« The Exclusive Rights to Restrain and Seclude | Main | Models of Behavior and Institutional Thinking »

March 04, 2010

Comments

Wayward

I noticed some comments by George Miller (non-responsive in my State - more on that later): In one statement he equated schools with hospitals. Chilling. Another quote from him states how "complicated" seclusion and restraint are. Telling.

Ultimately the same entities which placed aversives; and restraints & seclusion in the schools in a systematic manner are the same entities lobbying for them to remain IN and remain watched and controlled by THEM.

The bill reads, from my perusal, that restraint and seclusion only need to be reported federally IF it occurs via an untrained person.

This bill should bring in monies to get everyone 'trained'. Therefore, no reporting of abuse ... unless you are not part of the ABA/PBS lobby.

If I"m recalling correctly, they also did not address aversives in the bill , I don't think, because they are not allowed in some states ... but restraints and seclusion are actually used as a form of aversives by [certain of] those employing behavioral techniques via ABA/PBS.

The threat of an isolation room or a seclusion room, albeit unlocked, next door to your classroom from where you can hear other students screaming is quite an aversive I have been told by a student.

My state has had in place statewide what is in this bill basically for sometime now. Much of it is described here:
http://www.pent.ca.gov/beh/rst/alternativestorestraint.pps
Please note where it describes 'physical prompt', among other items.


Ed

Wayward,

Yes exactly! I agree. I don't think they will be encouraging a lot of reporting. The system has never been set up that way before, and they aren't showing in any other area of the system that they intend on such a radical change. They have to protect the bureaucracy and too much reporting is something they have never shown that they believe they can afford.


That's a good point you made also that the untrained being the ones that are reported will simply make their point that it's the lack of training that's the problem. How convenient is that?

I didn't know that some states had laws banning aversives. The language in the bill is certainly deceitful.

Miller is using the same condescending sell-the-sizzle-not-the-steak false advertising techniques that parents of autistic children typically have to deal with from fear mongering treatment paddlers who are making use of the claim of the terrible autism epidemic.

His angry speeches seem geared toward the other representatives whom he claims are trying to protect state rights and yet not doing enough to protect these kids. But why wouldn't they just make the bill that would make Protection and Advocacy a federal program that was effective if the children's safety was really what they were attempting? They could certainly make demands of those even as state agencies which would make them more effective before attempting anything else. And why aren't they doing that anyway in addition to this? With those agencies as corrupt as they are, why would people believe that the new laws they're proposing provide them with somewhere they could report abuses to and get positive results?

These are Democrats. They designed our current school systems. They (Miller and Dodd) make it very clear that it's not the teacher's fault but the fact that the teachers have not had adequate training. Yet the parents are encouraged to support the bill based on being able to effectively prosecute the teachers when they are abusive. What they're really getting at is that there is a high number of students with behavioral problems (autistics of course being seen as the worst), and that THEY need to be trained. Training the teachers is really just a way of saying that it's not the teachers fault, and that they have a terrible problem to contend with. That's why Miller's speeches focus what the kids are like.

He also in his speeches talks about bad restraints being used such as duct tape which to me makes it clear that they do intend for teachers to use restraints. They are just claiming that the restraints will be better. This is the same argument that police officers use to acquire better rifles with more efficient sites. The claim is that they will be able to shoot more efficiently so that a suspect may only be wounded rather than killed and therefore, be brought to trial for the crime they are accused of committing.

Sadderbutwisergirl

To sum it up, they deserve more privilege because they deserve it by virtue of already having a position that is privileged because it confers the holder of the image as being automatically a good person.

Suzanne

sadder but wiser indeed

Club 166

@Ed,
Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment by responding to this post, but I wanted to clear a couple of things up.

I responded to your first post because it expressed the opposite view from what I held, and I wanted to explore exactly why people who I respected held a view that was different from mine (and many others in the autism and wider disability community). In short, I wanted to learn.

I did learn something. I had not been aware that there was a formal "PBS", or that it was based on ABA. The only usage of the term "pbs" that I was aware of was the one mentioned in IDEA, which I quoted from the article linked from your original post. I did find that a bit concerning, as I have never been a big fan of ABA. One of the first books I picked up when my son was diagnosed was a book on ABA, as that was supposed to be one of the only "proven" therapies. As I read the book, I soon became aware that I had seen this before, when we had studied Skinner in Psychology in college. I had felt a bit sorry for the rats then, and wasn't about to use it on my son.

I shared my experience of using that language (the passage which mentioned pbs and accommodations) to hold the school's feet to the fire, and make them change their actions, and not my son's. I understand that things can be quite different from state to state, or even school to school. But it appeared that my experience was dismissed by you. Whether you thought that I had totally misread our experience, or whether you thought it just wasn't true, I don't know.

I don't recall opposing any suggestions you made (though I am still not totally convinced that the bill is totally the wrong way to proceed). I certainly don't think that any one method should be endorced/enforced by the rule of law. While I can see why you think this is so, I am not as sure that the language of the law actually says that (but I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong).

In short, I think we agree on what's wrong, but I'm not sure that we totally agree on the solution. I do think it would be good if Protection and Advocacy were more proactive, but I also feel that if there are clear guidelines on what constitutes abuse that it will be easier to hold school's feet to the fire.

Joe

Ed

Joe,

I just wrote a very long and very emotional response and now I have to consider if I want to post it at all. If I do it will have to be later because I'm sure I disclosed too much and I'll have to edit it. That usually means it gets thrown away.

I'm sorry I insulted you. No punishment was intended.I appreciate you commenting.

This won't hold schools feet to the fire and P&A is very proactively protecting the people they have always intended to which is the bureaucracy they are a part of -not the people they call clients.

Club 166

Ed,
Sorry I upset you. No need to post more. The whole world reads the Internet. UI just didn't want to leave things on a bad note. I'm good.

Joe

Ed

OK. I wasn't writing a long response to you so much as I was really just trying to make my point. I was frustrated because I knew I wasn't making sense and it usually takes me a long time to explain.

I'll try to be more respectful in the future. I am interested in your view and I appreciate you commenting. I'll be writing more on this. Your comments are always welcome. I'll try to listen more carefully next time.

Somethings take me a decade to explain though....and sometimes even more.

Wayward

To Joe:

PBS is a rebranding of ABA. Google 'three tiered PBS' if you'd like a primer. PBS; SW-PBS; PBiS and other acronyms equal school-wide or district-wide Applied Behavioral Analysis Programs. As we know, Lovass's 1987 study, from which much of this is based and promoted, occured in an environment of abuse -- of physical abuse toward the children in the study.

Lacking in so much of ABA -- and all their rebranded acronyms, as well as the confusing use of lower case terminology placed in bills and such -- is real science and real ethics. Just saying something is 'evidence-based' does not make it so. Please also google 'Michelle Dawson' to read her very eloquent concerns about the lack of science and ethics in this arena.


It should really be throughly examined when the federal govt of the US is considering placing a specific, branded treatment program into the public school system.

The comments to this entry are closed.