ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)
KEEPING ALL STUDENTS SAFE
NEW! The Advocacy Institute has just posted a new PODCAST with 3 leading experts on this topic. It is available here along with a timeline of the activities undertaken to date to pass federal legislation on the use of R + S in schools and end this practice. Posted September 3, 2010
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 Ritilan 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
Often, when negotiating over state or federal legislation or even school district policy, aimed at promoting the use of restraint and other forms of aversive (read: abusive) tactics against children with disabilities, lawmakers, administrators and others want to propose to us the “worst case scenario.” This typically happens in a hallway, or at a meeting table, sometimes with little fan fare, sometimes with a great flourish, they lay out for us what they have determined to be the most important factors to consider in their imaginary classroom. Even if they do not call it a “worst case scenario,” you can sense its nature through its hopeless air, its lack of salient details and its characterization of a person with a disability as an object of fear and a ticking time bomb, ready to “go off” at any minute.
Now, the trap has been laid.
Then they ask us for our expertise as parents, or our experience as advocates and educators, or simply our “position” in what they are attempting to define as the battle lines in proposals affecting children. We ~ dear parents ~ must recognize the trap for what it is. We must refuse to engage in dialogue around scenarios based on pernicious mythologies about the dangerousness of individuals with disabilities.
Here is a typical example:
Johnny is sitting in the middle of class and he jumps up and suddenly throws his books across the room. He storms over to a cabinet and knocks some games on the floor while attempting to reach for something else. The teacher and the other students in the class are afraid. The school uses its school wide emergency plan which sends two administrators running for the classroom to escort the student out, and even though Johnny’s behavior plan says he needs to be allowed to leave the classroom when upset, he is refusing to go. What now?
This is a perfect example of flawed perception in the mind of a storyteller. That, and only that, is what we need to focus on.
Behavior is communication. It is a conversation that never takes place in isolation. These “worst case scenarios” (and many a manifest determination meeting!) consistently start with a description of behavior, and then seek to justify harsh interventions or punishments. Without an ABC equation, there can be no correct answer. We have to look at the Antecedent (A), then the Behavior (B), and then what happened (consequence - C). If we are serious about figuring out the entire conversation taking place where problem behavior is occurring - with or without words - we have to continue to ask, and then what happened (behavior - b) and then what happened (consequence -c), and then what happened, and then what happened until we reach the end.
It's a conversation.
What most “worst case scenarios” describe is the centuries old myth that plagues people with disabilities: they are un-predictably dangerous. In the decade since Nevada passed legislation to end the use of aversive interventions in classrooms and in the hundred plus cases I have worked on since then, I have yet to discover one single case where the student “just went off.” I’ve heard that justification in about ninety percent of the cases I have worked. But in all those cases, I have never found it to be true. Once the case is debriefed in the correct manner, the conversation unfolds. Maybe staff didn't see what happened, maybe they left out something they thought was not important, maybe they missed a whole week or even a month of ABC's, but kids don't just "go off."
Behavior is communication! And unless we can name and confront that initial bigotry articulated in “worst case scenarios,” then it will be hard to require politicians and others to see our children as children. As long as they are allowed to cling to the myth of the worst case scenario, they will never take responsibility for changing school cultures in a way that not only benefits our children, but all children.
Let’s break it to them gently... Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, especially when a part of the culture of the classroom/school work! That needs to be our position. Also, that behavior is communication. Take hold of these two truths and move the conversation back to these realities regardless of what scenarios are put on the table.
The question of the “worst case scenario” places us in an environment that is all about imagination. Let’s look at the example above. “Administrators are called to the room to escort the student out.” 26 years of advocacy experience in schools and mental health facilities has me immediately envisioning thugs with nothing better to do. Why not? The student has been envisioned as a thug, so why not match the image. If it were a real case I was working, I would immediately attempt to determine if there have been any successful experiences with these folks and the student prior to this. Two of them implies overkill. If I was reviewing records after the fact, and talking to folks, I'd be looking for any documentation of prior restraints and seclusion by these "administrators." Is that their role in the school? Are they the take-down and seclusion “specialists?” Have they somehow been set up to have adversarial relationships with students. IF we were talking about a real student, I would be looking for a valid reason the student is refusing to go with these people. The imaginary scenario assumes that there is no valid reason for the refusal. They are adults, the student should go. PERIOD. But let us just for a moment remember the GAO reports of death and abuse of students with disabilities at the hands of educators. The primary assumption is flawed. Compliance is the central theme for intervention (the student should comply with requests to leave the classroom) and we are back to old ways of thinking: he's non-compliant, take him down and lock him up. The scenario ignores two pieces of the equation that will change all dynamics: the perspective of the student and the culture of the school/classroom.
Radical?
You mean we actually have to communicate, listen and learn from children with disabilities who are hard to understand and interact with? Yes. That is the whole point. We should be changed by their perspective, and presence, and reality, just as we are with every other encounter we have with non-disabled people. And guess what? If we can get good at listening to children with disabilities, we will find ourselves listening to ALL children, and allowing their experiences to shape our conduct in, and design of, the school setting.
This is the real battleground isn't it? It’s about moving from one person, in charge, defining behavior as "good" or "bad" and meting out punishment or praise, to a place where we actually listen to children, what they need, what works for them.... and we meet those needs.
Fantasy scenarios almost always place fear at the hearts and minds of the non-disabled individuals in the room. Very observant of the fantasy-master, because that is what pernicious mythologies always get us: FEAR.
When lawmakers and others they want you to give them concrete responses to worst case scenarios, try this: talk about a REAL scenario. This is my favorite:
Dad and two sons come into my office. Youngest son, Johnny, has autism. age 11. Older son, we'll call him Brother, age 13. Dad, new to the role of parenting (in that odd situation where mom raises the kids to teenage-hood, and then some bizarre cultural wisdom tells us a man - who has never parented - can suddenly take on the MOST challenging aspect of child-rearing... but I digress)…. So the family comes in and sits down. Dad manages to tell me his first concern which is the imminent placement of his son miles from home in a segregated school.
Dad then goes on a rampage verbally about the "loser mother" and her "lack of discipline" and on and on. Within a few minutes, Johnny begins to bang his head against the wall, throw things off the counters, and dad attempts to "discipline" the kid into submission. They end up crashing into a wall and then Johnny stations himself securely under a table in the corner of the room. The situation is incredibly tense, (co-workers later tell me they were ready to call the police). I am rambling on about positive behavioral supports while dad is attempting to get a physical handle on all of this. At one point he looks at me like I am crazy and issues a challenge, "What the hell could you to that is POSITIVE in this situation."
For those of you who believe in Spirit, this is where something otherworldly takes control of the situation and although I have no cognitive response, I have a value system that says all people are people, so I just step into the flow.... I ask dad to sit down and let the child remain under the desk. He is horrified, and I must listen to a few choice words about my level of sanity, then I say, "PLEASE, let him be." Dad acquiesces.
I turn to the older brother who has lived with this young man for all of his eleven years, and who is the one in our little meeting who knows Johnny. I have a pen and paper, and I ask the kid, "Tell me what your brother is good at?" Now I will admit, he looks at me like I am crazy, and with this kind of beseeching shake of the head implying, "Are you kidding? Did you not just see what happened here? This is what I live with!" I persist, "What is he good at?" Two more prompts.
"Basketball."
"Really? tell me more about that?" and on we go, as I write things down, and take this young man's knowledge of his brother seriously, leaning into his dialogue. Brother is on a roll now, he comes up with more and more things his Johnny is good at, and Dad is swept into the flow and listening as well. When the list begins to slow ~ about three quarters of a page of things Johnny is good at ~ I sit up slightly and it is only then that I notice that we have been joined by the child under the table who is now sitting perfectly appropriately in his chair, and looking at his brother with what appears to be respect. I use a conversational tone and quietly point this out to Dad and Brother.
Stunned fascination is the immediate response, then dawning. I point out what I am just realizing: when the conversation was a negative one, involving the parent who was not present, this young man expressed his displeasure. Suddenly, Dad and brother both recognized Johnny as a real person who understands what is being said around him.
As for me I am utterly impressed... In hindsight, I recognize that Brother was equally as uncomfortable with the topic of conversation surrounding his mother, but said nothing. Inside this non-verbal child is a fighter who is not going to allow the mother he loves to be trashed by a father he barely knows. There is also a young man who is proud of the things he is good at; things we can use to begin to help staff at the neighborhood school understand that Johnny belongs where he belongs, with them.
People are real whoever we are. We communicate. We want to be heard. And we want to be KNOWN. And maybe even appreciated once in a while.
A scenario that jumps into the middle of a made up – dangerous - child, in a made up environment, with a compliance oriented theme serves no one. We need to take on the people who attempt to argue that fantasy is some kind of basis for allowing the abuse of children through the sanction of laws that promote restraint or seclusion.
PBIS requires that we be on the ground and present with REAL children, paying attention to their perspective and experiences, asking THEM what's going on, and applying the best of what we know about behavior as communication to real problems in the classrooms of America. We have no business attempting to create concrete responses to what is happening in the fantasy of “worst case scenarios” generated from the perspective of an adult who has the all the power and wants to keep it that way. We only serve to validate the fantasies in front of us if we try to match those fantasies with "concrete" fantasies of our own.
Instead, we need to challenge the whole argument which is premised on pernicious mythologies about children and young adults with disabilities who are unpredictably dangerous. Side-step scenarios that try to support dangerousness with language about the internal landscape of children. Internal anxieties come from our interaction with an external world. We need to stop pretending we are powerless to change what is happening right in front of us. If we want to educate and support children, then we have to be there, working hard at understanding what is happening to children. Let’s remind the fantasy-masters that we can't do that while sitting on their backs, choking off their air supply, or while they are locked alone in closets.
Speak the truth to power.
Deidre Hammon
Posted August 11, 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
NO TRAPS FOR KIDS
Last week, Our Children Left Behind [OCLB] returned to the blogosphere in
support of providing information to self-advocates, parents, family members
and professionals on the restraint/seclusion legislation currently moving
through Congress. OCLB supports federal legislation that prohibits the use
of restraint/seclusion in our nation’s schools, especially as a planned
intervention in a child’s individualized education program [IEP]. We have
returned to work on this critical life and death issue for our children.
We begin our new chapter with renewed spirit and energy buoyed by our new
team members. We are excited to introduce them to you and for you to get to
know them. Click this link for more information.
Today’s cartoon is provided by Michael Igafo-Te’o, one of our new OCLB team
members and a 10th grade student. Michael is a natural cartoonist and has
given us great joy with his vision. His mother, Jackie, asked Michael after
he had drawn his cartoon “Why didn’t you have the mousetrap come across the
mouse’s belly?” Michael responded that, “He didn’t want to severely injure
the mouse.” His spirit shows through the cartoon and reminds us all that
above everything else, we do not want our children hurt.
We look forward to providing you with timely and current information about
the restraint/seclusion legislation pending in Congress. We invite you all
to share your thoughts, your stories and your hopes for the legislation with
us over the coming weeks. We are convinced that our children remain in peril
as long as restraint/seclusion is used in schools. It is going to take ALL
of us to stop these dangerous and inhumane practices.
Calvin and Tricia Luker
Posted August 4, 2010
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com
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
EYE ON THE PRIZE: KEEPING ALL STUDENTS SAFE
Parents, parent advocates and self-advocates, attorneys, educators and medical/mental health professionals throughout the United States have been working for years to create federal legislation that would prohibit the use of seclusion and restraints throughout America’s schools. We have expended this effort because we have seen the effects of thousands of instances where children who expect us to protect them have been hurt or killed by being secluded or restrained. We are acting to protect the children.
On December 9, 2009 we achieved our first hint of success when the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressman George Miller of California and in the US Senate by Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. The House bill, now renamed, “The Keeping All Students Safe Act” has passed the House and been sent to the Senate. The Senate bill remains pending before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions [HELP].
