For districts to support students with disabilities who have behavior support needs, they must also prioritize providing equitable and just behavior support systems for all students. It is a persistent myth that students with disabilities and extensive behavior support needs should only receive individualized behavior supports.⁹⁹   Students with disabilities benefit significantly from being fully included in all tiers of the school or district’s multitiered system of supports (MTSS), including tiered positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). 

---

⁹⁹ OSPI (2024). Extended myths & facts about inclusionary practices in Washington: Myth #9 (page 19).

School and district teams have many options for providing proactive and positive behavior support for students with disabilities who are eligible for an IEP or 504 Plan. This section will describe these options, including: 

• Requirements that districts must follow so that students with disabilities can access and benefit from those supports
• Specific IEP and 504 processes to address a student’s behavioral needs in ways that are both positive and student-centered

Foundational Requirements and Considerations

IDEA Child Find and 504 Identification

Both the IDEA and Section 504 require districts to continually seek out, identify, and evaluate children with disabilities living within the district’s boundaries. This requirement is referred to as child find. Districts must act on their child find obligation as soon as there is reason to suspect or believe a student may have a disability. Waiting to evaluate a student suspected of having a disability for any reason – such as waiting for the parent to request an evaluation or imposing prerequisite steps such as insisting the parent produce a medical diagnosis – violates the child find requirement. 

As discussed in Section 4, interfering behaviors are an indication the student’s needs are not yet met. In some (though not all) cases, this may be due to a disability. Refer to the box in Section 5: Interfering Behavior and Disability, for patterns of behavior that may prompt school staff to consider whether the student may also have a disability and need to be evaluated to determine if they are eligible for special education.

Free Appropriate Public Education: IDEA and 504

All students with disabilities who qualify for services under the IDEA and/or Section 504 are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Any student, whether or not they have a disability, can receive positive behavioral interventions and supports, including with a behavioral intervention plan (BIP). Additionally, for students eligible for special education services whose behaviors interfere with learning, these interventions and supports are explicitly required to be considered as part of the district’s offer of FAPE in the IEP.

The IDEA and its implementing regulations require IEP Teams to follow certain procedures to ensure that IEPs meet the individualized needs, including the behavioral needs, of students with disabilities….For any eligible student with a disability whose behavior impedes their own learning or the learning of others, the IDEA specifically requires that IEP Teams consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address the behavior, including behaviors that may not be caused by or related to a child’s disability. IEP Teams can utilize FBAs to gain a better understanding of a student’s behavioral needs and to determine the positive behavioral interventions and supports needed to provide FAPE to a student with a disability.¹⁰⁰ 

IEP teams must always consider the student’s right to access a FAPE when considering a student’s need for positive, proactive, and teaching-focused supports for social/emotional/behavioral learning in the IEP. If the IEP team does not consider and provide any necessary positive behavioral supports in the IEP of a student whose behavior interferes with learning, the IEP may not appropriately provide the student with FAPE in their LRE.¹⁰¹  

IDEA and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Students eligible for special education services have the right under state and federal regulations to be educated in their LRE. Teams are not permitted to remove a student from education in age-appropriate general classrooms solely because of needed modifications in general education.¹⁰²  Removal of students eligible for special education services from the general educational environment is only permitted if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.¹⁰³  

LRE must be thoughtfully considered for a student with behavior support needs. Limiting the student’s LRE solely for safety is rarely, if ever, appropriate. An IEP with appropriately ambitious goals for learning prosocial alternatives to interfering behavior typically cannot and should not be implemented in isolated settings alone. Since most interfering behavior is related to avoiding/escaping difficult demands and/or obtaining social responses/attention from others, IEPs with meaningful annual goals that address those behaviors typically require teaching and learning in settings with access to the general curriculum and same-age peers without disabilities. For additional considerations that relate to placement of a student who engages in interfering behavior, see the corresponding section below.

Evaluation of a Student’s Behavior-Related Needs

Evaluations, whether for special education eligibility and IEP development or for 504 eligibility and 504 Plan development, must be individualized. Each special education evaluation must be comprehensive and address all areas of suspected disability, including those areas which may or may not be directly related to the suspected eligibility category. This means the district may not restrict assessments that might relate to a student’s behavior support needs (for instance, measures that evaluate a student’s social, emotional, behavioral, communication, and/or sensory needs) to students who are being evaluated for eligibility in a particular category. Any student, regardless of eligibility category, may have needs related to behavior – and those needs, when present, must be addressed in the evaluation.

Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs)

As described in Section 4, a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is a process of structured information gathering about a student’s behavior that interferes with their learning, social relationships, or other participation in their school and community. The FBA assists a school team to determine the underlying need (or function) that behavior is currently meeting for the student. 

Information gathered in an FBA is best used to design a positive, supportive, and cohesive set of function-based individualized interventions referred to as a behavioral intervention plan (BIP). The process for developing an effective BIP is described in Section 4. Information gathered in the FBA should also inform other parts of the IEP, such as:

• Special factors 
• Strength-based present levels of academic achievement and functional performance 
• Annual goals 
• Services 
• Placement 

Other Evaluation Areas

District staff should keep in mind that evaluations can support the team in understanding the reason(s) for a student’s interfering behavior, not merely demonstrating that the interfering behavior is present. A student with interfering behavior likely has unmet needs––in areas like academic learning, communication, social and emotional skills, health, and/or sensory input–– underlying those behaviors. The evaluation can be used to understand the scope and nature of these needs so any root causes of interfering behavior can be addressed in the IEP or 504 Plan.

Student and Family Participation in IEP and 504 Teams

Parents are key partners in IEP and 504 teams, and their participation is critical for writing effective IEPs and 504 Plans. State and federal regulations require that parents are afforded the opportunity to participate in IEP team meetings and decisions.¹⁰⁴  Students are also key participants and must be invited to IEP team meetings in which postsecondary goals and transition services are discussed. 

Furthermore, OSPI guidance recommends¹⁰⁵  that IEP teams conduct an initial collaborative conversation with the family (including the student whenever possible) at the start of each school year to learn about the student and family’s long-term vision and priorities. This allows the whole family to fully participate in the development of a strengths-based, ambitious, and meaningful IEP. 

For a student with behavior support needs, it is essential that school team members prioritize family engagement and partnership. Parents are often experienced in addressing their child’s interfering behavior and can provide valuable insight as team members. Centering student and family voice builds a foundation for mutual collaboration, trust, and respect¹⁰⁶  – all of which are vital in developing and implementing successful positive behavior supports for a student. 

Behavior Supports and the IEP

In 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District clarifying the requirement for IEPs to promote meaningful, rather than minimal, progress. The ruling requires that each student’s IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable a [student] to make progress appropriate in light of the [student]’s circumstances.”¹⁰⁷  Behaviors that interfere with the student’s progress must be considered in the IEP.¹⁰⁸ 

For IEP teams, the message is clear. If a student eligible for special education services engages in behaviors that interfere with their progress, impact their access to a FAPE, and/or are related to their disability, their IEP must address those behaviors. This is the case regardless of the student’s disability eligibility category. 

Special Factors

The IEP team must consider the presence of each of five special factors¹⁰⁹  when creating an IEP. Special factors can limit the student’s progress in their IEP goals overall and may also limit the student’s access to a FAPE in their LRE. A student’s need for positive behavior support to address interfering behavior is one of these special factors the team is required to consider, regardless of the student’s disability category. The presence of this special factor may influence many areas of the IEP as it is developed, including:

• Assessment data (including FBA data) and other information presented in the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP)
• Measurable and meaningful annual goals to address social/emotional/behavioral skills and, if needed, academic skills (e.g., skill gaps leading to avoidance or other interfering behavior)
• Specially designed instruction (SDI) and/or related services that may be needed to support the student in managing interfering behaviors and learning alternative behaviors
• Placement that allows the student to access the general curriculum in their LRE, make progress on their annual goals, and have adequate opportunities to practice necessary social/emotional/behavioral skills with peers without disabilities

The IEP team should not restrict their consideration of this special factor to students eligible in a particular disability category. It is also important to consider how a student’s disability impacts their behavior and determine how those disability-related needs can be addressed in the IEP. For instance, a student whose disability impacts communication may have learned to use interfering behavior to communicate their needs. In this case, the team should also consider communication (and, potentially, the need for assistive technology) as a special factor, and should ensure that the student’s communication needs relating to behavior have been specifically addressed in the IEP.

