We combined the key findings from two of our 2020 research reports evaluating families' concerns with transporting their kids to school and which state transportation laws support (or lack support for) school choice students.

1. 1
COMMUTING CONCERNS
& TRANSPORTING SCHOOL
CHOICE STUDENTS

2. 2
Our Commuting Concerns report examines
the results of a nationwide survey on
transportation and school choice.

3. 3
WHO WE SURVEYED
The survey collected responses from
1,419 parents with school-aged children
throughout the United States in Fall
2019—before the pandemic—and
Summer 2020—toward the beginning
of the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. 4
Factors Influencing Where to Live
number of FRL parents responding (Q9): 213 Traditional Public; 194 Charter; 90 Religious Private; 43 Non-Religious Private
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
Traditional Public FRL Charter FRL Religious Private FRL Non-Religious Private FRL
62%
63%
69%
77%
54%
58%
58%
51%
55%
47%
69%
63%
51%
48%
66%
53%
52%
38%
57%
51%
46%
46%
62%
56%
41%
41%
60%
42%
30%
39%
62%
56%
34%
46%
51%
44%
Affordable
The Quality of the Public School District
Close to Family
My Family has Always Lived in This Area
Within the Boundary of the
Public District (Neighborhood)
School I wanted My Child to Attend
Good Transportation Options
(e.g., Near a Highway, on a Bus Route)
Close to Work
Close to the Private School
I Wanted My Child(ren) to Attend
Close to the Charter School
I Wanted My Child(ren) to Attend
% of Responding Parents Saying "Extremely / Very Influential"
Not surprisingly, affordability—not access to good transportation
options—is the most influential factor for low-income families
when choosing where to live.

5. 5
The same can be said of families who don’t use the federal free and
reduced-price lunch program. An exception are those who send their
kids to traditional public schools. They have the luxury to prioritize
homes based on being within quality school district boundaries.
Factors Influencing Where to Live
number of Non-FRL parents responding (Q9): 209 Traditional Public; 101 Charter; 211 Religious Private; 120 Non-Religious Private
Traditional Public Non-FRL Charter Non-FRL Religious Private Non-FRL Non-Religious Private Non-FRL
44%
64%
51%
47%
62%
43%
27%
34%
34%
29%
36%
38%
29%
33%
28%
23%
55%
32%
18%
19%
30%
24%
23%
26%
28%
30%
29%
28%
9%
16%
34%
28%
11%
38%
13%
15%
Affordable
The Quality of the Public School District
Close to Family
My Family has Always Lived in This Area
Within the Boundary of the
Public District (Neighborhood)
School I wanted My Child to Attend
Good Transportation Options
(e.g., Near a Highway, on a Bus Route)
Close to Work
Close to the Private School
I Wanted My Child(ren) to Attend
Close to the Charter School
I Wanted My Child(ren) to Attend

6. 6
Low-income students are more likely to attend schools that provide
transportation at no extra cost, even those in charter and private schools.
Middle- and higher-income families are more likely to attend charter and
private schools that do not provide any transportation.
Transportation Provided by School
Traditional Public FRL Charter FRL Religious Private FRL Non-Religious Private FRL
Traditional Public Non-FRL Charter Non-FRL Religious Private Non-FRL Non-Religious Private Non-FRL
number of FRL parents responding (Q17): 263 Traditional Public; 228 Charter; 104 Religious Private; 49 Non-Religious Private
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
number of Non-FRL parents responding (Q17): 246 Traditional Public; 115 Charter; 237 Religious Private; 132 Non-Religious Private
73%
54%
45%
43%
13%
20%
34%
24%
15%
26%
21%
33%
My Child’s School...
...Provides Transportation at No Extra Cost
...Provides Transportation for an Extra Fee
...Does Not Provide Any Transportation
My Child’s School...
...Provides Transportation at No Extra Cost
...Provides Transportation for an Extra Fee
...Does Not Provide Any Transportation
69%
23%
28%
20%
10%
11%
11%
22%
21%
65%
61%
58%

