The Child Check Mate System being deactivated at the end of a bus route.
upon boarding and leaving the bus.” However, the use of biometric scanners is controversial, with op- ponents citing privacy concerns. In May 2014, Florida Gov. Rick Scott banned the collection of biometric information from students. Florida is first state in the nation to do so. Still, Fuselier says that the feed-
The Iritrans biometric scanner system.
remaining students or other items such as forgotten backpacks. IC Bus offers a similar system called No Student Left Behind. An alarm sounds when the school bus driver completes the route and turns off the bus. Tis requires the school bus driver to walk to the back of the bus where they can reset the alarm, looking under each seat as they move along. “It really forces them to make sure
there’s no child left behind,” said Trish Reed, company vice president and general manager. In a recent security survey of transportation directors conduct- ed by School Transportation News, approximately 65 percent of 262 respondents indicated that they use these types of electronic systems in their operations. But the technology available to prevent students from being left
behind on the bus goes beyond alarm systems. Te Antelope Valley Schools Transportation Agency in Southern California recently con- ducted a pilot program to test the effectiveness of biometric scanner technology, specifically iris scanners, for special needs routes. Morris Fuselier, CEO at Antelope
Valley, explained that a tablet is loaded with software the captures the enrollment of a bus. Te iris scanner is conditioned, or “trained” to recognize the students. Once it’s been trained, the student looks into a binocular device. Te device reads their identification characteristics on their iris and checks them in. “It’s a pretty simple device,” he added. “At the end of loading, drivers hit a button on tablet and it shows who is there and who is not. Parents are notified via text message each time their child is scanned
48 School Transportation News • JANUARY 2016 65% of survey
respondents indicated
they have a child check technology system in
place in their operations.
back from parents so far has been positive, and that the system has alternative options for those who are not comfortable with the idea of iris scans or for those operations with students whose special needs make it difficult to collect the information that way. Te driver has the option to manually check-in students via a tablet. “We have some students that rare- ly open their eyes, so to get them to look into a binocular is impossible,” Fuselier explained. “We have some autistic students that have issues with anything being close to their face. So we can manually enter those as they get on the bus. With special needs, you have to have options.” In the event of a security breach, he added that students information would be protected in a way that the data may be rendered useless for potential hackers. “Te data is stored in a way that displays as a lot of numbers and letters. If someone accessed it, it wouldn’t provide much of anything. Te tablets don’t hold much data, just hold the program,” Fuselier said. Tere are also different systems
and procedures that transporters use that don’t necessarily involve technology. Many use different types of visual aids, ranging from posters and hiding objects during training sessions to condition drivers to make a habit of of double-checking. Last September, the New Jersey
Department of Children and Fam- ilies created 17.5 inch by 4.5 inch signs to be displayed on school buses that remind drivers to check for chil- dren. DCF partnered with both the School Transportation Supervisors of New Jersey and the New Jersey
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
