The problems with the driver escorting the students, in my mind, outweigh the benefits.

First when the driver gets up and leaves the bus, the bus has to be turned off. Which leads to a hot bus during the summer and cold bus during the winter.

Who manages the students while the driver is out of the seat?

Who ensures that no students close the door and locks out the driver when they depart the bus?

What risks are there to having a school bus unsupervised? What liability is there for students being attacked when the driver is absent? At what cost is acceptable for this lack of supervision? With the onset of seatbelts being instituted on the bus, what happens when those same seatbelts are used as weapons; either to strike another student or choke a smaller student?

How much additionally does it cost for each district? Added driver time? Longer routes? Is it worth the additional costs?

In our district, there are approximately 10 instances each year where a stop sign is "ran." With approximately 700 bus stops each day, that would amount to approximately 12600 bus stops. The number of stops vs. violations would seem to mean a great added cost.

While I understand that the cost of a child can't carry a price tag, with school budgets being what they are, it seems a little on the unreasonable side to add that cost to the bottom line of a school district. Those funds, while invested in a good cause, can in most instances fund a great deal of in-class projects.

With getting every dollar into the classroom as possible, the cost/benefit ratio seems a little scarce.

The parking brake is set but is the air pumped out. If not any student can push in the parking brake, and the bus will roll unless the pavement is completley flat. If the air is pumped out, this would seem very time consuming to refill the air tanks at every bus stop. This seems very time consuming as well for other traffic especially if they were behind a school bus for a while. Do they have system for dealing with this problem. curious in Kentucky

The only way this would work in the real world would be if each bus had an aide. And with budgets the way they are, it's not going to happen. The wear and tear on the vehicles shutting down and restarting would add to the cost of transportation that districts just cannot afford. The possibility for student violence and unrulyness is just not feasable-as a matter of fact, may be more dangerous. As for the argument that it would save time with middle school/high school students is just nuts-especially after school where those kids want to get in the house as fast as they can to do homework, play Nintendo, etc. The gentleman from California (as well as the author of this article) is only looking at one part of the entire story. Let's compare the cost to run a bus in any other state to California-maint. costs, fuel costs, etc. Let's see the numbers of how much damage is done in California's vehicles vs any other state. Let's see the numbers of students getting beat up, harrased, etc. in California buses vs any other state. You need to compare apples to apples before making such a half-baked statement!

It was only by a narrow margin that the escorted cross procedure was adopted as a reference item in the appendices. The actual text adopted within the Operations document is as follows:

"When/if an escorted cross is used during the loading and unloading process, the “Escorted Cross” procedure as written in APPENDIX D may be used."

There are several methods effectively used every day to safely cross student. Suggesting that the escorted cross process addresses ever situation and is highly suspect. Robb cites many of the same valid concerns that were voiced at the NCST.

An escorted stop consists of a 28 step process which includes no fewer than four specific instructions to account for all students - Those you crossed and those left unsupervised on the bus. Because we all know, "particularly with middle schoolers, who are known to lollygag when left to their own devices"- They may have departed the bus.

We know that our Professional Operators will protect the kids better than any piece of technology.

I would like to comment on Robb's response to this article.

Shutting the bus off for a minute while we escort students is not enough time for the bus too heat up or get cold. As Mr. Green stated, we have all ranges of temperatures and extreme weather in California, but it works just fine.

While the driver is off the bus escorting students those students do not get out of control. The buses have plenty of windows and the drivers can see the students.

We have discipline on our buses and we have consequences for students who misbehave. Being outside the bus to escort students does not leave the students alone and unsupervised. It is no different than having them in a classroom and the teacher steps outside to talk to a student or someone else. We can still see them and hear them. We can be back in the bus in seconds.

Three point restraint systems have been required on California school buses for several years now. People had the same arguments that you brought up, but none of the expected horrors happened. The kids don't try to choke each other or beat each other with the seatbelts.

Our students are supervised and safe even when the driver is out in front of the bus. Escorting the students goes very quickly and does not add significant time to the routes.

Seven children were killed by passing vehicles in the 2008-2009 school year. None were killed in California. Those of us in California are not trying to tell the rest of the country that you need to do everything we do. We do not think we are better than anybody else. However, in this instance, statistics PROVE that our process is safer for children.

If one of those seven children were yours wouldn't you believe escorting was worth it? If you witnessed one of those seven children being hit and killed by a passing vehicle, wouldn't you feel that escorting them would have been worth it? I think either of those things would destroy me. I firmly believe escorting is the safest thing to do for our children. What I can not understand is why the rest of the country is so dead set against escorting.

Our kids are supervised, safe and our routes run smoothly in a very reasonable amount of time.

