9/22/2015

Fall ODE/COSA Special Education Administrator’s Conference

School Discipline: Leading for Equity Through Policy and Practice October 2, 2015

John Inglish, JD Education Specialist, Oregon Department of Education

Session Objectives

• Review Federal & State Guidance: – Legal & Regulatory – Policy & Practice • Dialogue on best practices, with particular focus on issues unique to charter schools – Data tools – Building/classroom practices Disclaimer‐The content in this presentation is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this presentation constitutes legal advice. You should contact designated district/school legal counsel for legal advice specific to any factual situation

1 9/22/2015

Legal Overview

State law

Board Federal Policy Law

Why? Why change the way we do behavior management in schools?

2 9/22/2015

History of disciplinary inequity A national view

Source: U.S. Department of Education‐Office for Civil Rights; 1972‐3 data is OCR data, but taken from Children’s Defense Fund, School Suspensions; Are They Helping Children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project, 1975.

Figure 2. Impact by race and disability of the use of out‐of‐school suspensions, 2009‐2010 Source: Losen & Gillespie, Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School (2012). (Data from CRDC 09/10 SY).

6

3 9/22/2015

Discipline Gap: Framing the Issue

“One of the most consistent findings of modern education research is the strong positive relationship between time engaged in academic learning and student achievement (Brophy, 1988; Fisher et al., 1981; Greenwood,Horton, & Utley, 2002). The school disciplinary practices used most widely throughout the United States may be contributing to lowered academic performance among the group of students in greatest need of improvement.”

Source: The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap : Two Sides of the Same Coin? Anne Gregory, Russell J. Skiba and Pedro A. Noguera EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 2010 39: 59DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09357621

“Research on the frequent use of school suspension has indicated that, after controlling for race and poverty, higher rates of out‐of‐school suspension correlate with lower achievement scores, or showed no academic benefits as measured by test scores and were predictors of higher dropout rates.”

Source: Losen, J (2012)‐Sound Discipline Policy for Successful Schools, citing Skiba & Rausch (2006); and Fabelo et al., (2011)

4 9/22/2015

Emerging studies suggest that being suspended even once in ninth grade is associated with a twofold increase in the likelihood of dropping out, from 16% for those not suspended to 32% for those suspended just once.

Balfanz (2013)

What are the long term consequences of school pushout?

5 9/22/2015

JUVENILE INCARCERATION: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

Source: Hazel, Neal, Cross‐National Comparison of Youth Justice, London: Youth Justice Board, 2008.

Juv. Incarceration Rate per 100,000 336

68 69 46.8 51.3 33 24.9 3.6 18.623.111.3 0.1 4.1

How do we look in Oregon?

6 9/22/2015

First, the good news….

Oregon Statewide Data Expulsions 2009‐2014

Expulsions 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 Expulsions 800 600 400 200 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

7 9/22/2015

Oregon Statewide Data Suspension/Expulsion 2009‐2014 Out of School Suspensions 60000

50000

40000

30000 Out of School Suspensions 20000

10000

0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

But much work remains …

8 9/22/2015

9 9/22/2015

http://educationnorthwest.org/north west‐matters/discipline‐and‐ achievement‐state‐assessments‐ english‐learner‐students‐oregon

OSS‐SY 11‐12

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

% of subgroup suspended 30.00% % of SPED subgroup suspended % of nonSPED suspended

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Asian Black Nat Amer Hispanic Multi‐Racial Pac Island White

10 9/22/2015

OSS‐SY 12/13

50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00% % of subgroup suspended 20.00% % of SPED subgroup suspended 15.00% % of nonSPEd subgroup suspended 10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

OSS‐SY 13/14

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

% OSS‐All 15.00% % OSS‐SPED % OSS‐Non‐SPED

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% Asian Black Nat Amer Hispanic Multi‐Racial Pac Island White

11 9/22/2015

Why are students being pushed out of school?

How is suspension/expulsion being used?

12 9/22/2015

Oregon SY 13/14 All Offense Types

Oregon SY 13/14 OSS

13 9/22/2015

Oregon SY 13/14 Expulsion

Statutory Scavenger Hunt

14 9/22/2015

True or False: School boards have discretion as to whether they adopt written policies for student discipline?

False. The law states that “each district school board shall adopt written policies for the discipline, suspension, or expulsion of any refractory student. ORS 339.250(2)

School discipline policies must limit expulsion to the following 3 circumstances: • For conduct that poses a threat to the health or safety of students or school employees • When other strategies to change student conduct have been ineffective • When the expulsion is required by law ORS 339.250(2)(b)(A‐C)

15 9/22/2015

T/F: Under Oregon and federal law, students who are found in possession of weapons must be automatically expelled from school

FALSE HB 2192 removed mandatory expulsion (zero tolerance) language regarding “weapons,” replacing instead with “firearms” to be consistent with Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA). 18 USC § 921 • Note‐both GFSA and 2192 provide the superintendent of a district discretion to “modify the expulsion requirement for a student on a case by case basis.” 20 USC 7151(b)(1); ORS 339.250(7)(c)(A).

Identify the eight core tenets that school discipline policies must address in Oregon: • Protect students & staff from harm

• Provide opportunities to learn from mistakes

• Foster positive learning communities

• Keep students in school and attending class

• Impose discipline without bias against students from a protected class

16 9/22/2015

• Implement graduated, age‐appropriate responses that are fair, nondiscriminatory, and proportionate

• Employ a range of strategies for prevention, intervention, and discipline that consider developmental capacities and that are proportionate to the degree and severity of the behavior

• Propose alternative programs of instruction for students who are expelled or leaving school

• Use evidence based approaches to the extent practicable

• Ensure compliance with federal and state law concerning students with disabilities

ORS 339.250(5)(a‐j)

Recent additions to Oregon’s school discipline law The Oregon legislature passed SB 553 & SB 556 in the 2015 regular session. Both bills took effect 7/1/15.

SB 553‐For students fifth grade or lower, out‐of‐school suspension limited to the following circumstances: – For nonaccidental conduct causing serious physical harm to a student or school employee; – When a school administrator determines, based upon the administrator’s observation or upon a report from a school employee, that the student’s conduct poses a direct threat to the health or safety of students or school employees; or – When the suspension or expulsion is required by law Enrolled Senate Bill 553: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB553/ Enrolled

17 9/22/2015

SB 556‐ Expulsion may not be used to address truancy

Enrolled Senate Bill 556: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB556/Enrolled

What about charter school students who qualify for special education?

18 9/22/2015

Students with qualifying disabilities under IDEA CHARTER SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO RECEIVE IDEA SERVICES

Neither a principal, superintendent, or a charter school board has authority to expel a student with a disability who qualifies for services under the IDEA if the behavior is determined to be related to the disability. This is one of the bedrock principles of IDEA. See generally: (Honig v. Doe, 559 IDELR 353; S‐1 v Turlington, 552 IDELR 267; 34 CFR 300.530; OARs 581‐015‐2400—2445.

If a Manifestation Determination Review concludes that a student’s behavior was related to their disability, the IEP team must; 1) conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavior intervention plan (BIP); or 2) review the BIP and modify it in order to address the behavior. 34 CFR 300.530(f)(1)(i‐ii); AND 3) return the student to the placement from which they were removed, unless the parent and district agree to a change of placement as part of a modification to the BIP. 34 CFR 530(f)(2); OAR 581‐015‐2415(4).

ODE Discipline Guidance on students who receive services under IDEA http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=42 87

19 9/22/2015

Are statutes alone enough to solve social problems such as disproportionality in discipline?

Law/Regulation Practice •HB 2192 •Superintendent •Principal •Teacher/Practitioner

Policy Research •OEIB/OSB •SWPBIS •School Boards •Restorative Justice •Formal •Integration of practices •Informal Students, Families, Communities

20 9/22/2015

What are some policy resources to guide districts in this work?

