On April 30th, Kelly Graziano stood in front of the Bloomingdale Public Schools Board of Education to read a letter she had written for the public comment period. Below is a recording of her public comment, and a written version of the comment.
Nearly a year ago, I addressed this Board with significant concerns about the use of seclusion in our District. At that time, I specifically spoke about the practice of surrounding children with mats, enclosing them against a wall for unrestricted periods of time. During that time, I addressed Bloomingdale’s higher reporting of restraint and seclusion than other neighboring districts.
At the next Board meeting, a statement was made explaining that Bloomingdale Public Schools kept more special education students in the District than others. While a review of state data on inclusion proves such a representation to be patently false, the reference seemed intended to function as an excuse; essentially saying – It’s okay that we in Bloomingdale schools surround kids with mats because we keep special needs kids in the District. Such an attitude ignores a basic and well-established reality that the presentation of behaviors is an indication of an unmet need. The law and this District’s policy require that a child be evaluated for special education services or a review of their plan following a restraint; such a requirement is an implicit recognition of that reality.
Since last year, the District has released a statement on Seclusion and Restraint, indicating that the practice of surrounding a child with mats and holding them against the wall does not constitute seclusion because the child is not alone. I had already read to you the federal guidance and won’t belabor that point further, at present, instead I will again ask you a question that I asked last year, are you not disturbed that the individual, the Director of Student Services, who trains staff in seclusion, restraint and tactics utilizing mats, does not know what she is training staff to do? How are we not deeply concerned regarding the competence of this individual?
When my child was secluded, I was told that the District trains staff using Handle With Care. This is a turn-key approach, leaving the Director at the helm. I requested a meeting and a review of the manual. After more than a year of requests and the filing of a state complaint, a meeting with the Director of Student Services, where a copy of the manual was made available for my review, finally took place in September 2024. Absent from the manual was any tactic that included the use of mats. When questioned about who trains in mats, the Director stated that I do. When asked what program surrounding a child with mats is a part of, she responded, “That’s just a protocol that we use with our behaviorist.” When asked who came up with it, her response was, “I guess you could say I did.” But she did indicate Dr. Nicosia’s old District did it.
That’s just something “we” do.
We discussed a parent phone call as a de-escalation technique and the District’s unilateral refusal to do so from the date my child was secluded to forward. The Director shared her opinion that parental contact is giving a child what they want, essentially a reward, and will not be permitted when a child is engaged in a behavior. To be clear, the “behavior” my child was engaged in when they asked to call me was “being upset” and “repeating phrases such as ‘this is the worst day ever’ and ‘I just want to call my mom’.” We are talking about small children asking to call their parents.
To be perfectly blunt, we have a Director of Student Services who will surround a small child with mats and hold them to a wall for half an hour before she will pick up the phone and call a parent. How deeply disturbing this should be to each of us.
When asked what this mat tactic was called, as the District no longer refers to it as seclusion, she seemed confused before responding “safety measures”. Again, there is no training program that can be provided… It’s just something we do. She explained that it’s something done to avoid restraints. Yet indicated that she will not perform certain restraints in Handle With Care because she isn’t comfortable with those items, because she feels it is beyond what they can handle. What is done when they reach what is beyond what she can handle? At that point, the child is sent home..
This District’s staff is, at the behest of the Director of Student Services, engaging in a practice which is not endorsed by any cognizable training program and/or protocols to subject children to tactics which are not reportable, tracked or reviewed… to avoid… taking an action for which there is training, parameters, a reporting requirement and which would require action to assess the sufficiency of the support and services for the student.
Such a course of action is irresponsible and dangerous. Likewise, these tactics are associated with increased injury to staff and teachers.
Children die. Children suffer brain damage. Children are traumatized by these tactics. Teachers and staff are also traumatized and injured by these tactics. Some staff members cried when describing this tactic to me and described feeling physically ill.
Moreover, it defies reason and logic that there would be a unilateral refusal to call a parent until the child and staff have been subjected to bizarre, unnatural, and dangerous practices, and only when it reaches the point where the Director isn’t comfortable before you call the parents.
