as an area of concern was the treatment of students with disabilities . Te rising number of students with diabetes and food allergies was seen as a cause for more complaints. Also singled out for mention was an inves- tigation at 10 Alabama school districts to determine whether or not students with disabilities are being dis- criminated against by having a shortened school day based on school transportation schedules. Potential for medical emergencies: Menlo Park


Elementary School District (CA, July 2010). In dem- onstrating that they are prepared to address medical emergencies, districts and companies should have a clear and communicated protocol and effective driver training program, and consider such factors as the length of the student’s ride, the availability of additional adult support, and the likelihood that an emergency will actually occur in a particular case. Te need to address students’ medical conditions on the school bus – whether such conditions are the possibil- ity of seizure, care of a trach tube, incidents of serious allergic reaction, or diabetes management – often re- quire the finder-of-fact to sort out the real basis for parental concern. In the Menlo Park Elementary case, the student at


issue was a 10 year-old with autism and other disabili- ties, as well as a tendency toward low blood sugar in relation to his Type I diabetes. His parents claimed that the district’s transportation offer was unsafe, because the possibility of late bus arrival might lead to compli- cations from his diabetes. Tey cited a single incident that had occurred at school when the bus arrived late to take their son home, as evidence of the inappropri- ateness of the district’s transportation plan. In fact, the parents’ refusal of the district’s offer and assertion that it was unsafe followed the district’s determination to withdraw permission for his two non-disabled siblings to accompany him on the bus. Te state agency accepted the district’s evidence


that the trip was short, the boy had a long history of successful school bus transportation, the school nurse diligently attended to the boy’s needs at school, and the driver had been well trained to address an emer- gency. Instead, the agency found that the parents’ arguments were “speculative,” and really amounted to the assertion that the boy could not be safe on the bus unless the district transported his sisters to and from school. And, any real chance of a problem was attrib- utable to the parents’ unreasonable refusal to allow district staff to treat the boy unless he seized or passed out. Te agency determined that the district did not have to cater to parents’ restrictive instructions, or the needs of the mother. Student-to-student sexual misconduct. Tere has


been a dramatic conclusion to Lopez v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, a seri-


ous case of student-to-student sexual molestation that I first reported on last year. You’ll recall that the facts involved 19-year old Kolby Harris’ sexual assault on 9-year old Gilberto Lopez. Te parents of both special needs students had requested particular accommoda- tions in light of safety concerns involving their children; those accommodations were not made, and an unin- formed substitute driver noted – without intervening – that “something inappropriate may have happened” on her “watch.” On Jan. 27, 2010, the U.S. Justice Department, which


had intervened in the case because of its “strong inter- est in ensuring that recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex. . .and that federal funds are not disbursed to entities that do not comply with the federal law,” settled with the school district for a payment to Gilberto of $1.475 million. Te settlement also obligated the district to : (1) assign bus monitors on all special needs buses, (2) improve procedures re- lated to harassment reporting and investigation, (3) take additional steps to protect vulnerable students with special needs from a foreseeable risk of harass- ment, and (4) conduct comprehensive annual training for transportation personnel who transport at least one student with a disability. Transportation as a related service: South Hunter-


don Regional Board of Education (NJ, February 2010) is a reminder that not all students with a disability are automatically entitled to special transportation services, absent school district policy or state law or regulation. Although transportation may be available according to policy simply based on the location of the student’s residence, the need for accommodations like special pick-up sites depends on determination by the IEP team. A 13-year old, whose IEP classified her as “specific


learning disabled non-specific” was diagnosed with asthma and ADHD. After a period of time during which the school bus picked her up at her driveway, her par- ents were notified that she would board at the regular bus stop, 7/10 of a mile from their residence at the end of a rural road. Te transportation director had noted that pick-up at the house required the bus to turn around on a narrow road, a difficult procedure that was also in violation of policy. Transportation did not appear as a related service on her IEP. Te student had difficulty getting ready for school because she had no concept of time. Her father worried about predator and safety issues. Te administrative law judge noted that the safety issues were, alone, “not sufficient to change the bus stop,” and that “many students walk a longer distance to a bus stop by themselves.” Tere was no medical testimony as to the need for curbside pick-up because of the student’s disability. Terefore, the re- quest for transportation as a related service was denied.


www.stnonline.com 45


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