I feel like Robb's answers are legitimate but easily answered by any Director of Transportation in California, District or Contractor... In fact, the professional California schoolbus driver is trained to manage school pupils at all times. No matter where the driver is positioned, inside or outside of the bus. Over 24,000 schoolbus drivers practice such management skills everyday, with "ZERO" fatalities, year after year. Can Robb make the same statement about his state? Statistics don't lie, they outline methods that work and the ones that don't. Since when is it ok to allow a six year old to cross a street without adult supervision or aid? You may argue the adult supervising is the schoolbus driver in the bus... Supervising the kids that matter!!! The child that is in the safest vehicle in the country, in a compartment specifically designed for their safety. What about the children outside? What protection do they have? Oh yes, the RED LIGHTS will protect the child, the hand gesture of the drivers inside the bus stopping traffic will protect the child, the camera outside taking the picture of the fatal collision will protect the child... Or could we just say... It's the driver that collided with the pupil that is to blame! They failed to stop for the lights, or pay attention to all the neat gadgets that ensure the safe crossing of the pupils!! Right??? I have one question; is there ANYTHING this industry could have done to save the lives of the seven children outlined in the Kansas DOE survey for 2008/2009. Ask the California Schoolbus Driver! They will all have the same answer; yes allow me to cross the child. Ladies and Gentlemen, show us an analysis of the additional cost incurred for crossing kids. Then compare the analysis with the pictures of the children that died while crossing the street, un-assisted by the professional responsible to ensure the safety of those children. No comparison! I know as a California schoolbus driver, I will never have to look into a parents eyes and say I'm sorry, but we just couldn’t afford to cross your child. Or, I don't posses the skill and knowledge necessary to manage children on the bus, as well as ensuring your child made it across the road safely! Not me, I will continue to ensure my pupils have crossed safely, and sleep well every night knowing my children receive the same protection from their schoolbus driver. It's time that every state find a solution to this problem, and the solution lies with the professional behind the wheel of the schoolbus. Let’s make it right, or if there is a better way, show the industry! Don't make excuses on the why not, while innocent children die every year. Show us how to achieve perfection, "ZERO" fatalities while loading or unloading! There is only one guarantee; children will continue to loose their lives needlessly while crossing the road, that is a fact! What will you do to ensure a child in your state doesn't become a statistic??? I say trust the professional schoolbus driver; give all the children in America the same protection. Robb no offence, I just believe in our method, because it's a proven fact, it works; saves lives, and I live it every day.

It is amazing to me how people (bus drivers) have all the answers as to how a escort is to go wrong. With the excuses and predictions of what is to occur, the vioces of th only way it could be done. This is all ridulous. A stated in the article, California has been doing a student escort for over 50 years and all the problems and predictions that people of others have, never has happened. Any educated student transportation professional wouldlook at the statisics of California and notice the "student escort" works. Any educated trnasportation professional would look to see if any of the concerns that their state has regarding "student escort" is valid or come to light. Before spouting off about how a student escort will not work or all the ramification that might occur if "student escort" is implemented, take a look at California and see how it really works.

To my knowledge there has never been an incident in Indiana where a car ran a stop arm and seriously injured a student. Granted the problem of cars running stop arms is a daily occurrence all over the United States but I don't believe the answer is having a school bus driver leave his bus with students aboard unattended. State governments need to pass laws with serious consequences and then and only then will you get the attention of motorists. There will always be those that are not paying attention and school bus drivers need to try, if possible to be aware of those approaching vehicles. School bus drivers nationwide do an excellent job and that can be proven by the fact that school buses are the safest form of transportation

From my perspective that primarily deals with special needs buses and students with disabilities the standard operating procedure is to provide curbside service to entirely avoid any child crossing the street. The stop arm runners I have witnessed would just as readily hit an adult and a child. Why put both at risk? The routing software packages have a provision for special needs routes and specifically to create a route that is on the same side of the street as the child's home to avoid all street crossing situations. The argument that on regular routes it would take too much time to go around the block and come up on the same side of the street is not valid nor is it accurate when you compare the time it takes to walk a student across the street escorted by the driver or if you account for the extra time it takes for a special needs child to cross the street alone under direct driver supervision. I would estimate at least one-third of the regular routes could readily be redone to provide curbside service and thereby avoid any street crossing with red lights flashing or after the bus has left. Curb-to-curb service has worked very well for special needs students--why not regular routes, too?

I drive a school bus and this may work some places but where I live we would have to start our routes around 6 in the morning in order to get to school by 7:45. Also we have very steep hills and I have several stops where I would not feel comfortable taking my foot off the brake. ALso parents need to be responsible for their small children. Many parents of young children just dont understand how much they need to supervise their kids at bus stops. It is very dangerous and so many leave 5-9 year old kids out all alone waiting for the bus.

We could not do this, as our buses lose all power to lights and stop sign when the engine is turned off. We do not have air conditioning so thats not an issue, but leaving students alone and not pumping down the air brakes would be. This might work if you had an aide/assistant employed to perform this function. But we do good to get substitute drivers and or equipment, so I don't see them paying for aides.

To say it's worked in California for the past 50 years doesn't mean that's the answer. I live in a state that have never had a student hit by a car while crossing the bus-wouldn't that mean my system is just as good as California's?

