Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 20-2-188 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 20-2-188 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 20-2-188

TITLE 20 EDUCATION

Section 2. Elementary and Secondary Education, 20-2-1 through 20-2-2180.

ARTICLE 6 QUALITY BASIC EDUCATION

20-2-188. Student transportation.

  1. The amount of funds needed by a local unit of administration to pay expenses of student transportation shall be calculated by the State Board of Education in accordance with a schedule of standard transportation costs to be incurred by local units of administration in the operation of economical and efficient student transportation programs and a schedule of variable transportation costs or variable cost factors dependent upon prevailing circumstances which affect, in varying ways, the cost of student transportation authorized by this Code section; provided, however, that the amount of funds to be actually distributed to any local unit of administration under this Code section during any school year shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the local unit in transporting students to and from public schools, including costs for transportation for disabled or limited-English-proficient students who must travel across local school system lines or away from the school to which they would normally be assigned if they did not have such special needs. It is further provided that the costs of the regular student transportation program receive full funding before funds are provided for transportation of students to and from places for the purpose of work experiences, training in instructional laboratories outside the assigned schools, and in other such field trips required of or integral to the various instructional components of the educational program. In establishing the schedule of standards and variable student transportation costs or cost factors, the state board is, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, authorized to consider factors and circumstances such as the number and density of students transported in the local unit of administration and the areas therein served by school buses; the suitability of school bus routes in the local unit; the suitability of the type and number of buses used by the local unit; the number of miles traveled by school buses in the local unit; minimum bus loads; transportation surveys, cost of transportation equipment, and depreciation schedules; the schedule of minimum salaries for school bus drivers established in accordance with subsection (b) of this Code section; the number of school bus drivers allotted to the local unit; maintenance, repair, and operating costs of transportation equipment; climate and terrain; condition of roads used for the purpose of transporting students in the local unit; cost of liability insurance; cost of safety instruction and training for both bus drivers and students; and such other factors and circumstances as the state board may find relevant for the purpose of establishing such schedules and cost factors. The state board shall have authority to establish minimum requirements and standards respecting use of funds allotted under this Code section.
  2. The State Board of Education shall establish a schedule of uniform minimum salaries that shall be paid by local units of administration to drivers of school buses, regardless of type of ownership, which shall be not less than the amount appropriated by the General Assembly each year but not less than $500.00 per month for 12 months. The minimum salary schedule shall not apply to drivers of cars and other vehicles not designated as school buses. Local units of administration shall not pay to any bus driver in their employment salaries less than those prescribed by the uniform minimum salary schedule but shall have the authority to supplement such salaries. The expense of purchasing, maintaining, and operating such buses, regardless of type of ownership, shall not be considered in establishing the schedule of uniform minimum salaries for school bus drivers. The schedule of uniform minimum salaries shall be used as a standard cost item for the purpose of calculating the expense of student transportation under subsection (a) of this Code section. This subsection shall not apply to student or teacher drivers.
  3. To the extent that the State Board of Education obtains a state-bid price under subsection (b) of Code Section 20-2-168 on any standard item of equipment, supply, or service used or obtained by local units of administration in connection with or as a result of providing transportation services to students attending the public schools of such local units or on any other standard expense incurred by local units, the standard transportation cost or allowance to be attributed to such item or expense under subsection (a) of this Code section shall be based upon an amount not in excess of the state-bid price on such item or expense.
  4. Students who live beyond one and one-half miles from the school to which they are assigned, according to the nearest practical route by school bus, shall be eligible to be counted as transported students for the purpose of calculating that portion of the expense of student transportation associated with transporting students from home to school and from school to home as authorized under subsection (a) of this Code section, provided such students are actually transported to such school by school bus or other vehicle made available for this purpose by the local unit of administration. Any student who resides within such mileage limitation shall not be eligible to be counted for school transportation state-aid purposes, with the exception of disabled students being transported.
  5. The State Board of Education shall establish and require adherence to minimum specifications for vehicles used or contracted to be used by local units of administration for transporting students, taking into account the factors and circumstances set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section, and shall establish and require adherence to minimum standards and requirements respecting maintenance, repair, inspection, and use of such vehicles and minimum qualifications for the drivers of such vehicles. The state board shall require, monitor, and fund a program of safety instruction in the practices of safe riding and emergency bus evacuation drills for both school bus drivers and students riding school buses.
  6. The State Board of Education shall have the authority to allot funds for the transportation of all public school students residing on Sapelo Island to the mainland of the state for the purpose of attending school on the mainland.
  7. The State Board of Education shall adopt policies, procedures, regulations, and other such requirements for transportation and for payment of all transportation costs pursuant to subsections (a) through (e) of this Code section for all students with special needs identified by the various local units of administration. Further, the state board shall allot funds to local units of administration for transportation costs for those students authorized by such local units of administration to attend schools and programs of other local units.
  8. The State Board of Education shall adopt policies and regulations relative to vehicles used for the transportation of students with special needs.
  9. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) through (h) of this Code section, funds to pay the expenses of student transportation shall be paid to an independent school system only when requested by the board of education of such independent school system. Any funds for student transportation costs shall be specified by the board of education of the independent school system in its budget prepared pursuant to subsection (c) of Code Section 20-2-167 and, if not budgeted therein, no expenses for student transportation shall be payable to the independent school system for the fiscal year covered by such budget. No provision of this article shall be construed to require the board of education of any independent school system to furnish student transportation services within such school system.
  10. The amount of funds needed by a local unit of administration during a fiscal year for sick and personal leave expenses of school bus drivers shall be determined by multiplying the number of school buses allotted to a local unit of administration pursuant to this Code section by a sum of money not less than $75.00. The State Board of Education shall have the authority to prescribe minimum requirements and standards for the distribution, use, and expenditure of funds allotted under this subsection.

