We’ve been working hard over the summer to bring you new tools for this upcoming new school year. To kick things off, we’re giving parents a free 45-minute training video titled, “3 Critical Errors that Even the Smartest Parents of Children with Special Needs Can Make in the IEP Process.” Watch it now and you’ll also get links to additional resources, including a free IEP goal-writing template that you can use to prepare for your IEP meetings, as well as during the meetings when IEP goals are being formulated by the IEP team.
Click here to listen to the podcast version of this blog post.
When the Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) was enacted as PL94-142 in 1975, it was in the face of enormous opposition from school district administrators and their attorneys who were actively refusing to enroll children with disabilities in our nation’s public schools. Many have remained employed in public education, stewing in their own bile over their legal “loss” while begrudgingly enrolling students with special needs.
The EAHCA was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, which has, itself, been reauthorized twice since then, the last reauthorization being in 2004. Clearly, Congress has no intention of returning to a time when discriminating against those with disabilities was perfectly acceptable.
I don’t know how many of you have experienced an employment situation in which people have been required to do something that they opposed, but it’s been my experience that some people in this position are more likely to sabotage any attempts to do things differently to “prove” it was a bad idea than to willingly go with the program. Some people are just sore losers.
In short, you’re not likely to get buy-in from people who had to be Court-ordered or required by regulation to do the ethical and responsible thing. It says something, anyway, about a person’s character when he/she forgoes ethical solutions for whatever reasons and, therefore, requires enforceable regulations that dictate what his/her behavior should be. Some peoples’ characters create a situation in which the behaviors normally associated with common sense and ethics become subject to regulation.
This is not specific to special education or the legal practices that surround it. This is human nature. Somewhere out there in the world is the person who justified warning labels on suppositories that advise they are not meant for oral consumption. Some people’s functional skills in various aspects of life, for whatever reasons, are seriously limited.
People tend not to make improvements when forced to, particularly when they perceive the improvements as a threat to their familiar, comfortable, self-serving routines. This, too, is human nature.
The problem in special education is that, following the passage of the EAHCA, too many people with chips on their shoulders were left over the decades in positions of authority in public education, passing their “insight” onto the people they were responsible for training and stacking the deck against the success of special education. In other words, ever since the passage of the EAHCA in 1975, there have been career public education administrators undermining the effectiveness of special education in order to win an argument rather than educate children, the latter of which being what we actually pay them six-figure salaries at public expense to do.
Click here to listen to the podcast version of this article.
With all the public dialogue and experience-sharing regarding the prevalence of bullying in our schools, you would think the federal government’s push for school-wide positive behavioral interventions would be getting more attention. But, it’s not.
One reason, I suspect, is that people are so focused on holding bullies accountable that they’re not focusing on the real causes of bullying. But, that’s a reactive strategy rather than a proactive attempt to prevent bullying in the first place.
Additionally, people are primarily focused on other children as being the perpetrators of bullying when there is plenty of evidence that students are bullied by teachers and other school personnel, as well. This is one of those things that I wish it weren’t even necessary to talk about, but it is unfortunately one of the issues that fails to receive adequate attention but has such a negative impact on our students that it would be recklessly irresponsible of us to ignore it.
Our work here at KPS4Parents is about solving problems in special education and pretending problems like this don’t exist solves nothing. I believe that if teachers and administrators expect to be regarded with authority by their students, it behooves them to first devote themselves to their responsibility to create a positive learning environment that earns them their students’ respect.
In a recent bullying-related suicide in Japan, it has come to light that teachers were as much responsible as peers for the torment the deceased student experienced, who jumped to his death from his family’s 14th floor apartment. This just goes to show that the problem is not limited to the United States. But, it’s not rare, here in the U.S., either, and children with disabilities are more likely to be bullied than their typically developing peers.
A recent due process decision from Georgia shows just how bad it can get (not reading for the weak of heart – be forewarned) and there have been a number of cases in the news and/or in which parents have turned to social media to shed light on the mistreatment of their children with special needs at school by staff.
Applied Behavioral Analysis (“ABA”) has been around for decades, now. As one of the few scientifically research-based methodologies for providing instruction to individuals with autism, it has become regarded as an autism intervention. But ABA is not an autism-specific intervention at all. It is one approach to behavior modification that can be used with pretty much anybody.
Pure ABA has taken some criticism, and not necessarily without cause. Some practitioners have been overly reliant on Discrete Trial Training (“DTT”) to the point of training kids to be little robots without learning to understand or value?why social norms apply to them. The use of response-costs are also used inappropriately by far to many practitioners, particularly those who don’t really understand ABA. Response-costs are basically aversive consequences that are meted out when the individual engages in undesirable behavior.
From a purely scientific standpoint, response-costs can be delivered in a manner that facilitates the learning of more adaptive behavior. In our public schools, however, it far too often gets twisted into a justification to punish a kid for manifesting symptoms at school. (Of course, this presumes that there is any ABA being used in the school setting at all.)
Punishment is already epidemic and positive behavioral interventions are woefully lacking in our public schools. ?The idea of response-costs are far too appealing to school district administrators just looking for an excuse to punish a kid for displaying poor judgment or reacting to environmental antecedents because of a handicapping condition as though the kid is displaying willful defiance or misconduct.
These people don’t need any more ammunition to do the wrong thing. They can take the response-cost concept of pure ABA out of context and resort to reactive strategies in a knee-jerk fashion without putting forth the necessary effort to prevent the maladaptive behaviors and teach appropriate replacement behaviors in the first place.
In California where positive behavioral interventions are very regulated, there is at least some legal recourse for students who have been inappropriately subjected to reactive strategies, including response-costs, but the systems of accountability are far, far from perfect and way too many school districts still get away with harming children in the name of behavioral intervention.
But, like I said, ABA (including response-costs, when appropriate)?can be used effectively with anyone. I kind of look at our advocacy as behavioral intervention where the intent is to change the behavior of education agencies engaging in harmful, non-compliant behavior.
The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) has made information available regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in public school and public school-funded settings for the use of educators, policy makers, parents, and concerned citizens alike. Click here to see this content.
All of it is important for parents and educators of special education students. I’m going to summarize a few key points here because it is so important, but realize that the federal info linked to above is far more comprehensive and includes additional resources that educators and parents can use that I’m not duplicating here.
First, USDOE has identified 15 key principles that it believes schools and parents throughout the country should consider when it comes to seclusion and restraint. Those 15 key principles are as follows:
- Every effort should be made to prevent the need for the use of restraint and for the use of seclusion.
- Schools should never use mechanical restraints to restrict a child?s freedom of movement, and schools should never use a drug or medication to control behavior or restrict freedom of movement (except as authorized by a licensed physician or other qualified health professional).
- Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used except in situations where the child?s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others and other interventions are ineffective and should be discontinued as soon as imminent danger?of serious physical harm to self or others has dissipated.
- Policies restricting the use of restraint and seclusion should apply to all children, not just children with disabilities.
- Any behavioral intervention must be consistent with the child?s rights to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse.
- Restraint or seclusion should never be used as punishment or discipline (e.g., placing in seclusion for out-of-seat behavior), as a means of coercion or retaliation, or as a convenience.
- Restraint or seclusion should never be used in a manner that restricts a child?s breathing or harms the child.
- The use of restraint or seclusion, particularly when there is repeated use for an individual child, multiple uses within the same classroom, or multiple uses by the same individual, should trigger a review and, if appropriate, revision of strategies currently in place to address dangerous behavior; if positive behavioral strategies are not in place, staff should consider developing them.
- Behavioral strategies to address dangerous behavior that results in the use of restraint or seclusion should address the underlying cause or purpose of the dangerous behavior.
- Teachers and other personnel should be trained regularly on the appropriate use of effective alternatives to physical restraint and seclusion, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports and, only for cases involving imminent danger of serious physical harm, on the safe use of physical restraint and seclusion.
- Every instance in which restraint or seclusion is used should be carefully and continuously and visually monitored to ensure the appropriateness of its use and safety of the child, other children, teachers, and other personnel.
- Parents should be informed of the policies on restraint and seclusion at their child?s school or other educational setting, as well as applicable Federal, State, or local laws.
- Parents should be notified as soon as possible following each instance in which restraint or seclusion is used with their child.
- Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion should be reviewed regularly and updated as appropriate.
- Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion should provide that each incident involving the use of restraint or seclusion should be documented in writing and provide for the collection of specific data that would enable teachers, staff, and other personnel to understand and implement the preceding principles.
UPDATE: Effective July 1, 2013, the Hughes Bill, which described the FAA procedures, was repealed and replaced with AB 86, which offers fewer legal protections to students with behavioral needs. Click here for more information about this change in the law. The material below now only applies to those students who were eligible for an FAA and possibly a PBIP prior to July 1, 2013. These students may currently have PBIPs in their IEPs, which remain in force until their IEPs are replaced at their next annual due date. Students with claims arising within the last two years from school agencies’ failures to comply with the Hughes Bill during the portion of the statutory period in which it was still in force may still bring claims regarding those failures, in which case, the material below is still applicable.
Click here to listen to the podcast version of this post.
As part of a series of articles regarding seclusion and restraint practices involving special education students across the nation, we’re starting out with a look at the regulations already on the books in California. We’re starting with these state-specific regulations because California is one of the few states to have regulations this specific and, as one of the most populous states in the nation, these laws impact a lot of kids. So, this information can potentially benefit a lot of students by helping their parents in their efforts to achieve appropriate behavioral interventions as well as help their educators understand their obligations, thereby preventing a lot of costly litigation that takes money away from actual instructional costs.
There is federal legislation pending to address this very issue. The lack of consistency among the states as to what constitutes a lawful restraint or seclusion varies so widely that what is regarded as child abuse in one state is considered perfectly acceptable in others.
Because California has such specific language in its regulations about one aspect of positive behavioral intervention, we wanted to examine these regulations more closely. Plus, I’ve been involved in a due process case in which an 8-year-old with autism was unwittingly provoked into an outburst by well-intended special ed staff with the whole thing culminating in a DARE officer who happened to be on campus handcuffing the boy in an effort to protect him from hurting himself. That whole incident involved both restraint and seclusion with disastrous results.
So, this issue is vivid in my mind right now after having met this sweet boy and his loving family, as well as in light of other work I’ve been doing recently that has also involved inappropriate behavioral interventions in public school settings in California as well as Texas. As advanced as humanity has become, we can still be a savage species when it comes to children, particularly those with disabilities.
The thing about California’s laws relative to the minimum requirements under the federal regulations is that California’s laws are specific to serious behavior problems, interpreted by most school districts to mean violent behaviors, where the federal regulations only specifically mandate behavioral assessment when a student is at risk of expulsion for behaviors that may be related to his/her disability. In both cases, that leaves a lot of latitude for things to get way out of control before a school district takes action, particularly in school districts that are reactionary to student needs once they’ve reached crisis proportions rather than proactive in preventing these kinds of problems from arising in the first place.
Click here to listen to the podcast version of this post.
I’ve recently had to come to the terms with the reality that’s there is only one me, there are only 24 hours in a day, and each lifetime is a unique thing that will never happen again once it has ended. I realized that I had made so many personal sacrifices to single-handedly pursue KPS4Parents’s mission with very little hands-on support (though tons of emotional support, the value of which I truly appreciate) because of our limited resources, that I was going to eventually put myself in harm’s way if things didn’t change.
This organization was never meant to be a “one-man band.” It started out with two of us; our founder, Nyanza Cook, and me. However, in 2006, Nyanza became ill and I took over her caseload. She remained ill and I took over the organization. She’s okay now and remains the chair of our board of directors.
In 2006, I had 40 kids on my caseload and several of their cases went to due process and on to federal court appeals after that. My daughter was in 5th grade and I was involved with Girl Scouts. I have no idea how I survived the 2006-07 school year. My pace was frenetic at the time, something I just can’t do anymore.
KPS4Parents is now undergoing a reorganization to account for the changes that have happened since we first opened our virtual doors in 2003. Next fiscal year (starting July 1, 2012) will begin our tenth year of operations, which is hard to believe.
The changes we’re making are necessary to adapt to the changing needs of our clients, blog followers, and the public education system as its evolution starts to finally build some momentum. It’s only a matter of time, now, until technology finally takes hold of public education the way it revolutionized large-scale business and industry 30 years ago.