Student Transportation Services: A Review of Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2

January 2013 

Note: This is an accessible version provided for those using screen readers. 

Introduction

Easter Seals Project ACTION (ESPA) has a long history of supporting the tenets of the
Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that individuals have accessible transportation.
With a mission statement that reads: Our mission is to promote universal access to transportation for people with disabilities under federal law, ESPA’s work reflects the thinking
that accessible transportation is a continuum throughout peoples’ lives and across their
various roles, whether as a student in a school setting or an older adult accessing medical
appointments or community events. ESPA’s vision of the importance of transportation
throughout the lifespan is in part, the foundation for this information brief.

ESPA is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) and provides technical assistance for people with disabilities and transportation
and service communities. FTA encourages cross-agency collaboration and recognizes
the importance of learning and leveraging resources from other federal investments. The
opportunity to breakdown siloes is evident in ESPA’s student engagement work in which the
technical assistance center seeks to learn and build technical assistance supports to facilitate
the implementation of a continuum of services across education, pupil transportation, and
public transit sectors. To learn more about student engagement work, review the ESPA Fall
2012 Update newsletter at www.projectaction.org Click the News tab on the homepage to
read archived issues of the Update.

Photo: Picture of New York City Public Schools student traveling by transit bus.
Logos: Easter Seals Project ACTION, Easter Seals, Inc. and the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota.

ESPA’s work on student engagement at times relies on resources that are most relevant to
education audiences, such as the review of data in this brief from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences (IES). As the data from the NLTS2 Study pertains to the provision of transportation
services to students with disabilities, it becomes relevant to understanding the continuum of
transportation services that may be available to students in education settings. The knowledge
generated through analyses of this nature may set the foundation for future research that
examines how the provision of these schoolbased transportation services affects the
transition of students from school to post-school settings and beyond.

Data review and analysis for this information brief were conducted through a collaboration of
ESPA and the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota. Contributors
include Joe Timmons, Research Fellow, Institute on Community Integration, University of
Minnesota; Chris Opsal, Project Coordinator, Institute on Community Integration, University
of Minnesota; and Dr. Judy Shanley, Director of Administration for Community Living, Student
Engagement & Mobility Management Projects, Easter Seals Transportation Group.

Overview

In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report entitled
Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the
Transition from High School. The report found that students with disabilities “face several
longstanding challenges accessing services that may assist them as they transition from
high school into postsecondary education or the workforce” (p. 9), including “limited access
to reliable public transportation to and from employment programs and service providers”
(p. 13). Additionally, anecdotal evidence suggests that young people with disabilities are
less likely than their peers without disabilities to travel independently whenever they want, to
own or have access to automobiles, or to have drivers’ licenses. But little is known about the
transportation needs of and services provided to youth with disabilities. In fact, a recent literature search completed for this brief uncovered only one recent source that has systematically looked at issues related to transition-age youth and transportation—the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).

To improve knowledge and understanding of transportation services and transition-age
youth, this brief examines the publicly-available data from the NLTS2 related to students
with disabilities’ use of the transportation services provided by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a “related service.” IDEA related services constitute a
coordinated set of activities provided to a child with a disability. IDEA regulations require that
transportation services be included in this definition of related services (300.34 related
services). The textbox below elaborates on this definition of transportation services.

Information box: 
IDEA Regulations: Part 300/A/300.34/c/16 Transportation includes—
(i) Travel to and from school and between
schools;
(ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and
(iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if
required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability. (Authority: 20
U.S.C. 1401(26) ) Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2
Cregs%2C300%2CA%2C300%252E34%2C
c%2C16%2C

Specifically, this brief describes the patterns in how students with disabilities use transportation services over time, including after they exit K-12 education; considers how the use of transportation services varies by disability category; and examines NLTS2 data related to the service problems reported by families, broken down by household income. The brief offers implications of the NLTS2 data related to the use of transportation services by students with disabilities, and ends with a recommendation to researchers in education and pupil transportation to continue to explore the use of school transportation services by students with disabilities and how school transportation services can affect their use of school-based services during their transition to postschool settings and their attainment of postschool goals.

The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)
The NLTS2 was funded by the U.S. Department of Education from 2001 to 2009 to collect
longitudinal information about the experiences of students with disabilities as they moved from
high school to adult roles. The study looked at students’ coursework, extracurriculars, academic performance, college education and training, employment, independent living, and
participation in the community over the course of seven years, following youth into young
adulthood. Statistical summaries were generated and “generalized to students receiving special education nationally in this age group, [and] to each of the 12 federal special education
disability categories” (SRI International, 2011). NLTS2 findings were weighted to represent
youth with disabilities nationally as a group as well as youth in each federal disability category
(Cameto, 2005).

Specifically, the study:
•	Described the characteristics of secondary school youth in special education and their
households.

•	Described the secondary school experiences of youth in special education, including their schools, school programs, related services, and extracurricular activities.

•	Described the experiences of youth once they leave secondary school, including their
participation in adult programs and services, social activities, etc.

•	Measured the secondary school and postschool outcomes of youth in the education, employment, social, and residential domains.

•	Identified factors in youths’ secondary school and postschool experiences that contribute to more positive outcomes (SRI International, 2002).

The NLTS2 sample was followed for eight years in five “waves”—that is, every two years
contact was made with students and/or their parents, teachers, and transition professionals.
(Whenever the term “parent” is used, this includes legal guardian.) Surveys and interviews
were completed in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. The oldest subjects were 26 in the
last wave.

Information box: 
In the NLTS2, the term “transportation services for special needs” is used across waves of the study including while the student was both in school and out of school. However, it is not clear whether these services encompass those provided by schools or other entities, such as transit agencies.

NLTS2 Findings Regarding Student Transportation Services

In this brief, researchers examined data collected in Waves 1-4 of the NLTS2 about special
services, including transportation services, provided to students who were in school (Waves
1, 2, and 3) and students who had completed or left school early (Waves 3 and 4). All data is
from the NLTS2 Website: http://nlts2.org/.

In Wave 1, which was begun in 2001,over 9,000 parents agreed for their children participate in the study. These students were generally 14 to17 years old. To get a representative sample, 800-900 students were recruited in each of the nine most common disability categories as defined by IDEA: learning disability, emotional disturbance, mental retardation (note: term changed to “intellectual disability” after 2010) , speech impairment, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, autism, multiple impairments, and hearing impairment. Fewer students with visual impairments, traumatic brain injuries, and deaf/blindness—the remaining three disability categories covered by IDEA—were recruited for the study because of the relatively low incidence of these disabilities. Waves 2, 3, and 4 were follow-up surveys of Wave 1 students and parents who remained in the study; as in many longitudinal studies, a number of study subjects terminated their participation in the study somewhere along the way.

In Waves 1 and 2, parents were asked which of 16 special services their child received. As
indicated in Table 1, most services were used by fewer study participants as the students
aged (services A, C, D, E, H, I, J, K); only use of career counseling (P) went up significantly.
Although it is unclear why the use of these special services decreased as students aged,
it makes sense that as students get closer to leaving high school and thinking about jobs
and careers, more students would use career counseling services. These data are fairly similar
across disability groups.

As shown in Table 1, the percentage of students using special transportation services was stable from Wave 1 to Wave 2. This seems counterintuitive. We would expect that the use of
school transportation services would decrease when travel instruction and training is typically
provided as part of school-based transition services. However, use of school transportation
services did not decrease as students aged. It is possible that students were not gaining
the knowledge and skills to access non-school transportation services and thus remained reliant on school-provided services.

Table 1: Special Services Used by Students in School (Reported by Parents)

A. Speech/language therapy services  Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 25.7% 
Wave 2, 2003 In School N=6060: 17.6%
B. Audiology services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660:3.4% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 2.8%
C. Psychological health services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 31.6% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 23.9%
D. Physical therapy Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 9.2% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 6.3%
E. Social work services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 12.8% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 9.5%
F. Occupational therapy Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 12.1% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 13.6%
G. Orientation services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 1.7% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 2.6%
H. Diagnostic medical services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 23.5% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 18.9%
I. A personal assistant or in-home aide Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 28.8% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 23.8%
J. A tutor  Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 19.1% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 16.1%
K. A reader or interpreter Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 5.6% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 4.1%
L. Nursing care Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660:1.5% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 2.1%
M. Assistive technology services Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 6.7% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 6.8%
N. Transportation services for special needs Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 10.7% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 10.7%
O. Youth received respite care Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 2.3% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 2.7%
P. Career counseling Wave 1, 2001 in School N=8660: 19.8% Wave 2, 2003 in School N=6060: 36.4%

Photo: New York City Public Schools travel training program participant receiving a transit pass.  

