FW: Restraint and Seclusion-Proposed Rule 160-5-1-.35

[Guest guest]

From: Sharon Gudger

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010

1:32 PM

To: 'ameyer@...'

Cc: 'gmcgiboney@...'; 'nohara@...';

'khartsell@...'; 'info@...'

Subject: Restraint and

Seclusion-Proposed Rule 160-5-1-.35

Sharon Gudger

6865 Lane

Dunwoody, GA

30338

January 26, 2010

VIA E-Mail to ameyer@...

and US Mail

Allan Meyer

Interim Director, Policy

Georgia Department of Education

2053 Twin Towers East

205 Hill Jr. Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA

30334

RE: Proposed Rule

160-5-1-.35 Seclusion and Restraint

Dear Mr. Meyer:

I am both parent and advocate for Georgia children with special

needs. The first draft Proposed Rule 160-5-1-.35 “Seclusion and Restraint

for all Students” addressing the treatment of children in Georgia school programs was barely acceptable,

but acceptable in that it would possibly prevent deaths of vulnerable children

in Georgia.

Therefore, I supported the original draft.

I care about this issue because I have been involved in

many cases where children were irreparably harmed and have knowledge of cases

where children have died. As such, I am committed to the development of a rule

that supports schools to educate children in safe and positive environments

that foster learning and growth without causing substantial harm.

I support the Department’s decision to address the

issue of restraint and seclusion through the development of a rule. In

particular, I support GDOE’s prohibition on seclusion, prone restraint,

mechanical restraint, and chemical restraint. The comments below are

designed to impose significant limitations on the use of physical restraint and

to build safeguards into the process by which school personnel use restraint

and seclusion on a student.

It is my understanding the original draft was changed due

to multiple comments from educators, school district attorneys, special

education administration, and special interest lobbyists. None of which, to my

knowledge, have children in the programs they comment on. As parents,

advocates, and attorney’s who work with these children, seeing the harm

caused as a direct result of the above, we feel more qualified to address the

rules as many or our children or clients are in these programs. The first draft

was acceptable to us and we are told it was significantly weakened due to

comments from those who do not have children in these programs, and once again

the drafts puts our children in harms way in an environment where children

should feel and BE safe.

·

Behavioral support for students must promote the

right of all students to be treated with dignity and to be educated in a safe

environment.

·

Physical restraint, an inherently dangerous

practice, should only be used in situations of risk of serious bodily

injury and is only justified based on actual behavior of the student in the

time of emergency. Data should be kept on specifics of each incident, with

video of all incidents. Specific data of antecedents and all interventions

tried must be required. Interpretation of “risk of serious bodily

injury” must be specifically spelled out, not left open to

interpretation.

·

Physical restraint may never be used for

disciplinary purpose, convenience of faculty or staff, or as a substitute for

appropriate positive teaching strategies, techniques, and supports.

·

Restraint is prohibited to those situations when

less intrusive efforts are not effective and there is danger of serious bodily

injury to self or to others.

·

Schools should use Positive Behavior Supports as an

intervention for students with disruptive or challenging behaviors. Early

identification and intervention are key to effective utilization. Trained

individuals, knowledgeable in positive interventions, who have experienced

success, must be utilized in each case.

·

Physical restraint should only be applied to

students by school personnel who have been trained and certified in a

State-approved training program consisting of instruction not only in applying

restraint, but also in de-escalation strategies and problem solving techniques.

·

School systems should be required to document and

report each specific instance of physical restraint on a student in their

school.

·

Provoking of students by untrained staff is

unacceptable and should be addressed in every case therefore keeping the

student from suffering irreparable emotional damage.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary

on this proposed rule. I look forward to continuing to work with you to help

keep the children of Georgia

safe.

Sincerely,

Sharon Gudger

Sharon Gudger

cc:

Garry McGiboney, Ph.D.

Associate Superintendent

Innovative Instruction

1752 Twin Towers East

205 Hill Jr. Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA

30334

gmcgiboney@...

O'Hara

Director, Special Education Services

1870 Twin Towers East

205 Hill Jr. Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA

30334

nohara@...

Kim Hartsell

Director, Special Education Supports

1870 Twin Towers East

205 Hill Jr. Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA

30334

khartsell@...

Ruby

Executive Director

Georgia Advocacy Office

Safe Schools Initiative

150 E. Ponce de

Leon Ave., Suite 430

Decatur, Georgia 30030

info@...

Sharon Gudger

Director Mountain Miracles at Bisonview

Lodge

www.mountainmiracles.org

sharon@...