State policies concerning the use of seclusion timeout in schools.

State policies concerning the use of seclusion timeout in schools. Abstract The use of seclusion seclusionForensic psychiatry A strategy for managing disturbed and violent Pts in psychiatric units, which consists of supervised confinement of a Pt to a room–ie, involuntary isolation, to protect others from harm timeout in school settings has again becomecontroversial. For more than 35 years there have been recommendationsthat states and schools develop policies and procedures Policies and Procedures are a set of documents that describe an organization's policies for operation and the procedures necessary to fulfill the policies. They are often initiated because of some external requirement, such as environmental compliance or other governmental regarding theuse of seclusion timeout in school settings. Recent lawsuits broughtagainst school districts accusing them of violating student rightsthrough the improper use of timeout procedures among a variety of otherfactors have again brought this issue to prominence. In addition,advocacy organizations have now begun to lobby for the elimination ofseclusion timeout in all child caring agencies including schools. Inorder to identify whether states currently have policies in this area,the State Education Agency for each state was contacted, and theirwebsites searched for policies on seclusion or timeout. Only 24 stateswere identified in the present study which have an established policy orprovide guidelines to their respective school districts concerning theuse of timeout procedures with students. The difficulty in locating andidentifying these policies even when they do exist, indicates that theymay not be viewed as a high priority by states or school systems inspite of the litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. and advocacy. These policies were then reviewedto determine whether they included a subset of the components called forin the literature. The content of these policies varied significantly,indicating that it was not likely that states were providing commoncomprehensive requirements or guidance to schools on this issue. ********** Since the procedure was first discussed in literature nearly a halfcentury ago (Baer, 1961), timeout has been incorporated into countlessclassroom teachers' behavior management behavior managementPsychology Any nonpharmacologic maneuver–eg contingency reinforcement–that is intended to correct behavioral problems in a child with a mental disorder–eg, ADHD. See Attention-deficit-hyperactivity syndrome. plans for students. Timeouthas long been used to address a broad range of maladaptive MaladaptiveUnsuitable or counterproductive; for example, maladaptive behavior is behavior that is inappropriate to a given situation.Mentioned in: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy behaviorsacross educational placement settings (Ryan, Sanders, Katsiyannis &Yell, 2007). The purpose of the study is to determine the current statusof State Department of Education policies related to timeout and inparticular to the most restrictive form of timeout--seclusion. Defining of Timeout and Seclusion From the perspective of behaviorist Behaviorist1. One who accepts or assumes the theory of behaviorism (behavioral finance in investing.) 2. A psychologist who subscribes to behaviorism.Notes:When it comes to investing, people may not be as rational as they think. theory, timeout is defined asbehavior reduction procedure or form of punishment in which students whodisplay a predefined inappropriate behavior are suspended for a shortperiod of time from access to all opportunities to receive positivesocial reinforcement (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). However, thisdefinition may not describe the actual practice used by many teacherswhere control of access to reinforcement for the student may not be theprimary purpose of the procedure. In practice teachers may use the term"timeout" to apply to interventions primarily aimed at otherpurposes such as calming a student down, removing the student from thegroup, or engaging the student in problem solving problem solvingProcess involved in finding a solution to a problem. Many animals routinely solve problems of locomotion, food finding, and shelter through trial and error. or self reflection.Many teachers and classrooms have grown to use a wide variety of namesfor this procedure. For our purpose we will use the term"timeout" to include these procedures which may have otherpurposes. Timeout has also grown to be understood as an intervention whichresults in the student being moved from one location to another. Basedupon the degree to which it separates a student from his/her peers, itis possible to categorize cat��e��go��rize?tr.v. cat��e��go��rized, cat��e��go��riz��ing, cat��e��go��riz��esTo put into a category or categories; classify.cat timeout procedures into four types: (1)inclusion, (2) exclusion, (3) seclusion, and (4) restrained timeout. Inclusion timeout. Inclusion is the least restrictive of the fourtimeout procedures, and entails placing a student in an area of theclassroom in which s/he can observe classroom instruction, but whichpresumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. denies a student the opportunity to participate in activitiesor receive reinforcement for a given period of time (National Alliancefor the Mentally Ill, 2001; Ryan, Sanders, et al. 2007). Common examplesof this procedure include (a) Planned Ignoring, (b) Withdrawal ofMaterials, (c) Contingent Observation, and (d) Timeout Ribbon. To date, inclusion timeouts have been the most extensivelyresearched form of timeout. Planned Ignoring which involves thewithdrawal of social attention for a predetermined pre��de��ter��mine?v. pre��de��ter��mined, pre��de��ter��min��ing, pre��de��ter��minesv.tr.1. To determine, decide, or establish in advance: time period has beenshown to be effective in increasing prosocial behaviors among apreschool student in general education (Allen, Hart, Buell, Harris &Wolf, 1964). However, the procedure was unsuccessful in reducinginappropriate behaviors with a preschool student with E/BD (Plummer,Baer & LeBlanc, 1977). Withdrawal of Materials, which entailsremoving reinforcing materials from a student was as effective atreducing noncompliance as contingent observation for students withmental retardation mental retardation,below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. (Burchard & Barerra 1972; Gresham, 1979). Inaddition, Contingent Observation which requires the student be moved toanother location in the classroom, but allowed to observe the classwithout participating in any way, was as effective as the morerestrictive exclusion timeout in reducing disruptive behavior in a 7year old boy with E/BD (Mace & Heller, 1990). Similarly, Gallagher,Mittelstadt & Slater, (1988) showed contingent observation could beas effective in reducing undesirable behaviors as seclusion timeout fora student with E/BD in a special day school. Lastly, Timeout Ribbon inwhich a student wears a ribbon or object as long as s/he behavesappropriately, and denied reinforcement when it is removed has proveneffective in reducing talking out of turn and out of seat behavior infour general education elementary school elementary school:see school. classrooms (Fee, Matson &Manikam, 1990), elementary special education classrooms (Salend &Gordon, 1987; Salend & Maragulia, 1983) and for students with MR(Foxx & Shapiro, 1978; Huguenin & Mulick, 1981; Solnick,Rincover & Peterson, 1977; Spitalnik & Drabman, 1976). Exclusion timeout. Exclusion is a procedure in which a student isseparated in a designated area away from his/her peers, but is notphysically prevented from leaving (National Alliance for the MentallyIll, 2001; Ryan, Sanders, et al., 2007). While this procedure is similarto inclusion timeout, it is more restrictive because it denies a studentthe opportunity to either visually observe and/or hear what is occurringin the child's normal educational environment. Examples ofexclusion timeout include having a student sit: (a) in the corner of