chapter5

ALL of us likely have at least one story from school about being disciplined or seeing a peer disciplined by a school official. Not much has changed about discipline over the years, in that children are still being suspended from school. School responses to a student’s challenging behavior vary greatly. Fortunately, there is monitoring of the disciplinary actions by federal and state offices, and some common disciplinary actions are being questioned for their effect on academic achievement. Alternative schools are being used for discipline removals, and the staggering drop-out rates for children with behavior problems show that we are not effectively disciplining our youth. There will be consequences in our communities. Although we have come a long way in understanding disruptive behavior, public schools have yet to develop a comprehensive set of child-centered early intervention practices that work.

This chapter is important because it is the most significant incidents of suspension, expulsion, restraint, or exclusion that we most want to prevent; incidents where people can get hurt are the most serious, and the effects of violence ripple through a community. Regardless of diagnosis, evaluations, and school or individual plans, a child may be acting out in a way that demands the adults in charge manage or control the child’s behavior. In many cases, these behaviors are aggressive, violent, and self-destructive, often forcing treatment providers to take extreme measure to keep students and everyone around them safe.

2. Under what conditions are seclusion, exclusion, suspension, or expulsion used and effective?

5. What are current legislative efforts to reform seclusion and restraint practices?

When children are out of school, parents may have to miss work to stay home with them or meet with the school, and older students can cause problems while unsupervised all day. Research has shown that inschool suspension is an ineffective means of dealing with challenging behavior, yet removals and in-school suspensions are still being used to remove unwanted behaviors from the schoolhouse for a short time (Dickinson & Miller, 2006). And it’s common knowledge that suspension actually can reinforce undesired behavior, because the child successfully avoids tasks or problems that caused the suspension in the first place.

Students who are being suspended out of school, have earned detentions or in-school suspensions, have been asked to leave class to go to the hallway or administrator’s office, or have been instructed to go to timeout are the children who have a high level of impact on the learning of all children. The amount of time that teachers spend managing minor infractions, refocusing students’ attention, and addressing more serious behavior cumulatively impacts the learning environment for all children. Suspension, removal from the classroom, and generally removing the child further and further from the school community is the standard, general reaction of most schools. This is because, for the vast majority of children, the threat of suspension is enough to prevent behavior problems.

The most common behaviors that result in disciplinary action are usually externalizing behaviors, which include:

Ignoring teachers, refusing to follow teacher direction, negative verbal interactions with peers and teachers, and physical aggression are common externalizing behaviors that require attention in schools (Passaro, Moon, Wiest, & Wong, 2004). School systems use a “progressive discipline” approach when dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Discipline procedures are clearly used schoolwide, classwide, and for individual students.

Students who display externalizing behaviors are more likely to receive disciplinary actions than students who display internalizing behaviors. Common internalizing behaviors include:

Several studies have confirmed that the time an expelled child spends away from school increases the chance that child will drop out and wind up in the criminal justice system, according to a January 2010 study from the Advancement Project, a legal action group. (Chen, 2010, para. 21)

Students who disrupt the learning environment can expect to be dealt with swiftly and decisively in America’s public schools. School systems across the country have adopted “zero tolerance” policies for dealing with disruptive students, often relying on predetermined onesize-fits-all disciplinary policies and procedures.

This hard line approach has been met with overwhelming support by most Americans. A byproduct of the zero tolerance movement has been the frequent elimination of common sense. For example, in October 2009, a 6-year-old Cub Scout from Delaware brought his favorite camping utensil to school to use when eating lunch, which was misperceived as a weapon. The child’s school system initially suspended the first grader for 45 days and ordered that he be educated in an alternative program for children with behavior disorders for 45 days. The national and international response convinced administrators to encourage classroom staff to manage behavior within the classroom as a first step.

