VIDEO TRAINING PROGRAMS
FOR DRIVERS

NEW! "The Road to Compliance for Special Needs Drivers"

This video training program will provide the foundation for the essential functions performed by drivers of students with disabilities. Discussion guide and driver handout included. LEARN MORE

NEW! "PUTTING THE BRAKES ON HARASSMENT: TRAINING FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS"

This video training program will help your drivers recognize and address student-to-student harassment when it happens on their watch. A trainer's discussion guide and handout for drivers is included. LEARN MORE

"STEERING CLEAR OF LIABILITY: TRAINING FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS"

This video training program drives home the concern of unauthorized stops and schedules! Train drivers to avoid legal detours created when a driver
doesn't follow the rules. LEARN MORE

"CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS: TRAINING FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS"

The only video training program about confidentiality created for school bus drivers! This award-winning program meets federally-mandated prerequisites for drivers to get the information they need. LEARN MORE

LEGAL ROUTES™ NEWSLETTER

“Your roadmap to pupil transportation law and compliance.” This bi-monthly newsletter offers analysis you can understand, experience you can benefit from, and a foundation you can depend on for the critical decisions transportation officials must make. LEARN MORE

SCHOOL BUS STOPS: A SAFETY GUIDE FOR TRANSPORTERS

The "Bus Stop Book," co-authored by Peggy Burns, Lenny Bernstein & Jim Ellis, is now available direct from Education Compliance Group, Inc. Here's sound, practical advice for school districts and bus companies about how and where to place school bus stops. LEARN MORE

Point of Law™

Peggy’s Picks for The Most Important Pupil Transportation Issues For 2008

Free Downloads:

Use of Child Safety Restraints: Factors to Consider

Avoiding Employment Discrimination – Part I: The Basics of a Sexually Hostile Work Environment Claim

Burns’ Best Bets: Bus Stop Design and Change

Peggy’s Picks for The Most Important Pupil Transportation Issues for 2008

Training, Training, Training – More cases focused on training staff at all levels than ever before. A significant Pennsylvania case called into question training programs that merely meet minimum state requirements in areas in which drivers really need more than the minimum. Specifically, this need for training enhancement is especially pointed for drivers and attendants who transport students with special needs. Many of these children may require particular attention or intervention in connection with their ride.

The cases also suggest that, while inviting drivers and attendants to use their best judgment in addressing student matters may be an acceptable strategy much of the time, it is sometimes necessary to provide personnel with specific directives and standard procedures where they might otherwise compromise students safety and welfare. Think, for example – and these are just examples – about adherence to designated pick-up and drop-off locations and schedules; interacting with parents and educators; checking buses for students left behind at the end of a route; intervention in student-to-student altercations and fights; seating arrangements; use of harsh language and force in discipline matters; and proper use of assistive equipment with students with disabilities.

And, middle-level managers with authority to impact the employment circumstances of other staff members (for example, by playing a role in the hiring, evaluation, compensation, and discipline processes) must be trained to do these jobs legally. Too many cases in the arena of employment discrimination (particularly with respect to harassment on the basis of sex, race or national origin; and in interacting with employees who seek a “reasonable accommodation” because of a disability) continue to highlight the need for training in the area of employment law.

Sexual Harassment – This perennial “most important” issue seemed to dominate the dockets in 2008. Vulnerable students with special needs were most often the victims. Courts focused attention on related issues of training, seating arrangements, the extent to which drivers and attendants took appropriate action when they knew about the sexual harassment, and responsibilities of administrators to supervise and give directives to staff about behavior management techniques.

Extent of School District Duty – Courts focused on the significant differences between the assertion that school districts must prevent all harm to students on school buses (they need not!) and the duty to prevent foreseeable harm (this, they must do!). When a district or bus company has reason to predict harm which it has a good chance of minimizing with the use reasonable methods, the law requires the district or company to take the necessary action.

Getting Information to the Right People – Since “foreseeability” is such a key legal concept, the notion of “communication” is close behind. In other words, when school district personnel have information that would put them on notice of the potential for harm in the absence of action, they need to be sure they communicate that information to the very people most likely to be able to act to prevent or stop the harm. And, changes and commentary to revised Regulations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that became effective on January 8, 2009, make more clear than ever before that school bus contractors and all school bus drivers with “legitimate educational interest” in having student information that will help them perform more effectively, may receive such information without parent/guardian permission (of course, such information may be disclosed automatically with permission. Release of the information remains within the discretion of the school district that maintains the information, and is subject to notification to parents and guardians regarding the criteria for sharing such information without parental permission.

