that students are receiving safe transportation in the vehicle selected for school transportation. In Delaware, it is continuing to grow for the transpor-
tation of our homeless and foster youth. Our regulations currently require the local education authority to es- tablish its own policies and procedures for this type of transportation. After much conversation with our local transportation supervisors, they have requested that the state develop regulations around this type of transpor- tation to create a standard framework for consistency across the state. The goal was to use NCST to propel us forward with creating the regulation.
STN: How and why did you get involved as the writing
committee chair? Bryan: I had been tasked with chairing the NASDPTS
position paper for alter- native transportation, so when they were looking for members of this com- mittee, I had expressed interest since I had already been doing some work within this subject. When I found out they were in need of a chair for this section, I agreed to step up and take the lead, as I knew we would also be looking to do similar work in Delaware.
STN: What were the
committee’s goals enter- ing into the deliberations in Iowa? Bryan: The goal the
gate voting? What was the process for creating a writing committee that never existed before? Bryan: With the NCST process, there was a first period,
during which state delegations and interested par- ties could submit language, proposals or requests for changes. In the first round of proposals, our committee received only one proposal, which aimed to clarify the NHSTA guidance on the use of 15-passenger vans. This meant the committee needed to start drafting a pro- posal from scratch. The committee decided to examine multiple states that had already adopted regulations for alternative transportation, which we then used to identify similarities between them, providing us with a starting point. The committee then determined what areas we
It is definitely a more
extensive process to start a new section from scratch versus just changing existing language. I was very fortunate to have
committee was tasked with from the start was to form minimum regulations that were attainable for states to implement, to help ensure student safety when riding in vehicles other than a certified school bus. Recognizing that states can differ significantly in their operations, the committee worked diligently to propose language that would not alienate these differences but rather provide a framework for states to use in shaping their regulations to ensure safe transportation for students.
STN: How did the committee operate? What work went into formalizing/creating the proposals for dele-
great committee members who offered valuable input and time to allow us to put forth a solid proposal to congress.
wanted to focus on within this proposal, which were driver credentials, driver training, vehicle design and equipment, special education policy consid- erations, and other policy considerations. We then split into subgroups, split- ting up within each of these subjects. The small groups then formed their recommendations, which included non-voting advisory members from various alternative trans- portation providers who also contributed input on these subject areas. Once the subgroups
completed their work, we brought it back to the main group and reviewed each area, voting on what we wanted to include in our proposal. Our pro- posal then went out for comment, and this time we received 15 comments
for recommended language changes or additions. Our committee then reconvened to vote to either accept or reject those recommendations and then provided the committee’s decision back to those who submitted change requests. That was the process we followed for developing the final proposal that came to the Congress floor. It is definitely a more extensive process to start a new section from scratch versus just changing existing language. I was very fortunate to have great committee
www.stnonline.com 29
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
