Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONMixed ResultRIDE Case No. 24-057S and 24-084S

STUDENTS J. DOE AND K. DOE, by their parents v. THE GLOCESTER SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

October 30, 2025·Sergio A. Spaziano·Glocester

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

STUDENTS J. DOE AND K. DOE, by their

parents,

Petitioners,

v.

THE GLOCESTER SCHOOL DEPARTMENT,

Respondents.

RIDE Nos.: 24-057S and 24-084S

DECISION AND ORDER

Held: Parents appeal from Superintendent’s decision to change the location of the bus stops for their elementary and middle school aged children is granted as to the elementary school student, as the location of the new bus stop exceeded the maximum suitable walking limit under applicable school policy, but denied as to the high school student, as the parents failed to prove that the walking route to the new bus stop was not reasonably safe or otherwise subjected their child to an unreasonable risk of harm.

Date: October 30, 2025

I. Introduction

Petitioners, the parents of Students J. Doe and K. Doe (collectively, the “Students”), filed appeals with the Commissioner on October 8 and December 13, 2024, challenging the decisions of the Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee (the “Committee”) and the Glocester School Department Superintendent denying their challenges to the Superintendent’s decisions to change the locations of a Foster-Glocester Regional School District (“FGRSD”) middle and high school bus stop and a Glocester School Department (“GSD”) elementary school bus stop and to restore their original locations, which was at the end of the driveway to the Petitioners’ home. The two appeals were consolidated and are addressed below.

II. Jurisdiction, Standard of Review, and Burden of Proof

The Petitioners have standing as aggrieved parties, and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear this matter, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-1. In addition, it is well-established that the applicable standard of review is de novo. See, e.g., Alba v. Cranston School Committee, 90 A.3d 174, 184-85 (R.I. 2014); A. Doe v. East Greenwich Sch. Comm., RIDE No. 18-063A (Sept. 4, 2018). Petitioners have the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence. See Larue v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transp., 568 A.2d 755, 758-59 (R.I. 1990), citing Gorman v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7, 15 (1st Cir. 1988).

III. Facts

  1. Students J. Doe (age 12) and K. Doe (age 9) reside with their parents on Sprague Hill Road in the Town of Glocester. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 107:3-22.

  2. The entrance to Sprague Hill Road forms an intersection with Putnam Pike/Route 44 in Glocester and the Petitioners’ home is located approximately 0.64 miles up Sprague Hill Road from this intersection. Id. at 220:25-221:5; Pet. Ex. 13.

  3. During the 2024-2025 school year, Student J. Doe attended 6th grade at Ponaganset Middle School, which is in the FGRSD. Id. at 107:24.

  4. Prior to entering middle school, Student J. Doe attended West Glocester Elementary School, which is in the GSD. Id. at 113:9.

  5. During the 2024-2025 school year, Student K. Doe attended 3rd grade at West Glocester Elementary School. Id. at 108:1.

  6. Dr. Renee Palazzo is the Superintendent of both the FGRSD and the GSD. Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 483:25-485:24.

  7. The GSD is responsible for providing school transportation for both Student J. Doe, in accordance with the provisions of the FGRSD’s student transportation policy, and Student K. Doe, in accordance with the provisions of the GSD’s student transportation policy. Jan. 9, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 94:3-95:6; Joint Ex. 1 and 2; see also R.I. P.L. 1958, ch. 109.

  8. During the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 school years, with the exception of the period beginning in March 2020 during which the schools were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Student J. Doe’s bus stop, for both morning pick-up and afternoon drop-off was located at the end of the family’s driveway on Sprague Hill Road. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 115:9-20, 122:2-6, 132:7-133:7.

  9. Likewise, beginning in the 2021-2022 school year and continuing until December 2024, Student K. Doe’s bus stop, for both morning pick-up and afternoon drop-off was located at the end of the family’s driveway on Sprague Hill Road. Id.

  10. Since January 2002, the Town of Glocester has maintained an easement over a portion of land across Sprague Hill Road from the Petitioners’ driveway for use as a school bus turnaround (the “SHR Turnaround”). Jan. 9, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 25:6-26:2.

  11. The property across which the easement runs is owned by Daniel Cobb and Britney Alfieri Cobb, who also reside at the property. Id.; Pet. Ex. 2.

  12. The SHR Turnaround was paved at the time the Cobbs purchased the property in August 2014 and was thereafter repaved and enlarged by the Town of Glocester when the town repaved Sprague Hill Road. Id., at 25:21-27:4.

  13. During the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 school years, after picking up or dropping off Students J Doe and K Doe at the end of their driveway, the school bus would turn around by backing up into the SHR Turnaround and pulling forward to face the opposite direction to drive out of Sprague Hill Road in the direction from whence it came. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 122:2-123:10.

  14. Beginning in the 2024-2025 school year, the GSD removed the middle and high school bus stop for Student J. Doe from the end of Petitioners’ driveway and relocated it to the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike. Id. at 149:7-152:8.

  15. Prior to the 2023-2024 school year, the school bus stop for middle and high school students residing on Sprague Hill Road did not travel up Sprague Hill Road, but rather, the bus stop for those students had always been located at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike. Id. at 333:25-334:24.

  16. Conversely, for well over two decades, the school bus for elementary school students had always traveled up Sprague Hill Road to pick up students – making use of a private driveway to turn around prior to 2002 and, from 2002 onward, making use of the SHR Turnaround. Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 437:15-438:20; Jan. 29, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 62:5-63:5.

  17. The middle and high school bus route was changed for the 2023-2024 school year whereby the bus would follow the same route as the elementary school bus – travelling up Sprague Hill Road, picking up or dropping off students, and utilizing the SHR Turnaround to drive back down the road. Id. at 333:25-334:24.

  18. The GSD revised the middle and high school bus route again for the 2024-2025 school year and reverted to the original route, relocating the bus stop back to the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike. However, the bus route for elementary students remained the same. Id. at 298:16-20.

  19. Petitioners contacted the Superintendent and the FGRSD School Committee to request that the middle and high school bus stop for Student J Doe at the end of Petitioners’ driveway be reinstated. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 181:17-197:24.

  20. After their request was denied, the Petitioners appealed the School Committee’s decision to RIDE. See Petitioners’ Complaint dated October 8, 2024.

  21. A prehearing conference was held with the undersigned hearing officer on December 10, 2024.

  22. Following the prehearing conference, Dr. Palazzo transmitted an email, also dated December 10, 2024, to the “parents of students on Sprague Hill Road” informing them that, effective December 11, 2024, the bus stop for elementary students would be relocated to the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike, thereby removing and relocating the bus stop for Student K Doe. Jan. 29, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 66:11-68:4; Pet. Ex. 4.

  23. As the district’s basis for relocating the elementary bus stop, Dr. Palazzo stated in her email that “[d]uring a review of the safety of the route by Glocester Police Department, DPW, and the bus company, it has been determined that it is not currently safe for a long bus to travel down and turn around at the end of Sprague Hill Road.” Pet. Ex. 4.

  24. On December 13, 2024, via letter to the undersigned hearing officer, Petitioners submitted a second complaint to RIDE, this time on behalf of Student K Doe, appealing the Superintendent’s decision to relocate Student K. Doe’s elementary school bus stop, and requesting that the matter be consolidated with Student J. Doe’s appeal. See Petitioners Complaint letter dated December 13, 2024. After the parties were unable to resolve the matter between themselves, the Petitioners’ request to consolidate was approved.

  25. On January 9, 2025, the undersigned hearing officer conducted a site visit to view the bus stop, walking route, and SHR Turnaround. The parties and their attorneys were present at the site visit. The undersigned hearing officer parked at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike and as a result, concluded that:

    1. Putnam Pike / Route 44 is a two-way state highway with a posted speed limit of 50 miles an hour and relatively wide shoulders around the intersection with Sprague Hill Road;
    2. Sprague Hill Road does not cross Putnam Pike, but rather, begins at the intersection therewith;
    3. The intersection is visible from all lanes of travel;
    4. There is a stop sign posted for traffic exiting Sprague Hill Road on to Putnam Pike; and
    5. There are little to no usable shoulders along the roadway on Sprague Hill Road near the intersection with Putnam Pike;[1]

  26. The undersigned hearing officer then walked the entire length of Sprague Hill Road from the intersection with Putnam Pike / Route 44 to the Petitioners driveway and back again and as a result, concluded that:

    1. The entire length of road is paved up to, and just beyond, the Petitioners’ driveway;
    2. The paving terminated at what appeared to be the end of the public roadway;
    3. Sprague Hill Road is not a throughway – all vehicles traveling on the road must enter and exit at the intersection with Putnam Pike;
    4. The posted speed limit along the road is 15 miles per hour;
    5. The road appeared to be free of potholes, large cracks, uneven surfaces, debris, or other obstacles;
    6. There are no sidewalks or shoulders running along the road – pedestrians must walk in the roadway;
    7. The route is quite straight and relatively flat, with no steep inclines, but with some stretches of low rolling hills, some of which impeded visibility of the immediate road ahead;
    8. No streetlights were observed along the road;
    9. The road appeared relatively narrow and, although the undersigned hearing officer did not observe any vehicles passing each other while traveling in opposite directions, the hearing officer observed that cars were able to drive past pedestrians walking along the roadway, including the undersigned hearing officer;
    10. The properties along the road are rural residential properties – many densely wooded, with houses set back various distances, and some not visible, from the road;
    11. No intersecting roads were observed breaking the route between the intersection with Putnam Pike and Petitioners’ home although the route is broken by several driveways along both sides of the road;
    12. The SHR Turnaround is located across the street from Petitioners’ driveway and next to the Cobbs’ driveway; and
    13. The SHR Turnaround is paved and appears well maintained.

IV. Positions of the Parties

A. Petitioners

The Students’ position in this matter is that the GSD deprived them of “suitable transportation” from their home to school and back again, in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-21-1(a) when it eliminated their bus stop at the end of their driveway and replaced it with a stop at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike. Petitioners contend that (a) the GSD’s stated rationale for eliminating the bus stop was not based upon legitimate safety concerns, but rather was a cost-saving measure; (b) the GSD did not conduct a safety review of either the original route nor the new route; and (c) the location of the new bus stop exposes the Students to unsafe conditions, both as to their walk to and from the stop, and at the bus stop location itself.

B. Respondent

The Respondents’ position is that it is not legally obligated to provide bus transportation to the Students from their home on Sprague Hill Road to their respective schools. The GSD contends that, as to Student J. Doe, the distance from her home to the bus stop at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike is within the one-mile walking distance set forth in the school district’s transportation policy as it pertains to middle and high school students and there are no hazards along Sprague Hill Road that make it dangerous or impractical for Student J. Doe to walk to the bus stop. As to Student K. Doe, the GSD admits that the distance between the student’s home exceeds the one-half mile walking distance set forth in the school district’s transportation policy as it pertains to elementary school students. However, Respondent contends that there were safety concerns with the bus backing up and turning around at the end of Sprague Hill Road and, thus, the policy’s exception to the half-mile distance for reasons pertaining to the safety of the bus equipment and children riding the bus is applicable.

V. Decision

R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-21-1(a) provides, in relevant part, that

[t]he school committee of any town or city shall provide suitable transportation, . . . , to and from school for pupils attending public . . . schools of elementary and high school grades, . . . , who reside so far from the . . . school that the pupil attends as to make the pupil's regular attendance at school impractical and for any pupil whose regular attendance would otherwise be impracticable on account of physical disability or infirmity.

Id. Thus, school committees in Rhode Island are under a statutory duty to provide “suitable transportation” to and from school when the distance of a student’s residence from school renders the pupil’s “regular attendance at school impractical.” See id. In construing the relevant statute, the Rhode Island Supreme Court noted that § 16-21-1:

Should not be read so narrowly as to preclude consideration of factors other than distance in determining whether or not a child is entitled to bus transportation. The critical issue under the statute is whether the distance the child travels is so great as to make it impractical for the child to attend school regularly. The commissioner therefore may properly consider a host of factors affecting the practicality of traveling the distance to and from school.

Brown v. Elston, 445 A.2d 279, 282-83 (R.I. 1982); see also Houle v. Galloway Sch. Lines, Inc., 643 A.2d 822, 826 (R.I. 1994) (“municipalities must provide school-bus service to each such pupil’s residence that is located beyond a reasonable walking distance from the school.”) The Commissioner has made clear that, in addition to distance, age and hazard are among the factors that may be relevant. See In the Matter of Student K.M., RIDE No. 0036-00 (October 26, 2000).

Notably, a factor which is not relevant for consideration is the financial burden on the school district. As noted by our Supreme Court:

Section 16–21–1 requires the committee to provide transportation to students for whom it would be impractical to attend school regularly because of the distance they would have to travel. The commissioner therefore need only determine that it would be impractical for a student to go back and forth to school on his own to require that the school committtee [sic] provide transportation to the student. The committee cannot avoid its statutory obligation to supply transportation to students who would otherwise find it impractical to attend school by neglecting to set aside sufficient funds to do so. Similarly, it cannot shift to the students the cost of providing busing by forcing them to pay for public transportation.

Brown, supra, at 283 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Commissioner has stated previously that “[t]he district’s ability to pay (or inability . . . ) may not be considered as a factor in relieving the school board of its statutory obligation to provide such transportation.” Lori Ann B. v. Providence School Board, at 7, RIDE No. 0001-96 (February 14, 1996); citing Brown, supra.

The Commissioner has also recognized that convenience to the student’s family is not a relevant factor for consideration. See Student J. Doe, et al. v. Cranston School Department, at 5, RIDE No. 24-060AL (January 28, 2025) (“The law does not require school districts to change bus routes because families find them inconvenient.”) Finally, with respect to determinations as to safety, the Commissioner has made it clear that “[d]espite a natural inclination to defer to the judgment of local school officials who make the day-to-day assessments of the safety of school transportation arrangements, the obligation at this level is to make a de novo determination of this issue.” Lori Ann B., supra, at 5 (emphasis in original); see also George B. v. North Kingstown School Committee, at 3, RIDE No. 0034-92 (October 1, 1992).

With respect to safety, it is well settled that:

The analysis of whether the proposed route is safe for a child is, therefore, not premised on a requirement that any risk of danger be entirely eliminated. . . . Neither do we feel that a finding of ‘extreme danger’ is required to impose upon a school committee the obligation to relocate a proposed bus stop or to provide transportation to a student. Rather, the determination should be that the child's route of travel is reasonably safe, i.e. that the child is not subject to an unreasonable risk of harm by traveling the route in question.

Id., at 4 (emphasis added). Furthermore, whether a student is, or may be, accompanied on the student’s travel route to the school or bus stop by a parent or other adult is not a relevant factor for consideration. Id., at 3. (“[F]or school transportation purposes one must assume that a child is unescorted by an adult.”) Thus, the Commissioner has also recognized that “implicit in the travel of any extremely young child on any given route to school is an element of danger” which must be considered. Id., at 4. (emphasis added).

A. Student J. Doe

In consideration of the foregoing, we find that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden to show that Student J. Doe’s route from her home to the middle and high school bus stop located at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike is not reasonably safe or that she would be subject to an unreasonable risk of harm by traveling the route. See George B., supra. As a student at Ponaganset Middle School, the FGRSD’s student transportation policy is applicable. This policy provides, in relevant part, as follows with respect to students in Grades 6 through 8:

1) The maximum distance normally required of a student to reach either a bus stop or a school building within the school district shall not exceed . . . the distance established by the Foster and Glocester Elementary Districts.

* * *

Whenever distances exceed the maximum, school bus transportation will be provided if such transportation does not endanger the children already on the bus or the equipment of the bus company.

* * *

3) No middle school student will be required to walk more than the distance established by Foster and Glocester to a bus stop.

See Joint Exhibit 2, FGRSD Transportation Policy. The GSD’s Pupil Transportation Policy, which is incorporated into the FGRSD’s policy by reference, sets forth a maximum walking distance for students in Grades 6 through 8 of “one (1) mile.” See Joint Exhibit 1. This one-mile maximum walking distance in the GSD’s policy is reasonable on its face. See, e.g., Student A. Doe v. E. Greenwich School Committee, RIDE No. 18-063A (September 4, 2018) (Upholding district transportation policy providing for walking distance up to one and one-half mile for middle school students.) The walking distance from Student J. Doe’s home to the bus stop at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike is approximately 0.64 miles, which is within the one-mile maximum distance established by the GSD’s transportation policy. Thus, as Student J. Doe’s walking distance does not exceed the GSD’s maximum, the district’s location of the bus stop at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike is in conformance with district policy.

While Petitioners testified that they believe the roadway is dangerous, they failed to produce any expert testimony pertaining to a safety assessment of Student J. Doe’s route of travel, and rather, relied upon mere conclusory statements, together with surveillance video footage from Petitioners’ driveway and Petitioners’ own photographs and investigatory documents, to prove that the walking route was hazardous. It is particularly relevant that, with the exception of the 2023-2024 school year, the bus stop for middle and high school students residing on Sprague Hill Road was historically located at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike. Notwithstanding this fact, Petitioners produced no evidence of documented safety concerns or complaints pertaining to the walking route along Sprague Hill Road, or the location of the middle and high school bus stop at the intersection with Putnam Pike, prior to the 2023-2024 school year. In addition, records from the Glocester Police Department pertaining to the safety of the walking route along Sprague Hill Road show no incidents of speeding or unsafe driving conditions going back to 2021. See Respondent’s Ex. A. Gary Treml, the Director of the Town of Glocester Department of Public Works presented no testimony pertaining to unsafe conditions affecting the walking route along Sprague Hill Road. See Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 458:6-483:19. Finally, although Petitioners presented evidence of a registered sex offender residing in the area as being a hazard, Petitioners acknowledged that the subject individual does not reside on Sprague Hill Road or otherwise along Student J. Doe’s walking route. See Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 188:12-195:21.

Notably, Petitioners presented a great deal of evidence challenging the GSD’s proclaimed basis for relocating the school bus stop from Petitioners’ driveway to the intersection with Putnam Pike – namely, that the district did so in response to purported safety concerns pertaining to the SHR Turnaround. Whether the district’s declared rationale was legitimate or mere pretext for what may have been, in reality, an economic decision, is not relevant to a determination as to whether the transportation arrangement provided to Student J. Doe is “suitable” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-21-1.

At the site visit on January 9, 2025, the undersigned hearing officer observed certain conditions of concern along Student J. Doe’s route of travel – to wit that the road appeared to be quite narrow, had no sidewalks, shoulders, or streetlights, was broken intermittently by intersections with driveways along both sides of the road, and sporadic low hills which limited visibility at certain points. However, the route also appeared to be well paved, had a posted speed limit of 15 miles per hour, did not intersect with other roads, and was otherwise relatively straight with visibility extending quite far ahead at points. The Commissioner has recognized that “[a]bsent any specific hazards, it is... not uncommon for students who reside on rural roads... to be required to walk to a bus stop, and to routinely reach that bus stop safely....” See Students C Doe v. Foster-Glocester Regional School District, RIDE No. 24-011K (August 27, 2024), at 13 (Finding 0.8 mile walking route to bus stop along an unlit rural dirt road with no sidewalks and “spotty” cell phone reception reasonably safe for two middle school students.) Accordingly, while the route was not entirely devoid of all risk of danger, it appeared reasonably safe and well within the capacity of a 12-year-old middle school student to walk free of unreasonable risk of harm. Thus, the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Student J. Doe’s walking route to the bus stop is not reasonably safe or otherwise that Student J Doe would be subject to an unreasonable risk of harm along the route and so Petitioners were unable to meet their burden to show that the school district violated its statutory obligation to provide “suitable transportation” to Student J Doe.

B. Student K. Doe

As a student at West Glocester Elementary School, the GSD’s Pupil Transportation Policy is applicable to Student K Doe. As it pertains to students in Grades K through 5, this policy provides as follows:

1. The maximum walking distance normally required of a student to reach either a school building or a scheduled bus route within the Town of Glocester shall not exceed . . . one-half (1/2) mile.

* * *

Whenever distances exceed these maximums, school bus transportation will be provided if such transportation does not endanger the children already on the bus or the equipment of the bus contractor.

* * *

3. No elementary student will be required to walk more than one-half mile to a bus stop. Private roads may require a different protocol with regards to safety.