Groaning Over Overtime – For some years, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been a nightmare for pupil transportation professionals who may have little or no training in the overtime provisions of this long-time federal law. 2008 saw a number of cases in this area in various states. Self-audits of transportation departments (in conjunction with your human resources professional and legal counsel) are well worth the time and expense to prevent on-going violations which can easily be “contagious” throughout a school district or company.

Use of Child Safety Restraints:
Factors to Consider

School transportation professionals must be alert to a number of overlapping issues when the use of CSR’s is considered or implemented:

The need for parental involvement in the discussion;
Individualized consideration of this child’s special needs;
Investigation of alternatives, including reimbursement to parents if they will provide transportation;
Appropriate collection of data, and assessment of behavior triggers and potential remedies for potentially dangerous conduct, prior to use of restraint;
Analysis of the district’s previous unsuccessful attempts to prevent danger from a student with the use of lesser interventions;
Documentation that danger to the student at issue and/or others is likely in the absence of restraint;
Evaluation prior to use of the effectiveness of the Child Safety Restraint System identified for this child for the purpose for which it is designed;
The restraint used – both in type and frequency – should be as minimal as necessary in order to be effective without compromising safety;
Identification of appropriate assignment and functions of various staff members (for example, personnel employed by the various entities involved, like intermediate units, school districts, and bus companies; special education personnel, including physical and occupational therapists; drivers; and bus attendants) in needs identification, and installation and securement of CSR’s;
Effective training of all entities’ staff members with responsibilities for installation and securement of the CSR, including substitute drivers and attendants; and,
Achieving balance between timely implementation of the IEP and resolution of all safety issues.

Avoiding Employment Discrimination –
Part I: The Basics of a Sexually Hostile Work Environment Claim

Plaintiff is member of a protected group. . .This can be men or women
The victim was subjected to unwelcome harassment
The harassment was based on gender or sexual orientation
Due to the harassment’s severity or pervasiveness, the
harassment altered a term, condition, or privilege of the plaintiff’s
employment and created an abusive environment

The U.S. Supreme Court has set the standard for the level of harassment necessary to establish the existence of a hostile environment: “all circumstances” must be considered, including the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.”

Three judges from the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently objected to workers turning “the American workplace” into“ a seething cauldron”… “with complaints of being offended by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard of, them.” Yuknis v. First Student, Inc., 2007 WL 912121 (Illinois, March 28, 2007). The case helps to “illustrate the difference between mere offense on the one hand and serious harassment on the other.” (For more, see Legal Routes, www.legalroutes.com.)

Requirement of severity/pervasiveness prevents “ordinary socializing in the work place – such as male-on-male horseplay or intersexual flirtation” from becoming prohibited sexual discrimination.

You may have a good defense to a claim where there has been no tangible employment action:

If the school district or company took reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior. That means policy development, communication, and enforcement; a solid grievance process that is readily accessible to employees with concerns; and prompt investigation of all complaints, followed by appropriate action.
Where the complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of
any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by his/her employer, a lawsuit may not go forward.

Burns’ Best Bets: Bus Stop Design
and Change

Have a process to establish school bus stops

What are the respective roles of the board of education, your own transportation team members, parents?

What are the criteria for establishment?

Environmental issues, like size and location of vegetation, paved shoulders, composition of road surface, presence or absence of traffic signs or markers designating the area as a school bus stop, safe waiting areas
Conditions that change with the calendar, such as impact of daylight savings time, presence of waste disposal trucks, Christmas lighting, snow piled along the road, growing vegetation
The number of students eligible to board, and their age and maturity
Post-discharge conditions, like visibility and traffic
Other “people” issues, like complaints and warnings the department has received, sex offenders in the area, businesses and their clientele

How have community standards evolved? What’s expected of you to adapt stops to changing times?

What options have you investigated for each bus stop chosen?

What have you communicated to drivers about their roles in stop evaluation?

What’s in place legislatively and otherwise to deal with other motorists?

When concerns come into the office, document: Who called? To whom did they speak? What about? If their message needed to be relayed to someone else, like the transportation director or school principal, was it?

Rather than merely digging in your heels, investigate proposed options, and note your rationale. Did you pass up the parents’ choice for a stop in favor of another? Why? Have you appropriately balanced student safety against real, verifiable, costs? How solid is your evidence of safety?

Communicate your rationale to parents. Let them know why you’ve gone one way rather than another.

Consider whether the district created exceptions in the bus stop policy in the past. If it has, are there defensible reasons not to create an exception here? Is this case different from those in which you created exceptions? Will student safety be implicated by either adherence to or change from your policy?

When issues arise, examine police reports, visit the scene at the time students will be there, take photographs, have experts render reports about their determinations about the stop or walk path at issue, consider if stop or walk path maintenance is a concern, consider if there are any special factors (timing, disability, etc.) which impact safety for this student.