River Delta Unified School District Report

River Delta Unified School District Special Education Review May 1, 2012 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM May 1, 2012 Rick Hennes, Superintendent River Delta Unified School District 445 Montezuma Street Rio Vista, CA 94571-1651 Dear Superintendent Hennes: In January 2012, the River Delta Unified School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement to provide a review of special education programs and services for the district. Specifically, the agreement states that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Conduct an analysis of the student study team and response to intervention process and current strategies used for intervention. Make recommendations for improvement, if needed. 2. Determine readiness of the district for implementation of the response to interven- tion process and make recommendations for implementation. 3. Review the current model for the identification of students for specific disabilities and make recommendations for other alternative methods. 4. Review exit criteria for special education students by disability. Determine whether the district is overidentifying students for special education. 5. Review NPS and NPA placements and make recommendations for improving process for placement. 6. Determine the number of students who are exited from the program and under what criteria. 7. Review staffing and caseloads of all special education programs and make recom- mendations on efficiency, especially in the area of speech and language. 8. Review the Sacramento SELPA funding allocation model in relationship to River Delta’s allocation. 9. Review 1-to-1 aide policy, procedures and staffing ratios and determine whether process is effective and make recommendations to improve efficiency and effective use of assigned aides to special education. 10. Review the special education transportation delivery system and make recommen- dations for efficiency and effectiveness FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. We trust that the document will be benefical to all concerned. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and we extend our thanks to all the staff of the River Delta Unified School District for their cooperation and assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents Foreword .................................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Executive Summary ..............................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations .....................................................5 Student Study Team ......................................................................................5 Response to Intervention ............................................................................7 Identification .................................................................................................11 Exit Criteria and Rates .................................................................................13 Nonpublic Schools and Agencies ...........................................................15 Staffing and Caseloads ...............................................................................19 1-to-1 Instructional Aides ..........................................................................23 SELPA Allocation Model .............................................................................25 Special Education Transportation...........................................................29 Appendices ......................................................................................35 river Delta UniFieD school District ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii ABOUT FCMAT About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11* 10/11** *Projected **Actual river Delta UniFieD school District seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county office of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. iv ABOUT FCMAT In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 850 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background The River Delta Unified School District has an enrollment of 2,264 students and is located in a 530-square mile area in portions of Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, primarily in the Sacramento and San Joaquin inner delta areas. The district is a member of the Sacramento County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) serving 12% of the K-12 population in special education. In January 2012, the district requested that the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) review its special education programs and services. The study agreement specifies that FCMAT will perform the following. 1. Conduct an analysis of the student study team and response to intervention process and current strategies used for intervention. Make recommendations for improvement, if needed. 2. Determine readiness of the district for implementation of the response to intervention process and make recommendations for implementation. 3. Review the current model for the identification of students for specific disabilities and make recommendations for other alternative methods. 4. Review exit criteria for special education students by disability. Determine whether the district is over identifying students for special education. 5. Review NPS and NPA placements and make recommendations for improving process for placement. 6. Determine the number of students who are exited from the program and under what criteria. 7. Review staffing and caseloads of all special education programs and make recommendations on efficiency, especially in the area of speech and language. 8. Review the Sacramento SELPA funding allocation model in relationship to River Delta’s allocation. 9. Review 1-to-1 aide policy, procedures and staffing ratios and determine whether process is effective and make recommendations to improve efficiency and effective use of assigned aides to special education. 10. Review the special education transportation delivery system and make recom- mendations for efficiency and effectiveness. river Delta UniFieD school District 2 INTRODUCTION Study Guidelines FCMAT visited the district on February 20-23, 2012 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: I. Executive Summary II. Student Study Team III. Response to Intervention IV. Identification V. Exit Criteria and Rates VI. Nonpublic Schools/Nonpublic Agencies VII. Staffing and Caseloads VIII. 1-to-1 Instructional Aides IX. SELPA Allocation Model X. Special Education Transportation XI. Appendices Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: William P. Gillaspie, Ed. D. James “Sarge” Kennedy FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer FCMAT Consultant Bakersfield, CA Red Bluff, CA Leonel Martínez Tim Purvis* FCMAT Technical Writer Director of Transportation Bakersfield, CA Poway Unified School District Poway, CA JoAnn Murphy FCMAT Consultant Micheal Rea* Santee, CA Executive Director West County Transportation Agency Santa Rosa, CA *As members of this study team, these consultants were not representing their respective employers but were working solely as independent contractors for FCMAT. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Although each school in the River Delta Unified School District has a student study team process, student achievement data is inconsistently used to drive decisions on interventions. Some schools use a process that encompasses data, interventions and classroom support while others use student study teams (SSTs) as the gateway to special education. There is no adminis- trative procedure that outlines the basic components of the SST process. Enrollment data from December 2011 indicates that 12% of district enrollment is eligible for special education, which exceeds the statewide average of 10%. The district lacks the infrastructure to support the Response to Intervention model as a clearly defined process of specific interventions with research-based strategies and curriculum as well as training and support for implementation. Additional training is needed at the administrative and classroom levels to develop a three-tiered intervention response that could be used consis- tently throughout the district. Efforts are being made to implement Tier 1: CORE Program Interventions, but there is a lack of clarity regarding Tier II: Supplemental Program and III Intensive Program. Some schools lack supplemental instruction materials. The district continues to use the discrepancy model to identify students with a specific learning disability. Once a Response to Intervention based more on a student’s response to scientific research-based intervention is implemented, the district can begin to redefine the criteria for determining a specific learning disability. Rio Delta Unified lacks a process to monitor and review special education exit rates. Referral and identification rates for special education should also be analyzed. The effectiveness of special education programs is best determined by reviewing the rate of return to less restrictive settings, which is clearly established in annual exit rates. The district has procedural problems with the graduation data annually reported to the Sacramento SELPA. Once these procedures are corrected, the necessary data will be available to annually monitor and review exits. The district uses state certified nonpublic schools and agencies to provide students with a full range of services when these services are unavailable at the district/SELPA to meet student needs. However, there are no written procedures to determine the need for a nonpublic school or tran- sitioning a student back to a district program. As a result, students could remain in a restrictive out-of-district placement without proper review and monitoring of the placement. The district provides behavioral intervention for autistic students through a nonpublic agency provider. This can be costly, and it is difficult for the district to provide these services with certificated staff. The Sacramento County SELPA has a long history of providing program support for its member districts. For the 2011-12 school year, the SELPA provided a full-time behavioral technician and half-time psychologist to focus on behavior plans and interventions. With successful implementation of this additional staffing, the district could realize a significant reduction in nonpublic agency costs for services in this area. Many school districts throughout California have difficulty filling speech therapy positions with qualified staff and as a result, must hire outside vendors to provide these mandated services. The district has one open unfilled position and uses an outside certified nonpublic agency; however, the cost is approximately twice what it would be to provide that service with district staff members. FCMAT will make several suggestions on methods to use to recruit and retain staff that can perform these functions. river Delta UniFieD school District 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Research indicates that early intervention and prevention systems are costly in time and resources. The district has experienced this in its attempts to implement a learning center model, transitioning traditional resource specialists/special day class settings to a model that is more focused, providing a range of services and supports in general education. This is consistent with recommendations in federal law; however, there are concerns with the learning center model related to the cost for staffing and impact on the general fund, lack of training and support for implementation, and the absence of districtwide procedures defining the program delivery design. The program design was changed from the resource specialist to the learning center model when the special education administration was in transition and the director of special education position remains unfilled. As a result, training and preparation were inadequate for the staff to make the change in program delivery. In the absence of a program with districtwide input and design, school sites are attempting to create models at each site. The use of instructional aides has increased significantly, adding $300,000 in instructional aide costs to the encroachment of special education on the unrestricted general fund. The district should reevaluate its special education delivery model and ensure that all options are efficient and effective. Another area that