ANALYSIS


Navigating the IEP Process: Considering Transportation Sooner Than Later


By Linda F. Bluth, Ed. D Navigating the Individualized Education Program (IEP)


process can be both intimidating and confusing for parents and school district staff alike. Frequently, not addressing transportation at the IEP meeting is the result of an em- phasis on discussions about the instructional portion of a child’s school day. It is all too common not to think about the school bus ride until after transportation has started. I regularly speak with parents requesting assistance


about how to tackle transportation issues regarding their child’s bus ride after services have been initiated. Tis fail- ure to discuss specialized transportation during an initial or annual IEP meeting can unintentionally result in parent concern and confusion. It continues to surprise me, 30 years after the passage


of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), when the key players fail to invite transportation staff to complex IEP meetings. Tis missed opportunity is a key factor contributing to parent complaints about


their


child’s transportation service. Te following situation is an example of an unintended consequence arising from a communication breakdown. Two families were informed that their child would be


picked up last in the morning and dropped off first af- ter school. Tis is impossible when both children are on the same bus at the same time. In this instance, the transportation staff was never apprised of the respective commitments made during the IEP meetings for each child. IDEA and its regulations continue to address the im-


portance of transportation as a related service. It is clearly defined in the law as including: Travel to and from school and between schools; travel in and around school build- ings; and specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts and ramps), if required to provide special trans- portation for a child with a disability. Te child’s IEP team is responsible for determining


whether transportation is a required service in order for a child to benefit from special education and related services, as well as how transportation should be implemented. Te IEP document describes the transportation services to be provided. Te child’s IEP must be reviewed annually, and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is imperative to discuss transportation at the IEP meet- ing in order to learn about each child’s specialized needs and


evaluate which strategies can best meet them. Te strategies selected should directly relate to the impact of the child’s disability on the school bus ride. For the majority of students with disabilities, the regular school bus ride is the appropri- ate accommodation. For other children, shorter bus routes, door-to-door service and/or specialized equipment may be the correct option. For example, students using a wheelchair will need to utilize a lift-equipped school bus that is either part of a regular route or specialized route. Tis determina- tion should be made at the IEP team meeting. Another decision to address at the IEP meeting is the


need for a bus monitor. Tis should not be a unilateral decision made by the transportation staff. Other issues to discuss at these meetings include implementing the posi- tive behavioral supports used in the classroom aboard the school bus for those passengers with behavioral challenges. It is also essential to address whether a child with disabil-


ities can be transported with non-disabled children. Tis requirement is consistent with the least restrictive environ- ment requirements in the IDEA. Te school bus driver and other transportation person-


nel need to understand which transportation services are required to meet a child’s specified needs. Because this infor- mation is protected by requirements in the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), all transportation staff should receive confidentiality training to protect personally identifiable information as required in federal and state law. It is also important for transporters to understand that if


transportation is included in the IEP, a bus suspension must be treated as a suspension under the discipline procedures mandatory in the IDEA. In order to ensure that no proce- dural violations occur, careful coordination between the school and transportation staff is necessary. Determining whether a child requires the related service


transportation and how to incorporate it into the IEP is not a casual decision. So, it is advisable to always have an individ- ual with expertise present when a child presents complex specialized transportation needs. Remember, denial of par- ent participation in the IEP process, including decisions relating to the transportation, can result in a procedural violation. Positive communication and knowledgeable IEP team members can enhance safe transportation for chil- dren with disabilities and avoid misunderstandings. n


Bluth is the immediate past president of NAPT. She is a quality assurance specialist with Maryland State Department of Education’s Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services. She may be reached via e-mail at lfbluth@verizon.com.


40 School Transportation News Magazine February 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60