MD: Parents worried about ‘seclusion rooms

Seven Frederick County schools have rooms intended to help calm violent or over-agitated students

by Margarita Raycheva | Staff Writer

http://www.gazette.net/stories/12032009/newmnew161747_32541.php

A confined space with bare walls, linoleum floor, no furniture and a window for observation.

That is how educators describe "seclusion rooms" used to subdue violent or over-agitated special education students in seven Frederick County schools.

And Carla Papaioannou cringes at that thought.

Papaioannou had no idea until this year that Carroll Manor Elementary, at which she has two children, has a seclusion room.

When she discovered it — just down the hallway from her daughter's colorful and cozy classroom — it wasn't only the tiny space and the bare, unfinished walls that troubled her.

"It's like this big secret that is going on," said Papaioannou, who also has a kindergartner with autism. "Aesthetically, it is a very scary place. ... It is not a clinical setting."

Papaioannou told the Frederick County Board of Education about her concerns on Nov. 23 after finding out that the board was thinking about building one in Oakdale Elementary School.

"I am concerned about the training of the staff at the school," Papaioannou said. "Who decides to put the kids in that room?"

Teachers, according to county educators, decide when a student needs to be secluded, and they do not take the decision lightly.

"Only a very small percentage of students need this kind of intervention," Pam Pencola, the school system's director for special education and psychological services, told the school board. "It is a very serious step."

Seclusion can be used for any student, but is typically used on students who have special needs, Pencola told the board.

In fact, all seven Frederick County schools that have a seclusion room also have the Challenges or Pyramid programs, which serve students with severe autism and sensory issues and extreme behavior problems.

School system staff follows strict regulations for the use of seclusion rooms and are required to record every instance when they are used, Pencola said.

She did not specify how often schools use seclusion rooms because The Gazette had already requested that information through the Freedom of Information Act.

A Maryland law enacted in 2003 governs the use of seclusion, and local school systems have regulations based on that law.

For example, educators can only place a student in seclusion if the child becomes a safety threat or if seclusion is written in that child's individual education plan. Destruction of school property is not considered sufficient grounds for the use of seclusion.

Educators can seclude a child only after other interventions fail, and for no longer than 30 minutes straight. They must also constantly monitor a child in seclusion, and inform the child's parents.

But state law does not require school systems to systematically report the use of seclusion rooms to the Maryland State Department of Education.

The department, however, does investigate complaints about that practice, said Donna Riley, branch chief at the Maryland State Department's Division for Special Education and Early Intervention Services. Riley does not recall receiving complaints from Frederick County.

Riley said research has shown the seclusion does not help students in the long term, and the state department discourages the practice.

Instead, the state trains educators to look for the cause of outbursts and behavior problems. A fluorescent light or a noisy air conditioner can trigger aggressive behaviors, especially in students with autism and sensory issues.

If teachers can identify those triggers in individual students, they can avoid the need for seclusion. "It is much better to use that positive model," she said.

Riley encourages school systems not to build seclusion rooms. "I tell them: ‘Don't even go there.' There is a much better way," she said.

Still, Frederick County educators defended the practice, and said they use seclusion rooms as a last resort. Seclusion, educators say, is a necessity today when public schools educate much more students with severe problems, rather than institutionalizing them.

"This room is not used for normal bad behavior," said schools Superintendent Linda Burgee, the Frederick County Schools Superintendent, who encouraged parents to turn to their individual schools if they have other concerns.

"We would welcome the possibility to follow up on your comments," she told parents, who spoke to the board on Nov. 23.

But parents who attended the meeting were not satisfied.

They urged the school board to check if schools use of seclusion rooms according to regulations, and questioned the effect that the use of seclusion rooms can have on other students.

Seclusion rooms go against the efforts to mainstream special education students, and only prevent students from learning and being in the classroom, said Michele Clune, a parent with students at Tuscarora Elementary and the Monocacy Valley Montessori Charter School.

They are not a solution to behavioral problems and cannot help educators find the real reasons causing students to act out. Special education teachers have other strategies to calm down over-agitated students, and should not need to shut students in a confined space, Clune said.

