# data[].attributes.body
Students like to support their school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Make your flyers and newsletters more colorful with free clip art from PTO Today! You can download any or all of these high-resolution image files, then resize, crop, or edit them in any way that work

# data[].attributes.body
This is how students male money.

# data[].attributes.body
Students want to get into good colleges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The startup announced this week that it's teaming up with the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, California, for the College Works Initiative, which caps the cost of attending UniversityNow's schools at whatever students receive in tuition reimbursement from their employers. That means several hundred thousand workers in the three cities-anyone who gets tuition reimbursement-can now obtain a college degree at no cost.

Believe it or not, this won't put a strain on UniversityNow's business. "Because we run a low-cost model, for most employers their tuition reimbursement is more than our retail cost. That's how we stumbled into this," explains UniversityNow co-founder and CEO Gene Wade. And for the working adults who get a smaller tuition reimbursement-well, they're in luck.

The federal limit for giving employees tuition reimbursement without being taxed is $5,250 per year. That's often where employers will cap reimbursement, giving employees facing college tuitions that cost tens of thousands of dollars each year little hope. A BS in business from New Charter, on the other hand, costs $6,368 in total.

UniversityNow's schools aren't for everyone-if you're looking for a degree from an elite school, you should look elsewhere. But the company expects an uptick in students from the initiative. As Wade points out, if the average loan balance for students is a little under $26,000 -higher for working adults-1,000 people going through the College Works Initiative will save $25 million in tuition costs. "Our hypothesis is that there will be a lot of people interested in this," says Wade, in the understatement of the year.

The mayors of the three cities involved are promoting the initiative with a series of talks, convening business and civic leaders. "It's clear to us that even when we talk to advocates and people who care about the issue ... the fact that working adults are really getting hammered in this is getting lost," says Wade. "We look at this as a way to solve a problem for a fast-growing group of people where the current storyline in the policy world just doesn't catch what's happening with them."

UniversityNow plans on rolling out the College Works Initiative to the rest of the country soon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The startup announced this week that it's teaming up with the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, California, for the College Works Initiative, which caps the cost of attending UniversityNow's schools at whatever students receive in tuition reimbursement from their employers.

# data[].attributes.body
Our biggest rivalry is Kennett.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unionville High School. 1K likes. Local Business

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers give homework at night.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A school bus is a type of bus owned, leased, contracted to, or operated by a school or school district. It is regularly used to transport students to and from school or school-related activities, but not including a charter bus or transit bus. Various configurations of school buses are used worldwide; the most iconic examples are the yellow school buses of the United States and Canada which are also found in other parts of the world.

Design history

19th century

In 1892, Indiana-based Wayne Works (later Wayne Corporation) produced its first "school car" A purpose-built design, the school car was constructed with perimeter-mounted wooden bench seats and a roof (the sides remained open). As a horse-drawn wagon, the school car was fitted with a rear entrance door (intended to avoid startling the horses while loading or unloading passengers); over a century later, the design remains in use (as an emergency exit).

In 1869, Massachusetts became the first state to add transportation to public education; by 1900, 16 other states would transport students to school.

Following the first decade of the 20th century, several developments would affect the design of the school bus and student transport. As vehicles evolved from horse-drawn to "horseless" propulsion on a wider basis, the wagon bodies of kid hacks and school cars were adapted to truck frames. While transitioning into purpose-built designs, a number of features from wagons were retained, including wood construction, perimeter bench seating, and rear entry doors. Weather protection remained minimal; some designs adopted a tarpaulin stretched above the passenger seating.

In 1919, the usage of school buses became funded in all 48 U.S. states.

In 1927, Ford dealership owner A.L. Luce produced a bus body for a 1927 Ford Model T. The forerunner of the first Blue Bird school buses, steel was used to panel and frame the bus body; wood was relegated to a secondary material. While fitted with a roof, the primary weather protection of the Luce bus design included roll-up canvas side curtains.

During the 1930s, school buses saw advances in their design and production that remain in use to this day. To better adapt automotive chassis design, school bus entry doors were moved from the rear to the front curbside, becoming a door operated by the driver (to ease loading passengers and improve forward visibility). The rear entry door of the kid hacks were re-purposed (as an emergency exit).

Following the introduction of the steel-paneled 1927 Luce bus, school bus manufacturing began to transition towards all-steel construction. In 1930, both Superior and Wayne introduced all-steel school buses; the latter introduced safety glass windows for its bus body.

As school bus design paralleled the design of light to medium-duty commercial trucks of the time, the advent of forward-control trucks would have their own influence on school bus design. In an effort to gain extra seating capacity and visibility, Crown Coach built its own cabover school bus design from the ground up. Introduced in 1932, the Crown Supercoach seated up to 76 passengers, the highest-capacity school bus of the time.

Developing production standards

The custom-built nature of school buses created an inherent obstacle to their profitable mass production on a large scale. Although school bus design had moved away from the wagon-style kid hacks of the generation before, there was not yet a recognized set of industry-wide standards for school buses.

In 1939, rural education expert Dr. Frank W. Cyr organized a week-long conference at Teachers College, Columbia University that forever changed the design and production of school buses. Funded by a $5,000 grant, Dr. Cyr invited transportation officials, representatives from body and chassis manufacturers, and paint companies. To reduce the complexity of school bus production and increase safety, a set of 44 standards were agreed upon and adopted by the attendees (such as interior and exterior dimensions and the forward-facing seating configuration). To allow for large-scale production of school buses among body manufacturers, adoption of these standards allowed for greater consistency among body manufacturers.

While many of the standards of the 1939 conference have been modified or updated, one part of its legacy remains a key part of every school bus in North America today: the adoption of a standard paint color for all school buses. While technically named "National School Bus Glossy Yellow", school bus yellow was adopted for use since it was considered easiest to see in dawn and dusk, and it contrasted well with black lettering. While not universally used worldwide, yellow has become the shade most commonly associated with school buses both in North America and abroad.

During World War II, school bus manufacturers converted to military production, manufacturing buses and license-built trucks for the military. Following the war, school bus operation would see a number of changes, following developments within education systems.

Following World War II and the rise of suburban growth in North America, demand for school busing increased outside of rural areas; in suburbs and larger urban areas, community design often made walking to school impractical beyond a certain distance from home (particularly as students progressed into high school). In all but the most isolated areas, one-room schools from the turn of the century had become phased out in favor of multi-grade schools introduced in urban areas. In another change, school districts shifted bus operation from buses operated by single individuals to district-owned fleets (operated by district employees).

1950s-1960s

From 1950 to 1982, the baby boom generation was either in elementary or high school, leading to a significant increase in student populations across North America; this would be a factor that would directly influence school bus production for over three decades.

During the 1950s, as student populations began to grow, larger school buses began to enter production. To increase seating capacity (extra rows of seats), manufacturers began to produce bodies on heavier-duty truck chassis; transit-style school buses also grew in size. In 1954, the first diesel-engined school bus was introduced, with the first tandem-axle school bus in 1955 (a Crown Supercoach, expanding seating to 91 passengers).

To improve accessibility, at the end of the 1950s, manufacturers developed a curbside wheelchair lift option to transport wheelchair-using passengers. In modified form, the design remains in use today.

During the 1950s and 1960s, manufacturers also began to develop designs for small school buses, optimized for urban routes with crowded, narrow streets along with rural routes too isolated for a full-size bus. For this role, manufacturers initially began the use of yellow-painted utility vehicles such as the International Travelall and Chevrolet Suburban. As another alternative, manufacturers began use of passenger vans, such as the Chevrolet Van/GMC Handi-Van, Dodge A100, and Ford Econoline; along with yellow paint, these vehicles were fitted with red warning lights. While more maneuverable, automotive-based school buses did not offer the reinforced passenger compartment of a full-size school bus.

Structural integrity

After subjecting a bus to a rollover test in 1964, in 1969, Ward Body Works pointing that fasteners had a direct effect on joint quality (and that body manufacturers were using relatively few rivets and fasteners). In its own research, Wayne Corporation discovered that the body joints were the weak points themselves. In 1973, to reduce the risk of body panel separation, Wayne introduced the Wayne Lifeguard, a school bus body with single-piece body side and roof stampings. While single-piece stampings seen in the Lifeguard had their own manufacturing challenges, school buses of today use relatively few side panels to minimize body joints.

During the 1970s, school buses would undergo a number of design upgrades related to safety. While many changes were related to protecting passengers, others were intended to minimizing the chances of traffic collisions. To decrease confusion over traffic priority (increasing safety around school bus stops), federal and state regulations were amended, requiring for many states/provinces to add amber warning lamps inboard of the red warning lamps. Similar to a yellow traffic light, the amber lights are activated before stopping (at 100-300 feet (30.5-91.4 m) distance), indicating to drivers that a school bus is about to stop and unload/load students. Adopted by a number of states during the mid-1970s, amber warning lights became nearly universal equipment on new school buses by the end of the 1980s. To supplement the additional warning lights and to help prevent drivers from passing a stopped school bus, a stop arm was added to nearly all school buses; connected to the wiring of the warning lights, the deployable stop arm extended during a bus stop with its own set of red flashing lights.

In the 1970s, school busing expanded further, under controversial reasons; a number of larger cities began to bus students in an effort to racially integrate schools. Out of necessity, the additional usage created further demand for bus production.

Industry safety regulations

From 1939 to 1973, school bus production was largely self-regulated. In 1973, the first federal regulations governing school buses went into effect, as FMVSS 217 was required for school buses; the regulation governed specifications of rear emergency exit doors/windows. Following the focus on school bus structural integrity, NHTSA introduced the four Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for School Buses, applied on April 1, 1977, bringing significant change to the design, engineering, and construction of school buses and a substantial improvement in safety performance.

As manufacturers sought to develop safer school buses, small school buses underwent a transition away from automotive-based vehicles. The introduction of cutaway van chassis allowed bus manufacturers to mate a van cab with a purpose-built bus body, using the same construction as a full-size school bus. Within the same length as a passenger van, buses such as the Wayne Busette and Blue Bird Micro Bird offered additional seating capacity, wheelchair lifts, and the same body construction as larger school buses.

1973-1977 NHTSA regulations for school buses

Standard name

Effective darious configurations ate

Requirement

Standard No. 217 - Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release
September 1, 1973

This established requirements for bus window retention and release to reduce the likelihood of passenger ejection in crashes, and for emergency exits to facilitate passenger exit in emergencies. It also requires that each school bus have an interlock system to prevent the engine starting if an emergency door is locked, and an alarm that sounds if an emergency door is not fully closed while the engine is running.

