equipment only. Q/Criteria acceptable but not beyond current year—~Nebraska. g/Criteria acceptable if equipment is district owned and operated-~Minnesota. 11h It is interesting to note that in the twenty States that applied Covert's criteria to their State aid plans, eleven States, slightly more than one-half, were able to report more Often than not that their State plan did meet Covert's criteria. The Opposite was true in five States. The replies from two States were about evenly divided, while those from.the remaining States appeared to reflect no particular pattern. Covert summarized this information in a table included in his study which is reproduced as Table 17 of this study. so computed that it is affected by amount of transportation service rendered by local unit? Although Covert specifically indicated in his questionnaire that the respondents need not comment upon how the criteria applied to their respective State plans, twenty did so and forwarded their remarks to Covert along with the completed questionnaire. Inasmuch as Covert felt that their evaluations were both interesting and pertinent to his study, he summarized these comments and included this information in his study. See Table 17. The eleven criteria phrased as questions which were included in Covert's questionnaire were worded so that they could be answered in most cases by a simple ”Yes” or ”NO.” If the respondent's answer was ”Yes,” it implied that the criteria was satisfactory: and if the answer was ”No,” it implied the Opposite. Qualified answers were given by the respondents to some of the questions. 115 TABLE l7.—-Evaluation of provisions for financing pupil transportation in 20 States Are enough. Is there Is there I an funds . . suitable Are safety, Are such Can payments .5 . available Afeiiiibjlzts flag-:22: provision efficiency, Is the Is influences be made for Are desirable objective State £91: S.e‘fe’ for the e $01. funds for and plan adequate on cost as subsistence administration formla 6115-0153“): e en 90f f 't 1 extending economy of flexible accounting density of of pupils in and attendance used in _ 3110. th'xp se , 9 or C331 a capital of Operation enough? required? population lieu of units promoted? distributing economical ls serV'ice. ou ay ° outlay promoted? . considered? transportation? the State service ? ' payments - payments 7 : ‘ ‘ funds? 1 2 3 h 5 6 m 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alabama . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes i 1 Yes 2 No Ye Yes Connecticut . Yes ges 3 Yes ‘5 NO No Yes No NO No Yes Delaware. . . Yes 6 6 i Yes Yes ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Florida . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Illinois. . . No --- --- --- —-- --- --- --- -..- No ..-- Kentucky. . . No No 8 NO --- 3 No7 No No ~-- Yes No No Maryland. . . Yes Yes --- ‘ --— i -—- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes9 No Massachusetts --- --— --- g --- --- --- --- --— Yes ....— -—— Michigan. . . Yes Yes 9 Q 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes _ Yes No Minnesota . . Yes NO 9 9 Yes Yes Yes NO Yes Yes Yes Mississippi . Yes Yes Yes ; Yes \ Yes Yes Yes Ees No 1. Yes Ees North Carolina. Yes Yes » 12 1 Yes Yes Yes 9 Yes * North Dakota. No , 9 No No NO No No No 9 NO g No Oklahoma. . . NO Yes 9 12 , Yes 9 Yes 9 No ; Yes 3 Yes South Carolina No No 13 13 ; No NO No No NO NO 2 NO Utah. . . . . g NO NO NO 5 NO Yes Yes Yes No Yes ‘ --- 11‘ Vermont . . . No 1 1 No 3 No No NO No No , No L No Virginia. . . Yes NO No ‘ Yes No Yes Yes No No i No :3 NO Washington. . ‘ Yes Yes Yes 12 i Yes Yes --- 9 Yes Yes 3 No West Virginia Yes Yes No E No 3 Yes Yes Yes ‘ Yes 7 Yes { Yes Yes i J i L_ % _1_._/To a limited degree. _9_/In part or for some districts. 2.1/Considers factor of density. Q/Reimbursement extended over a period of years. _3_/For small towns only. ll/Counties raise funds for capital outlay. lit/One type of school excepted. lair/Local districts may do so. _/State pays all of approved expense. 1.2/Depends upon distribution of State aid within counties. é/All transportation by contract. lg/Items of expense in equalization program. 7/Not the best. SourCe: Timon Covert, State Plans for Financing Pupil _ Transportation. Federal Security Agency, United States Office of 8/In 19 counties which participate in State equalization fund. Education, Pamphlet No. 99 (Washington: Government Printing Office, " l9h6 , p. M. I. I‘ll. Iiitu ‘11.! Ill ! II. . 'l'l'- 116 The following represents a comparison between the 19h6 findings of Covert's twenty States and those of the survey conducted in connection with.this study as to the recognition of the aforementioned criteria in State plans for financing pupil transportation. Recognition of Criteria in State Plans l§K5-l§5§--A Summary Findings--this study Covert's twenty States11 Thirty-eight of the States Covert's findings in 19h6 recognized Criterion.Number indicated that at least 1, according to the State twelve States felt that their transportation directors, State plans recognized to through statutes and/or the a sufficient degree Criteria State aid formula. A large Numbers 1 and 2 and that number of additional States these State plans imple- recognized the Criterion mented these two criteria through administrative to an adequate degree in rules and regulations (in- the allocation of State eluding standards). transportation aid. Thirty-one of the States recognized Criterion Number 2 through statutes and/or the State aid formula, with a number of additional States recognizing the Criterion through administrative rules llcovert, OE. cit., pp. [La-ML. 117 Findings--this study and regulations (including standards). It is quite obvious that in a number of States the two criteria are recognized in many differ- ent ways such as through statutes and/or the State aid formula as well as administrative rules and regulations (including standards). In the 1963 survey it was found that twenty-five or exactly one-half of the States recognized Criterion Number 3, according to the State transportation directors, through statutes and/or the State aid formula, with a large number of addi- tional States apparently recognizing the Criterion through administrative rules and regulations (including standards). Twenty of the States recognized Criterion Covert's twenty States Covert found that the State plans for financing pupil transportation in eleven of the twenty States included in his 19h6 study made some provisions for capital outlay expenditures in connection with.pupil transportation services. Five States re- ported to have no such.pro- vision; one State reported that the school transporta- tion service was maintained entirely on a contract basis which.apparently required 118 Findings--this study Number h through statutes and/or the State aid formula with a number of additional States recognizing the Cri- terion.through administra- tive rules and regulations (including standards). The State transportation directors of twenty-one States reported that Cri- terion Number 8 was expressly recognized through statutes and/or the State aid formula. Covert's twenty States no expense for the purchase or repair of school buses, and the remaining States did not answer. Covert found that provision was made in eleven of the States . in his study for extending payments for school buses E and other school transporta- J tion equipment beyond the current year. Four States had no provision of this type. It is interesting to note Covert's findings in 19h6 to the effect that at least ten of the twenty States did give some consideration in the State plan for finan- cing pupil transportation to factors beyond the control of the local school districts, such as the variation and number of pupils to be trans- ported from a given area and road conditions. ‘gindings--this study Thirty-five of the States recognized Criterion Number 11, according to the State transportation directors, through statutes and/or the State aid formula, with a large number of additional States apparently recogniz- ing the Criterion through administrative rules and regulations (including standards).' Eighteen of the States recognized Criterion Number 6, according to the State transportation directors, through statutes and/or the State aid formula, with a number of additional States 119 Covert's twentyAStates Covert found in l9h6 that eighteen of the twenty States included in.his study replied to the question, "Does the plan for financing pupil transportation provide for the distribution of State aid upon the basis of an objective formula?” Eight States answered.in the affirmative, eight in the negative, one State reported that all pupils in need of transportation are provided with this service, and one reported that transportation is simply included as an item of expense in the State equalization plan. Covert found that there were legal provisions in thirteen of the twenty States for which.he provided tabular data which.permitted adjust- ments to be made in the arrangements for financing 120 gigdings--this study recognizing the Criterion through administrative rules and regulations (including standards). It was found that twenty- five of the States reporting apparently recognized Cri- terion Number 9, according to the State transportation directors, through statutes and/or the State aid for- mula, with a number of additional States apparently recognizing this Criterion through administrative rules and regulations (including standards). In this survey, it was found that twenty-one of the States recognized Cri- terion.Number 5, according Covert's twenty States pupil transportation service in case of consolidation, fires, or other changes taking place in the school district making such an adjustment desirable. Five of the twenty States had no such provision and two did not respond. According to Covert's findings in 19h6, the laws of the twenty States sur- veyed provided for the paying of the board and lodging of pupils under certain conditions in lieu of transportation. Seven of the twenty States re- ported no such provision. One State did not respond. In Covert's 19h6 study, eleven of the twenty States reported that their State plan for financing pupil __- --..— i A 121 Findings--this study Covert's twenty States to State directors, through transportation promoted statutes and/or the State aid safety, efficiency, and formula, with an even larger economy of Operation. number (29) indicating that this Criterion was also ’“"? recognized through admini- strative rules and regula- tions (including standards). It was feund in the 1963 In answer to the question survey that twelve of the as to whether or not the States recognized Criterion State provision for financing Number 10, according to the pupil transportation stimu- State directors, through lates desirable reorganiza- statutes and/or the State tion of local school admini- aid formula, with.nineteen strative and attendance State directors indicating areas, Covert's 19h6 study that their State recognized indicated that eleven States this Criterion through its responded in the affirmative, administrative rules and seven in the negative. In regulations (including the Judgments of State standards). officials, the State plans for financing pupil trans- portation helped in bringing improvement in school district organization in eleven of the twenty States 122 Findings--this study In this survey, it was found that seventeen of the States recognized Criterion Number 12, according to the State directors, through statutes and/or the State aid formula. Twenty States also recognized the Criterion through their administrative rules and regulations (in- cluding standards). Seventeen of the States recognized Criterion Number 7, according to State directors, through statutes and/or the State aid formula, with twenty-seven State directors reporting that this Criterion is also recognized through State administrative rules and regulations (in- cluding standards). Covert's twenty States responding but did not help in this respect in seven of the States. Covert did not include this Criterion in his 19h6 study. Covert's 19h6 study indi- cates that the adequate accounting of financial aspects of pupil transporta- tion was required in thirteen of the twenty States included in.his study but was not re- quired in four of them. No information was received from three of the twenty States in regard to this particular question. CHAPTER V AN ANALYSIS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN THE GREAT LAKES STATES This chapter presents an analysis of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin in terms of: (1) the characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation, (2) the statutory basis of these plans, the relationship of the State transporta- tion aid in those States to their over-all State aid programs, the State aid distribution plan (formula) for allocating pupil transportation aid in these five States, and finally in terms of (3) the twelve criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation. The five Great Lakes States were selected as the subjects for this study in order to: (1) ascertain whether State plans for financing pupil transportation could be profitably analyzed and appraised in terms of the above format, and if so, to (2) use a regional grouping of States such as this as a pattern for a national study to be developed on a regional basis.1 Conducting a study of State plans for financing pupil 1Appendix D. 123 12h transportation on a regional basis has certain advantages. Similar geographical, climatic, and socioeconomic condi- tions would normally be expected to indicate the presence of certain common problems and conditions in the organiza- tion, operation, administration, and financing of school transportation programs within those States. C t t t t n r Eiggncigg Eupil Tragspogtatign in the great Lakes Stateg This section will set forth over-all characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States according to the same general pattern as developed in Chapter III of this study and will relate these characteristics to those of other State plans. Qualifying for State Transportation Aid The requirements for qualifying for State trans- portation aid in the five Great Lakes States reflect the same general pattern as was found in the majority of the fifty States. All five of the Great Lakes States prescribe the distance a child must reside from the school he attends in order to qualify for State transportation aid, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan require that both elemen- tary and secondary pupils live one and one-half miles or over from the school they attend in order to be eligible for aid. Ohio requires that elementary and secondary pupils reside one mile from the school they attend, I? ' .xL-‘J .mem i I. 125 while Wisconsin has a two mile requirement for both elementary and secondary pupils. Nationally, thirty-six of the forty-four States which now allocate State transportation aid prescribe some distance requirement relative to the eligibility of pupils to qualify for State aid support under their State plans for financing pupil transportation. The Great Lakes States follow the general pattern of a majority of the States in requiring the local administrative unit to meet certain requirements with respect to the purchasing and maintenance of equipment, selection of drivers, and operating procedures. Transportation Aid and the Foundation Program 2 include Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin State transportation aid in the State foundation program, ‘with Illinois representing the single exception. The Great Lakes States reflect the national trend 4 in this respect in that the forty-four States which now expressly allocate State aid transportation are almost equally divided as to whether or not their State allowance is allocated separately from or included as a part of the State foundation program. 2Although transportation aid is not included in the State foundation programs, the cost of transportation in excess of the flat grant allocation is included in comput- 1:13 the State equalization aid received by some districts and therefore could conceivably be considered as a part of the foundation program under these circumstances. Table 18, p. 129. 126 Method of Distributing State Transportation Aid All five of the Great Lakes States employ a State aid formula in distributing State transportation aid. The distribution in Michigan and Ohio and, in part, of Indiana and Wisconsin is based on approved actual or average expenditures in the operation of the local ‘ZIZ? program. Illinois' distribution is based on a flat percentage of the cost of local programs and Wisconsin employs a flat grant State aid allocation. Again the ‘tfio ' - V7” - Great Lakes States generally reflect the current practice across the Nation. As a matter of fact, a majority of the States, twenty-seven of the forty-four, that provide State transportation aid calculate their State aid allowance according to a prescribed State aid formula. Factors in the Formula All five of the Great Lakes States recognize, either directly or indirectly, the number of pupils transported as a factor in the State aid formula for allocating State transportation aid, although Michigan does not use this factor in a direct manner but rather in a number of indirect ways such as in determining capital outlay allowance and the density factor. The Michigan State aid plan limits the per capita State aid allowance for transportation to actual cost or $60 per pupil, whichever is less. All five of the Great Lakes States recognize, 127 either directly or indirectly, a distance factor in their formula. This may be expressed in number of bus miles or distance transported. Indiana and Michigan make use of the distance factor in obtaining a density factor, and Wisconsin uses this factor in computing the State's schedule of annual per pupil allowances. A density factor is recognized in the formula in three of the five Great Lakes States-‘Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. Approximately one-fourth of the forty-four States allocating State transportation aid recognize density as a factor in the State aid formula for pupil transportation. Road conditions as a factor in the formula are recognized by only one of the Great Lakes States, namely Ohio. Six of the forty-four States allocating State transportation aid recognize this factor in the State aid formula for pupil transportation. Bus depreciation is a factor in the formula or in the over-all State aid plans of all five of the Great Lakes States. Michigan indirectly recognizes the factor in its formula through the capital outlay allowance, which is based on $1M per seat allowance for any prescribed period. Ohio recognizes this factor by means of a separate appropriation: ”School districts receiving State aid funds under the foundation program and otherwise approved and eligible according to certain criteria are eligible to receive State aid funds for the purpose of \‘fl". ~‘-W?v‘~—’"T-"““"‘fl 128 purchasing transportation equipment" in Ohio. Approximately one-half of the forty-four States allocating State transportation aid recognize bus depreciation as a factor in the formula or over~all State aid plan. Factors considered in the formulas of the five Great Lakes States are summarized in Table 19. t u r t G ta This section consists of a summary of the status of the five Great Lakes States with respect to the statutory basis for providing pupil transportation services. In order to better understand the statutory basis for transporting pupils in the Great Lakes States it might be well to briefly review the development of the statutory authority for providing the services in the various States. Little or no uniformity is to be found among the States of the Nation in regard to legal authorization for pupil transportation.3 Although most of the States first passed a law permitting the use of public funds for transportation, even today general transportation is not mandatory in approximately one-fourth of the States under any circumstances. Many States, on the other hand, 33. Glenn Featherston and John B. Murray, EESEQ .Zzazisisas_faz_Izsasn2££123_Bunils. Office of Education. United States Department of Health, Education, and welfare, OE-ZOOlS (washington: Government Printing Office, 1960). , v 1 't I ll Michigan TABLE 18. --Characteristics of the State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States (requirements--methods of distribution), 1963 Requirements to qualify for State Part of fundsfor transportation foundation program State . Approved Distance-~m11es 0th . t Y Flat Flat % 19f actual or E1 mentary Secondary er requiremen 5 es No grant cost_' average e c . expenditure! 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 Basis for allocating State funds / Formula—J Illinois l-1/2 1-1/2 Must meet standards — X - X - X for buses, drivers, and operating procedures. Indiana over 1-1/2 over 1-1A 1957 legislature X - ‘ - - - froze per pupil distribution to average for 1955- 56 and 1956-57 school year. p4 n l-l/Z : l-l/2 Transportation musti X - - — X X be on approved routes. Per capita State aid allowance; i limited to actual 1 cost not to exceed 1 $60. Pupils must ’ live outside vil— lage or citylimits. Ohio ‘ l E 1 Must be in approved X , — > — I - ~ — X § vehicles. ‘ 5 ‘ lfisconsin ; 2 9 2 Must be on approved XE/ ; - X - 3 X T X % E routes and in ; 5 E approved vehicles. i i i L»— l/Sometimes with a top limit or ceiling. g/Sometimes used only to calculate ceiling on cost or payments. g/If less than formula. h/ /Although transportation aid is not included in the State foundation programs, the cost of transportation in excess of the flat grant allocation is included in computing the State eq_ualization aid received by some districts and therefore could conceivably be considered as a part of the foundation program under these circumstances. Source: John B. Murray, ”Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation," Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and lfelfare (Washington: Office of Education, 1963). TABLE l9.--Characteristics of the State plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States (factors in formula), 1963 Factors in State formula for determining transportation needs of local school units State Number Number Number Density of of of of transported u ils buses bus miles population ‘ l 2 3 h S 6 7 8 \ ‘ Illinois A.D.A. - X X 1 \ Road Bus conditions depreciation Other - X Approved transportation programs are reimbursed by the State on the basis of either 50% of the cost of such transportation according to a State cost formula I or at the rate of $16-32 per transported pupil as determined by a State density formula g whichever is less. , . Indiana X - A” X - X f Pupils per bus mile. Bus i depreciation is computed as a } part of total Operation cost. L Formula also includes a wealth { factor which is designed to j provide more support for less wealthy school districts. Michigan 2/ s - .3/ .3/ ~ 3/ Ohio Enr. - Wisconsin A.D.M. - 9/ - - X } The amount of the State aid allowance allocated under the flat grant depends on number of miles pupil is transported. Equalization aid if net cost exceeds 2 mills. \ iii l/Used in calculating the sparsity factor. g/Factor used in calculating both the capital outlay and operation allowances. é/Factor used in calculating the per mile allowance and the overall operational allowance. _/Calculated on the basis of an annual per seat allowance. E/Separate State appropriation allocated on the basis of a State price schedule for equipment and district's valuation per child. é/Factor used in calculating per pupil allowance. Source: John B. Murray, "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation," Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Washington: ffice of Education, 1963). 4' 'I’ulllk)’ I Mini, ‘ 1» .l‘} ‘w w‘ 1 3 m r , ll 131 decided that transportation was the logical means of bringing an education more easily within the reach of many children and enacted legislation to require it under certain circumstances. A large number of States, for example, now require the transportation of all children living beyond a specified distance from school. There is a great deal of variation, however, in the conditions under which transportation is required and, to a lesser degree, under which it is permitted in the various States. States began, in relatively recent years, to make provision for the transportation of special groups, sometimes under criteria different from those for general transportation. By far the most common of the special groups for which transportation is provided is that of handicapped children. However, there are still several States which.have made no special provision for trans- portation of this group. Other groups for which States less frequently make transportation available are pupils attending private schools, teachers, and other employed personnel. 1 In recent years, and particularly since schools have purchased their own buses, it has become common practice to transport pupils to points away from the school building for instructional purposes and to extra- curricular activities. Almost one-half of the States have authorized such transportation by law. However, even in the remaining States it is fairly common practice, 132 and in most States public funds can be used for such a purpose. Again there is much variation in the provisions of the various States. As was previously indicated, the following data pertaining to the statutory basis for providing trans- portation in the Great Lakes States were obtained from a U.S. Office of Education circular.“ Michigan .Ranmissiza_azaxiaiana."Any district may provide transportation to another district when children live nearer to bus lines established within another district-‘ or they may enter into contract to furnish transportation for nonresidents. A fourth.class school district may pay transporta- tion of resident pupils to another district even though grades in which.such pupils may be enrolled are maintained within the district. yuandatgzz_prgxisign§."Any district which does not maintain grades above the eighth shall provide transporta- tion for resident pupils who have completed the eighth grade to high school of another district or districts. (May send to schools in border States.) A primary school district which discontinues school or certain grades shall pay transportation of resident children in such school or grades to another “ma. 133 school or schools. Third class district has power and duty to provide adequate facilities for transportation within the district of pupils from and to their homes when the board deems it advisable. 2hz§12;111_handig§nngd.--Any district may provide transportation for any resident physically handicapped pupil who otherwise would be unable to attend school within the district or in other districts. State sdhools for the deaf and the blind may furnish transportation for children of indigent parents. ‘M2923111;handigapped.--May furnish.transportation outside district to approved programs. chez_§pggi;1_gzgnpg.--The board of education of any school district which furnishes transportation for its resident pupils attending public schools within such district or in other districts may provide or pay trans- portation for its resident pupils who attend private or parochial schools located within the district or in other districts. (Shall be transported along regular routes of public school buses.) 1W ngnpgge§.-'The board of education of any school district may furnish.transportation for its resident or nonresident pupils attending school in the district to educational programs at county or community fairs, to health clinics in or outside the district, and to educational functions 131; in any other school district or community. at ed w.--Student spectators to athletic contests. M95h92_2£_£123§2123."May use district or activity funds. Illinois ‘Bgzm1§§11§_ngzigign§.-'The board of directors of a district having a population of fewer than 1,000 may provide free transportation for pupils, and where in its Judgment the interests of the district and of the pupils therein will best be subserved by so daing the board of directors may permit the pupils in the district or in any particular grade to attend the schools of other districts and may provide free transportation for such pupils. Nonhigh.school districts may furnish transportation for the pupils of the district not living within 1-1/2 miles of a high school, provided that the board of educa- tion finds that the district has sufficient moneys available after the payment of other district expenses, including tuition. Mandgtgxzinzgzislgng."School boards of community consolidated districts, community unit districts, consol- idated districts and consolidated.high school districts shall provide free transportation for pupils residing at a distance of at least 1-1/2 miles from any sdhool maintained within the district. 1" .‘h E: l 135 W-"State provides special funds for the education, including transportation, of the. handicapped. WWW-"Same as for physically handicapped. chez_spggigl_grgups.--If children who attend any school other than a public school reside on or along the highway constituting regular route of public school bus or conveyance provided by any school district for trans- porting pupils to and from the public schools, the school board of such.district shall afford transportation, without cost, for such.children, from their homes or from some point on the regular route nearest or most easily accessible to their homes, to such school, or to the point on such regular route which is nearest or most easily accessible to such school. (Attorney general--if it can be done at no extra expense.) WWWwWGhicles are used for school-sponsored activities. swam-"May use public fundr'may also use activity funds. Indiana £2:miggizg_ngzisigng.--Township school trustees, boards of school trustees, and boards of school commis- sioners may provide means of transportation for any pupils in any school district or school corporation, if (“E .a.’ 136 the conditions in the school district or school corpora- tion, in the Judgment of the township trustees, board of school trustees or board of school commissioners warrant the same. School trustees are empowered at their discre- tion to transport high.school pupils. Hangaiggy_pggxigigng."In all school corporations . . . . where a school has been abandoned, or may be 5‘ abandoned, the school trustees shall provide and maintain means of transportation for all pupils of such abandoned - '.\“"."e"‘ I.“ . school who live a greater distance than 1-1/2 miles from a the school to which.they are assigned. when any township does not maintain and operate a high school and.when fifteen or more high school pupils who reside in such township are transferred for school purposes to another school corporation, the trustee of any such.township, upon petition of a majority of the parents or guardians of such pupils, shall provide transportation for such pupils from a convenient central place or central places in such township, to be designated by the trustees, to the high school or high schools in such other corporation or corporations to which such.pupils are to be transferred. £h1§i§§111_hgngig§ppgg.--School cities, towns, and townships may provide transportation for children who are enrolled in special classes . . ., in cases where such children are physically unable to reach the school where they are entitled to attend or where such.achool is located at a greater distance from the home of such child 137 or children than the regular school. che:_§pg§igl_grgung.'-Where school children who are attending parochial school in any school corporation of this State reside on or along the highway constituting the regular route of a public school bus or conveyance, the school trustee shall afford transportation, without extra charge, by means of such.achool bus or conveyance, for the children attending any such parochial school, from their homes, or from some point on the regular route nearest or most easily accessible to their home, to such parochial school, or to the point on such regular route which is nearest or most easily accessible to such parochial school. W 22222121.-'The school bus may be used for group movements to and from athletic games, contests, or other school functions under the direct auspices of the public schools or for such other purposes as may be approved by the State school bus committee. Weaning-"Local fund! my be used“ also activity funds. Ohio e v s ."All city, exempted village. and local school districts may provide transportation for resident high school pupils to the high.school to which they are assigned. 138 Any city, exempted village or local school district may contract with.the board of another district for the admission or transportation or both, of pupils into any school in such other district. EKQEPILQE: No board of education shall provide transportation for nonresidents except by written consent of district of residence. ‘Mfindatgzx;nzgxisign§.“-All city, exempted village and local school districts where resident elementary school pupils live more than two miles from the school to which they are assigned shall provide transportation for such pupils to and from school. If the local board of education and the county board of education agree that such.transportation is impracticable or that no offer for such transportation is practicable the board may pay the parent or other person in charge of the child or children for the transportation of such.child or children at a rate determined by the local board of education. Ehyeigglly hgpdicappgd.'-City, exempted village and local school districts shall provide transportation for all children who are so crippled that they are unable to walk to the school to which they are assigned. WWW pgngggg.-‘Authorized by State director and provided in accordance with regulations recommended by the Ohio Advisory Committee on Transportation. Mgthgd_g£_zingncing.--May use district funds. 139 Cannot charge fees to students but may use activity funds. Wisconsin ' Wr-Districts Operating public high schools may provide transportation for nonresident . high school pupils living more than two miles from the school house within areas served from the school by bus routes approved by the county school committee and the State superintendent. Any school district operating a public elementary L school or a public high school of any type may authorize the transportation of all or any part of the students of such school district, including nonresident high school students, provided that if such transportation is furnished to less than all the students there shall be reasonable uniformity in the minimum distance that pupils will be transported. ‘Mgndgtgzx_ngzi§19n§.--All districts operating public elementary schools or public high schools of any type shall provide transportation to and from school for all pupils residing in the district and over two miles from the nearest public school they attend. 2h1g125111_h§n§12§22gfi.--Every district shall provide transportation for physically disabled children to any elementary or secondary schools regardless of distance. Mgn§§111;hgngig§nngg.--School districts in which mo a child resides shall provide (if not provided otherwise) for transportation of handicapped (defined to include mentally handicapped). h e a .--All school districts may provide transportation for teachers to and from school subject to the same controls and limitations as for the transportation of public school children. WW1: pnxpgsg§.--Any school district may provide transportation for pupils, parents, teachers, school doctors, dentists, and nurses to any extracurricular school activity such as a school athletic contest, school game, school field or any other similar school trip under supervision of competent adult employee when bus is driven by a regular driver, when the bus is insured, when approved by the principal or person with comparable authority, and when trip is in State or within fifty miles of its borders. ‘Hgth9§_g£_£1ngngigg.“-Any school district may make a charge for such transportation to be paid by the persons transported or the district may pay the total cost. Th e ti s to State A d Pr r be great nges State; As was pointed out in Chapter III, a State aid allocation for pupil transportation may be distributed in a number of ways. One method employed is to make the lhl State aid payment to the local school district in support of the transportation program without regard for any other State moneys paid to that district. Another method commonly used in a number of States is to include in the State foundation program an amount for transportation as may be determined by some method of measuring the local need and/or cost for this service. At least two approaches are available in this regard, (1) the so-called "lump sum plan,"S whereby the State aid allocation is computed on the basis of an allowance per pupil or per classroom unit, or (2) the "item plan,"6 in which the State aid allocation is computed for a number of separate and specific budget items with perhaps separate allowances provided for each budget item. When these methods of computing State assistance are used, the State may or may not indicate in the State aid allowance that a certain amount of the State funds allocated was for transportation or for any other specific item in the foundation program. A summary of the status of the Great Lakes States with respect to the relationship between State transporta- tion aid and the over-all State aid program follows: pnighigan.'-The Michigan State aid program includes, 5Albert R. Munse and Eugene P. McLoone, a -- cseo ' ea ; Pre_ :u~ e so 's ;e St: t; .fi;’ Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Misc. No. 33 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), p. 3. 61bid. _““737 1&2 along with certain special-purpose flat grants for which a district may be eligible, (l) a general-purpose flat grant to school districts based on an annual census of children residing in the district, and (2) a general‘ purpose equalizing State aid grant. In order to participate in the distribution of the general-purpose equalizing State aid grant, a school district must levy at least 5 mills (7 mills required for full participation) on the State equalized value of the district. Districts must use money from this grant only for such expenditures as salaries, tuition, transportation, utilities, textbooks, and other supplies. Each eligible district receives, in the form of a general-purpose equalizing State aid grant, the difference between a gross allowance based on school membership and moneys available from the general-purpose flat grant based on annual census, plus the yield of 2.75 mills tax levy on the State equalized value of the district. In determining the total State aid allowance, an amount is included for the transportation of pupils who live more than 1.5 miles from the school they attend, provided they are transported over routes approved by the superintendent of public instruction. The Michigan State Aid Act limits the per capita State aid allowance for transportation to actual cost or $60 (whichever is less); for the physically handicapped actual cost up to $60; for the mentally handicapped, $200. 1&3 If the State's appropriation for transportation is not sufficient to pay out under the formula, deductions are made on a percentage basis in an amount sufficient to bring the allowance in line with the appropriation. 1;11321§.--The Illinois State aid program for education includes, along with a number of special- _ purpose flat State aid grants for such programs as pupil r] transportation and special education, certain general- ; purpose flat and equalizing State aid grants. The general-purpose flat grant provisions of the Illinois U Common School Fund provide, in addition to State aid for districts operating junior colleges, for general-purpose flat grants to school districts on the basis of ADA. The general-purpose equalizing State aid provisions of the Common School Fund require school districts operating only elementary or high school grades to levy 5 mills on the assessed valuation of the district, while districts operating all twelve grades are required to levy 6.2 mills with the yield from the required local millage levy deducted from the gross allowance for which the district is elligible under the State support program. Igdigna.--The Indiana Minimum Foundation Program, which consists of (l) a general-purpose and (2) certain special-purpose equalizing State aid grants, is a three part program. A major portion of the State aid distributed through the Foundation Program is allocated in support of the cost of instruction and administration on the basis lhh of an objective formula which includes Average Daily Attendance converted to Teadhing Units, and on an average recognized salary for teachers based on a schedule which recognizes training and experience and a local levy. The State aid allowance for instructional salaries under the foundation program is equal to the Minimum Foundation Program (Total Units x Average Recognized Salary of Teachers) minus the Local Share. The Local Share is a computed sum based on a chargeable tax rate of 50 cents applied to local assessed wealth which in turn is adjusted by a tax adjustment factor. The tax adjustment factor is established for each county and is an equaliza- tion factor. Local Share increases in direct proportion to the assessed wealth of a school corporation (district) and as Local Share increases the amount of support decreases. The State aid allowance for Other Current Expense (Equalization) is paid to approximately one-third of the school corporations (districts) which rank lowest in wealth or evaluation per pupil. This is additional support for all operating expense other than instruction and transportation. Local Share computations are adjusted so that corporations with approximating $6,700 of assessed wealth or more per pupil do not qualify for these State Funds. Qh_2.‘-The State foundation program of education includes allowances for teachers' salaries, classroom 1&5 maintenance, retirement, transportation operating costs, and other approved current expenses., A participating school must levy 12.5 mills against the district's assessed valuation in order to receive State aid. The amount of State aid for which.districts are eligible is established by a factor formula. The district is eligible to receive, ":27 in State aid, the amount by which the allocation under the foundation formula exceeds the sum of the required 12.5 mill levy. ..L ' _ jfligggngin.'*The Wisconsin State aid program for a education consists, in addition to the general-purpose and equalizing flat grant distributions from the Wigggggin 239119_§gh991_£gg§, certain special-purpose equalizing and flat State aid grants. In order to participate in the flat grant portion of the‘Wisconsin Public School Fund, districts must maintain schools at least 180 days, maintain the State teachers' minimum salary schedule, and a 5 mill levy for K-12 districts qualifying for integrated aid and a 3 mill levy on the equalized valuation of all other districts. Wisconsin school districts are classified annually as "basic," those which meet the State minimum standards or "integrated," those which.meet higher and additional State standards. The equalizing portion of the Public School Fund equalizes up to 15 mills on a $2h,500 guaranteed evaluation per resident elementary pupil in basic districts, up to 15 mills for elementary and secondary resident pupils on a $33,000 guaranteed lh6 evaluation per resident elementary and secondary pupil in integrated districts (for those integrated districts operating only K-B programs this fund equalizes up to 15 mills on a $28,000 guaranteed evaluation per elementary resident pupil in ADM). Union high schools, which may be approved as basic or integrated districts, are equalized up to 10 mills on $55,000 evaluation per resident pupil for basic approval and $70,000 per resident pupil for integrated approval. The Wisconsin State aid program also includes, in addition to a special-purpose equalizing State aid grant for pupil transportation, certain special flat grants for special education, vocational and adult education, and pupil transportation. The at ibut o n o o Allgcating Izangpoztatigg 519 i2 the great L559! Stgtgg The State aid formulas incorporated into State plans for financing pupil transportation often appeared to be extremely complicated. It is natural to conclude that if these State plans, or more specifically, these State aid formulas, for transportation are to be more readily understood by individuals and groups interested in this particular area of school finance, a format of some type is needed to serve as a guide in organizing and setting forth formula details for pupil transportation in a clear, concise, and understandable manner. The format should serve at least two functions. It should enable 1&7 any interested party to obtain rather quickly a cursory understanding of the major involvements and computations in almost any given State aid formula for pupil trans- portation, and provide a means by which.both.the major similarities and differences in any two or more plans or formulas can be profitably compared and studied. It was with these purposes in mind that in 1962 r] such.a format was develOped for use in this study. That $ format is used in.this chapter in describing the plans i for financing pupil transportation in the five Great ij Lakes States. The data used in developing these State reports7 was obtained from school laws of the several States, special State reports and publications, and State departments of education personnel, chiefly State supervisors and/or directors of transportation. The original format was developed around the Maryland8 and later the Michigan State plan for financing pupil transportation. In subsequent reports for New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Colorado, the original format of the Maryland and Michigan reports was then used as an organizing guide.9 In this manner, development of the subsequent reports was greatly facilitated. 