Advertisement

Restrictive Practice in Education Settings: Institutional Violence, Disability and Law

  • Linda SteeleEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The current legal framework governing restrictive practices in schools regulates, rather than prohibits, restrictive practices. The central aim of this chapter is twofold: (i) to provide an overview of the legal framework of the use of restrictive practices in schools, and (ii) to identify some critical entry points into questioning the self-evidence of this legal framework and consequently reframe restrictive practices in schools as a lawful form of institutional violence. The chapter begins by introducing restrictive practices in schools and then provides an overview of the current legal framework that regulates the use of restrictive practices, and ultimately positions these practices beyond legal definitions of unlawful violence and hence beyond legal liability. The chapter then discusses the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recent Australian government inquiries, which provide a strong policy basis for viewing restrictive practices as violence, which should be prohibited.

Keywords

Restrictive practices Violence Disability rights Disability Human rights Law reform 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Claire Spivakovsky for referring the author to some useful references on restrictive practices in schools. Thank you to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their feedback.

References

  1. Beaupert, F. (2017). Freedom of opinion and expression: From the perspective of psychosocial disability and madness. (Unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  2. Carter, W. J. (2006). Challenging behaviour and disability: A targeted response. Report to Honourable Warren Pitt MP, Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors. https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/disability/centre-of-excellence/carter-report-full.pdf
  3. Chandler, K., Willmott, L., & White, B. (2014). Rethinking restrictive practices: A comparative analysis. QUT Law Review, 4(2), 90–122.  https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v14i2.568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, C. (2014). Becoming perpetrator: How I came to accept restraining and confining disabled Aboriginal children. In B. Burstow, B. A. LeFrancois, & S. Diamond (Eds.), Psychiatry disrupted: Theorizing resistance and crafting the (r)evolution (pp. 16–33). Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Children with Disability Australia. (2015). Submission to inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. Collingwood: Children with Disability Australia. http://www.cyda.org.au/cdasubmissions#section5
  6. Coco v R 1994 179 CLR 427 (Austl.).Google Scholar
  7. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2013, October 21). Concluding observations on the initial report of Australia, 10th session. CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1. http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsnzSGolKOaUX8SsM2PfxU7tjZ6g%2FxLBVYsYEv6iDyTXyNk%2BsAB%2FHgrVpAKHcEYTB%2B1t%2FH3HX1F%2F%2Bo%2Bk3O4KhxfhPoTQZ3LeS75n8PHidYHE3
  8. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016, September 2). General comment no 4 (2016): Article 24: Right to inclusive education. CRPD/C/GC/4. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GC.aspx
  9. Commonwealth v Introvigne. (1982). 150 CLR 258.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, H. (2013). The oppressive power of normalcy in the lives of disabled children: Deploying history to denaturalize the notion of the ‘normal child’. In T. Curran (Ed.), Disabled children’s childhood studies (pp. 136–151). Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowell v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales 1988 13 NSWLR 714 (Austl.).Google Scholar
  12. Deloitte Access Economics. (2017). Review of education for students with disability in Queensland state schools. Brisbane: Department of Education and Training (Queensland). http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/disability/docs/disability-review-report.pdf
  13. Dowse, L. (2017). Disruptive, dangerous and disturbing: The “challenge” of behaviour in the construction of normalcy and vulnerability. Continuum, 31(3), 447–457.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2016.1275148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erevelles, N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erevelles, N. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frohmader, C., & Sands, T. (2015). Australian Cross Disability Alliance (ACDA) submission to the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. Sydney: Australian Cross Disability Alliance. http://www.pwd.org.au/issues/violence-inquiry.html
  17. Glanville, B. (Reporter). (2017, October 9). Hundreds of complaints of abuse of disabled children. In 7.30 Report. [Television broadcast]. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2011a). Problematising policy: Conceptions of ‘child’, ‘disabled’ and ‘parents’ in social policy in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 71–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2011b). The violence of disablism. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(4), 602–617.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2012). Reading Rosie: The postmodern disabled child. Educational & Child Psychology, 29(2), 53–66.Google Scholar
  21. Goodley, D., Runswick-Cole, K., & Liddiard, K. (2016). The DisHuman child. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(5), 770–784.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1075731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyons, D. (2015). Restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities: A child rights perspective from Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23, 189–239.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02301009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, A. (2010). Harm without recourse: The need for a private right of action in federal restraint and seclusion legislation. Cardozo Law Review, 32(2), 581–614.Google Scholar
  25. Karmiris, M. (2016). Breaks and ruptures: Cripping the reading of resistance. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 5(4), 205–222. http://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karmiris, M. (2017). De-centering the myth of normalcy in education: A critique of inclusionary policies in education through disability studies. Critical Disability Discourses, 8, 99–199. https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39722
  27. Macdonald, E. (Reporter). (2016, August 11). Autism cage timeline: From Canberra classroom to the United Nations. Canberra Times. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/autism-cage-timeline-from-canberra-classroom-to-the-united-nations-20160811-gqqnjm.html
  28. McSherry, B. (2016, November 29). Breaking bad: Regulating the responses of teachers to students’ ‘behaviours of concern’, paper delivered at Dean’s Lecture Series. Melbourne. http://education.unimelb.edu.au/news_and_activities/events/event/2016/breaking-bad-regulating-the-responses-of-teachers-to-students-behaviours-of-concern
  29. Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (1997). Introduction: Disability studies and the double bind of representation. In D. T. Mitchell & S. L. Snyder (Eds.), The body and physical difference: Discourses of disability (pp. 1–31). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Disability Rights Network. (2012). School is not supposed to hurt: The U.S. Department of Education must do more to protect school children from restraint and seclusion. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/Publications/Reports/School_is_Not_Supposed_to_Hurt_3_v7.pdf
  31. New South Wales Government Education & Communities. (2011). Guidelines for the use of time-out strategies including dedicated time-out rooms. https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/associated-documents/timeout_gui.pdf
  32. New South Wales Government Education & Communities. (2012). Physical restraint of students. Legal Services Bulletin, 9. Reviewed June 2012. https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/how-we-operate/legal-issues-bulletins/number_09.pdf
  33. New South Wales Parliament Legislative Council. (2017). Education of students with a disability or special needs in New South Wales, Report no. 37, Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education. Sydney: Author. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/DBAssets/InquiryReport/ReportAcrobat/6114/170921%20-%20Final%20report.pdf
  34. Nunkoosing, K., & Haydon-Laurelut, M. (2012). Intellectual disability trouble: Foucault and Goffman on ‘challenging behaviour’. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes, & L. Davis (Eds.), Disability and social theory: New developments and directions (pp. 195–211). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Connell, K. (2017). Should we take the ‘disability’ out of discrimination laws? Students with challenging behaviour and the definition of disability. Law in Context, 35(2), 108–128.Google Scholar
  36. Poed, S., Cologon, K., & Jackson, R. (2017, October). Gatekeeping and restrictive practices with students with disability: Results of an Australian survey, paper delivered at Inclusive Education Summit. Adelaide. http://allmeansall.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TIES-4.0-20172.pdf
  37. Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) 2003 217 CLR 92 (Austl.).Google Scholar
  38. R v Brown 1994 1 AC 212 (United Kingdom).Google Scholar
  39. Re F (Mental Patient Sterilisation) 1990 2 AC 1 (United Kingdom).Google Scholar
  40. Shaddock, A., Packer, P., & Roy, A. (2015). Report of the expert panel on students with complex needs and challenging behaviour. Canberra: Authors. https://www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/856254/Attach-4-Expert-Panel-Report-Web.pdf
  41. Southwark London Borough Council v Williams 1971 Ch 734 (United Kingdom).Google Scholar
  42. Spivakovsky, C. (2017). Governing freedom through risk: Locating the group home in the archipelago of confinement and control. Punishment & Society, 19(3), 366–383.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517703968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training). (2017a). The principles for reduction and elimination of restraint and seclusion in Victorian government schools. East Melbourne: Author. http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/principals/participation/15Principals.pdf
  44. State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training). (2017b). Restraint of students policy. East Melbourne: Author. http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/governance/Pages/restraint.aspx
  45. Steele, L. (2015). Submission to Senate Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings, including the gender and age related dimensions, and the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability, submission no. 94. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_abuse_neglect/Submissions
  46. Steele, L. (2016). Court-authorised sterilisation and human rights: Inequality, discrimination and violence against women and girls with disability? UNSW Law Journal, 39(3), 1002–1037. http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/393-4.pdf
  47. Steele, L. (2017). Temporality, disability and institutional violence: Revisiting In re F. Griffith Law Review, 26(3), 378–400.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2017.1436368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steele, L., & Dowse, L. (2016). Gender, disability rights and violence against medical bodies. Australian Feminist Studies, 31(88), 117–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2016.1224054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). (2012). Held back: The experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools. Retrieved from http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/media/k2/attachments/1404-VEOHRC_HeldBack_-_StudentwithDisabilityReportW3.pdf
  50. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. (2017). Held back: The experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools: Analysis paper. Carlton: Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. https://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/home/our-resources-and-publications/reports/item/1602-held-back-the-experiences-of-students-with-disabilities-in-victorian-schools-analysis-paper
  51. Victorian Ombudsman. (2017). Investigation into Victorian government school expulsions. Melbourne: Author. https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/Publications/Parliamentary-Reports/Investigation-into-vic-gov-school-expulsions
  52. Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weissbrodt, D., Maderia, W., Stewart, D., & Dikel, W. (2012). Applying international human rights standards to the restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities. Law and Inequality, 30, 287–307. http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/365?utm_source=scholarship.law.umn.edu%2Ffaculty_articles%2F365&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations