The use of aversives as a method for behavioral intervention in U.S. public schools has been a persistent concern and often subject to litigation, particularly among students with disabilities. The use of aversives (restraint, seclusion, and corporal punishment) have been supported in some cases due to their perceived necessity to keep children and youth with disabilities from causing harm to themselves or others or as a pedagogical method for behavior change. However, research strongly supports the need for less use of aversives and instead a critical focus on the use of multitiered systems of support to prevent the escalation of behavior that may result in the use of aversives. This article provides a review of 173 legal cases from 1997 through 2016 that ruled on the use of aversives in public schools for children and youth with disabilities. The authors provide legal implications to schools that use aversives, as well as an alternative framework for school principals in lieu of using restraint, seclusion, and corporal punishment as methods for behavior intervention.
AfifiT. O.MotaN. P.DasiewiczP.MacMillanH. L.SareenJ. (2012). Physical punishment and mental disorders: Results from a nationally representative U.S. sample. Pediatrics, 130, 184-192.
2.
B. D. & D. D. v. Puyallup School District, 53 IDELR 120 (W.D. WA. 2009).
3.
Beckwith v. District of Columbia, 68 IDELR 155. (D.C. 2016).
4.
BonS. C.ZirkelP. A. (2013). Time-out and seclusion litigation: A liability nightmare. University of Toledo Law Review, 45, 505-526.
C. N. v. Willmar Public Schools, et al., 591 F. 3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010).
7.
Couture v. Board of Educ., Albuquerque Public Schools, et al., 535 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2008).
8.
Covington v. Knox County School System, et al., 205 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2000).
9.
D. C. v. Oakdale Joint Unified School District, 113 LRP 3443 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Ca 2013).
10.
Donlow et al. v. Garfield Park Academy (3rd Dist. 2010).
11.
Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA] Pub. L. No. 114-95. 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015).
12.
Fee v. Herndon, 16 IDELR 1178 (5th Cir. 1990).
13.
FogtJ. B.GeorgeM. P.KernL.WhiteG. P.GeorgeN. L. (2008). Physical restraint of students with behavior disorders in day treatment and residential settings. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 4-13.
14.
GershoffE. T.FontS. A. (2016). Corporal punishment in US public schools: Prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Social Policy Report, 30(1), 1-26.
15.
GershoffE. T.PurtellK. M.HolasI. (2015). The legal basis for school corporal punishment. In Corporal punishment in US public schools (pp. 61-68). New York, NY: Springer International.
16.
Gohl v. Livonia Public Schools et al., 836 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2016).
17.
Gottlied v. Laurel Highlands School District, 272F.3d 168 (3rd Cir. 2001).
18.
GunterP. L.DennyR. K.JackS.L.ShoresR. E.NelsonC. M. (1993). Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265-274.
19.
Hatfield v. O’ Neill, 61 IDELR 211 (11th Cir. 2013).
20.
Hillsdale (MI) Intermediate School District, 115 LRP 4582 (Office for Civil Rights, Midwestern Division, Cleveland (MI) 2014).
HornerR.SugaiG.LewisT. (2015). Is school-wide positive behavior support an evidence-based practice? Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/research
23.
I. D. v. Wetumpka Pre-School & Child Development Center, 116 LRP 25057 (N.D. AL, 2016).
24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Pub. L. No. 94-142. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)
25.
J. V. and M. Q. v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 813 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2016).
26.
KatsiyannisA.MaagJ. W. (2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece. Exceptional Children, 68, 85-96.
27.
LaneK. L.MenziesM.KalbergJ. R.OakesW. P. (2012). A comprehensive, integrated three-tier model to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs. In HarrisK.UrdanT.GrahamS. (Eds.), American Psychological Association educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 551-581). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28.
Lohrmann-O’RourkeS.ZirkelP. A. (1998). The case law on aversive interventions for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 101-123.
29.
LoveJ. R.CarrJ. E.LeBlancL. A. (2009). Functional assessment of problem behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders: A summary of 32 outpatient cases. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 363-372.
30.
M. G., L. G. and J. G. v. Caldwell-West Caldwell Board of Educ., et al., 804 F. Supp. 2d 305 (D.N.J. 2011).
31.
MaagJ. W.KatsiyannisA. (2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 348-362.
32.
Marquez v. Garnett, 513 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2014).
33.
MayerG. R.Sulzer-AzaroffB. (1991). Interventions for vandalism. In StonerG.ShinnM. R.WalkerH. M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 559-580). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
34.
Miller v. Monroe School District, 67 IDELR 32 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington 2016).
35.
Payne v. Peninsula School District, et al. 623 F. App’x 846 (9th Cir. 2015).
36.
PetersonR.AlbrechtS.JohnsB. (2009). CCBD’s position summary on the use of seclusion in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 235-243.
37.
PlavnickJ. B.FerreriS. J. (2011). Establishing verbal repertoires in children with autism using function-based video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 747-766.
38.
Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board, et al., 479 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007).
39.
RyanJ. B.PetersonR. L. (2004). Physical restraint in school. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 154-168.
40.
Tallman v. Barnegat Board of Education, et al., 43 Fed. Appx. 490 (3rd Cir. 2002).
41.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010, February). Summary of seclusion and restraint statutes, regulations, policies and guidance, by state and territory: Information as reported to the regional comprehensive centers and gathered from other sources. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/summary-by-state.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009, May19). Seclusions and restraints: Selected cases of death and abuse at public and private schools and treatment centers (GAO-09-719T). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf