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=4287

CONTENTS 1. Background 2. Questions Local Policymakers Should Ask 3. 10 Action Steps to Prevent the Use of Out‐Of‐School Suspensions 4. Game‐Changing Community Strategies 5. Research 6. Resources

21 9/22/2015

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Using Disciplinary Interventions 3. Description of Inappropriate and Disruptive Behaviors and Consequences 4. Procedures 5. Data Collection & Monitoring 6. Glossary of Disciplinary Interventions or Responses

10 Key Components INTRODUCTION 1. Emphasize Prevention KEY COMPONENTS OF A MODEL 2. Limit Suspensions & Expulsions DISCIPLINE POLICY

3. Limit Reliance on Law Enforcement Across the country, school systems are shutting the doors of academic opportunity on students and funneling them into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The 4. Focus on Eliminating Racial Disparities combination of overly harsh school policies and an increased role of law enforcement in schools has created a “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track,” in which punitive measures such 5. Focus on Protecting Students with as suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests are increasingly used to deal with student misbehavior, and huge numbers of youth are pushed out of school and into Disabilities prisons and jails. In many communities, this transforms schools from places of learning to dangerous gateways into juvenile court. This is more than an education crisis; it is a racial justice crisis, because the students pushed out through harsh discipline are 6. Strong Due Process Protections disproportionately students of color.

7. No Academic Penalties During Removal There is an urgent need to intervene in this devastating cycle by reforming the school policies and practices that result in excessive suspensions, expulsions, and arrests of 8. Limit Suspensions for Off‐Campus students. Indeed, there is no credible evidence that these punitive measures are an effective means for changing student behavior. Rather, research has shown that they Conduct are associated with lower academic achievement, graduation rates, and worse student behavior schoolwide.

9. Parent/Community Outreach Alternatively, there are a variety of effective prevention and intervention techniques that have been proven to help create a positive school environment, support academic 10. Data Collection & Monitoring achievement, promote school safety, and protect the rights of parents and students. Many school districts have taken important steps in revising their discipline policies to focus more on these less punitive measures. From these policies, we have identified ten components of a successful discipline policy. In school districts where students are being pushed out of school by excessively punitive policies and practices, these ten components can serve as a roadmap for a more just and effective method of handling school discipline.

Below are descriptions of those ten elements and examples of each from actual school discipline policies.

Non-Punitive Approach, Emphasizing Prevention & Effective Intervention

1

22 9/22/2015

STRUCTURE OF THE MODEL CODE

The Model Code is organized into five chapters: 1) Education, 2) Participation, 3) Dignity, 4) Freedom from Discrimination and 5) Monitoring and Accountability.

Each of these chapters addresses a different key component of providing a quality education and reflects core human rights principles and values. Each chapter includes recommended policies for states, districts and schools.

DSC Model Code Comparison Tool – Discipline Policies in Your District Discipline Code

Questions about what is in your Is the Code What does the DSC Model Code say about it? Follow‐up questions/ DSC Model Code Toolkit local Code of Conduct: followed? changes you want 1. Can you easily get a copy of your Districts and schools must ensure that students, parents or guardians, District’s Code of Conduct? Is it and teachers know and understand all of the school norms, expectations, and Comparison Tool available on‐line? Do students and rules and disciplinary processes. (Pg.22 3.1.a.D.2) parents receive a copy at the start of A comparison tool that allows the school year?

students, parents, and educators a Guidelines for Suspensions and Expulsions process to compare their current 2. Are there guidelines for when a Suspension or expulsion may only be considered for the most serious student Code of Conduct to provisions school can and cannot suspend or and dangerous offenses and only if absolutely necessary to protect the expel a student? Are suspensions safety of the school community.(Pg. 32 3.1.c.B) of the DSC Model Code related to and expulsions limited to only suspensions, expulsions, and due serious and dangerous offenses?

process protections. 3. Does your district list alternatives Suspensions or expulsions may only be used after non‐exclusionary to suspension? Does your district discipline alternatives (like counseling, mediation, etc.) have been require that alternatives be used carefully considered, tried and documented.(Pg. 32 3.1.c.B.1.a) before suspension/expulsion?

4. Can a student be expelled or No student can be suspended or expelled for a first‐time offense (unless suspended for a first time offense? required by federal or state law or in an emergency). (Pg. 33 3.1.c.D.1)

5. Are there different rules for No student under the age of 10 may be excluded from school for students of different ages or grade disciplinary reasons.(Pg. 33 3.1.c.D.2) levels? (For example, different suspension policies for elementary No student under the age of 15 may receive a suspension of more than 3 and middle school students vs. high days.(Pg. 33 3.1.c.D.3) school?)

1

23 9/22/2015

Discipline Disparities Briefing Papers The Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative, within a national context of troubling disparities and promising solutions, has used information from stakeholder groups, as well as knowledge of the current status of research in the field, to craft this series of informational briefs and supplementary research papers with targeted recommendations customized for different audiences. • Interventions • Policy Recommendations • New Research • Supplementary

Structure of the Consensus Report • Conditions for Learning • Targeted Behavioral Interventions • School‐Police Partnerships • Courts & Juvenile Justice • Information Sharing • Data Collection

24 9/22/2015

Practice

Using Data to Guide Best Practice in Decision‐making

Data Tools

• Federal – http://ocrdata.ed.gov/ • State – http://www.ode.state.or.us/home/ • Local – https://www.pbisapps.org/Pages/Default.aspx

25 9/22/2015

Practice Resources: SWPBIS www.pbis.org pbisnetwork.org

Practice Resources: Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY) International Institute for Restorative Practices Rjoakland.org www.iirp.edu

26 9/22/2015

Multi‐Tiered Systems of Support

Integrating Restorative Practices to Augment MTSS Model in Schools

27 9/22/2015

Restorative MTSS

•Bringing students who have been suspended, expelled, incarcerated back Restorative into the school community Reintegrative

•Office disciplinary referrals • Bullying Responsive • Truancy •Alternatives to suspension/expulsion practices •Circles to restore/repair in the classroom

•Relationship building circles Preventive/Proactive •Circles to deliver curriculum •Circles to establish group practices agreements/behavioral expectations

Education Development Center

Online 6 module school Positive School Discipline Course for School Leaders

28 9/22/2015

Education Development Center

Case Study

CALIFORNIA

29 9/22/2015

CASE STUDY Garfield High

• In May 2013, L.A. Unified bans suspension for 'willful defiance’ • “Willful defiance," an offense criticized as a subjective catch‐ all for such behavior as refusing to take off a hat, turn off a cellphone or failing to wear a school uniform. • The offense accounted for 48% of 710,000 suspensions issued in California in 2011‐12, prompting state and local efforts to restrict its use in disciplinary actions.

Source: LA Times story, published May 14, 2013) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/loc al/la‐me‐lausd‐suspension‐20130515

Garfield High: Taking Action

• Garfield High School is in East LA, a low‐income neighborhood that is predominantly Latino. • "Suspensions are off the table at Garfield High School. I can't teach a kid if he's not in school," Garfield's principal, Jose Huerta says. • In the 2008‐09 school year, Garfield had 638 suspensions, but in 2009‐10, 2010‐11, and 2011‐12, only one suspension. • As a result, Huerta says, the school's attendance rates are in the 96th percentile, the graduation rate is higher than the district as a whole and, he adds, "We just got word ... that 27 of our students were accepted to UCLA. That's the highest of any high school in California."

30 9/22/2015

What story the data tell

API for High Schools in the LAUSD District 5 and local small public charter high schools in the East Los Angeles region, 2008‐09 and 2010‐11.

School 2008‐09 2010‐11

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School 815 832 Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School 788 809 Oscar De La Hoya Animo Charter High School 709 744 James A. Garfield High School 593 705 Abraham Lincoln High School 588 643 Woodrow Wilson High School 600 636 Theodore Roosevelt High School 576 Thomas Jefferson High School 514 546 Santee Education Complex 521 565

Restraint and Seclusion in Oregon: What Districts Need to Know

31 9/22/2015

Context: Federal

– Since 2009, several federal bills proposed – Restraint and Seclusion Resource Document, USDE: May 2012 – R/S Added to OCR’s Civil Rights Data Collection – Discussion around including RS policy in ESEA/IDEA reauthorization

CRDC

32 9/22/2015

CRDC

CRDC

33 9/22/2015

Context: State

• 76th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2011 passed House Bill 2939: .

• Codified at ORS 339.285‐‐294

• Enacted OARs: 581‐021‐0550, ‐0553, ‐0556, ‐0559, ‐0563, ‐0566.

