<h1>SENATE THIRD READING</h1><h1>STR Bill Id:SB 483</h1> Author:(Cortese)As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023Majority vote<h2>SUMMARY</h2>Prohibits the use of prone restraint by local educational agencies (LEAs), charter schools, nonpublic schools and agencies (NPS/A), and the State Special Schools for the Blind and the Deaf.<h3>Major Provisions</h3><ol><li>Eliminates the authorization to use prone restraint by trained personnel as a limited emergency intervention, thereby prohibiting an educational provider at LEAs, charter schools, NPS/As, and the State Special Schools for the Blind and the Deaf from authorizing, ordering, consenting to, or paying for the use of prone restraint, or any other interventions similar to or like prone restraint.</li><li>Amends the definition of prone restraint to include the application of a behavioral restraint on a student in a facedown position for any period of time, including the procedure known as prone containment.</li><li>Makes conforming changes.</li></ol><h2>COMMENTS</h2>Number of students restrained or secluded in California. Data posted on CDE's website for 2022-23 shows an unduplicated count of 53,659 students restrained (including but not exclusively prone restraint) and 5,742 students secluded in all educational environments, including all public schools, and NPSs. The total count of physical restraints was over 179,000. Data were redacted for many LEAs to comply with privacy protections in state and federal law. Dangers of seclusion and restraint. In 2014, the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) reported the following statistics, collected for its biennial Civil Rights Data Collection, for nationwide use of seclusion and restraint in public schools in 2011-12:<ol><li>Students with disabilities represent 12% of the national student population, but 58% of those placed in seclusion and 75% of those subjected to physical restraint. In California, 81% of students exposed to physical restraint are students with individualized education programs (IEPs); and</li><li>African American students represent 19% of students with disabilities served with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but 36% of those subjected to mechanical restraint, defined as the use of devices or equipment to restrict a student's movement. </li></ol>In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities, in which it shows that in 2013-14, African American students represented 15% of the national population of public school students, but 33% of students subjected to mechanical restraint, 25% of students subjected to physical restraint, and 22% of students placed in seclusion. The GAO also found that African American boys constitute 8% of public school students, but 23% of students subjected to mechanical restraint. The GAO stated, &quot;Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make case-by-case decisions about whether to discipline, and the form of discipline to impose in response to student behaviors…Studies show that these decisions can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined than others.&quot;After investigating case studies involving seclusion and restraint use in schools throughout the nation, the GAO concluded in 2009 that certain types of restraint are more dangerous than others, particularly for children. Specifically, the GAO stated that certain techniques are &quot;dangerous because they may involve physical struggling, pressure on the chest, or other interruptions in breathing.&quot; The GAO also found that children are subjected to restraint or seclusion at higher rates than adults and are at greater risk for injury. Prone restraints, in which students are placed face-down on the ground, and restraints that impede breathing were identified as having the greatest risk of death. In 2016, OCR issued a &quot;Dear Colleague&quot; letter to explain the limits that federal civil rights laws impose on the use of seclusion and restraint in public schools. OCR stated that a &quot;school district discriminates on the basis of disability in its use of restraint or seclusion by (1) unnecessarily treating students with disabilities differently from students without disabilities; (2) implementing policies, practices, procedures, or criteria that have an effect of discriminating against students on the basis of disability or defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the school district's program or activity with respect to students with disabilities; or (3) denying the right to a free appropriate public education.&quot;<h3>According to the Author</h3>&quot;SB 483 would prohibit in all California schools the use of 'prone restraint,' a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a face-down position. The U.S. Department of Education recommends banning the use of prone restraints, and over thirty other states have prohibited this form of physical restraint on all students. Prone restraint is one of the most dangerous forms of restraint used in a school setting; it is a technique that restricts a student's airway. Restraint in schools has resulted in serious injury as well as death. In 2018, a 13-year-old student with autism died at an El Dorado Hills school after being held in a prone restraint for over an hour. In 2019, the Sacramento Bee found that prone restraints are often used on students with special needs and used at a higher rate for Black students. Several school districts in California have used dangerous restraint techniques on students hundreds of times during a single school year, rather than positive behavior interventions.&quot;<h3>Arguments in Support</h3>Disability Rights California writes, &quot;Even without any other contributing factors, simply restraining a person prone restricts the ability to breathe, thereby lessening the supply of oxygen to meet the body's demands. The U.S. Department of Education has long recommended that prone restraints never be used in schools because they can cause serious injury or death.Sadly, there have been many examples of injuries and even death from prone restraints in schools. For example, on November 28, 2018, a thirteen-year-old Davis Unified School District student with autism died following prolonged prone restraint at his nonpublic school. DRC continues to receive intakes and complaints from families whose children have been injured or traumatized from a prone restraint in school. Given these examples and the extreme danger from prone restraint in any situation, DRC's position is that only a total and complete ban on all prone restraint techniques – including prone containment – will ensure the safety of students. If California were to enact SB 483, it would join the over thirty other states that ban the use of prone restraints in their schools&quot;<h3>Arguments in Opposition</h3>None on file.<h2>FISCAL COMMENTS</h2>This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by the Office of Legislative Counsel.<h2>VOTES</h2>SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, WilkABS, ABST OR NV: GonzalezASM EDUCATION: 7-0-0YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Bonta, Flora, Hoover, McCarty<h2>UPDATED</h2>VERSION: February 14, 2023CONSULTANT: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087	 FN: 0003533

<table><tr><td>SENATE RULES COMMITTEEOffice of Senate Floor Analyses(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478</td><td>SB 483</td></tr></table><h1><a id="LocationBegin"></a> THIRD READING <a id="LocationEnd"></a> </h1><h1>Bill No:	SB 483</h1>Author:	Cortese (D) Introduced:	2/14/23 Vote:	21 <a id="VotesBegin"></a> <a id="VoteInformation"></a><a id="VotesEnd"></a>SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/10/24AYES: Newman, Wilk, Cortese, Glazer, Grove, Laird, Smallwood-CuevasSENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 1/18/24AYES: Portantino, Jones, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, WienerNO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby SUBJECT:	Pupil rights: prone restraintSOURCE:	California Association of Student Councils	Disability Rights California <h2><a id="AnalysisBegin"></a>DIGEST:</h2>	This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint by an educational provider on any pupil, including pupils with exceptional needs. ANALYSIS: Existing law:<ol><li>Provides that a student has the 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. This right includes, but is not limited to, the right to be free from the use of a drug administered to the student in order to control the student’s behavior or to restrict the student’s freedom of movement, if that drug is not a standard treatment for the student’s medical or psychiatric condition.</li><li>Prohibits an educational provider from doing any of the following:<ol><li>Using seclusion or a behavioral restraint for the purpose of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation.</li><li>Using locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.</li><li>Using a physical restraint technique that obstructs a student’s respiratory airway or impairs the student’s breathing or respiratory capacity, including techniques in which a staff member places pressure on a student’s back or places his or her body weight against the student’s torso or back.</li><li>Using a behavioral restraint technique that restricts breathing, including but not limited to using a pillow, blanket, carpet, mat, or other item to cover a student’s face.</li><li>Placing a student in a facedown position with the student’s hands held or restrained behind the student’s back.</li><li>Using behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the student or others. </li></ol></li><li>Requires an educational provider to avoid, whenever possible, the use of seclusion or behavioral restraint techniques.</li><li>Authorizes an educational provider to use seclusion or a behavioral restraint only to control behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the student or others that cannot be immediately prevented by a response that is less.</li><li>Requires an educational provider to afford to students who are restrained the least restrictive alternative and the maximum freedom of movement, and use the least number of restraint points, while ensuring the physical safety of the student and others.</li><li>Requires an educational provider to keep constant, direct observation of a student who is in seclusion, and allows that to be a window, or another barrier, through which the educational provider is able to make direct eye contact with the student. The observation may not be through indirect means, including through a security camera or closed-circuit TV.</li><li>Requires a staff member, if prone restraint techniques are used, to observe the student for any signs of physical distress throughout the use of prone restraint. The staff member monitoring the student shall not, whenever possible, be involved in restraining the student.</li><li>Requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to collect and report annually to the California Department of Education (CDE), no later than three months after the end of the school year, on the use of behavioral restraints and seclusion for students enrolled in or served by the LEA for all or part of the prior school year. </li><li>Requires the report to include all of the following information, disaggregated by race or ethnicity, and gender, with separate counts for students with an individualized educational program (IEP), 504 plan, and students without an IEP or 504 plan: <ol><li>The number of students subjected to mechanical restraint, and the number of times mechanical restraint was used on students. </li><li>The number of students subjected to physical restraint, and the number of times physical restraint was used on students.</li><li>The number of students subjected to seclusion, and the number of times seclusion was used on students.</li></ol></li></ol>This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint, defined to include prone containment, by an educational provider on any pupil, including a pupil who is an individual with exceptional needs. Comments<ol><li>Need for this bill. According to the author, “SB 483 would prohibit in all California schools the use of “prone restraint”, a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a face down position. </li></ol>“The U.S. Department of Education recommends banning the use of prone restraints, and over thirty other states have prohibited this form of physical restraint on all students. “Prone restraint is one of the most dangerous forms of restraint used in a school setting; it is a technique that restricts a student’s airway. Restraint in schools has resulted in serious injury as well as death. In 2018, a 13-year-old student with autism died at an El Dorado Hills school after being held in a prone restraint for over an hour. “In 2019, The Sacramento Bee found that prone restraints are often used on students with special needs and used at a higher rate for Black students. Several school districts in California have used dangerous restraint techniques on students hundreds of times during a single school year, rather than positive behavior interventions.”<ol><li>Limits on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Prior to 2019, state statutes limited the use of seclusion and restraints in schools for students with exceptional needs. Specifically, school districts and nonpublic schools or agencies serving individuals with exceptional needs were prohibited from authorizing, ordering, consenting to, or paying for certain types of behavior interventions (e.g. electric shock, toxic or noxious sprays or mists, mechanical restraints, except when used by trained personnel, or locked seclusion, except as specified). Additionally, state statutes authorized the use of emergency interventions for students with exceptional needs in limited circumstances. State statutes also prohibited school employees from inflicting, or causing to be inflicted, corporal punishment upon a student. However, no other limitations on the use of seclusion or restraints for general education students existed.