Transcript Planning considerations, contd.

Communications among
Stakeholders for Successful
Transportation
Peggy Burns, Esq.
Education Compliance Group, Inc.
[email protected]
www.educationcompliancegroup.com
Cindy Konomos
Director of Special Education
Independence (MO) School District
[email protected]
22nd National Conference on Transporting Students w/ Disabilities & Preschoolers

Special ed doesn’t always mean transportation


All the necessary information may reside in
multiple departments/people




504 protections apply
Must develop a consistent process for your district
Planning is not enough; implementation is
critical
Thinking outside the box takes a team
Because you can, and why would you pass up
an opportunity to do it right?





Who will need it?
Who has it?
What should be done with it?
Your role?
Is necessary coordination in place between the
transportation department or contractor, the
school or school district, and parent?

Be prepared to answer all the above


Give staff members
the information they
need
They may have this
information when
acting as a “school
official” with a
“legitimate
educational interest”

FERPA (Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act) governs education records

Handout

HIPPA

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/underst
anding/coveredentities/hipaaferpajointguide.pdf

IDEA provisions


Related service personnel must have access to
information about “the what” and “the how” of the
disability-related needs of a child with a disability, 34
CFR Sec. 300.323(d)
Recipients of information must be trained in nondisclosure requirements, 34 CFR Sec. 300.610



Related service personnel must have access
to information about “the what” and “the
how” of the disability-related needs of a
child with a disability, 34 CFR §300. 323(d).
Recipients of information must be trained in
non-disclosure requirements, 34 CFR
§300.610.
OSEP (August 22, 2003) and OSERS (Q & A,
November 9, 2009) documents reinforce:

Need for “meaningful and effective
communication – before the fact – between school
district personnel and transportation providers
about the transportation needs and potential
problems of individual students”






Behavior that is aggressive or dangerous? BIP?
Circumstances affecting location of pickup and/or
return?
Specific types of assistance that must be provided
by an adult?
Condition requiring monitoring, interpretation,
data collection, or intervention?
Implications for any aspect of transportation
because of medical condition?
Anticipation of foreseeable transportation
emergencies?






Need for use of technology or assistive devices
such as trach tube, helmet, ventilator, oxygen,
or frequent suctioning; walker, manual
wheelchair, power wheelchair?
Uncontrolled seizures?
Adapted car seat, safety vest or seat restraint
And, who needs to know?
What are the training implications?
What are the documentation implications


What specific information should be shared,
and with whom?
What is the context and purpose for the
communication at issue?





Planning
Implementation
Investigation
Other
Written v. oral communication



Failure to share information w/ contractor
about student’s condition contributed to injury
in course of evacuation drill.
IEP team made conscious decision not to
provide rationale for directive that student
should sit alone. Driver’s failure to enforce
directive may be direct cause of injury.
Lack of coordination spells FAPE failure when
district fails to address student’s mobility
issues.



School officials fail to advise transportation
about sexual behavior between students –
students take same bus to travel home.
Various cases and scenarios illustrate need for
drivers/aides to have information from BIP’s.
Bullying and harassment that are part of a
patterns must be addressed appropriately –
absent communication and coordination,
school officials may not recognize pattern,
and/or may fail to act accordingly.