JCPS Transportation Audit

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON
COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND
THE TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES OF AUGUST 9, 2023
PHASE 1 REPORT
112 S. Tryon St, Suite 1170

Charlo�e, NC 28202
(704) 438-9929
Prisma�cServices.com
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1-1
2 School Choice Initiative 2-1
3 School Start Time Initiative 3-1
4 Routing Optimization Initiative 4-1
5 Purchasing and Contracting 5-1
6 Cross-Area Findings 6-1
7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1
A Principal Survey Results A-1
B Peer Survey Results B-1
C Example of Lengthy Routes and Runs C-1
D Unsafe AR Stops D-1
E Sample AR Route Sheet E-1
i
Chapter 1
Introduction
In October 2024, Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) contracted with

Prismatic Services to undertake an assessment of the transportation
activities of August 9, 2023 (Phase 1) and the transportation program
(Phase 2). The district termed the transportation activities of August 9,
2023 as “the Incident.” As noted in the district’s request for proposals
(RFP), the goals of Phase 1 were to:
♦ Perform a comprehensive analysis of the Incident

♦ Identify and assess the conditions that gave rise to the Incident.
This may include, but not be limited to, an assessment of:
o Project Management
o System Implementation
o Personnel Competency
o Organizational and Community Communications
♦ Provide recommendations to address the conditions that gave
rise to the Incident.
♦ Provide commentary regarding the potential for conditions that
gave rise to the Incident and any related root cause analysis to
impact other aspects of JCPS operations.
This report is provided in fulfillment of Prismatic’s contract for Phase 1. It
is important to note that JCPS voluntarily undertook this work.
Project Approach
Prismatic proposed and followed a 5-task work plan to meet the district’s
requirements for Phase 1:
1. Initiate Project and Phase 1

2. Collect Incident background information
1-1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
3. Conduct Phase 1 investigation
4. Draft Phase 1 report
5. Develop and present Phase 1 final report
Throughout Phase 1, Prismatic coordinated with the JCPS director of

internal audit to discuss activities completed, review challenges or
changes in project progress, review activities scheduled, and review
upcoming project products and deadlines. Project activities occurred
from October 2023 through January 2024. Data analysis and report
writing occurred from October 2023 through February 2024.
Thoroughly identifying and analyzing the root causes of the Incident

required reviewing district plans and actions going back several years
(and in some cases, decades). Prismatic recognized that 3 separate
initiatives were pursued and implemented on the first day of school in
2023-24:
♦ School Choice Initiative (SC) – the rollout of a new student

assignment plan that gave families different school choices than
they previously had
♦ School Start Time Initiative (SST) – termed “Start Smart” by JCPS,

the development of new school start times in recognition of the
latest sleep science but also in response to the district’s bus
driver shortage
♦ Routing Optimization Initiative (RO) – this included the use of

new software tools to attempt to improve route efficiency so that
fewer bus drivers would be needed
The 3 initiatives can be thought of as 3 strands of a braided rug. Each

strand is essential for building the rows of the rug as they overlap and are
entwined together. Some rug strands may be more prominent and stand
out more than others. For JCPS, the SC and SST initiatives were the more
visible changes to district leadership and the community at large.
Implementation of them both though, relied upon the 3rd strand, the RO
initiative, in order to reduce the number of required bus drivers and get
students to school on time. Consideration and discussion of just 1
initiative without awareness of the impact of the other 2 initiatives would
ignore critical connections between developments leading up to the
Incident and what became perhaps a Gordian knot for JCPS. In chapters
2-4 of this report, Prismatic has endeavored to analyze the impact of each
initiative individually upon the Incident but recognizes that the
relationship between them is complex.
1-2
Timeline of Key Dates Leading Up to 2022-23 School Year
Related to
Which
Date JCPS Activity Initiative
JCPS contracts with a vendor for a bell time study. The study
2010-11 recommends a move to a 3-tier bell schedule. No change made SST, RO
to the existing 2-tier schedule.
2015-16
through JCPS contracts with a vendor for bus routing software. RO
2018-19
A Kentucky DOE Audit of JCPS is conducted. One of its
recommendations:
2017 ♦ “analyze bus routes (including double runs) for the most RO
efficient and effective solution to the transportation
challenges.”
October
Student Assignment Review Advisory Committee is formed. SC
2017
November JCPS contracts with a vendor for student assignment plan
SC
2019 consulting.
A Kentucky DOE Audit of JCPS is released. Two of its
recommendations:
♦ “develop a process that allows the transportation
November department to be included in discussions around school
SC, RO
2020 choice and student assignment.”
♦ “develop a recruitment plan to ensure the district has
enough bus drivers and monitors to support the school
choice opportunities.”
School Board given presentation on the DOE Audit and the JCPS
December
Corrective Action Plan. No details are provided related to the 2 SC, RO
2020
preceding transportation recommendations.
School Board given presentation on school start times changes
April 2021 SST
as a method to improve student achievement.
JCPS contracts with a vendor for bell time and bus routing
June 2021 optimization consulting. Plan includes changing bell times for at SST, RO
least some JCPS schools for 2022-23 school year.
School Board given presentation on the bus driver shortage,
August
noting that the district has eliminated ~200 bus routes in the RO
2021
previous 6-7 years.
School Board given presentation bus driver shortage, bell
February
times, and research on benefits of later school start times for SST, RO
2022
older students.
School Board given presentation on start times that includes 2
March phases for new bell times and bus routing. Phase 1 includes
SST, RO
2022 moving a “small number of schools” to a 9:55 am start in
August 2022.
April 2022 School Board given presentation on school choice proposal. SC
1-3
Related to
Which
Date JCPS Activity Initiative
District abandons idea of changing some school start times in
Spring
August 2022, in favor of a more “comprehensive,” full scale SC, SST, RO
2022
roll-out of all 3 initiatives in August 2023.
June 2022 New School Choice plan approved. SC
As part of this project phase, Prismatic:
♦ interviewed 6 school board members
♦ collected data from the district in response to an initial data

request of 55 items, then additional data items as the study
progressed
♦ completed 101 interviews, most with district staff (some staff

were interviewed multiple times)
♦ visited 32 schools to observe morning bus drop-offs or afternoon

bus pick-ups; these visits sometimes included short, informal
interviews with principals/other staff
♦ administered a principal survey that received 109 responses
♦ spent a total of 32 days onsite across all Prismatic staff,

conducting interviews, completing transportation observations,
and reviewing data in technology systems
♦ developed draft and final reports
1-4
32
Days Onsite
109 89
Responses to the
Principal Survey JCPS Staff
Interviews
220 12 32
Items Provided by School Board and
Staff for External Interviews School
the Initial Data Observations
Request
Project Limitations
All projects of this nature have time and resource constraints. Beyond
those typical constraints, this project had these limitations:
♦ A portion of district interviewees expressed concerns regarding

confidentiality. A few either explicitly or tacitly expressed
concerns about retaliation if their interview responses were
shared with district staff. A few were reluctant to share data
items for the same reason. In Prismatic’s experience, the number
of interviewees expressing these types of concerns was higher
than usual.
1-5
♦ Because prior events impacted what became known as the
Incident, Prismatic asked some interviewees to recount district
activities from years ago. Few district staff reported having kept
written notes regarding meetings, events, or reasoning behind
decisions made. This was true of recent and historical events, so
interviewees sometimes had to rely solely upon memories. In
some cases, district staff members could not recall specifics. In
other cases, district staff could remember specifics, but did not
have documentation to support them.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
♦ Chapter 2 - School Choice Initiative Findings

♦ Chapter 3 - School Start Time Initiative Findings
♦ Chapter 4 - Routing Optimization Initiative Findings
♦ Chapter 5 - Financial/Procurement Findings
♦ Chapter 6 - Multi-area Findings
♦ Chapter 7 - Conclusions
♦ Appendices
1-6
Chapter 2
School Choice Initiative
Background
Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) has a long history of offering
students and parents school choice. Jefferson County Schools
desegregated in 1965. In 1975, Jefferson County and Louisville City
Schools merged. At that time, as mandated by the federal District Court,
the Alphabet Plan emerged and assigned students to schools based on
their address, grade, race, and the alphabet letter of the student’s last
name. At that time, all schools, except those with special purposes,
desegregated using mandatory busing. Certain students from the east
and south ends attended west end schools, and students from the west
attended schools in the east and south.
In 1984, with input from the community and stakeholders, the Student
Assignment Plan changed. School attendance zones were redrawn so
that students could attend the same school zone throughout middle and
high school. Mandatory busing ended for the east and south ends of the
district but continued for the students living in the west end of the
district. The modification created the first stage of the West Louisville
satellite area.
The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990 caused JCPS to make
modifications to the Student Assignment Plan. In 1991, the Alphabet
Student Assignment Plan ended, and Project Renaissance began. Project
Renaissance removed automatic school changes in the elementary
grades to provide stability for students. Through this plan, students
applied for schools or programs of their choice and were assigned
according to school capacity, racial guidelines, and admission criteria for
some schools. In addition, the idea of elementary school clusters began.
In 1995, the district conducted another review of their Student
Assignment Plan. The district sought public input and solutions. The
district then changed its guidelines again to require 15-50% of school
enrollment to be Black students.
2-1
Chapter 2 – School Choice Initiative
In 2000, Judge Heyburn dissolved the original desegregation decree and
banned the use of racial quotas at Central High School, then ordered the
district to develop new admission procedures for magnet schools before
the 2002-03 school year. The plan focused on “managed choice” and
allowed student school assignments based on elementary clusters,
magnet schools using criteria, open enrollment at high schools, and via
transfers.
After yet another court case in 2007, JCPS stopped making student
assignments based solely on race. In 2008, JCPS created a new student
assignment plan that divided the district into 2 geographic areas based
on the minority population, average household income, and average
education level of parents. Each school had to have between 15 and 50%
of its population consisting of students from zones with minority
populations that were higher than 48%. Elementary schools regrouped
into regional clusters at that time. With each change in the Student
Assignment Plan came a change in the guidelines. The district definition
of minority changed for policy purposes from “Black students” to “all
students who are non-white.” Exhibit 2-1 provides the minority
population guidelines required.
Exhibit 2-1
Minority Guidelines for Schools
Level 1975 1984 1991 2001

Elementary 15% - 50% 23% - 43% 15% - 50% 15% - 50%
Middle 15% - 50% 22% - 42% 16% - 46% 15% - 50%
High 15% - 50% 18% - 38% 12% - 42% 15% - 50%
Source: JCPS, 2023
In 2009, the JCPS school board approved new MS and HS boundaries, but
delayed implementation after reviewing a report on the new boundaries.
The new boundaries utilized guidelines around student diversity as an
attempt to provide a balance at each MS/HS.
The district contracted with an external consultant to study the Student

Assignment Plan in 2011 to analyze the balance of diversity throughout
the district, and transportation services available for each cluster.
Findings included:
♦ elementary clusters were large
♦ there were long transportation times
♦ 40% of schools did not meet the diversity guidelines previously

established
In 2012, after seeking community input and studying the consultant’s

recommendations, the school board made new changes:
2-2
♦ developed a new definition of diversity for schools which
included three categories based on median household income,
race/ethnicity, and the average education of adults in the
household
♦ created new diversity guidelines based on weighted averages
♦ added English as Second Language (ESL) in each elementary

school’s diversity index
♦ adjusted student assignment processes for Kindergarten

students
♦ adjusted diversity index calculations for middle and high schools

to include by grade level within each middle and high school
By the 2011-12 school year, new MS boundaries began; by 2012-13, new

HS boundaries began. Students impacted by boundary changes were
“grandfathered in” and allowed to remain at their current school. The
decision to grandfather certain students and reclassify schools mitigated
the potential disruptions caused by boundary changes. Grandfathering
allowed students to maintain their current educational environment.
Throughout the boundary change process, some schools reclassified as

magnet schools, and opened to students throughout the district. Over
time, JCPS recognized certain magnet schools were not true to the
Magnet Schools of America standards and were not attracting students
from across the district. To address these issues, JCPS took corrective
measures, including changing a total of 17 schools back to traditional
schools, closing schools, or reinventing them.
School boundaries went through multiple adjustments from 2012 to 2022

in response to changes in residing population, as well as a restructuring
of schools and their purpose. The primary focus of these changes was to
address the evolving needs of students. The fact that boundaries changed
multiple times highlights the dynamic nature of educational planning.
These adjustments likely responded to shifts in population distribution
and changes in the educational landscape. Allowing students to remain
at their originally assigned school during boundary changes became a
customary practice in JCPS. This practice minimized disruptions for
students and families, providing them with continuity in their educational
experiences despite changes in the school or boundary structure. The
practice of allowing students to remain at their originally assigned school
until transitioning to the next level often left families with multiple choice
options. This flexibility in school assignments empowered families to
make decisions that best suited their preferences and circumstances.
2-3
Student Assignment Plan – 2023-24
The Student Assignment Review Advisory Committee (SARAC) originated

in 2017 with the purpose of providing advice and input for the student
assignment plan. According to the JCPS website, during monthly
meetings, the committee was charged with a focus on “ensuring that the
district plan is consistent with the vision, mission, and core values of the
JCBE.” SARAC had representation from the multiple groups and
departments:
♦ Data Management
♦ Student Assignment (2)
♦ Demographics
♦ Diversity, Equity, and Poverty (3)
♦ Operations
♦ Academics
♦ Director of Strategy
♦ Elementary School Principals (3)
♦ Middle School Principal
♦ High School Principal
♦ Magnet School/Program Principal
♦ a Principal at Large
♦ JCTA representatives (2)
♦ Board Parent Rep from each of 7 Districts
♦ University of Louisville
♦ Greater Louisville Inc.
♦ Louisville Urban League
From 2017 through the beginning of 2022, JCPS collaborated with

community agencies, parents, district personnel, and an external vendor
(Cooperative Strategies, LLC) to develop new school choice options and
boundaries for students, with an emphasis on families residing in the
West Louisville area. According to JCPS staff interviewed and
documentation, JCPS held community listening sessions to display
options for school choice models and maps. The community had an
opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions. One person
interviewed stated there were questions early on about grandfathering
and “knew it would be a burden for transportation because of old routes
and adding in new routes. Everyone on the school side knew it would be
a heavy lift for transportation.”
As noted in the district’s school choice recommendations presentation to

the board in June of 2022, the School Choice Guiding Principles focused
on equity with a target of ensuring access, ease of understanding,
diversity, and choice for students. According to JCPS school choice
promotional materials:
The current Student Assignment plan has not undergone a
2-4
comprehensive review in almost 40 years. Historically, the plan
has advantaged White affluent families with greater financial and
social capital. JCPS is committed to co-creating a plan with our
community that ensures that all students have equitable access
to school choice options within JCPS.
With the passing of the School Choice System on June 1, 2022, the district
developed a Choice Zone with defined boundaries which provided these
options:
1. The parent/guardian of an Elementary Choice Zone student will

select the option for a school closer to home or for a school farther
from home, and within the option selected, rank order schools
using the Choice Zone application process.
2. The parent/guardian of a middle or high school Choice Zone

student shall select the school closer to their home or the school
farther from their home that serves their address. Once a
selection is made for that year, a parent/guardian may utilize the
student transfer process to select another school. At the end of
the school year, the family may decide to either stay at the school
they selected or attend another school using the Choice Zone
Option application process.
These changes went into effect at beginning of the 2023-24 school year:
♦ Boundary Modifications
o Choice Zone Option for Elementary, Middle, and High School

Students Living in West Louisville
o Priority Zone for Elementary Students
o Suburban Elementary Clusters, Middle School Alignment,

and High School Boundaries
♦ Choice Zone Support Plan
♦ Supports for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Located in

the Choice Zone as Part of a Comprehensive Approach to
Support Excellent School Choices for All Families
♦ Magnet and Optional Schools/Programs
♦ Clear Purpose for Magnets
♦ JCPS Magnet Program Standards
♦ Continuous Improvement Processes
2-5
♦ Professional Development (PD) and Support
o Magnet School Boundaries
o Alignment of MST Seats
o Centralized Lottery
o Removing School-Initiated Exits
o Diversity Targets and Goals
o Revamping or Eliminating Non-magnetic Magnets
o New and Revised Magnet Schools and Programs
o New School Creation Process
♦ Open Enrollment Rolled Into Transfer Process
♦ Adjustment of Transfer Revocation Process for Equity and Ease

of Understanding
♦ Lottery Admissions for Academies of Louisville (AOL) Programs
♦ Related Policies and Procedures
When the school year began in August 2023, JCPS operated 161 sites as
schools, magnet programs, and academies that served approximately
92,933 students in grades PreK through Early College. Prior to 2023-24,
students received a choice in schools, but choices expanded in 2023-24.
The greatest difference between the choice plan in 2022-23 and 2023-24
was the decision to provide students in the West Louisville areas a choice
of attending a school closer to their residence. In previous years, the only
option for certain students in this area was to attend a school considered
“far-away” from their residence.
The new plan guaranteed a choice of a school closer to their home or a

school farther from their home through an application process to
elementary, middle, and high school students residing in the choice zone.
JCPS added academic and non-academic support in schools within the
Choice Zone. Students in the Choice Zone and outside of the zone could
submit a transfer or magnet school application. If the requested school
was already at capacity, the student requesting a transfer could join the
waiting list. JCPS staff interviewed shared the following about the impact
of the lack of transportation and school choices:
2-6
♦ We want families to make informed decisions…if transportation
isn’t offered, it will impact decisions, and what capacity looks
like at each school.
♦ We could not honor some of the placements because of the lack

of transportation.
♦ We received an email today that there is no route for a student

(in zone) and the stop can’t be added.
♦ Parents are calling back to change school assignments because

there is no transportation.
Although staff reported that the majority of students’ transfer requests

from their choice school due to a lack of transportation were not
captured, one set of data kept by a staff member captured 57 cases. In
that listing, some were ultimately resolved through the provision of
transportation, but some were resolved by changing to a school that was
not the original choice, due to a lack of transportation.
As early as 2017, JCPS parents asked for siblings to be allowed to remain

at the same school. The School Choice Proposal approved stated, “Every
effort to accommodate parental preference will be made; however, the
district cannot guarantee placement in any specific school, including the
base (resides) school for the student’s address.”
After a parent completed an elementary zone application, school

assignments were made. According to the JCPS Frequently Asked
Questions for Student Assignment, there were “3-8 schools that serve
each address that make up the elementary zone.” Families of elementary
students could rank their school choice options according to their
preference. The district intent was for families to receive their first or
second choice of schools based on capacity, emphasizing the role of
parental choice and the district's intent to accommodate preferences.
The district also had to consider school building capacity in assigning
students to their preferred schools which indicates a practical approach
to ensure that school assignments align with the available resources and
infrastructure. The capacity of transportation was not mentioned in the
proposal and did not guide the Choice Zone plan.
School Choice Processes
The department charged with assessing and processing student

applications was the Office of School Choice (OSC). Staffed with 17
personnel in 2023-24, OSC continued to use the same application process
as in previous years. Student transfer applications were processed by the
specialist for student services and a secretary. Magnet applications were
processed by the 2 associates for school choice and a data entry clerk.
The supervisor for student assignment and 3 clerks processed the
2-7
Elementary Assignment applications and added the processing of Choice
Zone applications. The department added 2 coordinator of school choice
outreach positions in 2022-23 to oversee and coordinate outreach efforts
to ensure parents, students, staff, and community members were
knowledgeable of the choice options available in 2023-24.
OSC Organization
The Choice Zone plan timeline for implementation intended to limit the
number of changes made each year and minimize potential negative
impacts. The new Choice Zone boundaries and options would occur in
stages. Students who attended JCPS schools in 2022-23 were to attend
the same school according to the 2022-23 boundaries until they reached
6th or 9th grades. Students new to the district, changing residences, or
entering grades Kindergarten, 6th, or 9th followed the new Choice Zone
2-8
boundaries. Exhibit 2-2 provides the approved Choice Zone
Implementation timeline.
Exhibit 2-2
Choice Zone Implementation Timeline
School
Year Implementation Steps
2021-22 Passage of Proposals
o Application Process for Choice Zone Included in Fall
o Two new elementary buildings open in fall of 2022.
o Eliminate school-initiated exits.
o Implement Centralized Lottery.
o Non-magnetic magnets are identified, and plans to
2022-23
revamp or remove are determined.
o SchoolMint goes live in fall of 2022-23 (for
application 2023-24).
o Open Enrollment Rolled Into Transfers
o Transfer revocation changes.
o First Class of Choice Zone—Kindergarten, Sixth, and
Ninth Graders
o First Year of New Suburban Boundaries—
Kindergarten, Sixth, and Ninth Graders
o Western Middle and Shawnee Middle become full
2023-24 magnets.
o Hawthorne Elementary becomes full magnet.
o Consolidated Magnets—Foster and Coleridge-Taylor
Elementaries become full magnets.
o Removal of Non-magnetic Magnets
o Western High transition begins.
o K-1st; 6th-7th; 9th-10th Choice Zone Implementation.
2024-25 o K-1st; 6th-7th; 9th-10th Suburban Boundary
Implementation.
Continue phase-in with full implementation 2028-29
2025-2028
school year.
Source: JCPS, 2023
JCPS developed a thorough School Choice Outreach Plan. Communication

methods utilized included the JCPS website, social media, and automated
calls to reach out to parents and the community. OSC personnel attended
school and community events, called parents, and hosted a Showcase of
Schools. JCPS provided paper and online Choice Guides, and videos which
described each school. In interviews, most district staff and principals
listed the communication and outreach efforts of the OSC as a strength
of the Choice Zone implementation. An overview of the school choice
outreach is shown in Exhibit 2-3.
2-9
Exhibit 2-3
School Choice Outreach
Source: JCPS, 2023
Timeline of Key Events for SCI
Date Event
2017 Student Assignment Review Advisory Committee (SARAC) formed
JCPS Office of School Choice (OSC) presents an update regarding the work of
April 2019
the SARAC
Superintendent brings a recommendation to approve a consulting firm to work
November on the dual resides proposal, outlined goals and probable options that would
2019 be brought to the school board that spring. Contract with vendor (Cooperative
Strategies) approved.
December
Potential recommendations are shared with community.
2019
January
OSC presents option of dual resides and magnets.
2020
April 2020 OSC presents MS/HS dual-resides options and implications of options.
In school board meeting, a board member questions the implications school
May 2020 choice would have on transportation. Concerns are expressed about ensuring
ample family feedback on student assignment plan.
Superintendent provides update on current student assignment plan for West
June 2020
Louisville and the proposed dual-resides option.
November JCPS school board holds a virtual public forum to gather community feedback
2020 on student assignment plan. Recommendations presented: Dual Resides option
and Magnet/Optional Choices.
November Kentucky DOE Audit recommends transportation be included in discussions and
2020 planning for school choice options.
December
The superintendent presents the latest version of the school choice plan.
2020
July 2021 New contract with the same vendor is approved to conduct boundary audit.
2-10
Date Event
Public Forum Breakout Sessions are held. Superintendent provides a brief
March overview of the school choice recommendations, outlines the upcoming
2022 timeline for a school choice recommendation, and highlights the various
channels available to provide feedback.
The superintendent presents options for the proposed student assignment
April 2022
plan: dual resides and feeder patterns, and the choice zone support plan.
The superintendent, JCPS leadership team, and University of Louisville
professor present update on the school choice proposal. This is the 3rd of 3
May 2022 reports on the school choice recommendation. The presentation covers
feedback received, changes implemented based on feedback, and the
reduction of 90 feeder patterns down to 23.
June 2022 New school choice plan is approved.
Adoption of Board Policies 09.11 - School Choice System and 08.134 - Magnet
June 2022
Education (Second Reading).
The superintendent and JCPS staff present an update on the SCI, noting they
August
meet on a weekly basis to discuss implementation for 23-24. The timeline and
2022
upcoming board decisions are shared.
September
Showcase of Schools is held for parents and community.
2022
September Annual subscription is renewed for the online technology platform that
2022 supports school choice in the registration and application process.
October Board conducts a community forum on the district's student assignment plan
2022 and facilities.
November
Application Outreach Event; Radio Ads, Text/Email blasts to JCPS families
2022
November Recommendation made to remove non-magnetic magnets to provide “more
2022 precise educational options.”
November-
Outreach efforts continue: Flyers distributed to community centers, churches;
December
Social media posts; Email to partners; Insider outreach to families.
2022
November-
December School Choice/Magnet application window opens
2022
December
School Choice Plan undergoes Racial Equity Analysis Protocols (REAPs)
2022
February In a board meeting, the chief of schools states that "routes will increase due to
2023 SCI.”
March Elementary Zone Applications are processed, assignments sent to schools,
2023 letters mailed to parents.
March-May
Transfer application window is open
2023
Recommendations for approval of organization charts and job descriptions for
July 2023 SCO.
Revisions of Board Policies are presented–2023 Annual KSBA Board Policy
August
First day of classes for new school choice zones for Grades, K, 6 and 9.
2023
2-11
Findings
FINDING 2-1 – School Choice Model
The JCPS school board and superintendent adopted a school choice

model for students and families. The adoption of a school choice model
underscores a commitment to ensuring equitable access to quality
education for all students. The model seeks to break down barriers and
provide students, regardless of their background or location, with equal
opportunities to access educational resources and programs. The
decision to adopt a school choice model indicates a deliberate choice by
the JCPS school board and superintendent to provide families and
students with the flexibility to choose educational options that best suit
their needs and preferences. The commitment to a school choice model
reflects an overarching goal of improving educational opportunities. By
offering a range of choices, the district aims to cater to the diverse
learning styles, interests, and needs of students, thereby enhancing the
overall educational experience. By acknowledging the importance of
choice in education, the district recognizes the potential positive effects
on student engagement, motivation, and academic success.
The superintendent’s efforts to create change and build strategic

initiatives to increase opportunities for students in West Louisville were
received by the school board with trust and support. Students and
families in parts of Jefferson County already had the option of choosing a
“close-to-home” school. According to reports made to the school board
in April 2020, 94% of students of color had to leave their community for
school, compared to just 6% of white students. The superintendent's
focus on strategic initiatives, particularly those addressing disparities in
school options, underscores a commitment to equity in education.
JCPS staff interviewed about the school choice initiative (SCI) stated the
following:
♦ The addition of choice zones for students residing in West

