Feds Releases Guidelines for Educating Students with Disabilities in the Event of a Swine Flu Outbreak

By Lisa J. Hudson

A school closure due to a swine flu outbreak is scenario that raises many "What if?" questions for state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), schools and postsecondary institutions. A prolonged school closure due to exceptional circumstances is a "What if?" scenario that the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA do not specifically address.

Recognizing this, the U.S. Department of Education released guidelines on Sept. 1 that generally outline the obligations of, and best practices for, SEAs, LEAs, and schools to their students with disabilities in the event of an H1N1 outbreak.

Generally speaking, if schools are closed and do not provide any educational services to the general student population, then they would not be required to provide services to special education students. Once school resumes, the schools need to determine whether a student with a disability needs compensatory education.

Additionally, Education Week notes that the guidelines says, if a student loses skills because of a prolonged absence from school, the IEP team must determine what compensatory services are needed, and these services can be delivered by providing extended school-year services, extending the school day, providing tutoring before and after school, or providing additional services during regular school hours—all scenarios where transportation may play a role in ensuring these services are provided.

Of interest to special needs transporters is the section of the guidelines that answers the following questions:

• Must an LEA continue to provide FAPE to students with disabilities during a school closure caused by an H1N1 outbreak?

• In the event of a school closure, how might educational services be provided to students with disabilities?

• What must a school do if it cannot provide services in accordance with a student’s IEP or Section 504 plan because of an H1N1 outbreak or if a student opts to stay home because the student is at high-risk for contracting the virus?

• In the event that a school is closed, would an IEP team be required to meet? Would an LEA be required to conduct an evaluation of a student with a disability?

• What steps must be taken to serve a student with a disability who may have lost skills as a result of a prolonged absence from school?

• If an LEA is required to provide services to parentally placed private school students with disabilities during an H1N1 outbreak, how will the LEA communicate with these private schools?

Back to the Basics

By Peggy A. Burns

In the last 10 days, I’ve become aware of decisions and deliberations that have important implications. These newsworthy items provoked considerable thought on my part – I knew they were important...but were they important to school transportation professionals?

One, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Safford U.S.D. v. Redding, concerned a strip search of a then-13-year old girl who was suspected of possession of over-the-counter medication in violation of school district policy. A second, another U.S. Supreme Court opinion – this, in the case of Forest Grove School District v. TA – held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services throught the public school. The third item was the testimony of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. concerning proposed legistation – the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 – that would, among other things, create a new Federal criminal hate crimes statute. The bill would strengthen and broaden Federal hate crimes legislation, to cover hate crimes committed because of the victim’s sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Currently, such victims can recover money damages under a number of federal and state statutes, and state, local, and tribal criminal laws address widely such crimes.

These are important issues to be sure, and, as informed citizens, school transportation professionals should be aware of them. But, if you’re like me, the more issues that demand your attention – especially in ways that suggest, whether subtly or otherwise – that you should take steps to address them in your professional context – the more Maalox moments you have.

So, I want to challenge my colleagues to focus, still, on “the basics,” the situations which pose regular threats to student safety, which distract you from your other duties, and which compromise your already dwindling budgets. These are the situations that are reflected, day-in and day-out in the headlines and on court dockets: such issues as fighting among students on the school bus; student-to-student harassment and bullying; appropriate choice and use of equipment, services, and trained staff in the transportation of students with and without disabilities; recruiting, maintaining, assessing and training of a competent, productive and competent workforce; effective routing and scheduling. . .and it goes on, and on. My theme is that you need to know a lot, balance and juggle even more, and identify and take necessary measures in a whole host of concerns that demand your daily attention. Be aware of these highly significant and national issues, but don’t let them pose serious distractions for you – at least not until you’ve got all the others well under control.

Peggy Burns is an attorney/consultant with Education Compliance Group, Inc. Peggy can be reached at (888) 604-6141, and by email to ecginc@qwestoffice.net.