Schoolwide and classwide discipline options usually are used freely with students with challenging behavior, as we discussed in the last chapter. Examples of Tier I, or universal interventions, which are said to work for a great majority of students, may include surface management techniques such as moving a seat, having the student remain indoors during recess, giving lunch detention, or, when all else fails, having the student serve an afterschool or Saturday detention. The more serious infractions of school rules or habitual acts of noncompliance may result in afterschool detention. The aforementioned disciplinary interventions are the most frequently used methods for responding to disruptive behavior; however, school systems across the U.S. turn to suspension and expulsion for the most serious behavioral infractions. Most public school programs use a philosophy of removal in concentric circles outside the student, further and further from the group, as behaviors increase in frequency, duration, or severity.

It seems unlikely that schools would continue to use suspensions when they have been shown to be ineffective, but the research on suspension and expulsion strongly indicates that those interventions do not change student behavior. Children who are suspended often are unsupervised during their time out of school, fall further behind academically, and more importantly become increasingly disengaged from learning, thereby making them more at risk for continued problems in school.

Short-term suspension (removal from school for up to 10 consecutive days) may occur for one or a combination of reasons:

• continued willful disobedience (occurs when there has been accumulation of violations of school rules over time without a positive change in behavior in response to other, nonexclusionary behavior interventions);

• possession of a weapon on school grounds (students can be suspended from school if charged with weapons or drug possession outside of school);

• out of location or elopement (Children with challenging behaviors will frequently leave their assigned area without permission. This behavior is referred to as being “out of area.” When a student runs from the classroom and out of the building it typically is referred to as elopement.).

Misbehavior in America’s public schools has been a problem since public education became compulsory across the nation in 1918. School systems traditionally have had limited tolerance for chronically misbehaving youth. When phone calls home, parent conferences, lunch and afterschool detentions, and out-of-school suspensions have failed to get the student’s attention, many school systems have turned to alternative schools as the remedy. Alternative programs are considered for children who are at risk for continued school failure and require a nontraditional approach. These programs used to be called “reform schools” and were originally developed to teach troubled and delinquent students how to fit into and contribute to society. Today’s alternative school programs are located in a building separate from a comprehensive school program. These programs are highly structured and follow behavior-modification principles. The students in these schools usually carry point sheets, are rewarded or punished for their behaviors, participate in group counseling, and are closely monitored by school staff throughout the day. Students are never unsupervised. Enrollment in an alternative school is the last stop for many students. Failure to follow the rules in an alternative school often results in permanent expulsion from the school system. Class size is often two thirds the size of a traditional classroom and the staff may receive professional development in alternative teaching methodologies and behavior management.

Alternative schools can be rough places. These programs serve the school system’s most disruptive youth, many of whom are not identified with an educational disability. Many of these students are already involved with the criminal justice system, have drug and alcohol problems, and have long histories of out-of-control behavior. Maintaining safety in the building is a daily priority for school staff. In an effort to save money, many school districts have combined their alternative programs and their special education programs into one facility. This model fails children. The combination of needs and the social dynamics created by the merging of at-risk students and children with learning disabilities creates an explosive school environment in which educational achievement happens accidentally.

Physical restraint is one of the most controversial topics related to students with challenging behaviors. Poorly trained staff, not enough staff, and super aggressive and violent situations have led to serious injuries and deaths in facilities nationwide. On a daily basis students are being physically restrained by building staff. The overuse of handson interventions by school staff is a national issue. Stories of children being grabbed and forcibly moved or held awkwardly for failure or refusal to follow school rules is a problem that won’t go away. Property destruction, student and staff injuries, and, in several highly publicized and tragic situations, student deaths have occurred. It seems that when educators run out of options to manage challenging behavior, they resort to going “hands on.”

By the time a child with challenging behaviors has been restrained, she likely has experienced many different types of interventions multiple times. We are in a very dynamic time regarding the use of physical restraint. As previously stated, the laws around its use are changing. Many states have developed regulations specifically forbidding physical restraint and seclusion altogether. A tour of residential treatment centers in Maryland found that many former seclusion rooms have turned into small, windowless offices for university interns. That being said, alternative programs, day and residential treatment programs, and some school districts continue to use physical restraint.

