,p. ’ .f - - b» ~x a . c X. 4 ‘ l I1V1\.Ii v A \ / C \ , ,, . r~— A ; '7 m w J - L- w‘ ; _“r' A NATIONAL SURVEY TO IDENTIFY CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN THE TRANSPORTATION 0F HAMBICAPPED STUDENTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph D MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 'f DAAIEL EDWARD DELLA GIUSTINA , _f AAAAAAAAA I/ 3 1293 01 ABSTRACT A NATIONAL SURVEY TO IDENTIFY CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS BY Daniel Edward Della—Giustina Statement of the Problem The successful operation of transporting handi- capped students to and from school depends upon a high quality of performance by all those who are associated with the program. The inception of Standard Seventeen (June 5, 1972) as one of the most recent additions to the Federal Highway Safety Program was designed to improve state programs for transporting pupils safely in rural and urban areas. There seems to be a need for additional regulations within the framework of Standard Seventeen regarding drivers who transport handicapped students. The purpose of this research was to identify CUrrent and recommended practices for transporting handi— CaPPEd students by state departments of education and SeleCted school systems throughout the nation. In addition, an advisory group was asked to make a crlthal .l- or: v-n .9- .“ A o . b .- ~ul ‘- ‘I- ‘v ”m, Daniel Edward Della—Giustina evaluation of the recommended practices. It was hoped that the identification of practices by school officials and the group of experts might encourage a more widespread adoption of the recommendations. Description of the Method Used It was determined that data would be sought from the 50 state departments of education, 2 school systems randomly selected from each.state, and an advisory group of 6 pupil transportation experts. The large school system selected had a student enrollment of 14,000 or more students, while the small school system had an enrollment of 13,999 or less students. Questionnaires were sent to each state department of education and 100 selected school systems. Data were grouped in the following manner: (1) administrative pro- cedures, (2) selection of drivers, (3) instructional programs, and (4) vehicles and equipment used for the transportation of handicapped students. The design of the study was reviewed by specialists in educational research at Michigan State University and the Supervisor of Pupil Transportation of the Michigan State Department of Education. A pilot study to pre— test the instrument was conducted. A 66.6 per cent response of the completed ques— tionnaires was achieved. Daniel Edward DellarGiustina A narrative description of the analyzed data with attendant tables presented the current and recommended practices of state departments of education and selected school systems. The Major Findings The major findings of this research are summarized as follows: 1. Thirty four per cent of the state departments of education, 21.9 per cent of the large school sys— tems and 20.7 per cent of the small school sys- tems currently have a printed policy covering any person involved in a program transporting handicapped students. Eighty—three per cent of the state departments, 69.6 per cent of the large systems, and 77.3 per cent of the small systems recommended the use of printed policies. Approximately 85 per cent of the state departments, 90 per cent of the large school systems, and 75 per cent of the small school systems recommended the Red Cross Basic First Aid Course as a requirement for all drivers. The advisory group members unanimously sanctioned this as a require— ment. At the present time 5.4 per cent of the state departments, 21.9 per cent of the large systems, Daniel Edward DellavGiustina 28.6 per cent of the small systems indicated that their drivers are required to take the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course. Some 90 per cent of the state departments of education, 95.8 per cent of the large systems, and 58.8 per cent of the small systems recommended that all Again drivers be required to take this course. all members of the advisory group supported this course. The majority of the respondents recommended that after the initial medical and visual examination, all drivers transporting handicapped students should report every year for re—examination. The current practice of utilizing qualified instructors preparing drivers for the transpor— tation of handicapped students was reported by 68.7 per cent of the state departments of edu— cation, 62.5 per cent of the large systems, and 62.9 per cent of the small school systems. The use of qualified instructors was recommended by all state departments of education and advisory group members, 84.2 per cent of the large school and 69.2 per cent of the small school systems, systems. Daniel Edward Della—Giustina Special classroom and behind-the—wheel instruction for drivers whose duties will include transport— ing handicapped students was recommended by most respondents. Sixty and six~tenths per cent of the state departments of education, 28.1 per cent of the large school systems, and 51.9 per cent of the small school systems required emergency evacuation drills on all vehicles transporting handicapped students. All advisory group members, 94.1 per cent of the state departments, 80.9 per cent of the large school systems, and 71.4 per cent of the small school systems recommended emergency evacuation drills. Respondents, for the most part, indicated that there should be design and construction standards for all vehicles transporting handicapped young— sters. Findings indicate that an overwhelming majority of the respondents recommended that all vehicles (with the exception of station wagons) transport— ing handicapped students should conform to the National School Bus Glossy'Chrome Yellow Standard. 10. 11. Daniel Edward DellaeGiustina Forty—seven per cent of the state departments of education, 46.9 per cent of the large school sys— tems, and 32 per cent of the small school systems currently required handicapped students to use restraining devices whenever the vehicle was in motion. This requirement was recommended by 84.6 per cent of the state departments, 73.7 per cent of the large school systems, and 75 per cent of the small school systems. Most respondents recommended that all Vehicles carrying handicapped students should be equipped with two-way communication devices. A NATIONAL SURVEY TO IDENTIFY CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS BY Daniel Edward Della—Giustina A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1973 "\ (c; ”Copyright by DANIEL EDWARD DELLA-GIUSTINA 1973 The copyrighting of this thesis is not intended to prevent use of the material for pupil transportation services. All information may be used, with credit to the authore—the only restriction being that the original meaning shall be preserved. In Memoriam Augustus Della'Giustina 1887 — 1952 The love, encouragement, and support he gave, and the faith he had in his son, are special memories that will always be treasured. ii ' ‘ IM‘AJ'E1: 1' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to recognize the assistance and encouragement he has received in this research endeavor. A research project such as this can only be achieved with the help of many people. Although it is impossible to directly recognize all who have been of assistance, the author wishes to acknowledge his indebted— ness and express his appreciation to the following: To Dr. Robert O. Nolan, Professor at Michigan State University, College of Education and the Highway Traffic Safety Center, who always seemed to be there in time of need. His guidance as Academic Advisor gave me the support and encouragement needed through the com— rfletion of my doctoral program. To Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis, Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, for his personal dedi— cated SUpport to make the task of reaching my goal a little easier and much more enjoyable. . To Dr. William A. Mann of the College of Edu— cation who showed patience, understanding, and support mnjng the most trying of times. iii ‘m~'”“ ""“__-"‘;.‘:.__V.I _ ‘ ‘- Many thanks to Dr. Robert E. Gustafson of the College of Education and Highway Traffic Safety Center who gave of himself freely and unselfishly during the early planning stages of this program. The author is particularly grateful to the state directors of pupil transportation and members of the advisory group, for without their help and cooperation this study would not have been possible. Appreciation is expressed to my mother for her guidance and encouragement to pursue a higher education. Most importantly, the author wishes to give special thanks to his wife, Sharon, for her enduring 1 Patience, confidence, and encouragement throughout his graduate study. To his sons, Danny, John, and David, who missed the companionship of their dad during the time Spent away from home completing the doctoral program. iv ‘ ._,.—-.-~._, .'. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 7 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . 7 - Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . 9 Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . 10 Organization of the Remaining Chapters . . 12 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 13 Administrative Problems . . . . . . . 14 Driver Selection and Training . . . . . 19 Vehicles, Equipment, and Inspection . . . 25 I sumaryo . o q o o o q o c o 0 0 2 9 I I III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . 3l Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . 3l Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . 32 Developing and Pre—Testing the Question- naire . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Selection of Advisory Group . . . . . . 37 Conducting the Survey . . . . . . . . 37 Follow-Up Procedure . . . . . . . . 38 Analysis of Data. . . . . . . . . . 40 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE DATA . . . . . 42 Administrative Procedures. . . . . . . 44 Selection of Drivers . . . . . . . . 7: Instructional Programs. . . . . . . . I98 Vehicle and Equipment . . . . . . . Recommended Practices Supported by Members 165 of the Advisory Group . . . . . . . 168 Summary. . . . . . . . . . - . - Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Summary . .y . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem. . . . . . Methods and Procedures Employed . . . The Findings. . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Procedures . . . . Selection of Drivers . . . . . . . Instructional Programs . . . . . . Vehicle and Equipment. . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Procedures . . . . . Selection of Drivers . . . . . . . Instructional Programs . . . . . . Vehicle and Equipment. . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research. . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Categories and Populations of Randomly Selected School Systems . . . . . - B. Survey Questionnaires Sent to State Depart— ments of Education and to Randomly Selected School Systems . . . . . . C. Letters Sent to State Departments of Edu- cation and to Randomly Selected School Systems . . . . . - - - . . ° ‘ D. Questionnaire Respondents From State Depart— ments of Education. . . . . - . ~ ° E. Letters Sent to Members of the Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . vi 171 171 171 172 174 175 177 180 184 186 186 186 187 187 187 188 189 192 198 205 219 221 224 Appendix F. List of Advisory Group Members . . . . G. Follow-Up Letter Sent to State Departments of Education and to Randomly Selected School Systems . . . . . . . . H. A Graph Showing Returns of Questionnaire. I. Questionnaire Respondents from Randomly Selected School Systems . . . . . Page 226 227 228 229 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number and Percentage of Questionnaire Returns . 39 2. States and School Systems Having Printed Policies Relative to Job Descriptions for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3. States and School Systems Having Policies for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students. . 47 4. States and School Systems Having Policies for the Evaluation of Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students in the Following Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5. States and School Systems Requiring Pre-Service Instruction (Classroom or In—the—Bus) Before the Applicant Starts Driving the Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6. Number of Hours of Pre—Service Instruction (Classroom or In—the—Bus) Required Before the Applicant Starts Driving the Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 7. States and School Systems Providing In—Service Instruction for Drivers Transport1ng Handicapped Students. . . . . . . . . 60 8. Drivers Receiving In—Service Instruction Annually. . . . . . . . . - . - 61 9. States and School Systems Requiring the Basic Red Cross First Aid Course for All Dr1vers . 63 10. State and School Systems Requiring Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students to Take 65 the Advanced Red Cross First Aid Course . . viii Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. States and School Systems Requiring Drivers to Take the National Safety Council's Defen— siVe Driving Course . . . . . . . States and School Systems Having an Administra— tive Guide (Manual) to Provide the Driver with the Basic Knowledge of Pupil Transpor— tation . . . . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Having a Guide That Includes a Unit Pertaining to Handicapped Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Permitting Handi— capped Students to Be Transported by Regular School Bus . . . . . . . . Information Reported by State Departments of Education and Selected School Systems . . . New Applicants Completing an Application Form When Applying for Employment . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring a Personal Application, Driving Record Check, and Fingerprint Check in Addition to the Basic Application. . . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Each School Bus Driver Applicant to Pass a Medical Examination Before Being Employed to Transport Handicapped Students . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Each School Bus Driver Applicant to Pass a Visual Examination Before Being Employed to Transport Handicapped Students . . . . . States and School Systems Having Visual Exami— nations Performed by Either a Licensed Physician or a Licensed Optometrist. . . . States and School Systems Requiring a Tubercu— losis Test . . . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Medical Examinations to Be Performed by Licensed Physicians 0 O O O 0 O D O Q Q C - ix Page 66 68 70 71 74 77 79 82 84 85 87 89 A W” ‘n‘ I" _ . wgf‘ ‘ A —- ‘ u-‘n ".a:_‘_~;§, =5. «”1 _ : Table Page 23. Forms Required By States and School Systems Showing that Drivers Are Medically Qualified Q Q 0 Q 9 O O Q 0 Q 0 O 91 24. School Bus Driver Medical and Visual Re— Examinations . . . . . . . . . . . 94 25. Age Limits for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 26. States and School Systems Recommending a Change in the Age Limits for School Bus Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 27. States and School Systems Using Qualified Instructors to Prepare Drivers Trans— porting Handicapped Students . . . . . 102 28. States and School Systems Having Responsibili— . ties for the Preparation and Training of I Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students . 103 I 29. Areas of Preparation Required by States and School Systems for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . 107 30. Subject Areas Included in the Classroom Phase of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . 111 31. Number of Hours of Classroom Instruction That States and School Systems Required for Bus Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . 117 32. States and School Systems Requiring Additional Classroom Instruction for Drivers Trans— porting Handicapped Students. . . . . 119 33. Number of Hours of Classroom Instruction Devoted to Transporting Handicapped 120 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. Topics Included in the Behind—the—Wheel (Bus) 122 Phase of Instruction . . . . . . . . 35- Number of Hours of In—the—Bus Instruction That States and School Systems Requ1re 126 for School Bus Drivers . . . . Table Page 36. States and School Systems Requiring Additional In— —the— —Bus Road Instruction for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students 1 . . . 128 37. Number of Hours of Behind— —the—Whee1 Instruc— tion Devoted to Transporting Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . 130 38. States and School Systems Requiring Emergency Drills on Vehicles TranSporting Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . . 132 39. Number of Emergency Drills Conducted Yearly on Vehicles Transporting Handicapped Students . 133 40. States and School Systems Requiring Drivers to Successfully Complete a Final Exami- nation at the End of the Course . . . . 135 41. States and School Systems Requiring the Driver to Take a Road Test at the Completion of the Course in the Vehicle Used for Trans— porting Handicapped Students, or One of Equivalent Size . . . . . . . . . 137 42. States and School Systems Having Minimum Standards with Respect to Vehicles Con~ structed or Modified for the Transpor— tation of Handicapped Students . . . . . 139 43- Types of Vehicles Used by States and School Systems for Transporting Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 44. States and School Systems Requiring All. Vehicles (with the Exception of Station Wagons) To Be Painted National School Bus Glossy—Chrome Yellow for Transporting Handicapped Students . 144 45. States and School Systems Requiring a SpeCial Door Opening on the Right Side of the Carry—A11, No Less than Forty—Eight 146 Inches in Width . 46. States and School Systems Having Loading and Unloading Ramps Meeting Sufficient Strength and Rigidity Requirements to Support a Wheel Chair, Occupant, and Attendant . 147 xi Table 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. ’ K'mrh‘4-3. .- States and School Systems Requiring Power Lift Equipment to be of Sufficient Capacity to Lift Wheel Chair and the Occupant . . . . States and School Systems Requiring All Special Equipment to be of Sufficient Strength and Rigidity to Support the Handicapped Stuv dent . O O O C I States and School Systems Requiring Vehicles Carrying Handicapped Students to Have Two— Way Radios. . . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Having Vehicles Which Carry Handicapped Students Equipped with Two—Way Radios . . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Vehicles Carrying Handicapped Students To Use Restraining Devices Whenever the Vehicle Is in Motion . . . . . . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Periodic Inspection of School Vehicles Transport— ing Handicapped Students . . . . . States and School Systems Requiring Vehicles TranSporting Handicapped Students to Meet InSpection Requirements that Are Different from Regular School Buses An Estimated Number of Handicapped Students Transported Daily in Each State and School System. An Estimated Number of Drivers and Vehicles Specifically Used to Transport These Students xii O 9 O O O Page 149 151 153 154 156 158 160 163 CHAPTER I NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction In 1971, twenty million elementary and secondary school children in the United States were bused to school daily. These children rode 290,000 buses 2.3 billion miles in 1972 at a cost of $1.5 billion.1 National figures show that 65 per cent of the school children ride to school each day. While the fatality—injury record and accident experiences for school vehicles are the lowest in the mass transportation category, the need still exists for further accident reduction. School bus transportation accidents killed 150 persons in 1971, including 85 pupils, 5 bus drivers, and 60 other persons.2 Of the pupils killed, 35 were passen- gers on school vehicles and 50 were pedestrians either approaching or leaving a loading zone. More than half of 1National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago; Safety Council, 1972), pp. 92-93. 21bid. the pupil pedestrian victims were struck by a vehicle other than the school bus which they were entering or leaving.3 Pupil transportation has become an integral part of our transportation system. The inception of Standard Seventeen (June 5, 1972) as one of the most recent additions to the Highway Safety Program as set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was designed to improve State programs for transporting pupils safely in rural and urban areas. The purpose of this standard is to reduce to the greatest extent possible, the danger of death or injury to school children while they are being transported to and from school. The Adminis~ tration recommended that the standard be issued initially to cover "pupil transportation safety" but that the standard should be expanded in the future to cover all youth transportation not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.4 During the last twenty—five years, increasing Nudent enrollments precipitated additional or ever— increasing numbers of handicapped students, who also 31bid. 4U.S. Department of Transportation, Pupil Trans— Portation Safety (washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May, 1972), pp. 1—7. I'll f/l needed transportation to and from school. It has been estimated that 300,000-350,000 handicapped students are in need of daily transportation. These young people (K—12) depend upon drivers, who it is hoped are providing a positive influence on the children riding on their buses. Handicapped children under the direction of Special Education Departments are being transported in regular school buses, compact buses, carry~alls, and station wagons. According to some safety experts, the low accident fatality rate of school vehicles is not due alone to careful planning, but to the willingness of other vehicles to yield the rightvof—way. Safety problems vary from school district to school district, but there are school vehicles on the road today that are not properly equipped and poorly designed. Also, many school vehicles are over—crowded and are operated by incompetent and untrained drivers who often are unsupervised. Drivers of vehicles transporting handicapped stu— dents have other problems: some students must be carried to and from their homes; some are in wheel chairs or on crutches and must be boarded Via a special ramp or power lift mounted to the chassis frame with a sufficient Capacity to lift wheel chair, occupant, and attendant.5 5National Commission on Safety Education, Minimum §fl§ndards for School Buses (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1964), PP- 54—56. The transportation demands of handicapped children which the above problems create are numerous. Meeting these demands requires trained drivers who can meet basic tasks of personal care, communications, and other situations for a smooth and efficiently operated vehicle. In addition, these demands require a smooth and efficiently run organization that understands the problems that drivers have in the transportation of handicapped stu— dents. "Handicabs" of Milwaukee is an unusual organi— zation which meets some of these requirements and in the process transports 800 to 1,000 handicapped children per day.6 The demands and responsibilities that drivers transporting handicapped students have are tremendous in the overall educational program. Also, the driver is expected to drive through rapidly growing suburban areas, on expressways with faster moving traffic, and with increasing numbers of students. The driver needs a better understanding of the various problems he encounters under such conditions. Obviously, the selection, inspection, and main— tenance of all school vehicles is an important phase in the total pupil transportation program. . 6National Safety Council, "Handicapped Man PrOv Vides Transportation Service," Traffic Safety (February, 1971), p0. 29o The responsibility of driving a school vehicle and the importance attached to this task by certain school administrators is expressed well by Paul W. Kearney when he said:7 The man who drives a bus load of children to school every day, in all kinds of hazardous highway and weather conditions, is charged with grave responsiw bility. Together with a ship's captain, or an air- line pilot, precious human lives depend upon his experience, skill, and judgment. Yet, deSpite the increasing dangers of highway travel, many communi— ties pay minimum attention to the dependability of their school bus drivers.8 Today all states have expanded their transportation program for handicapped students. Special vehicles are needed to provide special service doors, hydraulic lifts, ramps, stanchions, grab handles, and wheel—chair anchors to assist the handicapped child. The desirability of aids on vehicles to transport the handicapped should be examined in order to provide the driver with needed assistance. There are some states that require no physical examination or make provisions for character references to determine emotional suitability of drivers. However, Herbert Stack and J. Elkow, Education for Safe living (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe—Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 307. Kearney, Paul W., "Who Drives Your School Bus?" §§§8ty Education (March, 1954). Physicians for Automotive Safety, How Safe Is §;§chool Bus? (Springfield, N.J.: Physicians for AfiE5~ motive Safety, 1971), pp. 15—18. - nga— --- —.—. the majority of states call for such general qualifications as a special driver‘s license, age requirements, first aid training, and a written test. Also, a road test in a school vehicle is a standard called for by some states. There seems to be a need for additional legis— lation within the framework of Standard Seventeen regard— ing drivers who transport handicapped students. There is a need to update and expand the educational and selection technique and methods on the national level for persons who are going to operate special vehicles. The programs could be provided in a number of ways. Hopefully, these programs will become more evident as this study progresses. The writer feels that the selection and education of drivers of handicapped school children has not kept pace with the increasing enrollment and demands for additional vehicles to transport these children. The transportation of handicapped students can be better administered than they are at the present time. Many (Efferent types of training programs are now in use throughout the United States. Once a driver has been selected and trained he should be familiarized with his mfldpment, the routes over which he will operate, the areas he will serve, the schools he will serve, the schools he will service, and the students he will trans— port. An important component of a pupil transportation Emogram to improve the selection and training was effec~ tfively stated as follows: .1 . . .,\ .|\ A. II I n u A I .h‘ ‘51. n. u . b .1. Y . l... ~\s .1... v.1.“ uxls Tb “L; O 1 u\|\ a... v. . .w a a v \s. 7. . :u #1 NC. \t n i Isl» I... a.» .«u «.u .v.. w a u u H! .‘,\ ‘7. Q» s» . h...! . . n . z. I. .a .. ..~ - ... .~ \ 3n . i a» is \\\ N: I? The school—bus driver is the most important single factor in the bussing system——indeed he could be described as the most important person in the whole school system since failure on his part could result in tragedy for a child, thereby rendering superfluous the educational advantages the school has to offer. It would therefore seem rudimentary that anyone with the responsibility of driving a bus full of children be in good health, both physically and mentally.10 Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to survey State Departments of Education and selected school systems to identify current and recommended practices in the trans— portation of handicapped students to and from school. In addition, an advisory group of experts was asked to make a Critical evaluation of recommended practices. It is hoped that the identification of recommended practices by school officials and the advisory group of six experts might encourage a more widespread adoption of programs in which handicapped students are transported. Importance of the Study The writer found a great deal of information available on pupil transportation in general, but very little in the related area of transportation of the handi— Capped. This study will try to identify current and reCommended’practices in the transportation of handicapped Students to and from school. A survey of the state ____________~*.____ loPhysicians for Automotive Safety, How Safe Is Pu il Trans ortation? (Springfield, N.J.: Phy51cians for AUtomotive Safety, October, 1967), P- 3- u IIAH" ucU: - as? .‘( b'vb 92“.. rank departments of education and selected school systems to determine current practices will be used as the instrument for gathering data on a national level. The information tabulated from the survey questionnaire should identify the following: (1) The administrative policies currently employed and others recommended by state departments of education and selected school systems in trans— porting handicapped students to and from school; (2) The current and recommended practices of driver selection by state departments of education and selected school systems transporting handicapped students; (3) The current and recommended practices for instructional programs employed by state depart— ments of education and selected school systems for drivers transporting handicapped students; (4 The current and recommended practices of the type V of vehicle and equipment used for the transpor— tation of handicapped students. The above will aid in filling the void that now exists in our understanding of transporting the handicapped student to and from school. — ‘l'“ .-"-r '1‘: Definition of Terms Aids or Monitors.——Persons to assist the driver with the handicapped vehicle when transporting the children to and from school. Compact Buses, Carry:Alls, Station Wagons, Regular School Buses.——Refers to vehicles used to transport handicapped children. System.——A statewide educational organization and all of its local subsystems, or the local school district including all of its schools. Education of Drivers.——Refers to classroom and tehind the wheel instruction for bus drivers at the time of his/her employment, and/or in—service instruction. Handicapped Student.-—Any physically, mentally, or emotionally disturbed student. Hydraulic Lifts, Ramps, Stanchions, Grab Handles, sag Wheel—Chair Anchors.——Equipment used in vehicles transporting handicapped students. Seat Restraining Devices.——A seat belt or restraining harness used on vehicles transporting handi— capped students . 10 Special Service Door.——This door is for loading and unloading handicapped students in wheel chairs or on crutches, by use of a ramp or hydraulic lift mounted to the frame of the vehicle. State Department of Education.-—The principle supervising educational agency in each state. Students Transported Daily.——A student is counted only once for each day transported, although usually two one—way trips or more are made daily. Delimitations of the Study A total of 150 survey questionnaires was mailed to 50 state departments of education and 100 school systems randomly selected from the American Education IMrectory (1972).11 It was found necessary to delimit this study in the following way: 1. The state departments of education and selected school systems provided the current and recom— mended practices in their representative states and school systems. 2. All 100 school systems were public schools. l . . D' .lPatterson's American Educator, Educational worms Inc., LXVIII (Mt. Prospect, 111., 1971). 11 3. Two school systems in each state were randomly selected by use of a Random Digits Table.12 a. The large school system selected had a stu— dent population of 14,000 and more students. b. The small school system_selected had a stu— dent population of 13,999 and less. The questionnaires were limited to data which could be provided by the school systems and departments of education. With the exception of four additional questions directed to the state departments of education, both questionnaires were the same. Data information for this study was collected during the months of January and February, 1973. Data collected from state departments of edu— cation, school systems, and advisory group members were tabulated separately and expressed in perw centages to the nearest tenth. This study is limited to only the data collected from the questionnaire, and its findings recorded from this research can only be applied to the state departments of education and those of the l2 . . . . William L. Hayes, Statistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart Wilson, 1963). 12 randomly selected school systems replying to the descriptive survey. Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter I included an introduction to the study, the statement of the problem, definition of the terms used, the importance of the study, assumptions upon which the research was based, and limitations of the study. Chapter II will summarize the literature perti— nent to this study. Included in Chapter III are the methodology and procedures utilized in the gathering of the data from the survey instrument. A detailed outline of the sampling distribution with sampling procedures and the project design is also a part of this chapter. In Chapter IV is found the analysis of the data in narrative and tabular form. Chapter V contains the summary, major findings, conclusions, recommendations, implications for future research, and a discussion. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Since the primary purpose of this study was to identify current and recommended practices in the trans- portation of handicapped students, the principle focus of this review is the literature in several areas related to pupil transportation. This chapter summarizes the limited field of literature pertaining to this study. A comprehensive search of the Michigan State Department of Education library, the Thesis Library at Michigan State University, and University Micro Films at Ann Arbor, Michigan, was carried out. Mader, in a study conducted at Michigan State University, reported that some studies in public schools have involved administrative attitudes as they relate to the handicapped. However, very few studies have been concerned with attitudes held by special educators toward handicapped students in our society. Based on what is considered to be a comprehensive review of contemporary literature, no researcher was found who sought to deter— mine the attitudes held by the special educator or 13 14 administrator toward handicapped students.1 This type of information is important if there is to be an improvement of current practices of transporting handicapped students to and from school. Much of the literature included short articles which appeared in a number of publications in the form of speeches, reports, and proceedings of seminars and pro- fessional meetings. Some doctoral dissertations and survey studies were inclusive in regard to pupil trans— portation in general; however, very little of the literature covered the specific area of transporting handicapped stu— dents. Administrative Problems To design and implement an effective program for transporting handicapped students, leadership roles are necessary from state departments of education as well as local school administrators. At the 1965 National Safety Congress Jenkins pointed out that it is an accepted fact today that "job environment affects the attitude of any worker." The same is true of school bus drivers. Special edu— cation opportunities are given to mentally and physically 1John B. Mader, "Attitudes of Special Educators Toward the Physically Handicapped and Toward Education“ (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univ versity, 1967), p. 18. 15 handicapped children that involve special bus routes, door—to—door service, and wheelwchair cabs when trans- ported to and from schools. The following suggestions were recommended: 1. Give specific instructions concerning the authority of the school bus driver. 2. Give instructions in human relationships as they relate to children. 3. Give instructions in safe driving techniques: a) Provide a safety manual. b) Test all applicants. c) Train new drivers in behind—the—wheel phase of instruction. d) Give road test and written examinations covering the "Operation Policies and Safety Manual." e) Retrain and test drivers whenever the need arises. f) Have in—service meetings where (organization meetings) drivers receive one hour of pay. Information from Wilson‘s article pointed out that in some school systems where there are few or no facilities for the physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped, students are often provided with homebound instruction, even though this is a less desirable arrange— ment than classes suited to their particular needs. This situation also exists in sparsely settled rural areas where the problems of transporting handicapped students great distances makes special classes impractical, yet some school systems permit the transportation of handi— capped students by regular school buses. However, the W 2John Jenkins, "Job Environment Affects Attitudes," National Safety Congress Transactions, XVII (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1965), 47-51. 16 physically handicapped child must be made aware of his limitations, as well as his abilities, and be given some assistance by either the driver or an aid.3 Calovini pointed out that: Scheduling for transportation of handicapped students is a demanding task for the administrator of the special education department. The principal should work with the administrator and the special class— room teacher in developing procedures which parents can follow on days when children must be absent from school. It is unsound in terms of time and money to permit the driver to make extended trips to pick up children only to find that they will not be attending school that day. A routine procedure should be devised whereby the parents must assume responsi- bility for notifying school authorities when trans— portation will not be needed.4 Bean, a specialist in Policy Research and LegiS* lation in the Office of Planning and Policy Development, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Washington, D.C., stated the following: Those who have experienced physical disability, or those professionals in rehabilitation who work with the physically disabled, soon learn that transpor— tation looms as a major problem. One approach to making bus systems accessible to the handicapped would be to redesign the buses and incorporating some necessary design features. General Motors has developed what it has named the RTX (Rapid Transit Experimental). Among other features, the RTX could squat to 9 inches from the ground to assist in accessibility. Transportation problems 3Marguerite Wilson, "Crippled and Neurologically Impaired Children," Exceptional Children in the Schools, ed. by L. M. Dunn (New York: Holt, Rinehart and WInston, Inc., 1965), pp. 463—519. 4Gloria Calovini, The Principal Looks at Classes £9; the Physically Handicapped (Washington, D.C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, N.E.A., 1969), pp. 28—30. fl " " “TL"“W ”"h' ’ "P" “1 WM 17 of the handicapped are far from being solved, but stirrings in federal, state and local governments and in private organizations attest to recognition of the extent and impact of the problem. With this awareness progress will come.5 Today, that which is known about the transportation problems of the handicapped, is mostly of the anecdotal variety. Present administrative practices and procedures in special transportation are not very systematic. With this in mind, Congress developed a proposal to establish a National Commission on Transportation and Housing for the Handicapped (March 20, 1972). Wilson appeared before the United States Senate‘s Special Committee on Aging in October, 1971, with the following recommendations: (1) That a federal law be enacted making it manda— tory for all newly built buses to be equipped to accommodate wheel—chair and other elderly and handicapped passengers. (2) That no separate transportation systems be developed for the handicapped and elderly, except in rural areas where no public trans— portation exists, and areas with a planned bus conversion program. In my opinion this type of segregation would lead to higher cost and inadequate transportation for the elderly and handicapped. It seems practical to avoid any duplication of facilities——and additional oper— ating expenses——when thoughtful planning and thorough consideration can produce a single system for all.6 5William Bean, "Transportation Overview," Rehabili~ tgtion Record (washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 5f—_I~‘“ Health, Education, and Welfare, Rehabilitation Services Administration, July and August, 1972), pp. 1—6. 6Harold L. Wilson, "Barrier~Free Rapid Transit For San Francisco Bay Area," Rehabilitation Record 18 Weingold cited in his article that many handiv capped children are "prisoner—like" because of "homebound instruction." He pointed out that the handicapped do not have the opportunity to get out of their homes or into their community because of the individual‘s own short— comings or the failure of society to provide meaningful activities. In New York State, the one thing that helped to solve this problem was the enactment of a provision calling for the mandatory transportation of handicapped children to and from school through the Education Law. Furthermore, the doubly handicapped (such as the mentally retarded, cerebral palsied) were provided with buses equipped with hydraulic lifts and other special equipment. Presently, there are 12,500 handicapped children going to public schools and being transported at public expense in the state of New York. The great increase of doubly handicapped, physically handicapped, and mentally retarded leaving their homes to attend school and employment at sheltered workshops is occurring because the aforementioned legislation is making trans— portation available to all. It was pointed out that agencies engaged in help- ing the handicapped must embark upon public information and legislative campaigns as a means of creating interest ¥_ thhington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rehabilitation Services Administration, July and August, 1972), Pp. 7-10. 19 at the community level. Studies directed to the trans- portation problems of the handicapped must be financed through the legislature.7 Driver Selection and Training Driving defensively is an important element of the accident prevention program. At the 1970 National Safety Congress, Ray Martinez stated a number of facts that are important to the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course. Records show the course has been successful in the goal of reducing accident fre- quency. At Fort Hood, Texas before DDC, Army records showed one soldier fatality every twelve days in a pri— vately owned vehicle, and one soldier injured severely in a privately owned vehicle every four days. One year later, after the Defensive Driving Course, one soldier died every thirty—six days, and one was injured every nine days, in privately owned vehicles. The Defensive Driving Course teaches drivers how to avoid errors and how to avoid being trapped in accidents by the errors of others. Defensive Driving will be as successful in helping school bus drivers to avoid accidents as it was to the Army or any other group of drivers. Some fleets k 7Joseph T. weingold, "Unbinding the Homebound Through Mobility," Rehabilitation Record (washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and welfare, Rehabilitation Services Administration, July and August, 1972), pp. 11—14. be. 5.8 .v ~.~L ~\~ 20 are now giving the course to their drivers again, after three years, as a refresher.8 Wizotzkey's presentation on Driver Selection at the 1969 National Safety Congress stated the following: School transportation is annually becoming a more integral part of the education program. Great strides have been made in all facets of the trans- portation field; but probably in the most important phase, the selection and training of drivers, we have lagged behind. Greater efforts are being made to have all school age youth in school, even though they may have physical or mental handicaps or are emotionally disturbed. The added emphasis on special education opportunities has increased the responsibilities of the school bus driver and his supervisor. Some handicapped pupils transported were sixteen to seventeen years of age, and were being admitted to school for the first time. Because of this, it was soon realized that drivers of the vehicles transporting these students must have special qualities and must be selected for their ability to handle the unique problems that arise.10 Strasser included in his study a survey of practices and procedures in driver selection, training, fi 8Ray Martinez, "The Golden Rule," National Safety Qpngress Transactions, XVII (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1970), 10. 9D. G. Wizotzkey, "The Experts Respond," National Safety Congress Transactions, XVII (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969), 20. lOIbid. 21 and education for commercial motor vehicle fleets. A questionnaire consisting of 350 items was mailed to 270 trucking companies across the nation. This study cited that some practices and procedures currently used in motor fleets are essential in any basic program while other practices and procedures are valuable in certain programs, but not important in all programs. He recommended the personal investigation of the new applicant. Because of the nature of work of the school bus driver, the importance of personal—contact investigation should be a procedure for all new applicants. Also, further investigations should include personal references, previous employers, insurance company records, and checking police records for all new drivers. Loshbough pointed out the importance of driver training programs for school bus drivers with the behind— the-wheel training phase being the most essential. If there is no training program for such drivers in the school system, one should be adopted even on a small scale. According to Loshbough, the person who conducts the training sessions should have a well—organized pro— gram and specific objectives in mind. The facilities for conducting the training sessions should be adequate k llMarland K. Strasser, "The Development of a Programbf Driver Selection Training and Education for Cbmmercial Motor Vehicle Fleets" (unpublished Ed.D. dis— sertation, New York University, 1949), pp. 49—165. . «~‘ “It :,.. my... '~\ . H“- l a“: {II ‘11 'r '1 (3 “AH 22 to cover the type of training the instructor is providing. In order to motivate the school bus driver, the instructor should be qualified and able to make the presentations interesting and beneficial. In an effort to assess the training program, it is important to evaluate, each year, the methods needed to improve and to make adjustments for old and new pupil transportation problems that may develop.12 A great need for alert and skillful school bus drivers, properly trained, has grown steadily during the last fifteen years. John Barkham presented a paper at the 1967 National Safety Congress concerned with a school bus driver training program. Different states have used various agencies to administer driver training programs throughout the nation. Some states have used university service centers to direct such a program. Other states have turned to departments of highway safety as the agency to administer school bus training programs. It seems apparent that a need for an advanced Course in school bus driver training should be developed. The purpose is to serve as additional training for drivers who have completed a basic course and who would benefit from a refresher course as well as a greater 12 . . N ' William G. Loshbough, "The Experts Respond," National Safety Congress Transactions, XVII (Chicago: ational Safety Council, 1969), 22'24~ study in de ah, safety handicapped Pat pczntec' out .. Adec COD! 6. Dri\ bat give 23 study in depth in the areas of public relations, first aid, safety and emergency procedures, and transporting l3 1andicapped children. Patterson, in a 1959 study of school bus drivers, )ointed out that state departments of education should be nvolved in the administration of the program of driver election and education including many other areas of 14 upil transportation. The following suggestions for school bus driver election and education should be considered by those aving administrative responsibilities for pupil trans— Drtation: l. Adequate salary schedules be set up to attract competent drivers. Drivers be hired during the late summer in order that adequate education and training can be given prior to the opening of school. Local school boards assume major role in the selection of school bus drivers. Medical examinations of the individual drivers be the deciding factor in determining the maximum driving age of the school bus driver. Driver education and training be under the supervision of the state department of education and be conducted by a state institution of higher learning or other approved agency. Personnel employed in this training be of high quality with a broad understanding of the problems involved. M 13John Barkham, "Setting Up and Administering a 1001 Bus Driver Training Program," National Safety Conn 335 Transactions, XVII (Chicago: National Safety 1nc11, 1967), 32—35. 