I also noted that the bus is pulled to a curb. Sorry...very few curbs where we transport!
To have a bus shut down and start up several times during route would create serious problems in very cold climates.
Our policy is to NEVER leave a child unattended on a vehicle. Why would a policy like that be in place if not necessary? Even in a POV, a child is never to be left alone in a vehicle.
This policy is as absurd for EVERY state as requiring every state to design their routes so there are no crossers.

I agree with California. When you think about it, I would NEVER allow my child to cross a street (even in a crosswalk) if the signal light shows a "white hand". I would think most parents would cross the street with their child, so why should the school bus industry have children crossing the street unattendant with only the red-lights activated?

California's procedure makes sense.

The picture in the article was a demonstration. In my district we also have very few curbs. That does not have anything to do with the ability to stop the bus and escort our students.

We do not use aides on our regular ed buses. We do not pump the air down or drain our tanks at bus stops. We set the brakes, shut the engine off and take the keys with us. As Tony said, our drivers are trained to manage the students on their buses.

As for our special needs students, they are dropped door-to-door and do not cross the street.

If it would save the life of a child, wouldn't it be worth it to give it a try? How about a pilot program on a few routes to see if it would be as bad as you think or if it would actually work for you? Testing a new idea is done all the time.

We are school transportation professionals. We announce to the world that we are the safest form of transportation and that our main objective is the safety of the children we transport. Shouldn't we try anything we can to ensure that they really are as safe as they can be? Is it better to depend on technology to do everything for us, which it can't, and show the world that what we really don't mean what we say?

Why not just try it? What can it hurt?

Barbara hits it on the nose. Here in Ca routes run relatively smooth. I did routes that required a couple crossings, the kids don't misbehave when the driver is off cos all they want is to get home. Even the jr high kids that drove me crazy lol...sat and waited patiently and got home safely. Never had a problem, and we know jr hi is usually the craziest bunch! Hehe
Most buses here have no ac, so it's already hot in the bus. A silly crossing arm on the bumper isn't going to keep them from going into the danger zone, that's just another maintenance item.

I believe the escort crossing procedure should be a federal law, it is proven to save lives.

After the deaths of three school children in 1985, run over by their own bus. In 1986, Rhode Island passed a law that mandates an adult (over 16 yoa)monitor/crossing guard on every school bus in Rhode Island grades K - 5. This person acts the same as the bus driver in Ca, except the driver in Rhode Island stays on the bus to keep control of the bus and the kids. Since 1986 ther has not been a school bus related death in Rhode Island and the school bus accident rate has gone done by 65%.. The bus monitor also acts as an extra set of eyes and is able to keep control of the children on and off the bus, leaving the driver to do what s/he does best - drive the bus without all the distrations that used to go on inside the bus.

Yes, California does have many streets with no curbs. Yes, it does have very cold winters and very hot summers. Yes, California does transport Jr. High school students. Yes, California does routes the have to start at 6:00 in the morning to get the students to school by 7:45. Realize California is a very large state and is has ALL the weather, road, and traffic conditions as all other states. California has major metropolitan areas with gang violence. California has deserts and rural areas, and freezing weather in the Sierras. California is not unique. California does not require bus attendants on every route, and the driver are able to maintain student management even while they are off the bus. They do not require the driver to pump down the air brakes down. No, in does not take any more time to get out of the driver’s seat to escort the students across the street than it does to sit in the seat, look for traffic then wave. Tougher laws that increase penalties, using cameras on the outside of the bus, and setting up sting operations with police officers have been put in place in many states. However, motorists still around the bus. Having the driver gets out of the seat and escorting the student across the street is much more protection than a stop arm and red lights alone.

After reading all the comments opposing what the California school bus industry has done to prevent child fatalities, it struck me that "matter of convenience" is what drives the opposing side; too mcuh time on the route, discipline issues on the bus, inconveniencing other motorists.

Our children are America's most valuable resource yet as always, our own "inconveniences" overrule our better judgement.

As stated in several responses above, CA has literally every possible situation somewhere in the state (weather, terrain, traffic, rural, urban, mountains, desert, etc.) and the requirements to escort students across the roadway works every time.

In response to Dr. Ray Turner, most school districts in CA do their best to design their schoolbus routes so that special needs children do not have to cross the roadway, but for regular ed routes the rule is different; for example, there are many roads in my area where you literally would have to travel 10 to 15 miles to find a place where a 40-foot schoolbus could turnaround in order to eliminate the need to cross children across the roadway... so we must cross them (with driver escort).

Also, for those who say the other children would become unruly or possibly release the parking brake: as stated by another post, it just doesn't happen. Our students are more disciplined than that, and what about an instance where the bus driver must leave the driver's seat in order to address a problem in the back of the bus? Do students run to the front of the bus with the intent to release the park brake and allow the bus to roll? I have not heard of that happening, so why would it happen while the driver is escorting students across the road?

Yes, this system works in CA because of the training of the drivers and the education of the students and parents. It seems the only people who we have a hard time reaching are the general public (motorists) who run our red-light crossovers.

The system in CA works here and can work anywhere in the USA.

