School Transportation in Colorado: Implications for Expanded Learning Time

A Report for Mile High Connects

Todd Ely and Paul Teske

Center for Education Policy Analysis

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver

May 2014

School Transportation in Colorado: Implications for Expanded Learning Time

A Report for Mile High Connects

Todd Ely and Paul Teske

Center for Education Policy Analysis

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver

May 2014

1 |

CONTENTS OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION AND EXPANDED LEARNING TIME .................................................................... 4

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION IN COLORADO .............................................................................................. 5

OPEN ENROLLMENT .............................................................................................................................. 7

NONTRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ............................................. 8

IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS ................ 12

EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY IN COLORADO .............. 16

SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION POLICIES.......................................................................................... 22

REQUESTING BELL TIME CHANGES ......................................................................................................... 23

DISTANCE THRESHOLDS .......................................................................................................................... 23

FEE-FOR-SERVICE BUSING ....................................................................................................................... 24

SPACE-AVAILABLE BUSING ...................................................................................................................... 25

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 25

RESPONSES TO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES ......................................................................... 26

THE FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK ............................................................................................................... 26

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) SUCCESS EXPRESS ............................................................................... 28

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (BVSD) TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY EFFORT ........................... 30

DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG) SCHOOLPOOL PROGRAM ......................... 34

PARTNERSHIPS WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES .................................................................................. 38

NOTEWORTHY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES IN COLORADO ................................................. 42

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 43

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 45

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 50

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ................................................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 51

2 |

OVERVIEW

Expanded learning time (ELT) programs are an increasingly popular education reform aimed at

improving student outcomes generally, and reducing disparities in student outcomes for

disadvantaged populations specifically. A potential barrier to the creation and success of ELT

programs is transportation; these programs’ expanded schedules and calendars may conflict

with a school district’s existing transportation services. Research typically considers the safety

and efficiency of school transportation but not its impact on school reforms, including adding

time to the school day or year.

This report provides an introduction to school transportation and its interaction with efforts to

expand the school day or year, nationwide, and in the Colorado context. We review the

availability of school transportation in identified Colorado schools with longer school days and

years, and use a sample of Colorado school district transportation policies to illustrate existing

practices that may have implications for supporting these scheduling changes. We also present

a series of strategies and programs that address school transportation challenges in Colorado to

provide context for the types of activities and innovative practices already in place across the

state.

Accommodating requested changes to school schedules and calendars often presents a trade-

off between schedule and calendar decisions at the school level and financial costs for districts

and their transportation departments. The magnitude of any additional costs depends on the

disruption to the existing transportation system and any additional service demands caused by

the change. The limited national research on school transportation as it relates to ELT programs

suggests that transportation, at least from purely a cost perspective, is a secondary

consideration for schools when compared to the other costs of adding learning time.

Within Colorado, the majority of identified schools that have added substantial time to their

school day and year are nontraditional public schools. The availability of transportation services

in these schools differs by school type and district. Although there are fewer traditional public

schools with longer days or years, those that offer expanded calendars are generally well

3 |

served by district-provided transportation. The same is true for innovation schools, which

receive per pupil funds from the districts and typically use those funds to secure district-

provided transportation but also have the option of using external providers. Charter schools

commonly add time to their school days and years but are much less likely to offer

transportation services to students. The prominent exceptions are those charter schools

receiving transportation services through Denver Public Schools’ Success Express shuttle bus

system. Beyond Success Express, about 10 percent of the identified charter schools with ELT

programs offer transportation services either independently or by contracting with their school

district.

Transportation may remain a significant barrier to schools considering making changes to their

existing schedules and calendars, even innovation and traditional public schools. Anecdotal

evidence from news stories and innovation plans suggests that the approval of changes to

district-provided transportation schedules is a key hurdle to restructuring school time.

However, the large number of charter schools with ELT programs suggests that lengthening the

school day or year occurs frequently in the absence of school transportation and is not a

primary barrier to families already attending those schools.

Open enrollment activity in Colorado has reduced some of the traditional demands on districts

for transportation services. The many students who choose a school other than the one

assigned to them are typically ineligible for district-provided transportation. School district

transportation policies have generally responded to such shifts only on the periphery. For

example, most districts allow students to apply for seats on buses when space is available, even

if those students are not eligible based on district policies. School districts and other

transportation providers in Colorado have reacted to both persistent and emerging

transportation challenges in a variety of ways. This report documents a number of the

responses, including the implementation of the four-day school week, the Success Express

shuttle bus system in Denver Public Schools (DPS), Boulder Valley School District’s (BVSD)

ongoing efforts to increase efficiency in school transportation, a Denver Regional Council of

4 |

Governments (DRCOG) effort to encourage alternative school transportation methods through

Schoolpool, and school district cooperation with public transit agencies.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION1 AND EXPANDED LEARNING TIME

Before explicitly considering the connection between school transportation and ELT programs,

a basic understanding of school transportation and the Colorado context is needed. Traditional

school bus transportation systems attempt to maximize bus trips by staggering school bell

times (start and end times) based on the grades each school serves. By starting and ending

schools in tiers, it is possible to serve multiple schools with a single bus. To accommodate this

more efficient utilization of buses, high schools typically start and finish the day earliest,

followed by middle schools, and then elementary schools.

Beyond the tier approach, another defining characteristic of school transportation is rider

eligibility, where students qualify for bus transportation to their assigned school based on the

distance they reside from the assigned school location. The eligible distance threshold usually

increases with the student’s grade level. The following section describes school transportation

in Colorado and highlights the prominence of open enrollment and the popularity of

nontraditional public schools, which have implications for transportation and ELT programs.

1 For a thorough review of the broader school transportation field, see Vincent, Makarewicz, Miller, Ehrman, and

McKoy 2014.

5 |

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION IN COLORADO

Although not legally mandated, in 2009–10 the Colorado Department of Education reported

that only four of the state’s 178 school districts failed to offer “regular route service” and that

half of those without service compensated families for getting their kids to school (CDE n.d.). In

Colorado, most school districts provide their own transportation services as opposed to

contracting out the service to a private operator. As of 2011, four districts in the state, including

Pueblo County School District 70 and Woodland Park School District RE-2, used private firms to

provide transportation services (Thaxton 2011). In the 2012–13 school year, Colorado school

districts reported serving nearly 350,000 eligible students just shy of 50 million total miles (CDE

2014c). The number of students eligible for transportation has fluctuated and reported total

miles have declined even as state enrollment has grown over the last five years (see Table 1).

Table 1: State of Colorado School Transportation Activity, 2009–132

FY 2008–09 FY 2009–10 FY 2010–11 FY 2011–12 FY 2012–13

Pupils Transported

349,120 333,710 334,414 344,079 347,028

Total Miles 53,655,006 52,712,903 54,188,529 53,365,360 49,982,014

Current Operating Expenditures (Transportation)

$202,384,615 $205,975,209 $204,546,773 $209,701,420 $213,737,058

Note: Aggregated school district data from CDE 2014c.

The nature of school transportation varies by the type of community served by the school

districts across Colorado. The most prominent differences are population density and the size

of school districts, which vary tremendously. Generally, rural districts transport a larger share of

their students (see Figure 1) over longer distances than their more urban and suburban

counterparts. For these reasons, rural districts allocate a larger share of their overall operating

budget to transportation (see Figure 2), despite benefiting from a lower per mile cost of

transportation.

2 Note that the CDE school transportation information is collected for purposes of determining reimbursement

levels from the state to individual districts. “Pupils Transported” refers to the reported number of pupils eligible for district transportation.

6 |

Figure 1: Average Share of Enrolled Students Eligible for District Transportation, 2009–12

Note: Authors’ calculations based on CDE transportation data (“Pupils Transported”) and NCES enrollment and locale codes from the Common Core of Data.

Figure 2: Average Transportation Share of Current Operating Budget by Locale Type, 2009

Note: Authors’ calculations based on CDE transportation spending data (“Current Operating Expenditures”) and current spending and locale codes from the Common Core of Data.

Federal policy, through the No Child Left Behind Act, increased the responsibility of districts to

provide transportation and access to alternative schools for students in certain low-performing

schools. Although a fairly large number of Colorado students were eligible for such services, in

the 2011–12 school year only “1,470 students (of 88,459 eligible) were granted transfer and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

City Suburb Town Rural

Stu

de

nts

Elig

ible

to

be

Se

rve

d b

y D

istr

ict

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

(%

, ave

rage

)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

City Suburb Town Rural

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Cu

rre

nt

Op

era

tin

g B

ud

get

Shar

e

7 |

provided transportation to another higher performing school in the district, at a total cost of

$1,432,831” (CDE-UFPA 2014, 28). During the 2007–08 school year DPS reportedly spent

$21,500 “to transport one child in a school bus from Smith Elementary School in north Denver

35 minutes across town to the closest high-performing school, which was Bradley Elementary in

southeast Denver” (Meyer 2009a). This anecdote reflects the difficulties inherent in moving

beyond traditional busing approaches to school transportation, as members of the school board

“asked why the district didn’t just pay for a daily cab ride” (Meyer 2009a).

OPEN ENROLLMENT

In Colorado, the popularity of open enrollment, or school choice, which allows students to

attend a school other than the one assigned to them, has implications for school

transportation. Colorado has had its open enrollment law in place for over two decades. Its

defining characteristics are that receiving schools must have available seats and the “students

have their own transportation” (Rouse 2007). In 2007, nearly 17 percent of Colorado public

school students did not attend their neighborhood school (Rouse 2007). The 2013–14 school

year saw more than 76,000 students, or nearly 9 percent of state enrollment, attending schools

in a different district than the one in which they lived (CDE 2014a).3 In DPS, a reported 41

percent of students enrolled outside of their catchment-area school in 2009 (Meyer 2009b).

In some ways, school choice systems reduce the demand for district-provided school

transportation based on existing policies. At the same time, they raise concerns over who is

able to participate in school choice, since choosing a different school is typically accompanied

by an increased transportation burden for families. Choice schools that are open to students

within an entire district may not be able to utilize existing district transportation services,

depending on district policy. This has led to alternate arrangements in some cases. For

example, a private transportation provider, Access Transportation Solutions based in

Commerce City, serves STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) Magnet Lab School and

Hulstrom K–8 School in the Adams 12 School District. Families make payments for the service

directly to the private provider on a quarterly basis.

3 This figure excludes students with out-of-state and out-of-country primary residences.

8 |

Although little research has been done on the topic, parental surveys in Denver provide

information on the relative importance of transportation and school location in determining

parents’ decisions about where to enroll their children. In Denver, 32 percent of parents

indicated they chose their child’s school based on academic quality, followed by 26 percent

who cited location and convenience as the primary consideration for their choice of school

(Teske, Fitzpatrick, and O’Brien 2009). Even more telling is the fact that families with children in

assigned schools “cited location/convenience as their top rationale at nearly five times the rate

of those who placed their children outside the neighborhood schools (44 percent versus 9

percent)” (Teske, Fitzpatrick, and O’Brien 2009, 16). Proximity to a school and the related

transportation burden are important factors in a family’s decision regarding where to send their

children to school.

NONTRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

The wide availability of nontraditional public schools in Colorado adds to the transportation

complexity that accompanies open enrollment. This section describes the transportation issues

related to charter schools, innovation schools, and pilot schools.

Charter schools, with their increased autonomy and flexibility in personnel practices, are more

active than traditional public schools in expanding learning time (for evidence, see Kolbe,

Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). One reason cited for charter schools being able to provide more

learning time under similar budgetary constraints as traditional public schools is that they are

not required to provide transportation to their students (Farbman and Kaplan 2005). In

Colorado, then, it is necessary to understand what type of transportation services are offered

by charter schools, many of which have longer school days and years, consistent with national

trends. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) addresses the availability of

transportation for charter school attendees by observing that:

Due to finances and the need to pay for facilities out of operating revenue, many charter schools do not provide bus transportation for students. Parents often organize car pools to provide transportation. Public transportation is used in some areas when it is available. Some charter schools do have agreements with their school district for bus service. Whenever this is done, the agreement is in the written charter/contract (CDE 2012).

