Many school transportation departments throughout the U.S. are currently engaged in software and hardware upgrades—from exploration to implementation—with goals to make the process as smooth as possible while reaping top-level returns on that investment.

Habersham County Schools in Clarkesville, Georgia transports some 4,000 of its approximately 7,000 students throughout the district’s 350 square miles. Stephanie Walker, director of transportation for the district, noted Habersham is in the final stage of a complete bus radio replacement, which entails all new equipment and installation.

“This upgrade was a result of our 911 emergency services upgrading their radio system, and we wanted to remain on the same system as we have always been,” she said. “This project has been a long process, and we are excited to see our radio coverage increase significantly throughout our school district.

“This has always been a safety concern because our existing coverage included portions of our district that had little or no coverage due to terrain and older equipment,” she continued. “We are thankful to be on the same radio network as our emergency services as it relates to safety and monitoring by our emergency management services.”

Walker noted the district is currently considering new software for routing to replace its existing program. “With this replacement, we are considering the addition of student tracking, parent app and live GPS,” she said. “We have evaluated several options and are moving forward with recommendations soon. I believe the additions of student tracking and live GPS will bolster our continuing efforts to maintain high levels of safety for our students.”

Meanwhile, Lamar Consolidated Independent School District in Rosenberg, Texas, which serves approximately 48,000 students, with an average of a little more than 22,000 students transported daily by school bus. Lamar CISD is also the home of the 2026 AASA Superintendent of the Year Roosevelt Nivens.

“Providing safe, reliable transportation at this scale requires a strong operational foundation supported by technology, communication and collaboration,” said Michelle Summers, the assistant director of transportation at the district’s Rosenberg location.

Regarding software and hardware updates, Summers noted the district currently utilizes student monitoring technology that allows students to scan on and off the bus. “This provides parents with visibility into where their student is and adds an additional layer of safety and accountability,” she added.

The district’s school buses also are equipped with tablets, enabling drivers to operate their routes in a hands-free environment, eliminating the need to handle paper route sheets while driving. “Additionally, we have a parent app that allows families to track their child’s bus in real time and view student scan activity,” said Summers. “Together, these tools enhance communication, situational awareness and overall safety for students, drivers and families.” Newport News Public Schools in Virginia recently completed the RFP process to purchase updated routing software.

“We are migrating to a new field trip software as our current software by App Garden is being absorbed by Pathwise,” said Sharon L. Moore, transportation operations manager for the district that transports 19,000 of its district’s 25,500 students via school bus. “There are plans to have our student referral process become digital. We are currently exploring different software to assist us in this goal.”

Addressing challenges and lessons learned, Moore noted it can be challenging during the RFP process to identify software that encompasses all district wish-list items.

“There must be concessions made by both sides to come to the point of making a purchasing decision,” she added. “In the past, we have had to understand that proposals put forth by vendors need to be looked at as a used car sales approach, where everything looks shiny and new. But when we get to implementation, that is where the dings and dents come to light and there is more work than anticipated to get the program up and running for the district.”

That has made district staff aware that they need to ask more in-depth questions during the proposal phase to ensure the product being presented will be adequate to meet its needs, she added.

“If we can weed out the programs that would not be able to do what we need them to do during the RFP process, it saves so much more time and energy during the implementation phase,” said Moore. “We had a situation where we had gotten to the implementation training for a major product and had to back out because it simply would not have worked for our district,” she added. “We found that had we asked more in-depth questions during the process, we could have saved both us and the vendor months of work.”

Walker said one of her biggest challenges is finding the best time to perform equipment replacement and/or installation of new software, including training of all staff and
verification of data transfer.

“We are just now reaching the equipment replacement portion of the new bus radio system and are scheduled as soon as we end our normal school year, for which I am thankful,” she continued. “The timing of the radio equipment will allow for a quicker, seamless installation. However, we were prepared to coordinate the best rotation possible if it were to occur during school days.”

Walker added that any upgrades to the routing software and the new addition of the student verification and parent app will likely occur during the next school year. “Part of our current discussions are planning for this to happen and how we feel is the best approach for the transition if we are able to move forward as we hope,” she noted.

