In the last several years, there has been growing concern about the use of seclusion in schools. Little is known about its use, particularly with students with disabilities. This article presents the findings from an analysis of 26 due process hearings taking place nationwide over a 12-year period containing a description of the use of seclusion. For the purpose of this study, seclusion is defined as “the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room . . . from which the student is physically prevented from leaving” (Council for Children With Behavioral Disorders, p. 1). Findings from this analysis include the following: (a) students of all ages and both genders with significant cognitive and behavioral disorders were subject to seclusion, (b) the rationale for the use of seclusion did not always involve a safety concern, and (c) students experienced an escalation in behavior upon being placed in seclusion, along with high frequencies and long duration of the seclusion event. Most of the students in the study had physical and mental health conditions that may affect the safety and efficacy of seclusion, and long-term effects of unknown etiology occurred for students in the sample, including transition into more restrictive school settings.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
2.
ArthurI. (2008). Time-out, seclusion, and restraint in Indiana schools literature review (Report prepared for Indiana Institute on Disability and Community). Bloomington: Indiana University.
3.
BlackerZ. (2012, March30). Scream rooms, locked closets and duffel bags. The New York Times Educational Supplement, p. 14.
4.
BrantlingerE.JimneezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205
5.
BuschA. B.ShoreM. F. (2000). Seclusion and restraint: A review of recent literature. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 8, 261-270. doi:10.3109/hrp.8.5.261
6.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
7.
Child Welfare League of America. (2004). Achieving better outcomes for families: Reducing restraint and seclusion. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
ConnollyJ. F. (2014). A grounded theory analysis of seclusion of students with disabilities in schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
9.
Council for Children With Behavioral Disorders. (2009). CCBD’s position summary on the use of seclusion in school settings. Arlington, VA: Author.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
DowneyM. (2010, January4). Learning curve: The forgotten rooms. The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. A9.
13.
DuncanA. (2009, July31). Letter to chief state school officers regarding policies on physical restraint and seclusion. Washington, DC: Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education.
14.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U. S. C. §1401 et seq. (1975).
15.
Every Student Succeeds Act, S. 1177, 114th Congress. (2016).
16.
FerlegerD. (2008). Human services restraint: Its past and future. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 154-165. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2008)46[154:HSRIPA]2.0.CO;2
17.
FinkeL. M. (2001). The use of seclusion is not evidence-based practice. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 14, 186-190. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2001.tb00312.x
GagnonD.MattinglyM.ConnellyV. J. (2014). Restraint and seclusion of students with a disability continue to be common in some school districts patterns remain relatively consistent despite recent policy changes (The Carsey School of Public Policy at the Scholars’ Repository, Paper 224). Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/224
20.
GastD. L.NelsonC. M. (1977). Legal and ethical considerations for the use of time out in special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 11, 457-467. doi:10.1177/002246697701100408
21.
GettyL. A.SummyS. E. (2004). The course of due process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 41-43. doi:10.1177/004005990403600305
22.
GoodmarkC. (2009). A tragic void: Georgia’s failure to regulate restraint and seclusion in schools. John Marshall Law Journal, 3, 249-285.
23.
Government Accountability Office. (2009). Seclusions and restraints: Selected cases of death and abuse at public and private schools and treatment centers (GAO-09-719T). Washington, DC: Author.
24.
GutheilT. G.TardiffK. (1984). Indications and contraindications for seclusion and restraint. In TardiffK. (Ed.), The psychiatric uses of seclusion and restraint (pp. 11-17). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
25.
HeflingK. (2012, March10). Report shows use of seclusion, restraints on disabled students. The Washington Post, p. A05.
26.
HoekstraT.LendemeijerH.JansenM. (2004). Seclusion: The inside story. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 11, 276-283. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2003.00710.x
JonesN. L.FederJ. (2009). The use of seclusion and restraint in public schools: The legal issues (Congressional Research Service, 7-5700 R40522).
29.
KaplanA. (2010). Harm without recourse: The need for a private right of action in federal restraint and seclusion legislation. Cardozo Law Review, 32, 581-614.
30.
Keeping All Students Safe Act, H.R. 927, 114th Congress. (2015).