7. 7
About half of parents say their kids’ commute to school is
10 minutes or shorter.
Time It Takes Student for One-Way Commute from Residence to School
Traditional Public Charter Religious Private Non-Religious Private
number of parents responding (Q15): 518 Traditional Public; 347 Charter; 350 Religious Private; 200 Non-Religious Private
51%
49%
45%
55%
26%
26%
33%
26%
12%
14%
15%
13%
4%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
3%
2%
3%
0−10 minutes
11−20 minutes
21−30 minutes
31−40 minutes
41−50 minutes
51−60 minutes
>60 minutes
% of Responding Parents

8. 8
Of the parents whose kids ride buses to school, the vast majority agree
they are satisfied with their busing experiences.
Parents' Agreement with Being Overall Satisfied with Child's School Bus Transportation
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Slightly Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Slightly Disagree
number of parents responding (Q26): 335 Traditional Public; 198 Charter; 133 Religious Private; 83 Non-Religious Private
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
% of Responding Parents
Traditional Public (n=336)
Charter (n=198)
Religious Private (n=134)
Non-Religious Private (n=83)
55% 24% 13% 5%
41% 29% 13% 10%
50% 26% 14% 6% 4%
7%
40% 28% 20% 5% 7%
3%

9. 9
But getting to school doesn’t come without its challenges.
1%
Transportation Issues with School or District
Traditional Public Charter Religious Private Non-Religious Private
number of parents responding (Q19): 519 Traditional Public; 350 Charter; 350 Religious Private; 200 Non-Religious Private
18%
26%
17%
19%
12%
20%
14%
14%
13%
22%
11%
9%
17%
15%
11%
11%
3%
2%
3%
56%
37%
64%
63%
Traffic Congestion at Pick-up/Drop-off Locations
Safe Pick-up/Drop-off Location
Getting Child to/from Bus Stop
Disciplinary Issues on the Bus
Other
None of the Above
% of Responding Parents

10. 10
The pandemic has affected parents’ comfortability with school
transportation, especially for those households with family
members at high risk.
Households at Higher Risk of Severe Illness from COVID-19
No, person in my house falls into any of these categories
Yes, one or more school-aged children Yes, at least one person who is not a school-aged child
number of parents responding (Q38): 171 Traditional Public; 52 Charter; 88 Religious Private; 30 Non-Religious Private
Notes: Rows sum to more than 100 due to respondents being able to select both "Yes" options. We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than
100 respondents.
% of Responding Parents
Traditional Public
Charter
Religious Private
Non-Religious Private
15% 29% 60%
23% 31% 56%
17% 20% 65%
7% 27% 67%

11. 11
Most parents express concern about exposure to COVID-19 in almost
every transportation-related scenario and in almost every school type.
Transportation to School and Virus/Distancing Concern Level
Extremely Not At All
Moderately Somewhat Slightly
% of Responding Parents (Q37)
Traditional Public (n=202)
Charter (n=60)
Religious Private (n=85)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Traditional Public (n=200)
Charter (n=60)
Religious Private (n=87)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Traditional Public (n=200)
Charter (n=59)
Religious Private (n=81)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Pick-up
or
Drop-off
Location
Being
Virus-Free
Maintaining
Six-feet
Distance
from
Others
at
Pick-up
or
Drop-off
Location
Vehicle
Being
Virus-Free
37% 15% 22% 11% 15%
43% 18% 13% 12%
16% 22% 14% 20%
13%
27%
28%
45% 20% 10% 5% 20%
17%
43% 18% 15% 9%
40% 22% 13% 17%
21% 23% 9% 20%
45% 15% 10%
10%
35% 18% 19% 20%
10%
20%
39% 15% 15% 14% 17%
19% 17% 10%
14% 41%
55% 10%
10% 25%
8%
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.

