Who Supervises the Children on the Bus

Case Study Analysis
Introduction
Parents and their children have the legal right to be free from danger in the school place environment, including school provided transportation (buses). In this case, Alice was sexually assaulted by Chris, a student with a known history of sexual assault. The usual attendant riding the bus was absent on the day of the assault and the school did not supply a replacement. Having a window of opportunity, Chris used it to assault Alice. The protective plan that the district was supposed to use was not enforced. For that reason, the plaintiffs have cause to sue.
The Parties
Alice and her parents are the plaintiffs and the school district is the defendant. The plaintiffs are suing for damages related to negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. The cause of the suit is the fact that the daughter was assaulted by a student during a period on the bus when there was no attendant even though there was a prevention plan in place for the student who did the assaulting. This indicates the duty was breached by the school district.
The Issue
The legal issues to be decided are whether the school district was negligent in not providing a substitute attendant or whether it was willful and demonstrated wanton misconduct. Duty, breach, causation and damages/injury are all to be considered as well. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that “each public agency must take steps, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity.” Services and activities include transportation—thus, according to federal law, the school district is responsible for having an aide on the bus at all times and especially this bus as there was a known sexual deviant on the bus. Moreover, parents should have been made aware of this risk. This has been demonstrated both in S.G. v. Rockford Board of Education and in Doe ex rel. Ortega-Piron v. the Chicago Board of Education. Moreover, federal law under IDEA stipulates that schools must provide adequate supervision of students.
The Arguments
The school district was negligent in not supplying a substitute bus attendant on the day that Alice was raped by Chris. As Dagget (2014) shows, schools are expected to provide “reasonable supervision of special students”—and the school district deliberately failed to do so on the day that the usual aide was absent. The fact that the school district did have an aide scheduled to the bus as part of its normal supervision operations shows that it was aware of its duty and was committed to fulfilling that duty. The problem occurred when the aide failed to present. Because it was not known whether the aide informed the school district of the absence ahead of time and thus the school district should have taken responsibility for filling the spot, the court cannot rule on this matter until sufficient evidence is presented. However, the fact that the bus driver proceeded without an aide should be indication enough of a clear violation of policy. The bus driver should have reported the absence of the aide—and whether this occurred or not is unknown. Therefore, this information needs to be provided. If the driver did report the absence and the school district proceeded to allow the driver to continue without an aid, this would indicate willful or wanton misconduct. If the school district made some attempt to fill the spot and could not, there may be an argument to be made for negligence and no more.
Analysis
This case echoes Doe ex rel. Ortega-Piron v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 820 N.E.2d 418, 420 (Ill. 2004), in which the school district failed to provide supervision on the bus on which a student with a known history of sexual deviance was riding. The said student assaulted a victim and the victim sued the school district for wanton misconduct. The school district sought to have the case dismissed on grounds that it was immune under section 4-102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act). The court initially affirmed the defendant’s argument and dismissed the case. The appeals court, however, affirmed the argument of the plaintiff—sufficient complaint was made that the school was not immune.
Another case S.G. v. Rockford Board of Education contained a similar problem, though here the sexual deviant was a student in a classroom and the school board was accused of not taking sufficient preventive care to see to it that the other students were protected. In both cases, the school was at fault as parents and their children have a reasonable right to be protected from harm while under the school’s supervision. If the school fails to provide that supervision, the parents have the duty and obligation to sue not only for damages but to ensure that the school mends its ways and takes its duties and responsibilities more seriously in the future to ensure that no similar incidents occur going forward (Daggett, 2013).
If the school district was not alerted to the absence of the aide, it may be found negligent in not having a policy in place to ensure that all absences were reported and addressed before school bus boarding could commence. If the district did know of the absence, it should be found guilty of wanton misconduct for allowing the school to proceed with boarding knowing full well it did not have an attendant there to assist with supervision.
Conclusion
The court should decide in favor of the plaintiffs as there was at least negligence on the part of the school district and most likely wanton misconduct as a prevention plan had been developed but clearly not adhered to. The difference will be in determining the policy in place for dealing with aide absences. Did the bus driver or aid not report the absence? Did the school district knowingly send the bus on without an aide? What is the degree of culpability? The answers to these questions need to be determined ultimately before judgment can be pronounced—but it is clear that the plaintiff’s suit has merit and will be awarded judgment.
References
Daggett, L. M. (2013). Reasonable supervision in the city: Enhancing the safety of
students with disabilities in urban (and other) schools. Fordham Urb. LJ, 41, 499.
Daggett, L. M. (2014). Reasonable supervision of special students: The impact of
disability on school liability for student injury. JL & Educ., 43, 303.
Doe ex rel. Ortega-Piron v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 820 N.E.2d 418, 420 (Ill. 2004).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2006). Retrieved from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
S.G. v. Rockford Board of Education (3:08-cv-50038).

Appendix
Administrative recommendations for this case would be for the school district to have a policy in place for filling absences of bus aides and ensuring that buses do not leave to pick up students without the bus aid being present. Should one not be present, the bus driver must make a call to the district to acquire an aid before departing. This is to ensure the safety of all students. The school district is responsible for supervision of students whenever the students are entrusted to the school, and this includes transportation times—not just school times. A school would not see fit to hold students in a classroom with a teacher—and neither should it see fit to hold students on a bus without an aid. A bus driver cannot monitor students and drive a bus at the same time. The aid is especially needed whenever a prevention plan has been developed for special needs students. In the case of Chris, a plan had been developed and that plan required the use of a bus aid to monitor activity at all times during transportation. That plan was not adhered to. In order for the school district to fulfill its duty under IDEA, it must adhere to plans and ensure the safety of all students whenever they are under the supervision of the district. Schools have a duty to supervise the school bus activities. If they do not they are negligent and can be held accountable for injuries sustained. There is a clear duty to protect children on the bus under federal law, and especially when a prevention plan is in place. Lack of supervision reveals a breach of duty and damages will inevitably be awarded should a suit follow.