School transport: what the school, the Schulträger and the operator each do

There is no federal statute on school transport. Responsibility lies with the states, and they have cut the task differently. The difference is not academic, because it determines which authority parents send their application to and whom the school office rings when a route breaks down. Three states by way of comparison:

• North Rhine-Westphalia ties responsibility to the school attended. Under section 4(1) of the Schülerfahrkostenverordnung (SchfkVO, the regulation on school travel costs), the Schulträger of the school attended covers those costs on application, regardless of where the child lives. The regulation expressly calls this the Schulträgerprinzip. Section 3 makes clear at the same time that the Schulträger only bears the costs and is not obliged to carry out the transport.
• Lower Saxony separates responsibility for the school from responsibility for transport. Under section 114(1) of the Niedersächsisches Schulgesetz (NSchG, the Lower Saxony School Act), the districts and district-free cities are the authorities responsible for school transport. They carry the children living in their area under reasonable conditions or reimburse the necessary expenses, and the task belongs to their own sphere of activity.
• Bavaria goes by ordinary residence. Under Article 1 of the Schulwegkostenfreiheitsgesetz (the act on free travel to school), the necessary transport on the way to school is the responsibility of the district-free municipality or the district in which the pupil ordinarily lives.

In day-to-day terms these models are worlds apart. A comprehensive school in a district-free city in North Rhine-Westphalia negotiates with the school administration department of that same city. A secondary school in a Lower Saxon Samtgemeinde (a joint municipality) negotiates with the district instead, even though the building belongs to the Samtgemeinde. Under section 114(5) NSchG the districts may delegate delivery to their municipalities, in which case the case handling sits somewhere else again.

The client for school bus services is the responsible body, so depending on the state that is the municipality, the city, a joint authority or the district. It concludes the contract with the transport operator and decides whether school bus transport is offered at all, and in what form. That is how the DGUV Information 202-046 describes it in its October 2024 edition.

The transport operator is responsible for safety in and around the vehicle. Whatever applies beyond that is set out in the contract, not in legislation. In legal terms, classic Schülerspezialverkehr (dedicated school transport by minibus or taxi) in North Rhine-Westphalia operates as exempt transport under section 1 no. 4 d of the Freistellungs-Verordnung, which the administrative rules on section 12 SchfkVO name explicitly. Road traffic law, driving personnel law and data protection law remain untouched by that.

Within this structure the school has a narrow but clearly described role. Under number 4.2.2 of the administrative rules on the SchfkVO, schools should inform parents each year before the approval period begins about eligibility and cut-off dates. Number 4.2.3 obliges the Schulträger to involve the school in general questions of school transport via the Schulkonferenz (the school council). Number 13.3.1 requires lesson times and transport timetables to be coordinated where possible. The school has no formal responsibility beyond that. We have set out how these three points can be organised in everyday school life on our page for schools and school authorities.

That leaves the parents. The choice of transport is theirs, and on the way between home and the stop they remain responsible for their child. Families who want to know when their child will be collected and where the bus currently is will find guidance on our page for parents.

Not the school. Entitlement follows from the regulation of the respective state and is established by the authority named there as the responsible body. In North Rhine-Westphalia, travel costs arise as necessary under section 5(2) SchfkVO where the one-way journey to school exceeds 2 km in primary education, 3.5 km in lower secondary education and 5 km in upper secondary education. Regardless of distance, section 6(1) applies where a child has to use a means of transport for more than a temporary period on health grounds or because of an intellectual or physical disability. In Lower Saxony the districts and district-free cities set the minimum distance themselves under section 114(2) NSchG, taking account of what children can reasonably manage and of route safety.

1. 1Parents submit the applicationThe application goes to the Schulträger or to the authority responsible for school transport, not to the school. In North Rhine-Westphalia it should be submitted without delay at the start of the approval period under section 4(2) SchfkVO. Retrospective cover is only possible if the application arrives no later than three months after the end of the approval period.
2. 2The case handler checks the conditionsDistance, the nearest school and, where health grounds are claimed, the medical certificate are examined. Under number 6.1.2 of the administrative rules the certificate must give information on duration and extent; a statement from the school may also be obtained.
3. 3The responsible body sets the mode of transportUnder section 12(3) SchfkVO the Schulträger decides on the most economical form of transport. Under subsection 4, public transport takes priority in principle over dedicated school transport and over private cars.
4. 4Dedicated school transport is notifiedIf the responsible body sets up its own service, it must as a rule notify the Bezirksregierung (the regional government authority) two months before it starts, under section 14(2) SchfkVO. The same applies to changes and to discontinuing an existing service.
5. 5The decision is issued, then the operator drivesThe approval period is normally the school year. Only with the decision is it settled that a child belongs on a route. As long as only the school knows about the registration, the operator does not have the name.

One rule is regularly overlooked in everyday school life. Under number 4.1.2 of the administrative rules, admitting a pupil may not be made conditional on waiving an application for school travel costs. Enrolment and the travel cost question are two separate procedures.

Route planning is done by the scheduler at the contracted operator, within what the contract with the responsible body specifies. The school has no direct access to it. State law does set guard rails, though, and they are more specific than many people expect. Section 13(3) SchfkVO declares public transport unreasonable where the outward and return journeys together take more than three hours, or where the child would mostly have to leave home before six in the morning. For primary school children the total journey time should not exceed one hour, and regular waiting times at school before and after lessons should not add up to more than 45 minutes.

For a head teacher these figures are the most effective argument available. If the schedule puts a Year 2 pupil in the playground at 7:05 and lessons start at 8:00, that is a waiting time of 55 minutes, which the regulation does not provide for. The complaint belongs with the responsible body, not with the driver.

An escort is likewise a matter for the responsible body. Section 11 SchfkVO counts an escort's travel costs among the necessary school travel costs where the need for an escort in the case of an intellectual or physical disability has been demonstrated under section 6(1), including empty runs. At best the school contributes a professional assessment. The decision comes from the authority.

The school is not a party to the contract with the transport operator, unless a school event such as a class trip is involved. It therefore has no authority to give instructions to the driving staff. The DGUV does, however, recommend reviewing together with the head teacher how far the safety-relevant requirements of the transport contract are being met in practice. That gives the school its practical room for manoeuvre:

• Report incidents to the responsible body in writing, with date, time, vehicle and registration number. The responsible body can act under the contract; the school cannot.
• Bring the Schulkonferenz in on general questions of school transport. In North Rhine-Westphalia this involvement is provided for by number 4.2.3 of the administrative rules and section 65(2) no. 21 of the Schulgesetz NRW.
• Report the start and end of lessons per year group to the responsible body early, so that timetable and lesson schedule fit together.
• Have one named contact in the school administration department and one in the scheduling team at the operator, each with a deputy. Otherwise a sickness call at 6:40 in the morning goes nowhere.

Nothing that intervenes in the contract or in scheduling can be enforced. Choosing the operator belongs to the procurement procedure run by the responsible body, the shape of a route belongs to scheduling, and deploying a particular driver belongs to the employer. Requests of that kind should be put to the responsible body in good time so that they end up in the next tender as a service requirement.

This question is often settled on the phone, and that is the mistake. For North Rhine-Westphalia the answer is in section 120 of the Schulgesetz. Subsection 7 sentence 1 permits transfer to the Schulträger insofar as it needs the data for its own statutory tasks, and approving school travel costs is such a task. Sentence 3 draws the decisive line towards private operators. A transfer to persons or bodies outside the public sector is permitted only where a demonstrated legal interest in the disclosure exists and the protected interests of the person concerned are not impaired, or where that person has consented in the individual case.

Which details a school may hold in the first place is governed by the Verordnung über die zur Verarbeitung zugelassenen Daten von Schülerinnen, Schülern und Eltern (VO-DV I, the regulation on pupil and parent data admissible for processing). Its Annex 1 lists school travel costs with start, end, type, connection, reimbursement and approval period, and section 5(1) refers every transfer back to section 120(7) SchulG. Giving name, address and class to the operator is normally unproblematic once the responsible body has approved the transport. Anything beyond that needs its own justification.

In other states the power sits elsewhere, in Lower Saxony for instance in section 31 NSchG. The principle stays the same. A transfer to a private body needs a basis in state law or a consent; Article 6(1)(e) GDPR alone does not carry it, because subsection 3 requires member state law for that.

For the journey between home and school, the duty of supervision rests with the parents or guardians. According to DGUV Information 202-046, the duty of supervision owed by the school applies in principle only to the school building and the school grounds. If the bus stop is on the school grounds, or is assigned to school operations in spatial and functional terms, that may become a duty of supervision for the school or the responsible body depending on state law. Making the route to school and the stops safe is the job of the responsible body under its duty to maintain safe premises.

Insurance cover attaches to the school, not to the vehicle. Pupils are covered by statutory accident insurance while attending school under section 2(1) no. 8 letter b SGB VII, and section 8(2) no. 1 SGB VII extends the cover to the direct journey to and from that place. Whether the child walks, cycles or sits in a minibus makes no difference. Physical injury is covered, damage to property is not, so the accident insurer will not simply replace a pair of broken glasses.

On the weekend before term starts, the problems then all arrive at once. Class lists are not final, one decision is missing, two families have moved. What helps is a short, reliable data delivery to the responsible body with the start and end of lessons per year group, the movable holidays and the known changes to addresses and pick-up points. Many responsible bodies and operators now plan their routes in scheduling software where such changes reach the driver directly. That changes nothing about who is responsible; it only shortens the path from the call to the school office to the amended route.