1980s-1990s

For school bus manufacturers, the 1980s marked a period of struggle, following a combination of factors. As the decade began, the end of the baby-boom generation had finished high school; with a decrease in student population growth, school bus manufacturing was left with a degree of overcapacity. Coupled with the recession economy of the early 1980s, the decline in demand for school bus production left several manufacturers in financial ruin. To better secure their future, during the 1990s, school bus manufacturers underwent a period of transition, with several ownership changes leading to joint ventures and alignments between body manufacturers and chassis suppliers.

In contrast to the 1970s focus on structural integrity, design advances during the 1980s and 1990s focused around the driver. In 1979 and 1980, International Harvester and Ford each introduced a new-generation bus chassis, with General Motors following suit in 1984. To increase driver visibility, updates in line with chassis redesigns shifted the bus driver upward, outward, and forward. To decrease driver distraction, interior controls were redesigned with improved ergonomics; automatic transmissions came into wider use, preventing the risk of stalling (in hazardous places such as intersections or railroad crossings). Initially introduced during the late 1960s, crossview mirrors came into universal use, improving the view of the blind spots in front of the bus while loading or unloading. To supplement the rear emergency door in an evacuation, manufacturers introduced additional emergency exits during the 1980s, including roof-mounted escape hatches and outward-opening exit windows. Side-mounted exit doors (originally introduced on rear-engine buses), became offered on front-engine and conventional-body buses as a supplemental exit.

Alongside safety, body and chassis manufacturers sought to advance fuel economy of school buses. During the 1980s, diesel engines came into wide use in conventional and small school buses, gradually replacing gasoline-fueled engines. In 1987, International became the first chassis manufacturer to offer diesel engines exclusively, with Ford following suit in 1990.

While conventional-style buses remained the most widely produced full-size school bus, interest in forward visibility, higher seating capacity, and shorter turning radius led to a major expansion of market share of the transit-style configuration, coinciding with several design introductions in the late 1980s. Following the 1986 introduction of the Wayne Lifestar, the AmTran Genesis, Blue Bird TC/2000, and Thomas Saf-T-Liner MVP would prove far more successful.

During the 1990s, small school buses shifted further away from their van-conversion roots. In 1991, Girardin launched the MB-II, combining a single rear-wheel van chassis with a full cutaway bus body. Following the 1992 redesign of the Ford E-Series and the 1997 launch of Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana cutaway chassis, manufacturers followed suit, developing bodies to optimize loading-zone visibility. As manufacturers universally adopted cutaway bodies for single rear-wheel buses, the use of the Dodge Ram Van chassis was phased out. By the late 1990s,[when? ] the United States government banned the use of 15-passenger vans for student transport, leading to the introduction of Multi-Function School Activity Buses (MFSAB). To better protect passengers, MFSABs share the body structure and compartmentalized seating layout of school buses. Not intended (nor allowed) for uses requiring traffic priority, they are not fitted with school bus warning lights or stop arms (nor are they painted school bus yellow).

Manufacturer transitions

In 1980, school buses were manufactured by six body manufacturers (Blue Bird, Carpenter, Superior, Thomas, Ward, Wayne) and three chassis manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, and International Harvester); in California, two manufacturers (Crown and Gillig) manufactured transit-style school buses using proprietary chassis (sold primarily across the West Coast). From 1980 to 2001, all eight bus manufacturers would undergo periods of struggle and ownership changes. In 1980, Ward filed for bankruptcy, reorganizing as AmTran in 1981. The same year, Superior was liquidated by its parent company, closing its doors. Under its company management, Superior was split into two manufacturers, with Mid Bus introducing small buses in 1981 and a reorganized Superior producing full-size buses from 1982 to 1985. At the end of 1989, Carpenter would file for bankruptcy, emerging from it in 1990. In 1991, Crown Coach would close its doors forever; Gillig produced its last school bus in 1993. Following several ownership changes, Wayne Corporation was liquidated in 1992; successor Wayne Wheeled Vehicles was closed in 1995. In 2001, Carpenter closed its doors.

During the 1990s, as body manufacturers secured their future, family-owned businesses were replaced by subsidiaries as manufacturers underwent mergers, joint ventures, and acquisitions with major chassis suppliers. In 1991, Navistar began its acquisition of AmTran (fully acquiring it in 1995), phasing out the Ward brand name in 1993. In 1992, Blue Bird would change hands for the first of several times. In 1998, Carpenter was acquired by Spartan Motors and Thomas Built Buses was sold to Freightliner; the latter was the final major school bus manufacturer operating under family control.

Alongside the 1981 introduction of Mid Bus, Corbeil commenced production in Canada and the United States in 1985. Following the second (and final) closure of Superior in 1986, New Bus Company acquired the rights to its body design, producing buses from 1988 to 1989. In 1991, TAM-USA was a joint venture to produce the TAM 252 A 121. Assembled in Slovenia with final assembly in California, the TAM vehicle was to be the first American-market school bus imported from Europe.

In comparison to body manufacturers, chassis suppliers saw a smaller degree of transition. As International Harvester became Navistar International in 1986, the company released updated bus chassis for 1989; in 1996, it produced its first rear-engine bus chassis since 1973. In late 1996, Freightliner produced its first bus chassis, expanding to four manufacturers for the first time since the exit of Dodge in 1977. Ford and General Motors gradually exited out of cowled-chassis production with Ford producing its last chassis after 1998; General Motors exited the segment after 2003. Both Ford and GM continue production today, concentrating on cutaway-van chassis.

2000-present

The beginning of the 21st century would introduce extensive changes to the production of school buses. Though vehicle assembly saw few direct changes, manufacturer consolidation and industry contraction effectively ended the practice of customers selecting body and chassis manufacturers independently. While the aspect of customer choice was largely ended (as a result of corporate ownership and supply agreements), decreased complexity paved the way for new product innovations previously thought impossible. During the 2010s, while diesel engines have remained the primary source of power, manufacturers expanded the availability of alternative-fuel vehicles, including CNG, propane, gasoline, and electric-power buses.

At the beginning of the 2000s, manufacturers introduced a new generation of conventional-style school buses, coinciding with the redesign of several medium-duty truck lines. While Ford and General Motors shifted bus production to cutaway chassis, Freightliner and International released new cowled chassis in 2004 and 2005, respectively. In 2003, Blue Bird introduced the Vision conventional; in line with its transit-style buses, the Vision utilized a proprietary chassis (rather than a design from a medium-duty truck). In 2004, Thomas introduced the Saf-T-Liner C2 (derived from the Freightliner M2), with the body designed alongside its chassis (allowing the use of the production Freightliner dashboard). A trait of both the Vision and C2 (over their predecessors) is improved loading-zone visibility; both vehicles adopted highly sloped hoods and extra glass around the entry door. In 2005, IC introduced a redesigned CE-series to fit the International 3300 chassis; to improve visibility, the windshield was redesigned (eliminating the center post).

Between 2004 and 2008, Advanced Energy, an NC based non-profit created by the NC Utilities Commission begun an effort to move to plug-in hybrid school buses. A business and technical feasibility proved the benefits, and in 2006, 20 districts awarded a contract facilitated by Advanced Energy to IC Bus to produce the buses. Although the buses produced significant benefits, the buses were slowly discontinued when the hybrid system manufacture Enova faded into financial challenges.

Small school buses have undergone few fundamental changes to their designs during the 2000s, though the Type B configuration has largely been retired from production. Following the 1998 sale of the General Motors P-chassis to Navistar subsidiary Workhorse, the design began to be phased out in favor of higher-capacity Type A buses. In 2006, IC introduced the BE200 as its first small school bus; a fully cowled Type B, the BE200 shared much of its body with the CE (on a lower-profile chassis). In 2010, IC introduced the AE-series, a cutaway-cab school bus (derived from the International TerraStar). In 2015, the Ford Transit cutaway chassis was introduced (alongside the long-running E350/450); initially sold with a Micro Bird body, the Transit has been offered through several manufacturers. In 2018, the first bus derived from the Ram ProMaster cutaway chassis was introduced; Collins Bus introduced the Collins Low Floor, the first low-floor school bus (of any configuration).

Manufacturing segment stability

Following the 2001 closure of Carpenter, the manufacturing segment has seen a much lower degree of contraction (with the exception of the 2005 failure of startup manufacturer Liberty Bus). Following the bankruptcy of Corbeil, the company was acquired at the end of 2007 by Collins, reorganizing it as a subsidiary (alongside Mid Bus) and shifting production to its Kansas facilities. The same year, U.S. Bus was reorganized as Trans Tech. In 2008, Starcraft Bus entered the segment, producing school buses on cutaway chassis (a 2011 prototype using a Hino chassis was never produced). In 2009, Blue Bird and Girardin entered into a joint venture, named Micro Bird; Girardin develops and produces the Blue Bird small-bus product line in Canada. The 2011 founding of Lion Bus marked the return of bus production to Canada (with the first Canadian-brand full-size buses sold in the United States). During the 2010s, Collins retired the Mid Bus and Corbeil brands (in 2013 and 2016, respectively).

Safety innovations

During the 2000s, school bus safety adopted a number of evolutionary advances. To further improve visibility for other drivers, manufacturers began to replace incandescent lights with LEDs for running lights, turn signals, brake lights, and warning lamps. School bus crossing arms, first introduced in the late 1990s, came into wider use. Electronics took on a new role in school bus operation. To increase child safety and security, alarm systems have been developed to prevent children from being left on unattended school buses overnight. To track drivers who illegally pass school buses loading and unloading students, in the 2010s, some school buses began to adopt exterior cameras synchronized with the deployment of the exterior stop arms. Onboard GPS tracking devices have taken on a dual role of fleet management and location tracking, allowing for internal management of costs and also to alert waiting parents and students of the real-time location of their bus. Seatbelts in school buses underwent a redesign, with lap-type seatbelts phased out in favor of 3-point seatbelts.

Design overview

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), school buses are the safest type of road vehicle. On average, five fatalities involve school-age children on a school bus each year; statistically, a school bus is over 70 times safer than riding to school by car. Many fatalities related to school buses are passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians (only 5% are bus occupants). Since the initial development of consistent school bus standards in 1939, many of the ensuing changes to school buses over the past eight decades have been safety related, particularly in response to more stringent regulations adopted by state and federal governments.

Ever since the adoption of yellow as a standard color in 1939, school buses deliberately integrate the concept of conspicuity into their design. When making student dropoffs or pickups, traffic law gives school buses priority over other vehicles; in order to stop traffic, they are equipped with flashing lights and a stop sign.