31.
Keeping All Students Safe Act, S. 2036, 113th Congress. (2014).
LichtensteinB. (2012, September8). A terrifying way to discipline children. The New York Times, p. SR5.
34.
National Disability Rights Network. (2010). School is not supposed to hurt: Update on progress in 2009 to prevent and reduce restraint and seclusion in schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Office for Civil Rights. (2012). Civil rights data collection. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
OsborneA. G.Jr. (2001). Discipline of special-education students under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 513-538.
39.
PersiJ.PasqualiB. (1999). The use of seclusion and physical restraints: Just how consistent are we?Child & Youth Care Forum, 28, 87-103. doi:10.1023/A:1021989121863
40.
PiersmaH. L. (1980, September) Seclusion: The unwanted and undiscussed child of mental health care. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Quebec, Canada.
RichardsJ. S. (2012, August5). Locked away: How Ohio schools misuse seclusion rooms. The Columbus Dispatch, p. A1.
43.
RobinsC. S.SauvageotJ. A.CusakK. J.Suffoletta-MaierleS.FruehB. C. (2005). Consumers’ perceptions of negative experiences and “sanctuary harm” in psychiatric settings. Psychiatric Services, 56, 1134-1138. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1134
44.
RockM. L.BatemanD. (2009). Using due process opinions as an opportunity to improve educational practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 52-62. doi:10.1177/1053451209338392
45.
RussoC. J.OsborneA. G.Jr. (2007). Essential concepts and school-based cases in special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
46.
RyanJ. B.PetersonR. L.RozalskiM. (2007). State policies concerning the use of seclusion timeout in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 215-239. doi:101353/etc20070032
47.
RyanJ. B.PetersonR. L.TetreaultG.van der HagenE. (2007). Reducing seclusion timeout and restraint procedures with at-risk youth. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(1), 7-12.
48.
RyanJ. B.PetersonR. L.TetreaultG.van der HagenE. (2008). Reducing the use of seclusion and restraint in a day school program. In NunnoM. A.DayD. M.BullardL. B. (Eds.), For our own safety: Examining the safety of high-risk interventions for children and young people (pp. 201-215). Arlington, VA: Child Welfare League of America.
49.
RyanJ. B.SandersS.KatsiyannisA.YellM. (2007). Using time-out effectively in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(4), 60-67. doi:10.1177/004005990703900407
ScheuermannB.RyanJ. B.PetersonR. L.BillingsleyG. (2013). Ethical issues in the use of restraint and seclusion. In PetersonR. L.RyanJ. B.RozalskiM. (Eds.), Physical restraint and seclusion in schools (pp. 31-49). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
52.
TASH. (2011). Shouldn’t school be safe? Working together to keep every child safe from restraint and seclusion in school. Washington, DC: Author.
TraderB.StonemeierJ.BergT.KnowlesC.MassarM.MonzalveM.. . .HornerR. (2017). Promoting inclusion through evidence-based alternatives to restraint and seclusion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42, 75-88. doi:10.1177/1540796917698830
55.
TurqueB. (2011, September5). Report says Rock Creek Academy, special education school in D.C., violated rules. The Washington Post, p. B02.
56.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Restraint and seclusion: Resource document. Washington, DC: Author.
VillaniV. S.ParsonsA. E.ChurchR. P.BeetarJ. T. (2012). A descriptive study of the use of restraint and seclusion in a special education school. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41, 295-309. doi:10.1007/s10566-011-9165-3
59.
WestlingD. L.TraderB. R.SmithC. A.MarshallD. S. (2010). Use of restraints, seclusion, and aversive procedures on students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 116-127. doi:10.2511/rpsd.35.3-4.116
60.
WolfT. A.McLaughlinT. F.WilliamsR. L. (2006). Time-out interventions and strategies: A brief review and recommendations. International Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22-28.
61.
YellM. L. (1994). Timeout and students with behavior disorders: A legal analysis. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 293-301.
62.
YellM. L.DrasgowE.BradleyR.JustesenT. (2004). Contemporary legal issues in special education. In SorrellsA. M.ReithH. J.SindelarP. T. (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp. 16-37). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