In Wave 3 (see Table 2), there was a jump of almost 4% in reported use of special transportation services among students who remained in school. This jump was most
pronounced in the disability categories of mental retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. It may be that students with fewer significant disabilities (e.g., learning
disability, emotional disturbance) were able to use personal cars, public transportation, or
transportation provided by their peers or families to a greater extent; therefore, they were less
reliant on special transportation services than their peers with more significant disabilities.

Table 2: Transportation Services for Special Needs Used (Reported by Parents)

A.	All Students: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 10.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 10.7%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 14.6%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 5.6%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 4.1%
B.	Learning Disability: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 2.5%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 3.7%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 1.6%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 3.7%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 0.9%
C.	Speech impairment:  Wave 1, 2001 In School: 6.0%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 6.6%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 8.6%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 1.6%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 2.6%
D.	Mental Retardation: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 24.2%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 25.7%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 45.0%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 9.7%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 14.3%
E.	Emotional Disturbance: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 19.4%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 15.0%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 12.8%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 8.4%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 6.4%
F.	Hearing Impairment: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 27.6%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 26.5%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 21.1%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 5.7%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 3.7%
G.	Visual Impairment: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 36.1%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 41.9%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 50.7%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 23.0%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 26.4%
H.	Orthopedic Impairment:  Wave 1, 2001 In School: 48.2%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 45.3%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 48.8%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 23.5%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 17.8%
I.	Other Health Impairment: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 11.2%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 8.5%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 14.8%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 7.5%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 4.9%
J.	Autism: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 52.6%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 48.8%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 56.6%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 15.7%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 22.3%
K.	Traumatic Brain Injury: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 20.5%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 19.6%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 31.4%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 8.3%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 6.3%
L.	Multiple Disabilities: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 20.5%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 19.6%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 31.4%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 8.3%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 6.3%
M.	Deaf/Blindness: Wave 1, 2001 In School: 54.6%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 55.2%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 58.1%; Wave 3, 2005, Out of School: 31.2%; Wave 4, 2007, Out of School: 33.5%
For out-of-school youth in Waves 3 and 4, use of special transportation fell in nearly every
disability category. Because the definition of “special transportation” is unclear, it is difficult
to know whether services such as accessible public transportation or paratransit are
considered “special transportation” and thus part of the range of services students used. We
would expect that out-of-school youth striving for independence would not want to rely upon
special transportation services, especially if these services did not include accessible public
transit. However, because the range of services encompassed by “special transportation” is
not known, it is difficult to determine whether the decline in use of special transportation
is positive (i.e., students now use public transportation independently) or negative (i.e.,
students do not use any transportation services at all). It is also unclear whether the parents
responding to the NLTS2 interviewers had a consistent understanding of the definition of
“transportation services.” Therefore, across parents, there may have been inconsistent
reporting of the transportation supports that students received.

The NLTS2 also surveyed parents regarding the issues that affected their child’s receipt of
services. Parents were given a list of potential issues that could affect the provision of services
to their child, including challenges related to transportation services (Table 3). Families reported problems related to cost, service settings, access, quality, scheduling, time, eligibility, and information. In Waves 3 and 4 for out-of-school participants, there were marked reductions in issues related to quality and time for services, although there were jumps in reported service issues related to cost, settings, access, language, transportation, eligibility, and information.