Louisville addressed the “lack of equity.”
♦ “As an educator, this was really about an equity decision. In my

roles, I saw the burden on students of color was huge and
something had to be done. It was long overdue.”
♦ Students “can now be a part of the school that is part of their

community.”
Overall, the introduction of choice zones in West Louisville was seen as a

positive step in providing students with the opportunity to attend schools
that are geographically closer to their communities. This addresses
concerns about historical disparities in educational access and seeks to
2-12
ensure that all students, regardless of their location, have equitable
choices in education.
The alignment of schools to follow feeder patterns from elementary to

middle to high school occurred with the new plan. This approach offers
not only educational options but also seeks to create a more cohesive
and interconnected educational system. Feeder patterns enable students
to progress through their K-12 education with continuity, building lasting
relationships with peers and educators.
The emphasis on feeder patterns suggests a strategic approach to

fostering a cohesive and interconnected educational system. This
approach is designed to facilitate smoother transitions for students as
they move from one educational level to the next, promoting a sense of
continuity and community throughout their K-12 academic journey.
COMMENDATION
The JCPS school board and superintendent are commended for working
to improve educational opportunities for all students.
FINDING 2-2 – School Choice Transportation Impacts
The planning leading up to the passage of the SCI did not adequately
consider the impact on transportation. The approved School Choice plan
did not adequately consider the impacts on transportation, particularly
the grandfathering component. Including members of the transportation
department in in-depth discussions about operating multiple boundaries
would have provided insight early into the impact the dual boundary
system would have on transportation.
The KDE Management Audit dated November 20, 2020, recommended

that JCPS “develop a process that allows the transportation department
to be included in discussions around school choice and student
assignment” and “develop a recruitment plan to ensure the district has
enough bus drivers and monitors to support the school choice
opportunities.” Although practices were in place to gather feedback on
school choice zones from stakeholders, parents, district departments,
and the school board, it does not appear that the transportation
department was directly involved in the establishment of Choice Zone
boundaries nor were they consulted regularly during the multi-year
choice planning process about what might be the impact on their
operations.
Staff shared in interviews that the Office of Student Assignment

personnel had been involved in meetings where there were
transportation department representatives; however, meetings did not
solely focus on transportation and did not discuss in detail the
implications Choice Zones and dual boundaries would have on
2-13
transportation. When asked what could have been different with the SCI
to ensure success with transportation, one interviewee shared, “Maybe
more communication, consistent meetings with transportation. Make
sure everyone understood the plan. Our district has a bad habit of
working in silos.”
Several JCPS staff were leaders in the school choice planning and the
school start time/routing optimization planning, included the retired
chief of staff who returned to lead the start time initiative and the GIS
executive director. In interviews, they noted that it was known that the
school choice options and the associated grandfathering would require
more drivers. They provided one estimate that the SCI, without the other
initiatives, would have led to a need for an additional 100 routes.
However, they also noted that “no constraints” were placed upon those
leading the SCI to consider whether the plans adopted could be
implemented by the transportation department.
Presentations to the JCPS school board on SCI generally did not include
quantification of the transportation costs (or savings) that might be
associated with SCI options. In the May 4, 2020, board meeting, one
board member asked the superintendent about the need for
transportation funding in relation to SCI. The superintendent responded
that the transportation impact would depend on the “percentage of
students in satellite areas wishing to remain at a local school” then
mentioned that a 3rd bell time would “save significant funding.” No details
were provided at that time. Subsequent board meetings and
presentations to the board did not return to the issue of transportation
needs to meet SCI options. None of the written board questions to JCPS
staff during the development of the SCI included questions about how
transportation would be impacted and whether the transportation
department could accommodate the SCI plans under consideration or the
final adopted plan.
The SCI passed on June 1, 2022 did a number of things. The new plan
aligned feeder patterns from elementary through high school, which
provided additional stability for students. In the fall of 2023, the new plan
impacted students new to JCPS, Kindergarten, 6th, and 9th grade students.
In the fall of 2024, the plan would expand to include students new to
JCPS, Kindergarten, 1st, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th grades. The plan included
additional grade levels to be added in subsequent years until the entire
district adhered to the new choice plan in 2028-29.
The phased-in approach allowed students to remain at their current

school until they transitioned to middle or high school. This continuity for
students, particularly during critical transitions to middle or high school,
was a strength of the new plan. This approach aimed to minimize
disruption to students' educational experiences. Staff members
2-14
expressed the belief that the plan might not have received community
approval without the phased-in approach.
The phased-in approach was purposefully designed to allow for a

smoother transition and provided time for students, parents, and the
community to adjust to the changes, and to reduce the number of school
transitions for students. However, operating on dual boundaries
(“grandfathering”) likely created a greater burden on transportation. As
with the planning leading up to SCI passage, the impact of grandfathering
on transportation was inadequately assessed. There were no school
board presentations that outlined the potential transportation impacts
due to grandfathering.
JCPS staff interviewed and surveyed explained some of the impacts of

allowing students to adhere to old boundaries until transition years (also
known as “grandfathering”). Staff comments included:
♦ “Grandfathering created a different burden, but we couldn’t

switch schools for all students.”
♦ “JCPS has been very accommodating as a service to the

community. We were already asking for a big lift with changes for
those in transition years. It was a big shift for the community. To
also change existing student schools would have been hard for
the community to understand.”
♦ “If we eliminated grandfathering, it may not have passed.”
♦ “I truly believe we have not even reached the pinnacle of this

disaster. Year 2 and 3 will be even worse because you are
transporting fewer and fewer kids in the old plan while still
implementing the new plan for more kids.”
♦ “Grandfathering was a big concern that was shared because you

are still trying to satisfy “two assignment plans” with a reduction
in service (bus drivers).”
♦ “We also expressed concerns that “grandfathering” students

could create problems with class size and transportation.”
♦ “Commend for trying to keep students where they were,

but…huge strain on transportation.”
During the fall of 2023, some students requiring transportation were

forced to choose a different school if they needed to access
transportation. Bus routes, drivers, and stops were maxed out to the
point additional routes could no longer be added. The lack of
transportation eliminated choice options granted by the 2023-24 JCPS
student assignment policy for some students living in the Choice Zone.
2-15
Several parents changed their original “far-away” school request to a
“close-to-home” option because of the lack of transportation. Many
parents were unable to provide transportation for their children and had
to select schools with existing routes for their residential area.
Early involvement and improved communication would afford the

transportation department more time to plan and prepare for the
challenges posed by the dual boundary system. Adequate time for
planning is essential for developing strategies, distributing resources, and
addressing any potential issues related to transportation logistics.
Including transportation department members in discussions and
fostering improved communication between departments are essential
components of effective organizational management. These practices
can lead to better-informed decision-making, increased efficiency, and a
more coordinated approach to implementing changes within the
educational system.
RECOMMENDATION 2-2
Develop systematic procedures for communication and collaboration

between departments related to school choice and schedule on-going
reviews of school choice zones and boundaries with the district
transportation department to ensure students receive transportation
services to their choice schools as appropriate.
A proactive approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the

logistical challenges and requirements related to transporting students
within multiple boundaries. Improved communication between
departments would have also provided transportation with a better
understanding of transportation needs and more time to plan
accordingly. Enhanced communication channels can facilitate the sharing
of information, concerns, and expertise between different departments,
ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are well-informed about the
implications of decisions.
Leaders of the transportation, school choice, operations, and

communications departments should meet on a regular basis to discuss
transportation and facility capacity, trends in student applications,
messaging to parents and the community, and related concerns as they
arise. Joint collaboration, problem-solving, and planning with
departments impacted by school choice decisions will improve services
for students while minimizing negative impact.
An urgent first topic for this leadership group should be assessing the
potential impact of grandfathering on transportation needs in upcoming
school years. Based on the 2023-24 data, a slight majority of students are
choosing their closer school under SCI. This could indicate an easing of
the burden prior to 2023-24 to bus a large number of students to non-
neighborhood schools. The leadership group could use SCI data the
2-16
district likely already has on hand for 2024-25 to gauge the impact of
grandfathering and to make plans to address transportation needs.
Fiscal Impact
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING 2-3 – School Choice Timeline
For the 2023-24 school year, school choice application windows and
approval processes did not change from previous years. The adherence
to a timeline that worked in the past proved problematic.
Since there was a potential of a profound impact on students and schools

with the new SCI plan, JCPS decided that the new choice zone boundaries
would initially only impact students entering grades Kindergarten, 6, and
9, students changing residence, and students new to the district. Exhibit
2-4 demonstrates the steps involved in the student assignment process.
Exhibit 2-4
Student Assignment Process
Steps Timeline for Steps

Outreach September – December, 2022
Showcase of Schools October, 2022
School Choice Zone and Magnet Application
November 1 – December 16, 2022
Window
Elementary Cluster Assignments Processed March 6-10, 2023
Elementary Zone Assignments Sent to Schools March 17, 2023
Elementary Zone letters mailed March 20, 2023
All Elementary Students Assigned to Classrooms March 30, 2023
2nd Batch Zone Assignments Processed April 10, 2023
Student Transfer Application Window Opens for
May 1, 2023
2023-24
Daily Zone Assignment May 8 - August 8, 2023
Source: JCPS, 2023
Since there would be no “default” school for students, it was important

for students impacted by the choice zone plan to complete an
application. The OSC launched an outreach plan to ensure that families
were well-informed about the options available to their children. Prior to
the student application window, the outreach plan utilized various
communication channels and strategies, including postcards,
information/question and answer sessions, outreach events, signage,
newcomer events, informational sessions and materials for staff, and a
Showcase of Schools event. The purpose of the diverse methods was to
reach a broad audience and cater to different preferences for receiving
information. These efforts empowered families with the information
they needed to actively participate in selecting the educational options
2-17
that best suited their preferences and needs. Exhibit 2-5 displays the
types of choices provided to students and the application window for
each. The addition of Choice Zone applications was the only addition for
2023-24.
Exhibit 2-5
School Choice Application Windows, 2022-24
Application Window
Type 2022-23 2023-24
NA November 1 – December
Choice Zone
16, 2022
November 1 – December November 1 – December
Magnet
15, 2021 16, 2022
May 1, 2022 – March, May 1, 2023 – March 6,
Transfer
2023 2024
Source: JCPS, 2023
After the fall application window closed, the coordinators of school

outreach collaborated closely with schools to contact students living in
the Choice Zone who had not applied. Overall, this proactive outreach
strategy reflects a commitment to inclusivity and a dedication to
maximizing the number of students who participate in the application
process and receive a choice of schools.
Exhibit 2-6 displays the number of applications submitted during and

after the designated application windows. The number of JCPS
applications for school choice options increased from 2022-23 to 2023-
24 (November – August) by 15% (3,974 applications). The number of
personnel available to process school choice applications did not
increase, even with an increased number of applications submitted.
According to JCPS, all students applying for magnet, choice zone, or

elementary zone schools were eligible for transportation. Students
applying to transfer schools were only eligible for transportation if an
existing route would accommodate the transportation need and there
were available seats on the assigned bus. It is not known whether the lack
of guaranteed transportation impacted the number of transfer
applications submitted.
2-18
Exhibit 2-6
Submitted School Choice Applications
Nov. 1 – Dec 31 Jan. 1 – July Aug Total

Choice Type 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24
Magnet &
9,545 10,834 9,451 10,590 2,285 2,420 21,281 23,844
Choice Zone
Transfer 0 0 4519 5,839 1,411 1,502 5,930 7,341
Total 9,545 10,834 13,970 16,429 3,696 3,922 27,211 31,185
Source: JCPS, 2024
The number of applications approved November-August increased by

17% (Exhibit 2-7).
Exhibit 2-7
Approved School Choice Applications
Nov. 1 – Dec 31 Jan. 1 – July Aug. Total

Choice Type 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24 22-23 23-24
Magnet &
144 139 12,360 14,367 2,119 2,448 14,623 16,954
Choice Zone
Transfer 0 0 2,561 3,251 775 764 3,336 4,015
Total 144 139 14,921 17,618 2,894 3,212 17,959 20,969
Source: JCPS, 2024
Exhibit 2-8 displays the number of applications submitted and approved

by month. It is important to note that submitted applications were not
necessarily processed in the same month they were submitted. The data
also do not indicate when approved applications were entered into
Infinite Campus. A majority (50%) of the approved applications were
received May-August 2023. This concentrated period of application
submissions may have presented challenges in terms of workload
distribution and timely processing.
Magnet school applications are processed prior to choice applications.

Most magnet schools process their own applications. If a student is not
accepted into a magnet school, they can then apply to a choice school.
This keeps the JCPS system from assigning a student to 2 different
schools, but it means that the choice process is completed later than the
magnet process. The district followed the same process for 2023-24 that
it had for previous years.
2-19
Exhibit 2-8
Student Choice Applications by Month, 2023-24
Received Approved
Magnet, Magnet,
Choice Total by Choice Total by
Type Zone Transfer Month Zone Transfer Month
November
6,566 - 6,566 0 - 0
2022
December
4,268 - 4,268 139 - 139
2022
January 2023 152 - 152 1,507 - 1,507
February 2023 140 - 140 2,490 - 2,490
March 2023 4,172 - 4,172 5,107 - 5,107
April 2023 142 - 142 228 - 228
May 2023 2,489 3,160 5,649 2,105 1,842 3,947
June 2023 592 854 1,446 434 436 870
July 2023 2,903 1,825 4,728 2,496 973 3,469
August 2023 2,420 1,502 3,922 2,448 764 3,212
Total 23,844 7,341 31,185 16,954 4,015 20,969
Source: JCPS, 2024
Exhibit 2-9 provides an analysis of the choices parents made for schooling
for 2023-24. Although some JCPS communications to the board indicated
that as much as 72% of families opted for the close-to-home school
option, the final data set indicate a more even split. A majority of families,
55%, did opt for the close-to-home option. This indicates a preference to
attend a school that is geographically closer to their residence. This is
often influenced by factors such as convenience, transportation
considerations, and a desire for a school within the local community.
Meanwhile, 45% of families opted for the far-away choice. The varying
preferences for close-to-home and far-away school options highlight the
diverse needs and preferences within the Choice Zone. Recognizing this
diversity is crucial for providing a range of educational options that align
with the varied preferences of students and families. This diversity also
has a large impact on the transportation system.
Exhibit 2-9
Choice Zone Applications Approved by Location through August 2023
for 2023-24 School Year
Type Close-to-Home Far-Away Total

Elementary 2,172 369 2,541
Middle 3,978 1,915 5,893
High 3,378 5,525 8,903
Total 9,528 7,809 17,337
55% 45%
Source: JCPS, 2023
2-20
Although the application windows and approval processes did not
change, there were notable changes or exceptions for students in Choice
Zones moving into the district or entering specific grades (Kindergarten,
6th, or 9th). Students in Choice Zones moving into the district or those in
the specific entering grades did not become automatically assigned to a
default school if they did not apply.
District staff and schools contacted students without applications

individually. Eligible students who did not submit an application by the
deadline were allowed to still complete an application at any point after
the application window closed. This flexibility acknowledges that
circumstances arise and was an attempt to be responsive to parent
needs. However, late applications resulted in late school assignments.
The transportation department had minimal time to edit and reconfigure
bus routes and stops to ensure all eligible students received
transportation. Per Kentucky Legislature (KRS 158.072), a student is
eligible for transportation under the following circumstances:
“Eligible student” is defined as a student enrolled in kindergarten

or grade one (1), two (2), or three (3) who qualifies for free or
reduced-price school meals or attends a school that participates
in the community eligibility provision of the National School
Lunch Program.
If an eligible student changes residence during the school year

and the change in residence results in the student being assigned
to a different school within the District, the parent/guardian shall
have the option to request the student, and any of the student's
siblings enrolled in the same school in any grade, remain enrolled
in the original school regardless of the transportation decision
made by the Superintendent/designee.
The District shall provide transportation to the original school

from the eligible student’s new residence unless the
Superintendent/designee denies the transportation request
because he/she/they determine the distance and travel time that
the student would spend in transport is impracticable. The
District shall report the transportation denial and supporting
rationale to the Kentucky Department of Education.
Due to transportation constraints, some students who needed

transportation were denied this service. This denial could be a substantial
barrier for those students, particularly if parents were unable to provide
alternative transportation arrangements. Faced with transportation
limitations, the district made the decision to direct some students to
other schools where transportation options were available. JCPS staff
acknowledged that this was an issue in the lead-up to August 9th and the
2-21
start of the 2023-24 school year but they did not keep track of how many
students were directed to select a different school.
To assess public JCPS statements about the perceived complexity of its

transportation system, Prismatic contacted a number of peer districts as
part of this project and asked about their experiences with offering
students the option of attending a school outside of their zoned school
including school choice, magnet, open school transfer, and other
unspecified programs. When reporting districts began new student
assignment plans, all offered grandfathering and transportation during
the transition period. In 5 out of 7 peer districts, not all students were
eligible for transportation, based on the school selected and their home
address. Some peer districts reported operating on application deadlines
to provide transportation ample time for routing. Out of 7 peer districts,
6 reported completing routing no later than July of each year.
As stated in Education Next:
Transportation must be affordable and safe so that all students,

regardless of their location or resources, can attend their school
of choice. And on the municipality’s end, the cost of providing
transportation must be sustainable. All these factors play into the
discussion on the benefits of choice. 1
RECOMMENDATION 2-3
Assign default schools to students who do not complete a school choice

application by the established deadline.
The district should adopt a default school assignment process for

students who do not complete an application. The district should also
adopt an appeals process that would allow a student to request a change;
this process should have a deadline in June of the preceding year for the
upcoming school year. This would aid principals and the transportation
department in school year planning.
Fiscal Impact:
1
https://www.educationnext.org/going-extra-mile-school-choice-how-five-
cities-tackle-challenges-student-transportation/
2-22
Chapter 3
School Start Time
Initiative
Background
With the advent of widespread school transporta�on services, adjus�ng
school start �mes became a way to leverage a rela�vely smaller
investment in yellow school buses to serve a larger student popula�on.
School districts that could support mul�ple school start �mes could also
use their buses mul�ple �mes each morning and a�ernoon. In recent
decades, staggered school start �mes has run headlong into growing
sleep research. Contemporary research, consistent with dozens of older
studies, consistently shows that U.S. adolescents not only are deprived of
the sleep they need but also are in need of more sleep than their younger
and older counterparts. Schools and school districts have spent recent
years struggling with balancing the sleep health of their students with
their myriad other responsibili�es to stakeholders.
Of the 3 major ini�a�ves that JCPS implemented on August 9, 2023, the

school start �me (SST) ini�a�ve was the least independent and
influen�al. The 2 major drivers for the 2023-24 changes were the new
school choice school assignment program, and the new bus rou�ng
scheme that was mo�vated by and designed to address a deepening
shortage of bus drivers. The new bell �mes schedule might therefore be
thought of as the offspring of the re-rou�ng work which was mo�vated
not just by a driver shortage but by an increased demand for bus routes
and drivers resul�ng from the new school choice program.
The current 2023-24 bell schedule is largely a 3-�er system, with most
schools star�ng at either 7:40, 8:40 or 9:40 am. Most JCPS programs that
receive busing (127 out of 150, or 85%) start at 1 of these �mes. The
remaining programs start at 1 of 6 �mes ranging from 8:00 to 10:40 am.
The addi�onal runs required to serve schools not on the 3 major start
�mes are some�mes referred to as a “double tripping” or even “triple
tripping.” They typically require that a bus drop off early at a school, then
go pick up addi�onal students that live nearby but could not be put on
the first run due to seat capacity constraints. Double tripping works best
3-1
Chapter 3 – School Start Time Initiative
in urban neighborhoods, like some parts of Louisville, where a bus can
pick up 20-40 students just a few blocks and a few minutes away from
their school. Double tripping works less well in a rural environment where
there might be miles between individual student’s addresses. JCPS has a
mixture of urban and rural, high student density and low student density
neighborhoods. Most of JCPS’s territory can be characterized as either
suburban, exurban, or rural.
In conduc�ng this study, Prisma�c found that JCPS has considered SST
changes as far back as 2011. No specific department has had
responsibility for leading considera�on of SST changes; however, some
staff members who led the most recent change also par�cipated in prior
assessments.
Timeline of Key Events for the School Start Time Ini�a�ve

A double run is when a
Date Event bus goes back out to
JCPS completes a bell time study with assistance of consulting firm service another group of
Transportation Advisory Services (TAS). There were concerns as students on same bell
to whether the district can continue to meet all transportation schedule. In the
needs with the existing 2-tier structure and about a shortage of mornings, a double run
April 2011 bus drivers. The study recommends a switch to 3 tiers; would result in either
however, JCPS chooses to keep its existing 2-tier schedule the first group of
(HS/MS and ES). In 2023, some JCPS staff indicated to Prismatic students being delivered
that the change was not made in 2011-12 because of concerns extra early to the school,
about athletics. or the second group of
A JCPS staff group re-considers a pilot program to try a 3-tier students being delivered
bus schedule and later start times for some schools, but the later than desired or
idea meets resistance and is rejected. The staff group includes even a�er the start of
2017 school. In the
the GIS specialist who is now the JCPS GIS executive director. In
a�ernoons, a double run
2023, some JCPS staff indicated to Prismatic that the change
leaves the second group
was not made due to “politics.”
of students at school
The demographic analyst who is now the JCPS GIS executive
while they wait for their
2019 director first meets the consulting firm Dynamic
bus to take home the
Ideas/AlphaRoute (AR).
first group of students.
JCPS provides a “sole source” justification for contracting with
AR for bell time optimization and routing service to resolve the
May 2021 bus driver shortage. AR pledges they “will optimize for the
chosen objectives and adhere to the constraints and policies as
well” of JCPS.
The JCPS/AR contract is finalized. Option A for 2 bell time optimization plans is
June 2021 agreed to. “Frameworks” for setting JCPS’s desired bus routing parameters are
completed with AR.
JCPS leadership and the chief operations officer (COO) presents “Bell Times and
February Our Transportation System” to the school board. The COO emphasizes that in
1, 2022 2021-22 JCPS transports 70% of its students versus a national average of 50%,
uses 770 routes, and relies heavily on many routes completing double runs,
3-2
Date Event
indicating there are 191 HS/MS and 117 ES double runs at the time. AR is
identified as a partner in the work of addressing transportation challenges.
JCPS reports to the school board on bell times and research about adolescent
February
sleep needs, providing 185 pages of research on the benefits of later school start
15, 2022
times for adolescents. At the time, JCPS MS and HS start at 7:40 am.
JCPS and AR revise their contract for 2 additional bell time optimization
February
scenarios, Option B. After reviewing the initial 2 bell time scenarios, the school
2022
board requests 2 additional, optimal bell time scenarios.
JCPS reports to the school board on SST with plans for 2 phases of
implementation of new bell times and bus routing. Phase 1 for a “small number
March 8,
of schools” is planned to start in August 2022. These plans are later canceled in
2022
favor of a more “comprehensive,” full scale roll-out of all 3 initiatives (SC, SST,
and RO, in August 2023).
The JCPS transportation department is not included in the planning of bell time
January
changes and routing for 2023-24. AR is noted in a board meeting as the firm
2023
conducting the planning for bell time changes and re-routing.
JCPS and AR present “Start Smart Start Time Proposal” to the school board. The
need to address the bus driver shortage and a desire to provide later school start
February times for MS/HS students are cited as the reasons for the bell times changes. AR
28, 2023 states that the optimal bell time scenarios are the product of their algorithms
and mathematical modeling, using routing parameters set previously with JCPS
in the “frameworks.”
March 28,
The school board approves the “Start Smart Start Time Proposal.”
2023
Start Smart bell time proposal is presented to groups of JCPS stakeholders,
March-
including central office administrators, school principals, transportation leaders,
May 2023
and bus drivers.
The GIS executive director emails JCPS transportation leaders to notify them
that AR has completed the “first round of routing.” This comes 3 months after
May 8,
the “Start Smart” bell times proposal was presented to school board, which was
2023
dependent on routing plans being far beyond “the first round” of development
at the time the proposal was presented.
July 10,
AR delivers initial bus routes to JCPS.
2023
AR delivers final bus routes to JCPS. Transportation department staff and school
principals realize that the routes are in poor condition – some students have
~July 17,
been left out, many buses are scheduled to arrive late to many schools, some
2023
buses lack afternoon schedules, some runs are too long, some drivers are being
sent to unfamiliar areas, etc.
August 9,
Start of school, date of the Incident.
2023
August 11- In the days after the Incident, AR sends some of its staff to JCPS. No changes
18, 2023 made to school bell schedules.
3-3
Findings
FINDING 3-1 – AlphaRoute SST/RO Solution
The SST/RO solution provided by AR to JCPS suffered from myriad design

flaws.
The 2 strands of SST and RO are heavily entwined. If the bus routes do not
deliver students to school on �me, the bell schedule does not reflect what
is actually happening. Bell �mes without buses on �me do not work.
Actual start and end �mes of the school day, including a reasonable and
common 10-15 minutes “window” for early drop off and late pick up need
to align with publicized start and end �mes. When buses are 30-60
minutes late or early in the morning and comparably late in the
a�ernoon, due to unrealis�c, unworkable bus routes, the school day
becomes quite different for students, parents, school staff, and bus
drivers than they might expect based on the official bell �mes. JCPS staff
indicated an understanding of the entwined nature of SST and RO. The
district’s COO noted as much in a February 2022 school board
presenta�on when he noted that “bell �me changes and transporta�on
are interrelated.” It was apparent from board presenta�ons and JCPS
documents that the district expected the work of AR would result in a
new bell schedule that met the district’s objec�ves for fewer bus drivers
and on-�me delivery of students to school.
As part of its SST/RO work with JCPS, AR requested that the district
provide “objec�ves, constraints and policies JCPS wished to follow when
changing school bell �mes” and to provide them via a spreadsheet form
(Exhibit 3-1). Once AR received the completed spreadsheet, AR stated it
would “op�mize for the chosen objec�ves within each framework and
will adhere to the constraints and policies as well.” Ini�ally, AR was to
provide just 2 new SST op�ons. This plan was known as Plan A in the
contract between JCPS and AR. Later, the district requested 2 addi�onal
op�miza�on plans, Plan B, for an added cost of $65,000. As part of
developing the new SSTs, AR advised JCPS that each bell �me analysis,
based upon JCPS’s frameworks, “will require substan�al sophis�ca�on
and itera�on” in other words, frequent, back and forth exchanges of
ques�ons and answers between the district and AR.
3-4
Exhibit 3-1
Ini�al SST/RO Frameworks as Defined by JCPS
JCPS Responses by Framework

AR Questions 1 2 3 4
Increase overall efficiency in order to improve student
Primary Objective experience (i.e. middle/high kids later times to improve student
engagement, less crowded buses, shorter bus rides)
What is the maximum % of schools
100% to start
that can change bell times?
What is the maximum extent of Ideally 1 hour, but can possibly start analysis with no
change for any individual school? constraints
What is the earliest possible start-
7:30 am
time?
9:40 am for
What is the latest possible start- gen. ed.
9:40 am Open Ended
time? (10:15 am for
ECH)
What is the earliest possible
2:05 pm 2:10 pm
dismissal time?
What is the latest possible dismissal
4:25 pm Open Ended
time?
At least 3
How many tiers should be used? At least 3 (5 for elementary cluster
schools if possible)
What specific tiers should be used? See excel sheet Brent sent for a guideline
Should the tiers be fixed at specific
times or allow for flexibility (e.g., if
8am is one of the tiers then should
Allow for flexibility where possible
all schools at that tier start exactly
at 8am or can they start +/- 10
minutes from 8am)?
See excel sheet- we did this
initially, but if some types are
on different times that may be
ok (i.e. elementary cluster
Should schools of certain types be schools have some on early
Open Ended
grouped at the same tier? time and some on late time to
give parents choice); magnet
student can be on least
desirable times since this is by
choice
What is the earliest allowable bus
5:45 am 5:30 am
stop time in the AM?
What is the latest allowable bus
5:35 pm Open Ended
stop time in the PM?
3-5
Currently 55
minutes, but if
we can
How early before the opening bell
shorten would 40 minutes 1 hour
can buses arrive (early dropoff)?
be better for
students and
staff
Currently 55
minutes, but if
we can
How late after the dismissal bell can
shorten would 40 minutes 1 hour
buses arrive (late pickup)?
be better for
students and
staff
Which schools cannot have their
None at this time
times changed at all?
Which pairs or groups of schools Schools involved in depots probably need to be on same tier,
need to be at the same tier or on and some tiers can be all direct if those schools aren't involved
different tiers? in depots
60 minutes used to be target,
What is the maximum ride-time for
but this was extended due to Open Ended
students?
shortage
Legally 0.5 miles for elem and 1.0 mile for mid/high, but we use
What is the maximum walk-to-stop
0.25 for elem and 0.5 for mid/high--we are willing to expand
distance?
the walk distance…
How many elementary students can
66
be assigned to a regular bus?
66 but ideally
Up to 66 but
would not
let's use 60
How many MS students? have 3 to a 66
for this
seat if
scenario
possible
66 but ideally
Up to 66 but
would not
let's use 60
How many HS students? have 3 to a 66
for this
seat if
scenario
possible
How many seconds should be
allocated per stop, regardless of the 60?
number of students at the stop?
allocated per student 10?
loading/unloading at a stop?
3-6
How long do buses need to stay at
Schools probably 5-10 minutes, depots when all of the buses
hubs/schools before leaving for next
arrive
run?
How many minutes before the
opening bell do buses need to 15-20?
arrive?
Do buses need to arrive before the 15-20 before is ideal---but it is ok if some come a little later--we
dismissal bell or at the bell time? can load the first set and then load the next set
Which students need to be assigned This would make tagging
to the same stops in the AM and system easier for elementary
PM? Do we need to ensure that students if they have same AM Un-mirror as needed to
100% of this group of students has and PM bus. Would like to see reduce bus count
the same stops? If not, what level the savings with un-mirrored
below 100% would be acceptable? solution and compare
Which students need to be assigned
to the same buses in the AM and
PM? Do we need to ensure that
Same as above Same as above
100% of this group of students has
the same buses? If not, what level
below 100% would be acceptable?
Which students need to retain
We can change stop assignments except for the zip codes that I
current JCPS stop assignments?
gave you already
Which ones can be changed?
Source: JCPS, 2023
At some point a�er JCPS provided these constraints and policies to AR,
AR included feedback within the same spreadsheet. In all 3 areas -- the
ques�ons asked by AR, the responses provided by JCPS, and the AR
responses -- there are problems. Problems in regard to the ques�ons
asked by AR include:
♦ AR did not ask about state requirements for the length of school
days. At each grade level in JCPS the school day is 6 hours and 40
minutes. The Kentucky Department of Educa�on (KDE) requires
that the school instruc�onal day be a minimum of 6 hours. Lunch
is counted as non-instruc�onal �me. KDE permits a maximum of
7 hours of instruc�onal �me; lunch is extra. In some districts the
length of the school day varies by level (elementary, middle,
high). In some districts, the high school day is longer to afford
�me for a mid-morning nutri�on break, or to build �me into the
regular day for clubs to meet. With the KDE range of available
instruc�onal �mes in mind, more varia�ons of possible school
bell �mes, especially those at the high school level, might have
been considered.
3-7
♦ AR did not ask about the district’s capacity to meet some
students’ needs with smaller-than-a-bus vehicles. This may have
been communicated elsewhere by JCPS to AR, but not including
it in the “master” list of ques�ons appears to indicate that any
kind of transporta�on service other than yellow bus was not part
of AR’s considera�ons. This is problema�c if a few students live in
a far-flung area of a district or there are special geographic
challenges in a part of a district. Forcing students in those
situa�ons into a solu�on that only considers yellow bus capacity
could result in a long bus run that then prevents that bus from
serving students in another �er.
♦ AR did not ask whether groups of students from different

schools/levels could be transported together, and, if so, under
what circumstances. This may have been communicated
elsewhere by JCPS to AR, but not including it in the “master” list
of ques�ons appears to indicate that this kind of poten�ally
useful flexibility was not part of AR’s considera�ons. For example,
if there is an especially rural area in a district, the best solu�on
might be to allow MS and HS students to be transported together
from that area. In another example, JCPS has a number of co-
located or closely located schools. It might be most efficient to
transport students for those schools together. Other district
documents indicate that AR was told that ES students could not
ride with MS/HS students, but that MS and HS students could ride
together.
♦ AR did not ask ques�ons regarding acceptable distances between

bus stops. In the JCPS Transportation Procedures and Training
Manual (2015 edi�on) “three blocks” is listed as the desired
interval between bus stops. The length of 3 blocks may be hard
to standardize and difficult to apply in high density, urban areas.
School bus rou�ng and safety guidance recommends a distance
of several hundred yards between bus stops so that the driver can
safely merge back into traffic and re-ac�vate his/her amber,
overhead warning lights before reaching the next stop. (“Safe
Routes, Safe Stops,” Pupil Transporta�on Safety Ins�tute, 1992).
Based on interviews with JCPS staff, the subject of bus stops may
have been covered in other conversa�ons with AR, but it seems
odd this was not part of the official documenta�on for the
frameworks.
♦ AR did not ask ques�ons regarding special needs transporta�on.

For example, the framework spreadsheet does not ask if there
are differences in load �mes between regular educa�on and
special educa�on students, despite general industry
acknowledgement that loading of students in wheelchairs
3-8
requires substan�ally more �me than loading an ambulatory
student.
♦ The ques�on of “late pickup” is unusual and, in the experience of

the consul�ng team, outside the norm for school transporta�on
opera�ons. Inten�onally scheduling a bus to arrive at a school
a�er a�ernoon dismissal places burdens on the school-based
staff to provide supervision.
In a survey of peers undertaken for this project, 7 districts

provided input on the subject of a�ernoon allowances:
• 86% maintain a goal to have all buses lined up and ready

to receive students at the dismissal bell
• 14% indicated a goal to have all buses lined up and ready

to receive students no later than 15 minutes a�er the
dismissal bell
• 14% of peer respondents allow buses to arrive at school

as much as 15 minutes a�er school ends
• 86% do not have an a�ernoon pick-up allowance
• 57% indicated that their a�ernoon pick-up allowance is

currently used only in limited, rare circumstances
• 43% indicated that the a�ernoon pick-up allowance is

currently used with more than 25% of their bus runs
(which in no case exceeds 15 minutes)
♦ There are no ques�ons regarding “overbooking” on buses. In a

high-performing school rou�ng department, historical load
factors are considered when determining how much (or whether)
a bus can be overbooked. For example, in 1 district, a bus run
serving HS students may be assigned up to 150 students, because
historical data show that only a frac�on of the assigned students
ever ride the bus.
Problems in regard to the responses provided by JCPS include:
♦ Some of the JCPS responses indicate a lack of knowledge as to

what would be acceptable opera�onally. In 3 instances, the JCPS
response is followed by a ques�on mark, likely indica�ng that the
district representa�ve did not know what figures JCPS was then
using for those parameters. Other district responses include
“ideal” and “probably,” which could have been misinterpreted by
AR.
3-9
Regarding the 2 AR ques�ons as to whether to allow un-
mirroring, the district representa�ve gave permission for this to
be allowable in the SST/RO solu�on. Un-mirroring more than a
few routes would have represented a huge change in the exis�ng
JCPS transporta�on opera�ons and likely should have been
recognized as such. When queried by Prisma�c why this was even
considered at the ini�al stages of building a solu�on, AR
representa�ves responded without providing evidence that
mirroring “adds 10% to the bus count” and that “most of Canada”
does not require mirroring. In analyzing the subsequent solu�on
JCPS put into opera�on on August 9th, an es�mated 80%+ of the
bus routes were un-mirrored.
♦ When asked, “Which pairs or groups of schools need to be at the

same �er or on different �ers?” the district representa�ve
responded with, “Schools involved in depots probably need to be
on same �er.” This response appears to ignore specific geographic
circumstances for various JCPS schools, par�cularly what would
likely be best for pairs of adjacent schools. Later, a�er seeing the
final AR routes, the ques�on of which schools should be on the
same or different �ers would be raised by compound
coordinators who saw that some rou�ng efficiency was lost by
not pu�ng adjacent schools in the same �er, or in other
instances, that �ming efficiency was lost by pu�ng neighboring
schools in the same �er, resul�ng in traffic delays. This was an
instance where more familiarity with the workings of JCPS busing
opera�ons and geography was lacking in the SST/RO
development process.
♦ Framework 2 was the same as Framework 1 except in 5 areas.

Those areas were: a small difference in the latest possible SST, the
possible number of ES �ers, the maximum amount of �me
before/a�er school allowed, and the maximum number of MS/HS
students to be assigned.
♦ Framework 4 framework (labelled “New Framework 2” in some

internal documents) is the same as Framework 3. It appears that
JCPS provided only 3 different frameworks, despite explicitly
contrac�ng for 4 plans.
Problems in regard to the responses from AR to JCPS include:
♦ For all 4 frameworks, JCPS iden�fied the same “primary

objec�ve” - “increase overall efficiency in order to improve
student experience (i.e., middle/high school kids later �mes to
improve student engagement, less crowded buses, shorter bus
rides.)” In response, AR noted “reduce bus count, shi� M/H non-
magnet schools a�er 8 am, shi� M/H & ES magnet schools to
3-10
earliest or latest �er solu�on as star�ng point.” This response
ignores JCPS concerns about crowded buses and long bus rides.
This response also ignores research and best prac�ces of later
SSTs for secondary students.
♦ AR made a note that instead of 5:35 pm as the latest allowable

bus stop �me in the a�ernoon, magnet school students can be
dropped later. AR made similar changes to the parameters in
several other areas:
Subsequent AR
AR Questions JCPS Framework 1 Response Notation
How many MS students can 66 but ideally would not have 3 to a
60
be assigned to a regular bus? seat if possible
66 but ideally would not have 3 to a
How many HS students? 55
seat if possible
70 mins for non-
What is the maximum ride 60 minutes used to be target, but this
magnet; 90 for
time for students? was extended due to shortage
magnet
allocated per stop, regardless
60? 30
of the number of students at
the stop?
allocated per student 10? 5
loading/unloading at a stop?
How long do buses need to
Schools probably 5-10 minutes,
stay at hubs/schools before 5
depots when all of the buses arrive
leaving for next run?
How many minutes before the
opening bell do buses need to 15-20? 5
arrive?
Do buses need to arrive before 15-20 before is ideal---but it is ok if
the dismissal bell or at the bell some come a little later--we can load 0
time? the first set and then load the next set
The reduc�on in the maximum loads for secondary buses likely In prac�ce, bus “capacity” is not typically
made minimizing the number of buses needed more difficult; considered to be the manufacturer’s rated
without considera�on of overbooking possibili�es, it also made it capacity. A “78-passenger” bus may
likelier that buses would not operate at capacity. All of the other indeed be able to hold 78 elementary
students, but it is unlikely to be able to
AR changes made minimizing the number of buses needed in a
hold the same number of middle/high
solu�on easier, but likely also made actually comple�ng the
students. Prisma�c typically recommends
routes as planned more difficult.
that a district adopt “effec�ve capacity”
Par�cularly troubling in these changes is the change from guidelines, such as “2 to a seat” for
planning to have buses arrive 15-20 minutes before the opening middle/high students. However, Prisma�c
bell down to 5 minutes. For students who depend upon school then typically recommends that a district
meals, arriving 5 minutes before the bell makes it impossible to endeavor to overbook its buses to result in
them actually opera�ng at their effec�ve
capacity.
3-11
select and consume school breakfast in the cafeteria. Absent
adjustments by a district’s food service department in how
breakfast is offered and adjustments in school procedures to
allow students to eat breakfast in class, those students will miss
out on breakfast.
♦ When asked “Which pairs or groups of schools need to be at the

same �er or on different �ers?” JCPS responded, ‘Schools
involved in depots probably need to be on same �er, and some
�ers can be all direct if those schools aren't involved in depots.”
This response indicates that JCPS an�cipated the con�nued use
of depots. For depot systems to work and as JCPS had previously
done, the buses involved enter the depot area within a short �me
window (10-15 minutes), allow students to switch buses, then
depart promptly. For this to be efficient and not result in an overly
long ride �me (or overly early drop �me at a school), buses using
a depot at the same �me should all be at the same SST. The AR
response as recorded on the frameworks document was, “Can't
put all depot schools at the same �er…Can we have a split system
with 2 �ers of depot schools, and 3 �ers of direct schools? Try to
keep schools that share buses on same �er.” This response seems
to indicate that AR understood the need to keep buses sharing a
depot interac�on on the same SST, but it is not completely clear.
Of all the SST parameters that JCPS provided to AR in the frameworks, the
1 that was likely the most problema�c was the allowance of substan�al
�me for early drop offs before the first bell in the morning and equally
substan�al �me for picking up students from school a�er the dismissal
bell. In interviews, some JCPS staff indicated that they believed it was
communicated to AR that 40 minutes prior/a�er was only to be used on
an excep�on basis. However, repor�ng to JCPS as AR went through its
op�miza�on itera�ons does show that AR included the 40 minutes
prior/a�er as generally acceptable (Exhibit 3-2).
Exhibit 3-2
SST Dra� Provided by AR to JCPS in January 2023
Source: AlphaRoute, 2023
As an excep�on, 40 minutes would have been an improvement over the

55 minutes allowed in the 2022-23 rou�ng plan. It became problema�c
when it was widely applied in the final SST schedule.
3-12
Between 2021-2023, the JCPS school board received a series of
presenta�ons regarding changes to busing and bell �mes. These
proposals aimed to enhance student achievement and outcomes while
also addressing the pressing need for mul�ple start �mes to reduce bus
routes and accommodate the shortage of bus drivers. Although the
overarching goal of improving student success and addressing
transporta�on challenges was evident, there was a notable absence of
detailed explana�ons regarding the specific trade-offs required to
implement the proposed ini�a�ve. Instead, the presenta�ons primarily
focused on outlining broader objec�ves, and concerns raised to the
school board mostly centered on the poten�al impact on the schedules
of families, staff, and extracurricular ac�vi�es. Even as the school board
approved the final SST proposal, discussions remained centered on
objec�ves, logis�cs, and feedback, with limited explora�on of the
nuanced trade-offs required to achieve the adopted bell �me schedule.
This lack of comprehensive discussion may have le� the school board
without a complete understanding of the full implica�ons of the new
schedule, poten�ally resul�ng in missed opportuni�es to address the
described flaws effec�vely.
RECOMMENDATION 3-1:
Review op�ons for adjus�ng SSTs for 2024-25.
At the time this report was written, JCPS lacked routing expertise within
its transportation department and lacked 3rd-party routing software. In
its experience, Prismatic has found it to require at least 1 full year of
implementation before a school district can reasonably expect to
effectively use routing software at a high level. Therefore, it would be ill-
advised for JCPS to attempt another wholesale adjustment of SSTs for
2024-25. Nevertheless, there are likely some precision adjustments that
can improve the current situation. These could be accomplished by the
existing transportation department staff with their existing tools.
Implementa�on Steps:
The JCPS transportation director should convene weekly meetings with

subordinate staff to explore options for adjusting selected school start
times using these questions:
♦ Are there pairs of schools where adjus�ng the SST of 1 or both

would likely lead to beter opera�onal performance?
♦ Are there schools where, given current opera�onal capacity, it is

likely that the school could be beter served at either the adjacent
earlier SST or the adjacent later SST?
3-13
Fiscal Impact:
FINDING 3-2: Mul�-�ered School Start Times
Although JCPS has 3 main start �mes in the new bell schedule, it also has
6 mini-�ers around those main ones. This has created unacceptably long
workdays for a number of bus drivers, as well as high poten�al for regular
daily delays for schools with later SSTs. To make this mul�-�er schedule
fit the district’s desire to minimize the number of drivers required, a large
por�on of the daily routes were un-mirrored. This added substan�al
complexity.
School bell schedules are built upon a desired first school start �me and
then on the basis of available buses and drivers. If a district has enough
buses and drivers to pick up all students at 1 �me and deliver them to
school, then the district can use 1 bell schedule. If the number of bus
riders must be divided in half to fit on available buses, then a 2-�er system
is needed. If it is an urban district and buses can be filled to capacity in
just 15-25 minutes, then schools can start just 30 or so minutes apart, for
example, 8:00 and 8:30 am. If the district is rural and it takes over an hour
to fill a bus to even half capacity, the school star�ng bells may have to be
an hour or more apart. JCPS has a mix of urban, rural, suburban, and
exurban neighborhoods, which complicates �ering op�ons.
Prior to 2023-24, JCPS bus drivers were accustomed to 2 runs each

morning and a�ernoon, 3 if they also served an early childhood school.
The new SSTs not only shi�ed to 3 main bells, but also included 6 mini-
�ers that each serve a small number of schools (Exhibit 3-3).
Exhibit 3-3
Number of Schools Scheduled Off the 3 Main SSTs
Mini-Tier # of Schools
Start Time on the Mini-Tier
8
8:00 am
(only 4 receive transportation)
8:10 am 8
9:00 am 4
9:10 am 4
9:30 am 7
10:40 am 2
Total 33
Source: JCPS, January 2024
3-14
The implementa�on of such a schedule meant that a majority of bus
drivers would have to complete 3 runs each morning/a�ernoon to meet
the needs of the main SSTs and a substan�al number would be needed to
complete 4+ runs each morning/a�ernoon to also meet the needs of the
mini-�ers.
Exhibit 3-4
Number of Runs JCPS Buses Need to Complete Daily
# of Buses, # of Buses,
# of Runs Morning Afternoon
1 22 3
2 150 13
3 358 224
4 23 306
5 1 18
Total 554 564
This kind of complexity increases the chances that a driver who

encounters a run delay will be late for a subsequent run. If a driver only
does 2 runs, the chances of delays compounding themselves, resul�ng in
a more serious delay at the next school, are less. A 3-�er program
effec�vely increases the chances of compounded delays by 50% over a 2-
�er busing system. A 4- or 5-�er program increases the chances of delays
propor�onately. The effects of this kind of complexity can be seen in the
increasing morning and a�ernoon lateness, as reported by principals in
an anonymous survey conducted for this project between December 8,
2023 and January 3, 2024. When asked how late their last bus arrives to
campus in the mornings and how late the last bus reaches campus in the
a�ernoons, principals on later SSTs report substan�ally greater lateness.
3-15
Exhibit 3-5
Principal Survey Responses Regarding Bus Arrivals to Campus
School Start Time

Currently, the last bus
in the morning arrives: 7:40-8:10 am 8:40-9:30 am 9:40-10:40 am
at or before the 1st bell 56% 3% 0%
~10-20 minutes after school start 19% 32% 21%
~21-30 minutes after school start 19% 30% 29%
>30 minutes after school start 6% 35% 39%
School End Time

Currently, the last bus
in the afternoon arrives on campus: 2:20-2:50 pm 3:20-4:10 pm 4:20-5:20 pm
<15 minutes after dismissal 34% 3% 0%
16-30 minutes after dismissal 19% 0% 6%
>60 minutes after dismissal 31% 57% 52%
Source: Prismatic survey, December 2023
During January 10-12, 2024 school observa�ons, Prisma�c also found

that the district was having difficul�es mee�ng its planned SSTs. However,
the problem appeared to be consistent across the 3 main start �mes
(Exhibit 3-6).
Exhibit 3-6
Prisma�c January 2024 School Observa�ons
School Start Time

7:40 am 8:40 am 9:40 am
Number of schools observed in the morning 4 4 4
Number of schools where at least 1 bus arrived
3 3 4
after the start of school
Number of schools observed in the afternoon 5 5 4
5 5 4
15-30 minutes after dismissal
5 5 3
>30 minutes after dismissal
Source: Prismatic, 2024
The district seems to have gained litle from the complexity the mini-�ers
introduced. Overall, they seem to have resulted in making the rou�ng
plan more, not less, difficult to meet in a �mely fashion. Back-of-the-
envelope calcula�ons show that to bus ~65,000 students, or 5,000 per
grade (65,000/13 grades, K-12), results in 30,000 K-5 ES students, 15,000
6-8 MS students, and 20,000 HS students. A fleet of 500 buses could
transport 30,000 ES students by assigning just 60 students per bus. The
3-16
same 500 buses could transport 20,000 HS students by assigning just 40
students, less than 2 students per seat. The 15,000 MS students could
also be handled by 500 buses, assigning just 30 students per bus. A 3-�er
program built around common start �mes for each school level, for
example, 7:40 for ES, 8:40 for HS, and 9:40 for MS appears ini�ally
possible. Of course, an ini�ally simple plan could become difficult to
implement if some bus runs must exceed the �me allowed; because of
that, in some cases not every bus can be expected to only do 3 runs in the
morning and 3 runs in the a�ernoon. That would appear to have been the
ra�onale for the mini-�ers. However, an examina�on of the runs assigned
to each bus undermines the assump�on that ra�onale was in play in the
development of the final JCPS SSTs.
This can be seen in the analysis of buses assigned to serve schools on a

mini-�er that also serve the previous or next major �er. For example, it
would be a good use of a bus if it could drop students at a school on the
7:40 �er, then the 8:00 mini-�er, then the 8:40 �er, then the 9:40 �er.
The crea�on of the 8:00 mini-�er allows that bus to be used 4 �mes in
the morning, instead of just 3. However, if the same bus is only assigned
to the 8:00, 8:40, and 9:40 �ers, the district has gained nothing and,
having shortened the amount of �me available to serve the 8:40 �er, it
would have been beter off assigning the bus to serve only the 3 major
�ers.
Exhibit 3-7 provides the number of buses assigned to serve the schools in
each mini-�er, then the number of those that also serve the previous or
next major �er. The final column shows the number of buses that serve
the mini-�er and both the previous and next major �er. As shown, at the
individual bus level, the net gain in the morning from the mini-�ers is just
26 buses that could poten�ally serve 4 �ers in the morning because they
serve 2 of the major �ers and 1 mini-�er. Of those 26, only 17 buses
actually serve 4 or 5 SSTs in the morning.
3-17
Exhibit 3-7
Number of Mini-Tier Buses (MTB) that Also Serve the Previous or Next Major Tier
# of # of MTBs
# of MTBs MTBs That Also
# of # of Buses That Also That Also Serve
Schools Assigned Serve the Serve the Previous
Mini-Tier on the to Serve Previous Previous Next Next and Next
Start Mini- the Mini- Major Major Major Major Major
Time Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier
8:00 am 4 30 7:40 am 8 8:40 am 16 2
8:10 am 8 52 7:40 am 20 8:40 am 17 5
9:00 am 4 40 8:40 am 17 9:40 am 19 8
9:10 am 4 39 8:40 am 26 9:40 am 16 9
9:30 am 7 56 8:40 am 53 9:40 am 2 2
Total 26
On-�me busing relies on accurate scheduling. There are variables that the
transporta�on router cannot control – accidents, detours, road
construc�on, a parent who insists on talking to the bus driver now, an
upset student who will not board the bus promptly, etc. But a 3-�er
system with school start and end �mes 1 hour apart must have its buses
complete all of their work in about 3 hours each morning and a�ernoon,
whether the bus is doing 2, 3, 4, or 5 runs each session. If the combined
�me lengths of the JCPS bus runs exceed 3 hours, then the buses will be
late.
In their review of AR bus runs, delivered in late July 2023, JCPS principals
quickly noted that bus runs were too long and that some were scheduled
to arrive late even by the 40 minutes parameter built into the framework.
On the principal survey completed for this project, 77% of principals
noted that they had “many concerns” when they first saw the 2023-24
bus routes for their schools. Of the 101 principals who indicated they
no�fied someone when they realized they had concerns about the bus
routes, 56% stated they no�fied an assistant superintendent/immediate
supervisor. JCPS leaders had a “blue and white report” that listed more
than 70 schools where it was an�cipated that buses would be 20-30
minutes late. This report was available several days before August 9th.
Although difficult to tease apart the various factors that contributed to
this problem, the use of mini-�ers that provided limited obvious benefits
but which complicated transporta�on opera�ons appears to have been a
problema�c factor. A number of op�ons to crunch the SST table down to
just 3 �ers do not seem to have been explored, the most important of
which was historical bus ridership data.
Early in the SST/RO process, AR indicated that it could analyze “millions”

of variables as it worked to create an op�mal bell and bus schedule. Some
3-18
of the key variables were listed by JCPS and AR in the frameworks
documents that led to the SST/RO proposals. The frameworks document
did not include a request for bus ridership data. AR did request bus
ridership data from JCPS in June 2023, a�er the SSTs had been
determined. It appears that JCPS provided to AR a database of all students
eligible for transporta�on and did not include es�mates of likely actual
ridership rates based on historical data.
Bus ridership data was requested from the district but not provided to
Prisma�c. JCPS provided a spreadsheet labelled “historical bus ridership,”
but it contained only data about the number of students eligible for
transporta�on, not the number of students who have historically ridden
on JCPS buses. In interviews, JCPS leaders reported that actual counts of
the number of students riding buses were not collected on a regular,
districtwide basis, with some staff indica�ng they thought the data would
be of litle value. Instead, 1 JCPS leader noted that the district relied on
“gut feeling” regarding ridership. As required by KDE, ridership counts are
taken once a year; the transporta�on director noted those data were
provided to the GIS execu�ve director who was either the primary or
secondary contact person with AR during the SST/RO op�miza�on
process.
It does not appear that the admitedly limited ridership data collected for
the KDE was used in the AR process. It also does not appear that either
AR or JCPS atempted to collect updated ridership data during the SST/RO
process. At the bus compound level, transporta�on coordinators were
likely to have counts on the number of students riding their buses, or
could get them by asking drivers. Ridership levels typically vary from age
group to age group and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Knowing
local ridership paterns can be a key to efficiently u�lizing available buses.
If a district does not know ridership paterns, a school that previously had
10 buses assigned to it will end up with 10 buses assigned in the new
rou�ng solu�on.
Although not completely comparable, a key aspect of the work that

undergirded the SST change in Anne Arundel County Public Schools
(AACPS, MD) was an assessment of actual bus ridership and the use of
overbooking to help fill each bus in use. AACPS has some transporta�on
challenges similar to those of JCPS, including a large number of students
eligible for transporta�on, large geography, and a mix of urban and rural
areas (Exhibit 3-8).
3-19
Exhibit 3-8
Comparison of JCPS and AACPS Transporta�on Challenges
JCPS AAPCS
Geographic Size 395 square miles 588 square miles
# of Students Eligible for Transportation 62,702 64,085
3
3 main ES at 8:00 am
# of Bell Times, 2023-24
6 mini-tier HS at 8:30 am
MS at 9:15 am
554 am
# of Buses Required 519
564 pm
Source: Prismatic, February 2024
RECOMMENDATION 3-2:
Review op�ons for moving schools on mini-�er start �mes to a major

�er start �me.
can improve the current situation. These could be accomplished by the
existing transportation department staff with their existing tools.
Implementa�on Steps:

subordinate staff to explore options for adjusting the SSTs of schools
currently on mini-tiers using this question:
♦ Can consolidation of existing mini-tier bus runs make it possible

to fit a school into the earlier or later major tier time?
♦ What was gained operationally by placing each school on a mini-

tier start time? If nothing was gained, then it should be moved to
an adjacent major tier time. If there was an operational gain, can
the same gain be accomplished elsewhere and the school moved
to a major tier start time?
Fiscal Impact:
3-20
FINDING 3-3 – School Start Times for Secondary Students
Although JCPS leaders were aware of the scien�fic basis suppor�ng later
school start �mes for secondary students, it allowed the development of
SST op�ons to ignore that research base. The district ul�mately adopted
an SST schedule that was unequitable across JCPS middle and high
schools.
Currently, middle and high schools are scatered through the final SST
table. Approximately half of the secondary schools start prior to 8:30 am,
which is typically used as the line between a start �me that is too early
and an acceptable start �me for adolescents (Exhibit 3-9).
Exhibit 3-9
Breakdown of Start Times for JCPS Secondary Schools
Prior to 8:30 am After 8:30 am

Middle Schools 15 17
High Schools 13 17
JCPS leadership briefed the school board as SST op�ons were being
considered. In the February 7, 2023 introduc�on of the SST ini�a�ve to
the school board, later start �mes for adolescents was emphasized,
receiving 2 full slides out of 8 in the presenta�on. A 3rd slide in the
presenta�on provided 6 an�cipated benefits of changing SSTs; 2 focused
on benefits for adolescents (Exhibit 3-10).
3-21
Exhibit 3-10
Presenta�on to JCPS School Board
February 7, 2023
Source: JCPS Website, January 2024
It was also included as an objec�ve in the frameworks communica�on

from JCPS to AR. As SST plans became more concrete, JCPS administrators
acknowledged that they and AR were not able to provide as many
adolescent students a later start as they had hoped. In the February 28,
2023 presenta�on to the school board, the goal of later start �mes for
adolescents was now listed as a benefit - “poten�al atendance
improvement with adolescents having later start.” JCPS leadership
pledged to seek a revised, future busing schedule that would give more
middle and high school students more sleep in the morning.
For a bell �mes ini�a�ve that was intended to provide adolescent middle
and high school students more �me to sleep in the mornings, the new
schedule did not change life much for many of the older students. Under
the new bell schedule, 10 high schools and 12 middle schools maintained
their 7:40 am start �me from previous years. Sixteen high schools and
middle schools were shi�ed to an 8:40 start. One high school and 1
middle school were put on the 9:40 major �er, making this group of
adolescent students with 2 extra hours of sleep an elite group.
Based on the available data regarding how AR selected which schools to

include in which SST �ers, it is unclear whether AR followed an order of
opera�ons that atempted to put all secondary schools on the 8:40 and
9:40 am �ers but then selec�vely moved some to the earlier 7:40 am �er
as it worked through rou�ng op�ons or whether the stated JCPS objec�ve
3-22
of moving secondary students to a later SST was not in the top level in the
order of opera�ons while op�mizing. The AR notes on the JCPS-provided
frameworks seem to indicate that at least secondary magnet schools
were slated for either the 7:40 or 9:40 am �er from the beginning of the
op�miza�on work.
Regardless, once the ini�al SST/RO solu�on was developed, it does not
appear that either AR or JCPS reviewed the results to see whether it had
maximized the number of secondary schools at later SSTs. A visual
analysis of the district’s school maps yields a number of likely candidates
for moving a secondary school to a later SST and moving elementary
schools to the earlier SST. For example, Atherton HS (in orange in Exhibit
3-11) was placed on the 7:40 am start. Three rela�vely close elementary
schools, Goldsmith, Hawthorne, and Klondike Lane (shown in dark
purple) were placed on the 9:40 am start.
Exhibit 3-11
Proximity of Atherton HS to Later-Star�ng ES
Source: Prismatic, January 2024
The morning and a�ernoon buses required for each of the schools
indicates that some combina�on of 2 of the candidate elementary
schools could have been swapped earlier so that Atherton HS could start
later (Exhibit 3-12).
3-23
Exhibit 3-12
Number of Atherton HS and Nearby ES Buses
Morning Buses Afternoon

