Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
KEEPING ALL STUDENTS SAFE
- The provision of a free appropriate
public education is an essential civil right for all Citizens of the
United States of America. Education allows individuals to...
- Access essential information;
- Listen to understand;
- Communicate to be understood;
- Demonstrate and apply knowledge;
- Learn about the importance of currency and fair trade to make good personal economic decisions;
- Consider healthy living decisions; and
- Accentuate and nurture areas of personal strength to most successfully live in and contribute to a democratic society.
- The provision of special education supports and services is needed by some people to make the realities of education possible for all Citizens of the United States.
- If there are any Citizens of the United States who have a desire to vote based on an understanding of the choices before them but who lack the appropriate education to do so, then the education status quo has overwhelmingly failed those Citizens. (Posted 6-26-11)
The New Look of Special Education
Please call your U.S. Senators and your favorite advocacy agencies and request that they publicly say NO to U.S. Senate Bill 3895!
Senate Bill 3895 has been cleverly marketed as the “Keeping All Students Safe Act.” Yet keeping students safe with this bill is the furthest thing from the truth, and really it is more like the “Feel Free to Single Out and Physically and Emotionally Harm Students with Disabilities Act.” Hiding these dastardly deeds under the guise of an IEPT decision is disgusting.
During the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA. school, education and some agency lobbyists seriously lost their way. It is difficult for students and families to know who our friends and foe are anymore.
Many of these students being singled out for abuse cannot speak for, or even defend, themselves!
The fact that some in the education and agency arenas are lobbying leadership to advocate for the manhandling of children in school should cause the Senate to seriously question the credibility of these supposed student advocates and education providers.
In fact, when it comes to considering Senate Bill 3895, it is easy to see who is against the safety and welfare of students. All you have to do is contact your Senators and advocacy agencies to find out where they stand on Senate Bill 3895. Anyone who supports the Bill - which singles out one population of people, based on labels or characteristics - and advocates for their physical harm is no friend of students or families.
This is clearly discrimination. And it is happening right in front of the world! Where is the outrage?
If schools, education entities and agencies can’t think of anything better to do to improve the futures of students with disabilities than to advocate for physical force and torture, then they should not receive any funding. Period.
What is the Senate thinking? And most of all, what are education entities and other agencies who work with people with disabilities doing?
Call today. And tell them, “Stop singling out and advocating for the torture of students with disabilities at school. Say, ’NO!’ to Senate Bill 3895.”
Shari Krishnan, Today's Contributor
Copyright 2010 by Shari Krishnan. Permission to forward, copy and
post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
The OCLB Team
Sandy Strassman-Alperstein, Deidre Hammon, Jackie Igafo-Te’o Shari
Krishnan, and Calvin and Tricia Luker, along with self advocates Benji
Alperstein, Daniel Alperstein, Brianna Hammon, Michael Igafo-Te’o, and
Nicholas Krishnan
Current efforts to introduce use of restraint and seclusion into the IEPs of students with disabilities could jeopardize the safety of our children, serve to increase the use of restraint and seclusion by teachers and staff, and undermine the very purpose of the “Keeping All Students Safe Act” that we need! What can you do? Learn more here.
S.3895, the Senate’s seclusion/restraint bill, “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” has one provision that has created significant controversy. It is the provision which allows districts to embed a seclusion/restraint plan in an individual student’s Individualized Education Programs [IEP], safety plan, educational plan or behavior plan.
We oppose the IEP provision. We also oppose the passage of any bill containing the IEP provision. We oppose the provision for the following reasons:
- Seclusion and restraint are not educational practices, strategies or methodologies. At best, they are emergency interventions.
- Seclusion and restraint plans are not behavior plans.
- Seclusion and restraint plans are not discipline plans; they are punishment plans.
- Placing seclusion and restraint plans into IEPs is tantamount to declaring them “programs” within the meaning of special education law.
- As S.3895, Finding 4 states, “seclusion and physical restraint are not therapeutic.
- As S.3895, Finding 4 also states, “[seclusion and physical restraint] are not effective means to calm or teach children and may have an opposite effect while simultaneously decreasing a child’s ability to learn.”
