In recent years, getting kids to school has evolved from a predictable administrative duty into a fiscal burden capable of triggering structural deficits, service cuts, and Proposition 2½ override battles.
Locally, the Silver Lake Regional School District and Superintendency Union 31 are currently insulated from the absolute worst of the crisis by a competitively bid contract with First Student signed in 2020. Last month, the school committees exercised a Year 7 option with a highly favorable 4.51% increase. But as Plympton School Committee Chair Jason Fraser warned, “We’re going to be in a very interesting position when this contract runs out”. Fraser has bluntly characterized the current school bus market as a “monopoly”.
He isn’t wrong. A February report from the Office of the Inspector General revealed that 67 percent of Massachusetts districts received only one or zero bids in their most recent general education procurement cycle.
When our local contract expires, we will be thrown into a predatory market. Even now, out-of-district special education transportation costs are surging 10 to 21 percent year over year. In Plympton, an $84,000 surge in out-of-district vocational tuition and transportation for just two students essentially wiped out a $93,000 increase in net state education aid.
How did the basic function of getting kids to school become a financial vulnerability? And more importantly, what can our local and state decision-makers do about it?
To solve the problem, we must understand the structural forces driving up the costs:
1. A Disappearance of Vendor Competition: The days of shopping around for competitive bids are largely over. The school transportation market has seen massive consolidation, increasingly dominated by a handful of private-equity-backed national firms. Today, just four companies control over 50 percent of the national market. Without competition, districts lose all bargaining power and are forced to accept massive annual price hikes.
2. The Uniquely High Cost of Special Education Transport: Transporting students to specialized out-of-district (OOD) programs is the primary escalator of student transit costs. Statewide, it costs an average of $13,825 to transport a special education student, compared to just $1,045 for a general education student—a 13:1 ratio. This is exacerbated by Massachusetts’ stringent regulations on “7D” vehicles (typically passenger vans). The state mandates these vans be equipped with features like alternating flashing lights, backup alarms, and child reminder systems. These state-specific modifications add $30,000 to $40,000 in upfront capital expenses per vehicle. Furthermore, they must carry “Pupil” license plates, which legally prevents drivers from using the vans for rideshare services like Uber or Lyft during their downtime, restricting the labor pool.
3. A Severe Labor Shortage: The industry relies on part-time, split-shift workers. However, the booming logistics and delivery sectors (Amazon, UPS) have lured away drivers with flexible, year-round work that doesn’t require managing children. To drive a yellow bus, applicants must obtain a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), requiring 60 hours of training and passing a daunting “under the hood” engine components test—a requirement critics argue is absurd since modern drivers are strictly forbidden from performing mechanical repairs.
4. A Reactive and Broken State Funding Model: Massachusetts is a national outlier. It is one of only six states that relies on a reimbursement model for transportation, and one of only three that provides zero transportation aid to districts during the year the expenses are incurred. Under the Special Education “Circuit Breaker,” districts must front the entire cost of expensive OOD transport and wait until the following fiscal year for partial reimbursement. Worse, the state habitually underfunds its promises. While state law (M.G.L. c. 71, § 16C) legally obligates the Commonwealth to reimburse 100 percent of regional school transportation, the state has not honored this commitment in over 15 years, hovering around 87 percent in FY2025. Furthermore, non-regional municipal districts—like the elementary schools in Kingston, Halifax, and Plympton—receive zero state reimbursement for regular day transportation, leaving local taxpayers to foot the entire bill.
With contractor prices soaring, some districts try to take back control. Brockton Public Schools made headlines in 2021 by purchasing 64 buses for $5.4 million to build an in-house fleet, estimating it would save millions. It was a disaster. A 2024 internal audit revealed a dysfunctional department with a “stunning lack of mechanics”—just three mechanics for 140 vehicles. The district faced rampant driver absenteeism, had no spare vehicles, and had to rapidly hire private vendors at premium rates to cover dropped routes. Brockton is now considering relinquishing control of the buses and returning to outsourcing.
To survive this crisis, action must be taken immediately. Here is a guide for our local School Committees and our state legislators on Beacon Hill.
For Local School Committees:
Aggressively Pursue the Regionalization Study: In January, the UMass Boston Collins Center launched an 18-month study to examine folding our three elementary schools into the Silver Lake Regional district. If the elementary schools join the regional district, their current transportation costs become eligible for the state’s regional reimbursement program. This single administrative change could save local taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and relieve pressure on the town budgets.
Coordinate OOD Special Education Routes: Do not send a half-empty 7D van to a specialized school if a neighboring town is doing the same. Expand partnerships with educational collaboratives to co-route students across district lines. Sharing a van can reduce the base cost of a run by tens of thousands of dollars.
Demand Itemized Invoicing in the Next Bid: When the First Student contract finally expires, do not accept flat “daily rates” per bus. Require bidders to provide unbundled, itemized cost data detailing labor, fuel, maintenance, and profit margins. You cannot negotiate effectively if you don’t know what is driving a vendor’s 15 percent rate hike.
For State Legislators:
Pass Pending Relief Legislation: Rep. LaNatra has already co-sponsored H.513, which would create an “Extraordinary Routes Relief Fund” to help districts with severe bus, fuel, and driver costs. Rep. Badger has filed House Bill 4066 to combat predatory pricing by vendors. These bills must be prioritized in the current session.
Transition to Same-Year Funding: The state must abandon the archaic reimbursement-only model. Transitioning the Special Education Circuit Breaker and transportation aid to a proactive, same-year funding system will immediately relieve cash-flow strains on municipal budgets.
Create a Centralized Contract Database: The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) should host a public repository of all school transportation bids and contracts. Currently, districts negotiate in the dark. Allowing our business officials to instantly compare contract terms and daily rates with neighboring towns will eliminate the asymmetric information advantage held by national bus companies.
Review “7D” Vehicle Mandates: The state must evaluate whether the strict customization rules for special education vans provide measurable safety benefits over standard federal regulations. Relaxing these rules could lower capital costs for vendors and allow drivers to use the vehicles for ridesharing during off-hours, attracting more workers to the profession.
Fully Fund the Promises Already Made: The Legislature must honor its statutory commitment to reimburse 100 percent of regional school transportation (passing H.697/S.328).
The era of cheap, reliable school busing is over. If we want to keep Silver Lake’s education dollars inside the classroom, officials must stop treating transportation as an administrative afterthought and start managing it as the systemic financial crisis it has become.