Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That School Districts are Permitted to Provide Charter School Students with any Mode of Free Transportation

Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580

In Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist., No. 23 WAP 2024, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 92 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held  that Section 1726-A(a) of the Charter School Law (“CSL”), 24 P.S. § 17-1726-A(a), permits a school district to furnish different modes of free transportation to students enrolled in public charter schools than to students attending traditional public schools. 

BACKGROUND

Prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the Wilkinsburg School District (“District”) contracted with an independent bus company to provide transportation for all students residing in the District who attended its schools as well as for those students who attended charter schools located within ten miles of the District’s boundaries. Thus, students who attended these charter schools were transported to and from those schools on buses the District provided, pursuant to its bus contract. However, before the 2018-2019 school year, as part of ongoing efforts to safeguard its fiscal stability, the District engaged the services of a consultant from the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials to review its overall transportation program. Based on the consultant’s review, the District decided that it would no longer provide charter school students with school bus transportation. Instead, it would furnish those students with free passes to use public bus transportation provided by the Allegheny County Port Authority (“PAT”), now Pittsburgh Regional Transit.

On October 12, 2018, Bell and Propel Charter Schools (“Propel”) jointly filed a lawsuit against the District, seeking a declaratory judgment that the District’s furnishing of bus passes to Propel’s students did not constitute the provision of “free transportation” as Section 17-1726-A(a) of the CLS required. The trial court found that the District did not violate either the CSL or the Public School Code. The court reasoned that, although Section 17-1726-A(a) of the CSL requires students to be provided with “free transportation,” Section 13-1362 of the Public School Code expressly permits such transportation to be furnished by “common carriers” such as PAT.

Propel appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the trial court committed legal error by failing to conclude that: (1) Section 1726-A(a) of the CSL required the District to provide the charter school students with the same form of transportation that the District provides to students attending its own schools; (2) the District’s use of PAT buses to transport Propel students violated Section 23.2 of the Board’s regulations governing pupil transportation because the District did not receive prior approval from the Department of Education; and (3) the District’s use of PAT buses to transport Propel students violated Section 13-1362 of the School Code because this resulted in students having to walk long distances over unsafe routes.

Ultimately, a divided en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order. See Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist., 313 A.3d 486, 2024 WL 358515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Propel’s petition for allowance of appeal to consider whether “the Commonwealth Court erred in interpreting 24 P.S. § 17-1726-A to permit unequal treatment of school-aged students in the Commonwealth depending on whether the students are enrolled in a public charter school or in a traditional public school?” The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s opinion.

DISCUSSION

Section 13-1362 of the Pennsylvania School Code defines what constitutes “free transportation” and provides:

The free transportation of pupils, as required or authorized by this act, or any other act, may be furnished by using either school conveyances, private conveyances, or electric railways, or other common carriers, when the total distance which any pupil must travel by the public highway to or from school, in addition to such transportation, does not exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) miles, and when stations or other proper shelters are provided for the use of such pupils where needed, and when the highway, road, or traffic conditions are not such that walking constitutes a hazard to the safety of the child, as so certified by the Department of Transportation. . . .

24 P.S. § 13-1362.

Section 1726-A(a) of the CSL, in turn, provides that school districts must provide “free transportation” to certain charter school students:

[1] Students who attend a charter school located in their school district of residence, a regional charter school of which the school district is a part, or a charter school located outside district boundaries at a distance not exceeding ten (10) miles by the nearest public highway shall be provided free transportation to the charter school by their school district of residence on such dates and periods that the charter school is in regular session whether or not transportation is provided on such dates and periods to students attending schools of the district. [2] Transportation is not required for elementary students, including kindergarten students, residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles or for secondary students residing within two (2) miles of the nearest public highway from the charter school in which the students are enrolled unless the road or traffic conditions are such that walking constitutes a hazard to the safety of the students when so certified by the Department of Transportation, except that if the school district provides transportation to the public schools of the school district for elementary students, including kindergarten students, residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles or for secondary students residing within two (2) miles of the nearest public highway under nonhazardous conditions, transportation shall also be provided to charter schools under the same conditions.

24 P.S. § 17-1726-A(a).

The issue in Bell was whether the phrase “under the same conditions” at the end of the second sentence required that the charter school students receive the “same” free transportation as the school district’s students.

The Supreme Court explained that the first sentence of Section 1726-A identifies what and when a school district must provide to charter school students, namely: 1) free transportation; 2) to students attending a charter or regional charter school in their district of residence, or a charter school located outside but within 10 miles of a district by the nearest public highway; 3) on such dates and periods that the charter school is in regular session.

The Court then explained that the second sentence details who qualifies for such services, namely: (1) elementary students residing more than one and one-half miles away from the charter school; (2) secondary students residing more than two miles away from the charter school; (3) elementary and secondary students residing within those respective distances if the DOT has certified that walking constitutes a hazard to the safety of the students; and (4) elementary and secondary students residing within those respective distances under nonhazardous conditions if the school district provides transportation to the public schools under the same conditions. 

The Court rejected Propel’s argument that the “under the same conditions” language requires that the transportation provided to charter school students be identical to the transportation provided to district students because the phrase “under the same conditions” unambiguously applies only to students who reside within a safe, closer distance to the charter school. The Court explained:

had the General Assembly intended to require identical transportation between charter and public school students, it could have easily said so — and presumably would have done so in the first sentence of the statute, not the second, by simply inserting the word “identical” between “free transportation.”

Therefore, the Court held that Section 1726-A(a) entitles charter students to “free transportation” from their school district, but it does not mandate the district afford the same mode of transportation for all students.

PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

This case, which began in 2018 and did not conclude until 2026, has generated numerous decisions that provide useful guidance to school districts that provide transportation to charter school students, including:

1. Section 23.2 of the Board of Education’s regulations, 22 Pa.Code § 23.2, does not obligate school districts to seek Department of Education approval prior to amending their transportation plans. Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist., 283 A.3d 245 (Pa. 2022).
2. “Free Transportation” under Section 1726-A of the CSL includes all modes of transportation identified in Section 1362 of the School Code, provided that the conditions set forth in Section 1362 (distance, shelters and nonhazardous walking routes) are satisfied. Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist., 313 A.3d 486 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024).
3. Section 1726-A of the CSL does not require identical transportation for school district students and charter school students. Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist., 2026 Pa. LEXIS 92 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026).

Nevertheless, some outstanding issues may remain, including whether providing different transportation to charter school students raises constitutional concerns. These constitutional claims were not at issue in this case, and were only briefly addressed by the Court, but could be asserted in the future.  Therefore, school districts should consult with their solicitors when considering changes to their transportation plans.

For guidance on how this decision may impact your district’s transportation policies, please contact Christopher Voltz at 412-594-5580 or cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com.