The Restraint and Seclusion of Students With a Disability: Examining Trends in U.S. School Districts and Their Policy Implications

Abstract

Restraint and seclusion are possible aversive responses to problematic student behavior used in some public schools, most commonly on students with a disability. Considerable recent attention has been paid to these practices both in the media and in Congress, and subsequently roughly half of U.S. states have made changes to their laws or policy statements around restraint and seclusion since 2009. In this article, we illuminate trends in restraint and seclusion across the United States in recent years to better inform policy discussions on these matters. Specifically, we examined rates of reported restraint and seclusion across U.S. districts in the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 school years. We found that general trends persist between the data collections: Most districts report no/little use of restraint or seclusion, with a small percentage of districts reporting exceedingly high rates. Furthermore, the vast majority of variation exists within rather than between states, which may suggest the importance of local factors such as district policy, school culture, and practitioner support in determining the frequency of restraint and seclusion in schools.

CCBD’s Position Summary on the Use of Physical Restraint Procedures in Educational Settings

“…7. Schoolwide safety coupled with plans to avoid/reduce/eliminate use of restraint should be developed for every district/school. Research indicates that state policies appear to have little correlation with frequency of restraint rates and despite an increase in the number of states adopting policies, state trends in use remain similar across school years (Gagnon et al., 2017); therefore, additional reductive plans are needed. Regular, team-based reviews of policies should be conducted with school emergency plans updated and revised as indicated by crisis response data and other relevant information (e.g., changes in relevant legislation, other behavior data). Repeated use of physical restraints for any one student or multiple physical restraints across different students should be viewed as the failure of educational programming and indicate the need to modify supports, educational methodologies, and other interventions. …”

“…Research indicates that state policies appear to have little correlation with frequency of restraint rates and despite an increase in the number of states adopting policies, state trends in use remain similar across school years (Gagnon et al., 2017); therefore, additional reductive plans are needed.…”

“…There is almost no knowledge of local school district policies on physical restraint and seclusion even though many believe that local policies and procedures may have a greater impact than district, state, or federal policies (e.g., Gagnon et al., 2017). Thus, attention needs to be paid to local policies and procedures, in addition to state and federal.…”

CCBD’s Position Summary on the Use of Physical Restraint Procedures in Educational Settings

“…7. Schoolwide safety coupled with plans to avoid/reduce/eliminate use of restraint should be developed for every district/school. Research indicates that state policies appear to have little correlation with frequency of restraint rates and despite an increase in the number of states adopting policies, state trends in use remain similar across school years (Gagnon et al, 2017); therefore, additional reductive plans are needed. Regular, team-based reviews of policies should be conducted with school emergency plans updated and revised as indicated by crisis response data and other relevant information (e.g., changes in relevant legislation, other behavior data). Repeated use of physical restraints for any one student or multiple physical restraints across different students should be viewed as the failure of educational programming and indicate the need to modify supports, educational methodologies, and other interventions. …”

Policy and Program Considerations for Choosing Crisis Intervention Programs

“…This growing emphasis on nonacademic components of education is also reflected in the requirement that schools will now be accountable for at least one nonacademic indicator under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2016). The need for increased accountability measures and consistent policy guidelines for the use of restraint and seclusion are increasing (Gagnon, Mattingly, & Connelly, 2017). Although legislation has been proposed at both the national and state levels, no consistent guidelines currently exist for schools to follow (Butler, 2017; Freeman & Sugai, 2013; Ryan, Peterson, & Rozalski, 2007; Ryan, Robbins, Peterson, & Rozalski, 2009).…”