The arguments against "Escorted Crossings" have the same amount of bearing as the arguments against the three-point passenger restraint systems that are now starting to be used in many states, including California. I have to admit, I was against the passenger restraint systems like many others in the industry. But the truth is, once put into use, those arguments don't have any validity to them. The same holds true for all the arguments against "Escorted Crossings". Until you actually have to put it into practice, you have no idea what will happen. In California, as has been stated many times already, we face the same situations as every where else around the country. And, in all of those situations, we, the drivers, have prevailed and kept not only the children on the bus safe but also those crossing the road. Isn't that what is most important?
As a side note, California only requires "Escorted Crossing" for students Pre-K through 8th grade, inclusive. As stated by Mr. Green, there has not been a death or injury to a student in that category since the inception of the "Escort" practice. We, unfortunately cannot say the same thing for students above the 8th grade that are not escorted. And, yes, we have had drivers hit by passing motorists. But, and I am sure that many would agree, if I am able to keep one child from being hit by a passing vehicle and I receive injuries because of it, it is better than having to live with the memory of seeing one of my students hit by that same vehicle. That is something that would haunt a driver for the rest of their life.

California's safety record speaks volumes.

I've been a school bus driver in California for over 38 years. I have been out of the seat and have done crossover escorts countless times. It has worked every time! Even the times those cars have not stopped. I was there to get the students out of the way so no one was hurt or injured. Again it works! It comes down to driver training, parent training and student training. Once this is all in place, the safest way to cross the roadway is going to happen. It doesn't take any more time or lengthen a route that much. I know that school bus drivers from other states think that we here in California are crazy for leaving the bus with no adult on it, but the system works. We don’t pump the air down; we just secure the bus and take the keys in hand when we leave the driver’s compartment. We do this in rain, snow, heat and cold. It works every time. It’s hard to argue with success, even when it seems crazy. All we’re saying is: “Don’t dismiss this idea”. It just might work for you too.

Thank you all for your comments. There are a lot of questions to be answered based on the students in our area.

There have been no students killed in Arizona, by a passing motorist that I can find. So from my perspective, the additional funds needed for longer routes; unless of course we dropped the students who lived within walking distance of school who we now pick up is a concern.

I also understand that the system in CA works, no doubt from a safety standpoint, there are some good results from escorting students.

I would like to know though, how does one supervise kids in a bus while they are on the ground? How can the driver be watching the students in the bus while also watching traffic and the students on the ground. It seems like a daunting task to say the least. If there was a "zero tolerance" for misbehavior, that might be an incentive for the students to behave. With all of the violence on school buses across the country, as evidenced by the number videos on YouTube and the like, it just seems to me like a huge risk leaving student unattended while they are on the bus. There would be no way for a driver to safely handle a situation from the ground with some of the larger students; especially high school students.

Unless the routes are dramatically smaller though, it would add a minimum of 1 to 1½ minutes per stop from a stop that does not escort. Ten stops would mean an additional 10 to 15 minutes per route, twenty stops could mean an additional 30 minutes per route. Now I understand the argument that a students life is invaluable, but resources being scarce like they are, my concern is from where does the additional funding come? How much classroom funding is reduced? After all, the primary function of the school is to educate not transport.

Diane, your position about saving the life of a student at the expense of your own safety, seems to leave out your family's impact if you are injured or worse. Life being equal, the trade off doesn't seem reasonable, albeit altruistic.

My district is a rural district. The number of kids on the bus ranges from 45 - 70. The average number of stops per route is about 20. With a wide variety of value sets within our district, I would honestly feel less secure leaving the seat to escort a student on the ground, because leaving students unattended seems more dangerous. Temperatures in western Arizona reach in the upper 110's to mid 120's. Leaving students on a bus that will get hot in the minute it takes to offload and escort a student seems equally dangerous to me. So there is a balance that has to be met.

Again thanks for all who gave their input. It helps to understand all different views.

He typically meets resistance? That statement is too kind. Drivers that have unruly students on their buses, without question a serious safety violation in itself, virtually panic at the idea and set out to promote theories why this idea will not work.

The idea to expect the bus driver to actually escort children across a road that some drivers would not cross is scary enough. And once off the bus those unruly allowed to ride present a serious safety risk.

The answer is simple enough. Make it policy that the bus driver and the well-behaved students have the run of the bus, not the bullies and the otherwise obnoxious.

Stop transporting the unruly! Before leaving the school remove from the bus any students refusing to follow directions or otherwise acting out disruptive conduct on the bus. Offer a seat change, when persistent instruct the child to wait off the bus with a school staff member. And when continuing to act out have the child escorted to the school office to work it out while the bus proceeds on schedule.

I completely agree with the California Model that requires the bus driver to leave the bus and cross students - have been promoting this model for years. Would escort children myself within the same moment it was allowed in our state.

Congratulations to California for stepping up with a valid remedy for protecting children from being run over by their own school bus.

Free bus stop safety booklet at this link: Post #5: http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20089

I fully agree with SC above. From all the postings it does sound like it is a "matter of inconvenience" not safety that is prompting those against student escorts. As a California bus driver I have not read one legitimate posting opposing student escorts. All the reasons against student escorts are not valid. It appears to me that is the fear of change that is scaring those who have never done a student escort. None of the posted comments against student escorts are valid.

