Classroom teachers and special education aides lacked adequate training regarding positive behavior interventions, sensory integration and the very limited circumstances under which the use of restraint is appropriate, state officials determined…”
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2007/12/24/local_news/doc476f43e96ae24159149085.txt

Let me frame the possibility, that sometimes these things might be used even before there is a need. The first day of my daughter’s attendance in a brand-new autism program (at our University (!)), there were 2 rifkins in a classroom with no CP students or other orthopedic needs. We walked in and the moment that my daughter sat down in a regular classroom chair to do a puzzle, the aide reached down to strap on seat-belt straps. The aide looked genuinely puzzled when I asked her what the heck she was doing.
I looked around and all the kids had these straps on, in a 1:1 classroom. Mechanical restraint was part of the routine, and they really didn’t understand why there might be a problem with that. We had a rather unpleasant discussion with director and teacher, but it kept the belts off of our daughter, or at least for the two months before we could negotiate a more appropriate placement. The rifkins, as it turned out were reserved for when a kid was being “really inappropriate”. “Really inappropriate” translated, in one instance, to getting up twice during circle. As several statements in the WI paper indicate from various groups, this is STILL an unintended and inappropriate use of the chair.

I thought that this might be unique (BTW–we are not in WI), but subsequently on our local lists I found that routine mechanical restraint was going on in different places and classrooms, and the consensus was that while it might keep a kid in one spot, it didn’t necessarily seem to be doing much towards motivating sitting or encouraging a timely consideration of environmental modifications so that a child might learn to want to. On checking with the local disability advocacy center, I learned that except in emergency under defined conditions, restraint should require a behavior plan, and in that case the parents should receive written notice and participate in the development of that. The comment there was also not to be fobbed off with the platitude that it is “educational restraint”. That may be a belief by the person using it, but it is not a legal or valid definition.

A few years down the road, I hope that with better knowledge of motivation and positive pairing and the direct and collateral dangers of restraint, I could say it was getting better as a whole, but I am on a restraint list, and there are plenty of posts with unfortunate news stories. As was noted in a recent post on this blog–inappropriate restraint can lead to trauma, injury and death. As also noted, there are alternative and better ways to the end result of attending.

My understanding from those long involved in the study of restraint is that a lack of statute is not necessarily unique to Wisconsin. In many states there are more regulations on conditions of and training for use of restraint on the mentally ill and those in institutions than for children on IEPs. That is why if one is really concerned, that it might make sense to inspect your state regulations and work for legislation if there is lack therein. Our state recently had a public review of the regulations and I, among many others, submitted comments and additional information from TASH and CAICA. Fotunately the public response seems to have resulted in some improvements on conditions of use, training, reporting and adherence to parental notification. If you are interested in the question, I would check out the TASH, CAICA websites and perhaps join the RESTRAINT_INFO yahoogroup.