Bill 1792 to be presented to the Committee on Education for Public Comment Wednesday,

February 16.What: Presentation of House Bill 1792 to the Committee on Education for Public CommentWhen: Wednesday February 16th, 2005 at 8:00 a.m.Where: Hearing Room B at the John L O’Brian BuildinG, Olympia, WA 98504-0600Why: Last year, the Seattle/King County Branch of the NAACP fought the use of handcuffs in public schools, specifically in Kent. Since that time, a suit has been filed in Federal Court, and on February 16, House Bill 1792 will be presented.House Bill 1792 proposes to enact rigid, precise guidelines for usage of handcuffs or force against students. Among the supporters of Bill 1792 are Congressman Eric Pettigrew.House Bill 1792 Sponsor(s): Representatives Pettigrew, Santos, Dickerson, Haler, Simpson, Darneille, O’Brien, Murray, Lantz, Chase, Kenney, Kagi, Hasegawa, Moeller, Hudgins Brief Description: Defining the parameters of the use of force and physical restraint in the common schools. House Bill 1792 – DIGEST Finds that preserving a safe and beneficial learning environment for all students requires the establishment and enforcement of appropriate student discipline policies. Acknowledges that school district boards of directors may find it necessary to employ school security personnel or to rely upon school resource officers in order to preserve a safe and beneficial learning environment within certain schools. Encourages schools and districts to consider school discipline and security models in which counselors and prevention/intervention specialists, along with school building administrators and other school security personnel, if employed, and school resource officers, if present, are trained and work as teams of experts in diffusing anger, de-escalating conflict, and reducing violent behavior within their schools. Declares that, except as provided in this act, the use of physical restraint in the public schools is limited to the use of reasonable force under the following circumstances only: (1) The person’s behavior poses a threat of imminent, serious, physical harm to self or to others; and (2) Nonphysical interventions would not be effective in removing the imminent threat of harm. Provides that the use of physical restraint in the common schools is prohibited in the following circumstances: (1) As a means of punishment; or (2) As a disciplinary response to destruction of school property, disruption of school or classroom order, noncompliance with a school rule or staff directive, or communication of a verbal threat that does not constitute a threat of imminent, serious, physical harm. Does not prohibit: (1) The use of physical restraint when such use is permitted or required by and is consistent with a student’s 504 plan or individual education plan; (2) The right of any individual to report to appropriate authorities a crime committed by a student or other individual; or (3) Commissioned law enforcement officers, including school resource officers, or judicial authorities from exercising their authority or executing their responsibilities, including the physical detainment of a student or other person. —–Original Message—– From: Robbins, Clint Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:02 PM To: ‘chrisb@mediumnews.net’ Subject: HB 1792 Representative Eric PettigrewTalking Points – House Bill 1792 (the use of force in schools)Tuesday, February 8, 2005 * The point of this legislation is to preserve a safe learning environment for all students – and for all teachers and other school staff. * We know that a safe learning environment requires the establishment and enforcement of appropriate and accountablepolicies for student discipline. * A school’s culture and climate will determine the quality of interaction between students, school-staff, volunteers, and, of course, parents. The school environment greatly affects the level of disciplinary activity that goes on inside a school. * Sometimes, a district’s board of directors might determine that it’s appropriate to employ school-security personnel in order to preserve a safe learning environment. * Along these lines: This legislation directs our individual schools and school districts to consider models for school discipline and security. These models in turn should direct the workand training of school counselors and prevention or intervention specialists, school administrators, and other security personnel. * My proposal is aimed at building a framework for appropriate training of adults with whom we trust our children hundreds of hours every year. * Our goal is simple: School-staff should work as a team in diffusing anger, de-escalating conflict, and reducing violent behaviorin our public schools. * When we talk about “physical restraint,” we’re talking about physical intervention or force that is used to control a student – including the use of a restraint device. * A “restraint device” might be metal handcuffs, plastic ties, ankle restraints, leather cuffs or other hospital-type restraints, pepper spray, tasers, or batons. * A “school resource officer” is a commissioned law-enforcement officer who provides security and law-enforcement services at one or more public schools under the direction of the school administrator. * A “school security officer” is a person other than a commissioned law-enforcement officer who provides these security services at one or more public schools under the direction of the school administrator. * This legislation limits – with very few and very clearly defined exceptions – the use of physical restraint in our public schools. * Physical restraint is limited to these circumstances: * The student’s behavior must be an imminent threat to himself or herself, or others. * School personnel must believe that nonphysical intervention would not be effective. * Physical restraint must not be used – again with very few and very clearly defined exceptions – for punishment or discipline for the destruction of school property, disruption of school or classroom order, noncompliance with a school rule or staff directive, or communication of a verbal threat that is not a threat of imminent, serious, physical harm. * I mentioned exceptions to these proposed guidelines that prohibit the use of force or restraint. * One exception would be if the physical restraint is consistent with a student’s individual education plan. * Also, the proposal does not prohibit commissioned law-enforcement officers – including school-resource officers and judicial authorities – from exercising their authority or executing their responsibilities, which might include the physical detainment of a student. * In every school, the principal must meet at least once a year with other school staff – including any school-security officers or school-resource officers who work there – to develop or review the building’s disciplinary standards and uniform enforcement of these standards. * This legislation simply calls on our schools to establish firm, accountable procedures for the use of force and physical restraints in dealing with unruly students. * Yes, schools have a responsibility to protect children – as well as to protect teachers and other school staff – from young people who are being violent or threatening to be violent. * What I’m saying with this bill is that I want – and everyone should want – the adults who deal with our children and our neighbor’s children to be held accountable for their actions. * The physical-restraint issue was brought to the attention of citizens and legislators last year after incidents in which Kent School District middle-school and high-school students were handcuffed. * I’ve worked on this measure with a school-safety group made up of parents and school officials.