Teacher Favours Loophole in Restraint Law

Again today, I'm highlighting a blog comment that calls for some feedback but may not be easily found on its own. When I wrote about an adjustment to a proposed law banning restraint and seclusion in schools that would allow those extreme behavioral methods if they're specified in a student's IEP or 504 plan, I didn't expect that the first (and so far only) comment would be in favor of the change. A reader with the disheartening moniker Mediocre Teacher wrote:

"I'm one of the bad guys on this issue. Last year I taught a high school age class of students with autism and severe impairments. I was head butted, scratched, hit in the crotch, punched, and had blood splattered on my face when a student punched a computer monitor then slapped me. I quit before Halloween. Even if this bill is passed with the provision allowing restraint to be mentioned in an IEP, passage of the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act will probably make such restraints a little less risky for students."

I agree that teachers shouldn't have to take abuse, but this seems to me like one of those circumstances where changing the environment before the violence happens would be preferable to piling more violence on top. Schools have to be encouraged, pushed, forced to take seriously things like Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans. They have to be encouraged, pushed, forced not to dump potentially violent students into any classroom with a male teacher, whether it's the right placement or not. They have to be encouraged, pushed, forced to think about training teachers to handle behavior problems, placing students in appropriate classrooms, considering the mix of students and how they might interact with one another. Schools should want to do these things, but it has been my experience that they are slow to make positive changes beforehand and quick to blame the student afterward.