• 77th Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2013 passed • House Bill 2585 (complaints and annual reporting) • House Bill 2753 (Repeal of Sunset) • House Bill 2756 (remove “Seclusion Cells”)

• Codified at ORS 339.303;308 – OARs 581‐021‐0569; 581‐021‐0570

Oregon R/S Law in a Nutshell OAR 581‐021‐0550: Definitions

• Physical restraint means the restriction of a student’s movement by one or more persons holding the student or applying physical pressure upon the student … [PR] does not include the touching or holding of a student without the use of force for the purpose of directing the student or assisting the student in completing a task or activity.

• Seclusion means the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room from which the student is physically prevented from leaving…does not include removal of a student for a short period of time to provide the student with an opportunity to regain self control if the student is in a setting from which the student is not physically prevented from leaving.

34 9/22/2015

Oregon R/S Law in a Nutshell

Repealed • Physical restraints may be used in “an emergency by a school administrator, teacher, school employee, or volunteer as necessary to maintain order or to prevent a student from harming him/herself, other students, and school staff or property in accordance with OAR 581‐021‐ 0061(2)” OAR 581‐021‐0062(2)(a)(B).

Current Law • RS only if: – Student’s behavior poses a reasonable threat of imminent, serious bodily injury to the student or others; and – Less restrictive interventions would be effective (OAR 581‐021‐ 0553(2)(a).

IDEA Implications

Complaint Investigation 09‐054‐013 • Violations of the IDEA due to use of restraint and seclusion • Change of Placement and Least Restrictive Environment Allegations were substantiated by the State • The student was not allowed to participate with any peers during recess for about three months • The student was moved from a general education classroom to a separate room away from all peers for about two months. • Removing student from classroom so often was inconsistent with the Behavior Intervention Plan • The frequent Removals from class denied the student of FAPE.

35 9/22/2015

Recent Decision regarding Seclusion in 9th Circuit

• August 30, 2013: Court held...use of isolation room/safe room on an autistic student violated his constitutional rights & teacher and school district were not entitled to qualified immunity. • 4th Amendment –“to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures”….”students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door” & “student’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established since 1990.” • 14th Amendment – Student’s right to due process; “…student locked in the room until he defecated & was made to clean up his own feces as punishment.” • School District Liability: “…district failed to train and supervise the teacher’s use of ‘aversive therapy’…the district knew of and permitted the teachers’ use of the isolation room/safe room over time, and therefore, ratified her conduct….amounting to the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard and thus, the district being the ‘moving force’ behind the constitutional violations.” • “…Schools have a clear duty to protect its students from reasonably anticipated dangers.” • http://www.copaa.org/news/139901/Use‐of‐Seclusion‐Room‐Violates‐Constitutional‐ Rights.htm#.UkWkDEtx12U.gmail

Best Practice: 15 Principles ‐ USDE

• Prevent the Use of Restraint & Seclusion (De‐ Escalation training) • Never use Mechanical restraint, nor use Drugs or Medications • Only where Student Poses Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Harm to Self or Others, and other Interventions Ineffective, and should be discontinued when Imminent Danger Dissipates. • Should apply to all children, not just SWD • Students’ Rights to be treated with Dignity

36 9/22/2015

Principles continued

• Never used as Punishment, Discipline, Coercion, Retaliation, Convenience • Never used in Manner that Restricts Breathing (Prone Restraint) • Repeated Use ‐ Triggers Review, Revise Plan, Implement Positive Behavioral Strategies • Strategies address Underlying Cause or Function/Purpose of Behavior • Teachers/School Personnel Trained Regularly

Principles continued

• Every incident Carefully and Continuously Visually Monitored • Parents should be Informed of Policies & applicable Laws • Parents Notified as soon as possible each incident • Policies Reviewed regularly & Updated as appropriate • Policies requiring Documentation in Writing and for Data Collection (Debriefing)

37 9/22/2015

Oregon Best Practice Tips

• Train, Train, and Retrain! • Ensure your training protocols are robust (and ODE approved) – Combination of theory and practical application with demonstration of skills (including physical intervention) • Ensure certifications do not lapse. • Communicate, communicate, communicate with parents • When in doubt, train more staff (maybe non‐SPED staff) • Invest in robust behavior management practices: – RJ, PBIS – Train staff in proper applications of FBA/BIP, and need for continuous monitoring/revision as appropriate – Collect and analyze data regularly as part of continuous improvement and quality assurance (CIQA)

MORAL IMPERATIVE: THE BOTTOM LINE "One hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of car I drove, what kind of house I lived in, or how much money I had in the bank, but the world may be a better place because I made a difference in the life of a child.”

Forest Wilcraft, Within My Power

38 9/22/2015

References

Advancement Project. (2013). Model school discipline policy. Retrieved from: http://safequalityschools.org/resources/entry/model‐school‐discipline‐policy Advancement Project. (2013). Key components of a model discipline policy: A policy guide for school board members. Retrieved from: http://safequalityschools.org/resources/entry/model‐school‐discipline‐policy; American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon (2010). Oregon's school to prison pipeline. Retrieved from: http://aclu‐or.org/content/aclu‐report‐oregon’s‐school‐prison‐ pipeline‐0; American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon (2013). Oregon's school to prison pipeline: Update. Retrieved from: http://aclu‐or.org/content/aclu‐report‐oregon’s‐school‐ prison‐pipeline‐0. Carter, P. , Fine, M., & Russell, S., (2014). Discipline Disparities Series: Overview. Bloomington, IN: The Equity Project at Indiana University. Available at http://rtpcollaborative.indiana.edu/briefing‐papers/ Dignity in Schools Campaign. (2012). A Model Code on Education & Dignity: Presenting a Human Rights Framework for Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.dignityinschools.org/our‐work/model‐school‐code.

References

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M.D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M., & Booth, E. (2011). Breaking schools' rules: A statewide study of how discipline relates to students' success and juvenile justice involvement. Retrieved from: http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/breaking‐schools‐rules‐report. Losen, D., Gillespie, J., (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school. Retrieved from: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center‐for‐civil‐rights‐ remedies/school‐to‐prison‐folder/federal‐reports/upcoming‐ccrr‐research. National School Boards Association. (2013). Addressing the out‐of‐school suspension crisis: a policy guide for school board members. Retrieved from: http://www.nsba.org/suspensions. Robers, S., Kemp, J., Rathbun, A., and Morgan, R.E. (2014). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013 (NCES 2014‐042/NCJ 243299). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov or http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov.

39 9/22/2015

References

Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013). Oregon Education investment board: Equity lens. Retrieved from: http://education.oregon.gov/Pages/Commitment‐to‐ Equity.aspx Oregon Leadership Network at Education Northwest. (2013). Oregon leadership network (OLN) alliance. Retrieved from: http://oln.educationnorthwest.org/oregon‐ leadership‐network‐oln‐alliance Oregon State Department of Education. (2014,January 3). ODE Equity Unit. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/a/oregonlearning.org/equity‐unit‐updates/home Oregon State Legislature. (2013). House Bill 2192 (enacted)(amending Oregon Revised Statutes 339.250), 77th Oregon Legislative Assembly § 2013 Oregon Laws c. 267 s. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013orLaw0267.pdf Stavenjord, R. (2012). Exclusionary discipline in Multnomah county schools: How suspensions and expulsions impact students of color. Retrieved from: http://allhandsraised.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/10/exclusionary_discipline_1‐3‐ 12.pdf.

References

United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2012). Civil rights data collection summary. Retrieved from: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/DataSummary United States Department of Justice. (2011, July 21). Attorney General Holder, Secretary Duncan announce effort to respond to school‐to‐prison pipeline by supporting good discipline practices. Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July/11‐ag‐951.html

40 9/22/2015

Resources(restraint/seclusion specific)

• Butler, J. (2012). How safe is the schoolhouse?: An analysis of state seclusion and restraint laws and policies. http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=6672

• U.S. Department of Education (2012). Restraint and seclusion. Resource Document: Washington, D.C. http://www.ed.gov/news/press‐releases/us‐department‐education‐ issues‐resource‐document‐discourages‐restraint‐and‐seclusion

• U.S. Department of Education (2010). Summary of Seclusion and Restraint Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Guidance, By State and Territory: Washington D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/seclusion‐state‐summary.html

• Jones, N., Feder, J. (2009). The Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Schools: The Legal Issues http://www.spannj.org/information/CRS_Report_on_Legal_Issues_in_Seclusion_&_Restra ints.pdf

Questions & Comments

41