9 |

Despite being allowed to opt out of providing transportation, charter schools in Colorado are

nevertheless required to submit “a statement of whether the proposed charter school plans to

address the transportation . . . needs of its students” as part of the charter school application

process (see Colorado Charter Schools Act 22-30.5-106. Charter application – contents).

A review of charter school application examples made available by the Colorado Charter School

Institute suggests that charter schools deal with transportation in a variety of ways. One

example noted that the school “will not be providing transportation but will work with regional

transportation departments and parents to establish car pools and identify possible public

transportation options for students” (Global Village Academy – Colorado Springs 2012). This

approach is consistent with the reported popularity of DRCOG’s Schoolpool program for

nontraditional schools (see the Schoolpool section below for details).

Other charter school applications highlight the importance of siting and facility selection in

supporting the transportation needs of future students. By optimally locating the school,

charter schools can minimize transportation as a barrier to student access. For example, New

Legacy Charter High School describes in its application that its facility must be accessible from

public transportation “because many students will not have their own transportation” and they

“would ideally like to be no more than 2 blocks away from Colfax or Peoria Street” (New Legacy

Charter High School 2013). Montessori del Mundo even ties its transportation plans to equity

concerns and the goal of securing foundation support for general transportation assistance:

Equity also includes access to school for diverse populations. We are currently seeking a facility within easy walking distance of low-income housing; however, we believe that daily transportation would greatly increase access for low-income families to our school. While we do not currently have funding to support daily transportation, we are seeking foundation funding or alternate funding that would help us support such a program (Montessori del Mundo 2012).

There is limited insight into charter school transportation as an optional service. Secondhand

reporting in 2008 on an informal CDE survey found that only 13 of the 76 responding charter

schools provided transportation to students. Nine of the 13 schools providing transportation

did so internally, while the remaining four contracted with their school district for

10 |

transportation (Charter School Solutions 2008).4 Given the limited share of charter schools

offering transportation services, it appears that the availability of transportation has not been a

substantial barrier to expanding learning time in such schools.

In Colorado, charter schools are not the only option for parents and students in search of

greater educational autonomy. At the state level, innovation schools are increasingly common,

and districts such as Aurora Public Schools have experimented with pilot school designations.

How do these different types of schools, which frequently adopt expanded school days and

years, receive transportation services from their school districts?

Innovation status is frequently accompanied by changes to a school’s day or calendar.

According to the CDE (2013), 92 percent of applicants for innovation status request state

waivers related to time and calendar (see Table 2, below, for the specific statutory provisions).

For example, a 2012 report on innovation schools highlights that “most of the DPS innovation

schools expanded the day, week, or year to provide for one or more of the following changes:

increasing the student’s core instructional day, adding collaboration or planning time for

teachers, adding opportunities for students to receive assistance within the school day or after

school, and/or increasing time to pursue project-based learning” (Chin 2012, 9).

Table 2: Time and Calendar Waivers of State Statutory Provisions

Statutory Provision Waived Total Number of Innovation Schools Requesting

Percent of Innovation Schools Requesting

Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(I) (local board duties, schedule and calendar)

34 92%

Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(A) (local board duties, hours of teacher-pupil instruction and contact)

34 92%

Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(B) (local board duties, school calendar)

34 92%

Source: Fuller 2013, 11.

No innovation school applicants have requested a non-automatic state waiver from the

Transportation of Pupils statute [22‐32‐113(5)(a)] (CDE 2013). Innovation schools receive per

4 The cited blog entry is the only publicly available evidence of the survey and its results.

11 |

pupil funds, including amounts to be used for transportation. The schools, at least according to

a number of innovation plans in DPS, reserve the “flexibility to purchase administrative services,

such as transportation, food services, facility management, maintenance, student services and

substitute teachers, from Denver Public Schools or other providers.” In practice, innovation

schools have largely utilized district-provided transportation services.

Schools appear cognizant, however, that altering their schedules and calendars has implications

for transportation services. Centennial, an expeditionary learning school in DPS, wrote in their

innovation status application that the school “will investigate a bell time change request for the

2014–15 school year and for subsequent years thereafter with the department of

transportation” (Munro and Arzberger n.d.). Further, a report on the early experiences of

innovation schools noted that one school was informed by their district “retroactively that they

would need to pay for the costs created by their schedule change (e.g., transportation), which

the school did not anticipate” (Price, Challender, and Walters 2011, 9). Innovation school plans

to date have included a number of creative transportation proposals ranging from taking

advantage of being a co-located school (a school within a school) to providing bus

transportation from a number of feeder schools to the innovation school.

The state’s annual innovation schools report provides some insight into how the increasing

autonomy of district schools is affecting core services, including transportation. In response to a

question about changes made since innovation status was received, DPS notes that it has

increased “the number of district functions/services from which a school can opt out” and, in

response to the increasing variety of schools, is “working with school and central services (such

as food services, transportation, professional development, etc.) to discuss how the central

service department can meet the needs of a diverse customer group before a school turns to

outsourcing” (Chin 2012, 17). Transportation is prominently mentioned by school principals as

one of the considerations to school day or calendar changes along with the impact of such

changes on “the lives of teachers, parents, students” (Chin 2012, 20).

According to district policy, pilot schools in Aurora Public Schools with nonstandard bell times

or school calendars are directed to “work with the Transportation Department to see if the

12 |

changes can be accommodated. Otherwise, the school could be charged for the associated cost

of special bell times or different days” (APS/AEA 2013, 59). In other words, pilot schools are

entitled to transportation services per school board policy, but additional costs may accrue

based on program specifics (Hupfeld 2009). This potential for additional costs to district-

provided transportation services for pilot schools appears consistent with the experience of

some innovation schools.

Access to school transportation is uneven across nontraditional public schools. Charter schools,

regardless of school day length or calendar structure, lack district-provided transportation in

most cases (for a notable exception, see the section below describing the Success Express

shuttle system in DPS). Innovation schools, on the other hand, can benefit from the existing

district transportation system (if their students qualify for such services based on district

policies) but must coordinate with the district for support of alternate day and calendar

structures. The innovation schools may, alternately, seek external transportation services. The

following section moves beyond the discussion of transportation availability for nontraditional

public schools to consider the specific issues related to transportation in schools with ELT

programs.

IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS

Transportation is a prominent issue for schools and districts considering ELT programs because

schedule changes impact the rest of the system. In some districts, the transportation

department has the authority to set bell times for schools, whereas for others it is a more

collaborative process. Changing school bell times often adds transportation costs if the tier

system is disrupted. Transportation planning is based on school bell times and is frequently a

joint exercise between the transportation department and instructional officials. Longer school

days do not necessarily require greater levels of service, but they may require scheduling

adjustments to the existing transportation routes in order to maintain efficient use of the bus

fleet.

13 |

Expanding school years has a more direct impact on transportation needs. If only a single

school, or even a handful, have longer school years, then buses must remain in service for that

smaller number of students and overhead costs can’t be spread out to maximize efficiency by

serving multiple schools with a single bus. On the other hand, these impacts depend on the

types of schools expanding their school years. For example, when Manual High School

expanded its school year there was reportedly little scheduling impact since high school

students do not receive traditional yellow bus service in DPS. Charter schools with expanded-

year calendars do not typically receive district bus service anyway. Restructuring both the

school day and the school calendar has cost implications if the district’s ability to efficiently tier

routes is limited or the number of buses in service on a daily basis must increase. Given that

these additional costs can be quantified, school districts can determine whether changing

school schedules and calendars is worth the additional expense.

Although transportation appears to be a meaningful consideration in expanding learning time, a

selling point of adding time to the school day or year is that many costs do not rise

proportionally with the increase in learning time. Transportation is considered one of those

“nonteaching costs” that do not change automatically with additional learning time (Roza and

Hawley Miles 2008, 4). Whether or not an ELT school is required to provide transportation to its

students influences the overall costs of such programs. For example, charter schools reportedly

redirect savings from not providing transportation “to offset the costs of operating for longer

hours” (Farbman and Kaplan 2005, 25).

A recent report reviewed the associated costs of expanded learning time in four schools across

the country (Kaplan, Farbman, Deich, and Clapp Padgette 2014) and found that transportation

costs represented only a small share of the total program costs (see Table 3, below). In fact,

there are no reported incremental transportation costs for the move to an expanded day

schedule for McGlone Elementary in DPS. For the other schools, transportation costs ranged

from 2 to 3 percent of the total costs of implementing expanded day and year programs

(Kaplan et al. 2014).

14 |

Table 3: Reported Transportation Costs in Four Expanded Learning Time Schools

School State Expanded Transportation Costs

Total Costs

Share of Total Costs

Notes

Day Year

Griffith Elementary

AZ X $5,000 $174,000 2.87% “School transportation costs are relatively low, because most students walk to school; additional costs include: fuel/ maintenance for one regular bus and one special education bus (during the added 20 days)” (p. 13)

School 26 NJ X X $14,289 $717,294 1.99% “Added costs of running bus routes for 20 additional days” (p. 20)

McGlone Elementary

CO X $0 $560,400 0.00% N/A (p. 26)

Orchard Gardens Pilot School

MA X $21,578 $964,445 2.24% “Additional cost of running late buses” (p. 37)

Source: Kaplan, Claire, David A. Farbman, Sharon Deich, and Heather Clapp Padgette. 2014. Financing Expanded

Learning Time in Schools: A Look at Five District Expanded-Time Schools. National Center on Time & Learning/The

Wallace Foundation.

The importance of transportation to any given school depends on the geographic area from

which it draws students. A neighborhood school with an expanded day program may have little

additional demand for transportation services if most students live so close to the school that

they can walk. The grade levels served by a school also matter, since schools serving higher

grades tend to be larger and draw students from a broader area. At the same time, the

changing eligibility for school transportation as students move into higher grades means that

qualifying for service based on distance becomes more difficult.

Although expanded year programs can increase transportation costs, an unintended benefit

may be an improved ability to retain bus drivers when the school calendar is lengthened. In

1999, the shortage of bus drivers in the Denver area had reportedly hit a “critical point” (Blevins

1999). At that time, DPS was losing around 70 bus drivers at the end of each school year as bus

drivers secured summer employment elsewhere. Fairly significant up-front costs exist when

15 |

hiring a new bus driver, due in part to state certification and training requirements, and these

investments are lost with driver turnover. At the time, Douglas County School District

reportedly benefited from hiring “drivers for year-round employment because many of its

schools operate on a year-round schedule” (Blevins 1999).

Beyond the district and school perspectives, parents face the daily obligation of getting their

children to and from school regardless of the length of the school day. We solicited feedback

from a small number of parents in Denver-area schools with identified ELT programs and asked

them about their school transportation options and how ELT programs have altered their

transportation needs and routines. The parents in ELT schools consistently reported that the

school’s expanded day or expanded year has caused them to alter both the transportation of

children to and from school and coordination with after-school activities. One parent

commented that the late end of the school day makes it difficult for her children to participate

in after-school activities and for her to schedule doctor’s appointments without the children

missing school. Alterations to transportation are not necessarily perceived negatively, however.

Another parent highlighted the benefits to working parents of being able to drop off children

earlier and pick them up later because of the expanded day.

School transportation must be flexible to support changes in the structure of the school day

and year, and this flexibility has real costs, either indirectly, in the form of coordination and

planning efforts, or directly, as costs associated with increased service levels. Although limited

anecdotal evidence suggests that these costs are relatively minor, depending on the existing

system, the need to alter existing district transportation service to accommodate changes to

the day and year may keep school leaders from even considering such actions. A DPS

elementary school’s recent experience reinforces the notion that changes to the school day are

contingent upon the district transportation department’s ability to accommodate them. Even

after a highly contentious school-level consideration of adding time to the day, the ability to

change the bus schedule may keep the school’s proposed change from being implemented

(Schimel 2014b). The principal, after submitting the schedule change request to the

transportation department to accommodate lengthening the school day, commented that “if

16 |

they can’t change our bell time, we’ll have to figure out what we’re going to do” (Schimel

2014b).

Possibly of equal importance is the role that transportation plays in a school community’s

willingness to consider restructuring or expanding the school day. The same DPS elementary

school struggled to get buy in from some parents for a longer school day, in part due to

concerns “about whether busing will be available and the late hours their students will spend

on the bus” (Schimel 2014b). After considering the relationships between transportation and

longer school days and years, the following section examines the availability of transportation

options in Colorado schools identified as having expanded learning time.

EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY IN COLORADO

To get a general sense of the availability of transportation for ELT schools in Colorado, we

compiled a list of schools with expanded days or expanded years along with their

transportation availability using a number of sources. Although imperfect, we first created an

inventory of Colorado schools with known ELT programs from media coverage. The primary

sources were articles in The Denver Post, (Boulder) Daily Camera, and EdNews Colorado (now

Chalkbeat Colorado), which documented, for example, a DPS effort to introduce more time into

roughly eight schools (Poppen 2012) and the districts and schools participating in the TIME

(Time for Innovation Matters in Education) Collaborative supported by the Ford Foundation and

the National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) (Haigh 2013).

In addition to these media sources, the Rose Community Foundation provided a spreadsheet

with school programs that had been classified as expanded learning opportunities (ELOs). When

publicly available, we also reviewed district-provided school bell schedules and start-end date

listings to identify additional schools with relatively long days or years. To consider an even

broader range of schools, we then turned to the NCTL’s database of expanded-time schools.

The NCTL database includes self-reported information on public schools with an expanded

school schedule that applies to all students. These sources resulted in a list of approximately

170 potential ELT schools in Colorado. We proceeded to review each school’s bell times and

17 |

calendar for the 2013–14 school year to determine whether classification as an ELT school was

warranted. In many cases, current schedules no longer reflected reports of longer school days

and years. The schedule and calendar information was supplemented with documenting

whether district-provided school transportation is generally available for the school or if other

transportation options were offered.

Of course, defining expanded learning time is in itself a challenge, which is why our initial

criteria for inclusion on the list were quite lenient. There is no commonly agreed upon

definition of expanded learning time. For example, for the 2011–12 school year the NCTL used

both absolute and relative measures of school time to judge whether a school should be

considered an expanded-time school for inclusion in its database. The considered public schools

needed to offer an “average school day length of at least 7 hours” and be “30 or more minutes

longer than surrounding public schools” or the school’s own day before adding time to their

school day (NCTL n.d.). A school might also qualify as an expanded-time school based on the

NCTL criteria if their school year is “10 or more days longer than surrounding public schools (or

compared to ET school’s pre-conversion schedule)” (NCTL n.d.). These longer school days and

years must apply to all students based on the NCTL criteria.

As can be seen from the NCTL criteria, the classification of an ELT school is a relative exercise, a

comparison both to peers and to its own historical school day and year. The Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS) provides the best, although still limited, view of school days and

calendars to serve as a benchmark. Based on the 2007–08 SASS surveys, the average school day

nationally is 6 hours and 45 minutes, with the daily time in school increasing slightly with the

grade levels of students (Kolbe, Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). The typical school year for

students is reportedly 180 days long (Kolbe, Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). For Colorado, the

average school day is 7.01 hours and the average number of school days in the year is 171,

according to the SASS (U.S. Department of Education n.d.).

Our approach to narrowing the list of schools identified as potential expanded-time programs

reflects the desire to ensure that the increase in time is meaningful for students. The NCTL

criteria, Colorado averages for school day and year length from the SASS, historical school

18 |

schedules where available, and the average number of student contact days for the 10 largest

school districts in Colorado (174 days) were all used to assess each identified school. We

retained schools with roughly more than half an hour per day longer school days as compared

to the Colorado average. In a small number of cases, a school was kept on the list if its hours

were especially long for a school serving the elementary grades. Press accounts of schools that

had added substantial time to the school day compared to previous years (typically 45 minutes

to an hour per day) were also retained. School year length was compared to the district

average, when available, or to the Colorado large district average, when unavailable.

The length of the school day was not looked at in isolation from the length of the school year.

The cumulative effect of the school’s day and year length were considered. Many schools

initially on the list, and included in the NCTL’s database, have added time to the typical school

day along with a weekly early release or late start day for teacher professional development.

The net effect is often that students’ total time in school looks average. For example, adding 30

to 45 minutes per day Monday through Thursday and having a two-hour early release day on

Friday results in weekly time staying the same or increasing by only one hour in total. The use

of early release and late start days is especially common in charter schools.

A number of schools were also included because of a combination of factors that suggest they

are expanding school time in a combination of ways not reflected solely in bell times and

calendars. For example, the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST) campuses were

included despite having fewer-than-average student contact days and longer school days

partially offset by a weekly early release day. All new students are required to attend summer

school programs running multiple weeks, some of the DSST campuses have extremely short

passing periods that expand classroom time, and high school students have summer program

requirements between the junior and senior years. Although not required for all students, DSST

also has a second dismissal that expands the day for students who are required to attend for

schoolwork-related reasons or for participation in college prep activities. DSST has reported its

instructional time to be 1,248 hours per year, which is significantly higher than the norm in DPS

middle schools (Brennan 2012).

19 |

In the end, we narrowed the list to 79 schools with a meaningful increase in learning time

through some combination of longer school days and years.5 Based on the list, we are able to

draw some general conclusions about the types of schools expanding learning time in Colorado

and whether their students have school-based transportation options available to them. These

schools average 39.5 hours per week of school time and just less than 180 school days (recall

that Colorado schools average 7 hours per day and 171 days per year according to the SASS).

Hours per week range from a low of 30 to a high of 50, while student contact days per year

range from 167 to 207. A slight majority (59 percent) of the identified public schools are

charters, with the remaining representing innovation schools (23 percent) and traditional public

schools (18 percent) (see Table 4).

Table 4: Identified ELT Schools by School Type, 2013–14

School Type Number Percent

Charter 47 59 District 14 18 Innovation 18 23

Total 79 100 Source: Authors’ calculations.

Using the identified schools, we can also examine the characteristics of schools in Colorado that

expand time compared to other schools. As seen in Table 5, there are substantial differences,

including ELT schools having smaller average enrollments (about 10 percent smaller) than other

schools across the state. The identified schools also have a much higher average share of

students eligible for free and reduced lunch programs, with 73.7 percent of students qualifying

as opposed to 45.3 percent for other Colorado schools. In general, the ELT schools double the

average share of students who are non-white (82.1 percent compared to 41.3 percent). Even

more dramatic is the overrepresentation of African American students in identified ELT schools

(14.3 percent) relative to other Colorado schools (3.4 percent).

5 Manual High School was included as an ELT school, although it has since returned to a more traditional schedule

and calendar (Schimel 2014a).

20 |

Table 5: Characteristics of Colorado Schools

Expanded Learning Time

Schools Other

Schools

Number Average Number Average

Enrollment 78 442 1,704 489 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible Students 78 73.7% 1,704 45.3% African American Students 78 14.3% 1,704 3.4% Hispanic Students 78 61.2% 1,704 31.4% Non-White Students 78 82.1% 1,704 41.3%

Note: The number of ELT schools does not match the figure in Table 4 since district and state classification sometimes differ for schools serving multiple grade levels (for example, a school with a middle and high school). Dedicated preschool programs are excluded from tabulations. Source: Authors’ calculations based on school bell times, school calendars, and CDE school-level data.

The availability of district-provided transportation differs dramatically across the types of ELT

schools. Charter schools receive district-provided transportation services in 18 of 47 schools.

Sixteen of these charter schools are served by the Success Express shuttle bus system in DPS

and pay per student fees for access to the system. The additional two charter schools receiving

district transportation contract with DPS for service. Four more of the identified charter

schools, or a little more than 10 percent, offer transportation to their students using their own

school-specific bus routes (see Table 6 for details on charter schools offering transportation

services outside of the Success Express system). The uncommon availability of school

transportation in the charter sector is apparent from the Atlas Preparatory School’s website,

where they note that “to ensure that all students in our neighborhood get access to a high

quality education, Atlas Prep has committed significant resources to providing our own bus

system, which is EXTREMELY rare for a small new school” (Atlas Preparatory School n.d.).

21 |

Table 6: Identified ELT Charter Schools in Colorado with Transportation Service (Success Express

participants excluded)

School District/Authorizer Description of Bus Service

Atlas Preparatory School Harrison 2 Provided bus service consisting of seven routes during the 2013–14 school year.

Chavez/Huerta K–12 Preparatory Academy

Pueblo City 60 Provided bus service consisting of six routes during the 2013–14 school year.

Community Leadership Academy

Charter School Institute

Free bus service available to students living within Adams 14 district boundaries.

KIPP – Sunshine Peak Academy

Denver County 1 Contracts with district for bus service.

Rocky Mountain Preparatory School

Denver County 1 Contracts with district for bus service.

Scholars to Leaders Academy

Charter School Institute

The school “has three school buses that serve the southeast and central parts of Colorado Springs”.

Source: Various school websites.

Almost all of the identified innovation and traditional public schools receive district-provided

transportation, although the outsized involvement of Success Express in serving ELT schools is

apparent. Nearly 38 percent of all the identified ELT schools are served by Success Express. In

one case, a traditional public school that is an open-enrollment school does not receive

transportation services except for certain student groups. Table 7 details the availability of

transportation services by school type. The geographic distribution of the ELT schools receiving

transportation services, either through the district or school, is skewed heavily to schools

located in Denver (over 80 percent).

Table 7: District- and School-Provided Transportation for Identified ELT Schools

School Type

District-Provided

School- Provided

Schools with Bus Service (District + School-Provided)

ELT Schools by Type

Share of ELT Schools Offering Transportation

Charter 18 4 22 47 47% District 13 0 13 14 93% Innovation 18 0 18 18 100%

Total 49 4 53 79 67% Source: Authors’ calculations.

22 |

This exploratory look at ELT schools and transportation in Colorado has a number of limitations.

In creating the list of schools, the inability to view school days and years over time for each

school makes it difficult to identify schools that have made meaningful changes to their own

learning time but still look average compared to other schools. Another challenge is that some

schools have opted to restructure the existing school day to more effectively use time rather

than explicitly adding time in a way that shows up on a bell schedule. Examples of such activity

include the field testing of expanded learning opportunities in Jefferson County Public Schools

during the 2012–13 school year (see Jefferson County Public Schools n.d.). These internal

changes are not readily apparent, and such schools are not included in the list of expanded-

time schools.

Similarly, we lack visibility into how all of the identified schools are using the additional time,

and the quality of ELT programs is, at a minimum, equally as important as quantity. The

overrepresentation of schools from Colorado’s Front Range may reflect that adding school time

is primarily an urban or suburban reform, but it may also be an artifact of less information

being publicly available from smaller school districts. Despite these challenges, district-provided

transportation is found to be available for more than two-thirds of the identified schools. As

expected, charter schools with longer school days and years are much less likely to offer

transportation services to their students (unless served by Success Express in DPS), although a

small number have established their own bus routes or contracted for the service. The

following section reviews a sample of Colorado school district transportation policies to better

understand the existing flexibility in the systems.

SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION POLICIES Publicly available transportation policy documents were gathered and reviewed for a sample of

metro-Denver school districts and districts with known ELT schools. The policies are discussed

in this section and summarized on a number of dimensions with potential implications for ELT

programs (for details, see Table A1 in the Appendix).

23 |

REQUESTING BELL TIME CHANGES

Of the reviewed school districts, only DPS made publicly available information on how schools

request changes to their bell times. The school schedule change request form provides insight

into the factors that need to be considered by districts when contemplating changes to school

schedules (see Exhibit A1, DPS Request for Schedule Change form, in Appendix).

The request for bell time changes is broken into two components. First, schools must address

the instructional impacts from the proposed schedule change, including how it will “support

student achievement” (DPS 2013). Some schools have added time to the normal school day but

then introduced early release or late start days to block off time for teacher planning and

development. An internal communication discussing bell time modifications mentions the

repercussions of these variable schedules, noting that “in the past, many schools have

requested in excess of four to six different bell schedules for transportation services during the

school year. This high number of requests has made it very challenging for Transportation to

support all schools equitably with the resources available” (Portee and Suppes 2013, 1).

Second, community impacts are detailed, with special attention to the impacts on district

departments, personnel, and evidence of “the support of staff, students and the community”

(DPS 2013, 2). Given the complexities of scheduling school transportation, schools requesting

changes are also asked to detail any implications for “bell times at other schools” (DPS 2013, 2),

since that would potentially alter existing bus tiers. Overall, the process of requesting a change

to the bell schedule forces school leaders to consider the impacts of the change on all students.

The timeline for the process indicates that schools need to decide whether to pursue a bell

schedule change with plenty of lead time. For DPS, the requests must be submitted by January

24, 2014 for the following school year (2014–15), and schools are to be notified of approval or

denial within a month after the submission deadline (Portee and Suppes 2013).

DISTANCE THRESHOLDS

In order for a student to receive transportation services, the school district transportation

policies we reviewed consistently increase the minimum distance from a student’s home to the

24 |

neighborhood (assigned) school as the student’s school grade level increases. Exceptions to this

pattern exist in some smaller districts and for schools serving both elementary and middle

school students. In general, distance thresholds for receiving bus service for elementary

students range from one to two miles, with the most common threshold being greater than one

mile from the assigned school. The thresholds increase for middle school students and range

from one to three miles, with an average just below two miles. High school students have the

highest distance threshold, with two and a half miles as the most popular policy, although they

range from one to three and a half miles. Although distance is the primary policy for

determining transportation eligibility, districts also frequently provide transportation to

students in areas identified as hazardous for walking.

FEE-FOR-SERVICE BUSING

The majority of school districts continue to offer transportation without charging additional

fees. Districts may respond to budget pressures within the transportation service area by

reducing service and associated expenses (possibly by introducing more stringent eligibility

guidelines) or by creating a revenue stream tied to busing. Of the reviewed districts, only four

charge fees for traditional bus service (Jefferson County R-1, Douglas County Re 1, Adams 12

Five Star Schools, and Academy 20), but these districts served a quarter of all Colorado students

in 2013.6 The fee structures vary across districts, but it is common to charge higher amounts for

those not attending their neighborhood school. For example, in Jefferson County Schools

transportation to “options schools” is 25 percent more expensive than to neighborhood

schools. Differential pricing is offered by some districts based on purchasing an annual pass or

the number of students in a family (often with a cap on total family transportation fees).

Districts are required to offer fee waivers to families qualifying for the National School Lunch

Program’s free and reduced price meal guidelines. Base annual fees are most commonly around

$150 per student, along with more nominal initial fees in some of the fee-for-service districts.

6 Calculation is based on pupil membership figures from CDE for the state and the four districts with fees (CDE

2014b).

25 |

SPACE-AVAILABLE BUSING

The school district transportation documents suggest that it is the norm for parents to be

allowed to apply for bus service for children who do not qualify for district-provided

transportation. In all cases, the granting of such a request is contingent upon space availability.

Space-available busing is typically provided without additional fees to families, although some

districts charge differential fees for the service as seen in Mesa County Valley 51. The marginal

cost of adding a single student to a bus with empty seats is close to zero, and districts appear to

support increased utilization of excess capacity. Anecdotally, space-available busing has been

used as a starting point for efforts to expand school transportation service as seen in the Near

Northeast region of Denver prior to the implementation of Success Express and more recently

in southwest Denver (Ely and Teske 2014). Districts differ in the level of information provided

on their websites regarding the option of space-available busing and how to apply for a seat.

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY

School transportation has benefited from the proliferation of radio frequency identification

(RFID) technology, especially in the larger school districts (see Table A1 in Appendix). With

smart passes or cards, districts can now track transportation activity using card readers on

buses. Doing so can improve management of existing bus routes and, more critically, help

districts locate students. The improvement in technology has implications for schools that

expand their school days or year and districts that provide innovative transportation systems.

As schools run either earlier or later in the day (or later in the year, when fewer schools are in

session) safety concerns exist, and the RFID technology allows schools and, potentially, parents

to know the whereabouts of their children. In school transportation systems that serve multiple

schools on the same bus line, such technology addresses the primary concern that children may

inadvertently end up getting off the bus at the wrong location.

This review provides a general sense of the standard school district transportation policies in

larger districts in Colorado and possible implications for schools considering changes to the

structure of their school day or year. The next section consists of a number of cases

26 |

documenting programs and strategies designed to address school transportation challenges in

Colorado.

RESPONSES TO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES From four-day school weeks to cooperation with public transit agencies, school transportation

challenges have altered existing transportation practices. This section details a number of

transportation-related strategies or programs in Colorado, with a focus on the Denver metro

area. Each topic is related to either providing school transportation under cost constraints, in a

more flexible manner, or expanding transportation services to schools and students ineligible

for traditional district-provided service. The section concludes with a listing of additional

noteworthy school transportation practices that are less related to understanding how

transportation can support or limit schools’ ability to restructure the school day or year.

THE FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK

The relationship between school transportation and learning time is especially salient in rural

Colorado, where a surprisingly large share of school districts operates on a four-day school

week schedule. As of 2011, 67 of Colorado’s 178 school districts had a four-day school week in

place (NCTL/ECS 2011; Lefly and Penn 2011), having grown from only three districts in 1980

(Dam 2006). Although this represents more than a third of districts (for a list of four-day school

week districts in 2010–11, see Table A2 in Appendix), these small districts serve less than 4

percent of students in the state (Lefly and Penn 2011). The reasons behind the shift to fewer

school days revolve around financial considerations and transportation, one of the primary

service areas where savings are expected (Dam 2006).

According to the CDE (Dam 2006), the costs of transporting students can drop by a share

proportional to the reduction in days (one out of five days of schooling eliminated would equal

a 20 percent decrease in costs). The cost savings are not uniform across transportation budget

categories. The primary sources of savings are labor costs, where work hours are reduced for

27 |

transportation employees, and variable costs tied to buses actively being in service, such as

gasoline. Other transportation costs, generally those that are fixed, including capital assets such

as buses and insurance costs are not substantially affected by the four-day school week (Dam

2006). Although the weekly mileage driven by school buses is reduced by a fifth for a four-day

school week, the daily route demands for the remaining school days do not change, so bus fleet

reductions are not necessarily viable.

Although the four-day school week does not reduce the minimum time spent in school, it does

alter the distribution of that time. Districts are required to apply to the state for approval to

hold less than the required 160 school days (Lefly and Penn 2011). In order to meet the State of

Colorado standards, the four-day-week districts have longer school days, typically “7.5 hours

per day for 144 days of school instead of the normal six hours for 180 days of school” (Lefly and

Penn 2011, 3). The school time, therefore, remains constant, but the CDE notes that “the use of

instructional time is probably the most controversial and least studied of all the issues” related

to the four-day school week (Dam 2006, 5). The longer day and shorter week raise a number of

issues that impact learning. Challenges include structuring the school day to “avoid fatigue”

among the youngest students and the unavoidable fact that when a student is absent or school

is closed for a day the reduction in school time is proportionately larger than with a standard

school day (Dam 2006, 5). On the other hand, the shorter school week may allow for less

disruption to school time if families use the extra day to schedule appointments (such as doctor

and dentist) rather than during school time (Dam 2006).

The adoption of longer school days and years is typically targeted toward improving student

outcomes, whether in core academic areas or by expanding enrichment opportunities. In

schools with four-day weeks, it is only natural to consider whether student performance is

affected by the shortened week. Most of the empirical evidence in Colorado, although limited,

suggests that student performance is not negatively impacted by the four-day school week

(Daly and Richburg 1984; Lefly and Penn 2011). Alternately, a recent study using matched pairs

of districts did find “that the five-day schools did slightly better than the four-day schools, with

11 of 12 achievement results favoring five-day schools” (Hewitt and Denny 2011, 29). Other

28 |

outcomes associated with the four-day school week are also worth highlighting. Attendance for

both students and teachers reportedly improves (Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009), while

satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with the shorter school week is quite high, with

80 to 90 percent supporting the existing four-day week after it becomes established (Dam

2006). The four-day school week is a meaningful example of the trade-offs made between

transportation costs and the structure of school time in Colorado.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) SUCCESS EXPRESS7

After years of setting the groundwork, DPS launched the Success Express shuttle bus service in

Denver’s Near Northeast (NNE) and Far Northeast (FNE) regions in August 2011. Now in its third

year of operation, the program continues to embrace its stated objective, “To create a

transportation system that would provide opportunity for all students to utilize a service based

on choice, location of their school of attendance, and providing school start and end time

flexibility” (DPSDOT 2012). The impetus for introducing the shuttle bus system differed starkly

across the two regions where it was ultimately implemented. Success Express was a response

to the call for improved transportation initiated from a collaborative process with parents and

school and district leadership in the NNE, while in the larger FNE region the shuttle bus system

was, in contrast, a piece of the overall turnaround strategy adopted by the district.

Moving away from the standard school transportation model meant rethinking how to flexibly

serve multiple ages of kids attending schools with various start and end times. It also presented

a dramatic change in the status quo, as parents no longer would simply get kids to the bus stop

(or pick them up) at a single time for a direct ride to school. The shuttle bus approach, although

still using the ubiquitous full-size yellow school buses, differs from a traditional school

transportation system in a number of ways. Most dramatically, there are separate fixed routes

in each of the two regions (see an example route map, Exhibit A2, in the Appendix). The

generally circular routes are repeatedly traversed by the same buses in a manner similar to

many public transit bus systems.8 The system operates over an extended period of the morning

7 For a more detailed consideration of Success Express, see Ely and Teske 2014.

8 Because of budget pressures in 2011, Falcon School District 49 shifted to a fee-for-service transportation system

that shared some common design elements with Success Express. The pared-down bus routes in Falcon included a

29 |

and afternoon, running from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., respectively.

The continuous morning service currently offers two pick-up times to get students to school

before the morning bell and one more pick-up that will get them to school, but tardy.

Although improved transportation service would typically be associated with higher costs,

budget savings were expected from the shuttle bus system, since it results in fewer buses in

service and improved utilization rates relative to the prior routes operating below capacity. The

Success Express shuttle dramatically increased student access to school transportation in these

growing Denver regions, especially for the many charter schools that did not previously receive

district transportation services. Nearly 60 percent of the schools served by Success Express are

charter or innovation schools. The student characteristics also differ, with higher average

concentrations of minority and low-income students in Success Express-served schools. The

demographic differences reflect the regional focus of the shuttle service.

A primary benefit of the shuttle bus system is the increased flexibility afforded schools in

setting their start and end, or bell, times. A second advantage exists for schools offering after-

school activities: they don’t need to worry about arranging alternative transportation options.

School-based decisions to expand learning time through longer days and years have resulted in

tremendous diversity in time spent at school across the district. As might be expected with the

school turnaround effort in the FNE, students in schools served by Success Express had longer

estimated average school days and more hours per year than other district schools in the 2013

school year. More fundamentally related to time in school, regularly getting to school safely

and on time in the morning, as well as being able to participate in after-school programs

without concern for getting home, undoubtedly has positive impacts on student outcomes.

With Success Express, missing the bus no longer has to mean missing the entire school day.

A key concern that surfaced as the program began was the length of bus rides for some

students under the new system. For example, riders boarding at one end of the loop and

“combination of circuit busing and corridor busing” with different-age students riding the same buses (Iodice 2011). The new system, which was not implemented without controversy, allowed both charter school and choice students to participate as long as families were willing to pay the district for the rides and deliver their children to and from designated bus stops (Iodice 2011).

30 |

disembarking at the other had rides extended, since each shuttle made every stop on the route.

