School Bus Issues

[nvts]

Hi! Our kids are in a 12 month program in the NYC school system. Every year it's the same thing: we go from a 25-30 minute bus ride to 1 hour and 10-15 mins. for the younger guy. He ends up regressing and I spend literally 15-20 hours fighting every Tom, Dick and Harry in the Department of Education. The bus route usually gets corrected by the 5th week of the 6 week summer session and we spend the next 2 mos. (Sept. & Oct.) fighting the same thing.

Does anyone know of any rules or regs. that address these issues or who advocates for shorter commutes? In NYC, they can schedules a bus ride up to 90 minutes in Borough (and up to 2 hrs. out of borough) for kids as young as pre-k age. Can you imagine being diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, bipolar, etc. and sitting on a bus for 1.5-2 hrs?

AAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!

Thanks!
Beth [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif[/img]

[Sheila]

An 1 1/2 - 2 hour daily commute is absurd for any student IMO.

You and the other IEP Committee Members can address this issue in the IEP. Riding the bus is a related service (transportation). Transportation can be by taxi, private car, medi-vac, etc. Or the IEP could site something to the effect of "bus transportation not to exceed one hour round-trip commutes."

I don't recall seeing this particular issue address in our State regs on special ed, but States are allowed to make rules and regs more favorable to Sp Ed students. The Fed regs (IDEA) are the minimum. You might check your State regs to see if time of commute is addressed.

[wakeupcall]

Gfg is in "social development" classes of Special Ed (Houston). I told them he MUST be on a bus with a short commute (both ways), or he was going to likely cause trouble for everyone; ie: himself, bus driver, other students. He'll start intermediate school in the fall and his IEP states he must have this accommodation. The new classroom teacher will make the decision as to when he thinks gfg will be able to handle the crowds on the bus, as well as the longer commute. Don't let them kid you, there IS such a thing!!

[Martie]

As far as I know, there is no statute on travel time. However, there was at one time an OSEP memo that said a bus trip one-way of an hour or less is "reasonable." I think what is reasonable depends on the student. As a H.O. I once ordered a SD to "find another way" other than transporting a 7 year old deaf, autistic child in full restraint for 75 minutes in good weather, no traffic. Good weather and no traffic is not a frequent occurrence in the Chicago area in winter. The parents were objecting to the transportation (among other things) and I found for them easily.

Martie

[Sheila]

nvts, the last paragraph of http://www.asdadvocate.com/uploads/transportation.doc will give some leads for research on travel time if you want to pursue it.


Transportation is a related service for special education students when it is necessary in order for a student with a disability to participate in an appropriate educational program. This is mandated by federal law. The IDEA, at 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (26), explains that transportation is a “related service” for students who are identified with a disability under that law.


Laws governing the transportation of students with disabilities

The IDEA, at 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(22), explains that transportation is a “related

service” for students who are identified with a disability under that law. The law

clarifies that:


The term ‘‘related services’’ means transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including

therapeutic recreation, social work services, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. (emphasis added)


The IDEA’s implementing regulations, at 34 C.F.R. § 300.24(15)(a), further

underscore that:

As used in this part, the term related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech language

pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling,

orientation and mobility services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. The term also includes school health services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training. (emphasis added)


The regulations go on to clarify, at 34 C.F.R. § 300.24(b)(15), that:

Transportation includes—

(i) Travel to and from school and between schools;

(ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and

(iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and

ramps), if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability.


Another federal law governing transportation is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973. This law ensures that recipients of federal financial aid do not discriminate

against qualified persons on the basis of their disabilities. Below are some of the relevant

provisions:

No qualified student shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to

discrimination under any . . . transportation, other extracurricular, or other

post-secondary education program or activity. (emphasis added). 34 C.F.R. § 104.43.

Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities may include

transportation. 34 C.F.R. § 104.37.


The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, can also impact the

provision of transportation to students with disabilities. The ADA prohibits

discrimination against all persons with disabilities, and applies to public agencies,

including schools and school-age children. The ADA generally requires that there cannot

be architectural barriers in and around buildings that would prevent them from being

accessible to persons with disabilities.


Helping fill in the gaps, elaborate on, clarify, and/or add to our understanding of

transportation issues and requirements are:

 Rulings from the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education

Programs (OSEP).

 Rulings from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) (which

has jurisdiction over matters relating to Section 504 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act).

 State due process hearing decisions.

 Federal court decisions.

 State laws governing student transportation.

Is there an entitlement to transportation?

Yes. However, if a school district/charter school is not in the practice of providing transportation to the general education population, then it must decide on an individualized basis whether or not a special education student requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). If a student with a disability requires transportation as a related service, the school district/charter school must provide it.


This is true even if the district/charter school does not otherwise offer transportation to non-disabled students. In all cases, the school district’s/charter school’s obligation under the IDEA is not dependent upon whether non-disabled children receive the same type of services. Some related services are never needed by, or offered to, non-disabled students. School districts/ charter schools should ensure they have considered the IDEA’s least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate in making transportation decisions.


If a student with a disability is capable of using the same transportation services as

non-disabled students, the IDEA does not require transportation to be listed as a related

service in the IEP. Letter to Hamilton, 25 IDELR 520 (OSEP 1996). The Office of

Special Education Programs instructed that in cases where a district/charter school does not provide transportation to its general population, and parents transport students in return for mileage compensation, the IEP team must determine the district’s/charter school’s obligation to provide transportation to students with disabilities on a case-by-case basis. The district/charter school must make that determination based upon the relationship between the child’s disabilities and the need for a particular related service.


Note that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a school district may

also be required to provide transportation beyond the district’s geographic boundaries.

Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Board of Educ., 557 IDELR 315 (5th Cir. 1986)

(“Transportation required as a ‘related service’ under [the IDEA] is not arbitrarily limited

by geographic boundaries of a school district so long as it is required for the special

circumstances of the handicapped child and is reasonable when all of the facts are

considered.”)

Personnel to assist students
Personnel may include:

 Aides

 Escorts

 Monitors


If personalized services are needed in the classroom, parents may have grounds to

assert that they will also be needed on their child’s bus. However, these determinations

must be made on an individualized basis, depending on the needs of each child. The goal

of transportation as a related service is primarily to provide safe access to education. The

goals in the classroom are designed to ensure the child receives appropriate educational

benefit. These different goals may lead to different obligations.


In Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 29 IDELR 966 (1999) the U.S. Supreme Court required

districts to provide medical treatment to medically fragile students (so long as it doesn’t

need to be provided by a physician), including during the student’s transportation.

If transportation is necessary, how much is required?
Transportation is not only picking up and dropping off a student before and after school

— it’s also all other components and elements of the educational program. Each school

district/charter school must determine if a student needs transportation to and from school, and determine what type of vehicle is needed and all services needed to facilitate a safe trip. The law doesn’t say whether the district’s/charter school’s responsibility ends at the bus stop, at the curb of the student’s home, or at the door. Generally, those individual determinations are made as part of the child’s IEP process. Districts/charter schools should weigh a number of factors and determine the scope of transportation requirements on an individualized basis.


A. Bus stops vs. home pick-ups

Factors to consider:

 Is the child mobile or non-ambulatory?

 What are the effects of the child’s age and disability on ability to reason and understand

potential safety hazards?

 What is the distance traveled (e.g., dangerous, difficult terrain, etc.)

 Is private assistance readily available? (parent, etc.)

 Is public assistance available? (crossing guards, etc.)

 What are child’s general supervisory needs?


See, e.g., Jim Thorpe (PA) Area Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 78 (OCR 1993)(“with respect to

the provision of door-to-door transportation, [OCR finds] that the student was treated the

same as students from his community who did not have disabilities, in that he was picked

up and dropped off at the regular school bus stop for his community. OCR, therefore,

concludes that the District and IU #21 are not in violation of the Section 504 regulation.”)


B. Curb vs. front door

Under some circumstances, school districts/charter schools may have to go beyond the curb to pick up a child — it depends on individualized need.


If transportation is a related service, it must be provided to students at no cost to them or their parents. A district/charter school cannot make a parent transport their child to

school.


For example, in Middleborough Pub. Sch. Dist., 33 IDELR 204 (SEA MA 2000)

a state review officer ordered the district to arrange for special transportation if the parent

was unable or unwilling to continue those services, although noting that it was appropriate for the parent to transport the student to school in the mornings.


Neither can parents demand reimbursement if the school district/charter school has offered to provide appropriate transportation and they unilaterally decide to transport the student.


For example, in Maynard Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 394 (SEA AR 1993), an Arkansas school

district could not demand that parents of a student in a wheelchair make necessary

transportation arrangements. However, if the parents were willing to do so, then the

district was obligated to reimburse them.


There is little guidance in the IDEA regulations or administrative guidance concerning

parental reimbursement. A parent who transports a child with a disability is entitled to

reimbursement, if transportation is identified as a related service and the student’s IEP

calls for transportation by the parent. Under those circumstances, a school district/charter school generally reimburses the parent for transportation costs in accordance with the terms of an applicable financial agreement.


A district/charter school may also be required to reimburse parents where:

 Transportation is needed to provide FAPE and the district/charter school fails to meet its obligations.

 The district/charter school doesn’t recognize the need for transportation.

 The district/charter school makes inadequate provisions for transportation.


For example, in Yakima Sch. Dist., 36 IDELR 289 (SEA WA 2002), an administrative

law judge ruled a Washington district’s procedural errors affected the parent’s

opportunity to participate in the IEP process, because it unilaterally decided the student

did not qualify for transportation without involving the parent in the discussion.

Additionally, its failure to furnish notice resulted in the parent’s continued confusion

about the parent’s legal option to pursue transportation. Despite the FAPE violations, the

ALJ denied the parent’s claims for reimbursement of private transportation costs. The

student did not require a specialized form of transportation as a related service and,

therefore, was entitled only to the same type of transportation as her nonresident peers.

Evidence established that the only meaningful mode of transportation for nonresident

students was a reliance on their parents or other parentally arranged transport, since the

district did not offer busing to students living outside its boundaries. The ALJ

acknowledged that two hours of driving involved a significant contribution of time and

money by the parent. However, that was the burden of all nonresident parents who chose

to enroll.


In Zak L. by Tracy L. v. Cambridge Sch. Comm., 30 IDELR 863 (D. Mass. 1999), the

parents of a 10-year-old who exhibited violent behavior were entitled to reimbursement

from a Massachusetts school department for the cost of special, separate and direct

transportation to a school approved in the student’s IEP. The school department had

previously agreed to reimburse the parents if they made separate transportation

arrangements themselves. The school department later offered only van transportation or

mileage reimbursement to the parents. A hearing officer ruled that the student should

continue to receive separate and direct transportation until the matter could be finally

resolved, and that the parents should be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses

incurred in providing such transportation. According to that order, the district would

conduct a comprehensive transportation evaluation, and after analyzing the results of that

evaluation, the student’s IEP team was to amend his IEP upon approval by his parents.


In Hurry v. Jones, 555 IDELR 543 (1983-84 EHLR 555:543) (1st Cir. 1984), the

father of a 160-pound student with spastic quadriplegia and mental retardation needed to

transport his son to and from school. Neither his wife nor the van driver was physically

able to carry the student down the stairs from his front door to the street. Because the

father had to leave for work before the van arrived, he drove his son to school. State law

made the school district responsible for transportation from the student’s front door, so

the father was entitled to reimbursement. The school district proposed to reimburse him

for his mileage, but the court required that he also be reimbursed on a reasonable basis

for his time and effort. While the court did not establish a specific formula for

determining reasonable rates, it made clear that the rates should be related to the market

value of the actual services provided rather than what the parent’s time might be worth in

the course of performing his or her regular occupation.


Publicly placed private school students possess the same special education rights as

other students with disabilities. Therefore, the obligation to provide them equal

opportunities to attend extracurricular activities—under both the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act and Section 504—is also identical.


The same is true of students who are placed in out-of-district public schools. School districts are therefore required to provide opportunities to participate in extracurricular

activities in these other settings to the same extent they are required in the public school system, including any transportation needed to take advantage of this programming.


The fact that students are placed in out-of-district public or private schools cannot be used as grounds to deny them late bus service, and consequent opportunities for participation in extracurricular programming they otherwise would be entitled

to receive if they attended the system’s own schools.


In Bethpage (NY) Union Free School District 16 IDELR 1086 (OCR 1990), a New

York school district’s failure to provide late bus transportation from after-school

activities to a 12-year-old with learning disabilities, who was publicly placed in another

district, deprived him of an equal opportunity to participate in his school’s extracurricular

activities.


A Massachusetts student with profound hearing loss and related emotional problems

was placed at a school for the deaf and had an educational need to attend extracurricular

activities. She was entitled to receive the related service of transportation to enable her to

participate in those programs. In re Kathleen G. and David G., 506 IDELR 317 (SEA

MA 1984).

Significant issues
A. Accommodations for specific disabilities

In Jamestown (PA) Area Sch. Dist., 37 IDELR 260 (OCR 2002), a district promised

the Office for Civil Rights it would revise its policy and advise its transportation carrier

that a student with diabetes must be allowed snacks on the school bus. The district agreed

to develop an appropriate Section 504 plan for the student, and to implement a procedure

to designate a back-up person to the school nurse for the administration of glucagon.

Additionally, the district stated it would send a memorandum to the school bus company

requiring it to inform its drivers to permit the student to eat snacks while on the bus.

In other related decisions, OCR has held that when a student with diabetes requires a

snack during the day, the district must allow time to obtain the needed food. Eureka (CA)

City Sch., 23 IDELR 238 (OCR 1995). A district might also be required to assign an aide

to monitor the provision of snacks. Renton (WA) Sch. Dist., 21 IDELR 859 (OCR 1994).


B. Student safety

Districts/charter schools should review the following issues:

 Is there proper support equipment for each child’s specific disability?

 Has there been proper training of personnel who must secure students

during transport?

 Has there been proper safety training for all personnel?

 Are students who require it properly secured and/or restrained?

 Is all equipment in good condition and properly inspected?

 Has a crisis management plan been developed?

 Have bus safety rules been distributed to all students and parents?

 Have passenger lists for all routes been maintained and updated?


In Susavage v. Bucks County Schs. Intermediate Unit No. 22, 36 IDELR 32 (E.D. Pa.

2002) a student, unable to sit upright independently, was left unsupervised during the 20-

minute bus ride to her early intervention program at a private school. The Pennsylvania

district knew beforehand that there were three main options available to assist her - put an

aide on the bus; get a special car seat; or put her in a harness to keep her in the seat. The

district elected to go with a four-point harness. During the trip to school, she was

strangled by the harness and became unconscious. She stayed in a coma for the next nine

months and then died. The parents’ claims against the intermediate unit included charges

that it had knowledge of the danger created by the child’s seat-restraint system; failed to train its personnel in the use of the harness; and acted with deliberate indifference. Though the case is still pending, the court refused to dismiss money damages claims under the IDEA, ADA and Section 504. It ruled the parents would have a valid claim under the IDEA if they were able to prove either inadequate transportation services or an improper IEP.


C. Student behavior

The student’s IEP and, if applicable, behavioral intervention plan, should address any student behavior that could impact safe operation of the bus. The district/charter school must consider the safety of both the student and other students.


For example, a Tennessee district’s failure to ensure the safety of students in a moderate intervention program from being harassed by students with severe behavioral and emotional disabilities on the bus denied them FAPE. Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson (TN) Sch. Dist., 33 IDELR 135 (2000).


Ongoing bus-driver training is critical. Drivers should have training in behavior

management, dealing with a crisis, working together with teachers and the administration,

understanding the basics of special education law, and how to document behavioral

incidents.


Districts/charter schools receiving students with behavioral problems need to establish positive recognition for the students who have a safe bus ride with appropriate behavior. Bus drivers should also be trained to write incident reports so the district/charter school knows specifically the behavior a student has engaged in.


A student’s behavioral intervention plan should both address both school and bus

behavior. Plans should be outlined in the BIP for bus incidents. Ultimately, the school

district/charter school is responsible for transportation. If a student is not allowed to ride a bus and, for that reason, can’t get to school, that may constitute a suspension.


E. Medical issues

Factors to consider, depending on disability (e.g., medically fragile):

 Is oxygen or other breathing aid required?

 Is air conditioning required?

 Is the length of ride excessive?

 Are restraining devices required and installed?

 Is a medical attendant/nurse required?


F. Contracting for services

Generally, a district/charter school may select the method and means to transport children with disabilities and meet its legal obligations. However, the decision to contract/hire out for transportation doesn’t not alter the district’s/charter school’s obligations that are otherwise due.


In New York, a district contracted with a bus company to provide transportation to

carry students to a private school placement. The court rejected the district’s contention it

was not responsible for the students once they boarded the bus and left school grounds. It

said that where a district hires an independent contractor to provide transportation

services, it will be liable where the contractor releases a student into a situation that poses

a foreseeable risk of harm. David XX v. St. Catherine’s Center for Children, 31 IDELR

233 (NY Sup. Ct. 1999).


G. Time on bus

The district/charter school must consider length of bus ride, proximity of student’s home to placement, and overall impact on child. Many states regulate the length of bus rides for

students by establishing a maximum amount of travel time. State law also may establish a

minimum number of hours for a school day and number of days for a school year. Schools must look first within their own state to determine if such provisions exist; any

failure to comply with such provisions may amount to a violation of state law or district/charter school policy.


Neither the IDEA nor Section 504 specifically addresses the appropriate length of bus

rides for students with disabilities, although Section 504 may provide a remedy for

students with disabilities who argue that they are subjected to excessive travel times to

and from school. Lengthy bus rides may be discriminatory and may result in the denial of

FAPE. Letter to Anonymous, 20 IDELR 1155 (OSEP 1993).


In Calvert County (MD) Sch. Dist., 32 IDELR 42 (OCR 1999), a Maryland district

agreed to inform the parents of their right to request an equally appropriate placement closer to their homes. It also informed OCR it would recognize its obligation to provide similar transportation to students with and without disabilities, in terms of proximity to home and total time on bus.


Excessive travel time can result in a denial of FAPE. Although some students may

require placement at a school or facility that is not located near their home, excessive daily commuting suggests the need for a different placement, possibly a residential placement, and can be deemed to be a denial of FAPE.


What constitutes an excessive daily commute varies to a large extent on the student, their disability, overall health condition and norms for the region. Nevertheless, a review of published opinions shows that, generally speaking (and assuming the district is not located in a sparsely populated rural area), a student’s daily commute should not greatly exceed one hour either way. See, e.g., Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 557 IDELR 178 (1985-86 EHLR 557:178) (D.N.J. 1985); Covington Community Sch. Corp., 18 IDELR 180 (SEA IN 1991); Kanawho County(WV) Pub. Sch., 16 IDELR 450 (16 EHLR 450) (OCR 1987).

[lordhelpme]

we are waiting to see if this will be an issue. at the transitional iep from our sd to the resd i raised this as one of my main concerns.

when i asked what i should do to prepare him for school next yr they said have him practice sitting for long periods of time. he had a hard time w/the 20 min bus ride now they want an hour. no way!