</li></ol>AB 2657 (Weber, Chapter 998, Statutes of 2018), effective January 1, 2019, prohibits the use of restraint or seclusion for any student, except in specified circumstances. Specifically, AB 2657 established 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 limited the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints, which include both mechanical 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 present danger of serious physical harm to the pupil or others that cannot be immediately prevented by a response that is less restrictive.”School districts and nonpublic schools or agencies are prohibited from using a behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm. AB 2657 clarified what types of interventions are not allowed, and emphasized the need to avoid restraints and seclusion whenever possible. Specifically, it banned physical restraint techniques that obstruct a student’s respiratory airway or impair a student’s breathing or respiratory capacity, behavioral restraints that restrict breathing, or placing a student in a facedown position with the student’s hands held or restrained behind their back. <ol><li>Reporting requirement on use of restraint or seclusion. School districts and nonpublic schools or agencies are required to collect and report data on the use of restraints and seclusion to CDE 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 seclusion 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 IEP, students with a 504 plan, and students without an IEP or 504 plan. The CDE is required to annually post the data from the report on its website within three months after the report is due to CDE.</li><li>Use of prone restraint is discouraged by the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has long recommended that prone restraint never be used in schools because it is unsafe. In May 2012, DOE released “Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document” in which 15 principles are identified that DOE believes states, local school districts, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools, parents, and other stakeholders should consider as the framework for developing and implementing policies and procedures related to restraint and seclusion to ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in schools does not occur except when there is a threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, and occurs in a manner that protects the safety of all children and adults at school.</li></ol>Specific to prone restraint, the resource document states the following:Prone (i.e., lying face down) restraints or other restraints that restrict breathing should never be used because they can cause serious injury or death. Breathing can also be restricted if loose clothing becomes entangled or tightened or if the child’s face is covered by a staff member’s body part (e.g., hand, arm, or torso) or through pressure to the abdomen or chest. Any restraint or seclusion technique should be consistent with known medical or other special needs of a child. School districts should be cognizant that certain restraint and seclusion techniques are more restrictive than others, and use the least restrictive technique necessary to end the threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm. A child’s ability to communicate (including for those children who use only sign language or other forms of manual communication or assistive technology) also should not be restricted unless less restrictive techniques would not prevent imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others. In all circumstances, the use of restraint or seclusion should never harm a child.<ol><li>National statistics on the use of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities in K-12 schools. In 2020, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reported the following statistics, collected for its biennial Civil Rights Data Collection, for nationwide use of seclusion and restraint in public schools in 2017-18:<ol><li>101,990 students of the over 50.9 million students enrolled across the nation’s public schools were subjected to physical restraint, mechanical restraint or seclusion — including 70,833 students who were subjected to physical restraint, 3,619 students who were subjected to mechanical restraint, and 27,538 students who were subjected to seclusion.</li><li>Students with disabilities represent 13 percent of the national student population. However, 77 percent of the students who were placed in seclusion and 80 percent of the students who were subjected to physical restraint were students with disabilities. </li><li>51 percent of enrolled students are male and 66 percent of students with disabilities are male. However, 84 percent of students with disabilities who were subjected to seclusion were male and 83 percent of students with disabilities who were subjected to physical restraint were male. </li></ol></li></ol>FISCAL EFFECT:	Appropriation:	No	Fiscal Com.:	No	Local:	NoAccording to the Senate Appropriations Committee, “By eliminating the use of the prone restraint technique on students, including those students with exceptional needs, this bill could result in the requirement for school districts to establish new procedures and provide training to employees on the use of alternative restraint techniques or de-escalation practices.  The associated one-time costs are unknown but could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide. These activities could be deemed to be reimbursable by the state. “It is unclear what implications this bill could have on student placements in nonpublic schools and whether it could lead to students being turned away for liability concerns if they are unable to utilize prone restraint techniques in emergency situations.”SUPPORT:	(Verified	1/22/24)California Association of Student Councils (co-source)Disability Rights California (co-source)Alliance Against Seclusion and RestraintAlliance for Boys and Men of ColorAlliance for Children's RightsAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, CaliforniaAmerican Civil Liberties Union California ActionAutism Society Inland EmpireCalifornia Association for Behavior AnalysisCalifornia Community Living NetworkCalifornia Foundation for Independent Living CentersCalifornians for JusticeCal-TASHCivil Rights Enforcement and Education CenterCollier Socks LLPCommunity Advisory Committee for Special EducationDisability Rights Education &amp; Defense FundDisability Voices UnitedEducate.Advocate.Ella Baker Center for Human RightsEqual Justice SocietyGrupo De Autismo AngelesInclude CaliforniaLegal Services for Prisoners with ChildrenOakland PrivacyPlacer Independent Resource ServicesPort View PreparatoryPRAGNYARespectAbilityRios Eubanks LLPSan Francisco Public DefenderSister Warriors Freedom CoalitionSpecial Needs NetworkSpire AutismState Council on Developmental Disabilities Western Center on Law &amp; PovertyYouth Justice Education Clinic14 individuals OPPOSITION:	(Verified	1/22/24)None receivedARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:	Disability Rights California, the sponsor of this bill, argues, “Even without any other contributing factors, simply restraining a person prone restricts the ability to breathe, thereby lessening the supply of oxygen to meet the body’s demands. The U.S. Department of Education has long recommended that prone restraints never be used in schools because they can cause serious injury or death.“Sadly, there have been many examples of injuries and even death from prone restraints in schools. For example, on November 28, 2018, a thirteen-year-old Davis Unified School District student with autism died following prolonged prone restraint at his nonpublic school. DRC continues to receive intakes and complaints from families whose children have been injured or traumatized from a prone restraint in school. Given these examples and the extreme danger from prone restraint in any situation, DRC’s position is that only a total and complete ban on all prone restraint techniques – including prone containment – will ensure the safety of students.“If California were to enact SB 483, it would join the over thirty other states that ban the use of prone restraints in their schools.”<a id="FloorVoteSummary"></a>Prepared by:	Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-41051/24/24 13:47:25**** END ****

<h1>SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS</h1>Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair2023 - 2024 Regular SessionSB 483 (Cortese) - Pupil rights: prone restraint<table><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Version: February 14, 2023</td><td>Policy Vote: ED. 7 - 0</td></tr><tr><td>Urgency: No</td><td>Mandate: No</td></tr><tr><td>Hearing Date: January 16, 2024</td><td>Consultant: Lenin Del Castillo</td></tr></table><h2>Bill Summary:</h2> This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint by an educational provider on any pupil, including pupils with exceptional needs. <h2>Fiscal Impact:</h2> By eliminating the use of the prone restraint technique on students, including those students with exceptional needs, this bill could result in the requirement for school districts to establish new procedures and provide training to employees on the use of alternative restraint techniques or de-escalation practices.  The associated one-time costs are unknown but could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide. These activities could be deemed to be reimbursable by the state. It is unclear what implications this bill could have on student placements in nonpublic schools and whether it could lead to students being turned away for liability concerns if they are unable to utilize prone restraint techniques in emergency situations.<h2>Background:</h2> Existing law provides that a student has the 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. This right includes, but is not limited to, the right to be free from the use of a drug administered to the student in order to control the student’s behavior or to restrict the student’s freedom of movement, if that drug is not a standard treatment for the student’s medical or psychiatric condition. Existing law prohibits an educational provider from doing any of the following: <ul><li><ol><li>Using seclusion or a behavioral restraint for the purpose of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation.</li><li>Using locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.</li><li>Using a physical restraint technique that obstructs a student’s respiratory airway or impairs the student’s breathing or respiratory capacity, including techniques in which a staff member places pressure on a student’s back or places his or her body weight against the student’s torso or back.</li><li>Using a behavioral restraint technique that restricts breathing, including but not limited to using a pillow, blanket, carpet, mat, or other item to cover a student’s face.</li><li>Placing a student in a facedown position with the student’s hands held or restrained behind the student’s back.</li><li>Using behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the student or others. </li></ol></li></ul>Existing law requires a staff member, if prone restraint techniques are used, to observe the student for any signs of physical distress throughout the use of prone restraint. The staff member monitoring the student shall not, whenever possible, be involved in restraining the student.Existing law requires local education agencies (LEAs) to collect and report annually to the California Department of Education (CDE), no later than three months after the end of the school year, on the use of behavioral restraints and seclusion for students enrolled in or served by the LEA for all or part of the prior school year, as specified. <h2>Proposed Law: </h2> This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint, defined to include prone containment, by an educational provider on any pupil, including a pupil who is an individual with exceptional needs. <h2>Related Legislation:</h2> AB 2657 (Weber, Chapter 998, Statutes of 2018) prohibits the use of restraint or seclusion for any student, except in specified circumstances. Specifically, the bill 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. <h2>Staff Comments:</h2> The United States Department of Education has recommended that prone restraint never be used in schools because it is unsafe. In May, 2012 the department released “Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document” in which 15 principles are identified that the department believes states, local school districts, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools, parents, and other stakeholders should consider as the framework for developing and implementing policies and procedures related to restraint and seclusion to ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in schools does not occur except when there is a threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, and occurs in a manner that protects the safety of all children and adults at school. Specific to prone restraint, the resource document states the following: “Prone (i.e., lying face down) restraints or other restraints that restrict breathing should never be used because they can cause serious injury or death. Breathing can also be restricted if loose clothing becomes entangled or tightened or if the child’s face is covered by a staff member’s body part (e.g., hand, arm, or torso) or through pressure to the abdomen or chest…” This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint, including prone containment, which could result in the need for school districts to establish new procedures and train employees on the use of alternative restraint techniques or de-escalation practices.  The extent of these one-time costs is unknown but could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide. These activities could be deemed to be reimbursable by the state. -- END --

<h1>SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION</h1>Senator Josh Newman, Chair2023 - 2024 Regular Bill No: 	 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 <table><tr><td>Author:</td><td colspan="3">Cortese</td></tr><tr><td>Version:</td><td colspan="3"> </td></tr><tr><td>Urgency:</td><td></td><td>Fiscal:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consultant:</td><td colspan="3"></td></tr></table>Subject: .NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Appropriations. A “do pass” motion should include referral to the Committee on Appropriations.<h2>SUMMARY</h2>This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint by an educational provider on any pupil, including pupils with exceptional needs. <h2>BACKGROUND</h2>Existing law:<ol><li>Provides that a student has the 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. This right includes, but is not limited to, the right to be free from the use of a drug administered to the student in order to control the student’s behavior or to restrict the student’s freedom of movement, if that drug is not a standard treatment for the student’s medical or psychiatric condition. </li><li>Prohibits an educational provider from doing any of the following: <ol><li>Using seclusion or a behavioral restraint for the purpose of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation.</li><li>Using locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.</li><li>Using a physical restraint technique that obstructs a student’s respiratory airway or impairs the student’s breathing or respiratory capacity, including techniques in which a staff member places pressure on a student’s back or places his or her body weight against the student’s torso or back.</li><li>Using a behavioral restraint technique that restricts breathing, including but not limited to using a pillow, blanket, carpet, mat, or other item to cover a student’s face.</li><li>Placing a student in a facedown position with the student’s hands held or restrained behind the student’s back.</li><li>Using behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the student or others. </li></ol></li><li>Requires an educational provider to avoid, whenever possible, the use of seclusion or behavioral restraint techniques. </li><li>Authorizes an educational provider to use seclusion or a behavioral restraint only to control behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the student or others that cannot be immediately prevented by a response that is less. </li><li>Requires an educational provider to afford to students who are restrained the least restrictive alternative and the maximum freedom of movement, and use the least number of restraint points, while ensuring the physical safety of the student and others.</li><li>Requires an educational provider to keep constant, direct observation of a student who is in seclusion, and allows that to be a window, or another barrier, through which the educational provider is able to make direct eye contact with the student. The observation may not be through indirect means, including through a security camera or closed-circuit TV. </li><li>Requires a staff member, if prone restraint techniques are used, to observe the student for any signs of physical distress throughout the use of prone restraint. The staff member monitoring the student shall not, whenever possible, be involved in restraining the student.</li><li>Requires LEAs (Local Education Agencies) to collect and report annually to the California Department of Education (CDE), no later than three months after the end of the school year, on the use of behavioral restraints and seclusion for students enrolled in or served by the LEA for all or part of the prior school year. </li><li>Requires the report to include all of the following information, disaggregated by race or ethnicity, and gender, with separate counts for students with an individualized educational program (IEP), 504 plan, and students without an IEP or 504 plan: <ol><li>The number of students subjected to mechanical restraint, and the number of times mechanical restraint was used on students. </li><li>The number of students subjected to physical restraint, and the number of times physical restraint was used on students. </li><li>The number of students subjected to seclusion, and the number of times seclusion was used on students. </li></ol></li></ol><h2>ANALYSIS</h2>This bill prohibits the use of prone restraint, defined to include prone containment, by an educational provider on any pupil, including a pupil who is an individual with exceptional needs. STAFF COMMENTS<ol><li>Need for the bill. According to the author, “SB 483 would prohibit in all California schools the use of “prone restraint”, a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a face down position. </li></ol>The U.S. Department of Education recommends banning the use of prone restraints, and over thirty other states have prohibited this form of physical restraint on all students. Prone restraint is one of the most dangerous forms of restraint used in a school setting; it is a technique that restricts a student’s airway. Restraint in schools has resulted in serious injury as well as death. In 2018, a 13-year-old student with autism died at an El Dorado Hills school after being held in a prone restraint for over an hour. In 2019, The Sacramento Bee found that prone restraints are often used on students with special needs and used at a higher rate for Black students. Several school districts in California have used dangerous restraint techniques on students hundreds of times during a single school year, rather than positive behavior interventions.”<ol><li>Limits on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Prior to 2019, statute limited the use of seclusion and restraints in schools for students with exceptional needs. Specifically, school districts and nonpublic schools or agencies serving individuals with exceptional needs were prohibited from authorizing, ordering, consenting to, or paying for certain types of behavior interventions (e.g. electric shock, toxic or noxious sprays or mists, mechanical restraints, except when used by trained personnel, or locked seclusion, except as specified). Additionally, statute authorized the use of emergency interventions for students with exceptional needs in limited circumstances. Statute also prohibited school employees from inflicting, or causing to be inflicted, corporal punishment upon a student. However, no other limitations on the use of seclusion or restraints for general education students existed.