Meeting the daily challenges of transporting children with disabilities is real and
complex. These challenges are not new, but they are increasingly multifaceted. On top of the challenge list in many school districts is driver shortages, followed by the cost of transportation services. What can be overwhelming is the increase in competing priorities to safely transport children with disabilities.

The pressure resulting from how to accomplish safe transportation for these children can result in inadequate decision-making. Guided by the principles of safety, responsibility and entitlement under federal and state law it is imperative to aspire to respond to challenges for safe transportation of children with disabilities by timely addressing the “Do’s and Don’ts” under pressure. I am realizing more and more about the importance of knowing what is and is not required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In addition to federal law, it is critical to be well-versed about state law pertaining to the related service of transportation for eligible children under the IDEA. Under the
IDEA Part B regulations, transportation is defined as a related service that includes: “(i) Travel to and from school and between schools; (ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and (iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability.” (34 CFR §300.34(c)(16).

At first glance, this IDEA definition appears clear. In reality, unique individual child transportation requirements necessitate extensive knowledge about the related service of transportation and its explicit requirements.

Understanding the role of the individualized education program (IEP) team’s responsibility under the IDEA to develop, approve and implement the related service transportation is essential. Approved transportation services should always be documented in the IEP to avoid misunderstandings and potential IDEA compliance violations. The IEP team meeting should always include all the qualified personnel necessary to make an informed decision, including the parent.

Don’t make unilateral transportation decisions without the attendance of all stakeholders that are required for implementing an IEP. The following is an example of a costly mistake that happened multiple times during my career. The IEP team, under pressure from a single parent, required that a child be picked up first and dropped off last.

This was solely based upon the parent’s work schedule and not the needs of her child, based upon their disability. Unknown to transportation, the IEP team approved the request. It was not feasible to implement but still approved and written into the child’s IEP. The parent emphatically stated her request was “required under the IDEA.” The IEP team was intimidated and believed her.

This IEP decision resulted in a hearing officers’ requirement for the school district to add a new route to implement the approved IEP service. Can you imagine the unintentional effect of this IEP team’s unilateral decision? Make sure that the IEP team is fully knowledgeable about the IDEA transportation related service requirements, and do not make a decision based upon false information.

Another example of a costly mistake is when a parent at an IEP meeting claims, citing IDEA, their child is required to be transported to after-school care 17 miles away from
their home address. The IEP team unwisely believes the parent and approves their request.

The lesson to be learned is don’t believe everything that a person says without knowing how the IDEA addresses a specific issue. Be knowledgeable about what state law says on a specific topic and how the school district’s policies and procedures address the issue. In the previous example, it is likely that if the school district transports children without disabilities to requested after-school care or daycare, the school district will also be required to do so for children with disabilities as a matter of equity. These are just two examples of challenges whereby poor decision-making resulted in an avoidable costly error.

It is essential to know federal and state laws pertaining to transportation service eligibility requirements for children with disabilities. It is wise to rethink in advance
how to best provide these transportation services for children with disabilities. Utilizing school transportation data can improve decision-making. Accessing all funding sources helps to offset costly transportation services. One example is billing Medicaid when it is an allowable transportation expense.

Communication and coordination between multiple school district departments is key to problem-solving. It is key to be knowledgeable and current about best practices and school transportation literature concerning safe transportation of children with disabilities.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the November  2024 issue of School Transportation News.

Linda F. Bluth, Ed.D. is a national compliance and regulatory expert on IDEA transportation law and provisions. She is a tenured faculty member of the TSD Conference, a regular STN contributor, and a Hall of Fame member of the National Association for Pupil Transportation.

Related: California ‘Rising Star’ Supports Students with Disabilities Through Driver Training, Education
Related: TSD Foundation Class Provides Basics to Transporting Students with Special Needs
Related:(STN Podcast E236) TSD 2024 Recap: Supporting Students with Special Needs as Unique People
Related: Sexual Abuse Prevention Expert Provides Strategies When Transporting Students with Disabilities

The post Recommended Do’s and Don’ts for Meeting the Challenges of Transporting Children with Disabilities appeared first on School Transportation News.

At the 2022 Transporting Students with Disabilities (TSD) Special Needs Conference, I
had the opportunity to facilitate a presentation on “Navigating the IDEA: Implementing
Appropriate Transportation Services for Children with Disabilities.” This presentation included three distinguished panelists, my fellow TSD Tenured Faculty members Launi Schmutz-Harden, Alexandra Robinson and Susan Shutrump. It was during this presentation, I passionately advocated for the provision of safe transportation in all modes of school transportation for children with disabilities.

I emphasized there was an urgent need for the next meeting of the 17th National Congress on Student Transportation (NCST) in May 2025 to adopt standards for all allowable school transportation vehicles serving children. The importance of alternative school transportation standards being adopted at the next NCST should not be underestimated.

A few days prior to attending the TSD Conference, a parent called me and asked, “Now that my child is no longer assigned to a yellow school bus and is transported in a van, can you assure me that this vehicle is as safe as the yellow school bus?” My answer, with zero reluctance, was “No.”

