By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 15, 2008
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/15/healthscience/15restraint.php
The children return from school confused, scared and sometimes with bruises on their wrists, arms or face. Many won’t talk about what happened, or simply can’t, because they are unable to communicate easily, if at all.
“What Tim eventually said,” said John Miller, a podiatrist in Allegany, N.Y., about his son, then 12, “was that he didn’t want to go to school because he thought the school was trying to kill him.”
Dr. Miller learned that Tim, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was being unusually confrontational in class, and that more than once teachers had held him down on the floor to “calm him down,” according to logs teachers kept to track his behavior; on at least one occasion, adults held Tim prone for 20 minutes until he stopped struggling.
The Millers are suing the district, in part for costs of therapy for their son as a result of the restraints. The district did not dispute the logs but denied that teachers behaved improperly.
For more than a decade, parents of children with developmental and psychiatric problems have pushed to gain more access to mainstream schools and classrooms for their sons and daughters.
One unfortunate result, some experts say, is schools’ increasing use of precisely the sort of practices families hoped to avoid by steering clear of institutionalized settings: takedowns, isolation rooms, restraining chairs with straps, and worse.
No one keeps careful track of how often school staff members use such maneuvers. But last year the public system served 600,000 more special education students than it did a decade ago, many at least part time in regular classrooms. Many staff members are not adequately trained to handle severe behavior problems, researchers say.
In April, a 9-year-old Montreal boy with autism died of suffocation when a special education teacher wrapped him in a weighted blanket to calm him, according to the coroner’s report. Two Michigan public school students with autism have died while being held on the ground in so-called prone restraint.
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Tennessee have recently tightened regulations governing the use of restraints and seclusion in schools. California, Iowa and New York are among states considering stronger prohibitions, and reports have appeared on blogs and in newspapers across the country, from The Orange County Register to The Wall Street Journal.
“Behavior problems in school are way up, and there’s good reason to believe that the use of these procedures is up, too,” said Reece L. Peterson, a professor of special education at the University of Nebraska. “It’s an awful combination, because many parents expect restraints to be used — as long as it’s not their kid.”
Federal law leaves it to states and school districts to decide when physical restraints and seclusion are appropriate, and standards vary widely. Oversight is virtually nonexistent in most states, despite the potential for harm and scant evidence of benefit, Dr. Peterson said.
Psychiatric facilities and nursing homes are generally far more accountable to report on such incidents than schools, experts say.
In dozens of interviews, parents, special education experts and lawyers who work to protect disabled people said they now regularly heard of cases of abuse in public schools — up to one or two a week surface on some parent e-mail lists — much more often than a decade ago.
“In all the years I went to school, I never, ever saw or heard of anything like the horrific stories about restraint that we see just about every day now,” said Alison Tepper Singer, executive vice president of Autism Speaks, a charity dedicated to curing the disorder.
The issue is politically sensitive at a time when schools have done a lot to accommodate students with special needs, and some have questioned whether mainstreaming has gone too far.
“Some parent organizations, they’re so grateful to the schools that their kids have been mainstreamed that they don’t want to risk really pushing for change,” said Dee Alpert, an advocate in New York who reports on the issue in the online journal specialeducationmuckraker.com.
For teachers, who have many other responsibilities — not least, to teach — managing even one child with a disability can add a wild card to the day.
“In a class of 30 to 35 children, there’s a huge question of how much safety or teaching a teacher can provide if he or she is being called on to calm or contain a student on a regular basis,” said Patti Ralabate, a special education expert at the National Education Association.
“The teacher is responsible for the safety of all the children in the classroom.”
The line between skillful conflict resolution and abuse is slipperier than many assume. Federal law requires that schools develop a behavioral plan for every student with a disability, which may include techniques to defuse the child’s frustration: a break from the class, for instance, or time out to listen to an iPod.
But in a hectic classroom, children with diagnoses like attention deficit disorder, anxiety or autism can seemingly become defiant, edgy or aggressive on a dime — and the plan, if one exists, can go straight out the window, investigations have found. Even defying a teacher’s instructions — “noncompliance” — can invite a takedown or time alone in a locked room, they found.
In an extensive report published last year, investigators in California documented cases of abuse from districts in the San Francisco Bay Area, the suburbs of Los Angeles and in the rural northeastern part of the state.
During the 2005-6 school year, an 8-year-old with a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder and mild mental retardation was repeatedly locked in a “seclusion room” alone, adjacent to the classroom — at least 31 times in a single year. His parents heard about it from another parent, who saw the boy trying in vain to escape.
In another school, a teacher held a 12-year-old with a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder “face down on the floor, straddling him at his hips, and holding his hands behind his back,” according to the investigation, which was done by California’s office of protection and advocacy. Congress established such offices in each state in the 1970s to protect the rights of the disabled.
Leslie Morrison, director of investigations at the California office, said parents often complained about such episodes but were usually reluctant to cooperate with an investigation. “They’re afraid the school will retaliate,” she said.
And the children, who have an array of psychiatric diagnoses, from attention deficit to autism, often do not understand what is happening or why. “They just think they did something wrong and are being punished,” Ms. Morrison said. “Many of them are not verbal at all and can’t even tell their parents.”
In Tim Miller’s case, school logs obtained by his father illustrate how quickly a situation can escalate, regardless of behavior plans. In one entry, dated March 18, 2005, a teacher wrote:
“Tim was screaming down the hall. He ran past me and began to double his fist to punch the locker. At this point I scooped my arm underneath his and directed him into my room.”
After the boy continued to struggle, this teacher and another “laid him onto the mat, where he was held approximately 20 minutes,” the log said.
Tim, now 15, graduated from the school last year and in June completed his first year of high school, excelling in a variety of mainstream classes without incident. In a telephone interview, he said he no longer thought much about the takedowns.
“I just think now that they were idiots to do that,” he said. “I remember telling my mom to pray to God that they wouldn’t keep doing it, and wishing the other kids would see what was happening.”
When a school has a so-called zero tolerance approach to bad behavior, it often does makes a public spectacle of controlling a child’s behavior, said several parents interviewed for this article.
Kathy Sexton, who lives near Dallas, had to pick up her 11-year-old son, Anthony, who has a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder, at the police station, after school staff members had the boy hauled away in handcuffs for cursing at a teacher.
“I didn’t hear about it for hours and had to go get him at jail,” Ms. Sexton said in a phone interview. “He was hysterical, obviously, and he’s had his ups and downs since then. It’s hard to know what a thing like that does to a child that age.”
Several companies offer programs to teach so-called de-escalation techniques to school staff, and a scattering of schools have developed model programs to pre-empt confrontations, and defuse them when they happen.
But experts say that until policymakers and schools adopt standards, on exactly which techniques are allowed and when, children with behavior problems will in many districts run the risk of being forcibly brought into line.
Dr. Peterson, the Nebraska professor, illustrates the challenges by citing two recent cases in Iowa. In one, the parents of an 11-year-old who died while being held down called for a ban on restraints; in the other, parents charged that a school failed their son by not restraining him. The boy ran away and drowned.
“It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” Dr. Peterson said, “and it reflects the level of confusion there is about this whole issue.”
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Calm Down or Else
Labels:
California,
July 2008,
New York,
Prone Restraint,
Restraint,
Texas,
Tim Miller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am John Miller, father of Tim Miller, referred to in the Article. Mr. Carey did a terrific job with the article. However, there are details which people should know.
New York State Education Regulations mandate certain services for special education students with an autism classification. Unfortunately, School Districts will often intentionally misclassify autistic students with another classification such as emotionally disturbed, other health impaired or speech impaired. The misclassification is done so as to avoid expense of providing the mandated services which accompany an autism classification.
In my son's case, the Allegany-Limestone Central School District was given written notification of my son's diagnosis having been changed from ADHD and OCD to High Functioning Autism/PDD-NOS/Asperger's in February of 2000. The notification further stated that his previous diagnoses of OCD and PDD-NOS would be facets of his autism spectrum diagnosis. My son was not given autism classification until parents learned of existence of such classification from their education law attorney, after their son had been repeatedly physically endangered and psychologically and emotionally injured (as opined by the impartial hearing officer in educational administrative law proceedings.). My son was not given proper classification until February of 2006, six years after the school was given notification of his autism spectrum diagnosis. Even after the appropriate re-classification, the school failed to provide mandated services..
Mandated services which accompany the autism classification include parent education and counseling (enabling parents to know what services their child is entitled to and should be receiving), Social Skills training (as part of pragmatic speech intervention). Behavior intervention services should be provided.
In my son's case, he had no interaction with a behavior specialist until after the repeated abuses of his sixth grade school year, five years subsequent to notification of autism diagnosis was given to the school.
According to NYSED, emergent persistent problem behaviors are to be dealt with as soon as possible with a functional behavior assessment and a related positive behavior intervention plan. My son was repeatedly subjected to multiple person prone restraints by untrained individuals for inappropriate antecedents during the months of March, April, May and June of 2005. The school did not properly report or keep appropriate documentation for the restraints.
Through a fluke, I was able to obtain classroom logs written by the special education teacher and the teacher's aide. This was the smoking gun to the otherwise sanitized educational records.
The School District Superintendent, before I provided her with the classroom logs I possessed, denied in writing to parent that such dangerous prone restraints were ever done on their son. As the Impartial hearing officer made special note of: "This was contradicted by the testimony of her own staff."
The classroom logs I obtained, made mention on one occasion, of my son being restrained for approximately twenty minutes until calm. (Calm is a code word for exhausted. My son tactilely defensive and restraint phobic son would never be calmed by such physical restraint..)
The classroom logs also referred to an incident in which my son was ordered to get on a mat (part of inane behavior plan in which my son was to sit in a chair and be still calm and quiet for five minutes. If he could accomplish that, he could go back to the classroom. If he could not sit in such manner for five minutes, he was made to sit on a mat, aversively surrounded by adults (likely aversively making eye contact). If he could sit on mat for five minutes calmly, he could work his way back to the chair. If he could not, he was physically restrained in a prone fashion by multiple adults who had no training in any type of prone restraint. The use of such restraint violated edict of every school of restraint that only individuals trained in a restraint method should participate in the restraining. The use of such restraint violated principle of using least restrictive and least dangerous restraint, if restraint was necessary in my then 95 pound and twelve year old boy.
The very same reference to restraint stated the restraint was released after my son was calm (code word for exhausted). It then further stated my son began to bite himself on his leg. It indicated he was instructed to stop biting his leg. He refused to comply and “chose” to continue biting his leg so he was restrained again. The restraint was again a multiple person prone restraint by individuals. It was again continued until he was “calm” (code word for exhausted).
The biting of the leg was a self-stimulating behavior which autistic individuals will do to block out a sensory overload. In this case, I believe my son was doing it because of the overwhelmingly aversive physical intervention and the interference with personal space requirements that had just taken place.
“Self Stimulating Behavior” may be personally injurious or non personally injurious. Personally injurious self-stimulating might be an appropriate indication for employing an appropriate physical restraint. A two or three person prone restraint on a 95 pound twelve year old would not be appropriate for such .
In my son’s case, the self stimulating behavior of biting his leg was not personally injurious. My son had no history of personally injurious behavior (the school was supposed to know this) and the restrainers needed only to look at my son’s leg and note the absence of bite marks to know that it was not personally injurious and did not require any type of reactive physical restraint; particularly not a multiple person prone restraint.
Another restraint reference indicated my son was restrained for approximately five minutes (admitted to in hearing as multiple person prone restraint) and that this continued off and on for approximately one hour.
Does “approximately five minutes” mean ten minutes? Does “approximately one hour” mean an hour and a half?
The classroom logs noted my son fell asleep after the prolonged restraint and could not be aroused for the rest of the day. The special education teacher called a parent and advised of the sleeping but not the prolonged restraint. The special education teacher opined the , what I believe to be total exhaustion from the prolonged restraint, was from not having enough sleep the previous night (though there was plenty of energy before the restraint!)
Education regulations require same day reporting to superintendent; this was not done.
Education regulations require reporting twice annually of complaints re. physical intervention to the Commissioner’s office. This was not done.
Parents were not apprised of each restraint or type of restraints as they were employed.
Information of fatalities associated with such restraints is abundant at :http://www.caica.org/RESTRAINTS%20Death%20List.htm
Education law is stacked against parents.
The special education counselor for two years testified at hearing she would consider my son’s social deficit to be “mild”; yet the school staff all opined off-record the physical restraints were done in response to behavior stemming from his social deficits.
Parents , at one point, had treating developmental pediatrician , Dr. Martin Hoffman (autism expert at University at Buffalo School of Medicine) send a letter to the school in which he stated my son’s diagnosis and further stated that my son, if agitated, should not be physically restrained but should be allowed to de-escalate on his own in a quiet area. He stated in his letter that physical restraint would likely only exacerbate the situation.
I asked as a Committee on Special Education Meeting if the school had received Dr. Hoffman’s letter. The CSE chairperson responded: “We received Dr. Hoffman’s letter but it carries no weight. We are not a pharmacy and we do not have to follow a doctor’s prescription.”. Also in attendance at this meeting, were the school principal, two school counselors, the school psychologist, a regular education teacher and a parent advocate from the county mental health association. None of the school staff members took exception to the comment from the CSE chairperson. Only the parent advocate took exception with statement: “Dr. Hoffman’s letter may not carry weight here but I believe it would carry weight with an education administrative law hearing officer.”.
