AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL AND STATE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON COST FACTORS IN TEN SELECTED MICHIGAN COUNTIES Thesls Ior IIIe Degree oI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Wayne Dean Woodby 1960 Jsts This is to certify that the thesis entitled A‘T aavc'er—s n fl'fi ‘Ytrn—r“‘VA “‘7“ awn-m varr'rv flu quu-JIJ v3 uriLUAnL Aha JLrlL fufib Mfieler‘ .A'“. tam-r”- v vv'rm'v ”five/17a? 7-" ~".- \~- w 4 J u .Tr.x4. A .J.LI‘. ui";;\;.Lr11: 24,-. I'ZAJLJ ”‘7 “‘3‘"! ‘fi‘ Ififnfir‘fiffi ‘T fi‘v "V‘Q " 1-11.. Li: A '-.)l. g Ital UH...) I. rm QQLQULL‘JD v'w-quw-n .T’ ’V’V""V‘.'T“"‘. 1. ad... In“; ‘JLLJIELLHJ presented by I 1 ”$1,: T\T"‘ {‘7 1 " ‘T‘BY bill* I“ Muf’l' h‘bv‘u has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. D. Education degree in 1"”) I I I. | , d I /).} l ‘ F\y 1‘ ' / ' Jqlk . .~ , Major professor .mr _4—-._ .h-dr—bA qw—h m--‘- ”'9‘ ’ A LIBRARY Michigan State University AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL AND STATE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON COST FACTORS IN TEN SELECTED MICHIGAN COUNTIES by Wayne Dean Woodby AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION ,V‘x. -n-u-‘. Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1960 Approved WAYNE DEAN WOODBY ABSTRACT The steadily increasing importance of pupil transpor- tation coupled with legislative restrictions on amount and distribution of financial aid motivates an analysis of pupil transportation cost factors as a guide to Michigan school districts engaging in pupil transportation. Statement of the Problem The purpose is: (l) to ascertain on the national level the present and future status of pupil transportation; (2) to identify and categorize costs of pupil transportation in Michigan into major and minor factors and analyze each in relation to the whole; (3) to examine the structure and operation of the Transportation Code of 1957, with an analysis of the four types of allowances for state aid to transporting school districts; and (4) to suggest specific recommendations in the light of the findings. Methods, Techniques, and Data The writer SUTVGYed the 48 states to determine the present status and to gain an estimate of the future. Information was obtained from libraries relative to material already published on the subject. The transportation reports of ten selected Michigan counties were then analyzed in the light of the relative value of the ten categories of costs. WAYNE DEAN WOODBY ABSTRACT A follow-up study was then carried out by question- naire and interviews with administrators in these ten selected counties. Conclusions One conclusion standing out above all was that pupil transportation is a growing and dynamic area of school ad- ministration which merits continued attention. On the national level two additional conclusions were evident. The first was a recognition of the need for im- proving the quality of pupil transportation through such devices as: (l) in-service and pre—service training of bus drivers; (2) standardization and refinement of school bus insurance practices; (3) adoption of recommended and tested state practices resulting in improved transportation; and (4) a better understanding of school transportation liability. On the state and local level the study revealed that there were four major and six minor costs of pupil trans- portation. The major costs were: (1) Driver's salaries (44.69%), (2) Depreciation (20.50%), (3) Total Maintenance (15.89%), and (4) Gasoline (9.22%). The six minor costs collectively amounting to less than ten per cent were as follows: Administration, Insurance, Tires, Interest, 011, and Driver Education. The study revealed that metropolitan schools differed from non-metropolitan schools in that they operated on a WAYNE DEAN WOODBY ABSTRACT relatively lower per capita cost basis and a higher cost per mile basis. Multiple bus routes were found feasible in school districts which averaged less than one hundred annual miles per student. It was found that better record keeping was essential. The study also revealed that school districts employing school mechanics paid more for bus maintenance but this was almost compensated for in savings in gasoline, oil, and tires. It was further revealed that Michigan school districts are finding the 1957 Amended Transportation Code generally satisfactory as an instrument governing the transportation of pupils and allocating funds for so doing. Recommendations 1. That the Department of Public Instruction publish a handbook containing recommended pupil transpor- tation practices. 2. That a study be made of the use of carefully selected, well trained student drivers as a means of reducing pupil transportation costs. 3. That a study be made of the possibility of effect- ing pupil transportation capital outlay savings by such means as the purchasing or leasing of school buses through a state or county governmental agency. WAYNE DEAN WOODBY ABSTRACT 4. That a further study be made involving the effectiveness of school mechanics as opposed to private garages. That county level studies be encouraged to promote better transportation policies and practices. AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL AND STATE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON COST FACTORS IN TEN SELECTED MICHIGAN COUNTIES by ,. I A I r Wayne Dean Woodby I A THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1960 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation for the help so generously given by colleagues, friends, and relatives who made this study possible. Particular grate— fulness is expressed to the writer's family for their many Sacrifices. The unusual help given by the Fennville Board of Education in permitting additional time to be spent at Michigan State University was most appreciated. Mr. George Schutt and his colleagues in the Department of Public Instruction aided materially throughout the study. To Dr. William H. Roe, Chairman of the Committee, gratitude is given for his untiring efforts before and during the printing of this paper. The writer is also indebted to committee members Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. Carl H. Gross, and Dr. Fred J. Vescolani. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . II. III. Methodology . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . Definitions of Terms Used. . Organization of Following Chapters. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES. . . . Introduction . . . Legal Basis for Pupil TranSportation . Stages in Development of Legality for Pupil Transportation . . . . Scope of Pupil Transportation . . Factors Facilitating Pupil Transpor- tation. . . . Research Findings Regarding Pupil Transportation Costs . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION . Introduction . . . . Future of Pupil Transportation . . . Per Capita Cost of Transportation . Non-Public Pupil Transportation. Transportation Costs Financed by State Funds . . . . Size of Administrative Unit . . . Degree of State Regulation . . . Percentage of District-Owned Buses. Financial Future of Pupil Trans- portation. . . . . Larger Administrative Units . . . iii Page ii H ONON-II‘UOIDI—‘H Chapter Page Areas of Improvement in Pupil Transportation . . . . 59 Group purchasing of operational supplies . . . 60 Group purchasing of school buses . 61 School transportation liability. . 64 Preventive maintenance. . 66 Recommended state practices result— ing in lower costs or improved quality . . . . . . . 67 Bus driver education . . . . . 69 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . 74 IV. ANALYSIS OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of Data. . . . . . 79 Relative Value of Cost Factors . . . 83 Density as a Factor of Pupil Trans- portation. . . . . 93 Student Per Bus Advantage .of Metropolitan Districts . . . 95 Are Michigan School Buses Overloaded . 97 Multiple Bus Routes as a Factor in Pupil Transportation . . . . . . 100 Variations Within Counties . . . . 103 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . 107 V. MAJOR COST FACTORS IN PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 109 Salary . . . . . . . 109 Variations in Salary . . . . . 110 Summary. . . . . . . . . . 123 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . 128 Summary. . . . . . . . . 134 Total Maintenance . . 134 Major aspects of total maintenance. 137 Minor aspects of total maintenance. 139 When is a school mechanic needed . 140 Costs of school mechanics. . . 143 Saving in gasoline, tires, and oil by school mechanics . . . . . 149 Summary of total maintenance. . . 151 Gasoline . . . . . . . . 152 Gasoline tax rebate. . . . . . 157 Summary. . . . . . . . . . 158 VI. MINOR COST FACTORS IN PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 160 Administration . . . . . . . . 160 iv Chapter Page Summary and recommendations. . . . 167 Insurance. . . 167 Michigan school bus insurance costs . 172 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 180 Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Interest . . . . . . . . . . . 182 011.. . . . . . . . . 186 Bus Driver Education . . . . . . . 189 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 192 VII. TRANSPORTATION CODE OF MICHIGAN . . . . 193 Introduction. . . . 193 Background of Pupil Transportation Dilemma . . . 194 Committee Reaction to the Problem. . . 196 Provision of the Pupil Transportation Agreement . . . . . 198 Analysis of the Four Allowances under the Code. . . . . . . . . . 200 Capital outlay . . . . . . . . 200 Operation. . . .. . . . . . . 203 Insurance. . . . . . . . 207 Bus Driver Education . . . 208 Relative Importance of the Four Code Allowances . . . . . 209 Adequacy of the Code Allowances . . 210 Distance as Factor in Code Allowances . 217 Cost Factors and Their Relationship to Code Allowances . . . . 218 Comparison of Code Allowances in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Schools . . . . 220 Optimum Reimbursement Through Code Allowances . . . . . . . 228 Limitations of Code Allowances. . . . 231 Summary . . . . . . . . . 232 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 234 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 237 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 237 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 242 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Page Data Showing Growth of Pupil Transportation 1926-1950 I C O O I C C O O O 23 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year 1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in Number to be Transported . . . 43 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year 1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in the Per Capita Cost of Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . 45 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year 1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in the Use of Public Funds for Non- Public Transportation .' . . . . . . . 47 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year 1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in Transportation Costs Financed by State Funds. . . . . . . . . . . 48 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year 1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in Size of Administrative Units . . 51 State Director's Opinion of Transportation Needs for Year.1975; Estimate of Percentage Increase in Degree of State Regulation.‘ . . 53 Opinion of State Transportation Leader Con- cerning the Comparison of 1975 with the Present in Terms of the Percentage of School District—Owned Buses. . . . . . . . . 54 Opinion of State Transportation Leader Con- cerning the Comparison of 1975 with the Present in Terms of the Percentage of Total School Budget for Transportation. . . . . 56 Relationship of the Total Number of School Districts to the Number of School Districts Engaged in Transportation of Pupils at Public Expense. . . . . . . . . . . 58 vi Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Number of States Reporting Development of a Formal Organization for Joint Purchasing of the Following Operational Supplies for Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . Reaction of State Pupil TranSportation Leaders Toward Development of an Organization for Joint or Group Purchasing of School Buses. Reaction of State Pupil Transportation Leader Toward Bus Driver Education . . . . . State Director's Report on Recommended Ages for Men and Women Bus Drivers. . . . Relationship of Size of School Bus Fleet to Miles Traveled, Students Carried, and Cost Per Bus in Ten Selected Michigan Counties (1956-1957). . . . . . . . . . 1956-1957 Distribution of Cost Factors for Pupil Transportation in-Ten Selected Counties 1956-1957 Distribution of Cost Factors for Pupil Transportation in Ten Selected Counties Plus Mileage and Number Transported. . . Average Number of Students Per Bus in Metropol- itan and Non—Metropolitan School Districts for the 1956-1957 School Year. . . Comparison of Seating Capacities of School Buses in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan School Districts in Ten Selected Michigan Counties in 1956-1957 . . . . . . Average Number of Daily Routes Per Bus in 1956— 1957 (Excluding Kindergarten Runs) According to Report of County Superintendent . . . . Hourly Wages Paid to Bus Drivers by Number of Buses Operated and by Characteristic of School . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Size of Bus Group to Percentage of Cost Per Bus Going to Depreciation . . . Capacity of Buses on Per Seat Basis Percentages of Ten Cost Factors Based on Small, Medium, and Large Bus Fleets in 1956-1957. vii Page 60 62 7O 73 82 86 90 96 99 101 117 125 129 138 Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Relationship of Size of Bus Fleet Operated to the Use of School Bus Mechanics. . Comparison of Costs of 34 School Districts Furnishing School Bus Maintenance by Mechanics in School Operated Garages Comparison of Maintenance Costs of School Districts With and Without School Bus Mechanics in 1956-1957. . . . . . Comparison of Gasoline, Tires, and Oil Costs of School Districts With School Mechanics and Those Without School Mechanics. Gasoline Statistics by Counties. Relationship of Volume of Gasoline to Cost Source of Supply of Gasoline for Oakland County, Michigan. . . . . . . Comparison of Six Minor Cost Factors in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan School Districts. Per Bus Cost of Insurance By Size of Bus Fleets-~Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Classification Added Where Applicable. . Cost of Insurance by Group Sizes School Districts Maintaining Insurance Costs of Less than $42.00 Per Bus for the School Year 1956-1957 . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Costs and Percentages of Ten Cost Factors Based on Small, Medium, and Large Bus Fleets in 1956-1957 . . . Wayne County Capital Outlay Cost for School Buses in the 1956-1957 School Year. A Comparison of the 16 School Districts Which Reportedly Had Actual Transporta- tion Costs Less than Code Allowances in 1956-1957 . . . . School Districts Whose 1956-1957 Costs of Transportation Were Less Than Code Allowances. . . . . . viii Page 142 144 146 150 153 155 156 164 173 174 176 184 201 212 213 Table 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Comparison of Code Operational Allowance Per Mile, With the Actual Operational Cost Per Mile of 16 Districts in Previous Table . . . . . . . . Operational Cost Analysis Per Bus of 14 School Districts Whose Total Allowable Costs as Computed by the Code Exceeded the Actual Costs. . . . . . . . Comparison of State Allowances to Costs in Non-Metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties . . . . . . . . Comparison of State Allowances, Plus Payments by Others,to Total of Pupil Transportation Costs in Non-Metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Percentage of Non-Reimbursable Students Transported to Percentage of Reimbursement for Transportation in Non- Metropolitan and Metropolitan Counties ix Page 214 216 223 225 227 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Comparison of the Four "Major" Cost Factors with the Six "Minor" Cost Factors in Ten Selected Counties of Michigan in 1956- 1957.. . . . . . . Number of Annual Miles per Student by the Number of Buses . . . . . . . . Four "Major" Cost Factors in Pupil Transpor- tation for Ten Selected Counties in Michigan,l956-l957 . . . . . Hourly Wages Paid Bus Drivers According to Number of Buses Operated. . . Comparison of Seven Total Maintenance Cost Factors with Three Sizes of Buses Six "Minor" Cost Factors in Pupil Transpor- tation for Ten Selected Counties in M1Chigan’ 1956—1957 e o o e o 0 Comparison of Non-Metropolitan to Metropoli- tan School Districts in Terms of Percen- tage of Reimbursement to Costs of Transportation in 1956-1957 . . Page 84 104 112 115 136 162 221 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Importance of Study Pupil transportation in the United States has mush- roomed to a major economic educational undertaking. Today more than 145,000 buses, each painted the familiar chrome yellow, travel slightly more than seven million miles daily or 280 times around the earth at the equator. This represents more mileage and more personnel carried than all the combined common carriers in our country.1 It is cur- rently estimated that thirty per cent of all pupils enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools are transported by school bus at a cost of between four and five per cent of the total educational budget. No state transports less than ten per cent of its public school children.2 Need for the Study In spite of the wide participation in this costly venture little information is available on specific cost lMass Transportation, Vol. 55, No. 2 (February, 1959), pp. 22-23. 2J. L. Vickers, "Getting Them There—-And Back," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVI (October, 1954), p. 41. factors of pupil transportation. Many writers complain about the high cost but few recommend practices which result in transportation economies. School district and pupil transportation leaders are seeking economical methods to transport an increasing number of pupils without adversely affecting the adequacy, safety, or economy of their trans- portation system. This study is an attempt to isolate cost factors of pupil transportation and to assign a relative value to each of the factors. It is hoped the data and conclusions arrived at will serve as a point of departure for further study of cost factors or for a re-evaluation of currently held theories and practices in pupil transportation. Statement of the Problem It is the purpose of this study: (1) to ascertain on the national level the present status together with an opinion of the future of pupil transportation in terms of the following criteria: a. number of students to be transported, b. cost per pupil, c. use of public funds for non—public transportation, d. extent of financial aid for transportation, e. size of the administrative unit, f. degree of state regulation, g. operation of school district-owned buses as opposed to privately owned buses, h. percentage of the budget devoted to pupil trans- portation; (2) to identify costs of pupil transportation in Michigan into major and minor factors and analyze each in relation to the whole; (3) to examine the structure and operation of the Transportation Code of 1957 with an analysis of the four types of allowances for state aid to transporting school districts; and (4) to suggest specific recommen— dations in the light of the findings listed above and an examination of pupil transportation records in the state office. Hypotheses This study, an analysis of national and state pupil transportation with special emphasis on cost factors in ten selected Michigan counties, is based on the following hypotheses: 1. That the future of pupil transportation on a national scale as evidenced by the opinions of state pupil transportation directors will be characterized by an increase both in cost and participation. 2. That in Michigan as the bus fleet increases in size there is a corresponding decrease in the unit cost of operation. 3. That salaries of bus drivers, depreciation of school buses, maintenance of school buses, and gasoline constitute the major costs of pupil transportation in Michigan. 4. That there is a discernible difference in the cost per pupil between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan school districts. 5. That the use of school mechanics results in reduced costs for total maintenance of school buses. 6. That the use of school mechanics results in reduced costs in such items as gasoline, oil, and tires. 7. That the operation of the Transportation Code of 1957 provides a suitable framework around which to build an adequate program of pupil tranSportation in Michigan. Methodology The methods used to answer questions raised in the statement of the problem are basically two. The first method consists of a survey of the forty-eight states to determine what is being done in terms of pupil transpor- tation. An extensive questionnaire1 directed to the titular head of pupil transportation in each state attempts to determine the actual practice in each state. A major 1 Appendix A. section of the instrument is an opinionnaire designed to determine how to improve the quality or to ascertain the future of pupil transportation. The second method consists of an analysis of the transportation reports on file in the state office from ten selected counties in Michigan. The ten counties were selected by the Sociology Department of Michigan State University as being representative of the economic areas of Michigan.1 These ten counties contain 141 of the 893 transporting districts in the State of Michigan. The required annual report of these 141 districts is broken down into the seventeen cost factors listed and the results tabulated on both a mileage and pupil basis. These procedures were tested in a seminar at Michigan State University, in the spring of 1957, by the reactions of colleagues and instructors to various phases of the pupil transportation problem. The analysis of cost factors was further refined by three follow-up surveys. The first was a double-post card survey of the seventeen school districts which had reported insurance costs of less than $42.00 per bus. The second was a double-post card survey of the ten county superintendents to determine the number of routes operated by each bus in the ten counties. The third was a personal letter to each of the three county 1J. A. Beagle and Donald Halsted, Michigan's Changing Population, Special Bulletin 415 (East Lansing, MIcEigan: Michigan State University, June, 1957), p. 36. O‘\ superintendents whose original report indicated a low per pupil cost with a relatively large number of pupils parti- cipating. Trends, variations, and hunches are noted and analyzed in an attempt to derive basic strengths and weaknesses that could help improve state pupil transportation program. Limitations of the Study A complete study of pupil transportation involving the movement of more than ten million young people every school day would contain so many ramifications that it is necessary to restrict the scope of this paper to certain aspects for the sake of clarity. Therefore, this study is limited to four facets of pupil transportation: (1) historical and legal background, (2) survey of transporta- tion practices with opinions regarding trends and predic- tions in the forty-eight states as reported by the chief state school officer whose duty encompasses pupil trans— portation in the respective state, (3) an analysis of the seventeen cost factors as listed in the Annual Transpor- tation Report required of all transporting units seeking state aid for transportation from the State of Michigan, (4) an examination of the Transportation Code of 1957 as it relates to the local school districts as an instrument of reimbursing the districts for certain designated items of pupil transportation. The study is further limited by the fact that only thirty—seven of the forty—eight states responded to the national survey of transportation. The cost analysis on the state level is limited by the fact that only ten of the eighty-three counties are represented. Definitions of Terms Used Certain terms are used in the pages that follow, and the ways in which they are to be interpreted should be understood at the outset. Operation Costs This term refers to all costs which pertain to the operation, maintenance, inspection, and supervision of a school bus transportation system except capital outlay. Notable examples of operation costs are drivers' salaries, gasoline, tires, oil, repair parts, insurance, bus driver education costs, and mechanics' salary. Capital Outlay Capital outlay costs refer to non-operative expense of pupil transportation. In this study the term capital outlay shall refer exclusively to a school bus as the cost of bus garages, permanent garage installation, and other like capital outlay items are not pertinent. School Bus A school bus is a motorized vehicle having a capacity of twelve or more used to transport school children. Public Liability This is a type of school bus insurance which is com- monly expected that all school districts will carry. It is designed as protection against damage done to other individuals as a result of school bus activities. The United States Office of Education terms public liability "for compensation to pupils (and perhaps to other persons) who may be injured in school bus accidents."l Property Damage This is a generally accepted and approved type of bus insurance designed for the reimbursement of anyone whose car or other property is damaged by a school bus. Sending District Generally an elementary school district in Michigan which elects not to provide educational facilities for its resident high school students. Instead it purchases edu- cational privileges through payment of tuition and trans- portation to some other district which provides those services. Receiving District Generally a high school district in Michigan which is willing to educate non-resident pupils from sending dis- tricts in the vicinity. Very often the high school district 1School Transportation Insurance, Pamphlet No. 101 (Washington, D. 0.: Federal Security Agency, Office of Education, September, 1957), p. 1. provides transportation services paid for by the sending district. Total Maintenance This is an inclusive term which denotes all costs which relate to maintenance of school buses. All costs involved in upkeep of school buses are lumped in this category whether the costs originate in school district owned garages or in private garages with contracted or non-contracted mechanics. School Mechanic A school system is considered as using a school mech- anic if it pays more than $2,000.00 annually to a mechanic (No. 12 on the Annual Transportation Report), or if the total amount spent on supplies for school garage plus mechanic's salary exceeds that amount spent for labor and supplies at private garages. Metropolitan This term refers to a school district located in Macomb, Oakland, or Wayne County of Michigan. It makes no difference how large the district, the fact of location in one of these populous counties is the determining factor. Non-Metropolitan This term refers to a school district located in Michigan as opposed to the three counties listed above as Metropolitan. For the purpose of this study, any school 10 district in any of these seven counties, Allegan, Delta, Gratiot, Kalkaska, Ottawa, Shiawassee, or Van Buren is considered Non-Metropolitan. Organization of Following Chapters Chapter II pertains to a review of related literature. The material covered includes the legal basis, scope, and research findings for pupil transportation. Chapter III is devoted to a national survey of pupil transportation with emphasis on the opinions of the future by state directors of pupil tranSportation. Chapter IV deals with analysis of costs of pupil transportation. The matter of combining cost items into ten convenient categories is discussed along with the testing of two hypotheses. Tabulation and analysis of the four major cost factors is considered in Chapter V. Chapter VI concerns itself with the six minor cost factors. Chapter VII is devoted to the application of the Transportation Code of 1954, as amended in 1957, to the reimbursement of the 893 transporting school districts in Michigan. Chapter VIII contains the summaries of the study, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES Introduction As the European settlements in the New World in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries provided a fertile area for experimentation along lines of religious and political freedom, so too did this region give rise to the develop— ment of a system of education unique among all nations. The emerging concept of universal, compulsory, free edu— cational opportunities has necessitated the formation and extension of many related activities to secure the accom- plishment of this American scheme. Among these educational corollaries is the program of pupil transportation at public expense. As the American ideal of education for all developed slowly, gradually overcoming apathy and even resistance so too did the proposal for transporting pupils to school develop but there was in addition a noticeable lag of more than a century after the development of formal schools. As a matter of fact, the transportation of pupils at public expense is less than ninety years old. A law passed in Massachusetts in 1869 authorized local towns or districts to raise money for schools by "taxation or otherwise." In 11 12 that year Greenfield, Massachusetts, united three small schools and began conveying pupils.1 The town of Quincy issued a comprehensive report2 in 1874-1875 which is the first officially recorded enumeration of advantages of school consolidation with pupil transportation. The report concluded with these ringing sentences: The day of the small, ungraded, remote and isolated schools in a town like Quincy has passed away. Only absolute necessity can now justify it. Even if the plan (pupil transportation) we recommend was as much more costly as it is really less costly than the old one (continuation of district school) we should not hesitate to urge its acceptance as decidedly the cheaper and better. By 1880 two additional New England states, Vermont and Maine, had given legal sanction for the use of public money in transporting children to and from school.“ However, it was not in New England that pupil trans- portation received its first widespread acceptance, but in the states of the northern central region, notably Ohio. There, the pioneer policy of "a schoolhouse within easy walking distance of every child"5 began to lose support 1J. F. Abel, Consolidation of Schools and Transporta- tion of Pupils, U. S. Bureau of Education, BulletinIHl (waShIngton, D. 0.: Government Printing Office, 1923), p.10. 2"Report of the Committee of Twelve on Rural Schools," National Education Association (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1897), pp. l40—l41. 3Ibid., p. 141. z‘tAbel, op. cit., p. 10. 5Ibid., p. 9. 13 and many communities were willing to enter into consoli— dation and arrange for the conveyance of their children by horse-drawn vehicle during the whole school year. Ohio's first system of consolidation and transportation was created in 1892 and the movement has proceeded rapidly.1 By the 1895-1896 school year the experiment in consolidation and transportation in northeastern Ohio was so successful that it prompted two superintendents to incorporate glowing accounts of success in their annual reports. One of these, Mr. J. R. Adams, Superintendent of Madison Township in Lake County, was moved to enumerate thirteen Specific advantages which had appeared under his personal observations: 1. A much larger percent of enumerated pupils enrolled. 2. No tardiness among the transported pupils. 3. Irregular attendance reduced, the per cent of attendance of transported pupils from two sub— districts being each ninety-four per cent, the highest in the township. Pupils can be better classified and graded. No wet feet or clothing, nor colds resulting therefrom. No quarreling, improper language, or improper conduct on the way to and from school. Pupils under the care of responsible persons from the time they leave home in the morning until they return at night. 8. Pupils can have the advantage of that interest, enthusiasm, and confidence which large classes always bring. 9. Pupils can have the advantage of better schoolrooms, better heated, better ventilated and better supplied with apparatus, etc. 10. Better teachers can be employed, hence better schools. NONUTJI' 1M. G. Pattington, "Facts for Determining What It Costs to Operate That School Bus Fleet," American School Board Journal, CXII (March, 1946), p. 42. 14 11. The plan insures more thorough and complete supervision. 12. It is more economical. Under the new plan the cost of tuition per pupil on the basis of total enroll- ment has been reduced from $16 to $10.48; on the basis of average daily attendance, from $26.66 to $10.67. This statement is for the pupils in sub- districts nos. 10 and 11. 13. A trial of this plan of consolidating our schools has satisfied me that it is a step in the direction toward whatever advantages a well-graded and well- classified school of three or four teachers has over a school of one teacher with five to eight grades, and with about as much time for each recitation as is needed to properly assign the next lesson.l As evidence of the success of the Ohio movement, Rapeer notes five points involving a study of the satisfaction to school patrons of transportation to Ohio consolidated schools: 1. 80 per cent of the parents report that their children attend more regularly under transportation than they did previously. 2. 90 per cent report their children more interested in school than before. 3. 95 per cent think their teachers show more interest in their work. 4. 100 per cent practically agree that the social and educational interests of the township consolidated have greatly improved. ' 5. 75 per cent of those who were formerly opposed to consol%dation and transportation are now in favor of it. By no means were the favorable comments on pupil trans- portation restricted to Ohio. The superintendent of Shelby County, Tennessee writes as follows: 1"Report of the Committee of Twelve on Rural Schools," op. cit., p. 139. 2Louis w. Rapeer, The Consolidated Rural School (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920), p. 217. 15 The transportation of pupils in public school wagons has proved to be a great success in Shelby County. . . . We now have 15 wagons running with petitions for many more as soon as we can build the consolidated It would be impossible to persuade the schools. eacher or two—teacher pupils to go back to the one-t schools from whence they came. In a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Pennsylvania in 1906, Mr. J. C. Hockenberry comments that the rural school of the future will involve free transportation at public expense. as only in this way can the great handicap to which the rural child is subjected be removed and his chance for all the benefits that come from superior education and training be made equal to his city cousin. 'The: State Superintendent of Virginia states: INe have routes as long as 8 miles and as short as 2-1/2 miles. We have wagons on good roads and bad Jroads, on level roads and mountain roads, on rocky Jroads and sand roads, on Macadam roads and red clay I?Oad8. We have transportation wagons of the latest sand most modern type and we have ordinary farm wagons f‘itted up for the new and precious freight. Minneesotau and Vermont5 officials praise the conveyance of Pupils in similar fashion. Texas ascribes successful and econrxnrical transportation by horse and wagon conveyance to improved roads and enlarged districts. In that state "six llbid., p. 217. E? St §?ohn C. Hockenberry, "The Rural School in the United ateES (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1906), p. 105. 3 Rapeer, op. cit., p. 215. L; jrbid. E31bid. , p. 213. lb wagons carried 196 pupils at an average per capita cost of 94 cents per month."1 Legal Basis for Pupil Transportation Since the Constitution of the United States of America did not include education it is a generally accepted rule that education is a responsibility of the state. The tnxrious states in turn have created such school districts 313 seemed desirable to meet the needs of localities in that tsiJne. The statutes of the individual states provide a :frennework with which each of the various types of school caistzricts might operate. The judiciary divisions of the statues vary in their interpretation of the authority of the schcu31.districts. Legal controversy may, therefore, arise inzrergard to particular enterprise which school officials underrtake to carry on as parts of the school program. Con- Siderxable controversy of this kind has arisen in regard to aUEhc>Irity to transport children to and from school. C)ne recognized authority2 argues the preponderant Waigflt: of court decisions hold that school officials are “Qt authorized to provide for pupil transportation under their’ égeneral powers to maintain schools but must rely on SpeCiJfEic statutory grants for authority to provide \ Texa ILEF- V3 White, E- E. DaViS, "Study of Rural Schools in 62 (SN, University of Texas Bulletin, Extension Series No. 90 tober 10, 19111), p. 52. 2 tan H. H. Punke, Law and Liability of Pupil Transpor- ___JEEE (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943), p, 1, 17 transportation. One Illinois case illustrates this point of view when the school officials chose to secure wagons and enter into a contract for transportation because of implied powers for school operation. In denying the direc- tors authority to provide transportation, under legislation which authorized the consolidation of districts, the court said in effect that equal education opportunity is not denied to small children who because of school consolidation Inuust be transported by their parents or must walk three and one -half miles to school. The court stated: The directors have only powers which are expressly ,granted them and such implied powers are necessary to carry into effect the express powers delegated ‘to them. To secure the right and opportunity of eequal education does not require that the children lbe hauled to school any more than it would require tshat the directors should clothe them or furnish nneals. 2 regarding pupil transpor— The celebrated Michigan case tatic>r1 reiterated the theme that there must be specific stattrtory grants for authority to provide transportation. 'While there is some evidence that a few schools did proceed with plans for pupil transportation before express Stattltmory approval there was not enough to indicate a wide- spread movement in that direction. In spite of the glowing repor”tms of success in isolated areas the early stages of \ lIbid., p. 2. —-——-—-—— MiChj. :ETOWnShip School District of Bates v. Elliott, 276 gan 575. 276 N. w. 744. ————-—— 18 pupil transportation (up to 1900) was singularly marked by public apathy. Far from being ahead of statutory authori- zation the people were willing to wait for legal sanction. Stages in Development of Legality for gupflgTransportation There were three stages in the development of legal appmpval of pupil transportation. The first phase was that cxf permissiveness. The state gave permission to the local ciijstricts to initiate taxes for the payment of conveying pupils. The discovery of the need and the decision on whether the community would pay for transportation of its sckm>ol population were both made at the local level. The secc>rni stage was that of permissiveness coupled with an inceautive on the part of the state. This incentive was Senearally in the nature of a payment of a stipulated sum of money; which would be paid to the local district if the local diStr’ict would meet specified state requirements. The third Stage was mandatory. The state here required that the local distreincts maintain transportation services under specified Circllnistances. Often provision was to be made for students “Vine beyond a certain minimum distance from school. 1Vot all of these stages developed at an equal pace throu¥§110ut the United States. Some of them have not pro- gressiici beyond the first stage. However, by 1900 eighteen Of th“3 states had authorized permissive transportation, and by 159149 all states had taken positive action in this 19 direction. During the early years when legislation was permissive, the cost of transportation was paid by local 1 The in- taxation and, in some instances, by pupil fees. centive payment involved at least some state funds. The most recent trend under mandatory legislation was to have the state bear a portion of the cost. At the present time only one state, North Carolina, bears the whole cost of these services . 2 A survey of court cases involving pupil transportation irniicates a direct relationship to the type of statutory authorization. Under permissive legislation little court action resulted. In fact, up to 1900 only five cases were repcxrted in the entire country.3 There was an average of less. than four per year from 1900 to 1920. The greatest mmnxrit of litigation involving pupil transportation took places in the decade of 1926-1936. One writer suggests that this 'was a period of tremendous increase in pupil tranSpor- tat1c>r1 and that the decrease in litigation since 1936 has been. c>ccasioned by more complete statutes "authorizing the eXPerIClitures of public funds for transportation of pupils."4 The Same writer anticipates that there will be increased \ :LVickers, op. cit., p. 19. Stat zaTimon Covert, Financing of Schools as a Function of Bu e IDepartments of Education, U. S. Office 6? Education, Offie in No. B (WasHington, D. 0.: Government Printing Ce. 1941), p. 21. ‘3Punke, op. cit., p. 257. Law a. hE.C. Bolmeier, "Legal Issues in Pupil Transportation,‘ --131§Contemporary Problems, Vol. 20 (Winter), 1955, p.45. I 2O court activity as more problems arise because school dis- tricts are being compelled to provide transportation. He speculates further that the increased tendency of courts to override the established policy of governmental immunity generally enjoyed by school districts is likely to increase the number of court cases. He intimates that school bus cirivers who do not pursue extraordinary care in driving are lgikely to be very susceptible to court action in the future. The confusion, degree of seriousness, and the anxiety .fefilt by school officials regarding future court action can ‘be~.1essened by improving statutory provisions of the various staises. Much of the litigation has been due to inadequacy enui zambiguity of statutory provision along with the uncer- tairitzy of the value of the cloak of governmental immunity. A lanadable conclusion is embodied in the statement that "in vieW' of the fact that pupil transportation constitutes such an intportant, costly and hazardous public enterprise it woulfii seem that the legislatures would do well to make a thorc>nugh appraisal of their pupil transportation laws to detelfiniine wherein improvements might be made."1 Scope of Pupil Transportation IIt has already been noted that pupil transportation at public expense is less than ninety years old. For the first; llalf of the ninety years in spite of scattered accounts —\ lBolmeier, op. cit., p. 58. 21 of glowing success, very little was accomplished on a nationwide scope. In fact the Rural Education Yearbook for 1253 which is devoted exclusively to pupil transportation states flatly that "pupil transportation at public expense was practically unheard of in most communities in the United States in 1910."1 Figures for the compilation of national totals were not available until the year 1919-1920. Some a11thors question the reliability of figures prior to 1926 because of extreme uses of estimates since many states did :nryt keep records.2 During the last half of the ninety year peuriod the development of pupil transportation has been pheriomenal. No state transportated less than ten per cent of igts pupil population in 1953.3 Recent trends indicate continued acceptance and increased participation in pupil trans portation . The growth of pupil transportation is usually measured by a breakdown of the activity into six parts: (1) number 0f Scrliools using buses, (2) number of pupils carried daily, (3) Illimber of buses in school operation, (4) miles of route, (5) <2c>st, and (6) per cent of total school expenditures. \ 1Department of Rural Education, Pupil Transportation fegr‘book 1953 (Washington, D. C.: Government PrInting Office, 3 p. 15. Rural, EEJ. E. Butterworth and Howard A. Dawson, The Modern —-~..~§ighggl (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952), p.389. ‘3Vickers, op. cit., p. 41. 22 Each of the six show a marked increase since 1926, as shown in the table on the following page. A 1957 circularl issued by the United States Office of Education, indicates that the trend of the figures shown in the above mentioned table is continuing. This report shows the total number of pupils transported as 10,199,276, the number of buses 141,842, and the expenditures of public inunds (excluding capital outlay) as $356,349,783. This vvcnlld indicate that during the six year period from 1950 to l£95€fi the number of pupils transported has increased 32 per cerit, the number of buses increased 36 per cent, while the 0081: has mushroomed 97 per cent. Growth is even more striJcing when the 1926 figures are contrasted with the 1956 figfilzres. Over a thirty year span the number of pupils have incrweased more than a thousand per cent, the number of buses rmnwe than 330 per cent, and cost has outdistanced either of UN? c>ther factors to the astounding rate of more than 1,370 per cent. When these figures are coupled with the indi- catiCDrl that there is no reason for believing that there will be arlsr slowing down of pupil transportation in the foresee— able IRuture, it is easy to see why educational and financial leadEBI‘s in.the United States are paying more attention to this .ffiast growing youngster who is occupying a prominent place, tin the educational spotlight. There appears to be \ tic 1Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Statis— E UR CH1 Pupil Transportation (Washington, D. C.: Office of Ca ion. September, 1957f. p. 1. 23 Izmseoz "snow 3on Hoonom Hmssm cameo: one .comzmm .< epwzom new nanossopusm .m .b .0: .o .om .Ho> “mm .a .H .oz .mm .Ho> Mom .a .0m .Ho> sea .a .ma .Ho> Moe .e .oH .Ho> “we .a .o .Ho> .eoapcosoaasoee mam wsaeao .Ammma ..oo room Haas a m.e Hos.mma.oma mam.cmm.w msa.eoa eoa.mcm.c mam.me omma m.m 000.com.mm ooo.mma.a ooo.ow ooo.ooe.e ooo.oe meme m.m ooo.mmo.os ooo.oam.a oom.em ooo.wcm.m omm.ee oema m.m ooo.omo.mm ooo.mmm omw.ae ooo.omm.m oem.wm mmma m.a ooo.omo.em ooo.ame ooo.me ooo.oms.a ooc.ca omma m.H mma.ome.mma meo.oem www.mm ac:.msm eam.ma mama mopzuaocoaxm umoo Ans: buoy coapmsoao Hoonom mafimm oofinpmo momsm wean: anew Hmpoe mo endom no CH momdm mo mafiadm mo mHoocom ho ammo tom moHHz monsdz ponsdz monsdz I é Homoa--maoa .oneaemoamzama BHmba so 3930mm ezHeomm asap H mqm4 ><><><><>< >< ><><>< ><><><><>< TOTAL -- 1 1 I'\) 14 2 3 44 transported will increase markedly in the next ten to twenty years. No state believed that there would be a decrease and only one (Arkansas) expected the number to be about the same. On the other hand, 12 states expected a 10 per cent increase, while 14 anticipated a 25 per cent raise. Two states went even farther and predicted a 40 per cent increase. Minnesota, Michigan, amd Florida were even more inflationary in their predictions of 50, 60, 70, and 80 per cent increases, respectively. An arithmetical computation indicates that the average increase of the 32 states reporting is 23.2 per cent, or well over one per cent per year. Per Capita Cost of Transportation While there is general consensus on the increase in the number of pupils transported, this consensus is lacking in the projected per capita cost of transportation. Table 3 indicates much division of opinion on this issue. Four state directors feel the cost per pupil will decrease, five believe it will remain about the same, twelve predict it will increase 10 per cent, eight look for a 25 per cent raise, and one expects a 40 per cent increase. One state (California) makes no numerical prediction but focuses attention on economic conditions in replying, "depends on inflation." While the extent of decrease in per capita cost is not indicated by four states, the 26 states who believe the cost will either remain stationary or raise, averaged 13.8 per cent increase over the present cost. Z+5 TABLE 3 STATE DIRECTOR'S OPINION OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS FOR YEAR 1975 I m =— m Estimate of Percentage Increase in the Per Capita Cost of Transportation State About the 10% 25% 40% Other Decreased Same More More More (Specify) Arkansas x California--depends on inflation Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri x Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Wyoming x ><><><>< NM ><>< TOTAL 4 5 12 8 1 46 Non-Public Pupil Transportation Probably the most controversial portion of this survey was that dealing with the use of public funds for non-public transportation. Table 4 reveals that 32 states responded to this question although only 19 recorded answers in the ex- pected manner. Thirteen states expressed opposition to the practice of using public funds for non-public transportation. The most common form of opposition was the single word "none" written after the question. One state (Oklahoma) spelled out "not legal" while Idaho injected the term "non- favorable." Missouri noted "none used now" in its response. Texas checked the response entitled "about the same," but made its stand clear by also adding‘"nonel" On the other hand, Iowa anticipated a 25 per cent increase in the use of public funds for non-public transportation. Illinois, Louisiana, and North Carolina all anticipated a 10 per cent increase in this practice. While the intensity of the opposition to the use of public funds for non-public trans- portation can not be measured numerically, the few states advocating an increase merely heightens the opposition to the movement. No state reported an expected decrease, in spite the outcry against the use of public funds for non- public transportation. Transportation Costs Financed by State Funds Table 5 dealing with the percentage of total transpor- tation costs financed by state funds resulted in a majority STATE DIRECTOR'S OPINION OF TRANSPORTATION 47 TABLE 4 NEEDS FOR YEAR 1975 Estimate of Percentage Increase in the Use of Public Funds for Non-Public Transportation State About the 10% 25% 40% Other Decreased Same More More More (Specify) Arkansas None California x Florida x Idaho--non favorable Illinois x Iowa x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x Minnesota None Mississippi x Missouri None used now Nebraska None Nevada None New York x North Carolina x North Dakota None Ohio x Oklahoma--not legal Oregon x Pennsylvania x South Carolina x Tennessee x Texas None Utah None Vermont x Washington x West Virginia None Wisconsin None Wyoming None TOTAL -- l5 3 l -- -- STATE 48 TABLE 5 DIRECTOR'S OPINION OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS FOR YEAR 1975 State Estimate of Percentage Increase in Transportation Costs Financed by State Funds About 10% the Decreased Same More Other 4 0% (Specify) More 25% More Arkansas California Florida Idaho Illinois Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraksa Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL >4><>< ><><>< x 100%nearly >< >4><><><><>< x more than 50% x 90% >4 49 being satisfied with the "status quo." Nineteen of the 31 states reporting indicated a belief that the future would hold about the same degree of state participation in school transportation costs. It should be kept in mind that this does not indicate that all states would be paying on the same basis but rather that the individual states would be continuing the same practice as is currently being carried on. For example, the state of Nebraska, which is currently paying nothing for state support of transportation would continue to pay nothing in the future. Three states (Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio) con— tended the ratio of state support for transportation would decrease. Inasmuch as there is no proposed plan for federal support, it would naturally be assumed that the local dis- tricts would bear an increasing share of the burden. This is more evident in the light of the information contained in Table 2 in which all three states show an increased number to be transported. However, both Michigan and Ohio predict a lower per capita cost in Table 3 while New Jersey expects a per capita cost increase of about 10 per cent. Certainly in the case of New Jersey and probably in the case of Michigan and Ohio, the local school districts would be expected to contribute more for pupil transportation. While 19 states expect the percentage of state con— tributions to remain about the same, nine states expect the percentage to increase. Four states (Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, and Wisconsin) expect the percentage to increase by 5O 10 per cent. Five states expect more liberal increases. Nevada and Oklahoma predict that the state contributions will go up 25 per cent. Three states are even more liberal and more specific. vermont reported an increase of "more than 50%," West Virginia "90%," and New York "nearly 100%." It would appear that New York anticipates the state would practically take over the financial aspects of pupil trans- portation, while West Virginia indicates a strong trend in that direction. The nine states advocating increasing the state contribution averaged 36.6 per cent increases. How- ever, over half the states expect the percentage to remain about the same and in three cases actually to decrease. Size of Administrative Units There was more uniformity of state opinion regarding the size of administrative units in the future. No state expected the units to be smaller. Twelve expected them to remain about the same while 20 expected increases ranging from 10 to 100 per cent. New York expected the units to be twice as large, while Iowa and Wyoming Specified 50 and 70 per cent, respectively. The 20 states anticipating increases in the size of administrative units averaged 30.7 per cent. Presumably many of the districts which reported no projected increase in size of administrative unit are already reorgan- ized into larger units. The average size of the adminis- trative unit of the 32 states was expected to increase by one-fifth (19.1 per cent). See Table 6. STATE DIRECTOR'S OPINION OF TRANSPORTATION 51 TABLE 6 NEEDS FOR YEAR 1975 EStimate of Percentage Increase in Size of Administrative Units State About the Decreased Same 10% More 40% More 25% More Other (Specify) Arkansas California Florida Idaho Illinois Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL -- X X X ><>< 12 Larger x 50% x 100% x 70% 52 Degree of State Regulation There was general satisfaction in the degree of state regulation of pupil transportation in that approximately two—thirds of the states expected no change in the future. Table 7 showed no state expected any decrease in the degree of state regulation. Seven states expected a modest increase of 10 per cent. Two states (Nevada and Vermont) anticipated a 40 per cent increase in degree of state regulation, while Minnesota expected 50 per cent. Wyoming specified only "more" in the column beyond 40 per cent but did not report any specific amount. The implication is that the degree of state regulation will increase as pupil transportation increases but the vast majority feels that it will tend to remain as it is now. Percentage of District-Owned Buses Table 8 deals with the interesting question of the percentage of school district-owned buses. In general, the various states transportation leaders‘ viewpoints coincide with the view expressed in Chapter II advocating school district-owned buses. Twenty-one of the 32 states favor outright ownership of the vehicles by percentages ranging from 10 to 100 per cent. The average percentage of increase is almost 20 per cent. The three states anticipating the greatest increase in school district-owned units are New York (75-80 per cent), Oklahoma (100 per cent), and vermont (more than 50 per cent). Oregon and Minnesota each expect STATE DIRECTOR'S NEEDS 53 TABLE 7 OPINION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR YEAR 1975 Estimate of Percentage Increase in Degree of State Regulation State About the 10% 25% 40% Other Decreased Same More More More (Specify) Arkansas x California x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x Minnesota x 50% Mississippi x Missouri x Nebraska x Nevada x New Jersey x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota x Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x South Carolina x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Wyoming x more TOTAL -- 21 7 -- 2 2 54 TABLE 8 OPINION OF STATE TRANSPORTATION LEADER CONCERNING THE COMPARISON OF 1975 WITH THE PRESENT IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT—OWNED BUSES SiAbout the 10% 25% 40% Other State Decreased Same More More More (Specify) Arkansas x California x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x 4% Minnesota x Mississippi X‘ Missouri x Nebraska x Nevada x New Jersey x New York x 75-80% North Carolina x North Dakota x Ohio x Oklahoma x 100% apprx. Oregon x Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee x Texas x Utah x vermont x more than 50% Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Wyoming x >< TOTAL 2 9 9 7 2 3 55 a 40 per cent increase. Sixteen other states predict either 10 or 25 per cent more school owned vehicles. On the other hand, Illinois and Louisiana expect a decrease in the per- centage of district—owned vehicles. Financial Future of Pupil Transportation The most important question concerning the future of pupil transportation is the last one, which deals with the percentage of total school budget which will be devoted to transportation. Table 9 shows beyond any doubt that state leaders believe transportation will be taking a larger slice of the educational melon. Although two states, Michigan and Miss- issippi, anticipate a decrease, 30 states believe it will either remain the same or increase. The average increase expected by the 30 states is 7.8 per cent increase in the percentage of the total budget ascribed to transportation. In view of the generally accepted figure of four to five per cent of the cost of education going to the process of getting the students to and from the school, the increase of 7.8 per cent more in 30 states is a significant figure. It is possible that some of the state transportation directors may have interpreted the question as meaning that the present percentage be increased by the reported 7.8 per cent rather than 7.8 per cent being added to the current percentage of the school budget which is devoted to pupil transportation. This latter View conceivably indicates that TABLE 9 OPINION OF STATE TRANSPORTATION LEADER CONCERNING THE COMPARISON OF 1975 WITH THE PRESENT IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGET FOR TRANSPORTATION About the 10% 25% 40% Other State Decreased Same More More More (Specify) Arkansas x California x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x 5% Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri x Nebraska x Nevada x New Jersey x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota x Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania x South Carolina x Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ><><>< MN)“. ><><><>< TOTAL 2 12 l w I: I I |_..a 57 10 per cent of the total budget might well be allocated to pupil transportation. It is clear that in general there is expectation that there will be an increase in that portion of the school budget devoted to transportation. Larger Administrative Units Contemporary with the actual and projected increase in costs of pupil transportation is the reorganization of school districts into larger administrative units. The current opinion seems to be that the school districts are too many and too small.1 As the school districts through— out our nation become larger and less numerous, there has been conjecture as to the effect this reorganization will have upon pupil transportation. Dawson and Reeves state bluntly that, "as small districts are reorganized into larger units of school administration more pupils will require transportation."2 Reports from 37 states would indicate that in states with smaller numbers of districts there is greater partici- pation in pupil transportation. Table 10 arranges states into two groups--those having more than 500 districts at the top and those with fewer than 500 districts on the bottom. It is interesting to note that the state (Nebraska) 1H. A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, Co-Chairmen, Your School District, Department of Rural Education, National Educational Association of the United States (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1948), p. 15. 21bid., p. 99. 58 TABLE 10 RELATIONSHIP OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE Number of State School Districts Number of Districts Per Transporting Cent States With More than 500 School Districts Nebraska 4694 148 3.1 Kansas 3352 2187 65.2 Iowa 3323 1000 30.0 Minnesota 3298 3270 99.1 Missouri 2890 1150 43.9 Michigan 2867 893 31.1 Pennsylvania 2402 2402 100.0 North Dakota 2008 1541 76.7 Illinois 1862 1403 75.3 California 1818 1300 71.5 Texas 1725 1697 98.3 New York 1489 1340 89.9 Oklahoma 1469 874 59.4 Ohio 1158 1040 89.8 Oregon 716 540 75.4 New Jersey 569 518 91.0 TOTAL 35640 21303 59.7 States With Fewer than 500 School Districts Nevada l7 17 100.0 Utah 40 40 100.0 West Virginia 55 55 100.0 Florida 67 67 100.0 Louisiana 67 66 98.5 South Carolina 104 103 99.3 Alabama 112 76 67.8 Maine 115 115 100.0 Virginia 128 105 82.0 Mississippi 151 122 80.8 Tennessee 153 95 62.7 Idaho 169 147 86.9 North Carolina 174 169 97.1 Connecticut 176 149 84.7 Kentucky 216 173 80.1 Wyoming 243 159 65.4 Vermont 261 236 90.4 Arizona 205 285 93.4 Arkansas 424 423 99.7 *TOTAL 2977 2602 87.4 *Wisconsin with 3400 districts and Washington with 481 dis- tricts were omitted because neither listed the number of transporting districts. 59 with the largest number of districts had the smallest per- centage of districts transporting students. The four states with the smallest number of districts all had 100 per cent of their districts engaging in pupil transportation. The average of the large district states was 59.7 per cent participation in pupil transportation, while the small dis- trict states averaged 87.4 per cent or more than 27 per cent greater participation. If the trend for fewer and larger school districts continues with a resulting demand for more pupil transportation, then the result exemplified by Table 9 indicating a greater share of the school budget being devoted to pupil transportation is clearly reinforced. Areas for Improvement in Pupil Transportation In the light of anticipated increases in scope and in cost of pupil transportation, what aspects of the national survey of pupil transportation showed promise either toward cost savings or improvement in quality of pupil transpor- tation? In general, there were five areas which supplied a favorable climate for improvements in pupil transportation. These five areas were grouped in the following categorieszl 1. Group purchasing a. Operational supplies b. Capital outlay supplies 2. School transportation liability 3. Preventive maintenance 4. Recommended state practices resulting in lower 60 cost or improved quality of transportation 5. Bus driver education Group Purchasing for Operational Supplies Group purchasing of operational supplies has often been advocated as an economy measure. Table 11 indicates that as a matter of practice this method is not widely used. It is not used at all on a regional basis and in only seven states on a county basis. On a statewide basis ten states secure bus tires through this technique. Of those ten states (Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) seven could qualify as being southern states. TABLE 11 NUMBER OF STATES REPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF A FORMAL ORGANIZATION FOR JOINT PURCHASING OF THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES FOR TRANSPORTATION Statewide Basis Regional Basis County Basis Item Yes No Yes No Yes No Gasoline 6 24 - 23 7 21 Tires 10 21 - 23 4 20 Repair Parts 4 25 - 24 6 20 Oil 5 24 - 24 6 21 Others 3 16 - 18 2 l5 batteries 2 chains 1 61 It is noteworthy that 15 of the 37 states indicate participation in some form of group purchasing. When these same 15 were asked if they expected to continue group pur- chasing, 13 answered affirmatively and none were opposed to the continuation. In an attempt to pursue the question of group purchasing more intensively, Question 24 inquires of those who do not currently participate in group purchasing, how many would favor an organization which would permit group purchasing on a statewide, regional, or county basis. H H "yes” answers and nine no answers The respondents had four on a statewide basis, one "yes" and nine "no" on a regional basis, and five "yes" and five "no" on a county basis. It would appear from the results of the questionnaire that in general those who participate in the practice of group purchasing favor its continuance and that ten states who presently do not have some form of group purchasing would like to do so. Group purchasing for school buses.--Tab1e 12 portrays the reactions of 36 states to three schemes of Joint or group purchasing. It is noticeable that a wide majority do not participate in any form of group or Joint purchasing. There is no evidence of any group purchasing on a regional basis and only five states have countywide purchasing. Eight states participate in statewide purchasing. 0f the 13 states who indulge in this practice, all except two are southern states. Interestingly enough, the two northern states 62 x x x msonmaxo 0oH32pCSOo 002 x x x oano x x mcfiaopmo £0902 o: x x x xpow 302 06H320c300 002 x x 2 200902 302 o: x x x 000>02 x x x 02009902 0vfizmpcsoo 002 x x K HASOmmHE x x Hadfimmammaz 00H32uc500 002 x x x muom0ccH2 0©H320c300 002 x x x mefinofiz 02 x x x mcfiwz mofizzuCSOo 002 x x x mamamfidoq x x zxoSuc02 02 x x 2 000202 mcazzuCSOU 00% x x K mon 02 x x x mfiocHHHH mofizmpmum womgp0m 0:02 osmvH x AL00pc5Ho>vx moapoam x x x pSoHpo0ccoo 00H30pmpm 00» x x x machomaawo x x 000cmxh¢ x x 05000H< wempmopm 0 scoaumscHucoo nosm mo coapmepom po>0m 02 002 oz 02 002 0pmpm so>0m :02 0Q :02: 30> om :002: 0H 0H L0zmc< 0302 MH n030c¢ p502 2H mpGSOQ H0COHm0m 0oa30pmum mmmbm Hoomom mo cszmm Qm¢309 mmmm 0003 0003200300 + 000300000 00% x x x :00wsH0003 00H300000 002 02 x 0acHw0H> 000300000 00% x x x 0CoEp0> 02 x x x :00: x x x x 00209 x x 00000G00B x x 0CHH0000 00:00 000300000 002 x x x 0HG0>H20CC0m 0G02 cow0mo ws0pwomm 0 0:0000dcfi0coo 00:0 00 200008002 Lo>0m 02 00% 02 02 00% 00000 00>0m :02 on :02: Sow 0Q =00>= 0H 0H L0302< 050% MH L030c< 0:02 0H 20:500 H0cofiw0m 00H30000m 00SGH0COOIImH mum¢e 64 (Nevada and New York) who currently participate in group purchasing, do not favor the continuance of that program. Virginia likewise, prefers to cease the practice of county- wide purchasing, but would like to participate in statewide buying. However, 10 of the 13 favor the continuation of the program. While much has been written about mass purchasing of school buses, the practice has not gained general accept- ance. Nevertheless, 10 of the 13 states who participate favor the continuation of the program. In addition, 16 states who do not participate would like to do so. This aspect of pupil transportation costs should be studied further as a method of cutting transportation costs without any apparent lessening of the quality of transportation. School Transportation Liability Five questions in the questionnaire dealt with some phase of transportation liability. Replies to the first reveals that the laws of nine states1 place liability on school districts for injury to pupils riding on school buses. ' In reporting "no,' 24 states are relying on traditional governmental immunity. The second question indicates the trend in court decisions maintains governmental immunity by a ratio of 20 to 8. The third question points up the school 1California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. 65 favored trend in court decisions when only three states could report actual instances of law suits being instituted in the courts on behalf of pupils injured while being trans- ported to and from school since 1950. Wisconsin reported two cases, Ohio two or three, and Kentucky "estimated" 25. The fourth question probed deeper into the problem to see how many of these suits were successful. Both Wisconsin and Ohio reported that no cases were successful, while Kentucky estimated that 50 per cent were successful. The last question in this series attempted to deter- mine against whom the judgment was issued in successful suits of the previous question. Kentucky reported that insurance companies paid the judgment in the few cases suc- cessfully instituted. The results of this section of the survey indicated that in spite of rumors of inflationary favoritism for plaintiffs in court action, the actual practice revealed, at least in the case of pupil transportation, traditional immunity of governmental agencies is still supreme. The freedom of school districts from lawsuits is further pointed up by a recent comment in a book designed as a law guide for school superintendents which states: "lawsuits appear to be decreasing."l ¥_ 1Robert L. Drury (ed.), Law and the School Superin- tendent (Cincinnati, Ohio: w. H. Armerson Co., 19587, p. 2517‘”‘ 66 Preventive Maintenance There was general approbation for preventive mainten- ance as the backbone of the school transportation systems. Some state suggestions were succinctly stated: Michigan 1. Mandatory, periodic checkups. 2. Single school operated bus garages. 3. Expanded bus driver education program. North Dakota 1. Enforcement of compulsory maintenance program. Eases 1. Daily checkup by driver. 2. Periodic checkup by mechanic. Washington 1. Better record keeping. 2. Preventive maintenance conferences. 3. More extensive training of mechanics and supervisors. Illinois 1. Additional supervisory assistance from state level. Missouri 1. District ownership 2. Full time service personnel of garages and mechanical facilities. Florida 1. Intensive training of mechanics. 2. Training of drivers in the inspection of buses. 3. Analysis of bus specifications. 67 Minnesota 1. Regular inspection by full time mechanic. 2. Cooperative and wholesale purchasing. 1. Frequent inspection. 2. Lubricate when needed. 3. Replace plugs, points, condensers every 8,000 miles. 4. Never recharge batteries. 5. Replacement of equipment at end of eight year period. Oklahoma 1. Larger grouping of buses. 2. Central shop. Oregon 1. Proper training of bus drivers. 2. Better shops and maintenance equipment. Wisconsin l. Frequent inspection with follow through. Recommended State Practices Resulting in Lower Cost or Improved Quality of Transportation As the State Directors were specific on the question of preventive maintenance, they were likewise specific on the question of general recommendations concerning state practices which resulted in lower costs or improved quality of transportation. Nineteen states answered Question 48 ‘With a total of 103 responses. Many of the responses, of Course, were duplicated but in general they divided 68 t;11£3mselves into five categories. After deleting dupli— craaisions on closely related factors the following responses we re made : Drivers 1. Carefully selected, adequately trained, and properly supervised student drivers. 2. Adequate driver training and supervision. Maintenance 1. Improved maintenance. 2. Detailed provision for maintenance cost accounting. 3. Preventive maintenance conferences. Buses 1. More adequate control of specifications. 2. All state owned and operated buses. 3. Larger buses. 4. Discontinuance use of feeder routes. 5. Use of two-way radio in buses. 6. Use of station wagon (particularly for Kindergarten). Purchasing 1. Purchases of tires, spark plugs, and batteries at state contract prices. 2. Statewide purchasing. 3. State act as self-insurer. Administrative Practices 1. Use of transportation committees made up of parents, school patrons, bus riders, bus drivers, and school officials. 2. Better program of route planning and scheduling. 69 3. Staggered school opening and closing (to enable betterutilization of buses). 4. Some one person assigned transportation respon- sibility. 5. Specific policies adopted by board for operating buses. 6. Multiple trips. 7. Transport only eligible children to and from school. 8. Eliminate extra—curricular use of buses. 9. Statewide visitation by transportation supervisor. Bus Driver Education State pupil transportation directors were very enthus- lastie about the potential values of bus driver education. Twerlty-three states reported there is a statewide program Of. 1Dus driver education in their state, while 13 replied in tkua negative. All 36 states favored an expanded program of sclixool bus driver education. Twenty-five indicated their S1381te had established a school bus driver program. One Pegspondent qualified his answer by stating that it was for the newer drivers only, one mentioned the program was “1dimited," and one specified "not extensive." Table 13 indicates the State Department of Public Instruction (or the Department of Education, as it is called 1r1 several states) is the prime instigator of this service alfithough the Highway Department, Highway Patrol, Safety DiVision, and Department of Motor Vehicles are also men- tifldned in this connection. The respondents are very 70 x 000 000.000 .0.0.Q 2 000000009 0 000 s- .0000 .200 0 00000000 .0 x nu 0000 .0000 .232 x 0000>0200000 x 000 I: 0000000>.000Q x 0om00o x 000 0000 02 000000 .230 x 00000000 x 0000 x 0000 x 000 .. 0000000>.0000 x 00000000.z 0 .0.0.0 0 0000 302 x 0 200000 302 x x 000>02 x 0 00000002 x 0 00000002 x 000.00 0 .0.0.0 0 00000000002 0 0 000000002 0 0.00 0.0 . 000.0000 00000000000 0 00000000 x x 00002 x 000 00000000 02 .0.0.0 2 000000000 0 00 00 0000000000 .0.0.0 .0.0 0 00000000 0 000Sm0m 02 .Eoo.23m A0000E00V 0 000002 0 In .H.0.Q x 0300 x 0 00000000 x 0000w0m 02 000000 0000m x 00000 x 000 0 000.000 .0.0.0 0000 0>000000m 0000000 0 2 00000000000 0 0 0000000000 0 000 0 000.00 .0.0.0 0 00000000 0 0000000>< 0oz 0000000>< 002 .0.0.0 0 0000000 000000 00>00 00000 00000 0000 00000 000 0000>000 oz 000 00000 00000 0 00000 0 003 .00 00 E00wo00 00000000m .00 00m 00000axm All I'll? ill l ill. I, II 0000mo0m 00000000m 00>00Q 0 00009 00 200225020 $55 gm $238 E2002 233.028.2000 00000 000.00 00 20000000 ma mqmde 7.0, r - rr 0 N w005003 x 000 000.00 .0.0.0 0 000000003 x .000.00 0000 02 000000 .0000 x 0000000>.3 x 00.000.00 00.000.00 .0.0.0 0 0000000003 x 000 .. .0.0.0 0 00000003 0 000 0000 00000000 0000: x 000000> 0 3000 0.000 .0.0.0 0 0000 x 0 00x09 000000 00300 oz 00% 00000 0000000 000000000 .00 000 00000000 00030 06030 0000 H0009 00H 00©H>000 00000 0 00000 0 003 .00 00 0030000mmrnma mqmga 0800wo00 000000000 003000 0 00009 0H 72 «Upricertain about who assumes the cost of this service. One specifically mentioned that it is "free." Only eight states £11763 able to report a specific figure. These figures vary :Fzécnerermont's low of $100.00 to Michigan's high of $120,000. Nticrruigan is also able to specify that the state pays 92.5 ENEI? cent of the cost with the remainder assumed locally. Tlua ‘total amounts listed alphabetically by states are as follows: Arkansas . . . . . . . . $ 1,000.00 Florida . . . . . . . . 10,000.00 Michigan . . . . . . . . 120,000.00 Mississippi . . . . . . . 17,u64.00 Tennessee. . . . . . . . 10,000.00 Vermont . . . . . . . . 100.00 Washington . . . . .» . . 7,385.00 Wisconsin. . . . . . . . 1,500.00 Twelve of the states show that 100 per cent of the COESt: is raised on the state level, while one shows 92.5 ‘xaI‘ cent, and another 10 per Cent. Kentucky shows that dr‘iJver education is a part of the total foundation program. Women were reported as being employed for school bus (irVivers in every state except one. Students were employed it; 20 of the states and rejected by 15 others. There was ccInsiderable difference of opinion as to the most successful Sc3hool bus drivers. Twelve stated there was no difference b€¥tween men and women; six stated men, women, and students 3&3 being equally successful; four listed students were SLIIEDerior. Only two listed men as being best with one state sDecifying that men and students were equally good. Eleven Stuites reported either that students were superior or were egllally good as any other classification of driver. 73 Women appear to be singularly favored in the question of which group has proved to be least successful. Only one state listed women alone as being the least successful, while five states pointed the finger at men as being least successful and four singled out students with the disfavor. While 15 states do not permit the use of students, the fact that 20 of them do and 11 of the 20 rate the student as being higher or as high as any other group, was indicative or further study on the use of student driver. Many states are suggesting a differential in both the lower and upper age limits for school bus drivers. This var"lation, as listed below, indicated that some thought had been given to the problem. TABLE 114 STATE DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON RECOMMENDED AGES FOR MEN AND WOMEN BUS DRIVERS \W : .: Men Women \ A Number of Number of \\g‘e Group Responses Age Group Responses 16 - 65 3 16 - 65 2 18 - 50 l 18 - 50 1 18 - 65 3 18 - 60 1 18 with conditions 2 18 with conditions 3 20 — 60 1 20 - 50 1 21 - 6O 3 21 on 11 21 on 14 21 - 60 5 21 - 65 3 25 - 50 3 25 - 6o 1 25 - 62 2 25 - 65 l \ 7a There was some indication of a desire for making an upper limit mandatory. No one recommended going over age 65 and several mentioned "physical conditions,‘ while one (Vermont) specified examinations (physical). Summary State director's of transportation were asked to give their opinion of the future of certain aspects of transpor- tation in their state. The following is a summary of the report from the 37 states: 1. There will be a marked increase in the number of pupils to be transported in the next 10 to 20 yeans. 2. There was general consensus that the per capita cost of pupil transportation would increase, but there was less agreement on this question than on the previous question dealing with the number of pupils to be transported. Four states predicted the cost per pupil would decrease, while 26 states reported an average increase of 13.8 per cent over the present per capita cost. 3. The United States appears to be experiencing a period of conflict and flux regarding the practice of the use of public funds for non-public transportation. Many states were uncertain as to how much money was being expended in this direction. The lack of accurate accounting was accom— panied by numerous outcries against the practice. A. More than half the states reported that the per- centage of state aid for pupil transportation would remain 75 about the same. Nine states advocated increasing the states' contribution, while three felt the states were already paying too much. Over—all a slight trend toward an increase on the state level was evident. 5. There was general consensus that school admin- istrative units would be larger. No state expected the size of school districts to decrease and the average of the 32 states responding indicated the size of the units would increase almost one-fifth. 6. There was a slight trend toward a modest increase in the degree of state regulation of pupil transportation. Most states expressed satisfaction with present conditions in this respect. 7. Favorable action toward the operation of school district-owned buses as opposed to leasing privately-owned vehicles was expressed by a majority of the state transpor- tation leaders. 8. An increase in the percentage of the educational budget devoted to pupil transportation appears a certainty with 30 of 32 states anticipating a 7.8 per cent increase in the percentage of the total budget ascribed to transpor- tation. 9. As the number of school administrative units decrease within a state, there was a corresponding increase in the need for pupil transportation. 10. There were five areas which showed promise either toward cost savings or improved quality of pupil 76 transportation according to the response from 37 states. These areas are: A. Group or Joint purchasing. (1) Operational supplies. (2) Capital outlay supplies. School transportation liability. Preventive maintenance of school buses. Recommended state practices reallting in lower costs or improved quality of transportation. Bus driver education. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN MICHIGAN Introduction Since 1917 the state of Michigan has been contri- buting funds to local school districts which met specified standards in transporting school children. With the amount of state support increasing practically every year, it is only natural that districts be required to demonstrate that they are maintaining satisfactory transportation practices by filing an Annual Transportation Report. This report is made in triplicate with one copy retained by the trans- porting unit, one kept in the Office of the County Super- intendent of Schools, and the third going to the state office in Lansing. Considering the complex nature of pupil transportation and the commonly conceived image of the multiplicity of answers required by bureaucratically developed forms, the Transportation report is unusually simple.1 It consists of four pages containing five sections. The first page is descriptive, listing the year, the type of school organi- zation, and pertinent information regarding school admin- istrative personnel. 1Appendix B. 77 78 Section A (page 2), deals with the cost factors of transportation, while Section B (page 3), is restricted to information regarding buses themselves. Section C (page 3), is concerned with the operation of buses in terms of location of pupils, and distances traveled. The last page contains Section D, a record of non-resident pupils transported and Section E, which is a report of equipment sold. Section A contains the essential requirements for this study. The report lists seventeen cost items in pupil transportation. These items are as follows:1 drivers' salaries, gasoline, tires, school garage repair parts, private garage repair parts, private garage labor, depreciation of bus, interest costs, insurance, mechanics' salaries, supervisors' salary, clerical salary, oil and lubrication, storage of buses, school garage operation, garage equipment and repairs, and bus driver training. The seventeen cost factors are combined into ten for east in handling. The more logical figure of ten is obtained in part by uniting seven divisions which deal with the maintaining of school buses. All these items consist of either parts, labor, or storage for school buses. The total of these seven are combined under the term "Total Maintenance" as all are related and are, in fact, nothing but varying methods of achieving maintenance of school buses. The item of supervisor's salary and clerical salary are 1A person may easily compare this listing with the listing and accompanying numbers in the Annual Transportation Report (Appendix B). 79 Joined under the term "administration" as being the amount spent by the local district in administering the transpor- tation program. Through an early legal interpretation neither the superintendent nor the principal can have a portion of his salary ascribed to bus supervision, at lease as far as any reimbursement from state funds is concerned. In terms of numerical listing by the state report the ten cost factors appear as follows: driver's salary gasoline tires total maintenance depreciation interest insurance administration \OCDNmUl-CIUUMI-J oil and lubrication 1...: 0 bus driver training Their importance in terms of actual cash expenditures will be determined later in this chapter. Analysis of Data It was evident at the outset that it would be too difficult to analyze and tabulate the cost data of all 893 transporting school districts in Michigan's 83 counties. The aid of the sociology department of Michigan State Univer- sity was enlisted in selecting ten representative counties in Michigan for detailed study. The ten counties (Allegan, 80 Delta, Gratiot, Kalkaska, Macomb, Oakland, Ottawa, Shiawas- see, Van Buren, and Waynel) were chosen as representative of the economic areas of Michigan.2 The annual reports of all transporting schools located in the ten counties were examined in detail. The facilities of the Department of Public Instruction were made available and every courtesy extended the writer during the study. The 147 schools operating pupil transportation facili— ties within the ten selected counties vary markedly in the scope of their services. Twenty-six of the schools use one bus only, while seventeen maintain two buses. On the other hand, one school district in Macomb County operated 38 buses while Birmingham, in Oakland County, needed 33 to transport students. Altogether there were In schools operating from 20 to 38 buses. Less than one-eighth of the schools have more than 20 buses, while more than one-third get by with running one or two buses. The other 60 districts vary between three and 18, with 12 districts operating between seven and eight. With information on cost data from 147 schools operating from one to 38 buses, the next problem was how to organize the data. 1These ten counties were selected by Dr. Beegle as not only representing the established economic areas of Michigan but also as typical of the future trend of the state insofar as pupil transportation was concerned. 2J. Allen Beegle and Donald Halsted, Michigan's Ghanging Population, Special Bulletin 415 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, June, 1957), p. 36. 81 The logical first step was to test the hypothesis "As the size of the bus fleet increases the costs of transpor- tation decreases." The national director of pupil trans- portation had advocated large fleets of buses1 as a means of reducing costs and increasing efficiency in pupil trans- portation. Tabulations and analyses were made on the basis of the number of buses operated, the number of schools oper- ating them, the distance traveled, students per bus, and the cost per bus. It was expected that as the number of buses increased the cost would be lowered, the total mileage would decrease, and the number of pupils transported per bus would increase as the units were used more effectively. Information in Table 15 indicates the results were not as anticipated by Mr. Featherston's article. There was no indication of decreased costs as the number of buses increased. If anything, the costs tended to increase. As the size of the bus fleets exceeded 11 buses only four groups had average bus costs of less than $3000.00. 0n the other hand, not one of the smaller sized groups exceeded $4000.00, while four of the larger groups exceeded this figure. The mileage results fluctuated so much that no trend was apparent either from the standpoint of school miles or extra miles. The most surprising factor was the number of students _traveling in each bus. If the capacity of the largest lE. Glenn Featherston, "Transportation of Pu ils--A Growing Problem," School Life, xxx: (January, 1949 , p. 5. 82 TABLE 15 RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE OF SCHOOL BUS FLEET TO MILES TRAVELED, STUDENTS CARRIED, AND COST PER BUS IN TEN SELECTED MICHIGAN COUNTIES (1956-1957) Number Number of of School Extra1 Students Cost Per Buses Schools Miles Miles Per Bus Bus 1 26 10,626.0 67.3 75.7 $3092.21 2 17 12,837 0 636.4 96.0 3033.25 3 11 9,757.0 137.2 133.7 2905.71 4 ll 10,396.9 364.7 107.6 3580.84 5 9 9,226.2 864.9 86.8 3089.58 6 9 9,406.5 617.5 88.5 2929.05 7 12 9,775.1 561.8 76.9 3096.45 8 l2 9,288.1 562.1 80.2 2933.42 9 3 8,492.0 584.1 107.6 3172.21 10 3 5,246.4 304.1 93.5 2726.43 11 1 5,538.6 766.3 53.3 2236.29 12 1 9,611.7 733.4 88.4 6938.91 13 l 8,604.0 396.3 73.3 2880.49 14 6 10,382.9 488.0 124.3 3859.68 15 4 7,724.6 466.9 64.9 2771.34 16 4 7,142.4 427.5 104.9 2915.78 17 2 8,353.0 337.4 107.1 2778.63 18 1 9,914.8 219.2 112.3 3752.79 20 2 9,324.5 395.9 148.5 3921.26 22 1 9,715.1 269.3 137.6 3878.19 23 1 10,433.0 329.0 119.9 3476.24 24 2 10,255.0 427.7 116.2 3301.84 25 1 11,357.4 954.2 245.8 4738.16 27 1 8,406.6 421.3 133.5 3521.96 28 1 15,303.5 154.7 224.7 5015.91 29 1 12,220.0 125.3 77.6 951.28 30 2 11.177.7 4 9.3 172.9 279.77 33 1 7,182.2 155.0 100.9 3666.38 38 l 9,461.8 282.4 129.3 3761.15 1Extra miles refers to any trips, excursions, or ex- tended use of buses beyond the actual transportation of pupils from home to school and back home again. 83 commonly sold bus (60) were accepted as the normal, then every group except the 11 and 15 bus category were grossly overloaded! The extremely high number of students per bus was more pronounced in the larger bus fleet list. The schools which operated 25 and 28 buses averaged more than 200 pupils per bus. An examination of the 1956-1957 summary for the state of Michigan as a whole revealed that a total of 411,608 students were transported by 5,745 buses. This resulted in an average of 71.8 students per bus which would still be overloading and again only the 11 and 15 bus group revealed themselves as being below the state average. All the other groups were above and many of them strikingly above. This unexpected development needed considerable explanation which was not available at the time. However, this strange mystery will be unraveled later in this chapter. Relative Value of Cost Factors After failing to establish that an increase in the num- ber of buses in a transportation system resulted in significant reduction in cost per bus, attention was turned to the relative importance of the ten cost factors of all the 147 schools in the ten counties without regard to the size or location of the school district or the number of buses operated. Figure l graphically shows there are four "major" and six "minor" cost factors in the ten selected counties. More than 90 per cent of the total cost was absorbed by the "major" factors, listed as follows: 84 Drivers' Salaries 44 . 69% 10* x, 3 N7 1 ‘3‘” ‘ V .1.————9 5 Depreciation a .9 Q 20. 29 80 \ ‘6 0a 9 \ 6 ‘9 ‘8‘ ”339"” '039 ' / / I‘d'M- *Numerical tabulation of the six "Minor" Cost Factors 5 -- Administration 4.45% 6 —- Insurance 1.91% 7 -- Tires 1.31% 8 —- Interest .85% 9 -- Oil 80% 10 -- Driver Education :44% Figure 1. Comparison of the Four "Major" Cost Factors With the Six "Minor" Cost Factors in Ten Selected Counties of Michigan, 195641957. 85 1. Drivers' salaries. . . . . 44.69% 2. Depreciation . . . . . . . 20.50% 3. Total Maintenance. . . . . 15.89% 4. Gasoline . . . . . . . . . 9.23% TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . 90.31% It was interesting to note that four-fifths of the total was swallowed up by the first three factors. 0n the other hand, less than four per cent was absorbed by the four smallest of the minor cost factors. Not one of the six assume even five per cent of the total as evidenced by the following numerical tabulation of the six minor cost factors: 5. Administration . . . 4.45% 6. Insurance. . . . . .1. . 1.91% 7. Tires. 1.31% 8. Interest . . .85% 9. 011. . . . . . . . . .80% 10. Driver education . .44% TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . 9.76% After determining the classification of "major" and "minor" cost factors and noting the extreme range of 44.69 per cent for salaries to less than one-half of one per cent for driver education, the next task was to see how the various counties fitted into the over-all pattern. The ten cost factors were arranged in order of impor~ tance and then the total and percentages of the counties were listed individually. The results, as shown in Table 16 were not wholly that which might have been expected. Only one county (Wayne) followed the over-all pattern in exact numerical order. Generally, however, all counties followed 86 so.mss.mmme mm.mmo.eme ms.omm.mmae ms.omm.mmaa mm.owfl.oame mH.mHo.mom.me oases mam. sam. Hem. msmm. Noam. moss. a mm.mm©.a om.mHH om.smm ms.smw sm.mms.sH Hm.mmw.afi .aom.no mm». mm.H mao.a mwm.H mmmm. moms. a mm.on.s sm.mmm mo.sms.a ww.msm.a ss.mmo.m mm.mmH.Hm Hao mom.H mam. mom. mmm.H som.a momm. a mo.msm.s oo.ooH mo.som.H ma.mam.a mm.mms.m oo.mmw.mm unmaopsH smm. mom.o mmo.m oo.m omo.a moam.a a ms.oam.m sm.omo.H ms.sms.m Afi.ssm.m as.omm.m mm.0mm.am sense mmm.m mam.m HmH.m smm.m wmm.m HHHm.H a em.mom.me ms.oms Ha.osm.m mo.mos.m mm.mom.s Hm.mmo.ss .nsH soo.s mm6.H mmH.H mms.H smm.s a mm.mmm.sw ........ oo.oom.m em.ses.a om.moH.m ms.mofi.osfi .sasoe mme.m Hos.sfi Ham.ma moo.ma mom.HH smm.m a mm.oms.om so.msm.s om.smo.sa sm.sma.sa mm.smm.sm mm.mmm.oom ocaaonso mom.qH msm.sfi Hem. H msm.HH msm.om mm.ma a mm.mom em mm.Hss.s os.Hsm mm sa.mofl.mfl mm.omo.ss mm.ssfi.fimm .psaoz msm.mm mma.fim omm.mm mme.mm mH.sm m.om a mo.omm.0ma sa.mmm.o mm.mom.mm ms.sso.mm mm.oma.mm 6H.soo.mom .ooaaoo mmm.ms mm.sm Hmm.om Hmm.ss «mm.mm mo.ss a mo.mflm.msme mm.mao.mfie so.msm.mse os.oes.mo a ss.mos.as a sm.ssm.mss.fle aasaem nsoowz mxmmxawx poapwpa mpHmQ cmmmHH< HH¢Iao>o EouH mmHEZDOo QmBomqmm ZMB ZH ZOHB¢BmOmmZ mommmzmanm wzmppo osmaxmo EmuH ’ ll oossaesomrnoa mamas 88 a common pattern. In all cases the first two, salary and depreciation, were constant in their rank. Bus driver education ranked last in every county, and a total of less than one per cent was spent on this service in all counties. It is striking to note that with only three exceptions, all minor cost factors consumajless than five per cent of the costs of transportation. The exceptions were in Oakland and Wayne Counties where the administration figure was slightly over five per cent and in Kalkaska County where, for some unexplicable reason, the tire sales zoomed to six per cent of the total costs. Kalkaska County was also unique in that none of the costs of transportation were ascribed to administration. More than 90 per cent of the over-all costs were con- tained in the first four or "major" cost factors. In none of the counties does the figure of the top four dip to less than 87 per cent. It would seem logical that any attempt to effect a material reduction in transportation costs should concentrate on the "major" cost factors of drivers' salaries, depreciation, total maintenance, and gasoline. A further analysis of the "major" and "minor" cost factors will be found in Chapters V and VI, respectively. While the ten selected counties in general follow an established pattern, there were sufficient variations to occasion closer scrutiny. For example, the most costly figure varied from a low of 35.8 per cent in Allegan County to a high of 50 per cent in Wayne County. Wayne County, 89 high in salary was low in depreciation with 16 per cent. The depreciation factor finds its zenith in Gratiot County with almost 29 per cent. The total maintenance item was highest in Allegan County with 20 per cent ranging to a low of 11.36 per cent in Delta County. Wayne County was low in gasoline with 7 per cent while Kalkaska County managed to spend almost 14-1/2 per cent on bus fuel. It is obvious that if for s0me reason a county should find it nec- essary to spend an unusually large amount for one factor thus causing the percentage of that factor to rise, then the percentage spent for other factors must, of necessity, fall. Although establishing a bond of uniformity in the order of the expenditures for the ten selected counties the variations were sufficient to motivate further investigating seeking causes for the variations. An attempt was made to show cost variations by in— jecting the added features of mileage and number transported (see Table 17). The inclusion of these two salient aspects of transportation provided three new county level statistics, namely: cost per person, cost per mile, and mileage per student transported. Even though the counties were arranged alphabetically, a compartmentalizing effect was noticed in that three counties were segregated from the others. These three counties were Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne. These counties, located adjacent to each other, represent the most populous area of our state. The similarity of the statistics was pointed up by their being the three lowest 90 TABLE 17 1956-1957 DISTRIBUTION OF COST FACTORS FOR PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN TEN SELECTED COUNTIES, PLUS MILEAGE AND NUMBER TRANSPORTED Gratiot Item Over—A11 Allegan Delta Salary $1,746,574.37 $ 77.462.47 $ 63,779.76 $ 49,592.04 % 44.69 35.832 44.132 36.591 Deprec. 802,007.16 52 166.35 33,044.42 32,305.25 20.2“ 24.13 23.103 28.836 Maint. 621,147.25 44,056.95 16,109.17 25,671.40 % 15.89 20.379 11.273 18.941 Gasoline 360,622.92 24,577.62 17,184.97 17,037.60 % 9.227 11.369 12.025 12.571 Adminis. 170,163.75 3,109.90 1,714.59 2,200.00 4.354 1.438 _ 1.119 1.623 Insurance 74,689.31 4,969.85 3,409.63 2,970.11 1.911 2.298 2.384 2.191 Tires 51,230.33 3,580.47 2,944.11 2,764.75 1.3109 1.656 2.06 2.039 Interest 33,229.06 2,733.93 1,913.12 1,204.09 .8502 1.264 1.338 .888 Oil 31,129.83 2,029.74 1,976.88 1,457.65 % .7965 .9389 1 383 1.075 Driver Edu. 17,222.21 1,943.24 824.48 327.60 .4406 .6907 .5679 .241 TOTAL Number transp. Cost per person Cost per mile Miles per student $3,908,016.19 120,891 $ 32.32 .357 90.24 $216,180.52 4618 46.81 .312 150.23 2948 48.45 .245 195.92 $142,901.12 $135,530.49 2428 55.82 .279 206.01 91 TABLE l7--Continued - —_V Item Kalkaska Macomb Oakland Gratiot Salary $12,019.86 $249, 915. 65 $ 588, 427.17 $ 64,190.72 37.96 2834 46. 002 40.851 Deprec. 6,883.17 130,356.65 251,324.56 7847 50 9 21.738 22.342 19.648 g4. 086 Maint. 4,741.28 87,306.39 209,711.73 19,081.51 % 14.973 14.963 16.394 12.143 Gasoline 4,579.07 56,790.99 103,746.61 21,139.65 % 14.461 9.733 8.11 13.453 Adminis. -—- 27,232.59 71,521.27 3,600.00 % --- 4.667 5.591 2.291 Insurance 726.73 12,965.97 20,177.99 3,653.54 % 2.295 2.222 1.577 2.325 Tires 1,909.24 5,570.72' 14,670.17 2,693.00 % 6.029 .954 1.146 1.713 Interest 100.00 7,373.03 6,510.60 2,354.91 .315 1.263 .508 1.498 011 585.97 4,310.35 7,335.43 1,863.44 % 1.85 .738 .573 1.185 Driver Ed. 118.50 1,623.33 5,697.10 704.89 .375 .278 .445 .449 TOTAL $31,663.82 $583,445.67 $1,279,122.63 $157,130.76 Number transp. 461 20,778 45,597 4,223 Cost per person 68.68 28.08 28.07 37.20 Cost per mile .198 .431 .358 .293 Miles per student 346.61 65.07 78.21 126.48 92 TABLE l7—-Continued v4 Shiawassee T a: Item VanBuren Wayne Salary $ 63 828.55 $ 82,879.37 $494,478.78 38.586 39.796 50.028 Deprec. 41 247.71 54,982.17 161,849.38 2 .935 26.4 16.375 Maint. 24,272.21 32,516.29 157,680.32 % 14.673 15.613 15.953 Gasoline 17,645.85 18,577.48 79,343.08 % 10.667 8.92 8.027 Adminis. 3,278.25 4,300.00 53,207.17 % 1,981 2,064 5.383 Insurance 4,673.87 3,410.33 17,731.29 2.825 1.627 1.794 Tires 2,830.02 1,539.26 12,728.59 1.71 .739 1.28 Interest 3,932.07 6,047.02 1,060.29 2.377 2.903 .107 011 2,611.56 2,018.53 6,940.28 % 1.578 .969 .702 Driver Ed. 1,098.40 1,987.63 3,346.03 .664 .954 .338 TOTAL $165,418.49 $208,258.08 $988,365.21 Number transp. 2959 4,991 31,888 Cost per person 55.90 41.72 30.99 Cost per mile .311 .336 .441 Miles per student 179.93 123.98 70.21 93 both in per capita cost and mileage per student, while at the same time their cost per mile was the highest of the group. In the cost per student, all three counties were under $31.00 while the others ranged from $37.50 up to a high of $68.68. Kalkaska County, with by far the highest per capita cost, also outstripped the others in terms of annual mileage per student, while at the same time its cost per mile was lowest of all. Other things being equal, a tremendous increase in mileage resulted in a lower cost per mile. The interesting and focal point here was the resultant extremely high per capita cost of transportation. Mileage alone does not seem to be the dominating factor since all three populous counties in the Detroit area each far outstrip Kalkaska County in mileage. In fact, Macomb County has more than eight times as much mileage as Kalkaska while Wayne and Oakland exceeds that of Kalkaska by more than 10 and 20 times, respectively. DensityAs A Factor in Pupil Transportation With mileage as a unit being placed in a secondary position the factor of density of population comes to the 1 foreground. Previous writers, both expressly and by implication,2 have stressed this aspect of pupil transportation. 10. D. Hutchins, "Determining Costs of Pupil Transpor- tation," The Nation's Schools, XXV, No. 5 (May, 1940), p. 34; R. W. Roberts, "Predicting Pupil Transportation Costs," The Nation's Schools, xv, No. 4 (April, 1935), pp. 64 and 665‘“ 2G. A. Selke, Transportation Cost in Minnesota Con- solidated Schools (WaShington, D.C.: Government Printing ‘Office, 1924), p. 5. 94 The three metropolitan counties were unique in that they all travel less than 80 annual miles per student, which was reflected in a lower cost per student. This low per capita cost was achieved even in the face of higher salaries for bus drivers, which we have already noted is the most expen- sive of all the cost factors. While this was not gleaned from the table, the fact that each of the counties transports more than 20,000 students by school-owned buses gives rise to much greater flexibility in the establishment of bus routes, the ease of personnel adjustment, as well as mass purchasing of supplies which could likewise result in lower costs. The previous paragraph referred to the counties of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne as "metropolitan," and to the fact that transportation within those counties differed markedly from all of the others. Density of school popu- lation was advanced as a dominant factor in this differen- tial. The density of population in southeastern Michigan is generally so well accepted that no effort to inject a population map will be made. If we can accept the premise that the extremely populous counties have a profound effect on pupil transportation, then it might be meaningful to transpose this thesis to the question of size which proved to be so disconcerting in Table 15. It will be recalled that we expected to find that as the number of buses of the operating school district increased, the costs of pupil transportation decreased. This was not the case. The most significant development from Table 15 was that in general all buses tended to be crowded. Realizing that the populous counties contained both large and small schools, an attempt was then made to analyze data to determine significant dif- ferences and similarities from which meaningful conclusions could be drawn. This is presented in Table 18. In this case a comparison was made of the average number of students per bus for all sizes of bus fleets."Metropolitan" and "non- metropolitan" school districts were separated in this table. Students Per Bus Advantage of Metropolitan Districts The analysis revealed a surprising trend in which metropolitan bus fleets far surpassed non-metropolitan fleets in terms of students per bus. The pattern of numer- ical superiority of for the more populous areas was achieved in every bus group. The contrasts of students per bus for the two groups were so pronounced as to invite the following observations as indicative of a possible trend in pupil transportation: 1. Without exception in every bus group in which both metropolitan and non-metropolitan buses were represented, the number of students per bus on the metropolitan buses exceeded the non-metropol- itan. 2. The highest number found in any non—metropolitan bus category (77.1 in the two bus group) was smaller than any of the metropolitan category except the 13 and 15 bus group. 96 TABLE 18 AVERAGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER BUS IN METROPOLITAN AND NON-METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE 1956-1957 SCHOOL YEAR Number of Buses Metropolitan Non-Metropolitan 1 152.5 65.1 2 151.7 77.1 3 240.0 72.9 4 154.9 63.1 5 763.3 65.0 6 164.8 50.4 7 139.0 56.2 8 116.8 61.9 9 131.0 60.6 10 171.0 54.8 11 ‘ 53.0 12 88.4 13 73.3 14 138.9 51.0 15 76.0 53.8 16 118.4 64.5 17 107.1 18 112.3 20 148.5 22 137.6 23 119.9 24 116.2 25 245.8 27 133.5 28 224.7 29 77.6 30 172.9 33 100.9 38 129.3 97 3. No non—metropolitan buses were found in bus groups above the sixteen bus group. 4. The increased seating advantage of the metro- politan buses appeared generally evident in all areas; the size of the bus fleet appeared to have little difference in the relationship. Are Michigan School Buses Overloaded While Table 18 revealed there was a marked difference in the number of students carried per bus based apparently on the increased student density of the metropolitan schools, this disturbing question was left, "Can it be that Michigan schools, particularly metropolitan schools are overloading buses?" It is common knowledge that the most popular sized buses in Michigan are the 48, 54, and 60 passenger school buses. The results of Table 18 would indicate all fleets are averaging above the 48 passenger capacity. Some would not be overloaded if the buses averaged 54 or 60 passengers. Even if the larger sized 60 passenger buses were prevalent, every category of the metropolitan districts would be grossly overloaded since Michigan State Police reports permit only a ten per cent overload of school buses.1 The rumors that larger school buses (66 and 72 passenger buses) are common in some areas of Michigan and may account for apparent overloading, gave rise to the necessity for examining the 1Conversation with Michigan State Police Inspector from South Haven Michigan Post on November 17, 1958. 98 records of the size of school buses actually in use in 1955-1957. The manufacturer's rated capacity for buses listed on the Annual Transportation Report as arranged by Table 19 revealed the following summarizations: 1. There were relatively few buses under 30 or over 60 passengers. 2. In general the metropolitan schools used slightly larger buses. 3. There was little variation between the average capacity; the maximum was 55.4 in Macomb County and the minimum was 51.0 in Kalkaska County. 4. Every metropolitan county had a numerical advan- tage over every non-metropolitan county. While every metropolitan county had an advantage over every non-metropolitan county, this fact in itself was not sufficient to account for the marked numerical superiority of the average number of pupils transported per bus, since the average rated capacity of the more densely populated areas were less than three more students per bus, while the average number of students actually carried was approximately twice as great as that of the more sparsely populated regions. There must be other reasons since even the non-metropolitan schools appeared to be conveying more pupils than the average capacity of the buses in the seven counties. 99 .>< H.mm smm.Hs a mo: mm «mm m mms Hsooe s.sm sHm.mH s 36H mm Hm H Hmmmv some; H.mm on.mH 4 How mm moH m Asmmv oaonso s.mm eme.m H HoH on 6s m HmeHV nsoooz cmuHHonmapoz r .>< «.mm mow.om m we omH msH s mom Hopoe H.mm ems: o mH am ms 0 Hmmv spasm sd> H.sm smom s mH om mH H Hemv ponnoonem H.Hm ssHm s mH mm o Ammo assure o.Hm on o H m o o HoHV sanstox m.mm momm o m so mH H Hmsv eoHpoao S.Hm mmsm H HH oH so H Hazy spHoo m.mm mmms H mm sH 0: H HHwV :sonHa mufiomomo szomawo mm po>or om hmr . m: .. om Amos: momsm mDQSOQ owwAm>¢ Hmpoe mpfiommwo mcapmom on wsapaoood momsm mo 909552. .02 4 ll' fl cprHoaoppmzlcoz Nmmalmmma 2H mmHBZDOo Z¢UHmOHS QMBomqmm ZMB zH mEOHmEmHQ doomom z14gh variations to excite interest. Nine zero marks C1 e51.311cting non-metropolitan schools were found with less i3515111 100 annual miles per student. Fifteen dash marks 104 momsm mo pmnssz mmmmommmmmwmommmlammmmHmowmamawawamadamamaHHOHmmNOmdmma 4: hr he ON L. 4.. Lt : % o: H. A. _ 9 1r .r .1 .. .m i. l .. .. l . a 1 . H .1 a 11 oo 4. fi- 11 L. if my om 1. 1. 1. Au 1. a .. .. .. . OOH . V s. . a. .. 1.. .1. .fi .1 A 1. 03 C 0+1“ ‘ e a a e s 8H 1 2 F omH H #90 P0 com 1. aw me 03w . . 1. 11 s. .cwuHHoaoapmzicoz . e l "cmuHHodoauoz owm _ 8m $887128 .8 8252 \ on» an unmpdpm .8 no.2: Hmzzfix Mo 92:32 .W 95% a Rm um 00%. quepnqs Jed seIIw Isnuuv JO JeqmnN 105 designating schools in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties we?e fO\AJnd above the 100 annual miles per student line. There werenilles schools in out-state counties which indicated con- siderakilerdensity of population and, hence, might be eligi- ble four multiple trips. An examination of the nine schools With-iless than 100 annual miles per student revealed these inteI‘esting facts: 1. Most of the schools operated few buses. Three operated one bus, four operated two buses, and one operated three buses. Only one (Covert in Van Buren County) operated as many as ten buses. All of the eight schools with few buses were suburban in character. A11 eight were located in Ottawa County, with five surrounding Holland, two near Grand Rapids, and one on the outskirts of Grand Haven. Considerable annexation has taken place since the 1956-1957 study, or is currently being contemplated. Ferrysburg, near Grand Haven, has annexed to Grand Haven and is currently operating multiple routes. Three schools (Pine Creek, Beechwood, and Waukazoo) are integral parts of the West Ottawa annexation north of Holland which now operates ten buses with 33 bus routes exclusive of three kindergarten runs. Harrington and Federal schools, both suburbs of Holland, currently operate multiple routes and are considering annexing to Holland or 106 some other nearby school operating 12 grades. Harrington operates eight routes with three buses and transports high school and elementary students separately. The two schools near Grand Rapids, Georgetown and Georgetown 2, have recently merged and selected a school superintendent and are increasing their transportation. The new school administrator reported their buses are now averaging four routes per day, excluding kindergarten. The only school operating more than three buses with less than 100 annual miles per student was Covert. In 1956—1957 Covert's ten buses traveled 46,197 miles, carrying 564 students for an average of 81.9 miles per student. Today, Covert con- templates traveling 47,700 for 475, or 82.9 annual miles per student. A visit to Covert and a con- versation with their superintendent revealed the fact that Covert could save money on pupil trans— portation by reducing the number of buses and operating multiple trips. This is not being done now because: a. this would mean changing the hours of starting and closing schools; b. the elementary and high schools are located close to each other and it is convenient to have community teachers ride together—-in some 107 cases teachers work in both the elementary and high school level; c. the bus drivers like the present arrangement and are not anxious to work longer hours; d. the buses are being operated economically ($31.10 per student per year), and the finan- cial pinch has not hurt their transportation system. That Michigan school buses are not unique in operating mtliltiple routes in a suburban situation was indicated by a New York report "'which shows that twelve 55-passenger buses tI‘ansport two thousand pupils to and from six schools; no FNJIDil boards the bus before 8:00 A.M.; no pupil spends more tdlaxn an hour on a round trip."1 This school district has ‘tflez further innovation that they pick up students gnly on fsrle: right hand side of the road (no student crossing the 17C>£Ld), and also pick up only seventh through twelfth grades :111- «one group and kindergarten through sixth in another. They eliminate all dead—heading and operate "loop" rather than "shoestring" routes.2 Summary 1. There are four "major" and six "minor" cost factors in pupil transportation in Michigan. \ ESQ lBurton H. Belknap, "School Bus Transportation Survey, “-HEEgool Executive, LXXIII (February, 1954), p.58. 21bid. * 108 The metropolitan areas differ from out-state areas in that they-- a. operate on a relatively lower per capita cost basis, b. operate on a relatively higher cost per mile basis, 0. average many more students per bus, d. utilize multiple bus routes. Schools which average less than 100 annual miles per student tend to be able to lower costs of pupil transportation by utilizing multiple bus routes. CHAPTER V MAJOR COST FACTORS IN PUPIL TRANSPORTATION Salary In this study the term salary is used to denote bus driver's salary only. Other salaries, such as mechanics, clerical, or administrators are included either in Total Maintenance or Administration. According to current liter- the bus driver is the key in public relations, Certainly atmufleai, Safe ty, and general maintenance of school buses. this is true in the cost factors of pupil transportation Since almost half the expenses of transporting children were attributed to the bus driver. In the ten counties studied, 44.69 per cent, or $1,746,574.37 of a total of $3,908,016.19 cost was paid to the driver of school buses. In the few analyses of cost factors in pupil transpor- tation available, the high rating of salaries was readily apparent. As early as 1934, the Department of Public In— Stmct ion in Michigan issued a mimeographed report on pupil tranSpOIHtation.l Strangely enough, the percentage of the to tal <3 osts ascribed to drivers' salaries was almost exactly tha t of this study conducted 23 years later. In 1934. the \ Agriculb orr Stack, "A Study of Pupil Transportation in Rural State ltural Schools of Michigan for 1934" (lansing, Michigan: (Mime Department of Public Instruction, 1934), p. 4. 0graphed.) 109 110 percentage was 45 per cent, while in 1957 in the ten counties examined, the results showed 44.69 per cent. In 1934 no effort was made to break down the percentages of the Other cost factors, nor were the other cost factors identified. £\ 1930 California report listed salaries as being second to depreciation in the following tabulation:l Item Per Cent Amount Annual Cost Depreciation 32.98 $525.60 S alaries 29. 50 470.00 Repairs and Upkeep 9. 31 148.40 Fuel 8.45 134. 60 Tires 7.06 112.50 Interest 6.86 _ 109.30 I nsurance 4 . 97 79 . 20 Lubricants . 87 13 .82 Wtions in Salaries In the ten Michigan counties studied there were con- Sidel"‘a.]:>le variations in the amount paid as salaries. This was true both in the percentages of the various counties and the amounts paid per bus in various bus groups. The I‘ange was from a low of 35.83 per cent in Allegan County to a h 1gb of 50.03 per cent in Wayne County. In spite of county variations, the factor of salaries rated number one i n 8All counties by a substantial margin. Table 17 indicates th at Salaries exceeded depreciation, the number two £30170? \ 1 Trans Frank 0. Evans, Factors Affecting the Cost of School Wation in California, U. S. Depaflfmerfi: of Interior Off-10 1’1 No. 29 (Washington, D. 0.: Government Printing e 2 1930), p. 24. 111 in all counties, by margins ranging from 7.7 per cent in Gratiot County to 33.65 in Wayne County. As there was considerable variations in the salary percentage in counties, there appeared to be even greater variation in the actual salary paid per bus driver. The lowest; reported amount per bus was that paid by a school district in Ottawa County which operated two buses. Here the Salary paid per bus was $721.25. At the other extreme, the Redford Union School District in Wayne County, operating 12 buses, paid an average of $5,129.60 per bus. The average Of the 1,142 buses was $1,529.39. The question could well be asked—-What causes the tr‘erneridous variation in wages paid to bus drivers? Several POSS ible answers can be given each of which probably had an effec t . One would be that the prevailing wage varies in different parts of Michigan. Another, that the amount of driving time necessary to transport children to and from SChOOl varies from district to district. Some school dis- tricts. expect drivers to restrict their activities to driving the bus, while others expect detailed reports and even 8 ome maintenance and storage services. Some buses' Pontes are longer than others, and some drivers handle multiple routes. I I" the yardstock of time of bus operation in minutes, as exel'nplified by the Annual Transportation Report,l were \ lAppendix B, Section D, Part 3. 112 Drivers' Salaries an . 69% Depreciation \ 20.5% Figure 3. Four'"MaJor" Cost Factors in Pupil Transportation for Ten Selected Counties in Michigan, 1956-1957. 113 applied to salaries paid, there still remain great extremes in variations. The method of computation was to multiply the nuInber of minutes the bus was operated per day by the number of days of school membership, convert the minutes into hours and divide the resultant figure into the number 01' (301 lars paid in salary. The resulting hourly wage paid to bus drivers shows a low of $1.29 per hour paid at Oxford in Oakland, County, to a high of $7.89 paid at the previously mentioned Redford Union School in Wayne County. The fallacy 0f th is time approach to bus drivers' salaries was pointed out by a report from one school which indicated it paid $1 - 0'7 per hour when the bus driver is "waiting," and $2.14 per hour when the bus driver is "driving."1 Some light was thrown on the uncertain status of bus drive rs by the 1957-1958 report of the Michigan School Busi- ness Official Survey of Salaries and Fringe Benefits. A quest; ionnaire was sent to all school districts in Michigan haV1ng an enrollment of over 800 pupils. 0f the 300 dis— tricts contacted, 75 replied. Twenty-two of the replies Were incomplete. Most of the 53 complete replies were from the southern half of the lower Pensinsula. Twelve of these 53 respondents went out of their way to point out that the bus drivers were part-time only and specified that ot he]? ci‘Lities, such as custodial or maintenance work was \ Committee of Publicity, Information, and Promotion, Sur Emplge of Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Business Area Off yees," First Annual Report, Michigan School Business icial 1957-1958, p. 55. (Mimeographed-) 114 given to the bus drivers. The lack of uniformity of paying bus dri‘vers was pointed out by the reports which indicated some monthly, some weekly, some some were paid annually, daily .9 some hourly, some by the "run" or the "trip." Further qualifications were put in by spelling out that women were paid at a lower rate than men, and that discrepancies were indicated by variations in pay by length of trip and some- times by length of service.1 Twenty-nine did specify that bus drivers qualified for sick leave, varying from two days non~cumulative to 12 days with unlimited accumulation. In most; cases it was specified that the sick leave was to be PTO—rated because of the part-time characteristics of bus dPiVing. In general, probably because of the part-time nature of the work, bus drivers qualified less often than did 0 ther school employees for such fringe benefits as paid hespi talization, severance pay, vacation pay, and sick leave. The arrangement of average hourly wages paid to bus drive rs by number of buses operated, shown in Figure 4, i“(ii-created there was more uniformity at the upper and lower end of the scale and more extreme in the middle or 10 to 18 bus group. In the one to nine bus group the range or average Salary paid was fairly consistent, varying from a low of $220 in the three bus group to a high Of 353-08 in the eight bus group. In the large (20 to 38) bus fleets, a consistent policy of hourly bus drivers' wages was apparent with a \\ 1 Ibid., p. 35. Hourly Wages Hourly Wages $7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 ' 1.00 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 l5 l6 $7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Number of Buses ) b b . b b . \/\/‘ \ I137 18 20 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 33 38 Number of Buses :Ffiiwégure 4. Hourly Wages Paid Bus Drivers According to Number of Buses Operated. 116 range from $2.04 to $3.38. The middle group (10 to 18) con— tains the extremes from $1.29 to $7.89. Strangely enough, the two schools with the marked variations represent adjoining size bus groups 13 and 12, respectively. It was interesting to note that Oxford transports 953 students at a salary cost of $13,730.05 or $14.40 per student, while Redford Union pays $61,555.20 for 1,063 or $57.90 per student. Aside from the extremes in the 11, 12, and 13 bus divisions, the average salaries followed a generally accepted pattern, varying from $1.82 per hour to $3.24 per hour. It should be kept in mind, however, these are average hourly wages and do not reflect some extremes. Table 21 shows a more mean- ingful breakdown of wages paid by all schools. In this analysis, the factor of metropolitan and non- metropolitan schools was injected again. The most consistent pattern was exemplified by the large (20 to 38) bus groups where hourly ranges of $2.01 to $3.38 was evident. All these schools were metropolitan since there were no out-state schools having more than 16 buses in the ten counties studied. Both the metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts in the small (1 to 9) schools group exhibit some extremes when they showed 18 below the $2.00 level and 10 schools above the $3.50 bracket. In the medium sized bus operations (10 t<318) six schools were below and five were above the large (20 to 38) bus range. As an added feature of Table 21, the summary of 17 School Business Officials, who reported on hourly wages for 117 :.cmpHHooosuozncoz:un.ospoan mscmpHHoooapozsun.ospmz* m s m mHmHonmo mmmCHmzm Hoocom an oousoomm nmwmz mezom .oaumZIZ H H m H m 3 .ospmz wMIOm H H H N H .OLpOZIZ m H H m H m m m H .OLumz wHIoH H H m H O m m sH m cm MH N w H rogumzaz H H H m N w m m m 3 m H *.0&pmz muH mm.m ,oo.m ”ms.m om.m .mm.m oo.m ms.a om.aa oo.ma ms.ma om.ma mm.ma oo.mn ms.sa om.sa sosom ozone mum ms.s om.s mm.s 00.: ms.m om.m om.sn mm.sa oo.sa ms.ma om.ma mm.ma mmwmz hHsSOm HOOmom m0 OHBmHmMBO¢m¢mo %m 024 QdemmmO mmmbm mo mmmzbz Wm mmMPHmQ mDm OB QHEses that efficient school bus transportation necessi- tatess sufficiently large school districts so 40 to 50 buses can t>IJthfield bus drivers are women.2 The importance of Womerl cirivers was stressed in the following admission by a Michigan school superintendent: . . we bow to the in— evitable-"women can successfully solve the school transpor- tation problem."3 ‘fiillile women drivers are very important in some areas, there. :1—53 some question that their employment actually results in financial savings. Little evidence has been preserlftzeed which indicated lesser salaries for women drivers \ lkppendix B. 22' Glenn Schoenhals, "School Bus Transportation in Sout p. lgfield," Michigan School Board Journal, April, 1958, :[bid. 121 than men drivers. There was no question that the employment of stud ent drivers does result in financial savings. The Governor of the State of South Carolina, James F. Byrnes, attributed much of the success of the pupil transportation in that state to the employment of 90 per cent student drivers at a montly salary of $25.00 to $35.00.1 The super- ior. skill of student drivers was extolled in a series of School Bus Roadeosat Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where 60 seniors, with unblemished records, finalists from as many districts competed for the state trophy. Advocates of use of students drivers are found in many areas - Twenty of the 37 states reported their use. Four states stated student drivers were more successful than either men or women. Six states found that men, women, and StUdents were equally successful. However, four states did report that students were the least successful of the three Categories. At a topic discussion group of the 1958 Ameri- can AS Sociation of School Administrator's Convention in Cleveland, the panel members of "Vexing Problems of School TIfingpo:rtation," all of whom represented areas below the Mason‘D :1xon line, agreed the use of student drivers had me rit, although it was observed that not all the audience Sh ared this view. 2 A Vita 1W. B. Southerlin, "State Control of Transportation Is 1 Part of South Carolina's Plan," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 52 (December, 1953), p. 63. ePanel Discussion, "Vexing Problems of Pupil Transpor- tati vent—3n : " American Association of School Administrator's Con- h on , Auditorium, Cleveland Board of Education, Cleveland, ’ 1Vlarch 31, 1958. UTIIere was no question that the employment of student bus drivers would result in financial savings. One writer listevving important observations favoring student drivers. Schools can be more selective with students. Students are familiar with operation. Student drivers can be subjected to a more intensive training program. Adequate substitute drivers are available when students are used. Student drivers make it possible for school officials to exercise close supervision over the transportation system. Highway patrolmen inspect driving habits, cleanliness of bus, condition of route, and mechanical condition of buses. '7 - Accident records show students to be as safe as adult drivers. WCWMH 0) It Should be pointed out that at least in some states the Statutes prevent the use of most students. In Michigan, a bus driver must be at least twenty-one years Of age to Qualinf‘zy- as a bus driver. Thus, legally the state is not in a p0841g13210n to consider the use of students as drivers. If the PI” :Lrne motive of this study was the reduction of pupil tran813<2>3rtation costs, then it might be in order to consider changing that statute, since almost half the costs of tran Sp<>:r-tation go to the driver of the school bus, and it \ NaticnjFE‘Vdallace N. Hyde, "When Students Drive the Buses," The s Schools, V01. 59, No. 3 (March, 1957), p. 55. """ stands to reason that students would drive for less money than adults generally receive. Summit‘s: There appears to be little inclination to cut costs of pupil transportation through a decrease in salaries paid to drivers. On the contrary, there was an implication that to secure better drivers more money must be paid. Multiple trips and additional remuneration for school related Jobs have been suggested as a means of attracting better drivers. Student drivers have been utilized in some areas with favorable results and decreased costs. Women drivers were almost universally used, but no noticeable evidence of decre a sed costs . Depreciation Depreciation represents the original cost of a SChOOl b113, divided by a specified number of years the bus is useable . Seven years was generally used for most buses. Some 0 f the larger, more expensive buses were depreciated over 61. ‘ten year period. The original cost of the bus, of Course , determines the cost of depreciation. 1:>£epreciation was the second largest of the cost factors in the ten selected Michigan counties studied. Table 17, page 89 of this dissertation, indicated that over-all 20.5 per cent of the total costs of pupil transportation were Consum ed in paying for school buses. The range varies from 124 a low of 16.375 per cent in Wayne County to a high of 28.835 per cent in Gratiot County. Table 22 presents an interesting aspect of the relation of size of bus group to the percentage of cost per bus going to depreciation. While the depreciation cost per bus was approximately the same, the percentage of cost for depreci- ation decreased as the size of bus fleet increased. The cost of school buses has long been an important factor in pupil transportation. When private horse drawn vehicles were contracted as early as 1871 the conveyances plus the driver were the largest (and often only) cost.1 In 1935, private ownership of buses still prevailed by a 65-35 margin. By 1958, the percentage of ownership was almost exactly reversed and the trend toward district-owner- ship firmly established.2 The extent of capital outlay payments for pupil transportation was pointed up by a recent report which credits the Los Angeles Public School system with operating 600 pieces of rolling equipment.3 During all this transition money paid for vehicles for pupil transpor- tation has been a costly item. 1National Education Association, Report of the Commit- tee of Twelve on Rural Schools (Chicago: University or Chicago Press, 18977, p. 1H. 2William McKillop, "School Bus Programs—-How The Grew," The Nation's Schools, LXII, No. 2 (August, 1958i, p. 38. 3"Editorial,” The Nation's Schools, LXII, No. 2 (August, 1958), p. 45. 125 awe. mm.sas sm.mee.w©m om.msm.m mam mmuom mam. mo.mos sm.smm.mmm ms.msm.m @mm manoH mam. ow.mos a sm.HHm.mHma mm.mwo.m a ms: m-H mam pom msm mom pmoo pmoo Hmpoe mam pom ompcommadmm @5090 pmoo Hmpoe coaumfioopaoa pmoo mwmpo>< momsm 909852 mam mo pcoo mom ZOHB1b be overstressed. These should be so drawn that tires , batteries, generator, and other items of equipment are Eidequately spelled out for the size of the bus. These bids should be opened and read at a public meeting with at least a week intervening in order to tabulate and analyze the bids before a contract is awarded.1 One article in The Nation‘s Schools pointed out 25 items to consider in selecting school bus equipment and 12 pl?c>cedures which help to keep prices down when buses were 'DllIFChased. Some specific recommendations in this article are as follows:2 1. School districts can save 10—20% on the cost of a bus by dealing direct with the manufacturer. 2. Demand a one year guarantee supported by a perfor- mance bond. Demand delivery one week before acceptance time. 4. Prepare proper forms that make up the contract documents, such as: a. legal bid invitation form for advertising, b. general conditions and instructions to bidder, 0. general specifications, d. forms by which manufacturer may submit complete specifications, e. bid proposal form should be on first page of contract documents so bid proposal can be easily read, f. form of purchase agreement. Di 1John T. Sidener, "Buy School Buses Wisely," The lEEEQpn’s Schools, Vol. 33 (September, 1942), p. 39. 2Ibid. 133 That the adoption of business-like competitive practices for the purchase of school business would result in tremendous SfiVings was evidenced by the action of county boards of edu- cation in Alabama in 1951 when they purchased 48-passenger buses for about $2,700.00 each, delivered.l These buses were on standard chassis of the low priced makes, with bodies from leading manufacturers. These buses did meet all national min‘imum construction specifications, but had only a. few items of additional equipment. Heaters, for example, were not needed in Alabama and were not furnished at bid prices. These large scale purchases at competitive bidding re sulted in a per seat price of.$56.25. The Oakland County Survey previously quoted showed almost twice as much paid per seat, although it must be admitted that the majority of those buses had been purchased since 1951 when inflation had taken its toll. One other Michigan school proposed a unique method of 13118 purchasing which ostensibly saved money. This technique certainly mollified local dealers because the bus chassis was purchased from local dealers on an alternating schedule at: 10 per cent above dealer cost.2 The bus bodies were then Fnlzcchased after competitive bidding by leading bus body distributors with the understanding that they would attach .1“__* lPupil Transportation, 1953 Yearbook, op. cit., p. 1A8. 2Charles G. Coggins, "How the Holly Area School Dis- tI‘ict Bu 3 a Bus," Michigan School Board Journal (Midland, Michigan , April, 1958, pp. 15-T7. 134 the body to the chassis. The cost per seat for this school distpi ct was $96.85 which does reflect somewhat of a savings 0V9? the generally accepted figure of $100.00 per seat cur- rently being espoused as a standard. Summary of Depreciation Costs The use of such devices as complete and detailed specifications, competitive bidding from a wide area for ac‘C'eptable constructed school buses, joint purchasing where possible, uniformity of makes and models of school buses, 111 short the adoption of whatever methods possible to effect eConomical purchasing of school buses, will be a great stride forward in effecting savings on‘depreciation, the second largest cost factor in pupil transportation. Total Maintenance Total maintenance, as used in this study, denotes all Costs which relate to maintenance of school buses. It made no difference whether the costs were incurred in school garages with district employed mechanics or in private garages with contracted or non-contracted mechanics. In the state of Michigan seven categories were combined to form to tal maintenance. Four of these were school administered and three were privately controlled. The school supervised ea~13egories were supplies and repair parts (school garage), mechanic's salary, school garage operation, and garage equip- ment and repairs. The three non-school categories were 135 maintenance at private garage—~repair parts, maintenance at private garage--1abor, and storage of buses. Table 17 shows that in the over-all picture of the ten counties studied, Total Maintenance rated a strong third in cost factors in pupil transportation with a total 0f $621,147.25, or almost 16 per cent of the gross amount. Only in two counties (Delta and Ottawa) was Total Mainten- ance nudged out of third place by Gasoline, and then by a narrow margin. Table 18 reiterated the strong third place position of Total Maintenance, both in the metropolitan and non-metropolitan classification. It should be kept in mind that Table 18 is not all inclusive. The only groups included were those 13 bus groups between one and 16 which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan school dis— tricts. The results of Table 18 indicated that the metro- pOlitan schools spend an average of $171.40 more per bus than do the out-state schools. In spite of this marked Variation per bus, each remains strongly entrenched in third place. With such a variation evident between metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools, it would seem likely that some v8oI‘iation might likewise exist among the seven factors in Total Maintenance. Figure 5 utilized the three divisions in terms of size of buses as applied to the seven factors. It was evident that four items assumed major proportions, While three were relatively less important. The last item in Figure 5 indicated, in general, the aVerage maintenance cost per bus was greatest in the middle .mmmsm mo mmNHm mouse spas whopomm umoo mommcopsamz Hmpoe co>om mo momentasoo .m mssmfim paddmm can cofipmaodo mwmnaw mmmmoa owwawu pcmsdasum owmamw owmaopm 6chnooz Hoocom ouw>aam opm>aam owwaoa HoO%6m mam Hoonow pm spasm pd aonmq no mppwm L _ h p _ M ”It!“ \ " JKV)’ \[ull \\ / .. 666.3. /IN.\\\\ 9 It a. lllllll f oooaom 4%, / \\ / xx . I ..l 5. ram // /\ , \\ \\ ooo om I l ,/ , \. wzmlx..\.\\\\. ; 666.6: / / x \ \\ x i 666.6m / /\ \ / _.. 666.66 / I: .1 666.6» \ .. 666.8 mmmdm muH III.I.I (\ I ooo.om l 1... I 666.66% semen ©H.OH monsm mmaom lint: "cummmq 137 group (10-18 buses), while the least money was spent for the smallest group (1-9 buses). The increased cost per bus in the middle sized group was also indicated by a second glance 511: Table 24, which showed the highest percentage was maintained by this same group. Here a total of 18.23 per cent was spent for maintenance, which was almost four per cent more than either the 1-9 or the 20-38 groups of buses. Wpects of Total Maintenance The striking part of Figure 5 was the important 9031tion of Item 12, or school mechanic's salary. As might be eXIDected, the schools operating 1-9 buses spent less for me chanic's salary. Nevertheless, this amounted to $69-77 per bus, which represented more than any group spent on factors of storage, garage operation, or garage equipment or repair. This too was more than the largest group spent on either repair parts or labor at private garages. The increasing relative importance of a mechanic as the size Of the fleet increased was vividly portrayed by Figure 5. The Often asked question as to the point in number of buses Where a mechanic can justifiably be employed will be treated later in this discussion. At this time it is important to nOte that more than 30.52 per cent of the cost of maintenance W33 Censumed by school mechanics. Approximately ten per cent less (20.56%) was spent on labor at private garages. Paralleling labor at private garages was the item of parts at private garages. Interestingly enough, throughout the 138 TABLE 24 PERCENTAGES OF TEN COST FACTORS BASED ON SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE BUS FLEETS IN 1956-1957 —__n \ Per Cent Dollars COS'G Factors (Per Bus) (Per Bus) Group 1 - 9 Buses Salary 41.86 $1,299-M4 Deprec iation 23,036 708. 60 Total Maintenance 14 . 97 462 . 24 Gasol ine 11.081 340.87 Insurance 2. 598 79-93 Admini stration 2.171 66.79 Tires 1 . 688 51.94 011 1.136 34.95 Inte I’e 813-952 29-30 Drive r Education . 5045 15 . 52 Group 10 - l8 Buses Salary 43,051 1,410.14 Depre c iation 21.526 705.08 Total Maintenance 18 . 232 597 . l9 Gasoline 8.676 284.18 Insurance l .792 58-72 Admini stration 3.751 122-87 Tire s 1.08 35.40 011 .658 21.56 Inte Pe st .7897 25.87 Drive 1" Education .4418 14.47 N Group 20 - 38 Buses —\ Salary 248.58 1 ,915.32 Deprec iation 18.118 7114-33 Total Maintenance 14.244 561. 61 Ga801 line 8099 319.31 Insurance 1.386 514 - 63 Administration 6-931 273'26 011 .586 23.10 Enterest .4847 19,11 river Education .39 15-38 139 study the cost figures of parts and labor approximated each other. The final calculations showed that parts at private garages (20.00%) was about one-half of one per cent less than lachzr. Trailing slightly behind both parts at private garages and labor at private garages was the item of parts at school garages with a total of 18.66 per cent of the total. As a sidelight to the comparison of parts at school and private garages, when the factor of normal discount was inClllded, the value of parts at school garages should some- what Surpass the value of parts at private garages. WAspects of Total Maintenance The three minor aspects of Total Maintenance, namely, Storage, school garage operation, and garage equipment and I'epE-ZT—le“ss, accounted for a combined total of less than ten per cent. To gloss over the three minor factors as simply accounting for less than ten per cent of the Total Mainten- ance (cost may be a gross injustice to these items. It could be that the buses which were stored adequately either in privately rented garages, or in school garages were kept in such better condition that they could be used longer then the Standard seven years, or could be sold to private con— cerns for more money than those buses which were not stored 0‘9 cared for in garages. An entirely separate study could well be conducted on those lines alone. The recent application of the Transportation Code of 1954, as amended, provided the same capital outlay payment ($14.00 per eligible 140 child) for a bus over seven years of age as for a bus under seven years of age. This was a tremendous incentive for school Officials to take better care of buses in order to Dart10113£ate in the capital outlay payment for longer than the customary seven year period. However, the part played by Storage, school garage operation, and garage equipment and repairs as a factor in longer bus operation was unknown. It would appear reasonable to assume that additional monies Spent in this direction would be helpful, but there were no known available statistics to support this supposition. The direct relationship of a school bus mechanic to SChOOl garage operation, equipment, and storage was pointed up by a survey of school bus mechanics at 19 representative 301300]. systems surrounding Central Michigan College. The P9311]. ts showed that 18 of the 19 mechanics worked full-time on 203 buses, utilizing lll garage stalls.1 The survey f'UI‘ther showed that 44, or more than one-third of the total, were heated stalls. Six of the 19 mechanics conducted minor repairs, only, while 13 were expected to perform major repairs. W A School Bus Mechanic Needed There has been considerable conjecture as to the point in the size of the bus fleet where it becomes economically feasible to employ a school mechanic. From the standpoint \ Sch 1"Survey of School Bus Mechanics at 19 Representative 001 Systems," School Bus Driver Education, Central m ichigan College, 1957, p. 1. (Mimeographed.) 141 of practice in the ten counties studied, that point lies between the eight and nine bus fleet. Table 25 shows only three school systems under the eight bus category employ a school mechanic. In every group above the eight bus cate- gory, more than half the transporting schools employed their own bus repairmen. In the case of the eight bus systems, less than half employed a mechanic. A New York transpor- tation specialist stated flatly that a school district operating a fleet of ten buses can Justify a full—time mechanic.1 He stated further that when the bus fleet gets as large as from 15-20 units, two full-time mechanics were needed. Between 10 and 15 units a mechanic's helper can be employed to help the mechanics. A 1948 report from the United States Office of Edu— cation pinpoints more specifically the recommended use of mechanics. "A full mechanic with a driver helper is sug- gested for the operation of a fleet of eleven to fifteen buses."2 From six to ten buses a driver-mechanic and a driver-helper were offered as a solution, and a driver- mechanic alone for the three to five bus group. No mechanic was suggested for those schools operated fewer than three buses.3 1M. G. Osborne, "Transportation," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 1958), p. 73. 2E. Glenn Featherston, School Bus Maintenance, U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 2 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1948), p. 40. 31bid., p. 42. 142 TABLE 25 ‘RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE OF BUS FLEET OPERATED TO THE USE OF SCHOOL BUS MECHANICSl Number Number of Schools of Buses Number of Using School Bus % Using School Operated Schools Mechanics Bus Mechanics l 26 0 0 2 l7 0 0 3 11 O O 4 ll 0 0 5 9 l I ' 11.11 6 9 l 11.11 7 12 1 8.33 8 12 5 41.66 9 3 2 66 66 10 3 2 66.66 11-18 20 13 65.00 20-38 14 10 71.42 1 A school system was considered as using a mechanic or mechanics if it paid over $2,000.00 to a mechanic, or if the total amount spent on school garage parts and school mechanic exceeded that of parts and labor at private garages. 143 Appendix C contains as a summary of recommendations on personnel, garage facilities, and equipment necessary for bus fleets of various sizes listing both desirable and essential accomodations. Cost of School Mechanics Having established both the relatively high position of school bus mechanics in the cost of total maintenance, and the relatively high percentage of larger school dis— tricts which do maintain buses through the use of school mechanics, the next step was to analyze the actual costs of maintenance in the districts with school bus mechanics. The arrangement of Table 26 reveals there are 34 school districts in the ten counties which fulfill the definition previously given of a school bus mechanic. Ten schools represent the 1-9 and the 20-38 bus groups, while 14 schools were middle sized in that 10-18 buses were operated. While the number of schools in each group do not vary markedly, the number of buses serviced by mechanics do vary. Only 76 buses were found in the l-9 group, while 202 and 281 were listed in the middle sized and large group, respectively. It was interesting to note the costs average almost $100.00 higher with the smaller number of buses. The three schools with the greatest cost were all found in the small group. As a further evidence of cost stability in larger sized 1Appendix C condensed from ibid., pp. 40-42. 144 TABLE 26 COMPARISON OF COSTS OF 34 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FURNISHING SCHOOL BUS MAINTENANCE BY MECHANICS IN SCHOOL OPERATED GARAGES No. Total Maintenance SChOOl Buses Costs Cost Per Bus Riverdale 5 $ 4,442.28 $ 888.45 Allegan 6 4,005.76 667.72 Fulton 7 4,791.63 684.52 South Haven 8 4,904.75 613.09 Fennville 8 3,467.91 433.48 Hopkins 8 7,020.75 877.59 Shiawassee #1 8 4,455.18 556.89 Shiawassee #9 8 7,051.90 881.48 Martin 9 4,122.31 458.03 New Haven 9 6,832.38 753.59 TOTAL 1-9 Buses 76 $51,044.77 671.64 Covert 10 $ 4,216.81 421.68 Shiawassee #3 10 4,970.09 497.00 Wayland 11 4,854.15 441.28 Redford Union 12 7,441.08 620.09 Brandon 14 9,157.52 654.09 Wayne 15 12,734.53 850.30 Mattawan 15 6,474.58 431.63 OtSego 15 11,590.09 772.67 Plainwell 16 8,407.74 525.48 South Lyon 16 10,398.94 649.93 Pontiac 16 6,951.47 434.46 Lake Orion 17 7,417.62 436.29 Romeo 17 8,427 04 495.70 Clarkston 18 15,152 18 841.78 TOTAL 10-18 Buses 202 $118,193.24 579.34 Romulus 22 $ 10,256.44 $ 466.20 Rochester 23 15,871.52 690.06 Holly 24 8,434.74 351.44 Walled Lake 24 18,958.80 789.95 Waterford 28 16,889.16 603.18 Huron Valley 29 17,377.72 599.23 Taylor Township 30 18,476.85 615.56 Southfleld 3O 16,692.91 556.43 Birmingham 33 20,775.63 629.56 Utica 38 19,634.54 516.69 TOTAL 20-38 Buses 281 $163,368.30 $ 581.38 vi ,; JFPLr _ -i ii iii 145 fleets, no school paid over $800.00 maintenance per bus in the 20-38 bus group, and only one in excess of $700.00. This largest group also contained the most economical cost per bus when Holly maintained 24 buses at a cost of $351.44 per bus. While Table 26 indicated school mechanic or mechanics were more economically used in larger bus fleets, their effectiveness could best be measured by a comparison of costs with those schools not employing mechanics. Strangely enough, there was almost an equal division of school buses which were serviced by school mechanics and those maintained in private garages. Although the literature generally pointed up the advantages of school mechanics, the economy of school bus maintenance clearly favored the private garages (see Table 27). In this study, 581 buses were maintained at an average cost of $475.61. On the other hand, 561 buses cost 24.6 per cent more to maintain with the use of school mech- anics at the average annual cost of $592.88. Only in the 10—18 bus group did the school garaged buses show to advan- tage. Even in this group, it was only through a re-examin- ation of data resulting in a shift of a school, with the most costly maintenanced buses, from the mechanic to the non- mechanics column that made this possible. In this case, a Wayne County school, with 14 buses, purchased $4,533.21 worth of parts at the school garage, but they did not qualify in terms of the amount of money spent for mechanic's salary. Hence, they were shifted to the non-mechanics group. This 146 TABLE 27 COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE COSTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH AND WITHOUT SCHOOL BUS MECHANICS IN 1956-1957 No. Group Classification Buses Total Cost Cost Per Bus 1-9 School Mechanics 76 $ 51,044.77 $671.64 No School Mechanics 367 153,729.77 418.88 All 1-9 Buses 443 . 204,774.54 462.24 10-18 School Mechanics 202 118,193.24 579.34 No School Mechanics 124 76,489.49 616.84 All 10-18 Buses 326 194,682.73 594.11 20-38 School Mechanics 281 163,368.30 581.38 No School Mechanics 92 46,112.79 501.22 All 20-38 Buses 373 209,481.09 561.61 All Buses School Mechanics 561 $332,606.31 . $592.88 No School Mechanics 581 276,332.05 475.61 147 school district spent a disproportionately large amount of money for maintenance-—$324.66 per bus more than any other school to be exact. Their placement in the mechanics or non-mechanics column meant a great deal of difference. Apparently, this school had an unusual amount of mainten- ance which may have been caused by some accidents. At any rate they were placed in the non—mechanics listing. The middle bus group did show an advantage for school mechanics, while the original placement in the mechanics column followed the pattern of the other groups with a pronounced financial advantage for those school districts who had school bus maintenance work done in private garages. The range of advantage of this latter group varied from 33.9 per cent down to 24.6 per cent, depending on whether the most expensive school was placed in the school mechanic or the non-mechanic group. For practical purposes, the advantage of hiring outsiders to do maintenance work on school buses varied from one—third, down to one-fourth. In the light of this information, a school district should reflect carefully before embarking upon a school- Operated bus maintenance program which often necessitates a capitaloutlay for a bus garage, and garage equipment, before any maintenance work can be started. The following arguments were generally advanced favoring school mechanics: 1. The work can be done sooner by school mechanics thus obviating time lost for lay up of buses in private garages. 2. Work done by school mechanics is superior since they can specialize on school buses. 148 3. Preventive maintenance can be practiced better in school garages. 4. Additional work such as washing and cleaning of buses can better be done in school garages. 5. Parts can be purchased more economically in school garages. 6. Buses serviced in school garages will last longer. 7. The use of bus mechanics permits lower cost on other items such as gasoline, oil, and tires. In spite of the above arguments, the results of Table 27, indicated that from the standpoint of annual cost, school buses serviced by school mechanics were more expen— sive than those serviced in private garages. There were a few shreds of comfort for those who advocate school operated maintenance centers. In the first 'place, the presence of school mechanics appears to give some stability to bus maintenance costs. There was much less variation in costs per bus. With the school mechanics, the range was from a low of $351.44 to a high of $888.45, while the private garages resulted in a low of $12.80 to the previously mentioned high of $1,213.11. Secondly, the experience of the 20-38 bus groups with a preponderance of 281 to 92 buses favoring school mechanics, indicated that at least the larger fleets find school mechanics desirable, even if expensive. Thirdly, the higher costs per bus in the middle and large bus fleets for the private garages as opposed to the cost of the smaller fleets, would indicate that the use of private garages was no assurance of lower costs in the light of probable increased transportation in the future. 149 Savings in Gasoline, Tires, and Oil by SEhoOl‘MeChanics While the three shreds of comfort for those advocating school operated maintenance centers were cloaked in general- ities as in general are the advantages commonly listed in the literature, there was one statement which can be meas- ured objectively. This was argument number seven (7) which was as follows: (7) the use of bus mechanics permit lowered costs on items such as gasoline, oil, and tires. Apparently statement number 7 was based on the assump- tion that the use of school mechanics with school owned gasoline tanks, oil containers, and tire supplies would result in savings in the costs of gasoline, oil, and tires. The information presented by Table 28 showed this was precisely the case. Not only was there savings in each of the three cost factors, but the combination of savings ef- fected a major economy of school bus operation. The results pointed up the importance of gasoline as a major cost factor and the relative lesser importance of oil and tires. Never- theless, the total net result was an advantage of $103.03 per bus for those school districts employing school bus mechanics. The savings were evident in every division of each of the three cost factors except in the case of the 1-9 bus group where tires for the 76 school serviced buses were slightly higher than the average of the 367 buses serviced by private garages. In the totals of all buses the tire 150 h Heo L sm.o:za mofinmnooz Hoonom 02 H OAHB H mam 90m mpmoo :m.smma moacmnooz Hoonom hogaaommc H oopne mo Hopoe om.mm so.om o:.mmm New. ms.mms.oom msa.msm Hmm hoesorooz Hoorom oz ms.ma No.6: mm.msm ASH. mm.som.omH Hmo.amm Hom mossocooz Hoorom woman flea ss.m: mm.sq mq.amm mma. ms.mao.mm mmm.mmH mm moasorooz Hoorom oz m:.oa mm.ms mm.mmm mos. 3H.Hmo.mw www.mam Hmm messages: Hoocom mm-om Hm.om ofi.mm sm.smm mmfl. om.ommlas smm.mom ewe moasmrocz Hoocom oz mm.ma oH.mw sm.Hmm ems. sm.mam.om mos.osm «on searches: Hoocow mauoa sm.om ms.om mm.omm «mm. wa.szw.wma mmm.msm som messages: Hoorom oz as.mm % os.sma om.qmme HSH.$ Hm.mom.mme mwm.mmH ms moacorooz Hoorom one mfim .Hmm mfim .Hmm mfimn hmm COHHmO mCHHomwO mQHHommO mmwdm GOHpMOHhHmmmHO mmmdm omoo HHo pmoo spas pmoo one son so omoo do .oz pnoo msoaamu moHZ¢momz doomom BDomBHz mmomB Qz< mon sallary items, school Officials have considerable latitude as to whether or not salary is charged to transportation. TTiiss observation appeared especially applicable to smaller lBruce Howat (ed.), "Contract Haulers Have S ecial Problems," Mass Transportation, LXX (February,l956 , p. 49. 160 161 sdmd. systems in which duties carry over into other flaws and the school administrator chose to ignore possi- tflefractional charges to transportation and allocated the amalcosts to general school administration. In some sdmols the elimination of charges directed against trans- mutation can result in increased financial benefits, pamflcularly in cases where non-resident tuition was a factor in school finances. In some cases no doubt the question of administrative salaries was simply overlooked. Pkgardless of the reason, the fact remains that in many cases administration was not listed. Of the 147 schools included in the study, only 82 reported administrative costs. Sixty-five schools did not bother to include this minor cost factor at all. There was a direct relationship to administrative costs and the size of the fleet operated. As the size of the fleet increased, there was a greater tendency for administrative costs to go up. Only two of the 26 schools operurting one bus listed administrative expenses, and then on137 $25.00 each. On the other hand, every one of the sckmxols within the 20-38 bus group listed some administra- tivc: costs. In the middle sized group (10-18 buses) 73.91 per cent of the school districts listed administrative costs. Figure 6 shows graphically the general trend of illczwaased administrative costs with increases in the bus Table 24 reiterates the growing importance of fleet. a low of aChniluistration in the over-all cost factors with 162 Administration 4.45% Insurance 1.911% Tires 1,3109% Interest .85% Oil & Grease .7962; .440 Driver Edu. Figure 6. Six "Minor" Cost Factors in Pupil Transportation for Ten Selected Counties in Michigan, 1956-1957. 163 2J71 per cent being reported in the 1—9 bus group and a kmglof 6.93 per cent in the large bus fleet category. There was a noticeable relationship between the gxgraphical location Of the school and administrative implement this action of the legislature. A committee of? school administrators was selected to meet with the De- partment officials to inaugurate a transportation program ixncorporating the new legislation. The committee was ccnmposed of the following members:1 Glenn Loomis, Walter 1Minutes of the meeting on Transportation Code, House (gf' Representatives, Lansing, Michigan, Sept. 10, 1957, p. l. 193 194 Gumser, W. T. Simmons, James Ten Brink, Clare Ebersole, Claude Elmore, Clifford Smart, Rev. V. J. Hawkins, Willis Bates, Ted Butler, Leslie Green, John A. VanderArk, S. J. Roth, and Austin Bates. Before examining the methodology and accomplishments of the committee, a review of the factors leading up to the transportation dilemma of 1957 would be helpful for an understanding of the problem. Background of Pupil Transportation Dilemma Transportation at public expense for school children in Michigan was first made possible by a law enacted in 1903. This law was concerned primarily with consolidating schools through a state supported pupil transportation pro- grenn very little consolidation or transportation resulted, however, because of poor roads, inadequate vehicles, and .high tuition costs.1 In 1917, the Rural Agricultural :School Act was designed to give real impetus to school con— solidation through pupil transportation. The Act was :refined in 1931 to encourage fewer and better elementary and secondary schools, larger area cooperation, and a more pnmactical use of buildings and equipment.2 In 1935, the legfislature passed an act which authorized primary, graded, 1Fred J. Vescolani, Buses and the Schools, Professional :Serdes Bulletin No. 20 (East Lansing, Michigan: College of Ekiucation, Michigan State University, 1956), p. 4. 21bid. W 195 rural agricultural, and township school districts to provide transportation within the district, although only the latter two were reimbursed from state funds for this action.1 In 1936, primary, graded, and township districts were permitted to close specified grades, transport them to another school, and receive reimbursement up to $40.00 per child.2 The following calendar of transportation allowances exemplified the increasing reimbursement allowances per child: 1933 P.A. 236 Sec. 7 Maximum $30 per year per pupil 1935 P.A. 192 Sec. 7 Maximum $40 per year per pupil 1945 P.A. 368 Sec. 6 Maximum $45 per year per pupil 1947 P.A. 331 Sec.34 Maximum $50 per year per pupil 1958 P.A. 26 Sec.l6 Maximum $60 per year per pupil As the allowance per pupil increased over the years, the allowance to school districts increased as the following tabulations indicate:3 1945 . . . . . . $ 1,293,102.15 1950 . . . . . . $ 6,477,967.83 1955 . . . . . . $11,266,966.82 This increasing cost of transportation which siphoned (off funds which otherwise would have been distributed to 1Pupil Transportation in Michigan, Bulletin No. 401 (Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction, 1937),p.'h 2 3 Ibid., pp. 8-9. Vescolani, op. cit., p. 6. 196 school districts on the state aid formula, plus legislative restrictions, was the problem which faced department officials and the transportation committee in September of 1957. To further complicate matters, the transportation payment for 1957-1958 was was to be based on the 1956-1957 report. In other words, the legislative decision was retroactive, all students living between a mile and a mile and a half were to be deleted from state reimbursement for transportation, and the school districts had no prior knowledge of this action. Committee Reaction to the Problem The committee took a realiStic approach to the problem by proposing rules and regulations for the Administrative Code. The acting chairman stated that: The purpose of the Code is to distribute the money available in the best way possible to all types of school districts.1 Ike further stated that as costs and conditions changed, some adjustments should be made. He stressed that because cxf the 12 million dollar limitation set by the legislature, tfiua formula probably could not be paid in full. In that event, the school districts would be paid on a pro rata basis. There ensued a lengthy session of questions and answers for the most part dealing with specific examples of 1Comments of George Schutt, from the Minutes of the Meeting on Transportation, September 10, 1957, p. 4. 197 local situations. In one case it was pointed out that one district which practiced the philosophy of neighborhood attendance centers or diffused elementary schools would be penalized because of the mile and a half restriction. In another case, the question was asked whether the mile and a half distance meant the straightest distance to the school, or did the mile and a half follow the highway from the child‘s home. Other questions concerned the necessity of providing transportation to pupils in areas where road traffic hazards and a lack of sidewalks existed. The answer was, it was up to the local districts to determine whether or not pupil transportation was to exist, but if a child lived less than a mile and a half from school as measured by highway mileage, that child was not eligible for reim— bursement from state funds.1 The question of relative values of the four areas of state aid was discussed with the amount for operation being stressed above that of capital outlay, insurance, or bus driver education, because "if you make an analysis of the whole transportation costs you will find 65% is for drivers' salaries;"2 While the minutes indicate that not everyone was satisfied with the provisions, there was general agreement that the policies were fair and the participants would '"wait and see" how the program worked out. 1From the Minutes of the State Meeting on Pupil Trans— portation, House of Representatives, Lansing, Michigan, September 10, 1957, pp. 2-4. 21bid., p. 4. 198 Provisions of Pupil Transportation Agreement Basically, the final agreement embodied these provi- sions: (1) there would be four distinct types of allowances; (2) the maximum per capita allowance would remain at $60.00; (3) if the total costs of transportation exceeded $12,000,000, then an over-all percentage cut would be made reducing the allowable $12,000,000 limitation. The innovation of four distinct types of allowances resulted in this type of arrangement: 1. Capital Outlay Allowance for Buses The capital outlay allowance provided for a pay- ment of $14.00 a seat for the manufacturers rated capacity of each bus figures on a minimum of 13 lineal inches per person. Ifthe total eligible (more than 1-1/2 miles distant from the school) children trans- ported were less than the manufacturers rated capacity of the bus, this number would be used to determine the capital outlay allowance. The rated capacity multiplied by $14.00 was the maximum financial allowance per bus for capital outlay. However, the limitation of seven years per bus was lifted. In other words, as long as this bus was operated on a regular route, the $14.00 allowance per seat was in effect. 2. Allowance for Operation In this computation the number of students per mile was determined. This result was given a value 199 carrying from 18 to 26 cents, depending on the density per mile. The value per mile was then multiplied by the total annual map mileage as certi- fied by the county superintendent of schools. From this was subtracted a deduction based on the number of ineligible children carried. This deduction was either $8.00, or 25 per cent of the per capita cost, whichever was higher. 3. Allowance for Insurance The allowance for insurance was $42.00 per bus in daily use, or the actual cost of insurance, which- ever was less. The computation of insurance costs included public liability, property damage, and com- prehensive insurance. Other types of insurance, such as pupil accident or collisionwere non-reimburseable. 4. Allowance for Bus Driver Education Bus driver education, as we have noted earlier, was a relatively unimportant factor in over-all costs. However, its inclusion here was a recognition of its importance, and an indication of some status. The actual provisions included the number of drivers who attend eight or more hours of training at $12.50 per driver, or actual cost. In addition, the drivers were allowed meals and mileage at seven cents a mile. 200 Analysis of Four Allowances Under the Transportation Code Allowance for Capital Outlay The $14.00 allowance per seat per year was fair and equitable. It eliminated the old practice of the willing— ness of some districts to accept any price on a school bus, because "the state paid for it anyway" over a seven year period. It encouraged districts to shop wisely for the best buy in school buses. It also encouraged better care and the practive of preventive maintenance, because the $14.00 allowance was not limited to a seven year period. The Minutes of the Committee Meeting revealed that $14.00 per seat represented the average cost of school buses in Wayne and Oakland Counties.1 The Oakland County School Business Officials final report in 1957 substantiated that contention.2 It was true that a school district would have to purchase a bus for a little less than $100.00 a seat in order to amortize this cost over a seven year period. Most 60 passenger buses are currently selling for more than $6,000, but with proper care an eight or nine year depreci— ation figure can be achieved so there is no great loss on the capital outlay allowance. Table 37 presents the most compelling evidence favoring the adequacy of $14.00 per seat as reimbursement lIbid., p. 1. 2Oakland County School Business Officials, op. cit., pp. 18-23. .‘ilil . lrE 1111 .. .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 1 201 TABLE 37 WAYNE COUNTY CAPITAL OUTLAY COST FOR SCHOOL BUSES IN THE 1956-1957 SCHOOL YEAR fi Number Seating Cost Per Capacity Reported Capacity Total Cost Seat 48 82 3,936 $ 342,627.50 $ 87.04 54 33 1,782 161,171.72 90.44 60 104 6,240 607,937.59 97.42 66 1 66 6,854.80 103.86 73 4 292 44,807.89 153.45 TOTAL 12,314 $1,163,399.50 $ 94.47 for capital outlay. This Wayne County report emphatically shows that in every case, except the 66 and 73 passenger buses, the would more five buses $14.00 a seat over the normal seven year period than compensate for the cost of the buses. Only were at stake in these latter two categories. The average cost per seat of all Wayne County buses reported was $94.47, and in the seven year period a total of $98.00 would have been allowed, assuming that these buses utilized to full capacity. then fewer buses should have been used. that $14.00 per seat was not enough were not aware If full loads were not Those who were carried, argue of the facts unless Oakland and Wayne Counties were atypical. It should also be kept in mind that the $14.00 per seat was rust confined to a seven year period. Given good care, with .adequate maintenance there would be no reason why the capital 202 outlay payment of $14.00 per seat would not be continued for nine or ten years, or even longer. A cursory glance at Table 37 might lead one to believe that the smaller capacitied buses were the best buses from the standpoint of capital outlay. This would be a mis- leading conclusion, occasioned largely by the fact that the 48 passenger buses were generally older and purchased when prices were lower. Conversations with school bus salesmen lead one to believe that 60 passenger and larger buses are now in vogue. It was noteworthy, too, concerning the most expensive cost factor, that of drivers' salaries, that it was not customary to pay any more for driving a 60 passenger bus than a 48 passenger vehicle. The net result was that on a per seat basis the larger buses were more economically operated in terms of drivers' salaries. This, plus improvements in bus specifications and minimum stand- ards,l along with the need to transport increased number of pupils has resulted in a trend in recent years for larger vehicles. It must be readily admitted that it was difficult to purchase buses at this time within the $14.00 allowance margin, but when this capital outlay figure was considered in the light of the age of the buses, the $14.00 figure was adequate. This figure may have to be revised later, 1National Commission on Safety Education, Minimum Standards for School Buses (1954 revised edition; WasfiIngton, D. C.: ‘National Education Association, 1934), p. 23. 203 but it was inconceivable at the time of this study that one of the four allowances would permit school districts to receive more allowance from the state than was actually occasioned by the expenditure. This was particularly true when good business practices enable districts to purchase buses economically. The establishment of a higher figure at a time when transportation allowances were being cut back, would appear to be wishful thinking with too much emphasis on original cost instead of sufficient scrutiny of the larger and more important factor of allowance for operation. Allowance for Operation The allowance for operation was based on three factors only. These factors could well be termed the "Three D‘s," distance, density, and deductions. The first was the total annual mileage of all buses as established by local school officials and certified by the county superintendent of schools. The second was the factor of density which will be explained in some detail later. The third was a deductible factor in which the cost of transporting non- eligible children was subtracted from the gross allowance for operation. A non-eligible child was one who lived and attended school within the corporate limits of a village or city, or one who lives less than a mile and a half of the school he attended. By far the greater number of children were in the latter category. A figure of either $8.00, or 204 25 per cent of the per capita cost of operation, whichever was greater, was used as the penalty for each non—eligible child conveyed. The first, and probably the most important factor in allowance for operation, was that of the total annual mileage traveled by the bus fleet of a school district. The ten cost factors were vitally influenced by the total distance covered by buses. Most school districts were able to compute their cost on a bus mile basis. Obviously, the greater number of miles the buses went on a yearly basis, the greater was the cost to the school district. Reimburse- ment to the school district from state funds was likewise made on the basis of the actual combined miles of buses carrying eligible students to and from school. The costs of additional miles involved in the use of buses for excursions, additional trips, or in any activity except for transporting students to and from school was expected to be defrayed by the local school district. Local school districts had been advised by state transportation officials to keep the use of school buses for extended trips to a minimum, and then only after evaluating the returns from such activities. That extra trip mileage was important was indicated by the State School Bus Transportation Summary which showed 2,343,397 extra miles traveled in 1956-1957. This represented 4.5 per cent of the total of 51,070,220 miles covered by school buses during that year in the state of Michigan. This mileage was the combined mileages of 893 205 transporting school districts which received reimbursement from state funds. This reimbursement, in turn, was dis- tributed on a mileage basis varying from 18 to 26 cents ‘per mile. The more densely populated areas were favored on the following scale: less than one student per mile. . . $.18 l but less than two per mile . . . .20 2 but less than three per mile. . . .22 3 but less than four per mile . . . .24 4 or more per mile. . . . . . . .26 Density, or the number of pupils transported per mile, has been shown to be closely related to the unit cost of pupil transportation. According to Hutchins, "While density itself may not directly affect the costs, yet there are many conditions which vary with density and which do produce changes in the unit cost of transportation."2 Ten years earlier, in 1930, a California study recog- nized the importance of density but stated flatly that "data are lacking to evaluate the effect of the density of school population."3 In 1927, a New Jersey study presented a com- plicated mathematical formula which featured the density of 1"State Aid Allowance for Transportationj'Department of Public Instnlction, Lansing, Michigan, n. d., p. l. (Mimeographed.) 