Reading view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.

‘One Type of Driver’ Training

Whether it’s a full-size school bus with track seating running the length of the floor or a compact van with fixed belt points, no two vehicles secure a student the same way—and too often, drivers are left to figure it out on the fly.

That variability, experts warn, can compromise safety for students who rely on wheelchairs, car seats or booster seats, especially as alternative transportation expands and fleets grow more diverse. Driver training has never been more paramount.

Darren Reaume, the director of training for Q’Straint/Sure-Lok, explained that school buses from different OEMs and of various model years have different characteristics. This is why it’s so important that drivers know what’s available on the vehicle and how to use the wheelchair securement equipment.

“If you have 50 different buses in your fleet, chances are you have four or five varieties of different equipment, and your drivers need to know how to use all of that stuff because you don’t know which [vehicle] they’re going to have,” he said.

When transporting a student in a wheelchair as a van passenger, the space is going to be much more limited than in a school bus, where track seating will typically extend the length of the bus because of the need for traditional bench seats. In vans, everything is much more compact. This mean there could be a fixed location for the shoulder belt, for example.

“Sometimes we run into this disconnect where it’s easier to transport a small student in a side-entry van because it’s a smaller space and the device is small,”  he said. “But then the occupant securement doesn’t fit great on them because they’re a smaller individual.”

On the flip side, it might be harder to secure a larger student in their mobility device because it’s a small space, but the occupant securement fits better.

“So now, you’re taking into account the particular equipment and layout of that vehicle,” he said, adding that everything from the size of the securement location to how much space the driver has to operate in makes a difference in safely securing at student.

Certified passenger safety technician Cassidy Miller noted drivers are responsible for proper securement of the CSRS in their vehicles, and they need proper training or information on the student. Miller, who is also the director of transportation for Cashmere School District in Washington state, shared that a lower anchor system securing the car seat into a vehicle has a weight limit. The other option is using a seatbelt, which has no weight limit, to secure the car seat.

Miller suggested asking if contracted providers know each child’s weight, or are they guessing based on age and size? Regardless of weight, Miller added that if the child is being restrained in a forward-facing car seat, a strong U.S. recommendation is to use the top tether.

“And they need to make sure that the harness straps fit the child who they’re transporting,” she said. “If they’re transporting multiple [students] in a day, that can get tricky. They need to make sure that it’s adjustable.”

All are adjustable to a degree, she explained, but some are more complicated and require removing the car seat to make the adjustment.

The Alternative Student
Transportation Association

 

Greg Prettyman, vice president of First Alt, explained the creation of the Alternative Student Transportation Association that gives a voice to providers. He said the goal is for different companies to develop a unified message on issues as they arise. At the top of the to-do list is public outreach and creating a website as well as consulting on the National Congress on Student Transportation Alternative Transportation committee. Prettyman added NCST was the impetus for creating the association because each company was providing input individually.

Miller added that the harness needs to fit the child properly, and it needs to be snug to their body with the chest clip at armpit level. “Those points need to be monitored by the drivers, and sometimes that’s hard when they’re a company that has back-to-back rides or a lot of turnover,” she added.

She also recommended that families who are using an alternative transportation service also be educated about the car seat installation points. “Is the family looking to make sure that the car seat is installed properly for the child’s weight? Is it installed via seatbelt or lower anchors? Is the harness fitting them correctly? Is the chest clip at the right point, is the top tether attached to the back of the seat? … They should kind of have a mental checklist every day when they help load their child,” she recommended.

The liability falls on the school district but she said parents can serve as a second set of eyes to ensure the car seat is installed correctly. She provided an example at her previous district, where a family took pictures to prove the contractor wasn’t installing the car seat correctly.

“I took [the pictures] back to that transportation company, and I said, ‘Listen, here are five things wrong with this car seat right now. Those need to be addressed,” Miller recalled. “I know you say you train your drivers on using car seats, but this car seat has not shown up in an acceptable manner, and the parent has been reinstalling the car seat as properly as she can get because she doesn’t have the manual in hand whenever the car seat arrives. And it’s getting very frustrating.’”

Depending on the state, it might be hard for all independent contracted drivers to undergo securement training like district employees. Instead, she advised school districts ask for the driver training curriculum that contractors use and determine if it meets the standard. Plus, she recommends random checks.

“Go out to that elementary school at pickup and see and just observe that child. Observe that car seat as it’s waiting,” she said, adding it’s important to make extensive notes. “I would highly recommend all of those random checks just to ensure the drivers are in compliance with their company and or even if it’s your own drivers, that they’re in compliance with your standards.”

Training Drivers

Gregg Prettyman, the vice president of First Student subsidiary First Alt, said the driver training standard should be the same no matter the vehicle. He noted FirstAlt follows First Student’s driver vetting, training and credentialing standards.

“There’s a lot of different types of vehicles — Type A, Type B, Type C, vans and SUVs — but there really should only be one type of driver, and that’s just a driver that meets all of the state requirements for a bus driver,” he explained.

He said the only exception would be vehicle-specific licensing, adding that alternative vehicle drivers like those in Type A school buses don’t need a CDL. He added that when it comes to wheelchair securement, First Alt works with transportation companies that are established in correctly transporting people in wheelchairs, whether that’s to and from work or doctor’s appointments.

“We reach out to those companies who really are already experts in that and doing that in the state, and we certify, license and onboard them,” he said, adding the oversight provides an extra layer of protection “We still do verify that their drivers know how to secure and meet all the student securement transportation requirements. But the nice thing is, when you’re working with existing companies, they already have a lot of that training and expertise in place.”

Blake Smith, area general manager for the east for First Alt, agreed, noting the importance of being a part of First Student and how it has been asset for its training program.

“We really want to make sure that we’re doing our due diligence for the safety aspect and keeping with those First Student standards and core values to make sure that we’re properly securing these students and properly securing the equipment, because at the end of the day … we’re firm believers that the yellow school bus is the safest way to get these students to school, but in those instances where you’re not using a yellow school bus for a variety of reasons, we want to make sure that the safety isn’t sacrificed when we’re doing that.”

He said a session presented by industry consultant Alexandra Robinson at the National State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services annual conference in November touched on securement in yellow school buses as well as alternative transportation vehicles. CPST instructor Denise Donaldson is presenting a similar topic at STN EXPO East on March 28, “What’s the Difference?! CSRS Use in School Buses versus Alternative Vehicles.”

Smith said a takeaway from the NASDPTS presentation was ensuring the drivers know that information. “In the event that we have to take a car seat out because they’re doing another route where we need actual space in the vehicle, that we’re properly securing that piece of equipment back in the vehicle,” he said of the importance of training. “And understanding the different checkpoints of making sure that piece of equipment is secure in the vehicle.”

Even something like not securing a child in a puffy coat needs to be communicated to drivers, as they transport students in the Northeast, where kids are coming out of their houses in jackets.

“[We’re] making sure we’re doing our due diligence for those two pieces, helping the drivers and also the monitors — if we have monitors in those vehicles — not only properly secure the car seat, but secure the student properly.”

EverDriven CEO Mitch Bowling said every driver is required to complete the EverDriven Driver Education Course, “which is the first program in the industry designed specifically for transporting students with unique needs,” he claimed.

He explained the course covers everything from wheelchair securement to defensive driving to sensitivity training.

“It’s a six-module course that prepares drivers for real-world situations, like managing behavioral challenges or responding to emergencies,” he continued. “Drivers must pass a 40-question exam before they can drive students. While district requirements vary, our training is built to meet those needs and often goes beyond them.”

Bowling said a standardized training ensures every driver is ready for a variety of scenarios and can adapt to individual student needs, whether that involves mobility devices or behavior support.

Blake added that drivers are trained before they start any trips with First Alt, with a test at the end of the program to become certified. Every six months they do a refresher course. However, he noted states and districts will have other requirements. For example, some districts in the Dallas area require transportation to the school for the deaf and blind, and FirstAlt will send their drivers to be trained on courses that address that specific group of individuals.

The School of Philadelphia has a specific training course for monitors and Colorado has inclement weather training. “It’s not only important to have your own [standard] but to make sure you’re compliant with the unique training requirements of each state and each district,” he said.


Related: NAPT Statement Provides Recommendations for Alternative Transportation
Related: Alternative School Transportation: Roadmap for Decision-Making For Children with Disabilities and Special Needs
Related: NASDPTS Publishes Paper Espousing Safety of School Buses Over Alternative Transportation
Related: Beyond the Yellow School Bus: Alternative School Transportation


Prettyman said that alternative transportation can be so individualized at times that FirstAlt will partner with the district to ultimately support that one particular student.

“Maybe it’s a student where they’re trying to reinforce certain behaviors in the classroom, and we’re trying to figure out how do we extend that classroom to the classroom on wheels,” he said. “We’ve had drivers and monitors that we coordinate with at the school specifically to go in and observe that student in a classroom setting and better understand not only that student from when they’re just transporting, but also how are we understanding that student, and how can we support that student through transportation?”

Putting the driver classroom on wheels can heighten learning quickly.

“One small thing can become a major issue,” he said. “How can we partner with our districts, and also their teachers and paraprofessionals … to ultimately support these students on an individualized basis? Because that’s what alternative transportation does really well. The yellow school bus is great, but when it comes down to these individual students that have IEPs …how do we take that classroom environment and extend to the to the vehicle and also support safe transportation for that student?”

Jennifer Brandenburger, the senior vice president of Safety at HopSkipDrive, said dedicated programs for riders with specialized needs help ensure safety and compliance.

Drivers transporting younger riders “receive specialized education on proper installation and harnessing techniques, which is guided by certified child passenger safety technicians from Safe Kids Worldwide,” she said. “Only these approved drivers receive and use the company-provided car seats for these specific rides.”

Brandenburger added that HSD selected a car seat model that meets the impending standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in consultation with expert advisors.

Wheelchair transportation, meanwhile, is facilitated by CarePartners. Brandenburger said these are “local professionals who undergo HopSkipDrive’s rigorous and comprehensive certification process, including name- and fingerprint-based background checks, clearing child abuse and neglect screenings where available, and enrolling in continuous criminal record monitoring.”

She said that CarePartners provide a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) and are trained on the correct securement.

“By ensuring CarePartner drivers undergo our onboarding and management, we are able to monitor, manage, and ensure compliance with district requirements,” she concluded.

The post ‘One Type of Driver’ Training appeared first on School Transportation News.

Texas School Bus Driver Wins AMF Bruns Special Needs Driver of Year

After finishing his afternoon route on Sept. 10, 23-year student transportation veteran Julio Ospina saw a young child walking along the roadway wearing a harness. He immediately relied on his training and intuition.

Ospina, a two-year driver for Wylie ISD located northeast of Dallas, stopped the bus and contacted authorities. He soon learned the child had been reported missing from a neighboring school district that morning. He stayed with the child until police arrived, ensuring the student remained safe and calm.

“Trusting his instincts and training, Julio quickly realized something wasn’t right,” said Martiza Valentin, national account manager for occupant and wheelchair securement manufacturer AMF Bruns America. “That little boy trusted the man in the school bus.

“Thanks to his swift action, the child was safely transported into the care of law enforcement and eventually to relieved family members, preventing what could have been a tragic outcome.”

Valentin continued that stories like Ospina’s are the type AMF-Bruns wants to share.

It was Ospina’s extraordinary moment of heroism that prompted the company to name him its National Special Needs Driver of the Year. The award honors transportation professionals who demonstrate exceptional dedication, professionalism and compassion in serving students with special needs.

AMF-Bruns sponsors the award each year to “highlight outstanding contributions to the safe transportation of people with limited mobility.”

Liz Ospino, Julio’s wife, nominated him.

“This act wasn’t part of his job description, but it is exactly who Julio is,” Liz said. “His attentiveness, quick thinking, and compassion turned a potentially dangerous situation into one of peace and safety.”

Julio Ospino told School Transportation News that winning the award means more to him than he can put into words.

“I am truly humbled. I don’t do this job for recognition, I do it because I care about the children in my care and this child was definitely not in a safe place,” he said. “Knowing that others see value in what I do is incredibly meaningful. I am fortunate to work with an amazing district with the best people.”


Related: Baldwin Accepts STN Director of Year Award at TSD Conference
Related: STN Announces 10th Year of Rising Superstar Profiles
Related: NAPT Announces Election Winners Ahead of Annual Conference
Related: STN Launches Peer-to-Peer Mentorship Program at 2026 Conferences


He said having his wife nominate him “means everything.”

“She knows my heart better than anyone, and the fact that she recognized the care I have for these students makes this award even more special,” he added, noting her nomination was a surprise. “Knowing that she believed my actions were worthy of recognition makes this experience incredibly special to me.”

Valentin added that drivers play a vital role in supporting students outside of the classroom.

“The relationships [they] build impact each child’s journey, both academically and personally,” she said.

A celebration in Ospino’s honor was held on Dec. 4, when he was handed a $1,000 check.

The post Texas School Bus Driver Wins AMF Bruns Special Needs Driver of Year appeared first on School Transportation News.

Update: NHTSA Seeks Fix to Child Safety Restraint Standard Affecting School Buses

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus child safety restraint systems tied to updates made to FMVSS 213.

NHTSA proposed on May 30 amendments to Child Restraint System Standards FMVSS 213, FMVSS 213a and FMVSS 213b to exempt school bus child safety restraint systems from the requirement to comply with side-impact protection requirements defined in FMVSS 213a. Charlie Vits, a child passenger safety technician and consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said during STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, that NHTSA issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus CSRS, allowing for the continued use of the safety restraints designed for school buses.

On July 2, NHTSA stated that it “recognizes that because the date on which the comment period closes is the same as the compliance date for FMVSS No. 213a, it will not be possible to publish a final rule prior to the current compliance date. NHTSA is concerned that the regulatory uncertainty likely to arise for the period of time in between the June 30 compliance date and any published final rule will lead to a decrease in overall levels of CRS safety as fewer CRS options are available for the public,” it stated.

It noted that in the public interest, NHTSA is exercising its discretion to temporarily pause enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a for CRSs produced on or after June 30, 2025, and until the date of publication of any rule finalizing the May 30 proposal.

“NHTSA emphasizes, however, that under 49 U.S.C. 30115(a), a manufacturer may not certify to a standard if, in exercising reasonable care, the manufacturer has reason to know that the certification is false or misleading in a material respect. As such, even while the enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a is paused, if a manufacturer continues to certify to the standard, the manufacturer must have a good faith basis that the CRS meets the standard,” NHTSA added.

Meanwhile, in addition to delaying the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, the proposal provides that the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction 12-month-old (CRABI)-12MO test dummy will not be used to test forward-facing CRSs.

NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” and FMVSS No. 213b, child restraint systems: Mandatory applicability beginning Dec. 5, 2026,” to exclude school bus CRSs from the requirements and to provide attachments for connection to the vehicle’s LATCH child restraint anchorage system. These anchorages are only required in school buses that are 10,000 pounds GVWR and less.

Vits, a child passenger safety technician and a consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said NHTSA has always been supportive of school bus child restraint systems since the 2003 introduction of IMMI’s SafeGuard STAR as well as the Besi Pro Tech and HSM PCR.

As currently designed for school transportation, NHTSA wants to assure their continued future availability and use, Vits said, adding the purpose of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on the Federal Register last week is to remove three important but non-applicable regulatory details impacting their design and function.

“Unless these detailed requirements are removed from FMVSS 213, 213a and 213b as currently written, the production of these school bus child restraints will most likely cease on June 30, 2025, when the three requirements are to become effective,” he said.

These child restraint systems will no longer be compliant with the federal child restraint standards unless they are redesigned and constructed as a more costly and less usable product, Vits added.

Denise Donaldson, a certified passenger safety instructor and editor and publisher of Safe Ride News, noted the recent proposals are essentially housekeeping in nature.

“The more exciting development occurred in 2023, when NHTSA issued a final rule to create a product category specifically for school bus child restraint systems,” she explained. “Although these products were previously considered compliant with FMVSS 213 under the category harness, the new category’s description gives manufacturers greater freedom to innovate when designing products made exclusively for school bus use.”

From left: Denise Donaldson, the editor and publisher of Safe Ride News Publications, and Sue Shutrump, at the time the supervisor of OT/PT services for Trumbull County Educational Service Center in Ohio, discuss the importance of CSRS during STN EXPO Reno on July 14, 2024. (Photo courtesy of Vincent Rios Creative.)
From left: Denise Donaldson, the editor and publisher of Safe Ride News Publications, and Sue Shutrump, at the time the supervisor of OT/PT services for Trumbull County Educational Service Center in Ohio, discuss the importance of CSRS during STN EXPO Reno on July 14, 2024. (Photo courtesy of Vincent Rios Creative.)

When that rule was issued, Donaldson said incongruities with school bus CRSs remained in the regulatory text.

“Since these products install using a seatback mount, they needed to be made exempt from the standard’s requirement that car seats have a LATCH system for installation,” she added. “They should be exempt from the upcoming side-impact standard since the test in that standard replicates a passenger vehicle environment, substantially different from a school bus. These are loose ends, so the proposals are important for addressing these issues and satisfying the requests of petitioners, including manufacturers.”

Vits noted the NPRM cleans up regulatory language from current rulings that school bus child restraint systems could not meet due to the nature of their design.

Meeting the requirements would require costly redesigns resulting in a less usable school bus child restraint, he said, adding, “The intent of NHTSA is not to change anything that impacts the concept of the current school bus child restraint.”

In 2014, NHTSA first published proposed rulemaking to add side-impact crash protection to all types of child seats except harnesses, otherwise known as school bus vests, Vits said.

“IMMI commented on the NPRM that although it supported side-impact protection requirements in child restraints, school bus child restraints were similar to the excluded harnesses and not capable of meeting those requirements,” he added. “The nature of the web-based, no-shell design for these child restraints does not provide the necessary structure to meet these requirements. Therefore, school bus child restraint systems should also be excluded from meeting the side- impact protection requirements.”

NHTSA published the final ruling on side impact requirements as FMVSS 213a on June 30, 2022. But, Vits noted, NHTSA had yet to formally define school bus child restraints as a type of child restraint, so they could not exclude it from side impact requirements.

With FMVSS 213b in December 2023, NHTSA formally defined it as a type of child restraint but omitted excluding it from the requirements of FMVSS 213a. He said the oversight was to have been corrected in a to-be-published ruling last Oct. 9 but again was missed.

IMMI submitted a Petition for Rulemaking on Jan. 19 that formally requested NHTSA change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the FMVSS 213a requirements, resulting in last week’s NPRM. IMMI also found the requirement to include LATCH and tether connectors and their associated labeling remained as a requirement for school bus child restraints, Vits said.

“IMMI submitted another Petition for Rulemaking on May 19, 2025, formally requesting NHTSA to change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the LATCH connector and associated labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 and 213b,” he said, adding the change was also included in the NPRM.


Related: NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety
Related: What Transporters Must Know About CSRS for Preschoolers on School Buses
Related: CSRS Decisions During IEP Avoid Seclusion, Restraint Issues


Several other regulatory product developments impacted passenger vehicle child seat manufacturers and caused concern they would not be able to meet the FMVSS 213a effective date of June 30, 2025. In response to the petitions of these manufacturers,Vits said NHTSA published the NPRM to propose delaying the effective date of FMVSS 213a to Dec. 5, 2026, the same effective date of FMVSS 213b.

The proposals “are what is needed to set the standard’s school bus CRS category on the correct footing, allowing current CSRs models to be compliant and opening the door for future innovation,” Donaldson, who favors the proposals, pointed out.

“School bus child restraints have served the industry well for the past 22 years,” she added. “They have provided critical protection to pre-K children in numerous school bus crashes over the years. They need to continue to be available to school transportation for years to come.”

While Donaldson expressed confidence that NHTSA will make the necessary changes to FMVSS 213a and 213b, Vits commented that unless NHTSA acts immediately according to the proposed ruling, manufacturers will need to cease production.

“Although the comment period closes on June 30, NHTSA wants to hear from those in the industry as soon as possible due to the urgency to turn this NPRM into a final ruling,” he added. “They want to know that transporters of pre-K children want these school bus child restraints now and in the future.”

In providing input by June 30, Vits noted “comments should be short and simple, beginning with a statement in support of the May 30, 2025 NPRM, FR Doc. 2025-09750. Then, briefly share your positive experiences with these type of child restraints, especially if they have provided protection to any of your children in crashes.

“Express your need to have them continue in production without adding requirements to provide side impact protection and LATCH anchorage connectors.”

Public comments on docket number NHTSA–2025–0046 can be submitted electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail to: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Donaldson noted in creating the school bus CRS category in 2023, NHTSA clearly signaled its support of this type of child safety restraint system.

“I feel confident that a rule that finalizes these important proposals, which are necessary to make that category viable, will be forthcoming,” she added.

Ronna Weber, executive director for the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, said the National Congress on School Transportation’s Resolution No. 6, Request for Clarification on FMVSS 213a and 213b Final Rules, approved by state delegates last month underscores the industry’s commitment to safely transporting preschool and special needs children, a sizeable industry component.

The resolution noted that any regulations should continue to ensure children requiring securement based on age and weight are carried safely and securely, CRSs are attached to the seat back to ensure a secure fit for the child. It is believed approximately 310,000 to 335,000 CRSs designed for school buses are on the road today.

NHTSA also published a total of 16 NPRMs on May 30, most of which are considered deregulatory by cleaning up obsolete ruling text related to requirements for vehicles produced more than 10 years ago. Rules pertaining to school buses include: FMVSS 207: Seating Systems, FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS 222: School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

As no new requirements are being added, there is little merit in commenting on them, commented Charlie Vits, a certified passenger safety technician and consultant to IMMI.

Donaldson said those in the school transportation sector should be assured that their school-bus-only CSRS and any that they purchase while the NPRM is going through the rulemaking process continue to be safe and legal.

“These regulatory changes will not necessitate though would allow future redesign of these products,” she said. “However, another aspect of the 2023 final rule that applies to any forward-facing child restraint, including school-bus-only CSRS, requires labels and instructions to state a minimum child weight for riding forward facing of 26.5 pounds.

“The compliance deadline for this requirement is June 30, 2025. For school-bus-only CSRS, this means that a rider must be at least 26.5 pounds, which is slightly higher than the pre-rule-change minimum weight of 25 pounds for most models.”

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the letter of non-compliance. Taylor Ekbatani contributed to this report. 

The post Update: NHTSA Seeks Fix to Child Safety Restraint Standard Affecting School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.

❌