14Ronald D. Patterson, "Recommended Practices and >Cedures for the Improvement of Programs for the .ection and Education of School Bus Drivers" (unpublished D. dissertation, New York University, 1959), pp. 148—50. Onl‘ h ( CEI' o sch rshe cnij mg I 17 .q- «u ' ' “W:L391) ‘ 1328 at a & .hvh-.. u 1 ~ «- v C O: 1,. An‘. Qtvk .a- ‘\.h er Ab ¥9Cti0n of ~‘ 24 7. Only the best equipment be used in transporting children and that it be maintained in good work" ing condition. 8. The general public be adequately appraised of certain rules and regulations in regard to school bus operation. 9. Legislation be enacted to protect drivers and pupils while riding in, leaving, or entering a school bus.15 Every supervisor of pupil transportation is ansely interested in getting the best school bus rers possible. Carlisle Beasley Jr., pointed out ; standards for such specific items as experience, 'acter, and physical examinations may be found in the lations of some states, but very few states have blished a comprehensive set of standards to select erly qualified drivers of school buses. In the ction of school bus drivers, more attention to items as character, age, and emotional stability should onsidered.l6 Abercrombie (Assistant Executive Sec., National ation Association) stated that the selection of )1 bus drivers should be carried forward on a pro— Lonal and businesslike basis. Criteria for the :tion of drivers should be stated clearly and based Late requirements, supplemented by local needs. The lSIbid., pp. 150—51. l6Carlisle Beasley, Jr., "Selecting and Training chool Bus Driver," Traffic Safety (May, 1973), 8-20. _ ,~'__‘ WJ” I I) " -. 33551218 ca: Av-A H ‘n ‘ as; sen-o. ”Ah‘ T" ACE: ‘ . .F‘- ,. ‘W vn‘u ~rocer ‘ y 25 means of recruiting good candidates tomorrow is to L good program today—~a program in which the greatest .ble care and consideration is devoted to treating 7 school bus driver as a very important person.17 Yeater, Superintendent of Schools in Huntington, Virginia, further supported this View by stating proper school bus driver selection just happens to 1e of the most perplexing problems we have to solve. 1tor selection is an educational problem, not just a .em involving the physical mechanics of driving a In education the goal should be to get the highest .ble quality of transportation for the total edu— nal program of our children.18 Vehicles, Equipment, and Inspection Parents who think their youngsters are "safely" 3 school when they dash to the bus stop on time have 3r "think" coming, according to a group of George xgton University law students. These law students, together with the Nader— ated Center for Auto Safety, Washington, D.C., have 175. A. Abercrombie, "What Can We Do To Improve Recruitment?" National Safety Congress Transactions, fhicago: National Safety Council, 1966), 87. l . 8K. D. Yeater, "What Can We Do To Improve Driver nent?" National Safety Congress Transactions, licago: National Safety Council, 1966), 84. proposed ei scinol buse sznc': ural seat belts, 5Ch001 I t Was f ESCape E allOIxing Il‘Om the \ l 1 911a is saf ety’" :fiflSing’ Mic J} 20 a? J. W 26 ,sed eight engineering performance standards for >1 buses. They include high back—padded seats, :tural integrity of the bus body, front passenger belts, better constructed steering wheels, safer doors, and the elimination of stanchions. The group (called BUSWREC, BAN Unsafe Schoolbuses 1 Regularly Endanger Children) stated that the primary 3 of injuries in school bus accidents is poor seating Jn. Weak structural design——the case with a New :0 school bus which "crumpled like an accordian" in :ent fatal collision——causes the most deaths.19 The University of California, Los Angeles, TRAUMA chh Group, in a recent study, stated that school bus design may be responsible for up to 90 per cent of njuries in lower speed collisions. This is based on e-by—case investigation of school vehicle collisions occurred during a ten—year period.20 They advocated: 1e redesign of school bus seats and the inclusion : seat belts or other restraint systems for every :hool bus occupant—~all passengers and the driver. ; was further recommended that better means of cape after impact be provided and roof ports lowing quick egress from the inside and access cm the outside be installed. They urgently lgMarion Martin, "DOT Cited for Neglect of School ’ety," Gannett News Service, The State Journal, , Michigan, November, 1972. 20J. Daughton, "School Bus Collisions," Journal Eic Safety Education (January, 1973), 24. advise instru: The re. school Tim, and an resear< .‘ ‘. '1 dull‘x’e an'y' 303%. must "IY w—fiCtiy re ~L \ \u emnino .3 27 advise that school bus passengers of all ages be instructed and drilled in evacuation procedures. The research group admonished educators to review school bus safety procedures regularly.21 Kurre cited that safety in school transportation Lchieved in an entirely different manner than that l for other automotive products. It is achieved >ugh the team effort of the operator, state super— >r, and the manufacturer, and is based on experience research. Always remember that a school bus is -ke any other vehicle. School bus standards, there— 2, must be develOped from research and experience :ctly relating to this type of vehicle rather than ming from other vehicles. The danger of a standard hat it is likely to be accepted as a final word.22 Stack and Elkow pointed out the importance of dards for school buses so that no substandard or fe vehicles are on the road. It is important that school vehicles have periodic inspection, the nucleus 1 effective preventive maintenance program and a a factor in a safe pupil transportation Operation. ven though periodic school bus inspections are con— 3 by the state's Department of Motor Vehicles or lb— 2libid. a...— 22R. B. Kurre, "Bus Standards and Research workw National Safety Congress Transactions, XVII (Chi— National Safety Council, 1966), 103—06. State Polil vehicles a' equipping : responsibij .EQUlar sci as is traz """" 28 ate Police, all drivers should also inspect their Iicles at the start of each trip.23 Lordahl, owner and manager of "Handicabs" (a con— un specializing in special vehicles used to transport dicapped individuals), pointed out the importance of ipping school vehicles with two—way radios. The .ponsibility of a driver who has a breakdown in a lar school bus creates many problems; but when the is transporting physically handicapped students, cial problems of such students further complicate : situation when a radio is not available.24 Lordahl indicated the importance of having two— radios on school vehicles with the following statement: If a Handicabs vehicle without a radio were to break down, the driver and the children would have to sit and wait for someone to happen by for assistance. With radio, if one of our vehicles should break down, the driver can have help in a matter of minutes. Drivers are able to learn about cancellations ahead of time over the two—way radio and thereby save unnecessary trips.25 A need is indicated for better communications via way radios to keep in constant contact with all drivers. 3Herbert Stack and J. Elkow, Education for Safe (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., ), pp. 310-11. 24National Safety Council, "Handicapped Man Pro— s Transportation Service for Other Disabled Persons," fic Safety (February, 1971), p. 29. 25 Ibid. Through t‘n constantly vehicles :1 5;: studen MC : quiremen I5 Flountecl Wheels Wit 5351'. Veh Cippea stu: C: leSS the gh this means, both drivers and administrators can be antly alerted to changing conditions in any area the les may be entering. The safety and well—being of .tudents are protected. McCall reported that vehicles of less than 54- capacity constructed for transporting handicapped :ren should have fuel tank standards meeting the rements of large school buses. The fuel tank may punted on the left chassis rail or behind the rear 8 with fill pipe located on the right side of the Vehicles transporting twenty—three or less handi— d students should have fuel tanks with a capacity 55 than thirty gallons.26 Summary An extensive search of the literature presented is chapter included: (1) administrative problems insporting handicapped students; (2) driver selection :aining of school bus drivers; and (3) equipment, :tion, and maintenance of all school vehicles. The studies and writings call for careful school iver selection and training as the key to a good record. It was found that few studies involved, ically, the transporting of handicapped students 26G. A. McCall, "School Bus Chassis Standards," 1 Safety Congress Transactions, XVII (Chicago: 1 Safety Council, 1970), l6—19. to and fro :he regula Ch‘ CECures 1184 ~ 7 I .3‘1 a“; 39‘s . » bsar), ( 30 d from school. Most studies were concerned with egular school bus driver. Some of the literature was concerned with uniform standards for school buses to meet or surpass the nal minimum as recommended by the National Con— ce on School Transportation. Vehicle standards d also be adopted to make all buses safe for trans— ng handicapped students to and from school. In ion, all school bus passengers should be instructed rilled in evacuation procedures. All vehicles transporting handicapped students d also be equipped with two-way radios to keep rs and administrators abreast of what is going on school vehicles are expensive and they carry a less cargo. Chapter III will indicate the methods and pro— 5 used in the descriptive survey to obtain infor— from the different sources selected to supply ary data for this study. tion inn €-cv .3 l T yze an :1 schoo Wis utiliz - anu- V! R N . 4 Lite cue . a. ‘ \.- It i B’s-tems w fin rrent an N CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This chapter contains the scope of the study, :tion of the sample, development and pilot testing 1e questionnaire, conducting the survey, follow—up adures, and the analysis of the data. Scope of the Study The primary purpose of this investigation was to ze and describe the role of state departments of tion and selected school systems in transporting Capped students to and from school. As a means of ifying current practices of selection and instruction hool bus drivers who transport handicapped students, vey questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire tilized to gather necessary information. It was determined at the inception of this study iata would be sought on a national level from the state departments of education and two school IS within each state to assist in identifying It and recommended practices in the transportation 31 of‘ hand ice Th. Studies ha: 53:51“ (196; C'C’llec'tion (J4 escriptiVe ._ C. y I‘ 32 andicapped students. The respondents, distributed Iey were, provide a good sampling for this particular Selection of the Sample The sample population was determined by using the .m Digits Table1 to select a large and small school -m in each state. A school system was determined to rge if it enrolled 14,000 or more students. If a 1 system enrolled 13,999 students or less, it was mined to be small. The school enrollments were ed from the American Education Directory (1972). ames of the selected school systems from each state ding to student enrollment is located in Appendix A. All fifty state departments of education were :ed. The use of the questionnaire approach in research as has been stated by Sax (1968) and Backstorm and (1963) as a very effective method for information tion. The validity of the questionnaire in a ptive survey was pointed out by Spar and Swenson 1C. V. Good and D. E. Scates, Methods of Research ark: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1954). 2Patterson's American Educator, Educational >ries Inc., LXVIII (Mt. Prospect, Ill., 1971). ' _” moflo' 3 (1930). provided 1 sermon prc selected 5 Letters we aniC). C 5 M' EePi-raent are includ On 58tablish 33 I930).3 The survey questionnaire used for this study ovided the opportunity for much information about the .mmon problems eXperienced by the state departments and -lected school systems. Two questionnaires and cover tters were designed for this study (see Appendices B d C). One was mailed to each state department of edu- tion and the other sent to the 100 school systems ndomly selected. Basically both questionnaires are ~ilar, except that the state department questionnaire 0 four additional questions. The names of the State oartment Directors in charge of Pupil Transportation - included in Appendix D. Developing and Pre—Testing the Questionnaire One of the critical phases of the study was the 'elopment of the instrument. The first task was to ,ablish guidelines by which it would be possible to ect the activities to be surveyed. For an item to included in the survey it was decided that it should (1) an area of concern which affects drivers trans— porting handicapped students to and from school, 3Walter Spar and Rinehart Swenson, Methods and :us of Scientific Research (New York: Hoya and Breth, ')I p. 232. a I C v... V LL .1 .. . JG 6 :.. l e Ru 0 C V n1¢ N~¥ u‘ns V. ..\.. wt. «2 A V Ab fi‘l~ A. H V . :u e n .v - u ~.M .F . I a Standard , wa‘vt-"f 7- L '_"- 34 (2) stated so as to eliminate any tendency for con— flicting interpretations and should be as specific as possible. The survey instrument in addition to asking for ific data related to transporting handicapped stu— s, also included a series of Open—ended questions gned to obtain additional information from the ondents. It was felt that the information could ide valuable suggestions or insights regarding the of transporting handicapped students. This being ‘cific feature of the questionnaire, the data {ved were included in the narrative of Chapter IV. With the completion of the questionnaire, three Lgan schools were asked to participate in a pilot (. Administrators in these systems who were assigned reSponsibility for programs in which handicapped stu— ; are transported, reacted to the questionnaire and .tted suggestions for modification and improvement. In addition, Mr. Harold wagner, Supervisor of Transportation of the Michigan State Department ucation reviewed the instrument. Withey recommended pre—testing any instrument as ndard practice when he said: ne inevitably discovers that the best designed aries of questions still include ambiguities. 3r this reason it is a standard practice to pre-te dents far as As in questi :oprovide iivided in - fi4.__.-_._ ,, .‘ 'Y_ 35 pre—test any instrument with a number of respon— dents so that these errors can be eliminated so far as it is possible.4 As a result of pilot—testing, two revisions in questionnaire were made. Two items were reworded -rovide better clarity. The two questionnaires were ded into the following four sections: Section I — Administrative Procedures Section II - Selection of Drivers Section III v Instructional Programs ection IV — Vehicle and Equipment Section I sought information relative to the nistrative functions of the state departments of ation and the selected school systems within each 3 in so far as transportation of the handicapped was I 2rned. This section requested information in refer— to: (I) printed policies covering job descriptions rivers transporting handicapped students, (2) in— ce instruction for drivers, (3) Red Cross First Aid e, (4) The National Safety Council‘s Driver Improve— Course, (5) administrative guide to provide the r with basic knowledge, (6) total number of handi— 1 students transported, (7) the number of drivers fically hired, and (8) number of vehicles used to >ort handicapped students to and from school. g ‘— Tfi ' 4Stephen B. Withey, "Survey Research Methods," zgpedia of Educational Research, ed. by Chester W. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 1,448. § drivers a informati of tuberc re-examin :ixinun a 36 Section II was designed to cover selection of ivers and called for such information: (1) application formation, (2) medical and visual examinations, (3) type tuberculin test, (4) how often a medical and visual examination is called for, and (5) the minimum and -imum age limits for drivers transporting handicapped dents. Section III dealt with instructional programs rently being offered and in addition, sought infor— ion about the following: (1) qualification of tructors, (2) preparation and training of drivers nsporting handicapped students, (3) areas included both the classroom and behind—the—wheel (bus) phase instruction, (4) emergency evacuation drills, and whether the driver has to complete a final examie ion at the end of the course. Section IV covers the minimum vehicle standards 1 respect to equipment used for transporting handi* >ed students. The following were also investigated: type of vehicle(s), (2) the color of the vehicle, the required standards for strength and rigidity of ramps, power lift equipment, and other Special equip— r (4) two—way radios, (5) restraining devices when— the vehicle is in motion, and (6) the type of ection for vehicles tranSportinq handicapped students. 0-3 n practices Advisory C :ransporte were asked 37 Selection of Advisory Group To lend support to or reinforce the recommended ctices reported by questionnaire respondents, an isory Group consisting of six persons having pupil nsportation responsibilities at the national level asked to complete the survey concerning recommended tices only, and to make further suggestions that felt would be beneficial to a program of transport— handicapped students. The following criteria were idered in the selection of the six expert members he advisory group: (1) knowledge of the selection training process of school bus drivers; (2) exper— e as a supervisor or driver in pupil transportation .n a related field; (3) currently employed in public >ol safety programs with transportation duties. A letter (Appendix E) was mailed to those per— considered well qualified in this area, asking them erve and all answered in the affirmative. The names he persons selected for the advisory group are ided in Appendix F. Suggestions and recommendations made by group ars were analyzed and tabulated separately and are :nted in Chapter IV. Conducting the Survey On January 9, 1973, the complete packet of ials was mailed to the 50 state departments of educatiox the quest closely I In some c .--. —- —~- ~.~.—=‘ .=~ ‘- " ‘~- .,. 7, f. 9004‘ ~-.~..ll-7" 38 ation and 100 school systems. It was important that questionnaire be answered by the administrator most .ely responsible for the pupil transportation program. .ome cases, the questionnaire was completed by a son person working out of central administration e in other cases the questionnaire was answered by supervisor of school transportation programs. The 01 systems contacted were most helpful in channeling nequests regarding pupil transportation of handicapped -nts to the person concerned within the school system. I time was there any doubt that this individual would =pable of providing objective data for the study. As questionnaires were returned, the date, names, :itles of the respondents were recorded on a master Copies of all survey materials are included in dices B and C. Follow—Up Procedure A follow—up letter including another question— was mailed four weeks later to those who had not ided (see Appendix G). All questionnaire responses :abulated according to state departments of edu— ., large school systems, and small school systems. rsponses were then transferred to computer cards ta processing. Of the 150 questionnaires mailed, 100 were ed. This was a 66.6 per cent response of the completed two quest Total res were pres and schoo Appendix : ‘1 " :Oa.CW‘Up eted questionnaires. 39 Data from all items in the uestionnaires were organized into individual tables. responses for all current and recommended practices presented. Data from state departments of education chool systems that were incomplete were not tabulated. nix H contains the responses from the initial and -up questionnaires in graph form. Table 1 presents the number and percentage of fonnaire returns from the state departments of edu- , large school systems, and small school systems. able provided the information from the first and ! mailing returns of all respondents. l.--Number and percentage of questionnaire returns Wk Respondents State Large Small Depargment School School Total 0 . Districts Districts Education No. % No. % No. % No. % [ailing 50 100 50 100 50 100 150 100 [ailing ‘ns 35 7O 27 54 24 48 86 57.3 Mailing ns 3 6 6 l2 5 10 14 9.3 onse to r 2nd ng 12 24 17 34 21 42 50 33.3 1 38 76 33 66.6 29 58 100 66.6 that rela fr :r. sc‘nc for a bet questionn . 1 ~ 1 331.0 0e 40 Analysis of Data The questionnaire consisted of six pages of items it related to transporting handicapped students to and >m school. Several questions provide open—ended responses ‘ a better understanding of the program. Each item on the istionnaire had four possible places where responses ld be made. A YES and NO response was selected for h question as to Current and Recommended Practices. The analysis was based only on the state depart— ts of education and those selected school systems lying to this descriptive survey. The data for all egories are presented together, but tabulated separately, )ercentages to the nearest tenth. A narrative :ription of the analysis is followed by tables present— the responses of the state departments of education the selected school systems by current and recommended ttices used within their states and school systems. Lquestionnaire item is presented in an individual e. Each table contains the percentage figures for e departments of education, large school and small 01 respondents indicating agreement and disagreement both current and recommended practices. Summary This chapter included the methods and procedures for: (l) selecting the sample, (2) the sampling 1iques involved in the research survey, (3) developing and pre-1 survey at of the de 41 d pre—testing the questionnaire, (4) conducting the rvey and follow-up, and (5) tabulation and analysis the data. Presented in Chapter IV are the findings of this rvey including data tabulation and analysis listed as rcentages of responses by all state departments of 1cation and selected school systems. A ..| G q I ucIN E ‘I . nk h. L L n 1Q 0 e O «5 LL 0 S cm e .r; «L - l «G S e l an... -.L . l ._L . Q t a. h a» n u m. .. «k S &L «C Q.» «h e -a L «N. I . filv fit .. L C «l. 0,. kl» \ b a . nu 1 .. hu «Q ‘Iu H». G» «D ‘JM 4 w «C at a» Y. 1 v. a (a . vs. 5:. v . ~R5 NM my. a: a.» ‘ \ ~\~ I... state d9p mehts (76 ‘4. 3'“ “Q CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE DATA Date gathered by the methods described in Chapter iI are presented and analyzed in this chapter. The data “e presented in the four sections that correSpond to ose on the survey instrument. These sections are: the ministrative procedures currently employed and others commended by state departments of education and lected school systems transporting handicapped stu— nts to and from school; the current and recommended actices of driver selection by state departments of lcation and selected school systems transporting handi— aped students; the instructional programs employed by a state departments of education and selected school :tems for drivers transporting handicapped students; . the current and recommended practices of the type of gcle and equipment used for the transportation of dicapped students. A questionnaire was sent to each of the fifty te departments of education and thirty-eight depart— ts (76%) returned usable questionnaires. A 42 questior domly 56 returned sent to was sent returned 43 questionnaire was sent to one large school system ran— domly selected from each state and 33 school systems (66%) returned completed questionnaires. A questionnaire was sent to one small school system selected randomly from each state and 29 school systems (58%) returned com— pleted questionnaires. A total of 150 questionnaires vas sent and a total of 100 questionnaires (66.6%) was returned (Appendix J). A sufficient number of question— laires was returned to provide the data needed to identify :he current and recommended practices of transporting landicapped students. A number of persons did not 'espond to some of the questions while others indicated :hat they did not know or that their information would be f questionable value. As reported in Chapter I the findings recorded rom this research can only be applied to the state apartments of education and those of the randomly elected school systems replying to the descriptive lrvey. The survey findings were presented together, 1t tabulated separately, in percentages to the nearest anth. A narrative description of the analysis is >1lowed by a table presenting the responses of the :ate departments and the selected school systems to the ems appearing within the survey instrument. Each of e tables will show the total number and percentage of Sponses for both the current and recommended practices. In addit sections in suppo data hay :‘cllon'inl 44 In addition, some survey questions included open—ended -ections asking respondents to provide additional data in support of their response to a particular item. These iata have been compiled and are presented in Chapter IV ollowing the narrative and tabular presentations of .pecific items included within the survey instrument. Suggestions and recommendations made by a ational advisory group of pupil transportation experts ave also been tabulated and are included in this chapter. Administrative Procedures Table 2 presents the percentage of responses of tate departments of education and randomly selected chool systems to the following item: Does your state E school system have officialyprinted policies covering 2b descriptions for drivers tranSporting handicapped tudents? (Item 1) Table 2 shows that 34.3 per cent of the state apartments of education had printed policies covering >b descriptions for drivers transporting handicapped :udents. Eighty—two and six—tenths per cent of the :ate departments of education recommended this practice. Of the large school systems responding, 21.9 per nt indicated that this was a policy for their school stem. Sixty—nine and six—tenths per cent of the large hool systems recommended the practice. »~‘_._. ..-~ ‘5‘“ \531 Du l 0 1' .955 Cent (BLE 2.—*States and school systems having printed policies :lative to job descriptions for drivers transporting handicapped students - w...— «W- Respondents State Lar‘éisfztzol Swansea? of Education C R C R C R 34 3 82 6 21 9 69 6 20 7 77 3 65 7 17 4 78 1 3O 4 79 3 22 7 7: Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in ' cent; R - Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. school : cent we] state de school 5 rn 46 Twenty and seven—tenths per cent of the small chool systems had such policies in effect, while 77.3 per ent were agreed that there should be such job descriptions. Table 3 presents the percentage of responses of :ate departments of education and randomly selected :hool systems to the following item: Does your state or :hool system policy for drivers transporting handicapped :udents include the following? (Item 2) The policies Lclude character, mental ability, health, physical and sual abilities, emotional stability, and personal pearance for drivers transporting handicapped students. a) Character Table 3 shows that 69.7 per cent of the state partments of education had a policy that included a aracter reference for drivers transporting handicapped idents. All of the state departments recommended this .icy. Seventy—seven and four-tenths per cent of the ‘ge school systems had a policy that included a char— .er reference for drivers carrying handicapped students. .ety—five and five—tenths per cent were agreed there uld be one. i The figures in the table reveal that 90.9 per t of the small school systems had the above policy and 7 per cent recommended it. nu. u :3 «350$ m Um . IE. is i‘CII' IV L .y’ thr.’ 5"}... .1.» h .‘llI. l .m 9 n b. l .— . I r l.uvyu u .> all . n. .n . . .. . . .Innn u I i All. . w. n... U C. 3 V clog M». “iv flask End .| _-uvun.}..~,~ aura 4.. U.i~«v....—n.. n-wu~ 1. wn¢.~.nJ\/ _.. Maw» 1a «VI. nu.1v... ML 4. 4 «use H..~ w \/ «ls 4.4:” .4 a..\Am.. \ x .fl\~s.\U«U. MUCH”. «hnUU ~M.Hu..14IDI| o m .‘wfiqqfiffiu . 47 pmoaofifiooom m “Demo Hod CH commoudxo mmofluomum u: .psoo nod CH powmmndxm mooflpomnm mHHSU u 0 “oz n 2 “wow u N .psoo Hod ooa Amado mwmsam Doc use mamuou onu .msflpcson on one "mom m.m H.ma m.v v.ma m.HN z n.mm m.nm m.mm 0.0m o.ooa m.mn w oosmumomdd accomuom Am m.mH m.v m.v 0.0m m.mv z n.mm m.mm m.mm o.on o.ooa m.wm w Nuflaflnmum Hmsofluofim Am m.m H.ma m.v e.ma N.Hm z n.mm m.nm m.mm o.om o.ooa m.mn II, w moanflaana Hemma> was HmoamaMm he H.n n.m m.e w.ma N.Hm z m.mm m.Hm m.mm 0.0m 0.00H m.wn w spawn: no m.m n.mm m.v m.mm H.m m.mw z v.vm m.nn m.mm m.vm m.om H.mm w muaaanm Hmucmz An m.m H.m m.e m.mm m.om z n.mm m.om m.mm w.mn o.ooa n.mw w .li Houomnmco an m o m U m U mEoummm mEoummm QOHDMUSUM mo mucofinnmmoo Hoonom HHmEm Hoonom omumq oucpm mucoonommom mUCflSjJD 3DLL3) departm checkin C) e C “ate del b) Mental Ability Fifty~three and one—tenth per cent of the state departments of education had a policy that included checking the mental ability of drivers transporting handicapped students. Ninety and nine-tenths per cent of the state departments stated this as a recommended Practice. Table 3 indicates that 74.2 per cent of the large school systems had a policy that included checking the mental ability of drivers carrying handicapped students. the above policy was recommended by 95.5 per cent of the .arge systems. Data show that 77.3 per cent of the small school ystems had a policy that included checking the mental bility of drivers transporting handicapped students and hat 99.4 per cent of the small systems recommended it. c) Health Seventy-eight and eight-tenths per cent of the .ate departments of education had a policy that included ealth standards for drivers transporting handicapped udents. All of the state departments of education commended such standards. Table 3 shows that 80.6 per cent of the large ool systems had a policy that included health standards drivers and 95.5 per cent of the large school systems ommended this practice. . .-- .I c. .T. C. C. it t S V t W ht: CL LU. vu £1. u 0 a O Y. «d «C l n O . l O 2 D . ) +1.. hub; a); In!“ «G C \n \Q l r e VA \II 1 S 9 «a n3 8 «C e I . . 1i ..L e O .Q C C e S -l a .r... S n u .nu 1C .fiu O -l t b huh n. . G . .l. e «G S n“ e h“ . an n (nu. Y. r l n a e n . n-“ 1”“ r . . 1.. at Ll. 2.“ 2.. e flu Ox e 0 Am lL l. a LL L.» -f» P.» ~ L. .. s -n.. a: \ ~b I . Wu. Wk. E“ Q» ‘l ‘ The figures in the table reveal that 91.3 per -nt of the small school systems had such health standards d 92.9 per cent of the small school systems recommended .is policy. d) Physical and Visual Abilities The data in Table 3 reveal that 78.8 per cent of e state departments of education required drivers ansporting handicapped students to meet physical and sual standards. All of the state departments recom— ded this practice. Table 3 further reveals that 80.6 per cent of a large school systems required drivers transporting 1dicapped students to meet physical and visual standards 1 that 95.5 per cent of the large school systems recom— lded this policy. Eightyvsix and nine—tenths per cent of the small 1001 systems required physical and visual standards ' drivers transporting handicapped students and 93.7 cent of the small school systems agreed that such a icy was necessary. e) Emotional Stability Data show that 54.5 per cent of the state depart~ s of education provided for an assessment of emotional ility of drivers transporting handicapped students. as recommended by all state departments. assesse handica reconme school cent of 5 1. l I - a . tr ;__,+-—_ra_e.‘*—E'{_r ~, .'~m 50 Seventy per cent of the large school systems -sessed the emotional stability of drivers carrying =ndicapped students and 95 per cent of these systems -commended the practice. The data indicate that 95.5 per cent of the small hool systems assess emotional stability and 86.7 per nt of these same systems recommended this policy. f) Personal Appearance Table 3 reveals that 78.8 per cent of the state vartments of education had a policy that included :cking the personal appearance of drivers transporting ndicapped students. All of the state departments were reed that such a policy was necessary. Table 3 further reveals that 80.6 per cent of a large school systems checked the personal appearance drivers transporting handicapped students and 95.5 ' cent of the large systems recommended this policy. Eighty—seven and nine-tenths per cent of the 11 school systems checked the personal appearance its drivers and 93.7 per cent of the small schools mmended it. Table 4 presents the percentage of responses of e departments of education and randomly selected 01 systems to the following item: Does your state chool system policy provide an evaluation of drivers sporting handicapped students by use of the following WU COUCOQmuwm n TU. .....\U....~ r... wand. Bab 4.. H. mum» O-J CH W J fl~0 H935 w... Hduxxawsfi.uu uh Hvfis flcf~ NALH. U “AVON IIMufl~AULHJ m...~pr\/ufl-qdu .40 quanbAHJ H11. 4.. ....\/....v .1.an [Hack a...v-.q.....lv-m. .Hav.\~ 51h w >~,..- “2...?!qu w..\n..n.. .HA\«.L~‘..UN.. EVEN. toccmfiaoowm m “Duoo Hum CH commondxo moOHuooum us .mbcoUCOQmou Has he coumamfioo DOC mEopH .pcoo Hod CH cmmmmndxo moo ounso u 0 “oz H 2 “wow .ucoo Hod ooa assoc mhmzam Doc woe manpOp one .mcHUSSOH on one . .i H W anownm 51 mucoUGOQmom .hmm m.oa k.sm a.m e.mm z .. m.mm m.mw H.vm m.am , M #moB mCH>HHQ OflpOHme Am 0.0m m.mm b.am m.vm z ..04: sn.mv m.mn n.mm II S %H0pcm>cH HmCOmHom Ac m.m H.@H o.m o.mm z n.vm m.mw o.mm o.mw It w mBoH>HoucH HMCOmHom Ao m.ma o.mm o.m m.Hv Z «m.vm «q.nn o.mm H.mm % mmoconowom accomuom An m.m m.NH m.w z a.em H.ew o.ooa m.mm .. s mGOHumaHmem HMUHmmnm hm m U m U mEoumwm mEoDmmm coapmoscm mo Hoosom Hamfim Hoosom omumq mucofinnmmoo oumum physica interviu iriving a) alaninat ('J‘ I'T‘1 52 ocedures: (Item 3) The following procedures include gsical examinations, personal references, personal erviews, personality inventory, and a periodic fving test. a) Physical Examinations Data in Table 4 reveal that 93.5 per cent of the ate departments of education had a policy that provided 7 a physical examination of drivers transporting handi- >ped students. All of the state departments recommended above practice. Eighty—seven and one—tenth per cent of the large ool systems provided for a physical examination and roximately 95 per cent of the large school systems ommend this procedure. Table 4 shows that 88.9 per cent of the small 301 systems had a policy that provided for a physical nination and 86.7 per cent recommended this practice. b) Personal References Table 4 shows that 58.1 per cent of the state rtments of education provided for personal reference ks, and 95 per cent of the state departments recom~ ed this practice. The data indicate that 77.4 per cent of the large 01 systems provided for personal reference checks 84.2 per cent of the large school systems recommended above practice. Two large systems did not respond. provide 85 per C) educati and 95 ; IECOELWJEJ 53 Ninety—six per cent of the small school systems ed for a personal reference check. Approximately cent recommended it. Personal Interviews Sixty-two per cent of the state departments of ion had a policy providing for personal interviews . per cent of the state departments of education tended this method of evaluation. Data in Table 4 indicate that 83.9 per cent of Lrge school systems reported having a policy pro— ; for personal interviews while 94.7 per cent of the school systems recommended it. Ninety—six per cent of the small school systems policy providing for personal interviews of s transporting handicapped students and 92.3 per bf the small systems recommended the method. Personality Inventory Thirty—five and seven-tenths per cent of the departments of education provided for a personality ory check. Seventy—eight and three—tenths per cent state departments recommended it. The data reveal that 46.7 per cent of the large systems had a policy providing for a personality ry check and 70 per cent of the large school sys- commended this practice. Three large school sys~ d not reSpond. school check a recomme e) 54 Fiftyvfour and two-tenths per cent of the small systems had a policy for a personality inventory and 66.7 per cent of the small school systems .ended this procedure. A Periodic Driving Test Table 4 shows that 61.3 per cent of the state ;ments of education provided for a periodic driving >f drivers transporting handicapped students. Ninety— >er cent of the state departments recommended such a The data indicate that 63.3 per cent of the large L systems reported having a policy providing for a lie driving test and 89.5 per cent of the large as were agreed that such a test should be given. Seventy—three and ninettenths per cent of the school systems provided for a periodic driving .nd approximately 87 per cent of these systems .ended the above practice. Other Additional data provided by respondents through n-ended portion of this item have been compiled presented below. Two state departments of education provided rocedures for driver evaluation. One requested records, while another had all drivers‘ records by the state police. proced1 have ti while 1 police. epartm, 55 Three large school systems reported additional .ures. Two indicated that all school bus drivers ;heir driving records checked by the state police, the other had all drivers screened by the local Four small school systems provided these procedures :iver evaluation. One school system had a semi— L driver evaluation and another had monthly safety 1gs. One small system administered a psychological while another utilized daily observation of the Leet by the transportation supervisor. Two advisory group members recommended that should be a policy providing for the evaluation 1 bus drivers, including those drivers transporting apped students. Table 5 presents the percentage of reSponses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require any pre-service instruction room or in—the-bus) before the applicant starts the bus? (Item 4) Table 5 shows that 51.4 per cent of the state ents of education required pre—service instruction the applicant started driving. All of the state ents recommended pre—service instruction. \——-_ ab Hiya VI. QL Q» n). v I. w .. Wu. 56 .t-States and school systems requiring pre—service tion (classroom or in—the'bus) before the applicant starts driving the bus Respondents State of Education y y C R C R C R 51.4 100.0 87.0 100.0 72.4 78.6 48.8 13.0 27.6 21.4 e to rounding, the totals may not always equal 30 per cent. = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in :7 R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. cent r. IECOIELTRG tents c to the .r L; edUC tivel} y I ‘15—‘- ‘0: the- 57 Eighty—seven per cent of the large school systems 1 pre—service instruction (classroom or in—the—bus) the applicant started driving the bus and all ystems recommended such a program. Of the small school systems responding, 72.4 per quired presservice instruction and 78.6 per cent nded this practice. Table 6 presents the responses of state depart— f education and randomly selected school systems following item: How many hours of pre—service Ition does the driver receive? (Item 4b) Table 6 indicates that three state departments ation required two, five, and six hours, respec— of pre—service driver instruction (classroom or bus) before bus operation. Fourteen other state nts required nine or more hours of preeservice ion. Twenty-one state departments did not The current requirement of five large school ranged from one to eight hours of pre—service ion. Two large systems required two and four instruction, while eleven other school systems nine or more hours of pre—service instruction. large school systems did not respond. Twelve small school systems required pre—service ion ranging from one to six hours in duration US: Cl... CCB>HHU TONGUW UCGUSHQQQ OQU. OHCNMWQ UUQHJTUH Amandnlnvldlflfl (AC ECCHQHSHUV FNAUHUUjhflumflkfl. 00..~..>4\.~..\UWWIDOI..HON DINO WHUOHN MO .HMVQCNNJN/Hlviom mung“ omaommmh 02 MH omQOQmoH oz HH mHOE Ho m HH oHoE no m m m H o N n H w m H m H omsommom oz HN v N v N oHoE no m vH m H m H m H N v N N m H H N H H N H mssom o>on< mmsom o>on< wnsom o>on¢ mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 llllllllllllllllllll. lllllllllflllllllllll mEoumhm meoemhm COHpmosom mo Hoocom HHmEm Hoonom omnmq mucofibum on oumnm (classr other 5 service respond state c school or schc driver: K 59 room or in—the—bus) for driver applicants. Six small systems required nine or more hours of pre— 2 instruction. Eleven small school systems did not 1. Table 7 presents the percentage of responses of lepartments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state >ol system provide in-service instruction for 5 transporting handicapped students? (Item 5) The data in Table 7 indicate that 64.7 per cent state departments of education provided in—service :tion for all drivers transporting handicapped stu— Ninety-five and two-tenths per cent of the state rents recommended in-service instruction. Thirty—eight and seven—tenths per cent of the :chool systems provided in—service instruction, per cent of the large school systems recommended In addition the data show that 53.6 per cent of 11 school systems favored such instruction. Table 8 shows the number of hours of in—service tion received by drivers transporting handicapped s. If yes, does the driver receive this in—service instruction every year? (Item 5b) Tu Th. ILA... .i I. t I v \d A: '9‘. 1|.“ K 60 7.——States and school systems providing in-servioe :tion for drivers transporting handicapped students Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education y y C R C R C R 64.7 95 2 38.7 80.0 53 6 75.0 35 3 4 8 61 3 20 0 46 4 25 O )ue to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 >er cent. ' = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in it; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. Rey; 61 3.——Drivers receiving in—service instruction annually Respondents State Large School Small School Departments Systems Systems of Education C R C R C R 52.2 93 O 47.8 88.2 61 1 91.7 47 8 7 O 52.2 11 8 38 9 8.3 iue to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 >er cent. ’ = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in .t; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. of edu receiv 93 per school f1) ‘3 CJ: LC) '__l 62 Table 8 indicates that of the state departments ication responding, 52.2 per cent of the drivers Jed this in—service instruction every year, while : cent recommended it on an annual basis. Forty—seven and eight—tenths per cent of the school systems provided drivers with this in—service [ction every year and 88.2 per cent recommended it 'early basis. Sixty—one and onevtenth per cent of the small systems provided in—service instruction every year .7 per cent recommended such instruction. Table 9 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require the basic Red Cross First Aid for all drivers? (Item 6) Data in Table 9 show that 28.9 per cent of the epartments of education required the basic Red irst Aid Course and 85 per cent of these same ents recommended the course. One-fourth of the large school systems required ic Red Cross First Aid Course for all their and 90 per cent of these large systems recommended rse. Table 9 further shows that 37.9 per cent of the chool systems required the basic Red Cross First 63 9.——States and school systems requiring the basic Red Cross First Aid Course for all drivers Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education y y C R C R C R 28.9 85 O 25 O 90 O 37 9 75.0 71.1 15 O 75 0 10 0 62 l 25 0 )ue to rounding, the totals may not always equal .00 per cent. = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in t; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. Aid CI this . state schooi studer (Item dapart Advent depart :he)’ 1’. school COU‘FSe mended 64 Course and 85 per cent of these systems recommended course for their drivers. Table 10 presents the percentage of responses of e departments of education and randomly selected 31 systems to the following item: Does your state :hool system require drivers transporting handicapped ents to take the Advanced Red Cross First Aid Course? n 7) Table 10 reveals that 11.5 per cent of the state :tments of education required drivers to take the lC€d Red Cross First Aid Course. Of the state 'tments responding, 58.8 per cent indicated that would recommend this course. Twentywone and four—tenths per cent of the large 1 systems required the Advanced Red Cross First Aid e, while 80 per cent of these large systems recom— d that it be taken. Fifteen and four—tenths per cent of the small 1 systems required drivers to take the advanced e and 77.8 per cent recommended it. Table 11 presents the percentage of responses ate departments of education and randomly selected - systems to the following item: Does your stage 1001 system require all drivers to take the National ' Council's Driver Improvement or Defensive Driving i? (Item 8) AL £ T. “N; 65 lO.-—State and school systems requiring drivers orting handicapped students to take the Advanced Red Cross First Aid Course Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education Y y C R C R C R 11.5 58.8 21.4 80 0 15.4 77.8 88 5 41 2 78.6 20 0 84 6 22 2 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal L00 per cent. f = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in It; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. ABLE m Y‘s Us 66 ll.—-States and school systems requiring drivers to he National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education y y C R C R C R 5.4 80 8 21.9 95.8 28 6 58.8 94.6 19 2 78.1 4 2 71 4 41 2 Due to rounding, L00 per cent. I = Yes; N = NO; the totals may not always equal Current Practices expressed in it; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. schoo and 9 cent drive 1‘ econ; 67 Table 11 reveals that currently, 5.4 per cent a state departments of education required all :s to take the National Safety Council‘s Defensive 1g Course, while 80.8 per cent of the state depart— endorsed this program for all drivers. Twenty-one and nine—tenths per cent of the large systems required all drivers to take the course, 5.8 per cent of them recommended it. Of the small school systems responding, 28.6 per 'equired the Defensive Driving Course for all 's, and 58.8 per cent of the small systems have :ended it. Table 12 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 01 system have an administrative guide (manual) ide the driver with the basic knowledge of pupil rtation? (Item 9) Table 12 shows that 78.9 per cent of the state ents of education had an administrative guide to bus drivers with the basic knowledge of pupil rtation. All of the state departments recommended actice. Fifty—nine and four-tenths per cent of the large systems had an administrative guide, and 88 per these systems recommended such a guide for all . One large system did not respond. TABLE tive PEI c. 68 12.—“States and school systems having an administra- xuide (manual) to provide the driver with the basic ‘ knowledge of pupil transportation Respondents State “resists“ ”artists“ of Education y y C R C R C R 78.9 100.0 59.4* 88.2* 71.4 75.0 21.1 40.6 11.8 28.6 75.0 r; Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in nt; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. * Items not completed by respondents. cent h of sta school have a Stuoen'; W921 69 Of the small school systems reporting, 71.4 per had a guide and threevfourths of them recommended it. Table 13 presents the percentage of responses ate departments of education and randomly selected 1 systems to the following item: Does the guide a unit or section pertaining to the handicapped g? (Item 10) Table 13 indicates that 27.3 per cent of the departments of education had an administrative including a section pertaining to the handicapped at. The inclusion of such a section was recommended .9 per cent of the state departments. Nineteen per cent of the large school systems section within the guide pertaining to the handi- 1 student, and 73.3 per cent recommended that it be led. Of the small school systems responding, 8.7 per :tated that their guide had a section pertaining to .ndicapped student and 93.7 per cent recommended ractice. Table 14 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 391 system_permit the transporting of handicapped Ee_by regular school buses?——Are there any problems Eetudents on buses? (Items 11, 11b) TABLE E 13.——States and school systems having a guide that includes a unit pertaining to handicapped students Respondents State Departments Largesiegeol Smaélsiegool of Education Y Y S C R C R C R 27.3 92 9 19.1 73.3 8.7 93 8 72.7 7 1 80.9 26 7 91 3 6.2 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in :ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. TABLE ** n). N \ per Cl 2 5.11.; ‘ ,.- ‘ “_i .1; -..-_ ”.1174, a.-. .-_ , . _ . JP ——.1- ___ Vy.7,..-._ , 71 IE l4.