"Seclusion rooms do not have a place in our schools," she said. "They could just deal with them without a quiet room."

Leslie Seid Margolis, a managing attorney at the Maryland Disability Law Center, concurred. She said seclusion is an "archaic" method of working with students, which has proven to be ineffective, and could be potentially traumatic and dangerous for students.

"Ideally, we don't think there should be seclusion rooms," Margolis said. "It's a potentially dangerous procedure that has no place in a school setting."

She said the law center has investigated a number of cases in which students were hurt or traumatized because of improper use of seclusion rooms.

Just recently, Margolis closed a case on a student who was restrained three times in one day and then sent to an emergency room covered in bruises. Margolis would not specify where the incident happened, but it was not in Frederick County, she said.

In another older case, teachers forgot about a student placed in seclusion. The child was found at the end of the school day because a bus driver asked about the student. The law center used the case as evidence when they testified for the need to create a statewide legislation governing the use of seclusion in 2003, Margolis said.

Since then Maryland has started moving in the right direction and county school systems must follow.

"It's not just a money issue, it's a training issue," Margolis said. "The state has just begun to recognize that there is a significant lack of qualified training. That is the piece that has been missing."

E-mail Margarita Raycheva at mraycheva@gazette.net.

The following Frederick County Public Schools have a seclusion room:

Carroll Manor Elementary

Lewistown Elementary

Middletown Elementary

Middletown Primary

Oakdale Middle

Rock Creek

Gov. Thomas Johnson High

Parents who have concerns or complaints about the use of seclusion in their schools can call the Maryland Disability Law Center at 410-727-6352 between 10 a.m. and noon.

MA: Follow Up Email Exchange with the MA DLC re Allegations at South Shore

The following is an email exchange that occurred as a follow-up with Attorney Matthew Engel of the Disability Law Center (DLC) of Massachusetts regarding our concerns about the DLC's initial refusal to independently investigate witnesses' allegations of abuse against 6 nonverbal children with autism and other disabilities in a special education classroom.

We first emailed the Disability Law Center of MA, that state's Protection & Advocacy, on October 18, 2008, after reading an article published by Boston.com which relayed allegations of abuse by special education teacher Ann Gibbons against all 6 students in her class. Witnesses had claimed to have seen Ms. Gibbons punching a child in the head; bending the fingers of children as discipline; pushing a child who'd allegedly bit her finger; and telling students she was "bigger," "badder," and "stronger than you."

On October 25, 2008, we'd posted our disappointment with the response we'd received from Attorney Matthew Engel of the Disability Law Center - that despite credible evidence of repeated abuse, the Law Center would not investigate the allegations because the Department of Social Services (DSS; now the Department of Children and Families) had already investigated and found no credible evidence of abuse.

In the meantime, a parent whose child was in Ms. Gibbons' classroom contacted us and informed us of a possible conflict of interest between the Department of Social Services and the school.

Upon further investigation, we confirmed that a DSS funded program for "at risk youth," known as Pathways, was being run out of the very same school where the abuse allegations stemmed. Because this could be perceived (and we interpreted it) as a conflict of interest, we wanted the Disability Law Center to reconsider their refusal to get involved in this case and more closely examine the veracity of the claim that abuse allegations were unfounded and that witnesses' testimony was not credible.

We're happy to report that the DLC has expressed concern over how the DSS investigation was conducted and has decided to meet with the parents involved to discuss things further.

Below is the email exchange that helped lead to the Disability Law Center's decision:

11/23/08

Dear Mr. Engel:

Thank you for taking the time to look into the South Shore Collaborative Schoolallegations we previously referred to you. We appreciate your efforts and completely understand budget constraints and why you're not able to assist every family, but must admit to some disappointment that more couldn't have been done given the number of children involved and the supposed first-hand eyewitness accounts of the alleged abuse.

We know that the assistant clerk magistrate ruled against the parents and found the witnesses testimony not credible. This isn't surprising, because what person of sound mind really wants to believe someone would deliberately harm not only a child, but a child with disabilities who is even more defenseless? This is why allegations of these types are so hard to prove.

However, you'd mentioned that there did appear to be very credible evidence of abuse, but that the DSS was unwilling to revisit their findings. We may know why they were so adamant about changing their findings and wanted to share with you what we have learned.

Were you aware that Joseph "Jay" Madigan is both a Member of the Board of theSouth Shore Collaborative> School District and of a DSS-funded program called Pathways? Were you aware that the Pathways program is operated AT The South Shore Collaborative School?

The question is, legally and ethically how could the DSS objectively investigate a school that they've not only charged with operating a program on behalf of theDSS but one that DSS pays the school to run? If DSS did in fact find the abuse allegations "founded" what would be the repercussions of such a finding? WouldDSS's funding have been jeopardized? Would they be concerned about the public's perceptions of DSS and/or whether the reputation of DSS would be damaged because they funded and operated a program at a school where abuse had occurred?

We contend that DSS's involvement in this matter is a direct conflict of interest with the result that the South Shore Collaborative School district could very well be "investigating" or "policing" itself; a situation that not only taints the DSSinvestigation, making the resultant findings completely suspect, but is also counterproductive to the protection of other vulnerable children when such allegations at South Shore are raised.

This is why we were hoping to have an independent investigation by Protection and Advocacy.

Is there any way that the decision against a P&A investigation could be reconsidered? Or is there some other reason that would preclude investigations by both DSS and the P&A (such as funding stream constraints)? If so, do you have any further recommendations for these families as they pursue an appeal to the decision?

Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Any assistance or advice you could share would be greatly appreciated by not only our office, but the families involved as well. I look forward to your response.

****

Response from Attorney Engel:

11/25/08

Dear Ms. Searcy:

[T]hank you for providing me with this additional information. While I am not sure that this changes the legal analysis, we continue to be concerned about what happened, as well as the actions or inactions of DSS. Do you know if the teacher is still teaching either at the Collaborative or anywhere else?

At this point, I am certainly willing to meet with interested parents to talk about the situation. I believe that most of them were previously represented by [redacted for privacy] so I would have to contact her initially. If you are aware of any parents who did not have legal representation, they can certainly contact me directly.

Matthew Engel

Senior Attorney

Disability Law Center

(413) 584-6337 - phone

(413) 584-2976 - fax

mengel@dlc-ma.org

********

Our response:

11/26/08

Dear Attorney Engel:

Thank you so much! We, too, weren't sure if it changed the legal analysis, but it certainly does call into question why DSS was contacted to investigate when they knew there was a coflict (sp) of interest because of their Pathways Project for "children at risk" at South Shore. However, we appreciate any help you could offer to these families.

I have forwarded your email to the families involved and they have assured me they will be in touch with you soon. One set of parents I know for sure does not have legal representation currently, though they'd retained [redacted for privacy] to file their complaint with the Dept of Education previously. As for some of the others, I'm awaiting their responses.

To answer your question about whether Ann Gibbons is currently teaching, to the best of our knowledge she continues to teach at Chapman school in Weymouth. But we have not contacted the school to confirm this as of yet. If you find out before we do, could you let us know?

Please let me know how I can be of further help to you. As more information becomes available, I'll be sure to keep you informed.

Best regards,

Jennifer Searcy

Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

WI: Disability advocates challenge school seclusion rooms

BY SHARON ROZNIK • THE REPORTER • MAY 20, 2009

http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20090520/FON0101/90519128/1289/FON01/Disability+advocates+challenge+school+seclusion+rooms+

Jim Schingen hopes that sharing his son’s story will put a face to new legislation calling for the restricted use of physical restraints and seclusion rooms on the disabled.

The Fond du Lac man was invited to join with Wisconsin advocacy groups in speaking out at a recent news conference held at the state Capitol. He said his son Justin, who has pervasive developmental disorder, suffered a broken elbow nine years ago when a teacher at Theisen Middle School put him in a Marine hold to restrain him.

A subsequent lawsuit filed in federal court in Milwaukee eventually was resolved with a settlement. Schingen said the experience changed the way his son was treated in school. 

“We were satisfied with the outcome,” Schingen said. “Obviously, no amount of money can compensate when someone injures your child, but it helped Justin in the long run.”

He was disturbed, however, to learn that isolation rooms were still being used — though the use is limited — for students in Fond du Lac schools.

A joint report, “Out of Darkness Into the Light,” issued this spring by Disability Rights Wisconsin, Wisconsin FACETS and Wisconsin Family Ties, states that children in Wisconsin schools and treatment settings regularly and needlessly suffer from harmful practices used to manage “challenging behavior.” Children, including a 7-year-old Rice Lake girl, have died as a result of restraint use. Others have suffered physical injuries, such as broken bones, and psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder. 

The new bill, submitted for draft a couple weeks ago by Rep. Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, calls for the use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) as a safer and more effective alternative to seclusion and restraint. A psychiatric nurse, Pasch said she has seen standards change on the use of seclusion and restraints on adults and it’s time these changes affect children in Wisconsin’s schools and treatment centers. 

“Our state must address outdated or nonexistent measures that fail to adequately address the health and educational outcomes of our children,” said Pasch. “Seclusion should never be used on children. It makes much more sense to sit with them and understand the student.”

Although children with disabilities, accompanied by behavioral problems, have been mainstreamed in public schools, educators are often not given adequate training to address the problem, she said.

Schingen said in his son’s case, Justin was often secluded in a “time-out” room on the premise that it was a separate instruction room for him. 

“Initially, the room had a bean bag chair, a desk, a boom box and was used as a calming effect. As time went on, they used it for disciplinary measures and everything was removed,” he said. 

In 2000, Justin was on a bus trip and would not follow a teacher’s request that he stop tapping on the roof of the van. That was when he was placed in an arm hold used in the Marines, Schingen said. 

“That was nine years ago, so I’d rather not focus on that. Instead we need to change the laws,” Schingen said. 

Never unattended

John von Tish, director of pupil services for Fond du Lac Schools, said the district’s seclusion rooms have been physically inspected by a consultant with expertise in emotional behavioral disabilities and other health impairment programs at the Department of Public Instruction. He believes the district is already doing what the proposed law asks for — that they be used sparingly, as a last resort for the safety of everyone involved. 

“During that onsite visit, the Fond du Lac School District was found to be in compliance with all the recommendations and guidelines established by the DPI,” he said.

Attorney for Justin’s case and for Disability Rights of Wisconsin Jeff Spitzer-Resnik said there are 20 states that have statutes and regulations in place that address caregiver training, mandate reporting, and restrict the use of restraints and seclusion. He called the DPI guidelines on seclusion and restraint “a lot of text with hopeful suggestions.”

“We know there are children with behavioral and significant challenges in school. But a lot of techniques are used in situations that are not really dangerous, rather annoying and disruptive. The example for Justin is a really good one. I’m sure what he was doing was bothersome to the driver, but it wasn’t an appropriate response by the teacher to a non-violent situation,” he said. 

Von Tish said although he can’t speak about the case, which happened years ago, students in Fond du Lac Schools are never locked in rooms or left unattended. 

“We keep a log on every child indicating what behavior transpired, what happened, how long they are in a specific room, and we notify parents,” he said. “We also give students a functional behavior assessment to see if the behavior can be modified.”

Sensory break rooms are non-punitive and are used to give students a place to go before things escalate. The rooms are equipped with things like weighted blankets and vests, rockers and swings and may be dimly lit, he explained. 

“We have kids that say I need to take a break, and an adult goes with them. It’s open and kids can come and go. They can be invited to the room, or they can go there themselves. Sometimes they get scheduled on a regular basis,” he said. 

Seclusion rooms are used when “we have tried everything else and nothing can de-escalate a child,” von Tish said. The walls and floors are covered in mats and the child stays in the room only long enough to calm down.

“We try to locate the rooms close to special education classrooms. I guess there is one in every place we need it,” he said, when asked how many were located in district schools. 

Spitzer-Resnick said the bill isn’t calling for an absolute ban on techniques that need to be used in truly dangerous situations.

