Peggy Burns, Esq. Education Compliance Group, Inc Copyright © 2011, Education Compliance Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Inaction where action is needed  Mis-reading clues and signals  Failing to second guess first chances  Failing to work with what you’ve got  Failing to play by the rules

 Policies and procedures  Commitments Expectations  Ministerial v. discretionary rules  Balancing the duty to one with the duty to all  Supervision of students  Have you done what you can?  Safe workplace v. education for all

Is there reason to know harm is likely? Did the school district, company or its employees do anything to increase the harm? Were available options explored? What does applicable policy permit?

 Required:  Reporting to appropriate personnel  Intervention within the staff member’s sphere of authority  Investigation – what is your role in this process?  Prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end harassment, if it has occurred; eliminate the hostile environment and its effects; and prevention of recurrence or retaliation  Training and policy review as necessary

 A distinction without a difference?  What is the difference?  The importance of label  What is the appropriate response?  “Knew or should have known” standard  Has the educational environment become “hostile”?  Need for comprehensive approach to elimination

 The school bus: “A ripe opportunity”  The special vulnerability of students with special needs  Coordination and communication  Training and professional development  Reporting mechanisms  Responsiveness to families  Enforcement

 James, a student with Down syndrome, is excited to be on the bus with older students. James has asked the driver if he can sit in the back with his new friends. After several months James begins to say inappropriate things to the girls. You learn of this when girls’ parents start calling to complain. The driver has written him up when she saw him pinch a girl’s butt, after which he ran to the back of the bus with the older boys. Apparently, the write- up wound up in a “black hole.”  How should this be handled?

 The feds take a role in recent litigation  Action v. Inaction: Enforcement of rules  Training and clear direction are key  Coordination, role delineation, investigation and follow-up: messages from legal cases

 Kyle is 18, and Pablo is 9. Both students have emotional disabilities. Pablo also has been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. Neither the district’s transportation coordinator nor anyone from the bus company has been provided information about Kyle’s history of sexual assaults on younger students, including on the school bus. In addition, neither has been given information about the fact that Pablo was the victim of frequent and pervasive harassment on the regular bus to which he had been previously assigned.

 After many complaints to the school by Pablo’s mother about the bullying to which he was being subjected, the boy had been offered counseling, and the bus change from the regular bus to the small bus was predicated upon administrators trying to keep him safe from the harassment.  Kyle and Pablo have been placed on the same small bus. No attendant was assigned to the bus. Since transportation administrators have no information, neither does the driver.  A sub driver, assigned to the route one day, noticed suspicious behavior on the part of the boys, but did nothing about it until the end of the route.

 In fact, Kyle had assaulted Pablo....  Is anyone but Kyle in trouble?  How could this have been prevented?  What steps would you take in the future?

 Seating arrangements and other common sense solutions may be among your most important behavior management strategies  When bus conduct is out of control, serious legal issues can result  If positive behavioral interventions are required, you need to know...and drivers need to use them  Monitor compliance, and know the strength of your position