-—States and school systems permitting handicapped students to be transported by regular school bus Respondents State Departments Largesfiegeol Smaélsiegool of Education y y S C R C R C R 94 7 100.0 71 9 82.4 85.7 83.3 5 3 28 1 17.6 14 3 16 7 20 8 33.3 18 7 100.0 11 8 100.0 79 2 66.7 81 2 88 2 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in :ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. * Problems mixing students. depaz handj nine indic of th cappe large be tr cent mixin recorn cent regu1 indie APPro: m6nde( °Ppor1 data. that n “it t} --3"' 72 Table 14 reveals that 94.7 per cent of the state .rtments of education permitted the transporting of oicapped students by regular school buses. Seventy— - and two«tenths per cent of the state departments {cated no problems in mixing students on buses. All he state departments recommended transporting handi— -ed students by regular school buses. Seventy-one and nine-tenths per cent of the e school systems permitted handicapped students to ransported by regular school buses, while 81.2 per of the large systems indicated having problems ng the students. All of the large school systems mmended it. Of the small school systems responding, 85.7 per permitted handicapped students to be transported by lar school buses, and 88.2 per cent of these systems :ated that there were no problems in mixing students. aximately 83 per cent of the small systems recom- 2d transporting handicapped students by regular )1 buses. The open—ended portion of this item provided an ‘tunity for respondents to contribute additional It was compiled as follows: Three State departments of education indicated ixing students created some problems. One pointed at the decision to mix or not to mix students depe that abus« ~ w... my - , .. .-_ 73 epended upon the extent of handicaps. Another stated hat severely retarded pupils often are subjected to buse by other students who rode the same bus. The Iird state department indicated that there were problems control and the need for rendering proper assistance 3 handicapped students. Four large school systems indicated that there :8 a tendency for handicapped students to be teased by her students and that fights took place on the regular :hool buses Operating without aids or monitors. The following were cited by four small school stems: abuse by other students when there was a lack direct supervision, student conflicts, and discipline oblems agitated by other students. Three members of the advisory group recommended xing students when possible, while another member iicated that in his situation, students were mixed 3n request of a child study team. The following four items were only included in a questionnaire sent to the state departments of edu— :ion. These items provided the licensing procedures ' school bus operators. Table 15 presents the per— .tage of responses of state departments of education the following item: Does your state cooperate with ~§tate licensing agency to establish school bus gator qualifications? (Item 15) TABLE Items Depe State Licens cation States Operate States use! 0] .. ..-,. u , 2' V . . - ,- _ , . . _ _~ _ _ _ . . r ‘Iu.7‘,- .~-~:. I -_ . flu: - . - _F. f—r- -—.. am;— -‘ = -. rum-v: ‘4, -'v' --- -. _- ' . , . .- ' - _rlm—I—‘r g7,_ ,. , .,‘\, [A i .1 J; __ rA__ . , , 77 . _ , _ X > 1', - . 7 - ‘ v“' ‘ _ .0" ,__._.—... ‘_--- 74 E 15.-~Information reported by state departments of education and selected school systems . #15, 16, 17, 17b, and 18 only pertain to State oartments of Education. - departments of education cooperating with the State sing Agency to establish school bus operator qualifi- IDS. B. o. 9 10 O Licensing Agency requires the applicant to pass, in ion to the regular written test, supplemental ques- dealing with information required to properly te a school vehicle. (.3. 75.7 10 24.3 .13 0.0 2K1 5 requiring on-the-road tests for a license to :e school vehicles. 3 administering the test in the bus the driver will >r one of equivalent size. 9 13. Y 78.9 100.0 N 21 1 Y 90.3 100.0 N 9.7 providing certification to all drivers who have sfully completed all courses of instruction to meet ndards set by the State Department of Education. 9. B. Y 69.4 92.3 N 30.6 7.7 ue to rounding, the totals may not always equal 00 per cent. = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in t; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. dEpaI I‘ me 5 I: v a d I n 1 ‘¢ II I f v 4.! 1' l i 75 Table 15 shows that 90 per cent of state depart— Of education cooperated with state licensing agencies tablish school bus operator qualifications. All of state departments of education recommended this :ice. Does the state licensing_agency require the .cant to pass, in addition to the regular written supplementalquestions dealing with information red to_properly operate a school vehicle? (Item 16) The data reveal that 75.7 per cent of the state tments Of education required the applicant to pass upplemental section dealing with vehicle operation, L1 as the regular written test. All state depart— Of education recommended this practice. Does your state require on—road tests for a :e to Operate school vehicles? If yes, is the test in the bus the driver will use or one of equivalent (Item 17) The data reveal that 78.9 per cent of the state ents Of education required all drivers to take an road test who wish to be licensed to Operate a bus. The test was given in a vehicle similar to, Of equivalent size to the one they will be d to drive. the to S‘ beinc IECOI iEpar an ap Unee 0f ed Cent All & SChoo; 76 Does your state_provide certification to all ivers who have successfully completed all courses of structionfiand met the standards set by the state partment of education? (Item 18) Data in Table 15 reveal that 69.4 per cent of e state departments Of education required all drivers successfully complete a course of instruction before ing certified. Ninety per cent indicated this as a ommended practice. Selection of Drivers Table 16 presents the percentage Of responses of ate departments of education and randomly selected 1001 systems to the following item: DO all new appli~ {ES complete an application form when applying for gpyment? (Item 19) Table 16 shows that 64.5 per cent of the state artments of education had all new applicants complete application form when applying for employment. Ninety— ae and seven-tenths per cent of the state departments aducation recommended this practice. Of the large school systems responding, 84.4 per . indicated this requirement for all new applicants. school systems supported this as a recommendation. Ninety—three and one—tenth per cent of the small 01 systems had all new applicants complete an TABI per 77 E l6.——New applicants completing an application form when applying for employment Respondents State of Education y y C R C R C R 64.5 93 7 84.4 100.0 93.1 100.0 35 5 6 3 15. 6.9 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. — Current Practices expressed in Y=YeS;N=N!;C— — Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. :ent; R — appj menc (1 3‘1 H . :3 the sona stat nati: Cent in at of t} depar 78 application form and in addition the procedure was recom— mended by all small systems responding. Table 17 presents the percentage of responses of state departments of education and randomly selected school systems to the following item: Does your state or school system require the following information in addition tO the basic application? (Item 20) The following information includes a personal application, check of the applicant‘s driving record, and a finger— .rint check. a) Personal Application Data in Table 17 reveal that 51.9 per cent Of :he state departments of education did not require per- :onal data of the applicant. Ninety-two per cent of the tate departments of education required the above infor— ation in addition to the basic application and con- idered that this item should be a recommended practice. Of the large school systems responding, 90 per ant required this information, and all recommended it. All small school systems had this information 1 addition to the basic application. b) A Check of the Applicant’s Driving Record The data in Table 17 indicate that 44.8 per cent the state departments of education checked the driving 20rd Of the applicant and 94.4 per cent Of the state Dartments of education recommended this practice. COHUQUflHnuflunw UHWQQ «USU 0U COHU.H.UHUM. CH x0050 UCHLHAHHQWUGHH NUCHN \Vsnvmvfiwhv MUHOHVMVH Dank/Hum \fl~0flU.UUH.Hanm Hdnomhfiofifl Hm. WCHIHHNJMUOM “CROUWNMW HOOaaUm wVHNM. WUUGUmIIcNN. WNwHMNaN.H 5’ Q“?- Hi . coo mom CH pmmmwumxm mmoeuomnm We Umpcmfifioomm u m upcmo mom CH pmmmwumxm mOOHuomum ucmuuso I 0 “02 I 2 “wow I M « .ucmo Mom ooa Hmsqm meBHm uoc hoe manpou map .OGHOCSOH on mac ”mom n.mw o.mm N.mn N.Hm m.m m.vm z m.wm o.mm m.mm n.wa H.vm m.mv II w xomau pcflnmummcflm A0 a; H.n m.ma H.OH w.m m.mm z 7 9?. mém 0.03 98 32w 93 II on Momno cuoowm mcw>fluo An m.m o.oa 5.5 m.Hm z .n.am o.ooa o.ooa 0.0m m.mm H.mv N II COHDMOHHmmfi Homemumm an m U m o m U mfimummm mampmmm Mmmwmmmwmmmo OO 0 m H a m HHmEm Hoonom 0 Had wumum mucmpcommmm pre and cen dri gen the NiHI ing tor larg and SUgg 80 Eighty—three and nine—tenths per cent Of the .arge school systems indicated that this was a current ractice and they all recommended that such a check be ade. Of the small school systems responding, 81.5 per ent indicated a check was made of the applicant's riving record and 92.9 per cent recommended this as a aneral procedure. c) Fingerprint Check Data in Table 17 reveal that 45.2 per cent Of 1e state departments of education checked fingerprints. .nety-four and one—tenth per cent recommended the check— Ig of fingerprints in addition to the basic application r all new driver candidates. The data also show that 18.7 per cent of the rge school systems checked fingerprints. Twenty—seven i eight—tenths per cent of the large school systems Jgested a fingerprint check as a recommended practice : all new applicants. Thirty—two per cent of the small school systems licated the fingerprint check as a current practice I 56.2 per cent recommended this check in addition the basic application. “Else The Open—ended portion Of this item provided an ortunity for respondents to contribute additional data. was compiled as follows: foll One 0‘11 .2 was . Whi l I checI actex 1,. A - . . . ‘ _ __ .- c~tiflmm11 - -'~- ~ ~-~ .7 ......_:‘-~- -—._—.. "- "'- 3;» . .. .3 —--H- .. 81 Two state departments of education required the ing information in addition to the basic application. dicated checking police records and another called -commendations by school principals when the driver student. Four large school systems checked police records in another large system the bus driver had to have er‘s permit. Data reveal that four small school systems 2d police records while another called for a char- reference. One advisory group member felt that a personal with past employers should be required as part basic application. Table 18 presents the percentage of responses of {epartments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Is each school Lyer required to pass a medical examination before mployed to transport handicapped students? 1) Table 18 shows that 97.1 per cent of the state ents Of education required each applicant to pass a1 examination before being employed and all of be departments recommended this practice. Of the large school systems, 93.5 per cent ed that the applicant is required to pass a TABL bus Per c _.... vm. 82 l8.—-States and school systems requiring each school iver applicant to pass a medical examination before oeing employed to transport handicapped students Respondents Dep:::;:nts Large School Small School of Education SYStemS Systems 97.1 100.0 93.5 100.0 85.7 72.7 2~9 6 5 14.3 27.3 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in it; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. medj schc smal 72.7 gene 83 ical examination prior to employment. All large 01 systems recommended this practice. Eightwaive and seven-tenths per cent of the 1 school systems carried out this practice, and per cent Of these systems recommended this as aral practice. Table 19 presents the percentage of responses tate departments of education and randomly selected 01 systems to the following item: Does your state chool system require each school bus driver applicant ass a visual examination before being employed to port handicapped students? (Item 22) All state departments Of education required each )1 bus driver to pass a visual examination. They mended this practice for each school bus driver. Ninety per cent of the large school systems ated this as a standard procedure and all stated would recommend that each school bus driver be red to pass a visual examination prior to employ— Currently, 89.3 per cent Of the small school ns follow this practice, and recommended the ice prior to employment. Table 20 presents the percentage of responses 1te departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: May the visual per c l9.-—States and school systems requiring each school river applicant to pass a visual examination before being employed to transport handicapped students Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education y Y C R C R C R 100.0 100.0 90.0 100.0 89.3 81.8 — — 10.0 — 10.7 18.2 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in nt; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. TABS nat.‘ 85 2 20.—-States and school systems having visual exami— »ns performed by either a licensed physician or a licensed optometrist Respondents Dep:::;:nts Large School Small School of Education Systems SYStEmS 97.1 100.0 88 9 94 4 92.0 88 g 111 56 8.0 111 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in Int; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. depe must lice educ O '“f ._1 and n.) In DJ Cent CY ej andj Small State SChOo 0r ¢ 86 ination in your state or school system be performed ither a licensed physician or a licensed optometrist? am 23) Table 20 indicates that 97 per cent of the state rtments Of education stated that visual examinations be performed by either a licensed physician or a nsed Optometrist. All of the state departments of ation recommended this practice. Table 20 further reveals that 88.9 per cent of arge school systems had either licensed physicians censed Optometrists to perform visual examinations 4.4 per cent of the large systems indicated this recommendation. The figures in the table also reveal that 92 per of the small school systems had visual examinations ther a licensed physician or a licensed optometrist n addition the data show that 88.9 per cent of the school systems recommended this practice. Table 21 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require a tuberculosis test? (Item 24) The data presented in this table show that er cent of the state departments of education ed tuberculosis tests. The data further indicated 11 state departments felt this item was important to recommend it. 21.-—States and school systems requiring a tubercu— losis test Respondents State massing“ Stanza“ of Education C R C R C R 94.3 100.0 93.7 94.1 89.3 100.0 5.7 6.2 5.9 10.7 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. es; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. indj cent requ IECC TESt, anot} 88 Ninety—three per cent of the large school systems icated that this was a current practice and 94.1 per of the school systems recommended the test. Of the small school systems 89.3 per cent ired the tuberculosis test. All school systems .mmended it. Additional data provided by respondents through open—ended portion of this item are presented below: or Tuberculin Test Five state departments of education required the rculin Test, two state departments the X-Ray exami— On, and two other state departments have the Option ither test for all school bus drivers. Eight large school systems required the Tuber“ 1 Test. Two large systems administered X-Ray exami— )ns and two other large systems required the Man— Test. Six small school systems required the Tuberculin four small systems the X~Ray examination while er administered either test every year. Table 22 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected 1 systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require all medical examinations to be med by licensed physicians? (Item 25) TAB] = 89 22.—~States and school systems requiring medical aminations to be performed by licensed physicians Respondents Dep:::;:nts Large School Small School Of Education Systems Systems C R C R C R 97. 100.0 90.6 94.7 96. 100.0 2.9 9.4 5.3 3.6 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal L00 per cent. I = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in 1t; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 8X8 req lic- stat must tran mend Stat Data in Table 22 reveal that 97.1 per cent of 2 state departments of education required all medical :minations tO be performed by licensed physicians. state departments recommended this practice. Of the large school systems, 90.6 per cent uired this procedure for all medical examinations 94.7 per cent recommended it. Ninety—six per cent of the small school systems Jired all medical examinations to be performed by ansed physicians and all recommended the procedure. Table 23 presents the percentage of responses of :e departments of education and randomly selected >ol systems to the following item: Does the medical Iused require the physician to certify that the :er is medically qualified to tranSport students? 'es, are the medical requirements different for ers transporting handicapped students? (Item 26, Table 23 indicates that 89.2 per cent of the departments Of education required that a physician certify that a driver is medically qualified to port students. Approximately 92 per cent recom— d this requirement for all their drivers. Table 23 also reveals that 3.4 per cent of the departments of education reported that the medical rements were different for those drivers transporting TAB] ' 23.--Forms required by states and school systems showing that drivers are medically qualified Respondents Dep:::;:nts Large School Small School of Education Systems Systems C R C R C R 89.2 92.3 71.4 94.4 77.8 91.7 10.8 7.7 28.6 5.6 22.2 8.3 3.4 11.1 4.3 20.00 0.0 8.3 96.6 88.9 95.7 80.00 100.0 91.7 L——— Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices eXpressed in nt; R - Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. * Medical requirements different for drivers of the apped. he fe la ph h t im C0! the (I. e r IQ the are 92 Indicapped students. Slightly more than 11 per cent .commended that medical requirements should be dif— rent for drivers transporting handicapped students. Seventy-one and four—tenths per cent Of the ge school systems have a medical form requiring the sician to certify that the driver is medically lified. Table 23 indicates that 94.4 per cent of 3 large school systems carry on this practice. Less than 4 per cent of the large school systems [icated that medical requirements are different for .vers transporting handicapped students and 20 per ,t recommended that the requirements should not be same. The figures in the table further reveal that 8 per cent of the small school systems required the ician to certify on the medical form that the driver edically qualified and 91.7 per cent of the small 01 systems indicated this as a recommendation. All he small school systems stated that medical require— 5 were no different from the requirements for ers transporting regular students to and from school. Additional data provided by respondents through open—ended portion of this item were compiled and presented below. Who is expected to defray the cost of the driver 'cant medical examination? (Item 27) nec' 93 Twenty state departments of education indicated t the local school systems defrayed the cost Of the 'ver's medical examination and eight state departments orted this fee paid by the applicant. Seven state artments revealed that the State paid the cost. Six large school systems reported that the local 001 systems defrayed the cost of the driver applicant's (ical examination while ten large systems indicated the was paid by the applicant. Two large school systems orted that the private contractor paid the cost of driver applicant's medical examination. Four small school systems indicated that they rayed the cost of the driver applicant's medical nination and seven small systems reported this anse was assumed by the applicant. Three small sys— revealed that the private contractor paid for the driver's medical examination. Five members of the advisory group recommended the medical examination be paid for by the indi— al school systems. Table 24 presents the percentage of responses Of departments of education and randomly selected 1 systems to the following item: After the initial al and visual examination, how often does the driver t for re—examination? (Item 28) The following de suggested driver scheduling for physical and l re—examinations. 94 Oncomwwu OZ m muse» v Nnm>m H mmcommmn 02 n memo» m Nnm>m N OmGOQmmH 02 m mnmwm m mnw>m m mumwm N >H0>m w munch N mum>m N mumww N Nnm>m N NHHmmN coco NN NHHMON coco mH mHnmmN coco HN mcoz H coHumcHmemimm Hc5mH> Oncomwwu 02 v mmcomwwn oz m mucwh m mnm>m H OmQOQmwM OZ v munch m Nnm>m N munch N Nuw>m v munch N >H0>m N munch N NHw>m N NHHmwN mono mN NHHMON coco mN NHHMON coco mN msoz H GOHpmgHmeMIcm HMOHmmzm coHumefimxm O>OQ< GOHuwsHmew w>og< coaumcafimxo w>on< I .m to oz -em do .02 . -em mo .02 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . , ,., . ,,, ,. wEwummm meumNm COHDMOSUm mo Hoosom HHmEm Hoocom mmumq musOEuHmme wumwm msOHumsHEchva Hmsma> cam 4034303 n1.)>n1u1a) \l-Dii I. re EV I10 Tig Rat 8X3 95 a) Physical Re—examination The data, as shown in Table 24, indicate that -nty-eight state departments of education required iical re—examinations every year, four had re-exami~ ;ions every two years, and one every three years. .r state departments did not reSpond. Of the large school systems, twenty—six reported examinations each year, two required re—examination ry three years, and three of the large systems did respond to this question. Twenty~three small school systems stated that ical re-examinations were given every year following initial examination. Two small school systems re— iined drivers every two years. There was no response 1 four small school systems. b) Visual Re-examination Twenty—two state departments of education had a1 re-examinations every year, four had re—exami- ons every three years, and another had the re— ination every four years. Eight state departments iucation did not respond. Of the large school systems twenty—one reported 11 re—examinations each year, two indicated this ice every two years, and three school systems pro— re—examinations every three years. Seven school ms did not respond. ul mm mm: HI I 1'. In 96 Nineteen small school systems employed visual re- ixaminations every year following the initial visual xamination, two small systems re—examined drivers very two years, while there was no response from eight ystems. Table 25 presents the percentage of responses E state departments of education and randomly selected :hool systems to the following item: What are the Lnimum and maximum age limits for drivers transporting :pdicapped students? (Item 29) Minimum Age for Drivers Transporting Handicapped Students Table 25 indicates that six state departments education had a minimum age of sixteen years for ivers tranSporting handicapped students. In three ates the minimum age was seventeen, twelve states ghteen, one state twenty, and in thirteen states the nimum age was twenty-one. Three state departments of education did not spond to this question. Data reported by eleven large school systems licate that the minimum age level was eighteen years. sixteen large school systems the minimum age was anty~one and in two others nineteen. One large sys— I stated seventeen years of age as a minimum and two TA v 1'0 97 .BLE 25.—~Age limits for drivers transporting handicapped students Minimum Age Maximum Age of States A e No. of States A e Reporting g Reporting g State Departments of Education 6 16 10 None 3 l7 1 6O 12 18 15 65 l 20 l 68 13 21 3 70 of School No. of School Systems Age Systems Age leporting Reporting Large School Systems 1 l7 2 None 11 18 l 45 2 l9 1 55 16 21 2 60 l 25 21 65 l 30 l 68 1 NO response 4 70 1 No response Small School Systems 1 l7 2 None 9 l8 2 55 15 21 l 59 l 23 3 60 l 25 16 65 2 NO response 2 70 l 72 2 No response 39 ei Tia re de Sex Sma StI 98 ier school systems had twenty—five and thirty as aimum age requirements. One large school system failed respond. In fifteen Of the small school systems the minimum e was twenty—one and nine other school systems reported ghteen years Of age. One school system indicated enty—three years Of age and in another twenty—five s the minimum age. Two small school systems did not spond. Maximum Age Limits for Drivers Transporting Handi— capped Students The data in Table 25 indicate that ten state >artments of education had no maximum age limit, fteen states set a maximum age Of sixty—five, one Ite supported sixty—eight, and three other states had ipted the maximum Of seventy years of age. Twenty-one Of the large school systems stated t sixty—five was the maximum age, four stated seventy, Le two others reported no maximum age limit. Two small school systems had no maximum age limit. others ranged from two systems having a maximum age t of fifty—five to one school system reporting nty-two years Of age as a maximum. Sixteen Of the Ler systems had no drivers transporting handicapped :nts beyond the age Of sixty—five. Two small school ms did not respond to this item. [OJ (L 0—3 99 Table 26 presents the percentage of responses 5 state departments of education and randomly selected :hool systems to the following item: Wbuld you suggest change in the age limits? (Item 30) Table 26 shows that 37 per cent Of the state apartments of education recommended a change in the irrent age limits established for school bus drivers. aree and seven—tenths per cent Of the large and small ‘hool systems saw no reason why they should recommend y change. Additional data provided by respondents through e open—ended portion of this item are presented below. Whyyand What Change in Age Limits Two state departments of education indicated ,at the maximum age should be seventy while another pported a maximum age of sixty because of the possible terioration in reflexes beyond this age. One large school system stated that there should : be a maximum age limit, while two others supported iaximum age of sixty-five because of safety reasons. Only one small school system indicated that a nge be made from the present eighteen years to twenty- years of age. Three advisory group members recommended a maxi— age of sixty—five, while another recommended a review driver's record at age fifty—five, sixty, and sixty— T k 100 TABLE 26.