</li></ol>AB 2657 (Weber) Chapter 998, Statutes of 2018, effective January 1, 2019, prohibits the use of restraint or seclusion for any student, except in specified circumstances. Specifically, 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 limits the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints, which include both mechanical 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 present danger of serious physical harm to the pupil or others that cannot be immediately prevented by a response that is less restrictive.”School districts and nonpublic schools or agencies are prohibited from using a behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm. AB 2657 clarified what types of interventions are not allowed, and emphasizes the need to avoid restraints and seclusion whenever possible. Specifically, it bans physical restraint techniques that obstruct a student’s respiratory airway or impair a student’s breathing or respiratory capacity, behavioral restraints that restrict breathing, or placing a student in a facedown position with the student’s hands held or restrained behind their back. <ol><li>Reporting requirement on use of restraint or seclusion. School districts and nonpublic schools or agencies are required to collect and report data on the use of restraints and seclusion to CDE 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 seclusion 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 IEP, students with a 504 plan, and students without an IEP or 504 plan. The CDE is required to annually post the data from the report on its website within three months after the report is due to CDE.</li><li>Use of prone restraint is discouraged by the US Department of Education. The US Department of Education has long recommended that prone restraint never be used in schools because it is unsafe. In May, 2012 the department released “Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document” in which 15 principles are identified that the department believes states, local school districts, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools, parents, and other stakeholders should consider as the framework for developing and implementing policies and procedures related to restraint and seclusion to ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in schools does not occur except when there is a threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, and occurs in a manner that protects the safety of all children and adults at school.</li></ol>Specific to prone restraint, the resource document states the following:“Prone (i.e., lying face down) restraints or other restraints that restrict breathing should never be used because they can cause serious injury or death. Breathing can also be restricted if loose clothing becomes entangled or tightened or if the child’s face is covered by a staff member’s body part (e.g., hand, arm, or torso) or through pressure to the abdomen or chest. Any restraint or seclusion technique should be consistent with known medical or other special needs of a child. School districts should be cognizant that certain restraint and seclusion techniques are more restrictive than others, and use the least restrictive technique necessary to end the threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm. A child’s ability to communicate (including for those children who use only sign language or other forms of manual communication or assistive technology) also should not be restricted unless less restrictive techniques would not prevent imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others. In all circumstances, the use of restraint or seclusion should never harm a child.”<ol><li>National statistics on the use of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities in K-12 schools. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE’s) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reported the following statistics, collected for its biennial Civil Rights Data Collection, for nationwide use of seclusion and restraint in public schools in 2017-18:<ol><li>101,990 students of the over 50.9 million students enrolled across the nation’s public schools were subjected to physical restraint, mechanical restraint or seclusion — including 70,833 students who were subjected to physical restraint, 3,619 students who were subjected to mechanical restraint, and 27,538 students who were subjected to seclusion.</li><li>Students with disabilities represent 13 percent of the national student population. However, 77 percent of the students who were placed in seclusion and 80 percent of the students who were subjected to physical restraint were students with disabilities. </li><li>51 percent of enrolled students are male and 66 percent of students with disabilities are male. However, 84 percent of students with disabilities who were subjected to seclusion were male and 83 percent of students with disabilities who were subjected to physical restraint were male. </li></ol></li><li>Arguments in support. Disability Rights California, the sponsor of this bill, writes, “Even without any other contributing factors, simply restraining a person prone restricts the ability to breathe, thereby lessening the supply of oxygen to meet the body’s demands. The U.S. Department of Education has long recommended that prone restraints never be used in schools because they can cause serious injury or death.”</li></ol>Sadly, there have been many examples of injuries and even death from prone restraints in schools. For example, on November 28, 2018, a thirteen-year-old Davis Unified School District student with autism died following prolonged prone restraint at his nonpublic school. DRC continues to receive intakes and complaints from families whose children have been injured or traumatized from a prone restraint in school. Given these examples and the extreme danger from prone restraint in any situation, DRC’s position is that only a total and complete ban on all prone restraint techniques – including prone containment – will ensure the safety of students.If California were to enact SB 483, it would join the over thirty other states that ban the use of prone restraints in their schools.”<h2>SUPPORT</h2>California Association of Student Councils (co-sponsor)Disability Rights California (co-sponsor) Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint Alliance for Boys and Men of Color American Civil Liberties Union California Action Autism Society Inland Empire Cal-TASH California Association for Behavior Analysis California Community Living Network California Foundation for Independent Living Centers Californians for Justice Collier Socks LLP Community Advisory Committee for Special Education Educate. Advocate. Ella Baker Center for Human RightsGrupo De Autismo Angeles Inc. Include California Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Oakland Privacy Placer Independent Resource Services PRAGNYA RespectAbility Sister Warriors Freedom CoalitionSpecial Needs Network Spire Autism State Council on Developmental Disabilities  Western Center on Law &amp; Poverty13 individuals<h2>OPPOSITION</h2>None received -- END --