Summers noted the challenges associated with implementation occurred prior to her start with the district. She was informed the process was “very rocky during the first few years.”

“As a district, we worked closely with Tyler Technologies to identify errors within the system and received much needed training. As a result of those efforts, the opening of the 2025–2026 school year was very smooth, showing significant improvement,” she continued,
adding some technology challenges remain, especially related to connectivity and RFID issues. “However, we have strong working relationships with Tyler Technologies and CI Solutions, our student badge provider.

Because of these partnerships, we are typically able to address issues before they become larger problems.” Addressing what a successful implementation looks like, Summers said that it can be challenging, as transportation has many moving parts. “Nothing will ever work perfectly 100 percent of the time,” she pointed out. “However, transportation must operate as close to 100 percent as possible because we have zero room for error when it comes to student safety.”

Summers noted a successful implementation includes strong support from district leadership, clear and consistent communication, healthy and responsive relationships with vendors, and systems that reduce stress rather than add to it.

“When these elements are in place, it creates a smoother, less stressful school year for everyone involved,” she said. Moore agreed a successful implementation should encompass a smooth transition from selection to implementation.

“There needs to be a strong implementation plan with a clear training schedule for all users,” she said. “Each user role and responsibility needs to be clearly defined and the training tailored for each user group needs.” There needs to be a realistic timeline between purchase, training and implementation when it goes live, Moore said.

“There may be a need to run dual programs for a period to ensure that as many bumps in the road with the new software can be handled without operational disruption because we still have the support of the old software,” she added.

Moore advised other districts to involve end-users in as much of the implementation process as possible to help with buy-in and comfort level with the new technology, so that when the software does go live, all users feel comfortable using the program.

To ensure a successful implementation, Moore said she makes all attempts to prepare for any scenario during an upgrade or installation of equipment and software. “I want to see the process as seamless as possible,” she shared. “However, I try to have plans B, C and D already laid out just in case. A successful implementation will come from preparing and planning not only at the school district level but with the vendor you are working with.”

Moore suggested that school districts looking to do upgrades should spend time researching and developing the right questions to ask. “Know what features you are looking for, even if some of them seem too outrageous,” she said. “Not all of the pie-in-the-sky features will be available or possible, but you may be surprised that some will be.

“These features will probably not be the shiny new car look that you see in the showroom but could be the hidden under the hood features that makes the software the right fit for your division,” she continued. Summers concurred that the best possible outcome is derived through research.

“Compare and contrast solutions, and seek direct feedback from your transportation team,” she said. “Ask what is working, what is not and what the software or program needs to accomplish. Every district has unique needs, and it is important to address those needs intentionally.

“It is also critical to take your time and avoid rushing implementation simply because of cost. Rushed implementations often result in greater costs later. Phasing in upgrades allows staff time to adapt and increase longterm success.”

Ensure the transportation team understands the why behind the upgrade and is willing to work with the new system, Summers said, adding buy-in from the people using the technology every day is essential.

“Prepare, prepare, prepare,” Walker noted. “Prepare for every possible situation and timing of installation or upgrades. Think about how that will affect the school day, or if it is during the summer, how will you prepare your staff when they return to new equipment or software?”

Prepare for ample training with staff, including the possibility of needing to do additional training based on the outcome of the initial training period, she added.

Logistics play a big part of planning for implementation, Walker pointed out. “Adding implementation and installation during a school day will take much longer and require some distinct phasing in, whether it be by school location, a specific department such as general education or special needs, and a truly thoughtful plan that walks through the school day [that] will serve you best,” she said. “It is very important to make sure your staff is aware of the changes and understand the plan and their role in such plans.”

Summer concluded that technology should support operations, not complicate.“With thoughtful planning, strong communication and realistic expectations, districts can implement solutions that truly improve safety and efficiency,” she said.

The post Planning the Perfect Rollout: Secrets for Successful Software, Hardware Upgrades appeared first on School Transportation News.

Students nationwide are scanning their way on and off school buses at an increasing pace, as school districts realize student identification cards improve transparency for parents on the whereabouts of their children.