7Appendix A. 8m. 9The New York, Utah and Colorado reports are not included in this study. ifgidmié thg Great Lakes Sta: Q As a result of the limitations inherent in many of the earlier methods States employed to finance pupil transportation, such.as per pupil flat grant allowances, ~ matching State aid allowances, or allowances based on a percentage of the cost of the program, a number of States sought to develop State aid formulas for the more equitable distribution of State support. These State aid formulas were viewed as a means by which a State could 1:: determine, in a more equitable manner, local need and ability according to a prescribed and predetermined set of criteria. The various State aid formulas are designed primarily to measure justifiable costs, and in several of the formulas the actual cost of the program at the local level represents a direct factor in computing the State aid allowance. State aid formulas vary as to number of factors to be taken into consideration in calculating the allowance for pupil transportation.10 Most of these formulas, however, take into consideration such.factors as the number of pupils transported, the number of school buses utilized, the number of bus miles traveled, density, road conditions, and depreciation of equipment.11 A detailed description of the formulas for allocating 10Table 12, p. 79. 11mg. 1149 State transportation aid in the five Great Lakes States follow: Michigan-The Michigan formula takes into con- sideration four basic allowances: capital outlay, operation, insurance, and bus driver education in allocating State transportation aid funds. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT’OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS A-at e W To determine the capital outlay allowance the total number of children transported and eligible for State aidl/ or ‘l/2923.5 the total manufacturer's rated capacity of all school busesZ/ g/l638 (whichever is less) is multiplied x by an allowance of $llt3/ which 3/ $11), equals the net allowance for capital outlay.U U. $23,232 13. 912W To determine the allowance for operation, the total number of children transported eligible for State ami/ is divided by 5/2923.5 the total certified daily mileage of all busesé/ to obtain é/l321.5 150 B. Continued-- 3322212 the density factorrl/ If the ‘l/e 2+ factor is: less than 1 the allowance is 18¢'per mile 1 but less than 2 the allowance ‘L. is 20¢’per mile 2 but less than 3 the allowance is 22¢'per mile 3 but less than h.the allowance 9 is 214;! per mile h or more the allowance is 26¢ per mile The density factor allowanceg/ 1§/$.22 is then multiplied by the total x annual map mileage2/'which is in -2/l321.5 effect the total certified daily map mileage of all school buses times the number of days in x sessionlg/ to determine the 119/200 gross allowance for operationall/ 11/$58,lh6 The net State aid allowance for operation is then determined by subtracting from the total number of children transportedlg/ .lg/BSBh the total number of pupils eligible for State ennui-V thus .11/29235 B. 151 Continued-- deriving the number of pupils transported but not eligible for State aidryk/ The gross State aid allowance for operation15/ is then divided by the total number of all children transportedlé/ to determine the per capita operation cost. The number of pupils trans- ported not eligible for State aidll/ is then multiplied by $8 or by 25% of the per capita operation cost (whichever is the larger amount) to determine the amount to be deducted from the gross operation allowancealg/ This sum deducted from the gross State aid allowance for operationla/ or the sum obtained by multiplying the total number of children transported eligible for State aid by the per capita operation costgg/(whichever is the larger amount) represents the net State aid allowance lL/; 660.5 15/e58.1h6 1§/' 3.58u = $16.22 11/660.5 I $8 or 25% ($h.05) l§/¥ $5.28u Ween?» ' 5:2 1+ = $52,862 2923.5 x$l6.22 gg/; $h7.h19.17 B. 152 Continued-- for operationrgl/ W Multiply the number of buses used daily for transportationag/ by $h2 or actual cost, including P.L., P.D., and Comprehensive Coverage only (whichever is less), to determine the allow- ance for insurancergl/ WW To determine the allowance for bus driver education, multiply the number of driversZL/P 'gh/ 27 attending eight or more class hours by $12.50 or actual cost. add - mileage allowance @ $.07 per mile add - meal allowance (actual cost-allowance not specified) add - salary allowance (actual cost-allowance not specified) Total bus driver education allowance To obtain the administrative unit's total State aid allowance x 12.50 = 337.50 + ...—.— $22.80 8. 0 hr . $37 75 (2 $1.25) $739.05 153 Continued-- for transportation, add the Capital Outlay Allowance Operation Allowance Insurance Allowance Allowance Bus Driver Education Total State Aid To determine per capita allowance, divide the total State aid allowance25/ by the total number of children trans- ported eligible for State aidzé/ to obtain the per capita allowance.21/ If the per capita allowance is less than $60, the State aid allowance is as indicated above. If the per capita allowance is more than $60, multiply total number of children transported eligible for State aid times $60 for State aid allowance. Eaennla $22,932.00 52,862.00 1,176.00 739.05 $77,709.05 25/$77.709.05 METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PRIVATELY OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS State aid allowances for Esannla 15h transportation services, provided under private contracts (including private automobiles) or by common carrier, have the same limitation as to maximum State allowance--actua1 cost not to exceed $60-rand are determined in the same manner as school district-operated programs. Illingig. Any school district which meets certain standards as established by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and.otherwise operates an approved transporta- tion program is reimbursed by the State for either 50 per cent of the cost of such transportation according to a State cost formula or at the rate of $16 to $32 per pupil transported, as determined by a State density formula, whichever is less. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT'OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS $322212 In order to determine a school district's State aid reimbursement for pupil transportation under the Illinois formula, (1) the total days of enrollment and (2) the total ..c.‘ fiJ—w— ‘: 155 Example annual school bus mileage over "A," "B," and "C" Routes must first be computed in order to determine the district's State aid allowance. The Wail enrollment over: 31.132222: - bus routes transporting gnly pupils residing 1-112 miles 9: mpg; from school attendedl/ "g" Rggtgg - bus .l/None routes transporting bgth pupils residing less than 1-1/2 miles or 1-1/2 miles or more from school attendedra/ 2/11,520 (1) To compute the total days of pupil enrollment over "E" Routgs 21.1:112.milas_2r_nsza. the total number pupils transportedl/ is '3/60 multiplied by the total number of x days of transportation during the yearh/ to obtain the total days of 4/180 transportation over "B" Routes of 1-1/2 miles or more.5/ .5/; 10,800 (2) To compute the total days of pupil enrollment over "E" Rggtgg of less than 1-1/2 miles, the total number of pupils transported.;g§g 6 tha - 2 mi e is multiplied by é/h 156 the total number of days of trans- portation during the yearl/ to obtain the total pupil days of transportation over "B" Routes of less than 1-1/2 mIIOSrQ/ .292 Rogtg§--bus routes transporting 931; pupils residing less than 1-1/2 miles from school attended.3/ To compute the district's total pupil days of transportation over all routes add ("A” + "B1" + "82" 4, not: )12/ In order to determine the district's State aid allowance, next compute the tgtglgggnggl aghgol b2; milgage over: "A" Routes--bus routes transporting $9311 pupils residing 1'112 miles g: 73923 from schoolll/ "E" Rgnte§-- bus routes transporting bgth pupils residing less than 1-1/2 miles and 1-1/2 miles or more from school attended.L§/ (1) Compute the total annual school bus mileage over "B" routes of 1-1/2 miles or more by multiplying 1.9/11,520 ll/None £9,720 J _ a Ir , tr: 157 the daily round trip mileagelz/ by the total days of pupil enroll- mentlh/ to obtain the total annual school bus mileage gxgz_1;1[2_gilg "E" figutg§.15/ (2) Compute the total annual school bus mileage gveg lgss thag 1-112 mil; "g" Route by multiplying the daily round trip mileagelé/ by the total days of pupil enrollmentll/ to obtain the total annual school bus mileage Qvg: Lag; than 1-112 milgs "E" Eggterlg/ "C" figu§g§-' bus routes transporting ggly pupils residing lag; than 1-1/2 miles from school attendedala/ Extr - u i 0 To compute the district's total gross annual school bus mileage over all routes, add the total of all ”A," "Bl," "Ba,” "C" Routes and extrarcurr. mileagegl/ to obtain the total gross annual school bus mileage.2z/ To compute the district's net allowable school bus mileage 158 deducted from the total gross annual school bus mileage,g3/ the total of all mileage over (1) "B" Routes of less than 1-1/2 miles and (2) "C" Routeszu/ to obtain the total net allowable school bus mileage.g§/ To determine the district's total annual student mileage over "B" Routes multiply the total annual pupil days of transportation over I'B" Routesgé/ by the total annual mileage over "B" Routes of 1-1/2 miles or moregl/ and divide the productgg/ by the total number of days the district is eligible for transportation during the school yeargg/ to obtain the total student miles of "B" Routes.39/ To determine the total student miles of "B" Routes of less than 1-1/2 miles, multiply the total annual days of pupil enrollment over less than 1-1/2 mile ”E” Route3;/ by the weighed factor of 632/ to obtain the total student miles of less than 1-1/2 26/11,520 x 31/ 9,000 28/; 103,680,000 g3/180 39/; 576,000 __ “2' _ 159 miles of "B” Routes.33/ To secure the total gross annual allowable student miles of "B" Routes over 1-1/2 miles by subtracting from the total student miles of "B" Routeslk/ the total annual student miles of less than 1-1/2 miles of "B" Routes35/ to obtain the total annual allow- ance mileage over all "B" Routes of 1-1/2 miles or more.3§/ To secure the percentage of the total gross allowable "B" Route student mileage divide the total gross annual allowable student mileage over ”B” Routele/ by the total annual student mileage over all ”B” Routesifl/ to obtain the percentage of total annual allowable student miles over "B" Routes.32/ To secure the total net annual allowable mileage over "B" Routes, multiply the total annual allowable "B" Route mileageAQ/‘by the percentage of allowable student 39/571,680 31/371,680 3§/576,000 160 m: miles over "B" Routesul/ to obtain L1/O9% the total net annual allowable "B" Routes mileage.h2/ Lg/A 8,910 To secure the total annual allowable school bus mileage add all "A” Routes mileageha/ plus L3/None the net annual allowance ”B" Route mileagehh/ to obtain the hL/8,910 total annual allowable school bus mileagerhs/ L5/; 8,910 State aid reimbursement under the State cost formula is based on the districts actual, allowable, annual transportation costs. SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT'S ACTUAL ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS 22m W LES/$1,000 Includes all salaries of transportation supervisors, drivers, mechanics and garage employees, clerks and other transportation + employees. Contracted services and/or fares paid Pub. Carriershl/ Ll/None Includes expenditures to 161 owners who operate school buses and small vehicles to transport pupils; to contractors who own a part of a bus, such aschassis (even though the school district owns the body): and to parents for transporting groups of children, including their own children or transporting only their own children. WW Includes expenditures for public liability, property damage, medical care, collision, fires, and theft insurance. This includes expenditures for insurance on garages as well as transportation equipment. W Includes expenditures for supplies and other expenses for the operation and maintenance of district-owned pupil transportation vehicles and district-operated pupil transportation garages. ,nggghaggge returnedEQ/ 'Qgpgggiatign - 15 percent of LQ/go Afl/hoo ‘SQ/None VII.“ 162 not costil/ The net cost means the dollar amount expended to purchase the equipment reduced by any trade-in. W TOTAL cosrsil/ We. Contracted services transporting for other Districtssn/ Special Costs incurred for exceptional childrenES/ Overcharges returnedié/ Other expense reducing receiptsil/ TOTAL DEDUCTIONSSQ/ To determine the district's net transportation costs, deduct from the district's total trans- portation costs53/ the total deductionség/ to obtain the district's total net pupil transportation costs.§l/ To determine the district's pupil cost per mile, divide the district's total annual net trans- portation costsQZ/ by the total fig/$2.275 163 annual allowable mileage of all vehicles (include extra-curr. mileage)§3/ to obtain the district's transportation per mile cost.§L/ To compute the district's cost of transporting eligible pupils under the State formula, multiply the total net annual allowable school bus mileageéi/ by district's per mile cost for transportationéé/ to obtain the gross cost to transport eligible pupils under the formularél/ The gross cost to transport eligible pup11eé§/ multiplied by 50 percentéa/ represents the State aid reimbursement for pupil trans- portation under the State cost formularZQ/’ This amount or the amount reimbursable under the State sparsity formula, whichever is less, represents the amount of State aid the district is eligible to receive under the State aid formula. To compute the amount of 93/9300 We $.21”; §5/8,910 u I éé/t.2uu 916- $2.17u.ou ég/$2.17LL.0LL £22/so% 1‘ 1—0/- $1,087.02 16h reimbursement under the State sparsity formula, the area of the district in square milesll/ is divided by the total number of pupils transported 1-1/2 miles or more .12/ To obtain the square miles per pupil transportedll/ the district's sparsity factor is then used to determine rate per pupil transportedlh/ according to the following schedule: Sparsity factor--if amount on line 19 is: (a) Less than .10, use $16 (b) .10 or more but less than .20, use $20 (c) .20 or more but less than .30, use $2h (d) .30 or more but less than .50, use $28 (e) .50 or more, use $32 The total number of pupils transported 1-1/2 miles or morelS/ is then multiplied by the appro- priate rate per pupil transportedlé/ to obtain the amount of reimbursement _ .4 'v 165 822221: the district is eligible to receive under State sparsity formularll/ 11/? $1,920 The amount or the amount under the State cost formula,1§/ ‘1§/$l,087.02 whichever is less, represents the amount of State aid the district is eligible to receive under the State aid formula. State aid allowances for transportation services provided under private contracts (including private automobiles) or by common carrier are determined in the same manner as school district-operated programs. Indiana.--Schoo1 districts (corporations) eligible for State aid under the general provisions of the State foundation program are also eligible to participate in the pupil transportation State aid portion of the State foundation program. State aid allowance for School Transportation is allocated on the basis of a formula which.involves, in addition to a wealth factor and a pupil sparsity factor, actual operating costs and the length of the school term. These factors are applied to a base rate of $20 per student. Students must live over 1.5 miles from the 166 school they attend in order to be counted in the Trans- portation Program. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT-OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS E52221: In order to determine a school district's State aid allowance, for pupil transportation under the Indiana formula, two factors must first be secured: (1) pupil sparsity, and (2) the district's per pupil valuation. t ct To determine the district's pupil sparsity factor: the total number of resident public school pupils transported--who live more than 1-1/2 miles from the school buildingl/ is divided by the total 1/60 round trip mileage of all bus .; routesZ/ to obtain the number of 2/h0 pupils transported per mile ratiol/ «3/175 using this ratio the following table is then used to obtain the 8 district's pupil sparsity factor.“ 9/1.!4. 167 Enamels Snsrsiithsstsz t 222_hils 15min: h.00 and over .3 3.75 to 3.99 .h 3.50 to 3.7h .5 3.25 to 3.h9 .6 3.00 to 3-2h .7 2.75 to 2.99 .8 2.50 to 2.7h .9 2.25 to 2.h9 1.0 2.00 to 2.2h 1.1 1.75 to 1.99 1.2 1.50 to 1.7u l.% 1.25 to l.h9 1. 1.00 to 1.2h 1.8 .75 to .99 2.0 .50 to .7h 2.2 N9 and under 2.h t th To determine the district's valuation per pupil the district's adjusted assessed valuation5/* is ‘5/$2,500,OOO.00 divided by the district's total .; resident ADAQ/ to obtain the é/500 district's valuation per pupil 8 ratiol/ using this ratio the 1/$5,OOO.00 following table is thus used to obtain the district's wealth factor.§/ é/l.5 *Following page. 168 Example ’Schedule of Per Capita Wealth Factors *AsdustesnAssssses Ialuatias_zsz_AnA Easter $16000 and over .0 . 1 000 to 1 999 -2 000 to 999 .% 13000 to 13999 - 12000 to 12999 .8 11000 to 11999 .9 10000 to 10999 1.0 9000 to 9999 1.1 8000 to 8999 1.2 7000 to 7999 1.3 6000 to 6999 l.h 5000 to 5999 1.5 hOOO to A999 1.6 3000 to 3999 1.8 2000 to 2999 2.0 below 2000 2.2 Aaiuaiad_Bass.12snaaar&a&ian_fista The base transportation rate is then adjusted according to the length of the district's sparsity factora/ is multiplied by the '2/1.h x district's wealth factorclg/ The ‘19/1.5 productll/ is in turn multiplied 11/2.10 by the appropriate base rate x according to the length of the district's school year,lg/ as 12/20.00** indicated on the following table, 8 *The adjusted assessed valuation is found by multiplying the actual assessed valuation by the county tax adjustment factor. This factor was established in 1959 by the State Board of Tax Commissioners. *“Deduction per pupil due to insufficient appro- priation. ‘ 169 to obtain the district's adjusted base rate.13/ A further deduction l3/$LL2.OO $5*l9/ is made to obtain the net LL/$ 5.00 adjusted per pupil raterli/~ l5/E37.00 .AflJEfli2Q_2£I_22211_I£§n1222£2£122 32.52.! 111.12) A 13) ALL 1949.111 1. A x 1. 5 x $20. 00 9 mos." sate-$5??? x_ x$18. 89 8-1/2mos.L ___=___ x __ $1.7 78 8 mos. -_ a The total number of eligible pupils transportedlé/is then mul- 19/60 x tiplied by adjusted rate per pupilll/ «ll/$37.00 to obtain the total maximum - allowancerlg/ L8-/$2,220.00 The total actual cost of pupil transportation for the school year is then itemized by the partic- ipating school district in the following manner: The cost of transportation shall include WW 1.2/$1,000.00 (1) Sparsity Factor, (2) Wealth Factor: (3) Bus Rate3 (u) Length.of School Term: (5) Adjusted Rate; (6) Alteration; (7) Altered Rate. ”Deducation per pupil due to insufficient appro- priation. **Applies in this illustration. 170 .uaint1_e_92221_2f_§sbaalzgsnss W .Qibsz_ssnansas - Specify Private OwnedZI/ Miscellaneous Depreciation allowance of 10% of the purchase price of all school-owned vehicles is allowed $5,500 x 10% . $550.3” To determine the district's maximum allowance based on actual transportation cost, take 90%23/ of the total actual cost of all transportationzh/ to obtain maximum allowance based on operating costs.25/ The district's gross annual transportation support allowance represents either the district's total maximum cal- culated transportation allowancezg/ or the district's maximum allowance based on operating costs21/ whichever is less. egg/$u00.00 g1/t50.00 gg/t550.00 gg/$2,220.00 or 21/$1,300.00 171 METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PRIVATELY OPERATED “PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS .Ezasnla State aid allowance for transportation services, provided under private contracts (including private automobiles) or by common carrier are determined in the same manner as school district-operated programs. thg.'-Ohio's State aid act limits State aid allowance for transportation to actual operating expenses, including salaries of drivers, mechanics, supervisors, gasoline, oil, tires, repairs, insurance, etc. A separate appropriation is used for the purchase of school buses. The State transportation aid formula takes into consideration three factors in the allocation of State funds: approved daily bus mileage, number of eligible pupils transported, and type or condition of roads‘ traveled. Roads are classified according to the percentage of hard surfaced roads, gravel, dirt, and severe hills. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT'OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Example A. t a e separate appropriation 172 Continued-- School districts receiving State aid funds under the foundation program, and otherwise approved and eligible according to certain criteria, are eligible to receive State aid funds for the purpose of purchasing trans- portation equipment. To determine the capital outlay allowance for each bus, the district's total tax valua- tionl/ is divided by the district's average daily membershipZ/ (grades 1 through 12) to obtain the district's valuation per childrj/ The total cost of the busLE/ or the allowable State ceiling prices/ according to the following State ceiling price schedule for equipment (whichever is less) is multiplied by the appropriate percentage factor,§/ as indicated in the following State's share percentage table, to obtain the gross allowance.1/ «In/$10,000,000 2/1,000 3/$10,000 U$6,500.00 586,150.00 New ”81.115050 A. 173 Continued-- EEAEDI: To determine the not allow- ance, deduct from the gross allowanceg/ the amount allowed ‘§/$h,h50.50 for the traded-in bus32/ if any, ‘9/ $100.00 to obtain the total net State aid 8 allowance for capital outlayrlg/ '19/$u,350.50 .flEAl2_Q2Allggfifgégfiiéshsgnlg_ifin 8-12 passenger $2,150 16 passenger 2,850 20 passenger 3,150 2h-30 passenger 3,u00 36 passenger h,100 AZ passenger h,350 A8 passenger h,800 5h passenger 5,350 60 passenger 6,h50 66 passenger, air brakes 7,150 72 passenger, engine forward-transit, air brakes 8,500 73 passenger, rear engine-transit, air brakes 9,500 The above ceiling prices on 60 and 66 passenger buses may be increased $300 when vehicle is equipped with approved "automatic transmission." A. Continued-- 17h The above ceiling prices on 60 and 66 passenger buses may be increased $100 when vehicle is equipped with power steering. PERCENTAGE OF STATE'S SHARE SCHEDULE Valuation _pergpupil Less than $3,200 3,200 3,500 3,800 u,100 h.h00 h.700 5,000 5,300 5,600 5.900 6,200 6,500 6,800 to to to to to to to to to to to to to 3.h99 3.799 h,099 n.399 n.699 n.999 5,299 5.599 5,899 6,199 6,t99 6,799 7,099 State's share 92% 91% 90% 89% 88% 87% 86% 85% 8h% 83% 82% 81% 80% 79% $ Valuation pupil to $ 9.h99 per 9,200 9,500 9,800 10,100 10,h00 10,700 11,000 11,300 11,600 11,900 12,200 12,500 12,800 13,100 to to to to to to to to to to to to to 9,799 10,099 10.399 10,699 10,999 11,299 11,599 11,899 12,199 12,h99 12,799 13,099 13,399 State's share 71% 70% 69%* 68% 67% 66% 65% 6h% 63% 61% 59% 57% 55% 53% *Applies in this illustration. 175 A. Continued-- PERCENTAGE OF STATE'S SHARE SCHEDULE --continued Valuation State's Valuation State's per pupil share per pupil share $7,100 to 7,399 83% $13,u00 to 13,699 51% 7,800 to 7,699 77% 13,700 to 13,999 h9% 7.700 to 7.999 76% 18,000 to 1u,299 h7% 8,000 to 8,299 75% 1h.300 to 1h.599 h5% 8,300 to 8,599 7h% 10.600 to 1h,899 83% 8,600 to 8,899 73% lu.900 to 15,199 h1% 8,900 to 9,199 72% 15,200 to 15.199 39% 15,500 and higher 37% B. wa e Ezppplg The State aid formula takes into consideration three factors in allocating State funds for operation: approved daily bus mileage, total number of eligible pupils transported, and type of condition of roads traveled. To determine the allowance for operation: 1. The total number of pupils transported and eligible for State aidll/ is multiplied by $1hl2/ to obtain the allowance for operation based on the total 176 Continued-- Eggpplg number of eligible pupils transported.13/ l3/$1h,000.00 2. The total approved daily mileagelk/ is multiplied by lL/5OO the appropriate mileage allow- x anceli/ according to the l5/$22.OO* mileage allowance schedule below, based on the type of roads over which vehicle travels, to obtain the mileage allowance for operationrlé/ lé/$ll,000.00 MILEAGE ALLOWANCE BASED ON TYPE OF ROADS OVER WHICH VEHICLE TRAVELS A11 districts are classified into one of four classifications on the basis of information supplied by the county highway officials in each county. Road cgpditions Allpwapcg Type A“ $22* per mile 0%-39% gravel roads O%-29% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 0%“19% severe hills Type B $2h per mile H0%’59% gravel roads 30%-h9% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills ...-‘3 , a ,- L Zirfr'- 177 B. Continued-- Egample Ro d io Allpwancp 20%-29% severe hills Type C $26 per mile . 60%‘79% gravel roads 50%‘59% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 30%'h9% severe hills Type D $28 per mile 80%-100% gravel roads 60%-100% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 50%-100% severe hills The allowance as computed in Items lll/ and 21§/ represents .ll/$lh,000.00 + the total approved transportation l§/$11,000.00 Operating allowancel-a/ to be 13/$25,000.00 included in the district's foundation program, provided, however, that where the actual cost is less than the sum of the amounts computed in Items 1 and 2 the total amount shall not exceed the actual cost. To obtain the school district's total State aid allowance for transportation under the Ohio formula, add the - 178 Example a i t an $ #1350o50 e a n 25,000.00 Contracted Servigpg Allowppcg Total State Aid $29,350.50 A METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION E3} AID ALLOCATION FOR PRIVATELY OPERATED ; 3 I PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS f L “‘7’“ A. Ca t t 1 owa ce Eggpplp N The capital outlay allowance . j for transportation services E' provided by a private contrac- torgQ/ is based on the rated §Q/$386.00* capacity of each vehicle according to the schedule. This allowance is reimbursable annually for entire period vehicle is in Operation and can pass State inspection. SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE FOR PRIVATELY OPERATED PROGRAMS 12141212511211.2111 ABM“ 72 passenger $680 66 passenger 5&2 60 passenger 522 5A passenger h32* R8 passenger 386 #2 passenger 352 36 passenger 3 2 2h-3O passenger 2 6 20 passenger 256 16 passenger 232 _ 8-12 passenger 176 179 B. Qanrstian_Allasanss Essssla The State aid formula takes into consideration three factors in allocating State funds for operation: approved daily bus mileage, total number of eligible pupils transported, and type or condition of roads traveled. To determine the allowance for operation: 1. The total number of pupils transported and eligible for State 11031/ is multiplied by Zl/LO $lu23/ to obtain the allowance g2/$Ih.00 for operation based on the total number of eligible pupils transported.23/ 2345560.00 2. The total approved daily mileagezu/ is multiplied by gh/3O the appropriate mileage allow- x anceaS/ according to the 25/$21.7..OO*" mileage allowance schedule below, based on the type of roads over which vehicle travels, a to obtain the mileage allowance for operationagé/ 2g/9720.00 180 Continued-- Examplg MILEAGE ALLOWANCE BASED ON TYPE OF ROADS OVER WHICH VEHICLE TRAVELS All districts are classified into one of four classifications on the basis of information supplied by the county highway officials in each county. We Allsssnss Type A $22 per mile 0%“39% gravel roads 0%-29% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 0%-19% severe hills Type B* $2h* per mile h0%-59% gravel roads 30%'u9% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 20%-29% severe hills Type C $26 per mile 60%-79% gravel roads 50%-59% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 30%-h9% severe hills Type D $28 per mile 80%-100% gravel roads 60%-100% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 50%-100% severe hills *Applies in this illustration. B. 181 Continued-- The allowance as computed in Items 121/ and 23g/ represents the total approved transportation operating allowanceza/ to be included in the district's foundation program, provided, however, that where the actual cost is less than the sum of the amounts computed in Items 1 and 2 the total amount shall not exceed the actual cost. £52921: 21/$560.00 ... Eye/20.00 £3/$1,280.00 To obtain the total private contractors State aid allowance for transportation under the Ohio formula, add the genital_nullsz_6119usnaa 922211122_Allaasnaa Total State Aid $ 386.00 1,280.00 $1,666.00 At METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PUPILS TRANSPORTED BY PUBLIC UTILITY CARRIER AND PRIVATE CAR .znblia;!111111_2azzias For pupils transported by public utility carrier, a flat pamount, not to exceed $36 per year for each pupil so Ezannls A. 182 Continued-- Spagplg transported, is allowed. This State aid allocation applies only when expense of such transportation is borne by the school district. _ £2111£2_Q££§. f] 1 The State aid formula takes 3 into consideration three factors 7 in allocating State funds for pi operation: approved daily bus mileage, total number of eligible pupils transported, and type or condition of roads traveled. To determine the allowance for operation: 1. The total number of pupils transported and eligible for State aid39/ is multiplied by 139/2 $1h31/ to obtain the allowance 31/$1:.00 for operation based on the total number of eligible pupils transportedaia/ 334328.00 2. The total approved daily mileageli/ is multiplied by the 33/2 appropriate mileage allowancelh/' Ila/$28.00* according to the mileage 183 Continued-- allowance schedule below, based on the type of roads over which vehicle travels, to obtain the mileage allowance for opera- tion.3§/ MILEAGE ALLOWANCE BASED ON TYPE OF ROADS OVER WHICH VEHICLE TRAVELS All districts are classified into one of four classifications on the basis of information supplied by the county highway officials in each county. W Allannsa Type A $22 per mile 0%-39% gravel roads O%-29% gravel, rolling hills, and severe‘hills 0%-19% severe hills Type B $2h Per mile h0%’59% gravel roads 30%-h9% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 20%-29% severe hills Type C* $26* per mile 60%-79% gravel roads 50%'S9% gravel, rolling hills, and severe hills 30%-h9% severe hills 35/$52.00 18h B. Continued-r Epppplg W Allmnas Type D $28 per mile 80%-100% gravel roads 60%-100% gravel, rolling hills, and 50%-100% 333:: 3111: The allowance as computed in Items llé/ and 231/ represents .3§/$23.00 the total approved transportation ‘31/$52.OO operating allowance3§/ to be ‘3§/$80.OO included in the district's foundation program, provided, however, that where the actual cost is less than the sum of the amounts computed in Items 1 and 2, the total amount shall not exceed the actual cost. flupggngin.-'In order to participate in (1) the flat grant portion of the State aid allocation for trans- portation, all districts must provide transportation to all resident pupils residing two or more miles from school. No fares can be charged to parents or guardians and failure to provide transportation jeopardises all State aid allocations for which the district may be eligible. This portion of the State aid allocation is distributed on the basis of $2M per school year, per pupil transported to and from school whose residence is 185 at least two miles and not more than five miles by the nearest travel route from the public school attending, and $36 per school year, per pupil transported to and from school whose residence is more than five miles by the nearest traveled route from the school attended, and (2) the equalizing portion of the State transportation fund provides additional aid to those districts unable to meet approved transportation costs with.a 2-mill levy on the district's equalized valuation plus the flat-grant portion of the State aid allocation for transportation. The transportation aid to any district or municipality shall not exceed actual cost. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT'OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Egample In order to compute the State aid allocation for which.the district may be eligible, it is necessary to determine the district's allowable annual transportation costs. A LOCAL DISTRICT'S ACTUAL ALLOWABLE ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS £9823 Salariesl/ l/$1,000.OO Includes all salaries of transportation supervisors, drivers, + mechanics and garage employees, 186 clerks and other transportation -employees. Contracted services and/Or fares paid Pub. Carrierst/ 'g/None Includes expenditures to owners who operate school buses and small vehicles to transport pupils; to contractors who own a part of a bus, such as chassis (even the school district owns the body): and to parents for transporting groups of children, including their own children or transporting only their own children. Insurancea/ 3/$50.00 Includes expenditures for public liability, property damage, medical care, collision, .fires, and theft insurance. + This includes expenditures for insurance on garages as well as transportation equipment. Operation and Maintenancdk/ lh/$hO0.00 Includes expenditures for supplies and other expenses for the operation and maintenance of + 187 m district-owned pupil transportation vehicles and district-operated pupil transportation garages. Overcharges Returnedi/ 5fNone ‘ Depreciation-15% of net costé/ I§/$825.00 The net cost means the dollar amount expended to purchase + the equipment reduced by any trade-in. Other CostmL/ ‘l/None Handicapped Transportation Costsg/A §/$500.00 TOTAL OOSTSQ/ 3/ $2 375.00 WWW* Number of Per Pupil WWWW I 2 miles but less 90 days or less $12 than 5 miles : 11 Over 5 miles 90 days or less $18 III 2 miles but less 91 days or less $2h than 5 miles IV Over 5 miles 91 days or less $36 Rascals (1) Compute the total number of pupils in district transported *Reduced proportionately in cases where pupils are transported for less than a full school year because of nonenrollment as a result of transfers, districts must maintain schools at least 180 days in order to participate in the We. 188 2 miles and not more than 5 miles for 90 days or 1essl9/' The total number so transported is multiplied by a per pupil allowance of $1211/ to obtain the total annual allowance for pupils transported in category Number I.12/ (2) Compute the total number of pupils in district transported over 5 miles for 90 days or 1ess.13/ The total number so transported is multiplied by an allowance o'f $181M to obtain the total annual allowance for pupils transported in category Number 11.15/ (3) Compute the total number of pupils in district 2 miles and not more than 5 miles for 91 days or moreslé/ The total number so transported is multiplied by a per pupil allowance of $2u11/ to obtain the total annual allowance for pupils transported under category Number III.l§/ (h) Compute the total number of pupils in district transported 189 over 5 miles for 91 days or more.12/ The total number so transported is multiplied by a per pupil allowance of $3629/ to obtain the total annual allowance for pupils transported under category Number 1V121/ Add the district-annual per pupil allowance under: Category“ 122/ Category 1133/ Category IIIZL/ Category IVEE/ Handicapped State ai 6 ansportation To obtain the district's total annual allowance for all pupils transported.21/ If the district is unable to meet the approved transportation costszg/ with a local levy on the equalized valuation of the districtza/ of 2 millsjg/ in support of the programil/ plus the flat-grant and a9-/$36.OO 31/$1,080.00 33/$36.00 4. 21/$36.00 4. gin/$880.00 4. 25.451.080.00 4' 3“ $500. 00* fill/$2,132.00 W$Z.775.00 33/$800,000.00 352/.062 31/ $1,600.00 '9' *In addition to a flat grant allocation, the State reimburses a percentage of the difference between this flat grant allocation and the actual cost. The actual percent- age would vary from district depending on the district's total operating costs, total expenditures, equalized valuation and local tax levy. 190 supplemental State aid allowances,33/ the State provides the additional amount needed through the equalizing portion of the State aid fund for transportation to enable districts to meet the total approved cost of the program. To compute the allowance for those districts eligible to receive this additional State aid, the district's total pupil transporta- tion operation costsli/ less the district's State aid allowance under the flat grant portion of the State aid allocation for trans- portation3h/ is obtained. This difference equals the district's net transportation OOStSclS/ .A percentage of the difference or the district's net cost is then computedfié/ to obtain the district's supplemental or equalizing portion of the State aid allowance for pupil transportation.al/ 355E212 32/62,132.00 13L/$2.775.oo 3fl/S2,132.00 355/ $813.00 1: 351/775? 31/919833 *The actual percentage would vary from district to district depending on the district's total operating costs, total expenditures, equalized valuation and the local tax levy. . 191 Lamb. To determine the district's total State aid allocation, add the district's allowance under the flat grant portion of the State aid allocation for transportationlg/ 3§/$2,l32.00 plus the district's supplemental , + State aid allocationla/ to obtain 32/$h98.33 the district's total State aid 8 allowance for transportation.LQ/’ LQ/$2,630.33 METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PRIVATELY OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS annals State aid allowances for transportation services provided under private contracts (including private automobiles) or by common carrier are determined in the same manner as school district“ operated programs. As the final aspect of this analysis of the State aid plans fdr financing pupil transportation in the Great Lakes States, the five State plans are examined in terms 192 of the twelve evaluating criteria.12 Group I Criteria for Assessing the State Plan's Over-all Adequacy and Equitableness S2221212n§_§&2&2_122222§."A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide sufficient funds to enable local units with reasonable local effort to Operate safe, economical and efficient systems of transportation. (Criterion Number 1) Four of the five State directors found Criterion Number 1 acceptable3 the Illinois director indicated that the criterion was only acceptable in part. The opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion generally reflects the opinion Of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation. Forty-three State directors found the criterion acceptable, four indicated it was acceptable in part, and three States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plan for financing pupil transportation. The following excerpts from these State plans reflect the acceptance of this criterion: 12Chapter IV. 193 Illinals State aid reimbursement under the Illinois State aid formula is based on the district's actual allowable annual transportation costs. State approved programs are reimbursed at the rate of 50 per cent of the cost of such transportation according to the State formula or at the rate of $16 to $32 per pupil transported as determined by the State density formula, whichever is less. 1291222 A district's maximum allowance under the Indiana formula represents 90 per cent of the actual cost or the maximum transportation allowance calculated according to the State aid formula, whichever is less. School districts (incorporations) eligible for State aid under the general provision of the State foundation program are also eligible to participate in the pupil transportation State aid portion of the State foundation program. The State allowance for school transportation is allocated on the basis of a formula applied to a base rate of $20 per pupil. Mishizsn The State aid formula in Michigan limits the State aid allowance to actual cost or $60 per pupil, whichever is less. 191:. 9219 The Ohio State Aid Act limits the State aid allowance to actual Operating costs. Separate appropriation is used for purchasing school bus equipment. 1112220110 , The flat grant portion of the Wisconsin State aid allocation for transportation is distributed on the basis of $2h per pupil per year for pupils residing at least two and not more than five miles from school and $35 per pupil per year for pupils residing more than five miles from school. The equalizing portion of the State transportation fund provides additional aid to districts unable to meet approved transporta- tion costs, with a 2-mill levy on the district's equalized valuation. Suffipigpt Spat; pppppzfi (ppntlnugd)."A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Tend to compensate for the additional financial burden that falls upon school districts which must provide pupil transportation. (Criterion Number 2) All five State directors found Criterion Number 2 acceptable. The opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion reflects generally the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation. Thirty-seven State directors found the criterion 195 acceptable, seven indicated it was acceptable in part, two indicated it was not acceptable, and four States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors of all five Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. The following excerpts from these State plans clearly reflect acceptance of this criterion: 11191118511 T- In order to participate in general distribution A; ‘ of State aid a school district must levy at least 5 mills (7 mills required for full participation) on the State equalized value of the district. 9.1.11.9. The State foundation program of education includes allowance for teachers' salaries . . . transportation . . . and other approved current expenses. A partic- ipating school must levy 12.5 mills against the district's assessed valuation in order to receive State aid. Ipdiapa equalizes its State aid allocation for transportation, Illippip does not, and.flipgpppin equalizes a portion of its State aid for pupil transportation. WW-"A State Plan for financing pupil transportation should: Take into account provisions for capital outlay expenditures, such as the purchase of school buses, 196 bus equipment, and the erection of bus shops. (Criterion Number 3) Four State directors found Criterion Number 3 acceptable, the Illinois director indicated that the criterion was acceptable only in part. The opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion generally reflects the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation. Thirty State directors found the criterion acceptable, eleven indicated it was acceptable in part, six indicated it was not acceptable, and three States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes States indicated that this criterion was recognized in their State plan for financing pupil transportation. The following excerpts from these State plans reflect acceptance of this criterion: 111111211 Depreciation allowance equals 15 per cent of the net cost of equipment. Indiana Ten per cent depreciation allowance on the purchase price of the school bus equipment is allowed. 1112111222 Allowance for capital outlay is based on a per 197 seat allowance. Quin Capital outlay in Ohio is based on the State ceiling price for equipment. Nissanaln Depreciation allowance represents 15 per cent of the net cost. The net cost represents the dollar amount expended for the equipment reduced by any trade-in allowance. Wed state plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for amortization of capital outlay expen- ditures of school buses and school bus garages beyond the current year. (Criterion Number A) All five State directors found Criterion Number A acceptable. The Opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion reflects generally the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation. Thirty State directors found the criterion acceptable, nine indicated it was acceptable in part, eight indicated it was not acceptable, and three States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes States indicated the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. The following data tend to indicate acceptance of this criterion. 198 Illinais Time required to depreciate the school bus for State funds is seven years. Sources of funds and methods of paying for school buses are bond issues, short-term loans, lease purchase or installment (three year period), reimbursement from the State, and current revenue. Indiapa Time required to depreciate the school bus is E ten years. J Sources of funds and method of paying for schoOl buses are bond issues, lease purchase or installment (for period of six years at an interest rate not to exceed h per cent), reimbursement from the State, and current revenue. 81221220 State aid allowance for depreciation is $lh per pupil transported per year not to exceed man- ufacturer's rated capacity of the vehicle. Sources of funds and methods of paying for school buses are bond issues, lease purchase or installment, purchase on six-year plan, reimbursement from the State, and current revenue. thg Sources of funds and methods of paying for school buses are short-term loans (three years at interest 199 rate not to exceed h per cent), lease purchase or installment (four years with interest rate not to exceed h per cent), reimbursement from the State, and current revenue. Wain Time required to depreciate school buses for State funds is seven years in figuring cost on 2-mill program. Sources of funds and methods of paying for school buses are bond issues, short-term loans borrowed from the State, lease purchase or installment, and current revenue. ost ed t ."A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for consideration of factors beyond the control of local units such as population density, road conditions, and geographical barriers. (Criterion Number 8) Three State directors found Criterion Number 8 acceptable. The Illinois director indicated that the criterion was only acceptable in part, while the Wisconsin director indicated it was not acceptable. The opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion again generally reflects the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation in regard to this particular criterion. 200 Twenty-seven State directors found the criterion acceptable, sixteen indicated it was acceptable in part, four indicated it was not acceptable, and three States expressed no opinion. In ranking the twelve criteria in order of acceptance frequency, Criterion Number 8 ranked last in order of acceptance frequency. As was apparently true nationally,13 the directors in the Great Lakes States were also unable to agree as to those specific factors affecting cost that should be incorporated into a State aid formula to ensure its objectivity and equitableness. The transportation Adirectors in all five Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. The following data tend to indicate acceptance of this criterion: 111111219. Factors affecting cost are incorporated into the Illinois formula, such as number of transported pupils, mileage, density, and depreciation. 122m: Factors affecting cost are incorporated into the Indiana formula, such as number of transported pupils, density, and depreciation. 2121:1212 Factors affecting cost are incorporated into the Michigan formula, such as capital outlay allowance 13Teb1e 16, p. 113. -‘ r (- _ fl.._.. .'5' . T::~ 201 for equipment, density, number of pupils transported, and mileage. Okla Factors affecting cost are incorporated into the Ohio formula, such.as number of transported pupils, mileage, road conditions, and capital outlay allowance for equipment. I We Factors affecting cost are incorporated into the Wisconsin formula, such as number of transported pupils, depreciation, salaries, and distance transported. WNW-"A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Provide for distribution of State aid upon the basis of an objective formula. (Criterion Number 11) All five State directors found Criterion Number 11 acceptable. The Opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion generally reflects the opinion of the fifty State (directors of pupil transportation in regard to this particular criterion. IForty-seven State directors found the criterion acceptable, and three States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes states indicated that the criterion was recognized in 202 their State plans for financing pupil transportation. Elzzlhlll£1_2£_£hg_plan."A State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Permit at the local level ready flexibility for making adjustments in the transportation program in such cases as consolidation, fires, etc. (Criterion Number 6) Four State directors found Criterion Number 6 acceptable. The Illinois director indicated that the criterion was only acceptable in part. The opinion of the transportation directors in the Great Likes States relative to this criterion reflects the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil trans- portation. Forty-one State directors found the criterion acceptable, three indicated that it was acceptable in part, one indicated that it was not acceptable, and five States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. WWW-“A 3“” jplan,for financing pupil transportation.should: Provide for subsistence for pupils in lieu of transportation, within reasonable limitations. (Criterion Number 9) Three State directors found Criterion Number 9 'Cvfiv « .k. ,_ ..I!“ 203 acceptable. The Illinois and Indiana directors indicated that the criterion was only acceptable in part. The mixed reactions of transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to the criterion reflects the mixed reaction of the fifty State directors of pupil trans- portation to this particular criterion. Thirty-one State directors found the criterion acceptable, seven indicated it was acceptable in part, eight indicated it was not acceptable, and four States expressed no opinion. The transportation directors in all five Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. Group II Criteria for Assessing the State Plan's Provisions for Stimulating _the Attainment of Desirable Goals and Standards va State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Tend to stimulate the attainment of desirable standards in school bus equipment, maintenance, operation, and the employment of personnel. (Criterion Number 5) Four State directors found Criterion Number 5 acceptable. The Illinois director indicated that the criterion was acceptable only in part. The opinion of the majority of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion also reflects 20h generally the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation on this particular criterion. Forty-five State directors found the criterion acceptable, two indicated it was acceptable in part, and three States expressed no opinion. The directors in all five of the Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. The following indicates a number of ways by which the criterion is implemented in the State plans of the Great Lakes States: 111111911 State provisions are made for: school bus routes and route standards, school bus operating regulations, stopping of buses at railroad crossings, laws regarding passing school buses on the highway, contracts for transportation, insurance or liability, and records and reports for transportation. Indiana State provisions are made for: school bus inspections, school bus operating regulations, speed limit specifically for school buses, stopping buses at railroad crossings, laws regarding passing school buses on the highway, contracts for trans- portation, and insurance or liability. -1313 1.1—LIN I -‘-‘ its—6 7" fr 205 111.92.18.12 State provisions are made for: school bus routes and route standards, stopping of buses at railroad crossings, laws regarding passing school buses on the highway, contracts for transportation, and insurance or liability. Qpip State provisions are made for: stopping of buses at railroad crossings, laws regarding passing school buses on the highway, insurance or liability, and records and reports for transportation. Mamie State provisions are made for: school bus inspections, school bus routes and route standards, school bus operating regulations, speed limit specifically for school buses, stopping of buses at railroad crossings, laws regarding passing school buses on the highway, contracts for trans- portation, insurance or liability, and records and reports for transportation. W- "A ' State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Not tend to discourage desirable organization of local administrative units and attendance areas. (Criterion Number 10) Four State directors found Criterion Number 10 acceptable. The Illinois director indicated that the 206 criterion was acceptable only in part. The opinion of the majority of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion reflects generally the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation in regard to this particular criterion. Forty-five State directors found the criterion acceptable, two indicated it was acceptable in part, and three States expressed no opinion. The directors in all five of the Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. d e d u a o ." A State plan for financing pupil transportation Should: Encourage schools to broaden and extend the school program through the use of school buses. (Criterion Number 12) Three State directors found Criterion Number 12 acceptable. The Indiana director indicated that the criterion was not acceptable. The opinion of the majority of transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion reflects quite generally the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation in regard to this particular criterion. Thirty-four State directors found the criterion acceptable, eleven indicated it was acceptable 207 in part, one indicated it was not acceptable, and four States expressed no opinion. The directors in all five of the Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. Table 20 indicates in some detail the means by which this criterion is implemented in the Great Lakes States. Wo'fi State plan for financing pupil transportation should: Require a local school district or local admin- istrative unit to maintain adequate accounting records and reports. (Criterion Number 7) Four State directors found Criterion Number 7 acceptable. The Wisconsin director indicated that the criterion was acceptable only in part. The opinion of the majority of the transportation directors in the Great Lakes States relative to this criterion reflects the opinion of a majority of the fifty State directors of pupil transportation in regard to this particular criterion. Forty-four State directors found the criterion acceptable, two indicated that it was acceptable in part, and four States expressed no opinion. The directors in all five of the Great Lakes States indicated that the criterion was recognized in their State plans for financing pupil transportation. (Wei-5 . . . ’ p e v ‘ TABLE 20.--State provisions for and practices in transporting pupils for curricular or extracurricular purposes in the five Great Lakes States State Specific authorization in State law General practices, not mentioned in law Method of financing Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin The school bus may be used for group move- ments to and from athletic games, contests, or other school functions under the direct auspices of the public schools or for such other purposes as may be approved by the committee *** on recommendation of the trustees or board of trustees. The board of education of any school district may furnish transportation for its resident or nonresident pupils attend- ing school in the district to educational programs at county or community fairs, to health clinics in or outside the district, and to educational functions in any other school district or community. Any school district may provide trans— portation for pupils, parents, teachers, school doctors, dentists, and nurses to any extracurricular school activity such as a school athletic contest, school game, school field or any other similar school trip under supervision of competent adult employee when bus is driven by a regular driver, when the bus is insured, when approved by the principal or person with comparable authority, and when trip is in State or within 50 miles of its borders. ‘7 vehicles are used for student activities but must cover school bus sign (attorney general has rules that a vehicle cannot be considered a school bus except when on its regular route). Student spectators to athletic contests. Authorized by State director and provided in accordance with regulations recommended by the Ohio Advisory Committee on Transportation. ‘ May use district funds. May use public funds-~may also use activity funds. Local funds may be used-—also activity funds. May use district or activity funds. Cannot charge fees to students but may use activity funds. Any school district may make a charge for such transportation to be paid by the persons transported. Source: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Washington: E. Glenn Featherston, and John B. Murray, State Provisions for Transporting Pupils. 1 Office of Education, Government Printing Office, 1960), Table III, pp. 12—15. 208 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCEUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Emphasis in this study has been focused upon determining Whether or not State plans for financing pupil transportation could be profitably analyzed, using a particular approach, thus providing a possible pattern for future studies of this type. No attempt was made to evaluate the strengths and/or weaknesses of any single State plan. In order to accomplish this end, it was necessary A. Identify and analyze the common characteristics of State plans for financing pupil transportation in the fifty States (Chapter III); B. Ascertain the current status of certain previously validated criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation.(0hapter IV); C. Analyze in detail the State aid plans for financing pupil transportation in the five Great Lakes States cf’Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and‘Wisconsin, specifically in terms of: the statutory basis, the relationship of State transportation aid to the total State program, 209 210 the State aid distribution plan (formulas) for allocating pupil transportation aid, and in relation to the aforementioned characteristics and criteria (Chapter V); and finally D. Determine, on the basis of this analysis, whether or not recommendations could be evolved for the possible improvement of State plans for financing pupil trans- r] f portation in the United States. i 1 In the application of the particular approach employed in this study to analyze the State plans for :i a financing pupil transportation, certain generalizations a were noted which could prove helpful to those States which are now or will eventually be involved in appraising their State plans. These generalizations concern two of the important elements of this study; namely, (1) the current characteristics of State plans for financing pupil trans- portation, and (2) the criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation. 1. The legal basis for providing pupil transportation in most States rests not on a single law but on a number of permissive and mandatory laws. There is little uniformity in statutory provisions for transporting pupils in the various States. 2. Each year more Stats educational agencies are con- fronted with.the necessity to formulate and publish 211 rules and regulations in ever greater detail governing the transportation of children. Adherence to State requirements relative to the type and quality of employed personnel, school bus equipment and its Operation, and the use of uniform records, reports, and financial accounts constitutes a basis and/or prerequisite, in a number of States, for local Operating units to receive State transportation aid. The relationship of State transportation aid to the State aid program.-- 1. The over-all State aid program may be more easily and as objectively administered if transportation is com- puted as a distinct item. This may account, in part, for the fact that the State aid allowance for trans- portation in several States is now equalized inde- pendently rather than through a ”single fund” or ”lump sum” foundation program. Methods used for distributing State transportation aide-- 1. More than.ha1f the States that allocate transportation aid use some type of formula for computing the trans- portation need of the local administrative units, although in a number of these States the formula is used only to set a ceiling for the cost for which the State will reimburse. The basis on which State aid funds for pupil trans- portation are allocated in.the remaining States varies -1‘Ck “'5 Wtwhx' ‘i 212 from the flat grant allocations to State aid allowances allocated on the basis of the actual, approved or average cost of operating a local program, or on a prescribed percentage of the local cost. The allocation of State aid for transportation on the basis of matching special-purpose grants introduces many inequalities. Districts most in need of providing the service are often the very districts least able, because of a low tax base, to match the State funds for which they are eligible. The shortcomings inherent in allocating State aid funds for pupil transportation on the basis of matching special-purpose State aid grants are also found in those States that allocated State transportation aid on the basis of special-purpose per capita flat grants because State aid allocated on this basis is all too often insufficient. In those States that distribute the State aid alloca- tion for pupil transportation on the basis of a pre- determined percentage of the actual cost of the program, inequalities can result if the State aid reimbursement does not represent a reasonable proportion of the actual cost of the program at the local level. State aid formulas for pupil transportation.-- As a result of the limitations inherent in many of the earlier methods States employed to finance pupil ' " _‘Bfifif ‘fium j‘ 213 transportation, such as per pupil flat grant allowances, matching State aid allowances, or allowances based on a percentage of the cost of the program, a considerable number of States have developed State aid formulas for the more equitable distribution of State support. These State aid formulas are viewed as a means by which a State can determine local need and ability according to prescribed and predetermined criteria. In several of the formulas the actual cost of the program at the local level represents a direct factor in computing the State aid allowance. State aid formulas vary as to the number of factors to be taken into con- sideration in calculating the allowance for pupil trans- portation. Most formulas, however, consider such factors as number of pupils transported, number of school buses utilized, number of bus miles traveled, density, road conditions, and depreciation of equipment. A majority of the States that provide State transporta- tion aid calculate their State aid allowances according to a prescribed State aid formula. Although consider- able progress toward the development of State aid formula has been made over the years, it is doubtful that there is currently in existence a formula which may not in some respect be improved. Cost factors incorporated into the formula.-- It has been determined through research that there are 214 relationships between certain factors and school trans- portation operating costs. The Criteria for Evaluating State Plans In determining the status of certain selected criteria for evaluating State plans for financing pupil transportation, it was found that the criteria fell into two general categories or groupings: (1) criteria pertaining to F5 the assessment of the State plan's over-all adequacy and Q Li equitableness, and (2) criteria pertaining to the assessment S of the State plan's provisions for stimulating the attainment y of desirable goals and standards. Within each of these two groupings specific criteria appear to be especially appropriate in focusing attention, for evaluating purposes, on certain qualities or important considerations within the over-all State plan for financing pupil transportation. The twelve criteria employed in this study, therefore, should prove useful to any State engaged in appraising its State plan for financing pupil transportation. Assessing the over-all adequacy and equitableness of a State plan.—- l. A State plan should make adequate provision for suf- ficient State support (Criteria Numbers 1 and 2). 2. A State plan should make adequate provision for capital outlay expenditures (Criteria Numbers 3 and 4). 3. A State plan should make adequate provision for the consideration of cost factors in the formula h. the 215 (Criterion Number 8). A State plan should make adequate provision for an objective State aid formula (Criterion Number 11). A State plan should make adequate provision for flexibility (Criterion Number 6). A State plan should make adequate provision for subsistence in lieu of transportation (Criterion Number 9). Assessing provisions in a State_plan for stimulating attainment of desirable goals and standards.-- A State plan should make adequate provision for stimulating the attainment of safe, efficient, and economical programs (Criterion.Number 5). A State plan should make adequate provision for stimulating the attainment of desirable school district organization (Criterion Number 10). A State plan should.make adequate provision for stimulating the broadening and extending of the educational program (Criterion Number 12). A State plan should provide for the maintenance of adequate records and reports (Criterion Number 7). Conclusions The State plans for financing pupil transportation can be profitably analyzed in terms of: (a) their charac- teristics, (b) the twelve evaluating criteria, and (c) their State distribution plans (or formulas) for allocating transportation aid. 216 The fifty State plans for financing pupil transporta- tion do in fact recognize by various means and to varying degrees the twelve evaluating criteria that a majority of the fifty State directors generally agree should be recognized in any adequate State plan. Each State has a unique problem with respect to the development of its State plan for financing pupil transportation. Consequently, it is questionable whether any one plan or formula could completely meet the need of each.of the fifty States. Various methods and techniques are employed by the fifty States in allocating State aid support for pupil transportation. Different approaches to the problem may well strengthen the evolutionary process since diversity provides for the broad experimentation that is essential in developing more equitable methods of financing pupil transportation. There are definite limits to the extent to which complicated formulas can be used in allocating State transportation aid. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to combine all the factors affecting the cost of transportation into a State aid formula. Most recent studies have been directed toward the developing of school transportation formulas of relatively simple design. The availability of current, reliable, and reasonably detailed.school transportation cost data at the State level is essential to the develOpment and maintenance 217 of an objective and equitable State aid formula for allocating State transportation aid. 7. The techniques and procedures employed to promote safety, efficiency, adequacy, and economy in the operation of school transportation at both the State and local level must be based upon a sound philOSOphy of the social and educational role of pupil trans- portation, and State plans for financing pupil transportation must be developed to encourage and support this philosOphy. Recommendations for Further Study It is recommended that on the basis of a series of regional studies similar to this study a relatively complete account be compiled and maintained as to the current status of State plans for financing pupil trans- portation in the United States. It is recommended, moreover, that the twelve evaluating criteria presented in this study be further delineated and that a checklist be developed to designate specific items to be evaluated with respect to each of the twelve criteria. For example, under Criterion Number 7, adequate records and reports, a minimum list of necessary or desirable records and reports would be very helpful in evaluating the adequacy of a given State plan. Such a guide would be useful to State officials in conducting their own evaluation studies. BIBLIOGRAPHY 218 Books Burke , Arvid J. c ’ h t Staten. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. Butterworth, Julian E., and Ruegsegger, Virgil. (Admin' WW. Minneapolis: Educational Publishers, l9hl. Cubberly. E. P. W. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1927. Jehns, Roe L., and Morphet, Edgar L. o . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Lambert, Asael C. Schgol ngggpgrtgtigg. Stanford Unigersity, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 193 . Lynn. Henry H. W New York: The Ronald Press Company, 19 6. Meadows, Austin R. . Wetumpka, Ala.: wetumpka Printing Company, l9h0. Monroe. Walter 8. W. New York: MacMillan Co., 1950. Mort, Paul R., and Reusser, Halter C. '23b119_§§h221 Einangg. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., l9hl. Noble, M. C. 3., Jr. e . Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, l9h0. Reader. Ward G. MW' 5122. Columbus, Ohio: Educators' Press, 19 9. Roe, William H. S hoo s s Ma e e t. New Yerk: McGraw-Hil Book Company, Inc., 19 l. Rosenstengel, William E., and Eastmond, Jefferson N. S hoo e-- t h nd P acti s. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 19 7. 219 220 Strayer, George D., and.Haig, Robert Murray. Ihg_Eingnf c i h e e . Vol. 1: EQ2asiiansl_Einanaa_lnanizI- New Ybrk= The MacMillan Co., 1923. Thurston, Lee M., and Roe, William'H. Stgtg_§ghggl Adginigtrgtign. New Yerk: Harper a Brothers, 19 7. . Books: Parts of Series 1 Burns, R. L. Mgggurggegt 9f the Negd f9: Tr gggpoztigg PW £32111. Teachers College Contributions to Educa- ,~,f tion, No. 289. New Ybrk: Teachers College, “ Columbia University, 1927. . Hutchina. c. D., and Holy. T c. W 9 Chin. MW:- 10th ed. New York: American School Publishing Corp., 1938. aJ Hutchins . Clayton D. W W. W. 13th ed. New York: American School Publishing Corp., 19h1. Johns, Roe L. Izgngpgntgtign.— Teachers College COntributions to Education, No. 330. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928. Mort. Paul R. SEW. Teachers College Contributions to Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928. a Ed N . Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 150. NgghYork: Teachers College, Columbia University, PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Abel, J. F. o . Bureau of Education, United States Department of the Interior Bulletin No. kl. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1923. Amis, Otis C. s a t r a e c e t . Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, 1939. 221 Chase, Francis S. mtg Egzty-Etght Stgtg Sghggl ngtgmg. Chicago: Council of State Governments, 19h9. Covert. Timon. MW £221L_Irgg§pgttgt12_. Office of Education, United States Department of the Interior, Leaflet No. 3. washington: Government Printing Office, 1931. . 1 o a c Pu 11 re tat . Federal Security Agency, United States Office of Education, Pamphlet No. 99. Washington: Government Printing Office, 19h6. Evans, Frank 0. cto Af e t h Cost 0 Sc r s ortat n Califo . Office of Education, United States Department of the Interior. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1930. Featherston, E. Glenn. "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation." Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Circular No. #58. ‘Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955. . ”Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation." Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Circular No. h58 revised. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958. . and Murray. John B. W ‘Izgngpgzttng_22211§. Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Circular No. #53. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. Florida State Department of Education. Edugatzgngl e d ur S Re th Ltgitltttzg. Tallahassee: The Department, 1929. Hutchins. Clayton D. AW“ r tttn. Bulletin No. 2. Columbus: Ohio Department of Education, 1935. Jones, J. W., and Holmstedt, R. W. "The Distribution of State Funds for the Purpose of Equalizing Educa- tional Opportunity in Indiana," A Report of the Commission on State Aid for Public schools in Indiana, 1930. Kentucky Department of Education. s - t12n_£2:mulg. Educational Bulletin No. , Vol. XXVI. Frankfort: The Department, 1958. 222 Massachusetts Department of Education. Bultgttg of the nepgztggnt of Edtggtlog, No. 6. Boston: The Department, 1920. . d d o Eggggttgg, together with.the t -t d W. Boston: Wright and Potter, 1 70. - , McGuire, S. H. d e . Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College for Teachers, 193k. ‘—-_ 'i 4'; i7,- —‘ Morphet, Edgar L. "Basic Considerations in the Apportion- x Li! ment of State Funds for Pupil Transportation," ; Weeding. Vol. LXXIX. 19m. . "Problems Involved in Providing Efficient School Transportation Service," .gnd_fltiytz§1tyz 11th ed. New Ybrk: American School Publishing Corp., 1939. Mort, Paul R. A Elan for Providing quality 9f Educa- r u . Report of the State School Case Commission of Kansas. Supplement to Volume II, 1928. ....e7u I) U ELI; . d a t E u t . Research Bulletin No. 3. Omaha, Nebraska: State Teachers Association, 1928. . e tru eat.';:u ' 9:2. ° ' 0 79”.: 9 9- . .2£_legrggg. Educational Finance Committee. N.p., Colorado: Education Association, 1929. WWW. Report of the Governor's Commission to Study the Distribu- tion of State Subsidies to School Districts, Harrisburg, Pa., 1927. Must-man. J 0 WWW Rural School Leaflet No. 2, United States Office of Education. ‘Washington: Government Printing Office, 1923. Munss, Albert R., and.McLoone, Eugene P. a_o 3.... " c:n-: f o-r 0f he In -d a - ' - - Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Misc. No. 33. washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. 223 Murray, John B. "Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation." Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. ‘Washington: Office of Education, 1963. . "Statistics on Pupil Transportation, 1961-62." United States Office of Education, OE 20022-62. 'Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963. National Conference of Professors of Education Administra- tion. W New York: Columbia University, 19 2. National Education Association. Aggrt§§g§_gng_ZzttggQ1ngg WWW. Chicnsoz University of Chicago Press, 1897. . a . washing- I'fl' ton: Department of Rural Education, 1953. B} Noble, M. C. S. h N2£§h_£££2112§- Raleigh: State Department of Public Instruction, 1930-31. Roberts, Roy W. s sa . Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 1935. Strayer, George D. "A Report of a Survey of Public Education in the State of Washington," fintltg . Olympia, Wash.: State of Washington, 19h6. ‘ United States Chamber of Commerce. EEESBILQD::AD_IEIgnt’ .mgnt_1n_2g§E11. ‘Washington: Government Printing Office, 19 . Updosrnff . Harlan. WW . Philadelphia: Wm. F. Fell Co., 1922. Periodicals Blose, David T. "Some Consolidation Statistics," £22221 L111: April , 1936 . Featherston, E. Glenn. "Transportation of Pupils--A Grfiwing Problem," figh991_L1£g, Vol. XXXI (January, 19 9 . 22h Hamilton, L. R. "Pupil Transportation Is Big Business," mm, Vol. xm (May, 1962) McClure, W. P. "School Finance in District Reor anization," (£h1_ngltg_xgpn§n, Vol. XXXII (March, 1951 . Robinson, R. W. "Laying Out of Bus Routes,".§§tgg1 m, Vol. m1 (February, 191m. Telford, Marian. "The Next Ten Years," It; Nation'g Sgtgglg, Vol. LXII (August, 1958). Vickers, J. L. "Getting Them There--and Back," Eti pelts m, Vol. xxxvx (October, 1951;). Winder, L. C. "Apply the Facts for Better School Trans- portation." W Vol. LIVIII (October, 1961). Unpublished Material Barrett, Fred D. "A Proposed Formula for State Support of Pupil Transportation in Wisconsin." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 195k. Boswell, Carl K. "A Basis for State Equalization of Public School Transportation in Ca1ifornia.1 Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1950. Bryan, Paul C. ”Equalization of State Aid for Pupil Transportation." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of California, Berkeley, l9h7. Cocanougher, Larue. "An Analysis of Pupil Transportation Cost Deviations in Selected Kentucky School Districts." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, George Peabody University, Nashville, 1956. Coleman, Ralph E. "A Proposed Performance Formula for the Reimbursement of the School Districts of Pennsylvania for Expenditures for Public school Transportation." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, igzgsylvania State University, University Park, Cox, Ronald W. "The Determination of State Reimbursable Costs of Pupil Transportation." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1951. 225 Gordon, Gary. "A Technique for Determining the Need for School Transportation in Colorado and A Suggested Procedure for Administering State Aid for This Need." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Denver, Denver, 1930. Hutchins, Clayton D. "The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1938. King, Kenneth.E. "An Analysis of the Trends of Cost of Public School Bus Transportation in Pennsylvania-- l95h’1957." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia, 1960. Kingsley, Joseph M. ”The State's Role in Pupil Trans- portation in Nevada." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Unéversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, 19 9. Lambert, A. C. ”A Study of Some Factors That Affect the Need for the Transportation of Pupils to and from School at Public Expense with Special References to Certain Alleged Effects of the Density of Population upon This Need." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, 1935. McClure, William P. "The Effect of Population Sparsity on School Cost." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Columbia University, New York, l9h7. Medlyn, William H. "A Cost Analysis of School Bus Transportation in Michigan." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1957. Parrish, Orville. "A Comparison of District-Owned and Contracted Bus Costs in Public Schools of New Jersey." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J., 1959. Patrick, Ralph V. "Financing Pupil Transportation in the State of Colorado." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1952. Pope, Farnham G. "The Cost and the Quality of School and Bus Transportation in Certain District-Owned and Contract Systems in the Central Schools of New York State." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 19h9. Stapley, Maurice E. "A Recommended Pupil Transportation Program for the State of Indiana." Unpublished Defitor's thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 19 7. 226 Terry, William J. "The Cost of School Transportation in Sixty-four Counties in Alabama." Unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Alabama, University, 1931. Tonkinson, Glen E. '"A Measure of Transportation Costs in Consolidated Schools." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 1930. Weedby, Wayne D. "An Analysis of National and State Pupil Transportation with Special Emphasis on Cost Factors in Ten Selected Michigan Counties." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1960. Zimmerman, David W. "Factors Affecting the Cost of Pupil Transportation in Maryland." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, l9h8. APPENDICES 227 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND FORMAT GUIDE, USED IN COLLECTING DATA ON THE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION STATE AID FORMULAS IN THE FIVE GREAT LAKES STATES 228 7" ‘W‘I—Im‘. ._ ‘Mnh’lfl'. "R S‘s-in... 229 November 27, 1962 Dear This letter and the enclosed materials pertain to the proposed study I discussed with you during the New Orleans Conference. As I mentioned during my discus- sion with you, there is a great deal of interest and apparently a need at the present time for information in regard to the State aid plans for financing pupil trans- portation. For this reason we are now engaged in the process of developing plans and collecting information on State aid programs for financing pupil transportation in Region V, the Great Lakes States, and eventually for the 50 States. We propose to organize the information we collect in such a way as to indicate the method.used (including formulas) to determine the State transportation aid for a typical school district or basic local administrative unit in each State. Our present plans are to contact the pupil transportation directors in five States: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin for assistance during the first phase of the study. The enclosed copy of the Maryland plan for finan- cing pupil transportation indicates the way in which.we propose to organize the information received from each of the States. If you would use this State plan as a guide in providing us with the necessary information for your State, it will help us to adapt the information you provide for our format. Any suggestions you might have relative to the completeness and clarity of our proposed format would be sincerely appreciated. '7. , ‘. '43 a Eff-3:77 .a . 230 2 We would appreciate your assistance in supplying us with the following information and materials in regard to the State transportation aid program in your State: 1. Please describe briefly the method used (including formulas) in determining State transportation aid for school districts or basic local administrative units in your State during 1960-61. a. ‘WOuld you please use as an example an actual school district in your State, preferably one that is eligible for all transportation funds that are available, including the transportation of the handicapped, etc. b. Would you also provide us with.all the actual information about the school district or basic local administrative unit that you would need to determine the district's State aid allowance for transportation. c. WOuld you please describe briefly the method used (including formulas) in determining State transportation aid for privately operated pupil transporta- tion programs, if the method differs from the one used to determine State transportation for district-operated transportation programs. d. Please describe briefly the method used (including formulas) to determine the State transportation for pupils trans- ported by private cars. If State transportation aid is not calculated separately from general State aid or the foundation program, please describe each provision for taking into consideration the transportation factor in the calculation or in the use of general State aid or foundation programs. Be sure to give us all formulas used in the calculation. 231 3 3. If county funds or funds from other sources are distributed to school districts or basic local administrative units for pupil trans- portation, please describe the method used for allocating these funds. h. For each method or formula described in l, 2, or 3, please attach the computation of aid allow- ance under such provision or formula, as it applies to an actual school district in your State. 5. Would you also send to us: (1) a copy of your administrative rules and regulations relative to the distribution of transportation funds, and/or (2) any other available printed materials which describe your State program for financing pupil transportation. 6. Enclosed please find A TENTATIVE DRAFT OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STATE PROGRAMS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION. WOuld you please give us the information requested on this form as well as your personal opinion as to the validity of these criteria in evaluating a State program for financing pupil transporta- tion. If necessary, after having the opportunity to study the materials and information you send, I hope to be able to visit with you to discuss the study and to clarify any questions which may develop during this preliminary stage. We realize and appreciate the fact that in asking you to supply us with the information we have requested you will be involved in a great deal of extra work, but we know you will realize the importance of a study in this particular area of school transportation and will therefore assist us in our efforts. Sincerely yours, John B. Murray Enclosures 2 NOTE: Letter sent to State directors of pupil transporta- tion in Michigan, Illinoit, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. The State minimum or foundation program of education includes allowances for teachers' salaries, transportation, and other current expenses. A partic- ipating school district must levy 7.5 mills against the district's assessed valuation in order to receive State equalization aid. The amount of State equalization aid for which the district is eligible is the amount by which the cost of the minimum or foundation program exceeds the sum of the required local 7.5 mill levy, and certain additional basic State aids paid to the district based on the number of pupil and teacher units. State aid is also provided for the minimum salaries allowed supervisory and administrative personnel. Th r r a n State Aid Eggdg 1n flgylgng The Maryland School Code limits the State aid allowance for transportation to . . . the necessary actual cost of transporting pupils to public schools when such transportation is approved by the State superintendent. The State transportation aid formula takes into consideration three factors in allocating State trans- portation aid funds: depreciation of equipment, salary of drivers, and operating costs and maintenance. 233 A. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT‘OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 9321221_92&121_5112Eaaaa TO determine the capital outlay allowance, divide the actual capital outlay expen- diture1 for school buses (based on bid price) by 52 (cost amortized over a five-year period) which equals the annual capital outlay allowance.3 W The actual operating expen- diture1 (includes such items as gasoline, tires, Oil, lubrica- tion, and insurance) is reimbursable and represents the State allowance for Operation. .A112E5n22_nzizanai_fialszlaa The allowance for drivers' salaries is determined according to the following rates: 1. $7 per da (basic allowance). mm 1$1es,321.92 25 1" =3$37.06u.39 1$12,936.9h 23h am e 2. $2.33 per hour, additional allowance if driving time exceeds 3-1/2 hours per day. 3. $3.50 additional allowance for noon runs. (Rates include half-day sessions even if total time is less than u-1/2 hours.) The actual expenditure for salaries, not to exceed the above rates, is reimbursable under the formula and constitutes the State allowance for drivers' salaries.1 1$69,623.97 t o c The actual maintenance cost,1 1$13,378.50 not to exceed $500 per bus, except in unusual and reasonable cases, is reimbursable and represents the State allowance for maintenance. To obtain the school district's total State aid allowance for transportation under the Maryland formula, add the Capital Outlay Allowance $37,06h.39 Operation Allowance 12,936.9h Allowance Drivers' Salaries 69,62 .97 Maintenance Allowance 13.37 .50 Total State Transportation Allowance under Minimum Program $133,003.80 235 METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PRIVATELY'OPERATED PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS In actual practice the State does not use a prescribed formula in allocating State aid funds ’ for privately Operated transportation programs. The State Department of Education does however follow certain guidelines (based on actual trans- portation cost experience) in allocating State transportation aid funds for privately Operated programs. If the total annual contract cost does not exceed the amount as determined according to the pattern outlined below, the request for reimbursement is generally approved. A. a ta Out a owan e Egggplg To determine the capital outlay allowance, the actual capital outlay expenditure1 1$7,200 (limited by certified manufac- turer's selling price, minus 4 10%, plus title tax, sales tax, and drivers' weight charges) is divided by 82 to Obtain the 28 3$900.00 annual capital outlay allowance.3 This allowance is reimbursable annually for entire period vehicle is in Operation and can pass State inspection. B. owa e nt e t o Igvgstmggt To determine the interest on investment, the initial capital 236 outlay expenditure1 is multiplied by 5%2 to obtain the annual allowance for interest on invest- ment.3 This annual allowance is reimbursable annually for entire period vehicle is in operation and can pass State inspection. A1 a i d har e Actual annual expenditure for fixed charges1 is allowed (includes insurance and licenses), not in excess of $75. e at c To determine the allowance for Operation (includes gasoline, Oil, lubrication, and anti- freeze), deduct from the actual total daily mileage1 any extended mileage2 to obtain allowable daily mileage.3 (Extended mileage is that mileage with or without pupils off the regular approved route.) 5 ELSEELQ 1$7.200 2.05 x = 3§3eo.oo 1$75 1h8 22" 3H6 a. '“T-j ‘13. A 237 D. Continued-- The total allowable daily mileage is then adjusted by two factors (1) the road surface factor, and (2) the road grade factor to obtain the total adjusted and allowable daily mileage. 1. Apply the road surface factor by multiplying the total allowable daily mileage1 over gravel or dirt road surfaces by the factor2 indicated below Opposite appropriate type Of road surface over which vehicle travels to Obtain the first mileage adjustment.3 WW paved 1. gravel 1.7 dirt 2. mm W Road Mileage Mileage ggzfiacg un1ggded ;9gdeg paved 3h. 3h . 10* 10 gravel 2 '2 ;; dirt 2“ __Q_ 4 ,1 Total AB M6 *Mileage over road . ,u with a 5% grade. '” **Extended mileage. g] ALLOWABLE DAILY BUS _M1L§AQE Road surface Adjusted mileage... Easier mileage. paved 3h - 3b, 10* - 10 gravel 12 21.7 33.h dirt 0 - - Total Daily Mileage h7.h *Mileage over road with.a 5% grade. 238 2. Apply the road grade factor by multiplying the total allowable daily mileage over a specific road grade1 by the factor2 indi- cated below opposite appro- priate type of road grade over which vehicle travels to Obtain the second mileage adjustment.3 Percent Grade 2£_srada faster 1 1.02 2 1.06 3 1-1h 1... 1e23 S 1.38 6 1.57 7 1.85 8 2.18 9 2.50 10 2.78 11 2.98 12 3.15 13 and over 3.25 In actual practice this factor is applied in only a limited number of situations in State. 7 Example ALLOWABLE DAILY'BUS MILEAGE Road surface Adjusted mileage Factor mtleage paved 3h - 3h 110 21.38 313.8 gravel 3.h - 3.h dirt - - - Total Daily Mileage 51.2 239 Continued-- Egggplg The allowable and adjusted daily mileage1 is then multiplied 151.2 by the number of days school is x scheduled to be in session2 2183 during the school year to Obtain' the total allowable and adjusted annual mileage.3 8 39,369.6 To determine the allowance for operation, multiply the total allowable annual adjusted mileage by vehicle capacity factor. Apply the vehicle capacity factor by multiplying the total allowable adjusted annual mileage1 by the factor2 indicated 19,369.6 below Opposite appropriate rated 2.06fik’ capacity of vehicle to obtain the total operation allowance.3 8 3§603.39 Vehicle capacity Factor 72 passenger .0725 66 passenger .0697* 60 passenger .06hh 5 passenger .0599 passenger .0560 R2 passenger .0527 2&0 9 m 36 passenger .0u98 30 passenger .0k70 2h passenger .Ohg3 12 passenger .03 9 less than 12 passenger capacity .0375 KW The allowance for drivers' salaries is determined according to the following rates: 1. $7 Per da (basic allowance). 2. $2.33 Per hour, additional allowance if driving time exceeds 3-1/2 hours per day. 3. $3.50 additional allowance for noon runs. (Rates include half-day sessions even if total time is less than h-l/é hours.) The actual expenditure for salaries not to exceed above rates, is reimbursable under the formula and constitutes the State allowance for drivers' salaries.1 1$1,281 2&1 10 F. W 31:22:21: To determine the allow- ALLOWABLE DAILY BUS MILEAGE ance for tires, the daily 'Road surface Adjusted adjusted by two factors: paved 3h - 3h (1) road surface factor, 10* - 10 and (2) tire size factor. gravel 12 21.7 33.11 1. Apply the road surface dirt O - - factor by multiplying the Total Daily Mileage h7.h total allowable daily 1 *Mileage over road mileage over gravel or dirt with a 5% grade. road surfaces by the factor2 indicated below opposite apprOpriate type Of road surface over which vehicle travels to Obtain the first mileage adjustment.3 .32£§_£E£Il£2. 2&2121 paved l. gravel 1.7 dirt 2. 2. The total allowable adjusted daily mileage1 is 1h?.h then multiplied by the number Of days school is scheduled to x be in session2 during the 2183 school year to obtain the total allowable and adjusted annual mileage.3 38,67h..2 2h2 3. Apply the tire size factor by multiplying the total annual adjusted mileage1 by the factor2 18,67h.2 indicated below opposite appro- 2.0310* priate tire size to obtain total tire allowance.3 3$268.9O 32E21££ .ESSEQI .IEh£l£££ .EBQEQZ 660-16 .0090 7'22.5 .01h1 650-16 .0110 8-22.5 .0238 700‘16 .0120 9'22.5 .0265 750-16 .0135 10-22.5 .0318 600-20 .0150 650-20 .0173 700-20 .0192 750-20 .0232 825-20 .0258 900-20 .0310* te w To determine the maintenance allowance, first Obtain the total adjusted annual mileage by applying two factors: (1) the road surface factor, and (2) the road grade factor to Obtain the total adjusted annual mileage. 11 2&3 1. Apply the road surface factor by multiplying the total allowable daily 1 over gravel or dirt mileage road surfaces by the factor2 indicated below opposite appropriate type of road surface over which vehicle travels to Obtain the first mileage adjustment.3 Bas911222222. Easier paved 1. gravel 1.7 dirt 2. 2. Apply the road grade factor by multiplying the total allowable daily mileage over a specific road grade1 by the factor2 indicated below Opposite appropriate type Of road grade over which vehicle travels to obtain the second mileage adjustments.3 Percent Grade 9f_szsia faster 1 1.02 2 1.06 & 1.1h 1.28 S 1.3 6 1.57 12 ALLOWABLE DAILY BUS ,NILEAGE Road surface Adjusted milaszs___.Eaaisr.milsasa. paved 3h ' 3h 10* - 10 gravel 12 21.7 33.11 dirt 0 - - Total Daily Mileage h7.h *Mileage over road with a 5% grade. ALLOWABLE DAILY BUS ,NILEA§E_ Road surface Adjusted nilssss__..Esaiar.silaass_ paved 3h - 3h 110 21.38 _313.8 gravel 3.11 - 3.11 dirt - - - Total Daily Mileage 51.2 't Calm "MET i l G. 13 Continued-- Exgmplg Percent Grade of grgde tgctgr g 1.85 2.18 9 2.50 . 10 2.78 11 2.98 12 3.15 4 l3 and over 3.25 r} In actual practice this factor ‘"‘-( is applied in only a limited L number of situations in State. " The allowable and adjusted g} daily mileage1 is then multiplied 151.2 by the number of days school is x scheduled to be in session2 2183 to obtain the total allowable and adjusted annual mileage.3 =39,369.6 To determine the allowance for maintenance, multiply the total annual allowable adjusted mileage1 by the vehicle age 19,369.6 factor2 x indicated below opposite 2.0300” appropriate age of vehicle classification to obtain the total maintenance allowance.3 83§281.08 *Computed on basis of data on following page. 2&5 1h VEHICLES 0F MORE THAN 12 Example PASSENGER CAPACITY - Ag; . Fagtgg If age of vehicle is: less than 3 years .0300* ’ 3 years or more .0h50 VEHICLES OF LESS THAN 12 PASSENGER PANEL BODIES . 0175 f F To Obtain the total private ;) contractors State aid allowance for transportation under the Maryland formula, add the Capital Outlay Allowance $900.00 Allowance for Interest on I Investment 360.00 Allowance for Fixed Charges 75.00 Operation Allowance 603.39 Allowance Drivers' Salaries 1,281.00 Tire Allowance 268.90 Maintenance Allowance 281.08 Total State Transportation Allowance under Foundation Prosrtm $3,770.37 2u6 15 METHOD USED TO DETERMINE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION AID ALLOCATION FOR PUPILS TRANSPORTED BY PRIVATE CAR In actual practice the State does not use a prescribed formula in allocating State aid funds for pupils transported by private car. The State Department of Education does however follow certain guidelines in allocating State aid funds for this type of transporta- tion. In general, if the total cost of such transporta- tion does not exceed $2 per day plus $.07 per mile, the request for reimbursement would generally be allowed ‘ and is reimbursable. APPENDIX B COVER MEMORANDUM AND CIRCULAR N0. 1158, USED IN COLLECTING DATA ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 21+? 2&8 MEMBRANDEN July 2’49 1962 TO: State Supervisors and Directors of Pupil Transportation FROM: JOhn B. Murray SUBJECT: Revision Of Circular No. h58, gtgzggtggtgtlgg ‘ t a a O - Itigg, and completion Of attached inquiry form concerning criteria for evaluating State plans rm for financing pupil transportation. We are planning to update Circular No. h58, gt;:- 5 ac ;._; c; -‘ itate ' 5,. O f .;.¢ 2: f . T :os-e,t;- ttgg, 195:. We are enclosing a copy Of this circular v with the provisions for your State marked in red. If there 7' have been no changes in the provisions as listed for your .3 State, we would appreciate it if you would mark OK, initial, F and return the circular to us. If the information is not correct, please make any necessary corrections. We would like to have any printed leaflet or bulletin in which the new provisions or regulations are stated or a citation Of the section of law where we may find them. In addition to Circular No. h58, we are enclosing two inquiry forms entitled Ag Inguirz Qoggerging thg Acceptabttity Of Certain Selected Criterta fgr Evaluating W- We would appreciate your completing one inquiry form for us and returning it with your corrected copy Of Circular NO. h58. There is a great deal Of interest at the present time in this area Of State programs for financing pupil transporta- tion, and your assistance will enable us to bring this material up to date as soon as possible so that it will be of maximum usefulness to the field. We are enclosing copies of Circular NO. OE20035 (1962 rem). WW and our new mailing list of State directors of pupil transportation. Your prompt assistance several months ago in providing information for these revisions is greatly appreciated. A limited number Of additional copies is available if you have need for them. Enclosures 7 '/ In“ mum“ ......— \ mas-......" ..., guns, n... s...— runs—'1..- ' 7 7 “mm"..am. llnnbc umber Density or some _ or films founsparzr 3::— 352$“ Othar Oflaer romirmms o m 11 12 I 15 14 1'1 — - X — X Cost uperiacs. 2 2 first be in approved vehicles. X - X — X — 2 2 Certain edreports list be filed, must be in Ipsrov California - x — My .fi/ g/ — - - - — — — s/s, x-s 2, 9—12 — 1, 4.3 5, 15—14 Colorado — X - - - — A.D.A. - X - - - - 1 1 District must have spent proceeds of a minimum levy for transportation Connecticut — X - y — - A.D.I(. — - - - — — None None - and Dir. Delaware — X - - X - A.D.A. - - — - X Negotiation on publicly l 2 Pupil must be provided seat. Bus and driver sd buss. sustn nest stm Florida X — — — - X A.D.A. - - - X - Ares served. 2 2 False reports on students suspends allocation. :eorgia X — — — - X A.D.A. - — X — - Cost experience. 1% l} - Idaho X - X - — A.D.'1‘. — - - - X — l} 1} Program must be approved by local or county board. Illinois — X - X - X A.D.A. — - X - X — l} l} Inst meet standards for buses, drivers, and operating procedures. Indiana X - — — X X - — X - X Pupils per bus mils. over 1} over 1} 1957 legislature froze per pupil distribution to average for 1955-56 and 1956—57 school years. You - X — - — X A.D.T. — X - X - — l or 2 1 or 5 Nus t comply with all legal requirement s with all regulati of the State Department of Public Instruction. Kansas X X - - - unnz/ — - - - _ _ 25 _ _ Kentucky X — - — X A.D.A. - - — X - Area served. 1 l — Inuisiana X - ~ — X A.D.A. — X - X - Length of bus. 1 1 — 0 mm - - y _ — ~ — — — - X — None None Left to discretion of local board - simply pay percent of cost. Maryland X - - X X - - X — X X Interest on bus cost. None None - Drivers sal . Fixed costs. Operating costs. ten- ance co Massachusetts - — — y — Net - - - - - Cost, less 85 per yrr per 1} 1} — Adi. pup1 11 in not averag menbershi p lldiigsn x _ _ X X - - — — - - — 1} 1} Transportation must be on approved routes. Cost cannot exceed 860 per pupil. Ripils must live outside village or city limits. Iimesots - In In — - A.D.T. - - — -— X - l 1 Must nests tandards for hisss and drivers so me and observe Operating regulat tonsi cases cases Mississippi X - - - X A.D.A. - — X X X — l 1 Must meet standards for buses and drive lust submit plans and proposals for operation obf Part of founda- Basis for allocating State funds Factors in State formula for determining transportation needs of Remix-meats to qualify for State funds for tion local sdiool units transportation pro {ran Approved Flat 5 actual Number Number Number Density of ”19”“ STATE Yes No Flat 0 avarags Formula of of of bus brancpunu condi- Bus dspre- Other E1 :1 MS nd other requirements grant cost exp g/ pupils m”, mil population tions elation snen— eco ' hire {1] ““7 “7 1 2 5 A 5 8 'I 8 9 10 ll 12 15 14 15 15 17 Missouri X X - — X - A.D.A. — - - — - Number Of mpupils per mile 1 1 Must meet requirements for vehicles, drivers, of bu and routes. Montana - X - X - X X X X - — — One formula for buses. One 5 5 Must meet standards for buses and drivers. formula for indaividn 1 {mil Nebraska - - - - — — .. _ — .. _ _ _ _ _ _ Nevada - X - X - - - - - — - - Baa on elements of cost of None None Must comply with all legal requirements and with program such as salaries all regulations of the State Department of gas, coil, etc., but sxclud- Education osot new es. New Hampshire - — - — - - — - - — _ _ - - - v New Jersey — X - X — — - — X — - — Includes cost of new buses. 2 2% Cost and method must be approved by county superintendent 01‘ schools. New Mexico — X — — - X Enr. X — — X X Miles of route. 1% 1% bust sp rove driver, vehic] a, route, and transportstio n contract New York - X — — _5j X — — X — — X Farr-ils based on elements of 1% 11: Must approve vehicle, routes, costs, and cost of such as contracts. capsdty of buses, salaries, as and oil, etc. North Carolina - X - - X — - — — - - - — 135 1} State approval of routes, maintenance, etc. North Dakota — — - - - - - - - _ - — — - - Ohio X — —- - If less X Enr. - X - X — — 1 1 Must be in approved vehicles. formula Oklahoma X - - - - X X - — X - - Co st experience used in 1% 1% Must be on approved routes. Epils must live correo Mi figure. outside city limits. Oregon — X - X — X - - - - — 1 2c per pupil mile. 1 1 list be in approved vehicles. Pennsylvania X - — - fl/ - - - - - - X - 1% or 2 1% or 2 Department of Public Instruction must approve or none or none nssnd contracts for pro tme at State stun dardson vehicles and operation. Rhode Island X X - _5/ — - - - - - - - - None None For transporting high school pupils ouggide of town (spacial transportation ant)o elementary or ssoo are not entitled to equalization aid. South Carolina — X - - X - - - - — ~ - — 1} 1g - Salth Dakota - - - - - -- — — _ _ - _ _ - _ _ Tennessee X — For - - X A.D.A. — - X - X — I} 1; County boards of education are required to meet some certain ards for sdl 001 s equipmen qualifications of drivers and other State: laws and Sta ts Bo regulations to qualify! transportation funds. Tens X - - - - X X X X - X Included - 2 2 Follow regular routes. Pupil sin cities Inst 11 ' live stl east 2 miles from city public allowance. transportation systms. Dtdi X - - — - X X X X X - X - I} 2 Over routes approved by the State Board of Education. 'm 4:- \o tomportation Ounc- refinement- On approved routes ad in approved vehicles. Transportation must he in approved vehicles. but be on approved routes ad in approved vehicles . last he in approved vehicles. acquit-ants to quality for Rosanna. for loss None Distance- lam Hons other 1‘ Driver cost factor. Inez-sues cost hater. Fiat grant depmds on miles pupil is transported. Equalization aid if nut cost exceeds 2 mills- Operating cost factor . Bus depre- .V oiation local school units Uses form].- tn dotsndne excessive expense. Eru'ollment or transported pupils as of September 15. _6/ Superintendent of Public Instruction not approve cost. Equalizing. §/ lines local contributions. if of. bus transported condi— Iiles population tions Factors in State XOI'IIIJ‘ for deter-Inning transportation needs or of pupils buses of Number Nuaber Humbu- Dansity of Road Formula El actual or average expandi- ture Appnved Flat 5 of cost 1/ Basis for allocating State finds zrnt X Part or founda- tion PM“ les llo Flat the State v1.11 reimburse. 4/ Variable. Sometimes used only to calculate ceiling on cost or payment. STATE _§/ abetted when has depreciation my be included in costs on mica y Sonia-es if]: a hp limit or ceiling. 3/ Virgnia Imam lest Virginia Wisconsin Vermont U. S. DEPARTMENT OF CIRCULAR NO. 458 HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (Revised) Office of Education Washington 25, D.C. November I958 Characteristics of State Plans for Financing Pupil Transportation By E. Glenn Feathersfon, Director Division of State and Local School Systems Forty—two States now provide money for assistance in paying the cost of pupil transportation. In some of the remaining 6 States, funds from the Stafe may be used in paying for this service, but a local unit does not qualify for any more State funds if if transports pupils than if If does not. The following table indicates in brief the chief characteristics of State plans for allocating transportation funds to local administrative units. Amounts of transportation funds allocated in the States were not included in this table, partly because this information is not computed in some States and partly because the information which is available has been included In other Office of Education publications. The 42 States are almost evenly divided on whether or not they include transportation allocations in a total foundation program to which the State contributes. In I9 States the allocation is made within the foundation program, In 2] II IS "OI: and in 2 States it is made both ways. The trend toward placing the financing of trans- portation within a foundation program has been relatively slow during the last years. Twenty-six States use some sort of a formula for computing the transporta- tion need of a local district although in a few of these the formula is used onIy f0 59* a ceiling for the cost on which the State will reimburse. In the remaining States the State contribution is based on cost or on a share of the cost. However: all formuIa are designed to measure justifiable costs and in several of the formula the cost is 0 direct factor. Other factors commonly used in State formula are number of buses, number of bus miles, density of transported population, road conditions, and bus dep ciafion. Bus depreciation probably enters into the cost computation in several of the States where this factor is not checked. In most States the total transportation load '5 measured in number of pupils transported although in a few States reimbursemenf IS related only to cost of the service. [3' Of the 42 States which provide funds for transportation, 36 set UP a distance limit for eligibility of pupils for fhe service at State expense. In the Other 6 the Staff participates In paying the cost on any transportation the local board of educmlf’l"_con siders necessary. In most of the 36 States local districts may frunsport PUPils w'fhm these limits but whoIIy at IocaI expense. (Re-15¢ Wharf: Mvmg Tronsmmgy r *m In WEE 9'16: 35 from he in My for 3W? 9 table he}! Mafia. Em: fed In flu Sm no? corp-cw has 56011: F or M? he“ I {”2 4' hid‘ me 4:79- >gmm, in? ‘1‘ rhe fire-121;.“- ' 5! 3w dang?! npuffng T94 DrmUEsC 55‘3"] fhe ”WV“?! Howeve’w V 4' e Fomic‘b I are My INQUIRY FORM AND RESPONSE TABULATION TABLES , USED IN COLLECTING AND TABULATING DATA ON THE STATUS OF CERTAIN SELECTED CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STATE PLANS FOR FINANCING PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 250 "_—'-'_*:’ .\‘- “ ' .opmpm nw>am a gasp“: :oapwpnoanuanp Hagan mo mcaocdcdm as» on qaapnmm.hus an «uncapmflswmp new awash mbwpaupmwcasuw uca «agency wad opapm on» .mmnzpapu Haw mmvaaoca nonoaudm Mao how voqammv ma swan wpmpm sump msa\m 65:82 .8 6258“. 355 5g» op 88a 3 38% 655% 55>. 5 £55 «topic 55 .N c5 a nmanue .HH coupomm ca mgaoauca madman .H :oapoom ad vmpmaa «Humpaho any Haw mo mwapu Humonuo noan N uaa H omanua HH ao5pomm .m .vwnuaansooow ma nan» :oag3_hn «gums mag uca H menace ad conned uaumpano mgp uwuucwoowu :owpwphoaunwup Hagan wcaocwcam pom mafia madam 999% HA opaofiuaa owmoaq 5 no 0 gm cesaoo :H .coapwpuommnanp Hagan maaoadaam you mafia mpwpm.%:d ca vmuacwoomu on canonm can» aoaownwuanaoo paavpomsd ad «cedaamo hack ca .nmpspapnaoo H nesaoo ca ucpuua uahmpano on» no: no nonpmgz : no m «m nasaoo ad opaoavaa mummam H 5%“. .W 853% 3 uchpmHQEoo pom unowpoouwn 251. .vmpnommu wpwv wan uo_hdd no down“ $8335 on» 5 33. an 58.5 5% :55 Bagmfifi thEHon .3 2233 530333 be €33 33E .m .vmnmsncu mad oaoupnosv had muommn.hHmpmHQEoo smacks» camp aw pa Ha vwnmsmna uca coopmumcas magnum once on Haas_anom huazcaa mass .m .33 30333555. SEE m505£ you madam opwpw no oodpnaumpoanmno mm: .02 naaaouao mo Amos nmaompnoo hack spa: vocnsgmu uca vopmagsoo mp op na.hmoo umnpo asp uca madam 950% you ma.hmoo 0:0 .euomAhhaaucfl no nuance asp unam madman cmuoaocm .a cowpusuomcH Hunmcoc IE 336 35% “mwapnomwm nonumm zoflamommzéa SE 955sz mom mmzfim Ban $2325 mom 5553 @083 fifimmu .8 :35. 02 Ba 952538 “EOE E 252 .nm unounso man u: 09 um aha man Hoosom cad .nwmnn Hoonom pom mwhspacnmnxm haH nvno pranuo mo soapwswpnoea ma» non mua>0hm .: El E1 DJ El E1 .u ago «an no :owpoouu as» find paws as 0 man woman Hoonom mo mmanonsm ms» nu noun .nwanpacamaxm hmH Inna praqao now mnowmaponn pasooom cued mxwa .m El E1 .qoavmpuomnqwnp Hammm ouabonm page .83: 35,35“. 58:8 8% 555 35 figs 550 unucam Hmcoapwuna can now opaunmmsoo on vans .w D m \H .uoppomnqunp on cases» 0:: ma“ 9 Haw now aowpwuuonucmnu no newsman pcmwoammw and .Hdoasocoom .mmmn mpmumno 0p pnomum Haooa manunoodmu no“: mafia: HwooH manwnm op nundm madam acoaoHHMdm wuaboum .H "u o n p \m m a‘ m m H awapabapou Amvnmccwpm Qwsmnmuuoa mawouwoaav masanom o¢apm canons» mqoaumstmn cam madam oz puma mm» nwwausooqm cad moaah u0\qu :H mmoauowpa mpnvapm mfiuopauo vmvnmeaoomm mbwuwupmwuasu< cmnmdammooow ma manmpmmooa was» cows: hp mamws mg» opmowuqd madman a gm 0 .wanwpdho mums» mmuficwoowu zoapwphommcdnp 0mm. mm” Hanan mnaocdaam you mafia manna 950% 9H s» 4 H onwam H cadpomm 253 .maoaunmn Hue“: m cm wad maowpavaoo omen panama :oapwadaom ma moan .mpann Hmooa mo Honpcoo m:# .m vcohwp mkopowm mo coapmumuamqoo now wca>onm .npn wk and wunoomu mafiausoooa mpanvouw adapqawe 0» van: m>apwnunwnfisuu adooa no poahpnflv Hoonon Hmooa map muwsuom .5 EIEIEI CI .mmham uca cowpwufiaomnoo mo made :4 ma noun «Ednwogn cowpmuhonmnuhu wnp ca mucosvmnnuw wcaxde DEIDEI GRID-El EIQEIEI ca muaaanfiNmHM hvamu Hwwa Hwooa mag pm washwm .0 .Hmcnomum mo paw 0H m an» and :oapauw 0 RUN RUN moqdnmpcaws «pamsmfiaum nan Hoonom cw mvuuuqapu manwuammv mo pcmsqaappm as» wpwH=Eapn op came .m "v on» cowpwpuo ncwnp Hg 5 qwocdcwm how qu oampm 4 p o m a m N H uwaua>a¢oa n ad a masnhmuwoa wcmvummmwv «anyhow 33m 5505” WGOHPQHd—MQH UH“ mgmpm oz DING“ mm.” vowahsoonw Una awash u0\ucu :H moowpoahm Hagan opspmpm wovawssoomm upwwfikupm < mahwvauo .vmnmwamaoooa ma wasp sows: ha undue wan mpmoaucfi wwwmaa owmwwmmmwm .wahmpdho mmmnp wwuwnmoomp dowanAOQQGMQp mama» and Hagan mnaoqwcwm you swag mpagm Adah «H Au.pqoov H onmp H :oavomm 25h I. .3sz H0030» mo mg 93 50.5.3 Ed on Hoonon kl|\. E D Q Q Q on» ~3me 28 :mnuoun op nHoonon mmmhaoofim .NH .|. ..mHaMow 2,3330 5 we wanna. ml\ m|\ mun .Hm muw Rum map cogs 6H“ madam Ho goaaspHupmac gem oUH>oum .HH I: .398 moguqoppw 93 3.23 Hwooa Mo no.3 m m m U E m nwuwcwmuoma 39.23% omwhnoomflu 3 MES. #02 .OH I. I. .mlgpwfiefi manwzommmu 551.5 5.333?qu m EV bl. I“ t m we no: 5.. 3.355 .Hom mocmpmwmobm .Hom 3.30pm .0 u o m 53390 58.5 .3 a 528ch .3.“ 5H 3.3m .H. p .n o m a m N H uoHpH>apoa m “a cm a @335.on mzmgmocwv manage.“ mpsm $5093.39 ”COHPNHHHMUQ UH.“ Ogdpm 02 thfi mm“ ummahaooam 98 mmgh .3th 5H $0.30th gunman mflhmpfiho umunoesoomm mpHaaupm5nfleu< .mosmfinaooom 3.. oflnwanmoom 35. £9.53 hp madms on» wpmoavfi ommoaa 393:0 .mauopfluo $23 855089 noapguommamap wmmfi 93 3&5 mfioficww no.“ 5.?» 33m .305 .HH Au.p:oov H «Hmma H qupoom 255 Q E Q Q Q E n‘ m m H mmapabapom m m swam anwpmowoa mammsmocwv mafishom 33m @225 203353.“ 3m 33m wfififi as E: a? waspwpm UoUCmEEoomm wbwpmhoa mHGHEU¢ «23.20 .cmnmeflmeooom ma wasp sown: an mamas map mpmowuca mmwmaa .maumpwno mmmnp mananmoomh cowpmpnoamnmuu Hanan wcaoqauwm pom swan mpwpm hack MH A.cmpnogwh apwu an» no Add mo noapapmhnhcpca wan :a can HA“; doom #0» scan: mpaosmumpn hhopwnaanxo no Huahm¢da stoapwuuu Add nowapa onsonv .aoahmpaho was» mmnwcmooon swam wwapm finch no: no umnpmnz and quomcmno mnwgp mnaucmssoown you naomaon hack cam ucamauoe ho cwgwfiwu anpam on .noacamo use» a“ «ufluonn sods? manmpwno NH umpuda hansoa>whm an» Ho had Scamp opuowuaa waamam mQOfipmoamacoz uca uncapmaoa v¢vnmssooom H oHnwe HH Gowpocm 256 El El D D. E m m H mmwpabapow w mm cw m mwnmkwwwwa mcmvamocwv deEnom mpmpm n Sousa maoapmasmmn tam mumpm nmmmpzoocm uca mmanp u0\vcm mmowpomnm mbwpmnpmwaasu< mpzpmpm vmvcmsEoomm .anmwammooom ma was» Sofia: hp mamas on» mpmowvcfi mummam .mapmpwho mmwnu mmuficmoomp Coaumphommthp HHQSQ mcwocdnwm now swam wgmpm unoh MH mwgmpflpo A.ucpnomwn apau mg» Mo haw Ho cowpwamhnhopca mag ca van Haw: Hwom so» sows3 upcmEopmpn huopmcdamxo no Haahcpms quoavwvvw and :oxupw omamev .¢wnopauo Hmcoapavum mums» menacwoomn swan opapm hfiph no: ho nmsumns new nuconpavuw on» wcacnmesoown you nconwmu hack .puaa map op umuuu we .qoanamo 950% aa .uasosm noas: aagmpauo Huaoapfiucm haw soda» opaoauua mnauflm anoapwcu< wovumssoomm N onam HH :oagomm I 3% TABLE A.