I guess I have to qualify "local", now, since it isn't true in a strictly physical sense. My heart, of course, will continue to reside in Reno, even if I live in Great Barrington. That's just how I work. I don't think that will change unless I move to, say, San Fransisco, and then they can have joint custody of my reminiscent feelings.
Anyway... onto topic. A lawsuit against the district and related school personnel states that they failed to protect an autistic child after he reported being sexually assaulted, twice. The second assault, which was investigated, with the physical evidence showed signs of rape, is alleged to have occurred after he reported the first incident, which he says was related to sexual harassment, but was ignored by a counselor and a teacher. After he reported the second incident, the counselor did actually go through procedure and launch the investigation that found physical signs of rape.
Admittedly, I know I'm a sympathetic figure by nature. But the allegations, having been part and parcel of the same school system (albeit not at the middle school level; my first year of middle school was at a charter school), seem fairly plausible in my mind. To me, the nature of the beast is in its inconsistency.
A teacher did once respond to something on my behalf (something that was convoluted and not actually that one would have responded to, had there been clear communication between parties. One of those cringe worthy moments in retrospect), but other times you could safely walk into classrooms with notable injuries (even a black eye) and there wouldn't be much of an honest response. It was just very flaky.
Further, it does seem to me that the level of established understandings of communication that are typically developed between a verbal autistic individual and the school district is not enough to keep one honestly safe from these kind of things. That's a fairly consistent problem, I think; the modes of communication aren't usually particularly noted and the structure changed. That "x wouldn't do something like that" is something I honestly could hear as a possibility. The development of just a stereotyped means of communication, and not taking the autistic person seriously, applies pretty universally. Things can be that flaky.
In any event... I'm hoping this gets resolved, as fast as possible. To note what Superintendent Dugan says, I think we have a clear and obvious moral imperative to protect people from being affected by such behavior. I have clear doubts, though, on whether it's happening.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Importance of Overview of Restraint
So... turns out I'm back in the library, because my computer has been having a slew of complicated troubles. I'm not a tech person, and aside from saying that it involves my graphics driver I'm not even going to get into it. But it is an extreme thorn. I'm beginning to think about trying to send it to a repair shop.
Anyway, that's not what I intended to talk about!
I was more thinking about this Las Vegas Sun article that appeared late last week. Apparently, Clark County has decided that the legal requirement for reporting has become too stringent, and that we should find "other methods", rather than reporting when physical restraint had to be used.
Here's the relevant law on that.
While I am willing to accept that we might wish to revise that process, I'm not happy with this, to say the least. The coding may be that it's an inefficient process that needs to be altered so that it is effective in general, but realistically the measure is asking to not have to pay as much attention to individuals with disabilities. Let's break down what's being asked here.
The first thing mentioned is the extension to a three-day period. I don't think it is practical or wise, really, because we have to contextualize that this is in a classroom setting. I seriously doubt there are going to be remote incidents when you couldn't talk to people who were in the classroom during that period. If so, it'd be extremely isolated. I could theorize you would want to talk to an assistant or aide of some kind who was gone the next day and couldn't be reached through other means, but that's rare.
Plus, the room for influence and coercion, something that simply can't be ignored in these incidents, increases significantly when you add on a few days. Given an authority figure insinuating certain things about that individual or some form of justification, and just given the fact of three days, the chances for reporting error go way up, as noted in the article. It's on the whole more practical and effective to get it done as fast as possible, given the limited circumstances.
The next thing, and more troubling, is the broadening of the terms of "restraint".
The term needs to be broad exactly because it covers all bases. It needs to be clear to everyone involved exactly what kind of procedures have been taken, even if its really a matter of procedure and for mutual informational purposes only. It is not, to contrast, only a report that should be filed when something particularly extraordinary comes about in the classroom. The stakes here are too high. Lives may be extremely damaged, and educational possibilities for people can be thrown to the side if these are ignored; it's a paper burden for the school district if they are not. Keeping simple perspective, which is more important?
The attention necessary for protecting individuals, who at this time who are quite vulnerable to any kind of institutional marginalization, especially for their age and comparative lack of self-advocacy ability, is a lot for a variety of reasons. Parents have a right to know if restraints are being regularly used, and under what circumstances, with the further right to try and talk about the circumstances and ask that things be handled differently, especially for that lack of easy communication. It cannot be taken for granted, even, that some skill in communicating in the classroom will translate to easily talking about harrasment from teachers, so the issue applies quite openly to individuals across a spectrum of conditions. Especially earlier on, I know this was not the case with myself. As it stands, the long-term instincts associated are broad; I developed and maintained the habit of simply working harder, uphill against all forms of institutional discrimination or difficulty where I should have been given accommodation under reasonable circumstances. I'd rather not see that be the case with all individuals with disabilities, because it sets a unlivable standard.
(To be totally fair, "autism" was largely seen as a past tense deal for me until I was thirteen, and was invisible to the school district, so it wasn't really any wrongdoing on their part. But the effect was the same)
Thus, these kinds of measures are kept broad because parents need to know what is going on in the classroom, and it needs to be clear through the institution itself. The school needs to be held to a consistent and rigourous standard to protect the basic rights of those with disabilities, to the same degree that they are held to the rest of the population. That the school district wishes to slip away from that is alarming, and needs to be stopped.
Easily said, I'll be opposing the measure, back as much as I can from Massachusets. It's important that the law is not modified to allow a form of under-the-radar abuse. And, being from Nevada, it's important to maintain what standards we have on this issue, which (as the governor cuts from any number of thing) could become far worse if efforts aren't taken.
Anyway, that's not what I intended to talk about!
I was more thinking about this Las Vegas Sun article that appeared late last week. Apparently, Clark County has decided that the legal requirement for reporting has become too stringent, and that we should find "other methods", rather than reporting when physical restraint had to be used.
Here's the relevant law on that.
While I am willing to accept that we might wish to revise that process, I'm not happy with this, to say the least. The coding may be that it's an inefficient process that needs to be altered so that it is effective in general, but realistically the measure is asking to not have to pay as much attention to individuals with disabilities. Let's break down what's being asked here.
The first thing mentioned is the extension to a three-day period. I don't think it is practical or wise, really, because we have to contextualize that this is in a classroom setting. I seriously doubt there are going to be remote incidents when you couldn't talk to people who were in the classroom during that period. If so, it'd be extremely isolated. I could theorize you would want to talk to an assistant or aide of some kind who was gone the next day and couldn't be reached through other means, but that's rare.
Plus, the room for influence and coercion, something that simply can't be ignored in these incidents, increases significantly when you add on a few days. Given an authority figure insinuating certain things about that individual or some form of justification, and just given the fact of three days, the chances for reporting error go way up, as noted in the article. It's on the whole more practical and effective to get it done as fast as possible, given the limited circumstances.
The next thing, and more troubling, is the broadening of the terms of "restraint".
The term needs to be broad exactly because it covers all bases. It needs to be clear to everyone involved exactly what kind of procedures have been taken, even if its really a matter of procedure and for mutual informational purposes only. It is not, to contrast, only a report that should be filed when something particularly extraordinary comes about in the classroom. The stakes here are too high. Lives may be extremely damaged, and educational possibilities for people can be thrown to the side if these are ignored; it's a paper burden for the school district if they are not. Keeping simple perspective, which is more important?
The attention necessary for protecting individuals, who at this time who are quite vulnerable to any kind of institutional marginalization, especially for their age and comparative lack of self-advocacy ability, is a lot for a variety of reasons. Parents have a right to know if restraints are being regularly used, and under what circumstances, with the further right to try and talk about the circumstances and ask that things be handled differently, especially for that lack of easy communication. It cannot be taken for granted, even, that some skill in communicating in the classroom will translate to easily talking about harrasment from teachers, so the issue applies quite openly to individuals across a spectrum of conditions. Especially earlier on, I know this was not the case with myself. As it stands, the long-term instincts associated are broad; I developed and maintained the habit of simply working harder, uphill against all forms of institutional discrimination or difficulty where I should have been given accommodation under reasonable circumstances. I'd rather not see that be the case with all individuals with disabilities, because it sets a unlivable standard.
(To be totally fair, "autism" was largely seen as a past tense deal for me until I was thirteen, and was invisible to the school district, so it wasn't really any wrongdoing on their part. But the effect was the same)
Thus, these kinds of measures are kept broad because parents need to know what is going on in the classroom, and it needs to be clear through the institution itself. The school needs to be held to a consistent and rigourous standard to protect the basic rights of those with disabilities, to the same degree that they are held to the rest of the population. That the school district wishes to slip away from that is alarming, and needs to be stopped.
Easily said, I'll be opposing the measure, back as much as I can from Massachusets. It's important that the law is not modified to allow a form of under-the-radar abuse. And, being from Nevada, it's important to maintain what standards we have on this issue, which (as the governor cuts from any number of thing) could become far worse if efforts aren't taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
