Saying No to Timeout Rooms
September 11, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Two families are suing the Waukee (Iowa) school district for the way that timeout rooms were used to “discipline” their children. Today’s Des Moines Register notes that one child was locked in timeout 64 times during his first-grade year at Waukee Elementary School in 2006; his grandparents were informed about only 17 of those instances. Isabel Loeffner was locked in a timeout room for 3 1/2 hours; while Isabel and her parents, Doug and Eva Loeffler, have moved to California, the family has continued their legal fight “for the sake of [their] daughter’s alleged suffering.” Go here to read more about how families are speaking out against restraint and seclusion—-both not what I’d called effective teaching practices.
According to a recent (August 9, 2007) article in the Boston Globe, there’s a school where autistic children are placed in a tiny, windowless room–a closet, really–and the door is shut.
This school is the New England Center for Children, one of the most popular and most highly respected ABA schools on the planet.
I wish I could provide a link for the Boston Globe article (which was written by John Dyer), but then my comment would vanish into the ether, never to be seen again…
Do you mean this article?
“If it were another child, it might seem cruel.”
“So when Giles sends her student into that tiny room, it isn’t punishment. It’s a treatment called removal for reinforcement”
Phrase “putting lipstick on a pig” springs to mind…
Yes, thanks so much for providing the link.
… and in response to Tara, according to the science of ABA, time-out is considered a punishment procedure (e.g., see Cooper et al., 2007, the major ABA textbook). I’m pretty sure that behaviour analysts at the NECC, a highly respected ABA school, would be aware of this.
“If it were another child…”
There are no words.
Really, there aren’t.
I’m just going to go over to my corner and seethe for a while now.
Michelle Dawson: “according to the science of ABA, time-out is considered a punishment procedure” (and without wanting to label her as a liar (I really don’t!) – she may well have the reference right w. r. t. the Autism-ABA industry BUT…
Skinner never saw time out as such!
And this is the difference between Autism-ABA-industry shit and REAL behaviourism!
For Skinner it was purely a means by which to avoid overload with positive reinforcement (i. e., it wa a way to remove someone from reinforcement altogether…) without exacting a punishment on the person.
Time out – for Skinner – meant time out of reinforcement! And – to be honest – bollocks to what anyone who ISN’T Skinner says on the issue! He understood it – they fucked it up.
Their problem. Let THEM deal with being wrong!
I have personal experience with Time Out rooms at this Los Angeles school:
http://www.thehelpgroup.org/index.php
and it’s been very problematic personally. Said school, btw, is aligned with Big Autism and UCLA.
David,
Skinner defended Matthew Israel’s techniques and said that the death of Vincent Milletich was not torture.
In reponse to Mr Andrews, as I wrote above, Cooper et al. (2007) is the major ABA reference work, in its second edition.
Cooper et al. (2007) is not at all limited to autism, as anyone familiar with the ABA literature would know.
And no, I’m not lying, sorry.
According to Cooper et al., 2007, the procedure is called time-out from positive reinforcement, and it is a negative punishment. It’s correctly classified as such because something is removed, and a behavior is reduced.
As a result of ,PA regulations on seclusion and restraint, restraints cause a meeting of the IEP team within 10 days, unless the parent says they don’t want the meeting. We also have to notify the parents, I forget whether it is 24 hours or the same day. Whichever it is, I can’t leave for the day unless I call, or attempt to call, and do the necessary paperwork. It also says prone (face down) restraints, aren’t allowed.
They’ve made it much more of a hassle for anyone who would just jump to restraining,and I think it’s a good thing.
Dawson: “And no, I’m not lying, sorry.”
Why be sorry???? I was stating that I did not think you were!
Please…. stop being so bloody defensive!
Jen: “the procedure is called time-out from positive reinforcement, and it is a negative punishment.”
In this case, they are not using time out, but negative punishment.
Time out is purely about removing the person from ANY reinforcing conditions. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Because time out is defined as ‘time out from reinforcement’, not even the imposition of negative reinforcement is deemable to be ‘time out’. Imposition of a negative reinforcement schedule would violate that principle.
CS: “Skinner defended Matthew Israel’s techniques and said that the death of Vincent Milletich was not torture.”
Can you provide a reference….? I’d like to see this. After that, I can say something. Last I understood, there was very little between Skinner and Israel, and from what is known of Skinner’s views on punishment, it is hard to see how Skinner could have sanctioned Israel’s work (at least, that based on punishment!).
I’d be very interested to see this….
David,
Its in a link on my blog here:
http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking_in_metaphors/2008/07/interverbal-def.html
I also have knowledge that Jim Partington, who was a consultant to Israel early in his career, stated that Skinner advised Israel on how to use the methods that killed Vincent Milletich. However, my only proof is a dinner conversation between Partington and someone I know so its rather flimsy but I do intend at some point to post about this “hearsay” and draw Partington out to talk about it.
CS, thanks!
As for Partington, this could be down to him. Like I say, as far as I have been aware, Skinner did not agree with punishment at all.
May have to re-review my thoughts on him, depending how this pans out.
Again, I thank you.
It’s scary that the staff really believe this is helpful!
Terrible. I grew up in Iowa and never saw timeouts used. Sometimes I wonder why it seems like these sorts of measures are increasing?
Thanks for posting this article as well as some earlier articles. My family, and especially my daughter, have been through some really traumatic times, but we are really happy that our saga has led to changes that will help other families in Iowa and elsewhere.
We also won a very strong Federal District Court ruling that the Waukee School’s definition of inclusion (it doesn’t count as inclusion unless disabled children can perform on par) and their use of negative interventions were both illegal. In particular, we very successfully used the new requirement within IDEA 2004 that school programs, including behavioral programs, comply with peer-reviewed research to the extent practical. Given that there is no peer-reviewed research on time-outs of the punitive type that were used on my daughter this is a very powerful addition to the special education law.
Doug
@Doug,
Hope your daughter is in a school that she likes now and understands how to best teach her, and think you left an important legacy in Iowa for other families and special needs kids. Very best—-
U.S. Code, TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
> CHAPTER 144—DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS
> SUBCHAPTER I—PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
>Part A—General Provisions
> § 15009. Rights of individuals with developmental disabilities
What can a teacher do when a child is out of control? Timeout is not brutal. If an adult is in the room and the child is not being restrained I see nothing wrong. No reason so many children our out of control these days. Parents would rather drug(excuse me medicate)their children than be parents. They make excuses for their behavior and how DARE anyone tell their child they can’t do something! So what if little Johnny is biting another child! As long as little Johnny feels good about himself.
I don’t think timeout is or has to be brutal in and of itself—-for my autistic son, it’s not been a helpful means of addressing behaviors.