School Allocated Buses Allocated
Atherton HS 23 26
Goldsmith ES 13 13
Hawthorne ES 14 10
Klondike Lane ES 10 11
Source: JCPS Transportation Department, January 2024
The consul�ng team found mul�ple other poten�al swaps. Several

samples are shown in Exhibit 3-13.
Exhibit 3-13
Poten�al Swaps of Later HS for Earlier ES
Possible Swap of Binet for Some Combination of Possible Swap of Central HS for Some
Hawthorne, Goldsmith, and Klondike Lane ES Combination of Atkinson, Byck, King, & Young ES
Possible Swap of Grace James HS for Some Possible Swap of W.E.B. DuBois HS for Some
Combination of Brandeis, Byck, and Young ES Combination of Indian Trail, Price, Slaughter ES
Source: Prismatic, January 2024
On the principal survey conducted for this project, a few secondary

principals noted the later SSTs as a benefit. They noted that many of their
students are able to sleep longer and it does seem to be helping with
student atendance. They also noted HS students are more aware and
ready to engage in learning at the opening bell.
3-24
In what should likely be considered the final word on the subject of SSTs
for secondary students, the American Academy of Pediatrics has
recommended that middle and high schools not start before 8:30 am. The
Academy made this recommenda�on in 2014. As noted in their policy
statement, “the evidence strongly implicates earlier school start �mes…as
a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep.” 1
RECOMMENDATION 3-3:
Review op�ons for adjus�ng all secondary schools to the 8:40 am or

later SST for 2024-25.
can improve the current situation. These improvements could be
accomplished by the existing transportation department staff with their
existing tools.

subordinate staff to explore options for adjusting selected school start
times using this question: Within the existing SST table, where can a
secondary school on the 7:40 – 8:10 am starts be swapped for 1+
elementary schools on the 9:40 start?
Fiscal Impact:
1
htps://pediatrics.aappublica�ons.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/19/p
eds.2014-1697.full.pdf
3-25
Chapter 4
Routing Optimization
Chapter 4 – Rou�ng Op�miza�on Ini�a�ve
Initiative
Background
Bus route op�miza�on (RO) can take a number of forms in a school
district. In some districts, it is a con�nual process of seeking to adjust
routes to “do more with less” – to fill buses more completely while
seeking to reduce routes �mes and deadhead mileage. In other districts,
much of the RO work happens in response to new circumstances – an
apartment building opens with students who need transport, the
atendance boundary of a school is changed, or the needs of a special
educa�on student require a new schedule of transport. As a best prac�ce,
rou�ng work follows an annual schedule that �es together the work of a
number of departments outside transporta�on. This typically includes:
♦ the technology department, which is responsible for rolling over

the student database from the current to the next school year
♦ the special educa�on department, which makes the bulk of its

student placement decisions the spring before the next school
year
♦ the department(s) responsible for managing new student

enrollment and enrollment projec�ons so that transporta�on can
be apprised of poten�ally new rou�ng needs.
JCPS undertook its recent RO ini�a�ve mo�vated primarily by the ongoing

driver shortage and the increased demand for bus routes and drivers
resul�ng from the new school choice program. Although not directly
involved in most of the planning around the RO ini�a�ve for 2023-24, the
transporta�on department includes rou�ng as a responsibility of each of
the 9 compound coordinators.
4-1
Chapter 4 – Routing Optimization Initiative
JCPS Internal School Transporta�on Rou�ng Posi�ons
The recent RO ini�a�ve was the result of a collabora�on between a

vendor (AlphaRoute) and a JCPS leadership team comprised of the GIS
execu�ve director, the chief opera�ons officer (COO), and the re�red
chief of staff who was brought back in a consultant capacity.
Timeline of Key Events for Rou�ng Op�miza�on Ini�a�ve
Date Event
JCPS obtains 3rd party routing software and tests it in 2-3 bus compounds. The
1990s
test is not successful; the district never fully implements the software.
JCPS adjusts all elementary attendance boundaries and has to adjust bus
2012-13 routes as a result. JCPS staff indicated to Prismatic that some grandfathering
of students was allowed during this process.
JCPS obtains new 3rd party routing software. It is used for some special
2015
education routing.
The demographic analyst who is now the JCPS GIS executive director first
2019
interacts with the consulting firm Dynamic Ideas/AlphaRoute (AR).
JCPS cancels its contract with a 2nd provider of routing software. The district
September
had maintained a contract with that vendor since 2015, but never fully
2019
implemented the software.
JCPS provides a “sole source” justification for contracting with AR for bell time
optimization and routing service to resolve the bus driver shortage. AR
May 2021
pledges they “will optimize for the chosen objectives and adhere to the
constraints and policies as well” of JCPS.
The JCPS/AR contract is finalized for bell times optimization and re-routing
June 2021
with intent of reducing the number of required bus drivers.
4-2
Date Event
JCPS leadership and COO present “Bell Times and Our Transportation System”
to the school board. The COO emphasizes that in 2021-22 JCPS transports
February 1, 70% of its students versus a national average of 50%, uses 770 routes, and
2022 relies heavily on many routes completing double runs, indicating there are
191 HS/MS and 117 ES double runs at the time. AR is identified as a partner in
the work of addressing transportation challenges.
JCPS reports to the school board with plans for 2 phases of implementation of
new bell times and bus routing. Phase 1 for a “small number of schools” is
March 8,
planned to start in August 2022. These plans are later canceled in favor of a
2022
more “comprehensive,” full scale roll-out of all 3 initiatives (SC, SST, and RO,
in August 2023).
January
AR is identified as conducting the planning for SST and RO initiatives.
2023
JCPS and AR present “Start Smart Start Time Proposal” to the school board.
The need to address the bus driver shortage and a desire to provide later
February school start times for MS/HS students are cited as the reasons for the bell
28, 2023 times changes. AR states that the optimal bell time scenarios are the product
of their algorithms and mathematical modeling, using routing parameters set
previously with JCPS in the “frameworks.”
March 28, The school board approves the “Start Smart Start Time Proposal.” One impact
2023 of this is the need to complete substantial bus re-routing and RO.
May 8, 2023 AR provides JCPS with its “initial solution.”
July 10,
AR delivers initial bus routes to JCPS.
2023
AR delivers final bus routes to JCPS. The transportation department and
~July 17, school principals find a number of problems with the routes, including: some
2023 students left out of plans, buses routed to arrive late at schools, missing
afternoon bus schedules, runs too long, drivers sent into unfamiliar areas, etc.
July 24,
Bus stop and route information goes live in the district.
2023
August 9,
Start of school, date of the Incident.
2023
August 11-
In the days after the Incident, AR sends some of its staff to JCPS to assist.
18, 2023
Findings
FINDING 4-1 – Routing Timeline
The routing timeline that JCPS has generally used in years prior was not
adhered to by AlphaRoute. Assuming that major changes in routing could
be handled in the same amount of time allocated for a normal process
led to delays in rollout.
4-3
The traditional timeline followed by JCPS bus compound coordinators,
transportation managers, and the GIS department in preparing for the
upcoming school year was:
♦ April: Student projections for MS/HS students initiated by the GIS

department, reviewed by transportation staff
♦ Mid-April: Compound Coordinators start creating MS/HS routes
♦ Mid-May: GIS department creates ES student projections
♦ Early June: Routing for ES students begins
♦ July 1st: Completion and review of all routes
The detailed traditional schedule is shown in Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-1
Traditional JCPS Transportation Routing Schedule
Date Event Responsibility

December Check Luggage Tag Counts Operation Manager
January Order Luggage Tags Operation Manager
March 25 Pre Edit Bus Compounds
Delete GF Stops, Update Master List, GIS Exec Director, Managers,
March 25
L&Rs, Routing System Coords, Assts
Pull MS/HS Student Projections and
April 1 GIS Exec Director
Qualify Students
GIS Exec Director, Managers,
April 4-6 Coords Review MS/HS Projections
Coords, Assts
April 15 MS/HS Routing Begins Coords/Assts
May 11 Bus Finder - Off to Public GIS Exec Director
Begin Entering MS/HS Bus Stops in
May 4 Compound Staff
Routing System
Pull Elementary Projections and
May 18 GIS Exec Director
Qualify Students
Deadline For MS/HS Routing (Start
June 1 Coords, Assts
L&R’s, does not include pairing)
June 2 Review MS/HS with Compounds Managers, Coords, Assts
June 3 Start ES Routing (Including L&R’s) Coords, Assts
Deadline For ES Routing (does not
June 30 Coords, Assts
include pairing)
July 6 1st edit Operation Manager
July 9, 14, 20 Edit Clerical, Compounds
July 16 Deadline For Routing ES Coords, Managers
July 19-23 Edit Operation Manager
Week of July 19 Early Childhood (ECH) Distribution Operation Manager
4-4
Date Event Responsibility
July 21 Pairing Complete Coords, Managers
July 23 Bus Finder Live GIS Exec Director
Principal Meetings with Coords
July 19-23 Bus Drivers
Visit Schools
July 27 Route Preview Coords
July 31 & August 2 Route Selection Coords
August 3 Orientation & Mandated Training All Transportation Staff
A.M. & P.M. Bid Simulation (Including
August 4 - 6 Drivers, Monitors
ECH)
MS/HS Principal Meetings 11:00 –
August 6 11:30 am Drivers, Monitors
ES Principal Meetings 12:30 – 1:00 pm
Coords and/or Asst Coords Present at
August 4-6 Coords and Asst
All Depots
August 9 TAPP Training Training
August 9-10 Extra Simulation, if needed Drivers, SNTAs, Monitors
August 9-10 Waller Training: Drivers, SNTAs, Ords Drivers, SNTAs, Ords
August 11 First Day of School All Transportation Staff
August 25 ECH Transportation Starts All Transportation Staff
Source: JPCS Transportation Department, provided by the COO, 2023.
Critical points of failure in the 2023-24 RO timeline were:
♦ JCPS initially anticipated AR route information for review in

March (for regular education routes) and May (for special
education routes). Instead, AR did not provide route information
until July 10, 2023. Those routes were incomplete and
necessitated returning to Alpha Route for finalization. The district
received finalized routes from AR on July 17, 2023. In a
subsequent interaction with Prismatic, an AR representative
indicated that the routes delivered on July 17th were only
intended to be “about 80% complete.” However, given the
substantial changes presented in the AR routes, there was little
time available for JCPS staff to make adjustments.
♦ July is typically the time when the district adds stops, makes last-
minute changes, and incorporates new additions into already
finalized routes. The delivery of AR routes on July 17th eliminated
half the days typically used for this kind of work.
These failure points were compounded by 2 other decisions made earlier

in the RO process: accepting incomplete data from AR as their RO work
progressed and excluding the transportation department from most of
the RO planning process.
4-5
The GIS executive director and COO received updates from AR as their
SST/RO work progressed. However, those updates did not include details
that provided assurances that the RO efforts were leading to truly
workable routes. In January-February 2023 (termed Phase 2 in some JCPS
documents), AR provided JCPS with updates that included a list of
proposed SSTs and histograms showing the number of buses on the road
during the day. For example, an update on January 20, 2023 noted that
AR had developed a solution that used ~570 buses with “longer walking
distances” and “longer time on bus for students.” The accompanying
spreadsheet and histograms provide a limited overview (Exhibit 4-2).
Exhibit 4-2
Proposed SSTs and Bus Needs Under a January 2023 Scenario
Source: AR email to JCPS, January 20, 2023.
4-6
District staff confirmed that additional details on this potential solution
were not provided. Together, the email, spreadsheet, and histograms
provide only an incomplete picture. They do not provide sufficient detail
for JCPS to assess the quality of the proposed solution. JCPS did not
receive:
♦ a listing of how many buses would be required by each school
♦ quantification of how many students would be walking longer

and whether those distances were acceptable
♦ quantification of how many students would have longer bus rides

and whether those lengths were acceptable
♦ verification that other routing parameters were followed – for

example, how much time was allowed for buses to load at
elementary schools in the afternoons?
♦ a listing of what the route times would be for each bus, once the
school-level runs were stitched together, so that the district
could gauge the impact on bus driver hours
In June-July 2023 (termed Phase 6 in some JCPS documents), the district

provided AR with a file of stop changes for ~17k students. District staff
noted that it expected AR to make those changes before providing the
rou�ng solu�on in July and believed it was discussed. However, it does
not appear that the district received writen verifica�on that those
changes were incorporated into the rou�ng solu�on, nor did the district
make a comprehensive assessment to verify they were made. In early July,
AR told the district they had a rou�ng solu�on that used 567 buses. AR
provided the raw data files that JCPS then imported into their system. AR
also provided the solu�on in their so�ware and made it available to JCPS.
AR did not provide summary data that enabled district leaders to assess
the quality of the solu�on. District staff noted that the �meline did not
give them enough �me to quality check every run/route.
During the SST/RO collaboration with AR, the key points of contact with
the vendor were the GIS executive director and the retired chief of staff;
the transportation department was generally excluded. Instead, the GIS
executive director, who had a long history working in the district and who
had worked in the transportation department previously, was viewed as
the representative for concerns, questions, or needs of the
transportation department. He worked in concert with the retired chief
of staff, who also had a long history in managing start-of-school planning.
When asked why members of the transportation department were not
materially included in the RO planning process, JCPS staff members
indicated that the transportation director was relatively new and viewed
4-7
as having other transportation areas in need of attention. Some staff
indicated that JCPS transportation specialists lacked depth in experience,
lacked leadership experience, or would not be objective in RO planning.
Ini�ally granted access to the AR so�ware in the spring of 2023,

transporta�on coordinators were informed that the routes were s�ll a
work in progress and were advised to await their comple�on. Following
this, a training session on how to navigate stops and u�lize the so�ware
took place in the week a�er July 4th. Once transporta�on coordinators
were able to view the AR routes in mid-July, they iden�fied a number of
problems. Had they been part of the RO planning process earlier, it is
possible problema�c rou�ng issues could have either been iden�fied
earlier, leaving �me to address them, or avoided altogether. Instead,
because of the RO ini�a�ve �meline, transporta�on coordinators worked
for 35 days straight, including weekends, a�er receiving the AR routes, in
an atempt to address problems.
The delay in receiving the final AR informa�on disrupted the established
�meline. The shortened window between receiving incomplete routes
and the school start date on August 9th restricted the district’s ability to
thoroughly review, adjust, or op�mize routes for maximum efficiency and
student safety. This compressed �meline and delayed receipt of finalized
routes contributed to service disrup�ons at the beginning of the school
year and led to confusion, delays, and inconvenience for students,
parents, and schools relying on the transporta�on system.
RECOMMENDATION 4-1:
Re-establish and adhere to an annual rou�ng �meline.
Atemp�ng to fit a normally lengthy process into a shortened �me span

while also making substan�al changes in the routes was a cri�cal point of
failure that impacted events on August 9th. To help ensure it does not
happen again, the district should implement a clear drop-dead
enrollment date and rou�ng deadlines to ensure that transporta�on
planning aligns with finalized student enrollments. The district should
reintroduce the original JCPS rou�ng �meline, coupled with the u�liza�on
of advanced computerized rou�ng systems. This will op�mize the
transporta�on planning process, enabling the district to efficiently
allocate resources and plan routes well in advance of the academic year.
Fiscal Impact:
FINDING 4-2 – AR Bus Routes
The district received inadequate bus routes from AR for the 2023-24
school year. The routing solution provided attempted to incorporate a
4-8
number of improvements and innovations, but the end results were
suboptimal. The AR routing solution included lengthy routes, scheduling
buses to serve multiple schools within the same start tier, missing
schools, and even poor routing.
Lengthy Bus Routes
AR’s restructuring of school bus routes involved substantial geographic

displacement, with some locations more than 10 miles apart. Exhibit 4-3
provides some examples of lengthy linear runs. Additional examples are
provided in Appendix C. As designed, a number of these routes result in
long ride times for students for whom a more direct path would be
preferable and shorter.
4-9
Exhibit 4-3
Examples of Lengthy Runs
Source: JCPS, from AR software, 2024
Buses Serving Multiple Schools Within a Tier
The routing solution included an unusual feature: In a number of cases a

bus was assigned to serve more than 1 school within the same SST. For
example, in the morning, the plan expects Bus 1332 to deliver students
to 3 schools that all have the same 7:40 am start time (Crums Lane ES,
Schaffner Traditional ES, and Conway MS). On the day Prismatic observed
the morning arrivals at Crums Lane ES, bus 1332 was departing that
school at 6:50 am, which is outside the 40-minute allowance, but perhaps
necessary if the bus is to also deliver students before the start of school
4-10
to the 2 other schools. Exhibit 4-4 provides the number of buses expected
to serve students of 1 or more schools within a SST tier each morning and
afternoon. As shown, a substantial number of buses are routed to serve
2+ schools with the same start time each morning. The buses that are
similarly scheduled to serve 2+ schools in the afternoon are more
troubling, because it is not possible for them to be at the 2nd or later
schools in a tier at dismissal, meaning that, by design, school staff must
provide afterschool supervision.
Exhibit 4-4
Number of Buses Scheduled to Serve 1+ Schools in the Same Morning
SST Tier
7:40 8:00 8:10 8:40 9:00 9:10 9:30 9:40

am am am am am am am am Total
# Buses Serving 1
317 30 27 318 40 39 48 298 1,117
School in the Tier
# Buses Serving 2
86 0 25 148 0 0 8 78 345
Schools in the Tier
# Buses Serving 3
5 0 0 9 0 0 0 13 27
Schools in the Tier
# Buses Serving 4
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Schools in the Tier
Total 408 30 52 476 40 39 56 390 1,491
Number of Buses Scheduled to Serve 1+ Schools in the Same

Afternoon Dismissal Tier
2:20 2:40 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:50 4:10 4:20

pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm Total
# Buses Serving 1
419 36 28 323 27 32 33 197 1,095
School in the Tier
# Buses Serving 2
62 0 28 128 0 0 7 67 292
Schools in the Tier
# Buses Serving 3
2 0 0 15 0 0 1 17 35
Schools in the Tier
# Buses Serving 4
0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 7
Schools in the Tier
# Buses Serving 5
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Schools in the Tier
Total 483 36 56 470 27 32 41 284 1,429
Source: Compiled by Prismatic from AR software, 2024.
One negative impact of this routing solution is that drivers may find
themselves managing an excessive workload. Some interviewees noted
that drivers are routinely working as much as 12 hour days this school
year.
4-11
Un-Mirroring of Bus Runs
AR included the un-mirroring of bus runs in its solution in an effort to

make greater use of each bus. Un-mirroring means that a particular bus
run in the morning may be completely different in the afternoon. Not
only may the runs be driven by different bus drivers, stops that are served
during the morning schedule may be divided across 2 or 3 separate runs
in the afternoon, creating inconsistency and inconvenience for students
and parents.
It does not appear that AR provided data in July 2023 to JPCS regarding
how many runs were un-mirrored. Based on the available data, Prismatic
estimated that as many as 90% of the AR runs were un-mirrored. For a
district that historically had not used un-mirrored runs, this was a major
change.
AR included un-mirroring and thereby reassigning routes beyond their

original geographic boundaries with the intent that it would lead to a
reduc�on in the annual mileage traveled. AR staff indicated that they
believed un-mirroring would reduce bus count requirements by 10%.
However, JCPS bus mileage has increased with the implementa�on of the
AR rou�ng solu�on. Comparing December 2022 to December 2023,
across 9 bus compounds, JCPS experienced a 45% increase in mileage
(both Decembers had 16 school days, Exhibit 4-5). While some of this
increase could be due to factors such as the inclusion of addi�onal
grandfathered students, the reduced reliance on depots and un-mirroring
of runs are likely bigger factors.
4-12
Exhibit 4-5
Comparison on Bus Mileage by Compound
Bus Compound Mileage Dec ‘22 Mileage Dec ‘23 Difference % Change
Blankenbaker 79,284 105,240 25,956 33%
Blue Lick 55,677 99,882 44,205 79%
Burks 71,593 113,671 42,078 59%
Detrick 79,052 81,802 2,750 3%
Hoke 55,258 98,101 42,843 78%
Jacob 80,561 107,205 26,644 33%
Jeffersontown - -
Lees Lane - -
Moore - -
Nichols - -
Sped East 104,889 160,380 55,492 53%
Sped West 88,803 138,951 50,147 56%
Wilhoit 72,294 93,979 21,685 30%
Total Miles 687,411 999,211 311,800 45%
Source: JCPS, from Zonar software, 2024
4-13
Routing Errors
As received, the AR routing solution contained several errors:
♦ It overlooked 2 schools, Byck Elementary and W.B Dubois.
♦ Approximately 1,500 grandfathered students were not allocated

stops.
♦ Essential stops, such as daycare locations and before/after school

YMCA stops, were absent. It appears that at least some daycare
locations were treated as students’ residence addresses, with the
result that students were expected to walk some distance from a
bus stop to the daycare. One JCPS principal reported that on
August 9th 40 students were dropped at a stop 0.5 miles from the
assigned daycare.
♦ Special education students from 5 schools were missing stops.
♦ Equipment requirements outlined in the Individualized Education

Programs (IEPs) of special education students were disregarded
in a number of cases, even though students are required by law
to be provided the equipment noted in the IEP.
♦ In a number of cases, AR runs included unsafe stops for students.

This included route plans that required students to navigate
across multilane roads that lack a crosswalk or to traverse
commercial areas with multiple business driveways and
incomplete side walking (Exhibit 4-6). This also included bus
stops located at traffic lights and stops not made on the right side
when they could be avoided – neither of these is considered a
routing best practice. Additional examples are provided in
Appendix D.
4-14
Exhibit 4-6
Example Unsafe AR Bus Stops
Example A – Student Expected to Cross a Large Road Without a Crosswalk to Reach Bus Stop
In this example, the 2 students are expected

to walk through their neighborhood and
cross Bardstown Rd to catch the bus near
the entrance of the parking lot across the
street. A top-down view of the intersection
of Bannon Crossings Dr and Bardstown Rd,
where the students would need to cross, is
shown to the right.
4-15
Example B – Student Expected to Cross Without a Crosswalk to Reach Bus Stop
Student crosses a 35 MPH road with no crosswalks to get to the stop in another neighborhood
4-16
Example C – Student Expected to Leave Neighborhood and Traverse Commercial Area
Not all portions of the expected path have

sidewalks.
Source: JCPS, from AR software and googlemaps, 2024
4-17
Revised directions provided by AR required some buses to cross into
Indiana only to backtrack or to cross into Indiana in an inefficient path
(Exhibit 4-6).
Exhibit 4-6
Example Inefficient AR Bus Directions
Source: JCPS, from AR software, 2024
The cumulative impact of the problems with the AR routing solution can
be seen in the results of August 9th (Exhibit 4-7). Based on the available
GPS data for JCPS buses, a substantial number of buses within each start
time tier were late in arriving the morning of August 9th, with “late”
defined as arriving to the school after the starting bell. Likewise, a
substantial number of buses were also late the afternoon of August 9th.
Although the AR routing plan included allowing buses to arrive at schools
as much as 40 minutes after dismissal, a substantial number arrived later
than that.
The GPS data shown do not match the number of physical JCPS buses
because some buses are assigned to serve multiple schools within the
same arrival tier. It should also be noted that these data could include
some number of false positives, because JCPS did not set up geofences
appropriately within the GPS software and because some of the depots
4-18
are located close to some schools. However, it is unlikely that all the
buses noted as arriving late in the GPS system are false positives.
Exhibit 4-7
GPS Data for August 9th
7:40 8:00 8:10 8:40 9:00 9:10 9:30 9:40

Morning Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Total
No Arrival Data Recorded 30 2 6 55 6 9 10 107 225
On-Time Arrival (at/before bell) 302 19 21 166 7 4 3 73 595
Late Arrival 243 12 53 477 31 32 44 367 1,259
Total 575 33 80 698 44 45 57 547 2079
2:20 2:40 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:50 4:10 4:20

Afternoon Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Total
No Arrival Data Recorded 29 3 11 160 9 8 14 100 337
On-Time Arrival (by dismissal) 389 17 13 62 3 4 3 43 534
Late Arrival (<15 minutes) 118 3 12 35 2 2 4 14 190
Late Arrival (>15 & <45 minutes) 89 5 35 112 7 3 9 65 333
Late Arrival (> 45 minutes) 10 2 15 115 2 3 5 45 201
Total 635 30 86 484 23 20 35 267 1,595
Source: JCPS, from GPS software, 2024
Considering only the buses for which GPS recorded data on August 9th,
68% of the buses arrived to school after the starting bell (Exhibit 4-8). The
problem was most acute for the schools with starting times at 8:40 am
through 9:40 am. In the afternoon, 57% of the buses arrived to collect
students after the dismissal bell. Of all buses for which GPS data was
recorded, 16% arrived more than 45 minutes after the dismissal bell.
Exhibit 4-8
GPS Data for August 9th
7:40 8:00 8:10 8:40 9:00 9:10 9:30 9:40

Morning Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Total
On-Time Arrival (at/before bell) 55% 60% 28% 26% 18% 11% 6% 18% 32%
Late Arrival 45% 40% 72% 74% 82% 89% 94% 82% 68%
2:20 2:40 2:50 3:20 3:40 3:50 4:10 4:20

Afternoon Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Total
On-Time Arrival (by dismissal) 64% 49% 17% 19% 21% 33% 14% 25% 42%
Late Arrival (<15 minutes) 19% 9% 16% 11% 14% 17% 19% 8% 15%
Late Arrival (>15 & <45 minutes) 15% 34% 47% 35% 50% 25% 43% 39% 26%
Late Arrival (> 45 minutes) 2% 9% 20% 35% 14% 25% 24% 28% 16%
Source: JCPS, from GPS software, 2024
4-19
On the survey of principals conducted for this study, 77% noted that in
2022-23 it was typical to have some buses not lined up at school at
dismissal time. However, as of December 2023, 95% of principals noted
that not all their buses are lined up at dismissal time. A majority of
principals also indicated that the transportation situation in 2023-24 is
worse than it was in 2022-23 – 10% categorized it as “somewhat worse”
and 66% categorized it as “much worse.”
In the days after August 9th, AR pointed to the addition of 5,000 bus stops
into their original routing solution as a likely cause for the problems seen
on the day of the Incident. In a press release, AR noted:
On August 12, AlphaRoute sent a team to be on-site to support

