Abstract
While school choice programs are often promoted as a mechanism to equalize educational opportunities for marginalized students, recent scholarship suggests that these benefits are frequently moderated by systemic barriers, most notably transportation access. This study investigated the intersection of transportation equity and school choice, examining how safe, reliable, and efficient travel serves as a primary determinant of parent participation and satisfaction. Using a conceptual framework grounded in social and economic justice, the analysis explored how the transportation gap—the disparity in mobility resources between affluent and low-income families—undermines the aspirational goals of choice policies. Findings indicated that while predominantly White, middle- and upper-class families leverage societal advantages to secure placements in sought-after schools, racially minoritized and low-income families face significant logistical constraints that effectively narrow their educational options. The study highlights the idea that for school choice to realize its potential for equity and liberation, policy designs must move beyond enrollment mechanics to ensure equitable physical access to high-quality options. The article concludes with recommendations for policymakers to integrate robust, subsidized, and multimodal transportation solutions into school choice frameworks to ensure that a family’s ZIP Code and mobility status do not dictate their child’s educational destiny.
Keywords
Introduction
Supporters of school choice argue that it equalizes opportunities for marginalized students who otherwise would not have access to quality schools (Ben-Porath, 2012; Chubb & Moe, 1990). Skeptics contend that school choice is more of an illusion, benefiting some families but not others (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2013; Pattillo, 2015). Debates continue over whether school choice has lived up to its promise of expanding equity of opportunity. Race and class contribute to families’ experiences in school choice programs (Jabbar & Lenhoff, 2019; Phillips et al., 2012). Predominantly White, middle- and upper-class families leverage their societal advantages to secure placements for their children in the most sought-after choice schools (Roda & Wells, 2013). Racially minoritized and low-income families face more constraints (Sattin-Bajaj & Roda, 2020) relative to affluent families (Mommandi & Welner, 2021). For school choice to realize its aspirational aims of equity and liberation, policy designs must ensure that families across all social and economic backgrounds have equitable access to high-quality options.
A major determinant of parent participation and satisfaction with school choice is their child’s safe, reliable, and efficient travel to and from school (Valant & Lincove, 2023). Regardless of the structural conditions that shape people’s opportunities and outcomes, such as race and socioeconomic status, families participating in school choice tend to make some sacrifices, particularly those who attend schools far from their homes. Students may face longer school commutes, less sleep, or a loss of connection with neighborhood friends (Valant & Lincove, 2023). For parents, getting their child to and from school may take time away from work or require expending scarce resources on a car or gas (Gottfried, 2017). Returning home from school can also be complicated by limited late bus options for students wishing to participate in after-school activities (Palm & Farber, 2020).
Studies have demonstrated that marginalized students encounter transportation-related inequities within school choice systems (Sattin-Bajaj, 2018, 2023). For instance, research has indicated that access to a private vehicle strongly influences which schools families can realistically request and attend—underscoring how car ownership, often linked to greater socioeconomic resources, shapes educational opportunities (Valant & Lincove, 2023). Further, studies have revealed that Black and Latinx students frequently endure longer commute times when accessing choice schools via public transit or school buses, contributing to cumulative burdens on these families (Corcoran, 2018). Collectively, these transportation-related burdens—spanning longer commutes, limited vehicle access, and inconsistent bus services—function as hidden costs of school choice. Such constraints may render choice programs effectively inaccessible to marginalized families, thereby reinforcing existing educational stratification (Burdick-Will & Stein, 2025; Corcoran, 2018; Valant & Lincove, 2023).
Although studies have examined how transportation influences families’ participation in school choice (Edwards, 2021; Jochim et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2021; Teske et al., 2009; Trajkovski et al., 2021), few have investigated the transportation experiences of parents whose children are already enrolled in choice schools. Furthermore, few investigations have examined how historically marginalized groups in particular experience school transportation in choice programs. Existing evidence suggests that disadvantaged families participating in school choice—namely low-income families of color—are disparately impacted (e.g., Bierbaum et al., 2021). For this study, we investigated how families in voluntary school choice programs experienced transportation to school. Doing so from a framework of mobility justice informed our understanding of access, fairness, and educational choice across a sample of families from diverse geographies and racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Our findings raise important policy considerations for school choice programs seeking to enhance educational access and equity.
Background Literature
Transportation has emerged as a critical yet underexamined dimension of school choice policy. While choice programs are designed to expand educational opportunity, access is deeply conditioned by the infrastructures that enable—or restrict—student mobility. Scholars have shown that transportation intersects with school choice in several interconnected ways: It shapes how families weigh preferences and make enrollment decisions, interacts unevenly with different models of choice policy, and reflects long-standing spatial inequities tied to segregation and disinvestment (Blagg et al., 2018; Rhodes & DeLuca, 2014; Yoon & Lubienski, 2017). The literature also highlights more specific constraints, such as the burdens of long commutes, the challenges of walking distances, and the contested role of bus transportation as both an equalizer and a site of inequity. Together, these strands underscore that transportation is not merely a logistical concern but a structural gatekeeper to educational opportunity.
Transportation and School Choice
School choice is an umbrella concept encompassing a range of reform efforts in K–12 education, such as charter schools, open enrollment, magnet schools, homeschooling, and voucher initiatives. Despite these variations, the central premise of school choice is to expand families’ options beyond their neighborhood or assigned public school. Because families must weigh not just school quality but also the feasibility of getting children to and from school, transportation emerges as a central determinant of how choice policies function in practice. Evidence suggests that many families face tradeoffs between geographically convenient schools and higher-quality schools located farther away (He & Giuliano, 2018). Moreover, some research indicates that families often default to the schools closest to them, even when alternative options are available (Mandic et al., 2017).
Families consistently cite transportation as a significant factor in selecting schools. Access to bus service or reliable personal transportation is strongly associated with participation in school choice. Additionally, proximity, commute time, and travel logistics shape parents’ willingness and ability to exercise school choice. For instance, Trajkovski et al. (2021) used a regression discontinuity design to estimate the effect of school bus availability on school choice decisions among kindergarten parents in New York City. Controlling for proximity, access to a school bus contributed to a 12–30% increased chance of choosing a school. Distance to school remained negatively associated with school choice participation but was less influential than bus access. Similar findings were reported among New York City parents of elementary students; that is, students who relied on school buses were more likely to attend choice schools than their zoned option (Cordes & Schwartz, 2018). In Indianapolis, Latinx families likewise rated transportation as one of the most influential considerations (Mavrogordato & Stein, 2016).
Additionally, convenience and location are prioritized more often by families attending neighborhood-assigned schools than by those choosing schools outside their assigned zones (Denver Public Schools, as cited in Cordes & Schwartz, 2018). In Denver, families with children attending their neighborhood assigned schools prioritized “location/convenience” (p. 16) at nearly five times the rate of those who chose schools outside their locally assigned one (44 vs. 9%). In surveys of lower-income parents in Denver and Washington, DC, a notable portion of respondents reported opting out of preferred schools due to transportation barriers (Teske et al., 2009).
The relationship between neighborhood context, available transit modes, and school enrollment decisions is well documented (Bell, 2009; Corcoran, 2018; Hailey, 2025; Hashim & Sattin-Bajaj, 2023). Commute burdens, including long travel times or complex transit arrangements, can lead families to reconsider school decisions, often resulting in students transferring to schools closer to home (Blagg et al., 2018; Stein et al., 2021). For low-income families, especially, proximity can outweigh academic performance ratings in school selection (Yettick, 2016). These patterns underscore how transportation logistics influence not only where families want to send their children but also where they ultimately are able to. Attention to the geography of opportunity deepens this perspective by, highlighting how spatial inequities in housing, transit, and school siting shape not only family preferences but also their practical capacity to exercise choice (Cobb, 2020).
Spatial Inequities and Historical Context
A growing body of research points to structural inequities in transportation that limit access to school choice. Scholars have emphasized how geography, neighborhood infrastructure, and school location mediate access to educational opportunities (Yoon & Lubienski, 2017). Low-income families in particular are constrained by limited access to personal transportation and inconsistent availability of public transportation options (Blagg et al., 2018; Rhodes & DeLuca, 2014). District size, a lack of coordinated transportation services, and the location of choice schools further exacerbate these challenges (Phillips et al., 2012). These spatial dynamics are emblematic of what Tate (2008) and others (see Cobb, 2020) have referred to as the geography of opportunity, where educational equity is inextricably tied to how opportunities are organized and distributed across space.
Racialized segregation has been a persistent and defining feature of the United States throughout its history (Massey & Denton, 1998), with contemporary iterations most notably expressed through patterns of housing segregation (Aaronson et al., 2021; Frohberg, 2024; Lukes & Cleveland, 2021). Despite the formal end of de jure segregation following Brown v. Board of Education (1954), residential segregation has been sustained through a range of systemic practices. Among the most consequential are redlining and White flight, which have profoundly shaped the demographic and economic landscapes of American cities. Redlining draws its name from a practice of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), which assigned risk grades to neighborhoods in the region in the 1930s. These graded risk assessments were for loans to borrowers attempting to buy in a given neighborhood on a scale of “A” (minimal risk) to “D” (hazardous). The color-coded maps of HOLC gave rise to the term redlining because so-called hazardous neighborhoods were outlined in red. Buyers in those neighborhoods, which were often predominantly inhabited by racially minoritized groups, would be ineligible for mortgage insurance. HOLC, in fact, held that these groups were a reason to mark a neighborhood as high risk for lending, which entrenched biased and disadvantageous practices (Aaronson et al., 2021; Lukes & Cleveland, 2021). Lukes and Cleveland (2021) further mapped these HOLC boundaries to modern-day school districts and demonstrated that historically redlined districts were less likely to have positive student outcomes and often had lower per-pupil expenditures.
White flight, in contrast, refers to the process in which neighborhoods or cities experience a rapid migration of White, often more affluent residents, leaving the area. In some cases, this flight is simply to other neighborhoods in the same city, whereas in others it represents an exodus out of the city itself, often driven by racialized fears and tensions (Mallach, 2024). Additionally, research suggests that White parents may use school choice to replicate their own past positive, and often segregated, school experiences (Rhodes et al., 2023). White flight is often related to redlining practices (Gibbons, 2024) but represents its own distinct driver of racial segregation in cities. Mallach (2024) argued that White flight provides a more compelling framework than redlining for understanding contemporary racial segregation in American cities. He contended that migratory patterns, shaped by racist sentiment and economic conditions, most directly account for the present-day urban effects of segregation. These structural and historical forces continue to constrain the mobility of marginalized families and influence the accessibility of school choice today.
Commute Distance, Mode, and Daily Burdens
Commute distance continues to be a core constraint in school choice participation. Regardless of grade level or school type, long commutes introduce challenges that affect both students and families, including early wake-up times, fatigue, missed instructional time, reduced opportunities for extracurricular engagement, and increased absenteeism (Burgess et al., 2015; Hastings et al., 2005). Among low-income families in New Orleans, concerns about distance were just as salient as concerns about academic quality (Harris & Larsen, 2014). Wealthier families, in contrast, are often better positioned to manage longer commutes due to greater access to private vehicles or flexible work arrangements (Lareau, 2014).
Longer commutes are particularly common among students from historically marginalized groups, including those attending magnet and charter schools (Burdick-Will, 2017; Corcoran, 2018; Cowen et al., 2018; He & Giuliano, 2018; Scott & Marshall, 2019; Stein et al., 2017). These commutes often come with tradeoffs, such as reduced time for family or community engagement. Surveys from St. Paul and Roseville, Minnesota, indicate that magnet school students travel significantly farther than those attending neighborhood schools, with correspondingly lower rates of walking or biking to school (Wilson et al., 2010).
Transportation mode also shapes commute length and variability. Car commutes are generally the shortest and most predictable (Lincove & Valant, 2018), followed by school buses and then public transit. Yet, averages obscure disparities: In New York City, students with the longest bus commutes—those exceeding 45 or 60 minutes—are disproportionately Black and predominantly enrolled in district choice or charter schools. Long commutes have a measurable impact on student outcomes, including increased absenteeism and higher rates of chronic absenteeism (Cordes et al., 2019).
Walking to school or to bus stops also reveals inequities. Although walking can be beneficial to student health and physical activity (Chen et al., 2018; Mandic et al., 2024; Rahman et al., 2020), not all walks are equally viable or safe. A lack of sidewalks and unsafe crossings can make even short walks prohibitive for younger students (Chen et al., 2018; Rahman et al., 2020). In addition, distance is a major contributing factor, with some studies showing a significant drop in willingness to walk for trips longer than 1,500 meters (Ermagun et al., 2016) or identifying thresholds that vary by age and location (Rodríguez-López et al., 2017). Distance from a student’s home to the bus stop has also been shown, in limited investigations, to be highly correlated with overall satisfaction with school transportation (Sakellariou et al., 2017).
Bus Transportation: Accessibility and Limitations
Finally, bus systems illustrate both the promise and the limits of transportation interventions in school choice. When available, bus services can expand access and mitigate inequities; however, they remain uneven and are often mediated by socioeconomic and logistical factors (Weinstein et al., 2022). Families may still face long distances to bus stops, safety concerns, lack of late buses, or schedules incompatible with work demands. These barriers disproportionately affect families without private vehicles or flexible transportation alternatives.
Disparities in bus use also reflect broader inequities. In cities such as New York, Black students are less likely to use school buses than White peers—even when living comparable distances from school (Weinstein et al., 2022). In some contexts, higher-income students rely more heavily on school buses, whereas lower-income and racially minoritized families are left to walk or depend on inconsistent alternatives (Rhoulac, 2005). The presence of a bus route itself does not guarantee equity: commute length, number of transfers, and bus environment all shape student experience and attendance (Edwards, 2021; Singer & Lenhoff, 2022). For many families, transportation becomes not simply a matter of logistics but a determinant of whether school choice is practically accessible (Denice & Gross, 2018; Singer, 2023).
Summary
Transportation is a crucial yet often underexamined element of school choice. The literature consistently demonstrates that access to reliable, safe, and convenient transportation significantly shapes families’ ability to exercise school choice and access higher-quality educational opportunities. However, structural barriers—particularly those related to distance, transit access, and the unequal burden of long commutes—continue to limit participation for low-income and historically marginalized communities. Addressing these barriers will be essential to making school choice a more equitable and accessible policy option.
Conceptual Framework
To critically examine transportation access in school choice programs, this study drew on the conceptual framework of mobility justice (Lenhoff et al., 2022; Sheller, 2018). At its core, mobility justice emphasizes that the ability to move—or to stay in place—is shaped by intersecting systems of power and inequality, making mobility a fundamentally political and justice-centered concern. Mobility justice expands the lens of transportation beyond infrastructure and logistics to interrogate how privilege and systemic inequities shape who can move freely, how they move, and under what conditions. It situates transportation not merely as a means of access but as a social right and a domain where broader patterns of exclusion and marginalization are reproduced. Mobility justice emphasizes that disparities in commute time, access to safe and reliable transit, and the burden of transportation decisions are unequally distributed across social groups—particularly impacting low-income communities and communities of color.
Our study drew more explicitly on Sheller’s (2018) articulation of mobility justice, which offers a multidimensional lens for examining how intersecting systems of power and inequality structure access to movement. Central to Sheller’s framework are five interrelated tenets. Distributive justice addresses how mobility-related resources and burdens—such as transportation infrastructure, time, and environmental impacts—are unequally allocated across social groups. Procedural justice concerns who has the opportunity to participate in shaping mobility decisions, whereas deliberative justice emphasizes the quality and inclusivity of those participatory processes. Restorative justice calls for recognition of and redress for historical injustices, such as displacement or disinvestment tied to mobility systems. Finally, epistemic justice challenges dominant narratives and centers marginalized knowledge and experience in understanding and addressing mobility inequities. Together, these tenets expand conventional notions of transportation equity, emphasizing that justice in mobility is not simply about access but also about reconfiguring the systems that determine who is able to move, how, and under what conditions.
In this study, we relied heavily on Sheller’s (2018) principle of distributive justice. We assumed that mobility is unequally distributed, with students from marginalized communities often facing greater burdens in accessing school choice options. Secondarily, we considered the notion that transportation systems tend to reflect and reproduce inequality (restorative justice) because transportation systems are not neutral but are shaped by policy decisions that advantage some groups over others. Applying these concepts, we examined how transportation policies intended to expand school choice may, in practice, perpetuate educational inequities by failing to account for the structural barriers that constrain access for historically underserved students.
This framework is well suited for analyzing school choice because it addresses how transportation systems often reflect and reinforce racial, spatial, and economic inequalities (Downey, 2003). Critical researchers have applied the concept of mobility justice to investigate differential access to school transportation (Bierbaum et al., 2021). Applying mobility justice to school choice highlights how some families must navigate complex, time-intensive, or unsafe transportation routes to access better educational opportunities, whereas others benefit from proximity and privileged infrastructure. This perspective aligns with existing research showing that transportation barriers disproportionately affect marginalized families’ ability to participate in school choice (Bierbaum et al., 2021; Lenhoff et al., 2022). By using mobility justice as a lens, this study highlights both the practical challenges of transportation access and the broader issues of fairness and inequality that shape families’ ability to choose schools.
Context for Study
The study’s setting was a metropolitan region in the Northeast that exhibits extreme residential and school segregation. A long-standing voluntary interdistrict school choice desegregation initiative operates to improve educational outcomes and provide educational equity for racially and economically minoritized urban 1 students. Options include interdistrict magnet schools, vocational schools, charter schools, and an interdistrict student transfer program. This study focused on the interdistrict magnet and city-to-suburban transfer program, the two main desegregation remedies.
The city’s school district enrolls ~30% Black or African American students and >50% Latinx students compared with statewide figures of ~13% Black and 30% Latinx. More notably, the district shows clear signs of historical White flight: <10% of its students are White, whereas nearly half of all students statewide are White. Overall, patterns of segregation in this city align more closely with White flight than with the effects of redlining.
Lukes and Cleveland (2021) included the district in their national analysis of redlining. They found that although the metro region carried a high risk of neighborhood-level racial segregation, it was minimally redlined. This finding corresponds with demographic data showing that the city remained >90% White into the 1960s, after which White families moved to surrounding towns while Black and Latinx families concentrated in certain city neighborhoods. By the 2024–25 school year, White students comprised <10% of the city’s student population. In sharp contrast, a neighboring town—separated from the city only by two commercial streets—reports a student population that is >50% White.
The metro region offers >40 interdistrict magnet schools ranging in grade level and curricular theme. These schools accept students from the central city of the metro region as well as a collection of surrounding districts and are mostly operated as parts of the public school host district. Some schools are alternatively operated by a regional magnet-operating nonprofit but are subject to the certification and staffing rules of public school districts. The transfer program offers city students opportunities to attend suburban schools. Nearly 30 suburban districts voluntarily open seats for this purpose. For both programs, school placements are made through a centralized school choice lottery that privileges certain priorities, including estimates of family socioeconomic status. In 2022–23, roughly 20,000 students enrolled across both programs, with magnets serving the vast majority (85–90%).
As noted earlier, the city district and surrounding municipalities demonstrate extreme levels of racialized and economic segregation. The two choice programs represent remedies to mitigate the racial and economic isolation of city students. The city-to-suburban transfer program is predicated on offering predominantly racially minoritized city students access to suburban districts that are more racially and economically heterogeneous. These districts tend to report lower overall class sizes and more experienced teachers, and they possess resources that are associated with positive student outcomes. Students from the city enrolled in the transfer program are provided with bus transportation from their neighborhoods to their suburban districts. The interdistrict magnet program, in contrast, is designed to reduce the racial and economic isolation of city students who attend magnet schools. Consistent with the original magnet school concept (Wang & Herman, 2017), these schools draw students from the suburbs and city to offer students a socioeconomically and racially integrated school environment. Prior research has found that both programs offer city students a more integrated setting than they would have attended otherwise (Bifulco et al., 2009; Cobb et al., 2008).
Against this backdrop, transportation becomes a central determinant of whether choice is feasible for families. Families participating in voluntary school choice programs are particularly reliant on safe and efficient transportation services. Busing in the program under study is highly complex given the region’s geographic spread, the number of students requiring transportation (~14,000), and the number of schools involved (~180). The program provides busing that spans >40 municipalities and hundreds of square miles. Any one magnet school may enroll students from dozens of municipalities. Some students attending interdistrict choice schools make multiple transfers to get to their destinations because centralized stops are necessary to transport students efficiently.
A prior analysis of why families declined a lottery seat suggested that transportation, although not the main reason, influenced their decisions (Cobb & Connery, 2021). The study found that 17.5% of parents 2 who actively declined their first-choice magnet school placement offer cited transportation or travel as a concern. Of these decliners, 10.9% referenced a transportation issue, 3 and another 6.6% indicated that the school or district was too far away. A similar study examined reasons why students voluntarily left a magnet school (Cobb et al., 2021). In that analysis, 45 parents (representing 57 children who left) were asked their reason(s) for leaving. Transportation ranked fourth among reasons, cited by 22% of parents.
The two prior studies suggest that transportation influences participation in the regional school choice program. The negative influence may be underestimated given the unknown degree to which transportation affected decisions for families who did not apply to the lottery in the first place.
This study 4 was conducted in response to a programmatic call to examine the transportation program to avoid practices that may unintentionally deter participation in choice programs. Our investigation focused on the perspectives of families participating in the program and how they and their children experienced travel to and from school. In addition to interviews with families, we drew on several other sources, including transportation complaint logs collected by the bus contractor, busing schedules, school choice lottery data, and reviews of program transportation documents and the relevant research literature.
The following research questions guided our study.
Methods
We employed a nonsequential mixed-methods case study design (Creswell et al., 2003), which allowed us to investigate how families participating in regional school choice experienced school transportation. The case was bound by the transportation services provided by the regional school choice program. Our analysis relied heavily on interview data from a sample of parents. These data were supplemented by quantitative analyses of geospatial data, including estimated walk times to bus stops and school bus ride times. We compared estimated overall school commute times between suburban and city-resident students and by choice program.
Data Sources
Parent Interviews
To collect parent interview data, we accessed student-level data for students enrolled in a magnet or transfer school between the 2017–18 and 2022–23 academic years. Annual K–12 enrollments averaged ~20,000 students in magnets and another 2,000 students in the city-to-suburban transfer program. Roughly half the magnet school students resided in the central city, with the other half living in one of the surrounding suburbs. The suburban transfer school sample comprised mainly city-resident students who attended a suburban public school.
The database contained student demographics, school, home address, and parent contact information. Using stratified random sampling, we selected students across choice programs, municipalities, and grade levels. We divided the list of possible participants into three groups: city residents attending the magnet choice program, city residents in the transfer program, and residents of surrounding towns participating in the interdistrict magnet choice program. We then sampled these subgroups in approximate proportion to their participation in the overall program. To avoid any town-specific effects, we also prioritized recruiting participants from multiple towns in the surrounding region. These strata were designed to ensure a broad range of voices across the choice programs while preventing any single perspective from being overrepresented. We employed rolling random selection, contacting 25–50 parents at a time, to obtain a sample size sufficient to achieve saturation from our interview data (Chitac, 2022). Obtaining the sample was challenging, with data collection occurring over a span of five months, from June to November 2023. In total, >500 parents were contacted via phone, text message, or email requesting their participation in a brief interview about their transportation experiences. We offered a $25 gift card as an incentive and modest remuneration for their time. Midway through data collection, we adjusted our sampling frame to increase participation from city residents, who remained underrepresented. We stopped data collection when we reached 44 participants, which exceeded our initial goal of 40 participants, due to declining response rates from contacted individuals over time. In addition, this analysis was conducted as part of a report to the state department of education for the state in question, and as such, it had a definitive timeline. Although more participants would have been welcome, after clearing the threshold of 40, we proceeded to analysis and interpretation.
We conducted virtual or phone interviews with all 44 parents, who collectively represented 71 children who were current or former choice program students. Of the 44 parents interviewed, 18 (40.9%) were from the central city and 26 (59.1%) were from a suburb (Table 1). Ten of the city parents enrolled their children in the suburban transfer program, five enrolled their children in a magnet school, and two sent their children (siblings) to both a magnet school and a suburban transfer school. Among suburban parents, most of their children (81.5%) were enrolled in a magnet school. Finally, five parents had withdrawn their children from a choice program. In terms of race and ethnicity, a little over half of our parent sample (54.5%) had an enrolled choice student who identified as Black or African American (Table 2). Another 11.4% identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 22.7% as White. Relative to the entire choice population, Black or African American and Latinx or Hispanic students were modestly overrepresented in our sample, whereas White students were underrepresented.
Parent Interview Sample Choice Program (n = 44)
Parent Interview Sample Race/Ethnicity (n = 44)
Using a semistructured interview protocol (Seidman, 2013), we asked parents about their experiences with school transportation and the extent to which transportation affected their decision-making process regarding initial and continued participation in choice programs. Each participant was interviewed once for ~20 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. All personal identifiers were removed from the transcripts.
Geospatial Transportation Data
We obtained transportation data from the regional program as well as publicly available bus route data from select districts to conduct a series of geospatial analyses assessing home-to-school distances and student commute times. Specifically, we accessed home addresses and 2022–23 bus schedules for all students attending a regional choice school who were assigned a bus stop. The bus schedules included the location for pick-ups and drop-offs.
The initial dataset included >13,000 choice students, roughly 86% of whom attended a magnet school in the 2022–23 school year. Given the complexity of the analysis, we reduced the dataset to a more manageable sample of 3,000 students. This reduction was driven in part by the computational demands of the geospatial analysis, which required substantial processing power and manual verification of results for accuracy.
These 3,000 students were drawn from a randomly selected 2,000 magnet school students and 1,000 students from the suburban transfer program. (The oversampling of suburban transfer students was intentional to obtain a sufficiently sized sample for generalization.) The magnet school sample was evenly stratified by city and suburban residence, with 1,000 individuals sampled from the city itself and 1,000 sampled from towns in the surrounding region. These 1,000 students were sampled proportionally based on the number of students the district sent to the magnet choice program.
We used these data to estimate the number of walking minutes from home to the bus stop, assuming that students would theoretically take the shortest walking path between their homes and bus stops. A code process using an embedded version of the Google Maps API was employed to calculate the walking travel time between a student’s home and their bus stop. The macro calculated the shortest walking path between the two locations using the API, assuming average conditions, without factoring in time of day or other conditions such as weather, traffic, or other factors. In some cases, no viable walking path could be mapped, most likely due to random computational error. In total, just over 1% of cases produced this error. These cases were dropped from the sample, and their positions was resampled randomly from previously unselected cases.
The data provided by the regional choice program also included their estimates for morning and afternoon bus ride times for all students assigned a bus stop. We used these data to further examine the total expected transit time for students participating in school choice.
In addition, we accessed publicly available bus stop locations, routes, and estimated times for pick-up and drop-off for all bused students in select suburban districts. The data also included the number of students associated with each bus stop. We purposively selected three districts that represented one inner-ring suburb, one outer-ring suburb, and one small urban district from among the regional municipalities surrounding the central city. Although the scheduled or expected times do not represent actual travel times, we assumed that they were reasonably close estimates of the time spent traveling to school.
Data Analysis
Parent Interviews
Transcript data were analyzed thematically through a process that included multiple rounds of coding. Following systematic procedures, we moved from narrow units of analysis (e.g., significant statements) to broader meaning units (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The goal was to understand and describe how families experienced school transportation.
We engaged in an initial phase of inductive coding to identify patterns in the data. We organized the first phase of coding in a codebook, which included, for each code, a definition, an example, notes, and a frequency count. Following this first phase, we conducted a second phase of focused coding to surface potential meanings that were especially pertinent to the research questions (Miles et al., 2014). During this process, we refined the codebook and wrote analytic memos. After coding all data, we created matrices to support interpretation and check for disconfirming evidence (Miles et al., 2014). This iterative process also included frequent returns to the dataset to help ensure the credibility and confirmability of our analysis. Finally, to mitigate researcher bias in the interpretation of data, we conducted peer debriefing and engaged in reflexivity (Creswell & Poth, 2018). We accomplished this by cross-checking codes and emerging themes to reduce bias and enhance trustworthiness and dependability.
Geospatial Transportation Data
For the geospatial data, we conducted descriptive analyses of the estimated walking times to school for the previously indicated sample of 3,000 incoming 2022–23 students from the choice lottery. Additionally, we estimated expected bus ride times for all students enrolled in a 2022–23 magnet or suburban transfer school. We also estimated walking times to bus stops and combined these with expected bus ride times to generate a total estimated commute time to school; we did this for every student with the understanding that our estimates for students who used car transit for any part of their school commute would not accurately reflect their typical travel experience. We disaggregated results by student residence group (i.e., city and suburban), by choice program, and by sending district for magnet school students. Finally, we compared expected bus ride times in the choice programs with those in three suburban public school districts. We did so to better understand how choice program bus commutes compared with those of traditional public schools.
Findings
Here we present findings from our interview data and travel commute analyses. Our interview analysis generated two overarching themes: parental adaptations and opportunity tradeoffs. Each included underlying subthemes, which we expound on below. Relevant findings from our geospatial analyses supplement our interview-based results.
For parents in and outside of the central city, school transportation presented significant challenges. Our findings indicate that transportation barriers, regardless of residence status, disproportionately impacted racially minoritized families attempting to gain access to improved educational opportunities for their children.
Parental Adaptations
A consistent theme that emerged from our interviews was that parents often relied on personal connections and made individual adaptations to navigate perceived or actual gaps in the transit system. They described a range of creative workarounds—from driving their children to the bus stop or directly to school to coordinating with local businesses to allow their children to wait indoors while they finished work.
Even among parents who were generally satisfied with the transportation options available, most described ways they had adapted to address potential shortfalls. These adaptations most commonly involved the use of personal transportation, often prompted by distant or unsafe bus stops or inconvenient bus schedules. In some cases, parents’ adaptations extended beyond simply getting to the bus stop or school, reflecting deeper efforts to ensure their children’s safety and punctuality despite systemic limitations. We expound on each adaptation subtheme below.
Personal Transportation
Approximately two-thirds of the parents we interviewed (68%) reported driving their children either directly to school or to the bus stop each day. For families without access to a personal vehicle, school transportation was considerably less accessible. Regardless of whether driving was a matter of necessity or preference, it frequently placed a burden on families. One city parent, whose children were enrolled in both suburban transfer and magnet schools, described how transportation challenges shifted over time: So the past three years, they rode the bus. Well, yeah, except for last year—I had so many complications with one of them that I started driving them to school most mornings. And then this year, I am driving them to school.
A suburban parent shared that car troubles had led to school absences for her children, explaining: “We went through a period last year where our car broke down, and like I said, it’s not walking distance [to the bus stop]. . . . So they missed maybe like a week of school. . . . it’s kind of inconvenient.” When she reached out to the bus company, she was offered limited alternatives.
When I didn’t have a car, there were just really no options. And the school had no resources for me either. They told me to maybe take an Uber or do this or do that, but they didn’t help with that in any way.
She added, “Even though they say every kid should have the choice of what school they want to attend, it’s not really a choice if you don’t have a car.” This sentiment was echoed by several other parents we interviewed.
Another suburban parent expressed similar concerns about the fragility of relying on a single vehicle.
If it broke down, I would try to either have someone else come and help me bring him, or maybe call an Uber. Those are the only options I can think of. But if it was more of a long-term thing, I would probably have to put him back into the [district] system and take him out of the [suburban transfer] program.
These narratives highlight a consistent theme: For many families, access to personal transportation is not only a facilitator of school choice—it is a prerequisite. Without it, participation in alternative educational opportunities may become impractical or impossible.
Social and Institutional Workarounds
In some cases, parents devised their own solutions or relied on local relationships to address transportation barriers. One city parent described how persistence eventually led to a bus stop relocation closer to their home: “I fought for this one, but now the bus stop is at the corner of our street. It took a long time to get that.”
Others turned to extended family or community connections to create safer or more reliable arrangements. For example, one parent explained that her child was allowed to wait inside a nearby business during inclement weather, whereas another arranged for her children to be picked up from their grandmother’s home across town lines. These strategies highlight how families drew on social networks and persistence to adapt to systemic shortcomings in the transportation system.
Geographic Barriers to Transit Access
Distance to bus stops emerged as a major concern among parents in our sample, particularly those whose children attended magnet schools while residing in suburban areas. Many parents noted that the nearest bus stop was too far from their home for their children to walk. One parent remarked, “It would be nice if they picked up at the house . . . especially if there are a lot of kids in the same neighborhood—it just would be closer.” Another parent in the same town, whose child was enrolled in the school choice program, expressed frustration that they now “have to bring him to . . . a bus stop instead of just sending him to the corner.” In response to a question about whether their child could walk to the new magnet school bus stop, the parent explained that although the stop was geographically close, it was not accessible on foot due to a forest obstructing the path, making the actual walking distance significantly longer than it appeared “as the crow flies.”
These concerns, largely voiced by parents from regional towns, motivated us to conduct a systematic analysis of home-to-bus-stop travel times. Our findings revealed a wide variation in estimated walk times. Among suburban students attending magnet schools, the median estimated walking time from home to bus stop was 32 minutes (Table 3). Drawing on both the interview data and practical considerations, we interpret walks of 30–35 minutes as prohibitive for most students, making it likely that these students are driven to the bus stop.
Median Estimated Walking Time from Home-to-Bus-Stop by Choice Program and Resident Group, 2022–23
The distribution of walk times for suburban magnet school students was dispersed (median absolute deviation 29 minutes) and positively skewed, with several extreme outliers (Figure 1). Although the modal walk time was 15 minutes, the mean was significantly higher at 44 minutes. Depending on age and route conditions, a 15- to 20-minute walk may be reasonable. However, our estimates indicate that 52.5% of regional magnet school students had a walking commute of 30 minutes or more, suggesting that for the majority, walk times were at the upper limits of what is typically deemed reasonable. 5
Estimated home-to-bus-stop walking time for suburban-resident magnet school students, 2022–23.
These long estimated walk times were particularly prevalent among students of color living in the suburbs. Black and/or Latinx students from regional towns attending magnet schools had a median walk time of 36 minutes, with 57.9% having an estimated walk time of 30 minutes or more. In contrast, non-Black or non-Latinx students had a median walk time of 27 minutes, with 49.0% reaching or exceeding the 30-minute threshold.
Our data indicated that many suburban students enrolled in magnet schools resided beyond a feasible walking distance from their designated bus stops. This finding is consistent with parents’ concerns about bus stop locations and walkability, as reported in interviews. Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative data suggested that for most families in the region, participation in magnet school choice was not viable without reliable access to a car, a shared ride, or other form of personal transportation.
Safety Concerns Along Routes to Bus Stops
Some parents expressed specific concerns about the safety of bus stop locations and the routes children had to walk to reach them. One city parent described their child’s stop as being located in “a really bad area. Drugs. It’s prostitutes. . . . It’s just really kind of hidden. And kind of dangerous.” This parent also noted that she did not “feel like the bus system really considers location when they’re putting bus stops,” recounting an incident in which her daughter had been followed home from the stop—an experience that prompted her to request a change in stop location.
A suburban parent of color with a child attending a magnet school explained that although their bus stop was “right down the street,” she did not allow her child to walk to it because “it’s dark at night and on the corner.” Another suburban parent of color expressed concern about her children having to cross a busy road in the dark to reach their stop, calling it “unsafe because of the time that they have to be there.” She also pointed out that a local public library, which had previously served as a safe waiting area, had closed recently.
Other safety concerns focused on traffic and infrastructure. One parent with multiple children in magnet schools expressed concern about her children crossing a busy road to reach the bus stop. Another parent, whose child’s stop was on the same road, noted the lack of sidewalks, explaining that they had to use a driveway to wait for the bus due to the lack of a designated area.
Overall, roughly one-fifth (22%) of parents interviewed reported positive experiences with their bus stop locations, primarily those living in suburban areas who received door-to-door or nearby service. One White suburban parent shared: “It certainly made it easier because we live in the same town as the magnet school. We get door-to-door transportation.” Another White suburban parent described a smooth morning routine: “It consists of us walking to the bus stop at the end of our mailbox, and the bus meets us there.” However, this same parent noted that she did not intend to enroll her child in other choice schools after the terminal grade, citing the quality of local options. In a few cases, parents found bus stops convenient when they were located near or at childcare centers that coordinated with the choice program. As one suburban parent explained: “I bring them to a daycare in town. And then from the daycare, they’re bused to school.”
Spatiotemporal Transit Burdens
In several cases, parents reported that their child’s bus stop location disrupted their daily routines and work schedules. One suburban parent described the challenge of managing both drop-off and pick-up: “It’s so hard to get them there [the bus stop] and then back in the morning, or in the evening, trying to pick them up is difficult.” Another city parent of an elementary student highlighted the tension between centralized bus stops and scheduling, explaining that “when parents are waiting at a bus stop that is not near their own home or not in their neighborhood, they might have a scheduling conflict if the bus is even 10 to 15 minutes late.”
For some parents, the bus stop schedule and location were so misaligned with their circumstances that they were effectively excluded from using school transportation. A suburban parent of color explained why she had no choice but to drive her child to school daily: I felt like that’s the way to shut out some of the parents who honestly have no option. There is no option for me—other than to take her myself. Because there’s absolutely no way—based on my schedule, based on where I live—for us to be able to get her bus to school. There’s just no option. And then on top of that, I’m being told, well, you’ll either have to take her or she can’t be in school.
Not all parents found bus stop timing to be a burden. Some described how their work arrangements provided flexibility that allowed them to accommodate school transportation. One White suburban parent shared that she could “easily” get her children to the stop because she worked from home with flexible hours. Another parent in the same town worked the night shift and described how her schedule aligned well with morning bus drop-off: “I get them on the bus right when I get home from work.” Together, these accounts illustrate how access to school transportation is shaped not only by infrastructure but also by parental employment schedules and the spatial relationship between home and the bus stop.
Unreliable Bus Communication and Parental Adaptations
Another common form of parental adaptation we observed in interviews involved navigating real-time communication challenges with the bus system. Although the transportation service offers automated voice updates, as well as digital bus tracking accessible via mobile devices, many parents reported that the systems were unreliable or ineffective. Nearly half (48%) of parents in our sample mentioned issues with communication between the transportation provider and families. One city parent explained, “Sometimes we’d get a call saying the bus was 10 to 20 minutes away from our scheduled stop time, but it was already past that window.”
In response to the system’s undependability, several parents developed alternative strategies. Some sought direct communication with drivers, exchanging personal contact information to receive more timely updates. One suburban parent shared: They finally found a permanent driver that I exchanged phone numbers with so we could actually communicate. She would say, “Hey, I’m running late today,” and I’d call the bus company and say, “How come my driver can tell me she’s late, but you don’t send out a notification?” She was really good about communicating. That was my biggest issue—there was no communication. We’d be sitting there at 7:30 and still hadn’t gotten a notification.
Efforts to improve communication through formal channels were sometimes met with resistance. One city parent recounted an unsuccessful attempt to engage the bus company in problem solving: When I called the bus company to ask if we could sit down and talk through solutions, I felt shut down. They said, “No, we don’t have anybody visit because of COVID.” But this was last year, when it felt more like a company decision than a public health necessity. I felt unsupported, like there was no willingness to help.
In some cases, parents invested in additional technology to compensate for inconsistent bus tracking. One city parent purchased a GPS watch for her child.
The bus was consistently outside of that window—enough that none of us came at the beginning of that window anymore. It was so inconsistent that I bought a GPS watch, so I’d know where they were. There were days when they were 40 minutes late.
Although two of the three bus companies in the region offered GPS tracking services, none of the parents in our sample reported using them, suggesting a possible gap in awareness, accessibility, or reliability.
Opportunity Tradeoffs
Our analysis of parent interviews revealed that school transportation often involved tradeoffs that shaped educational opportunities. Parents were frequently required to weigh their values and family logistics when making school decisions. Although transportation posed a challenge for many, a majority still viewed the academic benefits of school choice as outweighing the associated burdens. Notably, transportation influenced not only the initial decision to enroll in choice programs but also parents’ ability to sustain participation over time.
Choice Schools Worth the Sacrifice
Despite a substantial majority (71%) of parents reporting concerns about school transportation, many felt that the educational experiences their children were receiving justified the challenges they faced. These parents either held an overall positive view of the transportation system or believed the required sacrifices were “worth it.” As one suburban parent explained: I want to say yes—transportation is a huge benefit, but . . . [I’m] making all these sacrifices to get my kid to school so that they can have a better experience. It was hard those couple of years. The thing is, my kids really need to go to that school. They do not fit in at our local school, and the magnet schools are truly a blessing to my family. So to get them there, I would do anything. But, at the same time, transportation is such a huge benefit to my family. Like, truly . . . this is the best.
Similarly, a city parent whose child attended a suburban transfer school noted: If there was no transportation, I would have to consider even moving to [town]—which I would do because I love the school system. But maybe they’d be going to a different school that’s a little bit closer. So yeah, if there was no transportation, they probably wouldn’t be going to that school.
For other families, the sacrifices were more acute. In some cases, parents were forced to make difficult decisions about which of their children could participate in a choice program. A suburban parent shared: We were in a position where we had to choose whose education is more important [due to transportation constraints]—and it’s a horrible way to put it—but we have one son, our oldest, who’s very into computer technology and design. He flourished. He’s in AP classes. I’m like, this is important for him. He needs this type of education. Our youngest, he’s more about community and sports, and he’ll probably end up going to a trade school. So I’m like, alright, you know, having him back in [the local district] won’t kill him for the next three years.
This parent was forced to make a difficult tradeoff because they were unable to get both their children to different magnet schools due to transportation constraints. In such cases, parents balanced their children’s educational needs and personal dispositions, often making strategic decisions based on age, interests, and the perceived adequacy of local schooling options. While none of the parents expressed acute distress over having to prioritize one child over another, the process of making those decisions was a recurring theme in family narratives.
Our analysis of parent interviews revealed that school transportation created tradeoffs in educational opportunities. Parents had to prioritize their values when making school choices, yet many believed that the benefits of school choice outweighed the transportation challenges. Although academic opportunities were a key factor in their decisions, transportation significantly influenced both initial enrollment and continued participation in choice programs.
Bus Ride Times Substantial for Some Students
Long bus rides emerged as a concern in both our geospatial analysis and in parent interviews. In some cases, parents made school choice and, in at least one case, residential location decisions based on transportation needs. One regional parent of color explained that their family decided to move to the central city to “have more education choices and so that [their] transportation wouldn’t be that long.”
Further evidence of additional burdens on certain families was evident in our comparative analysis of bus ride travel times. We disaggregated the data by distinct ride time thresholds of 30 minutes or more and 60 minutes or more. 6 Among city-resident students enrolled in a suburban transfer school, 88.1% had expected ride times of >30 minutes, and 18.6% had rides >60 minutes compared with 72.3 and 11.0%, respectively, of magnet school students (Table 4). For magnet schools, the typical suburban student had slightly longer bus rides (median = 39 minutes) compared with city-resident students (median = 36 minutes).
Expected Bus Ride Times by Choice Program and Student Resident Group, 2022–23
To gain insight into how ride times for regional choice program students compare with those of students attending their local (non-choice) schools, we calculated expected bus ride times for students in a small sample of districts. We selected three municipalities to represent a range of geographies in the choice program region and because their district bus route data were publicly available. Using 2021–22 bus route information for the after-school drop-off, we calculated the time between students’ scheduled departure from school and their scheduled drop-off time at their bus stop.
A possible limitation of our measure was that we assumed one student per stop location, which may introduce measurement error. Overall, however, this assumption should have minimal impact when comparing ride times at a basic descriptive level. District A students traveling to a district school had a median expected travel time of 12 minutes compared with 43 minutes for District A students traveling to magnet schools. District B students transported within the district had an expected median ride time of 14 minutes compared with 41 minutes for students going to magnet schools. Finally, District C students had a median ride time of 17 minutes compared with 42 minutes for city and suburban magnet school students. In all three cases, attendance in magnet school programs represented a substantial increase in expected bus ride times for students; this finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating that choice students experience longer bus rides than they would have if attending their neighborhood-assigned district schools (Corcoran, 2018).
Inaccessible School-Based Activities
A handful of parents mentioned that they were disappointed that extracurricular activities at school were inaccessible to their children due to a lack of transportation. A parent whose child was enrolled in the suburban transfer program raised the availability of after-school activities as a potential issue of equity, saying that “if you ask any of the [central city] family parents about our kids, especially the kids, they would tell you that there are barriers to their participation [in] after-school activities. So not equitable.” She specifically spoke about the possibility of city students missing out on opportunities to develop connections with peers in the district through after-school extracurricular activities such as clubs or sports. She also worried that the system, as it was, “singled out” city students in the suburban transfer program, noting that when they missed out on these opportunities, “then everybody also knows who the [city] kids are.”
Other families who were offered transportation for after-school activities expressed their frustration, mentioning that the bus was often unreliable. One suburban parent explained: So there was an after-school bus for certain after-school activities. Horrible. Several times the bus didn’t show up to pick them up from the after-school activity. So I was waiting at the bus stop, and I was texting her and calling her, and she’s like, “No, there’s no bus here.” And I’m like, “Hey, I’m just going to come pick you up,” and then when I got to the school, the coordinator would be like, “I have no clue where the bus is. The bus never came, or the bus was supposed to pick them up at 4.” Sometimes it would show up at like 5. I just got in the habit of just picking her up.
Another suburban parent noted that their son’s bus “sometimes does not pick him up from the school until as late as 5:30 or even 6:00. And so you can imagine he’s the last stop. . . . So when he has after-school activities, we have no idea, really, what time he’s actually going to arrive.”
Furthermore, some parents expressed concern that transportation interfered with local activities or extracurriculars because the buses often arrived late. One suburban parent said it was hard to get her daughter to certain programs and that “she’s missing out on stuff because you don’t know when the bus is going to be early or when it’s going to be late.” Another parent noted that “the only thing that is really hard for us [about transportation] is after-school sports.” They specifically singled out that their town had only one late bus for all students in city magnets, and so if an activity’s schedule did not align with that one bus, they would have to miss it.
Extreme Commute Times, Particularly for Less Advantaged Students
To gauge total commute time to school by choice program and resident group, we combined estimated commute times for home-to-bus-stop walks and bus-stop-to-school bus rides. The resulting totals represent approximations because the underlying data that produced the median times for each segment were derived from different student populations. Furthermore, estimated walk times for suburban residents do not necessarily translate to actual travel times because most students with longer walks (e.g., 15–20 minutes or more) were likely driven to their stops. Wait times at bus stops could not be accounted for. Despite these limitations, we are confident that the approximations provide useful relative comparisons of travel times across groups.
Figure 2 shows that city residents attending a suburban transfer school had a median home-to-bus-stop walking time of 2 minutes and a median expected bus ride of 44 minutes, totaling 46 minutes of transit time. City-resident magnet school students had a median 4-minute walk to the bus stop and a median bus ride of 36 minutes, resulting in a combined 40 minutes of total travel time. In sharp contrast, suburban students attending a magnet school had a median estimated walk time to the bus stop of 32 minutes and a bus ride of 38 minutes, indicating a total travel time of 1 hour and 10 minutes. Again, it is unlikely that many students walk 32 minutes to reach their stop—they are more apt to be driven—but the extensive median walking time among suburban students attending a magnet school is indicative of the additional effort required of this group to attend a magnet school.
Estimated total commute times to school by choice program and student residence.
As with estimated home-to-bus-stop walking times, total estimated home-to-school travel times were substantially longer for students of color attending regional magnet schools. Black and/or Latinx students attending magnet schools had a median estimated home-to-bus-stop walk of 36 minutes and a median bus ride time of 41 minutes, for an expected total commute time of 1 hour and 17 minutes (not accounting for stop waits). This exceeded that of their non-Black or non-Latinx peers, who had a median home-to-bus-stop walk of 27 minutes and a median bus ride of 36 minutes, for a total commute of 1 hour and 3 minutes. These data underscore a distributive mobility justice concern, as students from historically marginalized backgrounds bear a disproportionate share of the transportation burden compared with their peers.
A Preference for Home-District Options
For some parents, transportation stressors were especially burdensome. Some parents much preferred their local or neighborhood-assigned school transportation options but were still intent on keeping their children enrolled in a magnet school. They lamented the fact that their local school offered either neighborhood or door-to-door transportation, and the magnet program limited them to stops that were farther away. One parent, whose children attended different magnet schools, said that their local district would “pick the kids up in a reasonable location where they could walk to” as opposed to the magnet transportation stop, which was too far away to travel by foot. Similarly, another parent in the same district said that when her child attended the local school system, “the bus would pick her up right at the corner of where we live, so it was much easier for me to be able to maneuver getting her to school, picking her up.”
In fact, some parents expressed regret that they had enrolled their children in school choice in the first place due to these issues. One suburban parent said that due to the difficulty of the distance to the bus stop, along with other issues with the transit system, if she were redoing her school choice, she “definitely would have kept my kids in [local district], like in the public school, because it would have brought a lot less stress to my family.” Another parent in a similar situation said that looking back at her school choice decision, she “would definitely choose to have just kept them in the school where they could use the public [school] transportation for our family. It would just make it so much easier.”
Other parents preferred their local options for transit so much that they had withdrawn or planned to withdraw their students from the magnet school after graduation. One suburban parent who had chosen not to pursue further magnet enrollment after her children finished an early childhood magnet said that this decision was “partly also just because they’re in a town school, we get the luxury of, like, a very convenient pick-up spot.”
For a small number of parents (n = 5), their experience with transportation was so negative that they had already decided to remove their child from the regional choice program. One suburban parent mentioned that she had made the choice not to continue enrolling her child in magnet schools in part “because [if] they’re in a town school, we get the luxury of . . . a very convenient pick-up spot.” She specified that this was a major factor in her decision process. Another parent living in the same town said that she specifically pulled her kids from the magnet school program “because of the transportation issues.”
Study Limitations
The study has several limitations. For instance, the findings are likely influenced by selection bias among interview participants. A large percentage of the parents we invited did not respond, leaving only those who volunteered as our participants. The interview sample consisted of families currently participating in the regional school choice program, excluding those who had left the program due to transportation issues. Parents who felt that the benefits of school choice outweighed the burdens of transportation also may be overrepresented. Moreover, parents who volunteered to participate may hold more critical views than those who did not or may be relatively more advantaged, including having the time to be interviewed. Collectively, these factors may limit the representativeness of the sample. Lastly, as noted earlier, our estimates of walk times to bus stops relied on approximation measures that assumed one student per stop location, which may introduce measurement error.
Discussion and Implications
Transportation challenges are an inherent feature of any large-scale school busing operation. Some routes are inevitably longer than others, and occasional delays can disrupt daily routines. The regional school choice program examined in this study has made concerted efforts to mitigate such issues, offering several supports to families (see Cobb et al., 2024). These include an electronic notification system that provides updates via phone, email, or text as well as automated phone calls in the event of accidents or significant delays. Although not universally used, a GPS tracking feature is available to parents for the real-time location of their child’s bus. The program also deploys extra customer-service staff during the high-volume start-of-year period and offers travel reimbursements under specific conditions to families who drive their children to school.
Despite these supports, our analysis revealed transportation-related barriers that disproportionately affect historically marginalized families. Through a transportation equity lens, it became evident that families of color tended to bear the heaviest burdens in navigating school choice logistics. Common challenges included long bus rides, multiple transfers, a lack of late busing for extracurricular activities, and the need for families to arrange their own drop-offs and pick-ups at distant or inconveniently located bus stops. Some parents even reported purchasing cell phones or GPS-enabled devices to track their children during the school commute. These findings reflect what Sheller (2018) identified as distributive injustice—an unequal allocation of mobility-related benefits and burdens, including time, cost, and safety risks. From a mobility justice perspective, such disparities are not incidental but stem from systemic transportation and education policies that continue to disadvantage historically marginalized communities.
These findings echo those of Cordes et al. (2022), who also observed disproportionate transportation challenges among students of color participating in school choice. In our study, commute length was a consistent barrier—particularly for students of color enrolled in magnet or interdistrict choice programs. Interviews with parents illuminated the lived experience behind these patterns. Recurrent themes included the location and accessibility of bus stops, the need for parent-driven adaptations, limited transportation for after-school programs, and unreliable communication from transportation providers.
Many parents expressed safety concerns in terms of both walking routes and the physical locations of bus stops. This finding aligns with prior research (Banerjee et al., 2014). It is particularly troubling given evidence that students navigating unsafe routes—especially in areas with higher crime rates—are more likely to miss school (Burdick-Will et al., 2019).
Transportation limitations also shaped access to school choice in critical ways. In their study of Baltimore City Public Schools, Burdick-Will and Stein (2025) found that commuting difficulty significantly reduced the likelihood that families opted into more distant choice schools, especially when public transit or bus routes were unreliable. In their study of New Orleans, Lincove and Valant (2018) found that lacking a car significantly constrained the options of low-income families, often leaving them reliant on inconsistent or risky alternative forms of transportation. Similarly, Yoon and Lubienski (2017) found that car ownership expanded the geographic range of school options available to families.
Our findings reinforce these patterns. For many suburban families of color, access to a car was not only helpful but also essential for participating in school choice. Although this was not true for every household, many parents implied that there was simply no alternative but to drive their child either to the bus stop or directly to school. Contributing factors included misalignment between bus schedules and work obligations, dissatisfaction with bus stop locations, sibling transportation needs, and after-school activity logistics. This finding is consistent with those of Lenhoff et al. (2023), who observed in Detroit that families without cars often relied on multiple modes of transportation—a strategy associated with lower income and greater logistical strain.
The second most common daily mode to school after your own car was “multiple modes.” . . . Students who used multiple modes had the lowest average family income . . . and among the lowest car ownership . . . suggesting that families without cars may be coordinating several different transportation modes for their children as they can find them. (p. 13)
Importantly, car ownership or accessibility alone was insufficient. Many parents had to integrate driving into already complex daily routines, making school participation difficult for families with rigid work hours, shared vehicles, or caregiving responsibilities. For working-class and historically disenfranchised families, these obstacles may present significant barriers to choice access.
Our empirical analyses of commute times and distances further confirmed disproportionate burdens on marginalized families. Estimated walking distances to bus stops and average ride durations were significantly longer for suburban students of color. To ensure equitable access to school choice, transportation should not present a disqualifying burden. Families should not have to shoulder excessive travel-related stress to pursue a desired school option.
In some cases, transportation burdens led parents to withdraw their children from the choice program entirely. Others remained enrolled, but only through substantial personal sacrifice. Whether by necessity or preference, many parents drove their children to the bus stop or directly to school. Those able to do so typically had the baseline financial and scheduling flexibility required. Compared with city-resident families, suburban families generally had greater access to vehicles, childcare, and the ability to adjust to disruptions. As such, they were more likely to be able to accommodate the unpredictable demands of school transportation.
Nevertheless, even within the suburbs, families of color faced disproportionate burdens. Our analysis of commute distances and durations revealed that suburban students of color traveling to magnet schools experienced longer travel times than their White suburban peers, whereas city-resident students of color faced long commutes to suburban transfer schools—often far longer than they would have faced if they had attended a local school.
City families of color likely made these sacrifices because they viewed the alternative schools as safer or of higher quality (Cobb et al., 2021). For suburban families of color, school choice often represented access to specialized or more racially diverse schools than their zoned local options. However, our data showed that this access came at a cost: Suburban choice students experienced a median 36-minute walk to the bus stop, followed by a 38-minute ride to school—a combined median commute of 1 hour and 13 minutes each way.
Although some of these students may have had access to high-performing local schools, families still opted into choice programs, indicating that the opportunity for specialized curriculum or a more integrated peer environment outweighed the travel burden. However, this burden—especially among families of color—was closely tied to access to personal transportation. Taken together, our findings suggest that school choice, while potentially expanding opportunity, remains constrained by inequitable transportation conditions.
Conclusion
Choice programs that aim to foster integrated educational environments must, first and foremost, provide equitable and free access to school transportation—anything less risks reinforcing existing disparities, disproportionately burdening low-income families, and limiting access for historically marginalized communities. From a mobility justice perspective, transportation remains a structural barrier in school choice systems—one that must be addressed if these systems are to offer meaningful options for all families. Class privilege should not be a prerequisite for accessing public educational opportunities. Without interventions to reduce these burdens, working-class and marginalized students may be unable to take advantage of the very opportunities that are, in principle, available to them.
Currently, families with the financial means, schedule flexibility, and access to personal vehicles are better positioned to participate in school choice. These advantages translate into more consistent access to desirable schools, leaving others behind—not due to lack of interest but lack of means.
To move toward a more just and inclusive system, choice program administrators and policymakers must consider transportation from the vantage point of families and students. Transportation equity involves more than just efficient bus routes or on-time arrivals; it encompasses the full experience of school transit—from early morning routines to evening returns, including after extracurricular activities. As Bierbaum et al. (2021) argued, mobility justice compels us to examine how transit systems function differently across populations, shaped by race, class, gender, and geography.
Improving school transportation systems is not only a matter of fairness—it is also a pathway to increasing real accessibility to choice schools. As Lenhoff et al. (2022) suggested, policymakers should “look to the creative resources families use to solve their transportation problems for potential answers” (p. 356). At a minimum, programs should provide families with timely and transparent information about bus stop locations and schedules—both for the school day and for after-school hours—well in advance of the start of the academic year.
A key finding from our study is the central role of the home-to-bus-stop commute, which poses disproportionate challenges in interdistrict choice programs serving students across expansive geographic regions. Centralized bus stops, while efficient from a logistical standpoint, 7 often require families to travel considerable distances—sometimes too far to walk safely or feasibly. This dissuades some families from enrolling and imposes significant hardship on those who do participate.
Policymakers and program leaders should take steps to ensure that bus stop locations are not only reasonably walkable but also safe and accessible. Stops should be placed in areas with sidewalks, street lighting, and public infrastructure that allow students to wait and travel without undue risk. As McShane and Shaw (2020) reported, few states currently mandate transportation provisions for charter or interdistrict choice students—a policy gap that demands attention.
Ultimately, for school choice to live up to its promise of expanding opportunity, transportation must be treated not as a peripheral logistical concern but as a central equity issue. Ensuring safe, accessible, and inclusive transportation systems is essential to making school choice truly available to all families—not just those with the resources to overcome its hidden costs.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
Grant funding for this project was provided by the Connecticut Department of Education.
Notes
Authors
CASEY D. COBB is the Raymond Neag Professor of Educational Policy at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. Dr. Cobb is a National Education Policy Center Fellow and a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the National Coalition on School Diversity.
CHARLES WENTZELL is a PhD student in the Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy Program at the University of Connecticut. His research interests center on education policy and issues of equity in K–12 schooling.
KELLY FARRELL is a PhD student in the Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy Program at the University of Connecticut. Her work focuses on educational policy with an emphasis on equity and student opportunity.