Why do we need this bill? The primary reason we need a federal law prohibiting the use of seclusion and restraint is because many states currently have no prohibition against the use of seclusion and restraints, while other states have individual legislation regulating the use of seclusion and restraint without uniform enforcement provisions or federal reporting requirements. Without federal legislation ALL American children are at risk of injury and death from the use of restraint/seclusion. Here are the provisions as passed by the House in The Keeping All Students Safe Act:
Mechanical Restraints: Prohibits
Chemical Restraints: Prohibits
Restraints that Interfere with Breathing: Prohibits
Restraint/Seclusion in IEP: Prohibits as a “planned intervention.”
Allow seclusion/restraint use only if there is an emergency AND if less restrictive measures would not work (a 2-part requirement): Sets this two-step standard. First, there must be an emergency presenting imminent danger of physical injury to self or others. Second, if less restrictive measures would resolve the problem, R/S cannot be used.
Monitoring children in seclusion/restraints: Requires face-to-face monitoring unless unsafe for staff and then direct, continuous visual monitoring required.
Terminating the use of seclusion/restraint: The restraining or seclusion must end when the emergency ends.
Use of aversives: Prohibits aversives that compromise health or safety.
Parental notification if child is restrained/secluded: Requires same day verbal/electronic notification of parents and written notification within 24 hours of each incident.
The bills as passed by the House and as introduced in the Senate permit the Secretary of the Department of Education to withhold funding for those districts that violate the provisions of the bills. They also extend the power of the state Protection and Advocacy systems to investigate instances of unlawful use of seclusion or restraint.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE SENATE BILL?
The Senate HELP Committee has not held any formal hearings on its bill. There has been significant informal discussion with Senate staffers concerning whether to include the provision prohibiting restraint/seclusion in IEPs, as well as other proposed modifications. These informal discussions are continuing. There may be a push to have the bill considered before the late summer Senate recess.
It is vital that you know that these discussions are going on within the Senate and that there is a possibility that the Senate might pass a bill that would not prohibit the use of restraint/seclusion as a planned intervention in a student’s IEP. Now is the time to educate ourselves about this issue so that we all can be ready to advocate for our children’s safety at the national level once the Senate bill has taken its final form and is presented for debate.
Here are the links to the bills as passed in the House of Representatives and as introduced in the Senate:
H.R.4247.RFS – Keeping All Students Safe Act – as passed the House
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4247/show
S.2860 – Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act – as introduced in Senate:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s2860/text?version=is&nid=t0:is:127
Here is the link to the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates’ position statement:
http://www.copaa.org/news/position%20on%20HR4247%20and%20S2860.html
Here is the link to the Government Accountability Office report on restraint and seclusion:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090519GregKutzTestimony.pdf
Here is the link to the National Disability Rights Network report on restraint and seclusion:
http://www.napas.org/sr/SR-Report.pdf
Here is the link to the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates report on restraint and seclusion:
http://www.copaa.org/pdf/UnsafeCOPAAMay_27_2009.pdf
Finally, here is the link to the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion paper, “Myth of Fact: Restraints and Seclusion More Torture than Learning Experience”
http://aprais.tash.org/toolkit.htm
These links will help you see the scope of the problem of restraint and seclusion for yourself and to evaluate the bills so that you can express your opinion effectively. We invite you to join us in our concerted effort to tell our federal legislators – particularly our Senators -- why the bills are so important to all of our children.
We cannot understate the importance of the fact that federal legislation has been introduced to prohibit restraint and seclusion. We have been working for this for many years. Now that the bills are in Congress, let us unite to improve them and to pass them as quickly as possible. They must pass this session of Congress [which ends in December, 2010] or we go right back to square one in 2011. We can and must do this to protect our children from seclusion and restraint once and for all. We cannot do it without your help.
Tricia and Calvin Luker
Posted July 28, 2010
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.
This page last updated on Sunday 05 September 2010