Secondary School Start Times

1. Secondary School Start Times Transportation Impact Discussion PA SR417 – Advisory Committee Information April 8th, 2019

2. Who we are • School Bus Consultants (SBC) is the largest and most experienced consultancy dedicated exclusively to the design, management, and operation of school transportation programs • We assist K-12 school districts across North America with the development, implementation, and repair of professional school transportation programs • We have completed 52 varying types of transportation projects in Pennsylvania and have a unique perspective of the challenges PA faces • We simplify the complexities of a district’s transportation operation by clarifying and outlining the direct effect of established policies, costs, bus routing, and technology on a transportation system’s performance • We have been intimately involved with strategic bell time alignment projects in both rural and urban areas and have recently teamed up with the School Start Later movement because of the success we’ve achieved in realigning tiers, uncovering inefficiencies, & implementing change 2

3. Our Objectives • Our main goal is to provide the PA Secondary School Start Time Advisory Committee with student transportation related information that might help guide future decisions • Provide members of the Committee with industry best practice information, as well as highlight potential issues, benefits, and options in forward progression of this movement • Provide the Committee with insight into the comparison of PA to other states in current law, regulation, and policy surrounding their student transportation programming • Provide advice or assistance as needed throughout the duration of the Committee’s study 3

4. Article xIII – Pupils and Attendance • The Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949* states: (24 PS 13-1361) • That when, and only when, transportation is provided to a district’s own public school students that the following guidelines must be adhered to: • “The board of school directors in any school district may, out of the funds of the district provide for the free transportation of any resident pupil to and fromthe kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school in which he is lawfully enrolled, provided that such school is not operated for profit and is located within the district boundaries or outside the district boundaries at a distance not exceeding ten miles by the nearest public highway, except that such ten-mile limit shall not apply to area vocational technical schools which regularly serve eligible district pupils or to special schools and classes approved by the Department of Education, and to and from any points within or without the Commonwealth in order to provide field trips for any purpose connected with the educational pursuits of the pupils.” • *This code was written in 1949, last amended in 1979 • Bottom line: if a district provides transportation to it’s public students, they must also provide to nonpublic students within these same guidelines 4

5. Article xVII-A Transportation to Charter Schools • The Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949* states: (24 PS 17–1726-A) • That when, and only when, transportation is provided to a district’s own public school students that the following guidelines regarding charter students must be adhered to: • “Students who attend a charter school located in their school district of residence, a regional charter school of which the school district is a part, or a charter school located outside district boundaries at a distance not exceeding ten (10) miles by the nearest public highway shall be provided free transportation to the charter school by their school district of residence on such dates and periods that the charter school is in regular season whether or not transportation is provided on such dates and periods to students attending schools of the district.” • “Transportation is not required for elementary students, including kindergarten students, residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles or for secondary students residing within two (2) miles of the nearest public highway from the charter school in which the students are enrolled unless the road or traffic conditions are such that walking constitutes a hazard to the safety of the students when so certified by the DoT, except that if the school district provides transportation to the public schools of the school district for elementary students, including kindergarten students, residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles or for secondary students residing within two (2) miles of the nearest public highway under non hazardous conditions, transportation shall also be provided to charter schools under the same conditions.” 5

6. More bottom lines • The State of Pennsylvania operates with both uniqueness and commonality among its peers • Each US state has their own rational behind the regulations it places upon its public education and transportation systems • Current PA transportation regulations are funded in part by the state. However the more state money provided, the more heavily regulated the district becomes and vice versa for districts who require less assistance for their transportation initiatives • Most districts choose to abide with PA transportation regulations because this service is a need for many families. Therefore, they comply with the PA guidelines for all local students • In SBC’s experience, we frequently encounter districts that push back on this PA code due to their experienced inefficient spending and lowered service delivery due to the complexities of operating in this manner • The last successful amendment to these regulations occurred a decade ago • Although districts have tried to opt out or modify this transportation code, the state has remained firm in its stance on the matter • Due to the rapidly changing nature of public education in today’s modern world, having this type of constraint upon transportation systems simply limits the potential to lower operational costs, implement creative routing or bell time solutions, & further uncover hidden inefficiencies 6

7. State by State Comparison • It’s common to see this type of regulation in the Northeast especially – due to the historical predominance of villages, commonwealths, and smaller towns in these states • SBC has worked with many districts in New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island that have specifically hired us to provide solutions in uncovering hidden efficiencies & to elevate customer service even with similar heavy regulations upon its systems • Pennsylvania is one of 7 states (out of 45 that have charter schools) that still require its local districts to provide transportation to nonpublic institutions • Other 6 states: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Kansas, & Connecticut • SBC would consider PA (as well as these other 6 states) as an outlier in best transportation practices because charter schools normally do not: • Adhere to, or align with same district public school bell times and; • Operate within a common feeder pattern, boundary limits, or eligibility related policies • This causes longer ride times for students and in many cases stretches transportation operations thin resulting in higher operational costs due to extra resources needed to service this demand • Local school board policies prescribe items such as rides times, walking distances to stops, eligibility for service and many others have a widespread spectrum & further add to the limitations placed upon a system 7

