James F. Elliott's Open Salon Blog

Our school culture endorses the torture of children

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:04:25 -0400

A friend of mine asked, “How did schools deal with unruly students before electronic torture devices were invented?” How indeed? Usually through the application of communicative de-escalation techniques ranging from “verbal judo” (which cops used to rely on and, as far as I know, are supposed to still) to basic parenting skills, non-coercive punishment, and, if the student becomes physically violent or a danger to themselves, physically non-invasive restraint techniques. Maybe some detention, a suspension, some extra homework, cleaning the erasers and desks… Any of that wring a bell? Because that appears to be very passé in the current educational clime.

Now they apparently just have the cops zap the little bastard when he or she doesn’t listen. At least, that’s what happened yesterday in Lakeland, Florida when a police officer assigned to a middle school campus used his Taser on a thirteen year old girl who was refusing to comply with instructions from the dean. Now, this is very important: No matter how wrong the kid was – and she was very much in the wrong – she did not do a single thing to warrant the use of a Taser. What that cop did was the equivalent of using a cattle prod to push an intransigent cow down the line.

Fortunately for you, dear reader, I, your humble guide, am in the unique situation to actually know what I’m talking about versus your garden-variety pundit or coercive parenting advocate: I’ve worked, briefly, on a cattle ranch and actually used cattle prods on stubborn steers. For the past seven years, I’ve worked with cognitively disabled and emotionally unstable kids in schools and residential settings. For the last five of those, I’ve trained other professionals on how to respond to “aggressive” behaviors. Frequent readers of my work will no doubt be tired of my refrain here, but it bears repeating: Non-compliance that endangers no-one is never an excuse for physical-coercion.

The use of police officers on campus is indicative of a darker turn in our parenting culture. For a culture that claims to value independence, we spend an awful lot of time demanding obedience. And make no mistake, using physical coercion on a “non-compliant” individual is not imposing discipline: it is a naked assertion of power, no more. You’re not taking a child and teaching them how to regulate themselves; instead, you are removing any sense of agency they have. Only two ends can result from that. Either the child is broken and becomes obedient and cowed, or the child will continue to exhibit “problem” behaviors in order to assert some kind of personal control. In either case, coercion has not resulted in an appropriate outcome.

There is a world of difference between “helping” a toddler or a quick swat on the rump to using a belt or a Taser on a child. And make no mistake, an adolescent is still a child. Their brain is not done developing. Some research has found that adolescents exhibit brain patterns remarkably similar to those in people experiencing symptoms of diagnosable mental illnesses, such as psychotic breaks or hyper-mania.

A Taser sends approximately 50,000 volts through the body. It is a less-than-lethal weapon designed to incapacitate an adult male assailant. It causes involuntary loss of neuro-muscular control; both the passage of the electricity and the muscular contractions it causes are very painful. If you or I were to use one on our child when they were being particularly disruptive or intransigent, we would be arrested – and quite rightly so. For what reason, then, do we tacitly support the use of Tasers on children by police officers?

The use of physical coercion or restraints – and surely the Taser qualifies – is, in professional response methodologies, the tail-end of a hierarchy of interventions and subject to very specific criteria: is the child an immediate physical danger to him or herself or others? If the answer to that question is “no,” then there is no justification for physical intervention. Police officers are taught a very specific skill set for gaining immediate control of a situation. Their goal is compliance, not discipline. This might be fine for the streets – though I have my professional doubts about that, as well – but it is wildly inappropriate for the schools.

The use of police on campus has gone beyond having officers present to deter or respond to student-on-student violence or crimes. They are now, increasingly, being used as alternatives to school disciplinarians. In one such incident, a client of mine – a 12 year old boy with autism – was removed from P.E. class by a police officer. The officer handcuffed my client, lifted him by the arms (damaging his rotator cuffs in the process), and dragged him out of the gym. His crime? Refusing to leave class because he did not understand what he had done wrong.

During my year in graduate school working as a counselor at a high school on San Jose’s East Side, I found police officers valuable allies in responding to certain situations, such as threats of violence or searching for a suicidal teenage girl who ran off-campus. In those cases, their immediate availability by having an officer on-campus was appropriate. But their presence in what used to be routine discipline matters, is more often than not counter-productive: their skills are simply not developmentally or psychologically appropriate to dealing with children and adolescents, and, at least in the case of the San Jose Police Department and the school districts that use them, they have proven unwilling to provide or entertain any notion to the contrary, let alone be trained in more appropriate methods.

An autism quite apart from "Rain Man"

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:03:43 -0400

Ann Bauer’s continuing series in Salon about her adult son’s autism, while not perhaps educational, is still valuable to read. I find myself drawn to it because her son’s troubles mirror a small but significant percentage of my own clients’ experiences, a decompensation that I find clinically fascinating and heart-wrenching to watch families go through.

I would invite the individuals jumping on Mrs. Bauer’s latest piece’s lack of reporting to calm down. Reading both this and her previous works, it is clear that while they contain some advocacy, their focus is on sharing the pain and anguish parents of children with autism feel for their child. These are self-reflective essays, not reported pieces using anecdotal hooks. And yes, that entails an element of narcissim; this doesn’t make them unhealthy, or lacking in value.

Answering the question “Why isn’t there data included in this piece” is really quite simple: it’s not really out there, and when it is, it’s more qualitative than quantitative. Even the “standardized” measures for autism contain a high degree of subjectivity. The development of interventions for autism – and no, Greenspan’s method (which is excellent) is not meant to “cure” autism but to teach parents and children to cope and adapt with the differences it entails – are focused on early to young childhood (hence the name “Floortime” for Greenspan’s method!), and appropriately so. The bottom line is that for individuals Andrew’s age, many of the interventions we tout today simply did not exist and those that did were not widely promulgated. Some states still institutionalize children with severe autism rather than provide outpatient or behavioral treatment.

Given the highly variable nature autism can take in each child, there is no one intervention method that works. Those of us who live with or work day in and day out with children and young adults with autism, are dealing with individuals whose developmental disability encompasses difficulties in self-regulation, processing, language, and social skills. For a small percentage, that means behaviors that are violent or endangering. And, for certain high-functioning individuals, that can mean actions that are criminal. After all, you’re asking people who have difficulty relating to others in empathic ways and regulating their own impulses to consider the results of their actions on others; this simply doesn’t make sense unless that individual has first been helped to develop coping mechanisms that allow them to do so within the context of their autism! In the case of Mrs. Bauer’s son, those methods would largely have been non-existent during his time in school.

I’ve been working in behavioral and mental health crisis intervention with children and young adults with autism for eight years now. At any given time, I work with about 30 individuals with autism, ranging from severely impaired to very mildly so. I can honestly say that at any given time, approximately 10% of those individuals are experiencing a spate of behaviors that involve violence, extreme agitation, and a loss of previously-demonstrated abilities. For the more severely impaired individuals, this is frightening to behold. In the two extremely otherwise competent individuals I’ve seen this happen in, their behaviors resembled nothing so much as anti-social personality disorder. To date, they were all males, though one colleague has a female experiencing the same thing. We don’t know why this occurs. My theory is that hormonal imbalance has something to do with it; research is simply not available at this time.

One thing we cannot do is forget that behaviors are a form of communication. They do not occur in an irrational or illogical way for the individual demonstrating them. It is our responsibility to evaluate everything happening around the individual to determine what kind of antecedents could have provoked, triggered, or inspired the behavior. Take, for example, when Andrew Bauer clutched his mother’s hands and said “I could kill you.” I would bet even money that was a warning and a plea for help, an attempt to connect to his mother, rather than a threat. But his affect, flattened by his autism and the drugs, could easily have led to misinterpretation. We must also never forget that the mere diagnosis of autism cannot rule out the co-morbidity of mental illness. I’ve worked with individuals with both autism and schizophrenia, with bipolar disorder, and so on. Depression occurs in people with developmental disabilities at an astonishing rate.

On a professional level, I find myself curious about these group homes and other programs Andrew Bauer has attended. They seem to be... haphazard, at best. What state is this? How are its developmental services organized? Where are the developmental professionals in all this?

No justice for the mentally ill

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:08:32 -0400

A man whose botched suicide attempt caused the deaths of 11 commuter train passengers in 2005 was sentenced to 11 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole in a Los Angeles court today. Judge William Pounders, of the California Superior Court of Los Angeles County, called Juan Alvarez "a remorseless killer." Alvarez, who initially parked an SUV on a Metrolink train track in Glendale, California, changed his mind at the last minute and, unable to move the SUV, leaped clear before a commuter train struck his vehicle, sending it into the path of another commuter train and derailing both. 11 people died and 180 were injured. The incident was popularized on an episode of NBC's Law & Order television show.

This sentence is a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, serving only to highlight society's refusal to come to grips with and understand mental illness. Drunk drivers who kill others through their actions are not given such sentences. Alvarez, who wanted to "get the attention" of his estranged wife, has a history of childhood abuse and methamphetamine addiction.

Mental illness, which affects one in five American families, is one of the least-tolerated and most socially stigmatizing diagnoses a person can have. While others, such as the intellectually and developmentally disabled, may be viewed as "worthy" or "deserving," the mentally ill are kept at arms-length. The jury foreman, who stated to the Associated Press that he did not believe Alvarez planned on hurting anyone other than himself also rejected Alvarez's "reason" for trying to kill himself.

Many suicide attempts are precisely such cries for the attention of a loved one or someone, anyone. Suicide is often portrayed as an act of severe depression and despair; it is also a profoundly narcissistic and self-absorbed one as well. But then, so is alcoholism.

Alvarez's suicide attempt killed other people. He deserves punishment. But 11 life sentences, without the possibility of ever being released, isn't it. He didn't intend to harm anyone other than himself. He is being punished as though his negligent act should be held to the same standard as a rational, normally functioning individual. Someone in the throws of a deep clinical depression, psychotic episode, or other mental illness will often function at greatly decreased cognitive levels.

Alvarez's sentence is a travesty, a mockery of the compassion and humanity we are supposed to strive for. Would he have had such a severe sentence were he under the influence of a more acceptable illness, like alcoholism, or a diabetic coma? What if his reason for trying to kill himself had been a debilitating disease? But no, it was depression. He should have just shaken it off, cowboy'd up, and if he couldn't, well throw the book at him.

-James F. Elliott is an associate clinical social worker for children and young adults dually-diagnosed with intellectual or developmental disabilities and mental illnesses.

Collateral damage

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:08:49 -0400

California continues to remain at a budget impasse over a deficit of some $15 billion in program funding and expenditures. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to temporarily reduce the wages of 200,000 state employees to the federal minimum wage, as well as terminating some 22,000 retired annuities, temporary, and seasonal workers' income. This is, he claims, the result of the State Legislature's inability to pass a budget.

There is some truth to this. Since no budget was enacted by July 31, many state agencies and departments were forced to tap their lines of credit, which will allow them to continue operations until the end of September. For agencies such as mine (though a non-profit, we are funded solely by the state and our budgets are line-items in the Department of Developmental Services budget), this means the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in credit interest and fees to our operations dollars (service dollars remain untouched). In some ways, this is fairly typical of the last dozen years or so worth of California politics. What is unprecedented is the Governor's behavior. Despite the occasional dramatic flourish, such as the pen stroke of doom to public servants' paychecks, Governor Schwarzenegger has remained largely silent throughout the whole budget process since submitting his proposed budget in May. Indeed, this is all the more dramatic because it is a waste of time: State Controller John Chiang, who actually controls payment on all the state's bills, has said he will not enforce Schwarzenegger's executive order.

This overall silence, with the occasional petulant outburst, is appalling -- not just because the budget is virtually unchanged from the form he proposed, but because the impasse is entirely the fault of the Governor's own political party. The Republican Party of California remains not just obstinate about the budget, but completely disengaged from the process. California is a "2/3rds" state, meaning the Senate must have a 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget. With 14 seats, the Senate Republicans control two more seats than necessary to have an effective eternal filibuster. They have voted down proposed budget items and attempts at passing the budget.

And they do this in silence. Typically, in the budget process, the two parties meet (often with the Governor) to hash out their differences. The state Republicans have simply refused to communicate with the Democrats. They won't come to the table or offer opposing measures. They won't propose an alternative budget. You can't compromise if one side won't state what its terms and desires are, or even speak.

The Governor, who used to make a big deal out of holding legislators' feet to the fire in order to pass needed legislation -- like a budget -- in the past, has proven wholly unwilling to call out the obstructionists that form his own party. Republican Senate leader Dave Codgill and Assembly leader Mike Villiness flat out lied when they issued a statement stating:

"Republicans understand the urgency of getting the budget done as soon as possible, which is our main focus right now. We are working very hard to avoid drastic measures like the one that is being proposed." [via the Sacramento Bee article linked above.]

If that were true, they'd have come to the bargaining table long before. But the California Republicans are some of the craziest conservatives west of the Rockies. Too bad our "all about business" Governor is unwilling to show some brass and call the Republicans out on their inaction. California faces real budget problems, but those cannot be resolved so long as no discussion occurs.