Level-Setting the Community Discussion on the Transportation Policy

I encourage every parent to get involved, regardless of how they feel about the transportation policy or any policy for that matter. It is important for different voices on all sides to present their arguments – even if it is an opinion -opinions are important – they offer a perspective or a way of looking at something that could lead to a more empirical pathway.

With that said, I would like to take this opportunity to address assertions being made about BHCW and articles that have been published about the Transportation Policy.

This will not attempt to characterize parents who are advocating for their children as an evil group.  

Let’s start with the “slim empirical evidence” argument example, which is the most interesting, as this was done without providing any examples.

If anything, BHCW’s writers have provided more evidence of its positions than the BOE itself. The entire reason the Transportation issue is where it is has to do with the lack of data or even criteria the Policy Committee has provided to the public and the BOE on this issue. It took one resident eight extensions to get the data needed to evaluate this policy partially. Whatever data we have, we have fought for – and many of our writers have gone to court to obtain it.

Now to the “pulling out the rug argument”.   I want to be clear: I am not advocating the elimination of Courtesy Busing – only that it be an informed decision that is fair and equitable to all families.  

This wasn’t an 11th hour request.  

Ms. Stanley has been aware of the concerns community members have had about this issue for over a year – I wrote about these concerns back in August of 2023- and that was after giving the Board a chance to clarify the issue.

The reason we are in what feels like a do-or-die situation with Courtesy Busing is that the Policy Committee- chaired by Ms. Stanley- has still refused to provide the data. I am not okay with parents having to shoulder the burden of subscription busing under an unfair policy simply because of a crisis manufactured by a BOE member who has decided to take this issue to an 11th-hour vote.  

Neither side of this issue deserves to be held hostage.

Lastly, the “State Aid” and “Lawsuit” Arguments.  

The District is not required to provide transportation to any student who lives within the state-mandated designation. Courtesy busing is just that—a courtesy. 

There is no legal liability on the District or any BOE Member’s part for abiding by the state law. 

As I said, I support a data-driven transportation policy, but we need to keep the arguments on this fact-based.

Looking at the state law, I tried to find a formula supporting a firm conclusion that Berkeley Heights would lose state aid due to not passing Courtesy busing. I could not locate one.

I went back to listen to the presentation provided by the Transportation Consulting Firm, which delivered a complex “black box” rubric absent data. In this presentation, the consultant indicated that the District “‘Might” qualify for state aid in the future.

I researched and found an assembly bill, A2354, that was never adopted.

Based on the attached bill that has been introduced and the identical bills in prior sessions, I don’t believe that any state aid for transportation for students along hazardous routes exists.

I could be wrong however this is a new argument that is making its way in this 11th hour race to a policy.

That bill also specifies the formula for aid, but we should note that under this bill, the BOE would not define hazardous routes. What our policy defines as hazardous would be irrelevant. (see the statement at the end of the bill.

Under this bill, the State (not Berkeley Heights) would define what is hazardous. The state law referenced in the bill does not mention state aid or a formula. It would be helpful for those making this argument to reference the law supporting this assertion. Again, this bill was never adopted.

There is a petition currently circulating making these arguments and I have no intention of calling it out with a link as this article isn’t meant to be an attack on parents who signed it. It is likely the best vehicle they have to advance their interests at this point – and despite the inaccuracies in the petition- the overall sentiment of wanting transportation for their children is understandable.

Proponents of the petition are welcome to post it on our website and use our website as a vehicle for their positions.  There is “no group” – you are as welcome here as any other resident.  

I want a transportation policy as well – but one that is based on a transparent rubric, informed by data, that is fair for all families. We have been asking for clarity on this for a very long time.

Other bills researched for this article:

N..S.A. 18A:18A-1 et seq.; 18A:39-1 et seq.; 18A:39-11.1 et seq.

N.J.S.A. 27:15-16

N.J.S.A. 39:3B-1 et seq.; 39:3B-2.1; 39:3B-10; 39:3B-27

N..A.C. 6A:27-1.1 et seq.; 6A:27-2.1 et seq.; 6A:27-3.1 et seq.;

6A:27-4.1 et seq.; 6A:27-5.1; 6A:27-6.2 through 6.5;

6A:27-7.1 et seq.; 6A:27-9.1 et seq.; 6A: 27-10.1 et seq.;

6A:27-11.1 et seq.; 6A:27-12.1 et seq.

Read All Articles on BHPSNJ Transportation

Subscribe to BHCW For Free

Please Use this Form to Email State Legislators