Communications among Stakeholders for Successful Transportation Peggy Burns, Esq. Education Compliance Group, Inc. Cindy Konomos Director of Special Education Independence (MO) School District 22 nd National Conference on Transporting Students w/ Disabilities & Preschoolers

 Special ed doesn’t always mean transportation  504 protections apply  All the necessary information may reside in multiple departments/people  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  anding/coveredentities/hipaaferpajointguide.pdf 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 (d)  Recipients of information must be trained in non- disclosure requirements, 34 CFR Sec

 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 § (d).  Recipients of information must be trained in non-disclosure requirements, 34 CFR §  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.