Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driver Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears options for offering in‑district behind‑the‑wheel driver education; cost and staffing major barriers
Summary
Administration presented three options for providing behind‑the‑wheel instruction (in‑day hire of dedicated instructors and vehicles; before/after school or weekend stipends; or continued reliance on private vendors plus scholarships). The board asked for further survey data and revenue/cost comparisons from comparable districts.
District staff presented a feasibility analysis for offering behind‑the‑wheel (BTW) driver education to high‑school students. Currently, the division provides classroom driver education but relies on private companies for the BTW portion.
The administration described three alternatives: (1) offer BTW during the school day by hiring a minimum of three dedicated instructors and acquiring or leasing vehicles—this approach would have significant personnel and capital costs and could require full‑time positions; (2) offer BTW outside the school day (evenings, weekends or summer) with stipends for certified instructors and leased or vendor vehicles—this reduces ongoing personnel obligations but still requires considerable stipends and vehicle access; or (3) continue the current arrangement with private vendors and create a scholarship program to help students who cannot afford private BTW fees (estimated at roughly $275–$310 per scholarship).
Staff noted VDOE rules that allow partial reimbursement but cap fees and do not reimburse personnel costs; the division would need to document vehicle and operating costs to determine allowable fee caps. Administration also highlighted a statewide staffing constraint: local driving companies reported paying roughly $27.50 an hour for instructors and still struggling to recruit staff.
Board members asked for additional information before changing services: a student/parent survey to measure demand for district‑provided BTW, comparative cost and reimbursement data from similar counties that offer BTW, and a clearer estimate of net program revenue after allowable fees and state reimbursement. Several board members also raised equity concerns and the possibility of scholarships if the district continues to rely on vendors.
