WHEN DOES RESTRAINING AND SECLUDING KIDS TURNS ABUSIVE AND DANGEROUS
On Wednesday, December 9, Representatives George Miller (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) plan to introduce a bill that prevents the misuse of restraint and seclusion on school kids. (Miller is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. McMorris Rodgers is a member of the Committee.)
One would imagine that such a bill as this one would not be necessary in this day and age. But one would be wrong.
It seems that, unlike with hospitals, and like facilities that receive federal funding, there are currently no federal policies that provide guidelines as to how restraint and seclusion can be used in schools, and the state laws are ridiculously uneven.
As a consequence, there have been reports of horrific cases of adults sitting on kids who are face down until they have stopped breathing, adults placing mentally disabled kids in closets for extended periods of time, in certain cases with fatal results, and on and on.
(The video above shows the Congressional testimony of a mother named Toni Price about once such incident. Price’s account is dignified, clear and heartbreaking.)
A look at the report on the matter from the US General Accounting Office is quite sobering.
Anyway, this is a bipartisan bill. Take a look.
The video above is of one mother’s testimony at a Congressional hearing on the issue this past spring.
ROBBER APOLOGIZES TO VICTIM
Evidently on Sunday night, a gun-wielding robber who jacked $70 from a Christmas tree salesman apologized to his victim saying, “Times are tough,” according to the LA Times.
I know several young able bodied men who are about to apply for General Relief because, despite daily searches for any kind of work they can find nothing, and they need some way to put food in the house but do not want to turn to the same desperate strategy as the gunman.
I got a call from one of them last night. He does not want a government hand out, he said. “But what can I do?” he asked me. I had no answer.
CAN A CAMPUS CHRISTIAN GROUP BAN GAYS AS VOTING MEMBERS?
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to take a case which pits issues of religious freedom against a college’s policy of nondiscrimination. Moreover, the case has views of two circuit courts at odds with each other, one of them California’s beloved and sometimes notorious 9th Circuit.
The Christian Science Monitor has a very thorough write up. Here’s a clip:
The Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco was stripped of its registered student organization status at the college because it refused to allow gay and lesbian students to become voting members or officers of the group.
Under the Hastings nondiscrimination policy, student organizations must allow fellow students to join and potentially seek leadership positions in any organization without regard to their status or beliefs….
Starting in the 2004-2005 academic year, the CLS required prospective members to sign a statement of Christian faith. The statement includes a pledge that the undersigned student trusts in “Jesus Christ as my savior.”
Prospective members must express belief in several religious tenets, including “one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The statement includes a pledge of belief in the virgin birth, eternal life, Jesus’ resurrection, a divinely created heaven and earth, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
In addition, the national Christian Legal Society developed a policy position stating its view of biblical principles of sexual morality. The position, adopted by the Hastings chapter, said that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” was inconsistent with the group’s statement of faith and would disqualify an individual from membership.
Great case! Morally complex and legally ambiguous. Go Supremes!
JUSTICE BREYER: “GET ME THE REWRITE GUY!”
And Speaking of the Supreme Court…based on another case that went before the court on Monday, it looks quite possible that the nation’s Miranda warning may get rewritten. The case—Florida v. Powell—concerns one Kevin Dwayne Powell who did not understand, even after the warning was given, that he could have an attorney with him during questioning—as that fact is not really spelled out.
(Although if Mr. Powell had watched a little more episodic television, surely he would have known his rights a bit better.)
As the AP explains the rest.
STILL MISSING DAVID FOSTER WALLACE
This isn’t really a social justice issue at all, it’s a literary issue. But if you care about such things, the new posthumous piece of fiction by David Foster Wallace in the upcoming issue of the New Yorker, is a reminder why so many of us are, more than a year later, so devastated that Wallace could seem to find no way out of his personal psychic pain other than to silence it in the most permanent of manners.
Still and all, no matter how bittersweet, another encounter with DFW’s huge and humane talent is utterly thrilling.
The New Yorker published short story is an excerpt from The Pale King, the unfinished novel he was working on before he committed suicide in September 2008.
Re. campus Christian groups, there’s a fear on campuses and throughout our society about violating political correctness, which is subsequently used to twist Constitutional intent and insult traditional establishments.
These religious police (not all religions, and certainly not Islam) take a position that Christianity is supposed to stop when people walk out the church doors and that some people, especially those in special-rights groups like homosexuals, will be offended if left out of a group in which they really have no interest. Diversity doesn’t matter to such anti-Christians, who use diversity for all of their causes.
If it’s not too offensive to you, Merry Christmas!
It’s offensive to me when a soulless little bastard such as yourself starts trading on Christianity to peddle his bigotry. You’re not Christian. Not even close.
And, who are you to judge who’s a Christian or not? You don’t even know the difference between Christian standards and bigotry.
I don’t have a problem with alcoholics showng up at a church gathering, as long as they aren’t drunk and rowdy at the time. But, homosexuals who want to be out there with their sin and flaunt it in our faces shouldn’t expect to be welcomed. It’s not discrimination or bigotry to expect people to maintain accepted decorum when visiting an organization. But, you never learned that lesson, as typified by your vulgar comments here.
Thanks for proving my point…
Loved this line from DFW:
“This is why it is that adults and even parents can, unwittingly, be cruel: they cannot imagine doubt’s complete absence. They have forgotten.”
That line blew me away too, Mavis.
Woody has somewhat inadvertently hit up on the question at the heart of the Hastings case. Who get’s to decide the conditions for membership of the Christian Legal Society? Is it the current members? A national organization that sponsors the group? Or the university that hosts and funds the group? What I think it interesting and makes the answer somewhat clear is that both the Hastings CLS and it’s national counterpart have a kind of veto. If the Hastings CLS doesn’t like what the national CLS or Hastings Law school requires, then it can close shop or operate without funding from those entities. If the national CLS doesn’t like what Hastings Law school or Hastings CLS requires, they can pull funding. But for some reason, the 7th Circuit has decided that if Hasting’s Law School doesn’t like the requirements for admission, well, too bad. They still have to pony up. Doesn’t make much sense if you ask me.
Playing catch up here – of course you already spotted the DFW – there’s another new one in Tin House too, I hear.
I was always under the belief that any group I wanted to be a part of should reflect some position or value of mine. I don’t understand what value this policy has, it opens the door for the take over of any student orginization by a group with the numbers to do so doesn’t it?
————–
Under the Hastings nondiscrimination policy, student organizations must allow fellow students to join and potentially seek leadership positions in any organization without regard to their status or beliefs….
————–
With this policy in mind is any group that might hold a minority view of religion, politics, social issues or whatever the case be at the mercy of a predatory group with bigger numbers?
This is the insane pc that people subscribe to now that’s a detriment to the minority and makes the 1st Ammendment moot.
RE: CONGRESS, GEORGE MILLER AND RESTRAINT & SECLUSION IN SCHOOLS
Currently there is a political conversation going on that is being dominated by a handful (most of the web sites regarding restraint are generated by a handful of parents and Protection and Advocacy (Government Funded Attorneys — everyone knows how well government funded anything doesn’t work) — if you look at the actual number of people in support of banning reasonable intervention, that number is again few and far between, this is especially apparent if you look at blogs and comment sections of articles where real people write in and the discussion is not being dominated by special interests).
The above said, the positions of the two sides are not that far apart. The solution being presented is where the disagreement lies. The no physical intervention movement is calling for an absolute ban on restraint and seclusion. Yes, this statement is accurate if you look at the actual position being presented, the position is really to eliminate all seclusion and all physical interventions. Indeed these same parents and advocate groups do not want police to be called even if their child is a danger to self or others.
We are fine with that solution as long as as the no intervention supporters can ensure that anytime a student is going to harm him/herself or another that they can be talked down, redirected or otherwise managed by means other than physical intervention before they hurt themselves or someone else. If you cannot make that assurance 100% of the time, then calling for 100% elimination of physical intervention is neither a practical nor a legal solution.