JCPS. AlphaRoute quickly identified that there were 5,000 more
stops (2,500 morning stops and 2,500 afternoon stops) added to
the system from when the final solution was delivered in early
July. The additional stops created disruptions as a result of:
○ Travel times not being updated to reflect new stops on some
routes.
○ Subsequent trips for that same bus were not adjusted.
○ In some cases, a small number of stops were split up into
several new stops.
The addition of 5,000 stops would represent a 13% increase in the

number of stops systemwide (from 33,363 to 38,389). AR provided to the
district an example of added stops in a slideshow (Exhibit 4-9) but did not
provide to JCPS details regarding how many of the added stops were
added for what reasons. Despite multiple inquiries, neither AR nor JCPS
staff could explicitly quantify why stops were added.
4-20
Exhibit 4-9
AR Slide Explaining Added Stops
Source: AR, 2023
AR’s failure to provide a clear explanation of where and why JCPS added
stops has led to uncertainty regarding the reasons behind the route
discrepancies. They attributed observed route inefficiencies and lack of
on-time performance to the added stops. However, at least some of the
stops added to the AR routing solution were necessary to mitigate flaws
in the original routing plan. This included:
♦ Some students who received only a morning or an afternoon stop

required the addition of a stop for their missing piece. Prismatic
estimated this need to account for approximately 1,250
additional stops (600 morning and 650 afternoon).
♦ Byck Elementary and W.E.B. Dubois were mostly excluded from

the original AR routing salutation. Correcting this error required
the addition of 200 stops (100 morning and 100 afternoon).
♦ Approximately 1,500 grandfathered students lacked allocated

stops in the original AR solution. Prismatic estimated this need to
account for approximately 3,000 additional stops (1,500 morning
and 1,500 afternoon).
♦ The AR omission of essential stops, such as daycare locations and

before/after school YMCA stops, had to be corrected through
additional stops. Prismatic estimated this need to account for
4-21
approximately 298 additional stops (149 morning and 149
afternoon).
♦ In a number of cases, the AR routing solution failed to utilize

right-side only stops where necessary. Correcting this required
the addition of stops. Prismatic estimated this need to account
for approximately 200 additional stops (100 morning and 100
afternoon).
♦ AR’s use of bus manufacturer load counts to fill buses on some

runs led to some buses being overloaded (and exceeded the
district’s routing parameters). To address this, in some cases JCPS
staff had to add new stops. Prismatic estimated this need to
account for approximately 70 additional stops (35 morning and
35 afternoon).
The cumulative impact of the routing solution AR provided included

disruptions, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies within the transportation
system. Many stakeholders, including students, parents, school staff, and
bus drivers, were negatively affected.
RECOMMENDATION 4-1:
Rework AR routes.
Addressing the issues stemming from the AR routes will require a

comprehensive review and realignment of routes and schedules to
ensure a more efficient, reliable, and student-centric transporta�on
framework. Key tasks include:
♦ Allocate runs more logically to avoid excessive overlapping of

school pickups/drop-offs within the same �er and adjust bell
�mes accordingly.
♦ Review and adjust driver schedules to ensure they have

manageable workloads, reducing the number of runs per day and
keeping working hours within reasonable limits.
♦ Rework route designs to minimize travel distances and streamline

bus routes, taking into account geographical areas, school
loca�ons, and traffic condi�ons.
♦ Re-evaluate the decision to un-mirror routes and consider

reinsta�ng mirrored routes if it leads to more efficient and �mely
service.
♦ Ensure consistency in bus stop loca�ons between morning and

a�ernoon runs to provide familiarity for students and school staff
4-22
and added security for parents in knowing where their students
will be.
♦ Review IEPs and accommodate the specific equipment needs of

special educa�on students when planning and assigning bus
routes. Ensure buses serving these students are equipped
accordingly.
♦ Adjust bus schedules to align with school bell �mes more

accurately, ensuring buses arrive neither too early nor too late to
minimize disrup�ons for students, parents, and school staff. Pair
schools together that the compound coordinators already know
will work and not cause overly difficult traffic delays.
♦ Involve stakeholders (transporta�on managers, coordinators, and

drivers) in the route review process to gather feedback on the
effec�veness of the revised routes and to iden�fy any ongoing
issues that need addressing.
♦ Implement a system for ongoing monitoring and evalua�on of

bus routes’ effec�veness, taking feedback from drivers, schools,
and families into considera�on. Adjust routes as needed based
on real-�me data and feedback. A student count should be
maintained daily by drivers and handed in monthly for beter
informed decisions on bus loads when routes are being created
yearly.
Addressing these recommenda�ons will require collabora�on among

transporta�on authori�es, school administra�ons, drivers, parents, and
students to ensure that the transporta�on system meets the needs of all
stakeholders while priori�zing safety, efficiency, and reliability.
Fiscal Impact:
FINDING 4-3 – Routing Communications Challenges
The JCPS transportation department was not provided with essential

information regarding the AR routing solution as it was being
implemented. Then, they lacked tools and training to work quickly to
address identified problems. This added to the disruptions and poor
service quality on August 9th.
Beyond the problem of the transportation department being largely

uninvolved in the development of the AR routing solution, transportation
staff also did not receive critical information once the solution was
adopted mid-July 2023. For example, the bus compounds were not
4-23
provided with spreadsheets detailing which other compounds shared the
other half of their bus runs. The necessary addition of new stops to
accommodate students missed in the initial AR solution was greatly
hindered because of the lack of this information – a compound
coordinator could add the student’s missing stop onto the run they
oversaw but had no easy way to determine which other bus compound
to contact to alert them of the need to add a stop on the run they
oversaw. Bus compounds do not appear to have been explicitly alerted
to features of the routing solutions, such as the potential a bus was not
scheduled to arrive at a school until more than 40 minutes past the
dismissal bell, contributing to confusion.
Bus coordinators were limited by the tools they had available. They
completed associated routing tasks largely by hand. They had limited
skills in the use of the AR software due to a lack of training. Initially
granted access to AR software in Spring 2023, coordinators were
informed that the routes were still a work in progress and were advised
to await their completion before reviewing them. Following this, a
training session on how to navigate stops and utilize the software took
place in the week after July 4th. This was an insufficient amount of training
for JCPS staff to then make changes competently in the AR software.
Moreover, JCPS staff indicated that the original plan was to have
transportation staff begin using the AR software in Fall 2023, as there was
“not time” to do a full implementation and training in Summer 2023.
Likewise, JCPS implemented a set of googlesheets to attempt to track
missing stops in the runup to August 9th, but bus coordinators had not
previously used googlesheets to a great extent, if at all. No training on
googlesheets was provided at the time. If a bus coordinator added a stop
in the July-August time period, they might use google maps or Waze to
estimate the amount of additional time to add to the run. While a
reasonable approach for fine tuning a small number of runs, this is a
cumbersome process at scale.
Bus drivers were also impacted by the failure to share essential

information in a format they could readily use. JCPS drivers traditionally
received around ~12 pages in a route sheet. In those ~12 pages would be
all the runs that comprised the route. The AR route directions were
instead 30+ pages. Part of the reason for the increased length was the
inclusion of student information in the route sheets, rather than
providing drivers with route sheets that only showed directions and stops
(typically, student-specific information is provided separately, in a bus
roster). An example AR route sheet comprised of 44 pages is provided in
Appendix E. This increased volume of information and unfamiliar format
made the AR route sheets more cumbersome to follow and required
extra time for familiarization. The AR route sheets also had problems
beyond page length. Problems included:
4-24
♦ Directions from the compounds to the first stops as well as from
the school to the first stop of the next run were missing. This was
a problem for drivers newly assigned to drive unfamiliar areas.
♦ In some cases, the directions instructed drivers to turn around in

the middle of a street or to go down roads that buses would need
to back out of due to limited turning space.
♦ Because of the tight timeline, drivers were not given more than
the usual amount of time to practice with the new format route
sheets.
RECOMMENDATION 4-3:
Create more effec�ve communica�ons processes around rou�ng.
Ideally, the JCPS transporta�on department will con�nue to work to

improve routes and the rou�ng process. To do so successfully, it will need
to improve communica�ons processes. Key guidelines for rou�ng, such as
where stops can be located and whether it is acceptable for many buses
to arrive a�er school dismissal, should be documented and understood
by transporta�on staff. Likewise, places where excep�ons are made
should also be documented, along with the reason for the excep�on. The
department should maintain thorough documenta�on of the revised
routes, schedules, and any changes made throughout the
implementa�on process. When major rou�ng changes occur, they should
be clearly communicated to drivers and �me set aside for drivers to
review those changes and, if needed, prac�ce them.
Fiscal Impact:
Finding 4-4 – Integrated Routing, GPS, and Camera System
Although it has explored rou�ng so�ware from vendors as far back as the
1990s, JCPS has thus far failed to implement a vendor solu�on, ci�ng
unique transporta�on circumstances. A contribu�ng factor to the
problems experienced on August 9th was the lack of modern rou�ng tools
to analyze the AR rou�ng solu�on and to quickly make needed
adjustments.
Former district staff noted that JCPS atempted to implement rou�ng

so�ware from Edulog in the 1990s, but the atempt failed. Staff stated
that the district spent ~$1.5M working with Edulog, but abandoned the
project because it did not want to spend addi�onal funds.
In 2015, JCPS purchased new rou�ng so�ware, this �me from Compass.
The district used it for a few years to route special educa�on students.
4-25
The district also did a pilot with the Compass so�ware and RFID with
tablets. The district ended its contract with Compass in 2019. Some staff
indicated the cancella�on was due to a lack of funding; others indicated
it was because they were unable to get the so�ware to meet all of their
needs. At the same �me, the district had developed some “home-grown”
applica�ons to support the transporta�on department’s rou�ng needs.
In 2017, a KDE audit of JCPS included as one of its recommenda�ons,

“analyze bus routes (including double runs) for the most efficient and
effec�ve solu�on to the transporta�on challenges.”
In the run-up to August 9th, JCPS had worked with AR since 2019. Staff
noted that JCPS spent a year and a half to two years “onboarding AR to
the nuances” of how JCPS operated. Other staff noted that prior to the
RO ini�a�ve AR developed “model scenarios coming out of COVID” and
therefore had developed a knowledge base around JCPS transporta�on
opera�ons. However, JCPS had not implemented the AR rou�ng so�ware
by August 9th and was s�ll relying upon its home-grown applica�ons,
supplemented by googlemaps and Waze.
While it can be difficult for a district to implement new so�ware, in JCPS

this appears to have been compounded by the local percep�on that JCPS
transporta�on is par�cularly complicated in comparison to peers. In a
February 1, 2022 presenta�on to the school board, JCPS staff asserted
“We provide more transporta�on to more school op�ons than almost any
district.” This percep�on was reinforced by AR staff. In interviews with
Prisma�c, AR staff noted that the JCPS transporta�on was complex. In an
update to the school board on December 14, 2021, JCPS staff stated, “Our
consultants say that we have the most complicated transporta�on route
in America.” Staff reiterated this in the February 21, 2022 board update,
sta�ng, “The groups that we are working with say that we have the most
complex transporta�on system and provide more transporta�on to every
student for choice than any other district that they have seen.” At the
February 28, 2023 board mee�ng, an AR representa�ve stated, “scale and
complexity of JCPS’ transporta�on system is unlike anything ever seen.”
However, Prisma�c did not find the JCPS transporta�on system, as it

existed prior to August 9th, to have been more complicated than many
other school districts:
♦ Planned ridership is not that high. In February 2023 documents

provided to the school board at its February 28, 2023 mee�ng,
district staff noted that JCPS transports about 70% of its students
and that this is “very high” compared to peer school districts, who
are noted as only transpor�ng 50% of their students. However,
JCPS does not rou�nely track student ridership. On any given day,
the district does not know which eligible students ride the bus
and which do not. JCPS only collects ridership data once a year,
4-26
as required by KDE. While it may be true that JCPS plans to
transport about 70% of its enrollment, the data to support that
asser�on are weak. Moreover, there is limited data to suggest
that many peers only plan to transport half of their enrollment.
The Council of the Great City Schools, of which JCPS is a member,
does not report on this sta�s�c in its annual report, Managing for
Results. JCPS staff noted that they rou�nely communicate with a
subgroup of 10 CGCS members, but internal documents showing
comparisons to that group that were provided to Prisma�c do not
include any transporta�on benchmarks.
♦ Geography is not overly difficult. JCPS serves an area of 395

square miles. While the largest in Kentucky, there are 4 districts
of larger geographic size in Ohio and another 4 that are nearly the
same size. Likewise, there are 8 larger or similarly sized districts
in Indiana and 59 in Tennessee. The JCPS geography includes a
mix of urban and rural areas. JCPS lacks the extreme al�tude
changes of districts that cover the Rocky Mountains. It also lacks
water barriers such as the ocean or a high number of peninsulas
into bodies of water.
♦ Transporta�on eligibility is not overly permissive. District staff

noted that they believe JCPS offers transporta�on to too many
students. In interviews in November 2023, some staff felt that the
only way forward was to begin denying service to some students.
In the September 26, 2023 board mee�ng, JCPS staff outlined
transporta�on op�ons that included denying service to magnet
students. However, doing so would be inequitable. Moreover, any
number of districts rou�nely provide transporta�on to magnet
students. The Anne Arundel (MD) school district provides
transporta�on for its magnet students through a combina�on of
placement on regular buses and some vehicles opera�ng from
hub stops. As part of this project, Prisma�c surveyed a number of
peer districts. Of those, 2 indicated that they provide
transporta�on for all the choice op�ons their districts offer -
Forsyth County Schools (NC, 52k students) offers transporta�on
to school choice and magnet students; Saint Louis Public Schools
(MO, 18K students) offers transporta�on to school choice,
magnet, and open school transfer students.
Finally, in the course of interviews, data collec�on, and opera�onal

observa�ons, Prisma�c did not find that the JCPS transporta�on system
prior to August 9th was unusual or overly complex.
Of course, these factors may seem daun�ng in the absence of a well-

implemented rou�ng so�ware solu�on. The current reliance on separate
WebApps, which are home-grown applica�ons, while individually
4-27
effec�ve, gives rise to opera�onal challenges. Transporta�on staff has to
toggle between these applica�ons, introducing inefficiencies and
hindering a streamlined workflow. These applica�ons are rou�nely
supplemented within the transporta�on department by googlemaps and
Waze, which also slows work processes. The absence of an all-inclusive
rou�ng program means that staff must engage in a fragmented process
to perform essen�al tasks, such as monitoring student loca�ons, crea�ng
bus stops, and upda�ng routes. The lack of seamless communica�on
between the rou�ng so�ware and the district’s student informa�on
system further exacerbates the situa�on, preven�ng the automa�on of
daily reports and real-�me updates on changes or new student addi�ons.
The nega�ve impacts extend to the provision of services for special needs
students, as the absence of integra�on between the rou�ng so�ware and
Individualized Educa�on Program (IEP) informa�on may compromise the
adherence to IEP specifica�ons, par�cularly in ensuring equipment
compliance.
RECOMMENDATION 4-4:
Adopt an integrated rou�ng, GPS, and camera system.
In op�mizing school bus rou�ng opera�ons, the ideal solu�on for JCPS
lies in adop�ng an all-inclusive rou�ng, GPS, and camera system.
Presently, the district relies on WebApps provided by the GIS department,
which, while effec�ve, necessitate transporta�on staff to toggle between
mul�ple applica�ons. Transi�oning to a unified rou�ng program would
streamline the process, enabling staff to access a single pla�orm for
various tasks. This includes monitoring student loca�ons, crea�ng bus
stops, incorpora�ng stops into routes, and modifying routes in real-�me,
with updates immediately visible to the en�re Transporta�on staff.
Moreover, the rou�ng so�ware should establish seamless

communica�on with Infinite Campus, the district’s student informa�on
system, facilita�ng the automa�on of daily reports. These reports,
reflec�ng changes or new student addi�ons, would enhance informa�on
accessibility and �mely decision-making. Integra�on of Individualized
Educa�on Program (IEP) details for special needs students into the
rou�ng so�ware ensures compliance with equipment specifica�ons
outlined in the IEP.
To successfully implement this recommenda�on, JCPS will need to:
♦ Conduct a thorough needs assessment to iden�fy the specific

features required in an all-inclusive rou�ng, GPS, and camera
system. Consider input from transporta�on staff, administrators,
and other stakeholders.
4-28
♦ Research and select, via an RFP process, suitable all-inclusive
rou�ng so�ware that meets iden�fied needs. The selected
so�ware should allow for seamless integra�on of various
features in 1 pla�orm.
♦ Develop a training program for transporta�on staff to familiarize

them with the new rou�ng so�ware. Training should cover all
aspects, including loca�ng students, crea�ng bus stops, upda�ng
routes, and using integrated features.
♦ Implement the selected rou�ng so�ware across the district.

Transporta�on department staff will need to work closely with
the so�ware provider to ensure a smooth integra�on process and
resolve any issues that may arise during implementa�on.
♦ Collaborate with the Infinite Campus team to establish

bidirec�onal communica�on between the rou�ng so�ware and
Infinite Campus. District IT staff should ensure that daily reports
are automated and seamlessly transferred between the systems.
♦ Work with special educa�on department to integrate IEP

informa�on into the rou�ng so�ware. This should include
ensuring that the so�ware can directly read and implement the
specifica�ons outlined in a student’s IEP for equipment
compliance.
♦ Implement a system for ongoing monitoring and evalua�on of the

new rou�ng system. JCPS should gather feedback from
transporta�on staff, drivers, and other stakeholders to iden�fy
areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments.
Successfully implemen�ng rou�ng so�ware and then using it to develop

and op�mize school bus routes will likely require a minimum of 1 year.
Fiscal Impact:
This recommendation will have a substantial fiscal impact.
4-29
Chapter 5
Purchasing and
Contrac�ng
Background
Purchasing and contrac�ng are essen�al to the opera�ons of all district
schools and departments. Obtaining professional services is o�en
required to assist the district with cri�cal processes when the district lacks
the skills or knowledge to complete specialized or complicated projects.
The JCPS transporta�on department encountered the need for exper�se
with the district’s ini�a�ves related to school choice, school bell �mes,
and bus rou�ng.
Obtaining professional services u�lizing the most effec�ve purchasing

process and documen�ng the services needed in a formal Professional
Services Contract can have a direct impact on the success of any ini�a�ve.
Purchasing and contrac�ng within JCPS is the responsibility of the director
of purchasing. The director reports to the district’s chief financial officer
(CFO) and is assisted by his staff in conduc�ng the district’s purchasing
ac�vi�es.
5-1
Chapter 5 – Purchasing and Contracting
JCPS Purchasing Organiza�on
The district has adopted the local public agency provisions of the
Kentucky Model Procurement Code, KRS 45A.345 to 45A.460, which
contains the state law that governs all purchasing done by the district.
The local public agency provisions of the Kentucky Model Procurement
code have been in effect in JCPS since 1980. The JCPS school board first
adopted its procurement regula�ons in September 1980; it adopted
revised procurement regula�ons in August 2023.
The regula�ons are known and cited as the Board Procurement

Regula�ons. Certain provisions of the regula�ons state:
♦ These regulations and Board policy shall apply to every

expenditure of public funds and other procurement transactions
(e.g., School Activity Fund disbursements) by the Board under any
contract or like business agreement.
♦ Competitive sealed bidding, which may include a reverse auction,

is the preferred method for the procurement of supplies, services
or construction by the Board. All Board contracts shall be
awarded by competitive sealed bidding which may include the
use of a reverse auction, unless authorized by law or except as
provided in the following subparts of these regulations for
Competitive Negotiation, Negotiations after Competitive Sealed
Bidding when all bids exceed available funds, Noncompetitive
Negotiation, Small Purchases, or Emergency.
5-2
♦ Small purchase procedures may be used for the award of any
contract or purchase for which a determination is made that the
aggregate amount of the contract or purchase does not exceed
$40,000.
♦ For all purchases which exceed $10,000 in value but which do not
exceed $40,000 in value, the following procedure shall be
followed by the authorized contracting officer; The contracting
officer shall solicit a minimum of three potential bidders or
suppliers and request written quotations for the supplies, services
or construction which are to be procured.
♦ For all purchases which exceed $5,000 in value but which do not
exceed $10,000 in value, the contracting office shall use its best
efforts to obtain the lowest price from a responsible and
responsive bidder for the supplies, services or construction to be
procured. A minimum of three price quotations shall be obtained
by telephone, Internet or catalog.
♦ For all purchases which do not exceed $5,000 in value, the

contracting officer shall use its best efforts to obtain the lowest
price from a responsible and responsive bidder, for the supplies,
services or construction to be procured.
The JCPS purchasing department’s website provides informa�on on

professional services contrac�ng in the “Miscellaneous Purchasing
Informa�on” sec�on (Exhibit 5-1).
5-3
Exhibit 5-1
Professional Services Contract informa�on on JCPS Website
Source: JCPS website, January 2024
Discussions with district financial and purchasing staff indicated that their
understanding and prac�ce is that board approval must be obtained for
Professional Services Contracts that are $20,000 or more. It was also their
understanding that board approval is required for a contract amendment
increasing the contract amount by any dollar amount.
The purchasing department’s website further refers to a form �tled

“Document Rou�ng Form” (Exhibit 5-2). This form was not ini�ally
provided to Prisma�c as part of the ini�al data request.
5-4
Exhibit 5-2
JCPS Document Rou�ng Form
The district rou�nely uses the noncompe��ve nego�a�on purchasing

method for professional serveries contracts. One provision of the
noncompe��ve nego�a�on purchasing method provides that it can be
used when a determina�on is made that only a single source is available
within a reasonable geographical area of the product or service. This
provision is referred to as sole source contrac�ng and is used by the
district for many of its professional services contracts. staff stated that
5-5
sole source contrac�ng is used for almost all professional services
contracts.
Since the focus of Prisma�c’s review for this project centered on

transporta�on, only contracts and other purchasing documents
pertaining to the district’s transporta�on ini�a�ves for bus rou�ng, bell
�mes, and school boundaries were reviewed. Professional services
contracts, data privacy agreements, and purchase orders reviewed
included those summarized in Exhibit 5-3.
Exhibit 5-3
Contracts, DAP, & Purchase Orders Reviewed
Service per Contract/DAP/Purchase

Vendor Document Date Order Amount
Dynamic Ideas Contract for:
LLC/dba Dynamic - Bus routing Service
June 9, 2021 $346,667.00
Ideas Routing - Bell Time Optimization
$162,500.00
(AR)
Amendment to June 9, 2021 contract
February 2, 2022 increases amount for Bell Time $65,000.00
Optimization
Dynamic Ideas Contract for attending small group
LLC/dba Dynamic November 1, meetings and board meetings
$19,000.00
Ideas Routing 2022
(AR)
Data Privacy Agreement – Bell Time
Dynamic Ideas Optimization
November 16,
LLC/dba (included software license which was $150,000.00
2022
AlphaRoute not purchased until March 31, 2023)
Amendment to Data Privacy

Agreement dated November 16, 2022
March 28, 2023 $85,000.00
– Data cleaning and two additional
bell time scenarios.
Purchase Order – Software, load a
Dynamic Ideas
chosen bell time and its bus routes,
LLC/Dynamic
March 31, 2023 activate editing and provide training, $30,000.00
Ideas Routing
potentially add a small number of
(AR)
customizations.
Total – Dynamic Ideas LLC (AR) $858,167.00
Contract for custom research services
Hanover and access to Hanover Research
June 28, 2023 $105,000.00
Research Online Research Library, Peer
Generator, and interactive toolkits.
Hanover Research Service Agreement
July 27, 2023 changed payment date from N/A
completion of services of June 27,
5-6
Service per Contract/DAP/Purchase
Vendor Document Date Order Amount
2024 to beginning of services of July
27, 2023.
Purchase Order for:
- Transportation software – full fleet
Education $192,000.00
August 15, 2023 license based on 750 vehicles
Logistics Inc.
- Implementation and project
$50,000.00
management Services
Cooperative November 15, Contract for Student Assignment Plan
$120,000.00
Strategies, LLC 2019 Consulting Services. 20,000 a month
Renewal of November 15, 2019
July 1, 2020 contract. Extends contract to June ,30, $240,000.00
2021
Contract for Boundary Analysis.
July 28, 2021 $200,000.00
20,000 a month
Additional Analysis, not to exceed $40,000.00
Extends contract to June 30, 2023.
July 28, 2022 Also extends additional analysis, not N/A
to exceed the 40,000.
Extends contract to June 30, 2024. No
additional cost. Also extends
August 2,2023 N/A
additional analysis, not to exceed the
40,000.
Total Cooperative Services $600,000.00
Zonar Systems Purchase Order for Software –
August 24, 2023 $28,159.24
Inc. Increased GPS Logging Service
Source: JCPS, Compile by Prismatic, 2024
Services from the five vendors reviewed were secured by either

Noncompe��ve Nego�a�ons – Sole Source, Compe��ve Nego�a�ons,
So�ware Sole Source, or Coopera�ve Procurement. The purchasing
process for each vendor is shown in Exhibit 5-4.
Exhibit 5-4
Purchasing Methods Used
Vendor Purchasing Method

Dynamic Ideas LLC/dba Dynamic
Noncompetitive Negotiations – Sole Source
Ideas Routing (AR)
Hanover Research Noncompetitive Negotiations – Sole Source
Education Logistics Inc. Cooperative – Government Procurement Alliance
Cooperative Strategies, LLC Competitive Negotiations - 3 vendor proposals received
Zonar Systems Inc. Software – Sole Source
Source: Prismatic, 2024
5-7
JCPS is one of the na�on’s larger school districts and thus has the need
for a significant expense budget, including one for its transporta�on
department. Data from the Kentucky Department of Educa�on indicates
that the district’s transporta�on cost per pupil for 2022 was $895
compared to the state average of $783. District expenses for 2023 totaled
$1,641,644,418. The district’s transporta�on program expenses for 2023
totaled $84,268,468 and accounted for 5% of the district’s total expenses
(Exhibit 5-5).
Exhibit 5-5
2023 Expenses by Category
Expenses Amount Percent

Instruc�on $909,760,084 55%
Student support services 101,932,070 6%
Instruc�onal staff support services 161,840,162 10%
District administra�ve support services 11,536,587 1%
School administra�ve support services 120,050,420 7%
Business support services 71,287,990 4%
Plant opera�ons and maintenance 144,355,232 9%
Transporta�on 84,268,468 5%
Food service support 696,158 0%
Community services 12,115,172 1%
Other 842,150 0%
Interest 22,959,925 1%
Total Expenditures $1,641,644,418 100%
Source: JCPS 2023 Comprehensive Financial Report
Findings
FINDING 1 – Administration of Professional Services Contracts
The district does not always formally designate an administrator or

manager for professional services contracts.
Assigning a designated staff member to monitor the work of a contractor

can help the district to identify small problems before they become larger
issues. A designated staff member can identify whether progress is being
made in a manner that will likely meet deadlines or objectives and will
ensure that vendors are not paid until work is completed to the district’s
satisfaction.
Article XIII of a JCPS document titled “Instructions for Completing the

Contract for Procurement of Professional Services” states:
The Board shall appoint a Contract Administrator for the purposes of

daily administrative decision-making pertaining to the Contract. If
Contractor and the Contract Administrator disagree on any
5-8
circumstance or set of facts pertaining to the administration or
execution of this Contract, the Board shall resolve the matter after
notification by either the Contract Administrator or the Contractor in
the manner prescribed by the Regulations. If the Board fails to give
notice to Contractor of the appointment of a Contract Administrator,
the Contract Administrator shall be the Board's Chief Financial
Officer.
The same statement is also included in each of the district’s contracts for
professional services that Prismatic reviewed. Although not a formal
professional services contract, the data privacy agreement with Dynamic
Ideas LLC/dba AlphaRoute (AR) effective November 16, 2022 did
designate a district representative.
Discussions with staff pertaining to the provisions of the last sentence in

Ar�cle XIII, which states that the CFO serves as district’s Contract
Administrator if one is not named, indicated that in prac�ce a contract
administrator is rarely named. Contracts for professional services made
available to Prisma�c did not specify a contract administrator, thus per
the contract provision the CFO normally serves in that capacity for all
professional services contracts. Instead of a contract administrator,
Prisma�c was informed that each contract has a contract manager,
although they are not usually named in professional services contracts.
However, the data privacy agreement with AR effec�ve November 16,
2022 stated that the designated representa�ve for the school board was
the GIS execu�ve director.
Whether titled a contract administrator or contract manager, each

professional services contract needs a designated staff member with the
authority and knowledge to actively monitor the contract, the work of
the vendor and related project services. The contract manager normally
is accountable for:
♦ tracking budgets
♦ comparing invoices and charges to contract terms
♦ verifying and accepting/rejecting deliverables
♦ withholding vendor payment until deliverables are met
♦ approving invoices
♦ maintaining all documentation supporting payments to the

vendor
♦ closing out the contract
5-9
It is beneficial for contract managers to be involved in the procurement
of vendors for needed services. In fact, contract managers are often the
primary staff member that directs or performs the process to acquire a
vendor for services. When the staff member that will be responsible for
managing the contract is involved or is the lead staff member that
develops the need for the services, scope of services, and timing of key
steps, this experience provides them with background information that
enables them to better manage the contract.
RECOMMENDATION 5-1:
Improve the district’s Professional Services Contract administra�on by

formally designa�ng a contract administrator or contract manager for
each contract and develop specific responsibili�es for the posi�on.
The contract manager should be available to communicate the status of

the contract to management and the board. Payments to vendors should
be made by the finance department only after verification by the contract
manager that the related services have been performed in accordance
with the terms of the contract and the approval should be made a part of
the invoice payment files.
The purchasing director should develop a procedure that requires each

professional services contract to designate a contract administrator or
contract manager. The procedure should include the responsibili�es of
the contract administrator or contract manager. The procedure should
require the contract administrator or manager to be appointed prior to
and involved in the selec�on of the vendor. The procedure should be
distributed to all departments.
Prior to approving a professional services contract the purchasing director

should ensure an appropriate contract administrator or contract manager
has been officially designated.
Fiscal Impact:
FINDING 2 – Timing of Professional Services Contract Payments
Payments to the vendors on 2 of the district’s professional service

contracts appear to have been made prior to receiving services. Also, the
final payment to the vendor per a DPA and amendment may have been
made prior to all agreed upon services being completed. To protect public
funds and to help ensure services have been provided, payments to
vendors providing services should be made only a�er the vendor
performs contracted services which jus�fies the value of the payment.
5-10
Prisma�c’s review of professional services contracts iden�fied 2 contracts
where payments from district funds appear to have been made prior to
receiving services. The 2 instances are:
Example 1:
The contract with AR dated June 6, 2021 contained a schedule of

progress payments for Routing Services:
♦ $50,000 – upon execution of contract,

♦ $100,000 at the end of June 2021,
♦ $150,000 at the end of July 2021, and
♦ $46,667 at the end of the 2021-2022 school year.
This contract was made with AR per a proposal to JCPS for Routing as
a Service and Bell Times Optimization dated May 27, 2021. The
proposal stated “We have been in contact with JCPS since last year
and have accelerated our work of late, as part of a free
demonstration period we extended to the district.”
The payment provision of the contract that required a $50,000

payment to be made upon execution of contract implies that the
payment of district funds would be made prior to any services being
performed. According to district records, this payment was made on
June 15, 2021. The timing of the payment indicates that either a
payment was made prior to receiving services that would justify the
payment or the payment was made to compensate the vendor for
work performed prior to the contract being in place, which was
described in the vendor’s proposal as being a free demonstration.
Example 2:
The contract with Hanover Research effective June 28, 2023 stated
“The Board shall pay Contractor the total amount stated below
(hereinafter Contract Amount). The Contract Amount shall be paid in
a lump sum upon completion of the Services”. The contract amount
was $105,000 and was to be paid upon receipt of an itemized invoice.
However, another document titled Hanover Research – Services

Agreement was signed June 27, 2023. The invoicing schedule section
of the agreement stated that the payment due date was June 27,
2023 and later in the agreement it states “Failure to pay promptly will
result in project postponement or suspension of service”. The term
of the contract per the services agreement is June 28, 2023 to June
27, 2024. District records indicate that the payment of $105,000 was
processed on June 30, 2023. The contract covers both custom
research services and access to the vendor’s online research library.
It does not, however, identify what portion of the $105,000 is for
each of the components. It could be argued that some of the
5-11
$105,000 was for access to the vendor’s online research library,
which the district had access to immediately after the services
agreement took effect. However, none of the custom research
services had been provided at the time of the payment.
When the total payment is required at the start of a contract period,

not only is the district required to u�lize public funds prior to
receiving all services, but district funds are at risk of being expended
without services being received should the vendor not complete the
custom research services por�on of the contract.
Neither the DPA dated November 16, 2022 nor the amendment dated
March 28, 2023 included dates as to when payments were to be made to
AR. Four payments were made to the vendor during its work under these
agreements. The last payment was made on an invoice dated July 20,
2023. The invoice stated that it was “primarily for the delivery of import
file and related work and for additional deliverables/meeting to help
ensure smooth implementation“. The statement on the invoice,
“additional deliverables/meeting to help ensure smooth
implementation” seems to indicate that the implementation, which may
or may not have been a part of the work the vendor was to provide, was
not complete at the time the payment was made. Although difficult to
determine from the limited scope of work that was stated in the DPA and
amendment, the vendor very well could have completed all the required
work under the agreement at the time the last payment was made, but
it is questionable. The term of the agreement is from November 16, 2022
until November 15, 2025.
To protect public funds and help ensure that the services covered by
professional services or other service contracts are received, payments
from public funds should not be made un�l services are sa�sfactorily
received per the terms of the contract. Recovering funds paid to vendors
prior to receiving sa�sfactory services is difficult and some�mes requires
li�ga�on. Although Prisma�c’s review did not indicate that vendor
services were impacted, some vendors may have a reduced incen�ve to
provide the highest quality services once they have been fully paid.
RECOMMENDATION 5-2:
Improve the �ming of payments in professional services contracts and

data privacy agreements to help ensure the district receives sa�sfactory
services before making payments to vendors.
Some contracts, such as those for subscrip�on services, require a

payment at the �me the service begins. However, when entering a
contract or other agreement for services that are to be provided by a
vendor providing professional services, the interests of the district are
5-12
best protected by making payments only a�er sa�sfactory services have
been provided.
To implement this recommenda�on, the purchasing director should

develop guidelines and instruc�ons to follow when developing
professional services contracts or data privacy agreements pertaining to
specifying when payments to the vendor can be made. The guidelines
should either be incorporated into the district’s Instructions for
Completing the Contract for Procurement of Professional Services or
atached as an addendum.
Prior to approving a professional services contract or data privacy

agreement, the purchasing director should ensure that the agreement
specifically iden�fies the steps or deliverables that must be completed
before payments can be processed.
Fiscal Impact:
This recommenda�on can be implemented with exis�ng resources.
FINDING 3 – Professional Services Contract Scope of Services
The scope of services in some district professional services financial

documents lack sufficient informa�on. Some financial contract
documents do not contain a sufficient descrip�on of services that are to
be provided or when they are to be performed or completed.
As a legally binding contract, a well writen professional services contract

provides protec�on for both the vendor and the district. A professional
services contract typically lists in detail the services that the vendor will
perform, the compensa�on that will be paid, any specific data that is
necessary to complete the services when that data will be made available
by the district, and a specific �meframe or date that the vendor is
expected to complete the services or a schedule of dates for specific
milestones.
Professional services contracts typically have a sec�on �tled “Scope of

Work” or “Services to be Provided.” This sec�on of the contract specifies
in detail all the criteria for the contract between the vendor and the
district pertaining to work that is to be done. It clearly documents the
project requirements, milestones, deliverables, final products and
documents, and reports or other deliverables that are expected to be
provided by the vendor. Projects run more smoothly when both par�es
can avoid ambigui�es and situa�ons that may lead to disputes. A detailed
scope of work is a protec�ve measure that enables vendors to be held
accountable for their performance and whether they have held up their
side of the deal when the term covered by the agreement ends.
5-13
When the services to be provided by a vendor require multiple phases, a
document is often attached that lists in detail the dates by which the
vendor will reach major project milestones. Should the district need to
provide considerable data, a similar attachment is added that lists in
detail the data and dates by which the district is to provide the necessary
information to the vendor.
The district’s Instructions for Completing the Contract for Procurement of

Professional Services are shown in Exhibit 5-6.
Exhibit 5-6
Instruc�ons for Comple�ng the Contract for Procurement of Professional Services
A number of fields must be completed (Exhibit 5-7).
5-14
Exhibit 5-7
Fields to Complete for the Contract for Procurement of Professional Services
The district’s standard contract for the procurement of professional

services contains 15 ar�cles and provides informa�on for each ar�cle
.Exhibit 5-8).
5-15
Exhibit 5-8
Ar�cles which comprise the JCPS Contract for the Procurement of Professional Services
Ar�cle I – En�re Agreement; Amendments
Ar�cle II – Services
Ar�cle III – Compensa�on
Ar�cle IV – Term of Contract
Ar�cle V – Performance of Services by Contractor
Ar�cle VI – Equal Opportunity
Ar�cle VII - Prohibi�on of Conflicts of Interest
Ar�cle VIII – Changes
Ar�cle IX – Termina�on for Convenience of the Board
Ar�cle X – Termina�on for Default
Ar�cle XI – Disputes
Ar�cle XII – Contractor’s Work Product
Ar�cle XIII – Contract Administrator
Ar�cle XIV – Right to Audit
Contracts and agreements provided to Prisma�c did not always provide

sufficient detailed informa�on pertaining to the scope of work to enable
one to readily determine exactly what services were to be performed.
They also did not always sufficiently state when the vendor or district
were to provide specific data or when various tasks or milestones were to
be completed.
Example 1 - Data Privacy Agreement with AR effec�ve November 16,

2022.
A standard Professional Services Contract was not completed for the

professional services contained in this agreement. Although not
stated in any of documents reviewed, it seemed the work covered by
this document was a con�nua�on of similar work performed by the
contract with AR dated June 9, 2021, which was issued per the
proposal from the vendor dated May 27, 2021.
Exhibit A – Descrip�on of Services
5-16
♦ Provider shall provide so�ware license and support for the
following products at prices equal or below Provider’s standard
prices rates for the products:
♦ Bell Time Op�miza�on: Op�mize School Bell Times based on

relevant district objec�ves and condi�ons.
♦ Compensa�on - $180,000
The agreement does not include sufficient detail pertaining to what

specific services the vendor is required to perform, when the services
are to be performed and what actual deliverables are required to
complete the contract. The agreement also does not iden�fy when
payments are to be made and does not include what specific data the
district is to provide and when, if any, to the vendor.
Example 2 – Amendment to Data Privacy Agreement with AR effec�ve

November 16, 2022. Amendment dated March 28, 2023:
♦ This Amendment hereby amends Atachment A to add the

following item to the Descrip�on of Services: data cleaning and
two addi�onal bell �me scenarios to op�mize school bell �mes
based on relevant district objec�ves and condi�ons.
♦ This Amendment hereby amends Atachment A to strike the

compensa�on amount of $180,000 and replace it with $265,000.
Although the DPA dated November 16, 2022 (Example 1) and amendment
to DPA dated March 28, 2023 (Example 2) seemed to be a con�nua�on of
the previous contract (period of service June 9, 2021 to no later than June
8, 2022) and a con�nua�on of services discussed in the vendor’s previous
proposal, there was not a reference in either DPA or Amendment to DPA
to con�nuing the previous contract or provisions of the proposal. There
were no specifics as to when the vendor was to complete certain services
or deliver a final product to the district.
While not included in the DPA or amendment, invoices from the vendor
referred to certain milestones that were completed. Although the
invoices included a date the invoice was submited, they did not iden�fy
when the milestones were completed (Exhibit 5-9).
5-17
Exhibit 5-9
Milestone References on AR Invoices
Source: JCPS, Compiled by Prismatic, 2024
Example 3 – Purchase Order 2337524 with AR dated March 31, 2023.

Although not a professional services contract, it does include certain
professional services. The purchase order was based on an email from the
vendor that stated “consider this an official quote”. Without the services
being documented in a professional services contract, JCPS does not
realize the benefits and protec�ons provided by a formal contract.
The purchase order stated:
♦ AlphaPlan Rou�ng So�ware: Ini�al use period $30,000
5-18
♦ We would load a chosen bell-�me op�on and its bus routes and
other data into the so�ware
♦ We would ac�vate all edi�ng features, provide training, and

poten�ally add a small number of customiza�ons
♦ We would not provide ongoing tech support, nightly download

processing, and other elements that come from day-to-day use of
the so�ware when being used as part of live bus opera�ons
♦ We would provide an implementa�on plan to ramp up to live

opera�ons, star�ng in June 2023
The purchase order did not adequately explain when the services were to
be provided or what was to be included in the implementa�on plan.
Example 4 – Purchase Order No. 2319325 with AR dated November 11,

2022. Although not a professional services contract, it does include
certain services that could be considered professional services. Without
the services being documented in a professional services contract the
district again does not realize the benefits and protec�ons provided by a
formal professional services contract.
The purchase order stated:
Service, fee $19,000.00.
Consul�ng services included but not limited to:
♦ atendance at small board group mee�ngs (up to 7);
♦ up to 3 monthly mee�ng with Dr. Pollio;
♦ observe a board mee�ng prior to atending in December or

January;
♦ atendance at a board mee�ng in December or January.
The purchase order does not adequately indicate what por�on of the
$19,000 was atributable to which services. It also does not indicate what
documenta�on was to be provided to support that the services were
performed.
There has been much specula�on as to what the major items were that
caused the situa�on and busing problems at the opening of schools in
2023-24. In a number of interviews, it was expressed that ge�ng routes
from the vendor later than normal, which did not allow drivers �me to
test and become familiar with the routes sufficiently before school
started, was a major contributor. If the DPA with AR had included a
detailed plan including when deliverables such as final bus routes were to
5-19
be delivered to the district, a possible major cause of the problems could
have been eliminated.
It is crucial for both par�es in a professional services contract that the

contract clearly states who does what and when so that there are no
surprises, especially as deadlines approach. By clearly defining roles,
responsibili�es and �melines and establishing sufficient oversight,
projects can be successfully managed, deliverables have a higher chance
of mee�ng due dates, and goals have a beter chance of being
successfully met.
RECOMMENDATION 5-3:
Improve Professional Services Contract documents’ scope of services to

help ensure the district receives the services that it needs and is paying
for.
A process should be implemented to review the scope of services sec�on

of each professional services contract or other financial document for the
specific services to be provided, a �meline for comple�ng milestones
during the term of the contract, and the final deliverables before
contracts are signed. An improved process should help ensure that the
mission cri�cal needs are met and that the district receives what it is
paying for. Should a vendor not meet expecta�ons, a detailed scope of
services will facilitate any li�ga�on that may be necessary.
In order to implement this recommenda�on, the purchasing director

should develop detailed guidelines for developing the scope of services
sec�on of professional services contracts. The guidelines should provide
guidance for the development of the scope of services that sufficiently
describes the services that the district will require the vendor to provide.
The guidelines should either be incorporated into the district’s

Instructions for Completing the Contract for Procurement of Professional
Services or atached as an addendum. The updated instruc�ons should be
distributed to all departments.
Prior to approving a contract for procurement of professional services the

purchasing director should ensure that the scope of services is sufficient
to enable the district to properly manage the services to be provided.
Fiscal Impact:
5-20
FINDING 5-4 – Sole Source Contrac�ng and Reference Checking
A review of documents provided to Prisma�c for purchasing and

contrac�ng for securing professional services through a sole source
process indicated a lack of research and documenta�on as to why sole
sourcing for the services was selected and why the par�cular vendor was
selected. Documents reviewed also did not indicate that references for
the selected vendors were requested from the vendors or whether
district staff atempted to iden�fy or contact previous customers, thus no
references were verified and documented. It is also worth no�ng that
contractual approvals and amendments, par�cularly those involving AR,
were regularly part of the “Consent Calendar”. While board members
could pull specific items for discussion, this was frequently overlooked,
poten�ally leading to missed opportuni�es for thorough delibera�on on
external vendor contracts with the school system.
Ar�cle 3.2 - Compe��ve Sealed Bidding of the district’s Model

Procurement states:
Compe��ve sealed bidding which may include a reverse auc�on, is

the preferred method for the procurement of supplies, services or
construc�on by the Board. All Board contracts shall be awarded by
compe��ve sealed bidding which may include the use of a reverse
auc�on, unless authorized by law or except as provided in the
following subparts of these regula�ons.
Ar�cle 3.24 - Noncompe��ve Nego�a�on of the district’s Model

Procurement states:
The Director of Purchasing may contract or purchase through

noncompe��ve nego�a�on only a�er a writen determina�on is
made by a designee of the Superintendent that compe��on is not
feasible…
A sole source contract is a type of noncompetitive negotiation contract

that can be issued without a competitive bidding process. Sole source
procurement should be used only when competitive solicitation
procedures like sealed bids or competitive proposals are not possible for
the requirements or are impracticable. This usually happens in situations
where only a single business can fulfill the requirements of a contract. 1
Although the district’s model procurement states a contract or purchase

through noncompetitive negotiation may only be made after a written
determination is made by a designee of the superintendent that
competition is not feasible, there was not any documenta�on included in
files provided to Prisma�c indica�ng whether a district staff member
1
htps://acqnotes.com/acqnote/tasks/sole-soure-jus�fica�on-and-approval
5-21
performed any research to determine if in fact the vendor selected was
the only vendor available to perform the services covered by the contract.
Leters of jus�fica�on as to why the par�cular vendor should be selected
using sole source contrac�ng were writen by the vendor and not by
district staff. Documents also did not indicate that references were
checked for the vendor that was selected to receive the contract. A
district form �tled “Noncompe��ve Nego�a�ons Determina�on and
Finding” were most �mes included with contract documents but were not
always fully completed.
In order to properly complete a justification document, a contract

administrator/manager must find out what makes the vendor special and
justifies a sole source procurement. The contract administrator/manager
must be able to show that the chosen vendor has special skills or
qualifications that make them the only fit for the project. This could be
specialized knowledge, technical expertise, or technology that is not
available anywhere else. The document explains why a competitive
bidding process is not possible or right for the project. This could be
because of a lack of time, the work being very specialized, or something
else that makes a sole source procurement necessary.
A jus�fica�on leter or document is needed to document the reason why

a specific vendor was selected and to obtain approvals for a sole source
contract. The jus�fica�on document is completed to explain why a certain
vendor or contractor should be chosen for a project although they did not
go through a bidding process. Although the leter states the vendor is the
only one available to perform the services, the project
administrator/manager usually must be able to show that the chosen
vendor also has the special skills or qualifica�ons that will enable them to
successfully complete the requirements of the project. 2
It is important to have a well-documented sole source justification to

ensure the procurement process is clear and can stand up to scrutiny. The
document should include all relevant information and fully explain the
process used to select the vendor through a sole source procurement.
The jus�fica�on leter should adequately describe the services that are to
be acquired and the es�mated or exact dollar amount of the contract to
be awarded. In addi�on to demonstra�ng how it was determined that
there was only one source for the services, it should fully document the
extent to which checking of references for the selected vendor’s prior
work was performed.
Kentucky State Law 45A.380 Noncompe��ve Nego�a�on speaks to the

issue (Exhibit 5-10).
2
htps://acqnotes.com/acqnote/tasks/sole-soure-jus�fica�on-and-approval
5-22
Exhibit 5-10
Kentucky State Law 45A.380
Source: casetext.com, January 2024
The district developed a form to be completed when a noncompe��ve

nego�a�on contract is recommended. The form tracks most provisions of
Kentucky State Law 45A.380. This form is to be used when recommending
a sole source professional services contract. The form provides a place at
the end of each provision to be checked if that is the jus�fica�on or the
5-23
reason why the contract jus�fies a noncompe��ve nego�a�on
purchasing process. The form also has an area to add the requisi�on
number which would correlate the form to a specific purchase order,
signatures, and dates. While most forms indicated that the reason for a
noncompe��ve nego�a�on was line two, all forms provided to Prisma�c
did not include the requisi�on number, signatures, or dates. Exhibit 5-11
provides a sample copy of the form.
5-24
Exhibit 5-11
Noncompe��ve Nego�a�on Determina�on and Finding Form
Source: JCPS and Prismatic, January 2024
5-25
In interviews, some JPCS staff noted that the decision to sole source with
AR was made because they believed that no other company could provide
the services the district was seeking. However, it does not appear that
district staff reached that conclusion based on thorough research of what
was available on the market. Prisma�c was aware in 2018-19 of several
firms that could provide rou�ng consul�ng assistance. Moreover, it does
not appear that JCPS verified asser�ons made by AR that its solu�on had
been implemented in some school districts. As noted in a recent news
ar�cle, Boston Public Schools has stated publicly that it “only ever used
[AR] rou�ng so�ware in a limited capacity” – JCPS likely could have found
this out in at the beginning of its rela�onship with AR by contac�ng some
of AR’s former clients.
The district paid the vendor of each sole service contract reviewed the
full amount of each contract, indica�ng that the services provided by each
vendor were sa�sfactory. However, without thoroughly researching the
availability of vendors for needed professional services, it is possible that
there were other vendors available that could have performed the
professional service. It is indeterminable whether the district might have
secured the services of a vendor that would have provided beter results
should a more thorough process have been conducted by district staff.
RECOMMENDATION 5-4:
Improve the district process for using Sole Source contrac�ng.
The process should require the district staff member who is to serve as
the contract administrator or manager to thoroughly research the
availability of vendors who could possibly provide the needed services.
When it is determined that there is only one vendor available, the process
used to make this determina�on should be fully documented, including
why the chosen vendor was selected and what special skills or
qualifica�ons the recommended vendor has that will enable them to
successfully complete the requirements of the project. It should also be
required that references be checked and documented.
To implement this recommenda�on, the purchasing director should

develop guidelines to provide guidance and requirements that must be
followed before a Sole Source contract can be issued. The guidelines
should specify what must be performed when determining that there is
only a single vendor capable of providing a service, providing guidance on
verifying references, and documen�ng all processes performed.
The guidelines should be atached as an addendum to the district’s form

for noncompe��ve nego�a�on determina�on and should be distributed
to all departments.
Prior to approving a contract for procurement of professional services the

purchasing director should ensure that the process for determining that
5-26
only a single source is available for performing the needed service has
been properly performed.
Fiscal Impact:
5-27
Chapter 6
Cross-Area Findings
This chapter covers several findings that include 2 or more of the threads
covered individually in previous chapters, whether it be SCI, SST, RO, or
JCPS purchasing. Instead of largely repea�ng a finding in Chapters 2-5
from a single area viewpoint, they have been combined here.
Findings
FINDING 6-1: Exclusion of Affected Departments During Planning
The decision to exclude JCPS transporta�on staff from all ini�a�ve

planning leading up to the start of school was a key point of failure on
August 9th. Had they been included, the staff of the JCPS transporta�on
department could have played a pivotal role in assessing the poten�al
impacts of SCI, tes�ng the new SST schedules, and judging the quality of
the RO work by AR. Likewise, other affected departments were not part
of the planning processes.
The development of all 3 ini�a�ves (SCI, SST, and RO) was largely top-
down. Only a few members of the leadership team were involved in the
overall planning. A leader in 1 of the ini�a�ves noted that they were not
included in planning for the other ini�a�ves, despite the overlap in the
�ming of rollout. When boundaries were adjusted by an outside
contractor, Coopera�ve Strategies, the transporta�on department was
not consulted. Leadership insufficiently veted ideas and op�ons with
their own experts – those in the JCPS transporta�on department. Despite
the considerable exper�se within the transporta�on department,
including a combined history of more than 100 years’ experience of
crea�ng and managing school bus systems, both in and outside of JCPS,
their insights were not sought.
While some JCPS staff members were quick to assume “sabotage” on the
part of the transporta�on department when the events of August 9th
played out, the transporta�on department was not meaningfully involved
in SCI, SST, or RO planning. Although the transporta�on director had
6-1
Chapter 6 – Cross-Area Findings
regular mee�ngs with his supervisor, the COO, he was not asked to
provide feedback on any of the ini�a�ves while they were being
developed. The transporta�on director, who began his role in JCPS several
years ago and who had prior transporta�on leadership experience in
Kentucky’s 2nd largest district, noted that he requested to be a part of the
planning team when he learned of the SST/RO planning months before
August 9th but was denied. The former COO noted that he was not
allowed to invite the transporta�on director to SST/RO planning mee�ngs
with the superintendent. AR confirmed that the transporta�on director
was not part of SST/RO discussions.
The GIS execu�ve director indicated that he coordinated with a few

members of the transporta�on department during the RO planning, but
no documents were provided that could help determine whether these
were substan�ve coordina�on efforts. Those in the transporta�on
department did not characterize them as substan�ve.
Furthermore, the transporta�on department was not ac�vely involved in

cri�cal discussions with the school board throughout various phases of
development and approval of the ini�a�ves. Prior to the approval of the
SCI ini�a�ve, direct representa�on from the transporta�on department –
par�cularly, the transporta�on director – was brought before the board
for a presenta�on and ac�ve discussion just once. Similarly, before the
approval of the SST ini�a�ve, representa�ves from the transporta�on
department were not brought before the board to par�cipate in
discussions. Instead, these conversa�ons were predominantly led by a
select few from the leadership team, poten�ally limi�ng the
understanding of the ini�a�ves’ dependence on the transporta�on
department. Because of the major implica�ons of all 3 ini�a�ves on
transporta�on, the transporta�on department's ac�ve engagement was
crucial for successful alignment, yet their involvement was not
consistently ensured across all phases of the ini�a�ves.
Other JCPS departments could also have played a role in suppor�ng the
success of the various ini�a�ves. A representa�ve of the JCPS IT
department noted that they were not involved in the planning stages of
SCI, SST, or RO. However, they could have brought exper�se to bear in the
area of using compe��ve bidding to select rou�ng technology, as they
rou�nely use the RFP process for so�ware and hardware purchases. They
likely could have provided project management exper�se in the rollout of
a new technology. They likely could have provided programming or
technical support in developing analyses of various scenarios. They could
have been asked to address the historical and problema�c prac�ce of
relying upon school personnel to manually input bus route informa�on
into the SIS. Automa�ng updates between the AR rou�ng solu�on (or the
home grown JCPS systems) and the JCPS SIS might have iden�fied
problems earlier, but would at a minimum have relieved the district of
manual paper tagging and data entry.
6-2
Likewise, the JCPS food services department was not meaningfully
engaged in planning for the various ini�a�ves. Department leaders only
received sufficient data to begin assessing the impacts of lunch schedule
changes on their 2023-24 staffing plans in April 2023.
Finally, it does not appear that school leaders were meaningfully engaged
in planning for the various ini�a�ves. Major points from interviews with
principals included:
♦ Several principals recounted efforts to get updates on the plans

as they were being developed, only to be rebuffed.
♦ One noted that they did not find out that their assigned number
of buses was going to double un�l a week before the start of
school, leaving litle �me to address site staging issues.
♦ When principals received their bus routes and iden�fied

problems, they felt that “nobody listened” despite their efforts to
communicate. Although they input their concerns into a
googlesheet as directed, they did not believe that central office
leadership was systema�cally reviewing and addressing the
concerns, nor did they feel that central office leadership was
assessing the poten�al for large-scale problems at the start of
school, based on the volume recorded on the googlesheet.
♦ When one principal team noted that buses on the plan were not
scheduled to even arrive at their school for more than an hour
a�er dismissal, central office leadership essen�ally told them
“let’s see what happens on the first day of school.”
JCPS has had a principal communica�on commitee (PCC) for at least

several years. The stated purpose of PCC is for principals to bring concerns
and discuss issues directly with the superintendent. Besides the
superintendent and chief of schools, the PCC included 18 principals in
2022-23. Available notes include this comment from the December 8,
2022 mee�ng regarding SST/RO planning, “PCC will be used as an ongoing
ve�ng process and communicate with their teams.” However, notes from
other mee�ngs do not indicate that the PCC was used to vet any of the
contemplated transporta�on changes. The January 23, 2023 mee�ng
notes include a transporta�on update that covers many of the talking
points district leadership had stated in school board mee�ngs (“We are
currently overly accommoda�ng.” “Current bus stop walk-�me is shortest
in the U.S.”, etc.) but did not note the receipt of input from principals on
SST/RO specifics or generali�es. No mee�ng notes were recorded in
February, March, or May 2023. The only transporta�on-related note
recorded for the April 20, 2023 was “Cri�cal we meet and ensure effec�ve
1st day plans with new transporta�on plans.”
6-3
On the principal survey undertaken as part of this project, a majority of
the principals indicated they were not involved in the process or were
given informa�on and direc�ves without the opportunity to provide
feedback. Only 1 out of 107 principals stated they were “very involved” in
discussions that led to the new school choice plan, while another 17
men�oned that there were principals on a commitee to discuss start
�mes. Seeking clarifica�on, Prisma�c learned that the commitee to
which the principals were referring was the PCC. More than half of the
principals, 59%, stated their teams did not see their new bus routes un�l
August 2023 (36% said they first saw them in July 2023). When they/their
teams first saw the bus routes, 77% stated they had “major concerns” and
another 20% stated they had “a few concerns.” Of the 101 principals with
concerns, only 7 stated they told “no one” about their concerns. The rest
told their direct supervisor, their execu�ve administrator, and other JCPS
leadership staff. The lack of a district process to ini�ally include principals
in a meaningful way in planning was made worse by the lack of a district
process to meaningfully collect and analyze their collec�ve input on the
resul�ng implementa�on plans.
RECOMMENDATION 6-1:
Include representa�ves of all departments in major ini�a�ve planning.
When developing and rolling out new ini�a�ves, it is difficult for

leadership to an�cipate all the possible consequences or to consider all
the angles of associated challenges. For that reason, diversity in a
planning group is usually valuable. Group members with an opera�ons
background will likely iden�fy different concerns from those with HR
background, for example.
As the district moves forward with other major ini�a�ves, it should

require representa�ves of all JPCS departments, as well as those who will
carry out the plans, to par�cipate meaningfully in the planning process.
Minutes from groups mee�ngs should be kept and posted to a common
folder, so that district staff is kept informed and ini�a�ve leaders can
document progress and changes, receive feedback, and address
concerns. This not only allows for ongoing evalua�on and adjustment
based on real-world experiences and challenges encountered during
implementa�on but also helps build trust among stakeholders and
ensures accountability for ac�ons taken.
While community forums work well for informing parents and community
members of district ini�a�ves, district staff should have an internal
process that occurs prior to community forums to address their concerns
and help ensure success of the ini�a�ve before the plan is presented to
the community. In addi�on, it is crucial to provide training and capacity-
building opportuni�es for departmental staff and school leaders to
enhance their understanding of complex ini�a�ves and their roles in
successful implementa�on.
6-4
JCPS should establish systems to foster ongoing collabora�on among
different departments to ensure that ini�a�ves are thoroughly evaluated
from various angles and poten�al impacts are assessed comprehensively.
This also involves conduc�ng post-implementa�on reviews to iden�fy
areas for improvement and refine processes for future ini�a�ves.
JCPS should also consider adop�ng a prac�ce similar to that employed for
the SCI by establishing an advisory commitee for each major proposed
ini�a�ve. Following the model of the Student Assignment Review
Advisory Commitee (SARAC), which included central office staff, assistant
superintendents, teachers, principals, JCPS department representa�ves,
JCTA union representa�ves, community members, and parents, JCPS
could likely enhance the thoroughness of research and planning. SARAC
played a pivotal role in providing diverse perspec�ves and input regarding
the district’s student assignment plan. Had the SARAC included
transporta�on department leaders, its commitee process would likely
have iden�fied the poten�al challenges at the intersec�on of the student
assignment plan and transporta�on constraints. By appoin�ng a similar
advisory commitee for each major ini�a�ve, JCPS can ensure
comprehensive discussions and analysis involving various stakeholders
and foster a more inclusive decision-making process.
By implemen�ng these measures, JCPS can enhance collabora�on,
communica�on, and stakeholder engagement in the planning and
implementa�on of ini�a�ves, leading to more effec�ve and successful
outcomes for the school district as a whole.
Fiscal Impact:
FINDING 6-2 – Informa�on Provided to the School Board and Public
In the course of SCI, SST, and RO planning, district staff did not provide
the school board or the public sufficient, documented informa�on about
challenges, constraints, and costs. The lack of detailed informa�on made
it difficult for the board and public to assess the feasibility of the final
plans.
Throughout the progress of the ini�a�ves, JCSP staff offered

unsubstan�ated informa�on to the school board (Exhibit 6-1). Details
were not included on presenta�on slides nor in the oral presenta�ons
that accompanied the slides. These pieces of informa�on seem to have
been used to jus�fy later ac�ons taken: the SST and RO ini�a�ves.
6-5
Exhibit 6-1
Examples of Unsubstan�ated Informa�on Provided to the School
Board
Slides from February 1, 2022, offering unsubstantiated details of percent of students

transported and self-perceived complexity of the bus routing system
6-6
Slide from March 8, 2022, offering unsubstantiated assertion that system is overly complex,
leading to inefficiencies
Source: JCPS, 2023
Despite efforts, Prisma�c could find no data to support these district self-
percep�ons:
♦ The district does not collect ridership data beyond that required
annually by KDE. Prisma�c did obtain the SAAR – Transportation
Summary Report from KDE for the years 2017-18 through 2022-
23. For 2022-23, the KDE report showed 50,348.8 students
transported daily in the morning and a�ernoon; this would
indicate the transport of 53% of enrollment. In March 2023, JCPS
provided a copy of the data from Infinite Campus that is used to
report to KDE. Data from 3 points in �me for 2022-23 and again
for 2023-24 show a range of 63-65% of students being
transported. The difference between the 53% and the 63-65% of
enrollment is likely due to the �meframe when the KDE data are
pulled and the difference in how KDE and JCPS counted a student
as “transported.” The KDE figure takes into account those only
transported once daily (either morning or a�ernoon), essen�ally
coun�ng them at “half-transported.” The JCPS figures count those
only transported once daily the same as students transported
both morning and a�ernoon.
However, neither the KDE nor the JCPS Infinite Campus data are
firm records of the numbers of students actually transported.
Historically, JCPS has relied upon school staff to collect cards from
students as they rode in on the bus and then input the
informa�on into Infinite Campus. While a large effort at the
6-7
beginning of each year, there does not appear to be any later
cross-checking with whether a student riding a par�cular bus
should actually be riding that bus or whether a student who rode
a par�cular bus at the start of school is s�ll riding that bus later
in the year. Moreover, principals noted several problems with the
“extract” that supports the process for the 2023-24 school year,
making it more likely that the 2023-24 Infinite Campus data have
errors.
Prisma�c also obtained the driver-reported morning bus counts

contained in the JCPS Cambridge System (a home-grown
applica�on) from December 2023 and compiled them. Those
counts totaled 51,109 students; this would indicate the transport
of 55% of enrollment (using the December 8, 2023 enrollment of
93,588). There appears to be no sta�s�cal basis for the asser�on
that JCPS actually transports 70% of its students.
District staff in several interviews indicated that they did not

believe analysis of ridership was important. Prior to 2023-24 and
for 2023-24, JCPS developed its bus rou�ng plan using the
number of students eligible to ride. That is not the same as
ridership. Most school transporta�on experts understand that
100% of eligible students never ride. This is true because it is
quite rare for a school to have 100% atendance, but also because
families frequently choose other methods to get their children to
and from school. Districts that track ridership frequently engage
in a process of overbooking their buses – if historically only 30%
of the eligible HS students ride a par�cular bus, it can result in
cost savings if the district conserva�vely es�mates that only 50%
will ride and assigns more students to the bus that there are
actual seats. Prisma�c could find no publicly available na�onal
sta�s�cs that state that most school districts only transport 50%
of their students.
♦ JCPS is indeed a complex system of interdependent processes.

However, it is no more complex than Prisma�c has encountered
in many other school districts. Likewise, Prisma�c did not find the
JCPS system to be the “most complex in the na�on” or that its
complexity “led to inefficiencies.”
Beyond the lack of detail provided by some contractors to school district

staff as detailed in Chapter 4, JCPS staff did not provide poten�ally crucial
informa�on to the school board and the public as the SCI, SST, and RO
ini�a�ves were developed. The 1st crucial informa�on not sufficiently
shared was the likely increased number of bus routes es�mated to be
needed to implement the SCI. As noted in Chapter 2, there were staff
discussions about the increased need for bus routes due to SCI and
grandfathering (p. 2-4). In 2020, the KDE Management Audit
6-8
recommended that JCPS “develop a recruitment plan to ensure the
district has enough bus drivers and monitors to support the school choice
opportuni�es.” Several JCPS staff noted that it was known that the school
choice op�ons and the associated grandfathering would require more
drivers. They provided one es�mate that the SCI, without the other
ini�a�ves, would have led to a need for an addi�onal 100 routes. Yet,
presenta�ons to the JCPS school board on SCI generally did not include
quan�fica�on of the transporta�on costs (or savings) that might be
associated with SCI op�ons. In the May 4, 2020, board mee�ng, one
board member asked the superintendent about the need for
transporta�on funding in rela�on to SCI. The superintendent responded
that the transporta�on impact would depend on the “percentage of
students in satellite areas wishing to remain at a local school” then
men�oned that a 3rd bell �me would “save significant funding.” No details
were provided at that �me. While generalized statements were made to
indicate the district understood there would be an impact on
transporta�on by implemen�ng SCI, the impact on transporta�on was
not quan�fied and detailed prior to the board’s vote to approve SCI.
Subsequent board mee�ngs and presenta�ons to the board did not
return to the issue of transporta�on needs to meet SCI op�ons.
Nine months a�er the passage of SCI, district staff notes the need for
increased routes due to SCI (Exhibit 6-2). In the oral comments that
accompanied the slides, JCPS staff men�oned an es�mated need to
reduce bus routes down to 600 and to maintain a driver pool of 650 but
provided no es�mate of the increased need for routes solely due to the
SCI plan. In oral comments provided at the February 28, 2023 board
mee�ng a JCPS staff member stated “routes will increase due to SCI” but
provided no details. This appears to be the 1st �me that a need for more
drivers due to SCI is shared with the school board.
6-9
Exhibit 6-2
Board Slides That Men�on a Need for Increased Routes Due to SCI
Slide from February 7, 2023, noting a need for more routes to support SCI, but providing no
details
Source: JCPS, 2023
In interviews, mul�ple staff members indicated they knew that SCI would
put new burdens on the transporta�on system. As one staff member
termed it, “everyone knew”. In 2019, internal discussions indicated a
need for 100 addi�onal routes for SCI. Staff adopted that same figure for
this round of SCI planning, apparently without documented rigorous
analysis. Staff noted that AR did provide some modeling of the impact of
SCI and indicated it would require 125 addi�onal routes. It does not
appear that these es�mates were shared with the school board or
publicly.
In interviews and internal documents, mul�ple staff members also noted

that their analyses indicated that JCPS would not begin 2023-24 with the
desired 650 drivers. As far back as November 2022, the topic was
discussed among staff. At that �me, based on historical local and current
na�onal trends, they an�cipated JCPS would start the school year with
~550 drivers. It does not appear that these es�mates were shared with
the school board or publicly.
The 2nd crucial informa�on not sufficiently shared was the substan�al
changes to the rou�ng plan, which, as provided by the contractor,
included numerous buses not arriving to pick up students from schools in
the a�ernoon for at least 40 minutes past dismissal. Chapter 4 details the
6-10
myriad deficiencies in the rou�ng plan. It also notes that receipt of the
plan was not only late according to the planned schedule (which was
simply the historical calendar for rou�ng), but that the schedule was likely
overly op�mis�c to begin with. This may explain why concerns about the
rou�ng plan were not shared with the school board prior to the opening
of school. However, JCPS leadership staff received indica�ons of concerns
about the rou�ng plan prior to the start of school from transporta�on
department staff, school principals, and a driver union representa�ve.
In interviews, board members retrospec�vely noted that they had not

received nearly enough informa�on regarding transporta�on leading up
to August 9th. They noted that they were never informed of any problems
leading up to the start of school. One board member termed
presenta�ons to the school board as “more surface-level than an obvious
summary of extensive work.” As one board member noted, in many cases,
the board has been encouraged to simply “trust” the administra�on.
Several board members noted that they relied upon the assurances of the
JCPS staff as the ini�a�ves progressed.
The JCPS school board has an important role to play in helping to ensure
that the district is headed in the right direc�on when it takes on new
ini�a�ves. In its publica�on, School Board Leadership Guide, the Kentucky
School Board Associa�on (KSBA) ar�culates this role in a number of ways:
♦ “Board members should recognize that their responsibility is not

to run the system, but to see that it is well-run.”
♦ “The local board represents the community by making sure that

tax dollars are used effec�vely and efficiently on behalf of their
students.”
♦ “Accountability refers to the process of measuring and publicly

repor�ng the performance of each school and each district in
terms of the achievement of its students as measured by
assessment processes, as well as many other aspects of school
opera�ons.”
♦ “Board members should expect to hear how school and district

programs contribute to improving student achievement and they
should be willing to ask ques�ons to beter understand how the
programs will benefit students.”
♦ “Public funds come from taxes, and it’s the job of the elected local
board of educa�on to make sure the taxpayers’ money is
managed properly. The board can delegate administra�on of
these funds to the superintendent and school councils, but it is
ul�mately responsible. Fiscal management is more than adop�ng
a tax rate and approving a budget. It is seeing that the right
programs are funded, that purchasing procedures are followed
6-11
resul�ng in the best product for the cost, that funds are invested
in a way that gets the best return, that assets are properly
insured, and generally that all funds are properly managed.”
In a similar vein, the KSBA publica�on notes that:
[S]uperintendents should:
• Be forthright, even if that means saying they’re not

certain what will happen.
• Never withhold per�nent informa�on, even with

complex ini�a�ves.
• Have a system of introducing complex, high-profile

ini�a�ves early to the board.
• Be open to board ideas and ques�ons.
RECOMMENDATION 6-2:
Provide beter and documented informa�on to the school board and

the public regarding major ini�a�ves.
Throughout the implementa�on process of new school district ini�a�ves,

both the school board and the public should receive con�nuous updates,
data, and detailed informa�on regarding processes and implementa�on.
Full disclosure of data and documenta�on holds school districts
accountable for their ac�ons and the outcomes of their ini�a�ves. When
all relevant informa�on is accessible, the board can evaluate the
effec�veness of programs and ini�a�ves, hold decision-makers
accountable for their decisions, and assess how resources are being
allocated within the school district. This transparency helps ensure that
resources are used efficiently and effec�vely to support ini�a�ves that
align with the priori�es and educa�onal goals of the district. Transparency
builds trust between the school district and the community it serves.
Overall, providing full data, details, and documenta�on for new school
district ini�a�ves is crucial for promo�ng transparency, informed
decision-making, accountability, public par�cipa�on, efficient resource
alloca�on, and con�nuous improvement within the educa�onal system.
Fiscal Impact:
6-12
FINDING 6-3: Use of Depots
The AR rou�ng solu�on implemented by the district moved away from

the use of depots. While difficult to quan�fy, this reduc�on likely
contributed to inefficiencies and lower service quality.
In a February 1, 2022 presenta�on to the JCPS school board, district staff

both explained its use of depots and noted it found them to be efficient
(Exhibit 6-3). As part of the commentary during that mee�ng, the
transporta�on director es�mated that 500 more bus drivers would be
needed if the depot system was not in use.
Exhibit 6-3
Depot Slide from February 1, 2022 Presenta�on
Source: JCPS, 2023
Using admitedly incomplete available JCPS data, Prisma�c es�mated

that, prior to 2023-24, approximately 50% and perhaps as many as 70%
of JCPS runs involved depot use. The AR solu�on reduced depot usage to
an es�mated less than 20%. Exhibit 6-4 provides an example of the
limited use of depots at 1 compound with the AR solu�on; staff for that
compound noted that historically all available �me slots on the page for
a par�cular depot were filled with buses.
6-13
Exhibit 6-4
Example Current Usage of Depots
Source: JCPS, 2023
Why depot use was substan�ally reduced in the AR route plan was not
documented. JCPS staff did note that the use of depots arose as a result
of the range of choices offered to students in the past. It therefore seems
odd that the rollout of a plan that offered more choice overall moved
away from depots, which previously worked.
Under the SCI, students in the Choice Zone (western Louisville) could
choose to atend their close to home (“resides”) school or 1 of several “far
away” schools. For example, students in the Valley Elementary Zone could
choose to atend Kennedy ES, which is located in the zone, or to atend
Dixie ES, Johnsontown Road ES, or Medora ES. All 3 of the far away
schools are located close to each other (Exhibit 6-5).
6-14
Exhibit 6-5
Valley Choice Zone and Far Away Schools
Source: JCPS Choice Zone materials, 2023
Rather than have poten�ally mul�ple buses for each of the far away
schools travel the en�rety of the Valley Choice Zone just for their
students, it would likely be more efficient to have mul�ple buses divide
up the zone, pick up all the students for the 3 far away schools then meet
at a depot to sort students onto school-specific buses. This example is
complicated by the decision to adopt SSTs of 7:30am, 9:30am, and
9:40am respec�vely for Dixie, Johnsontown Road, and Medora ES.
The substan�ally different SST of Dixie ES also seems to point to a

disconnect between the SCI, SST, and RO ini�a�ves. Knowing the planned
flow of a group of students from the Valley Choice Zone to the 3 far away
schools, it would have been logical to place all the far away schools on the
same (or close) �er. Then, the depot concept could have been employed,
or if the number of students was small enough, a few buses could have
been deployed to serve all 3 of the far away schools.
Returning to the previous example, if the SST of Dixie ES cannot be

adjusted, the depot concept could s�ll be used with just Johnsontown
Road and Medora ES which are located 4.3 miles apart. The same concept
could be applied to each of the choice zones and their cluster of far away
schools. Doing so would likely reduce bus mileage and run �me as each
bus would only have to cover a por�on of the choice zone.
6-15
Given the small number of students from the Valley Choice Zone who
opted to atend a far away school in 2023-24, it is possible that an analysis
by zone would yield opportuni�es to reduce bus counts without the need
for depots. In the Valley Choice Zone example, only 93 students in the
choice zone (zip codes 40211 and 40216) opted for a far away school.
Using the JCPS guideline of a planned 66 ES students per bus, only 2 buses
are needed to cover the choice zone and deliver students to the 3 far
away schools (again ignoring the much earlier SST of Dixie ES). If the SST
of Dixie ES cannot be adjusted, the same logic could be applied with the
remaining 2 schools and only 1 bus from the choice zone would be
needed for the 56 students atending Johnsontown Road and Medora ES
(Exhibit 6-6).
Exhibit 6-6
Number of Valley Choice Zone Students Atending Far Away Schools
2022-23 2023-24
Dixie Johnsontown Medor Dixie Johnsontown Medora
Choice Zip Code ES Road ES a ES ES Road ES ES
40211 54 31 0 31 21 0
40216 8 9 20 7 20 14
Total Students 122 93
# of Buses Needed 2 2
Source: JCPS Student Enrollment by Zip Code data, 2023
(These figures do not match those provided by SCI leadership. Despite Prismatic
efforts, the 2 data sources do not appear to be reconcilable, so only the zip code
data were included here.)
Thus, while a return to depot usage could yield some transporta�on

efficiencies, at the same �me, some principals provided examples of
inefficient current use of depots. One principal ar�culated these
examples:
♦ If a student would like to atend an a�erschool program within a

few minutes’ drive of their elementary school, they could be
assigned to take a depot bus from the elementary school, then
take a 2nd bus back toward the a�erschool site. By the �me the
student completes that journey, the a�erschool program has
ended.
♦ Some elementary students who atend their “resides” schools are

assigned to a depot switch. Given the proximity of students’
residences to their resides schools, this seems nonsensical.
♦ Some students ride a bus 20 minutes to a depot, wait 40 minutes

at an unstaffed depot, then ride another bus to get to a residence
that is 15 minutes from the school campus.
6-16
RECOMMENDATION 6-3:
Evaluate the poten�al for implemen�ng greater depot use.
It is unclear why AR largely abandoned the use of depots in the JCPS

rou�ng plan, par�cularly given that:
♦ the clustering of far away schools in the SCI lends itself to depot
usage
♦ the transporta�on department had previously demonstrated

that it could effec�vely manage a depot opera�on
In implemen�ng this recommenda�on, the transporta�on department

should assess each choice zone independently and determine whether
depot usage could reduce run �me, both given the current SSTs and given
ideal SSTs. Where logical, and where the number of buses involved in a
depot is small, staff may recommend that it be placed somewhere other
than the historical depot loca�ons. For example, it might be most logical
to have a depot of 3-4 buses in the parking lot of an ES completed under
the supervision of a paraprofessional already assigned to that school to
support breakfast or before school ac�vi�es. Staff may also find that it
can combine buses from choice zones without the need for depots.
While doing this work, the transporta�on department should assess

whether there is inefficient use of depots currently in the system, as
alleged by some principals. If so, this should be corrected at same �me.
Fiscal Impact:
6-17
Chapter 7
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Conclusions
After reviewing available documents/files, interviewing JCPS leadership,
and surveying principals, the Prismatic team concludes that a number of
conditions gave rise to the Incident. The conditions included these JCPS
areas operating at less than best practices levels:
♦ Project Management
♦ System Implementation
♦ Organizational Communications
♦ Decision-Making Methodology
♦ Contractor Performance
Project Management
In the course of this study, Prismatic found little in the way of active
project management for SCI, SST, or RO. No evidence of the use of classic
tools of project management like Gantt charts was provided. Few project
meetings resulted in written notes that were saved (if they were, they
were not shared with Prismatic). The only established timeline associated
with the initiatives was the historical transportation department planning
calendar (Exhibit 4-1, provided in Chapter 4). Understanding the large
transportation changes that would be proposed under any 1 of the
initiatives, it appears that no decisions were made to move portions of
that calendar earlier as a potential buffer against unforeseen
circumstances. When vendors were late in providing key deliverables, the
district had no backup plans ready to mitigate the issue.
System Implementation
The district had a history of failing to implement routing software.

Determining the reasons for those failures were beyond the scope of this
work; they may have been due to flaws in the software selected or they
may have been due to something else. However, the district itself should
7-1
Chapter 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations
have known the reasons for the past failures and brought that knowledge
to bear this time. It does not appear to have done so.
As part of the purchases from AR, JCPS paid for routing software. It was
previewed to transportation department staff and limited training was
provided. JCPS staff was not able to use it to address problems it saw with
routes prior to August 9th. Some staff indicated that the original plan was
to run the AR software side-by-side with the existing in-house systems
through the Fall 2023, then transition to full use of the AR software in the
second half of 2023-24. That kind of transition planning is a best practice;
however, Prismatic found no evidence of artifacts that indicate the
systems implementation planning went any farther than that. There was
no calendar of software training, apparently few meetings with the IT
department to work on integration of the routing software with the
student information system (SIS), and no target date set for switchover
(when the old software would be turned off and the new software would
become the primary system).
AR representatives agreed that the plan was to run the routing systems
side-by-side, but disputed that the JCPS purchase was for anything other
than an undefined “initial use period,” indicating that the district would
subsequently have to later purchase the full software. As this study
progressed, AR representatives indicated in January 2024 that because
the district did not “seem to be using the software at all” the contractor
intended to shortly remove access to it. This is further evidence that the
routing software rollout in 2023 lacked many details typical of a solid
system implementation effort.
In terms of general “systems”, the district also had shortcomings. As the

implication for bus routes became known through SST and RO, the district
lacked a system to provide drivers and their supervisors the opportunity
to talk through what new procedures or training they might need. Had
drivers known in March 2023 that many routes would be un-mirrored and
depot use would decrease, driver supervisors might have organized
additional days for drivers to practice runs, meetings to ensure drivers
understood they would not be repeating morning runs in the afternoons,
or even paid drivers to do “familiarization” drives around new areas.
When the concerns regarding lack of stops, bus assignments, and the bus
routes bubbled up in July 2023, JCPS did not respond by adding staff to
the 485-RIDE phonebank in anticipation of the likely increased call
volume. Instead, it staffed the August 9th phonebank with the same
number of staff as usual.
These examples indicate a lack of systems to adapt to circumstances,

knowing they are about to change. As one JCPS leader noted, while the
district was not able to hire as many bus drivers as it wanted, the need
for “systems should have been foreseeable.”
7-2
Organizational Communications
JCPS had difficulties both internally with communications across

departments and externally with the school board and greater public.
Internally, not all the departments who should have been involved in
initiative planning were at the table, as detailed in Chapter 6. This was a
fault of structured communications. Also internally, JCPS did not have
ways of listening to communications that would have provided early
warnings of oncoming school start problems. Some staff reported being
ignored when they sounded alarms. When interviewed regarding
activities leading up to August 9th, multiple staff noted a negative
environment in the central office that discouraged questions and
collaboration. Post-Incident, some employees noted that they feared
retribution for providing Prismatic with information. These
communications faults appear to be a problem of corporate culture.
Externally, JCPS staff did not provide sufficient details about obstacles
potentially in the way of successful initiative implementation. The district
ended the 2022-23 school year with 731 routes. If the board had known
that:
♦ prior to proposing SCI, the district projected it to require 100-125

additional routes
♦ prior to proposing SCI, the trend data indicated that JCPS would
start the school year with 550 bus drivers
♦ prior to proposing any of the 3 initiatives, the transportation

department staff was not materially involved in their planning
would it have approved all 3 for implementation in 2023-24?
Decision-Making Methodology
Based on the available data, it appears that the SST and RO initiatives
became necessary as the details of the SCI were finalized. There are some
indications in the board meeting presentations that JCPS leaders were at
least somewhat aware of this necessity as they worked toward SCI
passage.
As it has stated on previous projects, Prismatic recognizes that the

determination of school start times is an educational and leadership
decision, not a transportation decision. Choosing to change school start
times is one of the few decisions a school board can make that can impact
every stakeholder in the district. Depending on the changes made, a
district may have to rewrite all its collective bargaining agreements and
change the work schedules of all groups of employees. Therefore, it is not
a decision to be undertaken lightly. Packaging SST changes as a necessary
7-3
consequence of a previous decision deprives the school board and the
public of the right to make a considered decision.
JCPS leadership did not seem to have adequately weighed the time
needed to implement such sweeping changes as SST or the large-scale RO
it undertook. Multiple leaders referenced a school district peer group
that they contact for data and advice, but there was no documentation
that they queried the peer group as to what would be a reasonable
timeline. In Prismatic’s experience, a successful SST in a large district
takes at least a full year, while large-scale RO changes can take a year or
more to achieve.
Contractor Performance
Prismatic found that JCPS tends to rely heavily on sole sourcing of

contracts. As noted in Chapter 5, JCPS sole sourcing work indicated a lack
of research and documentation as to why sole sourcing was necessary
instead of a competitive bidding process.
References for sole source vendors were not verified. This was a
particular problem with the AR sole sourcing. In the aftermath of August
9th, a news article reported that Cincinnati Public Schools and Columbus
Public Schools had previously had problems in their attempts to
implement AR solutions. 1 Neither engagement was reported as ending
with AR routes and software continuing to be used in those districts. Both
of those districts were ahead of JCPS in attempting to implement AR
solutions. Both school districts are within a day’s drive of JCPS, so staff
could have completed a rigorous reference check with either.
JCPS staff also tended to present sole sourcing agreements in ways that
many not have been completely transparent to school board members
and the public. For example, the November 16, 2022 contract with AR for
$150,000 was listed in the school board documents as a “data privacy
agreement.” Moreover, staff does not appear to have provided the
school board and the public with running totals for vendors in use or
specific initiatives. For example:
♦ The initial contract with Cooperative Strategies was $120,000

(November 15, 2019), but the current running total for that
vendor is $600,000.
♦ The initial contract with AR was $509,167 (June 9, 2021) but the
current running total for that vendor is $858,167.
♦ The contract with AR for routing software was not the first
district purchase of such software. Prismatic found evidence of 2
1
https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-school-bus-problems-alpharoute-
a26288e7d4aa4de5b75c4f658705b19a
7-4
prior efforts to implement routing software in JCPS, 1 in the
1990s and 1 in the period 2015-19. Prior to making a 3rd purchase,
the district does not appear to have engaged in an analysis of why
the previous purchases were unsuccessful and to have provided
the results of that to the school board.
The problem of the Cooperative Strategies work not explicitly considering

and communicating transportation impacts is detailed in Chapter 2. The
specific flaws in the AR routing plan are detailed in Chapter 5.
Recommendations
As with all projects Prismatic undertakes, a number of areas considered
initially to be within scope were reviewed extensively but ultimately no
recommendation was made. This was because either because the data
were inconclusive or insufficient.
For example, the available data seem to indicate that JCPS staff is not
sufficiently sensitive to the need to comply with state data retention
requirements. These requirements are outlined on the JCPS website and
they include the retention of emails. 2 Nevertheless, there appears to be
a lack of adherence to retention requirements for emails. District
employees are required to retain some emails permanently while others
are retained for a shorter period. Yet, when seeking emails relevant to
topics of conversation in interviews, several principals felt they were
missing emails from the July-August 2023 period. In interviews with
central office staff, Prismatic expected to be able to gather more email
documentation than was ultimately available. Overall, the consulting
team concluded there were insufficient data for a recommendation, as it
was not possible to document the apparent lack of emails, without being
able to prove they had once existed. One possible alternative explanation
is that the emails never existed. This possibility was perhaps supported
by a JCPS leader who stated they felt encouraged to use cell phone
texting instead of district email because it was perceived that texting was
less subject to open records requirements.
Across Chapters 2 through 6, Prismatic made 16 recommendations that

collectively should address the district conditions noted above. As the
district plans for recommendation implementation, it should seek to
address culture and ways of work issues systemically.
Other than the Chapter 4 recommendation to adopt integrated routing,

