If LSTA Assumes The District’s Role, What Responsibilities Does It Have?

NJ law says that when transportation is provided to students who live less than the required distance from school, families cannot be excluded simply because they cannot afford the transportation fee. Financial hardship is based on the same income standards used for free and reduced-price meals. Source

The law also requires districts that provide courtesy busing to have a policy identifying hazardous routes. So the question for LSTA is simple: If it is taking on the district’s transportation responsibilities, why are families who cannot afford the fee being left without transportation and what hazardous-route protections apply to children who live under two miles from school

Parents of yeshiva and other nonpublic-school students are questioning why they can be charged nearly $950 per child for transportation while Lakewood taxpayers fund courtesy transportation for public-school students. But the role of the Lakewood School Transportation Association (LSTA) raises an even bigger question.

The 2016 New Jersey law creating the Lakewood nonpublic-school transportation consortium states that: “The consortium shall assume the responsibilities of the eligible district under N.J.S. 18A:39-1”

The Legislature went even further in the 2023 consortium law, stating that: “The consortium shall assume all of the responsibilities of the school district under N.J.S. 18A:39-1”

That language raises a serious question for LSTA. If LSTA assumes the district’s transportation responsibilities, which transportation protections and requirements does LSTA believe it has assumed and which does it claim do not apply?

LSTA has relied on a Lakewood School District age policy to deny transportation to some five-year-old children. If LSTA says it is not the district when parents ask why certain transportation protections apply, why is it relying on district policy when that policy is used to deny transportation?

And if LSTA can use district rules to restrict transportation, why should families be told that district transportation protections do not apply when those protections would help families who cannot afford the fee?

New Jersey transportation rules also recognize financial-hardship protections for certain transportation services, with financial hardship tied to the state's free and reduced lunch income standards.

What protection does LSTA provide to a family that qualifies under those income standards but cannot afford a transportation fee approaching $950 per child?

What law authorizes LSTA's current transportation program and its fees? Which responsibilities under N.J.S. 18A:39-1 has LSTA assumed?

Why is LSTA relying on a district age policy to deny transportation while claiming that district transportation requirements do not otherwise apply?

What financial-hardship policy is available to families who cannot afford the transportation fee?

The Legislature specifically gave the consortium the district's transportation responsibilities for eligible nonpublic-school students. If LSTA believes certain district protections do not apply, parents are entitled to know exactly which ones, and the legal basis for that position.

If LSTA can rely on the district's rules when those rules restrict transportation, why can't families rely on the district's transportation protections that would help them?.

(Current NJ transportation regulations HERE NJ Department of Education Student Transportation Here)

Jooish

Jooish

If LSTA Assumes The District’s Role, What Responsibilities Does It Have?