8. The progression • SBC salutes PA in its commitment to investigate the Start School Later Movement as well as the Committee’s role in the determination of the possible issues, concerns, and benefits of districts implementing later secondary school start later bell times • A few things to be mindful of as the Committee moves forward in its deliberations: • What is the likelihood that the State of PA will amend its transportation regulations? • If they don’t, would the State of PA recommend the alignment of bell times between all schools, including public and nonpublic at a bare minimum? • For full forward progression to occur, will this movement result in the State of PA encouraging local leaders to do what is best for their districts regardless of cost? • Do we recognize that moving forward could provide the best possible transportation service at the lowest possible cost, or will costs rise due to the necessity to flip tiers & the need to reroute students? • There are varying ways that modifications to local bell times can be successful and provide lasting benefits, and a few examples of the benefits and issues are described in the following slides 8

9. The Benefits • There are existing benefits for as many districts as possible in the aligning of their local bell times with their nonpublic schools - as well as shifting their times to a later start (no earlier than 8:30am) for high school students • The opportunity to align bell times and move to a later school start may provide: • An opportunity to reassess transportation operations, current routing structure, assess system benchmarks, and uncover general efficiencies within their systems • An opportunity to review local policies, procedures, and practices around transportation • An opportunity to potentially lower both state and local operational costs and redirect saved money back into classrooms • An opportunity to address driver shortages • An opportunity to assess the state of fleets, staff, and technology use • An opportunity, most importantly, to provide students access to their educational experiences that complies with current predominant and unequivocal medical recommendations for healthy adolescent sleep 9

10. Potential Issues • Potential issues or challenges associated with a bell time changes include: • Full consideration of the impacts on athletics including travel time, lighting at facilities, traffic impacts, and secondary students with second jobs and hours of required homework • If districts must flip their tiering structure and allow elementary students to “go” first, a full determination direct impact will be required. A few examples include: proper lighting at bus stops, adult supervision, breakfast, before and after school programs, available bus pick up locations, and community buy in to these earlier (and colder) pick up times • Full consideration of the impact upon students with special needs. How early is too early of a pick up time and how late is an appropriate drop off time? • If the state does not move forward as one completely mandated movement, and if neighboring districts are not on a similar schedule – how will this impact a districts ability to assist with McKinney Vento, Foster, or non public students? • May create capacity issues on the bus for both rural and urban districts as flipping tiers, adding another, or other misc. reasons may not actually reduce costs - but raise them due to the need for more buses to serve demand within the newly established bell times 10

11. Forward Motion • While looking at these challenges through a state (all working together for the greater good) oriented lens, the following ideas are presented as possible discussion points as the committee moves through their study: • Each district will require some degree of an initial assessment to determine the best logical course of action • There will need to be a significant cost component to these individual assessments to determine both the soft, hard, and opportunity costs associated with implementing and integrating change such as this - especially when considering the lasting benefits and opportunities available to significantly lower operational costs at the state funding level • There will also need to be a full evaluation of potential impacts to service delivery by implementing these changes to bell times and the possibility of lifting this heavy regulation on districts. • SBC can confidently say that service delivery would improve if local systems had more control over their operation 11

12. Forward Motion, Cont. • A significant amount of thought and consideration will need to be given on the who, what, when, where, and why of the implementation of these changes. • A few examples: • Will the implementation of these changes occur via quadrants? • Will low hanging fruit type of improvements be made first? • Will pilot districts be tried and tested before a full “go”? • Will bell time alignment evaluations be performed at each individual school to determine appropriate next steps for them, individually? • Will a task force be created to get buy in from communities? • What level of community involvement will there be? 12

13. Conclusions • While PA is unique in it’s regulation for student transportation, SBC does see a great opportunity to reevaluate the relevance of this constraining general law as it stands in today’s modern and complex educational world • Due to the trending nature of this movement nationwide, SBC sees great potential for PA to be a front runner and a general case study of how to do this the right way • We are impressed at the focus on transportation in these early stages and commend the committee for realizing the impact and limitations currently being experienced • SBC is simply here to help. We will provide advisory services whenever they are needed 13

14. Sources Article XVII-A 1949 Act 14, 24 PS 17 Section 1726-A “Transportation to Charter Schools” https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=14&chpt=17A&sctn=26&subsctn=0 Article XIII 1949 Act 14, 24 PS 13-1361 “When provided” https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=14&chpt=13&sctn=61&subsctn=0 14

15. Addendum, 1. • The 7 states that still require Charter School (or other nonpublic) transportation of their local districts include: • (in alpha order) • Connecticut • Kansas • Massachusetts • New Hampshire • New Jersey • Ohio • Pennsylvania 15

16. Addendum, 2. The available regulation/code wording for Charter specific transportation includes:* *this information was pulled using SBC’s National Catalog of student transportation centric regulation and codes. This information is current January of 2019. The Citations provided are listed as they are written and understood by SBC for our client work. The bolded words are provided herein as an easier insight to how they either compare to or differ from PA. If mileage information is not provided in the chart, it is because mileage and/or boundary information was not available, not easily found, or is not a part of current code and therefore could not be comparatively analyzed. 16

17. Addendum, 3. The available regulation/code wording for Charter specific transportation includes:* *based upon this limited analysis, it would appear that PA is the most constrictive of all available online regulatory codes, because of the addition of mileage boundary and the attached regulation of executing these requirements. However, without more insight and local knowledge – SBC cannot fully make that claim. Only that PA joins these 6 other states in their transportation challenges of this type 17

18. FOR QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Andrea Mason p: (843)480.9125 e: amason@schoolbusconsultants.com www.TransParGroup.com