Pupil discipline: restraint and seclusion.
Summary
Existing law prohibits a person employed by or engaged in a public school to inflict, or cause to be inflicted, corporal punishment upon a pupil. This bill would authorize an educational provider, as defined, to use physical or mechanical restraint or seclusion, as defined, if specified conditions are met. The bill would require a seclusion room utilized by an educational provider to fulfill specified safety requirements. The bill would prohibit an educational provider from depriving a pupil of sleep, food, hydration, or access to bathroom facilities and from utilizing specified restraint and seclusion techniques, including, but not limited to, using chemical restraint, as defined, using an improvised mechanical restraint device, and using physical or mechanical restraint techniques that restrict breathing. The bill would require the State Department of Education to establish a mandatory system of data collection regarding the use of physical and mechanical restraint and seclusion that is consistent, timely, and publicly accessible. The bill would require an educational provider to annually report the data required to be collected to the department and would require the reported data to include the name of the educational provider and other specified information. To the extent that the data collection and reporting requirements would impose new duties on local educational agencies not required by federal law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the data collection and reporting requirements be conducted in compliance with specified federal law, and impose no new duties or higher level of service on local educational agencies. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, with regard to certain mandates, no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 15, 2011
Last action Feb 1, 2012
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
10
Key actions
2
Committee
5
Jan 4, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
lower
May 4, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 28, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Feb 16, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Roger Hernández
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 519
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 519. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline