Katherine George, esq. Chair of WAAA Education Committee, Legal Analyst

Congratulations! In response to comments and call to action from Washington Autism Alliance & Advocacy (WAAA) and our formal Petition to Rulemaking.

A. WAC 392-172A-03120: Aversive Interventions

We avoided adoption of the proposed language that aversive interventions are designed to teach appropriate behavior.  It is never OK to use restraint and isolation as an instructional method.

We also avoided the language that positive interventions would be developed at the same time as aversive interventions (instead of only after all positive methods have failed).

B. WAC 392-172A-03005: Initial Evaluation Timelines

We also did get new language clarifying that a parent’s request for an initial evaluation starts the clock ticking on evaluation deadlines, so that once a request is made, districts cannot wait for a “referral” by school intervention teams before evaluating a child’s eligibility for special education.

OSPI did not agree to retain the existing definition of aversive interventions.  So now it’s limited to restraints and isolation, instead of anything known to bother the student.   We will continue be follow up on this.

OSPI went ahead with the new language that the purpose of “requiring an aversive intervention plan” is to guard against misuse of aversive interventions, replacing the current regulation’s statement that the purpose of the regulation was to guard against use of aversive interventions, which is quite different. Fortunately the regulation still says aversive interventions are a last resort, but we would have preferred to retain the policy statement that any “use” of them should be guarded against.

We thank all of you who responded to our call for action on August 5, 2013.  Your phone calls and letters made a difference.  Thank you for standing together with WAAA for change.