Students J. Doe, V. Doe, and Z. Doe, by their mother v. Cranston School Department

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

DECISION AND ORDER

Held: Parent's appeal of Superintendent's refusal to restore a previously-designated bus stop is denied by the Commissioner as the walking route to the bus stop did not violate the school committee's statutory duty to provide "suitable transportation" to and from school.

Date: 1/28/2025

On October 11, 2024, Petitioner, the mother of Students J. Doe, V. Doe, and Z. Doe ("collectively, Students"), wrote the Commissioner on behalf of her children who all attend schools in the Cranston School Department ("Cranston") to appeal the decision of the Cranston Superintendent (the "Superintendent") denying her request to add a bus stop along children's bus route to school.

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

The Petitioner has standing as an aggrieved party, 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). Petitioner has 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).

II. Facts

The following facts were found following an evidentiary hearing before the undersigned Hearing Officer on November 18, 2024 and are based on the numerous materials that were introduced into evidence by the parties as well as the testimony of: (1) the Students' mother; (2) a City of Cranston Police Officer; (3) an Assistant Superintendent; and (4) a Cranston School Department Transportation Supervisor.

1. Before the start of the 2024-2025 school year, Cranston enacted a Transportation Policy (the "Policy"), which stated that "Cranston Public Schools will provide transportation in accordance with State Law Title 16-21.1-4". Ex. C, Cranston Transportation Policy.

2. The Policy states that "the distance policy will be ¾ mile for elementary grades, 1 ½ miles for middle and 2 miles for high school students. Exceptions to this policy may be determined by the superintendent or their designee." Id.

3. The distance between the Petitioners' residences and the designated bus stop is not in dispute between the parties. Ex. 6, Transcript of Hearing, 52:12-17.

4. The Students are concerned that their route to the bus stop is unsafe, especially for Student Z, who is eight years old. Id. at 9:10-14.

5. Earlier in the 2024-25 school year, the bus stop for Student Z changed from the corner of Back Street and Fletcher Avenue to Britton Street and Fletcher Avenue. Id. at 9:5-10.

6. The Students contacted the Cranston Superintendent's office, Transportation Department, and Cranston School Committee requesting that the old bus stop location be reinstated. Id. at 7:22-8:3.

7. After their request was denied, id. at 8:5-6, the Students appealed Cranston's decision to RIDE. Ex. 7, Students Appeal.

III. Positions of the Parties

1. The Students

The Students argue that the route from their home to the bus stop located at the intersection of Britton Street and Fletcher Avenue is dangerous. Ex. 6, 9:10-14. The Students argue that the route to the bus stop is too far away and adjacent to a busy main road. Id. On one occasion, the Students' mother alleges that she was informed by the bus driver that Student Z was almost hit by a car because she was not present at the bus stop to pick him up. Id. at 9:15-20. In addition, the Students allege that there are no real sidewalks along the way to the bus stop. Id. at 22:15-18.

The Students also mentioned that Student Z has a medical issue with his legs that makes it difficult to get to the bus stop.^[1] Finally, they argue that their mother must be able to escort them to the bus stop in order for the route to be considered safe. Id. at 13:17-18:10.

2. Cranston School District

Cranston argues that the Students have failed to meet their burden to show that the route to the bus stop is unsafe. Ex. 6, 105:13-15. While the new bus stop may be less convenient for the Students than the old one, that is not the standard that the district is required to meet under the statute. Id. at 107:1-6. Moreover, Cranston argues that school districts are not required to ensure that parents are able to walk their children to their bus stops. Id. at 106: 11-17. Cranston contends that the route to the bus stop is safe and satisfies the distance requirement. Id. at 108:19-23.

IV. Decision

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 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-21-1. 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).

The law does not require school districts to change bus routes because families find them inconvenient. Instead, the law requires that school districts provide "suitable transportation" for students. See § 16-21-1. Whether a bus route is suitable is based on a "host of factors affecting the practicality of traveling the distance to and from school." See Brown, 445 A.2d at 283.

Specifically, the factors for determining suitability include "distance, age, and hazard." See Student A. Doe v. East Greenwich School Committee, RIDE No. 18-063 at 7 (September 4, 2018).

Here, the Students have not met their burden to show that the route to the bus stop is unsuitable or dangerous. Cranston introduced the testimony of a Police Officer in the Traffic Division who was tasked with monitoring the safety of school bus stops. Ex. 6, 91:23-92:9. The Officer reviewed the bus stop at issue in this matter and Fletcher Avenue. Id. at 94:21-95:11. The Officer testified that the speed limit for Fletcher Avenue was 25 miles per hour and that the street was not busy. Id. at 97:6-10. In addition, he had never responded to Tweed Street or Clemence Street for an accident. Id. at 97:17-21. The Officer found that—based on his experience as a patrol officer covering that area and in his role within the Traffic Division—that none of the bus stops on Fletcher Avenue were unsafe. Id. at 97:14-16.

While the Students testified that they believed the roadway was dangerous, they did not produce an expert witness and relied upon mere conclusory statements to prove that the route was hazardous.

The Commissioner has held that "lay opinions, standing alone, [are] insufficient to rebut the contrary opinions of [a] highway and traffic safety expert...." See Student C. Doe, et al., RIDE No. 23-038 at 6 (quoting Student A. Doe, RIDE No. 18-063). Based on the facts established in the hearing, the Students did not satisfy the necessary burden of proof to show that the roadway or bus stop was unsuitably dangerous. In addition, the Commissioner has held that bus stops do not need to be placed in such a way that parents can supervise their children as they travel to their bus stop. See Students M. Doe v. Bristol-Warren School Dep't., RIDE No. 09-0024 at 3. As a result, the Students failed to demonstrate that the walking route at issue was dangerous and thus were unable to meet their burden that Cranston violated its statutory obligation to provide "suitable transportation" to their children.

IV. Order

For all the above reasons:

1. Students J, V, and Z's appeal from the Cranston Superintendent's decision to deny their request to add an additional bus stop is hereby denied and dismissed.

Andrew M. Lentz, Esq., as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner

Angélica Infante-Green, Commissioner of Education

Date: January 28, 2025

Footnotes

[1] However, this issue was not raised in the Complaint, no notice was provided at any point prior to the hearing, and no medical evidence was ever provided as to Student Z’s potential disability. If the Petitioner wanted to pursue a disability claim under the Americans with Disability Act, it was not properly plead in this matter.