KW - No "valid" reasons? That's easy for you to say sitting on your perch. However, every single reason to not escort seems valid. Not one has to do with the drivers getting out of the seat and more with what happens when they are not on the bus. There must be some super well-behaved kids on your buses because on the ones in my district, it would be unwise to leave them unsupervised.

There are K-8 kids on a bus to and from school. Are you seriously stating that the driver should be completely comfortable getting off the bus with hormone driven junior high kids left alone? Even with the driver on the bus there are issues with behavior and letting the driver get off the bus to escort someone across the street, could and almost certainly would at some point create an environment in which students can be assaulted, molested or otherwise harassed.

I agreed with the safety issues regarding escorting, only that the overall costs could impact the instructional funding of the schools. Are you saying that is an invalid concern? That it costs no more to escort a student across the street? That the risk of the students in the bus misbehaving along with the possibility raised by Diane earlier that a driver could also get injured along with a student being outside the bus is invalid?

It is not a fear of change that drives anyone here who opposes escorting students. It's the intangibles of what the risks are vs. what the benefits are. Since no student has been killed in Arizona by a stop sign violators, should we implement it? Our system seems to be as safe for the students as the one in CA.

I think before you completely dismiss those with whom you disagree, you should understand their concerns. No one has dismissed those who like escorting, but have merely asked questions; valid questions I might add, with regard to the overall process of escorting. Look above and you will find no one who is concerned with holding up traffic or making the drivers do more work. Rather is the value of the benefits of escorting students compared to not, worth the cost to the districts? If it takes an additional 3% of income to escort students, which programs are affected and is it worth it for the educational experience of the students? Are you seriously saying that those concerns are invalid?

This seems to be generating a lot of emotion and anger. Looking back at all the comments it appears that I started this "argument". An argument was not my intention, but a discussion was. Disrespect can not be part of a discussion. I hope that none of you feel that I have been disrespectful to you.

I have a question for you Robb. Would you, or any of you from outside California, be willing and able to take a trip here for a few days? A demonstration is not a good way to see this. It's like watching a demonstration to teach an evacuation. In real life it goes very quickly.

I think it would be fabulous if you could spend a day or two on some California bus routes to see for yourself how the process works. We wholeheartedly believe in it. I am positive that you could not change our minds about it. However, you might have a better alternative to something else that we do. Learning from each other is always a good way to grow and improve.

I agree completely that it sounds like escorting would add a significant amount of time to your routes. It really doesn't but I understand why you would think that it does.

I also agree that if you have not seen or done an escort the idea of leaving the kids on the buses alone would be a little scary. It really does work. Our children are no different than yours. Those little lines on the maps don't make us different from each other and they shouldn't separate us.

From my perspective it is not that your arguments are invalid, it is just that some things need to be seen to be understood clearly. From a California perspective it is what we do every day. For us it is easy, natural and it is just a part of how we do our job.

How about a challenge to all of the State Directors? Maybe we could get them to come to California, go on some routes and see how it works. Are they willing to at least look at it? If so, and if they agree that it works well, would they be willing to at least test it in their own states?

"The problems with the driver escorting the students, in my mind, outweigh the benefits."posted by Rob on 7/26/2010
What in the world could possibly outweigh saving a childs life?

Each state and/or operation believes what is best for their operation. But, in reality, allowing children to cross the street unescorted with only the protection of flashing lights is irresponsible.

Stop using cost factor, unruly children, etc as a reason not to adopt statute requiring AN ADULT to escort the children. If it is the school bus driver or hired bus assistant.

I have had enough of people trying to convince me on why they don't do something and their way is best. I use logic and responsibility when making my decision.

California may be broke, have an actor as the Governor but they have a great procedure on transporting children!

I was a school bus driver who was trained in Kansas. I thought I was trained well, one day on my route I had a kindergartner who lived across the street. I did as required by law and let my student out to cross in front of the school bus. I checked for traffic in all directions. After I was satisfied that it was safe for her to cross, I motioned her to cross. After my student stepped off the curb abd began to cross a motorcycle came from off an alley and nearly hit my student. When I moved out to California to begin driving a bus here for my contractor I worked for I was insulted that I was required to learn to drive a school bus all over again. Let alone 20 hours of classroom and 20 hours behind the wheel. Well I tell you what When my trainer taught me ablut loading and unloading I wanted to stand up and cheer. I know that it makes a differance, I am just thankful that my little girl had not gotten hit and had her being one of the statistics on the kansas survey.

I am very interested in gbfethe safety of all students to and from school, especially the special needs students. The "escort" system seems to have a lot of promise. I'm wondering if school districts around the country would consider hiring a high school student to ride the bus to assist the driver !?! This sounds like an inexpensive way to provide a safe crossing for all students! It might also save time for the busses that transport special needs students while providing for a great real-life experience for the assistant!

Robb: Yes, if a driver is injured because they are out of the bus "escorting" students across the street will have an effect on their family. But so can the emotional toll that can reek havok on a person who witnesses a child being killed in front of them. Especially when the person has in their mind that they may have been able to do something to prevent the tragedy.
Yes, there are lots of videos out there of the unruliness of students on buses. We should keep in mind that what we have seen happen occurred while the driver was on board the bus. So, it seems to me that whether or not the driver has to get off the bus to "Escort" students across the street and relinquishes some of her ability to control students on board the bus is irrelevant.
I like Barbara's suggestion that Transportation Operators or State Directors should take the time and opportunity to come to California for a few days and ride a few of our bus routes to see how it works.
As I said earlier, most of us had big concerns about the institution of three-point safety restraints in school buses before they were installed several years ago. Especially those of us who have been in this business for many years. Before we can take an adamant stand on one side of a debate or another, we need to know that our side of the debate is founded on fact and not fear. After all, it is fear of the unknown and fear itself that causes us to resist change. Change is not always a bad thing.

Barbara - I drive in Parker, AZ which is across the river from CA. I've witnessed first hand how it works. Not to dismiss you, but I've seen it work. I've also NEVER said it didn't. I've been a driver and Transportation Director for 11 years. I've been on the bus and witnessed some assaults and indecent behavior that in my mind would only get worse if the driver left the seat. I'm also not here to change anyone's mind. So far though, my mind has not changed. Doing it because "it works here" doesn't pose a solid enough argument to overcome the concerns I've already stated here several times. For those of you who dismiss my concerns without really addressing them other than to say "it's not valid," explain to me in detail how my concerns are unfounded. If you can explain to me how the driver being on the ground and away from supervising students who range in age from 6 to 15 is good and that NOTHING could happen to them while the driver is absent, then by all means tell me.

Briton... since not every time a student exits the bus their life is endangered by traffic, it seems a little bit alarmist to state contrary. Since I started driving, have I had close calls? Yes. Would those close calls have ended differently with me being on the ground? I don't think so. Would the added costs of longer routes and additional wear and tear on the buses; given the number of stops we have in a day/week/year, be worth it? You can't dismiss the costs, regardless of how you feel about this issue. Budget concerns are real for those of us in positions to see it. Not that drivers don't, but I look at numbers regularly and with cuts a reality, saving money is important, period.

DJ... I can keep the door closed; and do, until all traffic stops before I allow a student to exit the bus. How could allowing a student to cross the road after assuring all traffic has stopped be irresponsible? I don't understand? Isn't that what the "escort" is supposed to do? If all traffic is stopped and I allow the students off the bus to cross, can't I also maintain order and security on my bus? Not one person has addressed my concern of allowing students to be unsupervised on the bus and being away from the driver's seat. Having been on the bus when fights break out, I can only imagine that if kids wanted to fight, they could and most likely would find a way to close the door to prevent the driver from interfering. Is everyone telling me that can't happen? What happens if the driver is on the ground and a student on the bus is injured? What's the district liability?

There have been sexual assaults on school buses across the country, does anyone think that this can't happen more frequently if the driver is absent more often? Come on folks, address the concerns here and don't dismiss them. They have merit and if you don't think they do, then you are turning a blind eye toward them to further your own positions. Just because it works for you, doesn't mean that it's the best. I've not said our way is the "best" way, only asked for someone to address the points I've stated. And to date, no one has. Only platitudes and "our way works, you're just lazy..." and you're points are "not valid."

Diane... It seems to me that your acknowledging the misbehavior and violence on board school buses, leads me to believe that my concerns have a basis in fact. Wouldn't the driver who "escorts" a student and returns to find a student had been assaulted, molested or worse feel the same agony as one who sees a child struck by a vehicle? Perhaps that is a stretch, but as yet not one post here has addressed these issues in a reasoned manner. Only "I've been a CA driver for years and it's works. You just don't want to try anything new."

That is not true either. I would love to find a "perfect" way to do this. Transporting students is noble and personally rewarding. The "bad apples" are not that bad in comparison to some of the other things going on in the world. I'm thankful to be in the position I am and can tell that the rest of you feel the same way. My concerns are real and wide in scope. All I ask is that someone, anyone, take each of my concerns and convince me that I don't really have that worry. So far though, no one has tried. That leads me to believe that while you support your escorting position wholeheartedly, my concerns are yours as well. I'm just willing to voice them here.

I'm a CA Driver and Instructor. There is a lot of talk about passenger management going on in the previous posts. If the driver is adept at passenger management there are few problems, and none that would not have occured even with that driver still on the bus.
Secondly, the cost factor is insulting. Everyone who lists cost over safety is willing to settle for a child being injured or killed.

Richard... the costs are real. No one can deny that. Is it worth a child's life? No. But can you say without a doubt that a child will be killed if not escorted? No. I'm a driver and instructor as well.

I've been taught by some of the best in the area and they have had few to no troubles. Not everyone commands the respect that some can. Since not everyone is adept at controlling the bus, isn't it reasonable to expect the potential of problems when the driver leaves the bus?

