Outside childhood: a case study of arguments for seclusion rooms in schools

In North American schools, seclusion rooms are spaces where students can be isolated and prevented from leaving. Proponents argue that they are necessary for violent students, but research has shown that they are most often used for discipline rather than safety, increase rather than decrease violence, and disabled and Black students are most likely to be secluded. Despite the ethical, legal, and psychological issues provoked by seclusion rooms, they have proven difficult to ban, meaning it is critical to examine why people support them. This article performs a case study of arguments for seclusion rooms through an analysis of pro-seclusion online comments on a newspaper article that critiques them (Buck, N. 2023, March 20. “Opinion: The Rise of Seclusion Rooms Represents the Failure of Inclusion in Schools.” The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-rise-of-seclusion-rooms-represents-the-failure-of-inclusion-in/). Drawing from Black geographies, carceral geographies, and children's geographies, I argue that seclusion rooms demarcate the boundaries of normative childhood: the logical pathways of pro-seclusion arguments illustrate that seclusion rooms are not about safety, but instead reflect an impulse to place racialized and disabled children outside spaces of childhood. This analysis indicates that a fight against seclusion rooms requires an abolitionist praxis that challenges both spaces of seclusion and the ideology of violence, safety, and childhood they support, with an orientation towards creating schools where everyone can be safe.