Congress is hearing from parents of special needs students who were injured and even killed by teachers who used inappropriate or excessive restraint- and are still teaching special needs students.
I find the whole thing disgusting, really. These people should not be teaching special needs kids if they haven't had training or don't understand why and how to use restraint.
I also find disgusting that one of the posts in reply on the board I found this article on was from a parent of a daughter with Down Syndrome who told us that the reason she homeschools her daughters (both are special needs; the other child has CP) is because of the high rate of abuse, physical and sexual, against kids with special needs and especially Down Syndrome. She said that 90% of girls with Down Syndrome are sexually abused by a caretaker at least once. I haven't checked her numbers on that but she shared that 5 of the 6 kids with DS whose parents she is close enough to to hear about it have been sexually abused by teachers-- and most of those teachers are still teaching, they were just moved to a different school, because they weren't prosecuted because of concerns about what kind of witnesses the kids with DS would make. No one was warned about the abuse at the new schools.
That makes me want to kick someone in the face.
What do you all think of this?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
School district employees often become charged with handling 'special needs' students when the district does not know what to do with them or otherwise knows that they don't want to subject their 'real' students to them. It's sort of like a dumping ground for the chaff, so that they can babysit the disabled kids.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robert C. Devaney is another case in point. In November 1981 Devaney abruptly resigned as a special education teacher at North Providence High School in Rhode Island after a student complained that he had made sexual overtures. But Devaney got good references and began teaching elsewhere, skipping from job to job as his sexual misconduct caught up to him—but always leaving with a good reference. Finally in May 1996 Devaney was in jail, sentenced to serve twenty years for sexually assaulting a special education student and making sexually explicit videotapes and photographs of two other students.
Never once did Devaney’s references mention any of his misconduct. In each case administrators found it easier to “pass the trash” than to fight the local union for his termination. At the sentencing hearing, Superior Court judge Maureen McKenna Goldberg said, “The employment background of this defendant who was shuffled from one school department to another, from one bureaucrat to the next, is a crime in itself.”
I agree with the judge, and it makes me want to scream. It also makes me want to yell that the only reason he was probably convicted is they had "hard evidence" in the form of pictures and videos. The students' complaints were enough to get him moved along-- but not enough for anyone to want to prosecute him for it, because their word wouldn't hold up in court.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think face-kicking is the appropriate response to people who sexually assault special-needs students.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another piece of information it is important to understand: Qualified and certified special educators are in extreme short supply. Therefore, many of the direct caregivers of special needs students are para-educators. These folks have very little training (usually like 3 weeks) and are then thrown into situations where they are responsible for multiple students with very specialized needs. They get paid very little for a stressful job (around 18K annually).
It's a real shame, that many special needs students are cared for by people that have no qualification other than 1) they passed a criminal background check 2) they completed three weeks of training and 3) they were willing to work for the money.
We need to have certified and qualified special educators taking care of these students. We unfortunately do not have enough. I have a friend getting her degree in special education. She received multiple job offers the semester she declared her major. She hasn't even graduated yet, and basically has her pick of several different school systems. Honestly, even fully qualified special educators don't make enough for the difficult and demanding job they do. Educators who work with self-contained emotionally disturbed students have the highest burnout rate. It's very hard work and difficult dealing with those students day in and day out. I feel for them, and I respect them. I do not excuse any of them abusing students, however. But I think the problems run deeper than just there are some bad teachers out there. We need to ask ourselves why is it so hard to find good ones? When schools have very few choices, because there is such a shortage, they sometimes employ people they would rather not.
Please note I do NOT excuse any of the teachers in this article, nor the administrators that gave that one creep good references. It's despicable. But, I really think we need to look long and hard at the state of special education in our country. It's a complex problem.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think face-kicking is the appropriate response to people who sexually assault special-needs students.
100% absolute unqualified agreement.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Another piece of information it is important to understand: Qualified and certified special educators are in extreme short supply. Therefore, many of the direct caregivers of special needs students are para-educators. These folks have very little training (usually like 3 weeks) and are then thrown into situations where they are responsible for multiple students with very specialized needs. They get paid very little for a stressful job (around 18K annually).