Strength-Based Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

All IEPs must contain a statement of present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP).¹¹⁰  Consistent with current OSPI guidance¹¹¹  and best practice, teams are advised to ensure their PLAAFP statements are also strengths-based. This means that, for a student with an IEP and interfering behavior, the PLAAFP will reflect the following:

1. Connection to the student and family’s valued life outcomes and priorities for the student
2. Evidence of high expectations, facilitating IEP decisions that presume the student’s competence, honor the student’s belonging in general education settings, and develop skills that support the student’s increasing social/emotional/behavioral wellbeing 
3. A person-centered approach that considers the individual student and their inherent worth, not just their disability category or level of interfering behavior
4. Explicit focus on student strengths, first describing the skills, strengths, and preferences of the student (including those that relate to social/emotional/behavioral skills), and then identifying what needs remain
5. Awareness of the whole child across the whole day, leading to goals that increase, maintain, and generalize meaningful skills the student can use in multiple facets of life

IEP Goals for Positive Behavior Support

Each annual IEP goal must be measurable and include three components: the condition in which the skill is needed, the skill being taught, and the criterion to determine when the goal has been mastered. All parts of the goal must reflect the Endrew F. standard described on page 71. In other words, the goal should reflect an “appropriately ambitious” expectation for what the student could achieve in a year with the special education and related services described in the IEP. 

Further, OSPI recommends that IEP goals are also meaningful. Meaningful goals are broad, rich, varied, and written with implementation in general education settings in mind. For more on developing meaningful IEP goals, refer to pages 20–21 of Comprehensive Inclusive Education in Washington.

To develop the PLAAFP for a student who engages in interfering behavior, data sources might include observation notes, discipline referrals, attendance records, and evaluation or re-evaluation data. If the team has completed an FBA for the student, information from the FBA should also be included in the PLAAFP (e.g., the interfering behavior’s function, antecedents, and consequences). An effective PLAAFP includes a baseline measurement of the interfering behavior, where/when/with whom it typically occurs, what the function might be, and in what circumstances the student engages in socially expected behavior instead. 

Services 

All IEPs must include specially designed instruction (SDI).¹¹³  Some students may also have related services and/or supplementary aids and services (SAS) included in the IEP. Each of these types of services should support the student in making progress in the general education curriculum and grade-level standards as well as attaining the annual goals in their IEP. 

Students with behavior support needs may benefit from a variety of services to address their learning needs. Teams are advised to determine the function of the individual student’s interfering behavior to best guide decisions about services. For instance, for a student whose interfering behavior relates to difficulty communicating when stressed, it may be important to incorporate communication and/or self-advocacy skills into the IEP’s goals and associated services. On the other hand, if the student’s interfering behavior arises from peer conflict, goals and services might instead address the student’s social/emotional/behavioral skills during routines and activities with the most peer interaction (e.g., group activities, lunch, and recess).

When considering how and where services will be provided, special education services must be provided in the student’s LRE, and, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the general education environment. This includes services for positive behavior support. School teams cannot decide to remove a student from age-appropriate general education settings solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.¹¹⁴  Special education services should only be delivered in a separate setting when absolutely necessary. Both students and staff benefit when behavior support services are coordinated with the schoolwide schedule and designed for shared implementation across the school team, rather than provided by a single teacher or paraeducator.

Placement

A student’s placement must be determined by the IEP team, which includes the parent, and must be based on all of the following:¹¹⁷

• The student’s IEP,
• The student’s least restrictive environment (LRE),
• The placement option(s) provides a reasonably high probability of supporting the student to reach their IEP goals, and
• A consideration of any potential harmful effect the placement may have on the student or on the quality of services they need

A student’s placement is determined after the IEP is developed so these factors can be considered. Predetermination of placement – including determining goals or services based on what is available in a pre-selected school or classroom or based on a bell schedule – is not permitted. As noted on page 68, teams cannot remove a student from education in age-appropriate general classrooms solely because of needed modifications in general education.¹¹⁸  

For a student who engages in interfering behavior (as well as any other student), the placement decision must provide the student with opportunities and services to access and progress in the general education curriculum, reach their IEP goals, and receive social, emotional, and behavioral support. As described above, IEP goals for a student with interfering behavior should focus on meaningful and function-based alternative behaviors, such as skills for age-appropriate peer interaction, teamwork, communication, and stress tolerance. It is neither effective nor evidence-based to limit access to general education instruction and social opportunities to teach these skills; in fact, practice in natural contexts is usually necessary for students to progress in these goals. 

For these reasons, IEP teams must not determine placement based solely on the amount of support a student needs. It would not be appropriate, for example, for the IEP team to place a student with behavior support needs who is on/above grade level academically in a “life skills” classroom (that does not provide the academic instruction the student requires) for staffing reasons. Regardless of a student’s need for behavior support, they are entitled to the same rights, individualized determinations of FAPE and LRE, and access to general education instruction and nonacademic/extracurricular activities as any other student eligible for special education services.

Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP)

When behavior is identified as a need by the IEP team (for instance, in the special factors described on page 71), the team must consider use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address behavior that interferes with learning. This should include consideration of whether or not the IEP team will develop a BIP. The purpose of a BIP is to describe the positive behavioral interventions and supports the team will use to reduce the student’s use of the interfering behavior by teaching the student prosocial alternative behaviors. A BIP must, at minimum, include a description of the skills that will be taught and monitored by school staff as alternatives to the interfering behavior. When a student eligible for special education services has a BIP, it becomes part of their IEP and thus must be followed by the school team implementing it. 

The process for developing an effective BIP for any student is described in Section 4. It is important to note that the process for developing a BIP (and integrating information obtained with an FBA into the BIP) should be the same regardless of whether or not a student is eligible for special education services or a 504 Plan. Districts should not have separate processes for BIP development based on whether or not a student has a disability.

Emergency Response Protocol

An emergency response protocol (ERP) must be developed, following the requirements in WAC 392-172A-02105, if the parent and the school district determine that a student requires advanced educational planning. The ERP describes the response to be used in the case of emergencies that pose an imminent likelihood of serious harm. The district must obtain parent consent in advance for the ERP.

The district may not develop an ERP that violates the requirements in RCW 28A.600.485, regardless of whether or not the parent has provided consent. This means the ERP must not contain, for instance:

• Language that suggests restraint and/or isolation will be used as a punishment for a specific predetermined behavior, irrespective of whether or not the student’s use of that behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm in a given instance
• Conditions for using restraint and/or isolation for behaviors that do not pose an imminent likelihood of serious harm
• A predetermined duration for restraint and/or isolation
• An exit criteria for restraint and/or isolation that extends the use of these practices past the requirement in RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b) that restraint and isolation “must be discontinued as soon as the likelihood of serious harm has dissipated.”

An ERP is not a substitute for a collaboratively developed BIP. Developing an ERP does not fulfill the team’s requirement under state and federal regulations to provide an appropriate offer of FAPE in the IEP, including (if applicable) using positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the student’s interfering behaviors and supporting the student to learn alternative behaviors. Districts are strongly encouraged to follow the recommendations in Section 4 for developing BIPs.

Behavior Supports and the 504 Plan

When preparing to develop a 504 Plan for a student who engages in interfering behavior, the team should review information provided for the evaluation, including relevant assessments and any other data collected about the student’s disability-related needs, to identify the individualized services the student requires to access a FAPE. This information might include:

• Notes and other documentation relating to previous behavior interventions
• Observations of the student engaging in the interfering behavior(s)
• Documentation from the school’s MTSS team
• Discipline records relevant to the interfering behavior(s)
• Medical or psychological records
• Results of an FBA

When the team meets to develop a 504 Plan for a student who engages in interfering behavior related to their disability, the team “must identify individualized services, such as behavioral supports, to meet the student’s educational needs.”¹¹⁹  504 Plans are not required to be put in writing, but teams are strongly encouraged to do so for shared team understanding about roles, responsibilities, and implementation. Services and decisions that relate to the student with a disability must be individualized and cannot be “based on stereotypes, generalizations, or assumptions about the student based on their disability or about individuals with disabilities generally.”¹²⁰  

While it is not mandatory to include a BIP for a student served under Section 504 who engages in interfering behavior, the team should thoughtfully consider developing one consistent with the best practices outlined in Section 4. In its 2022 guidance for supporting students with behavioral needs under Section 504, the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notes that, “if a Section 504 team chooses to use a behavioral assessment to develop a BIP, and that assessment identifies specific behavioral supports needed to ensure FAPE, the Section 504 team would need to develop the BIP with such supports, and the school would need to implement it, as part of the student’s Section 504 plan for providing FAPE.” Regardless of whether or not the team determines that a BIP will be developed, the student’s 504 Plan must still include any other individualized services necessary to support the student in learning more prosocial behaviors and accessing a FAPE.

For more information about 504 Plan requirements, refer to:

• 504 Plans and Students with Disabilities
• Students' Rights: Section 504 and Students with Disabilities
• Preventing and Addressing Discrimination in Student Discipline

---

¹⁰⁰ OSERS & OESE (2024). Using functional behavioral assessments to create supportive learning environments.

¹⁰¹ OSERS (2022). Questions and answers: Addressing the needs of children with disabilities and IDEA’s discipline provisions

¹⁰² WAC 392-172A-02060(4).

¹⁰³ WAC 392-172A-02050.

¹⁰⁴ WAC 392-172A-05001.

¹⁰⁵ OSPI (2024). Comprehensive inclusive education in Washington - Step 1: Collaborative conversations.

¹⁰⁶ OSPI (2021) Family Engagement Framework Workgroup: 2021 report to the Legislature.

¹⁰⁷ Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. Re-1, 69 IDELR 174 (2017).

¹⁰⁸ U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Questions and Answers on U. S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1 (page 5). 

¹⁰⁹ WAC 392-172A-03110(2).

¹¹⁰ WAC 392-172A-03090(1)(a).

¹¹¹ OSPI (2024). Comprehensive inclusive education in Washington - Step 2: Creating an inclusive IEP.

¹¹² University of Connecticut (n.d.). Direct Behavior Ratings.

¹¹³ WAC 392-172A-01175.
  
¹¹⁴ WAC 392-172A-02060.

¹¹⁵ Skaar, N. R., Etscheidt, S. L., & Kraayenbrink, A. (2020). School-based mental health services for students with disabilities: Urgent need, systemic barriers, and a proposal. Exceptionality, 29(4), 265–279. 

¹¹⁶ OSERS (2021). Supporting child and student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs.

¹¹⁷ WAC 392-172A-02060(2).

¹¹⁸ WAC 392-172A-02060(4).

¹¹⁹ OCR (2022). Supporting students with disabilities and avoiding the discriminatory use of student discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (page 10).

¹²⁰ OCR (2022). Supporting students with disabilities and avoiding the discriminatory use of student discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (p. 28)

Students with disabilities receive additional protections under the IDEA and Section 504, as well as Washington state law, regarding school discipline. This includes students not yet eligible for special education services if the district had knowledge that a student was eligible for special education services before the behavior that led to the disciplinary action.¹²¹  State and federal discipline protections for students with disabilities are intended to ensure that no student is prevented from accessing a FAPE because of behavioral concerns related to their disability or the team’s implementation of their IEP or 504 Plan. 

Students with disabilities who do not receive adequate supports for their individual needs may be more likely to engage in interfering behavior, and thus more likely to experience school discipline. Federal special education guidance is clear that overuse and misuse of school discipline, particularly in the absence of effective positive behavioral interventions and supports in the IEP, may violate a student’s civil rights to receive FAPE in their LRE.

“The failure of the IEP Team to consider and provide for needed behavioral supports through the IEP process may result in a child not receiving a meaningful educational benefit or FAPE….[and] could result in an inappropriately restrictive placement and constitute a denial of placement in the least restrictive environment. The failure of the IEP Team to consider and provide for needed behavioral supports could also lead to behavior that is inconsistent with the school’s code of student conduct….It is critical that IDEA provisions designed to support the needs of children with disabilities and ensure FAPE are appropriately implemented so as to avoid an overreliance on, or misuse of, exclusionary discipline in response to a child’s behavior.”¹²²

Districts must understand the implications and nuances related to school discipline and positive behavior support practices for students with disabilities. This allows districts to ensure students’ rights are protected, including the right to FAPE – which includes, when necessary, positive behavior supports as part of an IEP or 504 Plan. This section will describe recommended practices for districts to appropriately consider and act on a student’s need for positive behavior support as evidenced by behavior that violates the school’s code of conduct. 

In addition, OSPI provides extensive regulatory guidance on discipline provisions for students with disabilities. Key points in that guidance are summarized in the box below. For more on these requirements, visit the linked guidance documents. 

What Protections Exist for Students with Disabilities Regarding School Discipline?

This is a non-exhaustive list of key discipline terms and protections in state law, the IDEA, and Section 504. District staff are responsible for understanding all school discipline protections, including the ones not summarized here. 

Key Special Education Terms and Protections in Washington

Placement

Placement is a decision that is made by the IEP team, which includes the parent. Districts may not unilaterally change a student’s placement, so students who experience a change of placement because of disciplinary removals¹²³  are protected by state and federal regulations. A change of placement occurs because of disciplinary removals when:

• The removal is for more than ten consecutive school days; or
• The student has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern, because the series of removals 1) total more than ten school days in a school year, 2) occurred in response to similar student behaviors; and 3) may have additional elements of a pattern (e.g., the length of each removal, the total time the student has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another).

Manifestation determination review (MDR)

Manifestation determination review (MDR): 

• An MDR must be conducted within 10 days of any disciplinary removal decision that changes the placement of a student eligible for special education.
• School staff must determine whether the behavior(s) that led to the student’s removal were caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, their disability, and/or whether the behavior(s) were the direct result of the district’s failure to implement the IEP. 
  • If the student’s behavior was found to be a manifestation of their disability, the IEP team must conduct an FBA and develop a BIP. If a BIP was already developed, the team must review and modify it as necessary to address the behavior at issue.

Educational services

Educational services that provide the student with a FAPE must be provided during all disciplinary removals regardless of length. District staff may provide services in an interim alternative educational setting (IAES).¹²⁴  Services must ensure the student continues to:

• Participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and
• Make progress toward meeting the annual goals set out in their IEP.

Section 504 Requirements

Section 504 federal regulations are less detailed than federal and state special education regulations, but discipline requirements have largely been interpreted by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) as following the IDEA requirements. The following resources are available to school teams to support the implementation of Section 504 discipline protections: 

• OSPI: Students’ Rights - Section 504 and Students with Disabilities
• OCR: Supporting Students with Disabilities and Avoiding the Discriminatory Use of Student Discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Understanding Disciplinary Removals

A disciplinary removal occurs when a student with a disability is removed from or prevented from accessing some part of their educational program and/or services for reasons related to the student’s interfering behavior that violates the school’s code of conduct. Suspension is a common example of formal disciplinary removal; however, there are a variety of actions that a district might take that would amount to disciplinary removals based on state and federal regulations, including:

• Issuing an out-of-school suspension or expulsion to the student
• Using informal removals as described on page 38 of Section 2, such as calling a parent suggesting or requiring that they pick up their student early due to interfering behavior (even if the word “suspension” is not used)
• Issuing an in-school suspension to the student, unless all of the following occurred during that in-school suspension¹²⁵ 
  • The student was afforded the opportunity to continue to participate in the general education curriculum,
  • The student continued to receive the services specified on their IEP or 504 plan, and
  • The student continued to participate with nondisabled students to the extent they would have in their current placement
• Unilaterally limiting the student’s educational program due to behavior concerns, such as shortening the student’s school day, barring the student from attending a class on their schedule, or requiring the student to attend school virtually
• Imposing conditions under which the student will be “allowed” to attend school that disregard the student’s right to FAPE, such as requiring the parent to be present with their student during any part of the school day or requiring the student to “earn” their way back into class by demonstrating desired behavior
• Suspending a student with an IEP or 504 Plan that includes transportation as a related service from riding the school bus¹²⁶ 

Note that an in-school suspension referred to by an alternative name may still be regarded as an in-school suspension under state and federal discipline provisions for students with disabilities. Some schools may have spaces that are utilized by staff in the same way as in-school suspension under different names (e.g., “Think Time Room” or “Calming Corner”, etc.).¹²⁷  It is the function of the disciplinary removal and its impact on the student’s access to their educational program that determines whether it is an in-school suspension, not the name given to the room by the school. 

A disciplinary removal may be for a partial or full day; however, partial day removals may be equivalent to a full day under the IDEA and Section 504. Both state and federal regulation defines a school day as “any day, including a partial day, that children are in attendance at school for instructional purposes. School day has the same meaning for all children in school, including children with and without disabilities.”¹²⁸  Section 504 guidance similarly states that “students with disabilities are entitled to an entire school day that is as long as the school day for students without disabilities.”¹²⁹  

LEAs must accurately track how many school days (including partial days) the student with a disability has been subjected to disciplinary removals and should properly document all such removals in their student information system (SIS). This allows the LEA to meet state and federal requirements to:

• Provide services during any disciplinary removal, regardless of its duration, in accordance with WAC 392-172A-05145 and WAC 392-400-610
• Determine if and when the student has been subjected to a change in placement due to disciplinary removals as defined by WAC 392-172A-05155
• Document and report accurate data collections on all disciplinary actions taken in school, as required under RCW 28A.600.460 and RCW 28A.300.042

---

¹²¹ WAC 392-172A-05170.

¹²² OSERS (2022). Questions and answers: Addressing the needs of children with disabilities and IDEA’s discipline provisions (page 8; emphasis added).

¹²³ WAC 392-172A-05155.

¹²⁴ An IAES is a temporary placement and must allow a student to receive educational services in a manner that is comparable, equitable, and appropriate relative to the services the student would have received without the exclusionary discipline. Examples of IAES settings include alternative schools, one-on-one tutoring, and online learning.

¹²⁵ OSERS (2022). Questions and answers: Addressing the needs of children with disabilities and IDEA’s discipline provisions (page 11).

¹²⁶ OSERS (2022). Questions and answers: Addressing the needs of children with disabilities and IDEA’s discipline provisions (page 16).

¹²⁷ Some LEAs also assign these types of names to spaces that function as isolation rooms. Isolation is not an acceptable form of school discipline and should not be equated to in-school suspension. However, its impact on the student’s access to instruction and FAPE must be considered.

¹²⁸ WAC 392-172A-01050.

¹²⁹ OCR (2016). Parent and educator resource guide to Section 504 in public elementary and secondary schools (page 30).

The U.S. Department of Education’s position is that restraint and isolation are “harmful to children…There is ample evidence of significant harms to students due to these practices, including serious physical injury, emotional trauma, and even death.”¹³⁰  Restraint and isolation can also cause additional layers of harm to students with disabilities. Federal guidance is clear that restraint and isolation, when used to discriminate against a student with a disability or to deny them their rights under federal and state law, is unlawful. This includes the use of restraint or isolation that follows “criteria, policies, practices, or procedures that are neutral in language and evenhandedly implemented with respect to students with and without disabilities but that nonetheless have the effect of discriminating against students with disabilities on the basis of disability, or defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the school’s programs with respect to students with disabilities.”¹³¹

It should never be the case that school staff assume or communicate that restraint and isolation are practices for students with disabilities. RCW 28A.600.485 explicitly prohibits the use of restraint and isolation for any student, including those eligible for an IEP or 504 plan, unless a student has spontaneous behavior that poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm. A student’s IEP or 504 Plan must not include the use of restraint or isolation as a planned behavior intervention unless a student's individual needs require more specific advanced educational planning and the student's parent or guardian agrees. For more, see “Emergency Response Protocol.”  

The use of restraint or isolation may be evidence that a student’s disability-related needs are not being adequately met by the student’s IEP or 504 Plan. School teams should never regard restraint or isolation as effective behavior support interventions for students with disabilities. If the team is repeatedly restraining or isolating a student with a disability, they should use the supports described throughout this portion of the manual to address the student’s interfering behavior with positive and proactive supports in the IEP or 504 Plan.

WAC 392-172A-02076 establishes a number of practices which are prohibited for use with students eligible for special education services “by reason of their offensive nature or their potential negative physical consequences, or their illegality.”  Some of these practices are described in greater detail in Section 6. 

The district which holds the responsibility for FAPE for a given student is also required to ensure the student is not restrained or isolated in a manner which violates state law, or subjected to practices prohibited under WAC 392-172A-02076. This means that a district which utilizes a contracted placement for a student eligible for special education services (e.g., an authorized nonpublic agency (NPA) or program operated by an educational service district) must continue to follow their responsibilities for FAPE, such as:

• Monitoring documentation of the use of restraint and isolation with the student
• Whenever needed, taking appropriate and data-based steps to address the student’s behavior support needs via the processes described throughout Section 5 of this manual, such as by reevaluating the student, conducting an FBA, developing a BIP, and convening the IEP team to modify the IEP to ensure it is appropriately calculated to provide educational benefit
• Determining if and when a student at a contracted placement is being restrained and/or isolated excessively, and timely responding as described above
• Regularly and frequently reviewing records provided by contracted placements  to ensure no practices prohibited under WAC 392-172A-02076 are used with the student

Civil Rights Violations in Restraint and Isolation of Students with Disabilities

Both the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice have the authority to investigate systematic district misuse of restraint and isolation and impose corrective actions. A review of their recent investigations suggests that district violations most commonly occur in the following area(s):

• Denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
• Disability discrimination
• Parents denied meaningful participation in IEP team meetings

Districts found in violation were frequently required to provide compensatory education to students who were subjected to restraint and/or isolation, revise policies and/or procedures to ensure compliance with state and federal law, improve documentation and data-based decision making in response to restraint and isolation use, and/or provide training for staff in areas of noncompliance.

Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Many districts investigated by OCR for misuse of restraint and isolation were found to have denied students with disabilities a FAPE. Typically, districts which were found to have denied students FAPE because of restraint and isolation made at least one of the following errors:

• Did not appear to consider whether a student’s IEP was sufficient to provide FAPE in light of the use of restraint or isolation in response to the student’s interfering behavior
• Did not appear to consider student needs for positive behavior interventions and supports as part of the IEP after staff use of restraint or isolation
• Did not consider reevaluating students subjected to repeated use of restraint and/or isolation to determine any necessary changes to student IEPs and/or 504 Plans to ensure a FAPE was provided
• Especially for students at contracted placements (i.e., NPAs), district staff had incomplete or otherwise inadequate documentation of student restraint and isolation, and thus could not develop an IEP that was appropriately calculated to provide educational benefit
• Did not address students’ lost instructional time, or consider any need for compensatory services, that resulted from the ongoing use of restraint and/or isolation

OCR has also indicated that the trauma a student experiences from restraint or isolation may deny them a FAPE if that trauma and its effects are not addressed by the IEP or 504 team. “The use of restraint or [isolation] may have a traumatic impact on that student, such that even if she were never again restrained or [isolated], she might nevertheless have new academic or behavioral difficulties that, if not addressed promptly, could constitute a denial of FAPE. Depending on the nature of his or her disability, a student with a disability may be especially physically or emotionally sensitive to the use of such techniques. That traumatizing effect could manifest itself in new behaviors, impaired concentration or attention in class, or increased absences, any of which could, if sufficiently severe and unaddressed, result in a denial of FAPE for that student. Other effects could include socially withdrawn behavior, or diminished interest or participation in class.”¹³²  IEP and 504 teams should consider what supports should be provided to students with disabilities whose access to FAPE may be impacted by the trauma of restraint and/or isolation, such as counseling, school social work services, and school-based mental health services.¹³³ 

Disability Discrimination

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits districts from engaging in disability-based discrimination. Misuse of restraint and isolation against students with disabilities can result in disability discrimination. Factors that may contribute to findings of discrimination include:

• Overuse and/or disproportionate use of restraint and isolation with students who have disabilities when compared to the use of these practices with nondisabled students
• District restraint and isolation policies, procedures, and practices that routinely result in lost instructional time for students with disabilities, such as:
  • Use of restraint and isolation for behaviors that do not meet the threshold of “imminent likelihood of serious harm” in RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b), such as “to enforce school rules, to address refusals to comply with staff directives, to prevent students from leaving a room or area, and to transport students.”¹³⁴ 
  • Arbitrary criteria imposed by staff to end an instance of restraint and/or isolation,¹³⁵  extending the time students spend in restraint and isolation and violating the requirement in RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b) to end restraint/isolation as soon as the likelihood of serious harm has dissipated 
• Failing to leverage the range of effective practices for positive behavior support, such as FBAs and BIPs, and instead “regularly and repeatedly” using restraint and isolation to respond to behavior that district staff “should have anticipated and managed as part of educating students with emotional and behavioral needs”¹³⁶ 
• Failing to implement and/or ensure the effectiveness of existing BIPs¹³⁷ 
• Continuing to restrain and isolate students with disabilities “even…when students exhibited clear signs of trauma”¹³⁸

Parents Denied Meaningful Participation in IEP Team

Parents have the right to participate in IEP team meetings, and districts must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the meeting.¹³⁹  For a student who has experienced restraint and/or isolation, it is imperative that districts ensure parents have sufficient notice and information about the use of restraint and/or isolation to meaningfully participate in related IEP discussions.

Districts in violation of this requirement typically made at least one of the following errors:

• Parents were not notified of the use of restraint and/or isolation, or were notified later than the timeframe required by policy
• Documentation and/or reporting of restraint and isolation were inadequate or inconsistent, resulting in incomplete information reported to parents
• Especially for students at contracted placements (i.e., NPAs), district staff had incomplete or otherwise inadequate documentation of student restraint and isolation, and thus could not appropriately notify or debrief parents
• Without timely and accurate information about staff use of restraint and/or isolation for a student’s interfering behavior, the student’s parents were denied the ability to meaningfully participate in IEP team discussions and decisions

---

¹³⁰ U.S. Department of Education (2025). Secretary Cardona letter on restraints and seclusion in schools.

¹³¹ OCR (2016). Dear colleague letter: Restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities (page 16).

¹³² OCR (2016). Dear colleague letter: Restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities (pages 16–17).

¹³³ OCR (2022). Supporting students with disabilities and avoiding the discriminatory use of student discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

¹³⁴ U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division (2024). Letter to Wichita Public Schools (page 4).

¹³⁵ For example, requiring that students in isolation sit silently with their back to the wall of the isolation room for five continuous minutes before they can exit the isolation room.

¹³⁶ U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2023). Letter to Anchorage School District (page 3).

¹³⁷ “For students who were repeatedly restrained or secluded, many had behavior plans that the District was not implementing, and others had plans that the District did not revise after an incident to ensure their effectiveness.” U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2024). Letter to Wichita Public Schools (page 4).

¹³⁸ U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2023). Letter to Spokane Public Schools (page 2).

¹³⁹ WAC 392-172A-05001.