SPECIAL EDUCATION LAWFROM THE BEGINNING TO THE PRESENT

B. JEAN JONES PHD.

WELCOME

“IN THESE DAYS, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT ANY CHILD MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO SUCCEED IN LIFE IF HE IS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN EDUCATION. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WHERE THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO

PROVIDE IT, IS A RIGHT THAT MUST BE AVAILABLE TO ALL ON EQUAL TERMS.”

-CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN-

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

(WORKING WITH THE GROUP AT YOUR TABLE DEVELOP A

DEFINITION FOR THE SPECIAL EDUCATION)

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

IDEA DEFINES SPECIAL EDUCATION AS:

…SPECIALLY DESIGNED INSTRUCTION THAT MEETS THE UNUSUAL NEEDS OF AN EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL MATERIALS,TEACHING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND/OR FACILITIES AT NO COST TO PARENTS, INCLUDING (I) INSTRUCTION CONDUCTED IN THE CLASSROOM, IN THE HOME, IN HOSPITALS AND INSTITUTIONS, AND IN OTHER SETTINGS; AND (II) INSTRUCTION IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION. 34 CFR 300.39.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION AND NORMALIZATION

• AS ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASED IN THE EARLY 1900S, PUBLIC SCHOOLS DID NOT ACCEPT OR PROVIDE SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

• STATE SCHOOLS PROVIDED LIMITED ACCESS TO PERSONS WITH CERTAIN DISABILITIES AS FAR BACK AS THE 1850S. BY THE 1950S, ALL STATES HAD INSTITUTIONS OF THIS TYPE.

• MANY FACILITIES WERE OVERCROWDED AND UNDERFUNDED AND CONDITIONS WERE OFTEN POOR AND UNSAFE.

• ORIGINATED IN SCANDINAVIA AND INTRODUCED BY BANK-MIKKELSON.

• SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTS PROVIDED TO PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION WOULD HELP TO “NORMALIZE” THEIR LIVES.

NORMALIZATION

• MOVEMENT TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES RATHER THAN INSTITUTIONALIZATION.

• THE MOVEMENT GREW BEYOND NORMALIZATION AS THE NEED TO INCLUDE THESE INDIVIDUALS IN SOCIETY WAS RECOGNIZED.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

INCLUSION

• GROWS OUT OF NORMALIZATION

• INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WITH THEIR PEERS EXPANDS

• UNFOLDING OF 21ST CENTURY INCLUSION CONTROVERSY GROWS

• PARENTS ALSO BECAME FRUSTRATED WITH THE POOR OR NONEXISTENT SERVICES OFFERED TO THEIR CHILDREN AND BEGAN TO ORGANIZE SUPPORT GROUPS.

• NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN (ARC)

• PROFESSIONAL AND ADVOCACY GROUPS ALSO BEGAN TO ORGANIZE.

• INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF SOCIETIES FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

• AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON MENTAL RETARDATION• JOINT COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN

ADVOCACY AND A “BILL OF RIGHTS”

• LEGISLATION WAS NOT THE ONLY BASIS FOR CHANGE DURING THIS PERIOD. LITIGATION ALSO PLAYED A TREMENDOUS ROLE.

• BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, KANSAS (1954)

• HOBSON V. HANSEN (1967)

• PARC V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (1972)

• MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1972)

• DIANA V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION (1970)

• LARRY P. V. RILES (1972, 1974, 1979, 1984)

LITIGATIVE BASE FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

• RACIALLY BASED SEGREGATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

• SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

• PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR RULINGS THAT BARRED SCHOOLS FROM EXCLUDING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, KANSAS (1954)

• FILED ON BEHALF OF BLACK STUDENTS WHO WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY PLACED IN LOWER TRACKS IN THE WASHINGTON D.C. SCHOOL SYSTEM

• DID THE TRACKING SYSTEM DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POOR AND MINORITY STUDENTS?

• CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF BIAS IN ASSESSMENTS DEVELOPED FOR WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS STUDENTS BUT USED WITH ALL STUDENTS REGARDLESS OF BACKGROUND OR ABILITY.

HOBSON V. HANSEN (1967)

• SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN (PARC)

• FOUND THAT THE STATE COULD NOT DENY EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO STATE RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS AS INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION.

• BASED ON TWO TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION• EQUAL PROTECTION

• DUE PROCESS

PARC V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (1972)

• STUDENTS LABELED “EXCEPTIONAL” WERE DEPRIVED OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND THEREFORE DENIED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

• EXTENDED THE RIGHT ESTABLISHED BY PARC; ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES WERE ENTITLED TO A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION.

MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1972)

• CHALLENGED THE USE OF STANDARDIZED TESTS TO CLASSIFY MINORITY STUDENTS

• HISPANIC STUDENTS WERE ASSIGNED TO SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSES BASED ON TEST SCORES FROM A CULTURALLY BIASED ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEST.

• THE REQUIREMENT FOR “NON-BIASED” TESTING WAS LATER ADDED TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE EDUCATION OF ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT (EAHCA).

DIANA V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION (1970)

• RAISED AN ISSUE SIMILAR TO DIANA V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION (1970)

• AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS WERE RECEIVING DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT BASED ON THE RESULTS OF STANDARDIZED TESTS.

• IT WAS ARGUED THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS HAD NOT BEEN VALIDATED WITH THIS POPULATION OF STUDENTS.

• MINORITY STUDENTS COULD NOT BE PLACED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSES UNTIL NONBIASED ASSESSMENTS WERE GIVEN.

LARRY P. V. RILES (1972, 1974, 1979, 1984)

THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975 (P.L. 94-142)

• TO ENSURE ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

• IMPLEMENTED IN 1978

• MANDATED FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION (FAPE)

• STATES FUNDED IF THEY COMPLY WITH LAW

• SERVICED ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AGES 3-21

• LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

• INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP)

• PEOPLE PERSON FIRST LANGUAGE

REAUTHORIZATIONS OF THE EAHCA

• THE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN’S PROTECTION ACT 1986• THE INFANTS & TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1986• THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 1990• THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 1997 (IDEA)• THE INDIVIDUAL WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION

IMPROVEMENT ACT (IDEIA) 2004

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO P.L. 94-142

PL 99-457 (1986)

1. PROVIDE SERVICES TO CHILDREN AGES 3-5

2. ESTABLISHED GRANTS FOR SERVICES TO CHILDREN

AGED BIRTH TO 2 YEARS

3. REQUIRED INDIVIDUALIZED FAMILY SERVICE PLANS

(IFSPS) FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO PL 94-142 (CONT.)

PL 101-476 (IDEA 1990)* CHANGED NAME TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

* ADDED REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITION PLANNING (ITPS) FORADOLESCENTS WITH DISABILITIES

* ADDED AUTISM AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AS CATEGORIES

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO PL 94-142 (CONT.)• PL 105-17 (IDEA 1997)

* REQUIRED PARTICIPATION OF LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES INMANDATED STATE AND DISTRICT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS

* REFERENCED CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

* ESTABLISHED NEW DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES FOR YOUTH WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO PL 94-142 (CONT.)

PL 108-446 (IDEIA 2004)*CHANGED NAME TO INDIVIDUAL WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

* ADDED “RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION” FOR USE IN LEARNINGDISABILITY ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS

* ALLOWED SOME IDEA FUNDS TO BE USED FOR EARLYINTERVENING SERVICES

* USE OF DISCREPANCY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED FOR IDENTIFYINGLEARNING DISABILITIES

* MANDATED ASSESSMENT S MUST UTILIZE UNIVERSAL DESIGNFOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES

* CRITERIA FOR “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” SPECIAL EDUCATORS

COMPARING THE CHANGES

IDEA 1997• EMPHASIS ON RESULTS – “WAIT TO FAIL” MODEL

• DUAL SYSTEM: GENERAL & SPECIAL EDUCATION

• LACK OF VALIDITY IN METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION -LD IDENTIFICATION BASED ON IQ-ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY FORMULA

• FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE

• ENCOURAGED MAINSTREAMING

• STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES INTO REGULAR CLASSROOMS

IDEIA 2004• EMPHASIS ON PROCESS EARLY INTERVENTION

TO PREVENT FAILURE

• UNIFIED SINGLE SYSTEM

• RESPONSE TO SCIENTIFIC, RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (RTI)

• FOCUS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

• REQUIRES INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS

• RIGOROUS, SCIENTIFICALLY BASEDIDENTIFICATION METHODS- LD IDENTIFICATION BASED ON: STUDENT

CHANGES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

• HEROIC INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP EFFORTS

• THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1974 (EAHCA)

• THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT OF 1990 (IDEA)

• THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997(IDEA)

• THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004 (IDEIA)

Issues of Access

Issues of Quality

CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS

• AWARENESS AND CONCERN ABOUT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT INCREASED DURING THE 1960S AND 1970S.

• COURT DECISIONS THAT OVERTURNED POLICIES OF EXCLUSION AND SEGREGATION BASED ON RACE BEGAN TO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ALSO.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

• THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 SECTION 504

• THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1990

CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION PROTECTING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

• FIRST CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

• PROSCRIBES FEDERAL INTERVENTION FOR SCHOOLS FOUND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.

• ACCOMMODATION PLAN LEGAL DOCUMENT

THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973SECTION 504

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

A FEW IMPORTANT THINGS…

SECTION 504 IS NOT A SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

SECTION 504 IS A CIVIL RIGHTS LAW

SECTION 504 IS NOT AS SPECIFIC A LAW AS THE IDEA

SECTION 504 CONTAINS NO FUNDING

WHAT IS SECTION 504?• SECTION 504 IS A BRIEF, BUT POWERFUL NONDISCRIMINATION

LAW INCLUDED IN THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973• SECTION 504 EXTENDS TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES THE

SAME KINDS OF PROTECTIONS CONGRESS EXTENDED TO PEOPLE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF RACE AND SEX

• A CIVIL RIGHTS MANDATE-SECTION 504 PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION-THE RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE APPLIES TO ALL SCHOOL PERSONNEL

-SPECIAL EDUCATORS DO NOT HAVE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECTION 504

-PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FALLS ON DISTRICT-AND SCHOOL-LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERS AND REGULAR EDUCATION

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

• THE ADA IS A CIVIL RIGHTS LAW THAT PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHERWISE QUALIFIED PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

• THE ADA EXTENDS THE PROTECTIONS OF SECTION 504 TO EMPLOYERS, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, OR ANY INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND ANY PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS OR FACILITY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

• THE U.S. CONGRESS USED ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO EXTEND ADA TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR

TITLES OF THE ADA•TITLE I-EMPLOYMENT: PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHER WISE QUALIFIED PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

•TITLE II-PUBLIC SERVICES: PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION TO ALL SUBDIVISIONS OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT

• TITLE III-PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES: PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION

BY PRIVATE BUSINESS SERVING THE PUBLIC• TITLE IV-TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION

IN PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS• TITLE V-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

FEDERAL EDUCATION LAWS

FEDERAL EDUCATION LAWS - HISTORY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) WAS SIGNED

INTO LAW IN 1965.

ESEA IS THE BIGGEST FEDERAL K12 EDUCATION LAW IN THE U.S. ESEA SET UP THE TITLE I PROGRAM.

ESEA HAS BEEN REAUTHORIZED MANY TIMES SINCE THEN.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REAUTHORIZED THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT IN 2002.

BEFORE THAT, IT WAS CALLED IMPROVING AMERICA’S SCHOOLS ACT OR IASA.

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) IN 2015

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN MANDATORY SPECIAL EDUCATION ACT(MMSEA)

• DEVELOP THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL OF EVERY ELIGIBLE STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY.

• STATE BOARD WRITES RULES IMPLEMENTING THIS ACT MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION (MARSE)

• SOME ITEMS IN MICHIGAN LAW SUPERSEDE FEDERAL LAW

POLICY FOR THE EMERGENCY USE OFSECLUSION AND RESTRAINT

• MARCH 14, 2017 SBE ADOPTED “POLICY FOR THE EMERGENCY USE OF SECLUSION AND RESTRAINT WITH A CORRECTION UPDATED JULY 2017.

• THIS POLICY START OUT WITH PBIS – ENCOURAGE THE USE OF PROACTIVE, EFFECTIVE, EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH-BASED STRATEGIES AND BEST PRACTICES

• EMERGENCY USE ONLY

• NOT TO BE USE AS A DISCIPLINARY RESPONSE

• SCHOOL DO NOT HAVE TO DEVELOP A POLICY THEY CAN USE THE STATE POLICY

• THIS POLICY APPLY TO ALL CHILDREN – NOT JUST FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

TERMS

• SECLUSION

• RESTRAINT

• EMERGENCY SECLUSION

• EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINT

• EMERGENCY SITUATION

• PHYSICAL RESTRAINT

TRAININGTWO LEVELS OF TRAINING

1. AWARENESS – ALL SCHOOL PERSONNEL HAVE REGULAR CONTACT WITH STUDENTS OR WHO REGULARLY AND CONTINUOUSLY WORK UNDER CONTRACT (SEE HANDOUT)

2. COMPREHENSIVE – BEFORE USING EMERGENCY SECLUSION OR EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINT (KEY IDENTIFIED PERSONNEL) (SEE HANDOUT)

EMERGENCY SECLUSION• IF A ROOM IS EVACUATED WITH EXCEPTION OF A STUDENT AND

AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL IT IS NOT SECLUSION IF THE STUDENT IS NOT PREVENTED FROM LEAVING.

• WHEN A STUDENT IS CONFINED IN A ROOM AND PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THAT CONSTITUTES SECLUSION. A SECLUSION ROOM IS PROHIBITED FROM BEING LOCKED

• THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS EMERGENCY LOCKDOWN DRILL OR ANOTHER EMERGENCY SECURITY PROCEDURE TO PROTECT SAFETY OF STUDENTS.

EMERGENCY SECLUSION (CONT.)

• TIME LIMITS : ELEMENTARY 15 MINUTESMIDDLE SCHOOL 20 MINUTESHIGH SCHOOL 20 MINUTES

• IF IT LASTS LONG FOR EACH LEVEL ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED:

1. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, CHANGE OF STAFF, OR INTRODUCING A NURSE, SPECIALIST, OR ADDITIONAL KEY IDENTIFIED PERSONNEL.

2. DOCUMENTATION TO EXPLAIN EXTENSION BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT.

• CAN VIDEO BUT MUST ADHERE TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW; BE MONITORED

EMERGENCY SECLUSION (CONT.)

WHILE USING EMERGENCY SECLUSION, SCHOOL PERSONNEL MUST DO ALL OFTHE FOLLOWING:

1. INVOLVE KEY IDENTIFIED PERSONNEL TO PROTECT THE CARE, WELFARE, DIGNITY, AND SAFETY OF THE STUDENT

2. CONTINUALLY OBSERVE THE STUDENT IN EMERGENCY SECLUSION FOR INDICATIONS OF PHYSICAL DISTRESS, AND SEEK MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IFTHERE IS CONCERN.

3. DOCUMENT OBSERVATIONS.

4. ENSURE THAT AT ALL TIMES DURING THE USE OF EMERGENCY SECLUSION THERE ARE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PRESENT PRESENT WHO CAN COMMUNICATE WITH STUDENT USING THE STUDENT’S PRIMARY MODE OF COMMUNICATION.

EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS

• USED NO LONGER THAN NECESSARY BUT LAST NO MORE THAN 10 MINUTES

• IF LAST MORE THAN 10 MINUTES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED:

1. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, CHANGE OF STAFF, OR INTRODUCING A NURSE, SPECIALIST, OR ADDITIONAL KEY IDENTIFIED PERSONNEL.

