1. Mitigation of Restraint and Seclusion of Young Children with Disabilities through Meaningful Data Collection:
A Prevention Framework
Sarah L. Davidon, M.Ed. and Cordelia Robinson Rosenberg, PhD, R.N.
JFK Partners
University of Colorado School of Medicine
INTRODUCTION
THEORY OF CHANGE
PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
ISSUES TO ADDRESS
Over the past several decades, schools have been increasingly driven to address issues of safety and respond with immediacy to disruptive behavior in classrooms (Skiba & Rausch, 2006), with many states and districts implementing zero tolerance policies to deter students from harmful behavior. School zero tolerance policies, while intended to protect students and school personnel, are having unintended consequences of policies that result in suspension and expulsion, seclusion, restraint, and intervention by law enforcement, which has involved children as young as 5 years old being handcuffed (Rolandelli, 2011). As restraint and seclusion practices are implemented, specific groups have become disproportionately impacted, with one of the primary groups of children those with disabilities.
In order to mitigate practices of restraint and seclusion with young children, especially those with IEPs, to implement evidence-informed preventative practices, and to build children’s social and emotional competencies, better data are needed. Data on the use of restraint and seclusion on public preschool and kindergarten students with and without disabilities (i.e. those with IEPs and those without) is limited, minimally disaggregated, and often inconsistent. Improvement of circumstances can only happen within a system that has a continuous quality improvement orientation, and measurement and feedback processes that can link data to outcomes.
There is no evidence that restraint, seclusion, or other exclusionary practices change children’s behavior or work to effectively create long-term safer environments for children, yet these practices continue in their use (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
This poster provides an opportunity for discussion about meaningful collection and use of restraint and seclusion data, and preventative strategies to mitigate use of these practices with a focus on early elementary age children with disabilities.
Identification of best practices, policies, and data collection that can best support young children to reduce use of restraint and seclusion can have significant impact on practice improvement. Meaningful use of data to inform decision making, policies, professional development, and practices requires meaningful data. Data-driven decision making can occur when data are collected and used within a framework that acknowledges that data must be meaningful, accurate, and relevant.
Simple behavioral strategies might be able to help diffuse a situation
Teachers’ successful use of strategies and support to prevent and reduce problem classroom behaviors requires the use of research-based classroom and behavior management strategies
Teachers’ can be supported through reflective practice in recognizing and addressing their own needs and challenges
Practices that provide positive behavioral interventions and supports can be effective in reducing challenging behavior
Principles of least restrictive interventions and best interests of the child should apply
Use of mental health consultation in classrooms can help to build the capacity of teachers to prevent and address challenging situations
There is no federal law or regulation specifically addressing appropriate limitations on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools.
There is a lack of data broken down by grade and age that can be used to identify rates of restraint and seclusion for young students as compared to older students. An important developmental need of young children is their development of strong and trusting relationships with key adults at home and at school.
There are variations and inconsistencies in restraint and seclusion data collected at the national, state, and local district levels.
There is little oversight in most states of restraint or seclusion data, or use of that data to inform practice.
Working together, states, communities, and families can effect change to ensure that our youngest citizens have positive educational experiences and are fully supported in their social, emotional, and behavioral development.
REFERENCES
RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION DATA
16 states collect state-level data on restraint and seclusion for students (some of this is minimal data)
23 states collect state-level data on restraint and seclusion for students with disabilities
(Butler, 2015)
In school year , more than 100,000 students were placed in seclusion or involuntary confinement or were physically restrained at school — including almost 69,000 students with disabilities served by IDEA
Students with disabilities served by IDEA represent 12% of all students, but 67% of students subject to restraint or seclusion.
(U.S. Department of Education Office
for Civil Rights., 2016)
Butler, J. (2015). How safe is the schoolhouse? An analysis of state seclusion and restraint laws and policies. Autism National Committee.
Disability Law Colorado. (2016). What's holding our students down? Restraint in Colorado schools. Denver, CO: Author.
Gagnon, D. J., Mattingly, M. J., & Connelly, V. J. (2013). Variation found in rates of restraint and seclusion among students with a disability (National Issue Brief #67). Durham, NH: Carsey Institute.
Rolandelli, D. (2011). United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Letter to Stockton Unified School District [Letter written November 10, 2011 to Carl Toliver, Superintendent]
Skiba, R.J., & Rausch, M.K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C.M. Evertson, & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook for Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Laws and Guidance on Restraint and Seclusion. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2016).  Civil rights data collection: A first look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.
Nationally, among school districts reporting at least one physical restraint, the average rate was 6.3 per 100 students with a disability.
Districts reporting at least one instance of seclusion averaged 9.6 instances per 100 students with a disability.
(Gagnon, Mattingly, & Connelly, 2013)
WHAT IS NEEDED?
To review existing physical restraint and seclusion data and data use
To identify gaps in data collection and data use
To encourage meaningful collection and use of restraint and seclusion data
CONTACT
For additional information please contact
Sarah Davidon
Director of Policy, Community Outreach, & Education
(Disability Law Colorado, 2016)