I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving the seat, period. I'm sure that there are things I could learn, but given the area in which I work, I definitely believe that the potential to quell on bus problems far outweigh the benefits of escorting students.

Rob... Yes I can say that without a doubt children will be killed every year if not escorted across the street. I can say this because every year it happens "seven children in the U.S. were killed by a passing vehicle while loading or unloading from their school buses in the 2008-09 school year."
I agree that not everyone is adept at passenger management. My question is why are they still driving our children.

I guess my point is that while 7 students being killed is tragic and you can't put a price on it, inevitably there is a price.

7 students in 50 million bus stops for example...

If there are roughly 280,000 bus stops per day across the country, it would amount to approximately 50,000,000 total bus stops for the year. Again, while you can't put a price on saving the life of a child, it seems that the additional money would have to come from somewhere. It would most likely come from the classroom, right? If there are additional monies needed for escorting students whether it be the driver or another adult hired to escort, the money would come from the classroom.

Is it unreasonable to cut arts programs, sports programs, extra-curricular activities and lose educational experience to provide someone to escort students across the street? I think it is.

In an ideal world, money would be no object and we could afford to hire extra staff to cut down on route sizes and bus sizes to give us the extra time it takes to escort students and not have students on the bus for more than an hour. However, we live in the real world where there are finite resources. Those unlimited funds don't exist. The primary purpose of a school is to educate. That requires funding. In today's world, those funds are becoming more and more scarce.

Still no one has fully addressed the concerns of leaving the buses unsupervised. Again, how do we balance leaving students unsupervised and the possibility of someone being harmed while the bus driver is on the ground escorting? Everyone witnessed with horror as I did, the student in St. Louis being attacked by several other students while the bus driver was ON the bus. Is it not possible that the bus driver's presence prevents that incident with a lot of cases? The fact that the driver is in the seat, COULD keep some of the incidents from ever coming to a head. Am I wrong there?

I am not willing to settle for a child being injured or killed. The overall picture though, means that questions have to be answered. So far, not one person has addressed them. That to me, means that everyone has the same concern. I'm a good driver, I believe. I have very few problems when I drive and student behavior is controlled; not perfect but manageable.

I still would feel uncomfortable leaving the seat and subjecting students to the possibility of being harmed, harassed or bullied; or worse. It seems to be a question of who is more important? I feel as strongly about the safety of the students on the bus as I do off. No matter what we do though, kids are put in dangerous situations every day. From a practical standpoint though, I would rather have the funds in the classroom to give the students the best education possible.

Every time I have commented on here I tell myself it is the last time. Apparently I do not have the ability to keep my mouth shut...or to stop myself from typing.

Robb, I think your concerns are very well stated. I also run a school transportation department and I am very aware of the budget concerns you are talking about. It is frightening to watch school districts eliminate transportation and know the risks that those children are exposed to with alternative methods to get to school each day.

Realistically there is no way anyone could ever promise you that there would be no discipline issues on a bus. Our law in California requires that we escort the students up through 8th grade. It does not require high school students to be escorted. That does reduce the risk of severe problems on the bus.

I can think of no way to explain to you why having the driver off the bus is not a concern to us. The driver is not off of the bus long enough for much to happen. We haven't had any major issues on a bus while the drivers have been out escorting students. "It hasn't happened" is not a reasonable explanation for you and I understand your that. Your statement that a student has not been killed in Arizona while crossing the street without an escort is basically the same thing we are saying about escorting. It hasn't happened.

I would like to say that I think it is wonderful that your state has not had a tragedy like so many others have had. Your drivers must be doing a great job. I believe you care deeply about the children that are transported on all of our school buses every day. It shows in the things you say. The fact that you very logical also shows. I wish I could give you a logical answer to your question. I can't.

Have a wonderful new school year! By the way, the invitation to come ride with us is still open.

Does anybody know what the statistics are for violence on California school buses while the driver is escorting students across the road, vs. other states violence while at bus stops? I don't have those statistics myself. Robb's point should be addressed with real data. Also, I believe Barbara correctly stated that it take just as much time to cross kids from the driver's seat as it does to escort them across the road. At the most it would be a few seconds difference not 60 - 90 seconds difference each. Our drivers have a minimum five hours guarantee which takes care of extra cost of escorting students. Not all stops require escort either, we try to route the run so we minimize the need to escort students across the road because we understand that crossing any road is more dangerous than stopping on the student's side. Many of our routes only have to escort about 50% of the stops or less. Bottom line on added cost is that it is not nearly as much as has been projected.

Since California has a record of NO fatalities, they should set the bar high for the rest of us. If you think you can protect students better, then why hasn't drivers learned not to run over students? Because they did not secure the parking brakes when the students were on the ground and not inside the bus or out of the roadway. So if students can be protected by the drivers escourting them to and from the bus - so be it!!! Good job California !!!

A lot has transpired since I last checked in on this tread- Wow! There is certainly a great deal of emotional baggage being tossed about.

Can we collectively agree that no one ever wants any harm to come to any one of our student? That personally, none of us would ever want to assign a price to the life of a child?

Robb's calculation of 7 fatalities to 50 Million bus stops truely identifies them as statistical outliers. Horrific as these seven death are, it does not indicate that established procedures and practices are horribly flawed. CA has just taken on the expense for these extensive steps beyond what is proven effective.

I found Barbara's recent statement interesting: "Our law in California requires that we escort the students up through 8th grade." So high school students are less valuable than the rest of the student population?? This would suggest that the law written more as a tool to cross our younger students under supervision. If a car is going to run the stop arms- the fact that they are 7 or 17 isn't going to make a difference.

I would hope that a high school student would be more cognizant of the surround danger- but being a realist, they will likely have earbuds in the ears, talking/texting on their phone, or are just day dreaming while they cross.

Slightly mixed message now isn't it?

The one thing I thought about over the weekend was this...

Can anyone state unequivocally that the procedures outlined have actually "saved" a child from being killed? Is there any data that shows that a driver has physically intervened where a student offloading would have; not could have, been killed by a passing driver?

It seems in all of the questions and banter, no one asked that question. Is it possible that no students in CA would have been killed without the escort procedure? If there was escorting in AZ where I am, the data would also show that escorting works, when all along no student would have been killed without it.

Just more food for thought...

The law in California requires that we escort the students up through 8th grade but it does not prohibit escorting high school students. Districts can have a policy that requires escorting high school students if they choose to.

High school students are in no way less valuable. The lawmakers in California felt that high school students were capable of crossing the street without the assistance of the school bus driver.

Robb,

As I stated above, I have been out in the street doing an escort when a car blew right through the crossover lights and I can say that if I was not out there doing the escort that there would have been a fatality that day. It does work.

I was a witness (when I was going to school myself)to a High school girl being struck by a passing car when a school bus was stopped. The driver didn’t know that the girl was even going to cross and did not even have the time to turn on the crossover lights. It was very ugly and the driver didn’t drive anymore because of the bad dreams he was having. After that the school district made a policy that all students would be escorted and that a student could not get off at another bus stop other than their own unless arrangements had been made prior.

Again it only takes a few seconds longer to do an escorted crossing than it take to cross without being escorted.

I understand your concerns about the students on the bus, but if you know your students and work with them, their behavior will be the same, whether you’re on the bus or not. If they are going to fight or act out on the bus, it will happen, if you’re there or not.

Thanks Tom for the article! I have watched the resistence to this idea for many years. It reminds me of the resistence to seat belts that occurred and contiues to occur. I think that California has an idea that needs to be considered. If you can say you have had no fatalities in the loading and unloading zone in your state, then perhaps there could be arguement, but in Nevada we can't say that. If there would have been someone outside of the bus to check, this kindergartener would not been accidently run over by the buses rear dual tires in front of his mommy. Should I dare say that I also support bus aides on all school buses so that school bus drivers only have to concentrate on safely driving the bus. Thanks for the article. It brings up discussion and that is a good thing!

Robb,
I can state unequivically that one of my drivers (in Twentynine Palms, CA) doing an escorted crossing saved a child's life when a car ran his red lights and he pulled the child out of the street and out of the way of the car. That is one. I am sure other drivers in CA have done the same.

I believe that each bus should have a driver and a monitor. The bus monitor would be similar to the teacher's helper, but for the bus driver. The monitor would promote safety on the bus and for students that need to cross-over in front of the bus and cross the street when getting on and/or off the bus. This would prevent the tragic deaths & permanent disabilities that occur each year from this similar situation. The monitor would maintain safety and order on the bus as well. This would be a great help to bus drivers so they can concentrate on the road. This would also create new jobs. Think about it. A doctor has an assistant. A nurse has an assistant. A teacher has an assistant. An airplane pilot has a co-pilot. Garbage men even go out in twos. But a bus driver full of our children goes out without any assistant and about 20 children die each year in this country because they are struck by a car while crossing the street getting off or on the school bus.
A concerned Mom

Not surprising this thread seems abundant with naysayers. The California model seems to have more promoted theories and myths against use than did seat belts. ( See this video concerning seat belts, Seat Belts on School Buses -- One District's Experience: http://www.youtube.com/user/2safeschools ). The myths concerning seat belts is finally concluding and I would expect that driver escorted crossings once implemented in any state would likewise demonstrate the validity of the driver escort procedure. It is unhealthy to just sit in that driver's seat and drive. Divers that get out of their seat on the bus and direct where students sit when boarding at the school and also walk the aisle to release seat-by-seat after arriving to school find sleeping kids, expensive devices and clothing about to be left behind, and seats free of damage and litter. But even this easy, simple, efficient and effective procedure is fought by most drivers. No question the California driver escort crossing model would be riddled with all sorts of excuses declaring it will not work, even when the facts, the research behind the facts and the decades of positive results prove it does. How is it that so many of the genuine safe practices in this industry have to be mandated to get it done? Very sad that so many children are injured and some die because myths can too often prevail over reality. Is there an online video available that fully demonstrates this crossing procedure? If so I would like a link to that video or link to download so that I can help promote this next genuine life saving school bus driver duty.