New law changes schools’ restraint, seclusion practices

Astate law that gives more guidance and allows more flexibility for calming upset students with special needs when all else fails is changing the way local school districts apply seclusion and restraint practices.

The new legislation redefines methods educators use to pacify at-risk students and students with disabilities who could otherwise hurt themselves or others, to make the measures seem less punitive.

The new law makes the state policy clearer because it differentiates between “seclusion” and an “exclusionary time-out,” Bethel schools Superintendent Christine Carver said.

Under the new law, seclusion is defined as confining a student to a room and preventing the student from leaving. But an exclusionary time-out is when a student is monitored temporarily in a separate space from peers to give the student a chance to calm down.

“Sometimes a time-out is a

really positive thing for a kid,” Carver said. “It’s usually initiated by a student when they need a minute to regroup and leave, whether it’s to a certain safe place or just walking around the building.”

Other school districts are studying language in the new law to understand it better.

In Newtown, for example, educators plan to update district rules about how to bring students safely to a secluded area. Deborah Mailloux-Petersen, the special education director, said some of the techniques staff had been using might now be considered physical restraint.

“It is a little bit of a gray area,” she said.

The state law comes at a time when lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are also calling for reform in the way school districts deal with students who are disruptive.

Last week, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy and other Congressional Democrats proposed a bill that would ban seclusion and limit physical restraint to emergencies only.

“It’s barbaric for schools to confine students alone in locked rooms, or to use abusive methods to restrain little children,” Murphy said in a statement. “Our bill would establish strong federal standards to keep students safe, while giving school staff alternatives to respond to challenging situations in the right way.”

Parents such as New Milford’s

Nancy Webb have been critical of the way educators have practiced restraint and seclusion policies, especially at Hill and Plain Elementary School.

Webb, who has two children who are on the autism spectrum, said as much during a meeting in September when the New Milford Board of Education passed its policy conforming to the new state law. She said staff members were not trained well enough, and that seclusion was not being properly reported to parents.

“That’s not okay,” Webb said at the September meeting. “The things we’ve uncovered with other families in the district is scary.”

New standards

In addition to New Milford, Danbury has also adopted new policies to adhere to the state law. Bethel, Newtown and Ridgefield are in the process of updating their regulations.

Exclusionary time-outs were used before, but had not been codified into law, said Vincent Mustaro, senior staff associate for policy services for the Connecticut Board of Education. He said they are not meant to be a punishment.

“You hope the exclusionary timeout is going to be terminated as soon as possible,” Mustaro said.

During the 2016-17 school year, educators across the state had to restrain or seclude students about 37,900 times, according to data collected by the state Department of Education. The number of exclu-

sionary time-outs are not reported to the state.

Meanwhile, the Ridgefield Board of Education is working with a lawyer to determine whether new restraint rules should be explicitly written out as a policy, or whether the superintendent should write the rules as regulations.

J.T. Schemm, a member of the New Milford school board, said the board and administration had to monitor the effectiveness of the new policy.

“It’s incumbent upon the board to keep our ear to the ground on this and continue to communicate and implore the public to communicate with us and our administration on this,” he said at a September meeting. “At the same time, it’s incumbent upon the administration... to educate parents as to what is in this policy.”

Training for staff

Another change brought by the new law is districts are no longer required to train the whole staff about seclusion and restraint techniques.

Under the new rule, districts only need to train the “crisis intervention team,” which is often made up of special education teachers, psychologists, counselors, social workers, board certified behavior analysts and paraprofessionals. Principals and assistant principals are also trained and can select certain teachers to be trained.

Carver said dropping the requirement to train all staff has been a major improvement.

“Not only was it an unfunded

mandate and incredibly expensive, it was not good for kids,” she said.

Carver said those on the crisis intervention team are more experienced and capable of restraining a child.

“Not every teacher is comfortable restraining a child,” she said. “Frankly, some teachers say, ‘I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do that work’ because they’re not specialists in mental health and [do not] have the knowledge to do it in an efficient manner.”

Mustaro agreed.

“That’s why I think the legislation was appropriate in saying the crisis intervention team and then any other employees that the building principal feels (should be trained),” he said.

Mustaro added that teachers could also ask to be trained if they thought they needed it.

“Individuals need to be knowledgeable because this is an area that could cause concern with parents and guardians,” he said. “Therefore, it has to be done appropriately and within the limitations established by a statute. We don’t want unintended consequences.”

In Bethel, staff undergo an initial training session and then are trained again annually. Carver said the lessons focus on how to de-escalate students’ behaviors, so they don’t need to be restrained or secluded. Staff also learn how to restrain students safely, she said.

State law prohibits employees from using life-threatening physical restraint on students. This includes

preventing students from moving their arms, legs or heads while they are lying on their chest.

Mailloux-Petersen said staff learn how to calm students down using verbal and nonverbal techniques before restraining or secluding students.

“It really is a last resort,” she said. Like other districts across the state, Newtown and Bethel use a model called physical management training to teach staff how and when to restrain or seclude students. But Newtown also uses techniques offered through the Crisis Prevention Institute, a Wisconsin-based organization.

“The trainers provide any new techniques or philosophies behind it as they change with the legislation and the program,” Mailloux-Petersen said.

Newtown staff, such as special education teachers and paraprofessionals, undergo these sessions yearly, Mailloux-Petersen said.

Connecticut’s law already confines physical restraint to emergencies only, while seclusion is allowed to prevent the students from injuring themselves or others.

“Connecticut has a very clear definition,” Carver said. “It’s supposed to be as a last resort.”

She added that better coordination between schools, families and the mental health community would do more to help these students.

“That’s the bigger problem,” Carver said.