As a consequence of their size, school buses have a number of blind spots around the outside of the vehicle which can endanger passengers disembarking a bus or pedestrians standing or walking nearby. To address this safety challenge, a key point of school bus design is focused on exterior visibility, improving the design of bus windows, mirrors, and the windshield to optimize visibility for the driver. In the case of a collision, the body structure of a school bus is designed with an integral roll cage; as a school bus carries a large number of student passengers, a school bus is designed with several emergency exits to facilitate fast egress.

In the United States and Canada, numerous federal and state regulations require school buses to be manufactured as a purpose-built vehicle distinct from other buses. In contrast to buses in use for public transit, dedicated school buses used for student transport are all single-deck, two-axle design ( multi-axle designs are no longer in use). Outside of North America, buses utilized for student transport are derived from vehicles used elsewhere in transit systems, including coaches, minibuses, and transit buses.

There are four types of school buses produced by manufacturers in North America. The smallest school buses are designated Type A (based on cutaway van chassis); a larger format (bodied on bare front-engine chassis) are designated Type B buses. Large school buses include Type C (bodied on cowled medium-duty truck chassis) and Type D (bodied on bare "forward control" or "pusher" chassis). Type C buses are the most common design, while Type D buses are the largest vehicles.

All school buses are of single deck design with step entry. In the United States and Canada, bus bodies are restricted to a maximum width of 102 in (2.59 m) and a maximum length of 45 ft (13.7 m). Seating capacity is affected by both body length and operator specifications, with the largest designs seating up to 90 passengers.

Other formats

In both public and private education systems, other types of school buses are used for purposes of student transport outside of regular route service. Along with their usage, these buses are distinguished from regular yellow school buses by their exterior design.

An "activity bus" is a school bus used for providing transportation for students. In place of home to school route service, an activity bus is primarily used for the purpose for transportation related to extracurricular activities. Depending on individual state/provincial regulations, the bus used for this purpose can either be a regular yellow school bus or a dedicated unit for this purpose. Dedicated activity buses, while not painted yellow, are fitted with the similar interiors as well as the same traffic control devices for dropping off students (at other schools); conversely, it cannot be used in regular route service.

A Multi-Function School Activity Bus (MFSAB) is a bus intended for use in both the private sector and the educational system. While sharing a body structure with a school bus, an MFSAB is not designed for use in route service, as it is not fitted with traffic control devices (i.e., red warning lights, stop arm) nor is it painted school bus yellow. Within the educational system, the design is primarily used for extracurricular activities requiring bus transportation; in the private sector, the MFSAB is intended as a replacement for 15-passenger vans (no longer legal for child transport in either the public or private sector). Many examples are derived from Type A buses (with derivatives of full-size school buses also offered).

To specifically identify them as such, purpose-built school buses are painted a specific shade of yellow, designed to optimize their visibility for other drivers. In addition to "School Bus" signage in the front and rear above the window line, school buses are labeled with the name of the operator (school district or bus contractor) and an identification number.

Yellow color

Yellow was adopted as the standard color for North American school buses in 1939. In April of that year, rural education specialist Frank W. Cyr organized a national conference at Columbia University to establish production standards for school buses, including a standard exterior color. The color which became known as "school bus yellow" was selected because black lettering on that specific hue was easiest to see in the semi-darkness of early morning and late afternoon. Officially, school bus yellow was designated "National School Bus Chrome"; following the removal of lead from the pigment, it was renamed " National School Bus Glossy Yellow".

Outside the United States and Canada, the association of yellow with school buses has led to its use on school-use buses around the world (although not necessarily required by government specification). Some areas establishing school transport services have conducted evaluations of American yellow-style school buses; to better suit local climate conditions, other governments have established their own color requirements, favoring other high-visibility colors (such as white or orange).

Retroreflective markings

While its yellow exterior makes it more conspicuous than other vehicles, a school bus can remain hard to see in some low-visibility conditions, including sunrise or sunset, poor weather (all seasons), and in rural areas. To further improve their visibility (to other vehicles), many state and provincial governments (for example, Colorado) require the use of yellow reflective tape on school buses. Marking the length, width, height, and in some cases, identifying the bus as a school bus, reflective tape makes the vehicle easier to see in low light, also marking all emergency exits (so rescue personnel can quickly find them in darkness). Other requirements include reflective "School Bus" lettering (or the use of a front-lighted sign).

The equivalent requirement in Canada is almost identical; the only difference is that red cannot be used as a retroreflective color.

Safety devices

To comply with federal and state requirements, school buses are equipped with a number of safety devices to prevent accidents and injuries and for the purposes of security.

Mirror systems

When driving and when loading/unloading students, a key priority for a school bus driver is maintaining proper sightlines around their vehicle; the blind spots formed by the school bus can be a significant risk to bus drivers and traffic as well as pedestrians.

In the United States, approximately ⅔ of students killed outside of the school bus are not struck by other vehicles, but by their own bus. To combat this problem, school buses are specified with sophisticated and comprehensive mirror systems. In redesigns of school bus bodies, driver visibility and overall sightlines have become important considerations. In comparison to school buses from the 1980s, school buses from the 2000s have much larger windscreens and fewer and/or smaller blind spots.

Emergency exits

For the purposes of evacuation, school buses are equipped with a minimum of at least one emergency exit (in addition to the main entry door). The rear-mounted emergency exit door is a design feature adopted from horse-drawn wagons (the entrance was rear-mounted to avoid disturbing the horses); in rear-engine school buses, the door is replaced by an exit window mounted above the engine compartment (supplemented by a side-mounted exit door). Additional exits may be located in the roof (roof hatches), window exits, and/or side emergency exit doors. All are opened by the use of quick-release latches which activate an alarm.

The number of emergency exits in a school bus is dependent on its seating capacity and also varies by individual state/provincial requirements. The most currently installed is eight; Kentucky requires a rear exit door (or window, for rear-engine buses), a left-side exit door, four exit windows, and two roof-mounted exit hatches.

Video surveillance

Since the 1990s, video cameras have become common equipment installed inside school buses. As recording technology has transitioned from VHS to digital cameras, school buses have adopted multiple-camera systems, providing surveillance from multiple vantage points.

In the 2010s, exterior-mounted cameras synchronized with the stop arms have come into use. The cameras photograph vehicles that illegally pass the bus when its stop arm and warning lights are in use (thus committing a moving violation).

Restraint systems

In contrast to cars and other light-duty passenger vehicles, school buses are not typically equipped with active restraint systems, such as seat belts; whether seat belts should be a requirement has been a topic of controversy. Since the 1970s, school buses have used the concept of compartmentalization as a passive restraint system during the late 2000s and 2010s, seatbelt design transitioned, with 3-point restraints replacing lap belts.

As of 2015, seatbelts are a requirement in at least five states: California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas; Canada does not require their installation (at the provincial level). Of the states that equip buses with two-point lap seat belts (Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York), only New Jersey requires seat belt usage by riders. In other states, it is up to the district or operator whether to require riders to use them or not.

Passive restraints (compartmentalization)

According to the National Highway Transportation Association (NHTSA), studies completed previously on school buses showed that due to their size and heaviness, school buses did not require that safety belts be in place. Information gathered in previous studies showed that a size of a bus, combined with the design of the seat and the material in the space between the seats themselves, showed that there was no need for safety belts on a school bus. A bus is larger and heavier than a normal size passenger vehicle and could distribute the force of the crash evenly. Combined with the space between the seats as well as the design prevented serious injuries from happening. This attribute, does not carry over to a small bus due to its lesser size; buses with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds are required to have safety belts.

However, recent accidents involving school buses that have caused serious (if not fatal) injuries have caused the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct new tests to check the legitimacy of this continued practice. After completing these tests due to bus accidents in 2016, they have recommended that new buses being built need to have both a lap and shoulder harness in place. They have also recommended that 42 states add seat belts as a requirement. There are some states that have already added the lap belt. This study made the NTSB recommend adding shoulder harnesses to those states that already have a lap belt in place.

In 1967 and 1972, as part of an effort to improve crash protection in school buses, UCLA researchers played a role in the future of school bus interior design. Using the metal-backed seats then in use as a means of comparison, several new seat designs were researched in crash testing. In its conclusion, the UCLA researchers found that the safest design was a 28-inch high padded seatback spaced a maximum of 24 inches apart, using the concept of compartmentalization as a passive restraint. While the UCLA researchers found the compartmentalized seats to be the safest design, they found active restraints (such as seatbelts) to be next in terms of importance of passenger safety. In 1977, FMVSS 222 mandated a change to compartmentalized seats, though the height requirement was lowered to 24 inches. According to the NTSB, the main disadvantage of passive-restraint seats is its lack of protection in side-impact collisions (with larger vehicles) and rollover situations. Though by design, students are protected front to back by compartmentalization, it allows the potential for ejection in other crash situations (however rare).

Active restraints (seatbelts)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222 was introduced in 1977, requiring passive restraints and more stringent structural integrity standards; as part of the legislation, seatbelts were exempted from school buses with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) exceeding 10,000 pounds.

In 1987, New York became the first state to require seatbelts on full-size school buses (raising the seat height to 28 inches); the requirement did not mandate their use. In 1992, New Jersey followed suit, becoming the first state to require their use, remaining the only state to do so. Outside of North America, Great Britain mandated seatbelts in 1995 for minibuses used in student transportation. In 2004, California became the first state to require 3-point seatbelts (on small buses; large buses, 2005), with Texas becoming the second in 2010.

In 2011, FMVSS 222 was revised to improve occupant protection in small (Type A) school buses. Along with requiring 3-point restraints (in place of lap belts), the revision created design standards for their use in full-size school buses. While previously reducing seating capacity by up to one-third, NHTSA recognized new technology that allows using seatbelts for either three small (elementary-age) children or two larger children (high-school age) per seat. In October 2013, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) most recently stated at their annual transportation conference (NAPT) that they now fully support three-point lap-shoulder seat belts on school buses.

CBC Television's The Fifth Estate has been critical of a 1984 Transport Canada study, a crash test of a school bus colliding head-on that suggested that seat belts (at the time, which were two-point lap belts) would interfere with the compartmentalization passive safety system. This had become "the most widely cited study" in North America, according to U.S. regulators, and was frequently quoted for decades by school boards and bus manufacturers across the continent as a reason not to install seat belts. Transport Canada has stuck to its stance against installing seat belts on school buses, despite numerous newer studies and actual accidents showing that compartmentalization could not protect against side impacts, rollovers, and being rear-ended; which would have been avoided by implementing three-point seat belts that would have kept occupants from being thrown from their seats.

Manufacturing

In 2018, 44,381 school buses were sold in North America (compared to 31,194 in 2010). Approximately 70% of production is of Type C configuration.

Production (North America)

In the United States and Canada, school buses are currently produced by nine different manufacturers. Four of them- Collins Industries, Starcraft Bus, Trans Tech, and Van Con - specialize exclusively in small buses. Thomas Built Buses and Blue Bird Corporation (the latter, through its Micro Bird joint venture with Girardin)-produce both small and large buses. IC Bus and Lion Electric produce full-size buses exclusively.

During the 20th century, Canada was home to satellite facilities of several U.S. firms (Blue Bird, Thomas, Wayne), exporting production across North America, with other production imported from the United States. Domestically, Corbeil manufactured full-size and small school buses (1985-2007) and Girardin produced small buses. In 2011, Lion Bus (today, Lion Electric Company/ La Compagnie Électrique Lion) was founded as a Quebec-based manufacturer of full-size buses, shifting development to fully-electric vehicles.

Operations

Every year in the United States and Canada, school buses provide an estimated 8 billion student trips from home and school. Each school day in 2015, nearly 484,000 school buses transported 26.9 million children to and from school and school-related activities; over half of the United States K-12 student population is transported by school bus. Outside North America, purpose-built vehicles for student transport are less common. Depending on location, students ride to school on transit buses (on school-only routes), coaches, or a variety of other buses.

While school bus operations vary widely by location, in the United States and Canada, school bus services operate independent of public transport, with their own bus stops and schedules, coordinated with school class times.

School bus drivers in the United States are required to hold a commercial driver's license (CDL). Full-size school buses are generally considered Class B vehicles; most van-based school buses are considered Class C vehicles. In addition to a standard P (passenger) endorsement, school bus drivers must acquire a separate S (school bus) endorsement; along with a written and driving test, the endorsement requires a background check and sex offender registry check.

Loading and unloading

Coinciding with their seating configuration, school buses have a higher seating capacity than buses of a similar length; a typical full-size school bus can carry from 66 to 90 passengers. In contrast to a transit bus, school buses are equipped with a single entry door at the front of the bus. Several configurations of entry doors are used on school buses, including center-hinged (jack-knife) and outward-opening. Prior to the 2000s, doors operated manually by the driver were the most common, with air or electric-assist becoming nearly universal in current vehicles.

School bus routes are designed with multiple bus stops, allowing for the loading (unloading) of several students at a time; the stop at school is the only time that the bus loads (unloads) passengers at once.

In the past, handrails in the entry way posed a potential risk for to students; as passengers exited a bus, items such as drawstrings or other loose clothing could be caught if the driver was unaware and pulled away with the student caught in the door. To minimize this risk, school bus manufacturers have redesigned handrails and equipment in the stepwell area. In its School Bus Handrail Handbook, the NHTSA described a simple test procedure for identifying unsafe stepwell handrails.

Traffic priority

When loading and unloading students, school buses have the ability to stop traffic, using a system of warning lights and stop arms-a stop sign that is deployed from the bus to stop traffic.

By the mid-1940s, most U.S. states introduced traffic laws requiring motorists to stop for school buses while children were loading or unloading.[citation needed ] The justifications for this protocol were:

Children (especially younger ones) have normally not yet developed the mental capacity to fully comprehend the hazards and consequences of street-crossing, and under U.S. tort laws, a child cannot legally be held accountable for negligence. For the same reason, adult crossing guards often are deployed in walking zones between homes and schools.

It is impractical in many cases to avoid children crossing the traveled portions of roadways after leaving a school bus or to have an adult accompany them.

The size of a school bus generally limits visibility for both the children and motorists during loading and unloading.

Since at least the mid-1970s, all U.S. states and Canadian provinces and territories have some sort of school bus traffic stop law; although each jurisdiction requires traffic to stop for a school bus loading and unloading passengers, different jurisdictions have different requirements of when to stop. Outside of North America, the school bus stopping traffic to unload and load children is not provided for. Instead of being given traffic priority, fellow drivers are encouraged to drive with extra caution around school buses.

Warning lights and stop arms

Around 1946, the first system of traffic warning signal lights on school buses was used in Virginia, consisting of a pair of sealed beam lights.[citation needed ] Instead of colorless glass lenses (similar to car headlamps), the warning lamps utilized red lenses. A motorized rotary switch applied power alternately to the red lights mounted at the left and right of the front and rear of the bus, creating a wig-wag effect. Activation was typically through a mechanical switch attached to the door control. However, on some buses (such as Gillig's Transit Coach models and the Kenworth-Pacific School Coach) activation of the roof warning lamp system was through the use of a pressure-sensitive switch on a manually controlled stop paddle lever located to the left of the driver's seat below the window. Whenever the pressure was relieved by extending the stop paddle, the electric current was activated to the relay. In the 1950s, plastic lenses were developed for the warning lenses, though the warning lights (with colorless glass lenses) used sealed-beam lamps into the mid-2000s, when light-emitting diodes (LEDs) came into use.

The warning lamps initially used for school buses consisted of four red warning lights. With the adoption of FMVSS 108 in January 1968, four additional lights, termed advance warning lights, were gradually added to school buses; these were amber in color and mounted inboard of the red warning lights. Intended to signal an upcoming stop to drivers, as the entry door was opened at the stop, they were wired to be overridden by the red lights and the stop sign. Although red & amber systems were adopted by many states and provinces during the 1970s and 1980s, the all-red systems remain in use by some locales such as Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada, older buses from California, as well as on buses built in Wisconsin before 2005.

The Ontario School Bus Association has challenged the effectiveness of Ontario's all-red 8-light warning system, citing that the use of red for both advance and stop warning signals is subject to driver misinterpretation. The Association claims that many motorists only have a vague understanding of Ontario's school bus stopping laws and that few drivers know that it is legal to pass a school bus with its inner (advance) warning lights actuated. Transport Canada's Transport Development Centre compared the effectiveness of the all-red system to the amber-red system and found that drivers are 21% more likely to safely pass a school bus when presented with amber advance signals instead of red signals. Transport Canada states that amber advance signals are proven to be slightly superior to red signals and recommends that all-red warning signals be replaced by the eight-lamp system in the shortest period possible. After the issue had received media attention, a petition has been signed to make the switch from the all-red to amber advance lights on Ontario school busses. The Ministry of Ontario of Transportation (MTO) has not yet provided any plan or timeline for the change.

During the early 1950s, states began to specify a mechanical stop signal arm which the driver would deploy from the left side of the bus to warn traffic of a stop in progress. The portion of the stop arm protruding in front of traffic was initially a trapezoidal shape with stop painted on it. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131 regulates the specifications of the stop arm as a double-faced regulation octagonal red stop sign at least 45 cm (17.7 in) across, with white border and uppercase legend. It must be retroreflective and/or equipped with alternately flashing red lights. As an alternative, the stop legend itself may also flash; this is commonly achieved with red LEDs. FMVSS 131 stipulates that the stop signal arm be installed on the left side of the bus, and placed so that when it is extended, the arm is perpendicular to the side of the bus, with the top edge of the sign parallel to and within 6 inches (15 cm) of a horizontal plane tangent to the bottom edge of the first passenger window frame behind the driver's window, and that the vertical center of the stop signal arm must be no more than 9 inches (23 cm) from the side of the bus. One stop signal arm is required; a second may also be installed. The second stop arm, when it is present, is usually mounted near the rear of the bus, and is not permitted to bear a stop or any other legend on the side facing forward when deployed.

The Canadian standard, defined in Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, is substantially identical to the U.S. standard. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the use of stop signal arms is banned under traffic bylaws in multiple cities, citing that they provide a false sense of safety to students by encouraging jaywalking in front of the bus rather than safely crossing at an intersection. These bans have been the subject of public debate in cities such as Regina and Prince Albert.

Environmental impact

As the use of school buses transports students on a much larger scale than by car (on average, the same as 36 separate automobiles), their use reduces pollution in the same manner as carpooling. Through their usage of internal-combustion engines, school buses are not an emissions-free form of transportation (in comparison to biking or walking). As of 2017, over 95% of school buses in North America are powered by diesel-fueled engines.

While diesel offers fuel efficiency and safety advantages over gasoline, diesel exhaust fumes have become a concern (related to health problems). Since the early to mid-2000s, emissions standards for diesel engines have been upgraded considerably; a school bus meeting 2017 emissions standards is 60 times cleaner than a school bus from 2002 (and approximately 3,600 times cleaner than a counterpart from 1990). To comply with upgraded standards and regulations, diesel engines have been redesigned to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with selective catalytic reduction becoming a primary emissions control strategy.

Alternative fuels

Although diesel fuel is most commonly used in large school buses (and even in many smaller ones), alternative fuel systems such as LPG/propane and CNG have been developed to counter the emissions drawbacks that diesel and gasoline-fueled school buses pose to the public health and environment.

Compressed natural gas was first introduced for school buses in the early 1990s (with Blue Bird building its first CNG bus in 1991 and Thomas building its first in 1993). As of 2018, CNG is offered by two full-size bus manufacturers (Blue Bird, Thomas) along with Ford and General Motors Type A chassis.

In a reversal from the 1990s, gasoline-fuel engines made a return to full-size school buses during the 2010s, with Blue Bird introducing a gasoline-fuel Vision for 2016. As of current production, Blue Bird and IC offer gasoline-fuel full-size buses; gasoline engines are standard equipment in Ford and General Motors Type A chassis. As an alternative, gasoline-fuel engines offer simpler emissions equipment (over diesel engines) and a widely available fuel infrastructure (a drawback of LPG/CNG vehicles).

Electric school buses

In theory, urban and suburban routes prove advantageous for the use of an electric bus; charging can be achieved before and after the bus is transporting students (when the bus is parked). In the early 1990s, several prototype models of battery-powered buses were developed as conversions of existing school buses; these were built primarily for research purposes.

During the 2000s, school bus electrification shifted towards the development of diesel-electric hybrid school buses. Intended as a means to minimize engine idling while loading/unloading passengers and increasing diesel fuel economy, hybrid school buses failed to gain widespread acceptance. A key factor in their market failure was their high price (nearly twice the price of a standard diesel school bus) and hybrid system complexity.

