Students with disabilities are disproportionately exposed to the use of aversive behavioral management techniques, such as physical restraints and seclusions, than their nondisabled peers (Gagnon et al., 2017; Katsiyannis et al., 2020). The use of the aversive behavioral management techniques is primarily used as a form of behavior management, particularly in the event of the engagement in challenging or harmful behavior to the student’s self, the classroom teacher, or peers (Friedman & Crabb, 2018). The use of such techniques is intended for emergency situations, when student behaviors pose an imminent threat to themself, school personnel, or peers, but there is an increasing fear that the implementation of aversive behavioral management techniques are used as punishment and retaliation for non-compliance (French & Wojcicki, 2018). The misuse of the aversive behavioral management techniques may lead to implications of abuse and call for alternative measures to reduce the use of the aversive behavioral management techniques in the special education classroom (Trader et al., 2017).
Butler (2019) found students have been injured and traumatized by being restrained and 20 students have died due to restraints. This study used data collected from reports of physical restraints from 51 states, including the District of Columbia, for the first six months of 2019. Through this study, restraints and seclusions have been identified as being harmful to students. The use of the aversive behavioral management techniques may pose a danger to the individual or individuals restraining the child (Friedman & Crabb, 2018). By avoiding the use of aversive behavioral management techniques, injury may be avoided for both student and school personnel.
There are laws providing protections against restraint and seclusion practices in 35 states. Out of those 35 states, 29 states provide laws stating that aversive behavioral management techniques are only to be used in emergency situations (Katsiyannis et al., 2017). Parents and guardians of students with disabilities who have been subjected to the misuse or overuse of aversive behavioral management techniques may find legal assistance against the principals and district leaders. In 2001, the 3rd Circuit Court of the United States provided principals and district leaders with a four step test to examine if the use of any aversive behavioral management technique may be deemed as abusive through overuse and misuse. The court ruled there is a narrow difference between restraining a child for their safety and abusing a child. The four step test provided to principals was to ensure restraints being done in the school were for safety and did not pass the boundary of becoming abusive (Katsiyannis et al., 2017). Protections are beginning to be put in place to protect students with disabilities from being harmed in the classroom due to being restrained or secluded (Lewis et al., 2017).
As of 2020, there was no documentation on how many schools train teachers and school staff on preventative and proactive behavior management interventions. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR, 2020), for the 2015–2016 school year, in the United States, 12% of students were serviced under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Out of the 124,000 students restrained or secluded during that school year, 71% of those students restrained were serviced under IDEA and 66% of the students secluded were serviced under IDEA (United Stated Department of Education, 2018). The reports do not indicate the severity or nature of the situation, how many times each child was restrained or secluded, or if steps were taken to deescalate each situation. This raises the question if the use of the aversive behavioral management techniques may have been avoidable.
Through the use of preventative and proactive behavior interventions and supports, classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, and school personnel may have the ability to deescalate challenging and problem behaviors before emergency actions, like restraints and seclusions, are needed. It may be necessary to avoid the use of restraints and seclusions to avoid physical and psychological harm (Katsiyannis et al., 2020). Simonsen et al. (2019) found the use of proactive and preventative positive behavior supports in the classroom resulted in an increase in appropriate behavior, a decrease in inappropriate behavior, and an improvement in academic outcomes. Teachers, paraprofessionals, and school personnel may need to be trained on how to appropriately use proactive and preventative positive behavior supports in the classroom.
A way to ensure proper use of preventative and proactive behavior interventions in the special education classroom is through the participation in professional developments and training sessions for school personnel. A study conducted by Lewis et al. (2017) found the training and coaching of teaching staff on the proper implementation of preventative behavior was successful in decreasing total disruptive behaviors and negative social interactions and increased reading fluency. Some teachers benefit from training on how to simply approach a challenging situation. By changing the approach from criticism to care, students may be more willing to work with the teacher in deescalating the behaviors (Holland & Ohle, 2020).
Trainings may provide teachers with the skills necessary to deescalate challenging behaviors before they turn into emergency situations. The evidence found in Simonsen et al. (2019) cause interest in the use of proactive and preventative behavior management intervention in special education classrooms. The deescalation of challenging behaviors may be the first step to avoiding the use of aversive behavioral management techniques on students. Protection for students against the aversive behavioral management techniques have been established in 35 states (Katsiyannis et al., 2017), but these protections may not be followed through in all classrooms. Teachers and other school staff may need to be trained on how to properly enforce preventative and proactive measures.
