Educators’ Sensemaking about Seclusion and Restraint in a Changing Regulatory Context

Abstract

Policies governing the use of seclusion and restraint in schools may only have a modest effect on the use of these procedures, particularly the frequency these are used. This study explored educators’ sensemaking about seclusion and restraint after a statute and new policy were introduced. A case-study design was used to analyze the meanings educators created in the new regulatory environment. The new regulations had a significant guiding effect on educators as they adjusted their thinking and use of seclusion and restraint to align with the new law and policy. Educators reported becoming much more cautious and thoughtful in their use of these procedures. They viewed the new regulations as a strong protection for students against the misuse of seclusion and restraint. They reported becoming more proactive to prevent seclusion and restraint, and they put more effort into de-escalation strategies with students who were becoming aggressive and agitated. These new meanings caused their threshold for seclusion and restraint to change. This study illustrates the influence a legal mandate can have on the seriousness in which educators view specific policy positions.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Sarah Winchell Lenhoff, for her critique and support in the process of completing the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

This research was conducted in support of the author’s doctoral degree. This is a reporting of a portion of the findings. I do not have a conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethics approval

I submitted the protocol to the Wayne State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), seeking confirmation of exempt status. The IRB reviewer confirmed, and the protocol (IRB-20-06-2456) was granted exempt status. The research did not involve a protected class of research participants (i.e., children, students, or prisoners). All participants were educated-adult school employees. The material and content of the interviews were not outside the range of educators’ employment responsibilities. I requested that the IRB waive the use of a form to gain informed consent as the educated adults were able to choose whether to participate or not. The IRB allowed the use of an information sheet in lieu of a consent form. The information sheet contained all elements of an informed consent form except a signature line. This research met the requirements for this waiver. After they were given the information sheet, participants were informed that they could opt-out of the study and discontinue the interview at any point in time. No participant chose to opt-out. All 16 participants completed the interview. Participant names were not used in any portion of the reporting or data analysis. Participants were asked to choose a pseudonym or were given a pseudonym to protect their identity.