When debate around the use of restraint and seclusion use in school arises, we often hear the suggestion that a student with disabilities who exhibits behaviors does not belong in school. However, the truth is students with disabilities have as much right to be in public schools as non-disabled students.
Our nation was founded on the Constitution and the right of each state. This is known as Federalism or individual state rights. Now, each state in America mandates a public education system and youth attendance. This is for the primary purpose of establishing the continuance of our state and federal governance. It also means the state’s responsibility is to ensure health, safety, and happiness for all its citizens equally. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every individual is allowed equal protection and due process of Federal and state rights. Yep, even children. Public school is either local or state-controlled. Public school is a public service program. It is the same as public sidewalks, meaning all citizens are allowed equal access to and benefit from that service. Similarly, there must be “curb ramps” for everyone to access the sidewalks. These rights are established through the American Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Until the recent case of Perez v. Sturgis, many public schools typically enjoyed skirting the disability laws, which required due diligence to proactive measures that factually include the parent (the expert on the child), a disability expert (an expert on the disability) and a multidisciplinary education team (an expert on academics). Sadly, the disability expert is never invited, and the school creates a plan that lacks disability guidance and only considers the parent’s input. This results in a missed opportunity and creates a stressful environment for the child. Teachers are not disability experts; they are experts in teaching academics. Special education requires teachers with advanced training who are experts in specially designed instruction for students with disabilities. That means students with disabilities have as much right to be in public schools as non-disabled students. So, there is no debate in that worn-out argument.
The reality is that teachers lack adequate resources. Focus on that reality. This includes the different interventions needed that go beyond simple reactive crisis management. Often, a plan is put into place that benefits a system based on fiscal resources – not a child. Per neuroscience, the child will respond with stress. Public school systems know this—the adults respond with stress. The public school system knows this. The difference is that adults are developmentally in their pre-frontal cortex (thinking brain), while science tells us that a child is in their limbic or lower brain (survivor brain) due to their development. The science and the data bear out that adults are choosing to use harmful practices against a child who is instinctively responding in a threatening environment.
It is cost-effective except for the human toll. Again, it is an environment legally required to accommodate a child’s lagging skills or disability. Yet it isn’t – and the only tool most education systems are willing to provide causes lifelong harm to a child. Why do education system employees not ask for a better tool that does not create harm, ensures learning, and generates positive outcomes? Why are education systems willing to let employees use harmful practices that go both ways? Harmful for the employees and the child? If we are all here to end harmful practices while promoting child-centered policies – we should be ensuring that no child’s liberties are locked in a room or restrained by an adult.