Table 3 Service Problems Encountered in General (Reported by Parents) 

Cost of Services: Wave 1, 2001 In School 17.3%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 16.2%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 14.5%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 17.1%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 26.6%

Where Services are Provided:   Wave 1, 2001 In School 16.4%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 15.9%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 18.0%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 20.4%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 25.8%

Services Not Being Available: Wave 1, 2001 In School 22.9%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 25.0%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 22.7%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 23.2%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 31.4%

Poor Service Quality: Wave 1, 2001 In School 20.3%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 20.4%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 19.3%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 1.2%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 1.1%

Scheduling Conflicts: Wave 1, 2001 In School 18.1%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 16.3%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 18.4%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 18.8%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 23.7%

Language Problems: Wave 1, 2001 In School 4.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 5.4%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 5.4%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 12.0%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 19.0%

Lack of Time for Services: Wave 1, 2001 In School 14.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 11.8%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 11.7%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 4.4%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 4.5%

Transportation: Wave 1, 2001 In School 11.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 11.8%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 10.0%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 11.9%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 18.2%

Youth Not Being Eligible: Wave 1, 2001 In School 17.2%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 18.0%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 18.2%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 23.1%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 27.3%

Getting Information: Wave 1, 2001 In School 23.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 26.1%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 23.6%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 33.9%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 42.9%

Some disability groups (learning disabilities, speech impairments, hearing impairments, other
health impairments, autism) had moderate to no reported increases in service problems as
they aged. Youth in the other seven disability categories (mental retardation, emotional
disturbance, visual impairments, orthopedic impairments, TBI, multiple disabilities, deaf/
blindness) all had increased “problems”, including transportation, as they left school, as
reported in data from Wave 2 to Wave 3 and/or Wave 3 to Wave 4. It appears that young
people with less significant disabilities faced fewer service problems as they left school. This
may be attributable to many of these individuals leaving the “system” by finding employment,
attending postsecondary education, and getting drivers’ licenses and their own cars.  NLTS2 also disaggregated these data on reported service problems by household income. As shown in Table 4, families with household income under $25,000 tended to report problems with transportation two to three times more often than families with household income over $25,000. It is difficult to identify exactly why this difference exists, although it may be related to the ability of families with more means to have more options when it comes to transportation.

Table 4: Transportation Problems Broken Down by Household Income

Total: Wave 1, 2001 In School 11.7%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 11.8%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 10.0%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 11.9%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 18.2%

Less than $25,000: Wave 1, 2001 In School 19.9%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 19.8%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 19.6%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 17.1%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 27.4%

$25,001-$50,000: Wave 1, 2001 In School 9.2%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 8.6%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 6.4%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 6.5%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 11.2%

Greater than $50,000: Wave 1, 2001 In School 6.0%; Wave 2, 2003 In School 7.2%; Wave 3, 2005 In School 4.8%; Wave 3, 2005 Out of School 12.5%; Wave 4, 2007 Out of School 15.1%

Photo: Student traveler checking a New York City Transit bus schedule.

Discussion 

Based on the data presented above, we can
conclude that:

1. As students with less significant disabilities leave the public school system, their use of
“transportation services for special needs” drops off appreciably. This may be because they are more likely to know how to access and be able to use public transportation and/or are more likely to use personal automobiles.

2. As students leave the public school system, families report more problems accessing
transportation services. A moderate number of families initially reported problems with
accessing transportation but as their children got older, these problems increased, and
as in item 1 above, the more significant the disability, the more transportation was
reported as a problem.

3. Although not made explicit in NLTS2, it is important to consider the link between the
other service problems families reported and access to transportation. For instance,
for out-of-school youth, families reported more service problems associated with location and availability of services—and these problems could be related to access to transportation.

As with any data analysis, there are limitations to what can be concluded from this NLTS2 data. For instance, the variability in when students leave high school, the kinds of overall transition and service supports they receive, and their linkages with adult service systems may all influence their access to transportation when they leave school, but the NLTS2 data does not address these issues. In addition, the kinds of transportation supports that students receive while they are in school, including their receipt of travel instruction or transportation education, may influence their ability to access transportation services when they are no longer eligible for schoolbased services, although NLTS2 data does not confirm this. We were unable to identify
other studies that offered conclusions regarding transportation services provided in school
and services accessed by students when they leave school.