(a.1)Any funds that the State Board of Education allocates for school bus replacement may be used by local boards of education to refurbish existing school buses. Bus replacement funds may not be restricted by the state board for use only in purchasing new or replacement school buses. Any school bus that is refurbished shall be subject to all safety and maintenance inspection requirements provided for by law. Refurbishment of a school bus shall be done by a school bus manufacturer or by a dealer of a manufacturer. Each local board of education that refurbishes a school bus pursuant to this subsection is strongly encouraged to apply for federal funds to retrofit the engine. The State Board of Education shall notify the Environmental Protection Division when a local board of education receives state funds to refurbish a school bus so that the division may provide information to such local board regarding the availability of federal funds for such purposes.

(Code 1981, §20-2-188, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1657, § 1; Ga. L. 1986, p. 880, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1169, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 321, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 326, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1302, § 14; Ga. L. 2010, p. 1001, § 1/HB 936.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1988, a comma was inserted following "transportation costs or cost factors" near the beginning of the third sentence of subsection (a).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1989, p. 326, § 2 provided that the 1989 amendment (substituting "$500.00" for "$422.38" near the end of the first sentence in subsection (b)) was not effective until funds were appropriated for that purpose. Such funds were appropriated in 1996.

Administrative Rules and Regulations.

- Student transportation management, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Education, Chapter 160-5-3.

Law reviews.

- For survey article on education law for the period from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 237 (2003). For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

State transportation assistance.

- State Board of Education's obligation to include students outside of a school area in calculating transportation funds given to the district depended on an interpretation of "school to which they are assigned" in O.C.G.A. § 20-2-188(d). The Board's interpretation, providing funds based on the distance students lived from schools in their attendance zone, regardless of the schools actually attended, was reasonable as it comported with legislative intent and used an objective, uniformly applicable standard to define a student's assigned school. The State Board did not have to interpret this phrase to mean the school a student actually attended. The district had no clear legal right to the funds the district sought, nor did the district show a gross abuse of discretion by state officials. Schrenko v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 276 Ga. 786, 582 S.E.2d 109 (2003).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Ga. L. 1974, pp. 1045, 1061, 1461, and 1462 and former Code Section 20-2-187, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Board's regulatory authority over pupil transportation neither controls nor conflicts with statutory equipment standards.

- State Board of Education has been given certain regulatory authority regarding minimum standards, specifications, and procedures for vehicles used for the transportation of pupils including children with special needs as identified by the various local units of administration; however, this authority neither controls nor is in conflict with the specific equipment standards set forth in Ga. L. 1970, p. 586, § 2. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-43 (decided under Ga. L. 1974, pp. 1045, 1061, 1461 and 1462).

Use of school buses by community groups.

- Local board of education may not allow community organizations or private recreational organizations to use a school bus for purposes other than transporting pupils to and from schools or activities which are an integral part of the educational program, even if the group pays all expenses associated with the use of the bus, except that local boards may allow community organizations or private recreational organizations to use school buses to provide transportation for the elderly and the handicapped if the costs of such transportation is reimbursed in full from funds other than school funds. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-34 (decided under former § 20-2-187).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Schools, § 278 et seq.

Liability of School Bus Driver or School for Injury to Child Going to or from School Bus, 13 POF3d 475.

C.J.S.

- 78A C.J.S., Schools and School Districts, § 1030 et seq.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 20-2-188

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Schrenko v. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 582 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 9, 2003 | 276 Ga. 786, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2482

