Rethinking Behavior Support: Ending Restraint and Seclusion in Schools 

Tim Villegas: Hi friends, and welcome to Think Inclusive. I’m Tim Villegas. You just heard from Guy Stephens, a nationally recognized expert and passionate advocate for ending restraint and seclusion in schools. In 2019, he founded the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint (AASR), a respected nonprofit dedicated to transforming punitive discipline practices and dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. 

AASR promotes trauma-informed, neuroscience-aligned, and neurodiversity-affirming approaches that prioritize relationships and collaboration. Guy is a sought-after speaker, presenting at conferences across North America and guest lecturing in undergraduate and graduate programs. He currently serves on the boards of The Arc of Maryland and PDA North America. His work is grounded in the belief that we must do better for all children and adults by creating safe, inclusive environments that honor neurodiversity and ensure equal rights and opportunities. 

Through AASR and his advocacy, Guy continues to influence policy and practice, inspiring systemic change in education and beyond. We’re so glad to have him with us today. 

Before we dive in, a quick reminder: Think Inclusive is MCIE’s podcast, bringing you conversations with people doing the work of inclusion in the real world. Be sure to follow or subscribe so you never miss an episode. 

In this episode, I had a fantastic conversation with Guy about our experiences and thoughts on behavior management in schools. We started by talking about how we met at the COPAA Conference, then explored the challenges and drawbacks of traditional behaviorist approaches like PBIS. Guy shared powerful stories from his journey as a parent and advocate, emphasizing the importance of trauma-informed and neurodiversity-affirming practices. We wrapped up with practical tips for educators and even had some fun discussing our road trip must-haves. 

It was an eye-opening and engaging conversation about creating more supportive and effective learning environments. 

Sponsored by IXL 

Before we get started, a quick word from our sponsor: IXL is an all-in-one platform designed for K–12 education. It boosts student achievement, empowers teachers, and tracks progress seamlessly. IXL adapts to each student’s needs, ensuring they’re both supported and challenged, and provides personalized learning plans to address knowledge gaps. Learn more at ixl.com/inclusive. 

Interview Begins 

Tim Villegas: Guy Stephens, welcome to the Think Inclusive podcast. 

Guy Stephens: Thank you so much, Tim. I’m excited to be here. 

Tim Villegas: Absolutely. We first met in person at the COPAA Conference—the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. I think it was in March 2024? 

Guy Stephens: That sounds right. I’m not great with dates, but March seems correct. 

Tim Villegas: I had heard about you and the Alliance for a long time, so it was great to finally meet. I was surprised to learn you’re based in Maryland—same as the nonprofit I work for! 

Guy Stephens: Yeah, it’s funny how you can travel to another state and end up meeting someone from just around the corner. Most of our work is national or even international, so it’s always exciting to connect locally. 

Tim Villegas: I want to share my experience attending the session you co-led with Connie Persike and Susan Driscoll from CPI. It was all about reframing behavior and understanding the science behind it—especially how trauma and brain function influence behavior. 

As a former special education teacher, I was trained in behaviorist principles like ABA. But over time, I began to question that framework. Your session really helped me expand my thinking. So I’m curious—was there a time in your life when you viewed challenging behavior through a behaviorist lens and then shifted away from it? 

Guy Stephens: Absolutely. I’d love to say I was always skeptical, but that’s just not true. Like many people, I grew up in environments—at home and in school—where behaviorism was the norm. It’s all about conditioning: using rewards or consequences to change behavior. 

As a parent, I started to learn things that challenged that approach. My son, who’s now 19, was identified early on with speech and language needs. We were in the IEP process from the start. I didn’t know then what I know now, but I began to notice that how I responded to him made a huge difference. 

For example, when he was dysregulated, I learned that stepping back, using a calm voice, and softening my presence helped de-escalate the situation. It wasn’t that he was different with me—it was that I was different with him. That realization was transformative. 

Tim Villegas: That’s powerful. 

Guy Stephens: And in school, the behaviorist mindset was everywhere. Even when punitive practices were replaced with rewards, it was still about external control. I’m in the Alfie Kohn camp—rewards and punishments are two sides of the same coin. They don’t build intrinsic motivation or help kids develop self-regulation. 