2. DOCUMENTATION TO EXPLAIN EXTENSION BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT.

EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (CONT.)

WHILE USING EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SCHOOL PERSONNEL MUSTDO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. INVOLVE KEY IDENTIFIED PERSONNEL TO PROTECT THE CARE, WELFARE, DIGNITY, AND SAFETY OF THE STUDENT

2. CONTINUALLY OBSERVE THE STUDENT IN EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR INDICATIONS OF PHYSICAL DISTRESS, AND SEEK MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IF THERE IS CONCERN.

3. DOCUMENT OBSERVATIONS.

4. ENSURE THAT AT ALL TIMES DURING THE USE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS THERE ARE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PRESENT PRESENT WHO CAN COMMUNICATE WITH STUDENT USING THE STUDENT’S PRIMARYMODE OF COMMUNICATION.

DOCUMENTING AND REPORTING• MUST COLLECT DATA AND DOCUMENT: ALL USES OF RESTRAINT

AND SECLUSION NOT JUST EMERGENCY SECLUSION AND EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINT

• WRITTEN REPORT MUST BE PROVIDE TO PARENT WITHIN ONE SCHOOL DAY OR SEVEN IF INCIDENT OCCURS PRIOR TO AN EXTENDED BREAK.

• CAN COME UP WITH YOUR FORM OR USE FORMS FROM MDE

INFORMING, DEBRIEFING AND CONSULTING• MUST USE MDE DEBRIEFING FORM

• DEVELOP EMERGENCY INTERVENTION PLAN (EIP) PARTNERSHIP WITH PARENT

• TEAM: PARENT, TEACHER, INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF EMERGENCY SECLUSION AND EMERGENCY PHYSICAL RESTRAINT, INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF PBIS TO ELIMINATE USE OF SECLUSION AND RESTRAINTS

• DEBRIEFING/CONSULTATION - COLLABORATE PROBLEM SOLVING WITH STUDENT, PARENTS AND STAFF (NON-AVERSIVE/NON-PUNITIVE REINTRODUCTION TO LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

EMERGENCY INTERVENTION PLAN

• PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PARENT HOWEVER PARENT CONSENT NOT REQUIRED.

• CONDUCT PEER REVIEW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS AND INTRUSIVENESS OF EIP.

• IF STUDENT HAS EIP, MUST WRITE A REPORT FOR EACH INCIDENT.

ANTI BIAS GUIDANCE FOR SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

• GUIDELINES ISSUED JANUARY 2014 BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

• REDUCE RACIAL DISPARITIES HOW STUDENTS ARE DISCIPLINED

• GUIDELINES RESCINDED

REFERENCESFACT SHEET: RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DECEMBER 2016 (HTTPS://WWW2.ED.GOV/ABOUT/OFFICES/LIST/OCR/DOCS/DCL- FACTSHEET-201612-504-RESTRAINT-SECLUSION-PS.PDF).

HALLAHAN, D. , KAUFFMAN, J. & PULLEN, P. (2019). EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS: AN INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL EDUCATION. NEW YORK. PEARSON EDUCATION.

MICHIGAN ADMINSTRATIVE RULES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION (MARSE) WITH RELATED IDEA FEDERAL REGULATIONS HTTPS://WWW.MICHIGAN.GOV/DOCUMENTS/MDE/MARSE_SUPPLEMENTED_WITH_IDEA_REGS_379598_7.PDF

POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS AND SUPPORTS, OSEP TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (HTTPS://WWW.PBIS.ORG).

RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION: RESOURCE DOCUMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MAY 2012 (HTTPS://WWW2.ED.GOV/POLICY/SECLUSION/RESTRAINTS-AND-SECLUSION- RESOURCES.PDF).

SPECIAL EDUCATION: ADVOCATE’S MANUAL ”PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. MICHIGAN PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. WWW.MPAS.ORG