The community must rally to end restraint and seclusion in schools
Sept. 13, 2022 | By Amy Coach-DietzI guess I am a bit surprised that more members of our community are not outraged by information regarding Restraint/Seclusion practices within our school district. The numbers are alarming and unacceptable. Some may say “that was 2017 and let’s move on” or “positive changes are coming.”
My challenge to this point of view is that we need to look back and learn from history in order to not repeat it. We must understand what happened in order to make future productive changes. The fact is, numbers in recent years continue to be high when compared to surrounding schools.
The numbers don’t add up, and let’s remember these numbers represent children in our schools. The impacts of Restraint/Seclusion are detrimental and long-lasting.
From 2017 data:
● 11 schools within our state had 50 or greater incidents of Restraint/Seclusion
● Four schools had more than 100.
● Among these four schools were Fayston Elementary School with 105 reported incidents and Thatcher Brook Primary School (now Brookside) with 281. Thatcher Brook was the only school in Vermont with more than 200 reports.
Argument: Brookside and Fayston schools must follow Vermont special education law and serve all kids, even those with significant behavioral and emotional challenges. Yes, and all other Vermont schools must do this as well.
The 2017 data reflect much lower numbers of Restraint/Seclusion in schools with similar demographics. What are those schools doing differently to reduce Restraint/Seclusion? In 2017, Thatcher Brook enrolled 467 students with 10.3% eligible for special education. For comparison, Union Elementary School in Montpelier enrolled 532 with 9.8% eligible for special ed; Rutland Intermediate School had 565 students with 14.7% eligible. (Find reported data online at ocrdata.ed.gov/search/school.)
Questions around the 2017 data: How many students were involved in the 281 incidents? What was the number of special education vs. not special education students?
If it was a small number of students identified as special education students with whom Restraint/Seclusion was used repeatedly, that is alarming because it would show that the practice was not working to change behavior. The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” If this was the case, these students’ needs were not being met with Restraint/Seclusion and teams should have met to critically analyze the data and make program adjustments through an IEP meeting. This would show that the response to Restraint/Seclusion intervention clearly was having no positive benefit. This is one possible interpretation of the 281 restraints in 2017.
If the 281 incidents instead involved a larger number of students, this is also alarming for a different reason. It would suggest a more systemic problem with the school’s response to behavior challenges and less use of alternative strategies as opposed to Restraint/Seclusion. This suggests Restraint/Seclusion was overused or used inappropriately. The Vermont Agency of Education has a slide show depicting multiple examples of appropriate and inappropriate use of Restraint/Seclusion. (online at tinyurl.com/AOERSslideshow)
Argument: But our schools partner with outside agencies whose employees working in our schools utilize Restraint/Seclusion. Questions: How many restraints were performed by members working for outside agencies? How many restraints were performed by a trained school staff member? Were any Restraint/Seclusion responses performed by non-trained/unauthorized school staff?
Some thoughts and questions around reporting and data collection: Have numbers of Restraint/Seclusion incidents gone up because schools are more accurately reporting? A 2019 article by VTDigger explores this possibility pointing to a GAO study reported to the U.S. Department of Education
Even if schools are more accurately reporting incidents, this does not mean Restraint/Seclusion was not occurring at similar rates. Rather it suggests schools were under-reporting and likely did not report such incidents as explained in a Vermont Agency of Education presentation.
Numbers are down, so that means progress right? In the 2020-2021 school year, there were 195 Restraint/Seclusion incidents reported at Brookside Primary School. Consider that the school year started late and students attended one day in person and four days remote due to the pandemic. In that context, 195 incidents is a very large number. Did Brookside have that many incidents with behavior significant to require Restraint/Seclusion, the most restrictive intervention and a tool to be used as a last resort? It seems hard to believe.
And we’re told the schools no longer use seclusion rooms. However, seclusion can still occur without a designated room, as indicated in the Vermont Agency of Education presentation.
What can the community do about this?
We need to demand transparency and accountability from school leaders for past, present, and future transgressions. This is not too much to ask of our public schools.
Tell the school board you want Restraint/Seclusion policy on the agenda. Encourage board members to vote no on approving the agenda if this item is not included.
Speak up and speak out! Especially if you are a parent of a student who has been impacted by Restraint/Seclusion. Use community forums, social media, public comment time during school board meetings, or email the board directly.
Learn more from the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint, online at endseclusion.org.
What do the school board and administration need to do?
The school board needs to place Restraint/Seclusion policy review on agendas.
The “task force” mentioned at the Aug. 31 board meeting and in an Aug. 28 Waterbury Roundabout article needs to include an independent outside consultant with expertise working with children with emotional and behavioral challenges. This consultant should possess knowledge and practice using alternative approaches to Restraint/Seclusion and evidence-based trauma-informed educational practices.
The board and administration need to take steps beyond policy to repair what has happened. We use responsive classroom and teach apology of action and restorative circles in our schools. It is time adults model these principles themselves.
Schools need to implement trauma-informed instructional practices and alternative approaches to Restraint/Seclusion with fidelity and consistency.
The above step will require investment in our schools including training and consultation by experts in the field. Schools potentially may need to add positions of trauma-informed instructional coaches or a full-time psychologist who can consult with teams and provide contraindications for Restraint/Seclusion use with specific students.
The school board and school leaders need to include community engagement as a priority, especially around Restraint/Seclusion policy.
The board and administrators need to be transparent, honest, and own their part of the problem and solution.
Thank you for reading. Please rally to keep this issue a top priority for our community and schools.
Waterbury Center resident Amy Coach-Dietz is an educator, parent and community member.