affects special education budgets and increases encroachment on the unre- stricted general fund is the use of 1-to-1 aides. The district could achieve greater efficiency by defining the process for assigning, supporting and transitioning from or “fading” the use of 1-to-1 instructional aides. The special education student population receiving transportation as a related service has remained static over the past three years. The district utilizes nonschool buses aggressively and appropriately in an effort to contain costs for students transported outside the district to receive specialized programs and services. A review of out-of-district program sites indicated that better coordination in the nondistrict program’s bell schedules would allow for greater routing effi- ciency. The special education program and Transportation Department have no formalized procedure for communicating information on students identified as requiring transportation support. The district is moving towards a maintenance, operations and transportation organizational model, which is appropriate for a program with 20 routes. A review of the two most recent submitted state Form TRAN or TRAN reports for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years found that district encroachment or contribution was 72% of the total severely disabled/occupationally impaired (SD/OI) budget for 2009-10 and 76% of the budget for 2010-11. River Delta Unified’s unrestricted general fund contribution for SD/OI transporta- tion is substantially higher than the state average of approximately 35%; however, when the district’s home-to-school (HTS) transportation state revenue is factored in, the contribution is lower than the state average. There was no indication that the district has a preventative maintenance program. Implementation and use of a vehicle maintenance software system would also allow for electronic tracking of the school bus safety inspections. Additionally, electronic tracking of vehicle main- tenance repairs can allow for better cost tracking of inventory parts, labor, and cost tracking for budget resource code 7230 (home-to-school transportation). Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 STUDENT STUDY TEAM Findings and Recommendations Student Study Team According to the California Administrative Code Title 5 Section 3030 and the California Education Code: Chapter 41: Article 1 Section 56302 and 56303, before a student is referred for special education it must be shown that his or her problem cannot be corrected by the regular or categorical services offered in the regular education instructional program. A student study team or a student success team (SST), as a regular school process, is a formal meeting and the beginning step in providing this assistance to a student having difficulty in school. With the implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI), which is an educational intervention strategy to assist students who are below grade level academically, the SST has become more data-driven in determining methods of assessing students and developing appro- priate interventions. Working as a team, the student, parent, teachers and school administrators identify the student’s strengths and assets. The SST develops a practical improvement plan and schedules follow-up meetings to provide a continuous framework for managing strategies to maximize the student’s achievement. Although each school in the district is implementing a student study team, the district lacks an administrative procedure to outline the necessary SST components. Therefore, each school defines its function independently. Some sites have a very data-driven decision making process to determine RtI interventions and referral to special education, but at others, staff members still consider the SST process the gateway to special education. Recommendations The district should: 1. Evaluate the student study team process at each school and align these processes for consistency throughout the district. 2. Ensure that the districtwide SST process incorporates consistent documenta- tion that includes the following: a. The levels of RtI operating at the school. b. The data collected through RtI and other districtwide assessments. c. The criteria for referring a student for a special education assessment. d. The process to convene a SST meeting within 15 calendar days when a parent submits a written request for a special education assessment. 3. Consider developing a school board policy and administrative regulations regarding SSTs. 4. Schedule ongoing training for new and existing staff members. 5. Develop a tracking system that provides data by school on SST and parent request referrals for special education assessment and the outcome of the assessments. river Delta UniFieD school District 6 STUDENT STUDY TEAM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Response to Intervention The enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001 prompted a major shift in education throughout the nation. Since then, student achievement and accountability have been at the forefront of decisions made by administrators and teachers. In 2004, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) provided support for models that include response to scientific, researched-based interventions. The law stated that these methods may be used as an alternative to the discrepancy model when identifying students as learning disabled. IDEA 2004 also shifted researched-based interventions from special education to general education, stressing that this method would no longer be limited to special education students, but would apply to all students. The law left it up to each individual state to develop its own guidelines and regulations. RtI, which is now referred to as Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2), provides districts with a method to drive educational decisions and measure academic growth. In his message on this subject, State Superintendent Jack O’Connell stated the following: Response to Intervention (RtI) is emerging nationally as an effective strategy to support every student. The California Department of Education (CDE) is coining the term Response to Intervention (RtI2) to define a general education approach of high-quality instruction and early intervention, prevention, and behavioral strategies. RtI2 offers a way to eliminate the achievement gap through a school-wide process that provides assistance to every student, both high-achieving and struggling learners. It is a process that utilizes all resources in a school and school district in a collaborative manner to create a single, well-integrated system of instruction and interventions informed by student outcome data. RtI2 is fully aligned with the research on the effectiveness of early intervention and the recommendations of the California P-16 Council. Access, culture and climate, expectations, and strategies are the council’s themes. According to “Determining Specific Learning, Disability Eligibility Using Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2),” published by the California Department of Education, RtI2 can be implemented in several ways, but it is generally viewed as a three-tier approach that uses research-based interventions. Instruction may be intensified based on individual student needs. Tier I. Benchmark: Screening and Targeted Instruction In Tier I, the focus is on a core instructional program that uses a scientifically validated curriculum with all students in the general education classroom. During the course of instruction, the school uses universal screening measures to identify each student’s level of proficiency in key academic areas. The screening data are organized to enable the review of both group and individual performance on critical measures. Instruction is differentiated in response to this data for small groups and individual students. Students who continue to lag behind their peers despite the provision of targeted instruction may receive additional Tier I instruction or may be considered for more intensive interventions at Tier II. Tier II. Strategic: Targeted Short-term Interventions In Tier II, supplemental instruction is provided to those students who exhibit a poor response to the targeted instruction provided through Tier I. Tier II intervention is provided in addition to, and not in lieu of, core instruction and can be delivered through an individualized problem-solving approach and/or a standard treatment protocol. (Note: Schools in Program Improvement are required to follow California State Board of Education [SBE] approved intervention regulations.) river Delta UniFieD school District 8 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION A problem-solving approach allows school teams to design individualized interventions to address the specific needs of each student. A standard treatment protocol uses a set of research-based practices to provide interventions in a systematic manner with all participating students who have similar needs. Such interventions are generally highly structured and have a high probability of producing positive results for large numbers of students. Tier II supplemental interventions may be discontinued for students who improve in critical academic/behavioral measures as a result of the intervention. Some students may exhibit progress but continue to need Tier II supplemental supports. Those students who fail to display meaningful progress in spite of supplemental supports are considered for more intensive interventions in Tier III. Tier III. Intensive: Interventions with Increased Intensity In Tier III, students receive a greater degree of intensive interventions. Modifications in frequency, duration, or teacher-student ratio or all three are strategies to increase intensity. SBE-approved intervention programs based on research may serve as the core curriculum for students in this intensive level of intervention at fourth grade and above. As in Tier II, interventions are provided flexibly depending on the school site resources and careful blending of all interventions. FCMAT was asked to determine the district’s readiness to implement RtI. The River Delta Unified staff has had some training in RtI, and each school site has incorporated that model to some degree. However, the district lacks the infrastructure to support RtI as a clearly defined process, as a specific structure to support three levels of intervention, and as a means of identi- fying appropriate interventions with training and support for implementation. The site adminis- trators have a clear understanding of what they should provide at Tier I, but there is confusion as to appropriate Tier II and Tier III interventions. General education teachers lack specific training in providing differentiated instruction for Tier I interventions and interpreting data from the various sources available. The schools have used a variety of programs and assessments to determine a student’s areas of need, which interventions to provide and the student’s progress in the interventions. Throughout the district, there is a lack of necessary state-approved supplemental intervention programs, which are a major component of RtI. Although some school sites do have supplemental interven- tion programs, the methods used to analyze data are not consistent. The school sites with the most defined RtI Tier II and Tier III programs have received additional funding through grants that has enabled them to provide staff and interventions not available at other sites. These sites have also developed documents that define what interventions are available at each tier level. Although sites need flexibility to address specific instructional needs, common interventions and criteria are necessary to determine which students are provided with which interventions. The same universal screening models are not used at all sites, and at the sites that do not use the same data, the interventions provided may be very different. At some sites pretesting, regular testing and post-testing are not applied when determining interventions. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Recommendations The district should: 1. Determine the district staff position that will be responsible for districtwide implementation of RtI, including training, data collection, and interventions. 2. Determine which of the interventions provided at the schools could be dupli- cated throughout the district to ensure consistency and program effectiveness. 3. Review the assessment tools used in the district and determine which will be adopted for all schools to use in determining RtI interventions. 4. Ensure that all students are tested before, during, and after receiving an RtI intervention and that the interventions are designed for the student’s identi- fied areas of need. 5. Ensure that administrators, general education teachers and special education teachers receive training in assessment, data analysis, and research-based instructional practices. 6. Determine how special education teachers can provide strategic interventions while ensuring that special education students receive the specialized instruc- tion required in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). 7. Determine how RtI will be used as a part of the eligibility for special educa- tion in the area of specific learning disability, and train the staff in this process. river Delta UniFieD school District 10 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 IDENTIFICATION Identification The district may be overidentifying students for special education, with a rate of 12% compared to the statewide average of 10% and has exceeded the state rate for three years. As shown in the table below, further review of the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) report indicated that the number of students identified as speech and language impaired has continued to rise for students that are served by the district as well as the county office. Comparison of District and State Average Identification Rate for K-12 School Year District Average Statewide Average 2008-09 13% 10% 2009-10 13% 10% 2010-11 12% 10% Source: California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) 2008-2011 A key factor in the student identification rate is the rate of referrals and identification. As discussed earlier, a clearly delineated student study team process will help the district analyze referral-to-identification ratios. This information should also be available in the Special Education Information System (SEIS). However, the district has no data on the number of referrals and students found eligible for special education. When a district overidentifies students with disabilities, it is beneficial to gather and review this information at least quarterly. The data should also be reviewed on a districtwide and school-site basis to determine which schools need more assistance with the SST and RtI processes. The district uses the discrepancy model to identify students as specific learning disabled (SLD). Although the district is not prepared to use any other method, it should consider using methods to determine the specific learning disability using RtI. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 allows for the use of a process that is based on a child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention to help determine whether a student has a specific learning disability (34 CODE of Federal Regulations Sections 300.307, 300.309, and 300.311). In 2009, the California Department of Education convened a technical work group to develop guidelines to alternative methods of identifying specific learning disabilities in RtI models. This document, Determining Specific Learning Disability Using Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2,) would provide the district with a guideline on redesigning the identification process and is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr Recommendations The district should: 1. Identify the criteria for exiting students from special education in all disability areas. 2. Establish a process to review the referrals and eligibility rates for special education by district and school. These are available quarterly in the SEIS. 3. Determine which alternative methods can be used in RtI to identify students for a specific learning disability. river Delta UniFieD school District 12 IDENTIFICATION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 EXIT CRITERIA AND RATES Exit Criteria and Rates The district does not have a process to monitor and review exit rates for students in special education. The district could work toward a more cost-effective program by determining whether students return to general education or are indefinitely retained on caseload lists. The identification rate is affected by a low return rate to general education. The graduation rate is another element that has an impact on the exit from special education and should be annually reviewed. The district lacks a process to monitor and review the exit rates of students in special education. Every SELPA produces an annual report in June that provides data on the exit from special education in every SELPA district; however, FCMAT found a discrepancy in the information submitted to the Sacramento County SELPA. River Delta Unified did not submit any data on students graduating with a diploma or certificate of completion or equivalency, but the other four unified SELPA districts submitted this information. In the absence of IEP procedures for graduating seniors, the district has not removed students that graduated from the system. Once students graduate in June, they must be removed from SEIS before CASEMIS data is submitted to the SELPA for the June report. Recommendations The district should: 1. Establish a process to annually review the exit rates from special education, and provide this information to the principals and staff. 2. Establish a process to remove students who graduate with a diploma or certificate of completion or equivalency in June before the data is submitted to CASEMIS. The district should work closely with the SELPA for support with this process. 3. Request that the SELPA run a draft report of the exit rates to ensure that it accurately reflects the students who have graduated. river Delta UniFieD school District 14 EXIT CRITERIA AND RATES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NONPUBLIC AGENCIES Nonpublic Schools and Nonpublic Agencies A nonpublic school (NPS) is certified by the CDE, is nonsectarian and under contract with a public school district. The NPS provides the appropriate facilities, special education, designated instruction and services required by the individual with exceptional needs when no appropriate public education program is available (EC Section 56345). A nonpublic agency (NPA) is also certified by the CDE, is nonsectarian and is under contract to provide appropriate special education designed instruction and services. These services are required by the individual with exceptional needs when no appropriate public education service is available. Nonpublic agencies may provide services in areas such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy or behavior. District students are served outside the district in programs operated by Sacramento County, the Elk Grove Unified School District and nonpublic schools. FCMAT reviewed data for students who attend an NPS and found that 10 of these pupils account for 3% of the district’s special education population. The district’s special education budget is approximately $2 million, with the unrestricted general fund contribution at approximately $1 million. The total cost for these 10 NPS placements is approximately $319,673 Cost of NPS Placements by School Nonpublic school Number of Students Total School/DIS Cost based in ISA North Valley 2 $64,560 Point Quest 6 $144,822 (estimate) Provo Canyon 1 $76,000 (total contract) Land Park 1 $34,291 (estimate) FCMAT reviewed all individual service agreements and IEPs for students who attend an NPS and interviewed staff members involved in the process of placing a student in an NPS. The district has no written procedures for this process. Staff members indicated that when students with an NPS placement move to the district, the placement is continued. When a student is referred by the district for an NPS placement, the Sacramento County program specialist becomes involved, but it is unclear what steps are taken before the referral. Personnel indicated students are referred to an NPS instead of a program at the county office or another district because the latter programs are inappropriate, full, or at a location that requires an extensive time for transportation. A review of the IEPs of students in NPSs found that there is an insufficient number at similar grade levels or with similar needs to warrant the development of a district program to serve them. When students with IEPs for NPS placements move to the district, the practice is to immediately place them in an NPS without considering programs at the district, county or other districts. It is important for these IEPs to be carefully reviewed and for student to be placed in an NPS only when no other program can appropriately address the student’s goals. Individual service agreements (ISAs) for students in NPSs did not always include the total number of days the student was to attend the NPS program (this occurred with two students) or the maximum amount of the contract (this was the case with one student). ISAs included designated instructional services such as transportation that the student received at the NPS, but did not always include the total number of sessions for the DIS service (this occurred with three students). One ISA maximum total appeared inaccurate based on the river Delta UniFieD school District 16 NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NONPUBLIC AGENCIES number of days, the cost per day, and the DIS services provided. Accurate data is important for the business office to monitor the NPS invoices. Some students reportedly were placed in an NPS without prior discussion with the business office. Although this office is not part of the decision-making process, it is important that it receives this information in a timely manner for budget purposes. The IEPs of NPS students included behavior plans and goals, but there was no indication of a full functional analysis or goals or a transition plan for returning the student to a district program. Staff members stated that it is unusual for a student to return to the district from an NPS placement. The county or district program specialist attends IEPs at nonpublic schools. Through an agreement with the member districts, the Sacramento Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) reimburses the district for the cost of the residential and mental health services of one student in a residential placement. The SELPA also negotiates contracts with the NPSs. For the 2009-10 school year, the SELPA reduced the rates of all NPSs under district contract from those of 2008-09 and has maintained these lower rates for the past three years. In addition, the SELPA has agreed to fund a district behavioral technician and a half-time psychologist to support behavior plans and interventions for students who would require a more restrictive placement without additional support. These positions have not yet been filled. For the 2011-12 school year, the average cost of an NPS placement is $122.42 per day or $25,096.10 for 205 days excluding any designated instructional services such as speech or transportation to the nonpublic school. If even one student in an NPS could be returned to a district program with the support of these two new positions, the district could achieve a cost savings of more than $25,000 and the student would receive an education in the least restrictive environment. FCMAT reviewed the district’s contracts with nonpublic agencies. These contracts exist because the district has either been unable to find district employees to provide these services or has too few district students to warrant hiring additional district staff members. Contracts included those for speech, physical therapy and behavioral services for the autistic. Any other NPA contracts such as those for translation services were not provided. The contract for the speech therapist is necessary because the district has been unable to hire district staff members to provide services in this area, primarily because of the salary scale, according to staff members. The average salary for a district teacher is $70,327 per year including benefits, and staff members indicated that this is less than the salaries offered in other Sacramento County districts. Throughout the state, districts find it difficult to recruit and hire speech therapists, and many districts use creative methods of attracting candidates. Some incorporate signing bonuses, stipends and/or an enhanced salary