Studies have shown the use of preventative and proactive behavior interventions to be effective in reducing the instances of challenging and problematic behaviors in the special education classroom (Holland & Ohle, 2020; Simonesen et al., 2019). Studies also express the dangers of the use of aversive behavioral management techniques, such as restraints and seclusion practices (Butler, 2019; Friedman & Crabb, 2018; Katsiyannis et al., 2020). This study focused on preventative and proactive interventions as an alternative to aversive behavioral management techniques. Students may not need to be restrained if the challenging behavior does not escalate to an emergency situation. Research was conducted to determine if the avoidance of emergency situations through trained preventative measures decreased the need for aversive behavioral management techniques.
Statement Of The Problem
The general problem addressed by this study was the use of aversive behavioral management techniques when students displayed challenging behaviors in the special education classroom due to teachers’ reported feelings of being underprepared in classroom management (Green et al., 2020). When teachers resort to the use of restraints or seclusion practices as the first form of behavior intervention, due to a lack of teacher training, psychological or physical injuries can occur (Trader et al., 2017; Scheuermann et al., 2016). A disproportionate number of students with disabilities are restrained each year due to challenging behaviors in the classroom which may lead to complications, such as injury or death (Prince & Gothberg, 2019). In a study conducted by the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (2020), there have been about 31 students die as a result of restraints in the classroom from the years of 2003 to 2017. The use of aversive behavioral management techniques, which are intended for emergency situations only, has become an initial reaction to maladaptive behaviors because of a lack of teacher training (Scheuermann et al., 2016) even after the use of restraints and seclusions have been found to cause physical and phycological harm, such as traumatization (Butler, 2019).
Purpose Of The Study
The purpose of this quantitative correlational design with multiple regression analysis was to determine if the number of hours of teacher training in preventative and proactive interventions, and the intensity of a student’s challenging behavior had an effect on the use of restraint and seclusion practices being used in the special education classroom. This study utilized the Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-revised (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) which is designed to measure student behavior intensity for students up to the age of 16. Teachers completed the Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-revised (SESBI-r) for two students who had an active Behavior Intervention Plan in place. No identifying information was asked for any teacher or student. Teachers were asked to complete material for two students to ensure the desired sample size was met. Through a g*power analysis for a multiple regression, 74 participants were needed to maintain a power of .95 for three predictor variables.
This study sampled middle and high school teachers of students from the age of 11 to 16 in a special education district in New York City that had an active Behavior Intervention Plan. Special education teachers of students with developmental disabilities from different schools within the special education district of New York were asked to complete the SESBI-r. In New York City, school districts are configured by location. Within each district, a special education district is formed. These districts educate students who are alternately assessed, separate from the New York State ELA and Mathematics assessments. Special education districts require students to have an IEP with a classification of autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, or an orthopedic impairment. This district services around 24,300 students, aged 2 to 21, and has around 4,800 teachers (New York City Department of Education, 2021).
Along with the SESBI-r, teachers were asked to identify how many hours of preventative and proactive behavior intervention training that teacher received within the previous two years. The teachers were then asked to complete a six-point Likert scale on how often that teacher restrained or secluded the indicated student. The Likert scale indicates 0-never, 1-once a month or less, 2-once a week or less, 3-two to three times a week, 4-daily, 5-two or more times a day. Both the Likert-scale and the indication of training hours were sent to the individual teachers through an electronic questionnaire. Electronic materials will be sent to district leaders first to then be distributed to classroom teachers. This sample was voluntary among special education teachers.
Research Question
RQ1
To what extent, if any, does the number of hours of teacher training on proactive and preventative behavior interventions, and the existence and intensity of a child’s challenging behaviors predict the number of instances aversive behavioral management techniques are used in the special education classroom?
Hypotheses
H10
The number of hours of teacher training on proactive and preventative behavior interventions, and the existence and intensity of a child’s challenging behaviors does not significantly predict the number of instances aversive behavioral management techniques are used in the special education classroom.
H1a
The number of hours of teacher training on proactive and preventative behavior interventions, and the existence and intensity of a child’s challenging behaviors significantly predicts the number of instances aversive behavioral management techniques are used in the special education classroom.
