School Transportation in Colorado:
Implications for Expanded Learning Time
A Report for Mile High Connects
Todd Ely and Paul Teske
Center for Education Policy Analysis
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
May 2014
School Transportation in Colorado:
Implications for Expanded Learning Time
A Report for Mile High Connects
Todd Ely and Paul Teske
Center for Education Policy Analysis
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
May 2014
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................................... 2
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION AND EXPANDED LEARNING TIME .................................................................... 4
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION IN COLORADO .............................................................................................. 5
OPEN ENROLLMENT .............................................................................................................................. 7
NONTRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ............................................. 8
IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS ................ 12
EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY IN COLORADO .............. 16
SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION POLICIES.......................................................................................... 22
REQUESTING BELL TIME CHANGES ......................................................................................................... 23
DISTANCE THRESHOLDS .......................................................................................................................... 23
FEE-FOR-SERVICE BUSING ....................................................................................................................... 24
SPACE-AVAILABLE BUSING ...................................................................................................................... 25
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 25
RESPONSES TO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES ......................................................................... 26
THE FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK ............................................................................................................... 26
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) SUCCESS EXPRESS ............................................................................... 28
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (BVSD) TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY EFFORT ........................... 30
DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG) SCHOOLPOOL PROGRAM ......................... 34
PARTNERSHIPS WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES .................................................................................. 38
NOTEWORTHY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES IN COLORADO ................................................. 42
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 45
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 50
ABOUT THE AUTHORS ................................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 51
1|
OVERVIEW
Expanded learning time (ELT) programs are an increasingly popular education reform aimed at
improving student outcomes generally, and reducing disparities in student outcomes for
disadvantaged populations specifically. A potential barrier to the creation and success of ELT
programs is transportation; these programs’ expanded schedules and calendars may conflict
with a school district’s existing transportation services. Research typically considers the safety
and efficiency of school transportation but not its impact on school reforms, including adding
time to the school day or year.
This report provides an introduction to school transportation and its interaction with efforts to
expand the school day or year, nationwide, and in the Colorado context. We review the
availability of school transportation in identified Colorado schools with longer school days and
years, and use a sample of Colorado school district transportation policies to illustrate existing
practices that may have implications for supporting these scheduling changes. We also present
a series of strategies and programs that address school transportation challenges in Colorado to
provide context for the types of activities and innovative practices already in place across the
state.
Accommodating requested changes to school schedules and calendars often presents a tradeoff between schedule and calendar decisions at the school level and financial costs for districts
and their transportation departments. The magnitude of any additional costs depends on the
disruption to the existing transportation system and any additional service demands caused by
the change. The limited national research on school transportation as it relates to ELT programs
suggests that transportation, at least from purely a cost perspective, is a secondary
consideration for schools when compared to the other costs of adding learning time.
Within Colorado, the majority of identified schools that have added substantial time to their
school day and year are nontraditional public schools. The availability of transportation services
in these schools differs by school type and district. Although there are fewer traditional public
schools with longer days or years, those that offer expanded calendars are generally well
2|
served by district-provided transportation. The same is true for innovation schools, which
receive per pupil funds from the districts and typically use those funds to secure districtprovided transportation but also have the option of using external providers. Charter schools
commonly add time to their school days and years but are much less likely to offer
transportation services to students. The prominent exceptions are those charter schools
receiving transportation services through Denver Public Schools’ Success Express shuttle bus
system. Beyond Success Express, about 10 percent of the identified charter schools with ELT
programs offer transportation services either independently or by contracting with their school
district.
Transportation may remain a significant barrier to schools considering making changes to their
existing schedules and calendars, even innovation and traditional public schools. Anecdotal
evidence from news stories and innovation plans suggests that the approval of changes to
district-provided transportation schedules is a key hurdle to restructuring school time.
However, the large number of charter schools with ELT programs suggests that lengthening the
school day or year occurs frequently in the absence of school transportation and is not a
primary barrier to families already attending those schools.
Open enrollment activity in Colorado has reduced some of the traditional demands on districts
for transportation services. The many students who choose a school other than the one
assigned to them are typically ineligible for district-provided transportation. School district
transportation policies have generally responded to such shifts only on the periphery. For
example, most districts allow students to apply for seats on buses when space is available, even
if those students are not eligible based on district policies. School districts and other
transportation providers in Colorado have reacted to both persistent and emerging
transportation challenges in a variety of ways. This report documents a number of the
responses, including the implementation of the four-day school week, the Success Express
shuttle bus system in Denver Public Schools (DPS), Boulder Valley School District’s (BVSD)
ongoing efforts to increase efficiency in school transportation, a Denver Regional Council of
3|
Governments (DRCOG) effort to encourage alternative school transportation methods through
Schoolpool, and school district cooperation with public transit agencies.
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION1 AND
EXPANDED LEARNING TIME
Before explicitly considering the connection between school transportation and ELT programs,
a basic understanding of school transportation and the Colorado context is needed. Traditional
school bus transportation systems attempt to maximize bus trips by staggering school bell
times (start and end times) based on the grades each school serves. By starting and ending
schools in tiers, it is possible to serve multiple schools with a single bus. To accommodate this
more efficient utilization of buses, high schools typically start and finish the day earliest,
followed by middle schools, and then elementary schools.
Beyond the tier approach, another defining characteristic of school transportation is rider
eligibility, where students qualify for bus transportation to their assigned school based on the
distance they reside from the assigned school location. The eligible distance threshold usually
increases with the student’s grade level. The following section describes school transportation
in Colorado and highlights the prominence of open enrollment and the popularity of
nontraditional public schools, which have implications for transportation and ELT programs.
1
For a thorough review of the broader school transportation field, see Vincent, Makarewicz, Miller, Ehrman, and
McKoy 2014.
4|
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION IN COLORADO
Although not legally mandated, in 2009–10 the Colorado Department of Education reported
that only four of the state’s 178 school districts failed to offer “regular route service” and that
half of those without service compensated families for getting their kids to school (CDE n.d.). In
Colorado, most school districts provide their own transportation services as opposed to
contracting out the service to a private operator. As of 2011, four districts in the state, including
Pueblo County School District 70 and Woodland Park School District RE-2, used private firms to
provide transportation services (Thaxton 2011). In the 2012–13 school year, Colorado school
districts reported serving nearly 350,000 eligible students just shy of 50 million total miles (CDE
2014c). The number of students eligible for transportation has fluctuated and reported total
miles have declined even as state enrollment has grown over the last five years (see Table 1).
Table 1: State of Colorado School Transportation Activity, 2009–132
FY 2008–09
349,120
FY 2009–10
333,710
FY 2010–11
334,414
Pupils
Transported
Total Miles
53,655,006
52,712,903
54,188,529
Current Operating
Expenditures
$202,384,615 $205,975,209 $204,546,773
(Transportation)
Note: Aggregated school district data from CDE 2014c.
FY 2011–12
344,079
FY 2012–13
347,028
53,365,360
49,982,014
$209,701,420
$213,737,058
The nature of school transportation varies by the type of community served by the school
districts across Colorado. The most prominent differences are population density and the size
of school districts, which vary tremendously. Generally, rural districts transport a larger share of
their students (see Figure 1) over longer distances than their more urban and suburban
counterparts. For these reasons, rural districts allocate a larger share of their overall operating
budget to transportation (see Figure 2), despite benefiting from a lower per mile cost of
transportation.
2
Note that the CDE school transportation information is collected for purposes of determining reimbursement
levels from the state to individual districts. “Pupils Transported” refers to the reported number of pupils eligible
for district transportation.
5|
Figure 1: Average Share of Enrolled Students Eligible for District Transportation, 2009–12
Students Eligible to be Served by
District Transportation (%, average)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
Note: Authors’ calculations based on CDE transportation data (“Pupils Transported”) and NCES enrollment and
locale codes from the Common Core of Data.
Figure 2: Average Transportation Share of Current Operating Budget by Locale Type, 2009
Transportation Current Operating
Budget Share
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
Note: Authors’ calculations based on CDE transportation spending data (“Current Operating Expenditures”) and
current spending and locale codes from the Common Core of Data.
Federal policy, through the No Child Left Behind Act, increased the responsibility of districts to
provide transportation and access to alternative schools for students in certain low-performing
schools. Although a fairly large number of Colorado students were eligible for such services, in
the 2011–12 school year only “1,470 students (of 88,459 eligible) were granted transfer and
6|
provided transportation to another higher performing school in the district, at a total cost of
$1,432,831” (CDE-UFPA 2014, 28). During the 2007–08 school year DPS reportedly spent
$21,500 “to transport one child in a school bus from Smith Elementary School in north Denver
35 minutes across town to the closest high-performing school, which was Bradley Elementary in
southeast Denver” (Meyer 2009a). This anecdote reflects the difficulties inherent in moving
beyond traditional busing approaches to school transportation, as members of the school board
“asked why the district didn’t just pay for a daily cab ride” (Meyer 2009a).
OPEN ENROLLMENT
In Colorado, the popularity of open enrollment, or school choice, which allows students to
attend a school other than the one assigned to them, has implications for school
transportation. Colorado has had its open enrollment law in place for over two decades. Its
defining characteristics are that receiving schools must have available seats and the “students
have their own transportation” (Rouse 2007). In 2007, nearly 17 percent of Colorado public
school students did not attend their neighborhood school (Rouse 2007). The 2013–14 school
year saw more than 76,000 students, or nearly 9 percent of state enrollment, attending schools
in a different district than the one in which they lived (CDE 2014a).3 In DPS, a reported 41
percent of students enrolled outside of their catchment-area school in 2009 (Meyer 2009b).
In some ways, school choice systems reduce the demand for district-provided school
transportation based on existing policies. At the same time, they raise concerns over who is
able to participate in school choice, since choosing a different school is typically accompanied
by an increased transportation burden for families. Choice schools that are open to students
within an entire district may not be able to utilize existing district transportation services,
depending on district policy. This has led to alternate arrangements in some cases. For
example, a private transportation provider, Access Transportation Solutions based in
Commerce City, serves STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) Magnet Lab School and
Hulstrom K–8 School in the Adams 12 School District. Families make payments for the service
directly to the private provider on a quarterly basis.
3
This figure excludes students with out-of-state and out-of-country primary residences.
7|
Although little research has been done on the topic, parental surveys in Denver provide
information on the relative importance of transportation and school location in determining
parents’ decisions about where to enroll their children. In Denver, 32 percent of parents
indicated they chose their child’s school based on academic quality, followed by 26 percent
who cited location and convenience as the primary consideration for their choice of school
(Teske, Fitzpatrick, and O’Brien 2009). Even more telling is the fact that families with children in
assigned schools “cited location/convenience as their top rationale at nearly five times the rate
of those who placed their children outside the neighborhood schools (44 percent versus 9
percent)” (Teske, Fitzpatrick, and O’Brien 2009, 16). Proximity to a school and the related
transportation burden are important factors in a family’s decision regarding where to send their
children to school.
NONTRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
The wide availability of nontraditional public schools in Colorado adds to the transportation
complexity that accompanies open enrollment. This section describes the transportation issues
related to charter schools, innovation schools, and pilot schools.
Charter schools, with their increased autonomy and flexibility in personnel practices, are more
active than traditional public schools in expanding learning time (for evidence, see Kolbe,
Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). One reason cited for charter schools being able to provide more
learning time under similar budgetary constraints as traditional public schools is that they are
not required to provide transportation to their students (Farbman and Kaplan 2005). In
Colorado, then, it is necessary to understand what type of transportation services are offered
by charter schools, many of which have longer school days and years, consistent with national
trends. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) addresses the availability of
transportation for charter school attendees by observing that:
Due to finances and the need to pay for facilities out of operating revenue, many
charter schools do not provide bus transportation for students. Parents often organize
car pools to provide transportation. Public transportation is used in some areas when it
is available. Some charter schools do have agreements with their school district for bus
service. Whenever this is done, the agreement is in the written charter/contract (CDE
2012).
8|
Despite being allowed to opt out of providing transportation, charter schools in Colorado are
nevertheless required to submit “a statement of whether the proposed charter school plans to
address the transportation . . . needs of its students” as part of the charter school application
process (see Colorado Charter Schools Act 22-30.5-106. Charter application – contents).
A review of charter school application examples made available by the Colorado Charter School
Institute suggests that charter schools deal with transportation in a variety of ways. One
example noted that the school “will not be providing transportation but will work with regional
transportation departments and parents to establish car pools and identify possible public
transportation options for students” (Global Village Academy – Colorado Springs 2012). This
approach is consistent with the reported popularity of DRCOG’s Schoolpool program for
nontraditional schools (see the Schoolpool section below for details).
Other charter school applications highlight the importance of siting and facility selection in
supporting the transportation needs of future students. By optimally locating the school,
charter schools can minimize transportation as a barrier to student access. For example, New
Legacy Charter High School describes in its application that its facility must be accessible from
public transportation “because many students will not have their own transportation” and they
“would ideally like to be no more than 2 blocks away from Colfax or Peoria Street” (New Legacy
Charter High School 2013). Montessori del Mundo even ties its transportation plans to equity
concerns and the goal of securing foundation support for general transportation assistance:
Equity also includes access to school for diverse populations. We are currently seeking a
facility within easy walking distance of low-income housing; however, we believe that
daily transportation would greatly increase access for low-income families to our school.
While we do not currently have funding to support daily transportation, we are seeking
foundation funding or alternate funding that would help us support such a program
(Montessori del Mundo 2012).
There is limited insight into charter school transportation as an optional service. Secondhand
reporting in 2008 on an informal CDE survey found that only 13 of the 76 responding charter
schools provided transportation to students. Nine of the 13 schools providing transportation
did so internally, while the remaining four contracted with their school district for
9|
transportation (Charter School Solutions 2008).4 Given the limited share of charter schools
offering transportation services, it appears that the availability of transportation has not been a
substantial barrier to expanding learning time in such schools.
In Colorado, charter schools are not the only option for parents and students in search of
greater educational autonomy. At the state level, innovation schools are increasingly common,
and districts such as Aurora Public Schools have experimented with pilot school designations.
How do these different types of schools, which frequently adopt expanded school days and
years, receive transportation services from their school districts?
Innovation status is frequently accompanied by changes to a school’s day or calendar.
According to the CDE (2013), 92 percent of applicants for innovation status request state
waivers related to time and calendar (see Table 2, below, for the specific statutory provisions).
For example, a 2012 report on innovation schools highlights that “most of the DPS innovation
schools expanded the day, week, or year to provide for one or more of the following changes:
increasing the student’s core instructional day, adding collaboration or planning time for
teachers, adding opportunities for students to receive assistance within the school day or after
school, and/or increasing time to pursue project-based learning” (Chin 2012, 9).
Table 2: Time and Calendar Waivers of State Statutory Provisions
Statutory Provision Waived
Total Number
of Innovation
Schools
Requesting
Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(I) (local board duties, schedule and
34
calendar)
Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(A) (local board duties, hours of
34
teacher-pupil instruction and contact)
Sect. 22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(B) (local board duties, school
34
calendar)
Percent of
Innovation
Schools
Requesting
92%
92%
92%
Source: Fuller 2013, 11.
No innovation school applicants have requested a non-automatic state waiver from the
Transportation of Pupils statute [22‐32‐113(5)(a)] (CDE 2013). Innovation schools receive per
4
The cited blog entry is the only publicly available evidence of the survey and its results.
10 |
pupil funds, including amounts to be used for transportation. The schools, at least according to
a number of innovation plans in DPS, reserve the “flexibility to purchase administrative services,
such as transportation, food services, facility management, maintenance, student services and
substitute teachers, from Denver Public Schools or other providers.” In practice, innovation
schools have largely utilized district-provided transportation services.
Schools appear cognizant, however, that altering their schedules and calendars has implications
for transportation services. Centennial, an expeditionary learning school in DPS, wrote in their
innovation status application that the school “will investigate a bell time change request for the
2014–15 school year and for subsequent years thereafter with the department of
transportation” (Munro and Arzberger n.d.). Further, a report on the early experiences of
innovation schools noted that one school was informed by their district “retroactively that they
would need to pay for the costs created by their schedule change (e.g., transportation), which
the school did not anticipate” (Price, Challender, and Walters 2011, 9). Innovation school plans
to date have included a number of creative transportation proposals ranging from taking
advantage of being a co-located school (a school within a school) to providing bus
transportation from a number of feeder schools to the innovation school.
The state’s annual innovation schools report provides some insight into how the increasing
autonomy of district schools is affecting core services, including transportation. In response to a
question about changes made since innovation status was received, DPS notes that it has
increased “the number of district functions/services from which a school can opt out” and, in
response to the increasing variety of schools, is “working with school and central services (such
as food services, transportation, professional development, etc.) to discuss how the central
service department can meet the needs of a diverse customer group before a school turns to
outsourcing” (Chin 2012, 17). Transportation is prominently mentioned by school principals as
one of the considerations to school day or calendar changes along with the impact of such
changes on “the lives of teachers, parents, students” (Chin 2012, 20).
According to district policy, pilot schools in Aurora Public Schools with nonstandard bell times
or school calendars are directed to “work with the Transportation Department to see if the
11 |
changes can be accommodated. Otherwise, the school could be charged for the associated cost
of special bell times or different days” (APS/AEA 2013, 59). In other words, pilot schools are
entitled to transportation services per school board policy, but additional costs may accrue
based on program specifics (Hupfeld 2009). This potential for additional costs to districtprovided transportation services for pilot schools appears consistent with the experience of
some innovation schools.
Access to school transportation is uneven across nontraditional public schools. Charter schools,
regardless of school day length or calendar structure, lack district-provided transportation in
most cases (for a notable exception, see the section below describing the Success Express
shuttle system in DPS). Innovation schools, on the other hand, can benefit from the existing
district transportation system (if their students qualify for such services based on district
policies) but must coordinate with the district for support of alternate day and calendar
structures. The innovation schools may, alternately, seek external transportation services. The
following section moves beyond the discussion of transportation availability for nontraditional
public schools to consider the specific issues related to transportation in schools with ELT
programs.
IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR EXPANDED
LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS
Transportation is a prominent issue for schools and districts considering ELT programs because
schedule changes impact the rest of the system. In some districts, the transportation
department has the authority to set bell times for schools, whereas for others it is a more
collaborative process. Changing school bell times often adds transportation costs if the tier
system is disrupted. Transportation planning is based on school bell times and is frequently a
joint exercise between the transportation department and instructional officials. Longer school
days do not necessarily require greater levels of service, but they may require scheduling
adjustments to the existing transportation routes in order to maintain efficient use of the bus
fleet.
12 |
Expanding school years has a more direct impact on transportation needs. If only a single
school, or even a handful, have longer school years, then buses must remain in service for that
smaller number of students and overhead costs can’t be spread out to maximize efficiency by
serving multiple schools with a single bus. On the other hand, these impacts depend on the
types of schools expanding their school years. For example, when Manual High School
expanded its school year there was reportedly little scheduling impact since high school
students do not receive traditional yellow bus service in DPS. Charter schools with expandedyear calendars do not typically receive district bus service anyway. Restructuring both the
school day and the school calendar has cost implications if the district’s ability to efficiently tier
routes is limited or the number of buses in service on a daily basis must increase. Given that
these additional costs can be quantified, school districts can determine whether changing
school schedules and calendars is worth the additional expense.
Although transportation appears to be a meaningful consideration in expanding learning time, a
selling point of adding time to the school day or year is that many costs do not rise
proportionally with the increase in learning time. Transportation is considered one of those
“nonteaching costs” that do not change automatically with additional learning time (Roza and
Hawley Miles 2008, 4). Whether or not an ELT school is required to provide transportation to its
students influences the overall costs of such programs. For example, charter schools reportedly
redirect savings from not providing transportation “to offset the costs of operating for longer
hours” (Farbman and Kaplan 2005, 25).
A recent report reviewed the associated costs of expanded learning time in four schools across
the country (Kaplan, Farbman, Deich, and Clapp Padgette 2014) and found that transportation
costs represented only a small share of the total program costs (see Table 3, below). In fact,
there are no reported incremental transportation costs for the move to an expanded day
schedule for McGlone Elementary in DPS. For the other schools, transportation costs ranged
from 2 to 3 percent of the total costs of implementing expanded day and year programs
(Kaplan et al. 2014).
13 |
Table 3: Reported Transportation Costs in Four Expanded Learning Time Schools
School
State
Expanded
Day Year
Transportation
Costs
Total
Costs
X
$5,000
$174,000
Share of
Total
Costs
2.87%
Griffith
Elementary
AZ
School 26
NJ
X
X
$14,289
$717,294
1.99%
McGlone
Elementary
Orchard
Gardens
Pilot School
CO
X
$0
$560,400
0.00%
MA
X
$21,578
$964,445
2.24%
Notes
“School transportation
costs are relatively low,
because most students
walk to school; additional
costs include: fuel/
maintenance for one
regular bus and one
special education bus
(during the added 20
days)” (p. 13)
“Added costs of running
bus routes for 20
additional days” (p. 20)
N/A (p. 26)
“Additional cost of
running late buses” (p.
37)
Source: Kaplan, Claire, David A. Farbman, Sharon Deich, and Heather Clapp Padgette. 2014. Financing Expanded
Learning Time in Schools: A Look at Five District Expanded-Time Schools. National Center on Time & Learning/The
Wallace Foundation.
The importance of transportation to any given school depends on the geographic area from
which it draws students. A neighborhood school with an expanded day program may have little
additional demand for transportation services if most students live so close to the school that
they can walk. The grade levels served by a school also matter, since schools serving higher
grades tend to be larger and draw students from a broader area. At the same time, the
changing eligibility for school transportation as students move into higher grades means that
qualifying for service based on distance becomes more difficult.
Although expanded year programs can increase transportation costs, an unintended benefit
may be an improved ability to retain bus drivers when the school calendar is lengthened. In
1999, the shortage of bus drivers in the Denver area had reportedly hit a “critical point” (Blevins
1999). At that time, DPS was losing around 70 bus drivers at the end of each school year as bus
drivers secured summer employment elsewhere. Fairly significant up-front costs exist when
14 |
hiring a new bus driver, due in part to state certification and training requirements, and these
investments are lost with driver turnover. At the time, Douglas County School District
reportedly benefited from hiring “drivers for year-round employment because many of its
schools operate on a year-round schedule” (Blevins 1999).
Beyond the district and school perspectives, parents face the daily obligation of getting their
children to and from school regardless of the length of the school day. We solicited feedback
from a small number of parents in Denver-area schools with identified ELT programs and asked
them about their school transportation options and how ELT programs have altered their
transportation needs and routines. The parents in ELT schools consistently reported that the
school’s expanded day or expanded year has caused them to alter both the transportation of
children to and from school and coordination with after-school activities. One parent
commented that the late end of the school day makes it difficult for her children to participate
in after-school activities and for her to schedule doctor’s appointments without the children
missing school. Alterations to transportation are not necessarily perceived negatively, however.
Another parent highlighted the benefits to working parents of being able to drop off children
earlier and pick them up later because of the expanded day.
School transportation must be flexible to support changes in the structure of the school day
and year, and this flexibility has real costs, either indirectly, in the form of coordination and
planning efforts, or directly, as costs associated with increased service levels. Although limited
anecdotal evidence suggests that these costs are relatively minor, depending on the existing
system, the need to alter existing district transportation service to accommodate changes to
the day and year may keep school leaders from even considering such actions. A DPS
elementary school’s recent experience reinforces the notion that changes to the school day are
contingent upon the district transportation department’s ability to accommodate them. Even
after a highly contentious school-level consideration of adding time to the day, the ability to
change the bus schedule may keep the school’s proposed change from being implemented
(Schimel 2014b). The principal, after submitting the schedule change request to the
transportation department to accommodate lengthening the school day, commented that “if
15 |
they can’t change our bell time, we’ll have to figure out what we’re going to do” (Schimel
2014b).
Possibly of equal importance is the role that transportation plays in a school community’s
willingness to consider restructuring or expanding the school day. The same DPS elementary
school struggled to get buy in from some parents for a longer school day, in part due to
concerns “about whether busing will be available and the late hours their students will spend
on the bus” (Schimel 2014b). After considering the relationships between transportation and
longer school days and years, the following section examines the availability of transportation
options in Colorado schools identified as having expanded learning time.
