EDITOR’S TAKE Safety in Sight Written by Ryan Gray | ryan@stnonline.com T


his spring, I spoke with a newspaper report- er in Southern California regarding a case of students left on school buses. Those kinds of headlines always grab my attention as such


incidents happen all too often nationwide. The most recent number is around 500 a year based on federal es- timates, but no true count is recorded from state to state. But all states have a regulation on not leaving students


on school buses. California law requires school bus drivers to deactivate some kind of alarm system that acts as a reminder to perform a full post-trip sweep of the school bus, including looking on and below each seating position to check for sleeping students or those who otherwise did not exit at their respective stops. The law resulted from a tragic 2015 death of a 16-year-


old nonverbal boy with autism, who was left on his Southern California school bus for upwards of eight hours during a heat wave, while his driver hurried off to meet a co-worker for a tryst. Referred to as The Paul Lee law, it has required various


alarms or reminder systems in school buses since 2019. That did not stop two incidents from occurring earlier this year in the Oxnard, California area. Aside from the obvious safety concerns, it came as no surprise that the reporter asked me why the local school bus driv- er’s union was coming to the defense of the driver and opposing technology that could prevent such incidents. Granted, the recent Oxnard case has its complexities. I often talk to directors of transportation about their


frustration with some collective bargaining negotiations, and the media junkets that unions will embark on to try to influence those talks. The breakdown often comes when technology enters the picture. Video cameras, GPS, data tracking and tablets are well ingrained in soci- ety, where we can watch our pizza being made to being delivered, and all steps in between. But when it comes to the nation’s schoolchildren, technology detractors will raise privacy concerns and allege the solutions are being used to spy on school bus drivers. That is part of the story in Oxnard. While technology stacks do corroborate what school


bus drivers are doing—or not—behind the wheel, they also drive efficiencies, safety and accountability. The newspaper reporter I spoke with expressed shock that student tracking exists. I had to explain that many school districts have migrated to what is more accurately de- scribed as student ridership verification, to alleviate the call volume from parents asking where their children’s


10 School Transportation News • JULY 2026


school buses are, and when and where their students board and exit. Student ridership verification is about safety and communication, not checking up on school bus drivers. These systems also work with child remind- er systems to ensure students are accounted for at the conclusion of routes. Camera systems provide another fail-safe, if footage is


reviewed and flagged properly. They verify student activ- ity during the route and can detect if children remain on the bus afterward. They also record traffic issues on the road and provide training insights for driver-trainers re- garding school bus driver action or inaction. For example, cameras using AI-enhanced software increasingly are detecting drowsy or stressed school bus drivers, as we talk about more in this issue. More so, I told the reporter, cameras and other tech-


nology are serving as proof of service, often exonerating school bus drivers from “he said, she said” accusations. Too often, students, other motorists or parents levy alle- gations against school bus drivers that are unfounded. While there are bad apples in every bunch, as seen by the focus on driving while under the influence, most school bus drivers are in this position for all the right reasons. That said, the other part of the Oxnard story is the


emotional and physical toll of school bus driving. Aside from the stress of a busload of students and navigating traffic, adequate bathroom breaks are a serious issue. The school bus drivers at the center of the Oxnard inci- dents needed to use the restroom, and students were left onboard as a result. Cameras were used in part by the school district, it countered, to determine the bus driv- ers’ plight was not as serious as made out to be. Regardless, an STN EXPO West conversation this month


will center on the fatigue of being a school bus driver. You can also find a related article in this magazine. The business case is quite clear on utilizing these


solutions, but not without proper guard rails and com- monsense policies in place. Technology provides a host of possibilities to increase efficiency as well as safety, but student transportation leaders also need to weigh those benefits with potential ramifications. Arm yourself with all the information available to help make the very best decision, one not only fair and safe for your staff but for the students they transport. ●


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  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76