Summary of Seclusion and Restraint Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Guidance, by State and Territory: Information as Reported to the Regional Comprehensive Centers and Gathered from Other Sources (ms word)

Republic of Palau

The Palau Ministry of Education (MOE) does not have written policies or procedures in place governing use of “isolated restraint or physical time out.” Some elementary schools, however, may allow isolated nonphysical restraint and physical time out as a means of maintaining discipline in classrooms or as a means of punishment. At high school, current practice includes escorting a student to the principal’s office, and parents are contacted immediately. If necessary, the police department is also contacted. The principal, vice principal, or another school staff supervises the student until the parent arrives.

Pennsylvania

Statutes	Regulations	Policies	Guidance	Future Plans
22 Pa. Code § 14.133 (Education; State Board of Education; Miscellaneous Provisions; Special Education Services and Programs; IEP Positive Behavior Support http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter14/s14.133.html Title 22, Ch. 711 Charter School and Cyber Charter School Service and Programs for Children with Disabilities. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/022toc.html	Chapter 14 and 171 Regulations on Restraint apply to all public schools, including charter schools and cyber charter schools. Regulations also include some language on use of seclusion. More comprehensive regulation on seclusion to be developed using Illinois example as model.	Guidance is included in PaTTAN training on Positive Behavior Support	Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) on Behavior: http://www.pattan.net/teachlead/Behavior.aspx Positive Behavior Support Plan-PaTTAN: http://www.pattan.net/teachlead/SpecialProjects1.aspx	Continue Training and Professional Development on Positive Behavior Support. Develop regulations regarding the use of seclusion. Training and information on use of seclusion will follow.

Chief or designee comments

“… Governor (Rendell) has proposed that Pennsylvania develop specific regulatory guidance on the use of seclusion. We have reviewed the Illinois Regulations and find they will be helpful to our work in this area.”

Additional information:

22 PA Code, Chapter 14, are Pennsylvania’s regulations governing educational programs for students with disabilities. Section 14.133, Positive Behavior Support, and other changes to Chapter 14 became effective July 1, 2008, and are a result of extensive stakeholder input. Following are some highlights of Pennsylvania’s regulations that relate to the issues in your message:

• 
  Pennsylvania’s regulations emphasize the use of positive rather than negative measures as the basis of behavior support.
  
• 
  Restraint is considered a measure of last resort, to be used only after other less restrictive measures.
  
• 
  The use of prone restraints is prohibited in educational programs.
  
• 
  When a positive behavior support plan is needed as part of a student’s IEP, it must be based on a functional behavioral assessment of the student.
  
• 
  Staff members must receive training in the implementation of a positive behavior support plan; any staff members who are permitted to use a restraint must receive training.
  

The May 19, 2009, Government Accountability Office Report on Seclusion and Restraint, which provides an analysis of states’ policies and procedures recognized Pennsylvania for having in place a number of measures to address these issues, including the following:

• 
  Pennsylvania is one of only four states currently collecting and reporting information on the use of restraints in educational programs.
  
• 
  Pennsylvania is one of 13 states that obtain consent, through the IEP process, prior to non-emergency use of restraints.
  
• 
  Pennsylvania is one of 17 states requiring staff training in the use of restraints.
  
• 
  Pennsylvania is one of only eight states prohibiting the use of prone restraints in educational programs.
  
• 
  The governor has proposed that Pennsylvania develop specific regulatory guidance on the use of seclusion.
  

Puerto Rico

No formal written statutes or guidance exist specifying procedures for the use of restraint and/or seclusion. To the contrary, when discussing these two procedures as a possible discipline mechanism for students, no one in Puerto Rico was familiar with these “techniques,” nor did anyone think the use of such procedures was pervasive in Puerto Rico. Considering this type of procedure to discipline children actually seemed like a foreign concept to interviewees, going against their cultural norms, possibly explaining the absence of legal guidance and operational procedures.

Findings

The Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE) does have several documents addressing the conduct of and disciplinary actions for teachers, regular education students, special education students and employees in residential programs serving students. While these documents clearly outline disciplinary procedures and their legal base in a detailed manner, they do not specifically speak to the use of student restraint and/or seclusion. The Act for Safeguarding of Minors in the 21st Century prohibits violence and abuse in public and private institutions, including schools, but does not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment.

Rather than describe when and how to apply the use of discipline tactics such as restraint and seclusion, procedural manuals in Puerto Rico clearly outline other procedural steps and time lines to be used for a full range of disciplinary infractions.

On page 114 of the PRDE Special Education Procedural Manual, it is noted that while PRDE recognizes and provides for the individualized educational and personal needs of all students, in the realm of disciplinary practices, the same set of practices are authorized for students with and without disabilities. However, an entity with the acronym COMPU is charged with reviewing discipline cases of students with disabilities to ascertain whether the discipline issue may be specifically related to the student’s disability. If that finding is determined, then COMPU may order further testing, a change of placement and alternative individualized plans for disabled students.

This section also indicates that a number of interested stakeholders, both individuals such as the school principal and groups such as the school-based Discipline Committee, are involved in reviewing disciplinary infractions and determining the appropriate response.