The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Organizations (JCAHO, 2002) defined physical restraint as “the direct application of physical force to a person with or without the individual’s permission to restrict his/her freedom of movement. The physical force may be human, mechanical devices, or a combination thereof” (p. 2). Students may occasionally go into crisis. A crisis is an event where a child loses control emotionally and may become physically aggressive and/or combative. Examples of crises that may lead to physical restraint include:

• self-injurious behavior (student cutting self or behaving in a dangerous manner), and

The topic of physical restraint is a hot-button issue. Nationally there have been many deaths and serious injuries sustained by children who have been improperly restrained. There are many physical restraint curricula and techniques marketed across the globe, all designed to teach treatment professionals how to “therapeutically” manage out-ofcontrol behavior. Despite federal, state, and local regulations mandating their use, ongoing staff development, and accountability systems, children and staff are being hurt and killed due to improper restraint and violent behaviors at an alarming rate.

This type of situation happens several times per day in treatment facilities around the country. Many schools and behavioral health systems are modifying their physical restraint protocols. An incident occurred in Maryland in 2006 where a student was restrained face down in a situation similar to the one above. During the “hold,” staff observed that he had stopped breathing. Attempts to resuscitate him failed and he died. The medical examiner later determined that he died from positional asphyxia. This occurs when compression to the rib cage prevents the lungs from being able to inhale or exhale, ultimately leading to an inability to breathe, and cardiac arrest. This type of situation is the leading cause of death or serious injury in restraints.

Beyond the physical injuries to students and staff and the property destruction associated with physical restraint is the emotional and/or psychological damage that is the result of physical restraint. Children with emotional and behavioral disorders often come from chaotic living situations in which physical and sexual abuse have been a part of their lives. Physical restraint can lead to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) responses in students and staff over time. The repeated use of physical force to contain and control a person’s ability to move freely is an intensely intimate experience. The misuse of this intervention can “push the bruise” or recreate trauma for children and exacerbate preexisting emotional issues, which ultimately will not support healing.

The use of physical restraint will always be present to some degree. Children will go into crisis and there will be a need to keep them and everyone around them safe. To simply outlaw the use of physical restraint would be irresponsible. It must be the option of last resort. All staff must receive preservice and biannual in-service training in the proper and humane use of physical restraint. Program administrators must strive to embed this intervention within a framework of positive behavior supports; the focus on the training should be as follows:

• careful selection and screening of staff for their appropriateness to work with children;

• use in conjunction with a positive behavior supports systemwide orientation to behavior management;

• in-service training that requires demonstrated mastery of all behavior management interventions (verbal de-escalation techniques and physical interventions); and

• accountability systems that randomly and routinely review behavior management data.

Jesse did not like it when he felt that the school staff was “messing with him.” It did not matter who it was, male or female. There were going to be problems if someone told Jesse to do something he didn’t want to do. During lunch, Jesse forgot to throw his trash out and one of the staff members assigned to lunchroom duty politely asked Jesse to clean up his area. Jesse just stared at him. The staff member asked Jesse if he had heard him. The students became quiet and moved away from Jesse. They knew the drill. Jesse said, “I’m not throwing that [stuff] away. That’s what people like you are paid to do.” The staff person, a former police officer, squared up with Jesse, folded his arms, took a deep breath, and moved imperceptibly closer to the boy and said “Jesse, I’m not going to ask you again to throw your trash away.” The staff person spoke to Jesse softly; regardless, Jesse felt cornered and threatened. The guy was big and had an imposing presence. Backing down was not an option at this point. In an instant Jesse flung his arm across the dining room table, hurling his trash against the wall; he lowered his shoulder and smashed into the staff person, sending him flying into the salad bar. Another staff member who was observing the showdown called for “all available staff” on her two-way radio, and jumped into the mix with two staff members who had been walking by the cafeteria. A melee broke out between Jesse and the four staff persons. Jesse was big, strong, and in full-on rage mode. The staff tried to use their crisis management “take down” techniques, only to be tossed around. Finally, the “crisis team” arrived, and took Jesse to the ground and held him there while he screamed and struggled. A nurse arrived to oversee the situation and after determining that Jesse could not settle down on his own, administered 500mg of Benadryl by needle into his right buttocks. After about 10 minutes, Jesse got drowsy and was escorted to a quiet room where he promptly fell asleep. In the fracas, he had cut his chin, probably from hitting the floor, and fractured two ribs. He was taken by ambulance to the local emergency room, treated, and sent back to the school.

The management of out-of-control behavior has resulted in countless injuries to children and staff. A recent spate of deaths and serious injuries in juvenile facilities has led Congress to introduce legislation designed to reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools and other programs. The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act was introduced to Congress by George Miller of California and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. The foundation of the legislation is rooted in the belief that the inappropriate physical restraint and seclusion of children in public and private schools has resulted in severe injuries, psychological trauma, and death. The act reinforces the belief that all children, regardless of where they are educated, have the right to be treated humanely, respectfully, and free from physical or emotional abuse. Staff should never use physical restraint and seclusion as disciplinary interventions and all staff should be trained in the use of positive behavior interventions and other evidence-based interventions.

This bill is expected to be signed into law by President Obama in 2010 and is designed to mandate minimum safety standards to prevent abusive restraint and seclusion in schools across the nation. After 2 years, states will be required to have their own policies in place. It would apply to public schools, private schools, and preschools receiving federal education support. The legislation would:

• limit physical restraint and locked-door seclusion, allowing these interventions only when there is imminent danger of injury, and only when used by trained staff;

• outlaw mechanical restraints, such as strapping kids to chairs, and prohibit restraints that restrict respiration;

• require schools to contact parents or guardians after seclusion or restraint occurs;

• encourage states to provide professional development to protect students and prevent the need for seclusion and restraint; and

This legislation is an important first step in “legislating safety” for children with challenging behaviors. All too often the triggering event that leads to seclusion or physical restraint is a misperceived interaction that quickly escalates into an out-of-control situation between children and adults. In far too many situations, after the adults have unpiled from atop one another, the injured have been treated, the parents and agencies have been notified, and the administrators and clinicians have conducted their investigations into what happened, it often is found that the adult response did not fit the situation.

This section applies to children who are at risk in regular classrooms and to children already eligible for special education, as described in Chapter 8. A child is suspected of having a disability just by demonstrating behaviors that interfere with his own and others’ learning. Students identified to receive special education and related services often have long track records of disciplinary removals. In fact, the disciplinary removal data used by school IEP teams play an important role in the special education eligibility process.

What the Law Says Regarding Students With
Disabilities and Suspension and Expulsion

When students are suspended over and over, they are said to be experiencing a change of placement because the student is missing so much specialized instruction. The 1988 Honig v. Doe Supreme Court case limited local school systems from suspending children with disabilities in excess of 10 school days per year. Prior to 1988, it was not unusual for children with disabilities, especially students with emotional or behavioral disabilities, to be suspended from school in excess of 30 days per year. The Supreme Court ruled that school removals in excess of 10 days per year constituted a change in the student’s placement.

Only a multidisciplinary team (discussed in the next chapter) can change a student’s placement, so the repeated suspensions or recommendation for expulsion require the school team to consider the child’s disability and its effect on the behavior. Or, in the case of a child who has not yet been identified, but who is at risk and experiencing some challenges, the child should still not be removed for more than 10 school days because he would be known to have a suspected educational disability, and therefore, entitled to the protections of IDEA.

For children with challenging behavior, legal protections are in place to prevent repeated removals from school that basically equate to a change of placement; although all schools follow generally similar schoolwide policies, when it comes to the discipline of children with more-challenging-than-typical-behaviors, special rules apply.

Children with disabilities may be treated like any other student when it comes to behavior to a point. School systems are required to follow certain procedural steps when a student with a disability is suspended or removed from instruction for more than the equivalent of 10 days. After that time, the school system must convene a manifestation determination process to determine whether the behavior that resulted in the disciplinary removal was related to the student’s disability.

The manifestation determination process must answer the following questions with a “yes” or a “no” answer. Only one of the questions may be answered yes for the behavior to be considered a manifestation of disability:

• “Was the conduct in question caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability?

• Was the conduct in question the direct result of the local education agency’s failure to implement the IEP?” (IDEA, 2004, p. 118).

In the event that the manifestation determination process determines that the behavior was a result of the student’s disability, then the student must be allowed to return to school without serving the remainder of the suspension. In the event that the behavior is not determined to be a manifestation of disability, then the student may serve the remainder of the suspension. Students with disabilities continue to be protected under IDEA when they are suspended from school. They must continue to receive special education services during the time that they are suspended from school.

A school system may place a child in an appropriate Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) when the child requires a long-term suspension or exclusion from school. A child with a disability may be placed in an IAES for up to 45 school days (not calendar days). An IAES is defined as a “setting other than the student’s current placement that enables the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum and progress toward meeting the goals set in his or her IEP” (Weinfeld & Davis, 2008, p. 122). The IAES must allow the student to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting.

There are three exceptions to the rules regarding the manifestation process. If one of the “big three” behaviors is committed, then the school system has the legal authority to suspend or expel the student from school in the same manner that they would a student without a disability. A child with a disability may be removed or suspended indefinitely from school just like the child without a disability if he or she has been found to have committed one of the following three behaviors:

• Possession of a dangerous weapon: The U.S. Department of Education (2006) defined a dangerous weapon as:

a weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade less than 2.5 inches in length. (p. 46723)

• Possession or distribution of illegal substances: The second exception relates to the possession or distribution of illegal substances or drugs or attempts to purchase or distribute a controlled substance, while at school, on school grounds, or at a school-sponsored activity.

• Serious bodily injury: The third exception relates to situations in which a student with a disability causes serious bodily injury to another person while at school, on school grounds, or while attending a school-sponsored activity.

The Joint Commission (2002) defined seclusion as “the involuntary confinement of a child/youth in a room in a Covered Facility, whether alone or with staff supervision, in a manner that prevents the child/youth from leaving” (p. 3). Children in day school, residential treatment, and in-patient psychiatric facilities may find themselves in a seclusion room if they behave in a manner that is determined to be unsafe to themselves or others. The child who attacks other students or staff, or destroys property and cannot calm down on his own often ends up in seclusion.

Discipline is one of the most important issues in schools. When a child needs an individual plan, schoolwide and classwide discipline may not be enough to support the child’s behavior and achievement. Individual plans are created from evaluation, so the next chapter fully explores how to effectively evaluate a child’s emotional, social, and behavioral strengths and needs.

Myth	Truth
Students who need discipline should be expelled from school; suspensions work for kids who get into trouble at school.	Suspension has been shown not to change behavior.
A statement like, “I don’t want to live anymore” is no big deal.	Suicide is the third leading cause of death among high school students and the second leading cause of death in college students. Talk about suicide should always be taken seriously, and not be met with discipline.
Discipline is the parents’ fault and responsibility.	Parents often need support in forming a partnership with school. When behaviors interfere with learning, the child may have an educational disability.
Mental illness is not real and cannot be treated.	Mental disorders are as easy to diagnose as asthma, diabetes, and cancer with a range of effective treatments for most conditions.
Even if a child has an emotional or behavioral disorder, she should be disciplined like everyone else.	A child with a condition or educational disability affecting learning or behavior is protected by a process called “manifestation determination.”
Troubled youth just need more discipline.	Discipline alone is not shown to improve behavior.