Debate on seclusion rooms heats up

Springfield school district administrators, teachers and parents recently agreed on one thing: Seclusion rooms and restraint should be used sparingly.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120417/NEWS02/704179880

Published April 17, 2012 in the Rutland Herald
Debate on seclusion rooms heats up

By Christian Avard
Staff Writer

SPRINGFIELD — Springfield school district administrators, teachers and parents recently agreed on one thing: Seclusion rooms and restraint should be used sparingly.

The school district held an informational meeting last week to discuss the controversy over seclusion rooms. Elm Hill Primary School parents complained that children were put in seclusion when they were not a threat to themselves or others. In addition, parents said they were not notified by administrators that this had happened.

Parents also complained that a student was placed in a seclusion room with the door closed and a teacher allegedly prevented the child from leaving. All of the information prompted School Board members to remove all seclusion room doors in the district, conduct an investigation and adjust school policies if necessary.

Pollyanna Bladyka, a Riverside Middle School Life Skills teacher, addressed common misconceptions about seclusion rooms at the informal meeting. She said seclusion rooms are used when students “are in imminent danger” and they have different meanings.

“I know it’s a padded room (at Elm Hill) but any room can be a room of seclusion, if the child cannot leave,” Bladyka said.

While seclusions occur in many settings, Gateway School Program Director Nancy Weiss said seclusion rooms are effective in de-escalating student behavior.

Many students, she said, bottle up their anger and lash out at others. While restraint is sometimes appropriate, Weiss cautioned faculty and staff not to throw the baby out with the bath water when drafting a new policy.

“I will tell you that given the level of internalized anger our students have, I think we need to be very aware of what we’re doing because it’s much more assaultive to a child emotionally and physically who has been sexually violated to be restrained, than it is to be secluded,” Weiss said. “We should not be talking about ... what is in the best interest of safety and all of the children, I think it’s clear something went very wrong at some level (at Elm Hill). But what I want this group to talk about is how we prevent this from happening again.”

Faculty, staff, and administrators agreed that employees should be familiarized with Rule 4500. Under Rule 4500, teachers and staff “cannot use mechanical, chemical, physical restraints, that limits communication, causes pain, or compromises visual contact,” and seclusion cannot be used as a means for “punishment, inadequate staffing, or a student’s display of disrespect.”

Superintendent of Schools Frank Perotti told administrators, faculty and parents if changes are made to the current policy, it will be consistent for all Springfield schools. No date has been determined when it will be completed and the School Board will make the final approval on policy changes.

As for Weiss, she stressed administrators and staff only use restraint and seclusion when students are an imminent threat to themselves and others.

“Unless you are dealing with a population that is at the level of a child at Gateway or in a more restrictive educational environment, restraint and seclusion should be limited. It should be only for safety,” Weiss said.

Her comments prompted a response from Springfield School Board vice chairwoman Janice Garfield.

“I expect the situation at Elm Hill which brought the whole thing to a head was something we’ll never see again. We need to have those checks and balances in place,” she said.

No motions were taken because it was an informal meeting to discuss policy suggestions. Another meeting will be held on a date to be determined.