I remember my son being given behavior tracking sheets—he had to mark how he was doing every hour, then talk about it, then bring it home. Imagine having a bad day and being forced to reflect on it repeatedly. It’s demoralizing. These practices, though well-intentioned, can be incredibly harmful. 

So yes, it’s been a journey. I wish I had known then what I know now. But the key is to stay open to learning and doing better. I often quote Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” 

Tim Villegas: That quote resonates deeply. I also remember something you said during the session—that these punitive approaches are traumatic not just for students, but for adults too. That really hit home for me. As someone who was trying to support students using methods I was told to use, it often felt awful. It’s a lose-lose situation. 

Guy Stephens: Exactly. It’s not just about the kids. Adults are often put in impossible positions, expected to enforce systems that don’t feel right. That emotional toll is real—and it’s part of why we need to rethink the entire framework. 

Guy Stephens: Yeah, you know, it really means a lot to hear that resonated with you. I actually created a diagram I call the Trauma-Discipline Cycle. It illustrates how punitive and exclusionary discipline practices often affect the same groups of students—children with disabilities, neurodivergent children, Black and Brown children, and those with trauma histories. 

When we look at the common thread among these students, trauma is often at the center. And we know from neuroscience that trauma changes the brain. It can make people hypervigilant, less likely to feel safe, and more prone to stress-related behaviors. 

What often happens in schools—or even at home—is that a child exhibits a behavior rooted in stress or trauma. An adult responds by demanding compliance: “Go sit down,” “Do this now.” But if you approach a dysregulated person with more demands, you’re likely to escalate the situation. That child may enter a fight-or-flight state, where the logical part of the brain—the prefrontal cortex—goes offline. They’re no longer reasoning; they’re surviving. 

That’s when you might see a child run out of a room, knock something over, or lash out. And unfortunately, that often leads to restraint, seclusion, or other punitive discipline. But those responses are themselves dysregulating and traumatizing. So we end up layering trauma on top of trauma, which only increases hypervigilance and future behavioral challenges. 

And this cycle doesn’t just affect kids—it affects adults too. Teachers and staff who don’t feel safe or supported are more likely to become dysregulated themselves. If a situation ends in restraint, that’s deeply traumatic for the adult as well. There’s nothing pleasant about physically restraining a child. So when we talk about trauma-informed practices, we have to consider both students and adults. 

Tim Villegas: Can you give us a sense of how widespread restraint and seclusion are in schools today? 

Guy Stephens: That’s a great question—and a tough one, because the data we have isn’t very reliable. But let me start by defining the terms for anyone unfamiliar. 

Restraint typically refers to physically holding a child to prevent them from moving freely. This can range from standing holds to prone restraints, which can resemble what you might see in a law enforcement context. These are serious interventions that can cause trauma, injury, and even death. Tragically, hundreds of children have died in schools over the past decade and a half due to restraint. 

Seclusion is when a child is placed in a room or area against their will and not allowed to leave. These rooms are often small, sometimes padded or made of cinder block or plywood. The child is left alone, often while dysregulated, and told they can’t come out until they “calm down.” But what we often see is not calm—it’s shutdown. Kids may scream, cry, urinate, or dissociate. It’s not therapeutic; it’s traumatic. 

At the Alliance, we believe seclusion should never be used. And restraint should be exceedingly rare—only in situations of imminent serious physical harm, as defined by federal guidance. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s being used. Many restraints begin with a compliance issue, not a life-threatening emergency. 

As for the data: the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights collects data every two years. In some years, they’ve reported 110,000 to 120,000 incidents. But that’s likely a massive undercount. For example, Maryland alone reported 27,000 incidents in one year—there’s no way that’s 25% of the national total. 

The Government Accountability Office has flagged this issue, noting that many large districts report zero incidents, which we know isn’t accurate. So while we can’t quantify the problem precisely, we know it’s widespread and underreported. 

And here’s the thing: these practices are often used because educators don’t know what else to do. That’s not a criticism—it’s a call for better training, better systems, and more support. We need to go upstream and ask: Why is this child dysregulated? What unmet needs or unrealistic expectations are contributing to this behavior? 

Too often, our expectations aren’t developmentally appropriate or trauma-informed. We push compliance over connection, and that’s where things go wrong. 

Tim Villegas: That’s such an important point. So let’s talk about what we should be doing. Many schools—like the ones in my community—use school-wide behavior systems like PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports). These systems have been in place for years, and teachers are often required to use them. 

What do you say to educators who want to try a different approach but feel stuck in a system that relies on rewards and compliance? 

Guy Stephens: Yeah. You know, I have a lot of concerns about traditional behavior approaches. These methods—rooted in the work of people like B.F. Skinner—became popular nearly a century ago. They’re based on conditioning: using rewards and consequences to shape behavior. And while there’s a lot of so-called “evidence” supporting these methods, we really need to question what that evidence is measuring and how it’s being interpreted. 

Take PBIS—Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. It sounds great, right? Like a basket full of puppies. It’s marketed as a positive, tiered framework. But in practice, it’s often filled with behaviorist strategies: token economies, reward systems like Husky Bucks or Dojo Points, pizza parties, and so on. 

Sure, there are some positive elements—like setting clear expectations—but the core of PBIS is still rooted in behaviorism. And I believe we need to shift away from that. We need to move toward approaches that are: 

• Neuroscience-informed 

• Trauma-informed 

• Neurodiversity-affirming 

• Relationship-driven 

• Collaborative 

My colleague Connie Persike wrote a great article called The Dark Side of Rewards, which I highly recommend. It dives into the research showing that rewards can actually undermine intrinsic motivation, create fixed mindsets, and make kids feel controlled. Kids are naturally curious and want to learn—we take that away when we try to incentivize everything. 

And let’s talk about those pizza parties. Who ends up at the party? The kids who already have the skills to meet expectations. The kids who struggle—like my son—don’t get the lanyard, don’t get the pizza, and are left out. That exclusion is harmful. It doesn’t teach skills; it just reinforces who’s “good” and who’s not. 

Some educators try to adapt PBIS to be more inclusive, and I’ve seen efforts to evolve the framework. But if you ask teachers how it’s working, many will tell you it’s not. That’s a sign we need to rethink the whole system. 

Tim Villegas: You’re so right about the pizza parties and reward systems. At my kids’ school, they use something similar—let’s call them “Husky Days.” You earn points or bucks and then get to spend them on a special day. 

But the kids who benefit are the ones who already meet expectations. I’ve had conversations with my middle schooler about this. I asked, “Do you really need the rewards to behave, or are you just benefiting from a system that already works for you?” I don’t think it sparked a huge epiphany, but I’m trying to help them understand that not every kid has the same skills. 

And that’s the key, right? If behavior is about skill development, then we need to teach those skills—not punish kids for not having them. That’s what Dr. Ross Greene talks about: Kids do well if they can. If they’re not doing well, it’s because something’s getting in the way. 

Guy Stephens: Exactly. When adults begin to understand behavior differently, they start to see behavior differently. And when you see behavior differently, you can respond differently—and that makes all the difference. 

Dr. Stuart Shanker, who wrote Self-Reg, says, “When you see a child differently, you see a different child.” That really resonates with me. 

Too often, we assume behavior is intentional. We do a functional behavioral assessment, identify antecedents, behaviors, and consequences, and then create a plan—usually involving rewards or consequences. But much of the behavior we see isn’t intentional. It’s a stress response. 

Children’s brains aren’t fully developed until their mid-20s. The prefrontal cortex—the part responsible for logic and reasoning—is the last to develop. Add trauma or neurodivergence, and you’ve got kids with nervous systems that are more sensitive to stress and threat. 

I’ve sat in IEP meetings where teams describe a child as lagging in every developmental area, yet somehow also a master manipulator. It’s absurd. My own child, at six years old and autistic, was described this way. But what we’re really seeing is a child in distress, not a child with malicious intent. 

We need to stop labeling behavior as “challenging” and start asking: What’s going on? What’s the unmet need? What’s the stressor? What’s the skill gap? 

Tim Villegas: That’s such a good point. I don’t think I’ve ever described an adult’s behavior as “challenging.” When an adult is having a hard time, we ask, “What’s going on?” We give them the benefit of the doubt. But with kids, we jump to judgment. 

Guy Stephens: Exactly. Curiosity is key. And think about this: we don’t have clip-up charts for adults in the workplace. Imagine if your boss said, “Tim, you need to clip down because of how you spoke to that guest earlier.” It’s ridiculous. 

We do things to children that we would never do to adults—like ignoring bodily autonomy. You wouldn’t pick up an adult without consent. You shouldn’t pick up a child without consent either. 

And let’s not forget: corporal punishment is still legal in 17 U.S. states. We’re allowed to hit children in the name of discipline. That’s deeply troubling. 

Tim Villegas: Yeah… and I’ll just say this, even if I don’t include it in the final episode: there are faith communities where leaders actively promote corporal punishment as a good and necessary parenting tool. I’ve been in those spaces, and it’s incredibly hard to hear. 

Guy Stephens: Well, that happens more often than people realize. Take Oklahoma, for example. They were working on legislation to prohibit corporal punishment for children with disabilities. Now, I believe corporal punishment should be banned for all children, but this was at least a step in the right direction. 

The opposition? It was largely religious. People quoted scripture—often misinterpreting it. The idea that “the rod” is meant for hitting is a misunderstanding. In many interpretations, the rod is a tool for guidance, not punishment. 

It’s always disappointing to see faith used to justify harm. Especially when we know better. And if we know better, we should do better. 

The word “discipline” itself is interesting. Its root meaning is “to teach.” Think about academic disciplines—we study them. So when a child isn’t meeting expectations, our response should be to teach, to guide, to build skills. Not to impose adult-driven consequences. 

Of course, natural consequences exist in life. But punitive, imposed consequences rarely help a child learn or grow. 

Tim Villegas: Exactly. I think it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how people grow and change. Sure, behavior might change in the short term because of punishment—but how often does that lead to lasting transformation? 

When I reflect on my own life, the times I’ve truly changed weren’t because I was shamed or punished. It was because someone invested in me, taught me, and helped me see a better way. 

Guy Stephens: Absolutely. Rewards and consequences might get you short-term compliance, but they don’t build long-term capacity. They don’t help someone meet a challenge they’re struggling with. 

And punishment, especially physical punishment, can cause deep trauma. Kids who experience abuse may dissociate or shut down. That trauma can last a lifetime and increase the risk of substance use, mental health issues, and involvement in the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Tim Villegas: There are a lot of educators listening—teachers, principals, district leaders. For those who are resonating with this and want to take action, what are some practical next steps? 

Guy Stephens: Great question. When I started the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint nearly six years ago, it was because of my personal experience with my son. Since then, we’ve grown into a community that includes educators, paraprofessionals, superintendents, therapists—you name it. 

What unites us is the belief that we can do better. 

This isn’t about judgment. It’s a tough time to be an educator. The system isn’t making it easier. But we now have access to information we didn’t have before. The 1990s were the “Decade of the Brain,” and we’ve learned more about behavior through the lens of neuroscience in the past few decades than ever before. 

When you begin to see behavior through that lens, everything changes. 

So here are some practical steps: 

• Start the journey. Read books like Beyond Behaviors by Dr. Mona Delahooke, The Explosive Child by Dr. Ross Greene, or What Happened to You? by Dr. Bruce Perry and Oprah Winfrey. 

• Be curious. Ask questions. Reflect. Don’t feel like you have to change everything overnight. 

• Find your people. Connect with like-minded educators. Join communities, attend conferences, and share ideas. 

• Support your staff. Trauma-informed practices must extend to adults too. Teachers need support, not just students. 

• Focus on relationships. Build trust. Be collaborative. Prioritize connection over compliance. 

We recently hosted a virtual conference on neuroscience and neurodiversity-affirming practices. Over 550 people from around the world joined us—educators from the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand. There’s a movement happening, and it’s full of hope. 

I want to see joy return to the classroom—for students and teachers alike. 

Tim Villegas: That’s beautiful. Thank you so much, Guy. 

Guy Stephens: Thank you. 

Tim Villegas: Alright, let’s wrap up with a mystery question. What do you say? 

Guy Stephens: I’m game! And sorry if I talked too much—I’ll keep this one concise. 

