I'm afraid I simply don't believe that. The techniques are failing? Then introduce better ones, not worse ones!
There are better methods than this. I do not, and will not accept that the need for wiring up these children and causing them pain every time their shirt is untucked is anything other than the fault of their carers up to this point. Those shock units must have cost a bit. Use the money a better carer to child ratio, to pay for activities that engage the children, to pay for a couple of adults to sit with the children during downtime and actually converse with them and make them feel wanted. That will yield far better results.
The article describes giving students painful electric shocks when they step out of line. The system may have originally been intended to be used only when a dangerous behaviour was exhibited which put the student or another person at clear risk, but it's evolved very quickly from that to be simply another methood of control, with the 'controlled' behaviour being more and more unclear. These students are being controlled by people who haven't been adequetely trained, in fact I am of the opinion that no amount of training is adequete to ensure that this power isn't abused, especially when dealing with children who have no method of comeback.
To clarify, these students are being shocked not only when they put people at risk, but also for far more basic 'infringments' such as swearing or having an untidy appearance. Some of these students have never exhibited the guidline behaviours (self harm, etc) that this 'control' was intended for. Some of these students are being punished for doing as they are told.
Climb inside the heads of these students for a minute. Their life is full of confusion, lack of understanding, lack of ability, frustration, and that's just due to their disabilities. Then add in the fact that their coping mechanisms (which are dangerous), the very appearance of which denotes how unhappy they are, are now resulting in physical pain. A horrible life. But THEN add to this the fact that this method of control ALSO results in them getting shocks for things that aren't dangerous or even important in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes they won't know why they have been shocked. Sometimes they will be trying to do what they're told (shouted at, forced) to do, and then they get a shock for that. Imagine the pain, confusion, sheer dispair of living like that. Imagine losing the will to survive with a life that consists of pain. Imagine having no positive reason to respond in a favourable way, only negative reasons. Imagine being completely broken in mind and spirit.
There is a feedback loop that is, if anything, even more true of disabled children. Pain and anger lead to negative behaviour, which produces this negative reaction. Because negative reactions are so strong, this reaction is sought again and again with increasing severity of unwelcome behaviour. This repeated pain and anger can escalate to include more severe shocks, issued more regularly, especially when under the control of 'carers' who are misguided, non-empathic, badly trained, lacking in understanding or just plain cruel. The harder punishments lead to worse behaviour and somebody has to stop this negative feedback loop. Obviously it's not going to be stopped by the disabled child. They need an adult to make that decision for them and take steps to get out of the cycle of punishment, misbehaviour and pain. This electric shock punishment system flies in the face of positive reinforcement, a method that is proven to have the most notable effects in these cases. In fact, the electric shock punishment system is the complete opposite of it.
I doubt very much that animal rights campaigners would sit back and allow a field full of cattle to be rigged up like this, getting shocks every time they strayed too close to the edge of the field or every time they didn't walk alongside the farmer or every time they refused to walk voluntarily through the chemical dip. If so, how can anyone justify doing this to children?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-10-12 11:09 am (UTC)I'm afraid I simply don't believe that. The techniques are failing? Then introduce better ones, not worse ones!
There are better methods than this. I do not, and will not accept that the need for wiring up these children and causing them pain every time their shirt is untucked is anything other than the fault of their carers up to this point. Those shock units must have cost a bit. Use the money a better carer to child ratio, to pay for activities that engage the children, to pay for a couple of adults to sit with the children during downtime and actually converse with them and make them feel wanted. That will yield far better results.
The article describes giving students painful electric shocks when they step out of line. The system may have originally been intended to be used only when a dangerous behaviour was exhibited which put the student or another person at clear risk, but it's evolved very quickly from that to be simply another methood of control, with the 'controlled' behaviour being more and more unclear. These students are being controlled by people who haven't been adequetely trained, in fact I am of the opinion that no amount of training is adequete to ensure that this power isn't abused, especially when dealing with children who have no method of comeback.
To clarify, these students are being shocked not only when they put people at risk, but also for far more basic 'infringments' such as swearing or having an untidy appearance. Some of these students have never exhibited the guidline behaviours (self harm, etc) that this 'control' was intended for. Some of these students are being punished for doing as they are told.
Climb inside the heads of these students for a minute. Their life is full of confusion, lack of understanding, lack of ability, frustration, and that's just due to their disabilities. Then add in the fact that their coping mechanisms (which are dangerous), the very appearance of which denotes how unhappy they are, are now resulting in physical pain. A horrible life. But THEN add to this the fact that this method of control ALSO results in them getting shocks for things that aren't dangerous or even important in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes they won't know why they have been shocked. Sometimes they will be trying to do what they're told (shouted at, forced) to do, and then they get a shock for that. Imagine the pain, confusion, sheer dispair of living like that. Imagine losing the will to survive with a life that consists of pain. Imagine having no positive reason to respond in a favourable way, only negative reasons. Imagine being completely broken in mind and spirit.
There is a feedback loop that is, if anything, even more true of disabled children. Pain and anger lead to negative behaviour, which produces this negative reaction. Because negative reactions are so strong, this reaction is sought again and again with increasing severity of unwelcome behaviour. This repeated pain and anger can escalate to include more severe shocks, issued more regularly, especially when under the control of 'carers' who are misguided, non-empathic, badly trained, lacking in understanding or just plain cruel. The harder punishments lead to worse behaviour and somebody has to stop this negative feedback loop. Obviously it's not going to be stopped by the disabled child. They need an adult to make that decision for them and take steps to get out of the cycle of punishment, misbehaviour and pain. This electric shock punishment system flies in the face of positive reinforcement, a method that is proven to have the most notable effects in these cases. In fact, the electric shock punishment system is the complete opposite of it.
I doubt very much that animal rights campaigners would sit back and allow a field full of cattle to be rigged up like this, getting shocks every time they strayed too close to the edge of the field or every time they didn't walk alongside the farmer or every time they refused to walk voluntarily through the chemical dip. If so, how can anyone justify doing this to children?