Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5A literature review was undertaken to identify issues within the school bus industry. It was conducted through classic library style research, as well as through an Internet search. The review extended back more than 34 years. Seventy-two sources of school-related transportation information were identified. This literature review is formatted to follow the STS model, focus- ing on issues relevant to the driver, environment, technology/ equipment, and organizational design of school bus operations. Finally, the safety of the yellow school bus mode is compared with other modes of transport to and from school. SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS As part of its annual survey results for the past eight years, School Bus Fleet magazine has identified driver hiring and retention as one of the leading concerns within the school bus industry (Hirano 2007). Other reviewed literature (LeMon 1998; Grenzeback et al. 2005; Salary.com 2008) identified this as an issue throughout the 1990s. Although this concern seems to ebb and flow with economic issues (i.e., the un- employment rate), not only the quantity but the quality of the individuals available to drive school buses continues to be an ongoing concern. In large part, this concern is rooted in the competitive and economic reality of school bus operations. The 25th percentile salary for a school bus driver is $25,652 and the 75th per- centile is $34,966, with a median salary of $29,810 (Salary. com 2008). For this, they must safely operate the school bus, contend with children ranging in age from 4 to 19, and find themselves involved in issues and controversies concern- ing school districts, parents, students, and employers. These working conditions can be taxing; thus, turnover will continue to be an issue. In terms of hiring and safeguarding passenger security, criminal background checks for school bus drivers are required by all states. Most states require both state and federal back- ground checks (Hirano 2007). However, some states allow their individual educational agencies to establish their own background check policies. Another hiring criterion for school bus drivers is a minimum age requirement. The youngest age permitted for school bus drivers varies from 18 to 21 through- out the states. Twenty-five states allow a bus driver to be 18 years of age, whereas 18 states require that a bus driver be at least 21 years old (Hirano 2007). No specific literature was found that discusses physical examinations for school bus drivers. It is known that each state requires physicals of school bus drivers, and some (New York and Washington State) require fitness testing as part of the qualification process (School Bus Drivers 2006). Driver training is established for school bus drivers at the state level. The NHTSA (1974, 2002a,b) has developed and made available to all states and school bus operations a national driver training curriculum. This curriculum offers qualitative content regarding defensive driving, loading and unloading of students, and transporting students with special needs. Many states have prepared and required the use of their own train- ing curriculums (School Bus Security . . . 2007; Michigan Department of Education n.d.; Illinois State Board of Education n.d. a,b). In all of these cases, these curriculums closely follow the national standard curriculum established through NHTSA. There are also school bus driver training materials prepared by outside sources (Bane 1991; Daecher 1991). These training programs are complete and resemble the national training program established by NHTSA. There was no literature reviewed that discussed school bus driver seat belt usage. Most state laws require the use of a seat belt by drivers; however, the single literature source found concerning seat belt usage for commercial drivers only involved truck drivers. Fatigue is mentioned only once throughout the literature reviewed (Hours of Service . . . 2003). It is not considered a significant issue, but length of the school bus driving day and driver wellness/lifestyle are identified as elements of concern. Driver distraction because of cell phones appears to be a growing concern. In 2007, the American School Bus Coun- cil called for a ban on drivers using cell phones when the school bus is moving or when students are loading/unloading (Distracted Bus Drivers 2007; Zuckerbrod 2007). This is not the only driving distraction of concern. Driver eating and drinking are other types of distractions that have been docu- mented as an issue (Distracted Bus Drivers 2007). CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

SAFETY CONCERNS IN THE DRIVING ENVIRONMENT The literature reviewed presented four fundamental areas of concern within the driving environment: • Illegal passing of stopped buses by other vehicles, • Passengers as pedestrians, • Student behavior on buses, and • Passengers with disabilities. Stringent traffic laws in all states prohibit motorists from passing a stopped school bus that is loading or unloading passengers (Wisconsin Department of Education 2006; CBS News 2007; Bus Laws n.d.; NHTSA, n.d.a). The loading and unloading of students is a primary consideration and was found repeatedly throughout the literature review. Establish- ing appropriate sheltered open and visible locations for school bus stops; minimizing the need for students to cross streams of traffic; the use of appropriate safety equipment on school buses when loading and unloading; and the need for drivers to be attentive and checking around and along the bus dur- ing loading and unloading procedures and before proceed- ing into traffic is discussed throughout the training litera- ture cited previously and other document sources (NHTSA 1974, 1998; Special Report 222 . . . 1989; Daecher 1991; De Santis et al. 1998; School Bus Stops . . . 2005; School Bus Safety Rules 2008). Based on our literature review, student management has been a consistent issue of concern in the school bus indus- try; however, the texture of concern has changed over time. Many school bus drivers cite student behavior as their most pressing concern. Controlling unacceptable behavior on the bus by a driver has been a longstanding issue; however, in recent years “bullying” has grown in its frequency and breadth across age groups. Schadlow (1987) defined the need for trust and respect between the driver and students on a school bus and assertive communication as a basis for controlling behavior. This publication also stresses parental control and support as vitally important to controlling students’ behavior. Protecting children from each other, while simultaneously maneuvering a large commercial vehicle through traffic, takes skill and understanding on the driver’s part. In addition, in today’s world, the possibility of weapons must be considered anywhere in the school environment, including on the bus. Violent incidents on school buses and at bus stops are not uncommon and are not limited to urban settings. However, how a driver can control behavior is in part affected by possi- ble disciplinary repercussions. If school districts are soft on discipline regarding unacceptable behavior on school buses, the job of the bus driver is even more difficult (Brooks 1995; Education World 1997; American Public Health Association 2005; American Federation of Teachers n.d.; Illinois State Board of Education n.d.a). 6 A program called “Team Safe” was developed and used in one school district in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in the early 1990s. It was developed to elevate the driver in his or her importance for the safety of school children and thus to be more implicit in discussions and decisions regarding student management and behavior in school bus operations. Although the program got little traction, it was received with positive results in Allegheny County and serves as a model for needed restructuring for school bus operations from the student management and behavior perspective (Daecher 1991). Special needs student transportation is also a concern for drivers. Issues of safe passenger securement, health monitor- ing, and safe transportation are mutually important issues with regard to special needs students. Drivers’ physical capabilities (to maneuver wheelchairs with passengers) and their emo- tional states (to accept and understand unusual but expected behaviors of special needs students who may be physically and mentally challenged) are important. Drivers’ knowledge of health issues for special needs students, especially those who are harnessed or restrained because of their physical condi- tions, is also of concern (Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention 2001; Illinois State Board of Education n.d.b). Specific information regarding students’ needs for medication or handling during an emergency are also important. Most of these issues are effectively managed through training and the development of an Individual Education Plan for each special needs student (NHTSA 2002b; Illinois State Board of Edu- cation n.d.b). Thus, the quality of training and information provided to school bus drivers is critically important for all aspects of student management. TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT School bus design is largely regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571). Thirty-three motor vehicle safety standards apply to school buses or multi- function school activity buses (LeMon 1998; NHTSA n.d.a). The most recently enacted change to these vehicle safety stan- dards applicable to school bus activities was for multifunction school activity buses. Section 571.3 of the regulation was amended to include the multifunction school activity bus, which is a school bus that is not used to transport students to and from home and school bus stops. With this change, this type of bus must comply with all applicable standards for school buses, which addresses concerns in the literature that vehicles used for field trips and other types of activities in transporting students meet certain structural standards (National Transportation Safety Board 1999, 2000). Every year, on average, 20 school-aged children are fatally injured as a result of school transportation-related incidents. Half of these are school-aged pedestrians killed by school transporta- tion vehicles (School Transportation-Related Crashes 2006). This underscores the continuing need for improvements in hood design, windshields, and other features that might improve driver visibility.

7Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 specifically deals with school bus passenger seating and crash protection. “Compartmentalization” protection of passengers is provided through the use of this standard. Currently, a proposed rule change to this standard is being considered by NHTSA. The key elements of the proposed rule change would require lap- shoulder belts instead of only lap belts on small school buses, provide guidance for voluntary installation of lap-shoulder belts on large buses, and raise the minimum seatback height from 20 to 24 in. on all new school buses (CBS News 2007; School Bus Fleet 2008). According to the literature review, the issue of seatbelts on school buses has been a constant since 1985. Should school buses have seat belts? Today, five states [New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Texas (2010)] have required or are in the process of requiring seat belts on school buses. NHTSA continues to assert that compartmentalization, as defined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, provides effective safety for large school bus occupants (Trans- portation Research Board 1989; Booz, Allen & Hamilton and E. A. Williams & Associations, Inc. 1987). NHTSA is cur- rently conducting crash tests of large school buses to deter- mine the effectiveness of shoulder-lap belt combinations. The intent of these tests is to provide more insight and possibly a unified approach for an issue that has received much attention but divided opinions (LeMon 1998; Cullen 1999; History of School Bus Safety . . . 2000; Enhancing School Bus Safety . . . 2002; Hinch et al. 2002; National Transportation Safety Board 2008; Seat Belts, School Buses and Safety, n.d.). Reflective tape, cross-view mirrors, stop signal arms, and bus crossing arms are recent improvements of safety equip- ment on school buses that enhance student safety (Special Report 222 . . . 1989; NHTSA n.d.a). Reflective tape allows the bus to be seen more easily by approaching traffic during nighttime conditions and cross-view mirrors allow the driver to see students crossing in front of and immediately to the side of the front of the school bus. Stop signal arms, which warn other motorists to stop when students are loading and unload- ing approximately 10 ft in front of the school bus, are a means of protecting the students from approaching traffic as they begin to cross the street. Bus crossing arms guide students away from the front of the school bus before crossing a street so they are more easily seen by the bus driver and by motorists approaching the school bus. The use of non-traditional school buses for student trans- portation is a recurring issue throughout the literature (Keep- ing Children Safe . . . 1995; National Transportation Safety Board 1999, 2000; Keeping Kids Safe . . . 2002). Some urban areas are using their community’s public transit-style buses to transport students to and from school along regular transit routes. This practice concerns both school bus operators and major school bus organizations because the students must walk to designated transit stops and then walk from stops to school, which is a less direct method of transporting students safely (Keeping Children Safe . . . 1995). Special Report 269 (Committee on School Transportation Safety 2002), how- ever, notes that it is difficult or impossible to determine the relative safety of school buses compared with transit buses used for student travel. This is due to data issues, including that transit properties may not keep statistics on student ridership and that pedestrian injuries in route to transit stops may not be classified as transit-related. The use of motor coaches for field trips and other transportation needs is of concern because of the lack of knowledge regarding the vehicle, the driver, and the company and its operations. Qualification of drivers, issues of fatigue, and the safety of the vehicle are assumed to be acceptable yet neither the school district nor the school bus operator has control over these issues (Keeping Kids Safe . . . 2002). Also important is the security of students as it relates to drivers. Transit and motor coach operators are not required to go through a criminal background check as are school bus drivers. School districts are mandating the use of yellow buses for student transportation and requiring more stringent controls of motor coach companies through contrac- tual and procedural requirements. Emerging technologies for diesel engines and their impact on students’ health was also found during this literature review (Fromm and Tujillo 2002; Clean School Bus USA 2003a,b). The implementation of anti-idling and smart driving in combi- nation with more fuel-efficient engines and cleaner fuels (i.e., ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) is advocated to reduce emis- sions that can harm the health of young students transported by school buses. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN The extent to which safety regulations affect school bus oper- ations is dependent on the organization that provides the ser- vice. Private school bus contractors are subject to many federal safety regulations (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations n.d.) and all state regulations. School districts that operate their own fleet of buses are subject to limited federal regulations (e.g., Commercial Drivers’ Licensing and drug and alcohol testing) for those drivers that are included under such regula- tions and any applicable state regulations regarding opera- tion. Throughout the literature review, regulatory compliance of school bus operations is not a recurring theme. The Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Pro- grams, which is available to each state, includes a guideline for pupil transportation safety (NHTSA n.d.b). The guideline establishes minimum recommendations for state highway safety programs for pupil transportation safety and it includes the maintenance of buses carrying students; the training of pas- sengers, pedestrians, and bicycle riders; and the administration of the program. It also includes minimum requirements for drivers of school buses, other buses, and vehicles that are used for school-chartered activities. The guideline addresses state administration of programs for school bus safety; requirements

for identification and equipment for school buses; regulatory oversight for school buses and drivers; training for students, crossing guards, and student escorts; and route and bus stop selection. Emergency and rescue procedures are also addressed in the literature. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services created a task force that developed emergency and rescue response procedures as guidelines for school bus organizations (Tull et al. n.d.). Emphasis is placed on preplanning for emergencies, solid incident management procedures, and knowledge and skill in assisting injured students, especially special needs students. Emergency and rescue procedures are included in most school bus driver train- ing curriculums reviewed. Security concerns have become more dominant in the liter- ature since 2001. This is not only because of terrorist activities but also because of growing violence among school students (School Bus Stops . . . 2006; School Bus Security . . . 2007). Awareness by all employees of what is “normal” and immedi- ate communication regarding unusual behaviors, packages, or circumstances are the hallmarks of a successful security proce- dure (School Transportation Security Awareness 2005; School Bus Security . . . 2007). Vehicle identification and knowledge of vehicle locations are also considered important aspects of an effective security response protocol (School Transporta- tion Security Awareness 2005; Hann 2007; School Bus Secu- rity . . . 2007). The Transportation Security Administration (Employee Guide . . . n.d.) developed security awareness training for employees of school bus operations. This training provides methods for all employees to identify unusual behaviors, packages, or situations. Many school districts are installing global positioning system (GPS) technology on school buses as a means to have 8 real-time capability for locating buses in any type of emer- gency, including security situations (Hann 2007). As mentioned earlier, 72 sources were reviewed to pre- sent a summary of available literature and knowledge about the safety of school bus operations. Although there are many resources available on the Internet and in trade publications, academic journals, etc., there is still substantial safety-relevant information about school buses that is not documented. The following sections of this synthesis report detail the devel- opment, implementation, and results of a survey designed to address and document a wide range of safety issues in the field of school bus operations. SAFETY OF SCHOOL BUSES COMPARED WITH OTHER MODES The National Research Council appointed the Committee on School Transportation Safety to study the safety issues atten- dant to the transportation of students to and from school and school-related activities by various transportation modes. The final report of the Committee is Special Report 269: The Relative Risks of School Travel (Committee on School Trans- portation Safety 2002). The report compares yellow school bus travel with five other modes of student transportation— other bus; passenger vehicle (adult driver); passenger vehicle (teen driver); bicycle; and walking. Data were aggregated from nine years, 1991–1999. The findings of the report are that during the study period, 25% of student trips and 28% of student miles traveled were made on yellow school buses. Yet, only 4% of all student injuries and 2% of all student deaths were associated with school buses. By comparison, passenger vehicles with a teen driver made 14% of student trips and 16% of student miles trav- eled, but 51% of injuries and 55% of fatalities are associated with this mode. The report found that, in comparison with other modes, school bus is a relatively safe mode of transportation.