Acceptability of Seclusion and Restraint Among Parents and

Teachers in UtahEmily LundJill Karsky

Claire de Gennaro Kristina Cottle

Faculty Mentor: Blake Hansen

Seclusion and RestraintNational Policies

• Keeping All Students Safe Act• Introduced to the U. S. Senate on February 7,

2014 by Senator Harkin (D-IA) to overcome the following:– Families are not consistently informed when

seclusion and restraints are being used on their children.

– Families meet resistance when requesting information & documentation from schools about the frequency, intensity, and duration of practices.

Literature Review

• State legislation and district policy dictate the procedures for seclusion and restraint (Ryan, Robbins, Peterson, & Rozalski, 2009).

• Recent legal cases have gained the interest of congressional leaders, policy makers, and clinicians (Jones & Feder, 2010; Ryan et al., 2009).

Literature Review

• Researchers have begun to submit recommendations for the use of seclusion and restraint (LeBel, Nunno, Mohr, & O’Halloran, 2012).

• Several organizations have begun submitting their response and stance on seclusion and restraint used in the schools (Peterson, Albrecht, & Johns, 2009).

• To explore the use and social acceptability of seclusion and restraint practices among both teachers and parents of students with disabilities in Utah public schools

Purpose of Study

• Percentage of teachers reporting use • Percentage of parents of children with

disabilities that report use by teachers• How acceptable teachers find use • How acceptable parents find use

Research Questions

Methods

• Data collected via an anonymous online survey.

• Survey took 10-15 minutes to complete• Recruitment took place via parent listservs• Currently, we are working with the state office

of education to recruit teachers via school districts

Vignettes

• Eight total• Same vignettes used for parents and teachers• Samples:– “Jaycee is a sixteen year-old girl with an emotional

disability. When frustrated with an assignment she begins screaming swear words.”

– “Francisca is a seven year-old girl with autism. When asked to transition from a preferred activity, she runs out of the classroom.”

Preliminary data and Next Steps

• As of 4/3/2014, we have 9 parent responses and 3 teacher responses.

• For parents, the mean acceptability of seclusion was 2.70 for both their children and classmates (SDs=.75 and .68, respectively).

• For parents, the mean acceptability of restraint was 2.44 (SD=.57) for their child and 2.48 (SD=.56) for classmates.

Jill’s Recommendations

• My suggestion to develop leadership would be to give those of us not in the medical field more opportunity to shadow and lead in our field.

• Possible suggestions: – Shadow superintendents or other educational leaders at

the state level. – Meet with special education curriculum developers. – Go into a school and run a training session on best

practices for teachers who have students on the spectrum. – Sit in an IEP as a parent advocate.

Emily’s Recommendations

• Expand clinical opportunities at sites other than Salt Lake

• Try to ensure staff at clinics are sensitive and knowledgeable about disability

• Centralize clinic scheduling as much as possible

• Increase content and clinical opportunities related to transition-age youth with disabilities

Claire’s Recommendations

1. More feedback on assignmentsA. Each time trainees submit an assignment, they

should receive a reply to let them know that the assignment was received. Within a certain time after the assignment due date, each trainee should receive at least a few comments about strengths of their assignment and how it could be improved.

B. This will allow trainees to learn more from each assignment, and likely lead to trainees putting more effort into the assignments.

Kristina’s Recommendations

1) Increased clinical site and community knowledge of URLEND and MCH.

A. This could be implemented by informing all staff at clinical sites about URLEND.

B. URLEND Trainees could identify various committees and groups in the community and inform them on URLEND and MCH.

• Jones, N. L., & Feder, J. (2010). The use of seclusion and restraint in public schools: The legalissues. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40522.pdf

• LeBel, J., Nunno, M. A., Mohr, W. K., O’Halloran, R. (2012). Restraint and seclusion use in U.S. settings: recommendations from allied treatment disciplines. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 75-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01134.x

• Peterson, R., Albrecht, S., & Johns, B. (2009). CCBD's position summary on the use of seclusion in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 235-243.

• Ryan, J. B., Robbins, K., Peterson, R., Rozalski, M. (2009). Review of state policies concerning the use of physical restraint procedures in schools. Education and the Treatment of

Children, 32(3), 487-504. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0062

• U.S. Department of Education, Summary of Seclusion and Restraint Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Guidance, by State and Territory: Information as Reported to the Regional Comprehensive Centers and Gathered from Other Sources, Washington, D.C. 2010.

References