Seclusion and Restraint

I have been debating writing an article like this for some time now. Partly because the content is tough and hard to hear. Partly because it doesn't necessarily portray a picture of Utopian schools where the students are all well behaved, listen to their teachers, and always turn homework in on time. The fact is, there are days when this work is very difficult for those who work in education. Teachers and administrators are faced with choosing between two very bad options. On one hand, some may believe school leaders don't act quickly enough to remove disruptive students. At the same time, others may feel administrators are too quick to remove students. This makes for a difficult needle to thread!

Last week the Des Moines Register ran a series of stories on an increase of violent and disruptive behavior in their schools. This follows another debate that has been occurring in Iowa City, where the school board has been trying to decide whether or not an added police presence was appropriate for their district. These are very important questions where the answers do not come easily. Developing sound governing policy is hard and tedious work. At the same time, decisions made by the 'boots on the ground' are equally challenging and prone to scrutiny. In some school districts, a measure commonly deployed is a 'room clear'. This is where, instead of the unruly student being removed from the classroom, all the students leave the room. What sometimes happens in this case is the unruly student destroys the classroom (perhaps you have seen footage on the 5:00 news?). In other schools, the use of seclusion rooms is used. This is where the disruptive student is removed from the environment and isolated for a period of time.

Interestingly enough, at the same time this series of stories ran in the Des Moines Register, the state board of education has been contemplating changes to Chapter 103. These are the administrative rules that govern the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. This became a topic of concern (and arguably rightly so) following an investigation that revealed some schools in Iowa were using seclusion rooms inappropriately, and for behavior that didn't rise to a level that warranted such measures. In addition, concerns were raised about the supervision of seclusion rooms and the notification to parents that seclusion was used with their child. These are certainly fair points worthy of consideration. After all, the use of this type of disciplinary sanction should be deployed with exacting protocols, procedures, and parental notification. This most recent iteration is the second attempt at changing the Chapter 103 rules; the first of which coming in August. At that meeting, the board voted down the changes after receiving feedback the changes were too onerous.  

Curiously though, the locus of attention on this issue has been the school response to the explosive behavior. It might be worth our time and investment to study and deploy effective preventative measures that may stop this type of behavior from occurring in the first place. Admittedly, understanding and mitigating triggers is equally challenging. It is not always as simple as a student becoming agitated after being disciplined for a very minor infraction such as missing a homework assignment. Truth be told, understanding the root cause of these type of behaviors is incredibly complicated and may not have anything to do with the original trigger in the first place. It is precisely for those reasons a greater emphasis should be placed on mental health services in our schools. While our legislature has begun to debate this issue and allocate resources for mental health services, it is clear from those stories that have recently been told by the Des Moines Register more work needs to be done. 

In an effort to satisfy your inquisitiveness about our efforts at Hudson I'll offer some insight. Admittedly, we always have room for improvement; but our strategies, protocols, and measures appear to have some merit. As a starting point, our comprehensive counseling program does an excellent job of teaching our students appropriate coping skills designed develop and reinforce high emotional intelligence and responding to adversity appropriately. This team also has a built in safety net that works with students and connects families to outside services when necessary. Coupled with a very robust At-Risk program, our school counselors work in tandem with one another to ensure both our students and faculty have the support they need.

At the same time, the majority of our faculty and a great number of our staff are CPI trained. Crisis Prevention and Intervention (CPI) is rooted in strategies that are designed to deescalate student behaviors before they become uncontrollable. This system uses restraint only as a last resort. Fortunately we have a certified trainer right here on staff and are able to offer this training and renewal certification annually. 

Seclusion and restraint is used as the effort of last resort and employed only when there is a fear of harm to self, others, or property. Parents are always notified as soon as it is practical to do so. Students are closely monitored during seclusion and detailed notes are maintained outlining the conditions and circumstances surrounding the seclusion. It would seem though, that our use of CPI is effective. So far this year, we have not had to use seclusion and last year used it a total of 6 times.