The use of restraint and seclusion procedures in schools in the United States and Canada has come under increased scrutiny recently, as Kate Hardiman noted recently in the Washington Examiner. To give just one example, a group of parents in Fairfax County, Virginia, is suing the public school system for excessive use of restraint and seclusion of their children.
Given clear evidence that school systems and states are seriously underreporting their use of these procedures, the problem is likely worse than it appears. Moreover, although federal guidelines make clear that restraint or seclusion should never be used except in situations where a child’s behavior poses the imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others, there have been many reports indicating that use of these procedures in schools occurs under far more benign conditions.
In her article, Hardiman asked why such seemingly antiquated procedures are being used in the first place. Use of restraint and seclusion embodies larger systemic issues in public schools, including the sheer number of students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges and the ways in which educators are often being trained to handle our most complex, difficult, and vulnerable children.
Training on the use of restraint and seclusion is standard for many classroom teachers, especially those working with children with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. For a long time, training in such procedures was also the norm in inpatient psychiatry units, residential facilities, and prisons, until many such treatment facilities made a concerted and successful effort to reduce their use.
Such training tries to help school staff recognize the early warning signs that a student is becoming escalated, to use de-escalation strategies so as to avoid the use of restraint and seclusion, and to safely deploy these procedures when all else fails. These practices are taught in what is typically referred to as “crisis prevention” training, though “crisis management” may be a more apt term. By the time a student becomes escalated — in other words, when some of the core ingredients of crisis “prevention” training kick in — it’s already very late.
What almost always precedes a student becoming escalated is difficulty on the part of the student to meet an expectation. These “unmet expectations” or “unsolved problems” can be identified and addressed proactively. That’s true crisis prevention. However, that’s often not what staff are being trained to do.
There’s a common belief that restraint and seclusion procedures are necessary for keeping children and staff safe. Yet, students and school staff are frequently injured precisely in carrying them out, with the occasional deaths of students. There is actually no science supporting the belief that restraint and seclusion procedures improve safety. Indeed, experience suggests that their reduction leads to fewer injuries to staff and children. And there are many schools that manage to keep everyone safe without using restraint and seclusion.
Many of the students being restrained or secluded are only sporadically available for learning. As such, true crisis prevention involves giving very serious consideration to whether a student can actually meet the expectations being placed upon him or her. Many such students are also quite dysregulated. True crisis prevention also requires knowledge and monitoring of psychotropic medications commonly prescribed to help reduce hyperactivity and impulsiveness and regulate emotions. Sometimes due to privacy concerns, staff in many special education classrooms often aren’t even aware of what psychotropic medications a child is taking, have little contact with prescribing physicians, and are often unaware of changes to a child’s medication regimen.
As Hardiman correctly notes, no one wants to restrain or seclude a child. Reducing or eliminating the use of these procedures in schools is not impossible but will require school systems to take a close look at policies, practices, and structures, and then take steps to make necessary changes. Until this occurs, the children and their caregivers will continue to function under impossible circumstances and will continue to pay the price for antiquated school disciplinary structures, policies, and practices.
Ross Greene is founding director of Lives in the Balance.
