There are two uses of quiet rooms. The first, and primary, use is as an emergency safety procedure. If someone is hitting others, throwing chairs, slamming their head on a concrete floor, you (and hopefully, a second person) bring the child to this room so the odds of them injuring themselves or others are lessened. While that student is in the room, those two adults are GLUED to the room, observing at all times. Again, for safety.

The second use is for timeout. The issue is, schools often have no idea what timeouts are and how they function. A timeout means a brief period of time without access to reinforcement. That requires that there be a fucking TIME IN. That requires that you know what you are removing access to, and for how long, and on what specific criteria. And none of those things are present in so many schools - there's no reinforcement for doing the right thing, there's no support to help do the right thing, and there's zero criteria for putting the kid in or out of the room. Punishment works by definition - if a kid is spending hours in the room (barring, say, the first day or two of severe behavior treatment), you're doing it wrong.

Done correctly, systematically, in a science-based manner, a quiet room is an important resource for emergencies and can be an effective way to reduce barrier behaviors impeding learning. For some students, its a necessary tool.

The function for how the schools are using it now is so obvious - its negative reinforcement for the teacher. Send a kid to the room and you don't have to deal with them, at least for a while. Your insane teaching ratio drops.

There's a thousand behavior analysts in Illinois and I'd be shocked if a dozen are employed by the schools. Perhaps the problem is schools have quiet rooms and don't employ the folks who actually know how to use them.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I did wonder if this had anything to do with the increasing number of students who have a diagnosed disorder and an IEP while the schools are not seeing a similar increase in training and support staff.

That reminds me of this comic book on French psychiatrical wards in the 50s and 60s. It featured many crazy/creepy anecdotes, but ohe of them was the use of electric shock therapy. This therapy is efficient in treating many neurological diseases – which is understood better today than it was back then.

The reason for its apalling reputation was the application by the psychiatrists, though: By using it – more or less conciously – as a disciplinary tool (e.g. people unwilling to participate in other approaches), the effectiveness was further diminished by the practice appearing brutal and punishing.

Even actual shock on the arm or leg as a punisher can be a clinically necessary and appropriate treatment for the most severe of severe cases (e.g., a 30yo man breaking people's bones, gouging out eyes, etc.). While I've only done it to myself, some of my colleagues have overseen it and its nothing short of lifesaving. But again, it requires a massive amount of expertise and training, constant oversight, and putting measures in place to protect the client.

Its like brain surgery. You don't do it lightly, just when you absolutely have to, and it should only be done by trained and credentialed professionals. Its not something you want done for retaliation or another person's convenience, and you definitely don't want a layperson rooting around in there.