In the 2010s, school bus electrification shifted from hybrids to fully electric vehicles, with several vehicles entering production. Trans Tech introduced the 2011 eTrans prototype (based on the Smith Electric Newton cabover truck), later producing the 2014 SSTe, a derivative of the Ford E-450. The first full-size electric school bus was the Lion Bus eLion, introduced in 2015; as of 2018, over 150 examples have been produced.

During 2017 and 2018, several body manufacturers introduced prototypes of electric school buses, with electric versions of the Blue Bird All American, Blue Bird Vision, Micro Bird G5 (on Ford E450 chassis), IC CE-Series, and the Thomas Saf-T-Liner C2 previewing production vehicles. During 2018, Blue Bird, Thomas, and IC introduced prototypes of full-size school buses intended for production; Blue Bird intends to offer electric-power versions of its entire product line.

Walking and cycling 'buses'

Walking buses and bike bus (known as riding school bus for students) take their names and some of the principle of public transport in a group to travel to school for students under adult supervision.

Outside of student transport itself, the design of a school bus is adapted for use for a variety of applications. Along with newly produced vehicles, conversions of retired school buses see a large range of uses. Qualities desired from school buses involve sturdy construction (as school buses have an all-steel body and frame), a large seating capacity, and wheelchair lift capability, among others.

School bus derivatives

In church use, transporting adults and/or children, traffic law does not give church buses traffic priority in most states ( Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia being the only states where a church bus can stop traffic with flashing red lights).

Community outreach

In terms of vehicles used for community outreach, school bus bodyshells (both new and second-hand) see use as bookmobiles and mobile blood donation centers (bloodmobiles), among other uses. Both types of vehicles spend long periods of time parked in the same place; to reduce fuel consumption, they often power interior equipment and climate control with an on-board generator in place of the chassis engine.

Bookmobiles feature interior shelving for books and library equipment; bloodmobiles feature mobile phlebotomy stations and blood storage.

Law enforcement

Larger police agencies may own police buses derived from school bus bodies for a number of purposes. Along with buses with high-capacity seating serving as officer transports (in large-scale deployments), other vehicles derived from buses may have little seating, serving as temporary mobile command centers; these vehicles are built from school bus bodyshells and fitted with agency-specified equipment.

Prisoner transport vehicles are high-security vehicles used to transport prisoners; a school bus bodyshell is fitted with a specially designed interior and exterior with secure windows and doors.

Uses of retired school buses

As of 2016, the average age of a school bus in the United States is 9.3 years. School buses can be retired from service due to a number of factors, including vehicle age or mileage, mechanical condition, emissions compliance, or any combination of these factors. In some states and provinces, school bus retirement is called for at specific age or mileage intervals, regardless of mechanical condition. In recent years, budget concerns in many publicly funded school districts have necessitated that school buses be kept in service longer.

When a school bus is retired from school use, it can see a wide variety of usage. While a majority are scrapped for parts and recycling (a requirement in some states), better-running examples are put up for sale as surplus vehicles. Second-hand school buses are sold to such entities as churches, resorts or summer camps; others are exported to Central America, South America, or elsewhere. Other examples of retired school buses are preserved and restored by collectors and bus enthusiasts; collectors and museums have an interest in older and rarer models. Additionally, restored school buses appear alongside other period vehicles in television or film.

When a school bus is sold for usage outside of student transport, NHTSA regulations require that its identification as a school bus be removed. To do so, all school bus lettering must be removed or covered while the exterior must be painted a color different than school bus yellow; the stop arm(s) and warning lamps must be removed or disabled.

School bus conversions

In retirement, not all school buses live on as transport vehicles. In contrast, the purchasers of school buses use the large body and chassis to use as either a working vehicle, or as a basis to build a rolling home. To build a utility vehicle for farms, owners often remove much of the roof and sides, creating a large flatbed or open-bed truck for hauling hay. Other farms use unconverted, re-painted, school buses to transport their workforce.

Skoolies are retired school buses converted into recreational vehicles (the term also applies to their owners and enthusiasts). Constructed and customized by their owners; while some examples have primitive accommodations, others rival the features of production RVs. Exteriors vary widely, including only the removal of school bus lettering, conservative designs, or the bus equivalent of an art car. An example of a Skoolie is Further, a 1939 (and later, 1947) school bus converted by Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, intended for use on cross-country counterculture road trips. Both versions of Further are painted with a variety of psychedelic colors and designs.

School bus export

Retired school buses from Canada and the United States are sometimes exported to Africa, Central America, South America, or elsewhere. Used as public transportation between communities, these buses are nicknamed " chicken buses" for both their crowded accommodation and the (occasional) transportation of livestock alongside passengers. To attract passengers (and fares), yellow buses are often repainted with flamboyant exterior color schemes and modified with chrome exterior trim.

Around the world

Outside the United States and Canada, the usage and design of buses for student transport varies worldwide. In Europe, Asia, and Australia, buses utilized for student transport may be derived from standard transit buses. Alongside differences in body, chassis, and seating design, school buses outside North America differ primarily in their signage, livery, and traffic priority.

References

1. ^ "National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures 2015 Edition" (PDF). pp. 342-343.

2. ^ Highway Safety Program Guidelines: Pupil Transportation Safety Archived 2011-12-31 at the Wayback Machine. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Retrieved 2010-06-23.

3. Mark Theobald (2004). Wayne Works. Coachbuilt.com. Retrieved 2010-04-26

4. Mark Theobald (2004). "Crown Coach". Coachbuild.com. Retrieved 2010-04-29

5. "Frank W. Cyr, 'Father of the Yellow School Bus,' Dies at the Age of 95". Columbia University press release (August 3, 1995). Retrieved 2010-04-07

6. "WA School Bus Specifications 20 September 2013" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-21.

7. ^ Pritchard, Ewan; Zickefoose, P.; Dulaney, Ken (2019-10-03). "HYBRID ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS PRELIMINARY BUSINESS FEASIBILITY REPORT".

8. ^ Pritchard, Ewan; Johnson, Richard R. (2005-11-01). "Hybrid Electric School Bus Technical Feasibility". Warrendale, PA.

9. Dr Kristin Poland of NTSB, quoted at a hearing into a fatal 2012 bus crash at Chesterfield, Missouri, in "Buses safer than cars", ^ Circular, Bus and Coach Association of New Zealand, August 2013.

10. ^ "National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures 2015 Edition" (PDF). p. 59.

11. ^ The Fourteenth National Congress on School Transportation. "National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures (2005 Revised Edition)" (PDF). p. 40. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2014.

12. ^ Colorado Minimum Standards Governing School Bus Transportation Vehicles Archived 2011-09-28 at the Wayback Machine Colorado Code of Regulations 301-25, Section 2251-R-54.02. Retrieved 2010-04-16

13. ^ Ryan Gray (August 7, 2009). "School Bus Seat Belts FAQ". School Transportation News.

14. ^ Handrail Mechanics School Bus Handrail Handbook. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved 2010-04-19.

15. "Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Volume 6, Section 571.108" (PDF): 361.

16. ^ Carroll, Dave (2013). "Switching from Red-Only to Amber-Red Warning Lights on School Busses" (PDF). School Bus Ontario - via Ontario School Bus Association.

17. "Comparison of Two Advance Signalling Systems Used on Canadian School Buses: Amber Lights and Red Lights". Transport Canada.

18. ^ Bruce, Steve (February 12, 2020). "Amber-red system of flashing lights on school buses in Ontario could help save lives". CBC News.

19. ^ School bus pedestrian safety standards Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Section 571.131. Retrieved 2010-4-15.

20. ^ "Press Release no. 213: IARC: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST CARCINOGENIC" (PDF). WHO: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
World Health Organization (WHO). 12 June 2012.

21. ^ Blue Bird's Alternative Fuel Product Offerings Archived 2010-07-24 at the Wayback Machine Blue Bird Corporation. Retrieved 2010-4-16

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A school bus is a type of bus owned, leased, contracted to, or operated by a school or school district. It is regularly used to transport students to and from school or school-related activities, but not including a charter bus or transit bus.

# data[].attributes.body
Peers influence things you do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Campus Life | Brescia University College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Career Peers are a very important part of the support we provide in the Student Life Centre.

They are a team of upper-year student leaders trained and advised by the Student Life Centre staff to provide career support and programming to Brescia students, specifically by:

Holding drop-in office hours for on-the-spot resume, cover letter and LinkedIn Profile critiques

Co-facilitating workshops with SLC staff

Initiating special projects to meet the career needs of students

Drop In Hours

Drop into the Student Life Centre during the hours indicated below to have your Resume, Cover Letter or Linked In Profile reviewed and critiqued by experienced Career Peers.

Current Drop-In Hours for Winter Term
Drop-In Hours will begin the week of January 8th, 2018. See you then!
Tuesdays 11am-1pm (support available in Mandarin)

Wednesdays 1-4pm (support available in Mandarin and Cantonese from 1-3pm)

Thursdays 11:30am-1:30pm (support available in Mandarin)
*Drop-in hours are subject to change, changes will be noted above. If cancelled, a notice will be added to this webpage and in the Student Life Centre, as soon as possible. Please ensure that you bring a print copy of your resume or cover letter to review. Career Peers will be unable to review electronic versions of these documents.
Be a Car eer Peer!

In their role, Career Peers spend 3-5 hours/week, from September-April, gaining first-hand knowledge of career development strategies and working closely with our professional staff, while applying their knowledge directly to a valued leadership role at Brescia.

Interested in joining the Career Peer team? Visit the Student Life Centre to learn more about how to get involved. Applications open Winter 2018!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Career Peers are a very important part of the support we provide in the Student Life Centre.

# data[].attributes.body
Students attend parties with their friends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Company Parties for All Occasions

Whether you're having a small or a large group of students we will keep them dancing. Our DJ's have all the current Top 40hits that the kids love to dance to. Our DJ's will be interactive in participating in line dances and crowd interaction. We offer Dance floor lighting, Uplighting, Dance Videos and more to help you deliver an exciting event.

Entertainment Upgrades

We offer Dance Floor Lighting, Uplighting, Custom Monogram Lighting, Photo Montages, Dance Videos, Party Props and more to help deliver an exciting event.

Check your date and a DJ from Critical Entertainment will be In touch with you or contact us directly for a specific question on our DJ and Entertainment packages.

Packages starting at an affordable $399

Let's Party!

It is always fun to get ready for a prom or a dance and the energy we create at the party you will never forget. We play all the top hits and keep the party going until the end. Our experience will ensure that your school will be the talk of the town and you won't be able to wait for next year!