(2024-06-17: Read second time. Ordered to third reading.)

Pupil rights: prone restraint.

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_96A00BA9-B741-4B7A-8303-29AF794C4B3E"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:EDC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'TITLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'4.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'27.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'6.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'ARTICLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'5.2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'49005.1.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 49005.1 of the <caml:DocName>Education Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_3D06F7CE-2189-499E-80C4-F15F3FCD3E26"><caml:Num>49005.1.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_B80CF506-600A-40F5-BDC7-372C3D97D51D"><caml:Content>The following definitions apply to this article:(a)Behavioral restraint means mechanical restraint or physical restraint, as defined in this section, used as an intervention when a pupil presents an immediate danger to self or to others. Behavioral restraint does not include postural restraints or devices used to improve a pupils mobility and independent functioning rather than to restrict movement.(b)Educational provider means a person who provides educational or related services, support, or other assistance to a pupil enrolled in an educational program provided by a local educational agency or a nonpublic school or agency.(c)Local
				 educational agency means a school district, county office of education, charter school, the California Schools for the Deaf, and the California School for the Blind.(d)(1)Mechanical restraint means the use of a device or equipment to restrict a pupils freedom of movement.(2)(A)Mechanical restraint does not include the use of devices by peace officers or security personnel for detention or for public safety purposes.(B)Mechanical restraint does not include the use of devices by trained school personnel, or by a pupil, prescribed by an appropriate medical or related services professional, if the device is used for the specific and approved purpose for which the device or equipment was prescribed, which shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
				 following:(i)Adaptive devices or mechanical supports used to achieve proper body position, balance, or alignment to allow greater freedom of mobility than would be possible without the use of such devices or mechanical supports.(ii)Vehicle safety restraints when used as intended during the transport of a pupil in a moving vehicle.(iii)Restraints for medical immobilization.(iv)Orthopedically prescribed devices that permit a pupil to participate in activities without risk of harm.(e)Nonpublic school or agency means any nonpublic school or nonpublic agency, including both in-state and out-of-state nonpublic schools and nonpublic agencies.(f)(1)Physical restraint means a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a pupil to move the pupils torso, arms, legs, or head freely. Physical restraint does not include a physical escort, which means a temporary touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, or back for the purpose of inducing a pupil who is acting out to walk to a safe location.(2)Physical restraint does not include the use of force by peace officers or security personnel for detention or for public safety purposes.(g)Prone restraint means the application of a behavioral restraint on a pupil in a facedown position.
				 position for any period of time and includes the procedure known as prone containment.(h)Pupil means a pupil enrolled in preschool, kindergarten, or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and receiving educational services from an educational provider.(i)Seclusion means the involuntary confinement of a pupil alone in a room or area from which the pupil is physically prevented from leaving. Seclusion does not include a timeout, which is a behavior management technique that is part of an approved program, that involves the monitored separation of the pupil in a nonlocked setting, and is implemented for the purpose of calming.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_9599D8C4-D31C-4BFB-BEF7-C542EAC19E6C"><caml:Num>SEC. 2.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:EDC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'TITLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'4.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'27.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'6.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'ARTICLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'5.2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'49005.8.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 49005.8 of the <caml:DocName>Education Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_A16D7DAF-CA58-4903-A4FD-9775B5C0477D"><caml:Num>49005.8.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_DF0BD83D-4933-4B56-8F71-7EB774B7165D"><caml:Content>(a)An educational provider shall not do any of the following:(1)Use seclusion or a behavioral restraint for the purpose of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation.(2)Use locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.(3)Use a physical restraint technique that obstructs a pupils respiratory airway or impairs the pupils breathing or respiratory capacity, including techniques in which a staff member places pressure on a pupils back or places his or her
				 the staff members body weight against the pupils torso or back.(4)Use a behavioral restraint technique that restricts breathing, including, but not limited to, using a pillow, blanket, carpet, mat, or other item to cover a pupils face.<xhtml:p>(5)<xhtml:span class="EnSpace"/>Place a pupil in a facedown position with the pupils hands held or restrained behind the pupils back.</xhtml:p>(5)Use prone restraint.(6)Use a behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a
				 clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the pupil or others.(b)An educational provider shall keep constant, direct observation of a pupil who is in seclusion, which may be through observation of the pupil through a window, or another barrier, through which the educational provider is able to make direct eye contact with the pupil. The observation required pursuant to this subdivision shall not be through indirect means, including through a security camera or a closed-circuit television.(c)An educational provider shall afford to pupils who are restrained the least restrictive alternative and the maximum freedom of movement, and shall use the least number of restraint points, while ensuring the physical safety of the pupil and others.<xhtml:p>(d)<xhtml:span class="EnSpace"/>If prone restraint techniques are used, a staff member shall observe the pupil for any signs of physical distress throughout the use of prone restraint. Whenever
						 possible, the staff member monitoring the pupil shall not be involved in restraining the pupil.</xhtml:p></caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_5AEC559A-1A54-4B77-B138-74193C62AF54"><caml:Num>SEC. 3.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_ADDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:EDC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2F%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'56028.3'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 56028.3 is added to the <caml:DocName>Education Code</caml:DocName>, to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_160494B6-8677-4CC2-BFD5-B4782213475C"><caml:Num>56028.3.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_256B1D9E-7FA8-4F6A-AE72-C4B2E72CFC57"><caml:Content>Prone restraint means the application of a behavioral restraint on a pupil in a facedown position for any period of time and includes the procedure known as prone containment.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_25536713-1B26-4154-BA4A-973EF0D29870"><caml:Num>SEC. 4.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:EDC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'TITLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'4.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'30.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'5.5.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'56521.1.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 56521.1 of the <caml:DocName>Education Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_7C582F55-32B7-4B01-AE5B-C926950D8E43"><caml:Num>56521.1.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_CF227B79-24A5-4F4D-87ED-C5DAAB739CFD"><caml:Content>(a)Emergency interventions may only be used to control unpredictable, spontaneous behavior that poses clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the individual with exceptional needs, or others, and that cannot be immediately prevented by a response less restrictive than the temporary application of a technique used to contain the behavior.(b)Emergency interventions shall not be used as a substitute for the systematic behavioral intervention plan that is designed to change, replace, modify, or eliminate a targeted behavior.(c)No emergency intervention shall be employed for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior. A situation that requires prolonged use of an emergency
				 intervention shall require the staff to seek assistance of the schoolsite administrator or law enforcement agency, as applicable to the situation.(d)Emergency interventions shall not include:(1)Locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.(2)Employment of a device, material, or objects that simultaneously immobilize all four extremities, except that techniques such as prone containment may be used as an emergency intervention by staff trained in those procedures. extremities.(3)Prone restraint.<xhtml:p>(3)</xhtml:p>(4)An amount of force that exceeds that which is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.(e)To prevent emergency interventions from being used in lieu of planned, systematic behavioral interventions, the parent, guardian, and residential care provider, if appropriate, shall be notified within one schoolday if an emergency intervention is used or serious property damage occurs. A behavioral emergency report shall immediately be completed and maintained in the file of the individual with
				 exceptional needs. The behavioral emergency report shall include all of the following:(1)The name and age of the individual with exceptional needs.(2)The setting and location of the incident.(3)The name of the staff or other persons involved.(4)A description of the incident and the emergency intervention used, and whether the individual with exceptional needs is currently engaged in any systematic behavioral intervention plan.(5)Details of any injuries sustained by the individual with exceptional needs, or others, including staff, as a result of the incident.(f)All behavioral emergency reports shall immediately be
				 forwarded to, and reviewed by, a designated responsible administrator.(g)If a behavioral emergency report is written regarding an individual with exceptional needs who does not have a behavioral intervention plan, the designated responsible administrator shall, within two days, schedule an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting to review the emergency report, to determine the necessity for a functional behavioral assessment, and to determine the necessity for an interim plan. The IEP team shall document the reasons for not conducting the functional behavioral assessment, not developing an interim plan, or both.(h)If a behavioral emergency report is written regarding an individual with exceptional needs who has a positive behavioral intervention plan, an incident involving a previously unseen serious behavior problem, or where a previously designed intervention is
				 ineffective, shall be referred to the IEP team to review and determine if the incident constitutes a need to modify the positive behavioral intervention plan.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_637DC6E9-DB89-43F4-B0F3-C079D15613F5"><caml:Num>SEC. 5.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:EDC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'TITLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'4.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'30.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'5.5.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'56521.2.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 56521.2 of the <caml:DocName>Education Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_B7158ABE-0ED0-4D1D-9476-DB568A6977FE"><caml:Num>56521.2.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_F6D72889-C499-4905-9330-4DAB0918DF64"><caml:Content>(a)A local educational agency or nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency serving individuals with exceptional needs pursuant to Sections 56365 and 56366, shall not authorize, order, consent to, or pay for the following interventions, or any other interventions similar to or like the following:(1)Any intervention that is designed to, or likely to, cause physical pain, including, but not limited to, electric shock.(2)An intervention that involves the release of noxious, toxic, or otherwise unpleasant sprays, mists, or substances in proximity to the face of the individual.(3)An intervention that denies adequate sleep, food, water,
				 shelter, bedding, physical comfort, or access to bathroom facilities.(4)An intervention that is designed to subject, used to subject, or likely to subject, the individual to verbal abuse, ridicule, or humiliation, or that can be expected to cause excessive emotional trauma.(5)Restrictive interventions that employ a device, material, or objects that simultaneously immobilize all four extremities, including the procedure known as prone containment, except that prone containment or similar techniques may be used by trained personnel as a limited emergency intervention. extremities.(6)Prone restraint.<xhtml:p>(6)</xhtml:p>(7)Locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room.<xhtml:p>(7)</xhtml:p>(8)An intervention that precludes adequate supervision of the individual.<xhtml:p>(8)</xhtml:p>(9)An intervention that deprives the individual of one or more of his or her
				 the individuals senses.(b)In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the childs learning or that of others, the individualized education program team shall consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior, consistent with Section 1414(d)(3)(B)(i) and (d)(4) of Title 20 of the United States Code and associated federal regulations.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes  7. Noes  0.) (June  12).

In Assembly.  Read first time.  Held at Desk.

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes  0.) Ordered to the Assembly.

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes  6. Noes  0.) (January  18).

January  16 hearing: Placed on  APPR suspense file.

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on  APPR. (Ayes  7. Noes  0.) (January  10). Re-referred to Com. on  APPR.

From printer. May be acted upon on or after March  17.

Introduced.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS. for assignment.  To print.

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

SB 483: Pupil rights: prone restraint.

Current Status:

Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Senate Floor

Senate Standing Committee on Education

News Coverage: