I think there are pro's and con's to both, but what you should think about in this situation is how the students would fair under similar circumstances, with and without seat belts. If the bus is hauling ass 65 mph down a highway and the driver doesn't see that traffic is held up ahead causing a 5 car pile up, I think the students with seat belts would fair better in that situation than kids without seat belts.
The seat belt issue has been highly debated in the past with government agencies indecisive on whether they should be required. But as of last year, the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that new school buses should provide children with the best protection available, which includes three-point seat belts. Despite no seat belts, many say school buses are the safest way for children to get to school.
Not every child will wear a seat belt all the time. In fact, most of them probably won't. But a parent shouldn't be legally obligated to send a child to school, knowing that they have no choice but to put them on a bus that doesn't have a seat belt. Sometimes, that is the only thing protecting a child from the bus driver's careless driving.
Some areas of the United States do require seat belts in school buses. There have been numerous studies and experts are constantly looking for ways to improve the safety of school buses. It has not been proven that seat belts make school buses any safer for passengers. Driver error is the leading cause of serious injury and death of bus passengers.
No, school buses should not necessarily have seat belts. After crashes like this one, it's easy to jump and demand mandatory seat belts on all school buses. However, seat belts raise another problem on buses. If there were a fire or other emergency requiring evacuation, not all students would be able to get their seat belts off in time and a driver cannot necessarily release all students. In that case, seat belts might prove less safe.