-—States and school systems recommending a change in the age limits for school bus drivers Respondents State , Large School Small School Department S stems s stems Of Education y y c R C R C R Y 37.1 3.6 3.7 N 62.9 96.4 96 3 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal Key: 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in per cent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. Ca St 80 101 Instructional Programs This section indicates the type of preparation and training that drivers transporting handicapped stu— dents received. The number of hours of classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction were also submitted by respondents in this section. Table 27 presents the percentage of responses of state departments of education and randomly selected school systems to the following item: Does your state or school system use qualified instructors to prepare drivers transporting students to and from school? (Item 31) Table 27 reveals that 68.7 per cent of the state departments of education used qualified instructors to prepare drivers transporting students to and from school. All state departments Of education recommended this aractice. Sixty-two and five—tenths per cent Of the large :chOOl systems reported the use of qualified instructors nd 84.2 per cent recommended that qualified instructors each all drivers. Of the small school systems responding, 62.9 per ant used qualified instructors and 69.2 per cent indi— ted this as a recommendation. Table 28 presents the percentage of responses of ite departments of education and randomly selected 1001 systems to the following item: Who is responsible 7 9“ N e VA “be 102 LBLE 27.——States and school systems using qualified Lstructors to prepare drivers transporting handicapped students Respondents State of Education y y C R C R C R 68.7 100.0 62.5 V 84.2 62.9 69.2 31.2 37.5 15.8 37.0 30.8 y: Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in cent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 103 .psmo and CH pommmndxm mOOHuomHm .l a H “mmw nu W twpcmEEoomm u m “undo Hem CH pcmmmndxm mmOHuomum pcouuso I 0 .oz 2 .NOM .ucmo Hoe OOH Henge mNMBHm uoc mma mHMpOp can .OCHUGSOH on cue ill m.m Hé o.m Re T: m O OOH m OO O NO O NO m mm m mm wEmpmNm Hoonom Hmooq Ab a.ms 0.0m N.Hm m.sm s.NN m H mm O om 5 mm m me O OOH m up coHpmo 15pm mo pamenmmmO mumum Am m U m U m U mEMpmNm wfimummm mmwwwwmmwmmo oo o we 00 0 mean H a m HH .m H z m H mumum muchQOQmmm mucmpsum meQMOHpcma mcHuuommcmuu mnm>Hup mo OQHCHme paw COHumummmHm can now mmHuHHHQHmnOdmmu OGH>m£ mEmumNm Hoonom paw mmumumii. CL QM WV 104 for the preparation and training of drivers transporting handicapped students? (Item 33) The following indicates how responsibility for the preparation and training of drivers is apportioned. a) State Departments of Education The data shown in Table 28 indicate that 77.3 per cent of the state departments of education reported the preparation and training of drivers as the responsibility of the state, and 100 per cent recommended this as a state responsibility. The data show that 43.7 per cent of the large school systems reported the state department of education as responsible for preparing and training drivers. Sixty— nine per cent of the large school systems recommended that this practice be the responsibility of the state department of education. Table 28 indicates that 50 per cent of the small school systems reported that state departments of edu— cation are reSponsible for the preparation and training of drivers. Fifty-seven per cent recommended this practice. b) Local School Systems Eighty-nine and nine—tenths per cent of the state epartments of education indicated that this was the esponsibility of the local school system. Ninety—three nd three-tenths per cent recommended that the local school syst training. Nin stated that responsibil drivers. N same system Of drivers Nin school Syst 0f the loca mended that PIEparation CaPeed stud. 0) 933: Add. the Open-13m Thre that the de} nent of him ation and t1 students in Four BighWay depé ment of mo tc public instr and tretininc 105 system be reSponsible for this preparation and 1g. Ninetyvtwo per cent of the large school systems that the local school system should assume the sibility for the preparation and training of s. Ninety—two and nine—tenths per cent of these ystems reported that thepreparation and training vers were a local responsibility. Ninety and five—tenths per cent of the small systems revealed that this was the responsibility local school system. One hundred per cent recom— that local school systems be responsible for the ation and training Of drivers transporting handi— students. Other Additional data provided by respondents through n—ended portion of this item are presented below. Three state departments Of education reported e department of motor vehicles and/or the depart— transportation were responsible for the prepar— nd training of drivers transporting handicapped s in their state. Four large school systems indicated that state departments, private bus contractors, the departs motor vehicles, and the state department of 'nstruction were responsible for the preparation 'ning of drivers. FOL bus contrac in another training of The Board c portation s the prepare Thr the local 5 ation and t students, biliti’ Shou trict. Tab 0'5 State de School SYSt W3 trans Ort . w 3 “1%? (It 1n‘the‘bus of the hand Mgfi Tab State depar “13th tion 106 FOur small school systems reported that private ntractors were responsible, while the state police ther state was responsible for the preparation and ng of drivers transporting handicapped students. ard of Continuing Education Services and the trans~ ion supervisors in two states were responsible for eparation and training of drivers. Three advisory group members recommended that ical school systems be responsible for the prepar- and training Of drivers transporting handicapped .ts. Another group member recommended that responsi— should be assumed by the intermediate school dis— Table 29 presents the percentage of responses te departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require the preparation of drivers orting handicapped students in the following (Item 33) These areas include classroom and -bus road instruction as well as an understanding handicapped child and the attendant problems. Classroom Instruction Table 29 indicates that 53.1 per cent of the epartments of education required classroom tion and all state departments recommended it. WHMVN/HHHU .HOUJH mUCmVHuCOQmme IF J] I III WEOUWWW Qtfitu I! ll . I‘ll] WU,CmVfi03U.m UOQOHGUHHUQTC WCHUQHOQWCJWHU. HOOfiHnUm H.002”. monvflcum... \ANIN HUOMHHDMVAUIH :00..HU.HW.HH»QNV.H0N n40 m 09H m.nn m.mm m.mm 0.00H N.mv N QOHDODHDmQH Odom wdmlonuIaH an m.mm n.ov H.HN 0.00 m.mv z n.mm m.mm m.mh 0.0v 0.00H H.mm w GOHDODHmeH EooummMHU Am m U m 0 m U Goa mod 0 mEopmmm mfioummm mudprnmwom Hoosom HHmEm Hoosom ompmq onmom n1.) a1)o)aa\l\u.)\l;1 La in 40 per tenths per it. Da school sys cent reconu b) £2: Tal department: instruct101 dents and 6 0f IePOrted 11 agreed thaI Dai SChool Syst three‘fourt C) Unde \ Meet \ This State dePar Capped StUd the State d 108 Large school systems required classroom instruction >er cent Of the districts. Seventy-eight and nine— per cent Of the large school systems recommended Data indicate that 59.3 per cent Of the small systems required classroom instruction and 66.7 per acommended it. In—the—Bus Road Instruction Table 29 reveals that 45.2 per cent of the state 1ents of education required in—the—bus road :tion for drivers transporting handicapped stu— Lnd all departments recommended this. Of the large school systems 65.5 per cent 5d it as a current practice and 89 per cent were that in—the—bus road instruction was necessary. Data indicate that 77.8 per cent of the small systems had in—the—bus road instruction, and purths of the small systems recommended this p. Jnderstanding Problems that Handicapped Students fleet Each Day Twenty—six and seven—tenths per cent Of the apartments of education stipulated that their have an understanding of the problems that handi— ;tudents meet each day. One hundred per cent of Le departments recommended this practice. Sl tems requi problems t each day. drivers ha Or. drivers tc handicappe per cent c instructic A0 the Open—e Or this instx aid5~ Anc required t the Depart 0r drivers ir other Spec StUdents. inSpect t} duties to Or be On the System al: 109 Slightly more than half of the large school sys— required drivers to have an understanding of the Lems that handicapped students are likely to meet day. All large school systems recommended that ers have this understanding. One—half of the small school systems required ers to have an understanding of the problems that icapped students might meet each day. Seventy—one :ent of the small school systems recommended such suction. Additional data provided by respondents through Jpen-ended portion of this item are presented below. One state department of education indicated that instruction should be required for all school bus . Another indicated that all first-year drivers be ;red to complete a bus driver course approved by >epartment of Education. One large school system recommended training rs in the use of liftgates, ramps, elevators, and ' special equipment used for tranSporting handicapped ants. Two other states recommended that the driver :ct the vehicle and carry out minor maintenance :5 to alleviate future safety problems. One small school system recommended that an aid the bus to assist the driver while in another small m all drivers listened to a talk by the district ologist. T for all s< instructi< porting t] Ta of state c school sys (Item 34) laws, Oper loading ar procedures a) J22 Ta State depa regulation State depa Ei included d clasSrOOm the Praoti Da whom 8318 110 Two advisory group members recommended instruction all school bus aids, while another recommended truction on all special equipment used for trans— ting the handicapped. Table 30 presents the percentage of responses state departments of education and randomly selected sol systems to the following item: Are the following :2included in the classroom phase of instruction? em 34) The following areas include driving and natural 3, Operating procedures, use of special equipment, fling and unloading handicapped students, emergency :edures, and accident reporting procedures. a) Driving Laws and Regulations Table 30 indicates that 84.8 per cent of the :e departments of education included the laws and llations as part of the classroom instruction. All :e departments recommended them. Eighty per cent of the large school systems iuded driving laws and regulations as part of the sroom instruction, and 92.9 per cent recommended practice. Data indicate that 87.5 per cent of the small 01 systems included driving laws and regulations as of the classroom phase of instruction. Seventy— n and eight—tenths per cent recommended this practice. rtl‘lIu‘FIc rrl‘llt rill—IL IIIIIIF muwum mu.CmvmVCOnmmmwN~ COHUUSHUWCH [#0 mummcuflu EOOHWWQHU .Ufiwu Cfl UQUUHUCfl WQQMQ UU®hQ3mlloOm mqmmfi lll m.eH m.sm s.s m.me m.am z n.mw m.mo m.mm n.nm o.ooa m.me {I w MWCmGSpm commonaosmm swvmo s so m 11 H.n m.mv m.w 0.0m m.v H.mm a D m CHUMOA Am m.mm N.vm n.am o.vv m.mm m.aw I w muswUSpm UmQQMOHpsmm Mom usofimflswm HMHoomm mo omm ho H.m o.mm s.s o.mm o.mm z m.om o.mn m.mm o.mn o.ooa o.mn N muoommm “Home one mama Housumm Ao H.HH m.m H.s N.ma m.ma z m.mm P.Hm m.mm m.om 0.00H m.vm I& L. mmusomooum msflumnmmo mHOH£m> Hoosom an N.NN m.NH H.n 0.0m m.mH z m.nm m.nm m.mm 0.0m o.ooa m.wm I, w msoflumHmem paw m3mq mCH>HHD Am m U m U m U i COHpMUDUm m0 mamummm mEmummm mpcmabnwmmo Hoonom Hamsm Hoonom omumq oumum muamvaommom mumsqufianOUll . O m “N‘Hmfiurfi 112 .bsmo Mom QH commoumxm mooflbomnm oopsmfifiooom u m “usmo Hod QH Ummwmumxw mmOfluomnm ucmuusu n U “02 n z “mow n w .usoo mom ooa Hmsqw m>m3am uoq hoe wamqu ecu .wcflossou 0p $50 "mom ouoa m.m h.h o.vm N.mH Z o om n.am m.mm 0.0» o.ooa m.Hm w msflunomom usmofloom quUSHOQH . .muuomdm mo GOflumHmEOU Am o.oa m.m m.m m.mH m.mH z o om s Hm s.am w.om o.ooa m.am w IIIIIIII mucm©:#m HH< MOM mousomooum monomnwsm Am IMIIIIIIIWI: m o m o mgwgmhm WEQHM%W COHgmodfivm Mo Hoonom Hamfiw Hoonom omumq mpsmfipnmmoo oumom IlIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL‘ muamosommom b) _s_g E education cedures w of the st C school ve room phas tems reco T school sy Part of t cent of t C) Na ‘ D the State laws and room Phas recommend 0 instructi “Tint-trim hills and the Class T natural 1 113 b) §chool Vehicle Operating Procedures Eighty-five per cent of the state departments of ation reported that school vehicle Operating pro— res were taught as a current practice, while all he state departments recommended it. Of the large school systems, 80.8 per cent included '01 vehicle operating procedures as part of the class— phase of instruction and 93 per cent of these sys— recommended such instruction. Table 30 shows that 91.7 per cent of the small 01 systems included vehicle operating procedures as . of the classroom phase of instruction, and 88.9 per of these same systems recommended this instruction. c) Natural Laws and Their Effects on Control Data from Table 30 reveal that three—fourths of state departments of education included the natural and their effects on vehicle control in the class- phase of instruction, while all state departments nmended this instruction. Of the large school systems three—fourths stated uction in this subject as a current practice. y-two and three—tenths per cent recommended natural and their effects on vehicle control as a phase of lassroom instruction. Three—fourths of the small school systems included a1 laws and their effects in the classroom phase of instru they be t d) E §t F departmen use of SI: classroom of the st P included cated tha D school 5y SPéécial e having Su e) E9 T state dep the lOadi the State A Systems d Such inst Systems 3: 114 struction, and 90.9 per cent recommended that be taught. ) Use of Special Equipment for the Handicapped Student Forty-one and nine—tenths per cent of the state tments of education included instruction in the f special equipment for the handicapped in the room phase of instruction. Ninetyvfive per cent e state departments recommended this practice. Forty—four per cent of the large school systems ded this type of instruction, and 92 per cent indi— . that this should be a continuing practice. Data also show that 54.2 per cent of the small 1 systems included instruction in the use of this al equipment and 92 per cent recommended drivers g such instruction. ) Loading and Unloading Handicapped Students Table 30 indicates that 48.5 per cent of the departments of education have a unit which included ading and unloading of handicapped students. All ate departments recommended this unit. Approximately 58 per cent of the large school 5 devoted a portion of the classroom phase to nstruction and 92.3 per cent of the large school 5 recommended such practice. syste dents per c depar proce hundr this schoo the c YECOITI Concez cedur. PhaSe ~ , . . - - ‘ -. _.. _ .- ~o._;~ , _-_ _' _ . _ _ ‘ ’ . ' 1:1 . . '3':‘ .4 . - ‘ . , " : .' .v . . . .~ , _ . ".— *V‘ "' ,1 , .7 ~ . -b a 'Mf- m, 115 Data indicate that 62.5 per cent of the small -ms taught how to load and unload handicapped stu— ~ as part of the classroom instruction. Eighty-six ent of the small school systems recommended it. =) Emergency_Procedures for All Students Table 30 shows that 81.8 per cent of the state tments of education included knowledge of emergency ~dures as part of the classroom instruction. One ed per cent of the state departments recommended instruction. Eighty and eight—tenths per cent of the large »1 systems had a unit on emergency procedures during ‘lassroom phase of instruction, and 92 per cent mended it. Table 30 further indicates that 91.7 per cent e small school systems included emergency procedures rt of the classroom instruction, and 90 per cent e small school systems recommended such instruction. Completion of Reports, Including Accident Reporting Procedures In so far as state departments of education were :ned, 81.8 per cent stated that they included pro— es of accident reporting as a unit in the classroom of instruction. One hundred per cent of the state :ments of education recommended it. school 5; and comp. the larg systems . ing. Ni: mended t2 state de] school 3} Classrom re<{Hired State d9} hOUrs. f rec{Hired SYStemS 1 inStruCtj instruCtj 116 Table 30 reveals that 76 per cent of the large systems included a unit on how to report accidents mplete reports. Slightly more than 92 per cent of rge school systems recommended this practice. Approximately 92 per cent of the small school 3 included a unit on procedures of accident report- Ninety per cent of the small school systems recom- they be taught. Table 31 presents the percentage of responses of lepartments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: How many hours gsroom instruction does your state or school sys— [gire for school bus drivers? (Item 35) Six state departments of education required no >om instruction for school bus drivers. One state ed five hours and another eight hours. Seventeen ,epartments of education required nine or more Thirteen state departments of education did not to this question. Table 31 shows that six large school systems d no classroom instruction. Three large school required one, two, and six hours of classroom tion for bus drivers. Eight hours of classroom tion were required by four large systems, while arge school systems did not respond. mH®>HHU MSQ MOM UQHHSWQH wE®UW%w HOOSUW UCM mmumum UMSU COHUUfihuwCfl EOOHmWQHU MO mHUOQ N0 HQQESZII . Hm, mammfifi uncommon oz m oHOE so m HH uncommon oz h o H m mH 7 v H w v uncommon oz mH n m m m H oHoE Ho m NH N H N H m H H H H H m H wcoz m osoz m osoz m musom o>on4 mnsom m>on< musom o>on< mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 MO .02 mo .02 mo .02 llllllllllllllllllllll ,. , ,. nrfrllrllllllllllllllll mfiopmmm mamumwm mmmwwmmwmwmo oo o as wmum H n m HH m Hooaom q 33m mno>HHo mso you svuajru4 three sm tion. F six hour hours, a small sy of state school 5 C . m Of the s Classroo: departme. Cent ind requirem Classroo1 take add Cent of . praCtiCe State de] sCh001 S' 118 Data presented in Table 3l further indicates that a small school systems required no classroom instrUC* Four school systems required one, two, four, and tours of instruction, two systems required three :, and eleven required nine or more hours. Nine systems did not respond. Table 32 presents the percentage of responses ate departments of education and randomly selected 1 systems to the following item: Does your state or 1 system require additional classroom instruction rivers transporting handicapped students? (Item 36) The data in Table 32 indicate that 2.7 per cent e state departments of education required additional room instruction, while 86.9 per cent of the state Unents recommend this practice. Of the large school systems responding, 3.4 per indicated additional classroom instruction as a :ement and 88.9 per cent recommended additional :oom instruction. No small school systems required drivers to ldditional classroom instruction, however, 60 per >f the small school systems recommended this ,ce. Table 33 presents the percentage of responses of departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: How many hours TABLE 32. classroom 10( Per cent; 119 32.-~States and school systems requiring additional 'oom instruction for drivers transporting handicapped students Respondents State Large School Small School Departments S stems S stems of Education y y C R C R C R 2.7 86 9 3.4 88 9 O 0 60.0 97.3 13 l 96 6 ll 1 100 0 40 O Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in at; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 1J. nu€11uluultnk SOQ¢ mnsom w>om< mnsom o>on¢ mo .02 mo .oz mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mfiwwmhm mfiopmhm COHDMOSUM mo Hoosom HHmEm HOOSUm mmnmq mpawfipnomoo onmnm mpsmU:#m oommmoHpsms OsHpMommsmuu ou pouo>wp so HpOdemcH Eooummeo mo musos mo HoQEszsi .no dqmflH withir handic no cla devote OffeIEt school and tW< tiVely hOUrS ( SchOol gory d: of Stat SChOOl dIQaS . 121 in this instruction are devoted to transporting icapped students? (classroom) (Item 37) Eight state departments of education offered lassroom instruction. Three state departments ted one, five, and six classroom hours. Two states ed two hours, and three, four hours. Another state tment offered nine hours of instruction while twenty— tate departments of education did not respond. Table 33 reveals that eight large school systems ot offer any classroom instruction. Five systems ed one, three, four, five, and six hours of addi— l classroom instruction and another reported teach— ine hours of classroom instruction. Nineteen large 1 systems did not respond to this question. Table 33 indicates that four small school systems ed no additional classroom instruction. Two small 1 systems offered one hour, three offered two hours, v0 others included three and four hours, respec— (, of additional classroom instruction. Twelve of classroom instruction were taught by one small system. More than half the schools in this cate— 1id not respond. Table 34 presents the percentage of responses te departments of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Are the following included in the behind—the—wheel (bus) phase of .ucmo Hum CH Ummmmumxo m00HNDMHm poocmssoomm n m “undo mom sH owmmmngxm mooHuomum uconnsu u 0 “oz u 2 «wow u w .usmo Hum OOH Hmswo mmeHm no: hmE mHmpou map .OGHUGSOH on wso "wom a.» m.m m.HH m.wm M . . . . 0.00H N. O OOH O mm m mm m mm mouspmooum monomumem AU «.vv m.m ¢.ww m.Hm z 0.00H o.mm , H.vm o.mm 0.00H n.mm w mmmmmmmmmmm aha on naosmflsam mo mm: and: mqfleaOHas was mafleaoq no H.HH 5.0 H.» H.mm z 0.00H m.mm m.mm m.Nm 0.00H m.H> , M 2 Asmmpasoz .Hondmv m Houcdoosm HHHB uw>Hno can msoHqucoo mmH>HHQ an v.n h.o H.n H.wN Z 0.00H o.Nm m.mm m.Nm 0.00H O.H> w monsowooum msHumuomo msm Hoonom onmm Am m U m U m U msoumsm msoummm coHnmosom mo Hoonom HHmEm H00gom OOHMH musmfiunmmoo oumum 123 truction? (Item 38) The following includes bus rating procedures, driving conditions, use Of equip— t to aid the handicapped, and emergency procedures. a) Basic School Bus Operating Procedures Table 34 indicates that 91.9 per cent of the e departments Of education included operating pro- res in the behind—the—wheel phase Of instruction. state departments reported this as a recommended tice. Of the large school systems responding, 92.9 per revealed that Operating procedures were included in behind—the—wheel phase Of instruction. Ninety—three three-tenths per cent of the large school systems idered this a recommended practice. The data show that 92.6 per cent of the small 31 systems included this instruction, while all L school systems recommended it. 3) Driving Conditions the Driver Will Encounter The data in Table 34 indicate that 71.9 per cent 1e state departments of education included conditions ,river will encounter as a part Of behind-the—wheel of instruction. All Of the state departments mended this practice. Table 34 points out that 92.9 per cent Of the school systems included such conditions as part 124 behind—the—wheel (bus) instruction. Approximately cent of the large school systems stated this as nmended practice. Eightyveight and nine—tenths per cent of the school systems indicated the above as current ce. One hundred per cent Of the school systems ended it. Loading and Unloading Procedures with Use Of Equipment to Aid the Handicapped Thirty—eight and seven—tenths per cent Of the departments of education included loading and ing procedures with use Of equipment to aid the tapped. All of the state departments recommended »rocedure. Fifty—five per cent of the large school systems ted that loading and unloading procedures were ed in the behind—the—wheel phase of instruction, 94 per cent recommended this practice. Fifty—five and six—tenths per cent Of the small systems included loading and unloading procedures rt Of the behind—the—wheel (bus) phase Of tion. All small school systems were in agreement should be recommended. Emergency Procedures Seventy-four and two—tenths per cent Of the epartments of education included instruction in 125 ancy procedures during the behind—the—wheel phase ;truction. All recommended this practice. The data reflect that 88.5 per cent Of the large systems included emergency procedures as part of ahind—the—wheel instruction. Ninety—four per cent lended this phase Of instruction. Table 34 shows that 92.6 per cent Of the small systems had this practice and all small school IS recommended it. Table 35 presents the responses of state depart— Of education and randomly selected school systems 2 following item: How many hours Of in—the—bus road .ction does your state or school system require for . bus drivers? (Item 39) Nine state departments Of education required no —bus road instruction for school bus drivers. One required one hour and two Offered two hours Of tion. Three states required four hours, three six hours, one state eight hours, and three states more hours Of in-the—bus road instruction. There response from sixteen state departments Of edu— Data in Table 35 indicate that five large school did not provide any in—the—bus road instruction 001 bus drivers. Four large systems required tWO, ix, and eight hours Of in—the—bus road instruction. Omsommmu Oz m uncommon OZ OH OHOE HO m e OMOE HO m n m H m H uncommon 0 Z o N m H OMOE no O NH m m m N w v N v H m m 6 m H m N v m u N m m H N m H H H m H H wcoz v ocoz m ocoz m mhflom ®>OQ< mHHHOE w>OQmN mHHHom ®> mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo wwm mfioumwm msmummm SOHumosom mo HOOflom HHmEm HOOflOm OOMOH mugofiuuommo oumpm mHO>HMO mun Hoogom Mow OHHOOOH msmp Imhm Hooaom paw mmumum umsp GOHbOsnumsH Umou mOQIOSOIOH mo muses mo HOQESZLv. 