Also 100% agreement.
I've been these teachers. I've been in awful situations, dangerous to the EA. I've also been in situations where I believed there was a danger to the student, and not only sexually. Physical restraints alone require extensive - and repeated - training. It does not come cheap. Sometimes, the ONLY, ONLY reason I stayed was because I'd received the relevant training elsewhere. School boards are in the education business, not the safe-personal-care business, and often they just don't know what to do. It's a damned shame and it works to the detriment of everyone involved. I could, seriously, write a list of things school boards SHOULD be doing, but it would be completely impractical.
This is absolutely, absolutely not to be taken as any form of endorsement of anyone who abuses a special needs student. Those people deserve face-kicking and if you put me in a room with the (I can't think of a bad enough word)s who abused my friends, there would be more than a face-kicking. Proper training is meant to minimise situations where restraints are necessary and where they're accidentally harmful. For people who do it for kicks and giggles, however, life in prison is just barely long enough.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I need it as much as you need the scare quotes.
??? I do not understand this persistent meme on Hatrack that anytime a word is quoted, it means that the person quoting is taking exception to the use of the word or means something negative. Have none of you ever heard of the way quotation marks can be used for use-mention distinction?
Edited to make it clear what I was referring to.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of almost postmodern evolution of punctuation in posting. For instance, when I used 'special needs' this wasn't taking exception to the use of the word but was actually taking exception to the way that districts will be creating a dichotomy for 'special needs' students against 'real' students, the way they prioritize dumping chaff on the special needs students.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had very good experiences with para-educators and think they do a tremendous job in supporting special educators, but agree that they need support in return. I don't feel that they need to be cut out of the picture and replaced by special educators entirely, but perhaps tweaking the ratio and taking a good look at their responsibilities is in order.
I made sure that the school I sent my kid to did not have an isolation room (some still do, I've heard horror stories) and we put in her IEP that she has an open pass to go to the guidance office if she needs to extract herself from a situation, so that she would never go or be sent to a place that was not supervised. I see no reason or excuse for anyone at the school to lay a hand on my kid, even when she was younger and harder to deal with. Am I missing something there? I can't imagine giving -anyone- the authority to restrain my kid. Give someone a little power and see how they deal with it :\.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ladyday, I agree with you and am glad that you put some qualifiers in your IEP. I also don't intend to imply all para-educators are unqualified or not competent. My cousin is a special needs para-educator and she does a wonderful job. Good para-educators are a vital member of the education team.
Your point about ratio, however, is valid. There are too many para-educators (because they're cheap) and too few qualified special educators with the relevant training.
We want a free, appropriate public education for all kids in the least restrictive environment. A lofty goal, and one I support. But, there are some students that need to be in self-contained environments. And some of those students can be violent. How do we ensure the student, staff, and other students are protected? How should an educator respond when a student is out of control, and risks hurting himself or his classmates or the staff? A student who, say, is violently throwing things around the room, or is slamming his own head up against the wall?
I get what you're saying about not wanting anyone at the school to lay a hand on your child. But what if laying hands on a child is necessary to protect that child? If, say, a kid was beating his own head against a concrete block wall, would I want to say an educator could not grab him by the arm to stop him, even if it left a bruise? Yes, there are methods you can be trained in to properly restrain a child to limit the chances of hurting him/her, but they are not foolproof.
I don't know. Abuse is never okay, we all know and agree with that. Nobody here will argue that schools should be allowed to either physically or sexually abuse students. But the line gets blurrier when we're talking about proper restraint techniques, or exactly how educators should deal with kids who are acting out violently.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to add a new dimension to this discussion.
My wife works at a school for kids with special needs. (That's the correct title at the moment. These are not kids defined by their needs as in "Special Needs Kids", but they are first and fore most kids, secondly they are kids with special needs. The same is true of kids in wheel chairs, not wheel chair bound kids. While the chair helps describe the child, it should not define them.)
Her kids are teens and older, dealing with ages 14 to 22.
There are sexual assaults, physical assaults, violence and promiscuity going in the other direction--from Child to Child or from Child to Care Giver. They have a safe room for her to run to if the kids get out of control, and several police officers stationed at the school.
Remember that these kids may have special needs, but that does not make them innocent victims or saints by any means.
Several teachers each year are sent to the hospital for injuries received, usually when parents many of whom also have special needs, forget to adequately insure the children receive their medication.
Restraint, occasionally forced, is sometime neccessary for the safety of the staff, the other children, but mostly for the safety of the child being restrained.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:“The employment background of this defendant who was shuffled from one school department to another, from one bureaucrat to the next, is a crime in itself.”
I'm amazed this isn't a crime, at least in some areas. Wouldn't someone somewhere be able to be slapped with negligence or something involving willful endangerment of children?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it gets tricky. Did these schools have any proof that the teacher actually abused students, or just rumors to the effect? If he were an exemplary employee in every other respect, should an administrator not give him a recommendation because of an unsubstantiated rumor?
If there were no proof, and a principal wrote him a bad review, the principal is then liable. One would think his record of leaving school system after school system would speak for itself, regardless of what recommendations he received. But, again - special educators are in such high demand and short supply.
I would not be so quick to say that the merest rumor should be enough to earn someone a bad review. If there were proof and they didn't turn it over to the authorities, then yes they should be criminally liable. If all they have is rumors...well, presumption of innocence and all that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a big scandal about this in the LAUSD last year (I think it was last year.) A principal who slept with high schoolers was bumped from school to school. The people who did it are now being prosecuted, I believe.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am the union rep for my school, and I don't like teacher's unions. The costs far out way the benefits. Especially in Maryland where unions are not even allowed to strike.
I pay $32 a paycheck to be in it (it costs $28 not to be in it) for what? Liability protection that is already covered under my home insurance. (Erie Insurance specifically includes educator's liability in all of its home and renter's policies.) Protection from being let go? If I show up to work on time, don't show disney movies, and don't touch the kids I have nothing to worry about anyways.
The only benefit I see is not, when short on money, allowing the school district to let go teacher who have been working their longer for the sole purpose of saving more money.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not be so quick to say that the merest rumor should be enough to earn someone a bad review. If there were proof and they didn't turn it over to the authorities, then yes they should be criminally liable. If all they have is rumors...well, presumption of innocence and all that.
I think the obligation should be set somewhat lower than proof. Evidence, strong evidence, I think, should be the bar that must be limboed under.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Another piece of information it is important to understand: Qualified and certified special educators are in extreme short supply. Therefore, many of the direct caregivers of special needs students are para-educators. These folks have very little training (usually like 3 weeks) and are then thrown into situations where they are responsible for multiple students with very specialized needs. They get paid very little for a stressful job (around 18K annually).
It's a real shame, that many special needs students are cared for by people that have no qualification other than 1) they passed a criminal background check 2) they completed three weeks of training and 3) they were willing to work for the money.
I took a job as a substitute assistant in a special ed class once. The teachers were so thrilled because they had gotten a sub, no one ever picked the assistant jobs. I understood why at the end of the day. Not only did I get paid less for subbing as an "assistant" than I would as a regular teacher, but it was literally one of the most disgusting jobs I ever took.
Not because the children had special needs specifically. But one of the children in the class (it was a middle school class) was a spitter. It's not uncommon, many autistic children like this one spit, and it's a hard habit for parents, therapists and teachers to break. I went home covered in more saliva that day than I thought possible. I also spent the day doing my best to work with a young man (also autistic) who had a crush on me, followed me around and attempted to kiss me several times.
It's not the children's fault, these were only two of the kids in the class and they clearly did not understand that their behavior was inappropriate. Certainly it does not excuse or explain sexual abuse, or the school system's failure to work on getting the teacher fired (or arrested, teachers are mandatory reporters after all). However, it taught me exactly why there is a shortage of qualified special education teachers and assistants in this country. It takes a really special person to get enjoyment out of being spit on, dealing with teenage crushes from boys or girls who don't understand that their behavior is inappropriate, and the myriad of other issues that crop up in a special ed classroom every day.
I learned that day, that I was not one of those special people. But I applaud anyone who is. You may have one of the hardest (but potentially rewarding) jobs of all.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: ladyday, I agree with you and am glad that you put some qualifiers in your IEP. I also don't intend to imply all para-educators are unqualified or not competent. My cousin is a special needs para-educator and she does a wonderful job. Good para-educators are a vital member of the education team.
Your point about ratio, however, is valid. There are too many para-educators (because they're cheap) and too few qualified special educators with the relevant training.
We want a free, appropriate public education for all kids in the least restrictive environment. A lofty goal, and one I support. But, there are some students that need to be in self-contained environments. And some of those students can be violent. How do we ensure the student, staff, and other students are protected? How should an educator respond when a student is out of control, and risks hurting himself or his classmates or the staff? A student who, say, is violently throwing things around the room, or is slamming his own head up against the wall?
I get what you're saying about not wanting anyone at the school to lay a hand on your child. But what if laying hands on a child is necessary to protect that child? If, say, a kid was beating his own head against a concrete block wall, would I want to say an educator could not grab him by the arm to stop him, even if it left a bruise? Yes, there are methods you can be trained in to properly restrain a child to limit the chances of hurting him/her, but they are not foolproof.
I don't know. Abuse is never okay, we all know and agree with that. Nobody here will argue that schools should be allowed to either physically or sexually abuse students. But the line gets blurrier when we're talking about proper restraint techniques, or exactly how educators should deal with kids who are acting out violently.
I agree with all of this. Restraint is a last resort, always. Always. It is ONLY ever acceptable if there is an immediate, and serious physical threat. One kid slaps another? Firm reminders, removal from the situation, whatever the program specifies. A full-blown meltdown where several nearby children are bitten, where the child is biting himself, and where he's biting me? That calls for a restraint by properly trained staff. I've been in that situation, and I took the bruises. The restraint was safer for the child in question than allowing him to bite himself bloody, and it was certainly safer for the other children, but I still ended up with toothmarks. Proper non-violent restraints pose only a very small risk to the restrainee, and are actually far more dangerous to the restrainers. You would have to be insane to do a restraint when it's not absolutely necessary. Far, far safer to diffuse a situation before it happens (which takes up a full HALF of any restraint training course I've ever been to).
Sometimes restraints are necessary, and no one enjoys them except very sick, sick people. Also stupid ones. There's a thin line special educators walk between the potential lawsuit for restraining a child and the potential lawsuit if that child seriously injures another student. And sadly, in some cases, that's a daily worry. Any time there's a child with serious unpredictable aggressive behaviours, every EA in the school, and every teacher the child sees regularly, should be sent for training, so accidents don't happen. The learning environment should be structured to minimise triggers. There's a lot of hands-off stuff you can do, especially if the EA-student relationship is consistent over a long period of time.
I've lost track of where I was going with this. But the gist of what I wanted to say is, some kids pose a serious physical risk to others. And when I say "serious" I generally mean things that could result in hospitalisation. Their environment (including staff) should minimise the risk. But when a meltdown happens, restraint IS a valid option, when implemented correctly. The parameters of all of this NEED to be on an IEP. There should be no exceptions to this.
Resource-strapped boards and schools do bend these rules. Most EAs aren't trained to do safe restraining. I was very, very lucky to have had external training some days. I should never, ever have been put in a risky situation by people who didn't know or care if I was trained, and with students who require familiarity and consistency in their routine.
Actually, I think what I wanted to say most is simply: I'm not a bad person. I am responsible, conscientious, and put my students' welfare and safety above my own on more than one occasion.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not be so quick to say that the merest rumor should be enough to earn someone a bad review. If there were proof and they didn't turn it over to the authorities, then yes they should be criminally liable. If all they have is rumors...well, presumption of innocence and all that.
I think the obligation should be set somewhat lower than proof. Evidence, strong evidence, I think, should be the bar that must be limboed under.
What do you consider strong evidence?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