...rtation funds to local school systems and reimburse DeKalb for its past costs in transporting students enrolled in the majority-to-minority transfer and magnet school programs. The trial court concluded that the State has improperly interpreted OCGA § 20-2-188, the student transportation statute, for nearly 40 years and ordered the State to pay $105 million to DeKalb for transportation costs incurred since 1978. This appeal involves two issues: (1) whether the phrase "the school to which [students] are assigned" in OCGA § 20-2-188 means the school in the student's attendance zone or the school that the student actually attends and (2) whether mandamus may issue to compel payment of state education funds to local systems for their past costs in transporting students....
...program costs incurred because of desegregation litigation involving the school district's former dual system of education. [1] On the state law claim, the federal district court held that the State's policy for funding transportation violated OCGA § 20-2-188(d), awarded $25 million in state funds to DeKalb for past transportation expenses, and ordered the State to base its future calculation of transportation funding on each student's actual school of attendance....
...st the State Superintendent of Schools, State Director of Transportation, and State Board of Education seeking to overturn the State's policy on state aid for pupil transportation that has been in place since the mid-1960's. DeKalb alleged that OCGA § 20-2-188 requires the State to provide transportation funding for *112 M-to-M and magnet school students and sought payment for costs that it had incurred in providing transportation for those students since 1978....
..., documents, depositions, and trial transcripts from DeKalb's federal lawsuit and a similar suit filed in federal district court in Savannah on school desegregation. [5] Ruling in DeKalb's favor on all issues, the trial court concluded that (1) OCGA § 20-2-188 requires state officials to calculate and pay transportation funds to local systems based on the school students actually attend; (2) mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the district to recover funds wrongfully withheld by the State si...
...nt transportation is, or ever has been, racially discriminatory. [7] Instead, the mandamus petition raises an issue concerning whether the State has properly construed the state transportation funding statute. The Student Transportation Statute OCGA § 20-2-188 is the provision in the Quality Basic Education Act that governs the State's allotment of state aid to local school systems for their costs in transporting students to school....
...additional expense incurred in transporting students in the M-to-M and magnet school programs, who often live long distances from the schools they attend. State Funding of Pupil Transportation The student transportation statute now codified at OCGA § 20-2-188 was originally enacted as part of the Minimum Foundation Program of Education Act of 1964....
...ct matter are construed together to ascertain the legislative intent. [11] Ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except words of art and words connected with a particular subject matter. [12] We consider the specific language of OCGA § 20-2-188 in light of these general rules of construction....
...school to which students are assigned means the school in the student's attendance zone, as the State contends, or the school that the student actually attends, as DeKalb contends. Given this ambiguity, we consider other relevant provisions in OCGA § 20-2-188....
...ls in the area of student transportation unless they have violated the law or grossly abused their discretion. [25] DeKalb contends that we should not defer to the agency's interpretation because the State Board has not consistently interpreted OCGA § 20-2-188....
...l course of conduct, [28] perform a discretionary act, [29] or undo a past act. [30] Under the statutory interpretation that we have adopted, DeKalb is not entitled to mandamus relief. State education officials adopted a valid interpretation of OCGA § 20-2-188 and reasonably exercised their discretion in allocating state aid to local school systems for pupil transportation....
...to pay future costs based on the schools that students attend. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except CARLEY and THOMPSON, JJ., who dissent. CARLEY, Justice, dissenting. I dissent to the majority's adoption of the interpretation of OCGA § 20-2-188(d) advanced by the Superintendent of Education (Superintendent)....
...In my opinion, the trial court correctly upheld the construction of the statute urged by the DeKalb County School District (School District) and, based on that construction, properly awarded the transportation costs attributable to prior years. Subsection (d) of OCGA § 20-2-188 provides, in relevant part, that [s]tudents who live beyond one and one-half miles from the school to which they are assigned, according to the nearest practical route by school bus, shall be eligible to be counted as transported students...
...we need look no further in determining what that intent was.' [Cit.]" Early v. Early, 269 Ga. 415, 416, 499 S.E.2d 329 (1998). "In all interpretations of statutes, the ordinary signification shall be applied to all words...." OCGA § 1-3-1(b). OCGA § 20-2-188(d) specifies a calculation of transportation costs based upon travel to and from home and the schools to which the students are "assigned." "Assign" means "[t]o appoint, allot, or designate for a particular purpose, or duty....
...istricts in this state, rural or urban and wealthy or poor alike. Moreover, basing eligibility on the proximity to neighborhood schools which students do not attend would result in a distorted reflection of the actual cost of transporting them. OCGA § 20-2-188(a) provides that "the amount of funds to be actually distributed to any local unit of administration under this Code section during any school year shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the local unit in transporting students to a...
...Here, the trial court did not exceed the permissible scope of mandamus by awarding damages or by ordering the Superintendent to reverse any previous administrative act or decision. It only compelled the payment of such accumulated additional sums as the School District was entitled to receive under the provisions of OCGA § 20-2-188(d)....
...McBrayer, supra, which is controlling precedent for holding that mandamus is an available remedy for compelling the Superintendent to pay the additional sums. Thus, the trial court's order was proper in all respects and should be affirmed in its entirety. In addition to the claim under OCGA § 20-2-188(d), the School District asserted an alternative theory of recovery based upon administrative regulations adopted in 1996....
...Laws 380, 381 (formula must consider drivers' salaries, number of transported students, and students' density per square mile). [20] See 1961 Ga. Laws 104. [21] See 1964 Ga. Laws at 16-17. [22] See Board of Pub. Educ. v. State of Georgia, CV 490-101, slip op. at 8. [23] See 1985 Ga. Laws 1657, 1701-1705, now codified at OCGA § 20-2-188; 1974 Ga....