scale to enable them to be more competitive. The current speech therapy contract with the agency is $170,000 per year. A more competitive compensation package for speech therapists would enhance the district’s ability to hire district employees and still expend less than the cost of the NPA contract. The two contracted speech therapists have an average caseload of 85 students each. This caseload exceeds the statutory requirement in EC 56363.3 which stipulates the speech therapists “shall not exceed 55 cases, unless the local plan specifies a higher average caseload and the reasons for the greater average caseload.” The district employs two speech language pathology assistants (SLPAs) to support the speech therapy program, particularly since it has been difficult to fill the open speech therapist position. The American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) has developed guidelines for the func- tion, use and supervision of SLPAs. ASHA holds the position that SLPAs “supplement, enhance Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NONPUBLIC AGENCIES the provision of speech therapy- they are not intended as a replacement for a certified speech therapist.” Guidelines on the use and supervision of SLPAs are available at www.asha.org The contract for the physical therapist may be appropriate since that caseload is 20 students. This is less than the caseload for a full-time district physical therapist. However, the documentation is unclear on how many of these students receive direct therapy and how many are on consult. The contract is for $100 per hour with a maximum of $45,000. The contract language may not accurately reflect the physical therapist’s provision of services, and the contract provisions are difficult to monitor. Another agency has two district contracts in the area of autism. One $1,200 contract is for assess- ment, and the other is for direct support at $95 and $105 per hour for a maximum of $25,000. As written, the contracts are difficult for the Business Department to monitor. For budgeting purposes, the Business Department needs to be informed of potential NPA contracts. However, the department is not provided with this information before these contracts are placed on the school board agenda for approval. The department also should have a clear understanding of the reason the contract is being issued, whether the contract is for specific students or more general in nature, and the number of days the contracting employee will be working. The Business Department can help the Special Education Department delineate the information needed to monitor each contract. Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop a written process for students who are initially referred for an NPS placement or move to the district with a placement. This process should include the following: a. The steps required before an NPS referral, including a behavior support plan and, if appropriate, a full functional analysis. b. The steps required when a student moves to the district with an NPS IEP to ensure that the student is placed in a county program or a district program if appropriate and not automatically in an NPS. c. The involvement of the special education director before the IEP is developed and the student is placed in an NPS. d. An explanation of how the Business Department will be made aware of the potential placement. 2. Ensure that every IEP for an NPS student includes goals and a transition plan for returning the student to a district or county office program. 3. Ensure that all ISAs are completed with the necessary information including the student’s name, number of days he or she will be in attendance, and a clear delineation of any designated instructional services or costs, including the number of days or sessions that these services will be provided. river Delta UniFieD school District 18 NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NONPUBLIC AGENCIES 4. Continue to access the SELPA for contract negotiations and financial support for NPS residential placements and additional support staff. 5. Hire the two SELPA-funded positions of behavior technician and psycholo- gist. The district should ensure these positions focus on preventing additional students from being referred to NPSs and reviewing information on all students in an NPS to determine if they can transition to a less restrictive environment and implementing those transitions when appropriate. The district should also determine whether these positions could assist with students receiving NPA services for autism and if so, transition those services to the district staff. 6. Develop a process to become more competitive in hiring speech therapists, which may include signing bonuses, a stipend and/or a differentiated salary scale. 7. Review the physical therapist contract to clarify the caseload and make contract adjustments as needed. 8. Develop a process for the Special Education and the Business departments to meet monthly to review potential NPS and NPA contracts. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 STAFFING AND CASELOADS Staffing and Caseloads The district is transitioning from the resource specialist programs to specialized academic instruction through a learning center model; however, teachers indicated that there is confusion about the role of the special education teacher in the new program delivery system. Although the district has moved toward a learning center model, special education teachers are still considered resource specialists and special day class teachers. For purposes of this study, FCMAT reviewed the staffing under the resource specialist caseload requirements and special day classes under guidelines established by School Services of California Inc. (SSC). Following the review, caseloads and potential funding options will be discussed in the context of learning center models. Resource Specialist Programs Staffing caseloads were analyzed using district reported data on caseloads as of February, 2012 and compared to both Education Code requirements and guidelines established by SSC. In the traditional RSP model, the resource specialist serves students for less than half the instruc- tional day; the student remains in the general education setting for most of the school day. The statutory caseload limit for resource specialists is required not to exceed 28 students (EC 56362) with an additional statutory requirement to provide instructional aides to at least 80% of the resource specialists. Resource Specialist Staffing K-12 Schools Staff Students EC EC Aide RSP Hrs. per day Bates 1.0 17 28 6 Clarksberg MS 1.0 20 28 6 DH White 1.0 24 28 6 Rio Vista HS 2.0 29 28 6 Riverview MS 1.0 23 28 6 Walnut Grove 1.0 16 28 6 Total 7.0 129 196 30 per day The total was determined by reviewing teacher class loads, attendance records, and other data. The average caseload for district resource specialists is 18, with each RSP having six hours of aide time. However, as the district attempts to transition to a learning center model, some resource specialists are working with general education students in addition to the caseload. Because of this transition, the district is appropriately staffed with resource specialists. Learning Center Model River Delta Unified lacks a written plan for the implementation of the learning center model. The district has not changed the title of resource specialist and should make an adjustment to accurately reflect the caseloads and program design for the learning center model. This change in program delivery occurred before the departure of the previous director of special education, and the district is in the process of advertising for this position. Teachers reported that they have not received training in the implementation of the learning center model. They also indicated that some teachers are comfortable working with nonidentified students, and others are not. The roles and responsibilities of general and special education teachers in the model are not defined. Resource specialists across the district are implementing the learning center concept on their sites without guidelines to ensure compliance, and there is no staffing formula for learning center classrooms. One special education teacher is assigned to a learning center with a six-hour aide. Additional instructional aide support is added on a school by school basis and can range from an river Delta UniFieD school District 20 STAFFING AND CASELOADS additional six hours to 23 hours per day; however, it is unclear how decisions to increase instruc- tional aide staffing are made. The approximate cost of the additional aide support in learning centers is $300,183 annually. Personnel costs can be funded with a combination of special education and nonspecial education sources in a prorated manner based on instructional time. For example, a resource specialist could implement 14 IEPs and provide reading or math instruction in general education with half the time charged to special education and half charged to other funding sources. This will help reduce special education encroachment on the general fund, but this will not result in budget savings. Recommendations The district should: 1. Obtain assistance from the Sacramento County SELPA in designing a learning center model for use across the district. Principals and staff members should be included in designing the program. 2. Provide teachers with training in collaborative teaching models, team teaching and consultation models. 3. Visit other school districts that operate efficient resource room models in consultation with the Sacramento County SELPA. 4. Determine how resources will be assigned among the schools and programs. 5. Develop a system to monitor the use of instructional aide resources and recapture aide time that is no longer needed. 6. Determine whether the terms “resource specialist” and “special day class teacher” accurately reflects the districts’ special education programs and rede- fine those titles if appropriate. Special Day Classes SSC Guidelines District Class District Instructional Aides Average Size Average SH SDC 8-10 students,1 aide 11 2 SH ED 8-10 10 2 ILS(Transition) 13 2 Source Guidelines from School Services of California and district provided data on class size Special day classes are staffed at a level that is consistent with the industry standard established by SSC. The district provides two aides per class, which is a higher staffing level than the guidelines; however, it is not uncommon for districts to staff at higher levels in classrooms that are at or beyond capacity with significant disability needs such as the severely handicapped and emotion- ally disturbed. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 STAFFING AND CASELOADS Recommendations The district should: 1. Continue to maintain classes for the severely handicapped within the stan- dard of eight to 10 students, or increase classroom support levels when classes exceed an appropriate level. Communication The staffing information maintained by the Special Education Department and the business office included some inconsistencies. Some instructional aides who work in the schools are not budgeted in the classified special education staffing list maintained by the business office. It is estimated that the additional amount of funding needed to cover these positions is $96,000. An aide who is moved from one site to another continues with the number of hours originally assigned even when that amount of time is not warranted. If additional time is needed, it is added to the aide’s workday. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure that consistent and regular meetings are instituted with human resources, special education and the business office to align the staffing of certificated and classified staff. 2. Develop a monitoring system for special education to track the use of instruc- tional aide resources and transfer resources as needed. 3. Develop a system to report and track changes in instructional aide hours so that adjustments can be made to increase or decrease hours. river Delta UniFieD school District 22 STAFFING AND CASELOADS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 1-TO-1 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES 1-to-1 Instructional Aides Throughout California, the number of districts using instructional aides and 1-to-1 aides has greatly increased over the past few years. This has affected special education budgets and increased contributions from the unrestricted general fund, especially when the services are not warranted or monitored. River Delta Unified has no policies or procedures for assigning, supporting, reducing or discontinuing aide services. In fact it has no written special education procedures at all, and this increases the potential for increased costs and adversarial IEP meetings. The unwritten procedure for adding a 1-to-1 aide is for an IEP team member to notify the special education director that the IEP team will discuss assigning such an aide. The IEP team then meets, decides whether the assignment is warranted, and forwards to personnel a request to hire. Personnel assigns a number to the request, forwards it to the Business Department, and places the request on the governing board agenda for approval. The district procedure lends itself to making subjective decisions to approve support instead of basing decisions on objective data. This results in inconsistencies in the level of support provided to students from school to school. A review of IEPs for students receiving additional support found that they do not include goals for independence or a fading plan for the additional support. Staff members also indicated that the district has no process for reassigning an aide when a student moves or ages out, the classroom dynamics change so that the aide is no longer needed, or a student becomes more independent. Therefore the aide usually stays at the assign- ment when the original reasons for the position are no longer viable. To avoid this problem, one strategy is to establish and implement guidelines, policies and procedures, including strictly enforced monitoring to prevent these services from being granted unnecessarily. Many districts in the state have adopted such guidelines, which typically outline the reason and time of day the additional support is needed as well as the type of support and any available existing supports. Additional staff is assigned only after it is determined that additional support is necessary and cannot be provided in any other way. The IEP includes goals for inde- pendence and a fading plan for the adult support. This ensures that all staff members, the family, and the student work toward the same goal of independence and student success. Procedural guidelines can also help the district when parents or advocates challenge the district for these services. Staff members should be provided with training following the development and implementation of these guidelines. The annual and triennial IEPs for the students receiving additional adult support would also use the procedures to determine whether the aide is still required and if so, that support is provided at the appropriate times and level needed to develop independence. Many districts in the state no longer use the term “1-to-1 aide.” The forms provided in the appendix section to this report use the term “special circumstance instructional aide,” and other districts use “additional classroom support aide.” In either case, the term is intended to emphasize that this position is not permanent or exclusive to the student, and that it is designed to promote student independence and success. The district has seven 1-to-1 aides, but the IEP documentation is unclear about when support is needed, whether other natural supports are available, or how aide use is faded. Therefore, the need for the additional adult support was not clearly documented although it may be appro- river Delta UniFieD school District 24 1-TO-1 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES priate. Based on the information available, it is unclear whether any of the 1-to-1 aide positions can be appropriately eliminated. Aides work from six to seven hours without any written rationale in the IEP or provided by staff. While aides are aware of their students’ IEP goals, they have little or no training in instructing them academically and behaviorally. Several 1-to-1 aides are assigned to a special education classroom and are given instruction there. However, the 1-to-1 aides assigned to a general educa- tion classroom have to rely on their own strategies and what is provided by the general education teacher. Staff members indicated that the general education teachers also have little training working with their included students. Special education teachers and psychologists attempt to assist the general education teachers and 1-to-1 aides with suggestions, but actual training sessions and meetings with all appropriate staff members to discuss the progress of individual students does not occur. As part of its staff development, the SELPA has specific workshops for 1-to-1 aides, but district personnel rarely attend them. Although specific data was not collected to verify this, it was the consensus of all staff members interviewed. Recommendations The district should: 1. Determine the need for a 1-to-1 aide and develop a written procedure that includes forms such as those attached as part of the appendix section of this report. 2. Train the staff in using the procedures to ensure that decisions are consistent throughout the district. 3. Ensure that the procedure is followed for new positions and annually assigned positions. 4. Review all current 1-to-1 aides using this procedure to determine the continued need for the level of support provided. 5. Ensure the student’s IEP includes goals for independence and a fading plan for adult support. 6. Develop a procedure to reassign or end an aide position when a student receiving additional adult support staff services moves, classroom dynamics change, or a student fading plan is completed. 7. Provide training for 1-to-1 aides either through the SELPA or through district staff when aides are first hired and on a routine basis. 8. Determine whether a different title for the 1-to-1 aide would be more appro- priate, such as special circumstance aide. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 SELPA ALLOCATION MODEL SELPA Allocation Model As a member of the Sacramento County SELPA, the district receives an allocation of state and federal funds to help fund the excess costs of providing special education services for its disabled students. Based on a federally prescribed formula, the CDE distributes federal IDEA Part B funds to the SELPA’s administrative unit, the Sacramento County Office of Education. Similarly, according to the statutory requirements of AB602, the CDE distributes state aid to the SELPA’s administrative unit. The SELPA members develop a plan for distributing these funds among themselves in a reason- ably equitable manner. However, these allocation plans can become inequitable over time because of demographic, socioeconomic, or other factors. Therefore, these plans should be regularly reviewed to ensure continued fairness in the distribution of state and federal assistance. Generally, equitability has been measured by how equal the distribution is; however, equality does not intrinsically ensure equitability. The true measure of equitability is the end result, that is, how equal the impact is on the local unrestricted general fund contribution. Until recently, that factor has been somewhat difficult to reliably measure. With the implemen- tation of the excess cost demonstration requirement, that measurement can be more reliably ascertained. The revenue standard, the average per pupil expenditure (APPE), and the excess cost standard can now be measured. FCMAT obtained the following documents from the SELPA’s administrative unit: • Special education maintenance of effort comparison 2008-09 to 2009-10 • Special education maintenance of effort comparison 2009-10 to 2010-11 • SELPA allocation plans for 2009-10 and 2010-11 • Excess cost calculator 2010-11 to 2011-12 Based on the information from these sources, the SELPA districts were compared and ranked on several factors. This information is presented in the following tables. Since this report is not a study of the SELPA’s allocation model as it affects each district, only the River Delta Unified School District’s name appears in the tables. However, each row represents one of the other districts compared. The tables illustrate where the district is positioned between the highest and lowest rates in each category. The first table shows the relative expenditure rate of state and local funds expended for special education per student with a disability (the unduplicated count or UDC) in 2008-09. The allocation information was not available for 2008-09. The second table shows the relative expen- diture rate of state and local funds expended for special education per UDC and the allocation per UDC in 2009-10. river Delta UniFieD school District 26 SELPA ALLOCATION MODEL 2008-09 State/ 2009-10 State/Local 2009-10 State/Federal Local Expended per Allocation Expended UDC per UDC per UDC 1 $11,833 1 $10,752 $7,093 2 2 3 3 4 4 River Delta $4,228 5 5 6 6 7 River Delta $8,976 7 River Delta $7,617 8 8 9 $7,225 9 $6,858 $3,415 In the left table above, River Delta Unified falls relatively low in total expenditures of state and local funds for the provision of special education. In the right table above, it falls in the same position in 2009-10, the district ranks fourth highest in the allocation of state and federal funds it receives. This information indicates that a change in the allocation model would not signifi- cantly benefit or harm the district. 2010-11 St/Loc 2010-11 Average 2010-11 Excess 2010-11 St/Fed Exp per per Pupil Cost per Allocation UDC Expenditure UDC per UDC 1 $12,094 $7,627 $10,505 $6,873 2 3 4 River Delta $6,916 River Delta $4,495 5 River Delta $8,992 River Delta $8,459 6 7 8 9 $7,260 $5,620 $5,197 $3,397 The table above also provides average per pupil expenditure and the excess cost per UDC, providing greater insight into the actual encroachment resulting from the provision of special education services. IDEA is focused on the education of disabled students. Its premise is that students are entitled to a free appropriate publicly funded education and that they are entitled to their proportionate share of the district’s unrestricted funds. IDEA funding can also be used to pay the educational cost of educating a disabled child that exceeds the proportional share of the district’s unrestricted funds. The proportional share is based on the district’s average per pupil expenditure (APPE), the average amount of its unrestricted funds that is spent per pupil for all of its students, including those with a disability. The APPE represents the cost of educating each child, including those with disabilities. Excess cost is the amount expended for the education of disabled children that exceeds the APPE expenditure requirement. This information is important in determining the equitability of a funding model because it provides pertinent data on the comparative overall costs of education among the member districts. For example, a higher APPE and a higher excess cost per UDC could suggest that there Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 SELPA ALLOCATION MODEL are factors (such as demographics, geography, and prevalence of specific disabilities) that should be considered in ensuring an equitable allocation. As the last table above indicates, River Delta Unified is well in the mid-range of all areas consid- ered. Consequently, there is very little likelihood that any revision of the current allocation model would benefit the district. river Delta UniFieD school District 28 SELPA ALLOCATION MODEL Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION Special Education Transportation Routing Efficiency The district provides transportation to more than 1,100 students daily, which is more than half the total student population, including approximately 36 special education students. Students identified through their IEP as requiring transportation as a related service to access their education program location are legally required to be provided with transportation in the least restrictive manner (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, Public Law 94-142, 34CFR 300.34 (c) (16). The district’s special education student population receiving transporta- tion service as an identified related service through the IEP has remained relatively static for more three years. Twenty-three special education students who receive transportation services attend district programs at district school sites, and the remaining 13 attend outside the district’s geographical boundary. To support the transportation requirements of the