127 schools required one hour Of instruction, two ,5 five hours Of instruction, two schools three and seven large systems reported nine hours of .ction. Data further revealed that ten large systems did not respond. The data presented in this table indicate that mall school systems required no in—the-bus road ction. One small system required one hour and systems two hours of road instruction. Three systems required five hours, one three hours, ur hours, and two others required a total Of six Of in—the-bus road instruction. The data also ed that one small school system required eight and four required nine hours or more of instruction. small school systems did not respond. Table 36 presents the percentage Of responses te departments Of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 391 system require additional in—the—bus road ation for drivers transporting handicapped stu— (Item 40) Data presented in Table 36 indicate that 2.9 per ' the state departments Of education required addi— in—the-bus road instruction, and approximately cent of the state departments recommended this 8. 128 36.*—States and school systems requiring additional a—bus road instruction for drivers transporting handicapped students Respondents State Large School Small School Departments Systems Systems of Education C R C R C R * * 2.9 83.3 6.9 58 8 10 7 50 0 97.1 16 7 93.1 41 2 89 3 50 0 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y - Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in :nt; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. * Item not completed by respondents. 129 Table 36 shows that 6.9 per cent Of the large )1 systems required additional in—the—bus road :uction for drivers transporting handicapped stu— 5. Fiftyvnine per cent Of the large school systems idered this as a recommended practice. One large 2m did not respond. Of the small school systems responding, 10.7 per required additional hours Of in—the-bus road ruction. One—half Of the small school systems mmended the additional instruction. Table 37 presents the responses Of state depart— s Of education and randomly selected school systems he following item: How many hours within this uction are devoted to transporting handicapped nts? (In-the—bus) (Item 41) Nine state departments of education offered no e-bus road instruction. One state department ed one hour and another state Offered two hours —the-bus road instruction. Two states Offered hours, while twenty—five state departments of edu— n did not respond. Data in Table 37 indicate seven large school ms offered no in—the—bus road instruction, four ed one, four, five, and nine hours, while twenty— arge school systems did not respond. uncommon 02 NN 0 OH. H @mflommmwum OZ mN D wmgoamwm OZ wH m H v N once so m N w H N H H H H H H H osoz m ogoz n osoz m musom m>on< mudom o>OQ< mnsom O>OQ< mo .02 mo .Oz mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 OOHumospm mo Howawwmmmme owfiwumwmnm mpsofipummoo 3 HH m H s m H opmum mucopdpw UOQQMOHpsmn msHpnommgmnu Op omuo>m© GOHuosupmsH Hoonslo u; CH o 131 Table 37 further reveals that eight small school 5 did not Offer any in~the~bus road instruction. all school system Offered one hour and two systems urs of in—the—bus road instruction. Eighteen school systems did not complete this item. Table 38 presents the percentage of responses Of departments Of education and randomly selected systems to the following item: Does your state 001 system require emergency evacuation drills on :hicles transporting handicapped students? (Item 42) The data in Table 38 indicate that 60.6 per cent . state departments of education required emergency tion drills on all vehicles. Ninety—four and one— per cent Of the state departments recommended this ce. Table 38 reveals that 28.1 per cent of the large 8 required emergency evacuation drills on all es, and 81 per cent recommended them. Fifty—one and nine—tenths per cent Of the small systems required emergency evacuation drills and cent Of the small school systems reported this 5 a recommended practice. Table 39 presents the responses Of state depart— >f education and randomly selected school systems following item: The number Of times during the 38.——States and school systems requiring emergency on vehicles transporting handicapped students Respondents State of Education y y C R C R C R 60.6 94.1 28.1 80.9* 51.9 71.4 39.4 5.9 71.9 19.0 48.1 28.6 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in nt; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. * Item not completed by respondents. 133 [I]!!! uncommon 02 w m N H mHHHHQ mo .02 Ill"! mEmpmmm Hoonom HHmEm O NH mH omsommon OZ mN uncommon 2 H m m m H OH H N m m H N OM02 H N osoz H w>on< wHHHHQ w>on¢ mHHMHQ M>wmm mo .02 mo .02 mo .02 mo oz m GOHmespm mo mEoummm mpswfiuummoo Hoonom o HMH mpmpm IHUGOQ OsHpnommcmnu mmHOH£w> so musmpsum common NHHOON pwnospsoo mHHHHO honwmnmfim mo noQEOZIv.mm mqmda 134 ‘ that emergency_drills are conducted on vehicles Lsporting handicapped students. (Item 42) Three state departments Of education conducted emergency drill, sixteen two drills, one three drills, another did not have any emergency drills. Seventeen .e departments of education did not respond to this 5 . Data in Table 39 indicate one large school system not Offer any emergency drills, four other large sys— conducted one and three drills each, and twenty- 1arge school systems did not complete the item. Two small school systems conducted one emergency one three drills, and two 1, six had two drills, rs had four emergency drills during the year. teen small school systems did not respond to this Table 40 presents the percentage Of responses 'ate departments Of education and randomly selected .1 systems to the following item: Does your state @001 system require all drivers to successfully ete a final examination at the end of the course? 43) Table 40 shows that 37.5 per cent Of the state :ments of education required all drivers to success— complete a final examination. Eighty per cent ended this procedure. 135 40.——States and school systems requiring drivers to ssfully complete a final examination at the end Of the course ., 14 a - Respondents State Of Education y y C R C R C R 37.5 80 0 27.6 82.4 50.0 66 7 62 5 20 0 72.4 17 6 50 0 33 3 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in ant; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 136 Of the large school systems, 27.6 per cent juired all drivers to successfully complete a final .mination at the end Of the course, and 82.4 per cent ommended this practice. One—half Of the small school systems reported -1 t all drivers are required to successfully complete inal examination, 66.7 per cent Of the small school tems recommended this practice. Table 41 presents the percentage of responses of be departments of education and randomly selected 301 systems to the following item: Does your state school system require the driver to take a road test :he completion Of the course in the vehicle used for lsporting handicapped students, or one Of equivalent :_? (Item 44) The figures in Table 41 reveal that at the com- ion of the course 42.4 per cent Of the state depart— s Of education required drivers tO take a road test he vehicle used for transporting handicapped stu— 5, or one Of equivalent size. Sixty—nine and two— 15 per cent Of the state departments recommended practice. Data in Table 41 indicate that 58.6 per cent Of arge school systems required the driver to take a test at the completion of the course, and 89.5 per 3f the large school systems reported this as a lended practice. 137 ‘ 4l.v—States and school systems requiring the driver 1. 1ke a road test at the completion of the course in the :le used for transporting handicapped students, or one Of equivalent size Respondents State ”sum“ ”assist“ Of Education y Y C R C R C R 42 4 69.2 58.6 89 5 45.8 80 0 57 6 30 8 41.4 10.5 54.2 20 0 Due to rounding, 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; the totals may not always equal C - Current Practices expressed in ant; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 138 Forty—five and eight—tenths per cent Of the .1 school systems required the driver to take a road : at the completion Of the course, and 80 per cent :he small school systems recommended it. Vehicle and Equipment Table 42 presents the percentage Of responses Of .e departments Of education and randomly selected 01 systems to the following item: Does your state chool system have minimum standards with respect to cles constructed or modified for the transportation andicapped students? (8 to 23 passengers) (Item 45) Data from Table 42 reveal that 74.3 per cent Of state departments of education had minimum standards respect tO vehicles constructed or modified for sporting handicapped students. All state departments [ucation recommended minimum standards. Of the large school systems, 60 per cent indi— they had minimum standards with respect to vehicles ructed or modified, and 82.4 per cent recommended practice. Sixty—one and five—tenths per cent of the small L systems revealed having minimum standards with :t to vehicle construction and modification, and ' cent Of these schools recommended minimum standards. Table 43 presents the percentage of responses te departments of education and randomly selected I 42.—-States and school systems having minimum ,ards with respect to vehicles constructed or ‘ied for the transportation Of handicapped students 139 Respondents State Departments Of Education C R Large School Systems Small School Systems 74.3 100.0 25.7 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 140 .uswo Mom CH wommwumxw wonuomum Uwpswfifioowm n m “undo Hum CH pwmwwhmxm mOOHHOMMm uswuuso n 0 “OZ H 2 “wow u M .ugwo Mom OOH Hmnww m>m3Hm Hos NOE mepou on» .OCHOGDOH ou ODD "mom 2 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H % msm HOOfiom MOHsmwm AU v.vv z 0.00H m.mm 0.00H % msommz COH#M#m no v.HN h.m Z 0.00H w.mh m.mm N HHmINHHmo an m.MH v.m Z 0.00H h.mm w.mm N mwmdm uommfioo Aw m U m U m 0 II! meummm mfioummm mowwwomwwmwo Hooaom HHmsm Hooaom magma . p wuwnm o wusmpcommwm 141 001 systems to the following item: The type Of icle(s) used in your state or school system for [nsporting handicapped students: (Item 46) The lowing includes compact buses, carry—all vehicles, tion wagons, and regular school buses. a) Compact Buses The data reveal that 96.6 per cent of the state artments of education used compact buses for trans— ting handicapped students. Table 43 points out that 86.7 per cent Of the ;e school systems transported handicapped students zompact buses. All of the small school systems reported this :tice. b) Carry—all Vehicles Data indicate 96.3 per cent Of the state depart— .s Of education used carry-all vehicles. Table 43 shows that 78.6 per cent Of the large 01 systems have carry*all vehicles. All Of the small school systems used carry—all cles. :) Station Wagons All state departments of education indicated the tice Of transporting handicapped students in station IS. L— 142 Fifty—five and sintenths per cent of the large hool systems used station wagons. All small school systems reported they transported ndicapped students in station wagons. d) Regular School Buses Data indicate all state departments of education, rge school systems, and small school systems transported 1dicapped students to and from school in the regular 1001 bus. e) Other Additional data provided by respondents through : Open—ended portion Of this item follows: Eightstate departments of education reported ,ng automobiles, taxis, limousines, and the services private contractors for transporting handicapped dents. Two large school systems transported handicapped dents by taxis and family automobiles, while four e systems used regular school buses with a lift vator) attached to the side. Two small school systems used taxis, while two rs used a step van and a lift bus. Two advisory group members reported that no ion wagons or taxis should be used for the transpor— On Of handicapped students. One member recommended 143 carry—all vehicle equipped with a center isle. Another mber recommended using a regular school bus that had en modified. V Table 44 presents the percentages Of responses of ate departments Of education and randomly selected hool systems to the following item: Does your state school system require all vehicles (with the exception station wagons) to be painted National School Bus ossy—Chrome Yellow for transporting handicapped stu— BEE? (Item 47) The data in Table 44 indicate that 55.6 per cent the state departments of education required all iicles to be painted National School Bus Glossy—Chrome Llow. Seventy and six—tenths per cent of the state Dartments Of education recommended this practice for . vehicles except the station wagon. Table 44 further reveals that 87.5 per cent the large school systems required all vehicles (with exception of station wagons) to be painted National 001 Bus Glossy—Chrome Yellow, and 94.1 per cent of large systems recommended this practice. Table 44 shows that 76.9 per cent Of the small 01 systems required all vehicles to be painted 'Onal School Bus Glossy—Chrome Yellow, and 84.6 per of the small school systems reported this as a mmended practice. 144 3 44.—-States and school systems requiring all :les (with the exception Of station wagons) to be :ed National School Bus Glossy—Chrome Yellow for transporting handicapped students Respondents Depifimznts Large SChOOl Small School Of Education Systems Systems 55.6 70 6 87 5 94 l 76 9 84 6 44 4 29 4 12 5 5 9 23 1 15 4 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 145 Table 45 presents the percentage Of responses of ate departments of education and randomly selected hool systems to the following item: Does your state school system require a special door Opening on the ht side of the carry-all, no less than forty-eight hes in width? (Item 48) The data in Table 45 indicate that 48.5 per cent the state departments of education required a special r no less than forty—eight inches in width that Opens the right side of the carry-all. Eighty—five and ven—tenths per cent Of the state departments of edu— .ion recommended this requirement. Of the large school systems, 46.2 per cent uired this special door and 69.2 per cent recommended h a requirement. Sixteen and seven—tenths per cent Of the small 301 systems had the same requirement. One—half of small school systems recommended this practice. Table 46 presents the percentage of responses state departments of education and randomly selected >01 systems to the following item: DO all ramps used loading and unloadipg students require sufficient angth and rigidity to support a wheel chair, occupant, attendant? (Item 49) Table 46 shows that 80 per cent of the state rtments of education required that all ramps used 146 45.——States and school systems requiring a special Opening on the right side Of the carry—all, no less than forty—eight inches in width Respondents D State Large School Small School epartments S stems S stems Of Education y y C R C R C R 48.5 85 7 46.2 69.2 16.7 50 0 51.5 14 3 53 8 30 8 83 3 50 O Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y — Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 147 E 46.—-States and school systems having loading and ading ramps meeting sufficient strength and rigidity irements to support a wheel chair, occupant, and attendant Respondents State “saris“ “assists“ of Education C R C R C R 80.0 100.0 66.6 93.8 44.4 90 9 20.0 33.3 6.2 55.6 9.1 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in :ent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 148 loading and unloading students have sufficient ength and rigidity to support a wheel chair, occupant, attendant. All Of the state departments of education ommended this practice. Of the large school systems, 66.7 per cent indi- d that they required all ramps to have sufficient ngth and rigidity to support a wheel chair, occupant, attendant. This requirement was recommended by per cent Of the large school systems. Forty—four and four—tenths per cent of the small 01 systems required all ramps to have sufficient ength and rigidity to support a wheel chair, occupant, attendant and 90.9 per cent of the small systems Immended this requirement. Table 47 presents the percentage Of responses tate departments Of education and randomly selected 31 systems to the following item: Is all power lift ament required to be Of sufficient capacity to lift eel chair and the occgpant? (Item 50) Table 47 indicates that 80.6 per cent of the : departments Of education required all power lift ment to be of sufficient capacity to lift a wheel and the occupant. All Of the state departments nended this standard. Seventy-seven and eight—tenths per cent Of the systems required all power lift equipment to be Of .q .J 149 “ 47.--States and school systems requiring power lift ament to be Of sufficient capacity to lift wheel chair and the occupant Respondents State Of Education Y Y C R C R C R 80.6 100.0 77.8 100.0 50.0 90.0 19.4 22.2 50.0 10.0 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y ant = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in ; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 150 icient capacity to lift a wheel chair and the occu— Again this was recommended by all large school ems . One—half of the small school systems required power lift equipment to be of sufficient capacity ift a wheel chair and the occupant, and 90 per cent he small school systems recommended this requirement. Table 48 presents the percentage Of responses tate departments Of education and randomly selected 01 systems to the following item: Does your state or 01 system require all special equipment to be con— cted Of sufficient strength and rigidity to support handicapped student? (Item 51) Data presented in Table 48 indicate that 74.2 per of the state departments of education required all .al equipment to be of sufficient strength and [ity to support the handicapped students. All Of tate departments of education recommended this ice. Of the large school systems 82.6 per cent red that all special equipment be of sufficient Jth and rigidity. The above was recommended by all school systems. Fifty—five and six—tenths per cent Of the small systems required all special equipment to be Of ient strength and rigidity to support the 151 .E 48.——States and school systems requiring all special .pment to be of sufficient strength and rigidity to support the handicapped student Respondents State Departments Large EChOOl Smaél EChOOl of Education ys ems YS ems C R C R C R 74.2 100.0 82.6 100.0 55.6 88.9 25 8 17.4 44.4 11.1 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in cent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 152 indicapped student. Eighty—eight and nine—tenths per ant Of the small school systems recommended this 'actice. Table 49 presents the percentage Of responses ‘ state departments Of education and randomly selected hool systems to the following item: Does your state _gghool system require vehicles carrying handicapped udents to have two—way radios? (Item 52) The data in Table 49 indicate that none Of the ate departments Of education required vehicles carry— ; handicapped students to have two—way radios. Seventy— ree and three—tenths per cent of the state departments education supported this recommendation. Three and one—tenth per cent Of the large school stems indicated having two—way radios, while sixty—one l nine—tenths per cent recommended this practice. Sixteen per cent Of the small school systems juired vehicles to have two-way radios, and 61.5 per it Of the small systems supported this recommendation. Table 50 presents the percentage Of responses State departments Of education and randomly selected 001 systems to the following item: A£§_apy_yghiglg§ tying handicapped students equipped with two—way ios? (Item 53) Table 50 shows that 60.6 per cent Of the state artments Of education had some vehicles carrying 41...... in. a... V, 1.. 153 E 49.——States and school systems requiring vehicles arrying handicapped students to have two—way radios Respondents State Departments Largesfgggol Smaélsigfigol of Education y y C R C R C R - 73.3 3.1 61.9 16.0 61.5 100.0 26.7 96.9 38.1 84.0 38.5 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y = Yes; N = NO; C = Current Practices expressed in R - Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. :ent; 154 LE 50.—-States and school systems having vehicles which ry handicapped students equipped with two—way radios ReSpondents State Lasers? ”saris“ of Education Y y C R C R C R 60 6 78 6 10.7 70 0 l3 6 63 6 39 4 21 4 89.3 30 0 86 4 36 4 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y — Yes; N - NO; C = Current Practices expressed in cent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 155 andicapped students equipped with two—way radios. eventy—eight and six—tenths per cent of the state epartments recommended two—way radios. Of the large school systems reporting, 10.7 per ent had some vehicles equipped with two—way radios. eventy per cent Of the large school systems recommended 1is equipment. Only thirteen and sintenths per cent Of the nall school systems had vehicles equipped with two—way adios. Sixty—three and six—tenths per cent of the small :hool systems recommended this practice. Table 51 presents the percentage Of responses of .ate departments of education and randomly selected ‘hOOl systems to the following item: Does your state school system require vehicles carrying handicapped udents to use restraining devices whenever the vehicle in motion? (Item 54) The data in Table 51 indicate that 47.2 per cent the state departments Of education required vehicles rrying handicapped students to use restraining devices enever the vehicle is in motion. Eighty—four and six~ nths per cent of the state departments recommended this acedure. Table 51 shows that 46.9 per cent Of the large 1001 systems required vehicles to use restraining Vices, and 73.7 per cent of these systems recommended .5 practice. LE 51.