State: Iowa City must fix use of seclusion boxes in schools

A recent ruling by the Iowa Department of Education found that some uses of seclusion rooms in Iowa City schools were in violation of state and federal law.

In response to a complaint filed last year, department officials reviewed documentation for 455 incidents of seclusion in the Iowa City Community School District from Dec. 22, 2015, to Dec. 21, 2016. Officials also conducted on-site visits of two of the district's school buildings — each containing two of the roughly 6-by-6-foot, padded, wooden boxes.

In a decision dated May 30, attorney and complaint officer Thomas Mayes confirmed the complaint against the district in terms of:

• Improper documentation of incidents involving seclusion.
• The occasional use of seclusion for minor infractions rather than solely to prevent harm of self or others.
• The possibility that frequent use of seclusion may interfere with a child's right under federal law to free appropriate public education.

Mary Richard, the Iowa City area attorney who filed the complaint in December, praised Mayes' decision for showing how, when a child's individualized education program includes seclusion measures, "those measures must be individualized and not part of a one-size-fits-all IEP or safety plan."

She also approved of the corrective actions Mayes called for, which include:

• The district must review and revise all polices, practices and procedures involving seclusion practices to ensure compliance with state and federal law.
• The district must increase training for staff in terms of documenting incidents of seclusion, using seclusion for proper purposes, reviewing seclusion data and classroom management.
• The district must reconvene IEP team meetings for any child restricted 10 or more times of the 12-month period under review.

Mayes, however, did not confirm those parts of complaint that concerned the design, construction and placement of the seclusion rooms. He also stopped short of calling for a strict ban on the use of seclusion boxes in the district.

District officials said Tuesday that they are in the process of studying the latest corrective actions included in the recent decision. The department also worked with the district last year to put a corrective action plan in place concerning special education programs.

Mayes' decision also comes one week before the district's Time Out Room Task Force is scheduled to release its recommendations for the continued use of seclusion rooms.

"While many of the concerns have already been addressed, the district will continue to develop and implement systemic changes that positively impact the learning environment for all students," Kristin Pedersen, the district's community affairs coordinator, said via email.

'Time out' versus 'confinement'

In her complaint, Richard also argued that district officials were misleading parents when they used the term "time out" as a synonym for "physical confinement and detention."

Mayes concluded that the district's use of "time out" was not a violation because the state administrative rules were "agnostic as to terminology." But he also suggested that having the district voluntarily choose to clarify its vocabulary could be beneficial to everyone involved.

"Additional clarity of language could reduce the likelihood that children who need time out or time away are not placed in physical confinement and detention in a 'time-out room' when the prerequisites for physical confinement have not been met," he wrote.

Mayes also explained that the department determines whether a violation has occurred based on the reasonableness of the actions taken in the moment.

"The department assesses the actions taken by the public agencies from the vantage point of when the public agencies acted," he wrote. "They are not judged with the benefit of hindsight."

'Vast majority' not in violation

State and federal law allow the use of reasonable and necessary force to quell a disturbance, to prevent an act of threatened harm, to obtain possession of a weapon, to defend oneself, to protect the safety of others and to remove a disruptive pupil from class.

"When viewed in this lens, the vast majority of the seclusions at issue met the standard contained in the Iowa Administrative Code," Mayes wrote.

In about 4 percent of the cases reviewed, however, the department found that district staff used seclusion for minor infractions by students, such as "stepping out of a line of students, having 'attitude,' being out of 'instructional control'" and using "foul language."

"Seclusion for minor infractions is not a reasonable response," Mayes wrote.

The 455 incidents reviewed involved 64 children, according to the decision. Of those children, 17 were placed in seclusion once, 12 twice, 17 between three and five times, and 18 for six or more times. 

Those 18 students alone accounted for more than 75 percent of the total number of seclusions in the districts.

The data also show that seclusion is used primarily in the early elementary grades, with 277 of the 455 occurring in pre-kindergarten through third grade, with the average length of seclusion lasting between 20 and 29 minutes.

Thirty of the incidents lasted beyond 50 minutes, the maximum allowed before additional permission is required. There were three incidents that did not have enough documentation to indicate the length of time in seclusion.

Reach Jeff Charis-Carlson at jcharisc@press-citizen.com or 319-887-5435. Follow him on Twitter at @JeffCharis.