When kids have challenges, they impact not only themselves but others. Taking them out of the situation allows the class to continue. However, putting a small child alone in a small room could not have been the only or best approach when being removed from a classroom.

This may be a case where the child needed a more therapeutic environment than the school was able or willing to provide.  The high cost of care for special children is a burden on families and school districts.  I hope the child got the care and attention she deserves.

"We later learned that Rose had been locked in the closet five times that morning." "We were told that Rose had been in the closet almost daily for three months, for up to an hour at a time. " "Once in the closet, Rose would pound on the door, or scream for help, staff members said, and once her hand was slammed in the doorjamb while being locked inside." Quoted from the NY Times Op-Ed piece. And Paul Ash defends this treatment by saying “At no time did I see anything here that suggested to me that their behavior working with this child was improper,” I feel ill. Rose and all of our children deserve better.

an example of why "settlements" are a lousy way to "resolve" disputes.  What are we left with now??  An angry father, a defensive school district "refuting" and no way to figure out who is telling the truth.

six years later is no time to parse truth from perception.  the description of the "time out" room is chilling; sounds more like a cell as does whoever peered in at the little girl sound like a guard.  

Well, let me speak up in defense of "time out" rooms.  I work at a residential treatment center for teenaged boys that recently built a new residence dorm and tore down the old one.  The new dorm does not have any kind of time out room which I'll define as a room lightly furnished, if at all and with no windows.  This past week, in our new dorm, we had a teen get physically upset, throw furniture and attack staff, so we put him in a prone restraint as we are trained and approved to do.  The only thing is, he kept threatening to break windows and hurt himself as we tried to get him to "contract for safety" as a way out of the restraint, but he wouldn't/couldn't.  We therefore had to keep him in the restraint far longer than we otherwise would have in the old building because the old building *had* a settling room where the kid could walk himself to and sit in there *with a staff person* until he felt more in control.  Now this inability to utilize a safe space turned a 5 minute prone restraint into a near 25 minute one and then afterwards, we had to keep 3 of our 5 person shift in this kid's room (he's a large, athletic, 17 yo) to keep him safe from his window and his furniture - thereby greatly limiting our supervision of the other kids and cancelling evening recreational activities.  Get this too:  the kid himself asked to go to "the quiet room" as a way of getting out of the hold early, but had to be reminded we no longer had such a room.

I know the use of time out rooms seems barbaric to some, and perhaps in a mainstream classroom setting, such rooms aren't needed.  But in some settings, as long as there is attendant staff, a minimal furnished room with no windows or *extremely tough* shielding over the windows, is a good thing.  Too bad the people that designed our new building never actually worked on the floor with the kids they profess to be helping.

Bill Lichtenstein's Response: In Travis Andersen’s article in today’s Boston Globe (9/11/2012), Lexington, MA school superintendent Dr. Paul Ash supposedly "rebuked" the New York Sunday Times story I wrote on the use of restraints and seclusion in schools and the case of my daughter Rose. But he failed to dispute any of the facts. His claim: no one did anything wrong. Below are the documents from the administrative action in Rose’s case that resulted in the settlement. They were handled by our attorney, and the charges made in them were based on Lexington Public School's records, files and depositions with school staff. I defy anyone to read them, particularly the 20-page "Parents Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law," which details what happened to Rose and the underlying legal issues in that matter, and say that what happened here was anything less than unconscionable. It was not. Furthermore, the Boston Globe article got the settlement information wrong. As is contained in the settlement documents posted below, there was a $125,000 settlement as well as payments of $67,075 annually for three years to cover the cost of Rose's placement in a therapeutic school or treatment at home, and $6,687 annually for three years for transportation. The total paid by Lexington in the settlement was $346,286. Would Lexington Superintendent Dr. Paul Ash have us believe that this kind of settlement, including therapeutic treatment for Rose, was, as he told the Boston Globe "a customary step when parents are seeking placement outside of the school district, which did not admit to any wrongdoing in the case"? There is clearly a need for a full vetting and investigation of what happened to Rose, and possibly, as we were told by school staff at the time, other children who may have been placed in the seclusion room, as well. You can see the documents from the administrative action in Rose's case posted on Patch.com at: http://lexington.patch.com/articles/lps-superintendent-statement-challenges-nyt-oped-alleging-mistreatment-of-special-needs-student#pdf-11299348 - Bill Lichtenstein

The parents filed suit for their daughter and then took half of what was left after lawyers' fees for themselves?  $346k paid by Lexington.  $125k to the parents for their "pain and suffering" and $67k for "home treatment" for three years?  money, money, money... MONEY.

Aside from the stench of that financial breakdown, if one doesn't care for the details of the settlement, why sign it?  Fight on.  But if you sign the settlement agreement, to come back six years later seems a bit off.

I just hope Rose survives all this (and all of the parties who continue to be involved with her) to go on and live a productive, happy, healthy life.  It seems that the odds are stacked against her in many ways.  

Mr. Lichtenstein signed a strong confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement (see the documents he posted on Facebook and Patch.com). Why does that not still apply? Why can he violate that?

This guy appears to be a REAL piece of work. Apparently, confidential agreements signed almost six years ago do not mean anything to him. I'm sorry that his daughter has serious needs but why bring this up now. If he wasn't happy with the proscribed treatment, then he and his former wife should not have taken the money and signed the agreement. Hopefully, his daughter will do well.

I think Rose's biggest problem is/was and will always be her parents...

good to get this issue out in the open.  Think long and hard - would you want anyone (especially the school you trust with your childs care) doing this to your chlld?

All the students in this girls class had the same teaching experiences, but obnly she acted out? The big difference here is what happened between the end of the school day & the next bell in the AM, namely at home. Does anybody think this was a Cleaver/Father Knows Best house? Tantrums don't come from being asked to get your daily reader out at school... Good luck kid.