district’s 36 students receiving transportation services, the transportation program uses a combination of nine district vehicles; three school buses and six vans/sedans. Except for one school bus, the district transports all 13 students who attend programs outside the district in vans/sedans to reduce expense because of the very low number of students on any given route. The district has a driver classification titled “car drivers” to operate vans/sedans. All car drivers are part of the preemployment and random alcohol and drug testing program and have their driving records monitored through the California Department of Motor Vehicles employer driver pull notice system. The transportation program staff has implemented a four-hour defensive driving training in-service program annually for all car drivers. A review of the out-of-district program sites found that greater coordination in the nondistrict program bell schedules would allow for greater routing efficiency, however, the district has little influence as a single participant in the SELPA. Transportation Procedures for Coordinating Special Education Students The district’s special education program and transportation program lack formalized procedures or practices for communicating to the transportation staff information on students identified as requiring transportation services through the IEP process. Communication between the two programs typically occurs through a telephone call or e-mail from a school psychologist. However, the transportation staff does not receive formalized instructions about individual student’s needs such as required transportation devices and medical or handicapping conditions. A formalized procedure should be implemented providing specific direction to the transporta- tion staff identifying students requiring transportation services, handicapping conditions, health conditions and specific instructions for safely transporting students as well as the responsible guardians who may accept delivery of students if required. Additionally, the transportation staff should be included in the IEP process to discuss the least restrictive and most effective manner to transport a child with a special need. Transportation staff members do not need to be included in the more routine student IEP placements; however, they should be consulted so that they can advise of any problems in scheduling transportation to specific programs, travel times, and suggested programs to which the district may already provide transportation. river Delta UniFieD school District 30 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION Transportation staff members believe they transport several students who have an IEP, but ride on a district general education route bus. Transportation should be provided in the least restric- tive environment; however, the transportation staff should be formally notified of these students so that they can be prepared if behavioral or other needs arise. A more formalized manner of communicating information on all students with an IEP to include transportation service should be instituted for students requiring more individualized service as well as those who ride general education buses in a least restrictive environment. Although the district has a two-way radio communication system, the drivers and staff use personal or district-provided Nextel cellular phones to communicate in district vans and cars. State law prohibits the use of handheld phones while operating a vehicle. Although the staff indi- cated that drivers do not use cellular phones while operating district school buses or vans/sedans, the situation could still become unsafe. The district’s two-way radio system is exempt from the legal restriction. Staffing The district has a director of transportation and a transportation assistant to oversee the driving staff and two vehicle mechanics. There are two transportation facilities, Courtland and Rio Vista. The Rio Vista site is the main facility, although the facilities in Courtland have more space and a superior vehicle maintenance facility. Because the district’s population is centered more towards the Rio Vista site, most routes are dispatched from there. The district is moving towards a main- tenance, operations and transportation (MOT) organizational model, which is appropriate for a program with less than 20 routes. Upon the impending retirement of the transportation director, the MOT director should have an experienced and knowledgeable transportation assistant or supervisor to assist in tasks such as planning routes and scheduling students as well as district field trips. The transportation program has only one on-call substitute driver. Because the district operates less than 20 routes, permanent substitute staffing is not recommended. It would be beneficial for the two mechanics to be fully licensed as school bus drivers to assist when there is high absen- teeism. Recommendations The district should: 1. Initiate a discussion with the other SELPA participant districts to analyze and determine whether changing the out-of-district program sites’ bell schedules would result in greater routing efficiencies. 2. Create a formalized documentation practice for requesting transportation service through the IEP process. 3. Involve the appropriate transportation personnel in the IEP process to help provide transportation service in the least restrictive environment and in a cost-effective manner. 4. Review the use of Nextel and personal cellular telephones by the driving staff and consider instead using the district’s two-way radio communication system. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION 5. Consider requiring the two vehicle mechanics to be licensed school bus drivers for use as needed. Financial Analysis School transportation is severely underfunded in California. Until 1977, the state fully reim- bursed school districts for their reported operational costs (never capital costs) in the subsequent school year. From 1977 to 1982 the state began reducing the percentage of the reimbursement. In the 1982-83 school year, the state capped funding at the amount received that year (80% of costs), and in ensuing years a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was granted only occasionally. Before the 2008-09 school year, the state funded approximately 45% of the reported transporta- tion expense. The state further reduced the apportionment by 19.84% in the 2009-10 school year, by 19.81% in 2010-11, and by 19.8352% in 2011-12. Consequently, the state now funds an average of approximately 35% of reported school transportation costs in the state. Although Senate Bill 81(SB81) recently restored transportation revenue at the 2011-12 level, the full impact of proposed school transportation funding levels and the funding formula proposed for following years is unclear. The district tracks its full transportation expense each budget quarter under the 7230 resource account for home-to-school (HTS) transportation expense. Through some type of percentage calculation, a percentage of service is assigned to each major expense program area in the transportation program. These percentages are based on miles driven and are used to fill out the annual state Form TRAN, or TRAN report, which is required of all local educational agencies (LEAs) requesting their approved transportation funding. The TRAN report is essentially the only objective criteria to gauge a district’s transportation program costs. However, all program areas must be meticulously tracked in resources such as HTS, special education severely disabled/ orthopedically impaired (SD/OI) and activity trips to specifically reflect all direct and indirect expense. Otherwise, a HTS program can easily appear to cost more than it actually does and a special education SD/OI transportation program can appear to cost less. It is not uncommon for a district to track all expenses under its 7230 resource accounts and attempt to separate special education and other related transportation expenses later in the fiscal year. Unless the expenses of the transportation program are tracked at the actual expense location such as a vehicle part, labor or supply and assigned the appropriate resource account at the time the work is performed, it is nearly impossible for the district’s accounting personnel to specifically separate the cost at a later time. The district’s current practice is not necessarily uncommon, however; exact program costs can be more precisely identified with vehicle maintenance software for specific vehicle repairs and preventative maintenance to identify labor, parts and supplies. A review of the district’s two most recent TRAN reports for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years show that encroachment or the unrestricted general fund contribution was 72% of the total SD/OI budget for 2009-10 and 76% of the budget for 2010-11. The transportation contribu- tion for SD/OI transportation is substantially higher than the state average of approximately 35%, however; the district contribution is lower than the state average when HTS state revenue is considered. river Delta UniFieD school District 32 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION The table below shows data from the district’s two most current state TRAN reports. 2009-10 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11 HTS SD/OI HTS SD/OI Buses 10 3 16 4 Students 845 27 1,151 34 Miles 189,737 167,009 190,073 185,669 Cost/Mile $4.755 $1.243 $4.273 $1.245 Cost/Student $1,067.595 $7686.941 $705.591 $6798.147 Approved Cost $937,644.74 $207,547 $812,135.46 $239,891 Revenue $529,266 $56,471 $529,470 $56,492 Encroachment $408,378 $151,076 $282,665 $183,399 Encroachment % of Cost 43.55% 72% 34.80% 76% Recommendations The district should: 1. Investigate the possibility of purchasing and implementing vehicle mainte- nance cost-tracking software to specifically track cost by specific transporta- tion program such as HTS, special education SD/OI, activity trips and other support fleet expense. Special Education Vehicles The district has four special education school buses and eight vans/sedans. In combination with the HTS bus routes, the district’s vehicle inventory allows for one spare school bus and two spare vans/sedans. The fleet’s appearance reflects poorly on the district. The vehicle exteriors are dirty and the interiors are in poor condition, needing general housekeeping and seat repairs. The MOT director stated that there are environmental restrictions at both transportation sites regarding water run-off recovery and water separators. The district should consider contracting with an outside vehicle wash vendor to ensure a regular and appropriate washing. There is no indication that the district has a preventative maintenance program. Vehicle repair work orders are handwritten and do not include cost tracking for the appropriate fleet resource such as HTS and special education SD/OI. Title 13 requires a carrier to have evidence of a preventative maintenance program as well as a documented work order procedure to ensure repairs are addressed by appropriate maintenance staff members. Implementation of a vehicle maintenance software system would allow for electronic documentation of preventative vehicle maintenance schedules as well as a documented repair order system. Transportation mechanics monitor the Title 13 required school bus 45-day/3,000-mile safety inspections on a chalkboard. Implementation and use of a vehicle maintenance software system would allow for electronic tracking of the school bus safety inspections as well. Additionally, electronic tracking of vehicle maintenance repairs can allow for better cost tracking of inventory parts, labor and cost tracking for HTS 7230 resource, special education 7240 resource and other district fleet repairs. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 33 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION Recommendations The district should: 1. Investigate the possibility of using outside vehicle wash vendors. 2. Assign district drivers to thoroughly clean the interiors of buses and other district support vehicles. 3. Implement an electronic vehicle repair work order system that will identify parts utilized, labor time, and fleet resource for appropriate cost tracking. Progress on Prior Transportation Study Recommendations In April 2010, FCMAT visited the district to perform a study of the Transportation Department and services as outlined in the study agreement. On February 22-23, 2012 FCMAT returned to the district to perform a special education trans- portation review. Although this was not part of the service request, FCMAT was able to evaluate the progress the district made on some of the recommendations included in the 2010 report. The district previously had a regular contracted school bus driver who did not drive a regular route and was available to substitute on any route. The district has eliminated the five-hour-per- day contracted substitute position as FCMAT recommended. FCMAT recommended that the district research bus replacement grant opportunities. Since FCMAT’s last visit, the district has determined the air quality districts to which it can submit applications for specific grants. The district replaces buses with a grant from the Sacramento-Yolo air district and receives diesel exhaust retrofit devices with a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. When FCMAT previously visited the district, the fuel dispensing protocol lacked appropriate security. Since then, the district installed an electronic fuel monitoring and dispensing system. That system will also assist with tracking bus and vehicle mileage for preventive maintenance. FCMAT also previously recommended that the district maintain the transportation supervisor position and reduce the transportation assistant position. Since then, the district has hired a director of maintenance, operations and transportation services. The transportation supervisor has announced her retirement. river Delta UniFieD school District 34 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 APPENDICES Appendices A. Special Circumstances Instructional Aide Guidelines B. Sacramento SELPA Tables C. Summary of Evaluation of Additional Support D. Instructional Support Flow Chart E. Special Education Request Form and Handbook F. Study Agreement river Delta UniFieD school District 36 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM Average St/Loc St/Loc St/Fed St/Loc per Pupil Excess St/Fed 2008‐09 2009‐10 2009‐10 2010‐11 2010‐11 2010‐11 2010‐11 Exp per Exp per Allocation Exp per Expenditu Cost per Allocation UDC UDC per UDC UDC re UDC per UDC 1 $ 11,833 $ 10,752 $ 7,093 $ 12,094 $ 7,627 $ 10,505 $ 6,873 2 3 4 River Delta $ 4,228 River Delta $ 6,916 River Delta $ 4,495 5 River Delta $ 8,992 River Delta$ 8,459 6 7 River Delta $ 8,976 River Delta $ 7,617 8 9 $ 7,225 $ 6,858 $ 3,415 $ 7,260 $ 5,620 $ 5,197 $ 3,397 5002 TSUGUA DESIVER P /D H ARENT RIVER ANDBOOK FOR S T S PECIAL RANSPORTATION ERVICES T RANSPORTATION D EPARTMENT Director of Transportation Timothy W. Purvis 858-679-2535 Dear Parent/Guardian: The Transportation Department of the Poway Unified School District has prepared this information package to acquaint you with the procedures covering your child’s school transportation. We need your assistance and cooperation to maintain a timely, reliable and safe service. Your familiarization with, and adherence to, these procedures will aid considerably in transporting your child with the maximum service, courtesy and safety. Superintendent of Schools ..........................Donald A. Phillips, Ed.D. Transportation Special Education Supervisor...........Barbara Towne Deputy Supertinent..........................................................John Collins Dispatcher......................................................................Eva Huntress Director of Transportation....................................Timothy W. Purvis Dispatcher..........................................................................Bill Bedard Assistant Director of Transportation......................Steven G. Rogers Transportation Services 5:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. • Phone (858) 679-2535 1 – Abraxas High School 17 – Midland Elementary School 2 – Administration Center 18 – Morning Creek Elementary School 3 – Adobe Bluffs Elementary School 19 – Mt. Carmel High School 4 – Adult School 20 – Oak Valley Middle School 5 – Bernardo Heights Middle School 21 – Painted Rock Elementary School 6 – Black Mountain Middle School 22 – Park Village Elementary School 7 – Canyon View Elementary School TO ESCONDIDO 23 – Pomerado Elementary School 8 – Chaparral Elementary School 24 – Poway High School 9 – Creekside Elementary School 25 – Rancho Bernardo High School LAKE HODGES 10 – Deer Canyon Elementary School 26 – Rolling Hills Elementary School 11 – Food & Nutrition 27 – Shoal Creek Elementary School 12 – Garden Road Elementary School 28 – Stone Ranch Elementary School 13 – Highland Ranch Elementary School 29 – Sundance Elementary School 14 – Los Penasquitos Elementary School 30 – Sunset Hills Elementary School 15 – Meadowbrook Middle School 31 – Tierra Bonita Elementary School 16 – Mesa Verde Middle School 32 – Turtleback Elementary School 33 – Twin Peaks Middle School 34 – Valley Elementary School 35 – Westview High School 36 – Westwood Elementary School LAKE POWAY WAVERLY DOWNS WAY LA CARTERA ST. A B D LU O F B F R E U S E S TLE S A AH ST. C FLA U N L E A RT D M R O . U C N ALDE T RONRD A . I .E N VANER R RA S PS D T . ARG .R A D SLIAR Z T E N OM U K N C I T A W A L IN B RO T AD E W N O A V T Y I R ED E O K S E T N . CARMELMOUNTAINROAD CUCAST. SABRE SPRINGS PKWY HRR IAO GNA HCD LHAN TE D D E W AST I B L OU L R IA NE MSPKWY T & O L A R K A E M S O ID N E A PARKVILLAGERO DOR A MO D USEROAD CAM RUS I L N E O D CAR P M AR E K L VI S LL U AG N E DA R N O C A E D AVE. DAORNIATNUOM T KC A A E L D B O D LP W HI I A LL ST IAMSPKWY PE BL N VD A . SQU R IT A OS NCHO E C V R E E P N E O I K W N G D AY R. ROAD M CR O E R E N K IN D G R. TO POWAY BUSINESS PARK TO MIRA MESA TO SAN DIEGO TO SCRIPPS RANCH S P N • M O D CHOOL HONE UMBER AP F ISTRICT DAORODAREMOP GLEN OAK ROAD MEADOWBROOK LN. 9TH ST. DAOR YTINUMMOC DAOR DNALDIM CARMELRID EG .DR CAMINOdelNORTE AZONST. EP N .R A D A S ML Q S U O IT CARMELMT.RD. TWINPEA POM KSROAD RE DAOR ODA GARDEN ROAD DAOR ATINOB ARREIT POWAY ROAD .DR NORWOB TANNINDR V ELL E AV RDEDRIV E E SPOLAROAD AD OR AR M TINC T OI TITAN WAY DAORALOPSE POWAYROAD METATELANE CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SYCAMORECANYONROAD EVI SOLERAWAY PASEOLUCIDO BERN MATINAL ROAD D E AR MOP POBLADO ROAD RANCHOBERNARDOROAD RANCHOBERNARDOROAD ARDOHEIGHTSPKWY. ORO EV DRI WESTBERNARDO DA VE IRD CENTER MATU B R E TU R IN R N D T R L A . EBACK RD RO O DA C PASEOLUCIDO CALLE PUEBLITO SHOALCREEKDR. MERCYROAD SCRIPPS-POWAYPARKWAY R SP INGBROOKDR. SPRINGHUR ST . DR T & O L A R K A E M S O ID N E A A SANBERNA MINO R OD CARMELVALLEYRD. CAMINODELSUR MAHKRIK DAOR SANTA FE 4S RANCH 36 VALLEY MONTEREY RIDGE 8 ELEMENTARY DEL SUR RANCHO ELEMENTARY LONE QUAIL BERNARDO HIG D H E L S C N H O O R O TE L RANC YW H KP YN O A N C EVOD 32 21 BLACK 28 S4 MOUNTAIN 20 5 24 RANCH 25 BERNARDO 26 POWAY SPRINGS 31 33 13 2 3 RANCHO PENASQUITOS CARMEL 10 14 MTN. 1 6 35 RANCH 17 30 19 15 16 27 29 12 TORREY 4 S S P A R B IN R G E S 23 34 HIGHLANDS 18 9 7 11 22 FREEWAY ACCESS SCHOOL TELEPHONE NUMBERS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS Adobe Bluffs...................................538-8403 Bernardo Heights.........................485-4850 Canyon View..................................484-0981 Black Mountain............................484-1300 Creekside........................................391-1514 Meadowbrook ...............................748-0802 Chaparral.......................................485-0042 Mesa Verde...................................538-5478 Deer Canyon ..................................484-6064 Oak Valley....................................487-2939 Garden Road..................................748-0230 Twin Peaks...................................748-5131 Highland Ranch.............................674-4707 Los Penasquitos.............................672-3600 HIGH SCHOOLS Midland..........................................748-0047 Abraxas.........................................748-5900 Morning Creek...............................748-4334 Adult Education ...........................486-2167 Painted Road..................................487-1180 Mt. Carmel....................................484-1180 Park Village ...................................484-5621 Poway............................................748-0245 Pomerado .......................................748-1320 Rancho Bernardo..........................485-4800 Rolling Hills...................................672-3400 Westview.......................................780-1914 Shoal Creek....................................613-9080 Transition.....................................679-2519 Stone Ranch...................................521-0250 Sundance........................................484-2950 SPECIAL EDUCATION Sunset Hills....................................484-1600 District Special Education Dept. Tierra Bonita .................................748-8540 748-0010 Ext. 2534 Turtleback......................................673-5514 -or- 679-2534 Valley..............................................748-2007 Westwood .......................................487-2026 SAFETY • TRAINING • EQUIPMENT SAFETY: Special Education Transportation requires drivers with a high level of competency and skill to ensure the safest transportation of your child. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER TRAINING: California state law requires a high level of competency of individuals who drive a school bus. State law requires each driver to have a valid commercial class A or B driver’s license, school bus special certificate, first aid training, a physical examination, finger printing, and criminal and traffic clearances. In addition, the Poway Unified School District Transportation Department requires all drivers to attend regularly scheduled safety and in-service training sessions to improve their skills with special education students. SCHOOL BUS EQUIPMENT: To assure use of safe equipment, all school buses are inspected daily by the driver, at scheduled intervals by our maintenance shop, and annually by the California Highway Patrol. S • T • E AFETY RAINING QUIPMENT STUDENT ILLNESS: Should students become ill occasionally or cannot attend school for other reasons on a particular day or days, it would be appreciated if the parent/guardian would call the Transportation Department. Listed below is the procedure to use to provide a more efficient and practical school bus transportation service for your student. 1. In the event a student is to be absent, the parent/guardian should call the Transportation Department (858) 679-2535 prior to the absence: a. anytime before 5:00 p.m. the day before the absence; b. before 6:00 a.m. the day of the absence. 2. If a student is absent for the morning bus pickup without prior notification, we will not dispatch a bus for the afternoon return without notice from the parent/guardian stating that a ride is necessary. 