6 EDCAL February 11, 2019
New laws limit behavioral restraints and seclusion
The following article was written by
Lozano Smith Partner Marcy Gutierrez,
and Associates Amanda Ruiz and Amanda
Cordova.
The California Legislature recently
passed a new law aiming to promote student
rights and safety by imposing limits on the
use of behavioral restraints and seclusion in
schools. Assembly Bill 2657, which prohib-
its the use of restraint or seclusion for any
student except in specified circumstances,
became effective on Jan. 1, 2019.
Current law
Existing law limits the use of seclusion
and restraints in schools for students with
exceptional needs. Specifically, California
school districts and nonpublic schools or
agencies serving individuals with exception-
al needs are prohibited from authorizing,
ordering, consenting to, or paying for certain
types of behavior interventions, including
electric shock, the release of toxic or nox-
ious sprays or mists, mechanical restraints,
except when mechanical restraints are used
by trained personnel as a limited emer-
gency intervention, or locked seclusion,
except when seclusion is used as specified.
Additionally, California law authorizes the
use of emergency interventions for students
with exceptional needs in limited circum-
stances.
California law also prohibits persons
employed by or engaged in a public school
from inflicting, or causing to be inflict-
ed, corporal punishment upon a student.
However, there are currently no other limi-
tations on the use of seclusion or restraints
for general education students.
New law
AB 2657 establishes a student’s right
“to be free from the use of seclusion and
behavioral restraints of any form imposed as
a means of coercion, discipline, convenience,
or retaliation by staff.” The legislation lim-
its the use of seclusion and behavioral
restraints, which include both mechani-
cal and physical restraints, for all students
and establishes parameters for situations
in which behavioral restraints or seclusion
may be used. Specifically, school districts
and nonpublic schools or agencies may use
a behavioral restraint or seclusion “only to
control behavior that poses a clear and pres-
ent danger of serious physical harm to the
pupil or others that cannot be immediately
prevented by a response that is less restric-
tive.”
The legislation also provides statutory
definitions for behavioral restraint, mechan-
ical restraint, physical restraint, and seclu-
sion for the first time in the Education
Code, adopted from the Office for Civil
Rights’ guidance on the use of restraint and
seclusion. Notably it states vehicle safety
restraints when used as intended during the
transport of a student in a moving vehicle
are not mechanical restraints, and physical
escorts are not physical restraints.
School districts and nonpublic schools or
agencies are prohibited from using a behav-
ioral restraint for longer than is necessary to
contain the behavior that poses a clear and
present danger of serious physical harm.
The legislation clarifies what types of inter-
ventions are not allowed, and emphasizes
the need to avoid restraints and seclusion
whenever possible. Specifically, it bans the
use of locked seclusion unless the facility
is otherwise licensed or permitted to use a
locked room, physical restraint techniques
that obstruct the student’s respiratory air-
way or impairs the student’s breathing or
respiratory capacity, behavioral restraints
that restrict breathing, and placing a student
in a facedown position with the student’s
hands held or restrained behind the stu-
dent’s back. A student placed in seclusion
must be under constant, direct observation
at all times.
Paid Advertisement
AB 2657 also requires school districts
and nonpublic schools or agencies to col-
lect and report data on the use of restraints
and seclusion to the California Department
of Education annually, no later than three
months after the end of the school year. The
report must include the number of students
subjected to mechanical restraint and the
number of times it was used, the number
of students subjected to physical restraint
and the number of times it was used, and
the number of students subjected to seclu-
sion and the number of times it was used.
The information must be disaggregated by
race or ethnicity, and gender, with separate
counts for students with an individual-
ized education program, students with a
504 plan, and students without an IEP or
504 plan. The legislation requires CDE to
annually post the data from the report on
its website within three months after the report is due to CDE.
POLL sage from voters to policymakers: Do
something about gun violence,” said Karen
Symms Gallagher, dean of USC Rossier,
in a release from PACE. “We have the
means and the expertise to prevent future
tragedies, including through the improve-
ment of social and emotional health. This
is some of the most important work that
policymakers can do, if they can put in the
time and energy the public wants them to.”
Gov. Newsom made Early Childhood
Education a strong emphasis during his
campaign. While those polled were gener-
ally supportive of the concept, as noted, they
ranked it lower on the scale of importance
compared to other educational issues.
It could just be that voters have yet to
understand the importance of ECE, and
have already been well aware of stories
about gun violence on school campuses and
the huge challenges some students face in
trying to pay for college, issues that have
been in the media many times.
As the report authors, Morgan S.
Polikoff, Heather Hough, Julie A. Marsh,
and David N. Plank, suggest in their conclu-
sion, “Voters are more interested in improv-
ing K-12 and higher education (especially
affordability) than they are in expanding
early learning opportunities, which suggests
that the governor and Legislature may need
to do a better job selling the importance of
that investment.”
“Recently, Getting Down to Facts 2
showed that substantial additional invest-
ments are needed in California to realize the
promise of recent reforms,” said Heather J.
Hough, executive director of PACE. “These
poll results show that California voters are
open to changes that would bring more
revenue into education, but that there isn’t
agreement on where to invest in the educa-
tional pipeline from ‘cradle to career’.”
Continued from page 1
quite low, voters remain enthusiastic and
supportive of the law.
• There was close to zero increase in
awareness and use of the California School
Dashboard, and awareness and use remain
low, even among parents. Voters prefer
the revamped Dashboard that was recently
launched over the previous version, and they
remain supportive of the ideas behind the
Dashboard.
• Perhaps because of their support for
high-profile education policies, voters are
somewhat more optimistic about the state
of California schools than they were last
year. This is especially true for parents.
• Voters strongly support teachers’
right to strike, even when presented with a
description emphasizing the possible nega-
tive consequences for students and their
families.
• Voters strongly support a proposed
constitutional amendment that is likely
to appear on the 2020 ballot that would
amend Proposition 13 to introduce annual
re-assessments for business and commercial
(but not residential) property.
• Voters are ambivalent about affirma-
tive action when it is described using that
name, but they are supportive of the idea
that students from different groups should
be given advantages in college admissions.
They are especially favorable to the idea
of offering admission preferences to low-
income students. They strongly oppose
offering admissions preferences to children
of donors, which many institutions now do.
The full report can be accessed on the
PACE website at http://bit.ly/2Bjq0jj.
“This poll sends an unmistakable mes-
Takeaways
School districts should note the new
limitations on the use of restraints and
seclusion for all students, effective Jan. 1,
2019. This legislation does not repeal or
replace existing laws that provide param-
eters and procedures for the use of seclu-
sion and restraint for students with excep-
tional needs. School districts should con-
sider updating their policies and procedures
relating to pupil discipline, in light of the
new rules for general education students,
while continuing compliance with existing
law related to seclusion or restraint that
applies only to students with exceptional
needs.
More information can be found at www.
lozanosmith.com.
www.acsa.org
Paid Advertisement