Restraint and Seclusion are Encouraged in the House (H.R. 4247)

Yesterday the Washington Post ran this story of propaganda: House approves bill to limit physical restraint of students. I wrote this more factual based blog post several days ago: The Exclusive Rights to Restrain and Seclude. Joe opposed the suggestions made in the post as well as in the comments about how restraint and seclusion could be reduced. His responses were typical of the widely believed myths about what disability actually means in the United States and how it has traditionally been dealt with.

What is behind many of these myths is the view that the government just isn't doing enough for disabled people in order to support, encourage, and protect them. If the problem was just that it could have been easily overcome a long time ago. The alternative view which exposes that myth is typically met with a misleading conditioned response that is polarizing to any discussion about it.

This polarization lends the discussion to the very problems that civil rights activists are supposedly trying to fight against. What happens is that the discussion is limited so that the person with the least established power(power of course being established by the compliance of mainstream objectives and their rationale) has the least opportunity to have their argument validated. This is how abusive cycles are protected.

If America was as free as the privileged who surround themselves with(and protect their illusions with) the mythical images from the commercial media claim then the "love it or leave it" attitude in politics would have some validity. Since it's not that way at all it has no validity.

In the past 200 years since the United States was declared as a nation very little has occurred in terms of establishing civil rights for its citizens in comparison to what is predominately reported. In the last several decades restraint and seclusion has increased dramatically for persons with disabilities. Based on the ways that these trends have been identified by how they are encouraged there is every indication that these abuses will increase a great deal more in the next decade.

This bill provides for stronger regulations and therefore, stronger penalties on the people whom restraint and seclusion are used on. It provides more leniency and government support to the people who use those oppressive tools. Unfortunately, it is advertised as being the opposite.

The reason for behavioral interventions which have included restraint and seclusion being encouraged in institutions (which now includes public schools) were based on the idea that disability is the expression of noncompliance and that disabled people are more likely to become violent. As Sadderbutwisergirl pointed out very well in the previous discussion:

"However, it is very easy for someone to convince people that actions that would be considered abusive on "normal" kids is actually beneficial for kids with neurological disabilities."

also, as Wayward pointed out very well:

"Let’s close ALL the bad schools. Be they the School of Shock or the School of PBS … who has greased all the political wheels but is just as insidious and harmful."


It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could believe that the same ABA philosophy which describes autism as a behavioral disorder and which is behind the abuses at the Judge Rotenberg Center will be helpful to autistics in an ABA/PBS classroom.


The United States has always had an institutional mentality and behavioral interventions have been designed based on the harmful bigoted views which are used to legitimize the abuses made by the staff who are in charge at institutions.

The establishment of institutions of every sort is very typical of how the American government displays its fear of independent thinking. From the first Puritan's war on the neurodiverse to the educational system based on military ideals and racist standardized tests, which were created by eugenicists, the United States has always had difficulty establishing freedom of religion or freedom from religion. The separation of church and state provides too much power to the majority of citizens for the most powerful to allow it.

Psychology is a public institution in the United States. Commercial brands of psychology are subsidized by state and federal funds. What this provides for the government is a state-sponsored morality (a different type of church) which can be used as to legitimize punishment on the least resourceful citizens. This is behind the way that the restraint and seclusion bill is designed to provide authority to teachers and school systems to use restraint and seclusion legitimately.

This bill is an example of the way that Democratic politicians seize power from the most vulnerable citizens by building their own political power base and creating more dependence from them on bureaucracy, which then becomes bigger and more powerful.

Support for this bill is the encouragement of a throw-up-your-hands-and-do-nothing, conspiracy-based, pessimistic outlook that has encouraged the problem that the bill claims to be targeting. State-sponsored religion has always led nations to become more oppressive of the majority of citizens rather than less, and it has led to the worst cases of abuse and even murder.

Since the people who are hurt the worst by this legislation are not being allowed to voice their opinion about it, it's obvious that they aren't who the legislation intends to help. What happens to the most vulnerable among us will eventually happen to everyone because abusing the most vulnerable makes us all weaker and therefore, more vulnerable also.

The laws governing the way that disabled people are treated (especially when mentality is defined as the basis for disability) have always been among the most deceitful, they have been supported by so-called disability activist, and they have led to the worst cases of abuse. For that reason alone every proposed legislation of this type should be seen as highly suspect for how it can be used in oppressive ways.

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.