3. In the event a student is absent without prior notification to the Transportation Department for three (3) consecutive days, the bus will not be routed to the student’s home again until such notification has been given by a phone call from the parent/guardian. This must be done no later than 5:30 a.m. the day of return. There will be no exceptions. You must notify the Transportation Department. This information is not to be relayed by the driver. MEDICATION: MEDICINE The school bus driver will not assume responsibility for delivering medicine to school or home. Fairness n Behave in an orderly manner while waiting for the school bus. n When the bus approaches, stay back 10 feet with bus pass holders boarding first. n Enter the bus and take your seat in an orderly manner. n Remain properly seated, facing forward, keeping your hands to yourself. n Talk quietly, making no noise that would distract the driver or disturb others. n Wait until the bus is completely stopped, and the brake is set, before standing. n Depart the bus in an orderly manner. n If crossing, follow the driver’s instructions. Caring n Take pride in your school bus. Keep it safe and clean. n Do not damage seats or equipment. n Eating, drinking, gum or tobacco chewing, spitting and smoking are not permitted. Animals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, breakable containers, skateboards, weapons or any unsafe object or hazardous material will not be transported. Citizenship n Students must be fully attired including shoes. No spiked or cleated shoes. n No intimate behavior of any kind is allowed on the school bus. n All parts of the body must be kept inside the bus. Objects shall not be thrown inside or from the school bus. Each child on a school bus must behave in a satisfactory manner in order for the driver to be alert to the many hazards of driving. Since the safety of all children on the bus is of prime importance, a child who behaves in an unsatisfactory manner may be denied the use of transportation. YOUR reinforcement of these regulations and occasional communication with your child’s bus driver will help considerably in maintaining a low level of disciplinary problems. Parents/guardians may be responsible for any damage to vehicles caused directly by their child. W C • B R R A R • B R EATHER ONDITIONS US IDING ULES ND EGULATIONS US ULES WEATHER CONDITIONS: Adverse weather conditions may require the delay of buses. Rain and fog are the two major elements we typically experience in the San Diego area. In the event of severe/abnormal weather conditions, the following radio stations will transmit weather conditions and, in the unlikelihood of the cancellation of transportation, they will inform their listeners of the decision. K.F.M.B./STAR 100 AM 760 FM 100.7 BUS RIDING RULES AND REGULATIONS: All transportation shall be subject to the appropriate provisions and policies of the California Education Code, California Administrative Code and policies of the Poway Unified School District. (Title 5 C.A.C. Section 14103) “Pupils transported in a school bus shall be under the authority of, and responsible directly to, the driver of the bus, and the driver shall be held responsible for the orderly conduct of the pupils while they are on the bus or being escorted across a street or highway.” BUS RULES: (Please discuss these rules with your child.) Trustworthiness n Follow the school bus driver’s instructions at all times. Seating may be assigned. n Show the driver your pass, prepaid ticket or fare as you board the bus. n Bus passes are the property of PUSD and may not be used by other students. Respect n Show respect to the driver and your fellow students. n Harassment, profanity, vulgarity or obscene gestures will not be tolerated. Responsibility n Emergency exits or driver controls are only to be used in an emergency. n Non-high school students must be delivered to their assigned bus stop or released to a school administrator. n Non-high school riders must have a note from their parents, signed by a school administrator, to use a different bus stop. PARENT RESPONSIBILITIES: Parents are responsible for children needing assistance from the bus into the home. Children will NOT be dropped at other than the designated address, unless a written request is submitted and approved by Transportation. The procedure to be followed in the event that an authorized adult is not at home and authorization to leave unattended is not on file will be as follows: 1. Driver will notify Transportation of the problem. 2. Transportation will call the home or emergency phone number. (Note: Will use current information on hand. It is the parent’s responsibility to provide us with updated information.) 3. Driver will continue on route while awaiting instruction from Transportation. 4. After completion of their route, the driver will take the child to his/her school of attendance where the parent will be required to pick up the child. 5. If the child has not been picked up by 5:00 p.m., the local law enforcement agency will be contacted to hold the child until parents are contacted. CONTINUED PROBLEMS WITH DELIVERY OF YOUR CHILD MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. S I • M • P R TUDENT LLNESS EDICATION ARENT ESPONSIBILITIES SUCCESSFUL SCHEDULING: The successful scheduling of individualized routing for our Special education students is dependent upon the students being ready at their designated pick-up time. We suggest that all students be ready for pick-up five (5) minutes before their pick-up time. If the child has not come to the school bus, the driver will depart one minute after your child’s pick up time. Minor delays at individual pick-up points such as two minutes at ten separate stops will cause a major delay equal to as much as twenty minutes late to final destination points. For maximum efficiency, we attempt to not deliver our students at the school of attendance unnecessarily early. Drivers are not permitted to honk the horn or leave the bus to get a student. As you can see, it is imperative that we maintain a prompt and efficient routing schedule. With your help, we will have a safe, efficient and educationally productive school year. DROP AT HOME PROCEDURE: If a parent/guardian has indicated on our child release form that their child is only to be released to the identified individuals on the form, then our drivers will only release your child from the bus to those individuals. If the parent has indicated on our child release form that their child does not need to be met by themselves or another responsible party, then we will release the child at the designated drop-off point. DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES: Student conduct reports are initiated by the bus driver and then given to the Operations Supervisor or designee for necessary action to be taken. A copy of the bus referral (misconduct) will be sent to the student’s principal at the school of attendance After evaluation of the student’s misconduct, the principal will take action based on one of the categories below: A. Warning: This action will be considered when a child’s misconduct is of a minor nature which does not jeopardize the safety of other students or the operation of the bus. B. Suspension: 1. When a child’s misconduct is deemed to jeopardize the safety of the bus passengers and its operation; 2. When repeated warnings fail to correct unacceptable behavior; 3. When a student incurs damages to the bus; or, 4. Continued problems of no authorized person to receive the child at home. Depending on the severity of misconduct, SUSPENSIONS will be issued for an appropriate period of time. A parent conference may be necessary before bus riding privileges can be resumed. C. Exclusion of Bus Service: Depending on the degree of misconduct, this action may be necessary. It will be applied in cases where misconduct is of such a nature where safe operation of the bus and its occupants’ safety is willfully and seriously threatened. R C • R T • P • D P OUTE HANGES OUTE IMES ARKING ISCIPLINE ROCEDURES ROUTE CHANGES: Parents should be prepared for CHANGES in buses, routes, and time of pick-up THROUGHOUT the school year as a result of additions or withdrawals of students in the program. Overall route travel time will vary from route to route depending on class times, class locations and student home locations. After an initial adjustment period at the start of school or upon reorganization of routes, the pick-up and delivery time should be consistent within approximately fifteen (15) minutes. If any changes are made, you will be contacted by phone. Buses may run later during days of unfavorable weather conditions such as fog, rain and traffic congestion. ROUTE TIMES: Poway Unified School District is approximately 99 square miles in size which constitutes our normal program boundary. In addition we provide transportation for the needs of students who attend programs outside the P.U.S.D. boundary. Typically, a large majority of our special education students are picked up and dropped off individually. This condition may make a transfer of buses necessary for some children and bus rides which can be somewhat long. You can be assured that every attempt has been made to make your child’s ride as short and as comfortable as possible. The Transportation Department is endeavoring to attain a ride time of one hour or less for in-district programs and no more than one hour and thirty minutes for out-of-district programs. Circumstances beyond the control of the Transportation Department may require a child to be on the bus for a longer period of time in order for them to be transported to the programs which best benefit them. PARKING: Drivers are encouraged not to pull in and out of private driveways. It is extremely helpful if room can be left at the curb in front of your home for loading and unloading passengers. WHEN THE BUS DOESN’T SHOW UP ON TIME If you are reasonably sure that the delay is not due to weather conditions, please allow at least 15 minutes before leaving the bus stop. School buses have to endure the same rush hour traffic conditions that plague commuters. A traffic snarl, traffic accident, minimum days, or a longer than scheduled loading at a previous school bus stop can easily throw your bus 10-15 minutes off schedule. If, at the end of 15 minutes, your bus still has not arrived, you may wish to call the Transportation Department at (858) 679-2535. On extremely foggy or rainy days the buses will run late. Please be patient and don’t worry; the school will be notified of the late arrival. MOVING: If you move during the school year, please notify the Transportation Department as soon as possible. Due to the number of requests, it could take up to 10 days to process the change. If you change phone numbers, please notify Transportation immediately. Both work numbers and home phone numbers are important in the event you need to be contacted. S S • D A H • B N O T • M UCCESSFUL CHEDULING ROP T OME US OT N IME OVING ROAD CONDITIONS: Transportation Services may assign the pick-up and drop-off bus stop location to other than the home if road conditions are felt to be unsuitable for school bus travel (poorly maintained road, hazardous conditions, steep grades, mud, dust, visibility, etc.). Transportation will inspect such road conditions and will determine their suitability for bus travel. If this condition exists, you will be given the nearest possible bus stop location and time of pick-up. It is the parent’s responsibility to transport their child to and from this bus stop location. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION: For student safety and route control each bus is equipped with a two-way radio. The Transportation Department is in constant communication with each bus on its scheduled runs. If there is a problem such as a late bus or perhaps a student riding the wrong bus, the Transportation Department will be able to contact the bus and make the necessary corrections. PERSONAL ARTICLES: For safety reasons: Large toys, glass bottles, insects, animals, plastic bags, knives, skate boards, or any other articles which may cause an injury or cannot be safely secured, will NOT be allowed on the bus. Parents should consult with the Transportation office before a child is allowed to carry an item which is too large to fit in the child’s pocket, back pack or lunch pail. Transportation ASSUMES NO responsibility for lost items. However, every effort will be made to locate such items and return them to their rightful owner. Please put your child’s NAME on all items which could be easily lost (back packs, lunch pails, coats, sweaters, etc.). Unclaimed items left on buses will be turned into the office at the school of attendance. You may call the office at your child’s school concerning lost items. WHEELCHAIR LIFT OPERATION: Drivers are specially trained on all our wheelchair lifts and their proper operation and controls. Although your assistance in loading and unloading is appreciated, we ask that only the driver operate the lift controls and secure the student's chair. WHEELCHAIRS/STROLLERS, CAR SEATS, AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION DEVICES: The safest possible lifts and tie-down equipment have been purchased to accommodate the typical variety and sizes of chairs we transport. Periodically, an unusual style chair is used by a student which may have limitations for transportation purposes. Your help is also needed to maintain safe transportation of wheelchairs and travel chairs. Section 1293G California Administrative Code: “WHEELCHAIRS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH BRAKES AND A RESTRAINING BELT PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER OF THE CHAIR”. Transportation may be DISCONTINUED unless these devices are properly maintained by the owners. All wheelchairs, travel chairs, etc. will be inspected by a member of the transportation staff at least once a year or as necessary. A record will be kept on file in the transportation office. As well, an inspection tag will be attached to the student’s chair. R C • C • P A • W OAD ONDITIONS OMMUNICATION ERSONAL RTICLES HEELCHAIRS