A coalition of disability advocacy groups is beginning to splinter after a revised restraint and seclusion bill introduced in the Senate last month opened the door for the practices to be included in students’ individualized education plans, or IEPs.
The National Disability Rights Network — an umbrella group for the protection and advocacy organizations in each state — is now publicly supporting the new Senate bill, which allows restraint and seclusion to be included in IEPs under certain circumstances. Curt Decker, the group’s executive director, calls it a “political compromise” that is necessary in order to protect students, many of whom live in states with no regulations over the use of restraint and seclusion.
“In a perfect world (restraint and seclusion) would not belong in such a document,” Decker says of the IEP. “I know there are a lot of parents who feel very strongly about this, but for those of us who work in Washington, we know that an absolute ban is a non-starter.”
The news comes as the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, or COPAA, said just last week that they oppose the measure as it is now being considered, arguing that allowing restraint and seclusion in IEPs “legitimizes practices that the bill seeks to prevent.”
Both groups are part of a coalition of nearly two dozen national disability advocacy groups known as The Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions and Seclusion, or APRAIS, that helped secure passage of a bill in the House of Representatives in March. The House version would limit restraint and seclusion to situations where there is imminent danger and prohibit the practices from being included in students’ IEPs. (Read all of Disability Scoop’s coverage of restraint and seclusion >>)
However, convincing the Senate to take up the measure has been an uphill battle. In an effort to gain bipartisan support, a new version of the bill was introduced in the Senate last month that would allow for restraint and seclusion to be included in IEPs if students have a two-year history of behaviors that create an “imminent danger of serious bodily injury in school.”
The change appears to be dividing advocates who were once united. Leaders of the APRAIS coalition have remained quiet since the new Senate bill was introduced. Meanwhile, member groups are determining which side they will take when Congress returns later this month.
Beyond the divisions emerging in the disability community, the restraint and seclusion bill faces other challenges. Little time remains in the current session of Congress and the measure’s chief sponsor, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is not seeking reelection and will leave the Senate when his term expires at the end of the year.
I’d like to see a list of the organizations which support, and separately, which oppose this bill along with a notation as to which receive USDOE funding, directly or indirectly. What I’m hearing is that outfits which currently receive USDOE funds are in favor of the bill and outfits which don’t, aren’t. I’m also seeing that program and service providers support the bill. Since it would help immunize them from suit if they harm or kill a disabled child via use of restraints and seclusion, this is both understandable and reprehensible.
Finally, I understand that HHS’s SAMSHA, the govt. office which is acknowledge to be the most expert regarding the use and abuse of restraints and seclusion, and which essentially opposes their use, prepared a draft publication on school use of restraints and seclusion which was to be jointly issued with OSERS. From what I can gather, this document has been suppressed by OSERS. I believe that without input from the real experts on this issue, it is inappropriate for groups to take positions on it.
Since children’s lives are – literally – at stake, there should be a US Dept. of Justice investigation to determine whether there has been inappropriate or illegal conduct on the part of anyone at USDOE regarding this bill.
I, too, would be interested to know which organizations support this companion bill. It would be disappointing to learn only organizations receiving USDOE funding, directly or indirectly, are in favor. I am for fighting for what is right—and restraint/isolation for a segregated, and most vulnerable, part of our community is wrong. I would call it legalized abuse of our children!
“A political compromise?” Really? Well guess who will be compromised? Our children who will still be at risk for further abuse of seclusion and restraint. This bill is unacceptable and should be rewritten. It is a slap in the face to the children who have already been abused or killed by seclusion and restraint. A weak bill is of little help to children who are emotionally damaged from being repeatedly restrained and secluded against their wills.
Very, very disappointing that DRN would agree to this mess of a bill. The lobbists for school administrators won and the children lost.
By the way, there is hardly a split about how parents feel about having their child held down and locked away against their will. Most parents find retraint and seclusion of their children abhorrent. Positive behavior support and understanding of behavior is much more complicated than seclusion and restraint but it does work. Until schools learn more about how to implement positive behaviorssupport and invest in understanding autism and behavior, the abuse will continue.
The bill already allowed restraint to be used in cases of imminent harm. There needs not be any other concession. Putting restraint/seclusion in the IEP would therefore be redundant (except we all know why they want it to be allowed in there). Bill is totally COMPLETELY pointless, and should not be passed just so someone can say “we did something”. This is more than a loophole, it’s blind permission.