The school has manufactured what I believe to be fraudulent documents. I asked for minutes for two very relevant CSE meetings. Initial response from the CSE chairperson was that the school did not keep minutes. I responded that they are required to do so and that there is a recording secretary writing notes at every meeting. The CSE chairperson then provided me with the notes, months after the meetings.
A year later, while in Impartial Hearing, the School District placed another version of the very same notes on exhibit.
In an appeal to the blatantly corrupt State Review Officer, Paul Kelly, after the overwhelmingly parent favorable decision at Impartial Hearing level in which the Hearing officer opined: “These same unrepentant individuals are capable of repetition.”, the school district submitted false petition and memorandum document to the State Review Officer. I have reported this to OSPRA and NYSED and there is no accountability to date.
The SRO annulled the decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer by imposing an unargued for by school district one year statute of limitations. There was a one year statute of limitations in place when the restraints began in March of 2005. The statute was changed to two years before the last inappropriate restraint of June 2005. The due process advisory given parents by school district in December of 2005, well within one year statute, stated parents had two years to file for impartial hearing.
The Commissioners Regulations supplied by VESID wing of NYSED in December of 2005 with notation of having been updated in December of 2005, stated parents had a two year statute of limitations.
When I first learned of my son having been restrained in March of 2005, I wrote to VESID of my concerns of inadequate training and education re. my son’s disability on the part of the school. The regional VESID representative contacted my school district. What followed was four months of continued abusive and endangering restraints by untrained individuals, continued mis-classification of my son and continued denied services. When I pointed these statistics out to the school board president, he responded “We were probably right there with everyone else about 10 years ago.” Perhaps that is why the CSE chairperson to whom I have referred to in this blog has been heralded by School board members and school administrators for turning the Allegany-Limestone Central School District Special Education Program around!
The NY State Education Department publishes a fiscal report card for all school districts. The report cards I could find for the relevant time period indicated my school district spent between 55 and 57 percent of what similar school districts and all school districts in NY spent for per special education pupil instructional expenditures. I believe such savings was made possible by indirect denial of services for my son and others by misclassifying students with classifications carrying a lesser level of mandated services..
I believe such savings was made possible by direct denial of services such as the school’s refusal to provide for extended year services. My son has a twelve month/year disability and it would seem he should qualify for 12 month programming.
When restraints of sixth grade were going on, parents requested the school district provide a summer program to address Asperger’s related social and behavioral deficits . Parents were given a written denial by the school which stated parents had not shown their son qualifies for any type of program and that decisions on summer programming are generally based on evidence student would regress at least six months during the summer if not provided with a summer program. When I pointed out my son was regressing during the school year, the response from the CSE chair person was: “Regression during the school year is not the same as regression during the summer!”
Parents objecting to inappropriate actions of school staff and parents advocating for needs of their special education children is not well received in this school district. Both parents and student, in my evidence backed opinion, have been subject of retaliatory measures by the school district.
One such measure was a stalking complaint to NYS troopers by the wife of the school principal (in name of wife so as to avoid conflict of interest, per state troopers) This was based on my son chasing after the Principal’s daughter after she had shrieked at him and hit him at religious education program.
The principal of the middle school, one year after the restraints, engaged in a power struggle with my son in a de-escalation room with ambient day-time lighting from hallway and outside window, as to whether or not room light should be left on.
This is the principal of the middle school who sent me an email while the restraints were occurring in which he stated, he as a parent did not know why his daughter should be made to sit next to my son. I sent a return email stating I did not know his daughter was made to sit next to my son/ she should have been made to sit next to my son/ and it is his school bus. My son rode the school bus for first time in sixth grade. The school did not have a monitor. He would, because of his Asperger’s tell others where to sit. The bus driver would make them sit there. The mal-behavior should have been addressed with a functional behavior assessment and related behavior plan. Instead, it was re-enforced by the bus driver, carried over to school and eventually lead to abusive and unsuccessful “might makes right” behavior plan employed by school over parental and clinician objections.
The SRO also annulled on basis of mootness and restraints had not occurred since, while the school district was under litigation watch glass..
Within two school months of the SRO decision, my son was again victimized by inappropriate, against education regulations, physical intervention.
There is so much more.
John P. Miller DPM
Allegany, NY
Post a Comment