Interrogating Sanctioned Violence: A Survey of Parents/Guardians of Children with Disabilities about Restraint and Seclusion in Manitoba’s Schools

Abstract


 
 
 There is increasing concern that restraint and seclusion are being misused in schools, most often with students with disabilities. This issue is silent at the provincial level in Manitoba, with no regulation from the Ministry of Education. In order to examine the extent to which restraint and seclusion were being used in schools in Manitoba with children/youth with disabilities, an anonymous online survey involving a convenience sample of parents/guardians of children/ youth with disabilities was conducted. The 48-item questionnaire was disseminated through disability advocacy organizations in this province. Parents/guardians reported a high frequency of the use of restraint and seclusion, limited consent to the use of these practices, and an absence of written notification that they had occurred. Of great concern, some parents reported that their child was subjected to mechanical restraint and practices known to have a higher risk of causing death (e.g. supine and prone holds, being left in rooms that were locked from the outside etc.). A majority of parents reported their child had suffered trauma, and signs of physical injury also were noted. The results of this study indicate that restraint and seclusion are being misused as behaviour management techniques, especially with students with disabilities. These practices contravene Canada’s commitment to international standards regarding the rights of children and youth with disabilities, and change is required. The implementation of regulatory standards, legitimizing the voice of parents of children and youth with disabilities, and training for educators in positive behaviour interventions and supports are proposed.
 
 

Policies Matter: Closing the Reporting and Transparency Gaps in the use of Restraint, Seclusion, and Time-Out Rooms in Schools

“…Advocacy organizations have cautioned that the inclusion of restraint or seclusion in a student's individualized plan may serve to normalize the practice and may even convey to staff that the approaches are not emergency responses, but rather sanctioned educational strategies (Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions and Seclusion [APRAIS], 2010; Bartlett & Ellis, 2020a;2020b). The inclusion of the use of restraint, seclusion, or a time-out room in a students' IEP also illustrates how parents of children with disabilities may feel pressured to accept what Lemay (2018) refers to as "the least worst option."…”

“…In this case, the least worst option refers to agreeing to the inclusion of a crisis response procedure in their child's individualized education plan and having to accept that they may not be informed when it is used. The need for this most basic protection, i.e., the right to know how one's child is treated at school, has been advanced as central to the rights of parents of children with disabilities relative to this critical issue (Bartlett & Ellis, 2020a, 2020bInclusion Alberta, 2018;Inclusion B.C., 2013Inclusion B.C., , 2017.…”

“…A recent study in the United States found that students with disabilities were seven times more likely to be restrained and four times more likely to be secluded, and if they attended a special school, they were "almost guaranteed to receive a restraint or seclusion" (Gage et al, 2020, p. 1). The use of physical restraint, seclusion and time-out rooms is particularly worrisome, as the use of these practices has been found to contribute to emotional trauma and physical injury for both students and staff (Bartlett & Ellis, 2020a, 2020bInclusion Alberta, 2018;Inclusion BC, 2013National Disability Rights Network, 2012). In addition to the dangers associated with the use of physical restraint and seclusion, there is limited evidence that they are effective in reducing aggressive behaviour or that they have any educational or therapeutic benefit (CCBD, 2009a;Ryan et al, 2007).…”

“…The Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (U.S. Department of Education, 2012) also recommends same-day notification, and both require data collection to ensure training, resources, and oversight are provided whenever these practices are used. Moreover, since 2009, the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has required all public schools, alternative settings, and charter schools to report all incidents of restraint and seclusion and disaggregate the data by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency and disability as a part of their Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) (Gage et al, 2020 Only recently has the use of restraint, seclusion, and time-out in schools been brought to the fore in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (Bartlett & Ellis, 2020a, 2020b2021;Government UK, 2019;Inclusion Alberta, 2018;Inclusion BC, 2013Inclusion Ireland, 2018;McCarthy, 2019;Scottish Government, 2018). In Canada, much of the activism regarding the use of physical restraint, seclusion, and time-out in schools has been from parents of children with disabilities (Bartlett & Ellis, 2020a, 2020bInclusion Alberta, 2018;Inclusion BC, 2013.…”