- The use of seclusion and restraint as educational practices has been repudiated in therapeutic institutions including hospitals, psychiatric facilities and other residential settings for people who have challenging behaviors, even though these therapeutic institutions are staffed with medical and other highly trained professionals, and even though the physical environment itself is better suited to applying seclusion and restraint than are our nation’s schools.
- A student’s IEP or educational plan is not a place to insert a seclusion/restraint plan that may result in serious injury or death to the student or to the school personnel who are tasked with implementing such a plan.
- The current IEP process includes provisions designed to address student behavior challenges, including the use of functional behavior assessments [FBAs] and behavior intervention plans [BIPs]. These provisions have been in place since 1997 and were strengthened by Congress in 2004. Including seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs directly imperils all of the work that Congress, schools and parents have done to encourage the use of behavior plans.
- IEPs are the “contract” between school districts and parents that define their child’s educational expectations. Seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs, like speech therapy, physical therapy, testing accommodations, assistive technology, classroom placement, extended school year, etc., create an expectation of services to be provided. With this model, districts will naturally favor the use of seclusion/restraint plan over the development of a positive behavior support plan as the preferred method for reacting to challenging behavior.
- No effective mechanism exists for parents to challenge the inclusion of seclusion/restraint plans in a student’s individual safety plan, educational plan or behavior plan. Due process mechanisms existing for IEPs are costly, cumbersome and time-consuming and produce additional stress for already stressed out students, parents and families.
- Including seclusion/ restraint plans in IEPs will increase, rather than reduce, the use of seclusion and restraint.
- Although parents are members of the IEP team and therefore would be able to participate in the decision whether or not to insert a seclusion/restraint program into the IEP, there is no provision explicitly requiring that parents participate as FULL MEMBERS in any group or activity creating the seclusion/ restraint plan itself. This also currently is true with respect to the conducting of FBAs as well as the development of a BIP. Parents will be asked to agree to seclusion/restraint plans that have been developed without them.
The points we list above are only a partial
list of reasons why Our Children Left Behind [OCLB], self-advocates and
parents oppose the inclusion of IEP seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs.
Parents also are concerned about the IEP proposal because of its evident
reliance upon IDEA’s due process provisions that regulate how parents can
challenge elements of an IEP. IDEA’s due process mechanism is neither fair
not effective for parents. While parents are forced to pay their own legal
costs for due process hearings, districts have access to insurance pools
that may pay $100,000 or more per case for a districts legal fees and costs
associated with the hearing. That insurance is provided to the districts for
free by their insurance carriers as a value added benefit. District due
process costs not covered by insurance are paid for by tax payers. Under
these circumstances most parents have no reasonable possibility of
challenging a district’s decision, over the parent’s objection, to insert
seclusion/restraint plan into their child’s IEP.
The IEP seclusion and restraint provision has generated controversy. Some
organizations have taken the position that they can support the bill even
with the IEP provision intact, because the other provisions in the bill
strengthen protections for students throughout the United States, including
in states that currently have no laws or policies regulating the use of
seclusion/restraint.
Other organizations are taking the position that the IEP provision is fatal
to the bill. They cannot accept legislation that permits the planned use of
seclusion /restraint by including it in IEPs and other similar plans. OCLB
supports this position.
There is no doubt that seclusion /restraint are non-therapeutic
interventions that create a significant likelihood that those who are being
secluded or restrained – our nation’s children, often our children with
significant disabilities – and those who seclude or restrain them will be
hurt or killed. Seclusion/restraint are dangerous and should not be used on
our nation’s children, period.
We are sensitive to the fact that S.3895 provides protection throughout the
United States. If not for the IEP provision, OCLB would strongly support
this bill. But for the reasons stated above, we believe the IEP provision,
creates a greater likelihood that students will be injured or killed as a
direct result of the inclusion of seclusion/restraint plans in IEPs.
More importantly, this provision will provide a strong legal basis to
condone and in fact promote the use of dangerous practices that – according
to Congress itself -- have no educational or therapeutic value. We cannot
agree that the benefit of federal regulation of seclusion/ restraint in our
schools outweighs the potentially fatal cost of legitimizing the use of
seclusion/restraint use in our children’s IEPs.
Compromising in order to produce a bad bill that emboldens the use of
seclusion and restraint – the Bird in the Hand – is not acceptable to us.
There will be no time to go back and “fix things.” The damage will be done
and our children will be the worse for it.
The graphic prepared by OCLB self-advocate, Michael Igafo-Te’o, summarizes
our feelings in one word. “Ouch!” Seclusion and restraint never should be
sanctioned as part of educational programming. As Michael, who has been
secluded and restrained, clearly understands, seclusion and restraint hurts
and kills children.
Tricia and Calvin Luker
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com
Copyright 2010 by Tricia and Calvin Luker. Permission to forward, copy and
post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
The OCLB Team
Sandy Strassman-Alperstein, Deidre Hammon, Jackie Igafo-Te’o Shari
Krishnan, and Calvin and Tricia Luker, along with self advocates Benji
Alperstein, Daniel Alperstein, Brianna Hammon, Michael Igafo-Te’o, and
Nicholas Krishnan
- Terrorist : think these things happened at Guantanamo?
- Scramble String: To prevent even more special ed students from being abused, the following line has been created for school employees not to cross.
- Duct Tape: The newest tool for helping disabled students find their indoor voice.
- Chalkboard: 1 adult + sitting on 1 child for 45 min = death.
- Rope: When disabled children can’t figure out how to be still, more schools are showing them the ropes.
- Handcuffs: for more and more of our disabled children, this is the new circle time.
Current efforts to introduce use of restraint and seclusion into the IEPs of students with disabilities could jeopardize the safety of our children, serve to increase the use of restraint and seclusion by teachers and staff, and undermine the very purpose of the “Keeping All Students Safe Act” that we need! What can you do? Learn more here.
Earlier this year, the United States House of Representatives passed the “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” which was introduced and championed by Congressman George Miller. Miller’s bill took substantial steps to eliminate the use of restraint and seclusion in America’s schools. The bill as passed was sent to the Senate for its consideration.
Last week, Senators Dodd and Burr introduced the Senate version of the “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” S.3895. This version varies significantly from the bill that passed the House. We are writing this homepage to introduce you to what we feel are significant pitfalls in the Senate bill and to encourage you to contact your Senators to let them know what you think about the bill.
We are digesting the bill and intend to produce a side-by-side comparison of the Senate and House bills. In the interim, we are providing you with this list of major concerns about the bill’s content. These are our areas of concern:
- EMBEDDING RESTRAINT/SECLUSION PLANS IN IEPS: The House bill prohibits including restraint/seclusion plans in Individualized Education Program [IEPs]. The justification is restraint/seclusion are for emergency use only and should not be part of a planned intervention to address behavior challenges. The House bill allows the use of restraint/seclusion to be included in school-wide safety plans. S.3895 will permit the use of restraint/seclusion in IEPs as well as individual student safety plans, education plans and behavior plans. We think the S.3895 provision flies in the face of the finding in S.3895 that restraint/seclusion are “not therapeutic” and “are not effective means to calm or teach children..." We support the House version and oppose allowing restraint/seclusion plans being embedded in IEPs, or individual behavior, education or safety plans.
- TYPES OF RESTRAINTS PERMITTED: We are concerned about the types of restraint that S.3895 would allow schools to use on students. We believe that no restraints should be permitted that could lead to death, isolation or impair the ability of the student to communicate while being restrained or secluded.
- RESTRAINT/SECLUSION AND HEALTH CONDITIONS: S.3895 does not address the use of restraint/seclusion on students with medical or psychiatric conditions that contraindicate the use of crisis intervention procedures.
- PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN CRISIS PLANNING: If schools are permitted to prepare individualized student restraint/seclusion plans, parents must be included in all stages of the planning, to include the development of any functional behavior assessments and positive behavior intervention plans and the development of the restraint/seclusion plan itself. These plans cannot just be developed by school personnel and imposed on parents and students.
- PROCEDURES TO CHALLENGE RESTRAINT/SECLUSION PLANS: S.3895, while permitting the embedding of restraint/seclusion plans in IEPs and individual student education, behavior and safety plans, does not provide any provision or guidance on how a parent may challenge a decision to embed a restraint/seclusion plan.
- IMPLEMENTATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF “LESS RESTRICTIVE INTERVENTIONS”: S.3895 prohibits using restraint/seclusion on a student unless “Less restrictive interventions” would be ineffective in stopping the behavior incident. S.3895 does not define the term “Less restrictive interventions.” We are concerned about how this provision would be implemented. What type of plan must exist and be tried? How would the testing and success or failure of the intervention be documented? Would the intervention be recognized as legitimate if it was developed without the benefit of a functional behavior assessment? How many times must the intervention be tried before it can be said that it did not succeed? What parental input must be included in developing the interventions? These questions demonstrate the breadth and depth of our concern for how this provision will be implemented. We agree with S.3895 that restraint/seclusion should not be applied where less restrictive interventions exist. We want to be certain that school personnel cannot say that they just tried an intervention once and because it didn’t work they are now free to restrain and seclude at will.
Our concerns about S.3895 are driven in
part by our experiences with the IEP process and with how documentation
works in the real school world. We know from our own experiences that the
IEP process is heavily weighted toward the views and intentions of school
personnel rather than parents. We are not comfortable with a system that
relies on the IEP process alone to determine whether a restraint/seclusion
plan should be embedded into a student’s IEP.
We know that the administrative due process system used to test IEP team
decisions is heavily weighted toward schools and away from families. We also
are aware that more and more school districts benefit from generous
insurance programs that provide significant funds up front [up to $100,000
in Michigan] for school lawyers and legal expenses per due process case.
These insurance plans exist in all 50 states and up to 80% of all schools
participate in such plans according to the insurance people we talked with.
In this setting, most parents lack the resources necessary to mount a
convincing challenge of a district decision to restrain/seclude their child.
Moreover the due process system itself is too slow and cumbersome to promote
expeditious resolution of a parental challenge.
We encourage all parents to review S.3895 as quickly as they can. We will
provide a link to the bill at
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com within the next day. We need to hear from
you. We want your stories and your opinions so that we can support you in
continuing your effective advocacy for your children. What materials or
information can we develop that will help you? We are anxious to hear from
you.
Link to Draft
Bill
Calvin and Tricia Luker, today’s OCLB contributor
Copyright 2010 by Calvin and Tricia Luker. Permission to forward, copy and
post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
The OCLB Team
Sandy Strassman-Alperstein, Deidre Hammon, Jackie Igafo-Te’o Shari
Krishnan, and Calvin and Tricia Luker, along with self advocates Benji
Alperstein, Daniel Alperstein, Brianna Hammon, Michael Igafo-Te’o, and
Nicholas Krishnan
A NEW
APPROACH
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are new, and likely to
create a crisis in a number of different arenas where children and adults
with disabilities find themselves. The crisis will be on the part of people
who currently do not care much about meeting the needs of children. If you
have been dealing with “special” education systems for long, you know just
who we are talking about.
Just between us parents, we could think of PBIS as human rights assurances
in disguise. PBIS require us to look at the function of behavior (the
communicative intent), and to respond appropriately. It requires us to look
at the environment, and the interactions occurring in that environment, and
to ASK the child what they think is happening!
There is a lot to understand about PBIS, but here’s an example that will
help you understand the underlying change of approach that school districts
and mental health facilities often fail to grasp:
Johnny is being chased everyday on his way to and from school by a vicious neighborhood dog. It hasn’t caught him yet, but it is a harrowing experience.
He arrives at school mildly winded and highly anxious, he is unable to concentrate. Occasionally he attempts to blurt out to the teacher what is going on, but he does not articulate well, and the teacher redirects him to the lesson. Johnny’s behavior improves just before and after lunch, but then in the afternoon he begins to worry about the dog and his anxiety and inability to concentrate return.
Under the old education/mental health paradigm, the parents and teachers fill out a number of behavior rating scales. They mark “anxious,” “agitated,” hyperactive,” “distracted,” “impulsive” and “noncompliant.” The IEP team convenes makes the student eligible under “seriously emotionally disturbed, writes a goal that says, “Johnny will pay attention and get his work done.” The nurses observation has resulted in a referral for medical treatment, so the doctor looks at the referral and prescribes Ritalin and Albuterol for asthma.
Under the PBIS model, the team does a functional behavioral assessment. We look at when, where and with whom the behavior is occurring, we take data and pay attention. We even talk to the child.
Then we lock up the dog
Deidre Hammon
Posted August 29, 2010
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com
Copyright 2010 by Deidre Hammon. Permission to forward, copy and post this article is granted so long as it is attributed to the authors and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
This page last updated on Sunday 04 December 2011