Ask us a question and we'll instantly respond when possible. Provide your cell number and we'll text the answer should you decide to leave our website.

School Events

If you have any questions about the events we service, please give us a call and we can help you make it the best it can be.

College Parties

High School Dances

Middle School Dances

Elementary School Dances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Party DJ in CT - High School & Prom Professional DJ's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you're having a small or a large group of students we will keep them dancing. Our DJ's have all the current Top 40hits that the kids love to dance to. Our DJ's will be interactive in participating in line dances and crowd interaction.

# data[].attributes.body
Students are talented in art.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Picture of wax crayons stock photo, images and stock photography. Image 8346599.

# data[].attributes.body
Music is an option for students.

# data[].attributes.body
We use lots of technology in our school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
computerupdate.org -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspcomputerupdate Resources and Information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website is for sale! computerupdate.org is your first and best source for all of the information you're looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, computerupdate.org has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Connect with other parents at HLS! Parents at Law School (PALS) is an organization that aims to bring together students who have or are considering having children. They focus on the practical aspects of being a law student and parent at the same time, and also discuss strategies for dealing with interviewing, summer jobs, and future employment.

# data[].attributes.body
This is how students communicate outside of school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instagram among the most popular social networks today. It has over 300 million active users and is growing rapidly. It is specialized social network in image and short video sharing and recently moved towards instant messaging.

Instagram grow so rapidly in photo sharing sphere and mobile that Facebook decided to acquire it for $1 billion to expand their roots in mobile and photo sharing. At the time most people believed that it was overvalued but seeing a whooping 300 million active monthly users, billions of shared images, it is now valued even higher than that.

While Instagram is around for a while, people keep asking me what is the size of Instagram pictures. Instagram image size used to be 612px by 612px but then switched to 640px by 640px and on July 2015 switched to 1080px by 1080px to keep up with Retina and other high resolution displays available on smartphones, tablets and laptops. Later that year Instagram introduced vertical and horizontal image that are widely used by Instagramers. And here are maximums image sizes for square, vertical and horizontal images. You can now use any image size between those.

Square Image: 1080px in width by 1080px in height

Vertical Image: 1080px in width by 1350px in height

Horizontal Image: 1080px in width by 566px in height

Current image size is 1080px in width X 1080px in height. We expect that Instagram will keep this image size for an extended period of time, otherwise they would have bumped image size even more. While the image size is bumped to 1080px by 1080px, it is still scaled down to 640px by 640px using CSS on their website. Which means that these images will look better on high-resolution displays such as Retina (HiDPI). You don't need to get into these technical details and remember to keep your image size 1080px by 1080px.

UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS: 400,000+ Social Media Graphics & Design Assets

All the Social Media Graphics you need and many other design elements, are available for a monthly subscription by subscribing to Envato Elements . The subscription costs $29 per month and gives you unlimited access to a massive and growing library of 400,000+ items that can be downloaded as often as you need (stock photos too)!

DOWNLOAD NOW

Below you can see sample Instagram image and its dimensions:
Square Instagram Image (Original Size)

Vertical Instagram Image

To create the best looking Instagram images you should keep your camera settings to higher resolution than the one recommended by Instagram because images are being cropped and you don't want to make them look pixelated.

This year is expected to be year of 4K resolution in TVs, monitors, laptops and even tablets, so we can expect that Instagram will have to increase image size even further. I will try to keep this post up to date so you can be sure that information above is accurate and Instagram image size is now 1080px by 1080px.

Since July 2015 Instagram now use 1080px by 1080px images.

Since November 2015 Instagram supports vertical and horizontal images between 566px and 1350px in height but maximum size for all image formats are set to 1080px.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the size of the Instagram picture in pixels 2017? [Updated] - Colorlib

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instagram among the most popular social networks today. It has over 300 million active users and is growing rapidly. It is specialized social network in image and short video sharing and recently moved towards instant messaging. Instagram grow so rapidly in photo sharing sphere and mobile that Facebook decided to acquire it for $1 billion to expand their roots in mobile and photo sharing.

# data[].attributes.body
Clothes help you express yourself

# data[].attributes.body
Clubs help you get involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Leo Bernstein Jewish Academy of Fine Arts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After School We Offer: Computer lab access, Early dismissal supervision, Emergency supervision, Enrichment clubs and activities, Holiday supervision, Homework assistance, Nutritious snacks, Positive peer interactions, Pre-registered discounts, Specialist teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
Electives are what you do outside academics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 5, 2015 · 8:13 pm

I'm at that precious age where about half my friends seem to be having kids. That means my Facebook feed is being constantly bombarded with pictures of kids and kid-related stuff posted by proud parents. And let me tell you, there are a lot of posts of crappy kid art. I'm sorry, but that doesn't look like a dog at all. I wouldn't have known that it was a dog if it wasn't labeled as a dog. I'm not impressed. I could draw a dog way better than that. A friend of mine showed off a picture of her daughter's rainbow. It wasn't a rainbow at all. It wasn't arched, it wasn't layered, and the color scheme was all off. It was just a bunch of differently colored squiggly lines swirled together. A blind person with Parkinson's disease could draw a better rainbow. Call me old fashioned, but I miss the old days when crappy kid art was confined to the refrigerator.

Critically Rated at 7/17

Written, Rated, and Reviewed by Brendan H. Young

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm at that precious age where about half my friends seem to be having kids. That means my Facebook feed is being constantly bombarded with pictures of kids and kid-related stuff posted by proud parents. And let me tell you, there are a lot of posts of crappy kid art.

# data[].attributes.body
Getting good grades determine your future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Somewhere between the use of donation or pre-sale based crowdfunding and the expense of a full-fledged IPO, has been an underused method of raising money by utilizing "Regulation A", a securities law that allows companies to directly raise money from private investors.

Originally adopted in 1936 as an addition to the securities act of 1933, the Regulation A securities exemption was created to help make it easier for smaller companies to raise money without going through the lengthy, complex, and expensive process of an IPO. It allows companies to raise money from investors without preparing audited financial statements or the filing of a form S1.

Unfortunately, very few companies actually raise money using the original Regulation A rules. For example, only 8 companies used Reg A to raise money in 2012. But that's about to change, because Regulation A finally just got a much needed make-over for the age of online crowdfunding. Meet the new and improved Regulation A"+".

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held an open meeting in which it issued the long awaited final rules for the implementation of Title IV of the JOBS Act, which creates an exemption to the registration requirement for securities; this exemption is commonly referred to as Regulation A+. The new rules are scheduled to become effective 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

A Look at the Existing Regulation A vs. the New "Regulation A+"

Regulation A+ is intended by the SEC to be an update and expansion of the existing Regulation A exemption. The existing Reg A was designed to be a small IPO-like offering, and was limited to offerings of $5 million and under during any 12-month period; including up to $1.5 million in resale of affiliate-held securities . Regulation A was limited to U.S. and Canadian companies (excluding shell companies), and had reduced disclosure requirements when compared to an IPO registration. An issuer that wanted to make a Reg A offering could issue a question-and-answer or narrative format disclosure statement as opposed to the extremely complicated, structured format of a S-1 disclosure statement. There was also no requirement to have financial statements audited, nor was there any ongoing reporting requirement. However, issuers utilizing Reg A had to comply with the securities laws in every state in which they intend to sell securities. For a significant multi-state or nationwide offering, this proved to be a time-consuming and expensive proposition that limited the attractiveness of Reg A to most issuers.

Under Title IV of the JOBS Act, Congress directed the SEC to reform Reg A, including raising the limit to $50 million, reviewed every two years, and eliminate state securities law compliance (although states would still retain an enforcement role) if sales were only made to "qualified investors" - the SEC would be free to define "qualified investors". However, the SEC could compensate this loss of consumer protection by requiring audited financials and ongoing reporting.

The final Reg A+ rules going into effect in two months creates two tiers of offerings. Tier 1 consists of securities offerings of up to $20 million in any 12-month period, with not more than $6 million of that consisting of resale offers by security-holders that are affiliates of the issuer; Tier 2 consists of offerings of up to $50 million in any 12-month period, with not more than $15 million of that consisting of resale offers by affiliated security-holders. For both tiers, all selling security-holders are limited to no more than 30% of the aggregate of an initial offering or subsequent offerings for the first 12 months after the initial offering. Sold securities will be unrestricted as to resale, subject to any contractual restrictions imposed by the issuer.

Most companies are permitted to utilize Reg A+. The requirements are that issuers must have their principal place of business in the U.S. or Canada. Furthermore, issuers cannot be SEC reporting companies or certain types of investment companies, or seek to offer or sell asset-backed securities or fractional interests in mineral rights. Issuers must have a specific business plan or purpose, and that plan or purpose must not be to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company. Finally, issuers must not have been subject to any SEC order under Exchange Act §12(j) within the past 5 years, must have timely filed required ongoing reports for the last 2 years, and are not disqualified under the "bad actor" disqualification rules under Rule 506.

Issuers conducting offerings of up to $20 million can elect whether to proceed under Tier 1 or 2. Both tiers are also subject to issuer eligibility, disclosure, and other requirements contained in the provisions of Regulation A. Companies under both tiers can also submit draft offering statements to the SEC for non-public review before filing, can continue to use solicitation materials before and after the filing of the offering statement (the practice know as "testing the waters"), and are required to electronically file offering materials in alignment with current practice for registered offerings.

However, Tier 2 has additional reporting requirements and investor limitations over Tier 1. Tier 2 issuers are required to provide audited financial statements, and are required to file annual, semiannual, and current event reports, which will include ongoing audited financials; non-accredited investors are limited to investing in a Tier 2 offering no more than the greater of 10% of the investor's annual income or net worth. Tier 2 issuers are also exempt from the mandatory registration requirements under Exchange Act §12(g) if it meets all four of the following conditions: (1) the issuer engages services from a transfer agent registered with the SEC; (2) the issuer remains subject to a Tier 2 reporting obligation; (3) the issuer is current with its annual and semiannual reporting requirements at year's end; and (4) the issuer has a public float of less than $75 million as of the last business day of its most recent semiannual period, or if it has no float, annual revenues of less than $50 million in its last completed fiscal year. Any issuer that exceeds these thresholds has a two-year transition period before it must register its securities.

Tier 2 offers have a significant benefit over Tier 1 offerings to compensate for these additional requirements, in that state securities law registration and qualification requirements are preempted for securities offered or sold to any person under a Tier 2 offering. Tier 1 offerings will still be subject to state registration and qualification requirements, although issuers who elect Tier 1 can utilize the new coordinated review program developed by the North American Securities Administrators Association. However, it remains to be seen whether the cost of multi-state review under the coordinated review program becomes a cheaper option that the additional disclosure and ongoing reporting requirements under Tier 2.

Finally, Reg A+ provides several safe harbors from integrating other securities offerings - no integration with any previously closed offerings, with any subsequent crowdfunding offering, or whether the issuer complies with the terms of another exemption for another offering independently such that a simultaneous Rule 506(c) offering can also be conducted.

Summarizing the New Reg A+ Rules

Tier 1:
-Can raise up to $20 million in Reg A offerings in any 12-month period (no more than $6 million in resales by affiliates; no more than 30% of the aggregate of the initial offerings and subsequent offerings for first 12 months may be affiliate resales)
-Sold securities are unrestricted (subject to Rule 144)
-Subject to basic eligibility and disclosure requirements under previous Reg A
-Must file Form 1-A offering statement
-May submit draft offering statements to SEC for non-public review
-May generally solicit
-May "test the waters" and use sales literature before and after filing of Form 1-A as well as after qualification
-Subject to state registration/qualification requirements (but may use Coordinated Review Program)

Pros and Cons of Tier 1
Pros:
-Not subject to additional financial disclosure requirements (with limited exception)
-Not subject to ongoing reporting requirements at federal level (with exception of termination report at close of offering)
-No investment limit on investors
Cons:
-Lower cap on total offering
-Subject to state registration/qualification

Tier 2:
-Can raise up to $50 million in Reg A offerings in any 12-month period (no more than $15 million in resales by affiliates; no more than 30% of the aggregate of the initial offerings and subsequent offerings for first 12 months may be affiliate resales)
-Sold securities are unrestricted (subject to Rule 144)
-Subject to basic eligibility and disclosure requirements under previous Reg A
-Must file Form 1-A offering statement
-May submit draft offering statements to SEC for non-public review
-May generally solicit
-May "test the waters" and use sales literature before and after filing of Form 1-A as well as after qualification
-Additional audited financial statement requirements
-Required to file annual and semiannual reports, and "current event" reports when necessary
-State registration/qualification preempted (though states may require filing of all offering materials and still have anti-fraud enforcement authority)
-Non-accredited investors limited to purchases of no more than the greater of 10% of investor's annual income or net worth (unless securities are listed on national exchange)
-Exempt from Exchange Act §12(g) mandatory registration requirement, for two-year transition period, if issuer meets all of the following qualifications:
-Engages services of SEC-registered transfer agent
-Remains subject to Tier 2 reporting obligation
-Current in annual and semiannual reporting requirements
-Has public float of less than $75 million as of last business day of semiannual reporting period; or, in absence of public float, less than $50 million in annual revenues as of last completed fiscal year

Pros and Cons of Tier 2:
Pros:
-Higher cap on total offerings
-Preemption of state registration/qualification
-Able to be exempt from Exchange Act §12(g) mandatory registration requirement and have two-year transition period instead
-Easier process to register securities on national exchange
Cons:
-Additional financial disclosure and ongoing reporting requirements
-May also be required to submit "current event" reports on quarterly basis in order to satisfy Rule 144 and Rule 144A
-Potential investment limit for non-accredited investors

The Reg A+ Process

Although the exact details of the process by which a company will undergo a Reg A+ offering will be determined in the coming months and years as issuers and accounting and legal advisors begin to develop standards and the SEC issues guidance memoranda clarifying grey areas of the process, the general outline of the Reg A+ offering process can be gleaned from the final rules promulgated.

The first big change to the Reg A offering process is that all filings to the SEC are now to be made electronically through the SEC's online filing system, EDGAR. Previously, the Reg A offering statement was paper-filed with the SEC.

The first step an issuer must undertake is to file its Form 1-A offering statement with the SEC for qualification. The offering statement is a disclosure document that provides prospective investors with information that will help them in making their investment decision. An issuer may elect to to submit its offering statement to the SEC for confidential, non-public review; however, the issuer must publicly file the offering statement no less than 21 days before qualification of the statement.

Form 1-A is broken down into three parts. Part I contains basic details about the issuer and its offering, including information about the issuer's eligibility, offering details, the states and other jurisdictions where the securities are to be offered, and sales of unregistered securities.

Part II is the narrative portion of the offering statement that includes disclosures about the issuer and its business, material risks, the intended use of proceeds, executives and directors of the issuer and their compensation, beneficial ownership, related party transaction, and a description of the offered securities. Part II will also contain financial disclosures about the issuer.

Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 issuers must file balance sheets of the two most recently completed fiscal years, prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP (Canadian issuers may elect to utilize IFRS). Tier 2 issuers are also required to disclose financial statements independently audited in accordance with U.S. GAAP or PCAOB standards; if the securities are to be listed on a national exchange, the auditing firm must be PCAOB-registered and audit according to those standards. A Tier 1 issuer need not disclose financial statements; however, if a Tier 1 issuer has already obtained financial statements audited in accordance with PCAOB standards or U.S. GAAP for any other purpose, they must file those audited financial statements.

Part III of Form 1-A contains exhibits to the offering statement; however, an issuer can incorporate by reference exhibits previously filed on EDGAR.

Issuers must file all solicitation materials used in the offering, whether used before or after filing of the offering statement, or after qualification of the offering statement. Any solicitation materials used after an offering statement is filed must be accompanied by the statement itself or a link to whether the statement may be obtained.

Issuers must then also comply with state requirements. For Tier 1 offerings, issuers must comply with all state and registration requirements. For Reg A+, issuers may utilize the Coordinated Review Process that is intended to streamline the state review process; however, not all states are currently signed up to the Coordinated Review Process, so issuers will also need to ensure qualification of any offerings in those states. Finally, although state registration/qualification is preempted for Tier 2 offerings, states may still require Tier 2 issuers to file offering materials for record-keeping purposes, and also retain anti-fraud enforcement authority.

Tier 1 issuers must file a Form 1-Z exit report within 30 days of the completion or termination. States may also have additional or ongoing reporting requirements.

Tier 2 issuers have ongoing reporting requirements with the SEC, including the filing of Form 1-K annual reports within 120 days of fiscal year's end, Form 1-SA semiannual reports within 90 days of the end of the first 6 months of the fiscal year, special financial reports on Form 1-K and Form 1-SA, and, where necessary, "current event" report on Form 1-U within 4 business days of a triggering event. Form 1-K will contain disclosures related to the preceding three fiscal years' business and operations, beneficial ownership, related party transaction, executive compensation, and two years' of audited financial statements. Form 1-SA is intended to be similar to a Form 10-Q, with scaled disclosure requirements appropriate to the lower disclosure burden of Reg A. Form 1-U current event reports will be used to announce fundamental changes to business, changes in control of the business, changes to key executives, bankruptcy or receivership, material modifications to the rights of security holders, changes in accountants, non-reliance on audited financial statements, and sales of at least 10% of outstanding equity in exempt offerings.

Observers noted that the final Reg A+ rules failed to designate the required Form 1-SA semiannual reports as constituting "current information" for the purposes of Rule 144 and Rule 144A; accordingly, many believe that it will become practice to issue, on a quarterly basis, Form 1-U reports in the style of Form 1-SA reports in order to comply with Rule 144 and Rule 144A.

Commissioners' Comments on the Final Reg A+ Rules

SEC Chair Mary Jo White declared that the final Reg A+ framework struck a balance between the demands of federal and state securities laws. Chair White noted that state review deterred issuers from using Reg A, and that because the North American Securities Administrators Association's (the policy organization representing state securities regulators) new Coordinated Review Program, which is intended to streamline state review of multi-state securities offerings, was too new, preemption of state review of Reg A+ offerings was necessary in at least some cases until a successful track record for the CRP obviated the need for state review preemption; Chair White also emphasized that despite preemption, states retained their full anti-fraud enforcement roles.

Commissioner Aguilar noted that Reg A is one of the oldest registration exemptions, and has always been intended to provide smaller companies with a less costly way to access public capital so long as they provided the public with certain disclosures. Commissioner Aguilar further noted that the disclosure requirements under the final Reg A+ rules are less than under a registered offering, an important point of focus for the SEC in light of the risk of investment in small businesses. Finally, Commissioner Aguilar identified that the costs of both federal and state review were an impediment to use of Reg A, but that NASAA had made great strides in reducing state compliance costs by creating the CRP, so that the SEC had decided not to preempt state review for Tier 1 offerings.

Commissioner Gallagher believed that there was an urgent need for new ruled to promote small business capital formation, and that Reg A+ would give investors necessary information while avoiding considerable disclosure burdens on issuers. However, Commissioner Gallagher was disappointed that the Commission declined to adopt a higher cap for Reg A+ and instead simply relied on the statutory language, given that Congress had authorized the SEC to raise the cap and was requiring them to review it every 2 years. Commissioner Gallagher also warned that the final rule should have deemed semiannual report to be be "reasonably current" reporting, and that the failure to do so could lead to an unwritten, "backdoor" requirement that Reg A+ issuers actually engage in quarterly reporting.

Why Did Reg. A Need to Be Fixed?

Nowstreewire last year held a webinar panel discussion on the preliminary proposed Reg A+ rules entitled "Reviving Capital Formation with Regulation A Crowdfunding", with David Feldman and Samuel Guzik, attorneys from the law firm Richarson Patel LLC, and Congressman Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, sponsor of one of the bills that was eventually folded into the JOBS Act and one of the chief proponents in Congress for crowdfunding and securities reform serving as panelists. All of the panelists pointed out that the main impetus for fixing Reg A was that nobody used it - from 2009 to the date of the panel, there had been only 19 Reg A offerings, as compared to 373 registered IPOs and over 27,000 Regulation D (Rule 504/505/506) offerings. The panelists identified several issues that dissuaded issuers from Reg A, including the $5 million limit on funds that could be raised, and the lack of preemption of state securities laws. These problems caused many issuers to instead rely on the Rule 506 exception, which has no raise limit and preempts state securities laws. Congressman McHenry noted that the key issues for him in fixing Reg A were upping the limits on the investment to make the cost of compliance worthwhile. In addition, Congressman McHenry wanted to streamline the process by preempting state securities laws so that issuers only need to communicate with the SEC.

In its meeting adopting the Reg A+ rules, SEC Commissioners Aguilar and Stein noted that the existing Reg A framework had been deemed a failure by most; the Commissioners identified the low offering cap and lack of state preemption as creating too high of a cost of capital for the money that could be raise, in addition to the introduction of Regulation D in the 1980s that facilitated much easier and cheaper capital formation through private offerings, as the causes for the lack of use of Reg A by issuers.

Regulation A+ vs. IPO

The Nowstreetwire panelists felt that Tier II of Reg A+ may become an attractive alternative to an IPO for issuers who are making offerings of less than $50 million. Tier II certainly promises to be easier, faster, and cheaper than an IPO - there are less disclosure and reporting requirements, in addition to state securities laws preemption. An issuer utilizing Tier II can "test the waters" and keep its filings confidential during its roadshow, up until 21 days before the SEC approves the filings. The panelists believed that exact cost savings will depend on the scrutiny the SEC staff gives Tier II filings, but that weeks, or even months, could be shaved off the whole offering process.

During the SEC's issuance of the Reg A+ rules, Commissioner Stein noted his hope that Reg A+ would provide companies easier access to capital that would permit them to grow into reporting companies; indeed, all of the commissioners indicated a view of Reg A+ as a pathway for issuers to become reporting public companies.

Regulation A+ - "Crowdfunding Plus"?

In the Nowstreetwire panel, Attorney Guzik advanced the notion that the JOBS Act created three types of investment or equity crowdfunding. The first was accredited crowdfunding, authorized by Title II of the Act and codified into SEC Rule 506(c), which authorized general solicitation of an offering, so long as sales were only made to accredited investors. The second form was Title III crowdfunding, the "everyman's" crowdfunding that everyone has been looking forward to, and which was termed "retail crowdfunding" by Attorney Guzik. However, Attorney Guzik believes that Reg A+ may also become a form of crowdfunding, which he terms "crowdfunding plus".

Attorney Guzik noted the cost and complexity of retail crowdfunding compared with the amount that can be raised (up to $1 million over a 12 month period). Given that up to $50 million can be raised under Tier II, Reg A+ might be a viable vehicle for crowdfunding, perhaps more viable than retail crowdfunding. Title III crowdfunding does not permit general solicitation, except to direct prospective investors to the online platform where the offering takes place; all communication and disclosures about the offering must occur through that online platform. Conversely, communication in a Reg A+ offering can be done in person or online, and can leverage social media.

Conclusion - Can Reg A+ Serve as a Form of Investment Crowdfunding?

The Nowstreewire panel correctly pointed out one of the one of the main criticisms of Title III/retail crowdfunding - compliance is too complicated and expensive for the amount of money that can be raised. In exchange for also being subject to SEC approval and ongoing reporting requirements, a company can instead opt for Reg A+ Tier II and raise up to $50 million, publicly soliciting from all types of investors. It is unlikely that either Reg A+ or Title III crowdfunding will be viable for companies looking to raise five- and six-figure sums of capital - those companies will likely stick with the Reg D exemptions, which usually have far lower regulatory compliance costs. But for the company that is looking to raise millions of dollars, and is willing to take on the expense of SEC compliance and communication with hundreds of shareholders, Reg A+ might end up being the more utilized and successful crowdfunding regime.

In the SEC's March 25 meeting, Commissioner Gallagher noted his belief that, although Reg A+ was a good start for improving small company access to capital, it might not be helpful enough for companies looking to raise under $5 million, and recommended that the Commission and SEC staff look for other ways to structure exemptions that would not pose a cost-barrier to capital for small companies while still protecting investors.

The final Reg A+ rules can be found here: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9741.pdf

Other types of Investment / Equity Crowdfunding:

Regulation D Rule 506(b) private offering

Most commonly used form of private offering by far.

Only accredited investors allowed to invest

Accredited Investors are allowed to self-certify

Does not allow "General Solicitation" open public advertising. Investors must be contacted through pre-existing relationships or via a registered broker-dealer.

No limit to how much can be raised

No limits on how much an investor can invest

No specific form of disclosure - Anti-Fraud liability only

Title II - Regulation D Rule 506(c): "accredited" crowdfunding

Enacted according the JOBS act by the SEC in September 2013

Allows "General Solicitation" open public advertising to all investors

Only accredited investors allowed to invest

Higher Accredited Investor verification, requires "reasonable steps" to verify income or net worth.

No limit to how much can be raised

No limits on how much an investor can invest

No specific form of disclosure - Anti-Fraud liability only

Additional rules restricting "bad actors" from participating is issuances.

low liquidity, few secondary markets, relies on debt or acquisition.

Title III: "retail" crowdfunding

Not yet enacted by the SEC, final rules expected in October 2015.

Limited to raising $1 million per year

Offering available to general public. Unlimited number of investors.

"Blue Sky" exemption. Issuers do not need to comply to individual state's filing and disclosure requirements.

All solicitation to investors must be done through portal. No use of social media.

Investors with income or net worth above $100k (beside principal residence) can invest up to 10% of net worth and income, up to $100k. Income or net work below $100k, can invest greater of $2,000 or 5% of annual income or net worth.

Must use online funding portal or broker dealer intermediary registered with SEC and FINRA.

Requires self-certified GAAP financial statements for the past two years, tax returns if raising $100k or less, reviewed if raising $100k - $500k, audited above $500k. Initial and annual "Registration like" financial and non-financial disclosure.

Not allowed to "test the waters" before filing. Disclosure documents must be prepared before talking to investors.

Lots of liability for portals.

Securities sold are freely tradeable after one year.

Discuss this article on LinkedIn, here: https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/6568366-5988822404363796482/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deep Dive: Investment Crowdfunding with "Regulation A+" - CrowdExpert.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Somewhere between the use of donation or pre-sale based crowdfunding and the expense of a full-fledged IPO, has been an underused method of raising money by utilizing "Regulation A", a securities law that allows companies to directly raise money from private investors.

# data[].attributes.body
Having good relationships with teachers is important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Teacher Student Loan Forgiveness is a program that helps to reduce the amount of money a teacher owes on their student loans if they meet all of the eligibility requirements. Below, we will go into detail about the program, who qualifies, and the relief you can receive.

Who Can Apply?

The program is limited to those who qualify and is not open to all students. In fact, to apply and be considered for the teacher student loan forgiveness, a person must be teaching directly in a classroom or provide a classroom type of teaching style in a non-classroom setting.

Are There Eligibility Requirements?

Yes. There are eligibility requirements that MUST be met before you can receive forgiveness on your loans. It is important that you make sure you are always meeting these requirements and that you have satisfied them all before you apply to have your loan forgiven.
Some of the eligibility requirements include:
· Your student loan origination date must be AFTER October 1, 1998

· Loans that are to be forgiven must have been made prior to the last five years of working as a teacher

· Your student loans CANNOT be in default

· You must have satisfied and completed five full years as a full time teach and at least one of those years must have been after the 1997-1998 school year

· If you spent time in AmeriCorps, those years of service do NOT count toward the five years

· You must be employed at an elementary or secondary school that is either a title one school, listed in the directory of low income schools for teacher benefits, or is made up of children who are qualified for services under the title one

It is important for you to make sure that the school you attend is qualified to participate in the forgiveness program. If the school is not, you may find that the years you serve as a teacher are not counted toward the five-year consecutive minimum.

How Do I Know if the School is Considered Low Income?

When you are seeking employment, it is important that you pay attention to the school you apply to. You may be wondering how you can determine whether or not a school is considered low income.

The Department of Education posts a list each year of all elementary and secondary schools that are considered to be low income. You can view this list by visiting the Department of Education website.

Before you accept employment at any school and begin serving your five years, you need to make sure the school qualifies and that you can use the time teached toward your loan forgiveness.

Benefits Once You Reach the Five Years Teached

Once you have been teaching for five consecutive years, you will be able to apply for the teacher student loan forgiveness program and receive forgiveness for your loans. Before you assume that the entire loan will be paid off, you must understand that you receive a certain amount of money to put toward your student loan. Some students think that the entire loan is paid off, so they stop paying on their student loan, which goes into default, and then disqualifies them for the forgiveness.
Below, we will go over some of the benefits you will receive based on the time you served. Completed Time BEFORE October 30, 2004
If you have completed your five consecutive years of teaching PRIOR to October 30, 2004, then you will qualify to receive either $5,000 or $17,500 in forgiveness.

To qualify for $5,000, you must have been a full-time teacher in wither reading, math, writing, or another area within the curriculum. You will also qualify if you were a full time secondary school teacher as long as you taught within the area you studied.

To receive the $17,500, you must be considered a highly qualified teacher that worked full time in either science or math. Or, you must have been a highly qualified special education teacher.
Service Started or Completed AFTER October 30, 2004
You will receive $5,000 if you were considered a highly qualified full time secondary school or elementary school teacher.

To qualify for $17,500, you will need to have a certified letter from the chief administrative officer that you were a full time highly qualified teach in a science or math course or you were a highly qualified special education teacher.

What is a Highly Qualified Teacher?

A highly qualified teach is one that has met the requirements to have such title. The requirements include:

· Having received your full state certification as a teacher

· Have had no suspensions, holds, or anything of the like on your license or certification

· Have passed the state teaching licensing exams and have received a license to teach

In addition to the above requirements, you may find that you qualify as a highly qualified teacher if you have a bachelor's degree, you demonstrate your ability within subject matters, you meet all of the requirements and standards of an elementary teacher, etc.

What Happens if I Do NOT Complete a Full Teaching Year?

Sometimes it may not be possible for you to teach full time for the entire year. You may be worried that you will lose time and not qualify because of the gap in the consecutive five years of teaching. It is possible for you to still receive credit for the time taught. In fact, you can receive credit for the time taught IF:

· Your employer says that you fulfilled your contract

· You finished at LEAST one half of the year

· You have to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act

· You are deployed or called to service

How to Apply for the Program

If you are ready to apply for the teacher student loan forgiveness program, you will need to print off the application and then return it to your loan service provider. You will be notified if your application is approved or if you have not met the requirements.

Remember, you should always check every year to make sure that you are meeting the requirements to avoid any hiccups in the road.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teacher Student Loan Forgiveness Teachers May Qualify for Student Loan Refinance! Did you know that you can refinance student loan debt to rates as low as 2.13%? SoFi members save $14,000 on average. No application, origination, or pre-payment fees. Apply Now! lorem ipsum dolor Becoming a teacher can be a costly - and let's face [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Your friends influence your decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2017 Copyright. All Rights Reserved. The Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither the service provider nor the domain owner maintain any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in whois).

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of students in Unionvlle participate in sports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adult Summer and Fall Soccer Leagues | Roseville, MN - Official Website