Special Education Information Meeting - Mt. Diablo Unified School by pptfiles


									 Mt. Diablo USD
August 20, 2012
- Review Previous Special Education Transportation
- Current Board Policy and Administrative Regulations
- Pertinent CA and Fed Laws re Transportation
- California Cases
- Transportation Nuances/Gray Areas
- IEP Procedures re Special Ed Transportation
- Hypotheticals
   In past, IEP teams have lacked
    guidance/structure as to how to analyze
    whether a particular student with an IEP
    needs transportation as a related service.
   In addition, teams have not been fully aware
    of the continuum of options for special
    education transportation.
   There has been no system to document the
    specific needs of individual students in
    relation to transportation.
     FCMAT Findings

• Apportionment and General Fund
   • State Ave California 35%/District
• Apportionment vs. Costs (10/11)
   • Home to School 1.1 mil vs. 1.7 mil
   • SD/OI 1.1 mil vs. 7.1 mil
• Btwn 10/11 and 11/12
   • Home to School Routes Decreased
   • SD/OI remained the same (58)
   • SD/OI mileage went up
• 11/12 Transported 1031 SD/OI
• 26% of Special Education Students Rcvd
• 140+ parents received reimbursement
             AA Med Transport/Vee
             Transportation for
             students who are
             • medically fragile
             • Require specialized
               medical transportation

AA Med Trans $416,000
Vee Care     $19,800
                   • Fremont School for the
                   • NPS outside District
                   • Alternative to District
                     Transport for Unique
$1,890,000         • Students at sites within
Cost range from      district that were
$40-$180 per         unable to be served by
student per trip     district resources
 2011/2012 Elementary
Special Day Class Locations
2011/2012 Elementary Special
    Day Class Locations
   Added Elementary SDC/LH Continuum in Bay
   Placed Students Back at or Near Their Home
    School (allowing for IDAs)
   Eliminated Parent Option to Transport with
   Discontinued Transporting Students Who
    Attend Home School (except those who meet
2012/2013 Elementary Special
Day Classes
   Federal Regulations define special education
    transportation as a related service. It is required
    to be provided as a related service if it is required
    to assist a child with a disability benefit from
    special ed.
   IDEA broadly defines special ed transportation:
    travel to/from school/between schools, travel
    in/around school buildings; and specialized
    equipment if required to provide special
    education transportation for a child with
   IDEA does not explicitly define transportation as
    door to door or aide to escort child to/from bus.
    This decision is left up to discretion of IEP team.
   Ed Code 41850(d) – severely disabled SDC pupils
    and orthopedically impaired pupils who require a
    vehicle with wheelchair lift
   Ed Code 41850(b)(5) – home to school
    transportation services
   CDE’s Transportation Guidelines (includes
    reference to students with OHI, SLD or cognitive
    disabilities or pupils who live beyond reasonable
    distance to their school and would not, without
    transportation, have access to appropriate
    special education instruction and related services
    at no cost)
   Student v. LAUSD, OAH Case No.
   District was not required to provide Student
    eligible for special education as SLD with
    home to school transportation because
    ◦ student was doing well in school
    ◦ no behavior problems
    ◦ no significant physical disabilities or health
   Student v Soquel Union Elementary School District, OAH
    Case No. 2006120082

   Student eligible for special education services for a
    speech/language disorder. District mistakenly offered
    transportation because IEP team thought it was District’s
    policy to offer to all special education students.

