O
n March 27, the lives of two 13-year-old girls end- ed, after they boarded a school bus for a school field trip with the Tullahoma Public Schools in Middle Tennessee. The bus collided with a Tennes-
see Department of Transportation dump truck after the bus drifted over the double line. Citing a similar incident in Chattanooga 10 years
earlier, Tennessee state Sen. Mark Pody is pushing for mandatory collision avoidance technology on school buses that will at least signal the driver to slow down, or stop. Pody plans to propose statewide purchase of tech- nology to detect lane markings and automatically alert drivers, while steering or braking, to prevent a bus from unintentionally crossing center lines. To achieve the highest level of safety, school transpor-
tation leaders as well as bus manufacturers are paying great attention to collision avoidance systems such as automatic braking systems which automatically brake for incidents or signal the operator to do so. “When we first began exploring automatic braking technology on school buses, I had an opportunity to personally drive a vehicle equipped with the system and experience the bus automatically stop,” said Rosalyn Vann-Jackson, chief support services officer for Bro- ken Arrow Public Schools in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. “To say it was a religious experience may be an under- statement. You can read about the technology, watch demonstrations and talk about how quickly a system can recognize a hazard, but experiencing a school bus respond before you can fully process what is happening makes the potential very real. The technology works.” When you are operating a large vehicle carrying
children, fractions of a second matter. If technology can give a professional driver even a little more time or provide an additional safeguard when something unex- pected happens, that is significant. So is the cost. While much safety-related technology abounds, school transportation leaders are continuously chal- lenged with budgetary pressures and outright challenges of the affordability of such technology. That has been the case for the Rossville Consolidated School District. The rural public school corporation located in north-central Indiana serves approximately 950 students on a single PK-12 campus. It operates 10 regular bus routes and transport nearly 400 students each day. Because of the rural geography, some routes extend more than 25 miles, and students may spend nearly an hour on the bus. “I believe the school transportation industry is at an
important transition point,” said Jim Hanna, Rossville’s superintendent. “There is widespread recognition that technology can improve student safety, but a significant gap remains between what is technologically possible and what many school districts can afford to imple-
20 School Transportation News • OCTOBER 2026
ment. Many districts, particularly rural districts, began by adopting technologies that improve operational aware- ness and accountability.” Vann-Jackson, who is also a certified driver instructor
and presented a session at STN EXPO West in July “De- fensive Driving in an Increasingly Autonomous World,” said the primary pathway to attain and implement new technology will be via new bus acquisitions. This will be essential to adopt collision avoidance systems, partic- ularly for those that integrate directly with braking and other vehicle functions. “Retrofits and pilot programs can also be valuable, especially for warning-based technologies and systems that allow districts to evaluate effectiveness before ex- panding them throughout the fleet,” she added. Fleet age greatly influences access to and adoption of
such new technology. “A district may strongly support collision avoidance technology but simply not have the funding to replace enough buses for that technology to reach the majority of its students,” she explained. “That is why I think we have to look beyond the initial purchase price. If tech- nology can help prevent even one significant collision, we should consider the potential avoided costs associat- ed with injuries, vehicle damage, downtime and claims but most importantly the human impact.” Budget pressures, she continued, are the reality for
every school district. Yet interest in advanced safety technologies continues to grow. She noted that state purchasing specifications are increasingly rewarding the inclusion of these features. “Transportation directors are recognizing their value as tools that can help reduce risk and enhance student safety,” Vann-Jackson said. Matthew Milewski, the segment marketing director
of IC Bus, agreed that adoption mainly takes place with new bus acquisitions. “In terms of adoption, we’re primarily seeing it occur
through new bus purchases rather than retrofits,” he said. “Especially when it comes to technologies such as collision mitigation or electronic stability control, full in- tegration with the vehicle during manufacturing enables a more robust and reliable solution.” Others are trying to add new and innovative technolo-
gy by retrofit in addition to newly acquired buses. “We’re seeing a combination of approaches,” said
Jason Kierna, vice president of information technology with First Student. “New bus purchases often include ad- vanced safety features, while retrofits and pilot programs allow districts to bring modern technology to existing fleets without waiting for full vehicle replacement cycles to complete. Given the long service life of school buses, retrofitting is especially important to integrate technol- ogies into buses sooner and more efficiently without the
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