aclassroom facing the wall, (b) in their seat with their head on thedesk, (c) behind a partition A reserved part of disk or memory that is set aside for some purpose. On a PC, new hard disks must be partitioned before they can be formatted for the operating system, and the Fdisk utility is used for this task. in the classroom, (d) outside of theclassroom in the hallway, (e) in the school office, or (f) in anotherteacher's classroom (e.g., interclass timeout). The efficacy of exclusion timeout has not been researched asthoroughly as inclusion timeout, however, it was shown to be effectivein reducing disruptive behaviors in a general education elementaryschool classroom (Nau, Van Houten Van Houten may refer to: Coenraad Johannes van Houten Milhouse Van Houten & O'Neil, 1981). A decadelater exclusion timeout proved to be more effective at reducingnoncompliance than a guided compliance technique in which the teacherhelped preschool children complete a requested task using guided handover hand movement (Handen, Parrish, McClung, Kerwin & Evans, 1992). Seclusion Timeout. In seclusion, the student is removed from theclassroom environment and, for a period of time, placed alone in a roomor other environment designated for this purpose, usually in a situationin which they are prevented from leaving (Busch & Shore, 2000). Thistimeout procedure is commonly referred to by the name of the timeoutenvironment such as (a) the isolation room, (b) the timeout room, (c)the quiet room, or (d) the seclusion room. Numerous other euphemisms areused for these locations as well, but these locations can be genericallydescribed as the "timeout room." Seclusion is considered to beone of the most restrictive forms of timeout, because it completelyremoves the student from access to the educational environment and fromhis or her peers and usually entails isolation of the student from otherstudents and staff. The theoretical framework within the psychiatric psy��chi��at��ricadj.Of or relating to psychiatry.psychiatricadjective Pertaining to psychiatry, mental disorders literature justifying seclusion is based on this timeout serving twoprimary functions, including: (a) as a therapeutic modality therapeutic modality,n an intervention used to heal someone. See model, biomedical and homeopathy. to establishappropriate limit setting and/or decreased stimulation from sensoryoverload For the record label see Sensory Overload RecordsSensory overload (sometimes abbreviated to SO) is a condition where one or more of the five senses are strained and it becomes difficult to focus on the task at hand. , and (b) as a means of containing violent behavior to protecteither the student or others (Busch & Shore, 2000). Decades earlier,Cotton (1989) posited seclusion served as a means of therapeuticmanagement for children that do not learn internal control form othersocial interactions. The efficacy of seclusion has also been sparsely sparse?adj. spars��er, spars��estOccurring, growing, or settled at widely spaced intervals; not thick or dense.[Latin sparsus, past participle of spargere, to scatter. studied ineducational settings, and with mixed results. While the first study thatwas conducted with a single subject with E/BD demonstrated a significantdecrease in aggressive behaviors (Webster, 1976), a follow on studyshowed seclusion timeouts had no effect on maladaptive behaviors forstudents with E/BD or MR (Smith, 1981). Restrained timeout. Restrained timeout is frequently referred to aseither: (a) movement suppression, or (b) therapeutic holding (Ryan &Peterson, 2004), and is actually a combination of a timeout proceduresand a physical (ambulatory Movable; revocable; subject to change; capable of alteration.An ambulatory court was the former name of the Court of King's Bench in England. It would convene wherever the king who presided over it could be found, moving its location as the king moved. ) restraint. Restrained timeout is oftenrestricted to young children (e.g., pre-k & kindergarten kindergarten[Ger.,=garden of children], system of preschool education. Friedrich Froebel designed (1837) the kindergarten to provide an educational situation less formal than that of the elementary school but one in which children's creative play instincts would be ), andconsists of a staff member positioning a student into a timeout position(e.g., sitting in corner) and maintaining the student in that positionthrough the use of physical restraint Physical restraint refers to the practice of rendering people helpless or keeping them in captivity by means such as handcuffs, shackles, straitjackets, ropes, straps, or other forms of physical restraint. . Physical restraint entails astaff member using his/her body to position and control the student frommoving out of that timeout location. This procedure prevents the studentfrom leaving, but can occur in inclusionary, exclusionary orseclusionary settings. Similar to the other current uses of the termtimeout, there is some controversy about whether this type of timeoutactually deprives the student from reinforcement since the restraintitself may be reinforcing for some students. This form of timeout whichis probably the least frequently used in school settings is viewed asone of the more restrictive forms of timeout because it combines boththe isolation and the use of physical restraint. According to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. a reviewby Day (2002), the primary theoretical basis for restraint is based onthe attachment theory Attachment theory is a psychological theory that provides a descriptive and explanatory framework for discussion of affectionate relationships between human beings. Most of attachment theory as we know it today is derived from the work of John Bowlby and stresses the attitudes and . This theory posits restraint actually helpsfoster a positive bond between the student and adult through thephysical contact of a restraint. This bonding process helps facilitatethe child work toward problem solving with the adult figure. To date, restrained timeout was shown to be effective in reducingaggressive behaviors for a student with emotional or behavioraldisorders (Noll & Simpson, 1979), and mental retardation (Luiselli,Suskin & Slocumb, 1984). It was also effective in reducingself-injurious behaviors for a student with E/BD (Rolider, 1985). Focus On Seclusion Timeout Although inclusionary and exclusionary timeout procedures are notentirely without controversy and subject to abuse, it has been the useof seclusionary timeout procedures which has been most often the focusof controversy. Seclusionary timeout will be the primary focus of theremainder of this report and we will use both the terms"seclusion" and "timeout" to refer to thisseclusionary form of timeout. Issues and Advocacy Related to Seclusion in School Settings While there may be a large body of literature concerning thetraditional use of "timeout from positive reinforcement positive reinforcement,n a technique used to encourage a desirable behavior. Also calledpositive feedback, in which the patient or subject receives encouraging and favorable communication from another person. ,"there is little research which would support the benefit of seclusionarytimeout over inclusionary or even exclusionary timeout when access topositive reinforcement can be managed effectively in these moreinclusive environments. The few studies that have been conducted onseclusion, have reported contradictory findings concerning the efficacyof the procedure, had single subjects (e.g., n = 1), and were conductedover a quarter century ago. Most times when seclusion timeout is used,"access to reinforcement" is not even part of the goal, letalone monitored as part of the procedure itself. There is likely also very little research support for the otherways that seclusion is apparently being used in many school environments(as a disciplinary consequence; for problem solving time; for cool downtime; etc) when attention to removal of positive reinforcement is notthe focus. We were not able to identify any studies which examined theefficacy of seclusion for these purposes. Most times these purposesmight be served with alternatives to the use of seclusion. There are several potential problems concerning the use of timeoutprocedures, particularly when these procedures are used despite theirlack of effect on altering maladaptive behavior. Parents, communitymembers and professionals have had concerns about the length of timethat students are in timeout, as well as the supervision and safety ofstudents in exclusionary or seclusionary timeout settings. Some studentswere left in timeout for extended periods of time either because theywere "forgotten" or because of conscious decisions by staff.Over the years there have also been numerous instances of studentscommitting suicide, or suffering severe injuries or death while in"unsafe" exclusionary or seclusionary timeout settings (AACAP,2002; Maden 1999). Also there has been concern for the basicConstitutional rights of students (freedom from incarceration Confinement in a jail or prison; imprisonment.Police officers and other law enforcement officers are authorized by federal, state, and local lawmakers to arrest and confine persons suspected of crimes. The judicial system is authorized to confine persons convicted of crimes. ; cruel andunusual punishment Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. ) as well as for basic human rights (deprivation offood or water; physical environment such as light, appropriatetemperature, etc.). Finally, concerns have also been voiced regardingthe possible negative developmental effects of seclusion on children(trauma created by fear and isolation; lack of access to education;modeling of punitive strategies by adults, etc.). Another concern is that timeout procedures are frequently over usedby teachers with children who are non-responders to this form ofbehavioral intervention behavioral interventionBehavior modification, behavior 'mod', behavioral therapy, behaviorism Psychiatry The use of operant conditioning models, ie positive and negative reinforcement, to modify undesired behaviors–eg, anxiety. . In such cases, teachers continue to send astudent to timeout repetitively, despite the procedure'sineffectiveness in modifying the student's maladaptive behavior(Ryan, Peterson, Tetreault & van der Hagen, 2007). From a behavioralperspective, the continued use of seclusion despite its ineffectivenessmay be explained by both the student and teacher being inadvertentlyreinforced through the use of these procedures. The student may bepositively reinforced by timeout because s/he is removed from theclassroom environment which is itself aversive aversive/aver��sive/ (ah-ver��siv) characterized by or giving rise to avoidance; noxious. a��ver��siveadj. . This is often rewardingif the student is attempting to escape or avoid an unpleasant task orenvironment (e.g., math class). In addition, teachers can be negativelyreinforced by placing a student in timeout, because once the misbehavingstudent is removed from the classroom, the aversive behavior is alsoremoved, providing them with a period of calm. Since both staff andstudent alike are being inadvertently reinforced when implementingtimeout procedures, they may continue to be used excessively despitetheir ineffectiveness in modifying the student's maladaptivebehavior. This concern applies regardless of the educator's purposein sending the student to seclusion. To help prevent students from abusing timeout procedures throughescape or avoidance, Nelson (1999) recommends that the educationalenvironment should provide four times as much positive reinforcement asit provides reductive re��duc��tive?adj.1. Of or relating to reduction.2. Relating to, being an instance of, or exhibiting reductionism.3. Relating to or being an instance of reductivism. consequences. This would ensure that the studentis receiving sufficient positive reinforcement from the educationalenvironment, and not when escaping or avoiding it. Of course this wouldrevert re��vertv.1. To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief.2. To undergo genetic reversion. the procedure to its original definition of being "timeoutfrom positive reinforcement" and still may not explain whyseclusion would be any more effective than inclusionary or evenexclusionary "timeout." The ineffective use of timeout also implies that students'right to least restrictive environment As part of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the least restrictive environment is identified as one of the six principles that govern the education of students with disabilities. in education may be jeopardized,since students may be excluded from participation with their peers whilein timeout settings which are not effective in serving treatment goals. The No Child Left Behind Act The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB (IPA: /ˈnɪkəlbiː/), is a United States federal law that was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001 (NCLB NCLB No Child Left Behind (US education initiative)) of 2001 has also stimulatedprofessional concerns regarding the usefulness of seclusion as anintervention. Since NCLB implies that only scientifically basedinterventions should be used in school settings, the lack of researchsupport for the effectiveness of seclusion as an intervention willlikely compound the controversy about its use in schools. Moreover thislaw has required all students to be assessed in their educationalprogress. When students are excluded from the instructional setting thismay also prevent academic progress for these individuals. Long Standing Concerns Regarding Seclusion There is also a concern that seclusion is being disproportionately dis��pro��por��tion��ate?adj.Out of proportion, as in size, shape, or amount.dispro��por used among young children (Ryan, Peterson, Tetreault & van derHagen, 2007). One hypothesis is that the use of seclusion procedures aremore common among younger children, because they possess fewermechanisms for coping with frustration. In addition, staff may believethese intrusive procedures may be more developmentally appropriate foryounger children, and they may be apprehensive to employ theseprocedures with larger and stronger individuals (Miller, Walker &Friedman, 1989; Persi & Pasquali, 1999). While no research has beenconducted to support either of these two rationales (Day, 2002),treatment staff are apparently more willing to use these proceduressimply because it is physically possible (Kennedy & Mohr, 2001). These issues are not "new." As a result there have beenrecommendations regarding the appropriate use of seclusionary timeoutprocedures by the courts and in the professional literature for morethan 35 years (Cuenin & Harris, 1986; Gast & Nelson, 1977;Nelson & Rutherford Rutherford(rŭth`ərfərd), borough (1990 pop. 17,790), Bergen co., NE N.J., a residential suburb of the New York City–N New Jersey metropolitan area; inc. 1881. Several pre-Revolutionary houses remain there. , 1983; Wood & Braaten, 1984; Wyatt v.Stickney, 1972). These guidelines have typically been directed to schooldistricts and special education professionals who might be employingthese procedures. A summary of some of the recommendations for policytopics include: * Agency statement of purpose for the use of timeout, * Staff awareness and training requirements, * Prior planning and inclusion in the students Individualized in��di��vid��u��al��ize?tr.v. in��di��vid��u��al��ized, in��di��vid��u��al��iz��ing, in��di��vid��u��al��iz��es1. To give individuality to.2. To consider or treat individually; particularize.3. Education Plan (IEP IEPIn currencies, this is the abbreviation for the Irish Punt.Notes:The currency market, also known as the Foreign Exchange market, is the largest financial market in the world, with a daily average volume of over US $1 trillion. ), or Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP BIP - An incorrect singular of BIPS. One billion instructions per second is 1 BIPS, not 1 BIP. ) and priorparent permission * Description of appropriate procedures for use of seclusiontimeout including the length of time students are in that setting * Specifications for physical environment, safety features andmonitoring of the seclusion timeout room or setting, * Parental notification procedures once timeout has been employedwith a child, * Documentation and maintenance of records, * Procedures for complaints, appeals and periodic review. Researchers established some time ago the need for policystatements, written procedures, individual documentation of the use ofseclusion, time limits for a person being placed in seclusionarysettings, professional monitoring of students in seclusionary settings,use of exclusionary timeout only as a last resort, and other topics. Inspite of the long standing calls for policies for the use of seclusionin schools, there has been very little evidence that such policies arewidespread in the schools. Recent Concerns Regarding Seclusion Recent accusations concerning the abuse of these behaviormanagement procedures in some school systems have resulted in renewedand reinvigorated re��in��vig��o��rate?tr.v. re��in��vig��o��rat��ed, re��in��vig��o��rat��ing, re��in��vig��o��ratesTo give new life or energy to.re efforts by advocacy groups and state agencies to callfor official policies or guidelines concerning their use in schools. Asreviewed by McDowell (2003) a jury in New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of awarded $75,000 indamages and attorney fees to a family in the Peters v. Rome City SchoolDistrict (2002) decision for false imprisonment false imprisonment,complete restraint upon a person's liberty of movement without legal justification. Actual physical contact is not necessary; a show of authority or a threat of force is sufficient. The person falsely imprisoned may sue the offender for damages. and violating astudent's Fourth Amendment rights by inappropriately using atimeout room. Staff members had placed a second grade student in atimeout room for excessive periods (i.e., over an hour) and physicallyheld the door shut to lock the student in. Similar court cases havecropped up across the country including Arizona (Rasmus v. State ofArizona, 1996), Colorado (Padilla v. Denver School District, 1999),Michigan (Sabin Sa��bin, Albert Bruce 1906-1993.American microbiologist and physician who developed a live-virus vaccine against polio (1957), replacing the killed-virus vaccine invented by Jonas Salk. v. Greenville Public Schools, 1999), Tennessee(Covington v. Knox County There are nine counties named Knox County in the United States, all apparently named after Henry Knox: Knox County, Illinois Knox County, Indiana Knox County, Kentucky Knox County, Maine Knox County, Missouri Knox County, Nebraska School System, 2000), and Washington(Washougal School District, 1999). Each of these cases was filed byparents concerned that school districts had violated the rights of theirchildren through the use of timeout procedures. As a result educationallaw organizations have cautioned schools about the possibility oflitigation related to seclusion, and have called on them to establishpolicies (LRP LRP Lipoprotein Receptor-Related ProteinLRP Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-Related ProteinLRP Loan Repayment ProgramLRP Linux Router ProjectLRP Livestock Risk ProtectionLRP Laparoscopic Radical ProstatectomyLrp Leucine-responsive Regulatory Protein Publications, 2006). Advocacy Related to Seclusion Concurrently with these developments within the educationcommunity, a wide variety of federal agencies, professionalorganizations and parent or consumer organizations have made reducingthe use of "seclusion" as well as the use of physicalrestraint a priority. These efforts have been stimulated by similaraccusations of abuse and death or injury, as well as court decisionssimilar to those described earlier for schools have addressed violationof Constitutional rights based on this procedure. Although originallyfocused on reducing the use of these procedures in hospital and mentalhealth treatment settings, these professional and advocacy groups havequickly broadened their calls to eliminate seclusion in all settings,and to focus special attention on their use with children. Among themost prominent of these efforts include: (a) The federal Substance Abuseand Mental Health Services Administration The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an operating division of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS), was established in 1992 by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act (Pub. L. No. 102-321). (SAMHSA SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ) which has indicatedthat it is committed ultimately eliminating the use of restraint andseclusion, (b) National Association of State Mental Health ProgramDirectors (NASMHPD NASMHPD National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors ) consisting of administrators of state psychiatrichospitals has adopted a formal position state calling for the reductionand ultimate elimination of the use of restraint and seclusion, (c) theAlliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Intervention and Seclusion(APRAIS) which is a coalition of organizations advocating for thereduction or elimination of restraint, aversive interventions andseclusion especially in children's programs. In response to recent incidents in the schools, as well as thechanges in the acceptability of these interventions in otherenvironments such as mental health settings, many states have nowdeveloped policies or guidelines, or are beginning to develop policiesand guidelines concerning the use of seclusion and timeout procedures inschool settings. New Calls for Policy on Seclusion in Education As a result of these more recent events there have been renewedcalls for the development and implementation of policies regarding theuse of timeout in school settings. Rozalski et al., (2006) have calledfor 10 key principles in these policies (See Figure 1 section A). Theseprinciples included having State Education Agencies require publicschools districts to develop policies, training for staff, making surethese procedures are included in IEPs and behavior plans, gathering dataon the use of these procedures and assessing their efficacy,administrative oversight, and reiterated calls that these proceduresonly be used as a last resort when less restrictive interventions havefailed. They also called on schools to explore alternatives to theseinterventions. This call for state and district policies is similar tothe elements identified in previous calls for policies (Cuenin &Harris, 1986; Gast & Nelson, 1977; Nelson & Rutherford, 1983;Wood & Braaten, 1983; Wyatt v. Stickney, 1972). This type of approach is starkly contrasted by calls for theoutright elimination of seclusion as an option for use in school andother settings (APRAISE, 2007) including a prohibition that theseprocedures be included in IEPs or behavior plans, and that theseprocedures be eliminated universally across states and agencies acrossthe country (see Figure 1 section B). Purpose In this context it is important to determine the current status ofpolicy on this topic. Since State Education Agencies (SEAs) have beencalled upon to provide oversight policies requiring local policies, itseems as if an analysis of existing state policies would be a firststep. The purpose of this study was to determine which states currentlyhave established policies or guidelines concerning the use of timeoutsin educational settings, and determine whether these policies containedkey elements which had been previously identified as important. Methods A search was conducted to identify any state policies andguidelines concerning the use of timeout and seclusion in public schoolsin all fifty states as well as the District of Columbia District of Columbia,federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). . The StateEducation Agency (SEA) for each state was contacted and asked to providecopies or references of their state policy or guidelines concerning theuse of timeout and seclusion within their public schools. Multiplecontacts were attempted first through e-mail, then with a follow uprequest conducted via telephone for those states that did not respond.If a state's SEA did not respond or was unsure of their statepolicy/guidelines, the authors searched the state's SEA World WideWeb site, as well as their state legislative web site in an attempt toidentify policy or legislation pertaining per��tain?intr.v. per��tained, per��tain��ing, per��tains1. To have reference; relate: evidence that pertains to the accident.2. to the use of seclusion andtimeout in educational settings. Once located, state policies werecopied and pasted to word for the authors to examine. Components of thepolicies and guidelines were then recorded and coded in excel. The policies identified were specific to the use of timeout inschool settings. It is likely that many states also have policiesregulating the use of timeout or other behavioral interventions whichaddress the use of these procedures in other agencies which providechild care or child services such as foster care, residential treatmentsettings, hospitals or correctional facilities. Most often thesepolicies do not apply to public school settings. Hence, we did notattempt to identify, nor include policies which did not appear to applyto school settings. Results In all, we were able to identify 24 states which currently haveeither established an official policy, or provide suggested guidelinesfor their school systems to follow when utilizing timeout procedures.Table 2 provides a list of these states, identification of their havingeither a mandated policy or optional guideline guidelineMedtalk A series of recommendations by a body of experts in a particular discipline. See Cancer screening guidelines, Cardiac profile guidelines, Gatekeeper guidelines, Harvard guidelines, Transfusion guidelines. for school districts tofollow. The table also provides a website link to those documents. Established state policies regulating the use of timeout proceduresfor schools were established in 17 states, including: Arkansas,Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Montana, New Mexico New Mexico,state in the SW United States. At its northwestern corner are the so-called Four Corners, where Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah meet at right angles; New Mexico is also bordered by Oklahoma (NE), Texas (E, S), and Mexico (S). , New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island Rhode Island, island, United StatesRhode Island,island, 15 mi (24 km) long and 5 mi (8 km) wide, S R.I., at the entrance to Narragansett Bay. It is the largest island in the state, with steep cliffs and excellent beaches. , Texas, Utah,& Vermont. Subsequent to this analysis we have learned that statepolicy may exist in at least two other states (California and Nevada)which are not included in our analysis. In one more (Kansas) stateregulations are pending as of this date. In addition to the states with regulations we were able to identifyan additional seven states which did not seem to have regulations, butwhich provided guidelines for local education agencies that utilizetimeout procedures. These included: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,Idaho, Kentucky, Virginia & Wisconsin. Like the policies identified,these technical assistance documents vary in their focus. While some arespecific to timeout, others address timeout in the context of other"controversial" interventions such as physical restraint,corporal punishment corporal punishment,physical chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, mutilation, and branding. Until c. or "aversive" interventions or somecombination of these. It should be noted that where we were able to identify a policy wedid not search for and include other guideline or technical assistancedocuments which might also be available through that state. Therefore,these should be viewed from the perspective that at least some guidanceis provided- additional more specific guidance may be provided inaddition to the policy which is listed for a particular state (oneexample would be Iowa which has both a brief policy, and an extensivetechnical assistance document on timeout). Where actual policies were in place, they varied as to how theywere codified cod��i��fy?tr.v. cod��i��fied, cod��i��fy��ing, cod��i��fies1. To reduce to a code: codify laws.2. To arrange or systematize. . Most were in regulations related to special education,but others were self standing policies related to these topics.Sometimes they appeared in an umbrella policy Umbrella policyInsurance for exports of an exporter whose issuer handles all administrative requirements. having to do with"aversive procedures" or interventions, some were in policiesaddressing "seclusion and physical restraint" together, and insome other cases there were policies which addressed"seclusion" of "timeout" only. Because of the difficulty in identifying these policies, it appearslikely that additional states may have policies or guidelines which wewere not able to identify. As a result our data should not beinterpreted to indicate that the other states did not have policies.Also as incidents of abuse of timeout occur, or as court or advocacyefforts proceed, additional states may be in the process of developingpolicies or guidelines (e.g., Kansas). While some state policies or guidelines are relatively brief (e.g.,1 - 3 pages), others are quite extensive (e.g., 19 pages for KY &WI). Therefore, internet web links in Table 2 permit readers to accessand review each individual state policy or guideline. Note that thelinks provided are usually to the overall document where these policiesexist, but in many cases the specific sections where policies related totimeout are not identified, and additional searching may be needed tofind the pertinent sections of these documents. In order to provide a more complete picture of these policies, wealso compared the results of our search for policies with the results ofthe survey conducted by Rozalski et al., (2006). In that study, theauthors provided operational definitions of seclusion timeout and askedthe state directors of special education in the 50 states and Districtof Columbia to identify state and local policies and procedures.Nineteen directors or their designees provided specifics details,including California and Nevada who at the time forbid for��bid?tr.v. for��bade or for��bad , for��bid��den or for��bid, for��bid��ding, for��bids1. To command (someone) not to do something: I forbid you to go.2. the use of lockedseclusion. In comparing the states where we found policies or guidelinesto the states which they found to have "procedures" the numberof states with some form of policy or guidelines may be estimated moreaccurately, than with just our data. On Table 3 with both studiescombined, it appears that as many as 28 of the 50 states have theseseclusion timeout policies, guidelines or specific prohibitions againstits use. After reviewing each of the state guidelines and policies currentlyin place, these appear to follow some of the basic policy guidelinescontained in early discussions of needed policies (Cuenin & Harris,1986; Gast & Nelson, 1977; Wood & Braaten, 1983) as well as themore recent request (Rozalski, et al., 2006). Although it was beyond ourscope to conduct a detailed analysis of the content of these policies, apreliminary analysis was conducted on some of these topics and isdepicted in Table 4. Fifty percent (12 of the 24) policies which were identifiedrequired school systems to develop written procedures for the use ofseclusion, while 16 (67%) established requirements for rooms used forseclusion. A smaller number banned the use of locked timeout rooms.Fifteen (62%) required parental notification of the use of seclusiontimeout, and an even larger number (21 or 87%) required documentation ofeach timeout event. Fifteen (62%) also recommended or required stafftraining if seclusion timeout was to be employed. Fifteen of these statepolicies also addressed the length of time students would be in timeout.Four (17%) specified 12-15 minutes maximum (at least for elementary agedstudents), while six (25%) required a 20-30 minute maximum or thatstudents must at least be reassessed after that period of time. Fourmore specified 55-60 minutes as the limit. Only one state (Colorado) had in its guidelines all seven of theelements which were scanned for in our analysis. Another (New York)seemed to have all except for the time frame for seclusion, and severalothers had most of these elements. There were four states (Idaho,Iowa-although Iowa had an additional technical assistance document whichwas not scanned, Massachusetts and Michigan) whose documents onlyincluded one of the elements we scanned for. One more (Texas) which hadtwo elements and six more which only had three of the seven elements. Asa result even when states may have policies there is some question as towhether they meet the needs for guidance and oversight suggested in theliterature. Discussion Generally we found that where regulations do exist, they permit theuse of seclusion timeout. No state in the present study ruled outentirely the use of seclusion timeout in school settings, although theRozalski et al. study (2006) identified two states (California andNevada) which prohibit locked time out. Nevertheless more states maymove in this direction if current advocacy efforts are successful. In all cases where policy or guidelines were in place, a variety ofrestrictions on the use of exclusion were included which are typical ofthe long standing calls for policy on this topic. Unfortunately evenwhere policies or guidelines were in place, there were none whichcompletely addressed the seven sample elements which we scanned for, letalone the complete array of components called for by previous literaturerequesting policy on these topics. Moreover, even when policies were inplace, most did not appear to provide comprehensive guidance to localschools on developing their policies nor close oversight or supervisionfrom the state. Limitations The authors encountered several states that did not respond toeither e-mail or phone requests for copies of their state policies.While three independent searches of these state's SEA andlegislative World Wide Web sites were conducted by the first author, agraduate student, and undergraduate student, it is possible that some ofthese states had policies that were either not identified or currentlyunder development. It is also important to recognize that our efforts to find andanalyze these policies may have overlooked existing policies ordocuments. As a result our results should be interpreted with somecaution- more guidance may exist than reflected in our analysis. Implications The intent of this manuscript was to review existing state policiesand procedures concerning the use of timeout and seclusion in publicschools, and provide recommendations for those states and schools thatwish to develop such guidelines. The authors found only 24 statescurrently had such policies or guidelines in place which we couldlocate, despite a recent increase in litigation concerning their misusein schools that violated student rights. Clearly more states may be inthe process of developing these kinds of guidelines soon both based onabuses of these procedures, current litigation and advocacy on thistopic. Nevertheless, the fact that many states do not have policies, andsome that do are apparently not providing comprehensive policies oroversight in this area suggests that much additional work may need to bedone to bring state policies up to the expectation long called for asminimal professional practice in this area. The very difficulty infinding and obtaining these state policies suggests that they may not bereadily available to school systems, and that school systems have notmade the development of these policies a priority. Future research should investigate the frequency with whichseclusion procedures are used in the public schools, as well as thecompliance of public schools with timeout procedures for those statesthat have established policy or guidelines. Clearly research is alsoneeded on whether these procedures are effective (and if so under whatcircumstances and with which populations), as well as what alternativeinterventions might be employed in lieu of Instead of; in place of; in substitution of. It does not mean in addition to. these restrictive procedures. References Alberto, P.A. & Troutman, A.C. (2006). Applied BehaviorAnalysis Some of the information in this article may not be verified by . It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified to cite reliable sources.Applied behavior analysis (ABA) for Teachers, Upper Saddle River Saddle River may refer to: Saddle River, New Jersey, a borough in Bergen County, New Jersey Saddle River (New Jersey), a tributary of the Passaic River in New Jersey , NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Allen, K.E., Hart, B., Buell, J.S., Harris, F.R. & Wolf, M.M.(1964). Effects of social reinforcement on isolate behavior of a nurseryschool nursery school,educational institution for children from two to four years of age. It is distinguishable from a day nursery in that it serves children of both working and nonworking parents, rarely receives public funds, and has as its primary objective to promote child. Child Development, 35, 511-518. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry A branch of psychiatry that specialises in work with children, teenagers, and their families. HistoryAn important antecedent to the specialty of child psychiatry was the social recognition of childhood as a special phase of life with its own developmental stages, starting with (2002).Practice parameter for the prevention and management of aggressivebehavior in child and adolescent psychiatric institutions, with specialreference to seclusion and restraint. Journal of the American Academy ofChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(2), 4S-25s. APRAISE. (2006). Mission Statement. Accessed fromhttp://www.aprais.org. Baer, D.M. (1961). The effect of withdrawal of positivereinforcement on an extinguishing response in young children. ChildDevelopment, 32, 67-74. Burchard, J.D. & Barrera, F. (1972). An analysis of timeout andresponse cost in a programmed environment. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) was established in 1968 as a The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is a peer-reviewed, psychology journal, that publishes research about applications of the experimental analysis of behavior to problems of social importance. , 5(3), 271-282. Busch, A.B. & Shore, M.F. (2000). Seclusion and restraint: Areview of recent literature, Harvard Review The Harvard Review is a literary magazine published by the Harvard University library system.Its origins can be dated to 1968, when Stratis Haviaras, the curator of the libraries' poetry room founded a magazine called Erato to publicize poetry room authors. of Psychiatry psychiatry(səkī`ətrē, sī–), branch of medicine that concerns the diagnosis and treatment of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders, including major depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety. , 8, 261-270. Cotton, N. (1989). The developmental clinical rationale for the useof seclusion in the psychiatric treatment of children. American Journalof Orthopsychiatry or��tho��psy��chi��a��tryn.The psychiatric study, treatment, and prevention of emotional and behavioral problems, especially of those that arise during early development. , 59, 442-450. Covington v. Knox County School System, 205 F.3d 912 (6th Cir.2000). Cuenin, L. & Harris, K. (Summer 1986). Planning, implementingand evaluating timeout interventions with exceptional students. TeachingExceptional Children, 272-276. Day, D.M. (2002). Examining the therapeutic utility of restraintsand seclusion with children and youth: The role of theory and researchin practice. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(2), 266-278. Fee, V.E., Matson, J.L. & Manikam, R. (1990). A control groupoutcome study of a nonexclusionary time-out package to improve socialskills with preschoolers. Exceptionality, 1, 107-121. Foxx, R.M. & Shapiro, S.T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: a noexclusionary procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11,125-136. Gallagher, M.M., Mittelstadt, P.A. & Slater, B.R. (1988).Establishing time-out procedures in a day treatment facility for youngchildren. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 5, 59-68. Gast, D. & Nelson, C.M. (April, 1977). Time out in theclassroom: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children,43(7), 461-464. Gresham, F.M. (1979). Comparison of response cost and timeout in aspecial education setting, The Journal of Special Education, 13,199-206. Handen, B.L., Parish, J.M., McClung, T.S., Kerwin, M.E. &Evans, L.D. (1992). Using guided compliance versus timeout to promote,Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 157-170. Huguenin, N.H. & Mulick, J.A. (1981). Nonexclusionary timeout:Maintenance of appropriate behavior across settings. Applied Research inMental Retardation. 2, 55-67. Kennedy, S.S. & Mohr, W.K., (2001). A prolegomenon pro��le��gom��e��non?n. pl. pro��le��gom��e��na1. A preliminary discussion, especially a formal essay introducing a work of considerable length or complexity.2. prolegomena (used with a sing. or pl. on restraintof children: Implicating im��pli��cate?tr.v. im��pli��cat��ed, im��pli��cat��ing, im��pli��cates1. To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly: evidence that implicates others in the plot.2. Constitutional rights. American Journal ofOrhtopsychiatry, 71(1), 26-37. Knoster, T., Wells, T., and McDowell, K.C. (2003). Using timeout inan effective and ethical manner. Iowa Department of Education. LRP Publications. (November 10, 2006). Time-out rooms: Advice toavoid liability while disciplining students with disabilities. TheSpecial Educator, Bonus Report. Mace, F.C. & Heller, M. (1990). A comparison of exclusiontime-out and contingent observation for reducing severe disruptivebehavior in a 7-year old boy. Child & Family Behavior Therapy behavior therapyor behavior modification,in psychology, treatment of human behavioral disorders through the reinforcement of acceptable behavior and suppression of undesirable behavior. ,12(1), 57-68. Maden, T. (1999). Seclusion. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry forensic psychiatryn.The branch of psychiatry that makes determinations, as regarding fitness to stand trial, the need for commitment, or responsibility for criminal behavior, in a court of law. ,10(2), 242-244. McDowell, K.C. (2003). Indiana Department of Education, Unpublishedmemorandum to Members of the National Council of State EducationAttorneys (NCOSEA). Miller, D., Walker, M.C. & Friedman, D. (1989). Use of aholding technique to control the violent behavior of seriously disturbedadolescents. Hospital and Community Psychiatry com��mu��ni��ty psychiatryn.Psychiatry focusing on detection, prevention, early treatment, and rehabilitation of emotional and behavioral disorders as they develop in a community. , 40, 520-524. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. (2001). Where we stand:seclusion and restraint, NAMI NAMI National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (now National Alliance on Mental Illness)NAMI National Alliance on Mental Illness (formerly National Alliance for the Mentally Ill )NAMI Naval Aerospace Medical Institute , 1-6. Retrieved October 30, 2002, fromhttp://www.nami.org/update/unitedrestraint.html National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors(NASMHPD). Position Statement on Seclusion and Restraint. Approved bythe NASMHPD membership on July 13, 1999. Accessed at:http://www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/position_statement/possesl.htm. Nau, P.A., Van Houten, R. & O'Neil, A. (1981). The effectsof feedback and a principal mediated me��di��ate?v. me��di��at��ed, me��di��at��ing, me��di��atesv.tr.1. To resolve or settle (differences) by working with all the conflicting parties: timeout procedure on the disruptivebehavior of junior high school students. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 4(2), 101-113. Nelson, C.M. (1999). Effective Use of Timeout. Kentucky statepolicy on Timeout, Retrieved fromwww.state.ky.us/agencies/behave/homepage.html. Nelson, C.M. & Rutherford, R. (1983). Timeout revisited:Guidelines for its use in special education. Exceptional EducationQuarterly, 3, 56-67. Padilla v. Denver School District No. 1, 35 F.Supp.2d 1260 (D.Colo. 1999). Peters v. Rome City School District, 747 N.Y.S.2d 867 (N.Y.A.D. 4Dept. 2002). Persi, J. & Pasquali, B. (1999). The use of seclusion andphysical restraints: Just how consistent are we? Child and Youth CareForum, 28, 87-103. Plummer, S., Baer, D.M. & LeBlanc, J.M. (1977). Functionalconsiderations in the use of procedural timeout and an effectivealternative. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 689-705. Rasmus v. State of Arizona, 939 F.Supp. 709 (D. Ariz. 1996). Rozalski, M., Yell, M. & Boreson, L. (2006). Using seclusiontimeout and physical restraint, an analysis of state policy, research,and the law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 19(2), 13-29. Ryan, J. B. & Peterson, R. L. (2004). Physical Restraint inSchool. Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 154-168. Ryan, J.B., Peterson, R.L. Tetreault, G. & van der Hagen, E.(2007). Reducing the use of seclusion and restraint in a day schoolprogram, In M. Nunno, L. Bullard & D. Day (Eds.). Examining theSafety of High-Risk Interventions for Children and Young People. (pp.201-216)Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America. Ryan, J.B., Sanders, S., Katsiyannis, A. & Yell, M. L. (2007).Using timeout effectively in the classroom. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 39(4), 60-67. Sabin v. Greenville Public Schools, 31 IDELR IDELR Individuals with Disabilities Law Reporter (formerly Education for the Handicapped Law Reporter)161 (W.D. Mich. 1999). Salend, S. & Gordon, B.D. (1987). A group oriented timeoutribbon procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 131-136. Salend, S. & Maragulla, D. (1983). The timeout ribbon: Aprocedure for the least restrictive environment. The Journal of SpecialEducators. 20, 9-15. SAMHSA. (May 5, 2003). A National Call to Action: Eliminating theUse of Seclusion and Restraint. Washington, D.C.: Center for MentalHealth Services For the California public school, see .The Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is a unit of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) witin the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.US government-supported group. , Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration, US Department of Health and Human Services Noun 1. Department of Health and Human Services - the United States federal department that administers all federal programs dealing with health and welfare; created in 1979Health and Human Services, HHS . Smith, D.E. (1981). Is isolation room time-out a punisher?Behavioral Disorders, 247-256. Solnick, J.V., Rincover, A. & Peterson, C.R. (1977). Somedeterminants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 415-424. Spitalnik, R. & Drabman, R. (1976). A classroom timeoutprocedure for retarded re��tard��ed?adj.1. Often Offensive Affected with mental retardation.2. Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed. children. Journal of Behavioral Therapy behavioral therapyn.See behavior therapy. &Exceptional Psychiatry, 7, 17-21. Washougal (WA) School District 4 ECLPR 131 (OCR OCRin full optical character recognitionScanning and comparison technique intended to identify printed text or numerical data. It avoids the need to retype already printed material for data entry. 1999). Webster, R.E. (1976). A timeout procedure in a public schoolsetting. Psychology in the Schools, 13 (1), 72-76. Wood, F & Braaten, S. (February, 1983). Developing guidelinesfor the use of punishing interventions in the schools. ExceptionalEducation Quarterly. Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supplement 400 (M.D. Ala. 1972). Zabel, M. (1986). Timeout use with behaviorally disorderedstudents. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 15-21. Joseph B. Ryan Clemson University Clemson University,at Clemson, S.C.; coeducational; land-grant; state supported; opened in 1893 as a college, gained university status in 1964. The university includes programs in textile and computer research, wildlife biology, and aquaculture and maintains Reece L. Peterson University of Nebraska--Lincoln Michael Rozalski State University of New York (body) State University of New York - (SUNY) The public university system of New York State, USA, with campuses throughout the state. at Geneseo Correspondence to Joseph B. Ryan, Clemson University, 228Holtzendorff Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0702; e-mail: Jbryan@clemson.edu.Table 1 A. Proposed Regulation of SeclusionA. Principles for Developing Legally Correct Seclusion Timeout or Physical Restraint Policies (Rozalski et al., 2006) 1 State Education Agencies should require public school districts to develop policies and procedures regarding the use of seclusion timeout and physical restraint with all students. 2 Seclusion timeout and physical restraint procedures should be included in a student's IEP or Section 504 plan. 3 Seclusion timeout and physical restraint should be used only when a student's behavior poses a risk of injury to the student, to peers or staff members. 4 Seclusion timeout and physical restraint should be used only after less restrictive interventions have not been successful. 5 State education agencies, teacher training institutions, and public school districts should develop appropriate pre-service and in-service training experiences so that staff members who may be required to use seclusion timeout and physical restraint receive thorough and continuous training in the appropriate use of the procedure. 6 Teachers should continuously collect meaningful data to document the efficacy of seclusion timeout and physical restraint. 7 Teacher should keep thorough records when seclusion timeout or restraint are used. 8 Administrators should develop methods to periodically review and summarize teacher and school-level data on the use of seclusion timeout and physical restraint. 9 State education agencies should collect data on the frequency of use of seclusion timeout and physical restraints in the public schools.10 State education agencies should explore system-wide alternatives to seclusion timeout and physical restraint and develop appropriate teacher and administer training.B. Proposed Elimination of SeclusionB Mission Statement of the APRAISE Alliance (APRAISE, 2007).1 To seek the elimination of the use of seclusion, aversive interventions, and restraint to respond to or control the behavior of children and youth.2 To prohibit the incorporation of these practices into the education, habilitation, or other service delivery plans provided to children and youth with disabilities.3 To promote nationwide consistencyTable 2 WWW Locations of Current State Timeout Policies (P) / Guidelines(G) for EducationState (Note 1) Type Web Site (Note 2)Arkansas P http://arksped.kl2.ar.us/documents/policy/ rulesandregulations/20.00.pdfColorado G http://www.cde.state.co.us/spedlaw/download/ TimeOutGuidelines.pdfConnecticut G http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/ Special/SEDguide.pdfFlorida G http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00014/pdf/y1993-3.pdfIdaho G http://itcnew.idahotc.com/files/qrm/ qrm_timeout.pdfIllinois P http://www.isbe.net/rules/archive/pdfs/oneark.pdfIowa P http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/iac/ 281iac/281113/281103.pdfKentucky G http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/behave/bi/TO.htmlMaine P http://www.maine.gov/education/edletrs/2005/ilet/ 05ilet035.htmMaryland P http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/ nonpublicschools/nplegal/comar/comar13a_08_ 04.htmMassachusetts P http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr46. html?section=allMichigan P http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDE-P6_1993- 03_BehaviorInterventionPolicy_10347_7.pdfMinnesota P http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/ Compliance/documents/Publication/011491.pdfMontana P http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/arm/16chapter.pdfNew Mexico P http://www.ped.state.nm.us/seo/discipline/ 9.appendix.b.pdf#search=%22time-out%20policy%22New York P http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/ policy/timeout.pdfOhio P http://odmrdd.state.oh.us/rules/RulesTab/file_2-1- 02.htm#jOregon P http://www.ode.state.or.us/stateboard/meetings/ 012006/specialedrules011906.docRhode Island P http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/ DESE/DESE_3826.pdfTexas P http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ ch089aa.html#89.1053Utah P http://www.schools.utah.gov/sars/rules/ lrbimanual_02%202.pdfVermont P http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/resources/ model_restrictive_behavior.pdfVirginia G http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/sess/ EmergBehaviorGd.pdfWisconsin G http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/secrestrgd.docNotes: 1. Only includes polices identified related to education; otherpolicies may exist for other human services.2. Where policies exist, there may also be guidelines or other technicalassistance documents which are not reflected here.Table 3 Availability of state policies, guidelines or procedures. Present Study Rozalski et al. Policy or Study-Provided Combined Guidelines Seclusion Policy Studies State (Note 1) and/or Procedures (Note 2) 1 Alabama 2 Alaska 3 Arizona 4 Arkansas P X X 5 California X (3) X 6 Colorado G X X 7 Connecticut G X 8 Delaware 9 District of Columbia10 Florida G X X11 Georgia12 Hawaii13 Idaho G X X14 Illinois P X X15 Indiana16 Iowa P X X17 Kansas In development18 Kentucky G X19 Louisiana20 Maine P X21 Maryland P X X22 Massachusetts P X23 Michigan P X X24 Minnesota P X X25 Missouri26 Mississippi27 Montana P X X28 Nebraska29 Nevada X (4) X30 New Hampshire31 New Jersey32 New Mexico P X33 New York P X X34 North Carolina35 North Dakota X X36 Ohio P X X37 Oklahoma38 Oregon P X39 Pennsylvania40 Rhode Island P X X41 South Carolina42 South Dakota43 Tennessee44 Texas P X45 Utah P X X46 Vermont P X X47 Virginia G X48 West Virginia49 Washington X-WAC 392-172- X 394(2)a-e50 Wisconsin G X51 Wyoming Totals 24 States 19 States 28 States1. As before P indicates a policy statement identified, and Gindicates a guideline or technical assistance document.2. An X in this column indicates that this state has adopted policies,guidelines or procedures identified in either or both studies.3. California. CCR 5(1)(3)(1)(5) [section]3052(i)(4)(A) forbids lockedseclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted bystate law to use a locked room.4. Nevada. NRS [section]388.5265 aversives prohibited, including[section]388.5265(8) "the placement of a person alone in a room whererelease from the room is prohibited by a mechanism, including, withoutlimitation, a lock, device or object positioned to hold the door closedor otherwise prevent the person from leaving the room."Table 4 Current State Policies & Guidelines on Timeout and Seclusion Establishes Minimum Requirements Requires for Timeout Schools Bans Room (e.g., Develop Locking Requires minimum Written Timeout ParentalState size) Proce-dures Room Notifi-cationArkansas * * *Colorado * * * *Connecticut (1) *Florida * * *Idaho * *Illinois * * *Iowa *Kentucky * * *Maine * * * *Maryland (4) * * *Massachusetts *Michigan *Minnesota * *Montana 2 *New Mexico * * * *New York * * * *Ohio * * *Oregon * *Rhode Island *TexasUtah *Vermont * *Virginia * *Wisconsin * * Recommends Requires or Requires Documentation Time Limit forState Staff Training of Procedure SeclusionArkansas * * 15 minutes K-6 20 minutes 7-8Colorado * * 12 minutesConnecticut (1) * * 30 minutes (3)Florida * * 30 minutes (3)Idaho * 15 minutesIllinois * 30 minutesIowa * Not in excess of hoursKentucky * 15 minutesMaine * 60 minutesMaryland (4) * * Reassess every 30 minutesMassachusetts Not ProvidedMichiganMinnesota * Not ProvidedMontana * * Door must be Opened after 20 minutesNew Mexico * Not ProvidedNew York * * Not ProvidedOhio * * 60 minutesOregon * * Not ProvidedRhode Island * * Not ProvidedTexas * * Not ProvidedUtah * * 55 minutesVermont * 30 minutes (3)Virginia * * Not ProvidedWisconsin * * 15 minutes