EXPANDED LEARNING TIME SCHOOLS AND TRANSPORTATION
AVAILABILITY IN COLORADO
To get a general sense of the availability of transportation for ELT schools in Colorado, we
compiled a list of schools with expanded days or expanded years along with their
transportation availability using a number of sources. Although imperfect, we first created an
inventory of Colorado schools with known ELT programs from media coverage. The primary
sources were articles in The Denver Post, (Boulder) Daily Camera, and EdNews Colorado (now
Chalkbeat Colorado), which documented, for example, a DPS effort to introduce more time into
roughly eight schools (Poppen 2012) and the districts and schools participating in the TIME
(Time for Innovation Matters in Education) Collaborative supported by the Ford Foundation and
the National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) (Haigh 2013).
In addition to these media sources, the Rose Community Foundation provided a spreadsheet
with school programs that had been classified as expanded learning opportunities (ELOs). When
publicly available, we also reviewed district-provided school bell schedules and start-end date
listings to identify additional schools with relatively long days or years. To consider an even
broader range of schools, we then turned to the NCTL’s database of expanded-time schools.
The NCTL database includes self-reported information on public schools with an expanded
school schedule that applies to all students. These sources resulted in a list of approximately
170 potential ELT schools in Colorado. We proceeded to review each school’s bell times and
16 |
calendar for the 2013–14 school year to determine whether classification as an ELT school was
warranted. In many cases, current schedules no longer reflected reports of longer school days
and years. The schedule and calendar information was supplemented with documenting
whether district-provided school transportation is generally available for the school or if other
transportation options were offered.
Of course, defining expanded learning time is in itself a challenge, which is why our initial
criteria for inclusion on the list were quite lenient. There is no commonly agreed upon
definition of expanded learning time. For example, for the 2011–12 school year the NCTL used
both absolute and relative measures of school time to judge whether a school should be
considered an expanded-time school for inclusion in its database. The considered public schools
needed to offer an “average school day length of at least 7 hours” and be “30 or more minutes
longer than surrounding public schools” or the school’s own day before adding time to their
school day (NCTL n.d.). A school might also qualify as an expanded-time school based on the
NCTL criteria if their school year is “10 or more days longer than surrounding public schools (or
compared to ET school’s pre-conversion schedule)” (NCTL n.d.). These longer school days and
years must apply to all students based on the NCTL criteria.
As can be seen from the NCTL criteria, the classification of an ELT school is a relative exercise, a
comparison both to peers and to its own historical school day and year. The Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS) provides the best, although still limited, view of school days and
calendars to serve as a benchmark. Based on the 2007–08 SASS surveys, the average school day
nationally is 6 hours and 45 minutes, with the daily time in school increasing slightly with the
grade levels of students (Kolbe, Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). The typical school year for
students is reportedly 180 days long (Kolbe, Partridge, and O’Reilly n.d.). For Colorado, the
average school day is 7.01 hours and the average number of school days in the year is 171,
according to the SASS (U.S. Department of Education n.d.).
Our approach to narrowing the list of schools identified as potential expanded-time programs
reflects the desire to ensure that the increase in time is meaningful for students. The NCTL
criteria, Colorado averages for school day and year length from the SASS, historical school
17 |
schedules where available, and the average number of student contact days for the 10 largest
school districts in Colorado (174 days) were all used to assess each identified school. We
retained schools with roughly more than half an hour per day longer school days as compared
to the Colorado average. In a small number of cases, a school was kept on the list if its hours
were especially long for a school serving the elementary grades. Press accounts of schools that
had added substantial time to the school day compared to previous years (typically 45 minutes
to an hour per day) were also retained. School year length was compared to the district
average, when available, or to the Colorado large district average, when unavailable.
The length of the school day was not looked at in isolation from the length of the school year.
The cumulative effect of the school’s day and year length were considered. Many schools
initially on the list, and included in the NCTL’s database, have added time to the typical school
day along with a weekly early release or late start day for teacher professional development.
The net effect is often that students’ total time in school looks average. For example, adding 30
to 45 minutes per day Monday through Thursday and having a two-hour early release day on
Friday results in weekly time staying the same or increasing by only one hour in total. The use
of early release and late start days is especially common in charter schools.
A number of schools were also included because of a combination of factors that suggest they
are expanding school time in a combination of ways not reflected solely in bell times and
calendars. For example, the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST) campuses were
included despite having fewer-than-average student contact days and longer school days
partially offset by a weekly early release day. All new students are required to attend summer
school programs running multiple weeks, some of the DSST campuses have extremely short
passing periods that expand classroom time, and high school students have summer program
requirements between the junior and senior years. Although not required for all students, DSST
also has a second dismissal that expands the day for students who are required to attend for
schoolwork-related reasons or for participation in college prep activities. DSST has reported its
instructional time to be 1,248 hours per year, which is significantly higher than the norm in DPS
middle schools (Brennan 2012).
18 |
In the end, we narrowed the list to 79 schools with a meaningful increase in learning time
through some combination of longer school days and years.5 Based on the list, we are able to
draw some general conclusions about the types of schools expanding learning time in Colorado
and whether their students have school-based transportation options available to them. These
schools average 39.5 hours per week of school time and just less than 180 school days (recall
that Colorado schools average 7 hours per day and 171 days per year according to the SASS).
Hours per week range from a low of 30 to a high of 50, while student contact days per year
range from 167 to 207. A slight majority (59 percent) of the identified public schools are
charters, with the remaining representing innovation schools (23 percent) and traditional public
schools (18 percent) (see Table 4).
Table 4: Identified ELT Schools by School Type, 2013–14
School Type Number Percent
Charter
47
59
District
14
18
Innovation
18
23
Total
79
100
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Using the identified schools, we can also examine the characteristics of schools in Colorado that
expand time compared to other schools. As seen in Table 5, there are substantial differences,
including ELT schools having smaller average enrollments (about 10 percent smaller) than other
schools across the state. The identified schools also have a much higher average share of
students eligible for free and reduced lunch programs, with 73.7 percent of students qualifying
as opposed to 45.3 percent for other Colorado schools. In general, the ELT schools double the
average share of students who are non-white (82.1 percent compared to 41.3 percent). Even
more dramatic is the overrepresentation of African American students in identified ELT schools
(14.3 percent) relative to other Colorado schools (3.4 percent).
5
Manual High School was included as an ELT school, although it has since returned to a more traditional schedule
and calendar (Schimel 2014a).
19 |
Table 5: Characteristics of Colorado Schools
Enrollment
Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible Students
African American Students
Hispanic Students
Non-White Students
Expanded Learning Time
Schools
Number
Average
78
442
78
73.7%
78
14.3%
78
61.2%
78
82.1%
Other
Schools
Number Average
1,704
489
1,704
45.3%
1,704
3.4%
1,704
31.4%
1,704
41.3%
Note: The number of ELT schools does not match the figure in Table 4 since district and state classification
sometimes differ for schools serving multiple grade levels (for example, a school with a middle and high school).
Dedicated preschool programs are excluded from tabulations.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on school bell times, school calendars, and CDE school-level data.
The availability of district-provided transportation differs dramatically across the types of ELT
schools. Charter schools receive district-provided transportation services in 18 of 47 schools.
Sixteen of these charter schools are served by the Success Express shuttle bus system in DPS
and pay per student fees for access to the system. The additional two charter schools receiving
district transportation contract with DPS for service. Four more of the identified charter
schools, or a little more than 10 percent, offer transportation to their students using their own
school-specific bus routes (see Table 6 for details on charter schools offering transportation
services outside of the Success Express system). The uncommon availability of school
transportation in the charter sector is apparent from the Atlas Preparatory School’s website,
where they note that “to ensure that all students in our neighborhood get access to a high
quality education, Atlas Prep has committed significant resources to providing our own bus
system, which is EXTREMELY rare for a small new school” (Atlas Preparatory School n.d.).
20 |
Table 6: Identified ELT Charter Schools in Colorado with Transportation Service (Success Express
participants excluded)
School
District/Authorizer
Description of Bus Service
Atlas Preparatory School Harrison 2
Provided bus service consisting of seven
routes during the 2013–14 school year.
Chavez/Huerta K–12
Pueblo City 60
Provided bus service consisting of six routes
Preparatory Academy
during the 2013–14 school year.
Community Leadership
Charter School
Free bus service available to students living
Academy
Institute
within Adams 14 district boundaries.
KIPP – Sunshine Peak
Denver County 1
Contracts with district for bus service.
Academy
Rocky Mountain
Denver County 1
Contracts with district for bus service.
Preparatory School
Scholars to Leaders
Charter School
The school “has three school buses that
Academy
Institute
serve the southeast and central parts of
Colorado Springs”.
Source: Various school websites.
Almost all of the identified innovation and traditional public schools receive district-provided
transportation, although the outsized involvement of Success Express in serving ELT schools is
apparent. Nearly 38 percent of all the identified ELT schools are served by Success Express. In
one case, a traditional public school that is an open-enrollment school does not receive
transportation services except for certain student groups. Table 7 details the availability of
transportation services by school type. The geographic distribution of the ELT schools receiving
transportation services, either through the district or school, is skewed heavily to schools
located in Denver (over 80 percent).
Table 7: District- and School-Provided Transportation for Identified ELT Schools
ELT
Schools with Bus
Share of ELT
Schools Schools Offering
School
DistrictSchoolService (District +
by Type
Type
Provided
Provided
School-Provided)
Transportation
47
Charter
18
4
22
47%
14
District
13
0
13
93%
18
Innovation
18
0
18
100%
79
Total
49
4
53
67%
Source: Authors’ calculations.
21 |
This exploratory look at ELT schools and transportation in Colorado has a number of limitations.
In creating the list of schools, the inability to view school days and years over time for each
school makes it difficult to identify schools that have made meaningful changes to their own
learning time but still look average compared to other schools. Another challenge is that some
schools have opted to restructure the existing school day to more effectively use time rather
than explicitly adding time in a way that shows up on a bell schedule. Examples of such activity
include the field testing of expanded learning opportunities in Jefferson County Public Schools
during the 2012–13 school year (see Jefferson County Public Schools n.d.). These internal
changes are not readily apparent, and such schools are not included in the list of expandedtime schools.
Similarly, we lack visibility into how all of the identified schools are using the additional time,
and the quality of ELT programs is, at a minimum, equally as important as quantity. The
overrepresentation of schools from Colorado’s Front Range may reflect that adding school time
is primarily an urban or suburban reform, but it may also be an artifact of less information
being publicly available from smaller school districts. Despite these challenges, district-provided
transportation is found to be available for more than two-thirds of the identified schools. As
expected, charter schools with longer school days and years are much less likely to offer
transportation services to their students (unless served by Success Express in DPS), although a
small number have established their own bus routes or contracted for the service. The
following section reviews a sample of Colorado school district transportation policies to better
understand the existing flexibility in the systems.
SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION
POLICIES
Publicly available transportation policy documents were gathered and reviewed for a sample of
metro-Denver school districts and districts with known ELT schools. The policies are discussed
in this section and summarized on a number of dimensions with potential implications for ELT
programs (for details, see Table A1 in the Appendix).
22 |
REQUESTING BELL TIME CHANGES
Of the reviewed school districts, only DPS made publicly available information on how schools
request changes to their bell times. The school schedule change request form provides insight
into the factors that need to be considered by districts when contemplating changes to school
schedules (see Exhibit A1, DPS Request for Schedule Change form, in Appendix).
The request for bell time changes is broken into two components. First, schools must address
the instructional impacts from the proposed schedule change, including how it will “support
student achievement” (DPS 2013). Some schools have added time to the normal school day but
then introduced early release or late start days to block off time for teacher planning and
development. An internal communication discussing bell time modifications mentions the
repercussions of these variable schedules, noting that “in the past, many schools have
requested in excess of four to six different bell schedules for transportation services during the
school year. This high number of requests has made it very challenging for Transportation to
support all schools equitably with the resources available” (Portee and Suppes 2013, 1).
Second, community impacts are detailed, with special attention to the impacts on district
departments, personnel, and evidence of “the support of staff, students and the community”
(DPS 2013, 2). Given the complexities of scheduling school transportation, schools requesting
changes are also asked to detail any implications for “bell times at other schools” (DPS 2013, 2),
since that would potentially alter existing bus tiers. Overall, the process of requesting a change
to the bell schedule forces school leaders to consider the impacts of the change on all students.
The timeline for the process indicates that schools need to decide whether to pursue a bell
schedule change with plenty of lead time. For DPS, the requests must be submitted by January
24, 2014 for the following school year (2014–15), and schools are to be notified of approval or
denial within a month after the submission deadline (Portee and Suppes 2013).
DISTANCE THRESHOLDS
In order for a student to receive transportation services, the school district transportation
policies we reviewed consistently increase the minimum distance from a student’s home to the
23 |
neighborhood (assigned) school as the student’s school grade level increases. Exceptions to this
pattern exist in some smaller districts and for schools serving both elementary and middle
school students. In general, distance thresholds for receiving bus service for elementary
students range from one to two miles, with the most common threshold being greater than one
mile from the assigned school. The thresholds increase for middle school students and range
from one to three miles, with an average just below two miles. High school students have the
highest distance threshold, with two and a half miles as the most popular policy, although they
range from one to three and a half miles. Although distance is the primary policy for
determining transportation eligibility, districts also frequently provide transportation to
students in areas identified as hazardous for walking.
FEE-FOR-SERVICE BUSING
The majority of school districts continue to offer transportation without charging additional
fees. Districts may respond to budget pressures within the transportation service area by
reducing service and associated expenses (possibly by introducing more stringent eligibility
guidelines) or by creating a revenue stream tied to busing. Of the reviewed districts, only four
charge fees for traditional bus service (Jefferson County R-1, Douglas County Re 1, Adams 12
Five Star Schools, and Academy 20), but these districts served a quarter of all Colorado students
in 2013.6 The fee structures vary across districts, but it is common to charge higher amounts for
those not attending their neighborhood school. For example, in Jefferson County Schools
transportation to “options schools” is 25 percent more expensive than to neighborhood
schools. Differential pricing is offered by some districts based on purchasing an annual pass or
the number of students in a family (often with a cap on total family transportation fees).
Districts are required to offer fee waivers to families qualifying for the National School Lunch
Program’s free and reduced price meal guidelines. Base annual fees are most commonly around
$150 per student, along with more nominal initial fees in some of the fee-for-service districts.
6
Calculation is based on pupil membership figures from CDE for the state and the four districts with fees (CDE
2014b).
24 |
SPACE-AVAILABLE BUSING
The school district transportation documents suggest that it is the norm for parents to be
allowed to apply for bus service for children who do not qualify for district-provided
transportation. In all cases, the granting of such a request is contingent upon space availability.
Space-available busing is typically provided without additional fees to families, although some
districts charge differential fees for the service as seen in Mesa County Valley 51. The marginal
cost of adding a single student to a bus with empty seats is close to zero, and districts appear to
support increased utilization of excess capacity. Anecdotally, space-available busing has been
used as a starting point for efforts to expand school transportation service as seen in the Near
Northeast region of Denver prior to the implementation of Success Express and more recently
in southwest Denver (Ely and Teske 2014). Districts differ in the level of information provided
on their websites regarding the option of space-available busing and how to apply for a seat.
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY
School transportation has benefited from the proliferation of radio frequency identification
(RFID) technology, especially in the larger school districts (see Table A1 in Appendix). With
smart passes or cards, districts can now track transportation activity using card readers on
buses. Doing so can improve management of existing bus routes and, more critically, help
districts locate students. The improvement in technology has implications for schools that
expand their school days or year and districts that provide innovative transportation systems.
As schools run either earlier or later in the day (or later in the year, when fewer schools are in
session) safety concerns exist, and the RFID technology allows schools and, potentially, parents
to know the whereabouts of their children. In school transportation systems that serve multiple
schools on the same bus line, such technology addresses the primary concern that children may
inadvertently end up getting off the bus at the wrong location.
This review provides a general sense of the standard school district transportation policies in
larger districts in Colorado and possible implications for schools considering changes to the
structure of their school day or year. The next section consists of a number of cases
25 |
documenting programs and strategies designed to address school transportation challenges in
Colorado.
RESPONSES TO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
CHALLENGES
From four-day school weeks to cooperation with public transit agencies, school transportation
challenges have altered existing transportation practices. This section details a number of
transportation-related strategies or programs in Colorado, with a focus on the Denver metro
area. Each topic is related to either providing school transportation under cost constraints, in a
more flexible manner, or expanding transportation services to schools and students ineligible
for traditional district-provided service. The section concludes with a listing of additional
noteworthy school transportation practices that are less related to understanding how
transportation can support or limit schools’ ability to restructure the school day or year.
THE FOUR-DAY SCHOOL WEEK
The relationship between school transportation and learning time is especially salient in rural
Colorado, where a surprisingly large share of school districts operates on a four-day school
week schedule. As of 2011, 67 of Colorado’s 178 school districts had a four-day school week in
place (NCTL/ECS 2011; Lefly and Penn 2011), having grown from only three districts in 1980
(Dam 2006). Although this represents more than a third of districts (for a list of four-day school
week districts in 2010–11, see Table A2 in Appendix), these small districts serve less than 4
percent of students in the state (Lefly and Penn 2011). The reasons behind the shift to fewer
school days revolve around financial considerations and transportation, one of the primary
service areas where savings are expected (Dam 2006).
According to the CDE (Dam 2006), the costs of transporting students can drop by a share
proportional to the reduction in days (one out of five days of schooling eliminated would equal
a 20 percent decrease in costs). The cost savings are not uniform across transportation budget
categories. The primary sources of savings are labor costs, where work hours are reduced for
26 |
transportation employees, and variable costs tied to buses actively being in service, such as
gasoline. Other transportation costs, generally those that are fixed, including capital assets such
as buses and insurance costs are not substantially affected by the four-day school week (Dam
2006). Although the weekly mileage driven by school buses is reduced by a fifth for a four-day
school week, the daily route demands for the remaining school days do not change, so bus fleet
reductions are not necessarily viable.
Although the four-day school week does not reduce the minimum time spent in school, it does
alter the distribution of that time. Districts are required to apply to the state for approval to
hold less than the required 160 school days (Lefly and Penn 2011). In order to meet the State of
Colorado standards, the four-day-week districts have longer school days, typically “7.5 hours
per day for 144 days of school instead of the normal six hours for 180 days of school” (Lefly and
Penn 2011, 3). The school time, therefore, remains constant, but the CDE notes that “the use of
instructional time is probably the most controversial and least studied of all the issues” related
to the four-day school week (Dam 2006, 5). The longer day and shorter week raise a number of
issues that impact learning. Challenges include structuring the school day to “avoid fatigue”
among the youngest students and the unavoidable fact that when a student is absent or school
is closed for a day the reduction in school time is proportionately larger than with a standard
school day (Dam 2006, 5). On the other hand, the shorter school week may allow for less
disruption to school time if families use the extra day to schedule appointments (such as doctor
and dentist) rather than during school time (Dam 2006).
The adoption of longer school days and years is typically targeted toward improving student
outcomes, whether in core academic areas or by expanding enrichment opportunities. In
schools with four-day weeks, it is only natural to consider whether student performance is
affected by the shortened week. Most of the empirical evidence in Colorado, although limited,
suggests that student performance is not negatively impacted by the four-day school week
(Daly and Richburg 1984; Lefly and Penn 2011). Alternately, a recent study using matched pairs
of districts did find “that the five-day schools did slightly better than the four-day schools, with
11 of 12 achievement results favoring five-day schools” (Hewitt and Denny 2011, 29). Other
27 |
outcomes associated with the four-day school week are also worth highlighting. Attendance for
both students and teachers reportedly improves (Donis-Keller and Silvernail 2009), while
satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with the shorter school week is quite high, with
80 to 90 percent supporting the existing four-day week after it becomes established (Dam
2006). The four-day school week is a meaningful example of the trade-offs made between
transportation costs and the structure of school time in Colorado.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) SUCCESS EXPRESS7
After years of setting the groundwork, DPS launched the Success Express shuttle bus service in
Denver’s Near Northeast (NNE) and Far Northeast (FNE) regions in August 2011. Now in its third
year of operation, the program continues to embrace its stated objective, “To create a
transportation system that would provide opportunity for all students to utilize a service based
on choice, location of their school of attendance, and providing school start and end time
flexibility” (DPSDOT 2012). The impetus for introducing the shuttle bus system differed starkly
across the two regions where it was ultimately implemented. Success Express was a response
to the call for improved transportation initiated from a collaborative process with parents and
school and district leadership in the NNE, while in the larger FNE region the shuttle bus system
was, in contrast, a piece of the overall turnaround strategy adopted by the district.
Moving away from the standard school transportation model meant rethinking how to flexibly
serve multiple ages of kids attending schools with various start and end times. It also presented
a dramatic change in the status quo, as parents no longer would simply get kids to the bus stop
(or pick them up) at a single time for a direct ride to school. The shuttle bus approach, although
still using the ubiquitous full-size yellow school buses, differs from a traditional school
transportation system in a number of ways. Most dramatically, there are separate fixed routes
in each of the two regions (see an example route map, Exhibit A2, in the Appendix). The
generally circular routes are repeatedly traversed by the same buses in a manner similar to
many public transit bus systems.8 The system operates over an extended period of the morning
7
For a more detailed consideration of Success Express, see Ely and Teske 2014.
Because of budget pressures in 2011, Falcon School District 49 shifted to a fee-for-service transportation system
that shared some common design elements with Success Express. The pared-down bus routes in Falcon included a
8
28 |
and afternoon, running from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., respectively.
The continuous morning service currently offers two pick-up times to get students to school
before the morning bell and one more pick-up that will get them to school, but tardy.
Although improved transportation service would typically be associated with higher costs,
budget savings were expected from the shuttle bus system, since it results in fewer buses in
service and improved utilization rates relative to the prior routes operating below capacity. The
Success Express shuttle dramatically increased student access to school transportation in these
growing Denver regions, especially for the many charter schools that did not previously receive
district transportation services. Nearly 60 percent of the schools served by Success Express are
charter or innovation schools. The student characteristics also differ, with higher average
concentrations of minority and low-income students in Success Express-served schools. The
demographic differences reflect the regional focus of the shuttle service.
A primary benefit of the shuttle bus system is the increased flexibility afforded schools in
setting their start and end, or bell, times. A second advantage exists for schools offering afterschool activities: they don’t need to worry about arranging alternative transportation options.
School-based decisions to expand learning time through longer days and years have resulted in
tremendous diversity in time spent at school across the district. As might be expected with the
school turnaround effort in the FNE, students in schools served by Success Express had longer
estimated average school days and more hours per year than other district schools in the 2013
school year. More fundamentally related to time in school, regularly getting to school safely
and on time in the morning, as well as being able to participate in after-school programs
without concern for getting home, undoubtedly has positive impacts on student outcomes.
With Success Express, missing the bus no longer has to mean missing the entire school day.
A key concern that surfaced as the program began was the length of bus rides for some
students under the new system. For example, riders boarding at one end of the loop and
“combination of circuit busing and corridor busing” with different-age students riding the same buses (Iodice
2011). The new system, which was not implemented without controversy, allowed both charter school and choice
students to participate as long as families were willing to pay the district for the rides and deliver their children to
and from designated bus stops (Iodice 2011).
29 |
disembarking at the other had rides extended, since each shuttle made every stop on the route.
The district responded by breaking up some of the capacity on the routes and at key times
providing some longer-distance shuttle runs that did not make all of the interim stops. The
concern over long ride times becomes even more pressing for students in schools with
expanded school days, since the door-to-door time away from home may become excessive.
After the initial six months of service, a number of ridership patterns became clear.
Transportation utilization increased relative to the year prior to Success Express
implementation (DPSDOT 2012). Afternoon ridership is reported to be slightly higher than
morning ridership, suggesting that the service is being used to accommodate after-school
activities and parent work hours that extend beyond the end of the school day (for details, see
DPSDOT 2012, 11–12). The shuttle bus system served 25 actively participating schools in the
FNE and 14 in the NNE in its initial school year (DPSDOT 2012). The number of schools served
has grown to roughly 45 in 2013–14.
The nature of the shuttle bus system and its multiple stops present a clear trade-off between
improved transportation flexibility and school access versus the increased length of ride times.
The shuttle bus system has increased access to transportation and preferred schools
throughout the regions. The system has also supported the increasing number of schools in the
regions with longer school days or school years. Although shuttle bus schedules still must
accommodate school start and end times and varied ridership demands, the system supports
school-level discretion in setting start and end times.
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (BVSD) TRANSPORTATION
EFFICIENCY EFFORT
In December 2012, Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) became a part of the multi-state TIME
Collaborative to support the development of ELT schools. Upon joining the collaborative,
Assistant Superintendent Sandy Ripplinger commented, “We know that all students can learn,
but some need more time . . . That can mean before school, after school, a longer school year
or summer programs. We want to look at what’s most effective and what works in different
school settings. This gives us that opportunity” (Bounds 2012). The schools joining the
30 |
collaborative included Angevine Middle School, Centaurus High School, Pioneer Elementary
School, and Sanchez Elementary School.
Although the schools in the collaborative have explored different ways to add time and improve
the use of that time, BVSD and its superintendent, Bruce Messinger, began an effort to improve
the efficiency of its transportation services in response to budgetary pressures. Transportation
as a support service is a frequent target of cost-reduction efforts as school district officials
attempt to protect instructional resources. Expanding the school day demands flexibility at the
school level to set start and end times, but this discretion can be at odds with efficient
transportation systems that maximize the number of schools served by a single bus. Schools in
BVSD have, reportedly, enjoyed discretion in setting bell times, but an assessment conducted
by an external transportation consulting firm, Management Partnership Services, Inc.,
concluded that this practice resulted in a costly transportation system (Bounds 2013a).9
The trade-off between cost and school-level flexibility is apparent in the reactions to the report.
For example, the president of the BVSD Board of Education noted, “We have 50 different bell
schedules. If you want to put more money into the classroom, we’re going to have to give up
some flexibility on that side” (Bounds 2013a). The report estimated an average annual cost per
bus, including capital costs, of $88,400, which is at the high end of the range nationally (MPS
2013). According to the analysis, the distribution of bell times is a primary reason for the higher
expenditures, along with “fleet related costs” (MPS 2013, 2). Specifically, rather than each bus
serving three schools per day (a frequent objective of school districts, referred to as being
“triple-routed”) the “runs per bus rate for BVSD is 1.76 per bus[,] some 33% less efficient than
most districts” (MPS 2013, 1). The report finds that the many different bell schedules result in
27 additional buses in service on a daily basis (MPS 2013, 45). A shift back to the classic threetier bell time schedule is recommended in the report, with an expected reduction of 40 buses
and annual financial savings of approximately $2.5 million (MPS 2013, 47).
9
It is important to note that the BVSD Transportation Department received high praise from the MPS report for
many of its management practices.
31 |
The proposed savings from bell schedule changes are nearly as large as the budget reductions
adopted in the spring of 2012, $1 million of which were reportedly absorbed by “high-poverty
elementary schools” (Bounds 2013a). On the other hand, transportation costs in BVSD
represent only 7 percent of the operating budget in fiscal year 2012 (MPS 2013). The BVSD
leadership explicitly acknowledges that standardization of bell schedules to improve
transportation efficiency will impact schools and service levels. BVSD Superintendent Messinger
raises the point that some bell times were set to support school programs, while others might
just be artifacts of more arbitrary decisions made long ago. As the process to revise the existing
transportation system was under way, Messinger addressed finding the appropriate balance
between efficiency and support for schools, noting, “We do need to have more centralized
controls, but we want to still be responsive to school needs and systems” (Bounds 2013a).
In April 2013, BVSD announced a transportation management plan approved by the school
board in March, to be phased in over three years, in response to the consultants’
recommendations. The plan included fleet and route adjustments, the latter including corridor
busing, where stops are placed on major thoroughfares rather than deeper within
neighborhoods, in addition to the bell time standardization (Bounds 2013b). Ultimately, the
plan calls for standardized lengths of school days by the age group of students served in the
third year of the plan’s implementation (Bounds 2013b). In June 2013, parents impacted by the
cuts in transportation service cited safety concerns and petitioned BVSD, as 41 bus stops were
to be eliminated (Bounds 2013c). Shortly after the parent concerns were raised, the district
announced it would delay implementation of the new transportation management plan for a
year “to better assess the impacts of the proposed changes” (Bounds 2013d). The current
transportation management plan includes recommended changes be implemented in three
phases, although the ultimate timeline is now unsettled (see Table 8 for details).
32 |
Table 8: Boulder Valley School District Transportation Management Plan Phases
Phase
Actions
Phase 1
1. Discontinue transportation service from previous walk hazard areas now
(2013–14)
designated safe travel areas within designated walk distance to school.
2. Institute “corridor busing” for high schools.
3. Coordinate school para-educator time with bus arrival time at schools.
4. Coordinate pre-K and/or special education program times with school
general bell times.
5. Improve Initiate Infinite Campus integration with Edulog.
6. Begin fleet configuration reduction.
Phase 2
1. Standardize length of school day for each level.
(2014–15)
2. Adjust attendance boundaries.
3. Reevaluate ESL placement at elementary schools.
4. Pilot new bell schedules for Monarch High School feeder attendance area.
5. Evaluate and revise activity trip costs.
6. Fleet configuration reduction.
Phase 3
1. Adopt three-tiered bell system.
(2015–16)
2. Fleet configuration reduction.
Source: Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) Transportation Department. Transportation Management Plan.
http://bvsd.org/transportation/Documents/Transportation_Management_Plan.pdf.
A number of the proposed changes may have implications for ELT efforts in the district. The
planned standardization of the school day length by grade levels served may limit the ability of
schools to add time to the school day if it is strictly applied. On the other hand, if times are
standardized across all school levels at the long end of the existing range, then there might be
time gains for the average student. For an effective tier system in BVSD (where a bus can serve
multiple schools), Bob Young, the director of transportation, explained that 45 minutes is
needed between bell times at the schools served by the same bus (2014). The plan to
implement corridor busing, where the bus stops are moved to major roads, has been delayed
but is not, on its own, incompatible with various school bell times and calendars.
Whether transportation is a barrier to implementing longer days or years in a given school
depends, as previously mentioned, on whether a school is currently receiving transportation
services. In BVSD, the impact of any transportation service changes on expanded-time schools is
limited by the fact that a number of these schools are open-enrollment schools (such as Pioneer
Elementary) and are ineligible for school-wide transportation services regardless of schedule.
The district does support student transportation when a student is administratively assigned to
33 |
such a school, typically due to the presence of an English Language Learner/English as a Second
Language (ELL/ESL) program, and offers the option of space-available busing when feasible.
Although BVSD is facing changes to its transportation service levels in order to reduce costs, the
district has been an innovator in school transportation policies, especially those supporting
alternative modes of school transportation. The BVSD transportation department’s TO School
Program offers a range of services broadly supporting school transportation. Education
offerings include the promotion of cycling through the Bike Lesson and Safety Training (BLAST)
program, participation in the Safe Routes to School initiative, and operation of the Trip Tracker
reward system to incentivize alternative school transportation methods. The TO School
Program also serves as a clearinghouse of information by providing a Transportation Network
Directory to participating families, which includes location information on families within a
school to assist in coordinating transportation options.
In addition to having previously considered the ability to operate a circular shuttle-bus system
in BVSD, the district continues to explore solutions to the transportation challenges present in a
district with widely varied population density across a roughly 500-square-mile service area
(MPS 2013). A shuttle bus model, similar to Success Express in DPS, does not appear to fit the
demands of BVSD, but a linear system with similarities to a public transit system remains under
consideration, according to BVSD Director Young (2014). The uncertain implementation of the
proposed transportation management plan in BVSD illustrates the challenges in finding the
appropriate balance between transportation costs and flexibility, as well as central
administrative control and school-level programmatic discretion.
DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG) SCHOOLPOOL
PROGRAM
Challenges abound for families and schools that must arrange daily and occasional
transportation for students who don’t qualify for district-provided transportation. The need for
coordinating transportation options is most salient in nontraditional schools where districtprovided transportation is less common. Even where district-provided school transportation is
available to some, it is still common for families to need alternative transportation for reasons
34 |
including ineligibility for bus service due to having “choiced” into their school through open
enrollment, failing to qualify for service due to distance eligibility thresholds, and having a child
participating in after-school activities that are not accommodated by the standard bus service.
These transportation challenges have undoubtedly increased as more students attend schools
outside their neighborhood and travel distances grow.
For decades, the DRCOG has helped connect individuals in the greater Denver area through ride
sharing programs. These efforts are collectively part of the Way to Go program, formerly called
RideArrangers. Schoolpool is a program within Way to Go that attempts to overcome many of
the information barriers encountered by families trying to connect for mutually beneficial
school transportation arrangements.10 At the same time, the program supports positive
environmental benefits by reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Schoolpool matches
families at a school (or even nearby schools) based on the proximity of household residences.
The program is a more sophisticated equivalent to the traditional use of bulletin boards within
schools to connect people around common interests or goals. Once matched, families can
organize not only carpools but biking groups, walking school buses (where a group of kids walk
to school together), or even pair buddies for using public transit to get to school.
Nearly 70 schools spread across the greater Denver area actively participate in the Schoolpool
program (see Figure 3, below, for a map of participating schools and Table A3 in the Appendix
for a list of participating schools). As one of the larger programs of its kind, Schoolpool
performed over 15,000 family matches in the 2013–14 school year. The majority of the demand
for the service comes from nontraditional schools without formal transportation services,
including charter and private schools. The program is directly marketed to schools by Way to Go
and is also available to individual families. Finding successful matches for carpooling, as well as
other modes of transportation, depends on achieving a critical mass of participants from similar
geographic areas.
10
For more information on the Schoolpool program, see http://waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool. Other
school carpool matching programs are active in Colorado, including Metro Rides’ Schoolpool program in Colorado
Springs.
35 |
Figure 3: Map of Participating Schools in DRCOG’s Schoolpool Program
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments. n.d. Schoolpool Map of Participating Schools.
http://www.waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool.
Schools have two different options for their families to participate in the program. First, a
school can provide Schoolpool with their entire student roster with address information. Each
family on the roster then receives a personalized list of matches with nearby families unless
they explicitly opt out of participating in the program. Families are able to make arrangements
based on the matches. The majority of Schoolpool participants come from this marketing
approach. The second approach is more common in traditional public schools, where the school
elects to participate in the program but does not make student information available to
Schoolpool unless families explicitly opt in to the program. Regardless of how a school
participates in the program, families are always given the option not to participate. Concerns
about the privacy of personal information are addressed by restricting access to matches within
a school (unless a parent opts for additional matches with nearby registered families) and using
36 |
school-specific password-protected websites to access information (or a dedicated uniform
resource locator web address).
The central role of families in the process is highlighted by the fact that Schoolpool does not
perform any background checks on the family matches (for example, reviews of driving records
or insurance information). If school transportation is especially challenging for disadvantaged
families, then it is fair to question whether the Schoolpool program is broadly available to
families with less access to technology or who primarily speak a language other than English.
The program addresses such concerns by communicating by mail when no email address is
provided with a family’s contact information. The up-front process also accommodates a paperbased approach. Schools, as well as families, can indicate a language preference, which
designates whether the communication of match information is provided in English or Spanish.
The mapping of matches can also indicate the primary language spoken by the identified
families to aid in communication.
