Behavioral Disorders

Students with disabilities are subjected to coercive measures more frequently than typically developing students. While mechanical restraint, a procedure that restricts movement by using a device (e.g., belt, strap), is illegal to use in public schools in many states, some teachers may not be aware of that. There is no study to date examining teacher- or administrator-reported use of mechanical restraint events in school settings. The current study explored the frequency of teacher- and administrator-reported mechanical restraint use, types and prevalence of devices used, and sociodemographic variables associated with mechanical restraint use. Ninety-six Prekindergarten through 12th grade teachers and 160 administrators (e.g., principals, special education coordinators) in the United states completed an online, self-report survey. Most teachers (n = 77) and administrators (n = 129) reported the crisis management team using only their physical body during restraint events. Fifteen teachers and 23 administrators reported at least one device being used during at least one restraint event. A variety of types of devices and a range of prevalence of device use were reported. No sociodemographic variables were associated with teacher- or administrator-reported device use. Implications for policy and practice are provided.

Individuals with disabilities who exhibit dangerous, threatening behavior are subjected to higher rates of physical restraint, a procedure that restricts an individual’s ability to move freely. It is regrettable that efforts on eliminating the use of restraint have been ineffective, as there are many issues that coincide with the use of restraint (e.g., access to education, injury). Research on this subject is limited. The current study extends this research by examining the perceptions of 112 U.S. teachers regarding knowledge and training of physical restraint use with students with disabilities. Results indicate several statistically significant variables associated with perceptions, such as school location and teaching position. In light of the study’s findings, teachers, especially general education teachers and teachers in rural areas, must be provided with more training on restraint use, including the issues and concerns that coincide with its use, and equitable support from administrators.

Restraint and seclusion are practices used by educators to intervene when a student is in imminent danger of hurting themselves or others. These practices are often misused, resulting in negative long-term emotional, behavioral, and academic impacts on students and families. Although restraint and seclusion practices are recognized as dangerous and abusive, there is no U.S. federal legislation restricting their use, and states are tasked with developing their own protections for students. The United States Department of Education issued 15 guiding principles to assist states when developing laws governing the use of restraint and seclusion. The current study extends previous research by using micro-coding to analyze and compare how states address each of the 15 guiding principles. Across states, there were considerable inconsistencies in the number of principles covered in state laws and in how each principle was addressed. Recommendations are provided for policymakers at the district and state levels as they review and revise policies and laws to more consistently address the 15 guiding principles and better protect students from the misuse of restraint and seclusion practices.

Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tiers 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tiers 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.

This tribute honors one of the most influential figures in the field. For more than five decades, Dr. James M. Kauffman advanced evidence-based practice, intellectual rigor, and critical rationality as the foundations of effective special education and the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Rejecting ideological simplifications, he championed empirically grounded reform and individualized instruction. His unwavering dedication to critical rationality, science, and justice continues to inspire and guide contemporary scholarship and practice in special education.