—-States and school systems requiring vehicles tying handicapped students to use restraining devices whenever the vehicle is in motion Respondents State Waugh? Smears“ of Education y y C R C R C R 47.2 84.6 46.9 73 7 32.0 75 0 52.8 15 4 53.1 26.3 68 0 25 0 Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. N — NO; C = Current Practices expressed in Y = Yes; Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. cent; R = 157 The figures in the table reveal that 32 per cent the small school systems required the use Of restrain— g devices whenever the vehicle is in motion, and three— urths of the small school systems recommended this quirement. Table 52 presents the percentage of responses state departments of education and randomly selected 1001 systems to the following item: How often does 1r state or school system require inSpection Of school 1ic1es transporting handicapped students? (Item 55) : following includes no special requirement, annual semi—annual inspections. a) NO Special Requirement One state department of education did not uire any inspection. Three large school systems did not require any pection Of these vehicles. Two small school systems did not require any pection Of school vehicles transporting the handicapped. b) Annual School Vehicle Inspection Twelve state departments Of education required annual inspection. Fourteen large school systems required an annual >ection, and nine small school systems required an ’ lal inspection Of vehicles transporting handicapped .ents. 158 uncommon OZ m oncomwou oz H duos no m e OMOE no N OH OHOE no N m N HH N m N OH H m H VH H NH osoz N osOZ m ocoz H “wow Mom snow mom snow Mom mGOHuoommsH M>wmm mQOHpoommSH M>ww< mCOHuOOchH mw>wmm no .02 w. no .02 m z no .02 COHumosom mo mfiopmmm mEOpmhm mucofipnmmoo Hoosom HHmEm Hoozom OOHMH oumum mpGOOSpm pommmOHpsmn OGHpnommcme WOHOHQO> Hoonom mo soHuoommsH OHOOHHOQ OCHHHDOOH mEOpmmm Hoo£Om Ugo monoumvy.Nm mqmma 159 c) Semi—Annual School Vehicle Inspection Eighteen state departments Of education had semi—annual inspections, while six large school systems and eleven small systems required semi—annual inspection Of vehicles carrying handicapped students. d) Other Additional data provided by respondents through the open—ended portion Of this item were presented below: Five state departments of education indicated they had inspection once per month for school vehicles transporting handicapped students. One state department reported motor vehicle inspection three times per year. Two large school systems indicated daily inspections, and four large systems reported a weekly inSpection. Three large systems reported bus inSpections ance per month and three reported inspections every three nonths. Among three small school systems there was a ionthly inSpection, an inspection three times per year, 1nd an inspection every six weeks. Two advisory members indicated daily inspections, Lwo recommended semi—annual inspections, and two recom— ended a monthly inspection. Table 53 presents the percentage Of responses of tate departments Of education and randomly selected 160 TABLE 53.——States and school systems requiring vehicles transporting handicapped students to meet inspection requirements that are different from regular school buses Respondents State Large School Small School Departments Systems Systems of Education C R C R C R Y 2 9 18.7 3 8 N 97 1 81.2 96 2 Key: Due to rounding, the totals may not always equal 100 per cent. Y — Yes; N = No; C = Current Practices expressed in per cent; R = Recommended Practices expressed in per cent. 161 school systems to the following item: Is the vehicle inspection different from regular school bus inspections? (Item 56) Table 53 shows that 2.9 per cent of the state departments Of education required inspection for vehicles transporting handicapped students to be different from that Of regular school buses. Eighteen and seven—tenths per cent of the large school systems reported that vehicles transporting handi— capped students should have a different inspection from that required Of regular school buses. Of the small school systems 3.8 per cent required inspection for vehicles carrying handicapped students to be different from that required Of regular school buses. Additional data provided by reSpondents through the Open-ended portion Of this item are presented below: How is Inspection Different from Regular School Bus Ingpection? Two state departments Of education reported that special equipment on vehicles transporting the handicapped was inspected each day. One state department of edu— cation indicated that the inspection was performed by the state department Of transportation each month. Three large school systems indicated a daily inspection by the driver, and two systems reported weekly inspections of ramps and first aid kits in addition to the regular school bus inSpection, 162 Three advisory group members recommended a care— ful check of lifts, ramps, restraining devices, and other equipment, and that all vehicles transporting handicapped students should have their interiors checked daily. Table 54 presents the percentage of responses of state departments Of education and randomly selected school systems to the following item: Estimate the total number of handicapped students transported in your state or school system? How many drivers and vehicles are specifically used to transport these students? Not all state departments Of education, large school systems, and small school systems responding to the questionnaire, answered all of the above items. Estimated Number of Handicapped Students Transported (Item 12) Twenty—four state departments of education esti— mated that 303,908 handicapped students are transported daily. This ranged from 50 students in Kansas, to 30,000 students in the state of Ohio. Thirty—two of the large school systems estimated that 9,401 handicapped students were transported each day. The reported daily range Of handicapped students trans— ported was a low Of 12 students in Las Cruces, New Mexico to a high of 2,300 students in (Prince George County) Upper—Marlboro, Maryland. 163 0H on H maH on H 000.0 on m .000: moHOH£o> mo HOQEOG mo omsmm m0 mms 00m.HH ANHHMQO .mocoespm UOQQMOHOQMQ whommcmnp Op poms NHHOOHMHOOQm mOHOH£o> mo HODESZ 0H on H mHH on H 000.0 on m .eoan muo>HMU mo HOOEUC mo omcmm 00 B00 ~00.MH “NHHmaO .mocoesom cognac IHOGOQ uuommsouu Ou OOHHQ NHHOOHwHoomm mHo>HHO mo HODESZ 000 on 0H 000.N on NH 000.00 on om “NHHMQO .eoonommqmuo mHQOOSpm UOQQOOHOCma wo omcmm me.m Hov.m wom.mom .pounom stwhp mpcopdum pmmmoo LHcsms mo HOQEDC OomeHpmm wm.0a wa.00 WH.00 mnqoeaonmom no ommoqoonom mN Nm VN mucopcommom Hmuoe meumhm mambmmm MMMWWMMWWOMO OO 0 as oo o omum H a m HH m H n m H oumum mucopsuw omoau whommcmnu Op cows NHHMOHMHoomm mOHOH£o> Ugo mHo>HHU mo Hones: pumeHumo s< unspm zoom CH MHHOU counommsmsu muswpsum UOQQMOHOCMS mo HOQEOG noun .Ewummw Hooaom can EHumo s< 22222 Does your state department require any pro-service instruction (class— room or in-the-bus) before the applicant starts driving the bus? Y N Y N If yes, how many hours of instruction does he receive? What kind of instruction does he receive? Does your state provide in-service instruction for drivers trans- porting handicapped students? Y N Y N If yes, does the driver receive this in-service instruction every year? Y N Y N If not yearly, how many hours of instruction does he receive? Does your state require the basic Red Cross First Aid Course for all drivers Y N Y N If question #6 is no, skip question #7. Does your state require drivers transporting handicapped students to take the Advanced Red Cross First Aid Course? Y N Y N Does your state require all drivers to take the National Safety Council's Driver Improvement or Defensive Driving Course? Y N Y N Does your state have an administrative guide, (manual) to provide y N Y N the driver with the basic knowledge of pupil transportation? If question 09 is no, skip question #10. 10. ll. 19. 21. CURRENT snowman PRACTICES PRACTICES Does the guide have a unit or section pertaining to the handicapped student? Y N y N Does your state permit handicapped students to be transported by re- gular school buses? Y N y N f yes. are there any problems mixing students? Y N Y N Please list some of the problems. "hat is the total number of handicapped (physically, mentally and emotionally disturbed) students transported in your state? (estimate) How many drivers are hired specifically to transport handicapped students in your state? (estimate) How many vehicles are used specifically to transport handicapped students in your state (estimate) Does your state cooperate with the state licensing agency to es- tablish school bus operator qualifications? Y N Y N Does the state licensing agency require the applicant to pass, in addition to the regular written test, supplemental questions deal— ing with information required to properly operate a school vehicle? Y N Y N Does your state require on-road tests for a license to Operate school vehicles? Y N Y N If yes, is the test given in the bus the driver will use or of equivalent size? Y N Y N Does your state provide certification to all drivers who have successfully completed all courses of instruction to meet the standards set by the state department of education? Y N Y N -- SELECTION OF DRIVERS -- Do all new applicants complete an application form when applying for employment? Y N Y N If yes, please enclose a copy of your form. Does your state require the following information in addition to the basic application? Y N Y N a. Personal application? Y N Y N b. A check of the applicant's driving record? Y N Y N c. Fingerprint check? Y N Y N d. Other: specify Does your state require each school bus driver applicant to pass a medical examination before being employed to transport handicapped N y N students? If yes, please enclose the form used. (Example -- A.M.A. Medical Form) CURRENT RECOMMENDED PRACTICES PRACTICES 22. Does your state require each school bus driver applicant to pass a visual examination before being employed to transport handicapped students? Y N Y N 23. May the visual examination in your state be performed by either a licensed physician or a licensed optometrist? Y N Y N 24. Does your state require a tuberculosis test? Y N Y N If yes, check -- X-ray ; Tuberculin test 25. Does your state require all medical examinations to be performed by licensed physicians? Y N Y N 26. Does the medical form used by your state require the physician to certify that the driver is medically qualified to transport students? Y N Y N If yes, are the medical requirements different for drivers transporting handicapped students? Y N Y N 27. Who is expected to defray the cost of the driver applicant medical examination in your state? 28. After the initial medical and visual examination, how often does the driver report for re-examination? (Please check) Physical: One year Visual: One year Two years Two years Other Other 29. What are the age limits for drivers transporting handicapped students in your state? Minimum Maximum 30. would you suggest a change in the age limits? Y N If yes, what change? Why the change? -- INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS -- 31. Does your state use qualified instructors to prepare drivers trans- porting atudents to and from school? Y N Y N If yes, please list the standards that your state has adopted for qualified instructors. (Please enclose any materials) 32. 39. 40. 41. CURRENT RECOMMENDED PRACTICES PRACTICES Y Y Who is responsible for the preparation and training of drivers transporting handicapped students in your state? a. State Department of Education? b. Local school system? c. Other: specify 22 r- e Ndfldwflfl 2222222 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 21.7 Does your school system require emergency evacuation drills on all vehicles transporting handicapped students? If yes, how many times during the year? Please list any other recommendations that should be adopted in emergency evacuation drills. Does your school system require all drivers to successfully complete a final examination at the end of the course? Does your school system require the driver to take a road test at the completion of the course in the vehicle used for transporting handicapped students, or one of equivalent size? If yes, please enclose road test form and other materials used in the program. -- VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT -- Does your school system have minimum standards with respect to vehicles constructed or modified for transportation of handicapped students? (8 to 23 passengers) Please check the type of vehicle(s) used in your school system for transporting handicapped students: a. Compact buses b. Carry-all c. Station wagons d. Regular school bus e. Other: specify Does your school system require all vehicles (with the exception of station wagons) to be painted National School Bus Glossy-Chrome Yellow for transporting handicapped students? Does your school system require a special door opening on the right side of the carry-all, no less than 48 inches in width? Do all ramps used for loading and unloading students require suffi- cient strength and rigidity to support a wheel chair, occupant and attendant? Is all power lift equipment required to be of sufficient capacity to lift a wheel chair and the occupant? Does your school system require all special equipment to be con- structed of sufficient strength and rigidity to support the handi- capped student? CURRENT RECOMMENDED PRACTICES PRACTICES Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 52. 218 Does your school system require vehicles carrying handicapped stu- dents to have two-way radios? If yes, skip question I49. Are any vehicles carrying handicapped students equipped with two- way radios Does your school system require vehicles carrying handicapped stu- dents to use restraining devices whenever the vehicle is in motion? How often does your school system require inspection of school vehicles transporting handicapped students? (Please check) a. No special requirement b. Annual c. Semi-annual d. Other: specify Is this inspection different from regular school bus.inspectians? If yes, how is it different? CURRENT RECOMMENDED PRACTICES PRACTICES Y N N N N N N APPENDIX C LETTERS SENT TO STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND TO RANDOMLY SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS .APPEflflDIX Ci Handicap Transportation Survey January 9, 1973 Dear Sir: As a part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, I am attempting to identify the current and recommended practices in the transportation of handicapped students in your state. If you will take a few minutes from your busy sched- ule to complete the enclosed questionnaire it will be greatly appre- ciated. The questionnaire is concerned with the administration, selec- tion and education of drivers transporting handicapped students to and from school. Kindly answer each question pertaining to your state's program in pupil tranSportation. Your cooperation and response hopefully will provide the neces— sary data to eventually improve upon current programs. I will be happy to forward to you an abstract of the study when it is completed. Enclosed please find a self-addressed, stamped envelope for returning the completed questionnaire. Sincerely yours, Wafi/Aflw Danniel E. Della-Giustina Graduate Assistant Room 72 - Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 219 . 220 _ Handicap Transportation Survey January 9, 1973 Dear Sir: As part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, I am attempting to identify the current and recommended practices in the transportation of handicapped students in your school system. If you will take a few minutes from your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire it will be greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is concerned with the administration, select- ion and education of drivers transporting handicapped students to and from school. Kindly answer each question pertaining to your school system's program in pupil transportation. Your cooperation and response hopefully will provide the neces- sary data to eventually improve upon current programs. I will be happy to forward to you an abstract of the study when it is completed. Enclosed please find a self-addressed, stamped envelope for returning the completed questionnaire. Sincerely yours, gee/X fizz/flees; Daniel E. Della-Giustina Graduate Assistant Room 72 - Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS FROM STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION APPENDIX D Mr. Lewis McGee, Consultant School Transportation State Dept. of Education Montgomery, Alabama 36104 J. L. Eidson Supervisor of School Trans. State Dept. of Education Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dr. Stanley McDougall Field Representative of Pupil Transportation State Dept. of Education Sacramento, California 95814 Dr. James Naughton, Consultant Transportation State Dept. of Education P.0. Box 2219 Hartford, Connecticut 06115 John F. Dial, Jr., Administrator School Transportation State Dept. of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henry Imanaka State Program Administrator Student Transportation State Dept. of Education 1037 S. Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Ralph L. Sarto Director, Pupil Transportation Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 316 South 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62702 Jack L. Summe, Consultant Sch. Traffic Safety Educ. Div. State Dept. of Public Instr. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Arthur Roberts, Director Transportation Division State Dept. of Public Instr. Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Harold Pellegrino, Asst. Director of Highway Safety Kansas Highway Comm. Topeka, Kansas 66612 Paul E. Jones, Assistant Director Division of Pupil Trans. State Dept. of Education Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Louis J. Michot, Supervisor School Transportation State Dept. of Education Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Robert Hasenfus, Consultant Pupil Transportation State Dept. of Education Augusta, Maine 04330 Bennie C. Hartman, Specialist in Transportation State Dept. of Education P.O. Box 8717 Baltimore, Maryland 21240 George J. Collins Assistant Commissioner School Facilities and Related Services State Dept. of Education Boston, Massachusetts 02116 221 222 Harold B. Wagner, Supervisor Pupil Transportation Section State Dept. of Education lensing, Michigan 48902 George W. Blin, Assistant Director of Transportation State Dept. of Education 400 Centennial Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Walter L. Corban, Assistant Supervisor Pupil Transportation P.0. Box 771 State Dept. of Education Jackson,.Mississippi 39205 Wayne F. Haefer EMpil Transportation Supervisor Office of the Supt. of Public Instruction Helena, Montana 59601 James H. Menath, Director of logistical Support Services Branch State Dept. of Education Carson City, Nevada 89701 Orville G. Parrish, Director Bureau of Transportation State Department of Education 225W. State Street Thenton, New Jersey 08625 C.B. Lemon, Director School Tran5portation State Dept. of Education Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Delphos S. Dark, Director of Transportation State Board of Education State Dept. of Public Instruction Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Donald Day, Consultant Administrative Services State Dept. of Education 410 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard R. Ahola, Associate Bureau of Special School Business Management Services State Dept. of Education Albany, New York 12224 J.T. Carlson, Director School Transportation State Dept. of Public Instr. 1708 Eighth Street Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 Hanford L. Combs, Chief Pupil Transportation State Department of Education 65 S. Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Frank Duke, Administrator TranSportation State Dept. of Education Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Jack Sperr, Director of Transportation Oregon Board of Education Salem, Oregon 97310 223 John F. McElhany, Chief Lewis Bloom, Consultant for Division of Transportation Facilities and Transportation Bureau of School Administrative office of the State Super— Services intendent of Public Instr. State Department of Public Olympia, Washington 98501 Instruction Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17123 Charles H. Keehan, State Director of Driver Education and Ralph M. Hendrix, Director Transportation Schoolhouse Building State Dept. of Education Planning and Transport Charleston, West Virginia 25305 State Department of Education Rutledge Building Del A. Kobs Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Pupil Transportation Supervisor State Dept. of Public Instr. Elwin R. Schmidt, Consultant 126 Langdon Street School Transportation Madison, Wisconsin 53701 State Department of Public Instr. Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Ernest Farmer, Coordinator Pupil Transportation State Department of Education Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Duane Carr Statistical Analyst and Transportation State Board of Education 1400 University Club Building 136 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Edward L. Ryan, Chief Education Field Service State Dept. of Education State Office Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 R.A. Bynum Supervisor of Pupil Trans. State Board of Education RiChmond, Virginia 23216 APPENDIX E LETTERS SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY GROUP ‘Jla i ll {1 APPENDIX E March 8, 1973 Dear: As part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University I am conducting a research evaluation of current and recommended practices in the school transportation of handicapped students. In a recent telephone conversation, Mr. Dave Soule, United States Department of Transportation, recommended I ask you to serve as a member of a jury of experts to evaluate current practices and make recommendations for improvements in transportation methods, because of your active leadership in the area of school trans— portation. In the near future the compkated survey results will be mailed to you if you agree to be a member of this jury. I would like to have you make a critical evaluation of current practices, and make recommendations significant to the specific field of transporting handicapped students. I hope, and Mr. Soule agrees, that these research results and recommendations from the jury members could lead to a better, more safe program for transportation of handicapped students on the national level. Your cooperation will be deeply appreciated in this important study. Sincerely, Daniel E. Della—Giustina Graduate Assistant Traffic Safety Center Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 224 225 Dear : Recently I asked for your assistance in a nationwide survey to identify current and recommended practices in transporting handicapped students to and from school. As one of six members of the panel, it is hoped that you will take a few minutes from your busy schedule to com— plete the enclosed questionnaire pertaining to Recommended Practices. Most questions are applicable to those drivers transport— ing mentally, physically, and emotionally handicapped stu— dents. Please circle the letter under the column Recom— mended Practices that you think should or should not be a recommended practice for a school system. Any additional comments or recommendations you can make would be deeply appreciated. On completion of the study, I will be most happy to send you an abstract of our findings. Please return the question— naire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Daniel E. Della—Giustina Room 72, Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing, MICHIGAN 48823 Enclosure APPENDIX F LIST OF ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS APPENDIX F ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS David Soule Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 7th and D Streets, S.W. Washington, D.C. A.E. Florio, Ph.D. Professor, Safety Education University of Illinois Department of Health & Safety Education Champaign, Illinois Lilian Seymour, Chairman Education and Information California Association for Neurologically Handicapped Children 11291 McNab Street Garden Grove, california 226 Floyd D. Smith, Ph.D. Director of Transportation Services Oakland County Schools 2100 Pontiac Lake Road Pontiac, Michigan Orville G. Parrish Director of Pupil Transportation Department of Education 225 West State Street Trenton, New Jersey Thaddeus Budynikiewicz Director, Health Physical Ed— ucation & Transportation Chicopee Public Schools Chicopee, Massachusetts APPENDIX G FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND TO RANDOMLY SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS -———— APPENDIX G Handicap Transportation Survey February 17, 1973 Dear Sir: A few weeks ago I mailed you a questionnaire requesting your aid in a survey to determine the current and recommended practices for transporting handicapped students to and from school. This request may have come at a time when you were extremely busy and thus unable to complete the questionnaire. Your answers Will have significant bearing on the outcome of the study. I have enclosed another questionnaire in case you may have failed to re- ceive or misplaced the one previously mailed. I have also included a self-addressed, stamped enve10pe for returning the completed questionnaire. I will be happy to send you a c0py of the results if you would 80 indicate on your questionnaire when you return it. Thank you for your consideration. ReSpectfully, fm/z 45.2/4444.45... Daniel E. Della-Giustina Graduate Assistant Room 72 - Kellogg Center Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 227 APPENDIX H A GRAPH SHOWING RETURNS OF QUESTIONNAIRE mm H Hmunma QUIBOHHOM wnomwn Umppflendm mGHDDmH kuoa * MMGDmmmm Hmwmwb m m N H l O O H u>c>¢' ©