Implications

Consistent with the conclusions above, the following implications for policy and practice
can be offered: 
1. In-school youth with disabilities have more access to transportation services 
than out-of-school youth with disabilities. The requirement that schools provide transportation services to students with disabilities improves the ability of students to access services such as therapies, medical care, etc. Additionally, schoolbased transportation services may also
allow students to participate in work-related opportunities, such as work-based learning,
volunteering, etc. However, it is realistic to think that if students do not receive travel
instruction or transportation education supports around using non-specialized transportation while they are in school,when they leave school and are no longer eligible for school transportation services, transportation will be a challenge that can create barriers to employment, training, and independent living. This reality supports the practice of providing students with information and resources about community based transportation options throughout their education, even when they are using school provided transportation services.

2. Living in households with lower income appears to be strongly related to reported problems with transportation services, which worsen when youth are out-of-school. It may be that families of higher socioeconomic status have more transportation options, and therefore report transportation as a service problem less often. When implementing transportation services, it is
important to ensure the consistency and adequacy of services across geographic and
socioeconomic sectors. 

3. It is important for schools to provide information and training about transportation options that may be available when they leave school to students with a range of disabilities, including those with more significant disabilities.

4. As future research is conducted on the topic of transportation services for students with
disabilities, it is important for researchers to specifically define any variables related to
the nature and type of transportation services included in that research.

Photo: Two students waiting at a Washington State University-Vancouver transit stop.

Recommendations for Future Research

The topic of transportation services for students with disabilities, both in-school and out-of school,warrants further study. In addition to having a better understanding of the kinds of
transportation services students receive, it would be particularly important to analyze the kinds of transportation education and travel instruction services students receive while in school and
how these relate to their use of services when they leave school. Further understanding of how
the transportation services that students receive are integrated into transition planning would
help the field know how transportation does or does not affect transition and post-school
outcomes. This brief contributes to what we know about transportation services for transition age students with disabilities, but much more remains to be learned.

Photo: Young worker waiting at a bus stop in Tucson, Arizona.

References
Bluth, L. (2010). How to defend fully funding special-needs transportation. Torrence, CA:
School Bus Fleet. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/Channel/Special-Needs/
Articles/Print/Story/2010/02/How-to-Defend-Fully-Funding-Special-Needs-Transportation.aspx

Cameto, R. (2005). The transition planning process. NLTS2 Data Brief, 4(1). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.
asp?id=2130

Chambers, J. G., Parrish, T. B., & Lam, I. (2002). What are we spending on transportation services for students with disabilities, 1999–2000? Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED471940)

SRI International. (2002). NLTS2 frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/faq.html

SRI International. (2011). NLTS2 study design & methodology. Retrieved from
http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/index.html

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Students with disabilities. Better federal
coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school (GAO-12-594).
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-594

Information box: 
Institute on Community Integration
University of Minnesota
102 Pattee Hall
150 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 624-6300
www.ici.umn.edu

Statutory and Regulatory Language Related to Transportation in IDEA
1) Transportation as a Related Service
(300.34 Related services)
(a) General. Related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. Related services also include school health services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training.

(16) Transportation includes—
(i) Travel to and from school and between schools;
(ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and
(iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if required to
provide special transportation for a child with a disability. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(26))

2) Transportation regarding parentally placed private school
(Part 300/B/300.139/b).
(1) General.
(i) If necessary for the child to benefit from or participate in the services provided under
this part, a parentally-placed private school child with a disability must be provided
transportation—
(A) From the child’s school or the child’s home to a site other than the private school; and (B) From the service site to the private school, or to the child’s home, depending on the timing of the services.
(ii) LEAs are not required to provide transportation from the child’s home to the private school.
(2) Cost of transportation. The cost of the transportation described in paragraph (b)(1)
(i) of this section may be included in calculating whether the LEA has met the requirement of Sec. 300.133.

Statutory and Regulatory Language retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home, a U.S.
Department of Education Web site that includes the IDEA statute and regulations.

Funding Information:
This information brief was developed in collaboration by Easter Seals Project ACTION and
the University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration. Easter Seals Project ACTION (ESPA) is funded through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and is administered by Easter Seals, Inc. This information is disseminated by ESPA in the interest of information exchange. Easter Seals, the U.S. DOT, FTA, and the University of Minnesota do not assume liability for its content or use.

Photo credits: New York City Department of Education; Washington State University-
Vancouver; Arizona State Schools for the Deaf & Blind.

Publication date: 1/2013