12. 12
Transportation to School and Virus/Distancing Concern Level (continued)
Extremely Not At All
Moderately Somewhat Slightly
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
Traditional Public (n=202)
Charter (n=55)
Religious Private (n=79)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Traditional Public (n=201)
Charter (n=56)
Religious Private (n=83)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Others
in
Vehicle
Virus-Free
Maintaining
Six-Feet
Distance
from
Others
in
Vehicle
37% 18% 10% 18%
17%
44% 15% 11% 16%
15%
27% 8%
19% 9%
50% 5% 20%
5% 20%
38%
37% 16% 11%
16% 20%
43% 16% 7%
14% 20%
14% 18% 45%
11%
12%
35% 15% 15%
5% 30%
Traditional Public (n=198)
Charter (n=59)
Religious Private (n=84)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Staggered
Pick-up
or
Drop-off
Times
29% 21% 24% 10% 16%
39% 24% 19% 10%
15% 19% 17% 18%
8%
31%
25% 20% 10% 10% 35%
% of Responding Parents (Q37)

13. 13
Transportation to School and Virus/Distancing Concern Level (continued)
Extremely Not At All
Moderately Somewhat Slightly
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
% of Responding Parents (Q37)
Traditional Public (n=204)
Charter (n=59)
Religious Private (n=84)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Traditional Public (n=204)
Charter (n=58)
Religious Private (n=86)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Traditional Public (n=205)
Charter (n=60)
Religious Private (n=87)
Non-Religious Private (n=20)
Area
Near
the
Vehicle
Exit/Entrance
by
the
School
Building
Being
Virus-Free
Maintaining
Six-Feet
Distance
from
Others
Between
Vehicle
and
School
Buidling
Schhol
Building
Entrance/Exit
Being
Virus-Free
27%
15%
35% 20% 21% 10%
46% 15% 14% 14%
20% 19% 15% 18%
35% 20% 5%
10%
38% 18% 17% 16%
10%
30%
40% 19% 19% 12% 10%
17% 19% 14%
19% 31%
50% 15 10%
40% 20% 8% 14%
18%
25%
48% 22% 3%
7%
20%
22% 18%
20% 17%
55% 20% 5%
5% 15%
23%
12%

14. 14
For a long time, our surveys have shown us parents are willing to take
inconvenient steps to ensure their children can attend the right school
for their needs—including accepting a long commute.
Traditional Public
FRL
Non-FRL
Charter
FRL
Non-FRL
Religious Private
FRL
Non-FRL
Non-Religious Private
FRL
Non-FRL
1%
2%
<1%
2%
3%
0%
1%
4%
0%
2%
4%
2%
4%
5%
3%
6%
8%
3%
3%
7%
2%
5%
6%
5%
9%
11%
7%
13%
14%
11%
8%
11%
8%
11%
10%
12%
15%
15%
13%
16%
18%
14%
16%
20%
14%
17%
12%
19%
36%
36%
36%
41%
38%
46%
41%
38%
43%
36%
29%
42%
68%
62%
75%
65%
59%
78%
71%
70%
73%
63%
63%
67%
> 60
minutes
> 50
minutes
> 40
minutes
> 30
minutes
> 20
minutes
>10
minutes
number of parents responding (Q16): 518 Traditional Public (263 FRL; 245 Non-FRL); 350 Charter (228 FRL; 115 Non-FRL); 350 Religious Private (104 FRL; 237 Non-FRL); 200
Non-Religious Private (49 FRL; 132 Non-FRL)
Note: We advise caution on interpreting the survey results for any sample size having less than 100 respondents.
How Long Parents Would Allow Child to Commute One-Way to Attend
"Better Fit" School (Cumulative)

15. 15
We know, for the most part, traditional
public district schools provide in-district
students busing.
But what about the fast-growing population
of school choice families?

16. 16
Our Transporting School Choice Students
report examined which state laws support
the transportation of students exercising
public and private school choice.

17. 17
We found the states differ in how laws support transportation for
public school families who come from outside the district
through open enrollment programs.
Inter-District Pupil Transportation Map (current as of 2019)
Mandatory for All Students Mandatory for Some Students
No Provisions At All for Anyone
Not Mandatory But Provided for Some or All Students

18. 18
Even fewer states have laws that support transportation for public
charter school students.
Charter School Pupil Transportation Map (current as of 2019)
Mandatory for All Students Mandatory for Some Students
No Provisions At All for Anyone
Not Mandatory but Provided for Some or All Students

19. 19
Even fewer states support transportation for private school students,
including students who use private school choice programs.
Private School Pupil Transportation Map (current as of 2019)
Mandatory for All Students Mandatory for Some Students
No Provisions At All for Anyone
Not Mandatory but Provided for Some or All Students

20. 20
In a nutshell: States are doing a lot right to
keep families satisfied with school busing
but not a lot right to support families who
don’t have access to school busing.

21. 21
Our Transporting School Choice Students report has a detailed table
breaking down every state’s transportation laws.
State Transportation Summary (current as of 2019)
Private School
AK
AL
AR
State
Alaska does not require public
school districts to provide
transportation to students
transferring between districts.
Alabama mandates inter-district
transportation funding only for
open enrollment students who are
assigned to a “failing” district
school.
Arkansas mandates inter-district
transportation funding only for
open enrollment students who are
assigned to a “failing” district
school.
Inter-District
Alaska requires districts to
provide transportation to charter
school students.
Alabama charter schools receive
earmarked foundation
transportation funds if used for
transportation; can contract with
public or private services.
The state does not permit publicly
funded transportation of charter
school students unless they are
zoned to a “failing” district
school.
Charter School
Alaska requires school districts to
provide transportation to private
school students that travel
distances comparable to, and
over routes the same as, the
distances and routes over which
the children attending public
schools are transported.
Alabama school districts can
provide transportation for private
school students at their own
discretion.
Arkansas does not allow for
publicly funded transportation to
private schools with the exception
of students with special needs.
Districts can transport students
to private schools at their own
discretion.
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
Al
Al
Al
Alab
ab
ab
abam
am
am
ama
a
a
a ma
ma
ma
mand
nd
nd
ndat
at
at
ates
es
es
es i
i
i
int
nt
nt
nter
er
er
er d
-d
d
dis
is
is
istr
tr
tr
tric
ic
ic
ict
t
t
t
t
t
tr
tran
ansp
sp
por
ort
t
ta
ta i
ti
ti
ti
tion
on f
f
f
f
fun
undi
di
di
di
ding
ng
g o
o l
l
l
nl
nly
y
y f
f
f
fo
for
r
op
op
op
open
en
en
en e
e
e
enr
nr
nr
nr l
l
ol
ol
ol
oll
l
lm
lm
lm
lmen
en
en
ent
t
t
t
t
t t
t
st
st
st
st d
d
ud
ud
ud
uden
en
en
ent
t
ts
ts
ts
ts w
w
w
wh
h
ho
ho
ho
ho a
a
a
are
re
re
re
as
as i
si
sign
gn
g d
ed
ed t
t
to
o a
a “f
“f
f i
ai
aili
li
ling
ng
g”
” di
di
di t
st
st i
ri
ri t
ct
ct
sc
sc
sc
sch
ho
ho
ho
ho l
ol
ol
ol
ol.
A
Ark
kansas mand
dat
tes i
int
ter-di
di t
st i
ri t
ct
tr
tr
tran
an
ansp
sp
spor
or
orta
ta
tati
ti
tion
on
on f
f
fun
un
undi
di
ding
ng
ng o
o
onl
nl
nly
y
y fo
fo
for
r
r
op
op
open
en
en e
e
enr
nr
nrol
ol
ollm
lm
lmen
en
ent
t
t st
st
stud
ud
uden
en
ents
ts
ts w
w
who
ho
ho a
a
are
re
re
as
as
assi
si
sign
gn
gned
ed
ed t
t
to
o
o a
a
a “f
f
fai
ai
aili
li
ling
ng
ng” di
di
dist
st
stri
ri
rict
ct
ct
school.
Al
Al
Al
Alab
ab
ab
abam
am
am
ama
a
a
a ch
ch
ch
char
ar
ar
arte
te
te
ter
r
r
r sc
sc
sc
scho
ho
ho
hool
ol
ol
ols
s
s
s re
re
re
rece
ce
ce
ceiv
iv
iv
ive
e
e
e
ea
earm
rmar
ark
k
k
ke
ked
d
d
d
d f
f
f
fo
foun
und
d
d
da
da i
ti
ti
ti
tion
on
t
t
tr
tr
tr
tran
an
an
ansp
sp
sp
spor
or
or
ort
t
ta
ta
ta
tati
ti
ti
ti
ti
tion
on
on
on f
f
f
f
f
fun
un
un
und
d
ds
ds
ds
ds i
i
i
i
i
if
f
f
f
f
f us
us
us
us d
d
ed
ed
ed
ed f
f
f
f
f
for
or
or
or
t
tr
tran
ansp
sp
por
ort
ta
tati
ti
tion
on;
; ca
can
n co
co t
nt
ntra
ra t
ct
ct w
wit
it
ith
h
h
pu
pu
pu
publ
bl
bl
bl
bli
ic
ic
ic
ic o
o
o
or
r
r
r pr
pr
pr
pri
iv
iv
iv
ivat
at
at
ate
e
e
e se
se
se
serv
rv
rv
rvi
ic
ic
ic
ices
es
es
es.
Th
The t
st t
ate d
does n t
ot p
per i
mit
t pu
p bl
bli
icl
ly
y
fu
fu
fund
nd
nded
ed
ed t
t
tra
ra
rans
ns
nspo
po
port
rt
rtat
at
atio
io
ion
n
n of
of
of c
c
cha
ha
hart
rt
rter
er
er
sc
sc
scho
ho
hool
ol
ol s
s
stu
tu
tude
de
dent
nt
nts
s
s un
un
unle
le
less
ss
ss t
t
the
he
hey
y
y ar
ar
are
e
e
zo
zo
zone
ne
ned
d
d to
to
to a
a
a “fa
fa
fail
il
ilin
in
ing”
g
g d
d
dis
is
istr
tr
tric
ic
ict
t
t
school.
Al
Al
Al b
ab
ab
abam
am
a a
a
a sc
sc
sch
ho
ho
o l
ol
ol
o d
d
d
di
is
is
st
tr
tr
t i
ic
ic
ct
ts
ts
ts c
c
can
an
a
pr
pr
pr
pr
p ov
ov
ov
ovid
id
id
ide
e
e
e tr
tr
tr
tran
an
an
ansp
sp
sp
sp
por
or
or
orta
ta
ta
tati
ti
ti
tion
on
on
on f
f
f
for
or
or
or p
p
p
p
pri
ri
ri
riva
va
va
vate
te
te
te
sc
sc
sc
scho
ho
ho
hool
ol
ol
ol s
s
s
stu
tu
tu
tude
de
de
dent
nt
nt
nts
s
s
s at
at
at
at t
t
t
the
he
he
heir
ir
ir
ir o
o
o
own
wn
wn
wn
di
di
di
disc
scre
re i
ti
ti
tion
on.
A
Ar
Ar
Ark
ka
ka
kans
ns
nsas
as
as d
d
d
doe
oe
oes
s
s no
no
not
t
t
t l
al
al
all
lo
lo
low
w f
fo
fo
for
r
r
pu
p
p blicly
y
y funded transp
p
portation to
pr
pr
p iv
ivat
ate
e sc
scho
hool
ols
s wi
with
th t
the
he e
exc
xcep
ep
pti
tion
on
f
of st
tud
de t
nts i
with
th spe
p
p i
ci l
al need
ds.
Di
Dist
stri
rict
cts
s ca
can
n tr
tran
ansp
spor
ort
t st
stud
uden
ents
ts
to
to p
pri
riva
vate
te s
sch
choo
ools
ls a
at
t th
thei
eir
r ow
own
n
discretion.

22. 22
&
To contact our researchers,
email research@edchoice.org.
To access both of the reports
included in these slides, visit
EDCHOICE.ORG/CommutingConcerns
EDCHOICE.ORG/Transpo