In a clear and precise manner, Thomas Hehir, director of the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) responded to a letter from the Superintendent of the Public Schools of the District of Columbia requesting clarification regarding the obligation of the District of Columbia Public Schools to provide transportation services to students with disabilities. Four questions were asked. These questions were:

1) Is transportation required for all students with disabilities?

2) Is a school district required to provide tokens or monies to secure public transportation for students with disabilities when it does not provide the same for non disabled students?

3) What is meant by "specialized transportation?"

4) If transportation is to be regarded in the same manner as other related services, are goals and objectives required on the IEP?

   The responses to these questions provide school districts with guidance regarding these specific issues. In addition, it should be noted that hearing officers when making decisions regarding these same issues will generally refer to OSEP letters for clarification and guidance. Each of these questions will be discussed with respect to the OSEP response. Additional questions will be raised in the process of discussion that will require clarification that are not found in the text of the OSEP response.

Is transportation required for all students with disabilities?

OSEP responded that transportation to students with disabilities must be provided under two situations:

• (1) When the public agency (school district) provides transportation to the general school population; and

• (2) If the public agency (school district) does not provide transportation to the general school population there is still the responsibility to decide on a case-by-case basis if a student with a disability requires transportation to benefit from special education.

   The key to this response is that decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis; transportation must be provided as a related service at no cost to the student and his or her parents; and decisions regarding transportation are to be discussed and decided upon during the evaluation process and individualized education program (IEP) meeting.
   This information provides a strong message to school districts that the provision of the related service transportation is not a unilateral decision, it is to be made by the IEP committee at an IEP meeting which includes the child's parent. For some school districts this will require a significant change in the practice of the Transportation Office determining transportation services for students with disabilities.
   It is fair to note that child advocates have expressed over two decades of concerns about children who are indigent, or whose families cannot afford transportation, or children who are in homes where parents do not have the money or vehicles to transport their child. They have been at a loss because of the unilateral decision-making on the part of school district transportation offices not being willing to provide transportation services. Additional questions can be raised with respect to Section 504 regarding accessibility to special education services and how a school district interprets entitlement to the related service transportation. The issue of compulsory school attendance laws and the inability of families to afford transportation when a school district charges non-disabled students for this service needs additional study.

Is a school district required to provide tokens or monies to secure public transportation for students with disabilities when it does not provide the same for non-disabled students?

   The response to this question was no unless transportation is specified in the student's IEP as a related service. What is interesting once again is when a family or child advocate raises the issue that because a family is indigent a student cannot special education services because of an inability to pay for tokens.
   I have listened to the following arguments regarding entitlement to the related service transportation: If the family cannot afford tokens, the student cannot access special education and is therefore entitled to a free appropriate public education including the related service transportation may not be afforded; the second argument being that the child is not entitled to tokens because of indigent status because it is unrelated to the disability. These two positions lead to the need for further clarification, especially in view of compulsory attendance requirements.

What is meant by "specialized transportation?"

   OSEP responded that the term specialized transportation is not used in the law. OSEP clarified in it's response that the term used in the regulations is specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability.
   It is important to note that OSEP responded that the examples of specialized equipment do not constitute an exhaustive list. It was further stated that it is the responsibility of the District of Columbia to provide the equipment that is necessary to provide special transportation for a student with a disability as designated in the student's IEP. This is a significant message to school districts that provide the related service transportation for students that have specialized equipment for which there is no indication on the student's IEP.
   Over the years this author has been asked for guidance regarding this very matter. For example, numerous parents from time to time have asked if their child wears a helmet and a harness during transportation if this could be included in the IEP. This authors response to parents has always been "this is a reasonable request." However, school district from time to time have flatly refused to include specialized equipment on the IEP. This very issue is reasonable cause to request a due process hearing. This specific issue should be resolved by the information provided in the OSEP response.

If transportation is to be regarded in the same manner as other related services, are goals and objectives required on the IEP?

   OSEP clarified this long standing issue by stating "if transportation is being provided solely to enable the student to travel to and from school, in and around school, and between schools, no goals or objectives are needed. If, however, instruction will be provided to enable the student to increase his or her independence or improve his or her behavior or socialization during travel, then goals and objectives must be included in the student's IEP to address the individual student's need to increase independence or improve behavior or socialization."
   School districts should review this response carefully to note if currently transportation is addressed in the same manner as other related service goals and objectives required on the IEP. For example, if a student with a disability who is intellectually limited in working on locating their seat on a school bus, it is reasonable to include this instructional goal and objective on the IEP. OSEP's response provides the opportunity for school districts to re-think if they are appropriately integrating the related service transportation on the IEP and as a part of a student's instructional program.
   In summary OSEP has provided information for school districts to revisit their transportation policies and procedures for students with disabilities in view of the guidance that was provided to the inquiry from Franklin L. Smith, superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools.
   What was most beneficial in the OSEP response was that for school districts large and small, urban, suburban, or rural there was a guidance provided to assist school district in developing operational guidelines and practices in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirements. For parents and advocates there was clarification on a number of issues brought before school districts resulting in due process hearings. Because of the unique nature of students with disabilities it is reasonable to anticipate OSEP's response will lead to additional inquires.