See Joint Ex. 1. There is no dispute that the distance between Student K Doe’s home and the bus stop at the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike – approximately 0.64 miles – exceeds the maximum walking distance deemed by the Glocester School Committee to be suitable for students in Grades K through 5. Our analysis attributes a fair degree of weight to this fact. Moreover, although Student K. Doe’s walking route to the elementary school bus mirrors Student J. Doe’s route, the risk of danger is not mitigated to the same degree for the younger student. The distance, coupled with the narrow roadway, lack of shoulders and streetlights, and the intermittent blind spots caused by the rolling hills and the numerous driveways emerging from densely wooded lots along both sides of the route collectively present an unreasonable risk of harm to a 9-year-old elementary school student. See, e.g., Mr. and Mrs. Robert P. v. Woonsocket School Committee, RIDE No. 0010-97 (February 24, 1997) (Walking route of 0.6 miles along a very narrow road through a residential area with numerous driveways and with hazards along the roadway including hilly terrain and no sidewalks presented unreasonable risk of harm to elementary school student.) Therefore, Petitioners have met their burden to show that the school district violated its statutory obligation to provide “suitable transportation” to Student K Doe.

To support its decision to eliminate the bus stop at the end of Student K Doe’s driveway and assign her a bus stop which is located beyond the maximum suitable walking distance established by the School Committee, the Respondent relies on an exception to its own policy which provides that the transportation will be provided if it “does not endanger the children already on the bus or the equipment of the bus contractor.” See Joint Ex. 1. We do not find Respondents position to be a viable defense. It goes without saying that school district policies do not amend state law and, thus, the Respondent is not relieved of its statutory obligation to provide suitable transportation to Student K. Doe by relying on its own policy exception.

Respondent claims that the use by the bus driver of the SHR Turnaround raises safety concerns, particularly in inclement weather, which endangers the bus and children riding thereon. However, it is significant that, prior to this case, the GSD had found it prudent for decades to have the elementary school bus travel up Sprague Hill Road, picking up and dropping off students at their driveways, and utilize the SHR turnaround – the easement for which was obtained by the town, and has been continually maintained thereby, expressly for the purpose of a school bus turnaround. Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 437:15-438:20; Jan. 29, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 62:5-63:5. Notwithstanding that fact, Respondent presented no expert testimony or report pertaining to the alleged hazardous conditions located at, or resulting from the use of, the SHR Turnaround.[2] Nor did Respondent offer any direct witness testimony of any alleged hazardous conditions along the roadway. Rather, Respondent relies primarily on hearsay testimony of Heather Busald, the GSD’s School Bus Coordinator,[3] and vague evidence pertaining to two unrelated incidents resulting from inclement weather – one occurring in December 2023 (Pet. Ex. 31) and the other occurring over a year later in January 2024 (Pet. Ex. 32) – to support its hazard allegations. Ms. Busald’s testimony was contradicted by Student K. Doe’s mother (“Ms. Doe”) who testified to her own purported conversations with the bus driver, Ms. Barberi, in which Ms. Barberi never complained about any difficulty navigating the bus turnaround and, conversely, informed her that the decision to remove Sprague Hill Road from the bus route was not due to safety concerns but rather the decision was made in order to add another road – Lake Washington Drive – into the route. See Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 154:7-22, 233:18-235:21. She also testified to being always present with Student K. Doe at morning pick-up and receiving her at afternoon drop-off and that she never witnessed the bus needing to back up more than once to navigate out of the SHR Turnaround, nor come close to the opposite edge of the road, nor come close to the rocks at the back of the turnaround. Id., at 119:6-122:21. Similarly, Petitioners’ neighbors, Daniel Cobb and Britney Alfieri Cobb, both testified to having never witnessed the school bus having had any difficulty backing into, or pulling out of, the SHR Turnaround, nor coming close to the rocks at the back of the turnaround, getting stuck or slipping at the turnaround, nor coming close to the opposite edge of the road, since they purchased their property in 2014. Jan. 29, 2025 Hr.’g Tr, 50:2-55:8, 62:17-66:8.