The free program supports cooperative transportation efforts, but the ultimate success of the
program depends on how many families use the match information to pursue alternative forms
of school transportation. Program participation over-represents the impact on transportation,
since it includes many families that do not alter their existing transportation arrangements. A
survey of Schoolpool-participating families provides insight into the effectiveness of the
program in supporting alternative transportation arrangements. Of the 38 percent of
respondents who carpool to school, about a third report having used the Schoolpool match
information to arrange the car pool in 2013 (Corona Insights 2014, 3). Since 2011, the families
participating in the Schoolpool program have drastically shifted toward children attending
nontraditional public schools. Specifically, the nontraditional public school families increased
from 58 percent of Schoolpool survey respondents in 2011 to over 70 percent in 2013 (Corona
Insights 2014, 3). The car pool is by far the most common form of cooperative transportation
for those receiving the Schoolpool match information. Only 3 percent “of all respondents
indicated that their children ever walk or ride a bike to school with another child who also
attends that school” and are doing so infrequently (Corona Insights 2014, 4).
37 |
School and parent interest in the Schoolpool program increases when budgetary pressures lead
school districts to increase the minimum distances for transportation eligibility. The Schoolpool
program offers the necessary, and free, infrastructure for schools to help connect families and
improve transportation options. Its use by nontraditional public schools suggests that it is
especially valuable in the absence of formal district-based transportation programs. The service
broadly supports families working together to overcome school pick-up and drop-off challenges
that accompany family work schedules, having kids in multiple schools, participation in afterschool activities, and schools with atypical school days and years.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES
Leveraging the capabilities of public transit agencies is appealing to school districts, especially
for schools with longer school days or years, but there are limitations to such cooperative
arrangements. Federal law restricts the exclusive provision of dedicated school transportation
routes by public transit agencies receiving federal financial support (FTA 2005). There are
additional challenges to using public transit systems for comprehensive school transportation,
especially for younger students. In the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area, the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) provides bus and light-rail transportation services. In response to
recommendations from the Boulder Transit Access Options Task Force in Boulder in 2010,
Assistant Superintendent Joe Sleeper detailed some of the limits to using public transit for
school transportation. Sleeper explained that replacing BVSD with RTD bus passes is
problematic, since RTD has established bus routes while BVSD sets their “school routes based
on where [they] pick up students” and that “RTD is an option for some students, but it’s not
that widespread” (Urie 2010).
Cooperation between public transit agencies and school districts can occur in a number of
ways. A joint effort between Greeley-Evans Transit (GET) and Greeley-Evans School District 6
began promoting public transit service and the availability of student bus passes to students
and families in 2013. The impetus for the increased attention to transportation was, according
to Northridge Principal Wes Paxton, trying to match students with the most appropriate
programs regardless of location: “Each high school has different programs . . . The district wants
38 |
students to take advantage of the opportunity career pathways offers regardless of what school
boundaries they live in. This is part of how we encourage students to do so” (Peif 2013).
In the Denver metro area, the online RTD Trip Planner supports student use of their system by
allowing route searches based on specific middle and high school locations (see http://www.rtddenver.com/Schedules.shtml). RTD also offers discounted monthly fare passes, as of March 2014,
to students in elementary through high school (6 to 19 years of age) for $39.50. In 1999, the
efforts of DPS school board member Rita Moreno and Action for a Better Community resulted
in an RTD partnership with DPS offering student bus passes with additional deep discounts to
select high schools in DPS, including Lincoln, Manual, Montbello, North, and West High (Illescas
1999). The discounted bus passes were intended “to assist students who commute long
distances to school, encourage participation in after-school activities and promote attendance
in schools outside their neighborhoods” (Illescas 1999).
School districts themselves also serve as a clearinghouse for school-specific public transit
information for their students and families, especially for those who do not qualify for
traditional district-provided bus service. As recently as 2011, DPS made available RTD route
information for a selection of schools, primarily high schools, which included the closest routes
and stops for each school. The TO School Program in BVSD provides RTD route maps for each
district school on its website. In the aftermath of the 2013 Colorado floods, BVSD even linked a
district-run student shuttle serving Nederland students to Boulder High School, where they
could connect with either district or RTD buses to get to their own schools (Rubino 2013).
School districts in the Denver area work with RTD to improve service to schools through revising
existing routes, adding new routes, or adding to the number of buses running during peak
times. An example is increased frequency of RTD buses during peak times for routes serving
Platte Middle School and Boulder High School in BVSD (Young 2014). Service from RTD can
support student transportation, but ultimately routes need to have enough riders to remain in
effect (for an example, see Snider 2010). Closer collaboration comes when a school district
replaces its own transportation system, or a portion of it, with existing public transit bus routes.
In early 2004, DPS proposed shifting transportation-eligible high school students from district39 |
provided transportation to RTD buses. At the time, RTD reported that “about 2,400 high school
students and 1,300 middle school students in Denver already use RTD to get to school” (Leib
2004).
The rationale for the DPS proposal was to push back start times for high schools from 7:30 a.m.
to 9:00 a.m., which has been shown to be advantageous for student performance while also
saving money. At the time, only 3,000 of the 17,000 high school students in DPS were eligible
for district-provided transportation, and just more than half of those actually rode the district
buses on an average day. In place of district service, DPS planned on purchasing RTD bus passes
with the expectation that the $19 monthly pass for students would be “cheaper than paying for
school buses, drivers’ salaries and gas,” according to Guy Champlin, the former transportation
department executive director at DPS (Hubler 2004). The service impacts for those switching to
RTD service were also expected to be quite limited, with “average door-to-door trips” taking
only three minutes longer (Hubler 2004).
The proposal was met with opposition from parents, who were most concerned about the
safety of students (Sherry 2004), but an RTD spokesperson noted that “there [has been] no
record of any security problem involving a DPS student on an RTD bus” in the two years
preceding the policy change (Leib 2004). In addition to promising to work with DPS on safety
concerns, RTD underscored that its buses are equipped with both cameras and alarms (Leib
2004). Principal support for the proposed change was more mixed. The Montbello High School
principal at the time, Hansell Gunn, seized on the flexibility of the RTD-based system,
commenting, “There are just more options that way . . . I could run the school like a college”
(Sherry 2004).
The plan was approved by the DPS school board in March 2004, with the primary change from
the initial plan being more flexible start times for the high schools, ranging between 7:30 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m., with the latest end times moving to 4:15 p.m. from 2:30 p.m. (Rouse 2004). The
range of start times was expected to reduce stress on the RTD bus system, since “a fixed 9 a.m.
start would have had students heading home from school on RTD buses at the peak afternoon
travel time and would have forced the transit district to add bus trips to handle the overload”
40 |
(Leib 2004). The district estimated savings of $750,000 from moving high school students to
RTD buses, even after providing monthly bus passes (at $19 per month) to the eligible high
school students requesting passes. The district expected that nearly half of the transportationeligible students would participate (Leib 2004). Assuming passes were only provided for nine
months per school year, the estimated annual cost for the RTD passes would have ranged from
$256,500 (with the district’s expected participation) to $513,000 (with full participation by
eligible students). Although DPS anticipated cost savings from the switch to public transit, RTD
expected “that the new bus program will be a break-even deal for the transit district,” despite
the fact that DPS would pay for any new bus service demands (Leib 2004).11
The original rationale for the switch to RTD service remains prominent in the DPS-RTD
transportation policy. Specifically, DPS notes, “Initially the parameters were set up and
designed for only those schools [that] were already receiving yellow bus transportation to allow
schools to set later (flexible) start times (primary) and as a financial means to reduce the
budget (secondary)” (DPSDOT 2012). The district touts a number of student benefits from the
RTD pass, including that “students can use the RTD pass outside of school hours,” it “allows for
work study,” develops “life skills,” and supports “access to parks and recreation” (DPSDOT n.d.).
Charter high school students and students not attending their neighborhood school are
generally ineligible for the RTD pass, but a wider range of students may access the pass through
magnet and special programs, including the Newcomer Program, English Language Acquisition,
and Transitional Native Language Instruction at South High School, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
at Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, East, West Generation, and West Leadership schools,
and the Career Education Center (CEC) (DPSDOT 2012).12
Denver voters approved a ballot measure in November 2012 to opt out of property tax revenue
limits, which among other things helped “restore hours to library branches and provide free
access to city recreation centers for kids” (Meyer 2012). The MY Denver Card was launched by
the City and County of Denver and began to unify access to youth-oriented city programs by
11
There are also some risks to depending on an external organization for school transportation. In 2006, an RTD
strike led to reduced service and temporarily impacted high school attendance rates across the district (Sherry
2006).
12
See the complete RTD pass eligibility criteria for DPS high school students in Table A4 in the Appendix.
41 |
serving as the identification for both libraries and recreation centers. Denver officials continue
to consider expansion of the services managed through the MY Denver Card. Although its
feasibility remains unclear, the idea of adding a discounted RTD transit pass to the MY Denver
Card has been considered (Neil 2014). Public transit systems play an important role in school
transportation, especially for high school students, choice students, and students ineligible for
district-provided service. At the same time, the public transit role has traditionally been limited
by both federal restrictions and the different service demands of the two systems. In Colorado,
school districts and public transit agencies have cooperated at various levels, with DPS, in its
urban setting, able to go the farthest by outsourcing its high school transportation to RTD’s
existing system.
NOTEWORTHY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES IN COLORADO
The examples detailed in this report focus on relevant school transportation programs that
have direct implications or lessons for supporting ELT programs in Colorado schools. Other
cases show that innovative school transportation practices exist throughout the state that are
less closely related to supporting longer school days or years. In some cases, school
transportation has played a key role in supporting broad education reform efforts. In addition
to the Success Express example, DPS more recently eliminated assigned middle schools within
the Greater Park Hill/Stapleton shared boundary area. Within the boundary area, families will
choose among five middle school options without priority placement based on residential
proximity to a school. DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg believes the single enrollment zone
will increase diversity within the middle schools and that the approach “is a real path breaking
model, both locally and nationally” (Torres 2013).
Removing the guarantee that a child can attend the school closest to her or his family’s home
makes transportation concerns even more salient. The district will support the enrollment
policy change by making transportation to each of the five middle schools available from each
middle school campus. Students will be responsible for catching the bus from the middle school
closest to their home or, if needed, from designated community stops (DPS 2013). The middle
school options within the shared boundary area represent traditional, innovation, and charter
42 |
schools, including those with expanded school days and years. The policy change will increase
district-provided transportation to ELT schools and nontraditional public schools.
Other examples of innovations in school transportation include intra-school shuttles in
Jefferson County Schools, late-run buses that serve different neighborhoods for middle-school
students in Littleton Public Schools (to support after-school activities), parent-organized
transportation efforts for families not served by school districts, raising revenue to offset school
transportation costs through advertising on the sides of buses (for example, see Gray 2011), the
strategic location of ELL/ESL programs to reduce transportation burdens for families and
districts, and the introduction of hybrid school buses to reduce fuel consumption and emissions
(Whaley 2009).
CONCLUSION
The coordination of school transportation is increasingly important as schools desire more
discretion in designing the structure of their daily schedules and annual calendars. The growth
of open enrollment and school choice in Colorado has shifted some of the transportation
burden away from districts and onto families, which should not obscure its continued
relevance. Even though many ELT schools do not qualify for or receive district-provided
transportation services, it is impossible to tell how many public schools fail to consider changes
to the school day or year because of the need to maintain their existing transportation options.
Although bus scheduling is a significant challenge, existing transportation services can often
accommodate limited bell time changes with minor cost implications.
The ability of students, especially from disadvantaged families, to take advantage of longer
school days and years depends more heavily than ever on the availability of transportation
when these programs are located outside neighborhoods with demonstrated need. Existing
practices in Colorado illustrate a number of paths to improving the flexibility of school
transportation systems. The tight coupling of bus schedules across schools highlights the
importance of district systems to prioritize scheduling demands based on the actual and
43 |
expected programmatic impacts at the school level. Determining how to balance these student
outcomes with potentially higher costs of transportation service will demand sophistication and
direction from district-level policymakers. Improved schedule coordination across schools
within a district, especially those serving different grade levels, is essential to maintaining
efficiencies in transportation while supporting school-level discretion.
The transportation programs detailed here, some of which were instrumental in broader school
reform efforts, can inform future practices to support changes in school schedules and
calendars. Expanding time in school along with programmatic changes offers promise to school
improvement efforts. The school transportation challenges and responses presented here
remind policymakers not to overlook simply getting the students to these schools in the first
place.
44 |
REFERENCES
Atlas Preparatory School. n.d. 2013–2014 Transportation Form.
http://www.atlasprep.org/pdf/bus.pdf.
Aurora Public Schools/Aurora Education Association (APS/AEA). 2013. Aurora Public Schools
Pilot Schools Manual. http://aurorak12.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/Pilot-school-manual-updated-for-August-20131.pdf.
Blevins, Jason. 1999. “Driver Deficit ‘Critical’: Private Sector Beats Out Schools.” The Denver
Post, March 21, A1.
Bounds, Amy. 2012. “Four Lafayette Schools to Explore Extended Learning Time.” Colorado
Hometown Weekly, December 5.
———. 2013a. “Boulder Valley Consultant: Varying Bell Schedules Contribute to High
Transportation Costs.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, March 17.
———. 2013b. “Boulder Valley Changing Bell Schedules to Reduce Bus Costs: Three-Year Plan
Will Result in ‘Huge Change’.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, April 23.
———. 2013c. “Boulder Valley Planning to Reduce Bus Service, Affecting Hundreds of
Students.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, June 6.
———. 2013d. “Boulder Valley School District Backs Off Bus Service Cuts for Fall.” (Boulder)
Daily Camera, June 11.
Brennan, Charlie. 2012. “DPS Mulls Longer Day for Middle Schools.” EdNews Colorado, January
30.
Charter School Solutions. 2008. Charter School Transportation.
http://blog.charterschoolsolutions.org/2008/02/charter-school-transportation.html.
Chin, Christine. 2012. Colorado Innovation Schools Act Annual Report. Colorado Department of
Education.
Colorado Charter Schools Act. 22-30.5. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/chact.
Colorado Department of Education (CDE). 2012. Colorado School Transportation Facts 2010.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdenutritran/download/word/trans
/coloschooltransfacts2010.doc.
———. 2013. Innovation Schools Waivers 2013–14.
45 |
———. 2014a. 2013 Pupil Membership – Districts Serving Non-District Students.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/fall2013studentsattendingpublicschoolsnotinparentsdistri
ctofresidencexls.
———. 2014b. 2013 District Rankings by Pupil Membership.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/fall2013districtrankingpupilmembershiphightolowxls.
———. 2014c. Fiscal Year 2008–09 through Fiscal Year 2012–13 Historical Transportation Data,
2014. http://www.cde.state.co.us/transportation_history.
———. n.d. Colorado Charter Schools Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/faq#sthash.HipBlsts.dpuf.
Colorado Department of Education Unit of Federal Programs Administration (CDE-UFPA). 2014.
No Child Left Behind Colorado State Report Card 2011–12.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/NCLB%20Report%20Card%202-20-14.pdf.
Corona Insights. 2014. Survey of Schoolpool Families: 2013. Denver Regional Council of
Governments.
Daly, Joseph L., and Robert W. Richburg. 1984. Student Achievement in the Four-day School
Week. Office for Rural Education, Colorado State University.
Dam, Ai. 2006. The Four-day School Week. Office of Educational Services, Colorado Department
of Education.
Denver Public Schools (DPS). 2013. Greater Park Hill/Stapleton Middle School Shared Boundary
Enrollment Packet for 2014–15: Middle School Transportation 2014–15 School Year.
http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/GPHSSharedBoundary_ENG.pdf.
Denver Public Schools Department of Transportation (DPSDOT). 2012. DPS-RTD Transportation
Pass Eligibility Facts. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DPS-RTDPass-Eligibility.pdf.
———. n.d. RTD Pass Eligibility. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/eligibility/rts-pass-eligibility/.
Donis-Keller, Christine, and David L. Silvernail. 2009. Research Brief: A Review of the Evidence on
the Four-Day School Week. Center for Education Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation,
University of Southern Maine.
Ely, Todd, and Paul Teske. 2014. Success Express: Transportation Innovation in Denver Public
Schools, A Case Study for Mile High Connects. The Center for Education Policy Analysis, School
of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver.
Farbman, David, and Claire Kaplan. 2005. Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended-Time
Schools for Promoting Student Achievement. Massachusetts 2020.
http://www.mass2020.org/files/file/Time-for-a-change(1).pdf.
46 |
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2005. Public Transportation and School Buses.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/SchoolBusBrochureJanuary19-2005.pdf.
Fuller, Jessica. 2013. Colorado Innovation Schools Act: 2013 Districts of Innovation Annual
Report. Colorado Department of Education.
Global Village Academy – Colorado Springs. 2012. Charter School Application Submitted August
31, 2012.
Gray, Ryan. 2011. “Colorado School District Evolves School Bus Advertising Program to Offset
Operation Costs.” School Transportation News, February 10.
Haigh, Susan. 2013. “Longer School Days in Store for Some in 5 States.” The Denver Post,
November 12.
Hewitt, Paul M., and George S. Denny. 2011. “The Four-Day School Week: Impact on Student
Academic Performance.” Rural Educator 32 (2).
Hubler, Eric. 2004. “Later Start for High Schools? Backers of DPS Plan Say It Could Boost Student
Performance, Cut Busing Costs.” The Denver Post, February 5, B1.
Hupfeld, Kelly. 2009. Options for Autonomous Schools in Colorado: A Handbook for School and
District Leaders. The Center for Education Policy Analysis, School of Public Affairs, University of
Colorado Denver.
Illescas, Carlos. 1999. “Discounted Bus Passes to Ease School Trip for Some Students.” The
Denver Post, September 5, A32.
Iodice, Kristina. 2011. “D-49’s Fee-Based Bus Service Far from Break-Even Point.” The (Colorado
Springs) Gazette, July 9.
Jefferson County Public Schools. n.d. Expanded Learning Opportunities 2012–13 Final Report.
Kaplan, Claire, David A. Farbman, Sharon Deich, and Heather Clapp Padgette. 2014. Financing
Expanded Learning Time in Schools: A Look at Five District Expanded-Time Schools. National
Center on Time & Learning/The Wallace Foundation.
Kolbe, Tammy, Mark Partridge, and Fran O’Reilly. n.d. National Center on Time & Learning Time
and Learning in Schools: A National Profile. National Center on Time & Learning/Center for
Education Policy Analysis, University of Connecticut.
Lefly, Dianne L., and Jhon Penn. 2011. Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on
Four‐Day and Five‐Day Calendars 2011. Colorado Department of Education.
Leib, Jeffrey. 2004. “DPS’ Flexible Start Praised.” The Denver Post, March 22, B2.
Management Partnership Services, Inc. (MPS). 2013. Transportation Assessment Final Report
Prepared for: Boulder Valley School District.
47 |
Meyer, Jeremy P. 2009a. “Transit Issues Snag School Choice.” The Denver Post, July 18, B2.
———. 2009b. “DPS School Choice a Hit.” The Denver Post, November 2, A15.
———. 2012. “Denver Willing to Pay More.” The Denver Post, November 7, 5V.
Montessori del Mundo. 2012. 2012 Charter School Application for Charter School Institute
August 22nd, 2012.
Munro, Laura, and Jennifer Arzberger. n.d. Centennial: A School for Expeditionary Learning.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/Centennial_Innovation_Plan_Final.pdf.
National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL). n.d. Expanded-Time Schools Database Criteria.
http://www.timeandlearning.org/expanded-time-schools-database-criteria.
National Center on Time & Learning/Education Commission of the States (NCTL/ECS). 2011.
Learning Time in America: Trends to Reform the American School Calendar, A Snapshot of
Federal, State, and Local Action.
Neil, Lindsay. 2014. “Mile High Connects: Expanding Opportunity in the Denver Region.”
Presentation at Housing, Transportation, and Education Nexus: An Invited, National Policy
Symposium, February 12, 2014.
New Legacy Charter High School. 2013. Charter School Application for the Colorado Charter
School Institute Submitted August 14, 2013.
Peif, Sherrie. 2013. “ʻGET to School’ Bus Program Kicked Off This Week.” Greeley Tribune,
January 11.
Poppen, Julie. 2012. “Denver Schools Launch Extended Learning Pilot.” EdNews Colorado, July
16. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2012/07/16/dps-launches-extended-learning-pilot/.
Portee, Nicole, and David Suppes. 2013. Denver Public Schools Interdepartmental
Communication: Bell Time Modification Request and Athletics Input Timeline.
Price, Kelci M., Amelia Challender, and Bonnie Walters. 2011. Crafting an Innovation School:
Findings from Denver’s first eight Innovation schools. University of Colorado Denver: The
Evaluation Center, School of Education and Human Development.
Rouse, Karen. 2004. “Come Fall, Denver Kids Will Ride to School on RTD.” The Denver Post,
March 19, A1.
———. 2007. “Since 1991, Redefining Communities.” The Denver Post, January 14, A10.
Roza, Marguerite, and Karen Hawley Miles. 2008. Taking Stock of the Fiscal Costs of Expanded
Learning Time. Center for American Progress.
Rubino, Joe. 2013. “BVSD Establishes Boulder-Nederland Student Shuttle.” (Boulder) Daily
Camera, September 20.
48 |
Schimel, Kate. 2014a. “In a Step Back from National Initiative, Manual Ends Year-Round
Schooling, Longer Day.” Chalkbeat Colorado, February 26.
http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/02/26/in-a-step-back-from-national-initiative-manual-ends-yearround-schooling-longer-day/.
———. 2014b. “Longer Day Divides School Community at Denver Elementary School.”
Chalkbeat Colorado, April 14. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/04/14/longer-day-divides-schoolcommunity-at-denver-elementary-school/.
Sherry, Allison. 2004. “Plan for RTD Buses, Late Start at Denver High Schools Opposed.” The
Denver Post, March 5, B1.
———. 2006. “High School Students Forced to Take a Hike, Beg for Rides.” The Denver Post,
April 4, A12.
Snider, Laura. 2010. “RTD Plans to Cut Lynx Bus Route between Louisville and Broomfield.”
(Boulder) Daily Camera, January 26.
Teske, Paul, Jody Fitzpatrick, and Tracey O’Brien. 2009. Drivers of Choice: Parents,
Transportation and School Choice. Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington.
Thaxton, Zach. 2011. “School Bus Service Options: Privatize? Make Riders Pay?” January 18.
http://www.koaa.com/news/school-bus-service-options-privatize-make-riders-pay-/.
Torres, Zahira. 2013. “DPS Combines Boundaries.” The Denver Post, June 21, 6A.
Urie, Heath. 2010. “Boulder Transit Group: End Open Enrollment, Expand Student Walking
Zones.” (Boulder) Daily Camera, April 29.
U.S. Department of Education. n.d. Public School Data File, 2007–08. National Center for
Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).
Vincent, Jeffrey M., Carrie Makarewicz, Ruth Miller, Julia Ehrman, and Deborah L. McKoy. 2014.
Beyond the Yellow Bus: Promising Practices for Maximizing Access to Opportunity through
Innovations in Student Transportation. Berkeley: Center for Cities + Schools, University of
California.
Whaley, Monte. 2009. “The Engine on the Bus Goes . . . ” The Denver Post, January 14, B2.
Young, Bob. 2014. Phone conversation with Todd Ely, March 3.
49 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to those individuals who graciously contributed their time and experiences through
interviews and discussions about school transportation and expanded learning time, including:
Mia Bemelen, Way to Go Specialist, Denver Regional Council of Governments
Pauline Gervais, Former Executive Director, DPS Transportation Department
Pam Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Padres & Jóvenes Unidos
Nola Miguel, Council Aide, City and County of Denver
Nicole Portee, Executive Director, DPS Transportation Department
Bob Young, Director, BVSD Transportation Department
We also thank Allison Tung and Rachel Ibarra, students at the University of Colorado Denver
School of Public Affairs, for their outstanding research support.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Todd L. Ely is assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado
Denver. His research and teaching focus on the financing of state and local public services,
education finance and policy, and public and nonprofit financial management.
Paul Teske is dean and distinguished professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University
of Colorado Denver. His research is centered on education policy, regulatory policy, and urban
policy. He has written books and articles on urban location choices, school choice, incentivebased teacher pay plans, and related education topics.
Mile High Connects is a broad partnership of organizations from the private, public, and
nonprofit sectors that are committed to increasing access to housing choices, good jobs, quality
schools, and essential services via public transit. By increasing resources, influencing policy,
working with residents, and leveraging the current and expanding metro-Denver transit system,
Mile High Connects will use transit to promote a vital region full of opportunity for everyone.
Mile High Connects’ mission is to ensure that the metro-Denver regional transit system fosters
communities that offer all residents the opportunity for a high quality of life.
50 |
APPENDIX
Table A1: School District Transportation Policy Review
School
District
(ordered by
student
count)
Explicitly
Mentions
ELTSchool
Transport
Distance Thresholds for Receiving School
Transportation
Elementary
Middle
High School
(1–5)
(6–8)
(9–12)
Parents Pay:
Exemptions
for FRL-Eligible
and IEPRequired
“SpaceAvailable”
Application
Online
Jefferson
County R-1
No
1 mile from
neighborhood
school (PK
none, K > 1
mile but no
midday
service)
2 miles from
neighborhood
school
Denver
County 1
Success
Express
and RTD
pass
1 mile from
boundary
school and
hazardous
walk areas for
ECE-5
Douglas
County Re
1
No
Specific
designated
regions
“feeder area”
schools
2.5 miles from
neighborhood
school
Yes: $150/year
for assigned
schools. $200/
year for
options
schools.
$75/year for
intra-school
shuttles.
Yes
2.5 miles from
boundary school
3.5 miles from
boundary
school
No
Yes
No
Specific
designated
regions “feeder
area” schools
Specific
designated
regions “feeder
area” schools
Yes: $.50 each
one-way trip
and max
$1/day, with
$25 initial
Zpass fee
(annual rides
discounted to
$150)
May be
handled
through
Special
Needs
Leadership
Team
No
51 |
Charges
Fees for
“SpaceAvailable”
Riders
(amount)
Yes: $200/
year for
“Choice
enrolled
students or
students
ineligible
for bus
service.”
Use
Public
Mass
Transit
Transportation
Pass
Technology
(e.g., student
tracking)
No
“After the first
two weeks of
school, students
will need
to show their
pass upon
boarding the
bus.”
Yes: +Pass
tracks real-time
ridership on
district bus
RTD bus
pass for
grades
9–12,
unless
Success
Express
No
Zpass card w/
RFID (radio
frequency
identification)
Cherry
Creek 5
No
1 mile from
assigned
school for K–5
+ options to
designate
certain schools
/boundaries as
nontransported
There is a
walking
distance
cutoff, but it is
calculated by
address.
1.5 miles from
assigned school +
options to
designate certain
schools/boundari
es as nontransported
2 miles from
assigned school
+ options to
designate
certain
schools/bound
aries as nontransported
No
Yes
No
No
No
Adams 12
Five Star
Schools
No
There is a walking
distance cutoff,
but it is calculated
by address.
There is a
walking
distance cutoff,
but it is
calculated by
address.
Yes
Yes:
monthly
$15/child
No
Zpass card w/
RFID, PK/K
bracelets, and
MS/HS IDs
1.25 miles
from school
within
attendance
boundary for
K–5 and K–8 +
exceptions
1.5 miles
2 miles from
school within
attendance
boundary for 6–8;
1.25 miles for K–8
+ exceptions
3 miles from
school within
attendance
boundary for
9–12 +
exceptions
Yes: monthly
$15/child or
$30/
household if
2+ children for
maximum of
$300/year
No
AdamsArapahoe
28j (Aurora
Public
Schools)
No
No (space
available
mentioned
on a school
site with
approval)
No
No
Zpass card w/
RFID
Boulder
Valley Re 2
St. Vrain
Valley Re 1J
No
2 miles
2.5 miles
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
1.5 miles from
school in home
attendance
area
2.5 miles from
school in home
attendance
area
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
1.25–1.5 miles
within
attendance
area
boundaries
2.5 miles from
school in home
attendance area;
1.5 miles if K–8
school
1.5–2 miles within
attendance area
boundaries
Colorado
Springs 11
2–2.5 miles
within
attendance
area
boundaries
No
Yes
No
No
No
52 |
Poudre R-1
No
1 mile from
neighborhood
school
1.5 miles from
neighborhood
school
2 miles from
neighborhood
school
No
Academy
20
No
1.5 miles from
school of
attendance
1.75 miles from
school of
attendance
1.75 miles from
school of
attendance
Mesa
County
Valley 51
Weld
County 6
(GreeleyEvans)
Sheridan 2
No
2 miles from
neighborhood
school
1.25 miles
from
neighborhood
school
1 mile from
assigned
school
3 miles from
neighborhood
school
1.5 miles from
neighborhood
school
3 miles from
neighborhood
school
2.25 miles from
neighborhood
school
Yes: $.50/ride
to assigned
school (max
$500/year);
$.60/ride to
choice school
(max $600/
year); $10
initial fee;
annual pass
discounts and
fee waivers
available
No
1 mile from
assigned school
1 mile from
assigned school
Englewood
1
No
No
No
1 mile from
No
No
assigned
school
Note: Information in table was gathered from active school district websites.
Yes: can
also apply
for
alternative
location,
medical,
and votech
transport
Yes
No
No
No
Yes: $.70/
ride (max
$70/
month,
$700/year);
$10 initial
fee; annual
pass
discounts
and fee
waivers
available
No
Yes: RFID cards
Yes
Yes; ($10/
month)
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No:
principal
approval
needed
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
53 |
Table A2: Colorado School Districts with Four-Day School Weeks, 2010–11 School Year
District Name
AGATE 300
AGUILAR REORGANIZED 6
BIG SANDY 100J
BRANSON REORGANIZED 82
BRIGGSDALE RE‐10
CALHAN RJ‐1
CAMPO RE‐6
CENTENNIAL R‐1
CHERAW 31
COTOPAXI RE‐3
CREEDE 1
CRIPPLE CREEK‐VICTOR RE‐1
CROWLEY COUNTY RE‐1‐J
CUSTER COUNTY C‐1
DEER TRAIL 26J
DEL NORTE C‐7
DOLORES COUNTY RE-2
EADS RE‐1
EAST GRAND 2
EDISON 54 JT
ELBERT 200
ELLICOTT 22
FRENCHMAN RE‐3
GENOA‐HUGO C113
GILPIN COUNTY RE‐1
HANOVER 28
HAYDEN RE‐1
HINSDALE COUNTY RE-1
HI‐PLAINS R‐23
HOEHNE REORGANIZED 3
HOLLY RE‐3
HUERFANO RE‐1
October 2010
Student Count
33
97
300
464
142
585
52
234
204
204
88
392
471
426
151
567
278
167
1,271
206
213
929
185
154
337
210
378
80
102
323
266
537
District Name
KARVAL RE‐23
KIM REORGANIZED 88
KIOWA C‐2
LA VETA RE‐2
LAS ANIMAS RE‐1
LIMON RE‐4J
LONE STAR 101
MCCLAVE RE‐2
MIAMI/YODER 60 JT
MOFFAT 2
MONTE VISTA C‐8
MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE-1
NORTH PARK R‐1
PARK COUNTY RE‐2
PEYTON 23 JT
PLAINVIEW RE‐2
PLATEAU VALLEY 50
PLATTE VALLEY RE‐3
PRAIRIE RE‐11
PRIMERO REORGANIZED 2
PRITCHETT RE‐3
PUEBLO COUNTY 70
RANGELY RE‐4
SANFORD 6J
SANGRE DE CRISTO RE‐22J
SIERRA GRANDE R‐30
SOUTH CONEJOS RE‐10
TRINIDAD 1
WELDON VALLEY RE‐20(J)
WEST GRAND 1‐JT
WILEY RE‐13 JT
WOODLIN R‐104
October 2010
Student Count
233
56
344
211
503
435
104
272
294
191
1,132
106
185
520
651
76
442
120
166
205
60
8,562
435
318
296
260
237
1,352
198
429
213
99
Source: Lefly, Dianne L., and Jhon Penn. 2011. Comparison of Colorado School Districts Operating on Four‐Day and
Five‐Day Calendars 2011. Colorado Department of Education, 16–17.
54 |
Table A3: Schoolpool Participating Schools, 2013–14 School Year
American Academy – Castle Pines
American Academy – Parker
Aspen Academy
Aurora Academy Charter School
Belle Creek Charter School
Ben Franklin Academy
Bishop Machebeuf High School
Challenge School
Cherry Creek Academy
Cornerstone Christian Academy
D’Evelyn Jr./Sr. High School
DCS Montessori Charter School
Denver Academy
Denver Jewish Day School
Denver Language School
Denver Montclair International School
Denver School of the Arts
Denver Waldorf School
Downtown Denver Expeditionary School
DSST: Byers
DSST: Cole
DSST: College View
DSST: Stapleton
Eagle Ridge Academy Charter High School
Excel Academy
Fairview High School
Flagstaff Academy
Fremont Elementary
Girls Athletic Leadership School
Global Village Academy – Northglenn
Hamilton Middle School
High Point Academy
Horizon High School
Jefferson Academy Charter School
Lakewood High School
Legacy Academy
Lincoln Elementary School
McAuliffe International School
McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School
Morey Middle School
Northglenn High School
North Star Academy
Parker Core Knowledge Charter School
Peak to Peak
Platte River Academy
Prospect Ridge Academy
Regis Jesuit High School
Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen
Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning
Ryan Elementary School
Sims-Fayola International Academy
SkyView Academy
Southeast Christian School
St. Mary’s Academy
St. Thomas More Catholic School
Stanley British Primary School
Stargate Charter School
STEM Launch
STEM Magnet Lab School
STEM School and Academy
The Academy
Twin Peaks Charter Academy
Valor Christian High School
Walnut Hills Elementary
Welchester Elementary
Westlake Middle School
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments. n.d. Schoolpool List of Participating Schools.
http://www.waytogo.org/getting-around/schoolpool.
55 |
Table A4: Established Denver Public Schools-Regional Transit District (DPS-RTD) Transportation
Pass Eligibility Parameters (for high school students grades 9–12)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Students who are 19 years old or younger (RTD regulated)
Students must live within the District attendance area
Students must live outside the School Board established walk zones (3.5 miles – high schools)
Special Education Students who’s IEPs allow
Charter Schools are ineligible for District Sponsored DPS-RTD Passes
Students must attend their neighborhood school (not “School of Choice”) or,
Student who attend a magnet program or school
 International Baccalaureate (IB) @ George Washington
 Newcomer Program @ South
 English Language Acquisition (ELA) @ South
 Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) @ South
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) @ Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, East, West Generation,
and West Leadership
 Students who are registered @ Career Education Center (CEC) who meet all other parameters
and are not eligible for the pass from their home school
 Students at Denver Center for International Studies (DCIS) who also meet parameters 1 thru 3
 Students at Denver School of the Arts (DSA) who also meet parameters 1 thru 3
Other Considerations
8.
There are cases when one member of a family is eligible but another is not. This usually happens
when the family members may both attend the same school but one is enrolled in a Magnet
Program the other is “School of Choice”.
9.
Homeless students under the McKinney Vento Act processed through the Educational Outreach
Program (EOP) office are eligible for the DPS-RTD pass.
10. Initially the parameters were set up and designed for only those schools who were already
receiving yellow bus transportation to allow schools to set later (flexible) start times (primary) and
as a financial means to reduce the budget (secondary).
Other Schools/Programs using RTD Passes
1.
Emily Griffith High School issues DPS-RTD passes to their students; they reimburse Transportation
for each pass issued.
Source: Denver Public Schools Transportation Services. August 2012. DPS-RTD Transportation Pass Eligibility Facts.
http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DPS-RTD-Pass-Eligibility.pdf.
56 |
Exhibit A1: Denver Public Schools “Request for Schedule Change” Form
57 |
Source: Denver Public Schools (DPS). Request for Schedule Change. December 2013.
http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/RequesttoModifyBellTime_Form.pdf.
58 |
Exhibit A2: Success Express Near Northeast Route Map and How To Read “Success Express”
Schedule, 2013–14 School Year
59 |
Source: Denver Public Schools Department of Transportation. 2013. Near Northeast Success Express! 2013–2014
Schedule – August, 2013 Edition. http://transportation.dpsk12.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Success-
Express-Near-Norhteast-Printer-Friendly.pdf.
60 |