Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, it did. NYS revised what were already horrific proposals for disabled students so that the children will have even less protections. You must read this to believe it....
In previous entries, I've discussed
emergency proposals by the NYS Education Department that would allow schools in NYS to use "aversives" on disabled kids.
Earlier this month, NYS finally set up a real site visit to the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Massachusetts, where many NYS kids are sent, and where many NYS kids were being given electric shock to control their "behavior."
You can read what NYS found when they visited JRC here (pdf). I'm citing some statements of findings below, but you really should read the whole thing:
"... JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance.
... The use of the electric skin shock conditioning devices as used at JRC raises health and safety concerns.
... The Contingent Food Program and Specialized Food Program may impose unnecessary risks affecting the normal growth and development and overall nutritional/health status of students subjected to this aversive behavior intervention.
... Students are provided insufficient academic and special education instruction, including limited provision of related services.
... The collateral effects (e.g., increased fear, anxiety or aggression) on students resulting from JRC's punishment model are not adequately assessed, monitored or addressed.
At the time of the site visit on April 25 and 26, 148 NYS school aged students were enrolled at JRC. Eighty-two percent of NYS students were placed at JRC by the New York City Department of Education. The additional NYS students represent school district placements from 22 other NYS school districts. Most of these students have the disability classification "Emotional Disturbance" with IQ scores that fall in the low average to average range of intelligence. There are also a number of students with the classification of Autism with cognitive abilities falling in the range of mild to profound mental retardation. Many of the students from NYS have diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and bipolar disorder. A number of students also have histories of abuse and abandonment.
... In March 2006, NYSED requested that JRC submit the IEPs of all NYS students. NYSED received a total of 146 IEPs. Seventy-one out of the 146 IEPs indicated students were receiving Level III behavioral interventions, which constitutes a range of punishment techniques designed to reduce or eliminate target behavior(s). The IEPs identified ten additional NYS students for whom court ordered substituted judgment was being sought in order to include Level III aversive procedures in their behavior intervention programs. Of the 71 students' IEPs, 49 indicate NYC as the district of residence (69 percent). A total of 33 of the 71 students receiving aversive behavioral interventions have the educational classification of Emotional Disturbance (46 percent), 21 are classified with Autism (30 percent), one student is classified as Other Health Impaired (one percent), five are classified with Mental Retardation (7 percent), and 11 have Multiple Disabilities (15 percent). (emphasis added by Dissent)
... At the time of team's April visit there were 148 NYS students enrolled at JRC. At that time, 77 were approved to receive Level III behavioral interventions from staff at JRC. Of these 77 students, 53 were receiving skin shock through the GED that is adjustable with an average intensity of 15.25 mill amperes RMS, a duration of .2 seconds to 2 seconds, an average peak of 30.5 milliamperes, and 24 students are receiving GED (referred to as a GED-4) skin shock which has a maximum current of 45.0 milliamperes RMS, an average peak of 91 milliamperes, and a maximum duration of 2 seconds. The higher-level shock is used when it is determined that the student is not responding to the lower level shock.
The NYS Education Dept. subsequently sent a notice to JRC about its need to correct its deficiencies if it wanted to continue being a NYS-approved (and paid) placement.
Now you'd think that after raising such serious concerns, that NYS would revise its proposed regulations to incorporate even more protections, right?
Guess again. NYSED revised the proposed regulations and made them even worse. You can read NYSED's memo concerning the suggested revisions here (pdf). Here is a portion of that memo:
The proposed amendment was modified from the draft version discussed at the May 2006 Regents meeting as follows:
The definition of aversive behavioral interventions was modified to include noxious tastes; to clarify that contingent food programs means withholding meals or limiting essential nutrition or hydration; and to clarify that the term does not include interventions medically necessary for the treatment or protection of the student.
The program standards for functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavioral intervention plans were modified to require multiple sources of data to establish a baseline of behaviors with regard to the frequency, duration, intensity and/or latency of the behaviors.
The process for child-specific exceptions to use aversive behavioral interventions to reduce or modify student behaviors was modified to limit the independent panel to three members; to delete the requirement that the panel reach unanimous agreement; to add that the panel review the student's diagnosis(es); and to modify the criteria upon which the panel makes its determination as to whether a child-specific exception to the prohibition on the use of aversive behavioral interventions is warranted. The time period of 15 business days for the panel determination was modified to apply when a CSE or CPSE is first considering a child-specific exception to the prohibition on the use of aversive behavioral interventions. (emphasis added by Dissent)
The program standards for the use of aversive behavioral interventions was modified to prohibit the use of restraint combined with other aversive behavioral interventions on a student; and to prohibit the use of automated aversive conditioning devices. (That's actually an improvement -- Dissent).
The requirements for the ongoing monitoring of student progress when aversive behavioral interventions are used were modified to include reports on the assessment of and strategies used to address any indirect or collateral effects the use of aversive behavioral interventions may be having on the student. (That's also an improvement -- Dissent)
The remainder of the memo spells out what sections of the original proposal should be removed or amended, and notes that these "emergency" regulations should go into effect on June 23.
OK, folks, think about it... there's still no requirement for psychiatric or medical clearance/sign-off. There's still no evidence that these aversive techniques are empirically supported by controlled and replicated research in school settings. There's still no provision for sufficient and sophisticated training of school personnel. And now the 'panel' can be 2 out 3. They don't even have to be unanimous.
God help the children.
I think this calls for civil disobedience if diplomacy and reason fail.