GPS, and camera systems, Prismatic believes that the recommendations
of this report can be implemented with existing resources, meaning a
small dollar cost or some amount of work hours from existing staff.
2
https://www.jefferson.kyschools.us/node/2355
7-5
# Recommendation
Develop systematic procedures for communication and collaboration between
departments related to school choice and schedule on-going reviews of school
2-2
choice zones and boundaries with the district transportation department to ensure
students receive transportation services to their choice schools as appropriate.
Assign default schools to students who do not complete a school choice application
2-3
by the established deadline.
3-1 Review options for adjusting SSTs for 2024-25.
Review options for moving schools on mini-tier start times to a major tier start
3-2
time.
Review options for adjusting all secondary schools to the 8:40 am or later SST for
3-3
2024-25.
4-1 Re-establish and adhere to an annual routing timeline.
4-2 Rework AR routes.
4-3 Create more effective communications processes around routing.
4-4 Adopt an integrated routing, GPS, and camera system.
Improve the district’s Professional Services Contract administration by formally
5-1 designating a contract administrator or contract manager for each contract and
develop specific responsibilities for the position.
Improve the timing of payments in Professional Services Contracts and Data Privacy
5-2 Agreements to help ensure the district receives satisfactory services before making
payments to vendors.
Improve Professional Services Contract documents’ scope of services to help
5-3
ensure the district receives the services that it needs and is paying for.
5-4 Improve the district process for using Sole Source contracting.
6-1 Include representatives of all departments in major initiative planning.
Provide better and documented information to the school board and the public
6-2
regarding major initiatives.
6-3 Evaluate the potential for implementing greater depot use.
7-6
Appendix A
Principal Survey Results
Principal Survey Results
Appendix A – Principal Survey Results
This survey was fielded anonymously via web link, December 8, 2023 through January 3, 2024.
n = 109
Overall Results
1. What is your school level? n = 102
Elementary 69%
Middle 15%
High 13%
Other 4%
2. What is your school’s start time this year? n = 102
7:40 am 25%
8:00 am 3%
8:10 am 4%
8:40 am 23%
9:00 am 2%
9:10 am 6%
9:30 am 6%
9:40 am 32%
10:40 am 0%
3. At what school are you?
Provided a response 54
Chose not to provide a response 55
4. How long have you been a principal in JCPS? n = 101
0-5 years 58%

6-10 years 26%
11-15 years 13%
16-20 years 3%
21+ years 0%
5. How long have you been in JCPS overall? n = 102
0-5 years 2%
6-10 years 7%
11-15 years 18%
16-20 years 41%
21+ years 32%
A-2
Last School Year (2022-23)
(n=108)
Yes No Not Sure

Did you regularly have some buses arriving in the morning after the start
72% 28% 0%
of school?
At the official end of the school day, did you regularly have buses that
77% 23% 0%
were NOT lined up and ready to receive students?
Did any of your staff sometimes transport students home in the
afternoons in their own personal vehicles because of a lack of bus 62% 38% 0%
transportation?
Other than yourself, did you have someone on your staff assigned to
96% 4% 0%
handle bus referrals for student discipline?
[asked of those who regularly had some buses arriving in the morning after the start of school in 2022-
23] Approximately what percent of your buses regularly arrived after the start of school? (n = 79)
<25% 59%
25-49% 22%
50-74% 13%
75-99% 6%
100% 0%
[asked of those who regularly had some buses NOT lined up and ready to receive students at the official
end of the school day in 2022-23] Approximately what percent of your buses were not regularly lined up
at school at afternoon dismissal? (n = 77)
<25% 34%
25-49% 2%
50-74% 12%
75-99% 28%
100% 6%
There were a number of alternative bell schedules discussed leading up to the 2023-24 school year. How
involved were principals in those discussions?
This question was open-ended. A total of 108 principals provided responses. Each comment was coded
and could have covered multiple topics.
Comment Count
We were told things, “informed of plans,” not asked for opinion, no opportunity to share
34
feedback.
Not at all. We were NOT involved in the discussions or process. 23
There were principals on the committee to discuss start times. 17
Somewhat involved 15
Principals had opportunities to share data, express concerns, share feedback 10
Other / Additional unrelated comment 9
Not sure, don’t know 7
A-3
Comment Count
I was not a principal at that time. 6
Not very involved 5
Principals were told not to complain or express concerns 4
Don’t remember 3
Principals were told to complete a survey 2
Very involved 2
Principals faced negative consequences for questioning 1
Principals were made aware of possible changes, 2-3 meetings held to provide updates 1
How involved were principals in discussions that led to the new School Choice plan?
Comment Count
Not at all. We were NOT involved in the discussions or process. 27
We were told things, “informed of plans,” not asked for opinion, no opportunity to share
17
feedback.
There were principals on the committee to discuss start times. 17
Not sure, don’t know 16
Principals had opportunities to share data, express concerns, share feedback 14
Somewhat involved 7
I was not a principal at that time. 6
Not very involved 6
Other / Additional unrelated comment 5
Principals were told to complete a survey 2
Very involved 1
A-4
Leading Up to the 2023-24 School Year
In Spring 2023, did the Infinite Campus enrollment projections for your school seem unusual? (n=105)
No, they looked as expected. 41%

Yes, they looked lower than expected. 34%
Yes, they looked higher than expected. 13%
Something else 11%
When did you or your administrative team first receive the bus routes for your school? (n=105)
July 2023 36%

August 2023 59%
Not sure 5%
When you/your team first saw the bus routes for the 2023-24, were you concerned? (n=105)
Yes, there were many concerns. 77%

Yes, there were a few concerns. 20%
No, there were no concerns. 1%
Don’t really remember. 2%
[asked of those who indicated concerns] To whom did you express your concerns?
Response Count
Assistant Superintendent 44
Bus Compound Coordinators 32
Executive Administrator 21
Supervisor/Immediate Supervisor 13
Bus compound manager 10
Administration (non-specific) 8
Amy Dennes 7
No one 7
Other principals 5
Chris Perkins 4
Marcus Dobbs 4
Bus Drivers 4
Staff within own school 4
Other 4
Transportation personnel 2
William De Angelo 1
“Anyone who would listen” 1
District Secretaries 1
Director of Special Education 1
Chief of Schools 1
A-5
Response Count
ECE Department 1
John McClure 1
Jessica Rosenthal 1
Board members 1
Marge Eckerle 1
Transportation depots 1
High school division 1
[asked of those who indicated concerns] What were your concerns?

Response Count
Afternoon pickup times / arriving at school after dismissal / lack of space/staffing
34
to supervise students awaiting buses in afternoon
Lack of communication / communication problems 29
Students without bus assignment / stop 29
Adding stops / missing stops 17
Unmirroring of bus runs 15
Route length 15
Unsafe bus stops 15
Route changes 15
Bus stop distance 14
Buses arriving after the start of school 11
Incorrect timing listed on route sheets 9
Drivers did not know routes 9
Bus finder/IC not working / inaccurate 7
Families lacked information 9
Overcrowded buses 7
Number of students on bus 5
Under-capacity buses 2
Delay in assigning students to buses 1
Other 39
Yes No Not Sure

[asked of those with concerns]
Do you feel that at least some of your concerns were addressed prior 26% 64% 10%
to the start of school? n = 101
Did your school host a meeting with the 2023-24 bus drivers prior to the
98% 2% 0%
start of school? n = 105
[asked of those who hosted a driver meeting]
15% 82% 4%
Did all assigned drivers attend the meeting? n = 103
A-6
[asked of those who hosted a driver meeting] Did the drivers express more than the usual concerns
about the 2023-24 routes? n = 103
Yes, a lot more than usual 86%

Yes, but no more than usual 9%
No, concerns were not expressed 3%
Not Sure 2%
Yes No Not Sure

Did all of the bus routes assigned to your school have an assigned driver
59% 18% 23%
for the 1st day of school? n = 105
[asked of those who >0 unassigned drivers on the 1st day of school]
5% 84% 11%
Did that also happen in previous school years? n = 19
In the week before school started, did parents contact you/your team with concerns about bus routes
and/or bus stops? n = 104
Yes, a lot more than usual 89%

Yes, but no more than usual 8%
No, not really 0%
Not Sure 3%
On the 1st day of school, how late were the latest students in arriving at school in the morning? n = 104
0 minutes 6%
~10-20 minutes after school start 8%
>30 minutes after school start 71%
Yes No Not Sure

[asked if >0 late students on the 1st day of school]
60% 36% 4%
Is this kind of lateness unusual for the first day of school? n = 98
A-7
This School Year (2023-24)
How does your school find out which buses are not rolling on a specific day and which buses are
covering for it?
Response Count
Compound emails 68
App 42
No notification 26
Compound calls 17
Edulog (several also noted that the Edulog data are often incorrect) 13
Unspecified type of contact from bus compound 11
Sub bus arrives at school 4
Compound texts 3
Parents call 2
Bus does not arrive 2
Supervisor text 1
Spreadsheet 1
Bus drivers 1
Dashboard 1
Teams 1
Yes No Not Sure

Currently, do some buses just not arrive at all in the
morning or afternoon but you/your team are never 38% 59% 3%
officially notified about it? n = 103
Do you have a staff member monitor morning bus
arrivals daily and keep notes on the arrival time? 99% 0% 1%
n = 103
[Asked if staff keeps notes on daily arrivals]
97% 0% 3%
Has your school kept those records? = 102
Currently, how many bus riding students are arriving after the instructional day begins? An approximate
number is fine. n = 100
Response Count
0 11
3-4 1
4 1
5 1
8 1
<10 1
10 1
12 2
A-8
Response Count
15 2
16 1
20 1
20-30 1
20-40 1
22-30 1
25 1
30 3
35-45 1
37 1
39 1
40 5
40-50 3
41 1
45 2
50 6
50-60 1
60 3
60-80 2
60-120 1
60-180 1
63 1
70 3
75-100 1
75-125 1
85 1
100 6
100+ 1
102 1
110-125 1
115-140 1
120 2
120-150 1
140 1
150 3
150-200 1
170 1
182 1
200 2
200 2
200-300 1
230 1
70 is typical; we have been about 40 lately 1
Consistently this is not occurring but time to
1
time it is one bus with about 5-8 kids
A-9
Response Count
Maybe once every week or two we will have
1
one late bus of 15-20 students.
Not sure 1
On average it is 3 buses 1
Usually at least 4 buses 1
This doesn't happen too often 1
Very few at this time <1% 1
When a bus is late, it is 2-3 hours late. On a
daily basis if they all come on time, not too 1
many since we are the first start time.
Using the midpoint where a principal provided a range, the 95 quantifiable responses yield an average of
65 students.
Currently, how late are the last bus riding students in arriving at school in the morning? n = 102
None (they all arrive ~15 minutes before the bell) 9%

at the bell (0 minutes) 10%
>30 minutes after school start 27%
Currently, at the official end of the school day, how many of your school's buses are lined up and ready
to receive students? n = 102
100% 5%
75-99% 19%
50-74% 7%
25-49% 11%
<25% 59%
Currently, how late after dismissal are the last buses arriving at your school in the afternoon? n = 102
<15 minutes 12%

16-30 minutes 8%
31-45 minutes 10%
46-60 minutes 24%
>60 minutes 47%
A-10
Currently, how many bus riding students are held at school after dismissal, waiting for their bus? An
approximate number is fine. n = 100
# of Students
# of
Responses Minimum Average Maximum
~15 minutes after dismissal 81 0 196 1,050
15-30 minutes after dismissal 80 0 152 750
>120 minutes after dismissal 35 0 7 60
Yes No Not Sure

Has any of your staff transported students home in
the afternoons in their own personal vehicles 78% 22% 0%
because of a lack of bus transportation? n = 102
[Asked if staff is transporting students] How frequently is this happening? n = 80
Daily 10%
A few times a week 30%
A couples times a month 28%
Only a few times overall 33%
Yes No Not Sure

Other than yourself, do you have someone on your
staff assigned to handle bus referrals for student 98% 2% 0%
discipline? n = 102
About
Much Somewhat the Somewhat Much
Better Better Same Worse Worse
Is the bus transportation situation
at your school better or worse 8% 8% 9% 10% 66%
than 2022-23? n = 102
About
Much Somewhat the Somewhat Much Not
Higher Higher Same Lower Lower Sure
Compared to last year, what is the
volume of school bus ridership at 1% 6% 33% 49% 10% 1%
your school now? n = 102
Compared to last year, what is the
volume of parent drop-offs at 34% 45% 20% 0% 0% 1%
your school now? n= 102
A-11
About
Much Somewhat the Somewhat Much Not
Faster Faster Same Slower Slower Sure
Compared to last year, is the bus
assignment process (getting a new
0% 1% 17% 31% 47% 4%
student assigned to a bus) faster
or slower for your school? n = 102
Have there been any positive impacts of the new bell schedule for your campus? If so, what are they?
Response Count
No positive impact 45
No change from previous year/NA 11
General positive impact 8
Improved transportation efficiency 7
Improved instruction/learning 6
Parental convenience and satisfaction 4
Improved sleep/rest for students 4
Improved student attendance 3
Staff satisfaction 3
Stakeholder satisfaction 2
Increases in school programming/events 2
Improved academic/behavioral performance 1
Other/unrelated comment 1
Don’t know 1
Respondent noted bus-related challenges 6
Have there been any negative impacts of the new bell schedule for your campus? If so, what are they?
Response Count
Transportation issues 49
Extended work hours and staffing concerns 33
Student tardiness/absences 23
Student supervision demands 21
Disruption in extracurriculars and enrichment opportunities 20
Extended school hours and arriving home after dark 20
Scheduling conflicts 18
Loss of instructional time 18
No negative impact 16
Financial and resource challenges 14
Mental health and well-being concerns of students and staff 14
Deterioration of community relationships and trust 12
Increased car ridership and traffic concerns 12
A-12
Response Count
Administration challenges 11
Communication and coordination problems 11
Academic and behavioral setbacks 9
Work-life balance disruptions 8
Personal and family challenges 8
Special needs and ECE services disruptions 6
Safety and security concerns 6
Negative school climate and culture 4
Neutral/No change to start times 3
Other 13
We have asked you these questions to both understand the root causes of the transportation problems
experienced at the start of school and to document the extent to which problems still exist. If you have
any other ideas or thoughts about either issue, please tell us here.
Response Count
Challenges in transportation system predictability and complexity 22
Proposed solutions and improvement suggestions 13
Increased school-level demand for student supervision and plan execution 10
Staffing concerns at schools and bus compounds 9
Lack of transparency and communication from district leadership 9
Variability in bus drivers and its impact on student behavior 8
Misinformation and frustration with district leadership 8
District leadership ignoring reported concerns 8
Exclusion of school admin and other stakeholders from decision-making process 8
Positive outlooks and support for district improvement 8
Lack of research and poor timeline 6
Insufficient budget and resources, including lack of compensation for overtime 6
Simultaneous implementation of multiple initiatives, including dual student assignments 6
Impact on student learning, enrichment, and extracurriculars 5
Impact on mental health and well-being, including disruptions in work-life balance 5
Traffic and infrastructure concerns 4
Safety concerns 4
Disproportionate impact on student subgroups/demographic groups 4
Nothing 4
Issues with special needs services and transportation 3
Continued lack of communication between schools and bus compounds 3
Climate of fear and unethical leadership within the district 2
Other 16
A-13
Appendix B
Peer Survey Results
Appendix B – Peer Survey Results
This survey was fielded via direct email to transporta�on peers.
n=7
1. Does your district allow regular educa�on students K-12 to ride on the same bus?
Yes, and this op�on is rou�nely used 14%

Yes, but this op�on is rarely used 14%
No 71%
2. Approximately what percentage of your bus runs include regular educa�on students K-12 to ride
on the same bus?
Less than 10% 100%

11-25% 0%
26-50% 0%
51-75% 0%
<75% 0%
Not sure 0%
3. How o�en does your department collect bus ridership informa�on?
Weekly 29%
Monthly 29%
Quarterly 14%
Twice a year 14%
Once a year 14%
Never 0%
4. What are your average a�ernoon ride �mes by school level (in minutes)? (n=4)
ES MS HS
Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools 45 45 45
Cobb 30 30 30
Aus�n ISD 40 40 40
Cleveland Metropolitan School District 50 50 60
5. What are your average morning ride �mes by school level (in minutes)? (n=4)
ES MS HS
Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools 45 45 45
Cobb 30 30 30
Aus�n ISD 40 40 40
Cleveland Metropolitan School District 50 50 60
6. Does your district operate a mul�-�er bell system this year?
Yes 100%
No 0%
B-2
7. How many �ers?
2 0%
3 71%
4 14%
5+ 14%
8. How far apart in �me/minutes are the star�ng �mes for schools in each �er?
• 55 minutes
• 25 minutes on average
• 45-60 minutes
• ~30 minutes
• 45 minutes
• MS, HS 30 minutes later, ES 60 and 90 minutes later
• 1 hour/7:35, 8:35. 9:35 buses arrive at 20 minutes prior
9. In the past 5 years, has your district changed your bell schedule and that resulted in a shi� in the
number of bus �ers you operate?
Yes 43%
No 57%
10. Why did the district make the bell schedule change?
• reduce cost
• op�mize bus u�liza�on
• reduce driver demand
• Maximum transporta�on efficiency and on �me performance
• To reduce buses on the road to address driver shortage.
11. How did your department develop the new bus schedules to accommodate the bell schedule
change?
Our staff developed the new bus schedules without outside help. 100%
Our staff developed the new bus schedules with the assistance
0%
of an external firm.
An external firm developed the new bus schedules. 0%
Something else: 0%
12. Has the �ering change met the expecta�ons and objec�ves of the district? Were there any
pleasant surprises or benefits to the �ering change?
• Yes. There was a reduc�on in overall bus service in the district. Approximately 250 less
buses. Provided more atrac�ve employment opportunity for drivers (more hours).
Saved district significant money. Produced shorter ride �me and lower load counts per
run
• Yes. We are able to cover all routes and save on cost as well
• We were able to reduce routes by 20%.
B-3
13. Were there any unexpected obstacles or problems with the �ering change?
• Timing is �ght. requires good loading/unloading procedures. The margin of error is less
related to bus scheduling (e.g. weather delays). School bell changes faced stakeholder
resistance (primarily teachers) even for minor changes (10 minutes or less)
• No.
• Drivers had to adjust to a triple �er instead of the double �e that they were accustomed
to having.
14. Increasing the number of �ers in a bell schedule typically results in longer work hours and thus
more pay for bus drivers. How did your drivers react to the �ering change?
• Favorable outcome. More hours for drivers makes for more appealing employment
• None
• It didn't create longer hours but it did reduce layover �me that drivers were previously
used to having.
15. In order to accommodate the �ering change, did your district reduce transporta�on services in
other areas, such as elimina�ng magnet transporta�on or increasing walk zones?
• No (x2)
• Minimally. Our �ering change did result in moving some high distance High School
students to the county transit system due to inability to accommodate extremely long
distance rides logis�cally (greater than 7 miles from school). Under 5 percent of buses
operate in 2 �er to accommodate long distance requirements
16. Which of these op�ons does your district offer?
School Choice 100%

Magnet Schools 71%
Open School Transfer 43%
Some other kind of program where
students atend schools outside their 57%
zoned school
None of these 0%
17. Do you provide transporta�on for the choice op�ons your district offers?
Yes, all 29%

Yes, but not for all the choice op�ons 71%
No 0%
18. For any of the choice op�ons your district offers, is there a deadline by which families must apply
in order to allow �me for rou�ng?
Yes 43%
No 57%
Not sure/don’t remember 0%
B-4
19. What is that deadline?
• End of July
• We want all student data imported into our transporta�on so�ware by mid-June.
• June 30
20. For any of the choice op�ons your district offers, was there a period of grandfathering when it
was first introduced?
Yes 57%
No 29%
21. For any of the choice op�ons your district offers, did you provide transporta�on during the
grandfathering period?
Yes 100%
No 0%
22. In what month does your district begin school?
August each year 86%

September each year 14%
23. In a typical year, approximately when is the bulk of the rou�ng for the upcoming school year
completed?
April before the new school year 0%

May before the new school year 0%
June before the new school year 14%
July before the new school year 71%
August before the new school year 14%
24. Our morning drop-off goal is:
30-45 minutes prior to the start of school 14%

Just before the start of school bell 14%
We do not have a drop-off goal 0%
25. Our morning drop-off allowance is:
Buses can drop students up to an hour before the start of school. 0%

Buses can drop students up to 45 minutes before the start of school. 0%
B-5
We do not have a drop-off allowance. 14%
26. Our morning drop-off allowance is currently used:
Only in limited, rare circumstances. 14%

With no more than ~10% of our runs. 0%
With more than 25% of our runs. 86%
27. Our a�ernoon pick-up goal is:
All buses lined up and ready to receive students at the dismissal

86%
bell.
All buses on campus to receive students no later than 15 minutes
14%
a�er the dismissal bell.
0%
0%
0%
28. Our a�ernoon pick-up allowance is:
Buses can arrive at school as much as 15 minutes a�er school ends for their
14%
a�ernoon run.
0%
a�ernoon run.
0%
a�ernoon run.
0%
a�ernoon run.
Buses can arrive at school as much as >60 minutes a�er school end for their
0%
a�ernoon run.
We do not have an a�ernoon pick-up allowance. 86%
29. Our a�ernoon pick-up allowance is currently used:
Only in limited, rare circumstances. 57%

With more than 25% of our runs. 43%
30. What is your school district?
• Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools

• Saint Louis Public Schools, St. Louis, Missouri
• Milwaukee Public Schools
• Cobb
B-6
• Aus�n ISD
• Washoe County School District
• Cleveland Metropolitan School District
B-7
Appendix C
Examples of Lengthy Routes and Runs
C-1
C-2
Appendix C – Lengthy Route Examples

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7

C-8

C-9

C-10

C-11

C-12

C-13

C-14

C-15

C-16

C-17

C-18

C-19

C-20

C-21

C-22

C-23

C-24

C-25

C-26

C-27

C-28

C-29

Appendix D
Appendix D – Unsafe AR Stops

Unsafe AR Stops
D-1

The screenshot on page D-3 is the satellite view of the screenshot on page D-2. The students would need to leave the neighborhood and cross a 6-lane divided
road with no crosswalk to get to the stop.
D-2

The screenshot on page D-3 is the satellite view of the screenshot on page D-2. The students would need to leave the neighborhood and cross a 6-lane divided
road with no crosswalk to get to the stop.
D-3

Student crosses a 35 MPH road with no crosswalks to get to the stop in another neighborhood
This student must cross a 35 MPH road with no crosswalk to get to the bus stop. This stop is in another neighborhood.
D-4

These students are assigned to a stop in a neighborhood that is not connected to theirs. The students must leave their neighborhood, walk down a mul� lane
road (Shelbyville Rd) with a 45 MPH speed limit, and enter the neighborhood with the bus stop.
D-5

This student’s neighborhood is not connected to the neighborhood with the bus stop. This student must walk one mile down Shelbyville Rd, past several strip
malls and their parking lots. Some por�ons of Shelbyville Rd do not have sidewalks, and the speed limit is 45 MPH. The student must pass a significant ditch and
some cross streets do not have crosswalks.
D-6

The shortest path is o�en used by students when walking to their bus stop loca�on. In this case, the student would typically walk down Lower Hunters Trace,
most of which does not have a sidewalk. There are ditches along the road, several sharp curves, and a speed limit of 35 MPH. For the student to know that the
inten�on was for them to walk through the neighborhoods to get to the stop on Terry Rd, this informa�on would have to be given to the family.
D-7

These 3 students were assigned to stop 11 when stop 10 is closer.
D-8
This student is shown as being in Indiana. AlphaRoute’s system did not resolve the address correctly. Why is this address
assigned to a bus?
D-9
These two screenshots show where AlphaRoute assigned this student, who is a 1st grade student, as well as the name of
the stop, which is “BROADWAY @ 1803 LITTLE ANGELS DC (DAYCARE)”. This student must cross Broadway, which is a 5-
lane road, and also S 17th St, which is a lighted intersec�on with no crosswalk on the side of the road on which the
student lives, to get to and from the bus stop. Pictures of the area are on page D-11.
D-10
Addi�onally, the daycare is located dangerously close to the intersec�on to have the bus stop at this loca�on. Bus stops
at or very near traffic lights should be avoided due to the conflict between a green traffic light and the requirement to
stop for a stopped bus.
D-11
Appendix E
Sample AR Route Sheet

JCPS Transportation Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCPS Transportation Audit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCPS Transportation Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

112 S. Tryon St, Suite 1170

2 School Choice Initiative 2-1

3 School Start Time Initiative 3-1

4 Routing Optimization Initiative 4-1

5 Purchasing and Contracting 5-1

6 Cross-Area Findings 6-1

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1

A Principal Survey Results A-1

B Peer Survey Results B-1

C Example of Lengthy Routes and Runs C-1

D Unsafe AR Stops D-1

E Sample AR Route Sheet E-1

In October 2024, Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) contracted with

♦ Perform a comprehensive analysis of the Incident

1. Initiate Project and Phase 1

Throughout Phase 1, Prismatic coordinated with the JCPS director of

Thoroughly identifying and analyzing the root causes of the Incident

♦ School Choice Initiative (SC) – the rollout of a new student

♦ School Start Time Initiative (SST) – termed “Start Smart” by JCPS,

♦ Routing Optimization Initiative (RO) – this included the use of

The 3 initiatives can be thought of as 3 strands of a braided rug. Each

As part of this project phase, Prismatic:

♦ interviewed 6 school board members

♦ collected data from the district in response to an initial data

♦ completed 101 interviews, most with district staff (some staff

♦ visited 32 schools to observe morning bus drop-offs or afternoon

♦ administered a principal survey that received 109 responses

♦ spent a total of 32 days onsite across all Prismatic staff,

♦ developed draft and final reports

♦ A portion of district interviewees expressed concerns regarding

♦ Chapter 2 - School Choice Initiative Findings

Level 1975 1984 1991 2001

The district contracted with an external consultant to study the Student

♦ elementary clusters were large

♦ there were long transportation times

♦ 40% of schools did not meet the diversity guidelines previously

In 2012, after seeking community input and studying the consultant’s

♦ created new diversity guidelines based on weighted averages

♦ added English as Second Language (ESL) in each elementary

♦ adjusted student assignment processes for Kindergarten

♦ adjusted diversity index calculations for middle and high schools

By the 2011-12 school year, new MS boundaries began; by 2012-13, new

Throughout the boundary change process, some schools reclassified as

School boundaries went through multiple adjustments from 2012 to 2022

The Student Assignment Review Advisory Committee (SARAC) originated

From 2017 through the beginning of 2022, JCPS collaborated with

As noted in the district’s school choice recommendations presentation to

The current Student Assignment plan has not undergone a

1. The parent/guardian of an Elementary Choice Zone student will

2. The parent/guardian of a middle or high school Choice Zone

o Choice Zone Option for Elementary, Middle, and High School

o Priority Zone for Elementary Students

o Suburban Elementary Clusters, Middle School Alignment,

♦ Choice Zone Support Plan

♦ Supports for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Located in

♦ Magnet and Optional Schools/Programs

♦ Clear Purpose for Magnets