Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Calendar | Archives ||
Home > Rules & Legislation > Proposed Rule Changes > Chapter 33 > CBR Team Meetings > September 16, 2011 Minutes
Chapter 33 Stakeholder Meeting September 16, 2011
Cross Office Building, Room 103
Ansley Newton, MDOE, Facilitator
Deb Friedman, DOE Director of Policy and Programs
Deb Friedman attended the meeting to answer questions regarding the DOE position on data collection and reporting, as well as other positions that the department currently holds regarding the revision of Chapter 33.
Ms. Friedman reiterated the DOE position on data collection and reporting, which had been previously explained to the group at the August 12th meeting. She stated that the group must determine what is the most effective way to solve problems related to the potential overuse or misuse of restraint and seclusion, and emphasized that their most important task is to write a good rule that is clear and understandable. If the rule does not ultimately contain all the elements the group wishes to include in it, members have the option of bringing their concerns to the legislature.
Ms. Friedman said that data collection is most effective when it occurs at the SAU level, where superintendents can monitor the implementation of Chapter 33 within their districts. The regular reporting of data to DOE would convey little information of value. However, the CBR team should consider whether there may be certain actions or incidences at the SAU level that would trigger a report to DOE, such as multiple restraints of a particular student.
Similarly, the DOE believes that training district personnel on the implementation of Chapter 33 is the responsibility of the SAU. DOE does not have the money or staff to provide direct training in this area, but will assist SAU’s in their efforts to train personnel and provide guidance where it is needed.
DOE’s focus on local implementation, data collection, and monitoring also applies to the area of enforcement. Complaints must first be brought to the SAU in order that it may have an opportunity to review alleged violations and provide a response. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, the complaint can then be forwarded to the DOE for review.
Several CBR participants expressed their dissatisfaction with DOE’s positions, restating many of the objections that were voiced at the August 12th meeting. They believe that the potential risks to student health and safety require an extraordinary response from DOE. The regulation must have “teeth,” that emphasizes monitoring and enforcement at the DOE level.
Group Section Revising
The CBR team broke into two groups to continuing drafting revisions to sections of the regulation. Group 1 worked on Training and Planful Response. Group 2 revised Reporting and Data Collection.
Group 2 work product (in progress)
1.1 NOTIFICATION TO PARENTS OF INCIDENTS OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINT OR SECLUSION
An administrator or designee will notify the parent that restraint or seclusion and any related first aid has occurred as soon as practical but within the school day in which the incident occurred, utilizing all available phone numbers and other appropriate means. If the parent is unavailable, a phone message will be left for the parent to contact the school as soon as possible. If a parent does not have access to a phone, the district will use whatever contact information is available for emergencies. The parent will be informed that documentation will be made available to them by hand or US mail.
Annually, at or before the beginning of the academic year, each covered entity shall inform all staff and parents of students enrolled at the school of these regulations and any policies or procedures related to the use of seclusion and restraint of students.
2.1 REPORTING INCIDENTS OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION TO A SCHOOL ADMINSTRATOR OR DESIGNEE.
After each incident, the staff member involved shall:
2.2 REPORTING OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH
If serious bodily injury of the student or death occurs during the implementation of restraint or seclusion, oral notification of the incident shall follow local health and safety procedures as outlined by the District policies and procedures (e.g., DOE/MSMA policies).
Annual report of incidents of prohibitive behavior shall include:
3.0 REPORTING PROCESS OF PARENTAL CONCERNS
Reports of concerns and complaints related to restraint and seclusion will follow the local SAUs policies and procedures.
Group 1 work product (in progress):
Our Parking Lot
Incident report (documentation)—goes to Parent and sending district
How long do you hold onto documentation
What goes into the permanent file (cum folder)
CTE must be included as a covered entity
1. TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION
1.1 ANNUAL TRAINING FOR ALL SCHOOL STAFF WIDE INSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND EMERGENCY INTERVENTIONS
1.2 APPROVED TRAINING FOR SELECTED STAFF
RESPONSE TO THE USE OF RESTRAINT OR SECLUSION
1. DEBRIEFING AFTER AN INCIDENT OF RESTRAINT OR SECLUSION
Following each incident of restraint or seclusion, the covered entity shall ensure that within two school days, an administrator or designee reviews the incident with all staff persons who implemented the use of restraint or seclusion to discuss:
a) Whether the use of restraint or seclusion was implemented in compliance with these regulations, and local policies, and,
b) How to prevent or reduce the future need for such use.
2. MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF RESTRAINT OR SECLUSION
a. After the 2nd restraint or incident of seclusion in a school year (which the school is on notice), of a student who is not eligible for special education as defined by these rules a team consisting of the parent, a school administrator, a teacher for the student, a staff member involved in the incident (if not the teacher or administrator already invited), and other appropriate staff members shall meet within ten school days of the second incident to discuss the incident. When the needs dictate, a written plan to prevent or reduce the future need for restraint and seclusion is developed. This plan shall include consideration of the appropriateness of a referral to special education, and the development of a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) as described below.
b. After the 3rd restraint or incident of seclusion in a school year, this same team shall meet within 5 school days of the 3rd incident and shall order a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) as defined in M.U.S.E.R.(II)(15)(with the exception that it is used by the team described in this section and not the IEP team), and a written behavioral intervention plan (BIP). A preliminary FBA shall be completed within 10 school days and later updated as new information becomes available. A “Behavior intervention plan” (BIP) is a comprehensive plan for managing behavior by changing or removing contextual factors that trigger or maintain it, and by strengthening replacement skills. The BIP shall also be completed within 10 school days but shall be modified if and when additional information becomes available from ongoing functional assessment. If a written BIP already exists, it shall be updated at this meeting to address the behaviors that lead to the use of restraint or seclusion, and shall be updated by the team each time restraint and seclusion are used thereafter. Nothing in this section is meant to prevent the completion of a FBA or BIP for any student who might benefit from these but whose behavior has not reached an unsafe level.
If, in the event the child has changed districts and the receiving district has not yet received records….
c. In either case, restraint and seclusion are considered emergency interventions which are intended solely to prevent injury to persons. They are options districts may use only in the manner set forth in this Chapter. Restraint and seclusion are not considered therapeutic interventions and shall not be included in a student’s program or written plans, including in a student’s IEP, BIP, SAT plan, RTI plan, or health plan. A district may not seek written permission from a parent to provide restraint and seclusion to a student.
3. COMPLAINT PROCESS (probably needs to be in another section of the Chapter)
An organization or individual may submit a written, signed complaint with the Department of Education alleging that a public education program is violating or has violated this section. The Department shall investigate this complaint and issue a written report with specific findings within 30 days. A copy of this report shall be provided to the complainant within 30 days of the complaint. If a violation is found, the Department shall require the covered entity to correct the violation through the use of a written corrective action plan with timelines for implementation. A covered entity may also develop a policy by which an organization or individual may file a complaint at the local level, so long as it does not preclude an organization or individual from also filing a complaint with the State Department of Education.
Remaining Large Group Issues
The group considered some issues that remained from the previous meeting:
1. Should the term aversive procedures be defined?
Group response: Yes
2. Should sections 4.1 and 4.2 be switched?
Group response: No
3. Where did the requirement for 60 square feet come from?
Answer: Barbara Gunn has the answer to this.
4. Does the school approval process dictate a minimum size for office space?
5. Should there be a statement regarding the transition from seclusion to restraint?
Group response: No
6. Should the exclusion section be moved to 4.2?
Group response: No
7. Can students voluntarily leave the seclusion room?
Group response: They can voluntarily leave but may need to be restrained if they still are at risk for harming themselves or others.
8. Should we expand/enhance the section that describes a room?
Group response: References to a “room” should be eliminated. Seclusion occurs in an area or location, the dimensions of which are not less than 60 square feet. The area or location must have appropriate heat, light, and ventilation. Seclusion Section 3.5 was revised to reflect this.
Ansley reviewed the work that remains:
September 21: Come to consensus on work done so far.
September 28: Complete definitions. Need a section on Scope, need to finalize Documentation.
October 3: Final meeting. Review final product. Members will receive a copy prior to the meeting.
Submitted by: Steve Spear
|Copyright © 2007 All rights reserved.|