James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

page1

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measurement Letters

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

page3

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

Whitehall Studies

AHRQ's Vanderbilt Report

NHDR Measurement

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Spurious Contradictions

Institutional Corresp

page2

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Bibliography

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Case Study II

Subgroup Effects

Subgroup Effects NC

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Interactions by Age

Literacy Illustration

RERI

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Mort/Surv Illustration

Credit Score Illustration

Intermediate Outcomes

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Criminal Record Effects

Sears Case Illustration

Numeracy Illustration

Obesity Illusration

LIHTC Approval Disparitie

Recidivism Illustration

Consensus

Algorithm Fairness

Mortality and Survival 2

Mort/Survival Update

Measures of Association

Immunization Disparities

Race Health Initiative

Educational Disparities

Disparities by Subject

CUNY ISLG Eq Indicators

Harvard CRP NCLB Study

New York Proficiency Disp

Education Trust GC Study

Education Trust HA Study

AE Casey Profic Study

McKinsey Achiev Gap Study

California RICA

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Less Discr Alt - Proc

Less Discr Altl - Subs

Fisher v. Transco Serv

Jones v. City of Boston

Bottom Line Issue

Lending Disparities

Inc & Cred Score Example

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Absolute Differences - L

Lathern v. NationsBank

US v. Countrywide

US v. Wells Fargo

Partial Picture Issues

Foreclosure Disparities

File Comparison Issues

FHA/VA Steering Study

CAP TARP Study

Disparities by Sector

Holder/Perez Letter

Federal Reserve Letter

Discipline Disparities

COPAA v. DeVos

Kerri K. V. California

Truancy Illustration

Disparate Treatment

Relative Absolute Diff

Offense Type Issues

Los Angeles SWPBS

Oakland Disparities

Richmond Disparities

Nashville Disparities

California Disparities

Denver Disparities

Colorado Disparities

Nor Carolina Disparitie

Aurora Disparities

Allegheny County Disp

Evansville Disparities

Maryland Disparities

St. Paul Disparities

Seattle Disparities

Minneapolis Disparities

Oregon Disparities

Beaverton Disparities

Montgomery County Disp

Henrico County Disparitie

Florida Disparities

Connecticut Disparities

Portland Disparities

Minnesota Disparities

Massachusetts Disparities

Rhode Island Disparities

South Bend Disparities

Utah Disparities

Loudoun Cty Disparities

Kern County Disparities

Milwaukee Disparities

Urbana Disparities

Illinois Disparities

Virginia Disparities

Behavior

Suburban Disparities

Preschool Disparities

Restraint Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

Keep Kids in School Act

Gender Disparities

Ferguson Arrest Disp

NEPC Colorado Study

NEPC National Study

California Prison Pop

APA Zero Tolerance Study

Flawed Inferences - Disc

Oakland Agreement

DOE Equity Report

IDEA Data Center Guide

Duncan/Ali Letter

Crim Justice Disparities

U.S. Customs Search Disp

Deescalation Training

Career Criminal Study

Implicit Bias Training

Drawing Inferences

Diversion Programs

Minneapolis PD Investig

Offense Type Issues CJD

Innumerate Decree Monitor

Massachusetts CJ Disparit

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

Sears Case Documents

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Multiplication Definition

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Indexes

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Sears Documents

Pages Transfer


Restraint Disparities

(June 10, 2017)


Prefatory note added October 19, 2019:  Recent discussion of the subject of this page may be found on the Kerri K. v. California subpage.  The subpage discusses the case of Kerri K., et al. v. California, et al. which was brought in a state court in Contra Costa County v. California on May 15, 2019.  The complaint asserts that the state and the country overuse restraints.  It also challenges that high proportion students with disabilities make up of restrained students.  Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants are yet aware that reducing the use of restraints will almost certainly increase that proportion.  The misunderstanding of this issue is also briefly mentioned in the Appendix to my “COPAA v. DeVos and the Government’s Continuing Numeracy Problem,” Federalist Society Blog (Sept. 12, 2019).  Both this page and the Kerri K. page warrant some revision because the examination of underlying data has led me to believe that I overstate extent to which the high proportion students with disabilities make up of restrained students in certain states is a function of the infrequency of the use of restraints in the states.  But the absence of a strong state-by-state inverse relationship between frequency of use of restraints and the proportion students with disabilities make up of restrained students (which absence is due to the fact that a great many factors affect patterns across states) does not call into question high likelihood that reducing restraints in any particular state will tend to increase that proportion.

 


Prefatory note added May 2, 2019: For more recent discussion of the point of this page regarding restraint disparities, see note 8 at page 9 of letter to United States Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice (July 17, 2017) and Table 4 at page 5 of the handout used at a March 22, 2018 meeting with Department of Education staff.  With regard to the broader misunderstanding, see my “Innumeracy at the Department of Education and the Congressional Committees Overseeing It,” Federalist Society Blog (Aug. 24, 2017), “United States Exports Its Most Profound Ignorance About Racial Disparities to the United Kingdom,” Federalist Society Blog (Nov. 2, 2017), and “Discipline disparities in Md. Schools,” Daily Record (June 21, 2018), as well as my December 8, 2017 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

             


This page may be compared to the Feminization of Poverty page, which discusses the curious notion that society would be somehow better off if, in addition to having poor people in economically disadvantaged family units, there were also poor in units that were not economically disadvantaged. 

The Department of Education (DOE)is concerned about the unnecessary seclusion or physical restraint of public school students and believes that such measures should only be employed where the student presents a threat to the student’s own safety or the safety of others.  See Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (2012).

DOE is also concerned about the high proportion disabled students make up of persons who are physically restrained.  A July 2015 document issued by the DOE titled “Addressing the Root Causes of School Discipline – An Educator’s Action Planning Guide,” which was created pursuant to contract with the American Institutes for Research (AIR), notes (at page 6) that  “although students with disabilities represent only 12% of  the student population, they comprise 58% of those placed in seclusion or involuntary confinement, and 75% of those physically restrained at school to immobilize them or reduce their ability to move freely.”   

A March 2014 Issue Brief (No. 1) titled “Data Snapshot: School Discipline” discusses state differences in disproportionality in the restraint of disabled students in the following terms (at 11):

Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) and physical restraint: Across the nation, 75% of students subjected to physical restraint were classified as students with disabilities served by IDEA.  Twenty-five (25) states had higher percentages than the national average.  In Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming, students with disabilities served by IDEA represent less than 15% of students enrolled in the state, but more than 90% of the students who were physically restrained in the state.  Nevada (96%), Florida (95%), and Wyoming (93%) reported the highest percentages of physically retrained students with disabilities by IDEA.  Three (3) states had fewer than 50% of students subjected to physical restraint classified as students with disabilities served by IDEA.  Those states were:  Mississippi (40%), Arkansas (41%), and Louisiana (43%).

It is clear that in the view of the DOE, Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming have the greatest disparities while Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana have the least disparities. 

Yet presumably students with disabilities, in particular those whose disabilities involving some type of behavioral disorder, are more likely than other students to present situations where they are threats to themselves or others notwithstanding teacher and administrator efforts to control the situation by verbal interaction with the students.  The greater the lengths teacher and administrators go avoiding resort to physical restraints and the more effective they at doing so – by, for example, following the guidance in the DOE/AIR July 2015 document – the more resort to the use of restraint will be limited to students with behavioral disorders that prevent controlling the situation through verbal interaction.  In states where teachers and administrators are highly effectively at verbally defusing situations where student behavior may cause harm to the student or others, almost all (or, ideally, all) restrained students will be students with disabilities (behavioral disorders). 

Observers considering this issue must ask why themselves why society should want there to be restrained students who do not have behavioral disorders that prevent teachers and administrators from verbally resolving situations where a student is difficult to control.  And they must recognize it is the states where students with disabilities make up a very high proportion of restrained that are likely to be most circumspect about the resort to physical restraint, as well as that the higher the proportion disabled students make up of restrained students, the fewer will tend to be the number of situations where disabled students are subjected to restraints.