The Director of Student Services describes being surrounded by mats and held to a wall as calming. Take a moment and imaging yourself as a five year old kindergartener or a seven year old first grader upset, overwhelmed asking for your mom, the grown ups in the room refuse to call her, you become more frustrated, angry you throw something, a water bottle, you tip a chair, you cry, you beg them to call your mom… still no phone call… instead four adults surround you with mats and hold you to a wall. One minute passes. You beg to be released, you beg for your mom, you beg for help. You are ignored. Three minutes pass. Your pleas continue. Someone tosses a fidget or a squishy in the temporary pen they’ve created for you. Five minutes pass. You try to escape, only to be pushed back. You beg. Ten minutes pass… now twelve…fifteen. You scream and sob, in your child’s voice you plead for your mommy… twenty-minutes pass… now twenty-two…you become quiet, you become still.
What remotely emotionally competent adult could, with any degree of sincerity, describe such an experience as calming?
My child experienced such tactics once. After experiencing this tactic, my child could not be on a separate floor of our home for more than a year. It took over a year before they could shower without someone in the same room. There were night terrors and other presentations consistent with post-traumatic anxiety and distress, as indicated by trained medical doctors. One afternoon, when with cousins, the children were watching the movie Matilda. I’m not sure if any of you recall that in the movie, there is a closet filled with spikes where bad children are stuck. As the movie unfolded, my child curled in a ball, covered their ears, and sobbed.
A cousin said, “It’s just a movie,” and my child responded, “You don’t know what they do to some kids at some schools.” A child’s perspective on the tactic.
Thankfully, the initial child did not know and had not experienced what “they do” to “some kids” at “some schools”. Sadly, Bloomingdale students have experienced and watched what “they do,” but this does not have to continue to be the case.
Again, the tactics used are part of no program and prescribed by no entity. There are no written parameters. In fact, exactly the same tactic employed by a teacher in Gloucester resulted in the termination of both the teacher and principal. Recently, twenty school staff members in Pennsylvania were criminally charged with using unsanctioned tactics on special needs children. I ask the Board to stop sanctioning these cowboy tactics, which evade reporting and oversight requirements, which are designed to identify a child’s needs. I believe it is significant to note that such tactics are also linked to increases in behaviors, not a decline. Therefore, in addition to being dangerous, they are counterproductive. Such tactics are likewise associated with increased injury to both staff and students.
In the District’s release relating to seclusion and restraint, the numbers are dismissed as being made up of 1% of the student body. Despite the number of students being 1% of the student population, the numbers reflect approximately 3% of reported restraint and seclusion for the State of New Jersey, where Bloomingdale students make up only about 0.0001% of students in the state. This disproportionate representation should be deeply concerning. Shifting the lens slightly, were three students sexually assaulted by a staff member, I do not think the Board would so blithely excuse or dismiss the percentage as insignificant. Abuse in any form should be unacceptable.
In a final letter to his colleagues, the outgoing United States Secretary of Education… gave grave warnings on this topic. The significance of this issue cannot be understated. Seclusion and restraint are complex issues that have invoked a slew of expert opinions, Justice Department involvement, teachers, parents, and still new executive orders. While I would urge the Board to explore and research this topic – the national non-profit Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint and the NJ organization ENDSaRNJ – are both good places to start – still the fundamental question for each board member is how do you want the kids in your community to be treated at the school you oversee?
I urge this Board to ban the use of such tactics in our District before someone is seriously hurt.
I urge the exploration of CPI, as a trauma-informed crisis prevention approach, rather than Handle With Care, with direct staff training by competent individuals. I also urge all of you to carefully consider the competence of the Director of Student Services, who turn-keys all training in this area, making unilateral modifications along the way. This person has, by her own admission, utilized tactics which she mischaracterized, and she is clearly tone deaf as to the implications and effects, such as being overconfident and incompetent leadership, which is dangerous.
I am also providing to the Board several articles which highlight the danger of these tactics including the referenced matter in Gloucester and Pennsylvania, an article regarding a student who died of a brain injury after being surrounded with mats and school furniture and a copy of the District release which is no longer posted to the districts website.
I ask that the written copy of this statement and the articles be included in full as an attachment to these meeting’s minutes. I will send the hard copy to Ms. Kisinki now and send a digital copy via email to all board members tomorrow.
Thank you.
