Seclusion and Restraint of Students With Disabilities: A 1-Year Legal Review

Abstract

News of teenager’s death in California shocked the special education community in early December 2018. Despite the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act’s provision for positive behavior supports for students with disabilities, these inidividuals continue to be secluded and restrained at disproportionately higher rates than their nondisabled peers. Using the Special Ed Connection® database, the authors identified 11 court cases from 2018 and analyzed their contents based on individualized education program (IEP) behavior components, type of restraints used, and prevalence of seclusion. Within these cases, all 12 included students were boys, four IEPs included behavior components, nine students were physically or mechanically restrained, and two were secluded. A review of the four cases that included the use of positive behavior supports is included.

A Multiple Regression Analysis on the Relationship Among Students’ Challenging Behaviors, Teacher Training, and the Use of Aversive Behavioral Management Techniques

“…When teachers resort to the use of restraints or seclusion practices as the rst form of behavior intervention, due to a lack of teacher training, psychological or physical injuries can occur (Trader et al, 2017;Scheuermann et al, 2016). A disproportionate number of students with disabilities are restrained each year due to challenging behaviors in the classroom which may lead to complications, such as injury or death (Prince & Gothberg, 2019). In a study conducted by the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (2020), there have been about 31 students die as a result of restraints in the classroom from the years of 2003 to 2017.…”

Mapping review of interventions to reduce the use of restrictive practices in children and young people's institutional settings: The CONTRAST study

“…This presents challenges, the management of which frequently involves the use of RP. In certain situations, restrictive measures can serve to protect a child from potentially life‐threatening behaviours to themselves or others (Blikshavn et al, 2020 ; Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2019 ); but there is broad consensus that it could often be less harmful and more appropriate to use non‐physical interventions (Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2019 ; Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2019 ; Lyons, 2015 ; Miguel, 2016 ; Nunno et al, 2022 ; Prince & Gothberg, 2019 ; van Loan et al, 2015 ; Wisdom et al, 2015 ; World Health Organization, 2019 ).…”