The few states that have gone to an unduly restrictive and inflexible policy have experienced a vast increase in the use of law enforcement and law enforcement tactics to manage situations that in the past were handled by teachers. Groups that were instrumental in effecting this change are now complaining that law enforcement is being used too frequently and students as young as 5 are being placed in handcuffs and students as young as 10 being subject to tasers. (See ACLU report http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-white-paper-says-guidelines-needed-police-schools) However if you unduly limit the interventions teachers can use, handcuffs, law enforcement, increased prescriptions and use of psychotropic and other medications (see http://www.ssristor ies.com/index. php ) are what you are left with.
You cannot expect teachers to intervene when the tools given to them are ineffective and not up to the task.
We invite you to try and manage a child older than 8 who is head banging, kicking, hitting, hair pulling, throwing things and biting. If you would not want to be subject to this kind of assault, why would you make others or the child his/herself subject to this type of assault and injury.
Recently there was an incident involving a student going to school with homemade bombs and a chain saw. The teachers restrained the student on the floor face down and were called heroes. Under NDRN’s solution, the teachers would have had to simply hope that they would be able to manage the student before blew up the school, murdered someone or activated the chain saw.
So how many lives were saved by the use of restraint in the above instance?
See, http://blog.taragana.com/n/prosecutors-charge-former-student-with-attempted-murder-in-california-school-bomb-attack-150524/
SAN MATEO, Calif. — A 17-year-old boy accused of detonating two pipe bombs at a Northern California high school while armed with a chain saw, sword and explosives was charged Wednesday with attempting to murder two faculty members.
See also, Heroes who stopped Hillsdale High bomber attack honored
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_13395976. Student was placed in a face down restraint and teachers were called heroes.
This story just goes to show that level of intervention allowed needs to be calibrated to the level of threat and harm presented. A one size fits all approach does not work. If a student can be managed without physical intervention — by all means. If a student can be managed standing or seated — by all means. If a student cannot be safely managed without physical interventin or standing or seated, then floor restraint i.e. in the case of the chainsaw bomber should remain an option.
A few other examples:
How about Schoolboy beaten to death as teachers look on
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2009/08/schoolboy-beaten-to-death-as-teachers.html
Teen stabbed in fight at high school football scrimmage
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-teenparentaid,0,509529.story
Two juveniles sentenced for their violent escape – left one youth officer brain damaged (before they get to juvenile hall, the youth go to school)
http://www.fox28.com/Global/story.asp?S=11202269
Teen girl dug grave anticipating murder,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-19-nov19,0,6027124.column
See also Attacking Our Educators http://www.stoppingschoolviolence.com/bookstore_ssv.html
One cannot look at restraint and seclusion in isolation. You have to look at the use of restraint and seclusion in relation to what the alternative is. In the case of the school bomber, restraint saved lives.
You have to see how many injuries, fatalities, uncontrolled school environments, the effect on education, the effect on the perception of safety and the effect on actual safety that would occur if restraint and seclusion are banned. In otherwords, you have to look at each incident and determine when restraint and/or seclusion was appropriate or inappropriate.
We understand that there is a lot of frustration because this oversight is not being conducted, and parents are worried about the treatment and safety of their children while in school. We agree that there should be oversight and accountability. We do not agree that banning the use of seclusion and restraint is the answer as the educator will simply shift their obligation to law enforcement.
When you only allow intervention on the front end of the spectrum i.e. positive behavioral supports or the extreme end of the spectrum — law enforcement — tasers, handcuffs and pain compliance and overreliance on pharmaceutical products — you have a violation of indivdual rights and civil liberties as protected under the Declaration of Independence, the U.S Constitution including the 5th and 14th Amendments resulting in 1983 liabiilty for breach of due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities and failure to train. Not to mention supreme and state court rulings and state law (all states have a self defense and defense of others law that permit a person to act in self defense or defense of others in any manner that is reasonable) that such a restriction would violate. See also ACLU report http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-white-paper-says-guidelines-needed-police-schools.
In NY pursuant to a NYS audit, there were over 7,300 disruptive and violent incidents in 17 high schools. There are over 30,000 high schools nationwide and over 130,000 k-12 schools. Reports show over 1 million violent incidents a year in schools and the Department of Justice estimates that only 1 out of every 2 to 5 incidents is actually reported. So between the two numbers you are conservatively looking at approximately 2 -5 million violent incidents a year.
The statistics being used by no intervention advocates are not indicative. These groups claim that special needs students represent approximately 14% of the population, but account for approximately 22% of the restraints. While this might be true, the more relevant statistic is that while special needs students represent approximately 14% of the population, they account for approximately 38-42% of the incidents that generally require physical intervention.
The practical reality is that despite best efforts to manage behavior using only positive behavioral supports, children and teenagers can and do physically prey upon and bully other children in school and they can and do injure themselves and others during emotional tirades caused by the entire spectrum of disorders found in school age children.
The use of physical intervention should NEVER be punitive or misused to coerce compliance or for the purpose of modifying or altering behavior by teaching a child a lesson. Physical intervention is appropriate when used to provide for the child’s safety. Indeed most parents would expect that if it were their son or daughter inflicting self harm or being assaulted, that the school and its staff would take appropriate measures to protect their child from harm.
Ladyjane, I approved your comment after my spamcatcher grabbed it. And I appreciate the information as I understand this is a complex matter.
But, please, next time, try to make the comments somewhere under 1300 words. People just won’t read something that long in the comments section. Linking is better.
Thanks.
Thanks to my Logitech LX-7, Turbo-Charged Wheel Mouse, I was able to quicly scroll past that long boring post by LadyJane.
surefire, I basically agree with your rule of thumb. The problem is the CLS is asking the federal government to enforce that rule of thumb (this seems a just a tad too far).
A rule at Hastings is that student organizations don’t get to exclude other students. If you want an exclusive group there’s an easy solution – stop taking school money! You don’t have any first amendment right to it. Right?
Let’s say some students tried to start an atheist group at Notre Dame. Should the school be compelled to fund them? How about Woody’s favorite hobbyhorse, NAMBLA? I think not. This particular conflict is over procedure not speech. But the same principles apply and the school (the funding institution here) should have some say in the procedures school groups may and may not follow.
Far from “moot” – a hysterical reaction IMHO – the 1st Amendment appears very alive and doing quite well at Hastings:
http://www.uchastings.edu/student-services/student-orgs/index.html
Changing the general campus rule that all student organizations are open to all students regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. for one group that demands exclusivity doesn’t serve the 1st Amendment or Hastings students. As you can see if you click the link, there are numerous special-interest political, ethnic, cultural and religious groups on campus but they can’t practice exclusion despite their area of focus. So if Surefire were enrolled at Hastings he could join the Iranian Law Student’s association, the La Raza Students association and . I’m sure some interesting 1st amendment activity would result. If some Hastings students want to form or join a church that rejects people who are homosexual or a political sect that demands adherence to the atheist-materialist philosophy of Ayn Rand, they can do that on their own dime and off-campus. The fact is that the Christian Legal Society is demanding extreme and exclusive adherence to political correctness according to their own POV, not Hastings. Hastings is trying to strike a balance of offering recognition to students with special interests and an open, non-discriminatory campus atmosphere. If they go down the road of allowing the extreme political and moral “correctness” of the Christian Legal Society to be enforced against their students, they’re opening the door to racist groups and the rest of it. The reality is that these groups will reflect the affinity and interests of students with a similiar focus, but the existing policy at Hastings of non-exclusion is something of a safety valve against crazies controlling a student group and “political correctness” of one stripe or another running amok.
If organizations cannot have certain criteria to include or exclude members, then just have one big group.