   OAH held: Student does not require transportation as a
    related service. While student had significant
    expressive/receptive language delays, he has social skills
    and hazard awareness comparable to his peers. The fact
    that student, like his peers, is not able to safely get
    to school by himself does not require district to
    provide special education transportation.
Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District (SEHO Case
no. SN 03-01877)
Facts: Student (6 years old) qualified for special education
services as SLD. Parent requested door to door
transportation to grandparents’ house. Parent said
needed door to door because of safety risk associated
with walking 1/8 mile stretch of road by herself (attention,
impulsivity and defiance)
Holding: Student did not have unique need for door to
door transportation. While it may be that Student would
be at greater risk than typical 6 year old if she walked
along the side of the road alone , no 6 year old should
walk along side of road without supervision from
parent or other responsible adult.
-District is not obligated to transport student outside District’s
geographical boundaries based upon parental needs
-North Allegheny School District v. Gregory P. (1996) 25
IDELR 297 - 7 year old with hearing impairment lived part-
time with mother in district boundaries and part-time with
father outside district boundaries. Court denied father’s
request to have student transported to father’s residence
outside district.
-North Allegheny rationale: the transportation requested was
not related to special education needs but to accommodate
particular domestic arrangement. It is not the purpose of the
IDEA to mitigate such hardships.
   As a general rule, the District will not be
    offering reimbursement to parents for
    transportation services starting in the 2012-
    2013 school year.
   IEP teams will need to determine mode of
    transportation and write goals and provide
    supports if needed.
   Exception: If Transportation Department
    determines no other mode of transportation
    is available, parent reimbursement may be
-Per District AR 3541, IEP team/504 team shall
consider, at a minimum, the following:
1. Student’s safety and health needs;
2. Extent to which transportation arrangements
   may help the student develop independent
   mobility skills
3. Student’s difficulty in using regular
   transportation services
4. Coordination of regular and special
   Three Primary Reasons Students May Receive
    Transportation as a Related Service
    ◦ Medically Fragile
    ◦ Significant Safety or Behavioral Needs
    ◦ Location of Placement or Services
      Students Placed at Other Than School of Residence
      Students receive services at location other than school
       of residence
   Transportation services should be provided
    in the Least Restrictive Mode
   This is best for students and helps to build
   This is often where parent convenience,
    practical issues AND student needs often
   IEP team should also consider whether
    student needs goals related to the use of
    public transportation
   The Mode of Transportation services may
    need approval by District transportation
    administrator before being committed to on
   Mode of transportation needs to be described
    in sufficient enough detail to inform parties
    of how, when, and from where transportation
    will be provided.
The IEP teams should be trained on a uniform
system of terms for transportation.

Review of Terms in Special Education
Transportation chart
-regular education transportation
-school to school transportation
-point to point, unsupervised or supervised
-hand to hand
-safety support (need to specify)
-bus attendant (rider)
   IEP team needs to be specific as to location of pick up and
    drop off. IDEA does not require pick up at home and does
    not prohibit bus stop locations. It is an IEP team decision.
   Courts have considered the following criteria in their
    assessment of whether door to door transportation is
-   Student’s age, disability, unique problems associated with
    the particular disability.
-   Distance traveled between student’s home, bus stop (if
    walk to bus stop is fairly long, may weigh in favor of door
    to door), nature and conditions of route traveled from
    home to bus stop.
-   Availability of public assistance on the route, access to
    private assistance [note: if more than just guidance is
    needed, this may be indication student’s bus stop
    assignment may not be appropriate]
◦ Student is a 13 Year Old Middle School Student
◦ Placed in an Full-Time Collaborative Placement
◦ Student Attends School of Residence
◦ Student has average intelligence and Social Skills
◦ Student has no known medical issues
◦ Parent is Requesting Door to Door Transportation
  citing that the walk to school is unsafe
◦ The student does not like to walk to school and
  mom is also afraid he will start being truant or late
  if he does not get transportation because he
  already does not like school and has ADHD.
   Student is a 14 year old Freshman attending her
    home school
   Student is deaf and has a 1:1 sign interpreter for
    her entire day
   Student has always received door to door
    transportation as she attended schools that were
    not her school of residence in the past
   Student tried to take general education
    transportation 2 years ago and was significantly
    bullied (documented) related to her disability
   Parent is insistent that student should continue
    to receive transportation under “stay put”
   Student is a kindergarten student with SDC
    services, OT and borderline intelligence
   Student spends 1 week with mom and 1 week
    with dad
   Dad’s house is within the school of residence
   Mom’s house is within district boundaries but not
    within the school of residence
   Parents are both requesting door to door
    transportation with student going to mom’s
    house one week and dad’s day care provider in a
    different part of town after school every other

To top