Panel for Educational Policy to vote on school bus contracts next week – Spectrum News NY1

Report on New York City School Bus Contract Negotiations and Systemic Reform

Executive Summary

New York City’s Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) is scheduled to vote on a three-year extension for school bus contracts. This decision follows the rejection of a standard five-year renewal due to persistent service failures that undermine key Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The proposed shorter extension is intended to facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the city’s school transportation system, which serves over 150,000 students, many of whom are among the city’s most vulnerable. This report analyzes the systemic issues, stakeholder positions, and the proposed path toward creating a more accountable, equitable, and sustainable system in line with multiple SDGs.

Systemic Deficiencies and Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Failure to Ensure Quality Education (SDG 4) and Increased Inequality (SDG 10)

The current school bus system, supported by a $2 billion annual budget and operated by 52 different companies, is failing to provide reliable service. This directly impedes the city’s progress toward providing inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The system’s inadequacies disproportionately affect vulnerable student populations, including children with disabilities, those experiencing homelessness, and those in foster care, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities.

• Disruption to Learning: Advocates for Children reports receiving hundreds of calls annually regarding service failures, including students arriving after classes have begun or missing entire days, weeks, or months of school.
• Health and Wellbeing: Excessively long bus routes cause students to become ill and miss essential afternoon therapies and other support services.
• Exclusion from Opportunities: The current contract structure does not adequately provide for transportation to summer or after-school programs, effectively barring students with disabilities and others reliant on busing from these crucial educational and developmental opportunities.

Challenges in Governance and Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

The city’s bus contracts, which have not been fundamentally updated since 1979, lack the mechanisms for modern accountability required for effective and transparent institutions. The PEP’s refusal to approve a five-year extension reflects a commitment to stronger governance.

1. Lack of Accountability: The PEP Chair noted that bus companies proposed a contract with a 90% effectiveness rate, which would institutionalize the failure of up to 800 bus routes daily. This is deemed an unacceptable standard of service.
2. Outdated Contractual Framework: The current system renews legacy contracts rather than allowing the city to design service specifications and solicit competitive bids from vendors best equipped to meet modern student needs.
3. Political Transition: The PEP opposed locking a new mayoral administration into a multi-billion dollar, five-year contract, citing it as poor governance and a barrier to future reforms.

Proposed Reforms and Stakeholder Positions

A Pathway to a Sustainable and Inclusive System (SDG 11)

The proposed three-year contract extension is a strategic measure designed to create an opportunity for the city to re-bid all bus contracts. This would allow for the creation of a modern, efficient, and accessible transportation system, a key component of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The goal is to move from a system of contract renewal to one of intentional design that prioritizes student needs.

Stakeholder Perspectives

• Panel for Educational Policy (PEP): Advocates for a three-year extension to enable a full system re-bid, demanding greater accountability and better service to align with educational goals.
• Bus Companies and Unions (ATU Local 1181): Have pushed for a five-year extension, expressing opposition to re-bidding. They argue it could introduce low-quality bidders and cost the city experienced workers, and that accountability issues have already been addressed in negotiations.
• Advocates for Children: Strongly supports a full re-bid to create a system designed to meet the diverse needs of students, particularly those with disabilities, thereby advancing SDG 4 and SDG 10.

Legislative Hurdles and Labor Considerations (SDG 8)

The Critical Role of State Legislation

A significant obstacle to re-bidding the contracts is the need for legislative action from Albany. Current contracts contain Employee Protection Provisions (EPPs) that cannot be legally included in new contracts without state authorization. These protections are central to ensuring SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Protecting Labor Rights: EPPs allow drivers to retain seniority and pay when moving between companies, protecting the workforce during transitions.
• Preventing Labor Disputes: The absence of these protections in a re-bid process would likely trigger a city-wide strike, as occurred in 2013, which would severely disrupt access to education for all students.

Securing these protections through state legislation is considered a prerequisite for a competitive and fair re-bidding process that can reform the system without compromising the rights and stability of the workforce.

Conclusion

The upcoming vote by the Panel for Educational Policy on November 19 represents a critical decision point for New York City’s school transportation system. A three-year extension could pave the way for a transformative overhaul aimed at achieving greater alignment with Sustainable Development Goals. By prioritizing accountability (SDG 16), the reform seeks to ensure quality education (SDG 4) and reduce inequality (SDG 10) for the city’s most vulnerable students. Success, however, is contingent upon navigating complex stakeholder interests and securing legislative support to protect labor rights (SDG 8) while building a truly sustainable and inclusive urban transportation service (SDG 11).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article discusses issues related to New York City’s school bus system, which directly connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

   • SDG 4: Quality Education: The core issue is the failure of the transportation system to get students to school on time, which directly impacts their ability to receive a quality education.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article emphasizes that the system’s failures disproportionately affect the city’s most vulnerable students, including children with disabilities, those who are homeless, or in foster care, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities.
   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The focus is on overhauling a critical piece of urban public infrastructure—the school bus system—to make it more effective, reliable, and accessible for its residents, particularly vulnerable children.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The debate over contract extensions, accountability, and “good governance” by the city’s Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) highlights the theme of developing effective and accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 4.5: Ensure equal access to all levels of education for the vulnerable.

     The article directly relates to this target by highlighting how the failing bus system creates barriers to education for “children with disabilities, or who are homeless or in foster care.” The statement that “students missing days or even weeks or months of school” is a clear example of a failure to ensure equal access.

   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of disability or other status.

     This target is relevant because the unreliable bus service limits the inclusion of students with disabilities. The article notes that without proper bus service, essential programs like “Summer Rising, or after-school programs — and without bus service, those programs are often inaccessible to students with disabilities,” effectively excluding them from these opportunities.

   • Target 11.2: Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations.

     The entire article is a case study of this target. It describes the city’s effort to reform its “troubled school bus system” to better serve its users, with a “special attention” on the needs of its most vulnerable riders. The system’s current state is presented as inaccessible and unreliable.

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The actions of the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) directly reflect this target. The PEP’s refusal to approve a five-year contract extension because it was “not good governance” and its push for a shorter-term deal to increase accountability and allow for a full re-bidding process is an attempt to create a more effective and accountable system for managing the city’s transportation contracts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • On-time performance rate of school buses: This is an explicit indicator mentioned in the article. The PEP chair, Gregory Faulkner, criticizes the bus companies for proposing an “effective rate of 90%,” which he deems “unacceptable.” This percentage serves as a direct, measurable indicator of the transport system’s reliability (relevant to Targets 4.5 and 11.2).
   • Number of students missing school or arriving late due to transportation issues: This is an implied indicator. The quote from Randi Levine about receiving “hundreds of calls from families” regarding “students arriving after their first or even second class has already ended” or “missing days or even weeks or months of school” points to student attendance and punctuality as key measures of the system’s success (relevant to Target 4.5).
   • Accessibility of extracurricular programs for students with disabilities: This is an implied indicator for measuring inclusion (Target 10.2). The article states that without reliable bus service, summer and after-school programs are “inaccessible to students with disabilities.” An increase in the number of these students who can attend such programs would indicate progress.
   • Terms and accountability measures in city contracts: This is an implied indicator of institutional effectiveness (Target 16.6). The shift from a standard five-year contract renewal to a proposed three-year extension to force a re-bid and improve service is a measure of institutional change. The PEP’s demand for a higher effective rate than 90% is another indicator of increased accountability being built into the governance process.

Summary of Findings

Source: ny1.com