Tim Villegas: No worries—it’s a podcast! You can be as long-winded as you want. Okay, here we go. I’m picking a card from the top of the deck… 

Mystery Question: If you were going on a road trip, what are three must-haves you couldn’t leave without? 

Guy Stephens: Ooh, that’s a good one. You go first—I’ve got two in mind, but I need a minute for the third. 

Tim Villegas: 
Alright. First thing that comes to mind: a playlist. My family and I go on a lot of road trips, and we always make a collaborative Spotify playlist. Everyone adds their favorite songs in the days leading up to the trip. It becomes the soundtrack of our journey—“Villegas Road Trip 2025” or whatever. It’s a must-have. 

Guy Stephens: Same here—music was the first thing I thought of. Last summer, my daughter and I drove down to Florida. We didn’t have a shared playlist, but we took turns playing songs. She’d play something, and it would remind me of a song from the ’80s, and I’d play that. It became this fun back-and-forth. 

She’s very musical—plays ukulele, bass, sings, records. And because of her, I’ve discovered so much new music. I used to be stuck in the decades I grew up in, but now I’m exploring again. As a kid, I spent a lot of money at Tower Records… 

Tim Villegas: Yes! Tower Records, Warehouse CD… what was the other one? 

Guy Stephens: Sam Goody and Waxy Maxie! Those were the ones I remember around here. I think they were regional, but yeah—so many CDs. 

Tim Villegas: I spent all my money on CDs. That was my thing. 

Guy Stephens: Same here. 

Tim Villegas: Okay, so my second road trip must-have isn’t really a “thing,” but more of a “must-do.” Anytime we go on a long road trip, we have to stop at Buc-ee’s. Are you familiar? 

Guy Stephens: Oh yeah, I know Buc-ee’s! 

Tim Villegas: I live in Georgia, and we’ve got a couple here—and one in Alabama. We always stop on the way to visit family in Mississippi. It’s a tradition. And I have to get their candied pecans. 

Guy Stephens: Nice! I think our first real Buc-ee’s stop was on that trip I mentioned with my daughter. I’d passed them before but never stopped. One time we tried, but the bathrooms were out of order—which, if you know Buc-ee’s, is a big deal! But yeah, snacks were going to be my second must-have too. Gotta have snacks on a road trip. 

Tim Villegas: Absolutely. Another thing we used to do—though not as much lately—is stop at state welcome centers and take pictures in front of the state signs. It was a fun tradition when the kids were younger. 

Guy Stephens: That’s a great one. For my third must-have, I’d say: leave room for spontaneity. On one trip, my daughter and I made it a mission to find boba tea shops in every city we passed through. Another time, a friend and I did a barbecue tour through the Carolinas—just stopping for pulled pork sandwiches wherever we could. That kind of spontaneity makes the trip memorable. 

Tim Villegas: That’s perfect. Thank you so much for indulging me, Guy. I love ending with a mystery question. 

Guy Stephens: I’ve never been asked one before, so this was fun! I’ve got answers ready for a lot of things—but not that one. It was a great surprise. 

Tim Villegas: Guy Stephens, thank you so much for being on the Think Inclusive podcast. I really appreciate your insight—and this was a lot of fun. 

Guy Stephens: Thank you. I really enjoyed the conversation. 

[Outro] 

That’s all the time we have for this episode of Think Inclusive. 

Think Inclusive is brought to you by me, Tim Villegas. I handle the writing, editing, design, mixing, and mastering. This podcast is a proud production of the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education. 

Our original music is by Miles Kredich, with additional tunes from Melod.ie. 

A big shoutout to our sponsor, IXL. Check them out at ixl.com/inclusive. 

We truly appreciate each and every one of you who tunes in. We’d love to hear how you’re using our episodes—are they part of your teaching toolkit? Are you sharing them with school administrators? Drop me a line at tvillegas@mcie.org and let me know. 

And hey—if you’re still with us this far into the episode, it probably means you love Think Inclusive and the work MCIE is doing. Can I ask a small favor? Help us keep the momentum going by donating at mcie.org. Just click the button at the top of the site and chip in $5, $10, or $20. It would mean the world to us—and to the children in the schools and districts we partner with. 

Thanks so much for your time and attention. And remember: inclusion always works. 

Download the entire unedited transcript here.