2C. D. Hutchins, "Determining Costs of Pupil Transpor- tation," The Nation's Schools, xxv, No. 5 (May, 1940), p. 34. 3Frank 0. Evans, Factors Affecting the Cost of School Transportation in California, U. S. Department of Interior Bulletin N0. 29 (WaShington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, December, 1930), p. 36. 206 school population, but recognized that local policy and the number of school buildings obscured the operation of the formula.1 In 1949, R. L. Johns proposed a formula for allocating state aid for transportation based on road con- ditions and the number of riders per square mile.2 Five years later, Indiana was using a combination of the density factor and the ability factor in relation to $20.00 per child in determining reimbursement to local districts.3 In none of the density formulae was there a marked deviation for reimbursement and sometimes the formula favored sparsely settled areas and sometimes the densely peopled regions. One of the reasons for this discrepancy was the confusion over which costs to use. Some formulae use cost per person and some use cost per mile. Recent studies indicated that under normal conditions, the cost per pupil was lower and the cost per mile greater as the density increased.4 lRobert Leo Burns, Measurement of the Need for Trans- porting Pupils; Basis for State Equalization of Transporta- tion Costs, Teachers COIlege Columbia University Contributions to EducaEIon, N0. 289 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927), p. 19. 2R. L. Johns, "Determining Pupil Transportation Costs," The Nation's Schools,XLIII, No. 2 (February, 1949), p. 49. 3Montfort Barr, School Executive, November, 1955: p. 56. “Willard Brehaut, A Survey of Factors Related to Variations in the Cost of Elementary and Secondary Séhool Pupils in Ontario 1953354 (T0ronto: University onToronto Press, 1955), p. 14; W. Montfort Barr, gt al., Trend: in School District Reorganization in Indiana, Bulletin of the Séhool of Education loomington, Indiana: Indiana Univer- sit , 1956), pp. 59- 0. "The Indiana Formula for State Sup- por of Transportation, believes Barr and School Executives. H 207 In 1956, Michigan recognized the increased cost per mile per bus as density increased by setting up an increased allowance for operation varying from .18 cents per mile to .2467 cents per mile. In the above example the density was compensated as follows:1 1. If the average number of children picked up per mile is more than six, the allowance shall be $.2467 per mile. 2. If the average number of children picked up per mile is six or less, but more than three, the allowance shall be $.2l33 per mile. 3. If the average number of children picked up per mile is three or less, the allowance shall be $.18 per mile. The experience of working under this code for a year furnished the background for a slight enrichment with greater specificity to the current scale which is as follows:2 Less than 1 student per mile . . . . $.18 l but less than 2 students per mile . . . .20 2 but less than 3 students per mile . . . .22 3 but less than 4 students per mile . . . .24 4 or more students per mile. . . . . . .26 Allowance for Insurance The State Aid Allowance sheet for transportation was very brief and very concise when it commented on insurance: "Number of buses used daily for transportation x $42 or actual cost whichever is less." The next line further 1Superintendent of Public Instruction, "Transportation," Amendment to Administrative Code of 1954, Lansing, Michigan, pp. 1-2. (Mimeographed.) 2nState Aid Allowance for Transportation," op. Cit: 208 specified that only public liability, property damage, and comprehensive (fire, theft, glass breakage) were to be in— cluded. If such items as collision and pupil accident insurance were to be carried, it would be done at the express cost of the local school district. The 1958-1959 Annual Transportation Reports were more explicit in terms of insurance than previous reports. In this case a separate account with a different number had been accorded the reim- bursable and the non-reimbursible insurance premiums. In this way there was little opportunity to be casual with insurance accounting. That insurance could be secured for the figure of $42.00 per bus was evidenced by Table 35 showing that 11—1/2 per cent of the school districts did purchase insurance under the code allowance figure. With only one exception, these 17 school districts operated seven or more buses. The total number of buses involved was 287, or slightly more than one-fourth the number of buses studied. The range was from a low of $12.16 to $40.41 per bus with all the other 15 maintaining figures in the "thirties." Credit for achieving premium costs of $42.00 and less was ascribed largely to asking for bids and being particular not to pur- chase non-reimbursable types of insurance. Allowance for Bus Driver Education Bus driver education was the least costly of all the cost factors in transportation. An average of only $16.60 209 was spent per bus. There were 47 schools operating 204 buses who apparently did not participate in any driver edu- cation program. While the present cost was low, the inter- est in driver education was high. The present 1958-1959 Transportation Report showed four lines indicating four types of allowable costs: 1. Fees 2. Mileaga' 3. Salaries 4. Meals These four opportunities appeared more liberal than the 1957 listing, as follows: 1. Number of drivers attending eight or more hours x $12.50, or actual cost = $ 2. Mileage allowance at $0.07 x total miles = $ 3. Meal allowance $ Current literature from the teachers' colleges and univer— sities indicate an honest attempt is being made to improve the quality and scope of bus driver education. Relative Importance of Four Code Allowance The rate of the current reimbursement for operational allowance has been enumerated twice to emphasize its impor— tance as compared with the other three allowances. The relative importance of operation as opposed to either capital outlay, insurance, or driver education allowance was readily apparent. Driver education was so small as to be almost negligible (less than $17.00 per bus) and insur- ance was limited to $42.00 per bus. 210 The average capital outlay allowance based on $14.00 per seat was $770 for the larger sized metropolitan buses and $728 for the non-metropolitan schools.l Almost without exception, the allowance for operation was more than twice as large as the capital outlay allowance. The average of the 26 group categories showed that the operation allowance was 252 per cent more than the larger (metropolitan) capital outlay allowance. The marked superiority of operational reimbursement was evident in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan classi- fications and in all sizes of bus fleets. The one and two bus groups appeared to be favored slightly in both classi- fications, while those districts operating ten buses received smaller operational reimbursement. One limiting facmar’must be pointed out however. All operational reim- bursenent will be reduced by the number of non-eligible students carried. The effect of carried non-eligible stu- dents will be reviewed later in this chapter. Adequacy of Code Allowance Having established the importance of the four code allowances, the next logical question could be this: Were, the total allowances adequate to do the Job for which they were intended? An examination of the transportation records in the state office for the ten counties involved, indicated lAverage seating capacity of metropolitan schools was 55.4, while average seating of non-metropolitan schools was 52.5. See Table 19. 211 the allowances were adequate. In fact, 16 of the 147 school districts failed to Show costs which equalled the code allowances. Consequently, transportation officials in the state office reduced the allowances so that no one exceeded or even equalled costs. With more than 10 per cent of the schools failing to list costs equal to the allowance, this would seem to indicate the allowances were too great. It would appear that a smaller allowance would be in order. A more detailed analysis of Table 38 brings out the fol- lowing observations: 1. All schools represented were non-metropolitan. 2. Most of the districts involved operate few buses. 3. Only 47 (4%) of the buses were involved. 4. The counties represented appeared to be sparsely populated. 5. Aside from Allegan, Delta, and Kalkaska Counties, very little money was involved. Nevertheless, it was disconcerting to find such a large number of school systems apparently destined by the code to receive more money than the actual costs demanded. Realizing the allowances for capital outlay, insurance, and driver education were fairly stable, Tables 39 and 40 attempt to derive more specific information from each of the 16 districts in terms of the actual cost of operation to the code allowance for operation. These tables also reveal that because of faulty reporting, two of the schools in Ottawa County, each of whom operate only one bus, actually do have 212 TABLE 38 A COMPARISON OF THE 16 SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHICH REPORTEDLY HAD ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS LESS THAN CODE ALLOWANCES IN 1956-1957 ==3=== a, 1 11h -_,_" Number Number Amount of Excess Counties of of Buses of Allowances Schools Involved Over Costs Non-Metropolitan Allegan 4 15 $ 3,758.53 Delta 3 13 6,134.39 Gratiot 1 7 66.15 Kalkaska 3 7 1,880.97 Ottawa 4 4 901.35 Shiawassee O 0 00 Van Buren l l 96.21 TOTAL 16 47 $12,837.60 Metropolitan Macomb O O 00 Oakland 0 O 00 Wayne 0 O 00 213 TABLE 39 SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHOSE 1956-1957 COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION WERE LESS THAN CODE ALLOWANCES M f.._" m County NO. Excess of and of Code Code Over District Buses Cost Allowance Cost Allegan-- Dorr 1 $ 1,961.10 $ 2,349.93 $ 388.83 Fennville 8 20,985.58 22,890.88 1,905.30 Saugatuck 3 5,401.11 5,674.00 272.89 Moline 3 5,056.49 6,248.00 1,191.51 Delta-- Baldwin 2 6,151.56 6,462.98 311.42 Bark Driver 8 23,752.20 25,853.94 2,101.74 Ford River 3 11,390.44 15,111.67 3,721.23 Gratiot-- Breckenridge 7 19,211.00 19,277.15 66.15 Kalkaska—- Kalkaska 4 12,652.71 13,074.56 421.95 Blue Lake 1 3,716.22 4,267.60 551.38 South Boardman 2 4,928.76 5,836.40 907.64 Ottawa-- North Holland 1 2,402.33 2,514.00 111.67 Rosy Mound 1 2,637.30 2,818.00 180.70 West Crisp 1 3,329.91 3,422.00 92.09 Connell 1 1,886.31 2,403.20 516.89 Van Buren-- Breedsville 1 2,993.61 3,089.82 96.21 214 one. ma. we. mm a.ss H oass>mooopm uncondm Cm> Hrs. ms. an. «H m.mm a Haossoo saw. ma. we. we m.mm a shape poo: was. om. om.s om m.sm H osaoz zoom mas. om. om.H we 0.0: H ossaaom repoz u-szsopo ass. ms. ms. ms o.smfi m assessom spaom mma. ma. mm. mm m.moH a mass spam mmH. ma. em. mam m.mmm s assesses unmxmmxamm was. om. mo.a mm: 6.6m: s owoassoxoosm unpospopo oms. ma. mm. mam m.mmm m so>am osom mos. ma. om. smm s.moo m so>sm spam sms. ma. am. mm: o.HmH m sssofism inspaoo are. om. sm.H mos o.moH m osaaoz osH. om. mH.H oma a.sms m soapowasm mma. om. mo.a ms: m.mms m mafiaessoa sea. a ma. a Hm. Hm o.mm H atom InsmmoHH¢ OHHZ pom OHHE pom OHHE pom omppoamsmpe mom pom momsm pofippmfio can sundoo pmoo Hm5p6< mosmBOHH< oooo mpsmozpm mpsoospm noaaz .oz gonadz WWII” 11.4] 7 AU.“ 7 r“ )TVFHR mqmmmm zH mBonEmHQ ma mo mAHz mmm Bmoo AQHm opom mo.msm.H ------ om.omm ms.mm --- oo.mHs oo.mHm.H m.om m sHsoHom oo.mmH.H wo.mH sm.ss mm.om ms.wm mH.mwm om.mms m.mm m osHHoz mm.mHs.H ------ Hm.os mm.mm mm.m mm.omm 06.6mm m.ms m Hoapowanm mo.ssm.H oo.mm ms.mms mm.Hs mo.mm sm.mom mm.sso.H m.om w oHHH>ssoa mm.mso.Ha ------ a om.om a oo.mma ---a mm.wmm a we.Hss a o.mm H psoo AHmQOHpmaoaov soHpmau couscousamz HHo posse mcHHommw szHmm nOHHz monsm Hoocom pnoo Hopoa -mHsHsoa Hopoe AHHso .oz 217 2. A situation in which the school district was able to achieve an extremely favorable (to them) cost in one or morecfi'the six operational cost factors. 3. A situation in which the students per mile was Just over the minimum allowance as to put the school district in a more remunerative bracket. 4. A combination of the above causes. Distance as a Factor of Code Allowances For six of the 14 schools the factor of distance was paramount. These six districts were equally divided between the Counties of Delta and Kalkaska, where sparsity of popu— lation was important. The range in distances a bus traveled per day was from 75.3 miles to 111.8 miles. The actual cost varied from .117 cents per mile to a .168 cents per mile. South Boardman with two buses was able to operate at the extremely low mileage cost of .117 cents because of low salaries to bus drivers ($900.00 each), and total mainten- ance costs of less than $200.00 per bus. The important point to keep in mind is that with a minimum of 75 miles per bus per day operating 180 days per year, and being allowed .18 cents per mile, each bus would be allowed $2,430.00. This was more than the total actual cost per bus of any of this group except Ford River. In this case, the actual cost amounted to $3,034.00. However, Ford River averaged 111.6 miles per day per bus. Computing this on the basis of 180 days at .18 cents per mile, the total was $3,605.84, 218 or more than $500.00 more than actual cost. Breedsville, the only reported school in Van Buren County to have code operational allowance in excess of costs, was another school whose bus traveled more than 75 miles per day and amassed more mileage allowance than actual costs warranted. Cost Factors of Code Allowance Three of the four Allegan County schools were able to secure a very low cost per bus largely by paying drivers less than a $1,000.00 per year. Dorr was able to operate their bus for a year at less than most schools have to pay for drivers alone. Their total maintenance cost was only $36.90. Saugatuck and Moline each had a low total mainten- ance figure to go along with the low bus drivers' salaries. The two Ottawa County primary school districts, which each operate one bus only, likewise have a low salary. In addition, both eliminated any tire purchases during the year. However, none of the three minor costs (tires, oil, and administration) had a significant bearing on the total costs. As a matter of fact, Rosy Mound with a mileage of 57.5 per day, or 10,350 per year, had a mileage allowance in excess of costs in spite of paying $220.24 more for driver's salary than did neighboring North Holland. Breckenridge and Fennville were two schools which appeared to have economical operational costs, plus being Just over the one student per mile (each had an identical rating of 1.05) which entitled the school districts to two 219 cents additional per mile. By a coincidence, each school had an actual cost of .182 cents. This reasonable cost per mile for each school was achieved largely through drivers' salaries of slightly less than a thousand dollars in the case of Breckenridge, and slightly more than a thousand dollars per bus in the case of Fennville. Fennville had a better gasoline and total maintenance program. These two schools, plus Bark River, were the only school districts achieving a lower cost record and still Operating more than four buses. Undoubtedly the factor of having .05 students over the one student per mile was the strong characteristic which brought about the phenomenon. If there had been .06 fewer students per mile, then each school would have Joined the ranks of the greater number whose costs exceeded the code allowance. While four per cent of the buses and nine per cent of the schools were characterized by having code allowances in excess of transportation costs, actually this situation was not serious. It was not serious because in all cases state level administrators substituted actual costs for code allowances so that nobody gained or lost any money. In effect, this situation was extremely fair since in sparsely settled areas, where school buses travel greater distances and there was more apparent need for pupil transportation, the minimum per mile payment assured an approximation of the cost of operation. 220 Earlier in the discussion of Operation Allowance, the "Three D‘s,"--distance, density, and deductions--were used. The importance of distance and density have been considered. The matter of deduction for non-eligible children will be discussed in more detail in connection with over-all allow- ance. For the present it is sufficient to say that the greater the number of non-eligible children transported the less was the code allowance for operation and the greater the contribution of the local district to make up the com- plete budget for transportation. Comparison of Code Allowances in Metropolitan andNon-Metropolitan Schools It was interesting to comparethe total of the code allowances of the metropolitan schools to the non-metropolitan schools. One might expect there would be little difference because the code allowance would apply equally to both types of schools. Figure 7 shows the comparison of the percentage the average total code allowances bears to the average costs of each bus group. A pattern surprisingly develops which favors the non-metropolitan buses in every bus group except one. Only in the 15 bus fleet group does the percentage of reimbursement for the metropolitan districts exceed that of the outstate schools. It should be kept in mind that Figure 7 was developed under the following conditions: 1. These were average figures for all schools in those bus fleet categories which included both Per Cent Of Reimbursement 120 110 100 90 80 70 6O 5O 4O 3O 2O 10 h.) I'D |‘—’ Metropolitan: Non-Metropolitan: I. r i i i 10 l4 15 16 r 'r-‘t i ‘r- 123456789 Number of Buses Figure 7. Comparison of Non-Metropolitan to Metropolitan School Districts in Terms of Percentage of Reimbursement to Costs of Transportation in 1956-1957. 222 metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools. None of those percentages represented actual school percentages. 2. In all cases the assumption was made that the maximum capital outlay allowance was obtained on all buses. The maximum of $42.00 per bus was allowed for insurance in all instances. The average allowance was made for driver education in all bus fleet sizes. 3. In terms of Allowance for Operation no deductions for non-eligible students were made. This accounts in many cases for the percentage of reimbursement exceeding 100 per cent inseveral categories. For a more realistic examination of the relationship of reimbursement to costs, the following excerpts from the 1956-1957 county summaries were compiled in Table 42. This table, which utilized only number transported, costs, and allowances, indicates that the metropolitan and non-metro- politan schools were bunched closely together with reim- bursement percentages in the sixties. Strangely enough, the metropolitan schools had a slight advantage over the non-metropolitan schools. This would indicate the metro- politan schools were favored in terms of reimbursement. It would also indicate a very low figure of reimbursement was in evidence. However, in this table one important aspect of the transportation picture was lacking. This omitted aspect was supplied by the inclusion of payments to m.m0 mm.sH0.000.mwHm.sss.00H.ma 0H. mmH 00m.on «0s.on H4909 w.sm 0s.Hms.mmo 0H.m00.0sm.H mm. mm mmH.Hs mHm.Hs ones: «.ms m0.smo.m0m mm.sHm.mmm.H 00. em ssm.0: HH0.ss osstoo m.Hs 00.0mm.mmss mm.0mH.0mm a mm. mm mmH.0m 0mm.0m nsoosz cmpHHoaoapoz 0.00 ms.mms.mmoa 0m.0mm.smH.Hs H.Hm sHH.m mmH.mH 0mm.sm Haeos m.0s mm.s0H.m0H sm.s00.smm m.0H mmm 0sm.s mos.m spasm sa> s.0s Hm.0mH.Hm 0s.0sm.msH m.mm 0sH.H «00.0 0mm.m connsssHsm H.0s mw.sm0.sm Hm.mmo.0mH m.Hm H0H.H Hom.m H00.m sasnpo m.sm sm.0mm.mH ms.0om.sm H.mw smH 0mm 00: ssnsaHox m.Hs 00.Hmm.sm NH.s0m.mmH H.0s smH.H osm.H 00m.m poHpspo 0.mm Hm.mom.smH s0.000.msH s.H ms mmm.m ssm.m spHoo H.00 mm.mmN.mmHs Hs.msw.mHm a 0.sH mam 0sm.m 0H0.s ssonHa cspHHoaoppmz-soz owmmwomm¢ mocmzoaa< pmoo pcoofimom pcmoamom ucoofimom coupoamcmpe sundoo madam & -soz R asoz nonssz Ul- - U mmHBZDOo Z¢8qumom9mz 92¢ Z 0.mm mm.300.msH 00.:wm.m0 0s.0sm.msH m.mm connsstrm a.ss 0s.m0H.ssH Hm.s0s.mm Hm.mwo.0mH m.Hm szsppo m.ss m0.mmm.0m Hs.msm.0 ms.00m.sm H.0m nsoosts s.mm sm.sHH.mHH H0.mms.H0 mH.s0m.mmH H.0s poHpspo 2.0m mm.m0s.0mH H0.smH.m s0.000.msH s.H opHoo a.sm 00.000.00H Hm.m0s.sm a Hs.msm.mHm 0.sH ssonHa cmpHHoaoauoz-coz pooo Hopoe opospo oporpo mpooo Hspos psoonom Hpnaoo Mo R %D ucmfikmm mdam hm uflmfihwm ICOZ R 00:030HH< mpwpm U mmHBZDOQ Z 0.00 00.300.0sH 0s.0sm.msH 0.0 s00 connostsm a.ss 0s.m0H.ssH Hm.000.0mH 0.0m smm.H 630000 0.ss 00.000.00 ms.0om.sm m.sm 00H sanstsm s.m0 s0.sHH.mHH mH.s0m.0mH m.s 00H soHespo s.00 00.00:.0mH s0.000.0sH 0.0 000 spHoo m.s0 00.000.00H 0 Hs.ms0.0Hm a 0.0 000 ssonHa cprHoaoapoz-coz mocmzoaaa mpocpo pmoo manmmpsnsfiom memnfium mpCSOQ Hmpoe R an psoszwm mafia -soz R manmmpsnEHmm mocszoaaa modem 1:02 HOQESZ mmHBZDOo zHm> Uhmm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** mmdmw mLmeka Eddom> ** ** g* ** ** ** ** ** mwsmw CoammthEoo ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Mmufio> @W hmpmauao> ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** AmQ p xodhu mwdww had * * * * * * * * .QHSUm mchmmHn madmmmpq oHHSmhvhm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** mac: hmncfiaho mxmhm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** mcHgoms wchHH mxmpn Hampm>ch ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** de hdfiam uCHmm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** hmvcmw mHDmphoa :N,I :m ucmEQHSUm mwmamc ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * xofiku moa>pmm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * mQESQ no QESQ mcHHommw ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 600p muhwm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * woman umHfiOpIIhmxooq ** ** ** ** ** ** ** . ** ** momma mofimmo : m m m m m m m H H AHHmpm chma-coHpmoHpnsH swag 0» cOHpchm ch HHmpm eHmamm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** .** COHQMMHLQ$HWSHW3 mmHuHHHomm mmmnmc H o H o H o o o H o pmaHmcupm>Hpm o o o o o o o o H H QHcmnooe-po>Hpa H H o H o o H o o o cmaHmn m.oHcmnomz H H H H H H H H o o QHcmcomz H H H H H H o o o o 0Hcmcomerhmem Hmccompmm om-mq mqqu oq-wm mm-Hm om-mm mmuHm omuwH mHuHH oH-m m-m ampH omcprchz on on momsm mo pmnssz mMNHm mDOHm<> mo memmgm mbm mom wmmmmemz BzmzmHDGm 92¢ .mmHBHAHodm madmdo «qmzzommmm zo mZOHBow “.0 .Q .comwcHnmmzv m .02 chmHHsm .coapwosom mo monmo .m .b .mocmcmucamz msm Hoonom .soumpmcpmmm ccch .m "mopSOm 264 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** mmfi> ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** kmammho ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ucmEQHSUm wCHmCmeHUIHHO #* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** pCmEQHSvm mafia HmfiucmhmMMHQ ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** cdw mmdmhw Umumkmaopa< ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 33w mmmmhw Ucwm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * thCHhm Soflmm ** * * * * QQUH®3 ohm oakuomam ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** pcmfimfidvm wchpSo cam wchHmS mcmHzpmo< ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** . nonwhz COHmCmB ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** =m\H acmpm yam HHHav QHEpomHm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** HommthEOo had ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** umfion Camso ** * * * * ccmum mCHwflm ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Xumw Ucmz oHHSmhvhm ** ** ** ** ** * * * mHOOp hUom ** ** ** ** ** * * * hmHHSQ Lama ** ** ** ** ** * * * hmvmmmh ®>Hm> vaGHucooanpcmEQHsvm mwdpmc om-wq mq-Hq oz-om mmnHm om-mm mmuHm om-mH mH-HH oH-m m-m smpH vmchchmz on on momsm mo amnezz III-l #1 ill! HIUIII ‘ l‘ I“! I leIllIi UmSCHuCOOIIO xHszmm< mac , n7 ,, GET