“Disability Rights of Wisconsin gets calls from teachers stating their principals want the kids hauled off to an ‘isolation place’ all the time. It would be more powerful if teachers could say it was against the law, that it is something that shouldn’t be done,” he said.

PA DRN Response to Open Letter

On April 2, 2009, we sent a letter to Salliey Lynagh at the PA DRN regarding a published news article which indicated Ms. Lynaugh witnessed staff at the Franklin Learning Center strapping disabled children to rifton chairs and that Franklin staff admitted they were restraining kids for disciplinary purposes. This is illegal in Pennsylvania. We know it, and we know DRN knows it because we served on a committee with Sallie which helped draft the current update to PA Chapter 14 regarding how/when restraints may be used.

In our letter, we asked Ms. Lynaugh to respond to the following questions:

* While the Department of Education investigates to see whether they agree with what you'd reportedly seen with your own eyes, who is protecting those children from further restraints?

* Who will finally put a stop to the abuse those children endure seemingly on a daily basis?

* Whose concerns will really be served by referring the case to the Department of Education? The childrens', or the districts'?

* What does the DRN hope to gain from this referral? Are you just following normal procedures? 

* Are there any other avenues (such as a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of all the children illegally and inappropriately restrained, a request for additional staff training so that they don't intentionally or unintentionally violate Chapter 14 as it pertains to restraints in schools), if any, also being pursued by DRN staff?

* If the DRN has no intention of seeking further remediation, then what rationale is being used to justify taking no further action, including and up to filing a civil rights complaint, as the DRN has the federally mandated authority (and receives federal and state funding) to pursue?

* DRN CEO Ilene Shane had reportedly stated that DRN is not trying to shut down the Franklin Learning Center, but rather the DRN's intent is to bring awareness to what placements and services may be available to disabled children in their home districts, thereby possibly expanding educational options for disabled children and their parents.   Ms. Shane also appeared to implicate that the districts are really the ones to be held accountable (and blamed as it were) for referring children to this school and not informing parents of the full continuum of placement options and/or services the children could receive in their home district.  So in essence, it's not the fault of the personnel at Franklin who you witnessed abusing these children, it's the fault of the district (and by extension the parents) who agreed to send them to Franklin to be abused in the first place. How is this even remotely logical?

A copy of our letter in its entirety may be found here:

http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-pa-disability-rights.html

On April 10, 2009, we received the following written response from Sallie Lynagh. Please note that most of our questions remain unanswered:

April 10, 2009

Dear Jennifer:

DRN has received your memo of April 2, 2009 outlining your various concerns regarding DRN’s monitoring of the Franklin Learning Center. Upon receipt of complaints of alleged systemic abuse and neglect, it is DRN’s usual procedure to conduct on-site visits and follow-up activities. It is also DRN’s usual procedure to refer matters of systemic abuse and neglect, once substantiated in whole or in part, to appropriate licensing and/or oversight authorities – in this case the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), Bureau of Special Education (BSE).  [Note: As a mandated reported, Ms. Lynagh was legally obligated to contact Children and Youth Services; yet no mention has been made as to whether CYS was ever contacted.]

DRN shares your concern that the investigation/monitoring by PDE BSE not be limited to a paper compliance process, but that it address the substantive concerns DRN has regarding the safety and welfare of the children attending the Center. We have communicated that concern to PDE. [Note: According to PA law, restraints may be used if they are used in accordance with how they are written into the IEP. The PA Dept of Ed already investigated abuse allegations once, but did not substantiate abuse; they only cited "paperwork irregularities." This means that if the school changes the kids' IEPs to include restraints, magically and instanteously the school is no longer doing ANYTHING wrong. Yep, you read that right; it's not abuse if it's written into the IEP. This makes abuse virtually impossible to prove. Schools know this; it's why they pressure parents to sign off on IEPs which include restraints - because without inclusion in the IEP, it's the only way to "prove" the schools are doing anything wrong.]

Litigation is just one strategy that DRN may pursue on a case-by-case basis, very much dependent on the particular facts of the situation, the state of the law, and the preferences of the client(s), or parents, when the client is a child. [Note: Notice how the direct question, does DRN intend to pursue other avenues was deliberately not answered. FYI, DRN has the legal authority to file a civil rights lawsuit against this school, yet is apparantly choosing not to. WHY is this? Could it because the Dept of Ed has threatened to take some of DRN's funding if they pursue this, since some of DRN's funding could very well come from the Dept of Ed's IDEA funds?]

Thank you for your concern and the interest in this matter.

 Sincerely,

 Sallie Lynagh, Children’s Team Leader

PA: Franklin Learning Center accused of incorrectly restraining students

NOTE: This is why abuse is allowed to continue.

Good old Disability Rights Network (DRN), formerly Protection & Advocacy (you know the agency that's supposed to protect people from abuse?) are at its finest again. DRN of PA staff, and not just any staff, but Sallie Lynaugh! WITNESSED restraints used illegally, inappropriately, and ABUSIVELY in a school for disabled children. And Sallie should know, she helped us craft CHAPTER 14 LEGISLATION to protect kids from restraints. Legislation I helped draft, legislation I testified for before the House of Representative Education sub-committee to get it passed, despite the law's flaws and DRN's blatant refusal to help me and another mom when OUR KIDS were restrained, legislation DRN TESTIFIED FOR. I guess for them it was all a PR stunt.

Here's why I'm so upset: DRN has the ability to bring CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS against schools who discriminate and abuse disabled children. But what does this DRN do? Refer it back to PA Department of Education (DPE) for "investigation."

What's that? DPE ALREADY investigated and found the center "clean?" But they'll investigate again, just to be sure?? And for what? So the school can better create a paper trail (you know, include restraints in the IEP) so that it's NOT illegal (but maybe still abusive)?

Oh, and it's not this school's fault they abused those kids. Naaaww, it's the fault of the DISTRICTS who sent those kids there in the first place, because the DISTRICTS should've told the parents about the "continuum of placement/service options available to them." You know, before everyone agreed to have those kids sent to a school that would abuse them.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

What happens to those kids in the meantime, while they're waiting around for, I don't know, someone to actually STOP THEIR ABUSE?

I'm ashamed to say I know Sallie personally, and I'm ashamed of the PA DRN, but unfortunately, I'm not one bit surprised.

Good thing I'm finally almost over my bronchitis. 

Be on the look out for an Action Alert.

Posted: 03/27/2009 02:00:00 AM EDT

By ROB LUFF

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_12007428?source=most_viewed

An upcoming inspection of Franklin Learning Center will investigate accusations
by an advocacy group that some teachers are strapping students to chairs when
they misbehave, among other concerns.

Pennsylvania Department of Education agreed to run a second investigation of the center, a specialized school for children with severe special needs, after receiving a list of complaints from the Disability Rights Network.

The network, a non-profit Philadelphia-based advocacy group sanctioned by the federal government, conducted a surprise inspection of the school in November after receiving "numerous" complaints from students' parents.

PDE's first inspection came up mostly clean. It asked administrators to refine the language in students' individualized education plans (IEPs) to better address health equipment.

Sallie Lynagh, the children's team leader for DRN, said she observed children
being strapped to chairs. Restraints are allowed for correcting posture that
would harm the child's health, or if the child poses a danger to other students.

When she asked teachers why some students were restrained, they told her it was
for discipline purposes and to stop children from wandering away from class.
Pennsylvania law forbids restraints being used for those purposes, she said.

The network also alleged that students' local school districts should provide better special education services so that children do not have to be in a separate school to their peers.

DRN requested PDE conduct a more thorough inspection of the school after it reviewed student records with parental permission. PDE will make its inspection during the first two weeks of April.

"Parents are concerned that we are trying to close Franklin Learning Center or limit their options," said Ilene Shane, chief executive officer of DRN. "I think it's actually the opposite."

The learning center needs to give parents more information on the other education options their children should have at their default schools. The complaint is intended against the special education departments of all five participating school districts, she said.

Mike Thew, executive director of Lincoln Intermediate unit, the organization that runs the center, said he is not worried about the upcoming inspection.

The school is an "open book," letting parents come in at any time to see how teachers run the classroom, he said. Parents have the option to change their child's IEP at any time.