Login
May, Should, Shall?
Despite not meeting since 2015 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Congress on School Transportation in Des Moines, Iowa last month concluded one half day ahead of schedule.
The early finish was noted by steering committee chair Michael LaRocco, state director student transportation services for the Indiana Department of Education, and on-site chair Charlie Hood, a former NASDPTS president and retired state director for Florida, who attributed the expedited conclusion to the understood importance of the process.
As a first-time attendee—like many in the room—the organized structure of the proceedings was apparent. Like a well-oiled machine, each committee took the stage and presented the proposed changes, with delegates agreeing quickly, or putting up a fight on something as seemingly simple as a word choice.
Much of the debate occurred over three words: May, Should and Shall. But those are important delineations, I learned.
Shall is the most stringent, a legal obligation. May connotates allowable equipment or processes. Should is a recommendation. I questioned why the wording matters, especially if the book itself is intended to serve as a best-practice resource and not a requirement in many states. It all comes down to legalities.
For instance, say a school district doesn’t equip its school buses with crossing arms and a student gets hurt, when a crossing arm could have prevented the injury. The specifications manual could be used in court, and the district would have to defend the decision of not equipping vehicles with the available safety device.
Despite no delegates speaking on the crossing gates proposal, it passed in one of the most controversial votes, 34 to 13, changing “may” have to “shall” have.
Word choice remained important to the delegations and was a sticking point for most amended changes. Whether that word choice was changing school district to local education agency, using the word student versus child, or removing the word privilege when referring to school transportation. One Michigan delegate argued the service should no longer be a privilege but a right, especially when a student’s on-board behavior is an issue.
One delegate even noted at the start of the Congress that using the word shall could be subjective language and called upon the states to use the term must as universal language when referring to requirements throughout the entire specs manual.
“Must is a directive,” the Michigan delegate shared. However, Hood reminded delegates that rules were already accepted and such changes could not be made at that time.
Proposal 50 of the school bus specifications committee was one of the few that was granted extra time for discussion (each proposal is allocated a total of 15 minutes) due to wording relating to mitigating a child being left on a school bus and preemptive procedures for the driver to take. The proposal stated that passenger advisory systems are optional but if installed, “a passenger advisory system shall require the driver to walk through the bus looking for sleeping children before leaving the bus. The driver shall have to push a button at the rear of the bus to deactivate the alarm. If the driver tries to leave the bus without deactivating the system, the system shall cause the horn to sound, notifying others that the bus is still occupied.”
The proposal added a description for how the passenger advisory system works. Delegates, however, found that the language was too specific to a procedure or system. It was amended to remove the description, as delegates pointed out some systems don’t use a button. Instead, the proposal was updated to state that the driver shall walk the bus aisle, look for sleeping children, and proceed to the rear of the bus to deactivate the system.
Another proposal in the specially equipped school bus specifications committee discussed the use of air conditioning. The proposal stated, “Climate control options shall be installed that include heating and air conditioning.” However, delegates voted 37 to 7 that changing shall to may was more appropriate to address the various climates across the U.S.
2025 New Committees
New this year was the addition of the emerging technologies and alternative transportation committees as well as the separation of infants, toddlers and preschoolers from transportation for students with disabilities and health care needs. The emerging technologies committees proceeded quickly, with one Maryland delegate questioning the need for inserting language into the specs manual as opposed to creating a guide that can be updated more regularly for school districts.
“What’s new today is old tomorrow,” a delegate commented. Alternative transportation was an especially hot topic. Many agreed that it was necessary to discuss but in little detail, leaving most governing to state and local decision makers. For instance, a line item for driver credentials stated that alternative transportation drivers “be at least 18 years of age or commensurate with the state’s required age and required years of driving to become a school bus driver.” The delegates felt the age was not necessary and should be removed, leaving the decision to the state.
One delegate suggested a policy consideration for not allowing students to be transported in the front seat of alternative transportation vehicles under any circumstances. However, other delegates had concerns, stating that a 10-passenger van would be limited to nine passengers. A Kentucky delegate said their school district allows high school students to sit in the front when space is limited. The proposed amendment failed by a vote of 31 to 9.
The delegates voted to remove the types of alternative transportation driver training (12 bullet points ranging from defensive driving to operations in inclement weather to safe loading and unloading) to instead comply with federal, state and local requirements.
After two days of the delegates sharing their opinions, presenting amendments and approving proposals (or not), the 17th NCST concluded with the resolutions committee. Resolution 2 states that “School Transportation News in a March 2024 publication identified a reporting issue that indicates the school bus is disappearing.”
STN Editor-in-Chief Ryan Gray’s column “The Disappearing School Bus?” highlighted a discrepancy between historically reported numbers of students who ride the school and those of the National Household Travel Survey sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.
The resolution noted the need to develop a standardized reporting system for collecting ridership data and called on “the interim Steering Committee of the 18th NCST to appoint a focus group to research and develop recommendations for standardization of data collection relative to ridership on school bus and make periodic reports to the Interim Committee.”
The 2024 National Household Travel Survey is currently about halfway through data collection, which will run through Oct. 31 of this year. Meanwhile, the dates and location of the 18th NCST were not announced. State delegates were surveyed about if they felt meeting every five years was appropriate, or if they would rather meet every two or three years. The results were not available at this writing.
Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the June 2025 issue of School Transportation News.
Related: NASDPTS Publishes Paper Espousing Safety of School Buses Over Alternative Transportation
Related: National Congress Finishes Early After 10-Year Hiatus
Related: National Congress on School Transportation Delayed Until 2025
Related: National Congress on School Transportation Writing Committees Prepare for 2025 Meeting
The post May, Should, Shall? appeared first on School Transportation News.