The district responded by breaking up some of the capacity on the routes and at key times

providing some longer-distance shuttle runs that did not make all of the interim stops. The

concern over long ride times becomes even more pressing for students in schools with

expanded school days, since the door-to-door time away from home may become excessive.

After the initial six months of service, a number of ridership patterns became clear.

Transportation utilization increased relative to the year prior to Success Express

implementation (DPSDOT 2012). Afternoon ridership is reported to be slightly higher than

morning ridership, suggesting that the service is being used to accommodate after-school

activities and parent work hours that extend beyond the end of the school day (for details, see

DPSDOT 2012, 11–12). The shuttle bus system served 25 actively participating schools in the

FNE and 14 in the NNE in its initial school year (DPSDOT 2012). The number of schools served

has grown to roughly 45 in 2013–14.

The nature of the shuttle bus system and its multiple stops present a clear trade-off between

improved transportation flexibility and school access versus the increased length of ride times.

The shuttle bus system has increased access to transportation and preferred schools

throughout the regions. The system has also supported the increasing number of schools in the

regions with longer school days or school years. Although shuttle bus schedules still must

accommodate school start and end times and varied ridership demands, the system supports

school-level discretion in setting start and end times.

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (BVSD) TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY EFFORT

In December 2012, Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) became a part of the multi-state TIME

Collaborative to support the development of ELT schools. Upon joining the collaborative,

Assistant Superintendent Sandy Ripplinger commented, “We know that all students can learn,

but some need more time . . . That can mean before school, after school, a longer school year

or summer programs. We want to look at what’s most effective and what works in different

school settings. This gives us that opportunity” (Bounds 2012). The schools joining the

31 |

collaborative included Angevine Middle School, Centaurus High School, Pioneer Elementary

School, and Sanchez Elementary School.

Although the schools in the collaborative have explored different ways to add time and improve

the use of that time, BVSD and its superintendent, Bruce Messinger, began an effort to improve

the efficiency of its transportation services in response to budgetary pressures. Transportation

as a support service is a frequent target of cost-reduction efforts as school district officials

attempt to protect instructional resources. Expanding the school day demands flexibility at the

school level to set start and end times, but this discretion can be at odds with efficient

transportation systems that maximize the number of schools served by a single bus. Schools in

BVSD have, reportedly, enjoyed discretion in setting bell times, but an assessment conducted

by an external transportation consulting firm, Management Partnership Services, Inc.,

concluded that this practice resulted in a costly transportation system (Bounds 2013a).9

The trade-off between cost and school-level flexibility is apparent in the reactions to the report.

For example, the president of the BVSD Board of Education noted, “We have 50 different bell

schedules. If you want to put more money into the classroom, we’re going to have to give up

some flexibility on that side” (Bounds 2013a). The report estimated an average annual cost per

bus, including capital costs, of $88,400, which is at the high end of the range nationally (MPS

2013). According to the analysis, the distribution of bell times is a primary reason for the higher

expenditures, along with “fleet related costs” (MPS 2013, 2). Specifically, rather than each bus

serving three schools per day (a frequent objective of school districts, referred to as being

“triple-routed”) the “runs per bus rate for BVSD is 1.76 per bus[,] some 33% less efficient than

most districts” (MPS 2013, 1). The report finds that the many different bell schedules result in

27 additional buses in service on a daily basis (MPS 2013, 45). A shift back to the classic three-

tier bell time schedule is recommended in the report, with an expected reduction of 40 buses

and annual financial savings of approximately $2.5 million (MPS 2013, 47).

9 It is important to note that the BVSD Transportation Department received high praise from the MPS report for

many of its management practices.

32 |

The proposed savings from bell schedule changes are nearly as large as the budget reductions

adopted in the spring of 2012, $1 million of which were reportedly absorbed by “high-poverty

elementary schools” (Bounds 2013a). On the other hand, transportation costs in BVSD

represent only 7 percent of the operating budget in fiscal year 2012 (MPS 2013). The BVSD

leadership explicitly acknowledges that standardization of bell schedules to improve

transportation efficiency will impact schools and service levels. BVSD Superintendent Messinger

raises the point that some bell times were set to support school programs, while others might

just be artifacts of more arbitrary decisions made long ago. As the process to revise the existing

transportation system was under way, Messinger addressed finding the appropriate balance

between efficiency and support for schools, noting, “We do need to have more centralized

controls, but we want to still be responsive to school needs and systems” (Bounds 2013a).

In April 2013, BVSD announced a transportation management plan approved by the school

board in March, to be phased in over three years, in response to the consultants’

recommendations. The plan included fleet and route adjustments, the latter including corridor

busing, where stops are placed on major thoroughfares rather than deeper within

neighborhoods, in addition to the bell time standardization (Bounds 2013b). Ultimately, the

plan calls for standardized lengths of school days by the age group of students served in the

third year of the plan’s implementation (Bounds 2013b). In June 2013, parents impacted by the

cuts in transportation service cited safety concerns and petitioned BVSD, as 41 bus stops were

to be eliminated (Bounds 2013c). Shortly after the parent concerns were raised, the district

announced it would delay implementation of the new transportation management plan for a

year “to better assess the impacts of the proposed changes” (Bounds 2013d). The current

transportation management plan includes recommended changes be implemented in three

phases, although the ultimate timeline is now unsettled (see Table 8 for details).

33 |

Table 8: Boulder Valley School District Transportation Management Plan Phases

Phase Actions

Phase 1 (2013–14)

1. Discontinue transportation service from previous walk hazard areas now designated safe travel areas within designated walk distance to school. 2. Institute “corridor busing” for high schools. 3. Coordinate school para-educator time with bus arrival time at schools. 4. Coordinate pre-K and/or special education program times with school general bell times. 5. Improve Initiate Infinite Campus integration with Edulog. 6. Begin fleet configuration reduction.

Phase 2 (2014–15)

1. Standardize length of school day for each level. 2. Adjust attendance boundaries. 3. Reevaluate ESL placement at elementary schools. 4. Pilot new bell schedules for Monarch High School feeder attendance area. 5. Evaluate and revise activity trip costs. 6. Fleet configuration reduction.

Phase 3 (2015–16)

1. Adopt three-tiered bell system. 2. Fleet configuration reduction.

Source: Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) Transportation Department. Transportation Management Plan.

http://bvsd.org/transportation/Documents/Transportation_Management_Plan.pdf.

A number of the proposed changes may have implications for ELT efforts in the district. The

planned standardization of the school day length by grade levels served may limit the ability of

schools to add time to the school day if it is strictly applied. On the other hand, if times are

standardized across all school levels at the long end of the existing range, then there might be

time gains for the average student. For an effective tier system in BVSD (where a bus can serve

multiple schools), Bob Young, the director of transportation, explained that 45 minutes is

needed between bell times at the schools served by the same bus (2014). The plan to

implement corridor busing, where the bus stops are moved to major roads, has been delayed

but is not, on its own, incompatible with various school bell times and calendars.

Whether transportation is a barrier to implementing longer days or years in a given school

depends, as previously mentioned, on whether a school is currently receiving transportation

services. In BVSD, the impact of any transportation service changes on expanded-time schools is

limited by the fact that a number of these schools are open-enrollment schools (such as Pioneer

Elementary) and are ineligible for school-wide transportation services regardless of schedule.

The district does support student transportation when a student is administratively assigned to

34 |

such a school, typically due to the presence of an English Language Learner/English as a Second

Language (ELL/ESL) program, and offers the option of space-available busing when feasible.

Although BVSD is facing changes to its transportation service levels in order to reduce costs, the

district has been an innovator in school transportation policies, especially those supporting

alternative modes of school transportation. The BVSD transportation department’s TO School

Program offers a range of services broadly supporting school transportation. Education

offerings include the promotion of cycling through the Bike Lesson and Safety Training (BLAST)

program, participation in the Safe Routes to School initiative, and operation of the Trip Tracker

reward system to incentivize alternative school transportation methods. The TO School

Program also serves as a clearinghouse of information by providing a Transportation Network

Directory to participating families, which includes location information on families within a

school to assist in coordinating transportation options.

In addition to having previously considered the ability to operate a circular shuttle-bus system

in BVSD, the district continues to explore solutions to the transportation challenges present in a

district with widely varied population density across a roughly 500-square-mile service area

(MPS 2013). A shuttle bus model, similar to Success Express in DPS, does not appear to fit the

demands of BVSD, but a linear system with similarities to a public transit system remains under

consideration, according to BVSD Director Young (2014). The uncertain implementation of the

proposed transportation management plan in BVSD illustrates the challenges in finding the

appropriate balance between transportation costs and flexibility, as well as central

administrative control and school-level programmatic discretion.

DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG) SCHOOLPOOL PROGRAM

Challenges abound for families and schools that must arrange daily and occasional

transportation for students who don’t qualify for district-provided transportation. The need for

coordinating transportation options is most salient in nontraditional schools where district-

provided transportation is less common. Even where district-provided school transportation is

available to some, it is still common for families to need alternative transportation for reasons

35 |

including ineligibility for bus service due to having “choiced” into their school through open

enrollment, failing to qualify for service due to distance eligibility thresholds, and having a child

participating in after-school activities that are not accommodated by the standard bus service.

These transportation challenges have undoubtedly increased as more students attend schools

outside their neighborhood and travel distances grow.

For decades, the DRCOG has helped connect individuals in the greater Denver area through ride

sharing programs. These efforts are collectively part of the Way to Go program, formerly called

RideArrangers. Schoolpool is a program within Way to Go that attempts to overcome many of

the information barriers encountered by families trying to connect for mutually beneficial

school transportation arrangements.10 At the same time, the program supports positive

environmental benefits by reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Schoolpool matches

families at a school (or even nearby schools) based on the proximity of household residences.

The program is a more sophisticated equivalent to the traditional use of bulletin boards within

schools to connect people around common interests or goals. Once matched, families can

organize not only carpools but biking groups, walking school buses (where a group of kids walk

to school together), or even pair buddies for using public transit to get to school.

Nearly 70 schools spread across the greater Denver area actively participate in the Schoolpool

program (see Figure 3, below, for a map of participating schools and Table A3 in the Appendix

for a list of participating schools). As one of the larger programs of its kind, Schoolpool

performed over 15,000 family matches in the 2013–14 school year. The majority of the demand

for the service comes from nontraditional schools without formal transportation services,

including charter and private schools. The program is directly marketed to schools by Way to Go

and is also available to individual families. Finding successful matches for carpooling, as well as

other modes of transportation, depends on achieving a critical mass of participants from similar

geographic areas.

10

For more information on the Schoolpool program, see http://waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool. Other school carpool matching programs are active in Colorado, including Metro Rides’ Schoolpool program in Colorado Springs.

36 |

Figure 3: Map of Participating Schools in DRCOG’s Schoolpool Program

Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments. n.d. Schoolpool Map of Participating Schools.

http://www.waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool.

Schools have two different options for their families to participate in the program. First, a

school can provide Schoolpool with their entire student roster with address information. Each

family on the roster then receives a personalized list of matches with nearby families unless

they explicitly opt out of participating in the program. Families are able to make arrangements

based on the matches. The majority of Schoolpool participants come from this marketing

approach. The second approach is more common in traditional public schools, where the school

elects to participate in the program but does not make student information available to

Schoolpool unless families explicitly opt in to the program. Regardless of how a school

participates in the program, families are always given the option not to participate. Concerns

about the privacy of personal information are addressed by restricting access to matches within

a school (unless a parent opts for additional matches with nearby registered families) and using

37 |

school-specific password-protected websites to access information (or a dedicated uniform

resource locator web address).

The central role of families in the process is highlighted by the fact that Schoolpool does not

perform any background checks on the family matches (for example, reviews of driving records

or insurance information). If school transportation is especially challenging for disadvantaged

families, then it is fair to question whether the Schoolpool program is broadly available to

families with less access to technology or who primarily speak a language other than English.

The program addresses such concerns by communicating by mail when no email address is

provided with a family’s contact information. The up-front process also accommodates a paper-

based approach. Schools, as well as families, can indicate a language preference, which

designates whether the communication of match information is provided in English or Spanish.

