W
hile technology can serve as a driver retention tool to help reduce stress, it only works when the tools are implemented properly and ade- quately explained to those using them. While,
districts continue to weigh driver requests against budget constraints, buying new technology is not the simple solution to keeping drivers. Instead, it’s about using it strategically, training drivers and creating buy-in. For Tim Shaw, the coordinator of transportation technology for Fulton County Schools in Georgia, thoughtfully implemented technology removes friction from a driver’s day rather than adding to it. “Tools like integrated routing systems, turn by turn
navigation, electronic pre/post trip inspections, and real time communication reduce guesswork and manual paperwork,” he said. “That means drivers can focus more on safely operating the bus and less on remembering routes, filling out forms, or tracking down information. Technology also adds a level of consistency and trans- parency. Drivers know expectations. Administrators have better visibility and data to solve problems faster. When drivers feel supported and not overwhelmed, job satisfaction improves, which directly impacts retention.” Meanwhile, almost 90 miles north, Karen Mitchell,
director of transportation for Whitfield County Schools in Georgia, agreed that tools like GPS and tablets as well as parent apps could help retain drivers by improving communication. She noted that she’s looking at im- plementing tablets with GPS that offer turn-by-turn directions, as she said it could be a positive step toward supporting and retaining bus drivers. “I feel it will make routes easier to navigate especially
for lead drivers,” she shared, adding that Whitfield is also looking at a parent communication app to improve co- ordination between families and transportation staff. “Another technology piece that I am interested in
would be updated bus cameras with live feed, which I feel would enhance safety and provide real-time sup- port. Overall, I feel these tools will help create a safer, more efficient and driver-friendly environment,” she said. “I started my career as a bus driver, and I would have welcomed technology like this. While it is not the only solution, it would make the job more manageable and efficient which I feel would help with retention.” Removing stress is a common theme. Beth Allison, in-
structor, trainer and recruiter for Prince William County Public Schools in Virginia, explained that technology can be a retention tool if it addresses stressful situations. She discussed the benefits of routing software, GPS, crash-avoidance and lane departure warning systems, pedestrian detection systems, cameras, and student verification tools. When drivers have tablets that can update routes in real time, dispatch can drop a new route or group of students directly into the system, removing
22 School Transportation News • JUNE 2026
the pressure of navigating unfamiliar roads with only a paper sheet, Allison noted. She said that kind of support is especially helpful for sub drivers who may be sent anywhere in the county to cover routes. She also said technology has improved communica-
tion between drivers, dispatchers, route managers and schedulers. Instead of relying on paper route-change forms that can sit on someone’s desk, drivers can now submit updates through a digital “launchpad,” where multiple people can view and act on the information. This helps streamline operations because the infor-
mation is housed in one place and does not depend on a single person being available. Prince William County purchased EZRouting software about two years ago. The district is currently using tablets and GPS with plans to implement student verification and RFID cards next year.
‘It’s Not in the Budget’ Allison noted that one reason Prince William County is
drawing out the implementation process is due to bud- get challenges. She noted that districts often have access to useful technology, or have piloted it, but cannot fully implement it because of money. For example, the district had pedestrian detection systems on two buses for nearly 10 years, but the program was never expanded because the funding was not there. She said drivers have asked for an updated routing system, better route efficiency, student tracking crucial for sub drivers, better parent relations communication, pedestrian detection for extra visibility or tracking of students in the danger zone, and stop-arm cameras for student safety and illegal passing accountability. She noted those conversations cannot stop at “it’s not in the budget.” Instead, she said leaders need to explain why technology is difficult to fund or imple- ment, including the legal, legislative, law enforcement and administrative steps involved. Allison said budget conversations are more productive when leaders are transparent, involve drivers in the process and look for savings elsewhere, such as the money her district ex- pects to save by shifting from diesel to propane buses. “The key is to separate the need behind the technology
request from the tool itself, then manage expectations transparently,” she said. “Focus on the technology you cur- rently have, better training on existing systems (many tools are underused) and encourage its use. Provide training and support while letting them know improved technology is coming but takes time to implement. Let [drivers] know things that are being done to save within the budget to provide future funds to support the improved technology.” She said it’s key to keep communication positive and discuss everything as time. “Let them know as drivers they can contribute to cost savings (reduce idling, effi- cient route, etc.).”
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
