extracted from restraint and seclusion: hear our stories ... · committee staff report ... belkin,...
TRANSCRIPT
Extracted from Restraint and Seclusion: Hear Our Stories (2013) film, free to the public through StopHurtingKids.com for training, professional development and public awareness
Recommended Practices for Reducing Physical Restraint in Schools
Sarah Davidon, Ed.D.
CANDO
June 9, 2017
Definition
Physical restraint is defined by the Colorado Department of Education (Rules for the Administration of the Protection of Persons from Restraint Act, 1 CCR 301-45, 2009) as the use of bodily, physical force to involuntarily limit an individual’s freedom of movement
Statement of the Problems• Lack of Tools to Understand Recommended Practices
– There is no systemic approach to assess and reduce schools’ use of physical restraint, nor is there a primary source for standards in training, reporting, or data use to guide schools that ensures consistency across schools and districts
• Deficiencies and Variance in Data
– Data is lacking and inconsistent. Improvement of circumstances can only happen within a system that has a continuous quality improvement orientation, and measurement and feedback processes that can link data to outcomes
• Disproportionality of Restraint of Students with IEPs
– As physical restraint practices are implemented, specific groups have become disproportionately impacted, with one of the primary groups of children those with disabilities.
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection: data snapshot: school discipline. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.
Review of the Literature
• National Perspective on Restraint Data and Policy– Butler (2015)
– Freeman & Sugai (2013)
– Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Majority Committee Staff Report (2014)
– U.S. Department of Education (2012)
– Wale, Belkin, & Moon (2011)
• Restraint Use and Students with Disabilities– GAO (2009)
– Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi (2005)
– Garrison (1984)
• Aversive and Exclusionary Intervention Impact– Kentucky Protection & Advocacy (2012)
– GAO (2009)
– Amos (2004)
• Importance of Teacher Knowledge and Resources– Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehb
(2009)
– Vinh, Strain, Davidon, & Smith (2016)
– Dunlap, Ostryn, & Fox (2011)
• Impact of Restraint on Children– Howes (2000)
– Sullivan, Bezmen, Barron, Rivera, Curley-Casey, & Marino (2005)
• Policies and Position Statements– Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)
– National Association of School Nurses (2015)
– Council for Exceptional Children (2009)
Conceptual Framework
Meaningful use of data
Data collection
Data use
Professional development
Reporting
Key Focus Areas
• Follow recommended practices on data collection components, processes, review, and use
• Ensure adequate and appropriate professional development
• Ensure meaningful reporting practices
How to Determine Recommendations?
Development of matrix of
recommended practices through grounded theory
Policy collection and review
Verification of policies
Policy review through content
analysis
Development of recommendations
How Were Recommended Practices Determined?
117 original documents reviewed
• Framed around 6 areas of lit review
53
restraint documents
• Found through literature review
• US Department of Education Resource Document “gold standard”
• Reviewed for themes: data, reporting, and training
19 filtered for inclusion criteria
• Seven criteria for inclusion in matrix – must meet all criteria
• Re-reviewed for specific recommendations in themes: data collection, data use, professional development, and reporting/documentation emerged
79 metrics
9 categories
• Expanded themes to 9 categories
• Categorized 79 specific recommendations
District and School Policies
Policy collection and review
Verification of policies
4 districts4 schools
Policy Comparison to Recommended Practices
Policy review through content
analysis
• 4 district policies• Content analysis to
determine if elements are present
Framework Development
Development of recommendations
Framework• Recommended incident report elements for documentation• Recommended practices in the 9 categories• Suggested policy and practice use of the framework for
states, districts, and schools
What are recommended practices for mitigation of physical restraint use?
Data elements Review of incidents
Documentation process
Parent notification process
Reporting requirement
Staff training requirements
Use of data• student• classroom/school• state
How do four Colorado districts map to recommended practices?
Category District percentage match with recommended practices
Data Elements 53%
Documentation Process 92%
Parent Notification Process 59%
Reporting Requirement 31%
Review of Incidents 48%
Staff Training Requirements 49%
Use of Data: Student 19%
Use of Data: Classroom/School 37%
What policy and practice changes can best ensure implementation of recommended
practices? (continued)
Implications for Practice and Policy• Better data collection and accountability
• Meaningful use of data and documentation
• Mitigation of use
• More specific information on whether there are disproportionate percentages of young children restrained
• Specificity in prevention strategies in policies
• Use of recommended practices
Recommendations for Further Work
• Age and grade level prevalence of restraint
• Availability of information
• Data-informed practice/policy research
• Increased accountability, consistency, and clarity in reporting