Under McKinney-Vento, districts are required to keep students experiencing housing instability enrolled in their school of origin. The problem is that temporary housing is often far outside traditional bus routes. Without a flexible transportation option, these students miss school — and research shows a direct correlation between chronic absenteeism and higher high school dropout rates. With a vetted alternative transportation provider, these students show up every day.
Our Mission: To ensure every student in New York has a safe, reliable and affordable way to get to school — no matter where they live, what school they attend, or what challenges they face.
NY FASST exists because New York’s current rules for student transportation are not working for the students who need the most help. New York State is experiencing a well-documented school bus driver shortage — and the students most harmed by that shortage are also its most vulnerable. Our mission is to modernize the regulatory framework so that every district has the tools, the flexibility, and the resources to get every student safely to school.
The rules governing how New York transports its children must reflect the diverse realities of today’s students — not the simpler world those rules were written for decades ago.
The Three Pillars of Our Advocacy
PILLAR 1: AFFORDABILITY
Student transportation is one of the largest line items in a school district’s budget — and budgets across New York are under severe pressure. Deploying a full-size school bus with a CDL-holding driver for a single student on a specialized route costs significantly more than necessary. Alternative transportation models for these trip types can substantially reduce per-route costs — savings that can be redirected to classrooms.
PILLAR 2: SAFETY
Safety is the foundation of everything NY FASST advocates for. The proposed legislation - S.9289/A.10401 - does not reduce a single Article 19-A safety requirement. Leading alternative transportation providers operate under rigorous safety frameworks that include:
- Multi-layer background checks: national criminal history, sex offender registry, county records, and child abuse/neglect checks.
- Continuous MVR monitoring: automated systems that flag arrests, suspensions, and violations in real time — not in annual point-in-time reviews.
- Real-time GPS tracking on every trip, with data accessible to the district and live tracking for parents and guardians.
- Daily electronic pre-trip and post-trip vehicle inspection logs, maintained digitally and available for audit.
- Driver training that covers disability awareness, trauma-informed care, behavioral de-escalation, and child safety restraint systems — areas not addressed by the CDL “S” endorsement exam.
PILLAR 3: FLEXIBILITY
Students experiencing homelessness may need to be picked up from a new address with little or no notice. Under the federal McKinney-Vento Act, districts are legally required to provide this transportation. Students in foster care face similar instability. Students with IEPs often require door-to-door, individualized service that standard bus routes cannot accommodate.
NY FASST advocates for the regulatory framework that S.9289/A.10401 creates: a clear statutory definition for school transportation logistics vehicles and their coordinators, enabling districts to use vetted, contracted alternative transportation providers as a complement to — not a replacement for — traditional yellow bus service. This legislation also authorizes piggyback contracting, allowing districts to leverage existing transportation contracts held by neighboring districts, reducing cost and administrative burden. More than two-thirds of U.S. states have already built this flexibility into their systems. New York must catch up.
What We Are Asking For
NY FASST is calling on the New York State Legislature and Governor to:
- Pass S.9289 (Cooney) / A.10401 (Hunter) to create a clear statutory framework for school transportation logistics vehicles — bringing vetted community drivers in small-capacity vehicles into the Article 19-A framework with every safety obligation intact.
- Remove the unnecessary CDL requirement for drivers of single-pupil passenger vehicles — a barrier that federal law does not require and that is directly worsening New York’s school bus driver shortage.
- Authorize piggyback contracting so districts can leverage existing vetted transportation contracts held by neighboring districts, creating efficiency and reducing cost.
- Ensure Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) and cooperative purchasing arrangements can be used to access alternative transportation providers, so districts can access services efficiently and at lower cost.
- Establish rigorous, technology-enabled safety standards — including continuous driver monitoring, GPS tracking, and vehicle inspection requirements — for all school transportation logistics vehicle operators.
Real Impact for New Yorkers
Behind every policy debate are real children, real families, and real school administrators doing their best with an outdated system. Here is what modernizing New York’s student transportation rules would mean for them.
Many students with disabilities require specialized placement at schools outside their home district. For some, this means spending hours each way on a school bus — arriving exhausted, losing valuable instructional time before they ever walk through the door. With alternative transportation matched to their route, these students could be in their classroom in under 30 minutes, ready to learn.
Many people have a clean driving record, a reliable vehicle, and the willingness to complete required training — but no clear pathway to help. As vetted alternative transportation drivers, they could earn meaningful income doing something that matters: getting vulnerable students safely to school. The absence of a clear statutory framework has prevented districts from onboarding qualified drivers who want to serve their communities. S.9289 changes that.
Districts managing complex routes for high-need students often have no practical path to contract with vetted logistics providers for single-student trips. Without that option, transportation directors resort to expensive workarounds that pull resources away from core bus routes. S.9289/A.10401 gives districts the legal clarity and contracting tools to serve every student efficiently.
Every dollar spent on an oversized bus making a single-student run is a dollar not spent in a classroom. Modernizing New York’s transportation rules isn’t just about students — it’s about making sure public dollars work as hard as they can for every family in this state.
The Problem with Student Transportation in New York
New York’s student transportation statute was largely designed around traditional yellow bus service operated by CDL-holding drivers. For most students and most routes, that model works. But for students with the most complex needs — and against the backdrop of a deepening school bus driver shortage — it falls dangerously short.
New York currently lacks a clear statutory definition for school transportation logistics vehicles — the contracted, small-capacity passenger vehicles that districts in more than 37 states already use to serve McKinney-Vento students, foster care students, and students with IEP-mandated out-of-district placements. S.9289/A.10401 closes that gap, creating a clear framework with every Article 19-A safety protection fully intact — and adding piggyback contracting authority so districts can share resources across district lines.
Why the Status Quo Fails Vulnerable Students
- McKinney-Vento students may need transportation to their school of origin from a new address with no notice. A rigid bus-only system cannot respond — and failure to transport means chronic absenteeism and potentially losing the only stable institution in a child’s life.
- Students with IEPs requiring out-of-district placements often travel 30 to 80 miles per trip. A full-size school bus for a single student is inefficient, expensive, and sometimes logistically impossible.
- The CDL requirement for drivers of single-pupil passenger vehicles is a barrier that federal law does not impose — vehicles designed to carry fewer than 16 passengers do not require a CDL under federal law. S.9289 removes this unnecessary barrier while preserving every substantive safety standard.
- Districts have no mechanism to leverage existing transportation contracts held by neighboring districts — forcing redundant procurement even when a vetted provider is already operating nearby. S.9289’s piggyback contracting provision closes that gap.
New York Lags Behind
Thirty-seven including Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, and Colorado have all developed frameworks that allow specialized student transportation providers to serve specific student populations with smaller vehicles. These are established, regulated, proven systems working for students right now. New York has not acted. It is past time we catch up.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is alternative student transportation?
Alternative student transportation is home-to-school and school-to-home service provided by vetted drivers in small-capacity passenger vehicles — typically sedans, SUVs, or minivans seating no more than eight passengers. It operates under contract with a school district or local education agency and is designed to supplement, not replace, traditional yellow bus service. It is most commonly used for students whose needs don’t fit a standard route: students experiencing housing instability, students in foster care, and students whose IEPs require individualized or door-to-door service.
Q: Is alternative transportation safe?
Yes — when properly regulated. Reputable alternative transportation providers operate under safety frameworks that meet or exceed the substantive protections applied to traditional school bus drivers, right-sized to the vehicle. Standard practices include multi-layer background checks; continuous motor vehicle record monitoring that flags new violations in real time; drug and alcohol testing; annual vehicle safety inspections plus daily electronic pre-trip and post-trip logs; real-time GPS tracking with district access; and live ride tracking and notifications for parents on every trip. The proposed legislation preserves all Article 19-A requirements — including driver physicals, drug testing, MVR monitoring, disqualifier review, carrier compliance, and Commissioner enforcement — in full.
Q: Does S.9289/A.10401 reduce Article 19-A safety requirements?
No. This proposed legislation brings school transportation logistics vehicles into the Article 19-A framework — it does not remove them from it. Every safety obligation in Article 19-A applies to STLVs and the logistics coordinators that operate them. The only thing an STLV driver does not need is a CDL, because federal law does not require one for a vehicle designed to carry fewer than 16 passengers. The three Article 19-A items that were written around CDL holders — driver physicals, drug and alcohol testing, and MVR monitoring — are explicitly replicated in vehicle-appropriate form. Nothing is weakened.
Q: How does alternative transportation save money for school districts?
The cost savings are structural. Traditional school buses — with CDL drivers, fuel, and large vehicle overhead — are an expensive solution for a single student on a specialized route. Alternative transportation eliminates that mismatch. S.9289 also authorizes piggyback contracting, allowing districts to leverage existing transportation contracts held by neighboring districts rather than duplicating procurement. Savings are most significant for McKinney-Vento students and students with IEP-mandated out-of-district placements, where individual routes can span 30 to 80 miles.
Q: What is piggyback contracting and why does it matter?
Piggyback contracting allows a school board to enter into a contract with a private single-pupil transportation contractor that has already been contracted by another school district. Rather than running a separate procurement process, a district can join an existing vetted contract — saving time, reducing administrative burden, and extending the reach of resources already in operation nearby. S.9289 amends Subdivision 14 of Section 305 of the Education Law to authorize this common-sense mechanism for student transportation.
Q: How does this work in other states?
More than two-thirds of U.S. states have developed frameworks allowing specialized student transportation providers to serve specific student populations with smaller vehicles. States including Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, and Colorado have established rigorous driver screening, background checks, GPS tracking, and real-time accountability measures — with every applicable safety obligation intact. Multiple states also enable districts to share contracted services through cooperative purchasing or regional service agencies. New York can and should build a comparable framework.
Q: How can I get involved?
Sign up for our mailing list to receive updates, contact your state legislator to let them know student transportation reform matters, or reach out directly about adding your organization’s voice to our coalition.