-—Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 1 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 196 3 ‘ . f k' Criterion number l.——A State plan should provide sufficient State funds to enable local units 1‘ with reasonable local effort to operate safe, economical, and efficient systems of transportation ‘ for all pupils who should be transported. } l I ‘ i . . . . %‘ Acceptability of the criterion by Means by which criterion is currently I‘ State directors of pupil transportation recognized 1? State plans #0? financing State pupil transportation . . . Re commended V‘ Acceptable Statute Adfi:3?ifratfve practices \ Acceptable in NOt and/or e an encouraged y part acceptable State aid régulatPnS through State J formula (including leadership standards) activities j l 2 3 h 5 6 7 Alabama I I I I I I I I X - " "’ - ' Alaska I I I I I I I I X " " ‘ X '- \ Arizona. 1 ,g// I I I I I - " - "' " - 1 ‘ Arkansas I I I I I I I F g " - "' X " ‘y Cflimmua .. ... . X g - - X X X l‘ Colorado l/ . . . . . . - - ~ - - - /{ connectiout I I I I I I - X : - A X - X "“ Delaware I I I I I I I X " -' ‘ " - X " 1‘ Florida: I I I I I I I I X ‘ " - X - " ‘ Georgia I I I I I I I I “ X i - "' X - " “ ‘ Hawaii g/ I I I I I I I X L "' - " " - i ‘ Idal'lo I I I I I I I I I X L - " X X - l 11113015 I I I I I I I - L X - X ‘ " Indiana I I I I I I I I X " " X - X Iowa. I I I I I I I I I X " " X " " ‘ K8115 as I I I I I I I I j: “ - é/‘J: "‘ " Kentucky I I I I I I I J: " " I: X X Louisima I I I I I I I I: ‘ " I: ‘- " Maine I I I I I I I I I x - " I: " - Manand I I I I I I I x ' "' I: "' " HassaChusettS I I I I I I I: “ " I: -' '- 1 Michigan I I I I I I I I J: - " J: :E X “\ Minnes Ota I I I I I I I ‘ 3 i ‘ " I: 3: - “\‘ Mj-SSi-ssippi I I I I I I .4: "' " J: .4: " Missouri . LA Montana . . . . . . . l Nebraska 2/ . . . . . Nevada .-. . . . . . New Hampshire §/. . . New Jersey . . . . . New Mexico . . . . New York . . . . . North Carolina . . North Dakota . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . Oregon . . . . . . Pennsylvania . . . Rhode Island . . . South Carolina l/,h/. 1 i O I C 0 South Dakota 2/ . . Tennessee . .—. . . Texas . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . Vermont g/. . . O 0 O O O I I O I I Virginia . . . . Washington . . . West Virginia . . Wisconsin . . . . wyoming . . .'. . O O O O O O O C O . C O O I I l/No data reported. g/Entire cost of transportation program borne by State. 2/No State aid for transportation allocated. - g/To public schools only. é/To some degree. 257 -Maryland TABLE B.——Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 2 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, I 963 State Criterion number 2.——A State plan should tend to compensate for the additional financial burden that falls upon school districts which must provide pupil transportation. Acceptability of the criterion by State directors of pupil transportation Means by which criterion is currently recognized in State plans for financing pupil transportation Acceptable Acceptable in part Not acceptable State aid formula Administrative rules and regulations (including standards) Recommended practices encouraged through State leadership activities l N Alabama . . . Alaska Arizona l/,g/ Arkansas . . California . I O 0 O 0 Colorado l/ Connecticut Delaware . Florida . . Georgia . . Hawaii 3/ . . . Idaho . . . Illinois . Indiana . . . . Iowa . . . Kansas . Kentucky Louisiana Mane. . c I t o O 0 Massachusetts . Michigan . . Minnesota . . Mississippi . . Missouri . . Montana . . . . Nebraska 2/ . . Nevada . . . . I O O C New Hampshire g/. New Jersey . . New Mexico . . New York . . . North Carolina North Dakota . Ohio . . . . . Oklahoma . . . Oregon l/ . . . PennsyIVania . Rhode Island . O o t O I I O O O 0 South Carolina l/,2/. South Dakota 3/ Tennessee . . . Texas . . . . . Utah . . . . . vermont g/. . . Virginia . . . Washington . west Virginia Wisconsin . . Myoming . . . l/No data reported. 0 o o 0 0 I o o u o o o o o O I n o t I I I o n M I'.>,4>4>< f M >4><><><>< X - - X - - X - - X - L - - X - X X - _ X - - - — X - - X - - _ x - X - - x - - X - - - X - - - - g/No State aid for transportation allocated. é/Entire cost of transportation program borne by State. 258 1‘ iii TABLE C.--Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 3 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 3.--—A State plan should take into account provisions for capital outlay expenditures, such as the purchase of school buses, bus equipment, and the erection of bus shops. at; W State State directors of pupil transportation 4 pupil transportation ; ‘ . . , Recommended ? Statute AdministratiVe practices Acceptable 1‘ Not an d/or rules and encoura ed Acceptable in 7 ’ . regulations g art ; acceptable State aid (inclu din through State p U 1 formula t d d g leadership 5 an ar 5 activities 1 2 3 h S 6 7 Alabama I I I I I I I I - "’ X " "' Ala-Ska I I I I I I I I ‘ X — X ‘ " Arizona _];/,g/ I I I I I " ‘ " " ‘- Arkarlsas I I I I I I I X - "' " X ‘ califomia I I I I I I " X - X ‘ X X Colorado l/ . . . . . . - — - .. - .. conneCtj-cut I I I I I I _ 3: 4‘ - - s X X Delawar‘e I I I I I I I " I: E " - " ‘- Florida I I I I I I I I " 1: "‘ "' " - Georgia I I I I I I I I X - - 3/X l " h/X Hawaii 3/ I I I I I I X - " - -' "' Idaho I I I I I I I I I X ‘ " X " 1112111015 I I I I I I I - X 1 - X £ - - Indiana- I I I I I I I I 1} X " "' " i - X Iowa I I I I I I I I I E - - X - " ‘ E : Kansas I I I I I I I I :2 X ' " " - - Kentucw I I I I I I I X " ‘ X j X X Louisiana I I I I I I I L 1: " ‘ " " - X Maine I I I I I I I I I 2‘ I: "' " X i — - Maryland- I I I I I I I 1 I: f - " X- i - - Massachusetts . . . . . i X - - S/X '; 6/X - IfiChigan I I I I I I I g X - — - X X Minnesota I I I I I I I i "" 7/X - " "' x Mississippi . . . . . . E X - - X - Missouri I I I I I I I " " X - " '- 1 Montana........ Nebraska 2/ . . . . . Nevada .—. . . . . . New Hampshire 2;”. . . . New Jersey . . . . . New Mexico . . New York . . . North Carolina North Dakota . Ohio . . . . . 0 O O O O I I O I O I I I I I O I l D 0 Oklahoma . . . . Oregon ...... Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island . . . South Carolina l/,§/. I O C O O O O O D 0 South Dakota 2/ Tennessee . .—. Texas . . . . . Utah . . . . . Vermont _2_/. . . O ‘ O O I I I I I I I I I I I O I O O I Virginia . . Washington . West Virginia Wisconsin . . Wyoming . . . I C O C C C O O O 0 I I I I I O O I I O O O I O l/No data reported. E/Buses and equipment only. g/No State aid for transportation allocated. _6_/Only in certain cases. é/School buses only. Z/If equipment is district owned and operated. Q/Shop and equipment. by Stat§{Entire cost of transportation program borne ’ ’ ‘\ ljl TABLE D.—-Acceptability and recognition of criterion number N in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number h.-~A State plan should provide for the amortization of capital outlay expenditures for school buses and school bus garages beyond the current year. Acceptability of the criterion by Means byawgicgtcziteiion :3 cgrrently State directors of pupil transportation recognize , a e p ans or inancing State pupil transportation , , . Recommended Acceptable Statute Adlfnjlngss’GfiNe practices, . Not and/or . encourageo Acceptable 1“ acceptable State aid régulattms through State Part formula (including leadership Standards) activities 1 2 3 h I 5 6 7 Alabama . . . . . . . . - — X — - - Alaska . . . . . . . . - X - X - - Arizona l/,2/ . . . . . — - - - - - Arkansas- .-. . . . . . - — X — - - California . . . . . . - X - X X X Colorado l/ . . . . . . — — - - - - Connecticut . . . . . . - X - - X X Delaware IIIIIII " A X " " "‘ Florida . . . . . . . . X i - - r X - Georgia . . . . . . . . X ‘ — - X - - Hawaii 3/ . . . . . . . X - - - ' ‘ Idflm .. .. .. .. . K - - X X - Illinois . . . . . . . x - - X — - Indiana . . . . . . . . K - - - - X Iowa . . . . . . . . . - - L X - - - Kansas . . . . . . . . - X r « - - ‘ Kentucky . . . . . . . x — - ~ - - Iouisiana . . . . . . . X - 1 - - - Maine . . . . . . . . . X ~ ; - X - - Maryland . . . . . . . K - a - X - - Massachusetts . . . . . X - - 3/X X ‘ Michigan....... X - - - X X Minnesota . . . . . . . y X - - - - X Mississippi . . . . . . X - — X X - 3 Missouri . . . . . . . E - - X - ' ' 4 , Montana . . . . 1 Nebraska 2/ . . Nevada .—. . . New Hampshire 2/ New Jersey . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I New Mexico . . . New York . . . . North Carolina . North Dakota . . Ohio . . . . . . I ' O O O I I O O I O O O I O Oklahoma . . . . . Oregon . . . . . . Pennsylvania . . . Rhode Island . . . South Carolina l/,§/. South Dakota / . Tennessee . .- Texas . . . . Utah . . . - Vermont g/. . I I I I I O O O I 0 Virginia . . Washington . West Virginia Wisconsin . . . Nyoming . . . . I I I I C I O I I I I I I I I I I I I l/No data reported. y/Not beyond current year. Z/No State aid for transportation allocated. g/Entire cost of transportation program borne — by State. é/Buses nnly. , ‘ mm ulv‘ 260 TABLE E.—-Acceotability and recognition of criterion number 5 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 5.——A State plan should tend to stimulate the attainment of desirable standards in school bus equipment, maintenance operation, and the employment of personnel. Acceptability of the criterion by Means by W?iCh criterion is currently State directors of pupil transportation recognized 1? State plans for finanCing State pupil transportation . . . Recommended Acceptab1e é Statute Adfiiflfiifiiigve practices _ * Not and/or _ encouraged Acceptable 1“ acceptable State aid “3.91“an through State part formula (including leadership standards) activities 1 2 3 h S 6 7 Alabama . . . . . . . . X - - - - X Alaska . . . . . . . . X — - - X - Arizona l/,2/ . . . . . - - - , — - - Arkansas' .-. . . . . . X - - — X X California . . . . . . X - — - - X Colorado l/ . . . . . . - - - g - - - Connecticut . . . . . . X - - X X Delaware . . . . . . . X - - - X - Florida . . . . . . . . X - - - - X Georgia . . . . . . . . X - - X X - Hawaii 2/ . . . . . . . X - — — - - Idaho."........ X - - x X - -Illinois . . . . . . . - X - - X - Indiana . . . . . . . . é X - — - - X Iowa . . . . . . . . . ‘ X - — X X - Kansas . . . . . . . . X - - X - - Kentucky . . . . . . . X - ~ - X X Louisiana . . . . . . . X — - X - L Maine . . . . . . . . . X - - - - X Maryland . . . . . . . X - - - x _ Massachusetts . . . . . X ; ~ - ' ' X Michigan . . . . . . . ‘ X ? — - X - X lfimmmma.. ... .. .I - — - X X / Mississippi . . . . . . L — - X X ' V Missouri . . . . . . . X - - X - - ‘ Montana . . . . . . . . Nebraska 2/ . . Nevada .-. . . New Hampshire New Jersey . . | m \\ O I 0 O I I 0 New Mexico . . . New York . . . . . . . North Carolina . North Dakota . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . . Oregon . . . . Pennsylvania . Rhode Island . . South Carolina l/, South Dakota 2/ . . . . Tennessee . .—. . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . . . . . Vermont g/. . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . . Washington . West Virginia . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . . . wyoming . . . . . . . . lfNo data reported. g/No State aid for transportation allocated. /Entire cost of transportation program borne by State. 261 TABLE F.--Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 6 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 6.——A State plan should permit at the local level ready flexibility in making adjustments in the transportation program, such as in case of consolidation and fires. Acceptability of the criterion by Means by which criterion is currently State directors of pupil transportation recognized 1? state plans Ior finanCing pupil transportation State i s : , Recommended v ,3 . . . Acce table § Statute ? Administrative practices P Not and/or g ru fist?“ encouraged Acceptable Digt acceptable State aid * iii? f(;°ns through State ‘ formula t ed: 32% leadership 5 an r ~ activities 1 2 3 h S 6 7 Ala-bane. I I I I I I I I X - _ - - X AlaSka I I I I I I I I X " -' - X " Arizona l/l’g/ I I I I I - "" _ - " — Arkarlsas I I I I I I I I X ‘ " , - - X - California . . . . . . 3 - X t - X X X Colorado 1/ . . . . . Connecticut . . . . . Delaware . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . . . I I I I Hawaii 2/ . . . . . . . Idaho .-. . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . Indiana........ Iowa . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . Kentucky . . . . Louisiana . . . . Maine . . . . . . Maryland . . . . ..III I Massachusetts . . . . . Michigan . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . . 1 Mississippi . . . . . . f Missouri . . . . . . . I MOntana . . . . . . . . Nebraska l/,2/. . . . . Nevada .-. T . . . . . New Hampshire g/. . . . New Jersey . . . . . . X - _ _ L4 LA LA 7‘ r1 r1 New Mexico . . . . . . New York . . . . . . . North Carolina . . . . North Dakota . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . . I I N NNM NINIH l I c bd I I Oklahoma . . . . . . . Oregon . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania . . . . . Rhode Island . . . . . South Carolina l/,2/. . I >4 ><>< >4 as I >4 e:>< I l l l >< I Site 1 ><>4I I South Dakota 2/ . . . . Tennessee . .-. . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . . . . . Vermont g/. . . . . . . %:#d%:>¢>4 I l I %:M I l l Er \ pr \ >4 Virginia . . . . . . . Washington . . . . . . West Virginia . . . . . 'Wisconsin . . . . . . . Myoming . . . . . . . . h4><>4>4£f l nfl l I #3! ><>4b< I 1 i a 3 l/No data reported. ng0 State aid for transportation allocated. g/Entire cost of transportation program borne by State. Q/No opinion expressed. 262 TABLE G.—-Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 7 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 7.-~A State plan should require the local school district or local administrative unit to maintain adequate accounting records and reports. . . a . . Means by which criterion is currently Acceptability i: th? criterion by. recognized in State plans for financing State direCtors oi pupil transportation pupil transportation State _ , , Recommended , Statute Administrative practices acceptable Not and/0r rulesLand encouraged Acceptable 1“ acceptable State aid regulations through State part formula (Ineldd:n§ leadership standar 5 activities 1 2 3 I: 5 6 7 Alabama . . . . . . . . X - - - - Alaska . . . . . . . . X - — - X - Arizona l/,2/ . . . . . , _ - - - _ _ Arkansas. .—. . . . . . X - - X — — California . . . . . . X - — - X X Colorado If . . . . . . - - - - _ i _ Connecticut . . . . . . ‘ - - X X Al ' Delaware . . . . . . . X - - - l: j - Florida . . . . . . . . X - - - X — Georgia . . . . . . . . X - - X X — Hawaii 2/ . . . . . . . X - - ‘ ‘ ' Idaho."........ x - - X x _ Illinois . . . . . . . X - - - X Lg - Indiana . . . . . . . . X - ' ‘ ‘ Iowa . . . . . . . . . X - - ' X ' Kansas . . . . . . . . X - — - - _ Kentucky 3: — - - X X Louisiana . . . . . . . X - - X X _ Maine . . . . . . . . . X - — X - — Maryland . . . . . . . X - ‘ ‘ ‘ X Massachusetts . . . . Michigan . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1 Mississippi . . . . . . {3' Missouri . . . . . . . l Montana . . . . . LN Nebraska 2/ . . . . . ‘ Nevada . . . . . New Hampshire 2/. . . . New Jersey . T . . . “::><:><: I I I I I >4 I>4 NI ; I I I >4, >4 I r I I l New Mexico . . . . . . New York . . . . . . North Carolina . . . . North Dakota . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . . K _ - X — - Oregon . . . . . . . . t - - X K 7 Pennsylvania . . . . . a. - - - 3: i ‘ Rhode Island . . . . . .E — — X K - South Carolina i/,2/. . - - - - _ — South Dakota g/ . . . . X - _ _ _ _ Tennessee . . . . . . . — X - - - ’ x Tame. ... ... .. x - _ _ x Utah . . . . . . . . . x — _ " - . _ Vermont g/. . . . . . . K - _ _ _ - Virginia . . . . . . . h/ h/ h/ _ n _ washington . . . . . . X — - - x X West Virginia . . . . . X - - _ x X -—-- Wisconsin I I I I I I I - X — - I: — wyoming . . . . . . . . X - _ x - l/No data reported. g/No State aid for transportation allocated. é/Entire cost of pupil transportation program borne by State. g/No opinion expressed. 263 TABLE H.-—Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 8 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 8.-—A State plan should provide for consideration of factors beyond the control of local units, such as population density, road conditions, and geographical barriers. Acceptability of the criterion by Means by ngCh criterion is currently State directors of pupil transportation recognized 1n State plans for financ1ng pupil transportation State . . . Recommended , ; Statute Administrative practices Acceptable I rules and . Not : and/or t' encouraged Acceptable 1“ acceptable State aid regula ions through State part formula (including leadership ‘ standards) activities 1 2 3 h S 6 7 Alabama 0 o o o o n o a " x " E X - - l AlaSka o o o o o o o a X - " — X '- ‘ Arizona i/l/,Z// . o o a a " " - - - Arkansas . . . . . . . X - - I — X - ‘ Califomia . o c o o o ' X ' - - “ X 1 , 1 Colorado l/ . . . . . . - - f - - S - - R Connecticut . . . . . . X — - — T - X i Delaware . . . . . . . I - X - - - X Florida. . a o o o o u I X - "' X - " Georgia a I n o I o o I X - - X X X l 3 Hawaii 3/ o n o o a o c X ‘ ’ " " " , Idaho o o a n o o a o c X " " X X " Illinois 3 a n o o c o " X "' 1L " - Indiana 0 a o o o o o a v X - " X " - Iowa . o . u o o o I o I " " j X ' - - Kansas 0 O O O O I O 0 Kentucky . . . . . . . Louisiana . . . . . . . Maine . . . . . . . . . Maryland . . . . . . . Massachusetts . . . . . 1 Michigan . . . . . . . 1 Minnesota . . . . . . . V Mississippi . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . . . Nebraska 2/ . . . . . . ' Nevada . . . . . . . . New Hampshire g/. . . . New Jersey . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . . . New York . . . . . . . North Carolina . . . . North Dakota . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . Oregon . . . . Pennsylvania . . . . . Rhode Island . . . South Carolina }/,2/- - South Dakota g/ . . . . Tennessee . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . . . . . Vermont g/. . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . . Washington . . . . . . 'West Virginia . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . . . Wyoming . . . . . . . . l/No data reported. 2/No State aid for transportation allocated. 3/Entire cost of pupil transportation program borne by State. ”*3 26h TABLE I.-~Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 9 in State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, 1963 Criterion number 9.—-A State plan should provide for subsistence for pupils in lieu of transportation within reasonable limitations. Acceptability of the criterion by Means by which criterion is currently State directors of pupil transportation recognized 1? State plans ior finanCing State pupil transportation Admi . t t' Recommended St t t “15 Ta “'6 actices Acceptable Not anh)b:5 rules and éfibouraged Acceptable in acceptable State aid rfgulla‘iitons through State part formula inc u ing leadership Standards) activities 1 2 3 LL 5 6 7 Alabanla I I I I I I I I - " X ’ - - Alaska I I I I I I I I X " - - — - Arizona l/,gy . . . . — - - - - _ Arkansas . . . . . . . X — _ - X _ California I I I I I I X —' " X " "‘ Colorado l/ . . . . . . _ - g - _ — - Connecticut . . . . . . - X i - X - - Delaware . . . . . . . X — i — - - X Florida I I I I I I I I ): - l " X X - Georgia . . . . . . . . X . - L - ' X ‘ T Havana/”H... - a — 5‘ K — - - Ida-Ila I I I I I I I I I X " ‘L " — X - IlliI'lOiS I I I I I I I " X - X "' - Indiala I I I I I I I I f - X - - - "‘ Iowa I I I I I I I I I f‘ " i X ‘ " - - E i % , Kansas . . . . . . . . } X L, - K — 3/X - - KentuCky I I I I I I I X 2 — - - X > - Louisiana . . . . . . . - f X _ X _ - MES-1.118 I I I I I I I I I X 5 - - X - _ Maryland I I I I I I I X 1 '- - — X " Massachusetts . . . . . X — - X - ' PIiChj—gan I I I I I I I X " — X '- " Minnesota . . . . . . . X — - X X - MiSSiSSippi I I I I I I — — X " " '- Missouri i/ I I I I I I " - - — '- '- Montana........ X - - x - - Nebraska 3/ I I I I I I - - - - - Nevada I I I I I l I I X - — X " New Hampshire gf. . . . X a - - _ - New Jersey . . . . . . - - X _ - — New Mexico . . . . . . X - — — - X New York I I I I I I I X " " X i X North Carolina . . . . X — - X - l - North Dakota . . . . . - — X - - j - Ohio I I I I I I I I I X " " X - i - Oklahoma . . . . . . . Oregon . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania . . . . . Rhode Island . . . . South Carolina l/,h/. . South Dakota 2/ Tennessee . .- Texas . . . . Utah . . . . vermont g/. . I I I I I O I O O l O I C O O O O Virginia . . . . . . . - - X — - - Washington . . . . . . X - - X X - 'West Virginia . . . . . - ‘ X — - z X - Wisconsin . . . . . . . X ‘ - - X : - - Wyoming . . . . . . . . X - ' X E - 3 - l/No data reported. g/No State aid for transportation allocated. é/Applicable only in regards to special education. E/Entire cost of pupil transportation program borne by State. TABLE J.—-Acceptability and recognition of criterion number 10 in 1963 State plans for financing pupil transportation by State, State Criterion number lO.--A State plan of local units should not tend to discourage desirable reorganization and attendance areas. Acceptability of the criterion by State directors of pupil transportation Means by which criterion is currently recognized in State plans for financing pupil transportation Acceptable Acceptable in part Not acceptable Statute and/or State aid formula Administrative rules and regulations (including standards) Recommended practicas encouraged through State leadership activities l N U‘L O‘x Alabama . . . . . Alaska . . . . . Arizona l/,2/ . . Arkansas-n .—. . . California . . . Colorado l/ . . . Connecticut Delaware . . . . Florida . . . . . Georgia . . . . . Hawaii 2/ . . . Idaho .—. . . . Illinois . . . Indiana . . . . Iowa . . . . . Kansas . . . . Kentucky . . . louisiana . . . Maine . . . . . Maryland . . . Massachusetts . Michigan . . . Minnesota . . . Mississippi . . Missouri . . . Montana . . . . Nebraska 2/ . . Nevada .w. . . New Hampshire 2/ New Jersey . . New Mexico . . New York . . . North Carolina North Dakota . Ohio . . . . . Oklahoma . . . Oregon . . . Pennsylvania . Rhode Island I South Carolina l/,§/. South Dakota 2/ Tennessee . . . Texas . . . . . Utah . . . . . Vermont g/. . . Virginia . . Washington . West Virginia Wisconsin . . Myoming . . . D O . O I . O O O O C O I O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >¢I ><><>4: LA LA LA k1 r1 (1 VV rx ><>< >4 I I I #:N I r 5 21 E >:x I Ntfi >d><>4><| N LA LA LILA r1 r1 rs r‘l M l V?! M M A 1 >4: ><><>< I ><>4><¢4 k4>¢>4>4>< >4 l.’><.':><>< >41 ‘r‘ L) L; L) r LA r1 r3 r1 I >4>4I L4 1 >4>:| g; L) kA LA LA r1r1r1r QGKOH «QGHHGGH eeeeeeeeeeee ~H> «beans. .38 825. ..... up mix—«Hum aowcoED .......... > dnwhovd 3.23%.: .......... >H enamugdfiguefiengfiu 3&0” .02 JHLON ’02 eeeeeeee HH usueafioemua: .558: ...... H 3 83m: «3.:- is; aho\n caulk”: ebodv Iaoh 1 i l Illllfilllai. ’IIII‘ (Ill... .1 nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES \IHIM"N)lllWMmm“WWWWWI 31293010721847