The testimony of Ms. Busald and Dr. Palazzo pertaining to a safety review purportedly conducted by the bus company, DPW, and the Glocester Police Department, was contradicted by the testimony of DPW Director Treml who testified that he never witnessed a bus sliding at the SHR Turnaround nor had he ever received a report of a bus sliding at that location, except from Clancy Hopkins, the bus company owner. Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.g Tr., 471:16-22. He testified that he did meet with Mr. Hopkins who expressed his dislike of the SHR Turnaround but that there was otherwise no further outcome from the conversation. Id., at 472:6-21. He also stated that he did not recall a police officer being present at that meeting. Id., at 469:11. He testified further that he never deemed the turnaround to be unsafe, that this was the first time he had ever had any issue pertaining to the SHR Turnaround in his tenure with DPW, and that to his knowledge there had been no other complaints to DPW about the turnaround. Id., at 471:16-22, 478:19-480:15. When pressed, Dr. Palazzo also admitted to being unsure if police participated in any safety review meeting with DPW and the bus company prior to her December 10, 2024 decision to relocate the elementary school bus stop. Mar. 24, 2025 Hr.g Tr., 533:16-23. Finally, Respondent also failed to present any testimony from a member of the Glocester Police Department pertaining to any safety review. Notably, the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicle’s Regulations for School Committees provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Each school committee shall establish and maintain a record of all school bus routes within their jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the start of the school year, and the public shall have a right to inspect same during regular business hours. The school bus routes shall be sent to the local police chief for review of possible safety hazards within ninety (90) days of the start of the school year.

280 R.I. Code R. 280-RICR-30-15-10.3.B (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondents submitted no evidence of any such review having been conducted, nor any evidence of findings of possible safety hazards on Sprague Hill Road having been made, by the Glocester Chief of Police pursuant to this regulation.

In summary, by relocating Student K Doe’s bus stop to the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike, the GSD placed Student K. Doe in unreasonable risk of harm in violation of its statutory obligation to provide her with “suitable transportation” to and from school.

VI. Order

For all the above reasons:

  1. Student J Doe’s appeal from the Glocester School District’s decision to deny her request to reinstate the middle and high school bus stop at the end of her driveway on Sprague Hill Road is hereby denied and dismissed; and

  2. Student K Doe’s appeal from the Glocester School District’s decision to relocate the elementary school bus stop from the end of her driveway to the intersection of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike is hereby granted and the Glocester School District is ordered to reinstate the elementary school bus stop at the end of her driveway on Sprague Hill Road.

Footnotes

[1] The hearing officer observed a shoulder area on one side of the road at the corner of Sprague Hill Road and Putnam Pike however it was further observed that the owner of the property posted several signs prohibiting trespassing or parking thereon.

[2] Notwithstanding Heather Busald’s logistics experience, she was not qualified to testify as a roadway safety expert.

[3] Ms. Busald testified to certain radio dispatch reports by bus driver, Kerri Barberi, of sliding and being afraid of going off an embankment during inclement weather and of being assisted one time by two neighbors who put sand under the bus tires. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 288:15-291:4. However, Respondent did not call Ms. Barberi as a witness to testify directly and the only documentation of any bus incidents submitted at the hearing were records of correspondence pertaining to two incidents, over a year apart, where the bus was stuck on Sprague Hill Road due to inclement weather. Pet. Ex. 31 and 32. Moreover, the record pertaining to the latter incident does not state where along Sprague Hill Road the bus was stuck nor whether it was stuck in the SHR Turnaround. See Pet. Ex. 32. Ms. Busald also testified to her conversations with Clancy and Kim Hopkins, the owners of Hopkins Transportation, who relayed the driver’s concerns and their own assessments as to the safety of the SHR Turnaround. Feb. 18, 2025 Hr.’g Tr., 300:13-301-1, 320:9-10, 340:2-10. However, Respondent also failed to call either Mr. or Ms. Hopkins to testify directly as to the nature of, and basis for, any concerns they may have had with respect to the turnaround.

/s/ Sergio Spaziano

Sergio A. Spaziano, Esq.,

as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner

/s/ Angelica Infante-Green

Angelica Infante-Greene,

Commissioner of Education

Date: October 30, 2025