I have not posted to this blog in awhile--serving the research/writing/grading-papers masters--but now I take the opportunity of Justin's vacation to renew my contributions (albeit a couple of days late--my apologies, Justin). I will start with an alarming story that raises many difficult issues. I'm always cautious about relying on news reports, so I take these with an appropriate dose of skepticism, but several national news sources (of all political stripes) have reported in the last few days on a recent Government Accountability Office study assessing the use of restraint and seclusion to control the behavior of special education students. According to the reports, in just California and Texas (two of the five in the nation that require educational institutions to report their use of restraint and seclusion), one or the other technique was used more than 33,000 times in one school year, ostensibly to keep certain potentially dangerous special education students from hurting themselves or others.
Except that, in some cases (and even one is too many, in my opinion), the special education students apparently end up being hurt (or even killed) by the techniques themselves. For instance, a little girl in Wisconsin (not one of the states in the GAO report) was recently allegedly suffocated when a much larger adult attempted to restrain her by pinning her down. Her potentially dangerous activities? According to NPR, "fidgeting and blowing bubbles in her milk." Now, I'm sure that description is pretty scaled down, and I have no doubt that the adult in question perceived a risk subjectively, but it seems obvious to me that even special education teachers are not often fully trained in the use of such techniques. Education schools do not specialize in this sort of training--police academies do. And even if traditionally certified special education teachers typically have some relevant training (and I doubt very much that any such training is ample), we cannot forget the equally alarming presence of many uncertified--and sometimes completely untrained--teachers in special education assignments. Is it a good idea to allow adults to use these techniques without significant training?
Of course, the schools (and the teachers) are placed into an untenable position here. On one hand, the teacher may perceive that a manifestation of the student's disability may cause harm to the student or to others. In many cases, the teacher is the first and only line of defense here, so she must do something. Indeed, if she fails to act, and someone is hurt, the school may be exposed to liability for negligent supervision. On the other hand, schools would also seem to expose themselves to significant liability by empowering teachers with the authority and the discretion to use techniques that could endanger the one to whom they are applied--especially in the absence of ample training. We all know that schools and school districts are very, very risk averse, sometimes even to the detriment of the learning process. What, then, explains the apparent widespread use of these techniques? Mere expedience? Lack of options? Whatever the reason, if I were an administrator in a school where these techniques were on the table, I would make sure to make the proper application of such techniques my very highest professional development priority.
Justin Bathon on 