The mapping of matches can also indicate the primary language spoken by the identified

families to aid in communication.

The free program supports cooperative transportation efforts, but the ultimate success of the

program depends on how many families use the match information to pursue alternative forms

of school transportation. Program participation over-represents the impact on transportation,

since it includes many families that do not alter their existing transportation arrangements. A

survey of Schoolpool-participating families provides insight into the effectiveness of the

program in supporting alternative transportation arrangements. Of the 38 percent of

respondents who carpool to school, about a third report having used the Schoolpool match

information to arrange the car pool in 2013 (Corona Insights 2014, 3). Since 2011, the families

participating in the Schoolpool program have drastically shifted toward children attending

nontraditional public schools. Specifically, the nontraditional public school families increased

from 58 percent of Schoolpool survey respondents in 2011 to over 70 percent in 2013 (Corona

Insights 2014, 3). The car pool is by far the most common form of cooperative transportation

for those receiving the Schoolpool match information. Only 3 percent “of all respondents

indicated that their children ever walk or ride a bike to school with another child who also

attends that school” and are doing so infrequently (Corona Insights 2014, 4).

38 |

School and parent interest in the Schoolpool program increases when budgetary pressures lead

school districts to increase the minimum distances for transportation eligibility. The Schoolpool

program offers the necessary, and free, infrastructure for schools to help connect families and

improve transportation options. Its use by nontraditional public schools suggests that it is

especially valuable in the absence of formal district-based transportation programs. The service

broadly supports families working together to overcome school pick-up and drop-off challenges

that accompany family work schedules, having kids in multiple schools, participation in after-

school activities, and schools with atypical school days and years.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES

Leveraging the capabilities of public transit agencies is appealing to school districts, especially

for schools with longer school days or years, but there are limitations to such cooperative

arrangements. Federal law restricts the exclusive provision of dedicated school transportation

routes by public transit agencies receiving federal financial support (FTA 2005). There are

additional challenges to using public transit systems for comprehensive school transportation,

especially for younger students. In the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area, the Regional

Transportation District (RTD) provides bus and light-rail transportation services. In response to

recommendations from the Boulder Transit Access Options Task Force in Boulder in 2010,

Assistant Superintendent Joe Sleeper detailed some of the limits to using public transit for

school transportation. Sleeper explained that replacing BVSD with RTD bus passes is

problematic, since RTD has established bus routes while BVSD sets their “school routes based

on where [they] pick up students” and that “RTD is an option for some students, but it’s not

that widespread” (Urie 2010).

Cooperation between public transit agencies and school districts can occur in a number of

ways. A joint effort between Greeley-Evans Transit (GET) and Greeley-Evans School District 6

began promoting public transit service and the availability of student bus passes to students

and families in 2013. The impetus for the increased attention to transportation was, according

to Northridge Principal Wes Paxton, trying to match students with the most appropriate

programs regardless of location: “Each high school has different programs . . . The district wants

39 |

students to take advantage of the opportunity career pathways offers regardless of what school

boundaries they live in. This is part of how we encourage students to do so” (Peif 2013).

In the Denver metro area, the online RTD Trip Planner supports student use of their system by

allowing route searches based on specific middle and high school locations (see http://www.rtd-

denver.com/Schedules.shtml). RTD also offers discounted monthly fare passes, as of March 2014,

to students in elementary through high school (6 to 19 years of age) for $39.50. In 1999, the

efforts of DPS school board member Rita Moreno and Action for a Better Community resulted

in an RTD partnership with DPS offering student bus passes with additional deep discounts to

select high schools in DPS, including Lincoln, Manual, Montbello, North, and West High (Illescas

1999). The discounted bus passes were intended “to assist students who commute long

distances to school, encourage participation in after-school activities and promote attendance

in schools outside their neighborhoods” (Illescas 1999).

School districts themselves also serve as a clearinghouse for school-specific public transit

information for their students and families, especially for those who do not qualify for

traditional district-provided bus service. As recently as 2011, DPS made available RTD route

information for a selection of schools, primarily high schools, which included the closest routes

and stops for each school. The TO School Program in BVSD provides RTD route maps for each

district school on its website. In the aftermath of the 2013 Colorado floods, BVSD even linked a

district-run student shuttle serving Nederland students to Boulder High School, where they

could connect with either district or RTD buses to get to their own schools (Rubino 2013).

School districts in the Denver area work with RTD to improve service to schools through revising

existing routes, adding new routes, or adding to the number of buses running during peak

times. An example is increased frequency of RTD buses during peak times for routes serving

Platte Middle School and Boulder High School in BVSD (Young 2014). Service from RTD can

support student transportation, but ultimately routes need to have enough riders to remain in

effect (for an example, see Snider 2010). Closer collaboration comes when a school district

replaces its own transportation system, or a portion of it, with existing public transit bus routes.

In early 2004, DPS proposed shifting transportation-eligible high school students from district-

40 |

provided transportation to RTD buses. At the time, RTD reported that “about 2,400 high school

students and 1,300 middle school students in Denver already use RTD to get to school” (Leib

2004).

The rationale for the DPS proposal was to push back start times for high schools from 7:30 a.m.

to 9:00 a.m., which has been shown to be advantageous for student performance while also

saving money. At the time, only 3,000 of the 17,000 high school students in DPS were eligible

for district-provided transportation, and just more than half of those actually rode the district

buses on an average day. In place of district service, DPS planned on purchasing RTD bus passes

with the expectation that the $19 monthly pass for students would be “cheaper than paying for

school buses, drivers’ salaries and gas,” according to Guy Champlin, the former transportation

department executive director at DPS (Hubler 2004). The service impacts for those switching to

RTD service were also expected to be quite limited, with “average door-to-door trips” taking

only three minutes longer (Hubler 2004).

The proposal was met with opposition from parents, who were most concerned about the

safety of students (Sherry 2004), but an RTD spokesperson noted that “there [has been] no

record of any security problem involving a DPS student on an RTD bus” in the two years

preceding the policy change (Leib 2004). In addition to promising to work with DPS on safety

concerns, RTD underscored that its buses are equipped with both cameras and alarms (Leib

2004). Principal support for the proposed change was more mixed. The Montbello High School

principal at the time, Hansell Gunn, seized on the flexibility of the RTD-based system,

commenting, “There are just more options that way . . . I could run the school like a college”

(Sherry 2004).

The plan was approved by the DPS school board in March 2004, with the primary change from

the initial plan being more flexible start times for the high schools, ranging between 7:30 a.m.

and 9:00 a.m., with the latest end times moving to 4:15 p.m. from 2:30 p.m. (Rouse 2004). The

range of start times was expected to reduce stress on the RTD bus system, since “a fixed 9 a.m.

start would have had students heading home from school on RTD buses at the peak afternoon

travel time and would have forced the transit district to add bus trips to handle the overload”

41 |

(Leib 2004). The district estimated savings of $750,000 from moving high school students to

RTD buses, even after providing monthly bus passes (at $19 per month) to the eligible high

school students requesting passes. The district expected that nearly half of the transportation-

eligible students would participate (Leib 2004). Assuming passes were only provided for nine

months per school year, the estimated annual cost for the RTD passes would have ranged from

$256,500 (with the district’s expected participation) to $513,000 (with full participation by

eligible students). Although DPS anticipated cost savings from the switch to public transit, RTD

expected “that the new bus program will be a break-even deal for the transit district,” despite

the fact that DPS would pay for any new bus service demands (Leib 2004).11

The original rationale for the switch to RTD service remains prominent in the DPS-RTD

transportation policy. Specifically, DPS notes, “Initially the parameters were set up and

designed for only those schools [that] were already receiving yellow bus transportation to allow

schools to set later (flexible) start times (primary) and as a financial means to reduce the

budget (secondary)” (DPSDOT 2012). The district touts a number of student benefits from the

RTD pass, including that “students can use the RTD pass outside of school hours,” it “allows for

work study,” develops “life skills,” and supports “access to parks and recreation” (DPSDOT n.d.).

Charter high school students and students not attending their neighborhood school are

generally ineligible for the RTD pass, but a wider range of students may access the pass through

magnet and special programs, including the Newcomer Program, English Language Acquisition,

and Transitional Native Language Instruction at South High School, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

at Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, East, West Generation, and West Leadership schools,

and the Career Education Center (CEC) (DPSDOT 2012).12

Denver voters approved a ballot measure in November 2012 to opt out of property tax revenue

limits, which among other things helped “restore hours to library branches and provide free

access to city recreation centers for kids” (Meyer 2012). The MY Denver Card was launched by

the City and County of Denver and began to unify access to youth-oriented city programs by

11

There are also some risks to depending on an external organization for school transportation. In 2006, an RTD strike led to reduced service and temporarily impacted high school attendance rates across the district (Sherry 2006). 12

See the complete RTD pass eligibility criteria for DPS high school students in Table A4 in the Appendix.

42 |

serving as the identification for both libraries and recreation centers. Denver officials continue

to consider expansion of the services managed through the MY Denver Card. Although its

feasibility remains unclear, the idea of adding a discounted RTD transit pass to the MY Denver

Card has been considered (Neil 2014). Public transit systems play an important role in school

transportation, especially for high school students, choice students, and students ineligible for

district-provided service. At the same time, the public transit role has traditionally been limited

by both federal restrictions and the different service demands of the two systems. In Colorado,

school districts and public transit agencies have cooperated at various levels, with DPS, in its

urban setting, able to go the farthest by outsourcing its high school transportation to RTD’s

existing system.

NOTEWORTHY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES IN COLORADO

The examples detailed in this report focus on relevant school transportation programs that

have direct implications or lessons for supporting ELT programs in Colorado schools. Other

cases show that innovative school transportation practices exist throughout the state that are

less closely related to supporting longer school days or years. In some cases, school

transportation has played a key role in supporting broad education reform efforts. In addition

to the Success Express example, DPS more recently eliminated assigned middle schools within

the Greater Park Hill/Stapleton shared boundary area. Within the boundary area, families will

choose among five middle school options without priority placement based on residential

proximity to a school. DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg believes the single enrollment zone

will increase diversity within the middle schools and that the approach “is a real path breaking

model, both locally and nationally” (Torres 2013).

Removing the guarantee that a child can attend the school closest to her or his family’s home

makes transportation concerns even more salient. The district will support the enrollment

policy change by making transportation to each of the five middle schools available from each

middle school campus. Students will be responsible for catching the bus from the middle school

closest to their home or, if needed, from designated community stops (DPS 2013). The middle

school options within the shared boundary area represent traditional, innovation, and charter

43 |

schools, including those with expanded school days and years. The policy change will increase

district-provided transportation to ELT schools and nontraditional public schools.

Other examples of innovations in school transportation include intra-school shuttles in

Jefferson County Schools, late-run buses that serve different neighborhoods for middle-school

students in Littleton Public Schools (to support after-school activities), parent-organized

transportation efforts for families not served by school districts, raising revenue to offset school

transportation costs through advertising on the sides of buses (for example, see Gray 2011), the

strategic location of ELL/ESL programs to reduce transportation burdens for families and

districts, and the introduction of hybrid school buses to reduce fuel consumption and emissions

(Whaley 2009).

CONCLUSION

The coordination of school transportation is increasingly important as schools desire more

discretion in designing the structure of their daily schedules and annual calendars. The growth

of open enrollment and school choice in Colorado has shifted some of the transportation

burden away from districts and onto families, which should not obscure its continued

relevance. Even though many ELT schools do not qualify for or receive district-provided

transportation services, it is impossible to tell how many public schools fail to consider changes

to the school day or year because of the need to maintain their existing transportation options.

Although bus scheduling is a significant challenge, existing transportation services can often

accommodate limited bell time changes with minor cost implications.

The ability of students, especially from disadvantaged families, to take advantage of longer

school days and years depends more heavily than ever on the availability of transportation

when these programs are located outside neighborhoods with demonstrated need. Existing

practices in Colorado illustrate a number of paths to improving the flexibility of school

transportation systems. The tight coupling of bus schedules across schools highlights the

importance of district systems to prioritize scheduling demands based on the actual and

44 |

expected programmatic impacts at the school level. Determining how to balance these student

outcomes with potentially higher costs of transportation service will demand sophistication and

direction from district-level policymakers. Improved schedule coordination across schools

within a district, especially those serving different grade levels, is essential to maintaining

efficiencies in transportation while supporting school-level discretion.

The transportation programs detailed here, some of which were instrumental in broader school

reform efforts, can inform future practices to support changes in school schedules and

calendars. Expanding time in school along with programmatic changes offers promise to school

improvement efforts. The school transportation challenges and responses presented here

remind policymakers not to overlook simply getting the students to these schools in the first

place.

45 |

REFERENCES

Atlas Preparatory School. n.d. 2013–2014 Transportation Form. http://www.atlasprep.org/pdf/bus.pdf.

Aurora Public Schools/Aurora Education Association (APS/AEA). 2013. Aurora Public Schools Pilot Schools Manual. http://aurorak12.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pilot-school-manual-updated-for-August-20131.pdf.

Blevins, Jason. 1999. “Driver Deficit ‘Critical’: Private Sector Beats Out Schools.” The Denver Post, March 21, A1.

Bounds, Amy. 2012. “Four Lafayette Schools to Explore Extended Learning Time.” Colorado Hometown Weekly, December 5.

———. 2013a. “Boulder Valley Consultant: Varying Bell Schedules Contribute to High Transportation Costs.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, March 17.

———. 2013b. “Boulder Valley Changing Bell Schedules to Reduce Bus Costs: Three-Year Plan Will Result in ‘Huge Change’.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, April 23.

———. 2013c. “Boulder Valley Planning to Reduce Bus Service, Affecting Hundreds of Students.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, June 6.

———. 2013d. “Boulder Valley School District Backs Off Bus Service Cuts for Fall.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, June 11.

Brennan, Charlie. 2012. “DPS Mulls Longer Day for Middle Schools.” EdNews Colorado, January 30.

Charter School Solutions. 2008. Charter School Transportation. http://blog.charterschoolsolutions.org/2008/02/charter-school-transportation.html.

Chin, Christine. 2012. Colorado Innovation Schools Act Annual Report. Colorado Department of Education.

Colorado Charter Schools Act. 22-30.5. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/chact.

Colorado Department of Education (CDE). 2012. Colorado School Transportation Facts 2010. http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdenutritran/download/word/trans/coloschooltransfacts2010.doc.

———. 2013. Innovation Schools Waivers 2013–14.

46 |

———. 2014a. 2013 Pupil Membership – Districts Serving Non-District Students. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/fall2013studentsattendingpublicschoolsnotinparentsdistrictofresidencexls.

———. 2014b. 2013 District Rankings by Pupil Membership. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/fall2013districtrankingpupilmembershiphightolowxls.

———. 2014c. Fiscal Year 2008–09 through Fiscal Year 2012–13 Historical Transportation Data, 2014. http://www.cde.state.co.us/transportation_history.

———. n.d. Colorado Charter Schools Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/faq#sthash.HipBlsts.dpuf.

Colorado Department of Education Unit of Federal Programs Administration (CDE-UFPA). 2014. No Child Left Behind Colorado State Report Card 2011–12. http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/NCLB%20Report%20Card%202-20-14.pdf.

Corona Insights. 2014. Survey of Schoolpool Families: 2013. Denver Regional Council of Governments.

Daly, Joseph L., and Robert W. Richburg. 1984. Student Achievement in the Four-day School Week. Office for Rural Education, Colorado State University.

Dam, Ai. 2006. The Four-day School Week. Office of Educational Services, Colorado Department of Education.

Denver Public Schools (DPS). 2013. Greater Park Hill/Stapleton Middle School Shared Boundary Enrollment Packet for 2014–15: Middle School Transportation 2014–15 School Year. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/GPHSSharedBoundary_ENG.pdf.

Denver Public Schools Department of Transportation (DPSDOT). 2012. DPS-RTD Transportation Pass Eligibility Facts. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DPS-RTD-Pass-Eligibility.pdf.

———. n.d. RTD Pass Eligibility. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/eligibility/rts-pass-eligibility/.

Donis-Keller, Christine, and David L. Silvernail. 2009. Research Brief: A Review of the Evidence on the Four-Day School Week. Center for Education Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.

Ely, Todd, and Paul Teske. 2014. Success Express: Transportation Innovation in Denver Public Schools, A Case Study for Mile High Connects. The Center for Education Policy Analysis, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver.

Farbman, David, and Claire Kaplan. 2005. Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended-Time Schools for Promoting Student Achievement. Massachusetts 2020. http://www.mass2020.org/files/file/Time-for-a-change(1).pdf.

47 |

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2005. Public Transportation and School Buses. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/SchoolBusBrochureJanuary19-2005.pdf.

Fuller, Jessica. 2013. Colorado Innovation Schools Act: 2013 Districts of Innovation Annual Report. Colorado Department of Education.

Global Village Academy – Colorado Springs. 2012. Charter School Application Submitted August 31, 2012.

Gray, Ryan. 2011. “Colorado School District Evolves School Bus Advertising Program to Offset Operation Costs.” School Transportation News, February 10.

Haigh, Susan. 2013. “Longer School Days in Store for Some in 5 States.” The Denver Post, November 12.

Hewitt, Paul M., and George S. Denny. 2011. “The Four-Day School Week: Impact on Student Academic Performance.” Rural Educator 32 (2).

Hubler, Eric. 2004. “Later Start for High Schools? Backers of DPS Plan Say It Could Boost Student Performance, Cut Busing Costs.” The Denver Post, February 5, B1.

Hupfeld, Kelly. 2009. Options for Autonomous Schools in Colorado: A Handbook for School and District Leaders. The Center for Education Policy Analysis, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver.

Illescas, Carlos. 1999. “Discounted Bus Passes to Ease School Trip for Some Students.” The Denver Post, September 5, A32.

Iodice, Kristina. 2011. “D-49’s Fee-Based Bus Service Far from Break-Even Point.” The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, July 9.

Jefferson County Public Schools. n.d. Expanded Learning Opportunities 2012–13 Final Report.

Kaplan, Claire, David A. Farbman, Sharon Deich, and Heather Clapp Padgette. 2014. Financing Expanded Learning Time in Schools: A Look at Five District Expanded-Time Schools. National Center on Time & Learning/The Wallace Foundation.

Kolbe, Tammy, Mark Partridge, and Fran O’Reilly. n.d. National Center on Time & Learning Time and Learning in Schools: A National Profile. National Center on Time & Learning/Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Connecticut.

Lefly, Dianne L., and Jhon Penn. 2011. Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on Four‐Day and Five‐Day Calendars 2011. Colorado Department of Education.

Leib, Jeffrey. 2004. “DPS’ Flexible Start Praised.” The Denver Post, March 22, B2.

Management Partnership Services, Inc. (MPS). 2013. Transportation Assessment Final Report Prepared for: Boulder Valley School District.

48 |

Meyer, Jeremy P. 2009a. “Transit Issues Snag School Choice.” The Denver Post, July 18, B2.

———. 2009b. “DPS School Choice a Hit.” The Denver Post, November 2, A15.

———. 2012. “Denver Willing to Pay More.” The Denver Post, November 7, 5V.

Montessori del Mundo. 2012. 2012 Charter School Application for Charter School Institute August 22nd, 2012.

Munro, Laura, and Jennifer Arzberger. n.d. Centennial: A School for Expeditionary Learning. http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/Centennial_Innovation_Plan_Final.pdf.

National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL). n.d. Expanded-Time Schools Database Criteria. http://www.timeandlearning.org/expanded-time-schools-database-criteria.

National Center on Time & Learning/Education Commission of the States (NCTL/ECS). 2011. Learning Time in America: Trends to Reform the American School Calendar, A Snapshot of Federal, State, and Local Action.

Neil, Lindsay. 2014. “Mile High Connects: Expanding Opportunity in the Denver Region.” Presentation at Housing, Transportation, and Education Nexus: An Invited, National Policy Symposium, February 12, 2014.

New Legacy Charter High School. 2013. Charter School Application for the Colorado Charter School Institute Submitted August 14, 2013.

Peif, Sherrie. 2013. “ʻGET to School’ Bus Program Kicked Off This Week.” Greeley Tribune, January 11.

Poppen, Julie. 2012. “Denver Schools Launch Extended Learning Pilot.” EdNews Colorado, July 16. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2012/07/16/dps-launches-extended-learning-pilot/.

Portee, Nicole, and David Suppes. 2013. Denver Public Schools Interdepartmental Communication: Bell Time Modification Request and Athletics Input Timeline.

Price, Kelci M., Amelia Challender, and Bonnie Walters. 2011. Crafting an Innovation School: Findings from Denver’s first eight Innovation schools. University of Colorado Denver: The Evaluation Center, School of Education and Human Development.

Rouse, Karen. 2004. “Come Fall, Denver Kids Will Ride to School on RTD.” The Denver Post, March 19, A1.

———. 2007. “Since 1991, Redefining Communities.” The Denver Post, January 14, A10.

Roza, Marguerite, and Karen Hawley Miles. 2008. Taking Stock of the Fiscal Costs of Expanded Learning Time. Center for American Progress.

Rubino, Joe. 2013. “BVSD Establishes Boulder-Nederland Student Shuttle.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, September 20.

49 |

Schimel, Kate. 2014a. “In a Step Back from National Initiative, Manual Ends Year-Round Schooling, Longer Day.” Chalkbeat Colorado, February 26. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/02/26/in-a-step-back-from-national-initiative-manual-ends-year-round-schooling-longer-day/.

———. 2014b. “Longer Day Divides School Community at Denver Elementary School.” Chalkbeat Colorado, April 14. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/04/14/longer-day-divides-school-community-at-denver-elementary-school/.

Sherry, Allison. 2004. “Plan for RTD Buses, Late Start at Denver High Schools Opposed.” The Denver Post, March 5, B1.

———. 2006. “High School Students Forced to Take a Hike, Beg for Rides.” The Denver Post, April 4, A12.

Snider, Laura. 2010. “RTD Plans to Cut Lynx Bus Route between Louisville and Broomfield.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, January 26.

Teske, Paul, Jody Fitzpatrick, and Tracey O’Brien. 2009. Drivers of Choice: Parents, Transportation and School Choice. Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.

Thaxton, Zach. 2011. “School Bus Service Options: Privatize? Make Riders Pay?” January 18. http://www.koaa.com/news/school-bus-service-options-privatize-make-riders-pay-/.

Torres, Zahira. 2013. “DPS Combines Boundaries.” The Denver Post, June 21, 6A.

Urie, Heath. 2010. “Boulder Transit Group: End Open Enrollment, Expand Student Walking Zones.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, April 29.

U.S. Department of Education. n.d. Public School Data File, 2007–08. National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).

Vincent, Jeffrey M., Carrie Makarewicz, Ruth Miller, Julia Ehrman, and Deborah L. McKoy. 2014. Beyond the Yellow Bus: Promising Practices for Maximizing Access to Opportunity through Innovations in Student Transportation. Berkeley: Center for Cities + Schools, University of California.

Whaley, Monte. 2009. “The Engine on the Bus Goes . . . ” The Denver Post, January 14, B2.

Young, Bob. 2014. Phone conversation with Todd Ely, March 3.

50 |

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to those individuals who graciously contributed their time and experiences through

interviews and discussions about school transportation and expanded learning time, including:

Mia Bemelen, Way to Go Specialist, Denver Regional Council of Governments

Pauline Gervais, Former Executive Director, DPS Transportation Department

Pam Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Padres & Jóvenes Unidos

Nola Miguel, Council Aide, City and County of Denver

Nicole Portee, Executive Director, DPS Transportation Department

Bob Young, Director, BVSD Transportation Department

We also thank Allison Tung and Rachel Ibarra, students at the University of Colorado Denver

School of Public Affairs, for their outstanding research support.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Todd L. Ely is assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado

Denver. His research and teaching focus on the financing of state and local public services,

education finance and policy, and public and nonprofit financial management.

Paul Teske is dean and distinguished professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University

of Colorado Denver. His research is centered on education policy, regulatory policy, and urban

policy. He has written books and articles on urban location choices, school choice, incentive-

based teacher pay plans, and related education topics.

Mile High Connects is a broad partnership of organizations from the private, public, and

nonprofit sectors that are committed to increasing access to housing choices, good jobs, quality

schools, and essential services via public transit. By increasing resources, influencing policy,

working with residents, and leveraging the current and expanding metro-Denver transit system,

Mile High Connects will use transit to promote a vital region full of opportunity for everyone.

Mile High Connects’ mission is to ensure that the metro-Denver regional transit system fosters

communities that offer all residents the opportunity for a high quality of life.

51 |

APPENDIX

Table A1: School District Transportation Policy Review

School District

(ordered by student count)

Explicitly Mentions

ELT-School

Transport

Distance Thresholds for Receiving School Transportation

Parents Pay: Exemptions

for FRL-Eligible and IEP-Required

“Space-Available”

Application Online

Charges Fees for “Space-

Available” Riders

(amount)

Use Public Mass

Transit

Transportation Pass

Technology (e.g., student

tracking)

Elementary (1–5)

Middle (6–8)

High School (9–12)

Jefferson County R-1

No 1 mile from neighborhood school (PK none, K > 1 mile but no midday service)

2 miles from neighborhood school

2.5 miles from neighborhood school

Yes: $150/year for assigned schools. $200/ year for options schools. $75/year for intra-school shuttles.

Yes Yes: $200/ year for “Choice enrolled students or students ineligible for bus service.”

No “After the first

two weeks of

school, students

will need

to show their

pass upon

boarding the

bus.”

Denver County 1

Success Express and RTD pass

1 mile from boundary school and hazardous walk areas for ECE-5

2.5 miles from boundary school

3.5 miles from boundary school

No Yes No RTD bus pass for grades 9–12, unless Success Express

Yes: +Pass tracks real-time ridership on district bus

Douglas County Re 1

No Specific designated regions “feeder area” schools

Specific designated regions “feeder area” schools

Specific designated regions “feeder area” schools

Yes: $.50 each one-way trip and max $1/day, with $25 initial Zpass fee (annual rides discounted to $150)

May be handled through Special Needs Leadership Team

No No Zpass card w/ RFID (radio frequency identification)

52 |

Cherry Creek 5

No 1 mile from assigned school for K–5 + options to designate certain schools /boundaries as non-transported

1.5 miles from assigned school + options to designate certain schools/boundaries as non-transported

2 miles from assigned school + options to designate certain schools/boundaries as non-transported

No Yes No No No

Adams 12 Five Star Schools

No There is a walking distance cutoff, but it is calculated by address.

There is a walking distance cutoff, but it is calculated by address.

There is a walking distance cutoff, but it is calculated by address.

Yes: monthly $15/child or $30/ household if 2+ children for maximum of $300/year

Yes Yes: monthly $15/child

No Zpass card w/ RFID, PK/K bracelets, and MS/HS IDs

Adams-Arapahoe 28j (Aurora Public Schools)

No 1.25 miles from school within attendance boundary for K–5 and K–8 + exceptions

2 miles from school within attendance boundary for 6–8; 1.25 miles for K–8 + exceptions

3 miles from school within attendance boundary for 9–12 + exceptions

No No (space available mentioned on a school site with approval)

No No Zpass card w/ RFID

Boulder Valley Re 2

No 1.5 miles 2 miles 2.5 miles No Yes No No No

St. Vrain Valley Re 1J

No 1.5 miles from school in home attendance area

2.5 miles from school in home attendance area; 1.5 miles if K–8 school

2.5 miles from school in home attendance area

No Yes No No No

Colorado Springs 11

No 1.25–1.5 miles within attendance area boundaries

1.5–2 miles within attendance area boundaries

2–2.5 miles within attendance area boundaries

No Yes No No No

53 |

Poudre R-1 No 1 mile from neighborhood school

1.5 miles from neighborhood school

2 miles from neighborhood school

No Yes: can also apply for alternative location, medical, and vo-tech transport

No No No

Academy 20

No 1.5 miles from school of attendance

1.75 miles from school of attendance

1.75 miles from school of attendance

Yes: $.50/ride to assigned school (max $500/year); $.60/ride to choice school (max $600/ year); $10 initial fee; annual pass discounts and fee waivers available

Yes Yes: $.70/ ride (max $70/ month, $700/year); $10 initial fee; annual pass discounts and fee waivers available

No Yes: RFID cards

Mesa County Valley 51

No 2 miles from neighborhood school

3 miles from neighborhood school

3 miles from neighborhood school

No Yes Yes; ($10/ month)

No No

Weld County 6 (Greeley-Evans)

No 1.25 miles from neighborhood school

1.5 miles from neighborhood school

2.25 miles from neighborhood school

No Yes No No No

Sheridan 2 No 1 mile from assigned school

1 mile from assigned school

1 mile from assigned school

No No: principal approval needed

No No No

Englewood 1

No 1 mile from assigned school

No No No No No No No

Note: Information in table was gathered from active school district websites.

54 |

Table A2: Colorado School Districts with Four-Day School Weeks, 2010–11 School Year

District Name October 2010 Student Count District Name

October 2010 Student Count

AGATE 300 33 KARVAL RE‐23 233

AGUILAR REORGANIZED 6 97 KIM REORGANIZED 88 56

BIG SANDY 100J 300 KIOWA C‐2 344

BRANSON REORGANIZED 82 464 LA VETA RE‐2 211

BRIGGSDALE RE‐10 142 LAS ANIMAS RE‐1 503

CALHAN RJ‐1 585 LIMON RE‐4J 435

CAMPO RE‐6 52 LONE STAR 101 104

CENTENNIAL R‐1 234 MCCLAVE RE‐2 272

CHERAW 31 204 MIAMI/YODER 60 JT 294

COTOPAXI RE‐3 204 MOFFAT 2 191

CREEDE 1 88 MONTE VISTA C‐8 1,132

CRIPPLE CREEK‐VICTOR RE‐1 392 MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE-1 106

CROWLEY COUNTY RE‐1‐J 471 NORTH PARK R‐1 185

CUSTER COUNTY C‐1 426 PARK COUNTY RE‐2 520

DEER TRAIL 26J 151 PEYTON 23 JT 651

DEL NORTE C‐7 567 PLAINVIEW RE‐2 76

DOLORES COUNTY RE-2 278 PLATEAU VALLEY 50 442

EADS RE‐1 167 PLATTE VALLEY RE‐3 120

EAST GRAND 2 1,271 PRAIRIE RE‐11 166

EDISON 54 JT 206 PRIMERO REORGANIZED 2 205

ELBERT 200 213 PRITCHETT RE‐3 60

ELLICOTT 22 929 PUEBLO COUNTY 70 8,562

FRENCHMAN RE‐3 185 RANGELY RE‐4 435

GENOA‐HUGO C113 154 SANFORD 6J 318

GILPIN COUNTY RE‐1 337 SANGRE DE CRISTO RE‐22J 296

HANOVER 28 210 SIERRA GRANDE R‐30 260

HAYDEN RE‐1 378 SOUTH CONEJOS RE‐10 237

HINSDALE COUNTY RE-1 80 TRINIDAD 1 1,352

HI‐PLAINS R‐23 102 WELDON VALLEY RE‐20(J) 198

HOEHNE REORGANIZED 3 323 WEST GRAND 1‐JT 429

HOLLY RE‐3 266 WILEY RE‐13 JT 213

HUERFANO RE‐1 537 WOODLIN R‐104 99 Source: Lefly, Dianne L., and Jhon Penn. 2011. Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on Four‐Day and

Five‐Day Calendars 2011. Colorado Department of Education, 16–17.

55 |

Table A3: Schoolpool Participating Schools, 2013–14 School Year

American Academy – Castle Pines Jefferson Academy Charter School

American Academy – Parker Lakewood High School

Aspen Academy Legacy Academy

Aurora Academy Charter School Lincoln Elementary School

Belle Creek Charter School McAuliffe International School

Ben Franklin Academy McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School

Bishop Machebeuf High School Morey Middle School

Challenge School Northglenn High School

Cherry Creek Academy North Star Academy

Cornerstone Christian Academy Parker Core Knowledge Charter School

D’Evelyn Jr./Sr. High School Peak to Peak

DCS Montessori Charter School Platte River Academy

Denver Academy Prospect Ridge Academy

Denver Jewish Day School Regis Jesuit High School

Denver Language School Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen

Denver Montclair International School Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning

Denver School of the Arts Ryan Elementary School

Denver Waldorf School Sims-Fayola International Academy

Downtown Denver Expeditionary School SkyView Academy

DSST: Byers Southeast Christian School

DSST: Cole St. Mary’s Academy

DSST: College View St. Thomas More Catholic School

DSST: Stapleton Stanley British Primary School

Eagle Ridge Academy Charter High School Stargate Charter School

Excel Academy STEM Launch

Fairview High School STEM Magnet Lab School

Flagstaff Academy STEM School and Academy

Fremont Elementary The Academy

Girls Athletic Leadership School Twin Peaks Charter Academy

Global Village Academy – Northglenn Valor Christian High School

Hamilton Middle School Walnut Hills Elementary

High Point Academy Welchester Elementary

Horizon High School Westlake Middle School Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments. n.d. Schoolpool List of Participating Schools.

http://www.waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool.

56 |

Table A4: Established Denver Public Schools-Regional Transit District (DPS-RTD) Transportation

Pass Eligibility Parameters (for high school students grades 9–12)

1. Students who are 19 years old or younger (RTD regulated)

2. Students must live within the District attendance area

3. Students must live outside the School Board established walk zones (3.5 miles – high schools)

4. Special Education Students who’s IEPs allow

5. Charter Schools are ineligible for District Sponsored DPS-RTD Passes

6. Students must attend their neighborhood school (not “School of Choice”) or,

7. Student who attend a magnet program or school

International Baccalaureate (IB) @ George Washington

Newcomer Program @ South

English Language Acquisition (ELA) @ South

Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) @ South

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) @ Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, East, West Generation, and West Leadership

Students who are registered @ Career Education Center (CEC) who meet all other parameters and are not eligible for the pass from their home school

Students at Denver Center for International Studies (DCIS) who also meet parameters 1 thru 3

Students at Denver School of the Arts (DSA) who also meet parameters 1 thru 3

Other Considerations

8. There are cases when one member of a family is eligible but another is not. This usually happens when the family members may both attend the same school but one is enrolled in a Magnet Program the other is “School of Choice”.

9. Homeless students under the McKinney Vento Act processed through the Educational Outreach Program (EOP) office are eligible for the DPS-RTD pass.

10. Initially the parameters were set up and designed for only those schools who were already receiving yellow bus transportation to allow schools to set later (flexible) start times (primary) and as a financial means to reduce the budget (secondary).

Other Schools/Programs using RTD Passes

1. Emily Griffith High School issues DPS-RTD passes to their students; they reimburse Transportation for each pass issued.

Source: Denver Public Schools Transportation Services. August 2012. DPS-RTD Transportation Pass Eligibility Facts.

http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DPS-RTD-Pass-Eligibility.pdf.

57 |

Exhibit A1: Denver Public Schools “Request for Schedule Change” Form

58 |

Source: Denver Public Schools (DPS). Request for Schedule Change. December 2013.

http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/RequesttoModifyBellTime_Form.pdf.

59 |

Exhibit A2: Success Express Near Northeast Route Map and How To Read “Success Express”

Schedule, 2013–14 School Year

60 |

Source: Denver Public Schools Department of Transportation. 2013. Near Northeast Success Express! 2013–2014

Schedule – August, 2013 Edition. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Success-Express-Near-Norhteast-Printer-Friendly.pdf.