In recent weeks a horrible move forward in governments interventionist march has come to light. The US House passed a bill HR4247 entitled "Keeping All Students Safe". It sounds wonderful. That is how every child who walks into a school should feel, safe. When does this sentiment go too far? To read the full text of the bill go here: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/legislation/HR4247Seclusion_Restraint.pdf
When you look at the terminology used...words like seclusion and restraint...they paint a very dark picture. You would like to think that those ugly terms would never be applied in a school, where we want our children to feel safe, right? However, there are some realities that exist, that have somehow slipped through the cracks and make this legislation not only short-sighted, but unconstitutional as well. To provide some context on why I am bothering to make mention of this bill, is that my job is with a population of children and adults who will be directly affected, myself included, on what the interpretations will be from a federal manadate (if it passes the senate) to the school I work in. I will give specific concerns as we go along.
If you read through the text of the bill itself, the language seems very nurturing talking about safety for everyone and certain actions only implemented by trained staff, but the problem with the verbage used in legislation like this is how it will be interpreted. The reports of abuse of children by school staff members are horrific to be sure, talking about tying kids up with duct tape and forcing them to the floor. I do not refute the fact that abuses occur and should be addressed with a stern hand, however who should be addressing it seems to be the question here. According to our Constitution, that is a state responsibility. It is not for the federal government to mandate, or play the bully that says you create tougher legislation to address this or else. They can make recommendations, sure, but passing this bill violates states rights. If they are willing (as they have in the past) to not abide by the rule of law our country was founded on, then how concerned are they really about keeping all students safe? I understand it may seem like a big generalization to some, but it boils down to, "We expect you to follow this mandate or else, but we are above following our own rule of law." Now this thought pattern may seem juvenile and buried in semantics, but there is a human rights issue at hand that I wish to address.
In this bill, there is reference to "involuntary" restraint. The definition of "involuntary" is: Acting or done without or against one's will. So to be restrained or to have your mobility limited against your will is not something we would want to participate in. Why do we even have to have such a thing? There is a reason and that is to prevent harm. If a person is a danger to themselves or others around them there should be an opportunity for the people who are in danger or harm to protect and defend themselves. It should be an abosolute last resort and implemented with the utmost care. Verbal interventions based on dignity and respect should always be employed first and many times this can prevent a situation from escalting. However, there are times when another step must be taken. I am not saying it should go to the extremes of some of the examples cited above, but something needs to be done.
There are educational environments where a daily experience for students and staff is being sworn at, having furniture thrown, desks tipped and shoved towards anyone in the room, stabbed with pencils, hit, kicked, bit, graphic sexual language and acts being modeled and there has to be something in place to address that when the moment of last resort comes. It would be nice to think idealistically that a student, for instance, who is "out of control" can be asked nicely to go into a time out area and employ non-violent coping skills to calm down with staff and peer support, without the need for a physical barrier, such as a door, between them and the rest of their peers. That is a goal and with building healthy relationships and building trust, showing compassion and teaching empathy it can eventually be achieved to a certain extent. But like someone who is on Lithium, who wishes to stop taking it, you cannot just stop. You cannot just remove the doors. It takes time.
Having someone in a room behind a closed door is not therapeutically ideal at all, however, wouldn't it be better than to have no door, no space to allow that person to de-escalate without you watching them, and continue the situation that is occurring? Shouldn't adults who are working with children who are combative have the right to have a physical barrier in between them and the child? That is part of their safety. If you do not have even that simple safety available who will be willing to put themselves in harms way to continue to serve these children who need their services? Granted there will be some, but there will be the loss of many.
I believe there should be guidelines at the state and local level to address these issues. This is a not a place (just like NCLB) for the federal government to stick their two cents in. If they want to have a personal view on it and make speeches, great. They can urge your states to be more vigilant on this issue, but do not take the power of the states for yourself and make a law that could have devastating reprocussions on a situation you know nothing about because I'm in a community in the midwest and you're in Washington. Want to know how your representatives voted look here for the roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll082.xml.
There are a lot of large influential educational groups who are in favor of this bill and my position is not a popular one. I want schools to be a safe place and no child should feel fear from being treated without respect when they come to be educated. By working with the populations that I do and seeing the behaviors I have seen, I think that this bill is more harm than it is help. In any behavior management system, if it is not applied ethically and consistently, there will be complications and the proposed outcomes may be compromised.
I encourage people to read this bill and make their own choice. I simply offer one opinion from the trenches of special education and behavioral issues.