Significance Of The Study
The general problem addressed by this study was how aversive behavioral management techniques are used by special education teachers as a form of behavior intervention because of a lack of teacher training in preventative and proactive behavior interventions (Trader et al., 2017; Scheuermann et al., 2016). Aversive behavioral management techniques, such as restraints and seclusion practices, have been found to cause injury to students and in severe cases, death (Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 2020; Prince & Gothberg, 2019). A lack of teacher training in behavior interventions has contributed to teachers’ fight or flight instinct to take effect when placed in an emergency situation (Scheuermann et al., 2016).
This study may benefit school personnel and students in the special education classroom. Through this study, the effects between the amount of teacher training in preventative and proactive behavior interventions, the intensity of a student’s challenging behaviors, and the use of aversive behavioral management techniques will be determined. This study may identify if teacher trainings have an effect on the number of instances a student is restrained or secluded. This may be a first step in identify alternative measures to take in the classroom to avoid the restraint or seclusion of a students.
The use of restraints have been found to be harmful to students in classrooms and have been deemed as abusive if done inappropriately (Katsiyannis et al., 2017). These measures may be avoided if a relationship is found between teacher training and the use of aversive behavioral management techniques. If less restraints and seclusions are used in the classroom, abuse of a child by a teacher or other school personnel may be avoided.
Theoretical Framework
This study follows the theoretical work of B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning, first introduced in 1953. This theory outlined behavior management as the elimination of the conditioned response to an emotion through reinforcements (Skinner, 1953). Skinner based his research on Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect and Watson’s (1920) classical conditioning. Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect stated any behavior that was immediately followed by a pleasant action was more likely to be repeated and any behavior that was immediately followed by an unpleasant action was less likely to be repeated. Thorndike’s (1898) research used an apparatus, the puzzle box, to document hungry cats’ behaviors when given food for opening a latch. The study, which resulted in Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect, concluded the cats would open the latch quicker and quicker each time they were locked in the box because of the learned behavior of obtaining the food, which was considered the pleasant action.
Skinner believed introducing reinforcements before a behavior started would shape and change the participant’s reaction. Skinner’s (1953) theory of operant conditioning used Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect but modified it to introduce reinforcers. Skinner believed any behavior that was reinforced will be repeated. Based on Watson’s (1920) theory of classical conditioning, any behavior that was not reinforced will become extinct (Skinner, 1953). By not reacting to a challenging behavior, that behavior would become extinct (Skinner, 1953).
Within the field of education, operant conditioning has evolved into applied behavior analysis (Furman & Lepper, 2018). Using Skinner’s theory of operant condition, applied behavior analysis (ABA) analyzes and modifies human behaviors through the use of proactive and positive reinforcements. Applied behavior analysis allows school personnel to asses and treat challenging behaviors by introducing basic behavior principles outlined by Skinner’s operant conditioning through systemic assessment and instructional procedures (Machalicek et al., 2021). Positive behavior modification in the classroom through applied behavior analysis has been widely studied, leading to its use for the early intervention for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (Machalicek et al., 2021). Baer et al. (1968) believed behaviors can be manipulated through positive reinforcements and a change in environment.
Applied behavior analysis allows school personnel to intervene on student behaviors before those behaviors put the student and those around them in imminent danger. Before school personnel are able to intervene, a functional behavior assessment (FBA) is conducted to determine the function of the behavior displayed (Iwata et al., 1994). According to Iwata et al. (1994), there are four functions to all behaviors. Those functions include sensory, escape, attention, or tangible. As stated by Ala’i-Rosales et al. (2018), a sensory driven behavior includes reactions to stress, sounds, or touches. An escape driven behavior is displayed to avoid situations or actions. Behaviors driven by attention are done to gain focus on that individual. Lastly, Ala’i-Rosales et al. (2018) explains how tangible behaviors are done to gain access to objects desired by the individual.
By identifying the cause of the behavior, school personnel have the ability to intervene with positive behavior supports designed for the function of the behavior. Through training on how to identify behaviors and how to intervene with proactive and positive behavior intervention supports, school personnel are equipped to manage student behaviors. This skill set is connected to Skinner’s original theory of operant conditioning by using positive reinforcement to manage an individual’s behaviors. Teachers and other school staff are able to identify a behavior, determine an alternate behavior, identify an effective reinforcer for the individual student, and begin the intervention by using the reinforcer to strengthen the engagement of the alternate behavior. Much like the rat in Skinner’s box, when the student performs the desired alternate behavior, the student would be rewarded with the positive reinforcer. This reinforcer is used to strengthen the engagement of the alternate behavior, increasing the likelihood of repeating that behavior (Skinner, 1953). The challenging behavior is replaced by the reinforced alternate behavior.