But ID cards once used solely for transportation, or more accurately in a silo apart from other school district and community uses, are going the way of the Dodo.

Miles Cole, chief strategy officer for RFID card provider CI Solutions, noted universal ID cards and developing community partners is a “big-league move for metro districts,” which “turns the student ID into a mobility plus access credential, not just a school badge.

“When a student ID works for school and for city services, you remove friction from the two biggest ‘non-classroom’ barriers to learning—getting places and accessing resources,” he continued.

In Columbus, Ohio, high school students can use the district-issued Student Success Card to ride the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) through its Educational Pass Program and also access Columbus Metropolitan Library.

Machelle Kline, the chief student services officer for Columbus City Schools department of student services, noted the district issues each ninth through 12th grade student a free COTA pass each school year, good 24/7 without weekend restrictions. The district pays COTA $13.50 per student per semester.

“Our Student Success Card also allows them to check out books at the Columbus Metropolitan Library and is in pilot mode to scan on our school buses,” Kline said. “The card also allows our youngest learners and those with disabilities to scan onto a computer. It acts as a student ID.”

Kline said the district is conducting an indepth analysis with COTA to see if it can eliminate ninth through 12th grade transportation as it is not required in Ohio.

In the Salt Lake City School District, district employees, students, and a parent or guardian from each student household can receive a free Utah Transit Authority (UTA) pass for unlimited access to buses, TRAX, UTA On Demand and S-Line.

Such passes are a “direct lever on attendance and student engagement,” Cole said. “Transportation access is one of the most practical, immediate levers districts can pull to improve attendance, tutoring participation, internships, after-school programs, and family engagement.”

Cole noted a universal ID improves equity “without making parents jump through hoops. A universal ID that works for lunch, library, login, transit can be a major equity upgrade because it reduces requirements like separate transit applications, separate library card sign-ups, multiple credentials/password resets, and reliance on a parent’s phone, credit card, and time to set things up.”

---

Related: April 2026
Related: Where Is the Bus?
Related: Update: Tennessee Crash Kills 2 Students During Field Trip

---

Ken Martinez, Salt Lake City’s transportation director, explained the school district implemented Zum technologies and student ID cards into the school bus fleet. “We are in the process of getting this one card to be used for tapping on and off the school bus,” he shared. “[The] same function on UTA utilizing their bus, TRAX [electric train] and on-demand services. The same card will be used for accessing the school library and student lunches.”

He added that this streamlined approach will help students keep track of their student ID card.

“When it is just their bus pass, they did not seem to care if they got damaged or lost and did not mind waiting to order a replacement,” he continued. “When the same card determines all the activities, including the ones they truly want to use, their level of concern will highly increase.”

Martinez said the goal is to fully implement the ID cards for the upcoming 2026-2027 school year.

The post Student ID Cards Present a Host of Transportation, Educational Opportunities appeared first on School Transportation News.

School transportation departments navigate constrained budgets, staffing challenges and rapidly evolving technology that rely on procurement tools: Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Bids (RFB) and pilot programs.

Using those tools properly yields optimal results. RFIs help districts—particularly large ones—understand market capabilities before committing to specifications.

RFPs allow districts to evaluate solutions based on expertise, implementation plans and long-term value utilizing a scale or scoring system for multiple companies offering similar products or services. Factors include sustainability, customer support and training. RFBs are critical for standardized purchases, ensuring transparency, fairness and fiscal accountability through objective competition. Bid specs yielding the most results consider the operational needs and what problem needs resolution.

Industry consultant Alexandra Robinson noted an RFI is a fact-finding process to ask questions, research the product and conduct demonstrations. These findings result in writing the RFP or RFB. The proof is in the real-world pilot test of the solution.

A School Transportation News reader survey last year indicated 32 percent of transportation directors and supervisors engage in pilot programs. Thirty-five percent said they submit an RFI prior to submitting an RFP. Software provider Transfinder noted it participated in 217 percent more RFPs in 2025 than in 2024.

Ashley Jones, assistant director of special projects for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) transportation department in North Carolina, noted challenges faced in preparing for an RFP process include the hurdle of balancing the wish list of operations and maintenance with budget restraints.

“We also struggle with ensuring what we buy today won’t be obsolete in two to three years,” she added. CMS released an RFP in December for transportation telematics service and hardware, to improve upon GPS tracking, driver behavior metrics and on-time arrival rates. The district formed an RFP team including transportation operations, IT team members and finance. “This prevents us from buying a software solution we can’t support or maintain,” Jones said.

CMS utilizes a weighted scoring rubric that considers pricing, experience, specific vendor offerings, and references. It holds a pre-bid meeting internally but not publicly for potential companies placing a bid, Jones noted.

“This is included in the bid and part of our scope of work,” she added. “Vendors can ask additional questions during the process if needed.”

The decision to bid is based on several review meetings involving the CMS internal transportation team to determine basic needs and potential operational gaps.

“Before drafting the scope of work, the team collaborated to categorize requirements into fundamental needs versus additional capabilities,” said Jones. “Key drivers identified for this included the benefit of an accurate telematics platform including the essential need for accurate reports for bus arrivals, the desire to improve transparency between parents and school transportation, and the requirement for advanced diagnostic tools to streamline workflow for the maintenance team.”

When developing specifications, it is crucial to ensure a district is requesting technology that is current and open to competition, Jones noted.

“Specifications must be developed from market research, pilot program opportunities and the internal transportation team,” she added.

A standardized amount of bonding and insurance is required of all vendors. Onsite maintenance is handled through an internal team for oversite. The bid winner produces a maintenance and return merchandise authorization plan.

Jones noted each vendor has different parameters regarding their product warranties. This information is included in the grading rubric and considered during bid awards. To ensure system effectiveness, the RFP includes a mandatory continuation plan.

“We require the selected vendor to assign a dedicated, full-time employee to oversee the entire initial rollout,” Jones said. “The dedicated support must continue for an additional six months to facilitate continuous training for staff and immediately address software or hardware issues that may occur in the rollout period.”

Daniel Kang, Los Angeles Unified School District transportation director, noted a source selection committee was established in the district’s most recent RFP for upgraded GPS, tablets and camera systems.

The committee of subject matter experts from dispatch, technology, fleet, and the deputy director interviewed those who already utilize the top three scoring systems.

“Having direct conversations with fellow school districts allowed for honest feedback,” noted Kang. Key questions addressed the system’s highlights, outstanding concerns, whether the district would purchase the product again, and lessons learned.

When Austin (Texas) ISD put out an RFP in 2017 for stop-arm camera technology, it included a request for a six-month pilot program “to see how they would perform—the technology, reporting system, our interaction with our police department,” said Kris Hafezizadeh, Austin ISD executive director of transportation and vehicle services.

Austin ISD used the previous solution until last April, at which point district officials released another RFP to review other existing technologies, vendors and opportunities, using similar specs from the first RFP.

Hafezizadeh assembled a panel including transportation, law enforcement and legal representation to observe a presentation by top vendors, awarding the contract after school board approval to BusPatrol effective last May 1.

Hafezizadeh noted the district’s procurement office handles much of the RFP details: Writing the correct specs, considering the technology involved, and others involved in the process.

The district’s panel viewed proposals using Bonfire procurement technology, a cloud-based platform offering online solicitation, submission contract evaluation and management, and vendor performance. Hafezizadeh said RFP priorities were customer service, quality and responsiveness followed by financial and technical aspects.

“If you’re dealing with a district [of] our size, we are not awarding something to a company that may not know anything about [the issue] and are still trying to get the experience,” he said.

The contract stipulates Austin ISD gets 65 percent of each $300 citation, and BusPatrol gets 35 percent. “With the stop-arm cameras, we want the highest revenue shared with us, and the best technology and process as possible,” Hafezizadeh said.

Equipment, installation implementation and maintenance is no cost to the district, said Hafezizadeh, adding funds from the citations are used to pay police officers for time they invest in approving or disqualifying violations as well as the appeal judge the district hires to hear monthly appeals.

Hafezizadeh noted support requires attending community and PTA meetings and discussions with local and state legislators. The Austin ISD web page outlines the stop-arm law and consequences when motorists are cited.

In creating specs, Hafezizadeh said he wants a turnkey operation, including maintenance. Also, key are the implementation timeline and training bus drivers on the technology.

The RFP also addresses district and vendor responsibilities regarding financial matters, bonding and insurance. The process includes what kind of insurance the company needs to have to be qualified to send its proposal. When a video camera is not working properly, BusPatrol is tasked with sending a maintenance team to check on its status and make repairs. Hafezizadeh serves as project manager. A district police chief serves as a direct contact for violations, hearings or legal issues.

In its contract, BusPatrol indicated what it will take care of in the case of a collision, such as if a camera is hit and damaged.

“They replace it,” Hefezizadeh said. “The equipment belongs to them.”

As part of a continuation plan, he meets with BusPatrol bi-weekly to review previous months’ reports and discuss topics such as providing more community educational opportunities.

Ohio Pilot Programs Target Improved Reliability, Efficiency

As student transportation professionals across the country grapple a host of challenges, two pilot programs in Ohio seek insights into how to improve access, reliability and cost-effectiveness in pupil transportation.

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW) said the pilot programs aim to inform future strategies and guide the development of comprehensive solutions to address ongoing absenteeism, high transportation costs, outdated student rosters, noncompliance with individualized education programs (IEP), and reliability and efficiency.

Established under the 135th General Assembly’s House bills 33 and 250, the programs are designed to explore alternative transportation methods and address inefficiencies in the current system. ODE established the pilots for the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio (ESCCO) and the Montgomery County Educational Service Center (MCESC). They launched the pilots for the 2024-2025 school year. In a program summary, ODEW said both organizations are tasked with identifying students facing transportation difficulties, arranging approved vehicles for eligible students, and ensuring compliance with transportation requirements for students with disabilities as outlined in their IEPs.

ODEW funds the programs by deducting the statewide average cost per student—$1,214.29 for fiscal year 2025—from participating districts’ state transportation payments. Additionally, the educational service centers received federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief grant funds to support transportation expenditures.

The MCESC pilot program, branded as Ride Smart Ohio, focuses on using alternative vehicles with a capacity of nine passengers or fewer, according to ODEW.

The program not only provides transportation for students but also creates flexible income opportunities for teachers, staff and community members. Ride Smart Ohio utilizes advanced software from Trust-Ed to ensure a secure and user-friendly system, empowering school staff to play an active role in transportation efforts.

In fiscal year 2025, MCESC received over $493,000 in funding for the pilot program. For fiscal years 2026 and 2027, the program will receive $250,000 annually to continue its operations.

As of November, Ride Smart Ohio entered service contracts with six districts, including West Carrollton, Mad River, Valley View, Northmont, Oakwood Schools, and Dayton Public Schools. Seven active drivers currently provide daily transportation for 13 students, including seven who attend Ohio Deaf and Blind Education Services.

The program has prioritized safety and compliance, completing 100 percent of vehicle inspections and driver physicals before the school year began. Updated driver training modules have been implemented to align with state rules. Looking ahead, Ride Smart Ohio plans to recruit and onboard new drivers, enhance data reporting, schedule refresher training, and review fleet management before winter maintenance.

The ESCCO pilot program, which concluded last June, focused on providing transportation for Columbus City Schools. During its operation, 23 drivers transported 60 to 65 students to three community schools. The program received over $5 million in funding for fiscal year 2025.

ODEW highlighted key findings in September. It found that participating students saw improved attendance, averaging 13 more days in school compared to the previous year. Non-school bus transportation using smaller vehicles proved effective and reliable, but the cost of third-party contractors was significantly higher—more than five times the amount received through state transportation funding.

Additionally, outdated and inaccurate student roster information from schools created delays and extra work. Despite these challenges, families and community school participants expressed high satisfaction with the program state funding model.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted from the March 2026 issue of School Transportation News.

---

Related: Building a Successful RFP
Related: Student Transportation Veteran Provides Tips for School Bus Technology RFPs
Related: Leading the Modernization of Student Transportation
Related: (Recorded Webinar) Evaluating School Bus Technology RFPs and Suppliers

The post More Than a Letter Game appeared first on School Transportation News.