She went on to ask who can assure her that the van that her child was being transported in was as safe as the yellow school bus. I replied, “I don’t know.” Politely, she commented she was shocked that a long-time supporter of school transportation safety had no response or contact information to address her concerns. Consequently, my journey to establish the necessity for NCST to address the matter of alternative transportation vehicles and school transportation safety begun. Meeting this goal was an unyielding commitment.

In the January 2023 School Transportation News issue, Ryan Gray’s Editor’s Take, titled “Yellow or Not, Uniform Minimum Standards Are Needed,” also addressed the need. He stated, “Linda Bluth advised the [TSD Conference] audience during a Nov. 11 general session on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and transportation as a related service that the National Congress on Student Transportation (NCST) must take up the issue and set standards that these alt transportation providers are all beholden to. After all, she noted, nowhere in the IDEA is school bus mentioned, only transportation. There is a place for these companies to supplement the work of school buses, Bluth added.”

Ryan’s article provided encouragement to contact the NCST leadership and make a strong case for the inclusion of a new committee to specifically address alternative school transportation vehicles. After multiple efforts, I was pleased to learn that the Non- Traditional Vehicle Writing Committee, now referred to as the NCST Alternative Transportation Committee, was in place under the leadership of Tyler Bryan, the education associate for school transportation at the Delaware Department of Education. I was pleased to be informed that I was one of the committee’s writing team members. The membership of this writing committee includes diverse stakeholders with multiple perspectives on alternative school transportation.

Simultaneously, the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) under the leadership of Peter Mannella, public policy and communications liaison as well as chairperson of the public policy committee, wrote a paper approved by the NAPT Board on Alternative School Transportation Services. This paper contains the following statement. “NAPT believes that every entity which intends to transport children to and from school needs to meet certain standards of safety. Given the well-documented safety record that the school bus has attained, we believe that alternative transporters must rise to the same or similar standards to achieve that record for the children being transported.”

This statement is a part of the NAPT position paper on Alternative Transportation Services that is available in its entirety on the NAPT website and at stnonline.com/go/k9. As a member of this committee, I was pleased to have the opportunity to provide input. My committee involvement provided a further opportunity to advocate for inclusion of the topic Alternative Transportation Services at the upcoming NCST next May in Des Moines, Iowa.

My never-ending agenda was to continue to challenge the NCST to address the need for minimum standards for the use of alternative school transportation for all students. Most specifically, vulnerable individuals such as children with disabilities, homeless students and students residing in foster care that utilize alternative school transportation vehicles.

I am committed to advocating for the appropriate and safe use of alternative transportation services for children with disabilities when the yellow school bus cannot meet an individual child’s needs. This decision should only be determined by the individualized education program (IEP) team, including appropriate school and transportation personnel. It is crucial that school district and contract providers, school district personnel, drivers, parents and students as appropriate, are involved in these decisions. The IEP process is the appropriate mechanism for taking all the steps necessary to make an informed decision to provide safe transportation and meet the individual needs of a child with a disability.

At the annual IEP meeting, the IEP team should evaluate whether alternative transportation is necessary or whether the student can be transported on the school bus. Under the IDEA it is required that all school transportation personnel, including substitute personnel, receive training in accordance with federal and state regulations. Training of direct and indirect transportation personnel should always be consistent with recommended transportation services on an individual child’s IEP, in order to provide safe transportation.

Undisputable is the necessity to ensure safe and reliable transportation is a top priority. The school transportation literature persuasively notes that the yellow school bus is the safest form of school transportation and unarguably should always be considered the first means of school transportation. However, it is acknowledged that the yellow school bus cannot always meet each individual student’s specific needs. With that being said, there is no sustainable excuse to delay the setting of recommended uniform minimum standards at the upcoming NCST, to address safety regardless of the mode of school transportation.

In summary, from my past experience and efforts, the NCST has been resistant to include non-school transportation vehicles in the National Specifications and Procedures document. The inclusion of the NonTraditional Vehicle Writing Committee at the 17th NCST is a long awaited and welcomed change. I am hopeful, that the recommendations of the Non-Traditional Vehicles Committee will be adopted by the 17th NCST and included in the next National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures manual. In reality, there is no defensible rationale to reject the work of the NCST Alternative Transportation Committee attempting to improve the safety of all children transported to and from school, regardless of mode of school transportation.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the October 2024 issue of School Transportation News.

Linda F. Bluth, Ed.D. is a national compliance and regulatory expert on IDEA transportation law and provisions. She is a tenured faculty member of the TSD Conference, a regular contributor to School Transportation News, and a National Association Pupil Transportation Hall of Fame member.

Related: TSD Conference Sessions to Push Attendees to Uncover Innovative Solutions
Related: NAPT Awards Highlight Individuals for Outstanding Achievements, Excellence
Related: Behavior Expert Brings Special Needs De-Escalation Tools to TSD Conference
Related: Special Education Attorney to Discuss Avoiding Legal Hazards of Student Transportation

The post Beyond the Yellow School Bus: Alternative School Transportation appeared first on School Transportation News.