October 27, 2006
DearState Board of Education Members:
The Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) appreciates the long and difficult work of the state-wide referent group who developed recommendations cited in the document “Supporting Student Behaviors: Standard for the Emergency use of Seclusion and Restraint”. MAASE is opposed to the current version of the Seclusion and Restraint document presented to you on 10/10/06. Below we set forth the areas of concern and proposed corrective action by the Board that will protect the safety of all students and individuals in the school environment.
Concern #1: The elimination of seclusion under any circumstance severely restricts the options schools can use to protect the safety of students and other individuals in the school environment.
A.Schools have the obligation "to maintain order and control in a school or school-related setting for the purpose of providing an environment conducive to safety and learning.”The School Code’s Corporal Punishment Act (380.1312) allows for reasonable measures to be used “to restrain or remove[emphasis added] a pupil whose behavior is interfering with the orderly exercise and performance of school district . . . functions within a school or at a school-related activity.”
B.Seclusion is a removal technique that may be less restrictive than restraint. When used within the protective parameters currently proposed for strike-out in paragraphs V. A, B, and C of the 10/10/06 document, seclusion may:
(1) use less physical force directly on a student;
(2) provide less disruption in the learning environment for others;
(3) afford more dignity to the student; and
(4) be generally safer for both staff and students than the sustained staff-on-student restraint procedures allowed elsewhere in the proposed policy.
C.The majority of students (up to age 26) with severe mental illness and extreme behavior challenges are currently educated in public school programs. Even when school-wide positive behavior support and individual behavior intervention plans are in place, some of these students occasionally demonstrate extreme, unpredicted behavioral outbursts. As funding for residential placements has declined in Michigan, the severity of disabilities and behavior demonstrated by students served in our schools has increased. It is sometimes necessary to prevent a student’s exit from a room when there is imminent risk of injury to him or herself, other students, staff, or other individuals in the school setting. The current fire safety rules already prohibit using a traditional lock to prevent exit from a time out room. However, the fire safety rules do allow a spring operated latch which is hand depressed to keep the door in latched position. In other words, the door is only latched when a staff person is actively holding the door. The fire safety rules also require a viewing window and constant staff supervision while the student is in the room.
D.The proposed document eliminates an important option on the continuum of intervention. The prohibition of seclusion under emergency conditions could lead to more restricted placements of students with severe emotional and behavioral challenges. The language in the document also does not recognize the authority of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team to develop special education programs, services, and supports which are based on an individual student’s unique needs and challenges.
PROPOSED ACTION ON SECLUSION:
We urge the Michigan Department of Education and State Board of Education to adopt the seclusion language as written pre-strikeout, with the exception of the requirement for two staff people to be involved in every instance of seclusion. As the 10/10/06 document does with restraint, this requirement should be eliminated, since it is not feasible for two people to be present for every instance of unpredicted behavior. With the revision noted above, we believe that the pre-strikeout seclusion language provides significant student protections and should be adopted.
Concern #2: Modified language is needed for mechanical restraint and for prohibited practices.
A.The definition of mechanical restraint should be expanded to explicitly exclude "bus safety restraints identified by the IEP Team as appropriate for the student based on the student's unique needs." The 10/10/06 document prohibits mechanical restraint. The definition of mechanical restraint in section VI. A. 3 states that the term includes any device or material attached to the student's body that restricts normal freedom of movement, but does not include an adaptive or protective device recommended by a physician or therapist (when used as recommended) or safety equipment used by the general student population as intended.
Seat belts and harnesses are not standard bus safety equipment for general education students, as the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) presumes that students will stay in their seats and that the bus seats will serve as containment systems to prevent injury in case of collision. NHTSA regulations do not address students themselves being the cause of transportation safety risks.
The adaptive/protective device exception is ambiguous, and could be read by some as not covering bus restraints.
PROPOSED ACTION ON MECHANICAL RESTRAINT:
The Board should act to assure the safe transportation of all individuals on our school buses by allowance of an individualized determination of bus safety restraint needs by the IEP process.
B Intended or unintended, the deletion of the descriptors “noxious” (substance) “physical” (pain) and “extreme” (discomfort) in section VI Restraint, p. 13 (E) (1) (h), creates a prohibited practice provision so broad as to "swallow the rule" with respect to allowable restraint. With removal of the strikeout language, the 10/10/06 prohibited practice language in (E) (1) (h) on p. 13 would literally encompass "the intentional application of any substance or stimulus (either generally acknowledged or specific to the student) which results in pain (apparently either physical or non-physical) or discomfort (even of the most minor nature)." This is so broadly worded that it is impossible to discern what would constitute compliance, especially in light of the remainder of the language on restraint. Staff will be reluctant to even touch students for fear that the stimulus of personal contact may be reported as discomfort.
PROPOSED ACTION ON PROHIBITED PRACTICES:
Reinstate the strikeout language.
PROPOSED ACTION ON RESTRAINT:
With the modification of mechanical restraint and prohibited practices, we support the proposed language related to the use of restraint. The proposed language wisely balances the dignity and protection of individual students, who may require restraint, with the safety of other students, individuals and staff in our school buildings. We applaud MDE staff for removing the requirement for two staff to be engaged in restraint procedures, since emergency situations sometimes arise when a second staff person is not immediately available.
Concern #3: This document is written for all students and does not recognize that authority of the IEP Team to develop individualized plans for specific students.
PROPOSED ACTION:
Add the following wording to the document: “Nothing in this policy is meant to restrict parental or student rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
Concern #4: We support the emphasis of the Positive Behavior Support Policy adopted by the Board on September 12, 2006. However, we believe it is a State responsibility to provide leadership and financial resources to provide training for schools throughout Michigan to implement this policy.
Summary: The School Code’s Corporal Punishment Act (380.1312) requires the Michigan Department of Education to develop a “model list of alternatives to the use of corporal punishment. This model list shall be developed in consultation with organizations that represent the interest of teachers, school employees, school boards, school administrators, pupils, parents, and child advocates . . . ” As currently written, the seclusion and restraint document does not represent the interests of these constituencies.
We believe that standards for the use of seclusion and restraint are needed in schools. However, schools also need reasonable, judicious means to assure the safety of all students and staff. The violent events that have occurred in schools nationally in recent weeks underscore this point.
We appreciate your time and efforts in addressing the concerns identified in this letter.
Sincerely yours,,
Eleanor White, Ph.D.
President
Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE)