We may earn money or products from the companies mentioned in this post.

 

Just Like the Families in the News

This was a hard post to write.  It is hard to read.  Every word is the truth. I researched the laws for the time period that restraints and seclusion were inflicted on my child. The evidence was withheld until Mac left his Non-Public School (NPS). He was severely injured twice in less than a month. This is how restraints and seclusion hurt my child.

I requested Mac’s records from the NPS principal after informing him that my son would never return. In addition to the typical school records, I also received nearly two hundred incident reports that were never disclosed by the school or our district for over four years. The abuse my son endured was documented in horrifying detail by his abusers. My goal is to educate and warn families about what often occurs to special needs students.

These methods of abuse are widespread, inflicted on the most vulnerable students in segregated special education classrooms and schools, and is kept secret from parents. Parents often find out when their child is seriously injured or killed.   Know the law and pay attention. Check on your child at school unannounced. Most importantly follow your gut and act.

Here is our story.

In Hindsight Signs Were There

Trouble began in kindergarten. No one locked my son in a closet or shoved him to the floor and smashed his face into a filthy carpet back then. But, in hindsight, there were subtle signs occurring that foreshadowed what was to come. Mac had a wonderful kindergarten teacher but there were other adults in her classroom who were not so kind. Mac was fidgety and had a hard time paying attention for sustained periods. He made friends but he often struggled socially.

Mac qualified for post-adoption services through our foster agency.  I tried to stop small issues in kindergarten from becoming big. A school observation took place by a therapist. A staff member informed the therapist that Mac had a good day because he only missed eleven minutes of recess – the first red flag. Mac often missed recess, this punishment never stopped. A fidgety child needs more breaks, not less.

Other staff members “called Mac out more often than others.” Mac and his buddies were observed misbehaving together, but Mac was the only student called out. This concerned the therapist. She recommended an IEP assessment. I asked the principal but she informed me there were other steps she had to try first.

The Long List of Incorrect Diagnosis Begins

Mac was diagnosed with ADHD at the end of kindergarten. A level-two meeting was finally convened.  I requested 504 accommodations but the team wanted to complete a speech assessment first and keep an “eye on things.” The speech assessment was a hand-written single sentence written on a scrap of paper.

Mac had a lisp speech therapy was not necessary. The principal ignored four more written requests throughout first grade for a 504. The 504 was finally written after first-grade ended. The 504 plan was finally implemented in second-grade. This was Mac’s best school year.

The Difficulties Continue

Third-grade was a disaster. I requested a meeting to update Mac’s 504 plan. Mac’s teacher refused to honor the existing plan. She forced Mac to miss recess to complete homework despite a homework reduction modification in his 504 plan. Mac struggled academically. He was unable to memorize multiplication tables. I tried everything – flashcards, games, and songs. His teacher kept accusing me of not working hard enough at home.

After multiple requests to update the 504, I consulted an advocate and requested an IEP assessment.  The team decided that Mac was an average student. Special education services were denied. Years later I learned that they misinterpreted their own results and Mac did qualify for services.

The District agreed to update Mac’s 504 plan but his teacher refused every requested accommodation. A week after Mac was denied services, I received a letter from the principal indicating that Mac was below grade level. Not a word about this deficit was mentioned in the IEP assessments.

A Different Environment

Mac attended a charter school in 5th grade. The charter school promised there would be plenty of assistance. That so-called assistance was mostly punitive. Our advocate recommended returning Mac to the District.  The District claimed that the fifth-grade classrooms at our home school. There was ten weeks left of the school year and Mac had to attend with strangers.

I requested the completion of the  IEP assessment that the Charter school had begun to be completed. The District being was allowed to restart the sixty-day clock but there was enough time to finish before the end of the year. They deliberately ignored my written request past the allotted fifteen days.  When I finally received a response, they claimed there was not enough time. We were turfed to middle school. Their stall tactic was reprehensible.

Mac was suspended for the first time during state testing. As I signed Mac out I inquired about the accommodations specifically for state testing that were in the 504 plan. The Principal claimed that all additional staff was assigned to students with IEP’s only. I informed the Principal that she had broken the law. The very next day I received an assessment plan. IEP testing began immediately.

An IEP Finally

Mac qualified for special education services that were to begin in middle school. He was a full year behind academically. Mac’s academic struggles continued. The team wrote four behavior-related goals and only one academic goal.  They refused to address Mac’s reading comprehension struggles.  They focused solely on his behavior. I kept stating over and over that if they did not address Mac’s academic deficits, his behavior would never improve.

Children would rather be bad than look stupid. Mac’s science teacher refused to follow the accommodations in the IEP. Her binder system was so complicated that I struggled to follow it. After doing battle with her for months, I gave up. I informed her that Mac would fail her class and I was okay with this. We used what focus he had for the classes he could pass.

The science teacher sent Mac to the assistant principal (AP) on a near-daily basis for the slightest transgressions. The assistant principal, in turn, began harassing me daily with phone calls at work. I saw the school number on caller ID and overwhelming anxiety followed. The AP periodically demanded that I pick Mac up early. I found my son sitting in a closet-sized room alone. Other students were sitting in the open office. Seclusion was used as punishment within the District.

Non-Public School Placement

I had enough. Our advocate requested a non-public school (NPS) placement in a smaller school for students with learning disabilities. The District sent me to tour schools that they selected. They did not inform me that I had a right to visit schools of my choosing.  In fact, they refused my request to visit a Help Group School.

The District claimed that they did not have a contract with The Help Group. I visited two schools and agreed to placement in one.  The padded, lockable, unventilated, solitary confinement cells were curiously not part of the parent tour and I was not informed they existed.

The Special Ed Director called me after Mac’s transfer was confirmed. She made a cruel comment about my son that sticks with me today – “Ms. Shulman it does not matter where we send your son, nothing will change.” Mac was prenatally exposed by parents dealing with addiction, placed in foster care, and adopted by a single mom. He is an African American. To this abhorrent, racist Director,  he was beyond help and expendable.  She decided that he was emotionally disturbed and sent him to a dangerous school.

Federal Special Education Letters

“On July 31, 2009, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to Chief State School Officers indicating that he was deeply troubled about the current use of restraint and seclusion.  Restraints and seclusion were the subjects of testimony before the Education and Labor Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives’ hearing.  The House “examined the abusive and potentially deadly application of restraint and seclusion techniques in schools.” Nothing changed, however, until three years later.

On May 15, 2012, Secretary Duncan released the following preamble:

“As education leaders, our first responsibility must be to ensure that schools foster learning in a safe and healthy environment for all our children, teachers, and staff. To support schools in fulfilling that responsibility, the U.S. Department of Education has developed this document that describes 15 principles for States, school districts, schools, parents, and other stakeholders to consider when developing or revising policies and procedures on the use of restraint and seclusion.

These principles stress that every effort should be made to prevent the need for the use of restraint and seclusion and that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with the child’s rights to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse.”

“The principles make clear that restraint or seclusion should never be used except in situations where a child’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others, and restraint and seclusion should be avoided to the greatest extent possible without endangering the safety of students and staff. The goal of presenting these principles is to help ensure that all schools and learning environments are safe for all children and adults.”

 Restraints And Seclusion Does Not Change Behavior

As many reports have documented, the use of restraint and seclusion can have very serious consequences, including, most tragically, death. Furthermore, there continues to be no evidence that using restraint or seclusion is effective in reducing the occurrence of the problem behaviors that frequently precipitate the use of such techniques.

Schools must do everything possible to ensure all children can learn, develop, and participate in instructional programs that promote high levels of academic achievement. To accomplish this, schools must make every effort to structure safe environments and provide a behavioral framework, such as the use of positive behavior interventions and supports, that applies to all children, all staff, and all places in the school so that restraint and seclusion techniques are unnecessary.”

*U.S. Department of Education, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document, Washington, D.C., 2012.

The States were urged to publicize their guidelines. Everyone from administrators, teachers, and parents needs to fully understand that the use of restraints and seclusion in schools is extremely limited. Parents need to consent or refuse their use, know exactly what techniques, and under what circumstances they will allow.  Finally, school districts are required to notify parents when restraint and/or seclusion occurs EVERY TIME. Mac’s school and our local district ignored this Federal requirement for four years.

Definitions

Physical Restraint:

A personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely.

Mechanical Restraint:

The use of any device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement.

Seclusion:

The involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving.

Special Education Students are More Vulnerable

Non-verbal children or children with limited verbal abilities are the most at risk to be abused in school. School Districts often neglect to train their staff about the disabilities of the students in their charge. As a result, their behavior is communication (the child could be distressed, unhappy, cold, hot, tired, hungry or happy and excited and they become loud or bang on something as a means of communicating) but is viewed as bad behavior and requires punishment. Once punishment occurs the student may escalate again and the cycle is repeated.

There are safeguards in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). If a child’s behavior becomes a concern at school, there are steps the school must follow. I could not find research, articles or evidence declaring that there is an educational benefit to restraining or secluding a student. In fact, the opposite is documented.

Based on my son’s experience,  the use of restraints and seclusion caused significant physical and psychological damage. When an adult is locked up against their will in a small padded room it can rise to the level of torture. U.S. schools lock students, especially disabled students, in seclusion thousands of times per year.

Not all schools report their use of restraints or seclusion. The number of incidents is much higher than what is reported. In the majority of documented incidents, parents were not informed despite the requirement to report.

IEP Documentation

During Mac’s first IEP shortly after transferring to the NPS, the team discussed a minor incident. The District’s psychologist insisted that the NPS send incident reports to the District every time Mac got into trouble. Her request was written in the IEP notes in 2011. Despite the requirement to notify a parent after the use of restraints or seclusion and to convene an IEP meeting, neither ever occurred.

In 2014 I attended a parent training by a special education attorney.  The attorney explained how assessment results should be reported in the psycho-educational assessment. Tables with actual standard scores and percentiles need to be part of the report. He also discussed when to request an independent educational evaluation (IEE). Mac had a triennial the previous year. I reviewed Mac’s psycho-educational report. All of the required data was missing.

Knowledge Put to Use

During an IEP scheduled the same week I attended the training, I inquired about the missing data. There was a look of horror on each team member’s face. The District-based psychologist, who wrote the report, was present. He haltingly explained that he had attempted to assess Mac multiple times but without success.

The NPS-based psychologist completed only one assessment. The numerical data from that one assessment was not in the report.  During the triennial IEP, no one mentioned their inability to assess Mac. They admitted to basing the entire triennial report on an assessment conducted by UCLA. This assessment was over a year old at the time they cheated and used it. They were caught and compelled to approve the IEE that I immediately requested.

Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

Based on the results of the IEE that I was able to review before the District, I retained an attorney.  The attorney was present during the April 2015 IEP where the results were discussed. The IEE psychologist informed me that I had been deceived. The types of students Mac’s NPS served and their practices were nothing like what I had been told.

During my tour, I was led to believe this school served students with learning disabilities.  There were foster children living on the campus however, I was informed that most did not actually attend the school. In reality, the psychologist found that this NPS primarily served students with severe emotional disturbances (ED).

For four years I had did not know that most of Mac’s classmates were severely mentally ill. Mac was diagnosed with FASD in 2014 at age the age of fifteen. Children with FASD often parrot peer behavior. This explained a lot. Mac learned many awful ways to divert attention from his academic struggles. The psychologist provided heartbreaking examples of what she had observed.

A Learning Disability is Finally Acknowledged

Mac’s reading comprehension in tenth-grade tested at the fourth-grade level. That is considered functionally illiterate and this travesty fell squarely at the shoulders of our District. I knew in third grade that Mac was struggling with reading comprehension but the District kept justifying my concerns away with “average” assessment results for nine years. Word descriptors were in the reports but when they omit numerical data, the word descriptors are used to deceive parents to deny services.

The psychologist called the District out for never addressing Mac’s significant reading comprehension deficit. Mac eloped or became disruptive when he could not do his work. The psychologist stated that this deficit had been identified in the initial IEP assessment in 3rd grade. She said the District had misinterpreted their own assessment results.

Misdiagnosis

The psychologist was also emphatic that Mac was not emotionally disturbed or oppositional and never had been. She also told the team that Mac’s behavior was a direct result of years of mistreatment endured in school. (Mac was independently assessed again in 2016 at the request of a different attorney by a different psychologist.  The second psychologist concurred with the first. Mac was not emotionally disturbed, never belonged in this NPS, and had a reading disability).

During the April 2015 meeting, I insisted on a new placement that was not an ED school. The Special Education Director ignored every recommendation in the initial IEE report. She would only agree to move Mac to other ED schools.

The Director refused to acknowledge that she made an inappropriate placement. The Director’s actions were cruel and abusive. Mac was left in this ED placement for the rest of the year and the beginning of eleventh-grade. From April 2015 through November 2015, I continued to request an appropriate placement unaware of the horrific abuse that had been inflicted on my son for four years.

Life-Threatening Injuries Twice

On October 25, 2015, I received a phone call from Mac’s principal. ≤≤≥A student had intentionally poisoned him and he was being rushed to the emergency room.  Mac’s erratic vital signs indicated that he drank an unknown substance that was not identified by a basic toxicology screen. Mac spent hours under observation until his vital signs stabilized. I begged my attorney to compel the District to move Mac out of this school. The District ignored me.

In the Blink of an Eye…

On November 11, 2015 (less than a month later) I received another call from the principal. A student snuck a clawed hammer into school in his clothing. He approached Mac from behind and stuck him on the head twice. The police arrested the offender.

No one called me for ninety minutes. The “investigation” took priority over Mac’s injury. It took me an hour and a half in LA traffic to reach my son and I obtained emergency care, not the school. An x-ray and CT scan revealed that Mac did not have a skull fracture but he had a severe concussion. He vomited for five days.

Mac’s Life Changed Forever

During the call from the Principal informing me about the assault, I informed him that Mac would never return. I requested a copy of Mac’s school records in order to facilitate a school transfer  This request changed our family forever. Even after two serious injuries that required ER visits, the District Special Ed Director would only agree to transfer Mac to another ED school. I refused several inappropriate placements.

The attack was an assault with a deadly weapon, premeditated, unprovoked, and racially motivated. The offender stated that he intended to put my son in a coma but not kill him. A staff member and another student witnessed the assault.

The Envelope That Rocked Our World

Shortly after the assault, I received a large envelope from the NPS. It contained copies of Mac’s school records and to my horror, many incident reports (IR). In total there were:

177 Incident Reports

104 documented the use of two different seclusion rooms

29 documented the use of restraints

12 documented injuries

I cried as I read each report. These reports detailed the hideous abuse that trained educators inflicted on my son. The documentation of the use of restraints and seclusion was much worse than the assault and poisoning. They also documented hideous psychological abuse. The District never convened an IEP meeting to address these incidents. The District demanded these written IR’s. The Director knew about the abuse but never sent me copies of the reports as required. She also ignored her obligation as a mandated reporter to report the NPS.

Documented Use of Restraints and Seclusion

Not one IR documented an imminent threat to self or others that might justify the use of restraints and seclusion. In fact, the staff documented in horrifying detail how their actions incited Mac. Mac’s violent behavior was due to a fight or flight response AFTER he was locked up and restrained.

asked to go to solitary confinement for the day. Mac was defeated.

Here are several examples from the most disturbing IR’s:

December 13, 2011

“After lunch, Mac was in the time out room due to behaviors that had occurred during lunch-time – refusing to leave, cursing at staff. Mac asked if he could come out and return to class, but I suggested that he remain in the time-out room since only 10-15 minutes had passed… Once (staff) walked away, Mac immediately walked out of the time-out room, announcing that he had done enough time. Mac attempted to walk away several times, so I moved in front of him and redirected him to the time-out room. Mac became upset and attempted to aggressively push himself past me.

I then used a PRO-ACT capture and release to stop him. Mac struggled but went into the time-out room and I closed the door behind him and held it from the outside. Mac began to scream and yell for the next 20 minutes, telling me to open the door, cursing, and telling me to shut up. I attempted crisis communication through the door. Mac appeared to settle down, I loosened my hold on the door.

He yanked the door open which also pulled me into the room. Mac started running at me and pushing and shoving. I asked (staff) to enter the room to assist.  Mac was placed in a PRO-ACT standing restraint by myself and (Staff). While in standing restraint, Mac continued to struggle and aggressively kicked my leg. After approximately 2 minutes of the standing restraint, Mac was placed in a PRO-ACT floor assisted restraint. While in restraint Mac continued to struggle and yell at staff, which went on for 20 minutes.

Thoughts About this Incident Report

Several times during the restraint, Mac appeared to calm down, but as soon as staff would begin to loosen up and prepare to release, he would struggle and attempt to hit, kick, and bite staff which caused the restraint to continue. After (another) 20 minutes, Mac was slowly released, he got up and started pushing staff. (Staff) exited the room after me and held the door with Mac inside the room. Mac resumed hitting the door and yelling. After (another) 15-20 minutes of being in the room, Mac was finally able to settle down and sit quietly.”

This (IR) did not document an action deemed an imminent danger to self or others to justify locking Mac in seclusion in the first place (cursing and refusing to leave lunch???). Seclusion was employed as a punishment. They documented that he was not in there “long enough” (clearly punishment).

Mac described the room to me years later as very small,  no windows except a tiny one on the door, no air vents, and the walls were padded with carpeting. Mac described the floor carpet as stinking of vomit, urine, and feces. One can only imagine what happened in this room to cause students to vomit and soil themselves. Mac felt like a caged animal.

Being locked into this room was the cause of aggressive behavior. During this incident, he was locked in this room for over two hours and he was restrained by two big male employees for over an hour.  There were obvious patterns to Mac’s behavior that I recognized immediately as I read the IR’s. None of the highly trained staff cared to do anything about the patterns.

February 24, 2012

“At 1:00 pm client left class without permission.  As he got closer to me he attempted to run past me. I was able to block his path using my body as I directed him to the protective separation room. Mac began kicking the door and walls while screaming to be let out. He took off his shoes and attempted to break the window in the door. At this point, I entered the room.

On-call (staff) entered the room. We placed Mac in the PRO-ACT 2 person standing position for 3 minutes. His contorting and violence continued and we decided it would be safer to transition to the PRO-ACT 2 person floor assisted restraint for 3 minutes.

(Staff) arrived to begin crisis communication. (Staff) and I released Mac and exited the room. Mac returned to kicking the door and screaming. (Staff) reminded Mac that if his behavior continued he wouldn’t be able to ride home on the bus and we’d have to notify his mother to pick him up.”

There was no documentation in the IR describing what act of imminent danger Mac caused to justify locking him in the “protective separation room.” He left class without permission resulted in abuse.  His violent behavior began after he was secluded. Eloping was his coping mechanism when he could not do the work.  This is what happens when a district ignores a reading disability.

A Few More…

February 27, 2012

“After he was told to sit in a desk, he continued to refuse. He was asked to leave the classroom and proceeded to sit in the hallway with (staff). Throughout the rest of the day, Mac was heard banging and screaming in the time-out room, sometimes as long as 30 minutes straight.”

Refusing to sit at his desk was the only explanation for an entire day of seclusion in a “time-out room.” There was no imminent danger documented.

April 9, 2013

“Student became disruptive in class on purpose. After being asked several times to leave, he refused. Student walked out of class with (staff) and into the quiet room. Student banged on the walls for approximately 5 minutes. He remained in there until the end of the day without any further disruptions.”

November 13, 2013

“Client began the day with a time out from 8:00-9:55 am in the transition room because he was disruptive in class the day before.”

The staff planned two hours of punishment in the time-out room.

May 12, 2015

“Mac came into school today requesting to go to the satellite room.  He went up around 8:00 am and refused class from there. He stayed in the satellite room for the remainder of the day.”

This broke my heart. Mac described the satellite room as being worse than the rooms near the classrooms.  Mac felt defeated. He preferred solitary confinement.  Reading comprehension struggles make learning impossible.

 Restraints and Seclusion Fallout

Mac never received an appropriate school placement after I pulled him for his safety. Mac went for two weeks without any placement. The District finally agreed to five hours of home instruction per week.  In reality, he received only one-hour per week.  The teacher gave me two hours’ notice on whatever day he felt like showing up. I had to take a leave of absence from my job to deal with Mac’s injury and subsequent PTSD symptoms.

Due to Mac’s FASD, staying home alone all day was problematic. Supervision was necessary. He also suffered from PTSD symptoms due to the horrendous injury and years of abuse. Finding a teen companion was cost-prohibitive and impossible. A short notice to meet the teacher interfered with my job when I tried to return to work. The teacher could not be alone with my son.

I planned to retire in eight years. In June 2016, I retired early at the age of 51. Not only did the Director deny my son his FAPE, but she also caused deliberate irreparable financial destruction to our family.  Years of hard work saving to support my disabled children were destroyed. Two-thirds of my pension was lost.

Deliberately Inflicted Financial Distress

Mac enrolled in a private school at my expense. The school was a 1:1 program – one teacher, one student. The tuition forced me to deplete savings, 529’s, Roth IRA, and charging my credit cards to their limits. I  had to commit the cardinal sin of withdrawing funds from my tax-deferred account to pay tuition and attorney fees. The tax liability and penalties for early distribution only added salt to the financial wounds. I was down to choosing between paying rent or Mac’s tuition.

Due process heavily favors the deep-pocketed school districts and does not protect disabled children as the law intended.  There was plenty of evidence to prove our case. I was contemplating selling our van to pay the overwhelming expenses when we settled during mediation.  I was not able to recoup all of my expenses and I can never undo my early retirement from a job that I enjoyed. Those losses are immeasurable.

Why My Son Never Spoke Up

I asked Mac why he never told me about the abuse. Staff informed Mac that they called me every time. Mac believed that I knew and approved. HIS REVELATION CRUSHED MY SOUL.  The hurt inflicted by one evil woman cut deep.

Protect Your Child from the Use of Restraints and Seclusion

Parents can’t see what goes on at school. Talk to your child.  Ask questions if they can answer.  Be on the alert for sudden changes in your child’s demeanor and behavior. Question marks or bruises immediately and take pictures.

The scales of justice tipped slightly in the parent’s favor with recent US Supreme Court cases Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. Both cases resulted in unanimous decisions in favor of the students.

They are important. Parents with disabled children should read both. Review your State’s educational statutes and hold your District accountable. Include a No Consent letter in your child’s IEP. Examples of what to write can be found online.

Mac completed high school and earned his diploma. Mac attended a Job Corps training program as well.  He has learned two trades. He is resilient and his success is our best revenge. I am an incredibly proud mom.

Restraints and Seclusion in School – 2019 CA Updates

In 2019 California updated its statutes on Restraints and Seclusion in schools.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2657, Statutes of 2018, Chapter 998, went into effect on January 1, 2019.

Education Code Section 49005 contains legislative findings and declarations. Subsection (a) says that “While it is appropriate to intervene in an emergency to prevent a student from imminent risk of serious physical self-harm or harm of others, restraint and seclusion are dangerous interventions, with certain known practices posing a great risk to child health and safety.” Subsection (i) confirms “This article is intended to be read to be consistent with, and does not change any requirements, limitations, or protections in, existing law pertaining to students with exceptional needs.”

The new law says that a pupil “has the right to be free from the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints of any form imposed as a means of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation by staff” (Education Code Section 49005.2). Seclusion or a behavioral restraint may be used “only to control behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the pupil or others that cannot be immediately prevented by a response that is less restrictive” (Education Code Section 49005.4).

Do not let the use of restraints and seclusion in school hurt your child.

Articles and Posts That May Interest You

Special Education – What Families Need to Know

Why I Pursued a Service Dog for My Daughter

COPAA End Restraints and Seclusion

The Need for Federal Legislation on Seclusion and Restraint