Submission
No 70
INQUIRY INTO SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDER
Name: Julie Phillips
Date Received: 19 April 2016
Submission S070 Received 19/04/2016
Family and Community Development Committee
Submission to the Family and Community Development Committee
Inquiry into Services for People with Autism
Spectrum Disorder
19 April 2016
Contact:
Julie Phillips
Disability Advocate
1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………3
A. AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS (“AUTISM”) AS PART OF THE
DISABILITYCOMMUNITY…………………………………………………………………………4
B. THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS
HEALTH, EDUCATION, DISABILITY, HOUSING, SPORT AND
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES………………………………………………………………………5
- Victorian Schools……………………………………………………………………………..5 1.1 Violence, Abuse and Neglect against Students with Autism in
Victorian Schools………………………………………………………………………5
1.2 Qualifications of Those Working With Students with Autism in Victorian
Schools………………………………………………………………………7
1.3 The Effect of Funding Allocations on Children with Autism……………..9
1.4 Failure to Use Best Practice Methods…………………………………………11
1.5 Expectations of Students with Autism…………………………………12
- Department of Health and Human Services 2.1 Violence, Abuse and Neglect against Clients with Autism in Victoria …………………………………………………………………………………12 2.2 Qualifications of Those Working with DHHS Clients with Autism in Victoria ……………………………………………………………………………..14 2.3 The Effect of Funding Allocations on DHHS Clients with Autism…..16
2.4 Failure to Use Best Practice Methods…………………………………18
2.5 DHHS Behaviour Support Services …………………………………. 18 2.6 The Role DHHS Has in the Disintegration of Family for People with Autism……………………………………………………………… 21 2.7 Availability of Expert Practitioners……………………………………. 24 2.8 Office of Professional Practice……………………………………….. .25
- Role of Advocacy Agencies/Statutory Authorities in adequacy of services for and violence, abuse and neglect of Victorians with Autism………………………………………………………………………… 25
C. RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………………………. 27 D. ATTACHMENTS………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 E. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………….30 2
Introduction
The writer is a Disability Advocate who has been working in the disability sector since
- Since 2000 the writer has been assisting people with disabilities through general advocacy, by assisting them to make complaints of discrimination, and supporting law firms who require specialised assistance to work effectively in this area.
Her history includes working for disability service providers at a grassroots and senior management level, and involvement on numerous Boards in the disability sector, current today. The majority of her work is voluntary.
There is currently no agreement as to how with people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“Autism”) should be described in the community itself. Recently, there has been a move away from describing people as “having Autism” towards using the term “autistic” to describe individuals, however this term is rejected by some. In the interests of being required to use one term or another throughout this document, the writer will use the term people “with Autism Spectrum Disorder”, as this is the term the Committee used.
In addition, recently there have been objections voiced to using the terms “high functioning” and “low functioning”. Historically, these terms have been used to describe the severity of Autism a person has, equating such with skill - “low functioning” indicating moderate to severe Autism, and “high functioning” indicating mild Autism/Asperger’s Syndrome. For the purposes of this submission, the writer will simply use the terms “mild”, “moderate” and “severe”, acknowledging the uniqueness of all people with Autism and the variation of skills they experience despite the wording of their diagnosis.
The writer also adopts the definition of disability in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), in relation to behaviours that are a symptom or manifestation of the disability, meeting that definition. The writer will refer to such behaviours as “behaviours of concern”
In the last 10 years, requests to the writer for assistance and advocacy have moved from approximately 20% of clients having Autism 10 years ago, to approximately 90% of clients having Autism in the last few years.
Approximately 90% of the writer’s work is for children with disabilities in schools, 10% for adults.
In relation to the Program for Students with Disabilities Review Report which came out one day prior to submission, the writer’s view is that until “guidelines” become mandatory rather than optional, students with Autism cannot be guaranteed high quality assistance. In addition, it is the writer’s view that using current special schools whose main cohort is students with autism as expert advisers to mainstream schools is a step backwards given the academic outcomes for students in such schools, and the high level of violence against students in such schools.
All case studies have the permission of those involved.
3
A. AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS (“AUTISM”) AS PART OF THE DISABILITY
COMMUNITY
Numerous articles in the last 10 years have discussed the increase in the numbers of people with Autism Spectrum Disorder living in the community1. Differences of opinion have been expressed as to whether more children are being born with Autism, or changes in the definitions are simply improving diagnosis2. Regardless, the profile of Autism has increased and anecdotal reports of increased numbers of children with Autism in schools and other services abound in addition to statistical evidence.
Unfortunately, services and skill sets have not increased at the same rate.
It has been the writer’s experience that people with Autism are more maligned, vilified and subjected to criticism, lack of sympathy, violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation than any other group in the disability community.
The writer submits this is for two reasons:
-
People with mild Autism, especially those with average to high IQs, are often viewed with cynicism if they display what is viewed as social dysfunction, or exhibit significant social difficulties in the context of school/work/other. There is often a perception that because such people can appear to operate in a manner that society views as “normal”, and some exhibit high intelligence, due to that, they cannot really have a disability.
-
People with Autism have a propensity for exhibiting behaviours of concern due to the unique environment and supports they require, and which they often do not receive. Alternatively, such behaviours of concern may be exhibited due to other comorbid disabilities such as severe intellectual disability or psychiatric illness. Therefore while it is true that people with various cognitive disabilities can demonstrate behaviours of concern, due to the inadequate services for people with Autism as discussed later in this submission, discussions about behaviours of concern are often applying mostly to people with Autism.
Unfortunately, those who should know better will often regard people with Autism (and people with other disabilities) displaying behaviours of concern as displaying those behaviours deliberately. In addition, instead of recognising such behaviours being a manifestation of the disability, which as set out above, even our laws recognise3, they instead describe them as “violent” and “aggressive”4. By describing people with Autism, or indeed even simply their behaviours in that manner, rather than always using terms such as “challenging behaviours” or “behaviours of concern” there is a pejorative and
1 http://a4.org.au/prevalence2015 2 https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/13/autism-increase-mystery-solved-no-its-not-vaccines-gmos-glyphosate-or-organic-foods/ 3 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 s4, Equal Opportunity Act 2010 s4 4 Department of Education and Training, multiple and various letters, policies and procedures including recent suite of behaviour policies dated October 2015.
4
moralistic judgement being made that encourages others to view people with Autism in a negative manner, and implies fault.
This must change.
The Victorian Government should be a leader and a role model in this area, rather than an offender.
It is difficult to know how much of the above affects the availability and adequacy of services with Autism, which is discussed below.
B. THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS
HEALTH, EDUCATION, DISABILITY, HOUSING, SPORT AND EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES.
- Victorian Schools 1.1 Violence, Abuse and Neglect against Students with Autism in Victorian
Schools
1.1.1 The writer has attached her submission to the Senate
Community Affairs References Committee’s Inquiry into
violence, abuse and neglect against people with disabilities5. The section on abuse in Victorian schools runs from pages 6
- Every case study in this section involves a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
1.1.2 The special schools mentioned in this submission - Western
Autistic School, Marnebek School, Bendigo Special
Developmental School, Monash Special Developmental
School, are either only for students with Autism or for whom students with Autism comprises the majority of attendees.
1.1.3 The Department of Education and Training (“DET”) brought in new behaviour policies in October 2015. As behaviours of concern in government schools are largely (although not exclusively) exhibited by children with Autism, the writer attaches her submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on those policies6.
Since these policies and procedures have been brought in, a number of teachers have reported to the writer that they have not read them. Teachers are not required to sign off as having read these (or other) policies. As a result, it would be safe to say that in many schools, these policies are not being followed. Given their flaws, this is not altogether disappointing, however one of the few improvements in the
5 Attachment “A” 6 Attachment “B”
5
policies was the banning of prone restraint7. The failure of staff to adhere to that policy puts the lives of children at risk.
Case Study 1. The writer was contacted in January 2016 by the parent of a student with mild Autism Spectrum Disorder, and provided with documents reflecting that the student had been subjected to prone restraint in a government school two months earlier. No incident report had been written despite parent requests (also a requirement of the new policy). Therefore two aspects of the policy were being breached.
1.1.4 Violence, abuse and neglect against students with Autism occur, the writer submits, due to the complicity and endorsement of senior DET and government officials.
1.1.5 The writer refers to a recent investigation into Bendigo SDS, the results of which were in March 2016 announced
favourably8 by Minister James Merlino, Secretary Gill Callister
and Acting Deputy Secretary . The terms of reference and decision not to investigate countless allegations of abuse implies collusion at the highest level to ensure that the school’s treatment of students, most with Autism, was covered up9.
The determination by DET bureaucrats and the Minister to ensure the school would be cleared, and the level of corruption involved in the inquiry itself, demonstrates the difficulty of protecting the rights of students with Autism.
It was difficult to comprehend, and an insult to students with Autism, that a structure known as the “Safe Room”10 was touted as being approved by DET Occupational Health and Safety Representatives and received no condemnation whatsoever in the report. This horrendous structure should have been condemned loudly by DET. Instead, silence.
It was beyond belief when DET ostensibly accepted that the reason there continued to be pens/cages in classrooms was for post seizure recovery of students with epilepsy who may be tripped over while recovering. This was despite of a
7 “ Restraint of Student“ Policy, DET, October 2015 8 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bendigo-special-school-that-kept-student-in-pen-cleared-of-wrongdoing-20160323-gnp9mc.html
9 Attachment D “Inquiry into Bendigo Special Developmental School” 10 Attachment E “Safe Room”
6
number of eyewitness accounts/documents indicating that the pens/cages were used as behaviour management tools.
The acceptance of the “seizure” justification for the cages puts every child with epilepsy at risk, as given the enthusiasm DET has shown for Bendigo SDS and its practices, other schools may believe this is appropriate treatment of children with epilepsy.
1.1.6 Until the leadership of DET comprises people with an unwavering dedication to ensuring students with Autism can attend school free from violence, rather than comprising those with an unwavering dedication to protect their own staff, students with Autism will continue to be subjected to violence, abuse and neglect.
1.2 Qualifications of Those Working With Students with Autism in Victorian
Schools
1.2.1 While there are many teachers and aides that can claim a great deal of “experience” in working with students with Autism, such experience does not equate to “expertise”.
1.2.2 For example, the heavy reliance on restrictive practices, decade after decade in some schools, clearly indicates a lack of expertise in responding to behaviours of concern in a nonviolent fashion.
1.2.3 It has not yet occurred to such schools that repeated restrictive practices against students with Autism may reflect a lack of skill on their part.
1.2.4 DET “Autism Coaches” are not required to hold any particular qualification, except teaching. As long as they have attended a few workshops on Autism and claim to have worked with students with Autism for a particular length of time, that will usually suffice to meet the key selection criteria. However it does not seem to have occurred to DET that when individuals have worked for years with students with Autism, and preside over systemic low academic results and ongoing behaviours of concern, that this may be a contraindication to be held out as an expert in Autism, rather than a commendation.
1.2.5 Western Autistic School assumes great expertise and offers teacher training in the “Autism Teaching Institute”11. Given the prolific use of restrictive practices at Western Autistic
11 http://www.westernautisticschool.vic.edu.au/services/autism-teaching-institute/
7
School, their behaviour policies including “aversive” practices, and their inability to mitigate behaviours of concern over years, such training of others by the “Institute” should be cause for great concern.
Case Study 2. David has Asperger’s Syndrome and attended Western Autistic School for almost 3 years. Despite having their own DET Psychologist, John’s behaviours of concern at Western Autistic were unaffected by any “strategies” put in place by the school. The strategies included constant “timeout”. According to John he was often dragged into the “timeout room” and left there for considerable periods of time. His behaviours of concern carried over to his next school after he left. John remains considerably negatively affected by his frequent seclusion experiences there.
The failure of any strategies to actually be effective did not seem to bother staff, who failed to obtain the services of anyone qualified in the area of behaviour analysis to assist them or John. It was acceptable to them for him to continue being isolated, week after week, despite its clear failure to have an impact on his behaviours and given the research on the significant risks of seclusion (including injury and death).
1.2.7 Given the above, and other student reports of restraint and seclusion at Western Autistic School, there is cause to be extremely worried about the level of training being given to Victorian Teachers.
1.2.8 Having communicated with schools in the USA and visited schools that specialise in working effectively with students with Autism, the level of professionalism and qualification is incomparable to that of Australia.
1.2.9 It is absolutely expected that behaviours of concern are significantly mitigated and/or extinguished for students, and indeed, that is what occurs. Behaviour analysts supervised by Board Certified Behaviour Analysts are heavily involved in many schools.
1.2.10 Professional systematic data is expected to be kept every single day, and is freely available. To compare, DET have no guidelines for taking data and often when parents ask for incident reports or data, they are told to make a Freedom of Information request.
8
1.2.11 One of the schools the writer attended, the ABC School in Sacramento, has video cameras throughout the school, and parents were welcome to come to the school whenever they chose, as long as they did not disrupt the classroom. To compare, there is no transparency, particularly in Victorian special schools, whose staff often actively discourage parents from coming past the school gates. The ABC School specialises in addressing behaviours of concern with evidence-based practices, and then supporting the return of the student into the mainstream school in the district, supporting that school staff to work to the behaviour intervention plan developed.
1.2.12 There is no reason whatsoever that Victoria needs to be the backwater that it is, in terms of best practice in working effectively with students with Autism. Rather, DET attacks the need for professional qualifications when advocates and parents seek improved support for students with Autism, as seen in a number of discrimination complaints. This is a great embarrassment when looking at how even some third world countries have moved ahead in embracing evidence-based practices in relation to Autism.
1.3 The Effect of Funding Allocations on Children with Autism
1.3.7 It could be said that the current state of education for students with Autism, is a product of many years of failure by DET to fund schools adequately to support their education.
1.3.8 The Program for Students with Disabilities (“PSD”), the mechanism by which schools obtain individual funding for students with disabilities has been found by tribunals, parents, advocates and students to be so severely lacking in both rationale and capacity that finally in 2015, the Victorian government decided to undertake a review. It should be noted that the review was not instigated by DET. The report was released 18/4/16.it currently seems as if significant reform of the program is not going to immediately (or ever) be adopted.
1.3.9 In 2009, in response to the increase in Autism diagnosis and increased numbers of students with Autism in schools, DET decided to alter the PSD criteria/guidelines in order to substantially decrease the number of students eligible for the program.
1.3.10 They did this by altering the language impairment criteria thus:
9
In order to meet the language eligibility criterion of the Autism Spectrum Disorder category of the Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD), the student’s functional or pragmatic language deficit must impact on their expressive and receptive language abilities to the extent that they demonstrate the equivalent of a ‘severe language disorder’ in the context of the classroom.12
1.3.11 In other words, despite falsely claiming every year that PSD criteria were based on “World Health Organisation” Guidelines, DET simply made up its own definition of Autism to meet its own criteria.
1.3.12 From the moment the new guidelines were put into effect, countless students with Asperger’s/mild Autism were no longer eligible for individual funding. These guidelines continue to affect students with Autism today.
1.3.13 This is in addition to the long-standing problem of the inadequacy of individual funding even if a student does qualify for PSD funding.
1.3.14 Not everything that is required to successfully support students with Autism requires funding, however the supports that do include:
aides - to work with students following behaviour intervention plans or speech pathology plans; engagement of Speech Pathologists expert in working with people with Autism to do observations in the classroom, communication assessments, develop, monitor and evaluate communication plans; engagement of qualified Behaviour Analysts to perform
Functional Behaviour Assessments/Analysis to
develop, monitor and evaluate behaviour intervention plans and train staff in their implementation; communication equipment/devices for students who are non-verbal; training for staff on communication devices; engagement of Occupational Therapists expert in working with people with Autism to undertake assessments, develop, monitor and evaluate motor and sensory plans; other
1.3.15 It becomes clear very quickly, that schools receiving no individual funding for students with Autism, or inadequate
12 Attachment F Program for Students with Disabilities – Autism Spectrum Disorder ASD Supplementary Guidelines for Speech Pathologists – Pragmatic Language 17.09.2009, Supplementary Guidelines for Speech Pathologists – Pragmatic Language
10
funding for students with Autism, are going to be under significant pressure to be able to effectively support them. Some have theorised that this is indeed the reason for the culture of violence against students with Autism in schools – DET has simply failed to resource them with the predictable result that their difficulties have remained unaddressed.
1.3.16 Indeed the current changes to behaviour policy in October 2015 are another example of changes on the surface which have caused havoc in practice due to the failure by DET to pour resources into schools that have suddenly been instructed not to use certain types of restraints and purpose built seclusion rooms.
1.3.17 Reports to the writer suggest further dysfunction at some schools whose “bread and butter” responses to behaviours of concern are restrictive practices and who are now expected in the space of a few days to use alternative methods to “control” students who have previously simply been responded to by punishment. Rather than roll out intensive behaviour assistance to staff by qualified people in order that schools are supported to immediately deal with a significant change in environment, the answer by DET has been to appoint a ‘Principal Practice Leader’ on secondment from the Office of Professional Practice who will slowly visit schools in Victoria over a two-year period gathering information and giving advice.
1.3.18 In the meantime, schools such as Marnebek SDS, Western
Autistic School, Bendigo SDS and Monash SDS are expected
to make enormous cultural and practice changes, most with the same people in charge who have overseen decades of violence against students. This is without the practical support required from DET to replace such practices, and without thought given as to how staff who believe strongly in the practices of restraint and seclusion, can effectively and suddenly respond to behaviours of concern in a humane and dignified manner.
1.4 Failure to Use Best Practice Methods
1.4.7 Given the failure by DET to recognise best practice and evidence-based approaches in the field of Autism (and other areas of disability), students with Autism in Victoria are at a significant disadvantage and do not benefit from international research (see Attachment A pages 20-36).
1.4.8 It is important to remember that students with a single diagnosis of Autism will have at least the following challenges:
11
a) language impairment - from pragmatic language disorder to severe expressive and receptive language disorder.
b) social impairment - from mild social differences and challenges to severe social differences and challenges.
1.4.9 The above difficulties will affect learning styles and therefore the acquisition of literacy and numeracy, and the manifestation of behaviours of concern when in an unaccommodating environment.
1.4.10 Commonly however, students with Autism will have a range of other disabilities in addition to Autism13. Therefore one cannot separate best practice in Autism, from best practice in general teaching pedagogy, the teaching of literacy and numeracy, speech pathology, occupational therapy, and so on.
1.4.11 See the writer’s submission to the Senate Education and
Employment Reference Committee its
“Rejection by DET of evidence-based practice” pages 41 4314 and “Best Practice/Evidence-based Teaching Approaches” pages 50-51.
1.4.12 See the same submission, “The approach of special schools to speech pathology” pages 8-11.
1.5 Expectations of Students with Autism
1.5.1 See the chapter “Education Rather Than Babysitting” in the Federal Senate Report of the inquiry mentioned above at page 2215.
1.5.2 This problem traverses the lowest expectations, commonly found in special schools where capacity of students is presumed at the lowest, to mainstream schools, where resources for effective teaching are unavailable and therefore the goal is often simply to have the student get through each year without incident.
13 Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders in Children with Autism:Interview Development and Rates of Disorders - Ovsanna T. Leyfer, Susan E. Folstein, Susan Bacalman, Naomi O. Davis, Elena Dinh, Jubel Morgan, Helen Tager-Flusberg, Janet E. Lainhart Published online: 15 July 2006 Psychiatric Disorders in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: Prevalence, Comorbidity, and Associated Factors in a Population-Derived Sample Simonoff,Pickles, Charman,Chandler,Loucas, Baird. 14 Attachment G Submission to inquiry Current Levels of Access and Attainment for Students with Disability in the School System, and the Impact on Students and Families Associated with Inadequate Levels of Support 15http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/stu dents_with_disability/Report
12
1.5.3 As most Individual Education Plans do not contain measurable outcomes, and standardised literacy and numeracy testing is rare, it is often hard for parents to understand exactly where their children are academically. However it is common for students with moderate-severe Autism to finish their schooling not only without functional literacy and numeracy, but without even having a functional communication method.
1.5.4 The refusal to put resources into ensuring that all students with Autism can at least obtain functional communication can be inferred to be due to an assumption that they have no capacity for intentional communication. It is either that, disinterest, lack of resources, or all of the aforementioned.
1.5.5 Regardless, until students with Autism are seen as having capacity to learn regardless of the severity of their Autism then they will continue being pushed out of schools without the skills to get a job, or undertake further study. The automatic relegation of students with Autism to the Disability Support Pension after they leave school should be viewed by the community as a failure by the system to educate them sufficiently.
2 Department of Health and Human Services
2.1 Violence, Abuse and Neglect against Clients with Autism in Victoria
2.1.1 Due to that set out above in section 1, many adults with Autism are living in institutional settings, many of them run by the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) or its contracted agencies.
2.1.2 The abuse and neglect of people with disabilities in these settings is set out in the Federal Senate Committee Report16 pages 48-52.
2.1.3 Again, due to the unique nature of Autism, and the propensity for behaviours of concern as a reaction to unaccommodating environments, violence against people with Autism in these settings is a significant concern.
2.1.4 What does not assist DHHS, is that due to the failure by Victorian schools to educate students with Autism and effectively address behaviours of concern, DHHS will receive clients with Autism who already have entrenched behaviours
13
of concern which will be all the more difficult to address due to their longevity.
2.1.5 Nevertheless, they have an obligation to be providing services to their clients in a humane and dignified manner, and make decisions in relation to their service provision which are compliant with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
2.1.6 The situation in Victoria can be gleaned by reading the report of the Health Services Union Victoria/Tasmanian branch to the Senate Inquiry into Abuse last year.17
2.1.7 Suffice to say that violence, abuse and neglect are prevalent in government disability services, and a significant proportion of these clients have Autism with other comorbid disabilities.
2.2 Qualifications of Those Working with DHHS Clients with Autism in
Victoria
2.2.1 Staff working in DHHS residential units have few qualifications. One of the reasons is that residential units are simply seen as accommodation facilities, not places where there should be any learning, teaching or skill development for residents.
2.2.2 This is particularly problematic when residents do not have a day placement and need to spend the majority of their time in their home.
2.2.3 DHHS house staff do not have the skills or the interest to make efforts to challenge residents, nor feel any compunction to do anything but make sure they are fed and clothed.
2.2.4 Unlike a number of services in the USA where providing services to people with disabilities is seen as an opportunity to make a significant difference in their lives, people with disabilities in Victoria are subjected to ‘babysitting’ by people with little knowledge, supervised by management with similar knowledge.
17http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_ab use_neglect/Submissions
14
Case Study 3. John is a young man who has moderate-severe Autism Spectrum Disorder and complex communication needs. Due to behaviours of concern precluding his attendance at a day placement, he spends all day in a DHHS home in Preston. After John’s parents advised that they would be lodging a complaint under disability discrimination legislation against DHHS, they arranged a speech pathology communication assessment. After the assessment, it was assumed that a Communication Plan would be drawn up, with goals, strategies and measurable outcomes.
Neither the House Supervisors nor the Disability Accommodation Manager could understand the difference between a speech pathology assessment/recommendations, and a Communication Plan. Despite explaining the difference on multiple occasions over three months, and asking for a copy of the plan, including any data on progress, the aforementioned staff continued to refer back to the assessment and its recommendations, referring to those as a “Communication Plan”. No detailed explanation has been able to be understood by DHHS staff and John continues to show no progress in relation to his complex communication needs.
2.2.5 The example above reflects the lack of basic knowledge about language disorders and speech pathology, assessments and plans. Given the fact that DHHS is one of the largest disability service providers in the Victoria, this is extremely concerning.
Case Study 4
John (referred to in the case study directly above) has moderate to severe behaviours of concern. These include self-injurious behaviours and behaviours that can cause harm to others. Despite a recommendation by the Office of Professional Practice in January 2015 that he needed a Functional Behaviour Assessment, one was not organised until John’s parents advised that they would be lodging a complaint under disability discrimination legislation against DHHS. After the assessment, DHHS failed to put in place the recommendations for another six months, and then only due to another disability discrimination complaint. Putting aside the fact that John could not get basic services unless his parents entered into litigation, it did not occur to house staff or the Disability Accommodation Manager, that highly specialised expertise and formal plans should be brought into address behaviours of concern that were a safety risk to John, staff and residents. The self-injurious behaviour included John hitting his head into inanimate objects when he was distressed.
DHHS staff’s response was reactive for the entirety of the year 2015, simply restricting John’s environment more and more.
Instead of addressing John’s throwing of furniture by sophisticated behavioural techniques, furniture was bolted to the floor; instead of addressing John’s new behaviour of taking off the seat belt in the car through teaching strategies, they refused to transport him until he had a full body harness made John began losing independent life skills linked with hygiene, eating, getting
15
dressed, sleeping patterns - it did not occur to DHHS staff to address those disappearing skills through any formal program; instead of a behaviour intervention plan developed by a qualified expert, a behaviour plan drawn up by DHHS staff failed week after week to address behaviours and John, without the knowledge of his parents, was subjected to chemical restraint.
2.2.6 The evidence is that DHHS at all levels cannot recognise when formal programs and strategies need to be put into place for people with Autism, instead accepting deterioration of skills and ongoing behaviours of concern as somehow “normal”.
2.2.7 The tenets of teaching replacement skills and the amelioration of behaviours of concern using evidence-based behaviour practices seem to be unknown to DHHS.
2.2.8 Even if one puts aside any expectation that DHHS housing staff do anything more than “babysit” clients in houses, there is not the skills or knowledge to know what services need to be engaged externally to address serious problems for people with Autism.
2.3 The Effect of Funding Allocations on DHHS Clients with Autism
2.3.1 This section should be read in the context of the co-morbid disabilities often existing with Autism, and the fact that when people with Autism are receiving DHHS services, they will most likely have moderate to severe Autism.
2.3.2 While recognising that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will take over funding of most people with Autism, the same principles will apply when it comes to making decisions about the amount of money required to ensure that people with Autism are fully included in our society.
2.3.3 To date, it has been a battle for families to obtain packages that can uphold the basic rights that people with Autism have under various legislation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Most do not receive such packages.
2.3.4 There is no evidence whatsoever in the practices of DHHS (as opposed to public relations material) that they believe that people with Autism need to comfortably operate in the community, and when DHHS is responsible for those people, this is their responsibility.
16
2.3.5 The writer refers to paragraph 1.3.14 above setting out the sorts of supports people with Autism will need in an education setting. Due to the systemic failure by schools to provide these supports, they continue to be required when students with Autism are released by schools into the community. Indeed, in terms of behaviours of concern, even more assistance will be required than had that person received appropriate assistance 5-10 years prior.
2.3.6 The supports cost money. When the money is not provided, the supports cannot be provided.
2.3.7 Putting aside the bare essentials of having functional communication, and having one’s behaviours of concern addressed, people with Autism also have rights to leisure activities, to be involved in the community as others are involved, and to pursue education in all its forms (post secondary).
2.3.8 However simply having unaddressed moderate to severe behaviours of concern can compromise all of those activities, as can the absence of having functional communication.
2.3.9 When people with Autism cannot get these basic supports at the earliest opportunity in their adult life, and intensive assistance to help them transition into community activities, they are relegated to the home (whether private home or DHHS/contracted accommodation) or if they are “lucky”, sheltered workshops (now euphemistically renamed as “business services”).
2.3.10 The refusal by DHHS to provide adequate financial packages when required, particularly for those with moderate to severe Autism where their Autism is impeding their rights to live as equal citizens in the community, cannot be justified. Yet packages are “capped” constantly, with no reason given except that it is otherwise too expensive. This is often the case even if the only resourcing people with Autism are requiring are adequate staffing hours. This is hardly a luxury.
2.3.11 The community do not need to be reminded of the money spent by governments on projects and expenses that are far less worthy than the goal of ensuring that people with Autism have the same rights and enjoyment of life as the rest of us do. The refusal to prioritise services and supports for people with Autism is a sad reflection on the State of Victoria as it can only be inferred that people with Autism and their right to social inclusion are simply not important.
17
2.3.12 Until this changes at a high level of government, it is unlikely that the current situation will alter.
2.4 Failure to Use Best Practice Methods
2.4.1 The writer refers to section 2.2 above in relation to the qualifications of those working with clients with Autism.
2.4.2 It stands to reason that if staff do not know what best practice methods are in service provision for people with Autism, they are not going to provide them. It is also self-evident, that even if staff did know, if they do not have many skills and abilities in working with people with disabilities, they are not going to provide such practices themselves. However, given the enormity of this problem in and of itself, the evidence is that not only do staff not know or understand about best practice service provision, but when advised of such practice, they reject it.
2.4.3 The writer refers to Case Studies 3 and 4 above.
2.4.4 There are no policies, procedures or guidelines that require DHHS staff to ensure that best practice supports are provided to those in their care. When there are in existence, they are not complied with. (See 2.5)
2.4.5 Given then the lack of qualification and skill of DHHS staff involved in service provision, decisions in the hands of individual staff are fraught. No consistency, no requirement for evidence-based decisions, and no requirement to have measurable outcomes linked with goals in individual plans.
2.5 DHHS Behaviour Support Services
2.5.1 DHHS’s Behaviour Support Services (“BSS”) claim to “deliver systematic, environmental, educational and other therapeutic strategies to prevent the occurrence of behaviours of concern”18. They do not deliver such a service. They may at times, however the writer has not been informed of any successful BSS interventions in 10 years of advocacy related to the area of behaviours of concern.
18
Case Study 5
John (see Case studies 3 and 4) was living in his family home and after a number of deaths in his extended family, began exhibiting serious behaviours of concern. His parents requested BSS support in writing on numerous occasions in 2013 and advised that if they did not receive support the family would be at risk of disintegration. That support was not forthcoming.
In 2015, John’s parents were offered expert behavioural assistance by DHHS after John’s parents advised that they would be lodging a complaint under disability discrimination legislation against DHHS. It would be over a year before that commitment resulted in the drawing up of a behaviour plan. In the meantime, BSS were drawing up behaviour plans which had no effect. John’s parents requested the qualifications of the individual who was working on the plan, and were told by North East Melbourne Area DHHS that this information was private and confidential.
Therefore even though the failure to mitigate John’s behaviours was impeding negatively on his mental and physical health, John’s parents had no rights, according to DHHS, to information about the person ostensibly addressing this serious issues.
Despite BSS practice guidelines requiring best practice procedures such as monitoring, evaluation and data collection - none of this was in evidence.
From 24 July 2015 to April 2016, John’s parents and advocate requested whether behavioural data was being taken, and if so if they could receive a copy. DHHS staff, including the Disability Accommodation Manager, refuse to answer to date.
Case Study 6
Anne is a young adult with intellectual disability and features of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Her behaviours of concern are of a long-standing nature, despite her being a client of DHHS for over 10 years.
The behaviours of concern were so severe, that by 2015, Anne had very few services and was spending most of her time at home, as most respite carers and disability service staff could not work with her. This severely impacted on the goals in her individual plan.
On the odd occasion that she received a behaviour plan from BSS North Division, BSS advised her that they do not provide intensive assistance,
19
and therefore after providing her with the plan, they withdrew. There was no monitoring and evaluation of the plans, and none of them were effective, which did not seem to hold any importance for BSS.
Given the long-standing and intensive nature of the behaviours of concern, it was clear that someone with high-level expertise would need to be involved, however it was only when Anne’s mother threatened to lodge a complaint under disability discrimination legislation that there was an agreement to obtain the services of someone qualified in behaviour analysis to assist.
The BSS worker who had been allocated to Anne, when pressed, admitted that his only “qualification” in behaviour analysis was that he had attended a workshop on behaviour analysis. The organisation who provided the workshop confirmed in writing that they would not attest to the BSS worker’s ability to undertake a Functional Behaviour Assessment and Recommended Support Plan.
It had taken the BSS worker almost one year to complete a Functional Behaviour Assessment and during that time he did not ask Anne’s mother to take any behavioural data.
The only reason a qualified expert was then engaged was that firstly, the discrimination complaint had been lodged, and secondly, Anne had become so isolated from the community due to her behaviours, that her Individual Support Package money was not being used and therefore could be diverted to engage a professional.Had that not been the case, there is no evidence that there would have been any such action.
DHHS/BSS had clearly not been concerned that Anne’s behaviours of concern were preventing any type of social inclusion, and were not concerned when Anne’s single mother became so distressed and worn down that she advised them in writing that she was contemplating relinquishment. Anne’s extensive property damage to the home and physical injuries to her family were not enough for BSS to admit that they did not have the expertise to address the situation, nor for DHHS to feel it necessary to engage an external qualified practitioner.
2.5.2 Despite extensive guidelines on the BSS/DHHS website there is no mention of the role of Board Certified Behaviour Analysts and little regard for Functional Behaviour Assessment and Analysis as a behaviour analytical function that needs a high level of expertise.
2.5.3 Of further concern is the following:
20
BSS practitioners as scientists Practitioners should function as scientists and adhere to basic assumptions about behaviour (Appendix 72). Practitioners should gather data regarding efficacy. Positive behaviour support applies a problem-solving approach using systematic data collection to evaluate and guide intervention and support, in determining efficacy in maximising quality of life (Goal 1) and minimising behaviours of concern (Goal 2). These data include qualitative measures, quantitative measures and econometric measures (Appendix 73). BSS practitioners determine whether outcome success (Appendix 74) is achieved.19
2.5.4 The problem with the above is that scientists in any other area require a relevant qualification to practise. While BSS claims to also employ people who have “relevant behavioural training and experience” 20, the science relevant to this area is Behaviour Analysis, and the backgrounds of people employed by BSS have yet to include to the writer’s knowledge any person with an actual qualification in Behaviour Analysis.
2.5.5 To quote as “qualifications”, workshops and training days, is misleading, as is accepting work when one knows one does not have the skills or qualifications to do the job (in any profession). This is a significant problem for BSS who are yet to tackle this area of professional ethics and seem to contentedly move from one client to the next without any interest as to outcome or any time to monitor and evaluate. This is not at all commensurate with any science, let alone the science of Behaviour Analysis.
2.5.6 Given the rising numbers of Autism and associated behaviours of concern, it is vital that families have access to professional services that can be relied upon to be effective. When individuals and families cannot afford to engage their own private practitioners, DHHS must fill the gap. It is not doing so.
2.6 The Role DHHS has in the Disintegration of Family for People with
Autism
2.6.1 The writer refers to the “Desperate Measures” report that sets out the rate of relinquishment experienced by families of people with disabilities who do not receive adequate support from DHHS21.
19 Positive practice framework - A guide for behaviour support services practitioner p55 20 http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/for-individuals/disability/specialist-disability-services/behaviour-support-services 21 Desperate Measures-the relinquishment of children with disability into state care Victorian Equal
Opportunity and Human Rights Commission 2012
21
2.6.2 Whether the “children” are 5 years old, 15 years old or 25 years old is beside the point. Children of any age have the right to live with their families if they choose, like others in the community do, and given the systemic problems with violence, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities living in state care (either direct or contracted) it is often the safest option for people with disabilities until a revolution takes place in the disability sector where problems of violence are not systemic but rare.
2.6.3 However given the Autism comorbidities previously discussed, and issues such as behaviours of concern, families will often need assistance from the State and the most relevant organisation, DHHS, is unlikely to give that assistance.
2.6.4 It can be inferred that economics drives DHHS to withhold support that families need, as it is cheaper for them to service people in group homes and institutions rather than provide individual packages to allow people to live in their family home. Decisions about the lives of people with disabilities and their families based on economics in a country such as Australia can only be described as discriminatory and in breach of a number of human rights conventions.
Case Study 7
John (case studies 3 to 5) developed behaviours of concerns in 2013. Throughout 2013 and 2014, John’s parents requested assistance from DHHS North-East Region for behavioural support and increased staffing. They did not receive it. As a result, John was “relinquished” and is now living in a DHHS house where his behaviours of concern have not been mitigated, he has been chemically restrained, and he has lost individual living skills.
After numerous OHS reports to Work Safe by John’s, parents, about the health risks at the home, repeated requests by the parents for the same information over and over again, without answer, DHHS have banned both parents from visiting the house for “OHS” reasons - accusing them of causing stress to staff.
When John’s parents attempted to arrange family friends to visit him, they were banned also. After being accused of victimisation, DHHS said that they would reconsider the ban if certain conditions were met. Visitors were not prepared to go into such a hostile environment. John therefore remains in the house with no family or friends able to visit him. No OHS breaches can be reported as they are not seen.
22
John’s parents would be alerted to incidents at times only due to visiting the home and observing injuries. Now they cannot do so.
They have raised on numerous occasions with DHHS, their failure to consult John about where he wants to live, pursuant to his rights under the Disability Act. DHHS refuse to respond. They have asked for a transfer from the house. DHHS refuse to respond.
Home visits are fraught. As soon as John gets home, he does not want to leave and show signs of great distress upon being told he has to go back to his residential unit.
The family is fractured and all suffering trauma and grief. DHHS have not the slightest care and interest in suffering experienced by any family member, and do not recognise John’s right to be with his family under human rights law.
2.6.5 The use of guardianship applications by DHHS when parents or family members complain about the treatment of their children is well-known. Given the Office of the Public Advocate is a willing participant in the processes of guardianship and removing decision-making powers from families, DHHS achieves its objectives simply by advising the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that the parents/family member and DHHS cannot agree on a decision. The writer needs to say no more about how common such a situation would be in Victoria. This is sufficient for the Office of the Public Advocate to support guardianship.
2.6.6 Once families are conveniently removed from decision-making, the next common step by DHHS is to label parents/family members “Occupational Health & Safety” risks if they express any agitation regarding their family member.
Case Study 8
John’s mother was accused of “intimidation” and “aggression” causing “stress” in November 2015. The ban continues as of April 2015. She has been requesting incident reports of the “intimidation”, including to the Assistant Director, Residential Client Services North-East Region. At first she was told there were no incident reports. At the beginning of April 2016 she was told she would have to make a Freedom of Information Request.
DHHS can operate with complete impunity and unlike most people or organisations in society, are able to make
23
unsubstantiated allegations without providing any evidence, thereby preventing a person refuting their claims. No principles of natural justice applied, simply rudimentary but successful strategies to rid themselves of parents and advocates who advocate for the person with a disability too strongly.
2.6.7 The commonality of the DHHS tactics of banning family members and applying for guardianship is well known throughout the sector. It is a practice that is unprofessional, inhumane, but stunningly effective in its alienation of families and advocates and the separation of family members.
2.6.8 Despite the “Desperate Measures” Report, nothing has improved for people with disabilities and their families and they continue to relinquish as a result of the withholding of support from DHHS.
2.7 Availability of Expert Practitioners
2.7.1 Families of people with Autism will often rely on government practitioners to assist them with diagnosis and treatment.
2.7.2 There are significant waiting lists for access to practitioners in public hospitals.
2.7.3 Child and Youth Mental Health Service (“CYMHS”) also have a waiting list, and reports about the quality of their service have been disappointing. Complaints include:
inability to actually assist the child with Autism; the allocation of junior staff to cases is common, and they will often act as a go-between to more senior staff who may not actually have much interaction with child.
2.7.4 Children with comorbid psychiatric disorders are often simply unable to find assistance at all.
Case Study 9
Michael is a teenager living in country Victoria. While his primary diagnosis is Autism, it is clear that he has other psychiatric disabilities. For many years his mother has attempted to find a practitioner who will diagnose him. After contacting every child psychiatrist in Victoria, she could find no one who was willing to work with him, or even give him a formal diagnosis.
2.7.5 There are few practitioners specialising in Autism and Psychiatric Illness. This has devastating effects for families seeking support for family members with both.
24
2.8 Office of Professional Practice
2.8.1 The Office of Professional Practice “has powers under the Disability Act 2006 for ensuring that the rights of persons who are subject to restrictive interventions and compulsory treatment are protected and that appropriate standards in relation to these practices are complied with.”22
2.8.2 The difficulty with this role is that it is also part of DHHS and therefore has a significant conflict of interest in terms of any oversight it has over DHHS services.
2.8.3 While disability support staff have to provide the Office of Professional Practice with behaviour plans prior to using restrictive practices, the office does not have the staff to check them for quality, monitoring and evaluation. Therefore a document that is lengthy, rather than containing quality information, is usually sufficient to provide to the Office. Therefore there is a mirage of gatekeeping which in practice provides little protection for people with disabilities.
- Role of Statutory Authorities in adequacy of services for, and violence, abuse and neglect against, Victorians with Autism.
3.1 There are no specialist authorities protecting the rights of people with Autism, and therefore the information collected through State Government, Federal Government and Victorian ombudsman reviews of the abuse of people with disabilities and reporting of that abuse is relevant.
3.2 While the State Government report is yet to be seen, it is clear that there is an urgent need for oversight of services for people with Autism (and indeed the rest of the disability community), particularly due to the issues raised within this submission that reflect extremely poorly on the Department of Education and Training, and the Department of Health And Human Services.
3.3 Regrettably, the evidence indicates that the State of Victoria is not interested in ensuring that people with Autism and/or their families have access to high-quality (or any quality) services.
3.4 Numerous reports to the inquiries mentioned above indicate that there are no authorities trusted to competently deal with complaints about services. Again, given the prevalence of Autism, and the unique and
22 http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/our-organisation/organisational-structure/our groups/office-of-professional-practice
25
multiple challenges people with Autism face, the absence of such an authority is disturbing.
3.5 The Office of the Public Advocate (“OPA”) is too often assisting DHHS in its persecution of people with Autism and their families by supporting guardianship applications and then having a “hands off” approach to decision making, often deferring to DHHS.
3.6 Due to the high level of support services required to meet the needs of many people with Autism, for the various reasons highlighted in this submission, it is often people with Autism who are the subject of guardianship applications due to the energetic and passionate advocacy of parents - unwelcomed by DHHS.
3.7 OPA are judgemental of parents and their advocates who can’t work “collaboratively” with DHHS and instead advocate vigorously for the rights of the person with a disability. OPA, like DHHS, look more kindly on parents and advocates that don’t do their jobs - that is, parents and advocates who sit back, be agreeable, and allow various abuses and human rights violations to be imposed on clients.
3.8 OPA Guardians often do not advocate, despite this being part of their role as clearly articulated by OPA itself and the National Standards of Public Guardianship.
Case Study 10. Anne, (case study 9), required urgent behavioural assistance. Instead of the OPA Guardian advocating for expert qualified assistance, he supported the failed DHHS approach. When Anne’s advocate pointed out that the behavioural services she was receiving were flawed, at the very least because they were completely ineffective and had been for years, rather than supporting the engagement of a qualified practitioner, the Guardian challenged the Advocate to go through the BSS assessment and point out all its flaws (email to advocate 9 December 2015).
Putting the immaturity and unprofessionalism of such a challenge aside, it was the Guardian that should have been questioning why services to Anne were ineffective given his role of being a decision maker and advocate for access to services. The Guardian continued to support the practitioner from DHHS, even after it had been pointed out to him that he had no relevant qualifications to undertake the behavioural work he was doing (unsuccessfully).
Such a disinterest in the rights of the client, and any positive outcomes in her life, was inexplicable.
26
3.9 The only statutory authority that has from time to time shown interest in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, and backed that up with action, has been the Victorian Ombudsman.
3.10 Given their oft-stated inability to undertake investigations, it is vital that previous recommendations from people with disabilities, their families and the advocacy sector in relation to oversight bodies is acted upon.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommendation 1.
That an independent Schools Commissioner be appointed to deal with complaints against schools, as promised by the Australian Labor Party in November 2014.
Recommendation 2.
That immediate resourcing is provided to all special schools to enable them to engage the relevant qualified practitioners to assist them in dealing with the October 2015 changes to behaviour policies.
Recommendation 3.
That all DET teaching staff be required to sign off on the new October 2015 changes to behaviour policies.
Recommendation 4.
That all seclusion of students with behaviours of concern be immediately prohibited.
Recommendation 5.
That specific guidance on best practice for students with Autism covering behaviours of concern, supporting language disorders, ameliorating academic delays, responding to sensory concerns - be developed from external sources to DET, and be mandatory practice notes rather than optional guidelines.
Recommendation 6
That immediate and ongoing resourcing is provided to all schools to enable them to engage external qualified experts to support students and teaching staff when students with autism are not adequately progressing either socially, academically or behaviourally.
Recommendation 7.
That integration aides for students with disabilities have a minimum qualification determined after consultation with external stakeholders.
27
Recommendation 8.
That an independent oversight body to deal with complaints in relation to the treatment of people with disabilities, as raised with State and Federal Governments, and the Victorian Ombudsman, be urgently acted upon.
Recommendation 9.
That there is a review of the DHHS complaints procedures.
Recommendation 10.
That staff working in residential units have minimum qualifications determined after consultation with external stakeholders.
Recommendation 11.
That position descriptions of staff working in residential units include the implementation of person centred plans.
Recommendation 12.
That there is a review of DHHS Behaviour Support Services.
Recommendation 13.
That there is a review of the Office of Public Advocate Guardianship Program.
Recommendation 14
That there be a stakeholder review of Child and Youth Mental Health Service in order to determine whether it has sufficient capacity to assist families of children with Autism.
Recommendation 15
That the Department of Health and Human Services develop workforce capacity strategies to address the lack of availability of psychiatrists who can provide services to children with Autism.
28
D. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Submission to Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s
Inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with
Disabilities
Attachment B - Further Supplementary Submission to Senate Community Affairs
References Committee
Attachment D - Enquiry into Bendigo Special Developmental School
Attachment E – DET OHS Representatives endorsed “Safe Room”
Attachment F - Program for Students with Disabilities – Autism Spectrum Disorder
ASD Supplementary Guidelines for Speech Pathologists
Attachment G - Submission to Senate Inquiry Current Levels of Access and Attainment for Students with Disability in the School System, and the
Impact on Students and Families Associated with Inadequate Levels
of Support
E. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BSS Behaviour Support Services
CYMHS Child and Youth Mental Health Service
DET Department of Education and Training
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
IQ Intelligence Quotient
OHS Occupational Health and Safety
OPA Office of the Public Advocate
PSD Program for Students with Disabilities
SDS Special Development School
29
Attachment A
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
Senate Inquiry into the Abuse of People with Disabilities 6 July 2015
Contact:
Julie Phillips
Disability Advocate
1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………4
A. ABUSE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS …6 Can the use of restrictive practices constitute abuse?…………………………6 In which circumstances would restrictive practices be considered abuse?………………………………………………………………………………………………7
Seclusion……………………………………………………………………………9
Examples of Seclusion used by DET…………………………………11
Restraint……………………………………………………………………………13
Examples of restraint used by DET……………………………………17 History of restraint used by DET………………………………………19 The link between the refusal by DET to use evidence-based psychological behaviour interventions to respond to challenging behaviours, and the abuse of students with disabilities………………..20 Injury and death as a result of restraint and seclusion …………..20
Positive Behaviour Support…………………………………………….21
Examples of behaviour plans…………………………………………..25
Functional Behaviour Assessment……………………………………28
Rejection by DET of evidence-based practice………………………30 The link between the refusal by DET to use professional practice prevent challenging behaviours…………………………………………….33 Language/Communication ………………………………………………….33 A “Last Resort“……………………………………………………………………36
Victimisation of Those Making Complaints …………………………………36
Advocates………………………………………………………………….36
Parents……………………………………………………………………..38
Teachers/Aides……………………………………………………………39
Covering up of inhumane and degrading treatment/illegal treatment of children with disabilities………………………………………………….39
DET FOI Department…………………………………………………….39
Conduct and Ethics Department………………………………………41
Bullying…………………………………………………………………………….47
School Buses……………………………………………………………………..49
Complaints Process……………………………………………………………..50
Policies and Procedures………………………………………………………..54
B. DHHS…………………………………………………………………………………55 C. DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION………………………………………….57 D. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE…………………………………………..58 E. VICTORIA POLICE…………………………………………………………………..59 F. OMBUDSMAN……………………………………………………………………….61 2
G. CHILD PROTECTION……………………………………………………………….62 H. THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND NEGLECT ON PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITY, THEIR FAMILIES, ADVOCATES, SUPPORT PERSONS,
CURRENT AND FORMER STAFF AND AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AS A
WHOLE………………………………………………………………………….63
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………….65
ATTACHMENTS…………………………………………………………………………68
ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………..69
3
Introduction/Summary
I write as a Disability Advocate who has been working in the disability sector since
- Since 2000 I have been assisting people with disabilities through general advocacy, by assisting them to make complaints of discrimination, and supporting law firms who require assistance to work effectively in this area.
I have assisted parents in the making of approximately 40 complaints of disability discrimination against the Victorian Department of Education and Training. Most of these have settled.
My history includes working for disability service providers at a grassroots and senior management level, and involvement on numerous Boards in the disability sector, current today. The majority of my work is voluntary.
In the last 10 years, 80% of the clients who approach me for assistance, do so with concerns about the treatment of children and young people with disabilities in schools.
I would estimate that since 2006 I have been approached by several hundred parents and been provided with thousands of documents relating to their family members and their school experiences. Therefore the majority of this submission deals with abuse in Victorian schools. The second reason I concentrate on this area, is that it seems to be an area which to date is “untouchable”. No regulator has been given powers to oversee it. No law has been created or altered to cover it. It is hard to understand why, but the abuse of children with disabilities in schools seems to be an area that government and other statutory authorities do not wish to tackle. I commend the Senate for doing so.
In the event that the Department of Education and Training (“DET”), formerly the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (“DEECD”) contact the Senate Committee on Community Affairs (“the Committee”) and negate any of the information in this submission, I am able to provide evidence through documentation of everything claimed or quoted. It is impossible and unwieldy to attach every document that is relevant to this submission, although it is possible. However I strongly urge the Committee to contact me in the face of any denial through DET that the information herein is incorrect.
In my submission, DET is likely to provide misleading information to the Committee, as it has to other statutory authorities. Therefore all information received from DET should be checked with the informant, whether it is I or any other person providing information on DET to the Committee.
It was only last week that newly appointed Secretary of DET, Ms Gill Callister made a commitment to appoint an “independent expert” to lead a wide ranging review into DET in the wake of ongoing corruption enquiries. It should be recognised that this will take a significant length of time, and in the meantime many of the same senior personnel remain.
4
It is important to note that I provide the personal information below either as a result of it being public information, in hearings and/or permission of the families involved.
It is recognised that some of the more sophisticated concepts regarding evidence based psychological interventions and behaviour analysis included in this submission will most readily be understood by those qualified in this area and working in the field.
What is the extent of the abuse of students with disabilities in Australian schools? Attached is an Excel sheet1 with some of the comments that a change.org petition recently attracted. The original comments, which have been expanded upon, can be viewed at:
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/mr-denis-napthine-premier-of-victoria-mr daniel-andrews-leader-of-the-opposition-hold-a-royal-commission-in-to-the-abuse-of children-with-disabilities-in-victorian-schools
The Senate can rightly conclude that the abuse of children with disabilities in schools is a significant issue throughout Australia and many people (over 12,000) believe that a Royal Commission into the subject is necessary.
Violence, abuse and neglect against and of children with disabilities represent the most significant betrayal of trust that we can imagine. There is no one more vulnerable than a child with a disability, particularly when due to that disability, they are non-verbal and cannot communicate what is happening in their lives.
The fact that most abuse against children with disabilities in schools is directly from teaching staff and sanctioned by government employees makes such abuse even more shocking and inexplicable.
Like any other type of neglect or violence, against any child, violence and abuse against children with disabilities shapes that child, and the trauma can affect them for the rest of their lives. The trauma is not limited to the children themselves, but also to their families, who are often helpless to stop such abuse.
The acceptance or ignoring of the abuse of people with disabilities demeans us all. The regulators and statutory authorities, who form part of the problem, set an example for the Australian community. Each time an individual or organisation looks the other way when a person with a disability, their family, advocate or friend attempts to report abuse, the safety net for people with disabilities weakens.
There is little consequence for violence, abuse and neglect against people with disabilities, particularly non-sexual violence, and particularly violence against children in schools.
My submission is that this must change. Consequences must flow from refusals to protect this segment of the Australian community. Senior bureaucrats who look the other way, or directly endorse these practices must be held accountable.
1 See Attachment 1
5
Until Australian society, led by government, makes it clear that this abuse will not be tolerated, we will simply have report after report, a peak in interest after the latest television documentary, and then the status quo will slip back into place.
The challenge in this area is that government itself is the main abuser - either directly through its service provision, or through the contractors it hires to provide services. Once substantial organisations such as Yooralla obtain a significant hold on disability services and government funding, the impetus by government to address shortcomings in a direct and decisive manner, fades. One can see government bureaucrats pondering the consequence of an organisation such as Yooralla losing its funding and wondering how it will be replaced.
In my submission, these considerations are placed more highly than considerations for the health and safety of people with disabilities.
If we accept that government is disinterested in regulating itself, then one of the most important focuses from this Inquiry must be independent regulation. Until we have strong, independent and powerful regulation, people with disabilities are not safe.
6
A. ABUSE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS Can the use of restrictive practices constitute abuse?
- In its 2012 report “Held Back - The Experiences of Students with Disabilities in
Victorian Schools“ (“the Held Back Report”), the Victorian Equal Opportunity
and Human Rights Commission (“VEOHRC”) considered reports made to it from students, parents and teachers on the use of restrictive practices (restraint and seclusion) against students with disabilities.
- VEOHRC argues that the use of restrictive interventions in government schools engages, and arguably limits, the following human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 20062:
a. Equality before the law b. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment c. Freedom of movement d. Protection of families and children e. Right to liberty and security of person 3. VEOHRC also raises the following treaties under which Australia has obligations that relate to the use of restraint and seclusion of children3:
a. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights b. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights c. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities d. Convention on the Rights of the Child e. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
- It is clear that restrictive practices are arguably violations of a child’s human rights, and dependent on the circumstances, can constitute abuse.
In which circumstances would restrictive practices be considered abuse?
-
When there are alternatives to restrictive practices which are nonphysical, non-violent, and non-punitive, and those alternatives are withheld in preference to using restraint and seclusion, it is submitted that restraint and seclusion should be viewed as constituting abuse.
-
Such alternatives include evidence based psychological interventions. Unfortunately, while terms such as “evidence-based” are used prolifically in DET publications4, when attempting to negotiate positive behaviour support for students with disabilities there are numerous barriers which ensure that
2 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 107 3 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 109 4 “Effective Schools Are Engaging Schools” 2009 DET; Blueprint for Education and Early Childhood
Development DET 2008
7
they do not actually receive “evidence-based” supports. These include the fact that:
a. There is no explanation in DET publications as to what terms such as “evidence-based” actually mean;
b. Teachers must access (or should access) psychologists whose area of expertise is behaviour analysis in order to decide upon and implement evidence based psychological interventions and they do not have the resources to do so;
c. DET psychologists are in the main insufficiently trained in positive behaviour support themselves, and have been known to actually endorse and train staff in restraint and seclusion in preference to professional behaviour assessment and planning5.
-
Special Schools, despite the clear limitations of teacher training (and most teachers in special schools do not have special education training), believe their staff have the expertise to undertake Functional Behaviour Assessments, even without training from a professional whose expertise is behaviour analysis.6 As a result, adults who have not even mastered the skills to teach basic subjects like English 7, and who are required to have some of the lowest ATAR scores to enter university 8 are responsible for, and claiming to be experts in, children with complex disabilities and managing challenging behaviours.
-
These are the ingredients for an environment conducive to the mistreatment of students with disabilities.
Seclusion
- Seclusion involves solitary confinement of a person in a room or area (e.g., garden) from which their exit is prevented by a barrier or another person.
5 DET Psychologist Maple Street Primary School, DET Psychologists at Special Schools who
routinely use restraint and seclusion as behaviour “consequences” such as Marnebek School (refer Code of Conduct). 6 Marnebek School, Cranbourne, Victoria evidence given at VCAT 2012 HL v State of Victoria &
Karen Dauncey A64/2013
7 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65-76 Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(1), 3-8 Future directions in literacy: International conversations 2007. University of Sydney From New Directions to Action:World class teaching and school leadership Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2013).
Issues paper - Education and Training Workforce: Schools Workforce Study Australian Government
Productivity Commission. (2011). 8 “The average ATAR (tertiary entrance rank) for education courses in Victoria was 61.9 this year, dropping as low as 40.25. This compares to an ATAR of 98.95 for biomedicine at Melbourne University and 98 for law at Monash University”.Topsfield, J. (2014). Graduate teachers not up to scratch: State government The Age, 10/7/2014 Teacher quality: getting it right. Voice, 9(3). Dinham, S. (2013). http://www.voice.unimelb.edu.au/volume-9/number-3/teacher-quality-getting-it-right
8
Seclusion includes situations in which people believe they cannot or should not leave an area without permission9.
-
This definition is quite inconvenient to DET, who often use spaces that could be viewed benignly in and of themselves, were it not for the fact that children are being locked in such spaces, unable to leave, in response to challenging behaviours.
-
In addition to rooms whose sole purpose is to provide a space where teachers can lock children up, schools use and have used the following spaces to seclude children with disabilities:
a. courtyards10; b. outdoor pens; 11 c. sensory gardens;12 12. Seclusion areas also reported by parents include first aid rooms and store rooms13. These rooms have been used in mainstream schools where purpose-built seclusion rooms do not exist.
-
Seclusion performs the function of being a cheap alternative to putting in place intensive psychological interventions for students with disabilities who demonstrate challenging behaviours.
-
DET have refused calls to prohibit seclusion in government schools since
-
In 2012, VEOHRC called for seclusion in schools to be prohibited in the context of their use involving children with disabilities.14 In early 2013, the Office of the Public Advocate called for seclusion in schools to be prohibited.15
-
The Victorian Auditor General’s Office (“VAGO”) in 2012 found that DET “policy and guidance documents assist schools to support students with special learning needs, however, gaps remain in critical areas such as restraint, seclusion and parents paying for additional support for their child.“16 [emphasis added]
-
There is no plausible reason why DET refuse recommendations from these respected statutory authorities. In the absence of any rational explanation, the following inferences may be drawn:
9 ‘Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the Need for Restrictive Practices in the Disability
Sector’2011 Australian Psychological Society p 11
10 See Attachments 2A & 2B Marnebek School, Bulleen Heights School
11 See Attachments 3A & 3B Southern Autistic School, Bendigo Special Developmental School
12 Marnebek School
13 Alfredton Primary School, Wendouree Primary School
14 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 14 15 Position Statement “Restrictive Interventions in Educational Settings” Office of the Public Advocate March 2013 16 “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” VAGO 2012 p21
9
a. DET believe that seclusion is appropriate in the “behaviour management“ of children with disabilities; and/or
b. DET have bowed to pressure from the Principals Association of Special Schools (“PASS”) to allow them to deal with students with disabilities in any manner they see fit.
-
PASS, in their position paper curiously entitled “PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies” [emphasis added], express teachers’ concerns “regarding the advice from DEECD which infers that having the door “closed” contravenes their Human Rights.“17
-
In fact, legal advice from the DET Legal Department to schools, according to PASS, indicate “that if a student in time out is unable to remove him/herself of his/her own volition then time out with the door “closed” can be construed as illegal imprisonment in terms of common law.“18
-
This is extremely concerning, as PASS is not expressing concern that seclusion is ineffective, barbaric, and has contributed to the injury and deaths of people with disabilities. Rather it is concerned that there may be a negative consequence for their staff actions (locking children up), and they may not be able to continue to use seclusion as they have in the past.
-
What is also concerning is that the DET Legal Department had a view that DET employees had been acting illegally, and might continue to act illegally, but did not and have not taken any steps to prohibit such actions. In fact the DET Legal Department are often involved in vigourously and aggressively defending and justifying complaints of illegal imprisonment.
-
The recommendations in the Position Paper include the following: a. that the DEECD implements procedures to endorse individual school policies re restraint of students so that teachers and other staff in specialist schools can work with confidence [emphasis added]
b. that the DEECD implements procedures to endorse individual school policies re the use of time away so that teachers and other staff in specialist schools can work with confidence [emphasis added]
-
In other words, PASS wish for each school to be able to develop and use its own policies, regardless of best practice, lack of consistency, dangers of injury and death, and lack of expert input.
-
PASS has received its wish, as seclusion continues to be used and approved, and restraint policies are so vague and broad that they allow almost any action by a staff member against children with a disability.
17 See Attachment 4. PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p4 18 PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p3
10
Examples of Seclusion used by DET
-
The “Held Back Report” contains reports that schools use a variety of spaces to seclude children with disabilities, including a locked cupboard, a disused school room used for junk, outdoor ‘pens’, and designated ‘seclusion rooms’.19
-
Outdoor pens, similar to those used to keep cattle or sheep in a small area are employed, ostensibly, to keep children with disabilities “safe” in outside areas. Such structures are cheaper than ensuring a secure perimeter fence for the school, putting in place formal walking programs, or obtaining the services of a qualified Behaviour Analyst in order to determine why a student may be trying to leave the school grounds.
-
However in reality, these areas are often used as a consequence for a student with challenging behaviours as children are observed to be locked in these areas on their own without contact with others or equipment.
-
As mentioned above, such pens have been photographed at Bulleen Special School, Southern Autistic School and Bendigo Special Developmental School. However it is likely that many special schools/special developmental schools have these areas, as they are clearly viewed as acceptable practice by DET. These areas can be used to place children with challenging behaviours in for hours at a time.
-
One of the worst external seclusion areas that has been brought to the writer’s attention is the “Safe Room” at Bendigo Special Developmental School which is approximately the size of a disabled toilet, has wooden walls which cannot be seen through, and two bolts on the outside20.
-
This room is included in the “behaviour management plans” of students - plans which despite endorsing extreme strategies, are not based on a Functional Behaviour Assessment and are not drawn up by a qualified Behaviour Analyst, or even a psychologist. An example contains such unsophisticated “strategies” such as “If all else fails, give ….. a choice between doing X or going to the ‘safe room’.” “If xxxx’s behaviour deteriorates and he doesn’t respond, there is no point talking, just get him to the ‘safe room’ for time out. 2 able staff are required to escort him to the ‘safe room’”.21
-
As there are absolutely no regulations or guidelines on seclusion provided to school staff from DET, it is clear that staff drawing up such behaviour plans and forcing children into structures like the “safe room” have not the slightest understanding of what is required to ensure that children are safe in such an environment. Putting aside the fact that seclusion should only be used in extreme circumstances, and after more sophisticated evidence-based psychological interventions have been tried and have failed, it is clear that
19 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p112,113
20 See Attachment 5 “Safe Room” Bendigo Special Developmental School
21 See Attachment 6 Behaviour Management Plan Bendigo Special Developmental School
11
teachers have not been provided with regulations by any individual or organisation to ensure that seclusion is not misused - if one accepts that it should ever be used.
- As can be seen in the plan: a. There is no direction as to the maximum length of any period in seclusion;
b. There is no direction as to the number of times during a single day that a child should spend in the seclusion room.
c. There is no requirement for the student to be observed at all times (impossible in this particular seclusion area).
d. There are no directions or guidelines on restraint (clearly being used when the student is being “escorted” into the room).
e. There is no requirement for any psychological intervention at any stage in the behaviour “model”.
f. There is mention on page 3 of having “male staff on standby” making it clear that the child is being physically forced into this room. Coupled with the fact that there are no guidelines or regulations on the types of physical force that can be used against students with disabilities, the example just provided is one fraught with danger and risk for both staff and students.
-
While this “structure” has allegedly been dismantled, it is clear it was certainly in use in 2010, and the same Principal that believed such mistreatment of students with disabilities was appropriate, remains in place.
-
In addition, a number of staff have confirmed that in 2010 there were also cages inside classrooms, which children were locked inside.Currently, outdoor pens with locks remain on the grounds.
-
Western Autistic School are reported to use seclusion rooms as a matter of course, without incident reporting or documentation.22
-
A photograph of the timeout room at Wantirna Heights Special School (now
Eastern Ranges Special School) is attached.23
- There are no guidelines from DET about seclusion rooms, including: a. if they are permitted at all; b. minimum size; c. what they may be built from; d. if they require observation windows/video cameras to enable observation;
e. maximum amount of time to be spent in seclusion; f. what records of the seclusion must be kept; g. what psychological interventions must be put in place before seclusion is used.
22 See Case Study 1 23 See Attachment 7
12
-
Marnebek School had a seclusion room which was clearly marked on a school map as a “Timeout Room “24(TR). Numerous parents describe the room as having a window which was painted over, being empty, no bigger than a disabled toilet, and having bolts on the outside of the room. After a parent complaint and anticipating legal action, Marnebek quickly “renovated” the room leaving no evidence to allow its investigation as a seclusion room.
-
Similarly, Hume Valley Special School, upon receipt of a complaint from an older student of being locked in the dark in a room called the “Blue Room” in 2012, also quickly “renovated” the room, going so far as to even replace the door. It then denied the seclusion took place, and denied the structural make up of the room, while having destroyed the evidence that upheld the student’s complaint.
-
Marnebek documents in its Student Code of Conduct that it will use “time out” as a consequence of inappropriate behaviour25. It should be noted that the Marnebek “Timeout” room was not a sensory room or a “calming” room, but that described above. In fact the oft used euphemistic descriptions of seclusion rooms as “timeout” rooms has the effect that parents are not provided with the information they need about the treatment of children with disabilities.
-
Wantirna Heights School admitted in a recent court case that when one of their students demonstrated challenging behaviours they placed him in the classroom bathroom/toilets, at times with the door shut26, but in any event not allowing him to leave. This again highlights the inherent risk associated with an absence of regulation resulting in ignorant staff placing a child who is demonstrate challenging behaviours in a room with hard and sharp surfaces. The stupidity and recklessness of such an action is hard to understand. There was no documentation, and no parental consent sought.
Restraint
- Until mid-2012, the single guidance note for staff subjecting children with disabilities to restraint was Regulation 15 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. Regulation 15 consists of one sentence only, which is as follows:
“A member of the staff of a Government school may take any reasonable action that is immediately required to restrain a student of the school from acts or behaviour dangerous to the member of staff, the student or any other person.”
- While the paucity of information in this one sentence speaks for itself, for the sake of completeness the following should be noted.
24 See Attachment 8
25 See Attachment 9 Marnebek School Communication Books “Student Code of Conduct”
26 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 and in one
13
a. There is no explanation as to what constitutes an action which is “reasonable”.
b. There is no definition of what constitutes an act or behaviour which is “dangerous”.
c. The interpretation of this sentence is left to individual staff. d. There is no requirement for any psychological intervention or comprehensive behaviour assessments, regardless of how many times restraint might be used.
-
Despite DET creating a Restraint Policy27 just before the VEOHRC “Held Back Report” was released, Regulation 15 is still the response of choice when DET defends itself and its staff against their use of restrictive practices against children with disabilities28. Indeed the new Secretary Ms Gill Callister has already endorsed Regulation 15.29
-
Attached are minutes entitled Student Support Group Meeting30 where in response to parents maintaining they did not want their child subjected to restraint and seclusion, school staff quote the “DEECD Policy” on the left hand side of the page. Interestingly, though, the only part of the Policy they quote is Regulation 15, giving themselves permission to do anything they believe is “reasonable”. No other part of the policy is quoted.
-
Interestingly, the DET Autism Coach was in attendance at this meeting. It should be noted that DET Autism Coaches are not required to have any actual qualifications in Autism but are held out to be “experts”. Despite planning on restraining the file as can be understood by the discussion, no formal behaviour support from a psychologist was provided.
-
The Restraint Policy dated May 2012 and reviewed in March 2014 (and which remains unchanged) is two pages long, and like most other DET policies is labelled a “guide”. In other words, staff are not even required to follow the policy. This has been the standard response by DET to other of its documents, making most publications from DET meaningless.
-
The current Restraint Policy is completely inadequate, and given the nature of most of its contents, can be relied upon to give little or no assistance to staff.
27 See Attachment 10 28 Letter to parents 4 April 2014 North-Western Regional Director Letter to parents 24 June 2014 North-Western Regional Director Letter to parents 9 March 2012 Acting General Manager, Coordination and Strategy Division,
Education Partnerships Division,
29 Letter Gill Callister to 27 March 2015
30 See Attachment 11 SSG Minutes Wendouree Primary School 12 December 2012
14
- The Federation of Community Legal Centres’ Submission on the Draft
Proposed National Framework for Reducing the Use of Restrictive Practices
in the Disability Service Sector31 made the following points:
“The recent DEECD Restraint Policy dated 2012 can be compared to the Office of the Senior Practitioner May 2011 guidelines on restrictive practices.
The DEECD policy:
Allows restraint to prevent the student from ‘inflicting harm’ on themselves or others. Such a phrase, not identifying the seriousness of that harm, allows a teacher to restrain in the event of a child simply hitting another child. There is no attempt to define ‘harm’, and therefore each staff person is able to interpret the phrase individually.
Allows restraint when there is ‘no reasonable alternative’ that can be taken to avoid the danger. There is no guidance to staff on what ‘reasonable alternatives’ may be, and there is no definition of ‘danger’.
Disallows restraint unless ‘alternative measures to avoid the danger have been exhausted’. There is no attempt to give guidance on what may be ‘alternative measures’.
Gives no guidance on which restraint holds are acceptable and which are not. There is no warning that restraints have been known to cause death and injury, or which restraints are most likely to do so.
States that it is ‘advisable’ that staff using restraint should be trained. It gives no guidance on that training, and in fact the DEECD openly admits to using martial arts instructors as trainers.
Asks staff to ‘consider’ a number of factors such as ‘medical conditions’ and so on but gives no guidance as to how they should consider such factors, and how those factors will be impacted upon by the use of restraint.
Does not require permission for restraint from any person within or outside the organisation that may have expertise in this area.
There is no mention of Positive Behaviour Support, Functional
Behaviour Assessment and Analysis, or the role of psychologists in the mitigation of challenging behaviours.”
- The Restraint Policy solidifies the usual ambiguity that is a hallmark of DET policies, procedures and guidelines in order that even when claiming to follow the Policy there is little danger of many staff actions being found to be in breach.
31 ‘Submission on the Draft Proposed National Framework for Reducing the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector’ Federation of Community Legal Centres June 2013 p6
15
a. The Policy states, amongst other things, that: i. Restraint should not be used unless alternative measures to avoid the danger of harm have been exhausted ii. Restraint should never be used in the following circumstances:
iii. Restraint should not be used on a student in any of the
following circumstances
iv. Restraint should not be used unless all of the following
conditions are met
v. If applying restraint, staff should only: vi. Staff should talk to the student throughout the incident. Staff should make it clear to the student when and why the restraint is to be applied. Staff should also calmly explain that the restraint will stop once it is no longer necessary to protect the student and/or others. vii. It is also advisable that whenever possible: viii. “Only staff trained in using restraint should use restraint on a student.“ ix. Only staff trained in using restraint should use restraint on a student.
x. A staff member should contact the student’s parents and provide them with details of the incident as soon as possible. xi. The incident may need to be reported to: xii. A written record of the incident and the restraint used must be made by the principal as soon as practicable. This record should detail: xiii. The principal should also arrange for all staff who were involved/present at the incident to prepare a statement / record of their involvement or observations of the incident.
- It would be possible, of course, for a government department to interpret the word “should” as “must”. However to ensure there is no misapprehension of how DET define this word, when the Restraint Policy has been challenged regarding the training of staff who restrained a child who had been subjected to repeated restraint in her short school life, Regional Director stated the following:
“I am advised by principal xxxxxxxxx that Ms xxxxxxxx does not have specific training in relation to student restraint and note that such training is not required for teachers in Victoria.”
-
further states, just in case there was an interpretation of the
policy that parents should be provided with any formal written notification of such restraint:
“I advise that application to access these records can be made in writing to:
FOI and Privacy“32
32 Letter to parents Regional Director 4 April 2014
16
The mother did make the application. No documents of the restraint were provided.
-
However it should be noted that despite this young girl with Autism being restrained every morning throughout one period of her school life for 45 minutes33 every morning, her parents were not notified either verbally or in writing. If it were not for discovering an e-mail after the student left, at no time would DET staff have informed the child’s parents of what they were doing to
her. Despite numerous notifications of the restraint to Regional Director
has simply decided not to respond to the matter. Needless to say, there has been no concern expressed by any DET staff member at the harm in trauma that would be expected to be caused by such actions.
-
The unprofessionalism, dearth of best practice and general inadequacy of the DET Restraint Policy is no doubt why the Victorian Auditor General’s Office recommended that DET review this policy34. DET did so. It remains the same.
-
As an example of restraint guidelines developed for the protection of adults with disabilities by the Victorian Government Office of Professional Practice (previously known as the Office of the Senior Practitioner), the Physical Restraint Direction Paper35 is a document of some 20 pages, and is supported by the Disability Act 2006.
-
There is no comparison to be made between the two documents, suffice to say that the DET policy provides students with no protection, and staff with no real guidance. What is most disturbing is the obvious comfort DET have with the status quo.
Examples of restraint used by DET
- The VEOHRC “Held Back Report” includes the following types of restraints reported to them by parents:
a. students taped to a chair; b. “roped” out of a tree; c. grabbed by the back of the neck and pulled to the ground; d. prone restraint.36 57. Restraints reported directly to the writer include: a. aides knocking down children by collapsing the back of their legs, and then restraining them on the ground;
b. basket holds; c. “frog marching”; d. twisting arms behind backs and then forcing children to the ground; e. head locks; 33 Documented in E-Mail from Specimen Hill Primary School dated 29 November 2012 34 “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” VAGO 2012 Recommendation 4
35 Senior Practitioner Physical Restraint Direction Paper, May 2011
36 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p110,111
17
f. strapping children to chairs37. 58. Restraint is documented by Marnebek School to be a consequence of inappropriate behaviour38.
- Schools that subject students with disabilities to physical restraint in the absence of Functional Behaviour Assessments or the intervention of experts qualified in behaviour analysis have been reported to me as including the following:
a. Alfredton Primary School (documented) b. Bendigo Special Developmental School (documented) c. Bulleen Heights School (documented by video) d. Manor Lakes College (documented) e. Maple Street Primary School (documented) f. Marnebek School (documented) g. Monash Special Developmental School (documented by the photograph and report)
h. Specimen Hill Primary School (documented) i. Wantirna Heights School (now Eastern Ranges) (documented) j. Wendouree Primary School (documented) k. Western Autistic School 60. Given the lack of documentation and transparency around restraint, these schools should be seen as the iceberg.
-
Martial Arts expert, has been used extensively by the DET to “train” staff in restraint. It is important to note that DET could require schools, in preference to hiring martial arts experts to train staff, to engage Board Certified Behaviour Analysts to train staff in evidence-based non-violent responses to challenging behaviours. They have chosen not to do so.
-
has trained staff in at least the following schools:
a. Barina School b. Bendigo Special Developmental School c. Bulleen Heights School d. Dandenong Valley Special School e. Naranga School f. Wantirna Heights School (now Eastern Ranges) 63. The above list of schools only represents those schools that have admitted such training in the course of a complaint, are listed on website as endorsing his training, or from staff training certificates provided to the
37 Photographic evidence Monash Special Developmental School, Observation of Behaviour
Consultant (report supplied upon request) “At its worst guarding can take extreme forms. In the recent past the writer returned at a specialist school in which little autistic children were being strapped into their chairs notionally to stop the running away. However all such mechanical restraint does is increase the child’s efforts to escape. It does not address the issue of positive training.”
38 See Attachment 9. Marnebek School Communication Books “Student Code of Conduct”
18
writer. It should be assumed that such training has been provided more widely than the list above.
-
Staff at Bendigo Special Developmental School report having received pressure point training from and have been observed to use that ‘technique’ on students with disabilities.
-
Using masking tape around the wrists is documented as a strategy to stop a student removing his clothing39 in a Bendigo SDS behaviour plan. All behaviour strategies included in plans are signed off by the Principal.
-
A parent at Marnebek School observed a child being rolled up in a blanket and dragged down a corridor in response to non-compliance40.
The history of restraint used by DET
-
As we live in hope that DET’s approach to students with challenging behaviours has been and is being refined over the years (which is frightening when we consider what it may have been like 20 years ago given the current situation), restraint has clearly been used by DET for decades.
-
As DET are not open and transparent about the methods schools use, and often do not document seclusion or restraint in order that there is no evidence when challenged of such practices, it is difficult to track an accurate history of violence, abuse and neglect experienced by students. In terms of recent history, however, we do note the following.
-
Martial Arts Expert has been training staff in special schools at least since about 2000.
-
It difficult to know just how long the Martial Arts ‘Therapy’ (“MAT”) Program has been running using MAT Support Officers (“MSOs”) to work with children with moderate to severe challenging behaviours. It is important to understand that this is not describing a program that teaches students martial arts. MSO’s are trained in “safe restraint techniques”.41
-
It is not clear whether martial arts experts are training these personnel, but given the name of the program, it is likely. Once again, this is a program being advertised by Eastern Metropolitan Region of DET in place of any formal training occurring in Behaviour Analysis.
-
It was as recently as August 2014 that Anzuk, a recruiting agency, were advertising for the position of Martial Arts Therapy Aides to work “in a range of special needs and primary schools in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs”42. As is
39 Behaviour Management Plan, Bendigo Special Developmental School 1 September 2009
40 UK Daily Mail Report 19 May 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632432/Parents-accuse-Melbourne-special-needs-school-mistreating-childrenhtml#ixzz32D5ozygY 41 See Attachment 12. Http : //www. emroptions. vic. edu. aulmat-program/redirection 42 See Attachment 13. ANZUK recruitment advertisement 9 August 2014
19
consistent with the use of euphemisms by DET to distract parents from the real nature of such “supports”, DET choose to put the word “therapy” after the words “Martial Arts” in order one assumes, to soften the description. A non essential component for those who wished to apply, was working previously in a special need setting or school. This, one can infer, is because the focus is on using martial arts rather than having any expertise in educating children with disabilities.
-
DET includes in the key selection criteria for such staff, “a caring and enthusiastic nature”. Research and evidence seems to have passed DET by in relation to the fact that restraint causes injury, death, and trauma.
-
This advertisement was withdrawn as soon as a story in The Age newspaper appeared discussing the advertisement.
-
Reports continue to be made in relation to restrictive practices used against students with disabilities in schools. Every year that DET refuse to prohibit seclusion, one can only assume that it is being used. Indeed special schools continue to be built with such purpose-built rooms.
The link between the refusals by DET to use evidence based psychological behaviour interventions to respond to challenging behaviours, and the abuse of students with disabilities.
- It is important that those unfamiliar with the area of challenging behaviours and evidence-based psychological interventions understand that in the vast majority of cases, restraint and seclusion are simply not required to address challenging behaviours, and in fact are ineffective, worsen behaviours and create trauma, injury and death.
Injury and death as a result of restraint and seclusion
-
It has been known for a significant period of time that children with disabilities (and adults with and without disabilities) have been injured or killed through the use of restraint and seclusion. It is inconceivable that a government department that has responsibilities in loco parentis, and has a Student Support Services Department employing psychologists, is unaware of such research/reporting.
-
In fact the issue of students suffering these consequences in schools specifically, has been the subject of significant reporting43. Outside of the school environment, much work has been done by another Victorian government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, which has been producing publications through the Office of Professional
43 “School Is Not Supposed to Hurt” 2009 (National Disability Rights Network) “Unsafe In The Schoolhouse: Abuse Of Children With Disabilities” 2009, The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc “Seclusions and Restraints - Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centres” 2009, United States Government Accountability Office.
20
Practice, that set out the harm of restraint and seclusion against people with disabilities more generally.44
-
The Australian Psychological Society has often worked hand-in-hand with the Office of Professional Practice (formerly Office of the Senior Practitioner) and published numerous documents on the subject of eliminating restraint and seclusion and the harm such practices cause, each document referencing numerous other research information and reports.45
-
It is impossible that DET are not aware of the risks of restraint and seclusion - not only for students but for staff, if only for the fact that the writer has advised them in writing of this research on numerous occasions over a number of years. Their failure to prohibit seclusion, or give detailed guidance on restraint, should therefore be viewed as deliberate, reckless and negligent.
Positive Behaviour Support
-
The concept of School Wide Positive Behaviour Support has been claimed by DET as a tenet of its own since 2006.
-
The Royal Children’s Hospital Educational Institute (“the Institute”) is a funded arm of DET.46 DET has members on the Board.
-
The Institute’s 2005 Annual Report sets out that the DET funding for that financial year was $1.2 million. In 2010, the funding was $2.7 million.
-
The relevance of this information, to this submission, is that in 2006 the Institute produced a resource document entitled “Students with Disabilities: a Curriculum Toolkit for Schools and Teachers”47 (“the Toolkit”). The Toolkit, as can be seen by the front cover, is intended to be a resource for students with disabilities. DET have been attempting to disown many of its contents (in addition to the contents of its own publications) ever since parents and advocates have been raising the question as to why DET practice does not conform to its contents.
-
Component 5 of the Toolkit is entitled “Promoting Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) in Schools”48.
-
Parents and advocates have been waiting for Positive Behaviour Support to make an appearance in schools since 2006. DET again refers to “Schoolwide
44 “From Seclusion to Solutions” 2007 “Physical Restraint in Disability Services” 2009
“Senior Practitioner Physical Restraint Direction Paper” May 2011
45 “Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the need for restrictive practices in the disability sector.” Australian psychological Society 2011 46 http://www.rch.org.au/education/#
47 See RCH Educational Institute Annual Report 2005, p14
48 Students with Disabilities: a Curriculum Toolkit for Schools and Teachers p109
21
Positive Behaviour Support“ in their Student Engagement Policy Guideline.49
There has been no sign of such positive behaviour support in a practical sense in government schools, and in fact the practical experience of students with disabilities and their families has been completely the opposite.
- The Toolkit correctly describes the current state of play (at that time, being
- in what had historically been referred to as “traditional behaviour management” and Positive Behaviour Support. The description is replicated below from page 110.
Traditional Behaviour Positive Behaviour Support
Management
Views individuals as “the Few systems, settings, and problem” skill deficiencies as “the problem” Attempts to “fix” the individual Attempts to “fix” systems, settings, and skills Extinguishers behaviour Creates new contacts, experiences, relationships and skills Sanctions adversive Sanctions positive approaches approaches Takes days or weeks to “fix” a Implemented by a dynamic in single behaviour collaborative team using person centred planning in typical settings Often resorted to when Flourishes when systems are systems are flexible flexible Accept the importance of a holistic approach supporting students and their families
-
Since the publication of this document (and prior to), the evidence is that DET continues to deal with students with disabilities pursuant to the “traditional behaviour management” approach.
-
The policies and procedures of both mainstream and special schools include codes of conduct and behaviour policies that reflect a punitive model. However DET attitudes can best be summed up towards students with disabilities by examining the role models from senior management and how they view challenging behaviours. Not only do they rarely look inwards and contemplate how their own staff incompetence and environment may contribute to challenging behaviours (or even be the sole cause of them), but the manner in which they speak about challenging behaviours and the children with disabilities that exhibit them, gives us some insight as to how abuse against those children flourishes in school environments.
-
“….. it is the expectation that the Department of School take active steps to reduce the need for restraint through the implementation of appropriate
49 Effective Schools Are Engaging Schools Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development 2009
22
programs and support for students exhibiting violent, dangerous and/or aggressive behaviours.“ [Emphasis added]
-
The above quote is from Regional Director 50 in response to a complaint about the restraint of a primary school aged girl with Autism Spectrum Disorder, who is now so traumatised by her schooling experience that it has been recommended by a psychologist that she not attend school.
-
A word search through a recent Federal Court Case regarding a young boy with moderate-severe Autism Spectrum Disorder will easily find the word “aggressive” in relation to his behaviour numerous times, but not the word “challenging”.51 This is due to the fact that DET portrayed him in this manner during the trial despite his Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder, and despite the fact that he had been subjected to restraint and seclusion most of his school life, thereby, no doubt, contributing to his challenging behaviours.
-
“I am confident that the resources currently being developed for schools, including training based on schoolwide positive behaviour support, extended guidance and support material around avoiding and managing challenging and threatening behaviours, will further strengthen capacitive schools comply with their legal obligations and to provide an inclusive schooling that supports diversity.”
-
This response was from Deputy Secretary when asked to appoint an independent investigator to look at the abuse of children with disabilities at Marnebek School.52 He declined.
-
An example of DET Behaviour Plans demonstrates the following: a. DET do not use Positive Behaviour Support, and rely on punishment and consequence;
b. DET staff have no training in writing behaviour plans, hence DET plans have little in common other than their poor quality and lack of any best practice approach.
-
Not able to be provided to the Senate, are the “invisible” DET behaviour plans, which are ‘unwritten’. These invisible behaviour plans are used extensively by DET when defending themselves against abusive practices. The benefits of invisible plans of course, are that the DET staff can claim these plans contained all manner of goals, strategies, measurable outcomes and demonstrable expertise.
-
There is no hint of embarrassment by DET when claiming that having these invisible plans is an appropriate mechanism by which to address challenging behaviours.
50 Letter to parents dated 24 June 2014 51 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 52 Letter to writer from dated 9 May 2014.
23
- In a Federal Court decision, staff from Bulleen Heights School were not embarrassed to give the following information in relation to their behaviour plans for a child that they viewed appropriate to restrain, with the guidance of a Martial Arts expert, but not appropriate to receive any sort of formality in terms of positive behaviour support.
James’ classroom teacher had a behaviour management plan for him (though it was not labelled as such) which was written on a whiteboard or placed on the wall. The purpose of the behaviour management plan was to set goals and put strategies in place to achieve those goals. analysed James’ behaviour on a daily basis. [86]53
-
Needless to say, the “behaviour management plan” and the “analysis” could not be produced.
-
James’ classroom teacher did not use a formalised
-
behaviour management plan, preferring to use her own work program. She did not seek the assistance of a multi-disciplinary team. [87]
101. [87] In 2007, James’ teacher also employed a
range of behaviour management strategies and gave evidence that these strategies were recorded in a formal behaviour management plan, though no such document was available for production at trial.
-
Three different teachers, three invisible behaviour plans. - From a DET Statement of Defence dated 16 May 201454 regarding a young primary school boy subjected to repeated restraint.
“There were written and unwritten behaviour management plans in place”
-
When plans are not written down, the goals, specific strategies and desired outcomes for individual students are unclear or even completely unknown by school staff, consultants and parents.
-
In this case, Placing HP in the store room (referred to euphemistically
as the “safe space”) was a measure taken to “enforce” the “behavioural standards” of the school and “reduce restraint”. We therefore have a claim that seclusion is reducing restraint. Clearly either school staff members or DET Legal Department may actually believe that one restrictive practice cures another. What is a conundrum is whether DET actually believe the evidence they give to courts and tribunals, or that they are corrupt enough to give false information in order to defend their practices and staff in a legal complaint. It is hard to decide which situation is worse.
53 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 54 HP v State of Victoria A34/2013
24
-
Until this "law and order" approach to challenging behaviours in
children with disabilities is replaced by thoughtful, sophisticated evidence based approaches based on psychology, restraint and seclusion will continue in Victorian government schools.
Examples of behaviour plans
- And what do such Behaviour Management Plans look like? a. Behaviour Plan 1. Golden Square Primary School.55 This was reported to the writer as being for a child in Grade 1. Recalling the “traditional behaviour approach” allegedly eschewed by DET, we have the following:
You are expected to do your work. You need to sit on the floor during group time. You need to listen when it’s not your turn to speak. If you are not following the teachers instructions or hurting other students feelings your name will be put on board (sic) and an explanation given. [Inappropriate behaviour consequences will be followed].
Note the threat of humiliation in front of the rest of the class by having the child’s name written on the blackboard.
However, among other firm directives, the following must be the most inappropriate.
If threatening, aggressive or at risk of hurting self or others in line with ministerial order 184, then Suspension will occur.
b. Behaviour Plan 2. Golden Square Primary School. In response to the writer requesting to know why a Behaviour Plan had not been put in place for a young girl (“Jane”) who had been subjected to multiple instances of physical restraint and is too traumatised to attend school due to her school experiences, Regional Director responded with the following in a letter to the writer dated 24 June 2014.
I refer you to some examples of these below and indicate the documents they are drawn from: Classroom suggestions:
55 See Attachment 14.
25
‘xxxxx mentioned that Jane has an iPad and it is filled with her video creations. This may prove useful as a settling activity in the morning.’ ‘Emotional engagement: set up for success where possible. Consistent friends/buddies to encourage play and return to class’ ‘Implement a program that addresses Jane’s sensory issues’ (Feb 12 2013 ILEP) ‘Unsettled behaviour: if Jane is crying, screaming or unsettled in any way she will remain in well-being room until she is calm. Once calm, she can watch her DVD and follow the (agreed) plan’ ‘If Jane becomes unsettled in class, Jane will be removed to the well-being room where staff will follow (the agreed) plan’ (190713 Engagement
Plan July.doc)
Education Support Staff: o ‘Work with the class teacher to develop an appropriate modified learning program (and) implement a program that addresses Jane’s sensory issues’ o ‘Provide support and consistency to ensure the day is more predictable for Jane’ o ‘Redirect and intervene in a timely manner ie. to de-escalate situations rather than waiting for another staff member to get the classroom to assist’ ‘Learning tasks will be differentiated to suit Jane’s learning style to promote successful outcomes that will ensure a positive day’
(200913 Engagement Plan
July.doc)
‘Jane to take responsibility and time how long she works and how long she plays. More play than work, work needs to be simple, on laptop not pencils’. (PSG 16 Sept.doc)
(and presumably the regional psychologist’s) view was that pulling random sentences out of a number of documents constituted a Behaviour Plan.
No Functional Behaviour Assessment, no goals, no detailed description of behaviours that needed to be mitigated, no measurable outcomes, and therefore nothing to measure. Suffice to say, the “Plan” was an abject failure. If anyone wanted to view the “plan”, they would have to be drawn to a number of different documents.
26
c. Individual Behaviour Plan 1. Marnebek School. 201056.
Strategies
If his behaviour esculates (sic) and you find the need to restrain him, he will lash out with kicking and biting. He is best to be escorted to the timeout room with two people.
Here, seclusion is actually written into the plan, along with restraint to get the child to the room.
d. Individual Behaviour Plan 2. Marnebek School. 201157
Possible Triggers
“timeout/exclusion for a negative behaviour often escalates his behaviour.”
And of course there is a reason for that, which is that behaviours are not effectively addressed by seclusion and exclusion - they are worsened.
e. Individual Behaviour Plan 3. Marnebek School. 2011/201258 Triggers - Time out
To clarify, under the list of figures for challenging behaviours (second from the left) you will “timeout” which we know to be seclusion at Marnebek. Here Marnebek School is identifying what is obvious to most behaviour analysts and clearly in the literature - seclusion does nothing except to cause trauma.
f. Excerpts from a Behaviour Management Plan from Ballarat Christian College 2012.
***If you have seriously threatened or vilified a student or staff member at any time you will be removed from your class and will remain there until you are collected. Your family will need to attend a parent teacher conference before we can consider your return.
You will be given one warning that the way you are behaving is not ok. On the second morning you will be asked to go to a Headteacher so that your classmates can concentrate on their work.
If you seriously disrupt the learning environment a third time in one day, you will be sent home and asked to stay home on the following day. We all need to be clear about the consequences of your choices.
56 See Attachment 14A 57 See Attachment 14B 58 See Attachment 14C
27
If there are six times in a week where you need to be removed from class (these will be recorded) we will call a meeting with your family and teachers to discuss where we go from here.
The Plan had more detail, including a requirement for the student to sign an “agreement”.
The child in question had ADHD. Needless to say, he did not last at the school, was excluded from activities such as the school camp as punishment for his behaviours and his parents sensibly withdrew him. He did not seem to have the same behavioural difficulties at his new school. A number of students with disabilities have been withdrawn from Ballarat Christian College.
Functional Behaviour Assessment
-
A Functional Behaviour Assessment (“FBA”) is an assessment based on evidence where the aim is to determine the function of a challenging behaviour in order that you can then effectively address that behaviour. It is a psychological intervention, available to be used in preference to violence.
-
The writer has seen only one FBA emanate from a Victorian School after a consultant was brought in. It did not reflect the professionalism of such an assessment being performed by somebody with the appropriate qualifications. As is often the case, only the threat and then subsequent lodging of a legal complaint obtained such an assessment, despite this young primary school girl being subjected to restraint.
-
While a number of special schools have begun writing about the
importance of behaviour analysis in some of their documentation, their practices continue to be restrictive, because they are not trained in behaviour analysis and do not have the funding from DET to pay for someone who is.
-
An FBA is something which, when a behaviour is mild, may be completed by teachers trained in the exercise by someone who is suitably qualified. However when behaviours are significantly challenging, particularly challenging enough to warrant (in the minds of DET) restraint and seclusion, then such assessments must be done by someone qualified to do so. This has passed DET by, who continue to claim that their staff are competent to undertake such assessments, despite no formal training, and despite evidence over months and years that their positive behaviour plans are ineffective.
-
An FBA requires thorough data collection and careful analysis. There is a plethora of information about Functional Behaviour Assessments59, and Australia is fortunate enough to have a number of Board Certified Behaviour
59 http://www.educateautism.com/functional-behaviour-assessment.html
28
Analysts in the country - holding the highest qualification internationally. DET do not use them.
-
Rather than data collection, for example, we have "anecdotal" notes
taken, in all manner of forms, and not even such anecdotal notes are available when asked for. When a staff member from Marnebek School was being asked in a tribunal hearing at VCAT last year as to where her claimed “anecdotal” notes were that informed her alleged behaviour analysis, her answer was “Possibly in my garage”60. And so to add to the collection of invisible documents and processes, we have the arrival of the invisible Functional Behaviour Assessment. A discussion of why teachers are taking personal student documents home (therefore conveniently out of the reach of Freedom of Information requests) is perhaps a discussion more relevant to the broader and just recently announced Senate Inquiry into the Education of Students with Disabilities.
-
For the young boy in question with Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder,
who had the use of a wrist strap written into his Behaviour Plan (not shown to his parents), who his parents observed being restrained, and who another parent observed being secluded, in the view of Marnebek staff his Behaviour Plan did not warrant any formality in terms of what it was based upon, and did not warrant being shared with those who know him best, his parents.
-
It did not matter that this child was being dragged from his family's car
in the mornings due to not wanting to enter the school grounds. It did not matter that this child was starting to self harm by knocking his head into the ground and saying he did not want to go to school. It did not matter that this child’s behaviour deteriorated to a point where it was clear he was experiencing extreme trauma.
-
In Marnebek's view, an untrained "Behaviour Analyst" continued to
advise staff, and behaviour plans were rolled over month after month, despite their ineffectiveness, until the family withdrew their child.
-
Leaving Marnebek School and the culture of behaviours and
consequences, restraint and seclusion, happily changed this child’s life and he now enjoys a mainstream school without violence, and professional programs based on behaviour analysis.
-
It is inconceivable that when children are being treated violently in
schools by teachers, that appropriate professional assistance is not being engaged in order that all evidence-based psychological approaches are provided.
-
While FBAs are common practice in some areas of service provision,
and particularly in other countries which have a more sophisticated approach to dealing with the challenging behaviours of people with disabilities, DET
60 , HL v State of Victoria and Karen Dauncey Tx 552
29
continues to comfortably operate in the dark ages, preferring instead to use its lockable indoor and outdoor “safe” rooms, and restraint.
-
This is unacceptable. -
It is worth noting that the boy in receipt of the invisible behaviour plans
set out in paragraphs98-104 and described so negatively in paragraph 92 suddenly lost all his challenging behaviours upon moving to a school that used professional staff trained in behaviour analysis. He is not the only Victorian child with Autism Spectrum Disorder that has moved overseas just to receive evidence-based teaching from competent staff.
Rejection by DET of evidence-based practice
-
As mentioned above in paragraph 6, school staff demonstrate continuously that they do not understand the term “evidence-based” practice, however more dangerously, when brought to their attention, DET formally reject such practice.
-
In K v State of Victoria61 DET strenuously argued against the
suggestion that Applied Behaviour Analysis (“ABA”) should be seen as a proper and reasonable intervention for it to use in the education of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
-
This leaves the Victorian DET out on a limb in terms of international
research and approaches, and is an educational embarrassment as far as best practice goes. Putting decades of international research aside, and the findings of the National Standards Report62 (perhaps the largest meta analysis of its kind ever undertaken) Australia has also produced reports which arrive at conclusions commensurate with international research in relation to ABA.
-
In 2011, a report was published63 by the Australian Society for Autism
Research, contributed to by professionals from The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, the University of Queensland, the University of Melbourne and the Royal Children’s Hospital. It concluded that the only established evidence based intervention for Autism was ABA.
-
The National Autism Center Report, breaking down the components of ABA individually, covered adults up to the age of 22 years old.
-
However in Australia more generally, the ongoing mis-characterisation
of applied behavior analysis research in Australian institutions is one systemic and significant problem that stunts the implementation of evidence based practice and contributes to the problem of violence, abuse and neglect of children with autism.
61 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 62 “The National standards Project-Addressing the Need for Evidence-based Practice Guidelines for
Autism Spectrum Disorders“ National Autism Center 2009
63 A Review of the Research to Identify the Most Effective Models of Practice in Early Intervention for
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders 2011
30
-
Below is an example of significant errors in work funded by the
National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC and conducted by
1Uncle Bobs Child Development Centre, Department of Developmental
Medicine, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
A 2013 landmark court case in Florida USA (details noted below) highlighted significant errors in the research work of Australian Autism researchers Boyd and Spreckley. Their work can be found here http://www.altteaching.org/Docs/efficacy.pdf
Spreckley and Boyd’s error was to the effect that they reported that ABA does not provide better outcomes than other therapies. The defendant used Spreckley and Boyd’s research to justify a denial of ABA service provision. The plaintiffs expert witness Dr Jon Bailey, explained the error in Spreckley and Boyd’s analysis and that single subject research design is an evidence based approach . The following is a quote from the judgment document;
“The Spreckley and Boyd meta-analysis (which was also used in the Hayes Report) was published in the Journal for Pediatrics, which would ordinarily be considered “reliable evidence.” See id. However, Dr.Bailey testified that the Spreckley and Boyd meta-analysis made a clear error in its evaluation of the Sallows and Graupner study. Dr. Bailey cited to a letter to the editors of the Journal of Pediatrics from Smith, Eikeseth, Sallows, and Graupner, and Dr. Bailey testified that the authors stated that Spreckley and Boyd misrepresented the findings in the Sallows and Graupner study. Dr. Bailey further testified that the authors claimed that removing the mischaracterized Sallows and Graupner study from the Spreckley and Boyd meta-analysis would show that ABA yields significant findings on three of the four outcome measures in the meta-analysis. The Hayes Report did not mention this letter to the editor. It was also not included in the materials Bradford reviewed and turned over to Kidder, and Kidder did not review the subsequent discourse published in the Journal of Pediatrics. Dr. Bailey testified that this letter to the editor of the Journal of Pediatrics exemplified the peer-review process, whereby studies get published in the public domain and everyone in the field may examine them and respond.”
The following is also a quote from the same judgment document
“Based on the testimony and exhibits at trial, the Court finds that the determination by AHCA that ABA is experimental was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable both in its process and in its conclusion.”
31
(Case 1:11-cv-20684-JAL Document 187 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2013, K.G., by and through his next friend, ILIANA GARRIDO, I.D., by and through his next friend, NILDA RIVERA, and C.C., by and through his next friend, RACHELLE CRAWFORD, Plaintiffs, v. ELIZABETH DUDEK, in her official capacity as Secretary, Florida
Agency for Health Care Administration,
Defendant, http://www.autismspeaks.org/sites/default/files/docs/ASL RC/fl.dudek .perminj 11.13.pdf).
This landmark case is worthy of careful consideration for its examination of definitions of “evidence based practice” and its finding that single subject research methodology is a valid form of research consistent with the UN Charter of Human Rights. These themes are expanded further by Association For Science in
Autism Treatment http://www.asatonline.org/research-
treatment/research-synopses/comments-on-spreckley-and-boyd 2009-efficacy-of-applied-behavioral-intervention-in-preschool children-with-autism-for-improving-cognitive-language-and adaptive-behavior-a-systematic-review-and-m/
-
Despite having approximately 40 Board Certified Behaviour Analysts in
Australia (being the minimum qualification internationally to work as a Behaviour Analyst and supervise ABA programs) DET does not use Board Certified Behaviour Analysts to assist with the hundreds of children that are subjected to restraint and seclusion in Victorian schools. The fact that they do not feel it necessary is hard to understand.
-
The fact that the Australian court case mentioned directly above had DET arguing against the application of ABA but clearly for (as was the evidence in this court case) restraint, seclusion, and training of staff by martial arts experts, one wonders what is in the minds of senior DET bureaucrats.
-
"Building capacity for evidence based practice is one important element
and providing the enforceable right in the law for people with disability to receive effective treatment is another. I suggest the inquiry look at legislative provisions in the USA which address both of these elements. The USA is not perfect, but it has made considerably more progress than Australia and now has a mature body of legislation protecting the human rights of people with disability.“ This statement is from one of the writer’s clients who has had to move to the USA in order for her son to be firstly, educated, and secondly, to be safe from abuse, which was his experience at Victorian schools.
-
Thirty-two other nations including China and New Zealand offer
Behaviour Analyst Certification Board approved course sequences in their universities. Australia urgently needs to catch up.
- The Victorian Auditor General’s Office identified in 2012: 32
Since 2006, DEECD has distributed more than $2.6 billion to schools through the PSD. However, DEECD does not have the information it needs to determine whether PSD funding is being used efficiently and effectively. Concerns raised about this by VAGO in 2007 still have not been adequately addressed and instead of having five years worth of high-quality data about the program, the department still knows very little about its impact on the educational outcomes of supported students.64
-
"Proper funding in theory should support ethical and accountable
practice but not without clear unambiguous practice and ethical guidelines, appropriate credentialing, proper regulation and proper mechanisms for addressing consumer complaints. Unfortunately high remuneration with low levels of accountability and no requirement for formal credentials in evidence based practice is a powerful contingency supporting unethical practice.“ The writer’s client.
- The thrust of the Victorian Auditor General’s comments, are that DET does not operate from an evidence base. The relevance to this submission is that evidence-based responses to challenging behaviours will prevent abuse.
The link between the refusal by DET to use professional practice to prevent challenging behaviours
Language/Communication
-
If not clear already, it is the writer's submission that much of the abuse
of children with disabilities in Victorian schools comes from the manner in which school staff respond to challenging behaviours.
-
It is therefore worth looking at another contributing factor to such
challenging behaviours, which is the failure to provide a child with complex communication needs, a communication method.
- The link between language disorder and challenging behaviours is well-known.65 However putting the research basis aside, it is not difficult for the average person to appreciate that if you cannot communicate your needs, significant frustration follows. Behaviours have a function. When one cannot convey one’s thoughts through language, one attempts to convey them through behaviour.
64 Victorian Auditor General’s Office “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” p viii 65 Cohen, Menna, et al., 1998; Cohen, Davine, Horodezky, Lipsett, & Isaacson, 1993 Cantwell & Baker, 1991; Moffit, 1993 Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2004; Botting and Conti-Ramsden (2000) Beitchman et al., 2001; Beitchman, Brownlie, & Wilson, 1996; Beitchman, Nair, Clegg, Ferguson, & Patel 1986
33
-
Therefore there is another imperative to ensure that children have an
effective communication method, in addition to having the means to communicate abuse.
Case Study 1A
JW has Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder with receptive and expressive language disorders being sufficiently severe that while attending Marnebek School in 2010, 2011 to May 2012, he was mostly non-verbal.
This was a significant problem, as J was developing behaviours that did not so much present harm to anyone else, but were behaviours of distress, including self harming. He was able to communicate at times with one or two words. His speech was rated as “unintelligible” by Marnebek School documents.
In 2 1/2 years, despite Marnebek School having a Speech Pathologist on staff, J did not have a formal language assessment. Despite the importance of having a consistent approach to language acquisition between home and school, the Speech Pathologist never met with J’s mother during 2011 to discuss any language program, and indeed there was no language program documented.
The Speech Pathologist introduced a few Compic cards and then claimed to be providing a PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) program. Consistent with DET practice, the “program” did not exist in any documented form - there were no goals, strategies or measurable outcomes. There was no discussion with J’s mother as to whether the child had used this form of communication before, and how successful it was. As the alleged “program” was invisible, the family, had they chosen to do so, could not have used it at home in order to provide consistent language acquisition.
Putting aside the invisible program and the choice of communication not known to J’s mother, J did not receive an individualised ‘PECS book’ until September 2011. Apart from the fact that most of the year was over, the decision in the written Speech Pathology notes was that the method was used at lunchtimes.
In 2012, the formal Speech Pathology Program for JW was written thus:
“J will be able to use PECS to request items using SVAO sentences 80% of the time during speech therapy sessions with minimal prompting.”
There was no underpinning document. There were no long-term goals, short term goals, strategies and measurable outcomes. There was no data collection that reflected anyone recording any movement towards this extraordinarily vague goal. In a VCAT66 discrimination case brought by JW’s mother, the Marnebek Speech Pathologist stated her belief that this one
66 RW v State of Victoria (Human Rights) [2015] VCAT 266
34
sentence constituted, along with a few file notes, a formal program, and expressed acceptable measurable outcomes.
Despite a senior and experienced speech pathologist giving expert opinion to the contrary, DET urged VCAT to accept that speech pathology programs do not need to be written, and that in their invisible form, do not need to be conveyed or discussed with the parents, and that formal individual language assessments of the child were not necessary in forming a view about which communication method a child should have.
PECS, putting aside the fact that there was no evidence at all of a formal PECS program, is claimed to be provided to individual children at Marnebek because Marnebek has a “whole class approach”67 which focuses on the use of PECS, whether children are verbal or non-verbal. In other words, the choice of communication provided to children was not based on individual assessment and individual need, but school policy.
-
Therefore we can conclude, given the involvement of DET in this case
of senior bureaucrats, not only Marnebek School staff, that DET endorse the following speech pathology approach to students with complex communication needs.
a. no formal individual language assessments are required to make decisions about language/communication approaches;
b. decisions on communication method are made according to what the school adopts as a policy, rather than on individual need;
c. language programs can be so informal that there is barely any evidence of such programs;
d. best practice speech pathology approaches whereby goals are written, strategies are written, measurable outcomes are identified, progress documented and measured against goals, are unnecessary;
e. schools do not need to inform parents of any language approach they are taking with the child, whether to seek parental input, or ensure consistent approach;
f. effective language/communication is not seen as something required for classroom learning, but seen as an “add-on” to be informally engaged with in recess and lunch times;
g. the requirements of PECS which make it an evidence-based communication method, do not need to be adhered to in any manner or form for school staff to claim they are providing such a program.
-
It should be noted that the writer contacted the group who accredit
PECS trainers and in attempt to assert some quality control over the use of the program. It was confirmed with the writer that the PECS program was only evidence-based and effective if it was followed with fidelity. Not one formal PECS document or practice was used by Marnebek School despite its claim that it provided PECS.
67 , Marnebek Allied Health Clinical Services Team Leader
35
- When J’s mother transferred J to a mainstream school, he: a. immediately began to receive a formal language program where his speech improved;
b. speech goals were written down in order that J’s family were able to support the vocabulary J was learning at school;
c. there was data collected every week on J’s progress in order that teachers, aides, parents and practitioners were aware of his progress.
-
DET submitted to VCAT that what is immediately above, is “gold standard”. What is written immediately above is simply good practice, and when one is considering the importance of communication and the child who has complex communication needs, it should not be too much to expect that good practice, or even best practice, be instituted.
-
Needless to say, J's ability to communicate has improved every month
now as opposed to when he was at Marnebek School. His ability to communicate with his family has improved significantly, leading to reduced distressed behaviours, and increased ability to report abuse.
A “last resort”
-
The defence used by DET when justifying its use of violence against children with disabilities, is usually that their staff had no choice. Or that the child was going to injure another child or staff member.
-
It will never be a last resort to use restrictive practices against children
with disabilities, practices that can injure and kill, unless a Functional Behaviour Assessment (performed by somebody with the appropriate qualification and skills) has been completed, and a Positive Behaviour Plan developed from such an assessment, monitored, supervised and evaluated by someone trained in behaviour analysis. Invisible Behaviour Plans, with invisible data collection, are no substitute.
- The writer refers back to the examples of Behaviour Plans to assist the reader to understand the current abilities of DET staff to be responsible for such plans.
Victimisation of Those Making Complaints
- DET does not welcome complaints.
Advocates
- As a high profile advocate outspoken against unprofessional practices and abuse, the writer has been subjected to the following.
36
Subpoena
-
In November 2011, the writer received a subpoena from Allens
Lawyers, the Department’s lawyers of choice, requiring her to give to the court (and therefore DET) the following documents:
All records, including e-mails, facsimiles, letters, file notes, forms, memoranda relating to a young boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder between the writer, his parents, any practitioners or any other person.
-
The result of this was that thousands of documents including e-mails, many of which were regarded as private by the parents and the writer were required to be retrieved, printed and collated. The task was so significant that the writer was unable to function in other aspects of her job while seeing to the subpoena. The stress and distress placed upon the writer and the family of the child with a disability was substantial.
-
DET then ran a court case attempting to prove that the documents between the writer and the family should be produced and exposed. DET used taxpayers money through the use of one of the most expensive law firms in Victoria, a Senior Counsel, and a junior barrister to attempt to force the writer to release these documents.
-
In this interlocutory fight, the parents, the writer, and the parents’ law
firm as a separate entity, were all required to be legally represented. The cost to the writer was over $2000 simply in barrister fees.
-
Ultimately, the decision by Gordon, J of the Federal Court 68was that
one document be produced, and the State of Victoria pay all costs. The writer has not been willing to create an invoice for the time spent responding to the subpoena, knowing that the Victorian taxpayer is liable for these fees, and a few hundred thousand dollars in other legal fees for the other parties to this hearing.
- The documents were not necessary for the running of the complaint, the attempt to force disclosure not model litigant behaviour, and the entire process an exercise in intimidation and victimisation. A costly one for Victorians.
Complaint to Legal Services Board
-
In 2012/2013 a number of complaints were made through DET legal
representatives to the Legal Services Board about the writer, claiming that she was engaged in legal practice.
- One example of the extraordinary lengths gone to was when the DET’s legal representatives asked their IT team to examine a document sent directly by a parent to the law firm (Minter Ellison) claiming that the lawyer could not
68 K v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 622
37
open the document. After seeing several words inserted by the writer, the law firm then made a complaint that the writer was providing legal advice.
- The complaints were not upheld. File closed.
Complaints to Alternative Employer
-
The writer has a paid permanent management job with another organisation. Deputy Secretary wrote on 3 July 2014 to the Chairperson of that organisation to complain about the writer in her advocacy job, in what the writer could only infer was an attempt to damage her employment and reputation with her employer.
-
When the desired effect was not achieved by that complaint, Deputy Secretary then wrote to the peak body of that organisation on 3 October 2014 and complained about the writer.
-
As is often the case, the complaints brought no credit to DET and simply made it clear that they will go to quite some lengths to intimidate detractors.
Threats of Defamation
162. On 3 July 2014, Deputy Secretary wrote a letter to
the writer and amongst other things said the following.
“I advise you that the Department is closely monitoring all of your public statements and that legal action may be taken if your statements are defamatory and cause damage to the reputation of any individuals69.”
would be aware that a defence to defamation is the truth of the matter, and to date the writer has not received a legal complaint of defamation.
Parents
-
Parents have reported the following responses from schools to the
writer after making a complaint:
a. being banned from entering the school classroom when previously given access;
b. having Student Support Group Meeting times changed to times when it was known the parent could not attend;
c. being banned from talking to teachers or entering school grounds on the pretext of “occupational health and safety”;
d. teachers being ordered not to talk to parents; e. having all communications restricted to the Principal; 69 Letter Deputy Sec to Julie Phillips 3 October 2014
38
f. being made to feel so unwelcome that they felt they had no choice but to leave the school
-
One parent who wish to appeal a court decision was then subjected to an application by DET that she not be allowed to go ahead with the appeal unless she paid a security for costs amount of $52,943.
-
In dismissing the application, Mortimer J stated70:
The potential chilling effect of requirements to provide security for costs on individual litigants are well recognised, and the impediment which such orders could otherwise impose on access to justice means, at first-instance level, an individual impecunious litigant will rarely be ordered to provide security. [34]
Orders for security for costs are capable of interfering with the free exercise of that right both at an individual level and at a more general level because they are capable of being seen as a deterrent to the exercise of the right. [40]
Teachers/Aides
-
Teachers/aides report having experienced the following after simply
telling the truth about the abuse of students at disabilities in schools, or on suspicion that they will tell the truth rather than lie for the benefit of the school in question.
a. Refusal to rehire; b. Communications sent to other schools to boycott employment; c. Termination using questionable termination procedures. 167. It should be noted that the writer is unaware of any teacher or aide who has lost their job for subjecting students to unnecessary violence.
Covering up of inhumane and degrading treatment/illegal treatment of children with disabilities
-
It is the writer's view that some of the actions taken by DET senior staff
in the refusal to investigate the abuse of children with disabilities, and the covering up of that abuse, could amount to corruption or perverting the course of justice.
DET FOI Department
-
Of significant concern is the role of the DET Freedom of Information
(“FOI”) Department. A number of the writer’s clients have found months after
70 Kiefel v State of Victoria [2014] FCA 604
39
a FOI request that numerous documents were in existence that were not provided to them. To make it clear, it is not suggested in these cases that the documents were deliberately withheld by the DET FOI due to claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. It is claimed that DET FOI hold back documents which may implicate DET in violence, abuse or neglect.
Case Study 1
Mrs Smith made an FOI Request for all documents relating to her son “John”, including school minutes of meetings. John complained that he had been subjected to repeated seclusion at Western Autistic School. Mrs Smith found many months later that minutes of meetings had not been provided to her, coincidently with references to his seclusion area contained within them.
Case Study 2
Mrs Smith made an FOI Request. Her son with Autism Spectrum Disorder
had been subjected to physical restraint at Maple Street Primary School. A significant time later, Mrs Smith, was provided with minutes of meetings which had not been previously provided to her. Not only were they not provided through DET FOI, they appeared to have been falsified, as a number of them replicated each other either in part or in whole. A complaint to Deputy Secretary provided an unsatisfactory explanation.
-
At times it is difficult to know whether documents are not provided
because they do not exist, or because they are being held back by the DET FOI Department.
-
The parent of a child mentioned in paragraph 54 who was being restrained every morning at Specimen Hill Primary School for up to 45 minutes recently made an FOI request. She received a response stating that the following exemptions would be applied to her request - those falling under “internal working documents”, “documents affecting personal privacy”, “documents containing material provided in confidence”.71
-
The parent does not know which exemption section has been applied to which document, but she did not receive one incident report or record of her child being restrained, despite a clear admission that it was occurring regularly.
-
A moment for pause. Given the serious nature of restraint (and the lack of any detailed guidance about it) it is prudent to consider what non-DET organisations have to say about restraint given its dangers. The NSW
71 Letter from Assistant Executive Director, dated 24 June 2015
40
Government position for prone restraint is a maximum of 2-3 minutes72. The child in question was only seven years old. The danger was extreme.
-
Despite the danger, either every single episode of restraint was
undocumented, or DET are holding the documents back.
-
Either way, it is clear that Victorian parents have no idea what is
happening to their children, and the position of DET is that they have no right to know. This is, the writer submits, unacceptable and dangerous.
Conduct and Ethics Department/Legal Department
-
On numerous occasions, the responses that the DET Conduct and Ethics Department have provided to the Australian Human Rights Commission have been proven to be false.
-
Under the Disability Discrimination Act, it is a criminal offence for a
respondent to make a false statement to the Commission. The Australian Federal Police have proven to be disinterested in receiving such complaints.
-
The exact relationship between the Conduct and Ethics Department and the Legal Department is unclear. What is clear is that between them they have the responsibility of responding to legal complaints against DET. It is during court cases and in the lead up to those cases that very disturbing approaches have been taken to cases involving restrictive practices against students with disabilities.
-
In K v State of Victoria, the legal representatives for DET successfully
prevented affidavits from numerous parents who attempted to give evidence about the restraint and seclusion of their own children at schools the complainant had attended.73
- DET used many arguments to try and prevent these parents from giving evidence, one being that the severity of the disability of one child was not sufficiently same as the other:
Mr xxxx has a son who, like the applicant, suffers from autism spectrum disorder, but, I was told from the bar table, suffers more severely from that condition than does the applicant.[8]
-
This was untrue. The writer was sitting in the body of the court for the
trial and the evidence from the teachers were that the applicant had the most severe Autism and behaviours they had dealt with.
- The other argument presented was that while some of the other parents were claiming that their children were secluded in a room, the
72 Position Paper “Aggression, Seclusion and Restraint: Preventing, Minimising and Managing
Disturbed Behaviour in Mental Health Facilities in New South Wales June 2012
73 K v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 1301
41
applicant in the case could only point to being told to stand behind a whiteboard (decision[7]). The Judge in the case decided, at the urging of DET, that these experiences were too dissimilar.
-
At trial it then was revealed that the young boy had been forced into the
bathroom/toilet on approximately 10 occasions, sometimes with the door shut. However it was all too late by the time the trial was in process, despite it being clear that at the interlocutory hearing, the information provided to the court was untrue.
-
There are numerous other examples of:
o very disturbing evidence given at trial and in submissions by DET which does not seem to be in keeping with their public stance; o approaches towards litigation which can only be seen as victimising and aggressive against families of children with disabilities and their advocates; o approaches towards litigation which see the expenditure of millions of dollars to private law firms, sometimes to see a case settle immediately before a trial, or even in the middle of the trial.
-
Only a Royal Commission with full investigatory powers would be able
to investigate these issues adequately and decide who requires such large sums more urgently - schools/teachers/students with disabilities – or law firms.
Marnebek School
- On 6 January 2014 three parents wrote to then Minister Martin Dixon74. The letter was about the abuse of children with disabilities at Marnebek School. Excerpts of their letter include the following:
Marnebek School is a special school for children with disabilities. For a number of years it has been using abusive practices such as:
Locking children by themselves in a small empty room in the dark as punishment for behavioural problems. Mechanical restraint - leading children around the school on wrist straps. Locking children in external courtyards by themselves as punishment for behavioural problems. Locking children in a cage built in a classroom. Physical restraint - physically restraining children who will not sit still.
74Attachment 15 Letter to Minister Dixon from three parents 6 January 2014
42
These practices have been widespread, and there are other parents in addition to the undersigned, who have witnessed these practices and would be prepared to speak about them. A number of teachers, if given protection from retribution by the Department of Education would also give evidence about these practices.
-
Minister Dixon gave responsibility for following the matter up to Deputy
Secretary wrote a letter back to those parents75 comprising seven sentences, including the following:
I understand that there are proceedings that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the hearing has been set down commencing 11 March 2014. During this hearing you other witnesses will be able to give evidence under oath to an independent tribunal.
In the meantime, I have requested the Regional Director of the South Eastern Victorian Region, to look into current practices at Marnebek School with a view to identifying any specific issues which require appropriate attention.
-
It is important to note two things. The VCAT hearing was a complaint
under the Equal Opportunity Act. It was not a complaint under the Crimes Act, nor a direct complaint of abuse. DET requested that VCAT actually disallow any questions regarding the timeout room. VCAT helpfully acquiesced with DET’s request.
-
Secondly, the parents had discussed issues that were "widespread",
clearly implying that other children had been suffering abuse.
-
One finds it hard to imagine how a senior bureaucrat of a government department responsible for the education and safety of vulnerable children with disabilities could in essence say that he was not interested in investigating any treatment of children that had occurred in the past. It is unlikely, (perhaps apart from the Catholic Church), that any other organisation would respond in this manner.
-
The reason given, ostensibly, for refusing to discuss the complaint, being that one of the parents had a legal complaint against DET, indicated a decision to sacrifice the health and well-being of, for all knew, numerous children, who may have been subjected to inhumane, degrading and illegal practices.
-
It was for exactly this reason, that the parents asked for an
“independent” investigator - in that there is a widely held view that DET are corrupt at worst, and at best are led by people who endorse violent practices used against students with disabilities.
75Attachment 16 letter from dated 4 February 2014
43
- The exact words the parents used were these: As an internal inquiry would involve the Department of Education investigating itself, we request that an independent investigator, such as the Office of the Public Advocate or retired judge be appointed to undertake this investigation.
194. Despite the fact that it had been made clear to that there were
other parents and staff willing to discuss abuse at the school to an independent person, ultimately in a letter to the writer said this:
As a result of receiving information from , Regional
Director and , Deputy Regional Director, South East
Region Victoria I have decided that no further action is warranted in relation to the allegations in your clients’ correspondence to the Minister 6 January 2014 and to me on 13 March 2014 and your correspondence to me on 15 and 19 March 201476.
-
attempted to take the high road in a later letter no doubt
wondering why at this stage all the parents had instituted legal action against DET, and stated “It is unfortunate that you and your clients were unable to take up my offer of a meeting in April to discuss your concerns.77”
- The writer’s clients had never wished to meet with . 197. So to pause, declined to appoint someone who he was told could
have received information from a number of parents and staff about abuse in a school. He declined. He made a decision without even receiving reports that he knew were available.
-
Instead, the situation was that Marnebek School were given a ‘free pass’ for anything that had happened in the past by virtue of the fact that position was that it should not be looked into. He then takes the word of , best known for shredding documents prior to his appearance at the IBAC (Independent Broad-based Anticorruption Commission ) Corruption Inquiry78, before being sacked.
-
And despite parents and a former staff member giving evidence on oath, some of it completely unchallenged, that students were being subjected to inhumane, degrading and illegal practices in a VCAT hearing, no senior member of DET has demonstrated any interest in speaking to others who have no legal complaint against DET, but could inform them of these practices.
76 Letter to Julie Phillips dated 9 May 2014 77 Letter to Julie Phillips Dated 21 July 2014. 78 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-education-department-official-john-allman-destroyed evidence-on-corruption-hearing-told-20150430-1mvwrz.html
44
- The seriousness of refusal to even appoint someone to hear evidence of abuse against children with disabilities in Victorian government schools gives a clear reflection that DET are completely disinterested in this problem at best, and at worst, endorse the abuse of students with disabilities.
Bendigo Special Developmental School
- On 26 January 2010 and 6 October 2010 a teacher at Bendigo SDS wrote to then Regional Director and advised him of practices at the school including:
a. Forcing a child under a hand dryer as a consequence of inappropriate behaviour, knowing the child was frightened of hand dryers.
b. Physical Restraint. c. Children locked in cages within classrooms. d. Staff screaming at children. e. One child spending most of the year in a cage in the classroom. f. Staff pinching children. g. Staff using pressure points to move children around. 202. The writer has evidence of some of these practices through school documents, and through contact from parents.
-
did not respond to either letter, and nor did any DET staff
member on his behalf. has been named in the IBAC corruption enquiries79.
-
The teacher was terminated. Interestingly, one of the steps in the termination process was that the Principal claimed that the teacher’s Individual Education Plans were not detailed enough. The official position of DET, and a position put forward to the Federal Court, is that not only do Individual Education Plans not need to be detailed, but they do not even need to exist in any form but in a teacher’s head. More evidence on this will be provided to the Senate Inquiry into education however the evidence forms court decisions and is accessible to the public.
-
Therefore either this teacher has been the victim of a corrupt process,
or the corrupt process is occurring before the Federal Court.
Monash Special Developmental School
-
In early 2014, multiple complaints of which Deputy Secretary
was aware of were made about Monash SDS including the strapping of children with disabilities to chairs for the convenience of staff. The Principal
79 http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/ultranet-shares-and-jobs-scandal-snares-victorias-education-department-20141111-11kk3l.html http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-department-secretary-tried-to-choke-me-claims-exemployee 20150520-gh5rk8.html
45
of that school is who appeared in the Herald Sun newspaper80 and was quoted as holding Power of Attorney for , former leader of The Family, a cult whose members were sued successfully for the abuse of children81.
- The writer took it upon herself to contact one of the “children” of the cult to confirm that was involved with when
was more active within the Family. The person identified . is in charge of a Special Developmental School, responsible for the most vulnerable children in the state. Needless to say remains in her position, and the parent whose child was strapped to chairs has not received one word of recognition that such actions are inappropriate or apology.
Alfredton Primary School/Wendouree Primary School
-
The writer made a complaint to DET Grampians Regional Office about the repeated restraint and illegal imprisonment of a young boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder. See Case Study 3.
-
The Acting Deputy Regional Director claimed to have investigated and, as is DET practise, advised that in his view staff had responded appropriately. When a complaint was made to the ombudsman, could not offer one single document, or even an e-mail, that gave any evidence that the matter had been investigated. Like the invisible Individual
Education Plans, invisible Behaviour Plans and invisible Behaviour Analysis,
we were now introduced to the invisible investigation. Given the high stakes for the child (injury and death) the fact that a senior DET staff member believed that an investigation that could not be proven to have even occurred was suitable, gives us further insight into DET and how they view the care and safety of vulnerable children. This investigation that could not be seen, unsurprisingly, was endorsed by Deputy Secretary .
-
The writer also refers to earlier mention of seclusion rooms being dismantled (paragraphs 38-39) in the face of parent complaints. Destroying evidence of illegal imprisonment, a crime under Victorian law, could, if Victoria Police were involved, be a further offence.
-
The same Principals remain in situ at both schools. The DET Legal Department was involved in both complaints. It is impossible to know whether the destruction of evidence is an initiative of the Principals in question, senior DET bureaucrats or the Legal Department.
80 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/authorities-launch-review-after-links-between notorious-cult-the-family-and-melbourne-school/story-fni0fee2-1227002815050 81 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/sects-cults-and-ufos-fringe-groups-the-family-raelian movement-and-real-jesus-christ-among-those-attracting-aussie-followers/story-fni0fee2 1227000092921
46
-
A DET psychologist in the Bendigo region who had trained an aide to knock down a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and subject him to prone restraint without, instead, undertaking a Functional Behaviour Assessment or drawing up a Positive Behaviour Plan, retains his position and has been implicated in the restraint of other children with disabilities since.
-
It is clear from the constant inaction from DET, that they endorse these
approaches.
-
Every formal complaint of seclusion violence and restraint against a
child with a disability has been defended as being appropriate by the DET Legal Department. Given it is clear they have advised DET staff that shutting students with disabilities in rooms where they cannot get out constitutes illegal imprisonment, (refer paragraph 18) it is then hard to understand their defence of such practices. It is clear that the DET Legal Department’s first priority is to assist DET in covering up of/defending the abuse of children in their care, rather than ensure that DET acts within the law. While one might expect this sort of behaviour from lawyers who may work for, say, British Tobacco, the writer suggests it is questionable behaviour for government lawyers working for what is, allegedly, a benevolent government department that has the very serious responsibility of the care of vulnerable children.
-
Given the seniority of these employees of DET, the writer believes it is
fair to draw an inference that the use of unnecessary restrictive practices and illegal imprisonment against students with disabilities is sanctioned at the highest level, including the recent former Minister. The current Minister’s interest in the topic is yet to be determined.
-
It is unlikely that children with disabilities will be safe in Victorian
schools until those responsible for the endorsement and covering up of such practices, and the continued refusal to prohibit seclusion in schools, are sacked.
Bullying
-
Children with disabilities are often the targets of bullying for obvious
reasons. Children with cognitive disabilities often do not engender the same understanding and sympathy from their peers as do, for example, children who are blind or are in wheelchairs. Some statistics in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder and bullying reveal the following.
-
22 out of 22 parents of children with Asperger’s, aged 11-19, reported
that their children were being victimised by peers. On average, these children were victimised 1.25 times per week. 23 % of parents reported that their children were victimised two or more times per week82.
82 Konstanareas, M (2005) “Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome” in K Stoddart (ed.) Children, Youth and Adults with Asperger Syndrome. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers
47
-
94% of 400 parents of children with ASD, aged 4-17, reported that their children had been bullied or victimised83.
-
Children with ASD are 4 times more likely to be bullied than their
peers84.
-
160 000 children miss school each day (presumably in the US)
because they are afraid of being bullied or harassed85.
-
Children have a 75% chance of being bullied throughout their school
years from kindergarten until the end of high school86.
-
In 1993 27% of middle-school students worldwide reported often being
bullied87.
-
Many Victorian Schools have not seemed to grasp yet the concept of preventative approaches to bullying, and rather focus on meaningless (to children) bullying policies (for example “zero tolerance”) and restorative approaches (reactive). Putting that aside, the writer has had a number of experiences attempting to advocate for students with disabilities who report bullying, and regrettably has experienced a common response.
-
While advocating for a student at Wedderburn College, I received a
letter containing the following:
-
"The College is aware that currently incidents occur which xxxx
perceives to be bullying. In all these cases, including those that xxxx has reported, our investigations have indicated that the conduct complained of has been misinterpreted by xxxx or did not in fact occur as he stated.88“ [emphasis added]
83 Heinrichs, R (2003) Perfect Targets: Asperger Syndrome and Bullying – Practical Solutions for Surviving the Social World. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Company. 84 Little, L (2002) “Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger Syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders” Issues Comprehensive Paediatric Nursing 25, 43-47. 85 Fried, S and Fried, P (1996) Bullies and Victims .New York: M Evans and Company Inc. Gray, C (2003) “Gray’s guide to bullying” Jenison Autism Journal 16, 1, 1-60.
86 Hoover, JH and Oliver, RJ (1996) The Bullying Prevention Handbook: A Guide for Principals,
Teachers and Counselors. Bloomington, IN: National educational Service 87 Smith, PK and Whitney, I (1993) “A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary school” Educational Research 35, 1, 3-25. 88 Letter to Julie Phillips dated 20 May 2014, Principal Wedderburn College.
48
-
In other words, when questioned, the children without disabilities who
did the bullying gave a different story to the victim, and they were believed. Meanwhile the victim acquired an adjustment disorder, was ultimately too frightened to attend school and had to leave. As is often the case in North Western Victorian region, handling of the matter was endorsed by the Regional Director.
-
This is not an atypical example of DET responses to bullying. There is
little hope for students with disabilities who are being bullied, when they are disbelieved by school staff. The consequences of bullying are well known to the community, and have included suicide. The question is why wouldn’t school staff believe that a child with a disability was being bullied if they reported such bullying. It is difficult to find an answer to that question.
-
It is unclear what it will take to change the attitudes of Victorian schools
to the bullying of children with disabilities. It is ironic, though, that if a child with a disability is having a meltdown and may injure another, that child is described as having “assaulted” someone. However when they asked for protection themselves, they are often ignored.
School Buses
-
DET contract bus companies to run buses between special schools and the homes of children with disabilities. There have been numerous examples of abuses reported against children in school buses, including, for example, accusations that a child was tied up on a bus89.
-
However the most significant ongoing inhumane and degrading
treatment of children with disabilities is the fact that it is DET Policy that children can spend up to 2 hours one way on a bus from their home to the school. That is, in total, four hours per day. In that four hours they cannot access toilets, and can commonly urinate or defecate on the bus. They cannot eat or drink. Some children may be strapped into a seat for that length of time due to the fact that, understandably, they do not wish to remain seated.
-
This issue has been raised with DET over a period of years, and they
refuse to resolve the issue, which is simply to ensure there are more bus services. The two-hour long trips are not particularly required because children live far away from their school, it is because the number of buses contracted are limited due to a disinterest by DET in spending sufficient money in order to ensure that students with disabilities are treated humanely. A private car running directly to the school may take 20 min.
- Such treatment cannot be justified. Students with disabilities are suffering simply due to budget constraints.
89 http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1415058/vcat-damages-bid-after-disabled-child-tied-up-on-bus/
49
Complaints Process
-
The writer refers to the entirety of the submission above. The internal DET complaints process is of little use, except that if one wishes to go to the ombudsman one will be referred back to the internal complaints process, and therefore it becomes something that is required. The reason parents ultimately litigate is that they cannot get the slightest satisfaction through any internal DET process. DET personnel at many levels are aggressive, adversarial, and interested only in the protection of their own staff.
-
Regrettably, and inexplicably, DET seem to prefer litigating rather than
making any admission. This is no doubt on the advice of the Legal Department, who perhaps because they are lawyers, assume that every parent wishes for an apology or acceptance that something will not happen again, only in order that they can sue. This is perhaps more of a reflection on DET than parents.
- An example of a complaint that will provide the Senate Committee with a typical example of how DET handle complaints follows.
Case Study 3
On 20 December 2012, the writer sent a letter to the Regional Director, DET Grampians Region in relation to “John” who was a young primary school child with Autism Spectrum Disorder.90 The writer made a complaint about the repeated restraint and illegal imprisonment of this young boy.
The writer advised the Region that while attending Alfredton Primary School, John had been:
“ held on the ground by ankles while other staff cross his arms, and then been dragged around the school
secluded in a room for such periods that he has urinating and soiled himself, not eating food, becoming dehydrated “
The writer advised that John’s mother Mrs Smith, after transferring John to Wendouree Primary School, had advised them expressly not to subject her son to restraint and seclusion, which staff had ignored.
The writer reported that staff had subjected John to restraint and assault:
without gaining the consent of Mr and Mrs xxxxx;
90 letter Julie Phillips to Regional Director
50
without documentation; without staff being trained in restraint, and therefore knowing which restraint holds are safe and which are dangerous; without having put in place other methods such as: Drawing up a Behaviour Support Plan Based on a Functional Behaviour Assessment and Analysis; Employing a behavioural psychologist or behaviouralist to develop, closely supervise, monitor and evaluate such a plan
The Regional Director was advised that until he could guarantee the safety of John, given the psychological and physical injuries John was experiencing (John had begun to self harm), John would not be attending school.
The writer asked the Regional Director to respond “immediately”.
On 31 January 2013, over one month later, the writer wrote to the Regional Director91 noting that John had the right to attend school as his nondisabled peers did, and asking for an urgent response to the letter dated 20th of December 2012.
On 4 February 2013, the writer wrote to the Regional Director92, the letter being reproduced below.
I refer to my letters to you dated 20 December 2012, 31 January 2013 also marked “URGENT”.
Mrs xxxx is unable to sustain home schooling of xxxx. She is not registered for home schooling. xxxx needs to attend school, without being restrained, as soon as possible.
Please advise immediately.
On 6 February 2013, the writer wrote to the Regional Director93, the letter being reproduced below.
I refer to my letters to dated 20 December 2012, 31 January 2013, 4 February 2013 also marked “URGENT”.
Mrs xxxx is unable to sustain home schooling of xxxx. She is not registered for home schooling. xxxx needs to attend school, without being restrained, as soon as possible.
91 J Phillips to Regional Director DET 31 January 2013 92 J Phillips to Regional Director, DET 4 February 2013 93 J Phillips to Regional Director, DDT 6 February 2013
51
Please advise immediately.
The Deputy Regional Director then sent the writer a one-page letter94, which consisted of this sentence, among a few others.
“Following a review of the documented learning plans and procedures in place for xxxx at Wendouree Primary School and incident reports from 2012 relating to xxxx, I believe the school has responded appropriately and within DEECD policy guidelines to xxxx’s identified needs.”
The letter ended with an encouragement to return John to the very school that had been subjecting him to restraint and seclusion. John’s name was misspelt throughout the letter.
Shocked at the brief response to the issues raised, including actions which can cause injury and death, the writer then sent the following letter to the Deputy Regional Director95 on 7 February 2013.
Despite this four-page letter setting out numerous breaches of internal DET policy and procedure, not even a response was received.
After forwarding a complaint to then Minister for Education Dixon, who then gave Deputy Secretary the responsibility for following up the matter, the writer received a letter dated 12 March 2013.96
This one-page letter addressed none of the individual complaints. response to what had occurred in the past was summed up in this one sentence.
“I am informed that the Acting Deputy Regional Director reviewed the educational plans and procedures in place for xxxx at Wendouree Primary School, as well as incident reports from 2012, and has come to the view that the school responded that xxxx needs appropriately and accordance with DEECD guidelines.”
237. And that was it. It is only by comparing response to the letter
that was sent to him that the full extent of his contempt for this process is revealed.
-
This example is typical of many other complaints I have assisted
parents of children with disabilities to make using the internal complaints system at DET. The contempt with which DET treat such complaints reflects
94 Letter Deputy Regional Director to J Phillips 6 February 2013 95 Attachment 17 Letter Julie Phillips to , Deputy Regional Director 7 February 2013 96 Letter to Julie Phillips 12 March 2013
52
their complete confidence that they are not required to actually address any detail of a complaint they receive.
-
The final insult to the child and his family was that when the Ombudsman investigated the investigation, it did not exist (see p 61). However clearly Deputy Secretary was not bothered by such detail when deciding to ignore allegations of the alleged abuse of a young boy with disabilities, (which the boy continues to have counselling about), and instead supported his regional office staff.
-
It is worth pausing to consider the seriousness of what is happening at
senior levels of DET, including their Legal Department. Apart from the internal Legal Department advice to PASS (mentioned above in paragraph
- in relation to seclusion constituting illegal imprisonment, the Crimes Act 1958 supports such a view. A plaintiff need only prove that another person has unlawfully deprived them of their liberty, either intentionally or negligently, in any circumstances.
-
So here we have a complaint about something that could clearly constitute a criminal act, and , upon receiving the complaint, simply states that someone has “informed” him that the matter has been investigated. The question to be asked is, if a senior bureaucrat of DET is informed that there are possibly criminal acts occurring against students with disabilities and declines to investigate, does this constitute corruption?
-
Perhaps it is a more appropriate question for IBAC. On the other hand,
perhaps it is a question for the Australian community.
Case Study 3A
On 19 March 2012, the parent of child with Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder wrote to Marnebek School Principal and amongst other things: expressed concern about a bruise found on her son’s right arm she believed came from adult handling expressed concern about a bite mark found on her son’s chest asked for a written response on how her son would be kept safe from injuries in the future.
She received no response.
On 27 March 2012, the same parent wrote to about an incident where she saw her son being manhandled by a staff member. She received no response.
On 7 May 2012, the same parent wrote to Marnebek Principal and amongst other things, expressed concern that her son: was being locked in an outdoor garden for the entire duration of play time had been led around the school using a wrist strap ‘like an
53
animal’ was being physically restrained at assembly was refusing to go to school - screaming, crying and refusing to walk down the hall to his classroom was self harming by smacking his head into the floor was losing his academic skills The parent said she was concerned that her son’s safety, well-being and anxiety was spiralling out of control. She advised she was withdrawing her son from the school.
She received no response in relation to any of her allegations of neglect and mistreatment.
- The above is an example, not only of DET staff disinterest in reports of abuse and neglect of children with disabilities, but also of a complaints process where parents are treated with contempt.
Policies and Procedures
-
There are a number of policies, procedures and guidelines that are
aimed at ensuring a high level of education and a safe environment for students with disabilities in particular.
-
At all times when the writer has assisted a parent to make a complaint
that these policies/procedures/guidelines have not been followed, the formal response of DET is that these documents are not required to be adhered to. They are simply “guidelines”.
-
This reinforces the inherent problem of the protection of children with
disabilities in Victorian schools from violence, abuse and neglect. Not only do they have no legislative protection as adults with disabilities do (Disability Act 2006, Mental Health Act), but they are not even afforded the benefit of any internal DET protections. The Commission for Children and Young People will not cover children in schools.
-
This is no doubt why we have a "free for all" approach to children with
disabilities in Victorian schools, where staff can subject them to all manner of acts, no matter how inhumane or degrading, and be supported to do so on every occasion.
Conclusions
- DET, in its current form, presents a significant health and safety risk to students with disabilities.
54
-
The endorsement of violence, abuse and neglect against students with disabilities is endorsed at all levels of DET.
-
Violence, abuse and neglect in students with disabilities are covered up
at all levels of DET.
- The internal DET complaints procedure is unworkable, and there is no genuine interest in DET investigating complaints of abuse of children with disabilities in Victorian schools.
B. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 252. The Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) is an organisation that is dangerous as it is somewhat untouchable.
-
Its contribution to the relinquishment of children with disabilities is set
out in the VEOHRC Report “Desperate Measures”97.
-
Once a family is forced by DHHS by their lack of support to relinquish a family member with a disability into their care, despite the content of DHHS publicity material, they will lose all rights to decision-making for that family member (in the event the family member cannot make decisions independently).
-
As for government funded service providers, a further Case Study demonstrates their impunity.
Case Study 4
Mrs Smith was advised that while in the care of OnCall Personnel, her non-verbal son with severe Autism Spectrum Disorder who was required to have full-time supervision, was found with his pants off, and no one could explain how this could have happened, or who had removed them.
Mrs Smith requested an Incident Report from On-Call by e-mail on 30th of December 2014. Mrs Smith requested to be told whether an internal incident report had been made, and if so for a copy to be sent to her, on 19 January 2015. On 14 February 2015, the writer sent an e-mail to On-call asking for confirmation by 16th of February that On-Call were refusing to respond to the e-mail dated 19 January 2015. On 10 March 2015, the writer wrote a letter to , head of On-Call Personnel asking for an immediate response. No response over one year later.
97“Desperate Measures - the relinquishment of children with disability into state care” 2012 VEOHRC
55
A copy of the letter was sent to Minister Martin Foley, DHHS. No response over one year later.
-
Was this neglect, or had abuse occurred? Certainly Mrs Smith and the writer will never know because OnCall Personnel refuse to even respond. What rights does Mrs Smith have? Complain to the office of the Disability Services Commission and have a mediation? What sanctions are applicable to On-Call, who refuse to respond to complaints? None.
-
Various reports throughout the last two decades have highlighted the
vulnerability of DHHS clients to violence, abuse and neglect. Despite such reports, and even legislative change to the Disability Act 2006, nothing has changed.
-
DHHS are answerable to no one, and taking into account their incompetence in direct service provision, their power over those in their care is troubling and immense.
-
The Senate will no doubt receive many submissions on the abuse of people with disabilities in the care of DHHS and their contractors. In short, some of the contributing factors are:
the lack of skill and qualifications held by workers; the casualisation of the workforce; the priority of DHHS to defend their staff over protecting people with a disability; the failure by DHHS to appropriately assess staff before allowing them to work with the most vulnerable people with disability; their contribution to ensuring that many people in their care literally have no communication method in order to report abuse; the lack of free legal assistance available to families who wish to allege a breach of the Disability Act 2006; a lack of interest at the most senior levels of DHHS to actively engage in the above issues.
Conclusion
-
DHHS and their contracted service providers present an occupational health and safety risk to clients with disabilities.
-
The power DHHS and their contracted service providers have over people with disabilities in their care constitutes a danger to those people.
-
Given the long-standing nature of issues of abuse against clients of
DHHS and their contractors, it is unreasonable to expect that this situation will improve without significant and strong intervention.
56
C. DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSIONER 263. The Office of the Disability Services Commissioner (“ODSC”) could be seen to be doing more harm by its existence, than if it did not exist at all.
-
It is, essentially, a provider of mediation services, and an educator. -
It holds the power to conduct investigations, but for some inexplicable
reason, chooses not to. Recently in giving evidence to the Senate Inquiry, Commissioner Mr Laurie Harkin said:
sustainable change was more likely to be achieved through education rather than punishment.98
-
There is no evidence put forward by Mr Harkin for this statement
whatsoever. Mr Harkin’s personal opinion is, with respect, irrelevant. Mediation is not always appropriate, and is particularly inappropriate when reporting abuse. However more importantly, the ODSC has no powers, DHHS and its contractors know that it has no powers, and therefore go through the motions knowing that they will not be required to do anything other than as they wish.
-
Putting aside other problems with the ODSC, such as length of time to
progress complaints, and the conflict of interest in having an ex-DHHS staff member at its head, the fact that the authority has no powers to direct is sufficient in and of itself to re-assess its worth.
Case Study 5
On 6 October 2014, the writer made a complaint to ODSC in relation to a young man with Autism Spectrum Disorder, being a client of DHHS, on behalf of he and his parents. A second complaint was made on 19 November 2014.
While the complaints were before the ODSC, on 21 November 2014, “John” is taken to Northern Hospital due to DHHS contractors not having the skills or expertise to effectively deal with his challenging behaviours. John was subjected to chemical, physical and mechanical restraint – he was shackled to a hospital bed for three weeks and regularly sedated.*
DHHS made no move, despite being involved in ODSC led mediations, to put in place the supports required by John that were needed before he could leave the hospital. It was only due to a change.org petition and personal approaches by high-profile Australians directly to Premier Daniel Andrews that John was able to leave the hospital on 15 December 2014.
98 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no-disability-abuse-investigations-despite-lots-of-complaints 20150622-ghuprw.html
57
The complaints to ODSC had no effect on what was a critically desperate situation, and ODSC was unable to gain any compliance or cooperation from DHHS - other than that they attended the mediation.
*No criticism of the hospital is intended.
D. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 268. The Office of the Public Advocate (“OPA”) has not been able to have a significant effect on the abuse of people with disabilities. It admits itself, that the reported cases of abuse are “just the tip of the iceberg”.99 One can infer, then, that OPA are unable to prevent this abuse occurring.
-
In addition, the relationship between OPA and DHHS through OPA’s
Guardianship Program is troubling. The writer’s observation is that OPA Guardians work very closely with DHHS, at times to the detriment of people with disabilities. OPA guardians can make decisions for people with disabilities without meeting them, and in direct defiance of family wishes. It should not be inferred that the writer is suggesting that families will always be right, however when integral services to a person with a disability are reduced simply on the basis of an arbitrary cap in funding, and people are at risk, one would expect OPA Guardians to represent the person with a disability strongly, in line with the aims and objectives of OPA, and the aims and objectives of the Disability Act.
-
Out of the two families recently who were clients of the writer and had
an OPA Guardian, one co-joined OPA to a complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act in 2011, and the other is about to do the same. This is very disturbing. It is the writer’s opinion that OPA cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of people with disabilities through its Guardianship program.
-
However more importantly, the willingness of OPA to provide guardians
for people with disabilities could be seen to be assisting DHHS to commonly make guardianship applications against parents, simply when the parents will not agree with something DHHS intends to do to their family member
Case Study 6
DHHS made a guardianship application in relation to “Jane” who has an intellectual disability and severe language disorder. The only reason for the application was that Jane’s mother, Mrs Smith, would not give her permission for Jane to be placed in an inappropriate accommodation service. The track record of DHHS in relation to Jane had been one of incompetence, and
99 Ombudsman’s Report “Reporting and Investigation of Allegations of Abuse in the Disability Sector: Phase 1” p4
58
inability to effectively manage challenging behaviours.
Mrs Smith has been asking for a Functional Behaviour Assessment for approximately one year.
VCAT helpfully supported DHHS, as is often the case, and a Guardian from OPA was appointed. Mrs Smith was not proven to be (or accused of being) anything other than a caring mother who was attempting to uphold the rights of her daughter. Despite not being able to find any significant fault with Mrs Smith, she was not given guardianship rights, and they were awarded to OPA.
-
This manipulation of families of people with disabilities should not be
assisted by OPA, whose own Guardians once appointed often do not seem to have the time or the interest in ensuring that the rights of those people with disabilities are upheld from the writer’s personal experience.
- The reasons that OPA has had little effect on violence, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities are secondary to the fact of the matter itself.
Conclusion
- OPA has not been able to prevent or address the abuse of people with disabilities in state care.
E. VICTORIA POLICE 275. Victoria Police and their failures in progressing complaints from people with disabilities have been set out by VEOHRC100. There is not much to add to those conclusions apart from perhaps some case studies that support the findings of VEOHRC.
Case Study 7
Mrs Smith took her daughter “Jane”, who had Autism Spectrum Disorder, to the local police station to report ongoing sexual assault by a family member. Jane was able to give evidence about what had occurred. The matter was not authorised to go ahead with the reasons given thus:
“I do not question the veracity of the information provided, nor the credibility of the witnesses. I base my assessment solely on the evidence provided and the likelihood of successful prosecution. I do not believe the prosecution of the accused would result in success as there is insufficient evidence with which to do so. I do not believe the burden of proof of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ would be met.”
100 “Beyond Doubt-the Experiences of People with Disabilities Reporting Crime” 2014
59
-
Despite Jane being able to give examples of the nature of the assaults
and identify the abuser, it was viewed by Victoria Police that there would not be a successful prosecution. The question to ask, is that if a 10 year old girl without Autism Spectrum Disorder had reported such abuse, would Victoria Police have gone ahead?
- To add insult to injury, a Freedom of Information request revealed that one of the members, an Acting Sergeant, as part of her brief seemed to have googled information on Autism Spectrum Disorder and sexualised behaviours and included some of those results in the Brief of Evidence. The Acting Sergeant concluded from her Google search:
That through research conducted of the complainants diagnosis of autism-the display of sexualised behaviours that [parent] produces is indicative of sexual abuse as disclosed by the complaint, I believe are within the scope of normality of the diagnosis- and not indicative of abuse101.“
-
Children without disabilities no doubt would have had the benefit of
having an actual psychologist give an informed opinion on these matters during a prosecution. Rather, we have a member of Victoria Police with no clear psychological qualifications making an unqualified decision that has contributed to an extremely serious matter, the sexual abuse of a child, not proceeding.
-
If it were not for the fact that the family member quickly left the state
once finding out he was about to be interviewed over the abuse, Jane would be vulnerable to further abuse.
Case Study 8
Mrs Smith made a complaint about her son being subjected to illegal imprisonment at Marnebek School after not only seen such imprisonment first hand, but then as a result of a Freedom of Information request, finding documents that confirmed that her son was being subjected to restraint and was being put in the Marnebek “Timeout Room” 2-3 times a day, two out of every three days.
Mrs Smith complained to Cranbourne Victoria Police. They declined to proceed, but refused to advise Mrs Smith formally of why. Mrs Smith then wrote to the Cranbourne Victoria Police Station with a copy to the Chief
Commissioner and Ms Kate Jenkins, Commissioner, Victorian Equal
Opportunity and Human Rights Commission102. Mrs Smith asked two
questions:
Please confirm that you have no intention of taking any action against staff at Marnebek School who have admitted to repeatedly locking up my son.
101 Brief of Evidence dated 26 April 2013 102 Letter from parents to Cranbourne Police Station dated 8 January 2015.
60
Please confirm that the Victoria Police position is, generally, that children with disabilities are able to be restrained and imprisoned, as long as this occurs in a school and teachers tell you that it is necessary.
Almost 6 months later, there has been no response from any staff member at Victoria Police, or from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.
Conclusion
-
Victoria Police cannot be relied upon to progress complaints of abuse
by people with disabilities.
F. OMBUDSMAN 281. The Victorian Ombudsman to date has not engendered confidence when dealing with complaints about the failures of other regulators to act on reports of abuse.
-
The writer refers to Case Study 3 above. This matter was the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.
-
The Ombudsman’s Office said this, amongst other things, in a letter of response103:
“The department confirmed that no formal investigation was undertaken into your complaint and allegations.”
“In this matter the department consider both the school and the region were responsive to the complaint therefore, a formal investigation was not necessary or reasonable in the circumstances. Based on the information reviewed, I consider this to be a reasonable decision as regional efforts and resources were being directed to resolving the issues raised by the family and providing support for xxxx.”
-
It is important to review some important information when considering
the Ombudsman’s response.
-
This was a complaint about restraint and illegal imprisonment, actions
which had caused the family to leave two schools, and caused a child to become so traumatised he was self harming.
-
Yet no formal investigation was believed to be necessary, either by
DET or the Ombudsman.
- Numerous breaches of policies and procedures had been outlined, yet no formal investigation was believed to be necessary into those breaches.
103 Director of Investigations, Ombudsman’s Office to J Phillips, 30 December 2014
61
-
One has to wonder when DET believe a formal investigation might be necessary. Perhaps on the actual death of a student.
-
In terms of the region being "responsive to the complaints", one only
has to read the Case Study to see the efforts that had to be made simply to get any response, setting aside that ultimately there was no meaningful response.
-
And yet the Ombudsman’s Office believe the decision to have an “informal” investigation was “reasonable”. And this begs the question as to when the Ombudsman’s Office believes it is appropriate that a formal investigation take place.
-
A complaint was made to the Ombudsman’s Office about these issues. Mrs Smith continues to wait for a response from the Ombudsman’s Office, almost 7 months after contact.
Conclusion
- The Ombudsman’s Office cannot be relied upon to properly investigate complaints about the failure by regulators to respond to reports of abuse.
G. CHILD PROTECTION 293. Perhaps, again, an actual example of a report of abuse to Child Protection may provide the best indicator as to whether they can be relied upon to investigate the abuse of children with disabilities.
- On 10 February 2014, the writer sent an e-mail to Child Protection in support of another parent who had contacted her about the abuse of students with disabilities at Marnebek school.
The writer’s e-mail included allegations of:
locking children in Courtyards; locking children and seclusion rooms; subjecting children to mechanical restraint; locking children in the sensory garden; emotional abuse through swearing and yelling; locking children in cage structures.
-
As of the date of this submission, approximately one and a half years later, the writer continues to wait for a response.
-
One of the writer’s clients says this: “I reported my concerns regarding my son’s injuries to the Office of Child Protection who told me that they do not accept complaints from parents about teachers.”
62
-
This is not the first time a client of the writer has provided information to
Child Protection about the abuse of a child at school, including showing photographs of injuries sustained, and Child Protection have not acted.
Conclusion
-
Child Protection are unwilling to protect children with disabilities from
nonsexual abuse in schools.
H. THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND NEGLECT ON PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITY, THEIR FAMILIES, ADVOCATES, SUPPORT PERSONS,
CURRENT AND FORMER STAFF AND AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AS A
WHOLE;
-
"Our family now resides in the USA where our son can finally access
evidence based educational practice for autism and there are concrete regulatory and legislative protections which promote evidence based practice and meaningfully sanction against violence, neglect and abuse of people with disability. My son has improved significantly in the USA, he has acquired functional language, has acquired many academic, self care and life skills, has learned to bring his own behaviour under his own control and is now preparing for employment. I think a lot about what could have been possible for my son if these supports were provided to him years earlier. I deeply regret that we did not leave Australia sooner. I feel very distressed thinking about Australian children with disability who find themselves in abusive and neglectful situations at school. I feel sad that I was powerless to do anything. I think a lot about the professionals who could not have avoided also seeing what I saw and chose to work outside the ethical norms of their profession by doing nothing.
-
I would not recommend that anyone in Australia complain about
disability discrimination or abuse at school. If you can, it is better to leave.“
-
This is not the only one of the writer’s clients who has left Australia
simply to access schools which provide evidence-based teaching and behavioural practices for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The financial and emotional cost of moving one’s family to another country must be seen to be too great in the context of simply attempting to obtain a child’s right to education, and to be free from abuse.
-
Most Australian families will not be in a position to move to another
country. If they were, I too would suggest that they move overseas as this would be the safest environment for their child in terms of schooling.
- Two mothers of students with disabilities who had spent years battling with DET and who were clients of the writer, attempted suicide due to the stress of their situation.
63
-
It is the writer's experience that the majority of the parents she works
with have acquired a mental illness/psychological condition due to the stress of attempting to negotiate unsuccessfully with their child’s school, and the trauma of knowing their child is being subjected to violence and not being able to prevent it.
-
A number of families that the writer has worked with have moved school more than once, and the violence simply follows the child, because it is endemic in the system and sanctioned at the senior levels of DET.
-
The underfunded disability advocacy sector struggles to keep up at the best of times with meeting the individual needs of people with disabilities seeking advocacy and support. The fact that a significant amount of time is spent advocating against government, who are the signatories to our international human rights conventions and who are charged with our most vulnerable, is unacceptable.
-
The impact of violence, abuse and neglect against children and adults with disabilities, on one hand, could be described as no less than violence, abuse and neglect against any member of the community. However it is worse. The trauma of being abused, for those who are unable to convey that abuse due to their disabilities, must be far worse than for those of us who have the ability to it least tell someone that the abuse is occurring.
-
Children with disabilities in schools, who by experiencing violent
practices year after year become more traumatised and display more challenging behaviours as time goes on, will often transfer straight to DHHS Disability Care, when they very well could have been supported in the home and led independent lives in the community.
-
What is concerning about the prevalence of abuse in schools, in state care and in the receipt of service provision, is that it becomes normalised. Why is it that teaches, integration aides and DET psychologists and speech pathologists can see violence, but come to believe that it is a normal part of responding to people with disabilities?
-
Whatever the answer is, it may explain the lack of interest until
recently, in the abuse of people with disabilities. It may explain why over decades reports of abuse have been tabled, read and put aside.
- The question for everybody contributing to this review, or interested in it, is what is going to happen next.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS
The writer recognises that while this is a national inquiry, much of the abuse of people with disabilities takes place in a state-based service/government environment. It is unclear how the Commonwealth could require changes to be made, that need to be made, at a state level. However the Commonwealth do provide funding for services such as schools, and therefore have leverage in the provision of that funding for specific requirements in funding agreements. The writer has put forward recommendations without necessarily concerning herself as to how they would be enacted.
Recommendation 1
That a Royal Commission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation against people with disabilities be established.
Recommendation 2
That an independent national body be established, with the powers to direct and investigate, to hear complaints of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation against people with disabilities in all institutional and residential settings, including schools.
Recommendation 3
That the Office of the Disability Services Commission in Victoria be dismantled.
Recommendation 4
That until an independent national body is established, people with disabilities are consulted as to which State body, if any, is capable of independently processing complaints, and has the sector’s trust to do so. In the event that such a body exists but currently has insufficient powers, then the necessary legislative changes should be made immediately.
Recommendation 5
That there be any increase in the funding for Community Legal Centres throughout Australia who specialise in assisting people with disabilities.
Recommendation 6
That the necessary steps, legal or otherwise, be taken immediately to prohibit the seclusion of children with disabilities in schools in Victoria, and in any other state where it is not yet prohibited.
65
Recommendation 7
That the necessary steps, legal or otherwise, be taken immediately to regulate the restraint of children with disabilities in schools through an independent regulator that is informed by research and evidence-based best practice.
Recommendation 8
That Functional Behaviour Assessments and Positive Behaviour approaches are
mandatory in all schools and accommodation facilities where challenging behaviours are a serious issue.
Recommendation 9
That a review of the Victorian DET Conduct and Ethics Department and Legal Department regarding their role in the covering up of abuse take place, including an examination of the monies spent responding to complaints by children with disabilities of violence, abuse and neglect.
Recommendation 10
That a review of the operations of the Victorian DET Freedom of Information Department regarding their role in the covering up of abuse take place.
Recommendation 11
The writer endorses Recommendations 1,2, 3, 4 and 8 of the submission by Communication Rights Australia and the Disability Discrimination Legal Service.
Recommendation 12
That Australian Departments of Education, given the substantial amount of taxpayers money they receive, be required to demonstrate through evidence that they are responding to the needs of children with disabilities with evidence-based practices.
Recommendation 13
That, given the deep dissatisfaction that people with disabilities, their advocates and families have with internal complaints procedures in schools, state care, and disability service provision that these procedures are not mandatory prior to approaching a statutory body to investigate their complaint now or in the future.
Recommendation 14
That an urgent review of each state’s equivalent of the Evidence Act be undertaken with a view to improving the legal protections for people with a disability. The changes that have taken place in South Australia are a model at minimum.
66
Recommendation 15
Policies in all states cap the amount of time a child with a disability can spend on a bus going to school, to one hour one-way.
Recommendation 16
That Integration Aides are required to have a minimum level of qualification such as a Certificate in disability.
67
Attachments
Attachment 1. Excel Spreadsheet Change.org
Attachment 2A Courtyard Marnebek School
Attachment 2B Courtyards Bulleen Heights School
Attachment 3A Outdoor pen Southern Autistic School
Attachment 3B Outdoor pen Bendigo Special
Developmental School.
Attachment 4. PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies.
Attachment 5. “Safe Room” Bendigo Special Developmental School
Attachment 6. Behaviour Plan Bendigo Special Developmental School
Attachment 7. Timeout Room, Wantirna Heights School
Attachment 8. Map Marnebek School
Attachment 9. Student Code of Conduct, Marnebek School
Attachment 10. DET Restraint Policy
Attachment 11. SSG minutes Wendouree Primary School
Attachment 12. MAT Program Eastern Metropolitan Region
Attachment 13. ANZUK Advertisements for Martial Arts Trained Aide.
Attachment 14. Behaviour Plan Golden Square Primary School
Attachment 14A Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2010
Attachment 14B Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2011
Attachment 14C Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2011/2012
Attachment 15 Letter to Minister Dixon from parents 6 January 2014
Attachment 16 Letter from dated 4 February 2014
Attachment 17 Letter Julie Phillips to , Deputy Regional Director
7 February 2013
68
ABBREVIATIONS
DEECD Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
DET Department of Education and Training
IBAC Independent Broad-based Anticorruption Commission
FBA Functional Behaviour Assessment
MAT Martial Arts Therapy
MSO MAT Support Officer
ODSC Office of the Disability Support Commissioner
OPA Office of the Public Advocate
PASS Principals Association of Special Schools
PECS Picture Exchange Communication System
VE0HRC Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
69
Attachment B
Further Supplementary Submission to the Senate Community Affairs
Committee
Senate Inquiry into the Abuse of People with Disabilities
REPORT ON NEW DET RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES/BEHAVIOUR
GUIDELINES
18 October 2015
Contact:
Julie Phillips
Disability Advocate
1
INDEX
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 3
Improvements in summary………………………………………………………. 3
Deteriorations in summary …………………………………………………….. 3
Improvements …………………………………………………………………….. 4 Certain types of dangerous restraint holds have been banned….. 4 DET have finally recognised the importance of Functional Behaviour Assessments as being effective tools to address Challenging behaviours………………………………………………4
Deterioration…………………………………………………………………………4
Seclusion of students is now formally endorsed by DET…………..4 The seclusion of students is allowed in rooms no matter what they contain, how safe they are, or whether or not they allow for monitoring/observations…………………………….5 General lack of guidance for restraint/seclusion remain, however more flexibility to use restraint/seclusion is given to teachers……………………………………………………….7 Teachers are being encouraged to diagnose the function of challenging behaviours and write intervention plans to effectively address those behaviours………………………………12 The terms “violent”, “aggressive” and “dangerous” are prolifically used throughout the guidelines as supposed to “challenging” behaviours…………………………………………… 21
Other…………………………………………………………………………………22
Funding to support the new policies…………………………………. 22 Miscellaneous in Sufficient Information …………………………….. 23
Summary……………………………………………………………………………..23
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………..25
Attachments………………………………………………………………………….25
2
Introduction
-
In the week of 5 October 2015, the Victorian Department of Education and
Training (“DET”) brought out a suite of policies and guidelines relating to restrictive practices and behaviour support. They can be found at http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/participation/Pages/physical intervention.aspx#link62.
-
The writer has placed some of the sections into Word documents for ease of reference.
-
The guidelines represent online training materials which require teachers, if they wish to obtain a comprehensive understanding of what DET believe should (or in some cases, may) occur in relation to restrictive practices, to switch back and forth between approximately 40 web pages and different websites. The majority of the information provides options rather than mandatory requirements. This is the hallmark of DET policy and procedures, rendering many useful guidelines redundant.
-
The guidelines cover a range of topics. There have been some improvements and some deterioration in the rights of students with disabilities to be free from violence, abuse, neglect and inhumane and degrading treatment.
-
The changes increase the risks of legal action to be taken against individual teachers and Principals. They increase the workload for teachers substantially if they are to fulfil their new duties professionally (putting aside that they are unqualified to undertake the new behaviour analytical tasks they are charged with) and require teachers to become quasi-behaviour analysts, leaving them responsible for the effective mitigation of challenging behaviours.
Improvements in summary
- Improvements include: Certain types of dangerous restraint holds have been banned. DET have finally recognised the importance of Functional Behaviour Assessments as being effective tools in addressing challenging behaviours.
Deterioration in summary
-
Deteriorations include:
Seclusion of students is now formally endorsed by DET. The seclusion of students is allowed in rooms no matter their suitability for that purpose, how safe they are, or whether or not they allow for monitoring/observations. General lack of guidance for restraint/seclusion remains, however there is more flexibility to use restraint/seclusion.
3
Teachers are being encouraged to diagnose the function of challenging behaviours and write behaviour intervention plans to effectively address those behaviours. The terms “violent”, “aggressive” and “dangerous” are prolifically used throughout the guidelines as supposed to “challenging” behaviours.
Improvements
Certain types of dangerous restraint holds have been banned
-
The new Restraint Policy is attached as Attachment A. The previous restraint policy is attached as Attachment B.
-
The new restraint policy contains the following: “Any restraint which covers the student’s mouth or nose, in any way restricts breathing, takes the student to the ground into the prone or supine position, involves the hyperextension of joints, or application of pressure to the neck, chest or joints, must not be used.”
As these restraint holds were being used, their prohibition is welcome.
DET have finally recognised the importance of Functional Behaviour Assessments as being effective tools to address challenging behaviours
- The evidence base around Functional Behaviour Assessments has been available for many years. Functional Behaviour Assessments have not been vigourously promoted as an evidence based response to challenging behaviours by DET (formerly DEECD) until now.
Deterioration
Seclusion of students is now formally endorsed by DET
- Prior to the new restraint policy, while seclusion was commonly used, it was against DET policy (such policy, pursuant to common DET practice, being unwritten). The writer refers to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission “Held Back” Report1 at page 120, which states:
“Although the Restraint of Student Policy is silent on seclusion, DEECD has informed the Commission that use of seclusion is a clear breach of policy.”
- Not only has DET rejected VEOHRC’s advice to prohibit seclusion, it has explicitly now endorsed seclusion as an option. VEOHRC’s position at page 180 is represented below:
1 http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/our-resources-and publications/reports/item/184-held-back-the-experiences-of-students-with-disabilities-in-victorian schools-sep-2012
4
“On the face of it, the Commission cannot see any circumstances where seclusion is a reasonable action in a school environment or where a child’s dignity can be retained in such circumstances.”
- The writer refers to paragraphs 17 and 18 of her first submission to the Committee relating to the Principals Association of Special Schools.
“PASS, in their position paper curiously entitled “PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies” [emphasis added], express teachers’ concerns “regarding the advice from DEECD which infers that having the door “closed” contravenes their Human Rights.“2
In fact, legal advice from the DET Legal Department to schools, according to PASS, indicate “that if a student in time out is unable to remove him/herself of his/her own volition then time out with the door “closed” can be construed as illegal imprisonment in terms of common law.“3”
-
So now we have DET approving an action that its own legal Department has already suggested could constitute illegal imprisonment.
-
The writer submits that the introduction of seclusion as a bona fide strategy to address challenging behaviours is a negligent and dangerous new development which should be vigourously opposed by the community.
The seclusion of students is allowed in rooms no matter what they contain, how safe they are, or whether or not they allow for monitoring/observations.
- Firstly, it should be noted that DET have defined seclusion in a more restricted way then the Australian Psychological Society (Attachment C). The Australian Psychological Society define seclusion as:
Seclusion involves solitary confinement of a person in a room or area (e.g., garden) from which their exit is prevented by a barrier or another person. Seclusion includes situations in which people believe they cannot or should not leave an area without permission.4
DET’s definition leaves out the sentence in bold.
-
If it were not for the fact that DET have now formally embraced and endorsed
seclusion as an appropriate means of responding to challenging behaviours, the following new addition to the new Restraint Policy (p 2) would be welcomed.
“Rooms or areas designed specifically for the purpose of seclusion and which are used solely or primarily for the purpose of seclusion are not permitted in Victorian government schools.”
2 See Attachment 4. PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p4 3 PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p3 4 ‘Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the Need for Restrictive Practices in the Disability Sector’p11 (see writer’s first submission for document)
5
However this not been the case, this now puts children with disabilities exhibiting challenging behaviours at greater risk than they were before.
-
If the community cannot stop DET staff subjecting children with disabilities to
seclusion, and they will be secluding children, (in defiance of best practice and human rights legislation), then rooms “designed specifically for the purpose of seclusion” are exactly where children should be secluded.
-
In order that there is no confusion, the writer submits that seclusion should not be used in Victorian schools. However, if school staff will be subjecting children with disabilities to seclusion then that seclusion should be highly regulated. For the very few cases where people with disabilities are exhibiting such extreme behaviours that seclusion must occur, seclusion when overseen by professionals, is highly controlled.
-
Rooms where people with disabilities are secluded due to challenging behaviours need to be established professionally, including the following considerations as an example:
controlled temperature adequate ventilation window made of strengthened glass video camera for monitoring
Now we have DET formally giving the green light to seclusion, but allowing seclusion in any room, no matter how dangerous.
- Interestingly, not included in the new Restraint Policy, but in another area of the website (‘Responding to Violent and Dangerous Behaviours of Concern’ Attachment D) it is stated that:
Every instance of restraint or seclusion should be visually monitored throughout to ensure appropriateness and safety.
- In the event that the staff member seeking guidance on seclusion moves away from the policy on restraint and seclusion and sees this particular section, they may then be inclined to ask themselves the following questions:
Without a purpose-built seclusion room, how are they going to monitor the student being subjected to seclusion? If they are secluding students whose behaviours are temporarily uncontrollable in a non-purpose-built seclusion room with regular windows, could this not lead to self injury through breaking the glass? If there is no purpose-built seclusion room with video camera monitoring, what is the other alternative to either breaching the policy or putting the students in a potentially dangerous and harmful situation.
-
It should be noted that given the vagueness of DET guidelines, staff actions of
seclusion will easily fall within those guidelines if a child with Autism Spectrum
6
Disorder, for example, is having a “meltdown”. Given meltdowns can include temporary loss of physical and emotional control due to being overwhelmed, to place a child in any room, no matter how unsuitable/dangerous, will most likely cause more harm than was possible before seclusion was endorsed.
-
The following examples of DET staff having subjected students with disabilities to danger through inappropriate seclusion (before seclusion was endorsed) give guidance as to what we can now expect.
-
From paragraph 40 of my first submission to the Senate. Wantirna Heights School admitted in a recent court case that when one of their students demonstrated challenging behaviours they placed him in the classroom bathroom/toilets, at times with the door shut5, but in any event not allowing him to leave. This again highlights the inherent risk associated with an absence of regulation resulting in ignorant staff placing a child who is demonstrate challenging behaviours in a room with hard and sharp surfaces. The stupidity and recklessness of such an action is hard to understand. There was no documentation, and no parental consent sought.
-
From the witness statement6 of the parent of a young student with Autism Spectrum Disorder in relation to Wendouree Primary School.
Throughout 2012, the First Aid Room was used as a seclusion room for xxxx. It had cupboards, shelving, a sink, medicine, supplies, a refrigerator and a filing cabinet in it. Sometimes when xxx was moved to the room, a teacher, Mr xxx, would be called to block the doorway with the filing cabinet so that xxxx could not leave the room or at least believed that he could not leave the room.
- And from the same witness statement but referring to Alfredton Primary School.
The store room had a filing cabinet, shelving and school equipment on the shelving. It had heavy objects, objects with sharp and hard edges and was completely unsafe to place an autistic child who was having a meltdown.
On 20 October 2011, I was called to the school to pick up xxxx. xxx had been called also. I found xxx had been shut in the school storeroom, on his own; shelves and equipment had been overturned and a filing cabinet almost pushed over.
His weighted blanked would be soiled and indeed, he had used it on 27th October to wipe himself after soiling in the store room.
5 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 6 HP obo HR v State of Victoria A34/2013
7
-
As can be seen by the above examples, these are the sorts of experiences of seclusion students with disabilities have been having prior to the recent endorsement of seclusion by DET. It is hard to imagine anything more negligent than secluding a child in a first aid room where there would no doubt be scissors and other sharp instruments.
-
The length of time students have been secluded is clearly unacceptable when they are going to the toilet in the room they are secluded in.
-
The above scenarios would be permissible under the new guidelines. There is no guidance about the maximum period of time a student can be secluded (or much else).
General lack of guidance for restraint/seclusion remain, however more flexibility to use restraint/seclusion
-
The recommendations of VEOHRC around the Education and Training Reform Act 20067, being that the Act should be amended to transfer regulation of restrictive practices to the jurisdiction of the Office of Professional Practice (“OPP”), formerly the Office of the Senior Practitioner, continue to be rejected by DET. Instead, DET continues to rely on Regulation 15, the dangerously broad single sentence that is the overall “get out of jail free” card for any staff member taking almost any action against a child with challenging behaviours.
-
The usual DET catchall descriptions of when a staff member can use restraint or seclusion continue to apply without explicit direction that gives meaningful guidance to staff. For example on the second page of the new “Restraint of Student” policy in the second and third paragraphs, the following sentence provides subjective statements which are unhelpful to staff:
“As with physical restraint, seclusion should only be used when it is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person, as permitted by Regulation 15.
The decision about whether to use physical restraint or seclusion rests with the professional judgement of the staff member/s involved, who will need to take into account both the duty of care to their students, the right to protect themselves from harm and obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter).“ [Emphasis added]
- A reminder of Regulation 15: “A member of staff of a government school may take any reasonable action that is immediately required to restrain a student of the school from acts or behaviour dangerous to the member of staff, the student, or any other person.”
7 “Held Back” p 124
8
-
All guidance returns to Regulation 15, a Regulation so inadequate that Victoria’s VEOHRC recommended DET’s responsibilities for restrictive practices be entirely removed from them.
-
Examples of the subjective interpretations that need to take place from these few paragraphs, but that are repeated a number of times in the new policy/guidelines are below.
“required to protect the safety of the student or any other person….” “restrain a student of the school from acts or behaviour dangerous…” “protect themselves from harm….”
-
As decisions made about restrictive practices are going to rest with the “professional judgement of the staff member”, restraint is virtually unregulated apart from the new banned specific restraint holds.
-
The new guidelines allow a teacher to subject a child to restraint or seclusion on the basis that they may throw a chair at another child and cause serious injury, or at the other end of the spectrum, throw a pencil at them. As long as a teacher can say that their belief was that someone would be harmed, either example applies, bearing in mind that the definition of harm includes “hurt”.
-
DET do not give any examples of what level of harm or hurt they believe warrants restraint and seclusion, leaving the decision entirely up to the teacher.
-
A further loss of protection for students against restraint and seclusion can be seen in other changes to the Restraint of Student policy p2. New changes to the Restraint of Student policy are added in bold. These are under the heading “When Restraint Should Not Be Used” - to respond to:
a student’s refusal to comply with a direction, unless that refusal to comply creates an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
a student leaving the classroom/school without permission, unless that conduct causes an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
verbal threats of harm from a student, except where there is a reasonable belief that the threat will be immediately enacted
property destruction caused by the student unless that destruction is placing any person at immediate risk of harm.
- As can be seen, the additions allow more flexibility to use restraint and seclusion. Staff can act within DET guidelines by stating, for example, the following:
9
a) a student, when they were leaving school, was near a road and may have run out in front of the car;
b) a student said they will hurt another person; c) a student knocks a computer from a desk and a teacher believes another student could get hurt;
- On the other hand, all of the above scenarios could be perfectly safe. a) the student leaving the school could be 16 years old and there is no past evidence that would indicate they would run onto the road;
b) people when they are upset may often threaten to hurt someone or themselves without having the slightest intention of doing so;
c) a student can knock a computer from a desk and there is no risk of harm to another person - other students could be told to leave the room immediately any sign of agitation takes place, as an alternative.
-
There is no guidance as to what level of harm or what level of risk is required for a teacher to use restraint or seclusion.
-
When a staff member has to justify restraint and seclusion of a student, it is easy for them to say that their belief was that a certain outcome may have occurred if they did not restrain or seclude.
-
Further guidelines create more confusion on p1. “School staff may only use physical restraint on the student when it is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person noting that: for physical restraint to be immediately required there should be no less restrictive action that could be taken to avert the danger in the circumstances staff should use the minimum force needed to protect against the danger of harm staff should apply the physical restraint for the minimum duration required and remove it once the danger has passed”
-
Questions that are raised but not answered include the following: What are the “less restrictive actions” that could be taken to avert the danger? What is the “minimum force” needed? With a number of restraint holds now banned, which are acceptable? How do staff know how to restrain students?
-
The previous Restraint Policy under the heading “How to Restrain” (which actually did not at all specify to staff how to restrain) included the following:
Only staff trained in using restraint should use restraint on a student.
10
- This has now been removed. While DET when challenged abandoned this part of the policy anyway, it’s inclusion at least implied that a lack of training was undesirable. From the writer’s first submission to the Committee at Paragraph 50:
“It would be possible, of course, for a government department to interpret the word “should” as “must”. However to ensure there is no misapprehension of how DET define this word, when the Restraint Policy has been challenged regarding the training of staff who restrained a child who had been subjected to repeated restraint in her short school life, Regional Director stated the following:
“I am advised by principal xxxxxxxxx that Ms xxxxxxxx does not have specific training in relation to student restraint and note that such training is not required for teachers in Victoria.”“
-
Despite this, the inclusion of a reference to training implied that this may be a preferred state of affairs. Now we have restraint allowed, certain holds banned, and yet in the blink of an eye untrained staff are expected to think about exactly how they can restrain a student without transgressing the prohibitions, and act within seconds. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is an impossible task and fraught with danger for both staff and students.
-
Further unhelpful “guidance” remains in the new Restraint Policy under the “How to Restrain” section. The policy excerpts are in italics, the writer’s additions underlined.
Staff should ensure the type of restraint used is consistent with a student’s individual needs and circumstances, including:
the age/size of the student. What does this mean? What “types” of restraint should staff be using? What is an appropriate “type” of restraint for a certain age? What is an appropriate “type” of restraint for a certain size?
gender of the student. What does this mean? What is an appropriate “type” of restraint for a female? What is an appropriate “type” of restraint for a male?
any impairment of the student e.g. physical, intellectual, neurological, behavioural, sensory (visual or hearing), or communication. What does this mean? Which disabilities should be paired with which “types” of restraint? What has the student’s communication got to do with what “type” of restraint should be used?
any mental or psychological conditions of the student, including any experience of trauma. What does this mean? Given that restraint and seclusion traumatise students, how are staff meant to be taking into account previous trauma while they are further traumatising them? Which “types” of restraint should be paired with particular “mental or psychological conditions”?
11
any other medical conditions of the student. What does this mean? Which “medical conditions” should be paired with which “types” of restraint? Should some medical conditions mean that restraint or seclusion should not be used? If so, which are they?
the likely response of the student. What does this mean? What other likely response could there be to physical restraint and seclusion but trauma? Which “likely responses” indicate that restraint and seclusion should not be used? Are there some “likely responses” that indicate a specific “type” of restraint? If so, what are those responses and what are those “types” of restraint?
the environment in which the restraint is taking place. What does this mean? How do the staff take into account the environment? Are there some environments which should be paired with certain “types” of restraint? If so, what are the environments and what are those “types” of restraint? Are there some environments which suggest restraint and seclusion should not be used? If so, what are those environments?
-
The guidelines are embarrassing. Worse, they leave all the decision making to staff who have no expertise in this area.
-
It is worth revisiting what can happen to children with disabilities who are
being subjected to restraint and seclusion. The writer refers to a 2009 article entitled “Restraint, Seclusion of Students Attracting New Scrutiny” (Attachment E) referring to restraint and seclusion practices in schools in the USA. Of note particularly, is the report of the death of Jonathan King, the 13 year-old boy who hanged himself while being secluded in a school. Without the ability to observe every minute of a person subjected to seclusion, and when locking a student in a room which may have equipment that is able to be used to harm oneself, seclusion becomes more than traumatic - it becomes life-threatening.
- To highlight the inadequacy of DET restraint and seclusion guidance, a comparison can be made with the 33 page Queensland Government ‘Restrictive Practices for General Disability Services’ document (Attachment
F) , specifically page 19, which sets out the consent pathways including requirement for Tribunal approval for seclusion. While the writer is not suggesting that this procedure contains all the elements of best practice, it highlights once more, the level of protection adults with disabilities in Australia receive. Laws in other states of Australia give similar protection to adults with disabilities.
Teachers are being encouraged to diagnose the function of challenging behaviours and write intervention plans to effectively address those behaviours
12
-
The writer refers to the “Prevention and Early Intervention” document (Attachment G). Clearly, prevention and early intervention are key, and if performed competently and professionally, can ensure that restraint and seclusion are not needed.
-
It is important to note that the document does not actually require any action.
It simply discusses what could occur. The words “could”, “should” and “may” run throughout the document. Therefore adherence to the guidelines can occur by doing little or nothing.
- The document highlights the importance of Student Support Groups which have always been a part of DET guidelines. The section is represented below:
Convene a Student Support Group (SSG)
Convening a SSG will ensure that parents and teaching and wellbeing staff are working in partnership to address behavioural issues. The role of the SSG is to oversee and assist with the development of an Individual Education Plan, which will include when appropriate, a Behaviour Support Plan.
-
The difficulties with this section, are not that anything within it is disadvantageous or inappropriate, in fact quite the opposite. The difficulty is that the DET position is that Student Support Group guidelines do not need to be followed, Individual Education Plans do not need to be in any form or even physically exist, and nor do Behaviour Support Plans (the writer refers to her first submission paragraphs 96-104). Unless DET change their position on this, these supports, while excellent, will remain meaningless.
-
At any time when a parent or advocate attempts to call DET to account in relation to any guideline and its content, such content is quickly disowned. An example of a number of relevant DET guidelines set out above being abandoned can be found in just one letter from DET Regional Director to a parent attempting to hold DET accountable.8
-
In relation to the alleged value of parents, the Student Support Group Guidelines state (and have stated in the past), this:
Parent/guardian/carer(s) play a vital role in the Student Support Group. They have a holistic understanding of the child and provide ongoing involvement in their education. Parent/guardian/ carer(s) are often in the best position to provide information on the effectiveness and practicality of particular strategies and programs. They provide knowledge and experience of previous events that may influence programming decisions. Parent/guardian/carer(s) are able to contribute to the goals and strategies that will support the education of their child, including their transition to further education, training and employment.9
8 Letter to parent 29 January 2015 9 SSG Guidelines 2015 p6
13
When a parent made a complaint about Monash SDS whose Principal unilaterally and deliberately altered the time of Student Support Group meetings to a time they knew that the parent could not attend, said this:
“While it is preferable for parents to be in attendance at all SSG meetings because they can contribute valuable knowledge of the student, where a parent does not or cannot attend SSGs there are other ways that parents can be consulted about adjustments and planning for the educational and social needs of the child. I understand that minutes of SSG meetings were forwarded to you for your input and feedback.”
So while the Student Support Group Guidelines stressed that a parent’s role is “vital”, suddenly, when called to account, the parent’s attendance at the Student Support Group is simply “preferable” and the fact that the Principal changed the times of the meeting, knowing that the parent could not attend (ever again), is endorsed.
- In relation to Individual Education Plans, the same parent brought to the attention of that there were no strategies in her son’s plan, a vital component one would have thought. Particularly as Student Support Group Guidelines state:
To maximise opportunities for students with disabilities to succeed, policy and practice within schools should reflect:
• collaboration between teachers and students,
parent/guardian/carer(s), education and health professionals to develop agreed understandings and responses to a student’s behaviours, needs, communication skills and learning needs
-
curriculum-based Personalised Learning and Support Planning informed by a Student Support Group that set out the student’s short-term and long-term learning goals based on the Australian Curriculum in Victoria (AusVELS), Abilities Based Learning and
Education Support (ABLES) assessments and other relevant
information
• teaching and learning strategies that take account of a
student’s background, experiences, individual personality and
individual goals10 [emphasis added]
had this to say:
The Department’s guidelines are guidelines for use and adaptation by educational settings. At Monash SDS, a special school setting, strategies for teaching the goals identified are included in teachers’ detailed work programs.[Emphasis from ]
10 Student Support Group Guidelines 2015 p4
14
-
Therefore, unless there is a change in DET policy in relation to their policies and guidelines, and this is certainly not heralded in their new documents, then the prevention and early detection sections are unhelpful.
-
However it is the suggestion that staff should be undertaking Functional Behaviour Assessments that should be of most concern to parents and teachers.
Conduct a Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA)
These assessments provide a systematic way to understand why behaviours are occurring, their triggers and antecedents, and the strategies that may be useful in addressing these. FBAs may involve a range of approaches based upon the student’s individual needs, presentation and context.
-
Of concern is the reference to Department of Health And Human Services (DHHS) documents, one of which is entitled “Positive Solutions in Practice: getting it right from the start: the value of good assessment” (Attachment H).
-
Before proceeding it is important to raise the previously mentioned recommendations from VEOHRC, to transfer regulation of restraint to the OPP. It is the Disability Act 2006 that regulates restraint, not the OPP in and of itself. The OPP only has powers pursuant to the Act. Transferring regulation of restraint and seclusion in Victorian schools to the OPP, by changing statute, has not occurred. The OPP, while a hub of information about best practice, has failed to address abuse in disability services, much of it linked with restrictive practices. The OPP, is in fact, DHHS. Therefore the OPP has a conflict of interest. Even taking that into consideration, it is the best placed statutory authority currently in existence to deal with restrictive practices and certainly superior in every way to DET.
-
However even the OPP does not espouse practices and policy that reflect the high level of that which is evident in other countries where qualifications in behaviour analysis are the basic level expected when dealing with challenging behaviours.
-
The DET website takes staff to the OPP Document entitled “Positive Solutions in Practice: Getting it right from the start: The value of good assessment Issue No.3, 2008”. It includes the following on the first page:
While many assessments can only be given by psychologists, functional behavioural assessment (FBA) is one kind of assessment that can be completed by disability support workers, parents and anyone who has received some training in FBA. [emphasis added ]
66. It is difficult to ascertain the evidence behind this claim. Firstly, there is no
indication as to what “some training” might involve, and the qualifications of
15
the person providing that training. While it is possible that teachers may be able to learn some basic tenets behind FBAs, it should only be assumed that teachers (putting aside their willingness, ability and time to undertake an FBA) would only be able to, or should only attempt to, address mild behaviours. Severe challenging behaviour and long stand challenging behaviours are required to be addressed by highly qualified and trained people.
-
It is unfortunate that in this information sheet the OPP include the case study
of a woman named “Rose” on page 1 whose behaviour is to lie down in the middle of the road and wait for oncoming traffic. In other words, Rose has a behaviour that puts her life at risk and the OPP are suggesting that anyone who has received “some training” should be able to begin a behaviour analytical process to address this behaviour.
- The example stretches incredulity for the simple fact that “Rose” is able to articulate the function of her behaviour and tells her carers exactly what the function is, resulting in an FBA being completely unnecessary (p1).
When asked why Rose put herself and others at risk by lying on the road in front of oncoming traffic “she said: “To get out of a situation I don’t want to be in”.
-
The reason an FBA is required is because the person with a disability can’t communicate what the function of their behaviour is, and this is particularly the case for children.
-
At the very end of the document, under the heading “some cautionary notes” the statement below is included:
An FBA that is done properly can lead to improvements in the quality of life for people with a disability who show behaviours of concern.3 A good FBA is based on careful observation, not opinion or intuition. One solution is to obtain training in FBA.[emphasis added]
-
It is hard to understand what the other solutions would be. -
At the bottom of the document, almost as an afterthought, the OPP states: A referral to an experienced behaviour support practitioner is recommended if additional support is required in completing an FBA.
-
There is no indication as to what an “experienced behaviour support practitioner” actually is, and it is not clear if the individual being encouraged to complete the FBA will know if they need additional support.
-
The encouragement of unqualified people to undertake FBAs, is in the writer’s opinion, reckless. Students in schools can and do exhibit challenging behaviours such as self injury, serious injury to others and absconding behaviours that put them at risk. As the OPP and many respected organisations would note, an FBA that is “done properly” has a high success
16
rate. To put teachers in a position where they are responsible for analysing behaviours and writing what in effect is a treatment plan for behaviours leaves them open to legal action and more importantly makes them responsible for an ineffective treatment/behaviour plan which could result in self injury, injury to others or death as included in the case study from the OPP.
-
It is important to revisit the qualifications of teachers. The writer quotes from
her substantive submission to the Committee at paragraph 7:
Special Schools, despite the clear limitations of teacher training (and most teachers in special schools do not have special education training), believe their staff have the expertise to undertake Functional Behaviour Assessments, even without training from a professional whose expertise is behaviour analysis.11 As a result, adults who have not even mastered the skills to teach basic subjects like English 12, and who are required to have some of the lowest ATAR scores to enter university 13 are responsible for, and claiming to be experts in, children with complex disabilities and managing challenging behaviours.
-
It is clear that putting the OPP and its concerning encouragement of
unqualified people undertaking FBAs aside, DET are completely unaware of what sort of qualifications are required to undertake an FBA.
Case Study 1.
Parents in North-West Victoria Region requested an FBA for their daughter who had been subjected to restraint at a mainstream primary school. North West Victoria Regional Office recommended a “behaviour analyst” who performed a Functional Behaviour Assessment. The “behaviour analyst” refused to answer questions about the report from both the child’s advocate and their parents. When asked to provide qualifications, the “behaviour analyst” put forward a Bachelor of Arts in Behavioural Science. When contacted, the relevant University said this:
11 Marnebek School, Cranbourne, Victoria evidence given at VCAT 2012 HL v State of Victoria &
Karen Dauncey A64/2013
12 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65-76 Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(1), 3-8 Future directions in literacy: International conversations 2007. University of Sydney From New Directions to Action:World class teaching and school leadership Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2013).
Issues paper - Education and Training Workforce: Schools Workforce Study Australian Government
Productivity Commission. (2011). 13 “The average ATAR (tertiary entrance rank) for education courses in Victoria was 61.9 this year, dropping as low as 40.25. This compares to an ATAR of 98.95 for biomedicine at Melbourne University and 98 for law at Monash University”.Topsfield, J. (2014). Graduate teachers not up to scratch: State government The Age, 10/7/2014 Teacher quality: getting it right. Voice, 9(3). Dinham, S. (2013). http://www.voice.unimelb.edu.au/volume-9/number-3/teacher-quality-getting-it-right
17
“Nothing in the degree would qualify a person to do functional behavioral assessment and analysis.”
Not only had DET not bothered to even check if the person they were contracting was capable of doing the job, but the parents have been advised that he is training DET staff in the region. 2015
-
It is perhaps a reflection on the status of people with disabilities in Australia,
that organisations such as DET indicate that in their view, anyone, no matter how unqualified and lacking in expertise, can be responsible for the mitigation of behaviours that they claim are “violent and aggressive”, often culminating in violence, restraint and seclusion responses from staff.
- The challenge for schools, however, even if they did decide that the task was beyond them, is that they have insufficient resources to bring in the expertise they need. The type of multidisciplinary team that should be having input into the addressing of complex and challenging behaviours is already restricted as set out by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission main findings:
Despite considerable investment by the Victorian Government, there continues to be significant unmet need for support services for students with disabilities, including integration aides, occupational therapists, speech therapists, other specialist staff and assistive technology. If these are not provided when required, students with disabilities cannot participate effectively in education.14
-
There has been no announcement of extra funding being provided to schools specifically to assist them in obtaining Functional Behaviour Assessments and the subsequent developing, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of a Behaviour Plan, to the writer’s knowledge. Optional on line training packages are not going to substitute expert evidence-based practice from appropriately qualified personnel.
-
In terms of the principles and practices regarding restraint, seclusion and behaviour assessment/analysis, the writer submits that it will assist the Committee to have an understanding of other policies and practices of professional organisations. A small sample is attached. Two of these organisations are based in the USA, which is decades ahead of Australia (as are other countries), in this area. However the Australian Psychological Society also indicates that a high level of professionalism and expertise is required to address challenging behaviours. All emphasis added by the writer.
14 Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools 2012 p 60
18
- Association for Behaviour Analysis International, Position Statement on Restraint and Seclusion (Attachment I).15
Although many persons with severe behavior problems can be effectively treated without the use of any restrictive interventions, restraint may be necessary on some rare occasions with meticulous clinical oversight and controls. In addition, a carefully planned and monitored use of time-out from reinforcement can be acceptable under restricted circumstances. Seclusion is sometimes necessary or needed, but behavior analysts would support only the most highly monitored and ethical practices associated with such use, to be detailed below.p103
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The welfare of the individual served is the highest priority. Clinical decisions should be made based on the professional judgment of a duly formed treatment team that demonstrates knowledge of the broad research base and best practice. Included in this process are the individuals being served and their legal guardians. The team should be informed by the research literature, and should determine that any procedure used is in that person’s best interests.
We support the use of a planned time-out treatment or safety intervention that conforms to evidence-based research, is part of a comprehensive treatment or safety plan that meets the standards of informed consent by the individual served or his or her legal guardian, and is evaluated on an ongoing basis via the use of contemporaneously collected objective data.p104
Oversights and monitoring restraint or seclusion (not including brief time-out) for both treatment and emergency situations should be made available for professional review consistent with prevailing practices. The behavior analyst is responsible for ensuring that any plan involving restraint or seclusion conforms to the highest standards of effective and humane treatment, and the behaviour analyst is responsible for continued oversight and quality assurance. These procedures should be implemented only by staff who are fully trained in their use, receive regular in service training, demonstrate competency using objective measures of performance, and are closely supervised by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst or a similarly trained professional.
The use of restraint or seclusion should be monitored on a continuous basis using reliable and valid data collection that permits objective evaluation of its effects.p106
15 Since 1974, the Association for Behaviour Analysis International has been the primary membership application organisation for those interested in philosophy, science, application and teaching of behaviour analysis.
19
- From the Association of Professional Behaviour Analysts, “Position Statement on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion As Interventions for
Dangerous and Destructive Behaviours: Supporting Research and Practice
Guidelines“ (Attachment J):
Many investigations of the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion have revealed that individuals implementing such procedures were inadequately or inappropriately trained, and that their use of those procedures was not consistent with research and ethical guidelines on the safe and effective use of restraint and seclusion. Additionally, the procedures were not part of an intervention plan that was based on a functional assessment of the dangerous behaviors conducted by a qualified behavior analyst.p4
It is APBA’s position that restraint and seclusion procedures should never be implemented in isolation, but should only be used as components of properly designed and approved behavior intervention plans that emphasize state-of-the-art strategies for reinforcing adaptive skills and preventing problem behavior. They should only be implemented by individuals who are trained in behavioral intervention and in the use of the specific restraint or seclusion procedures included in the plan, and who are supervised by a behavior analyst with experience in treating dangerous behaviors.p4
The National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Destructive
Behavior (NIH, 1989) concluded that “Behavior reduction procedures should be selected for their rapid effectiveness only if the exigencies of the clinical situation require such restrictive interventions and only after appropriate review. These interventions should only be used in the context of a comprehensive and individualized behavior enhancement treatment package.”p14
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Support (PBIS), U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs April 2009 statement on “Seclusion and Restraint Use in School‐wide Positive Behavior Supports” noted that “Seclusion and restraint should only be implemented (a) as safety measures (b) within a comprehensive behavior support plan, (c) by highly trained personnel, and (d) with public, accurate, and continuous data related to (1) fidelity of implementation and (2) impact on behavioral outcomes (both increasing desired and decreasing problem behaviors).”p15
- “Evidence-based Guidelines To Reduce the Need for Restrictive Practices in the Disability Sector” Australian Psychological Society(Attachment C).
20
The overuse of ineffective seclusion or restraint strategies with children and adolescents is common even with those who do not respond to these methods and the challenging behaviour perpetuates (Samuels, 2009). P27
From a behavioural perspective, restraint and seclusion is used as a behaviour reduction method or punishment. However, in practice, teachers and support workers may use such methods for other purposes such as calming young people, removing them from a setting, or providing them with time to self-reflect or problem solve. There is, however, little evidence to support the effectiveness of these practices for those purposes P27
Behaviours of concern are often complex. Interdisciplinary collaboration can provide a richer understanding of the unmet needs that underlie these behaviours. Consequently, an interdisciplinary team consisting of a psychologist and one or more professionals from speech pathology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychiatry or general practice can lead to a more effective approach in developing appropriate interventions. Each of these professionals brings specific expertise to the task of supporting a person who has complex needs.P17
Research evidence indicates that psychological interventions can be used to effectively reduce the frequency and intensity of challenging behaviours when those interventions are individualised and carers know how to implement them. Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that behavioural interventions are effective in reducing challenging behaviours exhibited by children and adolescents (Harvey, Boer, Meyer, & Evans, 2009), individuals diagnosed with mild mental retardation (Didden, Korzilius, van Oorsouw, & Sturmey, 2006), and individuals diagnosed with autism (Campbell, 2003).p19
-
It is clear from the language used above that the context of addressing
challenging behaviours in schools in Victoria is one that reflects a lack of leadership, scientific rigour and high-level practice.
-
It should be noted from the DET Prevention and Early Intervention document
discussed above, that Behaviour Support Plans are also mentioned. The writer refers to her substantive submission at paragraphs 96 – 104 which submits evidence that DET endorse behaviour plans that are unable to be actually seen because they are “unwritten”. This practice continues to be endorsed by DET on receipt of parent complaint.
The terms “violent”, “aggressive” and “dangerous” are prolifically used throughout the guidelines as supposed to “challenging” behaviours.
- Language is everything. The writer submits that the reason restrictive practices and violence are used so prolifically in Victorian schools against students with disabilities is that those with challenging behaviours/behaviours
21
of concern are viewed as being able to control their behaviours, and of being deliberately violent.
-
The writer refers to her substantive submission at paragraph 39 quoting the Marnebek School Code of Conduct which lists restraint and seclusion as “consequences” for inappropriate behaviour. This reflects a punishment consequence model which not only has no evidence-base behind it, but is known to increase challenging behaviours.
-
Until the culture at DET changes and children with complex behaviours are viewed less as the problem and more as victims of their environment, lack of services and ignorant treatment by others, it is unlikely that their situation will improve.
Other
Funding to support the new policies
- To the writer’s knowledge, there has been no funding earmarked to support teachers who may (or may not) decide to follow some of these policies. Given the content of the policies, any teacher expected to enact behavioural responses should receive compulsory training/information on the following:
how to collect data on behaviours in order that if required, a trained person can obtain useful information from that data; the risks of death and injury when locking children in non-purpose built seclusion rooms; positive behaviour support/behaviour analysis - the evidence supporting mitigation/extinguishment of challenging behaviours; how to contact people who are qualified to undertake FBAs; the risk of legal action against them if they decide to undertake FBAs of students with severe challenging behaviours; undertaking FBAs and the ethics behind doing so when insufficiently trained; writing Behaviour Plans.
- The above is just an example and is a non-exhaustive list.
- In the writer’s view, funding would also be required, as an example, for the following:
Engagement of a Board Certified Behaviour Analyst to undertake a FBA; The results of the FBA may require other expert disciplines to become involved, for example a Speech Pathologist expert in Augmentative and Alternative Medication to undertake a communication assessment and develop, monitor and evaluate a communication plan;
22
the staff member monitoring the behaviour plan may need to be supervised for an extensive period until the behaviours are mitigated/extinguished.
- Unless funds are provided to schools and set aside for the above purposes, schools will continue to be in the predicament where they are stretched for funding and, violence, restraint and seclusion will continue to be the easiest and cheapest options in response to behaviours of concern. Online optional information/training in these areas is inadequate to competently undertake the complex tasks now presented to teachers.
Miscellaneous insufficient information
-
This is a problem throughout the website. SAs an example. Under “Responding to Violent and Dangerous Student Behaviours of Concern“ (Attachment D), “Legal Obligations”, DET simply list a number of laws but do not give guidance to teachers as to how they can remain within the law in relation to responding to “violent and dangerous” behaviours.
-
Under “Disability Discrimination Obligations” DET simply list the three antidiscrimination laws that apply and give three examples of discriminatory conduct that have nothing to do with challenging behaviours. Therefore teachers remain none the wiser as to what adjustments are reasonable to put in place in response to “violent and dangerous” behaviours that assist them to remain within the confines of the law.
-
There are certainly other documents of relevance to challenging behaviours that are flawed, for example the Disciplinary Measures section refers to suspension but not to the research around how ineffective it is, however these guidelines are less on point for the Committee, than the guidelines mentioned above.
-
There are numerous references throughout the many documents that constitute the new guidelines to “evidence-based strategies” without an explanation as to what such evidence-based strategies actually are.
-
The writer does not claim to have read all of the numerous pages in the new DET behavioural “suite”, but only those that she believes are of most relevance to the Inquiry. However it should be noted again that there is a high correlation between inexpertly addressed challenging behaviours, restrictive practices, and violence, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities. Therefore the practices, policies and procedures of organisations providing educational services to students with disabilities must be taken into consideration when considering this grave issue.
SUMMARY
- To the extent that the new policies and procedures are compulsory, overall the writer submits there is now a reduction in protections for students with
23
disabilities in Victorian schools. While a number of dangerous physical restraints are banned, teachers continue to be expected to restrain but are not advised as to how to do so. The introduction of seclusion as being acceptable without mandatory best practice guidelines should be viewed as a threat to the safety of students with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviours in government schools.
-
As is the case with most DET policy documents, procedures and guidelines, it seems that bar the examples directly above, the rest of the policy/practice documents are either so vague as to be unable to be competently followed, or optional.
-
Teachers are now being encouraged to undertake tasks far beyond their responsibilities and expertise. If they do undertake these tasks, they are professionally and ethically compromised.
-
Both DET staff and students continue to be at risk. 24
Abbreviations
DEECD Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
DET Department of Education and Training (formally Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development)
DHHS Department of Health And Human Services
FBA Functional Behaviour Assessment
OPP Office of Professional Practice
PASS Principals Association of Special Schools
VEOHRC Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
Attachments
Attachment A DET Restraint Policy October 2015
Attachment B DET Restraint Policy 2012-September 2015
Attachment C Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the Need for Restrictive
Practices in the Disability Sector Australian Psychological
Society 2011
Attachment D DET Responding to Violent and Dangerous Behaviours of
Concern
Attachment E Restraint, Seclusion of Students Attracting New Scrutiny 2009,
Cristina Samuels
Attachment F Restrictive Practices for General Disability Services
Attachment G DET Prevention and Early Intervention
Attachment H “ Positive Solutions in Practice: Getting It Right from the Start: the Value of Good Assessment“
Attachment I Association for Behaviour Analysis International, Position
Statement on Restraint and Seclusion
Attachment J Association of Professional Behaviour Analysts, “Position Statement on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion As Interventions for Dangerous and Destructive Behaviours:
Supporting Research and Practice Guidelines
25
Attachment D
INVESTIGATION INTO BENDIGO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENTAL SCHOOL
Reluctance of Minister Merlino to conduct an investigation
On 24 May 2015, Disability Advocate Julie Phillips wrote to Minister Merlino
requesting an urgent investigation into Bendigo SDS. Numerous attachments and evidence of long-standing reports of caging children, restraint and seclusion were attached (20 attachments).
On 5 June 2015 Ms Phillips again emailed Minister Merlino advising him of a deterioration in treatment of children and families at the school, and requested a response to the original letter. Minister Merlino claimed not to have received the covering letter - only the attachments. Despite receiving the attachments, his office had not contacted Ms Phillips to enquire as to why they were being sent.
On 2 July 2015, Ms Phillips again emailed Minister Merlino referring to her letters dated 24 May 2015 and 5 June 2015 expressed concern that there had been no response.
On 6 July 2015, Minister Merlino responded to Ms Phillips and advised he was making enquiries.
Only 16 July 2015 Ms Phillips contacted Minister Merlino questioning why no action had occurred and stated the importance of the situation.
On 18 August 2015, Ms Phillips contacted Minister Merlino and advised that there had been no contact. She advised Minister Merlino that she had attempted over a number of months to engage constructively with him, and if he did not act she would be publicly releasing numerous documents in relation to Bendigo SDS and DET.
On 5 September 2015, Ms Phillips contacted Acting Deputy Secretary
stating that two months previous, Minister Merlino had advised that would contact her and she had heard nothing. Ms Phillips suggested a lawyer and ex Human Rights Commissioner to undertake the investigation into Bendigo SDS.
On 9 September 2015, Acting Deputy Secretary , presumably under instruction from Minister Merlino, after three months of sustained pressure, agrees that there will be an investigation.
How DET ensured that the least amount of people possible would contribute to the inquiry
In her letter to Minister Merlino dated 24 May 2015, Ms Phillips requested that any investigation reported directly to the Ministry and not DET. The reasons given were:
DET had been advised in writing since the end of 2010 that cages were being used at Bendigo SDS and had not even responded to the informant DET had been advised in writing since the end of 2010 that inhumane and degrading practices were in place at Bendigo SDS and had not even responded to the informant The current Regional Director had lost confidence amongst many parents in the region and had endorsed the use of any restrictive practices reported to her in the last few years.
Former Deputy Secretary had been advised of numerous
criminal acts and restraint and seclusion at Marnebek School and had refused an independent inquiry.
Deputy Secretaries and had been advised of
restraint and seclusion in Ballarat schools and had failed to respond. Current senior staff at DET had failed to prohibit seclusion despite the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Public Advocate recommending it do so.
Former Deputy Secretary had engaged in victimisation of
Ms Phillips. The DET Legal Department had been involved in covering up inhumane and degrading treatment of students with disabilities in Victorian schools for years.
Request refused - investigation allocated to DET itself. Not only is it allocated to DET, but it is allocated to the actual Region which had previously ignored the allegations of abuse – North West Region.
On 6 September 2015, Ms Phillips contacted Minister Merlino and asked him what protections he would give those contributing to the inquiry. Specifically: How he would protect parents and their children from further victimisation. How he would protect present and past Bendigo SDS teachers who decided they wished to be included in the inquiry
On 24 September 2015, Ms Phillips wrote to the chosen investigators and asked: If current staff were going to be able to provide information confidentially, as unless they knew that this was the case, they would not contribute to the inquiry. If parents of current students were going to be able to provide information confidentially. If others who wish to contribute to the inquiry could have their names withheld from DET staff due to current personal attacks by supporters of Bendigo SDS through social media.
On 29 September 2015, the investigator wrote confirming that all witnesses would be given the option to put their name to their statement and remain anonymous. They confirmed that even anonymous witnesses could make allegations that would be put to an individual for a response.
On 29 October 2015, the Acting Deputy Regional Director emailed staff to invite them to participate in the investigation. In his email he does not offer confidentiality.
October 2015 – DET changes investigators. The former investigators already have an initial list of the people who wish to give evidence to the investigation. Rather than direct the former investigators to pass the list on directly to the new investigators, DET at the regional level collect the list of names in direct breach of the confidentiality and anonymity they had promised individuals. individually contacted each contributor which included current DET employees and parents. Contributors are shocked at the breach and discussions in the community ensue about the fact that there is no confidentiality and anonymity in the investigation.
Ms Phillips on 15 November 2015, emailed Deputy Secretary and Lawyers to advise that all names of those contributing to the investigation to date have been given to the very region that has known about allegations of abuse at Bendigo SDS and failed to act. She advised them that the promises made about how the investigation would be conducted confidentiality had been broken, and confidentiality and anonymity has been breached. Ms Phillips requested information as to how those people are going to be protected. The information is never provided.
On 16 November 2015, a member of the public requested that be removed from any involvement in the investigation. Request refused.
On 29 November 2015, Ms Phillips again emailed Deputy Secretary about the breach of confidentiality in leaking of names to DET. She confirms that: contributors to the investigation were guaranteed their contributions could be anonymous and confidential the fact that the leaking of the names was directly to Region where teachers were directly employed was worse than if their names have been provided without their permission to Head Office the former investigators could have contacted each participant and provided their names to the new investigators but they were not directed to do so by
DET
the investigation had now lost credibility and lost numerous possible contributors who now knew that the they would not be protected.
On 6 December 2015, Ms Phillips email Minister Merlino and stated that the investigation was corrupt and those that had volunteered to be involved in the investigation had been shocked and betrayed when they found their names had been given to DET. Ms Phillips confirmed that if contributors had been advised that their names were going to be provided to DET some of them would have withdrawn, but they were not given that option. Ms Phillips advised Minister Merlino that the provision of the names to the same staff member supporting accused Bendigo SDS staff was a measure that in her opinion, was designed to frighten those who had not yet made up their mind about giving evidence. She stated that the only reason people were persevering with the investigation was in order that they could take the conduct of the investigation to the Ombudsman and Independent Broad-Based Anticorruption Commission. Ms Phillips advised Mr Merlino that many contributors already understood that there would be no findings against the Principal or the region.
Towards the end of 2015, the complainants were advised that their allegations would now be put to those they were complaining about and “that this process would mean that they would be identified to the respondents as the relevant complainant in respect of the allegations.” ( report dated 18 March 2016 p2 para 8). This was despite the complainants previously being told they could make anonymous and confidential complaints. More complainants withdrew. Current teachers withdrew.
In summary, the conduct of the investigation process was designed to ensure that all contributors knew that their details would be provided to DET and no teachers would be able to contribute without their employer being aware. All promises of confidentiality, a farce.
How DET restricted the number of allegations that could be investigated.
investigated 43 allegations and five lines of enquiry ( Report p 3 para 12).
DET restricted the number of allegations made by ensuring that the minimum amount of people possible would contribute to the inquiry (see directly above).
DET restricted the number of allegations made by tailoring the terms of reference to be so narrow as to cut out individual complaints of abuse. The Terms of Reference were as follows:
-
to determine whether there is some risk of danger to students attending the school; and
-
to identify whether the school’s operations and organisational culture creates a risk of inappropriate treatment of students attending Bendigo Special Developmental School.
Despite confirming that past abuses would be looked at, many of them were not. On 18 December 2015, Deputy Secretary confirmed in writing that the investigation would necessarily involve investigations of past practices at the school. At least three people out of the few who were left, made formal complaints of cages being in classrooms for many years and evidence was provided that they were used for behaviour management. Evidence provided included meeting minutes, reports to region and eyewitness reports. At least four people out of the few who were left made complaints that external lockable pens were used to lock students in for the purposes of behaviour management. chose not to investigate.
Despite eyewitness accounts of abusive practices, many of them were not investigated, despite being reported to . There was no explanation as to why.
Numerous allegations against Bendigo SDS provided to Minister Merlino and Lawyers that were not investigated. Minister Merlino holds a number of documents substantiating some of these allegations.
- Some students were consistently subjected to restraint including prone restraint.
-
Multiple students were locked up for significant periods of time from 2007 onwards.
-
There were numerous cages in classrooms, made out of pool fence and fitted with locks.
-
Some children spent 50% of their time in a cage in the classroom.
-
External pens were locked.
-
A student teacher made a complaint to the Department of Education in relation to the locking up of children in inhumane structures at Bendigo SDS.
-
At least two students were tied to chairs.
-
One child was restrained in a pusher and was strapped when travelling into a vehicle in something akin to a straitjacket.
-
Students would be “dropped” to the ground by teaching staff kneeing them in the back of the leg.
The allegations above only constitute part of one person’s allegations. Multiple other allegations placed by persons who withdrew from the investigation once they knew their name would be given to the DET included:
-
The multiple use of pressure points against students by staff after staff being trained in pressure points.
-
Staff member grabbing a student around the throat and throwing him out of the building, observed by the Principal.
-
Staff member throwing a shoe at a student.
-
Staff members sitting on children pulling their arms behind their backs.
-
Staff member bragging how easily she can “drop” students.
-
Staff members “marching” students so their feet barely touched the ground.
-
Multiple seclusion of children in locked areas.
-
Staff member slapping a child around the head.
-
Victimisation of staff who complain.
-
Fraud.
-
Bruising on children. Allegations from others who continued with the investigation but do not have their allegations investigated included:
-
repeated locking in pens of students in response to behaviours of concern; and
-
aversive practices. Minister Merlino has failed to respond to allegations from Ms Phillips of:
Victimisation by senior personnel at DET Covering up of abuse by senior personnel at DET Some of the practices above.
Results of investigation
From the limited number of allegations that made it through to the investigation, allegations of cages and seclusion rooms were found to be substantiated. Allegations that were found to be unsubstantiated were those that evidence did not
support, or there was insufficient evidence to support. Therefore, many unsubstantiated allegations simply relied on one person’s word against another person therefore it was impossible to find either way. “Eleven of the 20 allegations
against were not substantiated.” Report p6 para 19 b. Other
allegations were substantiated or partially substantiated.
Bendigo SDS, Minister Merlino, Secretary Gill Callister and the Deputy
Secretary endorsement of violence and restrictive practices against children with disabilities
We can only assume that the use of cages in classrooms and locked seclusion areas, no matter how barbaric, have all been endorsed by the above personnel given that public statements on the matter. DET staff have convinced that such practices are completely appropriate and reasonable. Despite the Federal Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee labelling such restrictive practices, including seclusion of distressed students with disabilities a “national shame” 4.141 p115 in their 2015 report on the abuse of people with disabilities1, Victorian DET staff up to and including the Minister indicate their belief that that such practices are completely appropriate.
The “Safe Room” at Bendigo SDS was found so horrific by the Senate Committee that they included its photograph in their 2015 report (p 104). DET are completely comfortable with its use as their glowing testimonies to Bendigo SDS reveal.
Bendigo SDS justifies that current cages in classrooms are to put children who have
seizures in, so visually impaired students do not trip over them. There is no
therapeutic evidence that suggests this is acceptable in any manner, and in fact the evidence is that restraint and seclusion can cause injury and death. Given DET endorsement of the position, parents and advocates can only assume that every special school and special developmental school with children who have epilepsy may be using this technique and have cages in their classrooms.
Coincidentally, after human rights organisations made formal recommendations to prohibit seclusion, Minister Merlino has authorised the opposite. In October 2015, DET endorsed seclusion as a behaviour management tool. Just in time for the findings of the investigation.
Ms Phillips advised DET that if it didn’t deal with these allegations in an honest, and transparent manner, she would. The documents that indicate violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation will be released to the public.
1 “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” November 2015
Attachment E
»
Attachment F
Program for Students with Disabilities – Autism Spectrum Disorder
Supplementary Guidelines for Speech Pathologists – Pragmatic Language
ASD CRITERIONE N BB
A score of two or more standard deviations below the mean for the student’s age in expressive and receptive language skills.
There are a small number of students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) whose
functional oral language skills are in the ‘severe language disorder’ range, but whose
performance on a standardised test of oral language does not adequately reflect the extent of their difficulties.
For these students, an argument may be made that, although they do not technically meet the above eligibility criterion based on their test scores alone, they functionally demonstrate expressive and receptive skills in this severe range. When the language skills of these students are considered in the context of the classroom, they may therefore be considered to meet the language requirement.
All students with an ASD (and some students without an ASD) will demonstrate some degree of pragmatic language difficulty. In order to meet the language eligibility criterion of the Autism Spectrum Disorder category of the Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD), the
student’s functional or pragmatic language deficit must impact on their expressive and
receptive language abilities to the extent that they demonstrate the equivalent of a ‘severe language disorder’ in the context of the classroom. It should be noted that a pragmatic language disorder alone is not sufficient to meet the language criterion; it is the impact of this
disorder on the student’s expressive and receptive language abilities which must be
demonstrated.
Because functional or pragmatic language competence is a dynamic, context-dependent set of
skills and abilities, it can be difficult to quantify. Therefore an assessment of the student’s
pragmatic language difficulties should contain a number of elements. This could include:
-
Pragmatic Profile/Checklist e.g. CELF-4 Pragmatic Profile
-
Standardised assessment e.g. Test Of Pragmatic Language (TOPL)
-
Classroom observation
-
Interviews with parents/teachers All reports must contain:
-
Discussion/analysis/synthesis of information gathered to demonstrate the functional impact of the student’s Pragmatic/Severe Language Disorder, particularly in the school context.
Test/profile scores, information from interviews and observations provide the raw data which contribute to the profile of the student’s abilities. Analysis and discussion of these data is essential to demonstrate:
- the extent of the student’s pragmatic difficulties,
- the severity of these difficulties in comparison with age peers,
- how these difficulties impact on the student’s expressive and receptive language skills,
- and how the severity of this functional language disorder affects the student’s ability to access the learning of the classroom.
In order to meet the language eligibility criterion, there must be evidence for, and a cohesive case presented that, in the context of the classroom, the student’s expressive and receptive oral language skills are functionally within the ‘severe language disorder’ range.
ASD Supplementary Guidelines for Speech Pathologists – Pragmatic Language 17.09.2009
Attachment G
Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Reference Committees
Current Levels of Access and Attainment for Students with Disability in the School System, and the Impact on Students and Families
Associated with Inadequate Levels of Support
29 August 2015
Contact:
Julie Phillips
Disability Advocate
1
Index
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….3
A. SPEECH PATHOLOGY/LANGUAGE SUPPORT …………………………..5 Students with Language Disorders……………………………………… 5
Cuts in Funding for Students with Language Disorders…………….. 6
The approach of special schools to speech pathology……………….8
B. FUNDING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES………………………….11 C. INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS/STUDENT SUPPORT GROUPS…….14 D. PSYCHOLOGY/BEHAVIOUR SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS ……………………………….. 18
The effect of restrictive practices on educational achievement ……… 18
Seclusion…………………………………………………………………………20
Examples of Seclusion used by DET………………………………………. 22
Restraint………………………………………………………………………….25
Examples of restraint used by DET…………………………………………. 29
The result of the refusal by DET to use evidence-based
psychological behaviour interventions to respond to challenging
behaviours…………………………………………………………………….. 31
Injury and death as a result of restraint and seclusion …………………31
Positive Behaviour Support………………………………………………… 32
Examples of behaviour plans………………………………………….. ….. 36
Functional Behaviour Assessment………………………………………… 39
Rejection by DET of evidence-based practice…………………………… 41
E. SUSPENSIONS/EXPULSIONS……………………………………………….. 43 F. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT…………………………………………. 43
G . BULLYING………………………………………………………………………..43
H. SCHOOL BUSES………………………………………………………………..45 I. COMPLAINT PROCESSES ………………………………………………….. 46 J. BEST PRACTICE/EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING APPROACHES …….50 K. IMPACT………………………………………………………………………….. 51
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………….. 53
ATTACHMENTS……………………………………………………………………..54
ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………….. 55
2
Introduction/Summary
I write as a Disability Advocate who has been working in the disability sector since
- Since 2000 I have been assisting people with disabilities through general advocacy, by assisting them to make complaints of discrimination, and supporting law firms who require assistance to work effectively in this area.
I have assisted parents in the making of approximately 40 legal complaints of disability discrimination against the Victorian Department of Education and Training (“DET”). Most of these have settled. In terms of non-legal complaints in relation to education, the number of complaints would be in the hundreds.
My history includes working for disability service providers at a grassroots and senior management level, and involvement on numerous Boards in the disability sector, current today. The majority of my work is voluntary.
In the last 10 years, 80% of the clients who approach me for assistance, do so with concerns about the education and treatment of children and young people with disabilities in schools.
I would estimate that since 2006 I have been approached by several hundred parents and been provided with thousands of documents relating to their family members and their school experiences.
It was only in July this year that newly appointed DET Secretary of DET, Ms Gill Callister made a commitment to appoint an “independent expert” to lead a wide ranging review into DET in the wake of ongoing corruption enquiries. It should be recognised that this will take a significant length of time, and in the meantime many of the same senior personnel remain.
However of greater concern is the letter dated 27 July 2015 Ms Callister provided to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee in response to submissions made regarding the abuse of students with disabilities in schools, which can be found on http://www.aph.gov.au/ParliamentaryBusiness/Committees/Senate/CommunityAffairs/Violenceabuseneglect/Submissions. Much of the information that Ms Callister provided the Senate Committee was misleading, as can be indicated in various sections of this submission.
I provide the personal information below either as a result of it being public information, and/or with the permission of the families involved.
There are two integral aspects of school life that we should expect children to be able to access. One is academic achievement, and the other is socialisation. Underpinning both of these is the right to a safe and nurturing environment. When children are being traumatised by their very attendance at school, they cannot learn. Therefore the recent Senate Inquiry into Violence Abuse and Neglect of People with Disabilities in Institutions should be seen as a companion inquiry in relation to reports of abuse against children with disabilities in schools.
3
The right to an education should not need to be fought for by parents. Parents should not need to take legal action against government to obtain speech pathology, have meaningful educational plans, for the right to attend school full time, or to go on a camp.
There is something very wrong about a government department responsible for the education of vulnerable and marginalised Australians, that forces parents to fight to the point of exhaustion to obtain something which is a right - an education for their child.
On behalf of the parents that I have had the honour of working with in the last 10 years, I encourage the Senate to do whatever it can with the information it receives to improve the lives of all Australians with a disability - by making whatever changes are required to ensure that they can access an education, and by doing so, have the same levels of participation in Australian society that others do.
4
A. SPEECH PATHOLOGY/LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Students with Language Disorders
-
For the purposes of this paper, individuals described as having language impairments/language disorders/language difficulties will all be referred to as having “language disorders”.
-
In 2012, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
(“VEOHRC”) found that “Despite considerable investment by the Victorian Government, there continues to be significant unmet need for support services for students with disabilities, including integration aides, occupational therapists, speech therapists, other specialist staff and assistive technology. If these are not provided when required, students with disabilities cannot participate effectively in education“. 1
-
Since 2012, there has been no discerning change in the manner by which DET approach the goal of ensuring that students with disabilities can actually communicate.
-
It is self-evident that to become educated, one needs to be able to
expressively and receptively communicate. A student must understand what is being presented to them orally, if that is the manner in which the information is being provided. A student must be able to ask questions if they don’t understand what is happening in the classroom or what they are being taught.
-
It is important to consider the number of students in schools who have
language disorders and how they are supported.
-
In 2005, the number of students eligible for the Severe Language Disorder
criteria under the Program for Students with Disabilities in Victorian schools was 67602. The criteria required that the language disorder not be accounted for by intellectual disability, hearing impairment or social emotional factors, and required a 2 standard deviations from the mean score 3. Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and an associated language disorder 2 standard deviations from the mean, were eligible for funding under the Autism
Spectrum Disorder criteria.4
- Therefore in 2005, there were 6760 students who met the contrived DET Severe Language Disorder category. This number did not include any student having a language disorder:
- less than two standard deviations from the mean;
1 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission Report “Held Back-the Experiences of
Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools“ 2012 2 Turner v Department of Education and Training (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 873 Decision [524] 3 Program for Students with Disabilities Guidelines 2005 p12 4 Program for Students with Disabilities Guidelines 2005 p16
5
- due to intellectual disability;
- due to hearing loss/deafness;
- due to social emotional factors; and
- due to Autism Spectrum Disorder.
-
In its submission to the VEOHRC “Held Back” Report5, Speech Pathology
Australia is quoted as stating that communication disorders affect as many as 13% of Australian children.
-
In Victoria, the manner in which students with disabilities receive individual
funding is through the Program for Students with Disabilities which despite requiring in its application processes the filling out of an Educational Needs Questionnaire, only allows entry based on disability6 or limitation, rather than the actual educational needs of an individual student.
- The “Held Back” Report states in relation to Speech Pathology Australia: The organisation made the strong case that students with severe speech and/or language disorders can access the curriculum if best practice teaching strategies and support in the classroom is applied and speech pathology services are provided. It reported it had repeatedly expressed concern to the DEECD that access to speech pathology services in the Victorian school system is at the discretion of the school principal, resulting in ‘significant inequity’ in service provision across the state.7 They also submitted that the absence of specific guidelines and role descriptions for student support officers leads to individual therapists having to advocate for services for students to school principals, where speech pathology services are either not available or funds are used elsewhere, for example for an integration aide.8
Cuts in Funding for Students with Language Disorders
-
The history of how DET has dealt with the needs of students with language disorders represents yet another shameful reflection on DET and its inability to divorce itself of accusations of corruption9.
-
The actions of DET in response to an increase in students with language disorders qualifying for Program for Students with Disabilities funding of between 15% and 24% each year, is set out in the decision of Turner v State of Victoria paragraphs 524-544.
13. A Working Panel was established by DET employees and
. The Executive Director of the Royal Children’s Hospital
5 “Held Back-the Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC 2012 6 See Program for Students with Disabilities Guidelines inc Educational Needs Questionnaire 2015 7 Submission 11, Speech Pathology Australia 8. 8 Submission 11, Speech Pathology Australia 8. 9 The writer refers to the recent IBAC enquiries into DET
6
Educational Institute, , was a member of the Working Panel. was an ex employee of DET in the Disability Services
Department. The Royal Children’s Hospital Educational Institute is dependent
on DET for its funding.10
- A decision was made by the Working Panel, without consensus, and without the endorsement of the member of the Working Panel most qualified to comment (an eminent Speech Pathologist), to lift the criteria of the Severe Language Disorder Category to 3 standard deviations from the mean. This was done on the basis of a report written by of three pages, one of those pages being a table of criteria. ex-employee of DET and then Executive Director of an organisation funded by DET, was supported by then current DET employees in her recommendation. Therefore the decision made to lift the criteria occurred without any reference to Speech Pathology Australia, and without any reference to the Speech Pathologist on the Working Panel. VCAT Deputy Pres McKenzie euphemistically summed up the impropriety this way:
I find that the process by which the changes in the eligibility criteria in the language disorder category of the PSD occurred was in many respects unsatisfactory. I find that the proposals which came out of that process lacked clear and substantial supporting evidence, and a strong rational basis. The evidence points to funding factors in relation to the PSD as being one of the major concerns which led to the changes. I find that the new criteria are difficult to apply, because they confuse two quite different stages of the PSD process. The formula used to calculate funding levels under the PSD, while ensuring that those with like levels of disability are treated in a like way, is based on the way in which students with disabilities were funded in 1994. There appears to have been no consideration as to whether this initial funding was or remains adequate or appropriate.11
-
The current criteria for students with language disorders to receive individual funding through the Program for Students with Disabilities through the Severe Language Disorder category, being in part, a language disorder 3 standard deviations from the mean or greater, is recognised nowhere in Australia or internationally as the determinant of severe language disorder. On the most conservative view, it is 2 standard deviations from the mean.12 In addition, a student attempting to meet the DET criteria is required to prove they have a “Critical Educational Need” in addition to the three standard deviation language disorder. Unfortunately, DET fails to give a definition of what this phrase actually means.
-
The thousands of students who lost their individual funding after the contrived change to the criteria, were offered access to the Language Support Program. This is a “train the trainer” type program which is entirely voluntary and concerns itself only with resourcing teachers to assist in oral language
10 See Royal Children’s Hospital Educational Institute yearly Annual Reports
11 Turner v Department of Education and Training (Anti Discrimination) [2007] Decision to [544 ] 12 Prof Sheena Reilly, Turner v Department of Education and Training (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 873 Decision [540]
7
competency in children13. Children with types of language disorders not involving a deficit in oral language competency, (should their teacher decide to avail themselves of the resources of the Language Support Program), are unassisted.
-
Therefore the current situation for students in Victoria with clinically severe, moderate and mild language disorders is dire. With no access to individual funding, they are only provided with assistance that their parents may fund, which is against DET policy.
-
By restricting access to individual funding, DET managed to keep the numbers of students with language disorders qualifying for funding in Victoria to between 230-290 between 2008 and 201114
The approach of special schools to speech pathology
-
Special schools create an impression that they are better able to provide support to students with disabilities due to the fact that many of them have their own Allied health professionals attached to the school, including Speech Pathologists.
-
Special schools go about attempting to meet the needs of students with disabilities by teaching them as a group in the main, rather than individually. Similarly, any individual funding a child brings to the school, is pooled rather than allocated to the individual.
-
The disadvantages of this approach, and indeed the ineffectiveness of it, are showcased at Marnebek School (“Marnebek”) in Victoria.
-
Marnebek do not believe that formal language/communication assessments are necessary for children who have severe language disorders and need those disorders addressed.
-
Marnebek do not believe that formal language/communication plans/programs are necessary (see Attachment 1 as an example of a language/communication plan for a child with a severe language disorder at Marnebek written by their Speech Pathologist, ).
-
Marnebek do not require any consistency in language/communication programs between home and school.
-
Marnebek do not believe that it is necessary for a parent to have any direct contact with the Speech Pathologist to discuss any speech pathology approach.
-
Marnebek make decisions about the method of communication to be used by a child according to which method is adopted by the school as a whole, rather than what the child with a language disorder requires as an individual. For example Marnebek claim to use PECS as a whole class approach.
13 http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/pages/lsp.aspx 14 Victorian Auditor General Office Report “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” p 13
8
-
As at 2014, no evidence could be demonstrated by Marnebek that they actually used PECS as a formal communication system, rather, they use Compic cards without any evidence of a formal program.
-
Marnebek do not believe it necessary for students to have a formal communication system used in the classroom.
- A recent education case at VCAT involving Marnebek School confirmed the information above.
Case Study 1
John had a Severe Language Disorder as part of his Autism Spectrum Disorder and attended Marnebek from 2010 to mid-2012. He had no formal language or speech assessment for the entirety of his enrolment. He had no individually reported on formal language/communication plan in 2010. He had no formal language/communication plan in 2011. He had a language/communication plan in 2012 consisting of one sentence. “PECS” was chosen as his method of communication without the permission of his parents. The “PECS program” was only practised at morning tea and lunch times, with other children. No individualised PECS book was provided in 2011 until September. No formal assessment was undertaken because it “wasn’t appropriate” in the view of the Speech Pathologist. No formal vocabulary goals were identified. No formal data collection occurred in the classroom. No goals for verbal articulation were developed, despite a request from the parent.
2009 Prior to enrolment at Marnebek, John can say “open”, “bus”, “hip, hip, hooray”, “Arko’s turn”, “bye Liz” independently according to his early intervention placement records.
2010
At the end of Semester One 2010, it is reported that “xxx’s speech is gradually becoming more clear and words that were incomprehensible at the beginning of the term are now resembling words, such as Sensory Garden and the Sensory Room”
Student School Report Semester Two records John can produce up to 5-6 word sentences. His clarity of speech has improved and it is much easier to understand what he is saying/requesting. This is providing John with a sense of achievement and pride that he is able to indicate his wants/needs clearly. His aide states that John “could verbally tell us what he wanted.”
9
2011
In February 2011John is able to use 5-6 word sentences to communicate with his peers according to his Individual Learning Plan Semester One.
In June 2011 John’s goal is to use 3-4 word sentences, being less than his entry skills at the beginning of the year as set out in his Report on Individual Learning Plan at the end of Semester One. John knows his name, age and brother’s names as recorded by his Paediatric Neurologist.
In December 2011, while previously John could use 5-6 word sentences, at the end of 2011, on occasion, John can use only one word utterances. John’s vocabulary contains only a few words. John’s speech is highly unintelligible according to the speech pathology report on his expressive language skills.
2012
In February 2012 John could not say the names of his teacher and aide as observed by his private psychologist at school.
In March 2012 observations by the private psychologist of John at Marnebek included:
-
Some of the conversations the teacher was having with the class were above John’s level of understanding.
-
John was not using PECS proactively and did not understand the concept of “same” and “different”.
-
John has included on his Marnebek Learning Intentions Sheet a goal to say his name, age and siblings, skills he had previously learned in Term 2, 2011.
John’s mother withdrew him in 2012 and enrolled him in a mainstream school in
- His vocabulary increases month-to-month as formal goal setting, planning, monitoring and evaluation of progress takes place.
Case Study 2
“Jane” was diagnosed with a Severe Language Disorder in Year 6. Despite the diagnosis, the DET Speech Pathologist did not recommend any speech pathology program of treatment, and Jane never received any support from a Speech Pathologist to ensure that her language disorder did not create barriers for learning for the entirety of her education. Jane has no functional literacy and numeracy skills and went immediately from high school to being in receipt of a government benefit.
10
- Expressive, Receptive and Pragmatic Language Disorders interfere with the acquisition of academic skills. Until speech pathology services are provided in schools with no limitations to those who need them, students with language disorders will continue to be unable to access their education.
B. FUNDING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 24. The Program for Students with Disabilities (“PSD”) is the mechanism by which schools receive individual funding for students with disabilities. It is important to note that while parents may pay hundreds of dollars to obtain reports for their children in the hope that they will be eligible for the PSD, if they are eligible, parents and students have no say in what that money will be used for, and do not even have the right to be told what it will be used for.
-
However one thing that schools and families of students with disabilities can no doubt agree upon, is that without additional individual funding, schools are poorly placed to provide some of the supports that students with disabilities might need.
-
One only has to read regular reports in the media to be informed that schools often have difficulty meeting the cost of basic maintenance requirements. Therefore the cost of an Integration Aide (putting aside the question of whether they add value), which may be approximately $45,000 per annum, is something that is not going to be able to be provided without specific funding allocated to the school.
-
The successful inclusion of students with disabilities does not always require the allocation of funds, however there are many supports of students with disabilities that do require resourcing. An example might be a child with complex communication needs. Funding may be required for:
a. a communication device; b. training on the device for staff; c. the wages of a Communication Support Worker allocated to the child in order that they have the opportunity to communicate at all times, as children without disabilities in the classroom do;
d. the wages of a Speech Pathologist expert in Augmentative and Alternative Communication to develop and supervise a language/communication plan.
- Currently, the PSD has criteria which are arbitrary and discriminatory. DET attempt to lend themselves credibility by stating in their guidelines “The eligibility criteria were developed from guidelines set by the World Health Organisation.“15 They have repeated this claim in previous years. The claim is a deception. The World Health Organisation does not have disability eligibility criteria. When challenged about continuing to present this false information in
15 Program for Students with Disabilities Guidelines 2015 p5
11
its documentation, DET have then claimed that somehow the eligibility criteria are linked to the International Classification of Diseases. This is also a deception.
-
The best example is DET’s fabricated criteria for the Severe Language Disorder, which as mentioned above has no relationship to the clinical definition of a Severe Language Disorder.
-
Putting aside the fact that the Victorian Government publishes such misleading information to the public year after year, it is clear that unless the student has a specific disability, and often a specific level of that disability within the criteria, they will not receive funding through the PSD. The categories are as follows:
a. Physical Disability. Within this category, one has to prove one has a “significant” physical disability or health impairment AND requires regular paramedical support. No such definition is contained within the International Classification of Diseases. Therefore only some children with physical disabilities will be able to apply. There is no definition of the term “significant”.
b. Visual Impairment. The definition sets out the visual acuity and visual fields requirements.
c. Hearing Impairment. The definition sets out what type of hearing loss is required.
d. Severe Behaviour Disorder Again, no such disability exists in the International Classification of Diseases. One has to meet four different requirements to meet this criteria, including displaying behaviour “so deviant and with such frequency and severity that they require regular psychological or psychiatric treatment.” This category is used to apply for children who have missed out on other categories, and as a result of neglect or incompetent handling, develop challenging behaviours in the school setting - in other words they often acquire additional ‘disabilities’ in addition to their first diagnosed disability due to their involvement in the education system.
e. Intellectual Disability f. Autism Spectrum Disorder This category reflects no definition in the International Classification of Diseases, as it is not enough simply to have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder to qualify for the PSD, one has to have a language disorder of two standard deviations or more below the mean. This was added to the criteria in 2009 in order to reduce the number of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder becoming eligible for funding. Therefore students who have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder will only qualify if they have a severe language disorder in addition.
g. Severe Language Disorder with Critical Educational Needs See section above on “The Reduction of Funding to Students with Language Disorders” under the heading “Students with Language Disorders”.
12
The definition of “Critical Educational Needs” continues to be left undefined, however so few students meet the threshold of a language disorder three standard deviations from the mean the point is largely moot.
-
As DET makes clear, the PSD “…provides resources to schools for a defined population of students with disabilities, with moderate to severe needs16.” Read carefully, this accurately describes the PSD. It does not provide resources for students with disabilities with moderate to severe needs. It provides resources “for a defined population of students with disabilities” with moderate to severe needs.
-
A student’s needs are actually never measured or taken into account. Firstly, if one does not meet the seven criteria, no matter how critical a student’s educational needs are, they will not be eligible for individual funding. Secondly, within the PSD application process, to determine the actual amount of the funding, is what is referred to as an “Educational Needs Questionnaire”. Ironically, this questionnaire does not measure educational need, but again, disability.
-
Those filling out the questionnaire are asked to rate what deficits the student has, what they cannot do or what they have difficulty doing17. The reason for avoiding ascertaining individual need is easily divined, as it is not difficult to envisage how much the PSD budget would need to be expanded if an effort was made to find out what students with disabilities actually needed to access their education and what resources were needed to facilitate this, as opposed to how severe their disability and impediments are.
-
The writer submits that the failure by Departments of Education across Australia to resource principals and teachers to properly support students with disabilities according to their individual needs is a significant barrier to the inclusion of students with disabilities and their academic success.
-
Until Departments of Education view students with disabilities as worthy of supporting, rather than attempting to regularly reduce the ability of students to qualify for funding, their current educational difficulties will remain.
-
There is currently a review of the Program for Students with Disabilities due to the fact that the Australian Labor Party made a commitment prior to the November 2014 election that it would undertake that review. The writer has attended one of the consultations, and was concerned that the issue of cost neutrality was raised repeatedly. It can be inferred that budgetary considerations will continue to be prioritised over access to education for students with disabilities.
16 Program for Students with Disabilities Handbook 2015 p 4 17 Program for Students with Disabilities Handbook 2015 p 32
13
C. INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS/STUDENT SUPPORT GROUPS 37. Individual Education Plans (otherwise referred to as Individual Learning Plans) and Student Support Groups have been singled out by VEOHRC in the following way:
Student Support Groups
“These work well in many schools, however, frequency, quality and results of these meetings are inconsistent, despite such groups being mandated under
the Program Students with Disabilities Guidelines.“
Individual Learning Plans
“The development, quality and monitoring of these plans is inconsistent and there is no systemic monitoring to ensure these plans are of a reasonable quality and are being implemented.” 18
-
VAGO makes the following comments: “Schools are not implementing effective Student Support Groups (SSGs) or developing consistent, high-quality Individual Learning Plans (ILPs).”
-
Since 2012 and the comments made above, these criticisms have not been addressed. More disturbingly, on multiple occasions, DET has confirmed that their policies and guidelines around Individual Education Plans and Student Support Groups do not need to be followed by their own staff.
-
At any time when a parent or advocate attempts to call DET to account in relation to any guideline and its content, such content is quickly disowned. An example of a number of DET guidelines being jettisoned can be found in just one letter from to a parent attempting to hold DET accountable.19
a. In relation to the alleged value of parents, the Student Support Group Guidelines state (and have stated in the past), this:
Parent/guardian/carer(s) play a vital role in the Student Support Group. They have a holistic understanding of the child and provide ongoing involvement in their education. Parent/guardian/ carer(s) are often in the best position to provide information on the effectiveness and practicality of particular strategies and programs. They provide knowledge and experience of previous events that may influence programming decisions. Parent/guardian/carer(s) are able to contribute to the goals and strategies that will support the education of their child, including their transition to further education, training and employment.
When a parent made a complaint about Monash SDS whose Principal unilaterally and deliberately altered the time of Student Support Group
18 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” p82 19 Letter to parent 29 January 2015
14
meetings to a time they knew that the parent could not attend, said this:
“While it is preferable for parents to be in attendance at all SSG meetings because they can contribute valuable knowledge of the student, where a parent does not or cannot attend SSGs there are other ways that parents can be consulted about adjustments and planning for the educational and social needs of the child. I understand that minutes of SSG meetings were forwarded to you for your input and feedback.”
So while the Student Support Group Guidelines stressed that a parent’s role is “vital”, suddenly, when called to account, the parent’s attendance at the Student Support Group is simply “preferable” and the fact that the Principal changed the times of the meeting, knowing that the parent could not attend (ever again), is absolutely acceptable.
b. In relation to Individual Education Plans, the same parent brought to the attention of that there were no strategies in the plan, a vital component one would have thought. Particularly as Student Support Group Guidelines state:
To maximise opportunities for students with disabilities to succeed, policy and practice within schools should reflect:
• collaboration between teachers and students,
parent/guardian/carer(s), education and health professionals to develop agreed understandings and responses to a student’s behaviours, needs, communication skills and learning needs
-
curriculum-based Personalised Learning and Support Planning informed by a Student Support Group that set out the student’s short-term and long-term learning goals based on the Australian Curriculum in Victoria (AusVELS), Abilities Based Learning and
Education Support (ABLES) assessments and other relevant
information
• teaching and learning strategies that take account of a
student’s background, experiences, individual personality and
individual goals20 [emphasis added]
had this to say:
The Department’s guidelines are guidelines for use and adaptation by educational settings. At Monash SDS, a special school setting, strategies for teaching the goals identified are included in teachers’ detailed work programs.[Emphasis from ]
Unfortunately, the “detailed work programs” were nowhere to be seen. The Student Support Group Guidelines set out quite clearly that it is the group with all its core members that develop the Individual Education
20 Student Support Group Guidelines 2015 p4
15
Plans. The reality is, according to , the parent has no right to attend the group to take part in the educational planning, and cannot see the strategies to comment on them because they are not provided to them.
c. The writer refers to Attachment 2 which is her submission to the review of the Disability Standards for Education and the exhortations to the Federal Court by DET. Whether the topic was Individual Education Plans or Behaviour Plans, such plans did not even need to physically exist as far as DET are concerned.
-
Therefore, Victorian students with disabilities and their families are in a position where Student Support Groups and Individual Education Plans are actually mandatory21, however their guidelines are not.
-
This, in effect, means these policies and guidelines are meaningless and should only be seen to exist to create an impression of professionalism, until one scratches the surface and discovers that DET is actually not interested in any adherence.
-
In summary, these two important and vital supports are in effect, completely optional, unmonitored and flawed in practice. It is irrelevant how many training modules on the topics are put on the DET website, if no one needs follow the guidance.
-
The following Individual Education Plans provide an explanation to the reader as to the criticisms made by VEOHRC and VAGO. It is clear from this small example that there is absolutely no training around the development of these important documents.
a. Attachment 3. This “Individual Learning Improvement Plan” is actually a file note with ‘learning goals’ that are all to be completed at home. It was the only learning plan. This young man left school without functional literacy and numeracy and is now on the Disability Support Pension. Of note:
i. the “learning goals” are not goals; ii. all of the activities are the responsibility of the student and his parent; iii. there is no determination on how any progress will be measured; iv. there is no provision for any explicit teaching of literacy or numeracy skills.
b. Attachment 4. These “Individual Learning Goals” (names changed) look impressive until one actually reads the substance. Of note:
i. most of the strategies reflect that the majority of learning is the responsibility of the parents;
21 “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” VAGO p x
16
ii. the responsibility of the parents is not only in the “Home Strategies” column, but also in the “strategies” column, which one could have inferred was the school’s responsibility; iii. in addition to that immediately above, there is a third separate section entitled “home/parents”; iv. the “evaluation” column, ostensibly designed to measure the outcomes, does not do so and contains terms so broad they are not measurable;
v. “Billy” had cognitive disabilities affecting language and socialisation, however they are not even mentioned in the plan; vi. one of these strategies is for a speech pathologist to identify appropriate strategies; vii. the moralistic and pejorative “ Mr and Mrs Smith to support the school in holding Billy accountable for breaches of expected behaviour“ under “Current Skill” - the student has Autism Spectrum Disorder and received no formal social skills program at the school; viii. when the writer and the parents devised an alternative Individual Education Plan including the child’s disabilities, strategies and measurable outcomes, the school placed that plan in the middle of the plan attached; ix. the student left the school without an Individual Education Plan ever being put in place.
See Attachment 5 as an example of the process a parent has gone through in an attempt to obtain an acceptable Individual Education Plan. Family names changed, correspondence sent to , Sydenham Hillside Primary School.
c. Attachment 6. Mt Erin Secondary College. Of note: i. most effective teaching strategy “content is delivered in a normal way, but it’s much more interesting”; ii. example of a “specific, measurable, achievable short-term goal” is “will get CSc and PP to give an outline of work being undertaken in term 2. In English and maths.”- this is not a goal; iii. most of the plan is blank; iv. upon leaving school this student had to pay for private tuition in order to obtain basic reading and writing skills.
- The above are just a few examples demonstrate the following: a. there is no requirement for an Individual Education Plan to take any form;
b. teachers do not know how to identify a “goal”; c. teachers do not know how to identify a “strategy”; d. teachers do not know how to identify a “measurable outcome”. 46. Students with disabilities need sophisticated responses and best practice teaching approaches. The writer submits that it is impossible for them to receive such support until teachers are provided with compulsory training,
17
support and guidelines in order that they can competently undertake the writing of an Individual Education Plan.
- When there are no measurable outcomes it is impossible to measure academic achievement and therefore impossible to measure the effectiveness of the academic and social strategy is being used. The writer submits that no other large organisation would operate in a manner that does not evaluate the effectiveness of those operations.
D. PSYCHOLOGY/BEHAVIOUR SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
- The writer submits that the following is self-evident: a. if a child is experiencing challenging behaviours, they are distracted from their education and cannot learn;
b. if a child is experiencing challenging behaviours and is responded to with abuse/restrictive practices, they are traumatised, acquire mental health problems and cannot learn;
c. if a child is experiencing challenging behaviours and is physically removed from the classroom (often by an unqualified aide), they are not accessing their education.
- The importance of the provision by departments of education of psychological services and expert behaviour support for students with disabilities cannot be overestimated.
The effect of restrictive practices on educational achievement
- In its 2012 report “Held Back - The Experiences of Students with Disabilities in
Victorian Schools“ (“the Held Back Report”), the Victorian Equal Opportunity
and Human Rights Commission (“VEOHRC”) considered reports made to it from students, parents and teachers on the use of restrictive practices (restraint and seclusion) against students with disabilities.
- VEOHRC argues that the use of restrictive interventions in government schools engages, and arguably limits, the following human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 200622:
a. Equality before the law b. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment c. Freedom of movement d. Protection of families and children e. Right to liberty and security of person 52. VEOHRC also raises the following treaties under which Australia has obligations that relate to the use of restraint and seclusion of children23:
22 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 107
18
a. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights b. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights c. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities d. Convention on the Rights of the Child e. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
-
It is clear that restrictive practices are arguably violations of a child’s human rights, and dependent on the circumstances, can constitute abuse.
-
When there are alternatives to restrictive practices which are nonphysical, non- violent, and non-punitive, and those alternatives are withheld in preference to using restraint and seclusion, it is submitted that restraint and seclusion should be viewed as constituting abuse.
-
Such alternatives include evidence based psychological interventions. Unfortunately, while terms such as “evidence-based” are used prolifically in DET publications24, when attempting to negotiate positive behaviour support for students with disabilities there are numerous barriers which ensure that they do not actually receive “evidence-based” supports. These include the fact that:
a. There is no explanation in DET publications as to what terms such as “evidence-based” actually mean, and most teachers do not know;
b. Teachers must access (or should access) psychologists whose area of expertise is behaviour analysis, or Board Certified Behaviour Analysts in order to decide upon and implement evidence based psychological/behaviour interventions and they do not have the resources to do so;
c. DET psychologists are in the main insufficiently trained in positive behaviour support themselves, and have been known to actually endorse and train staff in restraint and seclusion in preference to professional behaviour assessment and planning25.
- Special Schools, despite the clear limitations of teacher training (and most teachers in special schools do not have special education training), believe their staff have the expertise to undertake Functional Behaviour Assessments, even without training from a professional whose expertise is behaviour analysis.26 As a result, adults who have not even mastered the skills to teach basic subjects like English 27, and who are required to have some of the lowest ATAR scores to
23 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 109 24 “Effective Schools Are Engaging Schools” 2009 DET; Blueprint for Education and Early Childhood
Development DET 2008
25 DET Psychologist servicing Maple Street Primary School, DET Psychologists at Special Schools
who routinely use restraint and seclusion as behaviour “consequences” such as Marnebek School (refer Code of Conduct). 26 Marnebek School, Cranbourne, Victoria evidence given at VCAT 2012 HL v State of Victoria &
Karen Dauncey A64/2013
27 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65-76 Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(1), 3-8 Future directions in literacy: International conversations 2007. University of Sydney
19
enter university 28 are responsible for, and claiming to be experts in, children with complex disabilities and managing challenging behaviours.
- These are the ingredients for an environment conducive to the mistreatment of students with disabilities, which then affects their ability to learn.
Seclusion
-
Seclusion involves solitary confinement of a person in a room or area (e.g., garden) from which their exit is prevented by a barrier or another person. Seclusion includes situations in which people believe they cannot or should not leave an area without permission29.
-
This definition is quite inconvenient to DET, who often use spaces that could be viewed benignly in and of themselves, were it not for the fact that children are being locked in such spaces, unable to leave, in response to challenging behaviours.
-
In addition to rooms whose sole purpose is to provide a space where teachers can lock children up, schools use and have used the following spaces to seclude children with disabilities:
a. courtyards30; b. outdoor pens; 31 c. sensory gardens;32 61. Seclusion areas also reported by parents include first aid rooms and store rooms33. These rooms have been used in mainstream schools where purpose-built seclusion rooms do not exist.
- Seclusion performs the function of being a cheap alternative to putting in place intensive psychological interventions for students with disabilities who demonstrate challenging behaviours.
From New Directions to Action:World class teaching and school leadership Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2013).
Issues paper - Education and Training Workforce: Schools Workforce Study Australian Government
Productivity Commission. (2011). 28 “The average ATAR (tertiary entrance rank) for education courses in Victoria was 61.9 this year, dropping as low as 40.25. This compares to an ATAR of 98.95 for biomedicine at Melbourne University and 98 for law at Monash University”.Topsfield, J. (2014). Graduate teachers not up to scratch: State government The Age, 10/7/2014 Teacher quality: getting it right. Voice, 9(3). Dinham, S. (2013). http://www.voice.unimelb.edu.au/volume-9/number-3/teacher-quality-getting-it-right 29 ‘Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the Need for Restrictive Practices in the Disability
Sector’2011 Australian Psychological Society p 11
30 See Attachments 7 & 8 Marnebek School, Bulleen Heights School
31 See Attachments 9 & 10 Southern Autistic School, Bendigo Special Developmental School
32 Marnebek School
33 Alfredton Primary School, Wendouree Primary School
20
-
DET have refused calls to prohibit seclusion in government schools since
-
In 2012, VEOHRC called for seclusion in schools to be prohibited in the context of their use involving children with disabilities.34 In early 2013, the Office of the Public Advocate called for seclusion in schools to be prohibited.35
-
The Victorian Auditor General’s Office (“VAGO”) in 2012 found that DET “policy and guidance documents assist schools to support students with special learning needs, however, gaps remain in critical areas such as restraint, seclusion and parents paying for additional support for their child.“36 [emphasis added]
-
There is no plausible reason why DET refuse recommendations from these respected statutory authorities. In the absence of any rational explanation, the following inferences may be drawn:
a. DET believe that seclusion is appropriate in the “behaviour management“ of children with disabilities; and/or
b. DET have bowed to pressure from the Principals Association of Special Schools (“PASS”) to allow them to deal with students with disabilities in any manner they see fit.
-
PASS, in their position paper curiously entitled “PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies” [emphasis added], express teachers’ concerns “regarding the advice from DEECD which infers that having the door “closed” contravenes their Human Rights.“37
-
In fact, legal advice from the DET Legal Department to schools, according to PASS, indicate “that if a student in time out is unable to remove him/herself of his/her own volition then time out with the door “closed” can be construed as illegal imprisonment in terms of common law.“38
-
This is extremely concerning, as PASS is not expressing concern that seclusion is ineffective, barbaric, and has contributed to the injury and deaths of people with disabilities. Rather it is concerned that there may be a negative consequence for their staff actions (locking children up), and they may not be able to continue to use seclusion as they have in the past.
-
What is also concerning is that the DET Legal Department have a view that DET employees had been acting illegally, and might continue to act illegally, but did not and have not taken any steps to prohibit such actions. In fact the DET Legal Department are often involved in vigourously and aggressively defending and justifying complaints of illegal imprisonment.
-
The recommendations in the Position Paper include the following: 34 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p 14 35 Position Statement “Restrictive Interventions in Educational Settings” Office of the Public Advocate March 2013 36 “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” VAGO 2012 p21 37 See Attachment 11 PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p4 38 PASS Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies June 2011 p3
21
a. that the DEECD implements procedures to endorse individual school policies re restraint of students so that teachers and other staff in specialist schools can work with confidence [emphasis added]
b. that the DEECD implements procedures to endorse individual school policies re the use of time away so that teachers and other staff in specialist schools can work with confidence [emphasis added]
-
In other words, PASS wish for each school to be able to develop and use its own policies, regardless of best practice, lack of consistency, dangers of injury and death, and lack of expert input.
-
PASS has received its wish, as seclusion continues to be used and approved, and restraint policies are so vague and broad that they allow almost any action by a staff member against children with a disability.
-
When a child is in seclusion, they are not accessing the curriculum. Examples of Seclusion used by DET
-
The “Held Back” Report contains reports that schools use a variety of spaces to seclude children with disabilities, including a locked cupboard, a disused school room used for junk, outdoor ‘pens’, and designated ‘seclusion rooms’.39
-
Outdoor pens, similar to those used to keep cattle or sheep in a small area are employed, ostensibly, to keep children with disabilities “safe” in outside areas. Such structures are cheaper than ensuring a secure perimeter fence for the school, putting in place formal walking programs, or obtaining the services of a qualified Behaviour Analyst in order to determine why a student may be trying to leave the school grounds.
-
However in reality, these areas are often used as a consequence for a student with challenging behaviours as children are observed to be locked in these areas on their own without contact with others or equipment.
-
As mentioned above, such pens have been photographed at Bulleen Special School, Southern Autistic School and Bendigo Special Developmental School. However it is likely that many special schools/special developmental schools have these areas, as they are clearly viewed as acceptable practice by DET. These areas can be used to place children with challenging behaviours in for hours at a time.
-
One of the worst external seclusion areas that have been brought to the writer’s attention is the “Safe Room” at Bendigo Special Developmental
39 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p112,113
22
School which is approximately the size of a disabled toilet, has wooden walls which cannot be seen through, and two bolts on the outside40.
-
This room has been included in the “behaviour management plans” of students - plans which despite endorsing extreme strategies, are not based on a Functional Behaviour Assessment and are not drawn up by a qualified Behaviour Analyst, or even a psychologist. An example contains such unsophisticated “strategies” such as “If all else fails, give ….. a choice between doing X or going to the ‘safe room’.” “If xxxx’s behaviour deteriorates and he doesn’t respond, there is no point talking, just get him to the ‘safe room’ for time out. 2 able staff are required to escort him to the ‘safe room’”.41
-
As there are absolutely no regulations or guidelines on seclusion provided to school staff from DET, it is clear that staff drawing up such behaviour plans and forcing children into structures like the “safe room” have not the slightest understanding of what is required to ensure that children are safe in such an environment. Putting aside the fact that seclusion should only be used in extreme circumstances, and after more sophisticated evidence-based psychological interventions have been tried and have failed, it is clear that teachers have not been provided with regulations by any individual or organisation to ensure that seclusion is not misused - if one accepts that it should ever be used.
-
As can be seen in the plan: a. There is no direction as to the maximum length of any period in seclusion;
b. There is no direction as to the number of times during a single day that a child should spend in the seclusion room.
c. There is no requirement for the student to be observed at all times (impossible in this particular seclusion area).
d. There are no directions or guidelines on restraint (clearly being used when the student is being “escorted” into the room).
e. There is no requirement for any psychological intervention at any stage in the behaviour “model”.
f. There is mention on page 3 of having “male staff on standby” making it clear that the child is being physically forced into this room. Coupled with the fact that there are no guidelines or regulations on the types of physical force that can be used against students with disabilities, the example just provided is one fraught with danger and risk for both staff and students.
- While this “structure” has allegedly been dismantled, it is clear it was certainly in use in 2010, and the same Principal that believed such mistreatment of students with disabilities was appropriate, remains in place.
40 See Attachment 10 “Safe Room” Bendigo Special Developmental School
41 See Attachment 12 Behaviour Management Plan Bendigo Special Developmental School
23
-
In addition, a number of staff have confirmed that in 2010 there were also cages inside classrooms, which children were locked inside. Currently, outdoor pens with locks remain on the grounds.
-
Western Autistic School are reported to use seclusion rooms as a matter of course, without incident reporting or formal documentation.42
-
A photograph of the timeout room at Wantirna Heights Special School (now
Eastern Ranges Special School) is attached.43
- There are no guidelines from DET about seclusion rooms, including: a. if they are permitted at all; b. minimum size; c. what they may be built from; d. if they require observation windows/video cameras to enable observation;
e. maximum amount of time to be spent in seclusion; f. what records of the seclusion must be kept; g. what psychological interventions must be put in place before seclusion is used.
-
Marnebek School had a seclusion room which was clearly marked on a school map as a “Timeout Room “44(TR). Numerous parents describe the room as having a window which was painted over, being empty, no bigger than a disabled toilet, and having bolts on the outside of the room. After a parent complaint and anticipating legal action, Marnebek quickly “renovated” the room leaving no evidence to allow its investigation as a seclusion room. It is unknown where students are now secluded.
-
Similarly, Hume Valley Special School, upon receipt of a complaint from an older student of being locked in the dark in a room called the “Blue Room” in 2012, also quickly “renovated” the room, going so far as to even replace the door. It then denied the seclusion took place, and denied the structural make up of the room, while having destroyed the evidence that upheld the student’s complaint.
-
Marnebek documents in its Student Code of Conduct that it will use “time out” as a consequence of inappropriate behaviour45. It should be noted that the Marnebek “Timeout” room was not a sensory room or a “calming” room, but that described above. In fact the oft used euphemistic descriptions of seclusion rooms as “timeout” rooms has the effect that parents are not provided with the information they need about the treatment of children with disabilities.
-
Wantirna Heights School admitted in a recent court case that when one of their students demonstrated challenging behaviours they placed him in the
42 See Case Study 1 43 See Attachment 13 44 See Attachment 14
45 See Attachment 15 Marnebek School Communication Books “Student Code of Conduct”
24
classroom bathroom/toilets, at times with the door shut46, but in any event not allowing him to leave. This again highlights the inherent risk associated with an absence of regulation resulting in ignorant staff placing a child who is demonstrate challenging behaviours in a room with hard and sharp surfaces. The stupidity and recklessness of such an action is hard to understand. There was no documentation, and no parental consent sought.
Restraint
- Until mid-2012, the single guidance note for staff subjecting children with disabilities to restraint was Regulation 15 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. Regulation 15 consists of one sentence only, which is as follows:
“A member of the staff of a Government school may take any reasonable action that is immediately required to restrain a student of the school from acts or behaviour dangerous to the member of staff, the student or any other person.”
- While the paucity of information in this one sentence speaks for itself, for the sake of completeness the following should be noted.
a. There is no explanation as to what constitutes an action which is “reasonable”.
b. There is no definition of what constitutes an act or behaviour which is “dangerous”.
c. The interpretation of this sentence is left to individual staff. d. There is no requirement for any psychological intervention or comprehensive behaviour assessment, regardless of how many times restraint might be used.
-
Despite DET creating a Restraint Policy47 just before the VEOHRC “Held Back” Report was released, Regulation 15 is still the response of choice when DET defends itself and its staff against their use of restrictive practices against children with disabilities48. Indeed the new Secretary Ms Gill Callister has already endorsed Regulation 15.49
-
Attached are minutes entitled Student Support Group Meeting50 where in response to parents maintaining they did not want their child subjected to restraint and seclusion, school staff quote the “DEECD Policy” on the left hand side of the page. Interestingly, though, the only part of the Policy they
46 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 and in one 47 See Attachment 16 48 Letter to parents 4 April 2014 North-Western Regional Director Letter to parents 24 June 2014 North-Western Regional Director Letter to parents 9 March 2012 Acting General Manager, Coordination and Strategy Division,
Education Partnerships Division,
49 Letter Gill Callister to 27 March 2015
50 See Attachment 17 SSG Minutes Wendouree Primary School 12 December 2012
25
quote is Regulation 15, giving themselves permission to do anything they believe is “reasonable”. No other part of the policy is quoted.
-
Interestingly, the DET Autism Coach was in attendance at this meeting offering no evidence based interventions. It should be noted that DET Autism Coaches are not required to have any actual qualifications in Autism but are held out to be “experts”. Despite planning on restraining the child as can be understood by the discussion, no formal behaviour support from a psychologist was provided.
-
The Restraint Policy dated May 2012 and reviewed in March 2014 (remaining unchanged) is two pages long, and like most other DET policies is labelled a “guide”. In other words, staff are not even required to follow the policy. This has been the standard response by DET to other of its documents, making most publications from DET meaningless.
-
The current Restraint Policy is completely inadequate, and given the nature of most of its contents, can be relied upon to give little or no assistance to staff.
-
The Federation of Community Legal Centres’ Submission on the Draft
Proposed National Framework for Reducing the Use of Restrictive Practices
in the Disability Service Sector51 made the following points:
“The recent DEECD Restraint Policy dated 2012 can be compared to the Office of the Senior Practitioner May 2011 guidelines on restrictive practices.
The DEECD policy:
Allows restraint to prevent the student from ‘inflicting harm’ on themselves or others. Such a phrase, not identifying the seriousness of that harm, allows a teacher to restrain in the event of a child simply hitting another child. There is no attempt to define ‘harm’, and therefore each staff person is able to interpret the phrase individually.
Allows restraint when there is ‘no reasonable alternative’ that can be taken to avoid the danger. There is no guidance to staff on what ‘reasonable alternatives’ may be, and there is no definition of ‘danger’.
Disallows restraint unless ‘alternative measures to avoid the danger have been exhausted’. There is no attempt to give guidance on what may be ‘alternative measures’.
Gives no guidance on which restraint holds are acceptable and which are not. There is no warning that restraints have been known to cause death and injury, or which restraints are most likely to do so.
51 ‘Submission on the Draft Proposed National Framework for Reducing the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector’ Federation of Community Legal Centres June 2013 p6
26
States that it is ‘advisable’ that staff using restraint should be trained. It gives no guidance on that training, and in fact the DEECD openly admits to using martial arts instructors as trainers.
Asks staff to ‘consider’ a number of factors such as ‘medical conditions’ and so on but gives no guidance as to how they should consider such factors, and how those factors will be impacted upon by the use of restraint.
Does not require permission for restraint from any person within or outside the organisation that may have expertise in this area.
There is no mention of Positive Behaviour Support, Functional
Behaviour Assessment and Analysis, or the role of psychologists in the mitigation of challenging behaviours.”
- The Restraint Policy solidifies the ambiguity that is a hallmark of DET policies, procedures and guidelines in order that even when claiming to follow the Policy there is little danger of many staff actions being found to be in breach.
a. The Policy states, amongst other things, that: i. Restraint should not be used unless alternative measures to avoid the danger of harm have been exhausted ii. Restraint should never be used in the following circumstances:
iii. Restraint should not be used on a student in any of the
following circumstances
iv. Restraint should not be used unless all of the following
conditions are met
v. If applying restraint, staff should only: vi. Staff should talk to the student throughout the incident. Staff should make it clear to the student when and why the restraint is to be applied. Staff should also calmly explain that the restraint will stop once it is no longer necessary to protect the student and/or others. vii. It is also advisable that whenever possible: viii. “Only staff trained in using restraint should use restraint on a student.“ ix. Only staff trained in using restraint should use restraint on a student.
x. A staff member should contact the student’s parents and provide them with details of the incident as soon as possible. xi. The incident may need to be reported to: xii. A written record of the incident and the restraint used must be made by the principal as soon as practicable. This record should detail: xiii. The principal should also arrange for all staff who were involved/present at the incident to prepare a statement / record of their involvement or observations of the incident.
- It would be possible, of course, for a government department to interpret the word “should” as “must”. However to ensure there is no misapprehension of
27
how DET define this word, when the Restraint Policy has been challenged regarding the training of staff who restrained a child who had been subjected to repeated restraint in her short school life, Regional Director stated the following:
“I am advised by principal xxxxxxxxx that Ms xxxxxxxx does not have specific training in relation to student restraint and note that such training is not required for teachers in Victoria.”
-
further states, just in case there was an interpretation of the
policy that parents should be provided with any formal written notification of such restraint:
“I advise that application to access these records can be made in writing to:
FOI and Privacy“52
The mother did make the application. No documents of the restraint were provided.
102. However it should be noted that despite this young girl with Autism being
restrained and ‘contained’ throughout one period of her school life for 45 minutes53 every morning, her parents were not notified either verbally or in writing. If it were not for discovering an e-mail after the student left, at no time would the child’s parents have known what they were doing to her. Despite
numerous notifications of the restraint to Regional Director
, has simply decided not to respond to the matter. Needless to say, there has been no concern expressed by any DET staff member at the harm and trauma that would be expected to be caused by such actions.
-
The unprofessionalism, dearth of best practice and general inadequacy of the DET Restraint Policy is no doubt why the Victorian Auditor General’s Office recommended that DET review this policy54. DET did so. It remains the same.
-
As an example of restraint guidelines developed for the protection of adults with disabilities by the Victorian Government Office of Professional Practice (previously known as the Office of the Senior Practitioner), the Physical Restraint Direction Paper55 is a document of some 20 pages, and is supported by the Disability Act 2006.
-
There is no comparison to be made between the two documents, suffice to say that the DET policy provides children with no protection, and staff with no real guidance. What is most disturbing is the obvious comfort DET have with the status quo.
-
Children cannot learn in these conditions 52 Letter to parents Regional Director 4 April 2014 53 Documented in E-Mail from Specimen Hill Primary School dated 29 November 2012 54 “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” VAGO 2012 Recommendation 4
55 Senior Practitioner Physical Restraint Direction Paper, May 2011
28
Examples of restraint used by DET
- The VEOHRC “Held Back” Report includes the following types of restraints reported to them by parents:
a. students taped to a chair; b. “roped” out of a tree; c. grabbed by the back of the neck and pulled to the ground; d. prone restraint.56 108. Restraints reported directly to the writer include: a. aides knocking down children by collapsing the back of their legs, and then restraining them on the ground;
b. basket holds; c. “frog marching”; d. twisting arms behind backs and then forcing children to the ground; e. head locks; f. strapping children to chairs57. 109. Restraint is documented by Marnebek School to be a consequence of inappropriate behaviour58.
- Schools that subject students with disabilities to physical restraint in the absence of Functional Behaviour Assessments or the intervention of experts qualified in behaviour analysis have been reported to the writer as including the following:
a. Alfredton Primary School (documented) b. Bendigo Special Developmental School (documented) c. Bulleen Heights School (documented by video) d. Manor Lakes College (documented) e. Maple Street Primary School (documented) f. Marnebek School (documented) g. Monash Special Developmental School (documented by photograph and report)
h. Specimen Hill Primary School (documented) i. Wantirna Heights School (now Eastern Ranges) (documented)
j. Wendouree Primary School (documented) k. Western Autistic School (documented) 56 “Held Back-Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Victorian Schools” VEOHRC p110,111
57 Photographic evidence Monash Special Developmental School, Observation of Behaviour
Consultant (report supplied upon request) “At its worst guarding can take extreme forms. In the recent past the writer returned at a specialist school in which little autistic children were being strapped into their chairs notionally to stop the running away. However all such mechanical restraint does is increase the child’s efforts to escape. It does not address the issue of positive training.” 58 See Attachment to 15. Marnebek School Communication Books “Student Code of Conduct”
29
- Given the lack of documentation and transparency around restraint, these schools should be seen as the tip of the iceberg.
112. Martial Arts expert, has been used extensively by the DET to
“train” staff in restraint. It is important to note that DET could require schools, in preference to hiring martial arts experts to train staff, to engage Board Certified Behaviour Analysts to train staff in evidence-based non-violent responses to challenging behaviours. They have chosen not to do so.
-
has trained staff in at least the following schools:
a. Barina School b. Bendigo Special Developmental School c. Bulleen Heights School d. Dandenong Valley Special School e. Manor Lakes College f. Naranga School g. Wantirna Heights School (now Eastern Ranges) 114. The above list of schools only represents those schools that have admitted such training in the course of a complaint, are listed on website as endorsing his training, or from staff training certificates provided to the writer. It should be assumed that such training has been provided more widely than the list above.
-
Staff at Bendigo Special Developmental School report having received pressure point training from and have been observed to use that ‘technique’ on students with disabilities.
-
Using masking tape around the wrists is documented as a strategy to stop a student removing his clothing59 in a Bendigo SDS behaviour plan. All behaviour strategies included in plans are signed off by the Principal.
-
A parent at Marnebek School observed a child being rolled up in a blanket and dragged down a corridor in response to non-compliance60.
-
It difficult to know just how long the Martial Arts ‘Therapy’ (“MAT”) Program has been running using MAT Support Officers (“MSOs”) to work with children with moderate to severe challenging behaviours. It is important to understand that this is not describing a program that teaches students martial arts. MSO’s are trained in “safe restraint techniques”.61
-
It is not clear whether martial arts experts are training these personnel, but given the name of the program, it is likely. Once again, this is a program being advertised by Eastern Metropolitan Region of DET in place of any formal training occurring in Behaviour Analysis.
59 Behaviour Management Plan, Bendigo Special Developmental School 1 September 2009
60 UK Daily Mail Report 19 May 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632432/Parents-accuse-Melbourne-special-needs-school-mistreating-childrenhtml#ixzz32D5ozygY 61 See Attachment 18. Http : //www. emroptions. vic. edu. aulmat-program/redirection
30
-
It was as recently as August 2014 that Anzuk, a recruiting agency, were advertising for the position of Martial Arts Therapy Aides to work “in a range of special needs and primary schools in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs”62. As is consistent with the use of euphemisms by DET to distract parents from the real nature of such “supports”, DET choose to put the word “therapy” after the words “Martial Arts” in order one assumes, to soften the description. A non essential component for those who wished to apply, was working previously in a special need setting or school. This, one can infer, is because the focus is on using martial arts rather than having any expertise in educating children with disabilities.
-
DET includes in the key selection criteria for such staff, “a caring and enthusiastic nature”. Research and evidence seems to have passed DET by in relation to the fact that restraint causes injury, death, and trauma.
-
This advertisement was withdrawn as soon as a story in The Age newspaper appeared discussing the advertisement.
-
Reports continue to be made in relation to restrictive practices used against students with disabilities in schools. Every year that DET refuse to prohibit seclusion, one can only assume that it is being used. Indeed special schools continue to be built with such purpose-built rooms.
The result of the failure by DET to use evidence based psychological behaviour interventions to respond to challenging behaviours
- It is important that those unfamiliar with the area of challenging behaviours and evidence-based psychological interventions understand that in the vast majority of cases, restraint and seclusion are simply not required to address challenging behaviours, and in fact are ineffective, worsen behaviours and create trauma, injury and death.
Injury and death as a result of restraint and seclusion
-
It has been known for a significant period of time that children with disabilities (and adults with and without disabilities) have been injured or killed through the use of restraint and seclusion. It is inconceivable that a government department that has responsibilities in loco parentis, and has a Student Support Services Department employing psychologists, is unaware of such research/reporting.
-
In fact the issue of students suffering these consequences in schools specifically, has been the subject of significant reporting63. Outside of the
62 See Attachment 19. ANZUK recruitment advertisement 9 August 2014 63 “School Is Not Supposed to Hurt” 2009 (National Disability Rights Network) “Unsafe In The Schoolhouse: Abuse Of Children With Disabilities” 2009, The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc “Seclusions and Restraints - Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centres” 2009, United States Government Accountability Office.
31
school environment, much work has been done by another Victorian government department, the Department of Health and Human Services, which has been producing publications through the Office of Professional Practice, that set out the harm of restraint and seclusion against people with disabilities more generally.64
-
The Australian Psychological Society has often worked hand-in-hand with the Office of Professional Practice (formerly Office of the Senior Practitioner) and published numerous documents on the subject of eliminating restraint and seclusion and the harm such practices cause, each document referencing numerous other research information and reports.65
-
It is impossible that DET are not aware of the risks of restraint and seclusion - not only for students but for staff, if only for the fact that the writer has advised them in writing of this research on numerous occasions over a number of years. Their failure to prohibit seclusion, or give detailed guidance on restraint, should therefore be viewed as deliberate, reckless and negligent.
Positive Behaviour Support
-
The concept of School Wide Positive Behaviour Support has been claimed by DET as a tenet of its own since 2006.
-
The Royal Children’s Hospital Educational Institute (“the Institute”) is a funded arm of DET.66 DET has members on the Board.
-
The Institute’s 2005 Annual Report sets out that the DET funding for that financial year was $1.2 million. In 2013-2014, the funding was $2.8 million.
-
The relevance of this information, to this submission, is that in 2006 the Institute produced a resource document entitled “Students with Disabilities: a Curriculum Toolkit for Schools and Teachers”67 (“the Toolkit”). The Toolkit, as can be seen by the front cover, is intended to be a resource for students with disabilities. DET have been attempting to disown many of its contents (in addition to the contents of its own publications) ever since parents and advocates have been raising the question as to why DET practice does not conform to its contents.
-
Component 5 of the Toolkit is entitled “Promoting Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) in Schools”68.
64 “From Seclusion to Solutions” 2007 “Physical Restraint in Disability Services” 2009
“Senior Practitioner Physical Restraint Direction Paper” May 2011
65 “Evidence-based Guidelines to Reduce the need for restrictive practices in the disability sector.” Australian psychological Society 2011 66 http://www.rch.org.au/education/#
67 See RCH Educational Institute Annual Report 2005, p14
68 Students with Disabilities: a Curriculum Toolkit for Schools and Teachers p109
32
- Parents and advocates have been waiting for Positive Behaviour Support to make an appearance in schools since 2006. DET again refers to “Schoolwide
Positive Behaviour Support“ in their Student Engagement Policy Guideline.69
There has been no sign of such positive behaviour support in a practical sense in government schools, and in fact the practical experience of students with disabilities and their families has been completely the opposite.
- The Toolkit correctly describes the current state of play (at that time, being
- in what had historically been referred to as “traditional behaviour management” and Positive Behaviour Support. The description is replicated below from page 110.
Traditional Behaviour Management Positive Behaviour Support
Views individuals as “the problem” Few systems, settings, and skill deficiencies as “the problem” Attempts to “fix” the individual Attempts to “fix” systems, settings, and skills Extinguishers behaviour Creates new contacts, experiences, relationships and skills Sanctions adversive approaches Sanctions positive approaches Takes days or weeks to “fix” a single Implemented by a dynamic in behaviour collaborative team using person centred planning in typical settings Often resorted to when systems are Flourishes when systems are flexible flexible Accept the importance of a holistic approach supporting students and their families
-
Since the publication of this document (and prior to), the evidence is that DET continues to deal with students with disabilities pursuant to the “traditional behaviour management” approach.
-
The policies and procedures of both mainstream and special schools include codes of conduct and behaviour policies that reflect a punitive model. However DET attitudes can best be summed up towards students with disabilities by examining the role models from senior management and how they view challenging behaviours. Not only do they rarely look inwards and contemplate how their own staff incompetence and environment may contribute to challenging behaviours (or even be the sole cause of them), but the manner in which they speak about challenging behaviours and the children with disabilities that exhibit them, gives us some insight as to how abuse against those children flourishes in school environments.
-
“….. it is the expectation that the Department of School take active steps to reduce the need for restraint through the implementation of appropriate
69 Effective Schools Are Engaging Schools Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development 2009
33
programs and support for students exhibiting violent, dangerous and/or aggressive behaviours.“ [Emphasis added]
139. The above quote is from Regional Director 70 in response
to a complaint about the restraint of a primary school aged girl with Autism Spectrum Disorder, who is now so traumatised by her schooling experience that it has been recommended by a psychologist that she not attend school.
-
A word search through a recent Federal Court Case regarding a young boy with moderate-severe Autism Spectrum Disorder will easily find the word “aggressive” in relation to his behaviour numerous times, but not the word “challenging”.71 This is due to the fact that DET portrayed him in this manner during the trial despite his Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder, and despite the fact that he had been subjected to restraint and seclusion most of his school life, thereby, no doubt, traumatising him and contributing to his challenging behaviours.
-
“I am confident that the resources currently being developed for schools, including training based on schoolwide positive behaviour support, extended guidance and support material around avoiding and managing challenging and threatening behaviours, will further strengthen capacitive schools comply with their legal obligations and to provide an inclusive schooling that supports diversity.”
142. This response was from Deputy Secretary when asked to
appoint an independent investigator to look at the abuse of children with disabilities at Marnebek School.72 He declined o do so.
- Currently, on the website of the Senate Community Affairs Community Affairs Reference Committee73 is a letter in response to submissions from
Communication Rights Australia and Disability Discrimination Legal service
from Ms Gill Callister, Secretary DET dated 27 July 2015.
-
When Ms Callister responds to allegations of restrictive practices used against students with disabilities exhibiting challenging behaviours, she refers to “students who are exhibiting violent and dangerous behaviours…”.
-
An example of DET Behaviour Plans demonstrates the following: a. DET do not use Positive Behaviour Support, and rely on punishment and consequence;
b. DET staff have no training in writing behaviour plans, hence DET plans have little in common other than their poor quality and lack of any best practice approach.
70 Letter to parents dated 24 June 2014 71 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 72 Letter to writer from dated 9 May 2014. 73http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Violence_a buse_neglect/Submissions
34
-
Not able to be provided to the Senate, are the “invisible” DET behaviour plans, which are ‘unwritten’. These invisible behaviour plans are used extensively by DET when defending themselves against abusive practices. The benefits of invisible plans of course, are that the DET staff can claim these plans contained all manner of goals, strategies, measurable outcomes and demonstrable expertise.
-
There is no hint of embarrassment by DET when claiming that having these invisible plans is an appropriate mechanism by which to address challenging behaviours.
-
In a Federal Court trial, staff from Bulleen Heights School were not embarrassed to give the following information in relation to their behaviour plans for a child that they viewed appropriate to restrain, with the guidance of a Martial Arts expert, but not appropriate to receive any sort of formality in terms of positive behaviour support.
James’ classroom teacher had a behaviour management plan for him (though it was not labelled as such) which was written on a whiteboard or placed on the wall. The purpose of the behaviour management plan was to set goals and put strategies in place to achieve those goals. analysed James’ behaviour on a daily basis. [86]74
- Needless to say, the “behaviour management plan” and the “analysis” could not be produced.
150. James’ classroom teacher did not use a formalised
behaviour management plan, preferring to use her own work program. She did not seek the assistance of a multi-disciplinary team. [87]
151. [87] In 2007, James’ teacher also employed a range of
behaviour management strategies and gave evidence that these strategies were recorded in a formal behaviour management plan, though no such document was available for production at trial.
- Three different teachers, three invisible behaviour plans.
- From a DET Statement of Defence dated 16 May 201475 regarding a young primary school boy subjected to repeated restraint.
“There were written and unwritten behaviour management plans in place”
- When plans are not written down, the goals, specific strategies and desired outcomes for individual students are unclear or even completely unknown by school staff, consultants and parents.
74 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 75 HP v State of Victoria A34/2013
35
-
In this case, placing HP in the store room (referred to euphemistically as the “safe space”) was a measure taken to “enforce” the “behavioural standards” of the school and “reduce restraint”. We therefore have a claim that seclusion is reducing restraint. Clearly either school staff members or DET Legal Department may actually believe that one restrictive practice cures another. What is a conundrum is whether DET actually believe the evidence they give to courts and tribunals, or that they are corrupt enough to give false information in order to defend their practices and staff in a legal complaint. It is hard to decide which situation is worse.
-
Until this “law and order” approach to challenging behaviours exhibited by children with disabilities is replaced by thoughtful, sophisticated evidence based approaches based on psychology, restraint and seclusion will continue in Victorian government schools, and children will not learn.
Examples of behaviour plans
- And what do such Behaviour Management Plans look like? a. Behaviour Plan 1. Golden Square Primary School.76 This was reported to the writer as being for a child in Grade 1. Recalling the “traditional behaviour approach” allegedly eschewed by DET, we have the following:
You are expected to do your work. You need to sit on the floor during group time. You need to listen when it’s not your turn to speak. If you are not following the teachers instructions or hurting other students feelings your name will be put on board (sic) and an explanation given. [Inappropriate behaviour consequences will be followed].
Note the threat of humiliation in front of the rest of the class by having the child’s name written on the blackboard.
However, among other firm directives, the following must be the most inappropriate.
If threatening, aggressive or at risk of hurting self or others in line with ministerial order 184, then Suspension will occur.
b. Behaviour Plan 2. Golden Square Primary School. In response to the writer requesting to know why a Behaviour Plan had not been put in place for a young girl (“Jane”) who had been subjected
76 See Attachment 20.
36
to multiple instances of physical restraint and is too traumatised to attend school due to her school experiences, Regional Director responded with the following in a letter to the writer dated 24 June 2014.
I refer you to some examples of these below and indicate the documents they are drawn from: Classroom suggestions: ‘xxxxx mentioned that Jane has an iPad and it is filled with her video creations. This may prove useful as a settling activity in the morning.’ ‘Emotional engagement: set up for success where possible. Consistent friends/buddies to encourage play and return to class’ ‘Implement a program that addresses Jane’s sensory issues’ (Feb 12 2013 ILEP) ‘Unsettled behaviour: if Jane is crying, screaming or unsettled in any way she will remain in well-being room until she is calm. Once calm, she can watch her DVD and follow the (agreed) plan’ ‘If Jane becomes unsettled in class, Jane will be removed to the well-being room where staff will follow (the agreed) plan’
(190713 Engagement Plan July.doc)
Education Support Staff: o ‘Work with the class teacher to develop an appropriate modified learning program (and) implement a program that addresses Jane’s sensory issues’ o ‘Provide support and consistency to ensure the day is more predictable for Jane’ o ‘Redirect and intervene in a timely manner ie. to de-escalate situations rather than waiting for another staff member to get the classroom to assist’ ‘Learning tasks will be differentiated to suit Jane’s learning style to promote successful outcomes that will ensure a positive day’
(200913 Engagement Plan
July.doc)
‘Jane to take responsibility and time how long she works and how long she plays. More play than work, work needs to be simple, on laptop not pencils’. (PSG 16 Sept.doc)
(and presumably the regional psychologist’s) view was that pulling random sentences out of a number of documents constituted a Behaviour Plan.
No Functional Behaviour Assessment, no goals, no detailed description of behaviours that needed to be mitigated, no measurable outcomes,
37
and therefore nothing to measure. Suffice to say, the “Plan” was an abject failure. If anyone wanted to view the “plan”, they would have to be drawn to a number of different documents.
c. Individual Behaviour Plan 1. Marnebek School. 201077.
Strategies
If his behaviour esculates (sic) and you find the need to restrain him, he will lash out with kicking and biting. He is best to be escorted to the timeout room with two people.
Here, seclusion is actually written into the plan, along with restraint to get the child to the room.
d. Individual Behaviour Plan 2. Marnebek School. 201178
Possible Triggers
“timeout/exclusion for a negative behaviour often escalates his behaviour.”
And of course there is a reason for that observation, which is that behaviours are not effectively addressed by seclusion and exclusion they are worsened.
e. Individual Behaviour Plan 3. Marnebek School. 2011/201279 Triggers - Time out
To clarify, under the list of figures for challenging behaviours (second from the left) in this document, you will see “timeout” which we know to be seclusion at Marnebek. Here Marnebek School is identifying what is obvious to most behaviour analysts and clearly in the literature seclusion does nothing except to cause trauma.
f. Excerpts from a Behaviour Management Plan from Ballarat Christian College 2012.
***If you have seriously threatened or vilified a student or staff member at any time you will be removed from your class and will remain there until you are collected. Your family will need to attend a parent teacher conference before we can consider your return.
You will be given one warning that the way you are behaving is not ok. On the second morning you will be asked to go to a Headteacher so that your classmates can concentrate on their work.
77 See Attachment 21 78 See Attachment 22 79 See Attachment 23
38
If you seriously disrupt the learning environment a third time in one day, you will be sent home and asked to stay home on the following day. We all need to be clear about the consequences of your choices.
If there are six times in a week where you need to be removed from class (these will be recorded) we will call a meeting with your family and teachers to discuss where we go from here.
The Plan had more detail, including a requirement for the student to sign an “agreement”.
The child in question had ADHD. Needless to say, he did not last at the school, was excluded from activities such as the school camp as punishment for his behaviours and his parents sensibly withdrew him. He did not seem to have the same behavioural difficulties at his new school. A number of students with disabilities have been withdrawn from Ballarat Christian College.
- It should be noted that the plans set out above in subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) were not shown to the parents at any time and were obtained through the Freedom of Information process. It is most likely this is because they make it clear that restrictive practices will be used. This contradicts DET Secretary Gill Callister’s claims in her recent letter to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee mentioned above in page 2 of this submission. “[Parents and carers are] … invited to …. work with their child’s school to develop a Behaviour Support Plan.”
Functional Behaviour Assessment
-
A Functional Behaviour Assessment (“FBA”) is an assessment based on evidence where the aim is to determine the function of a challenging behaviour in order that you can then effectively address that behaviour. It is a psychological/behaviour analytical intervention, available to be used in preference to violence.
-
The writer has seen only one FBA emanate from a Victorian School after a consultant was brought in, earlier this year. It did not reflect the professionalism of such an assessment being performed by somebody with the appropriate qualifications. As is often the case, only the threat and then subsequent lodging of a legal complaint obtained such an assessment, despite this young primary school girl being subjected to restraint.
-
Due to the failure by DET to ensure the individual was qualified to undertake the assessment, it was only partially completed, and failed.
-
While a number of special schools have begun writing about the importance of behaviour analysis in some of their documentation, their practices continue
39
to be restrictive, because they are not trained in behaviour analysis and do not have the funding from DET to pay for someone who is.
-
An FBA is something which, when a behaviour is mild, may be completed by teachers trained in the exercise by someone who is suitably qualified. However when behaviours are significantly challenging, particularly challenging enough to warrant (in the minds of DET) restraint and seclusion, then such assessments must be done by someone qualified to do so. This has passed DET by, who continue to claim that their staff are competent to undertake such assessments, despite no formal training, and despite evidence over months and years that their positive behaviour plans are ineffective.
-
An FBA requires thorough data collection and careful analysis. There is a plethora of information about Functional Behaviour Assessments80, and Australia is fortunate enough to have a number of Board Certified Behaviour Analysts in the country - holding the highest qualification internationally. DET do not use them.
-
Rather than data collection, for example, we have “anecdotal” notes taken, in all manner of forms, and not even such anecdotal notes are available when asked for. When a staff member from Marnebek School was being asked in a tribunal hearing at VCAT last year as to where her claimed “anecdotal” notes were that informed her alleged behaviour analysis, her answer was “Possibly in my garage”81. And so to add to the collection of invisible documents and processes, we have the invisible Functional Behaviour Assessment. A discussion of why teachers are taking personal student documents home (therefore conveniently out of the reach of Freedom of Information requests) needs to take place.
-
For the young boy in question with Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder, who had the use of a wrist strap written into his Behaviour Plan (not shown to his parents), who his parents observed being restrained, and who another parent observed being secluded, in the view of Marnebek staff his Behaviour Plan did not warrant any formality in terms of what it was based upon, and did not warrant being shared with those who know him best, his parents.
-
It did not matter that this child was being dragged from his family’s car in the mornings due to not wanting to enter the school grounds. It did not matter that this child was starting to self harm by knocking his head into the ground and saying he did not want to go to school. It did not matter that this child’s behaviour deteriorated to a point where it was clear he was experiencing extreme trauma.
-
In Marnebek’s view, an unqualified “Behaviour Analyst” (a teacher with social work qualifications), , continued to advise staff, and
80 http://www.educateautism.com/functional-behaviour-assessment.html 81 , HL v State of Victoria and Karen Dauncey Tx 552
40
behaviour plans were rolled over month after month, despite their ineffectiveness, until the family withdrew their child.
-
Leaving Marnebek School and the culture of behaviours and consequences, restraint and seclusion, happily changed this child’s life and he now enjoys a mainstream school without violence, and professional programs based on behaviour analysis.
-
It is inconceivable that when children are being treated violently in schools by
teachers, that appropriate professional assistance is not being engaged in order that all evidence-based psychological approaches are provided.
-
While FBAs are common practice in some areas of service provision, and particularly in other countries which have a more sophisticated approach to dealing with the challenging behaviours of people with disabilities, DET continues to comfortably operate in a vacuum of best practice, preferring instead to use its lockable indoor and outdoor “safe” rooms, and restraint.
-
This is unacceptable.
-
It is worth noting that the boy in receipt of the invisible behaviour plans set out in paragraphs 148-152 and described so negatively in paragraph 140 suddenly lost all his challenging behaviours upon moving to a school that used professional staff trained in behaviour analysis. He is not the only Victorian child with Autism Spectrum Disorder that has moved overseas just to receive evidence-based teaching from competent staff.
-
Currently, DET NW Region is using a person who calls himself a “Behaviour Analyst” to undertake Functional Behaviour Assessments and train staff in Functional Behaviour Assessments. According to the “Behaviour Analyst” himself, his only related behaviour analysis qualification is a small component within a Bachelor of Arts. When the writer, on behalf of parents of a child that the “Behaviour Analyst” had written a Functional Behaviour Assessment for challenged the professionalism of the Assessment and asked for clarifying information, the “Behaviour Analyst” refused to respond. More importantly, the assessment had no effect on the child’s behaviour. This, to date, has been of no concern to DET.
-
This reflects a much broader issue that runs as a theme throughout this document, that is that DET are unconcerned with results of approaches whether they are educational or behavioural. As they are not required to measure and report on the effectiveness of any educational or behavioural strategies they use (either internally or to parents), whether an approach actually succeeds is of little interest to them.
Rejection by DET of evidence-based practice
- As mentioned above in paragraph 6, school staff demonstrate continuously that they do not understand the term “evidence-based” practice, however
41
more dangerously, when brought to their attention, DET formally reject such practice.
-
In K v State of Victoria82 DET strenuously argued against the suggestion that Applied Behaviour Analysis (“ABA”) should be seen as a proper and reasonable intervention for it to use in the education of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
-
This leaves the Victorian DET out on a limb in terms of international research and approaches, and is an educational embarrassment as far as best practice goes. Putting decades of international research aside, and the findings of the National Standards Report83 (perhaps the largest meta analysis of its kind ever undertaken) Australia has also produced reports which arrive at conclusions commensurate with international research in relation to ABA.
-
In 2011, a report was published84 by the Australian Society for Autism Research, contributed to by professionals from The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, the University of Queensland, the University of Melbourne and the Royal Children’s Hospital. It concluded that the only established evidence based intervention for Autism was ABA.
-
The National Autism Center Report, breaking down the components of ABA individually, covered adults up to the age of 22 years old.
-
The fact that the Australian court case mentioned directly above had DET arguing against the application of ABA but clearly for (as was the evidence in this court case) restraint, seclusion, and training of staff by martial arts experts, one wonders what is in the minds of senior DET bureaucrats.
-
Thirty-two other nations including China and New Zealand offer Behaviour Analyst Certification Board approved course sequences in their universities. Australia urgently needs to catch up.
-
The Victorian Auditor General’s Office identified in 2012: Since 2006, DEECD has distributed more than $2.6 billion to schools through the PSD. However, DEECD does not have the information it needs to determine whether PSD funding is being used efficiently and effectively. Concerns raised about this by VAGO in 2007 still have not been adequately addressed and instead of having five years worth of high-quality data about the program, the department still knows very little about its impact on the educational outcomes of supported students.85
82 K v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 1398 83 “The National standards Project-Addressing the Need for Evidence-based Practice Guidelines for
Autism Spectrum Disorders“ National Autism Center 2009
84 A Review of the Research to Identify the Most Effective Models of Practice in Early Intervention for
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders 2011
85 Victorian Auditor General’s Office “Programs for Students with Special Learning Needs” p viii
42
-
“Proper funding in theory should support ethical and accountable practice but not without clear unambiguous practice and ethical guidelines, appropriate credentialing, proper regulation and proper mechanisms for addressing consumer complaints. Unfortunately high remuneration with low levels of accountability and no requirement for formal credentials in evidence based practice is a powerful contingency supporting unethical practice.” The writer’s client.
-
The thrust of the Victorian Auditor General’s comments, are that DET does not operate from an evidence base.
E. SUSPENSIONS/EXPULSIONS 186. Linked strongly with the above section relating to the failure by departments of education to use expert psychological and behaviour supports is the issue of suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities.
-
Students with disabilities continue to receive suspensions and are being expelled for challenging behaviours. At times, this even occurs at special schools. Given it is the law that students attend school, the act of suspending and expelling children is inexplicable as it just moves what DET consider a “problem” to another school.
-
As yet another example of DET’s failure to collect best practice evidence and pass it on to staff, the research on suspensions reflects that it is ineffective in counter-productive.86
F. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 189. The writer refers to the attached submission to the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training (Attachment 2). Current discrimination legislation does not uphold the rights of students with disabilities to access a quality education.
G. BULLYING 190. Children with disabilities are often the targets of bullying, for obvious reasons. Children with cognitive disabilities often do not engender the same understanding and sympathy from their peers as do, for example, children who are blind or are in wheelchairs. Some statistics in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder and bullying reveal the following.
86 “School Suspensions” 2010 Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Royal
Children’s Hospital
43
-
22 out of 22 parents of children with Aspergers Syndrome, aged 11-19, reported that their children were being victimised by peers. On average, these children were victimised 1.25 times per week. 23 % of parents reported that their children were victimised two or more times per week87.
-
94% of 400 parents of children with ASD, aged 4-17, reported that their children had been bullied or victimised88.
-
Children with ASD are 4 times more likely to be bullied than their peers89.
-
160 000 children miss school each day (presumably in the US) because they are afraid of being bullied or harassed90.
-
Children have a 75% chance of being bullied throughout their school years from kindergarten until the end of high school91.
-
In 1993 27% of middle-school students worldwide reported often being bullied92.
-
Many Victorian Schools have not seemed to grasp yet the concept of preventative approaches to bullying, and rather focus on meaningless (to children) bullying policies (for example “zero tolerance”) and restorative approaches (reactive). Putting that aside, the writer has had a number of experiences attempting to advocate for students with disabilities who report bullying, and regrettably has experienced a common response.
-
While advocating for a student at Wedderburn College, I received a letter containing the following:
-
“The College is aware that currently incidents occur which xxxx perceives to be bullying. In all these cases, including those that xxxx has reported, our investigations have indicated that the conduct complained of has been
87 Konstanareas, M (2005) “Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome” in K Stoddart (ed.) Children, Youth and Adults with Asperger Syndrome. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers
88 Heinrichs, R (2003) Perfect Targets: Asperger Syndrome and Bullying – Practical Solutions for Surviving the Social World. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Company. 89 Little, L (2002) “Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger Syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders” Issues Comprehensive Paediatric Nursing 25, 43-47. 90 Fried, S and Fried, P (1996) Bullies and Victims .New York: M Evans and Company Inc. Gray, C (2003) “Gray’s guide to bullying” Jenison Autism Journal 16, 1, 1-60.
91 Hoover, JH and Oliver, RJ (1996) The Bullying Prevention Handbook: A Guide for Principals,
Teachers and Counselors. Bloomington, IN: National educational Service 92 Smith, PK and Whitney, I (1993) “A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary school” Educational Research 35, 1, 3-25.
44
misinterpreted by xxxx or did not in fact occur as he stated.93“ [emphasis added]
-
In other words, when questioned, the children without disabilities who did the bullying gave a different story to the victim, and they were believed. Meanwhile the victim acquired an adjustment disorder, was ultimately too frightened to attend school and had to leave. As is often the case in North Western Victorian region, handling of the matter was endorsed by the Regional Director.
-
This is not an atypical example of DET responses to bullying. There is little hope for students with disabilities who are being bullied, when they are disbelieved by school staff. The consequences of bullying are well known to the community, and have included suicide. The question is why wouldn’t school staff believe that a child with a disability was being bullied if they reported such bullying. It is difficult to find an answer to that question, except perhaps that at all times DET is observed to act in a defensive manner, fearing legal action against it. Senior DET staff have not yet understood that it is their failure to ever admit fault and make reparation that actually acts as a driver for litigation.
-
It is unclear what it will take to change the attitudes of Victorian schools to the bullying of children with disabilities. It is ironic, though, that if a child with a disability is having a meltdown and may injure another, that child is described as having “assaulted” someone. However when they asked for protection themselves, they are often ignored.
-
When children are bullied, they can spend much of their school life being fearful. They may change schools if the bullying is not competently addressed. The writer submits that either result is counter-productive in terms of a environment conducive to academic achievement.
H. SCHOOL BUSES 204. DET contract bus companies to run buses between special schools and the homes of children with disabilities. There have been numerous examples of abuses reported against children in school buses, including, for example, accusations that a child was tied up on a bus94.
- However the most significant ongoing inhumane and degrading treatment of children with disabilities is the fact that it is DET Policy that children can spend up to 2 hours one way on a bus from their home to the school. That is, in total,
93 Letter to Julie Phillips dated 20 May 2014, Principal Wedderburn College. 94 http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1415058/vcat-damages-bid-after-disabled-child-tied-up-on-bus/
45
four hours per day. In that four hours they cannot access toilets, and can commonly urinate or defecate on the bus. They cannot eat or drink. Some children may be strapped into a seat for that length of time due to the fact that, understandably, they do not wish to remain seated.
-
This issue has been raised with DET over a period of years, and they refuse to resolve the issue, which is simply to ensure there are more bus services. The two-hour long trips are not particularly required because children live far away from their school, it is because the number of buses contracted are limited due to a disinterest by DET in spending sufficient money in order to ensure that students with disabilities are treated humanely. A private car running directly to the school may take 20 minutes.
-
Such treatment cannot be justified. However the writer submits it is fair to draw the inference that by the time a child has spent two hours in uncomfortable and frustrating conditions simply arriving at school they are not in an optimum condition to learn. Similarly, the added exhaustion for students’ time away from home stretches from a six-hour day to a 10 hour day and impacts on their general health and well-being, and therefore ability to learn.
I. COMPLAINTS PROCESSES 208. It is vital that parents have an effective complaints process in order that issues regarding their children’s education can be effectively addressed. The writer refers to Attachment 5 as an example where a complaint about an individual education plan took over half a year with no result. In the meantime, the student’s education was in hiatus.
-
The internal DET complaints process is of little use, except that if one wishes to go to the ombudsman one will be referred back to the internal complaints process and therefore it becomes something that is required. The reason parents ultimately litigate is that they cannot get the slightest satisfaction through any internal DET process. DET personnel at many levels are aggressive, adversarial, and respond in a manner that reflects they are interested only in the protection of their own staff.
-
Regrettably, and inexplicably, DET seem to prefer litigating rather than making any admission. This is no doubt on the advice of the Legal Department, who perhaps because they are lawyers, assume that every parent wishes for an apology or acceptance that something will not happen again, only in order that they can sue. This is perhaps more of a reflection on DET than parents.
-
An example of a complaint that will provide the Senate Committee with a typical example of how DET handle complaints follows.
Case Study 3
On 20 December 2012, the writer sent a letter to the Regional Director, DET Grampians Region in relation to “John” who was a
46
young primary school child with Autism Spectrum Disorder.95 The writer made a complaint about the repeated restraint and illegal imprisonment of this young boy.
The writer advised the Region that while attending Alfredton Primary School, John had been:
“ held on the ground by ankles while other staff cross his arms, and then been dragged around the school secluded in a room for such periods that he has urinating and soiled himself, not eating food, becoming dehydrated “
The writer advised that John’s mother Mrs Smith, after transferring John to Wendouree Primary School, had advised them expressly not to subject her son to restraint and seclusion, which staff had ignored.
The writer reported that staff had subjected John to restraint and assault:
without gaining the consent of Mr and Mrs xxxxx; without documentation; without staff being trained in restraint, and therefore knowing which restraint holds are safe and which are dangerous; without having put in place other methods such as: Drawing up a Behaviour Support Plan Based on a Functional Behaviour Assessment and Analysis; Employing a behavioural psychologist or behaviouralist to develop, closely supervise, monitor and evaluate such a plan
The Regional Director was advised that until he could guarantee the safety of John, given the psychological and physical injuries John was experiencing (John had begun to self harm), John would not be attending school.
The writer asked the Regional Director to respond “immediately”.
On 31 January 2013, over one month later, the writer wrote to the Regional Director96 noting that John had the right to attend school as his nondisabled peers did, and asking for an urgent response to the letter dated 20th of December 2012.
On 4 February 2013, the writer wrote to the Regional Director97, the letter being reproduced below.
I refer to my letters to you dated 20 December 2012, 31
95 letter Julie Phillips to Regional Director 96 J Phillips to , Regional Director DET 31 January 2013 97 J Phillips to , Regional Director, DET 4 February 2013
47
January 2013 also marked “URGENT”.
Mrs xxxx is unable to sustain home schooling of xxxx. She is not registered for home schooling. xxxx needs to attend school, without being restrained, as soon as possible.
Please advise immediately.
On 6 February 2013, the writer wrote to the Regional Director98, the letter being reproduced below.
I refer to my letters to dated 20 December 2012, 31 January 2013, 4 February 2013 also marked “URGENT”.
Mrs xxxx is unable to sustain home schooling of xxxx. She is not registered for home schooling. xxxx needs to attend school, without being restrained, as soon as possible.
Please advise immediately.
The Deputy Regional Director then sent the writer a one-page letter99, which consisted of this sentence, among a few others.
“Following a review of the documented learning plans and procedures in place for xxxx at Wendouree Primary School and incident reports from 2012 relating to xxxx, I believe the school has responded appropriately and within DEECD policy guidelines to xxxx’s identified needs.”
The letter ended with an encouragement to return John to the very school that had been subjecting him to restraint and seclusion. John’s name was misspelt throughout the letter.
Shocked at the brief response to the issues raised, including actions which can cause injury and death, the writer then sent the following letter to the Deputy Regional Director100 on 7 February 2013.
Despite this four-page letter setting out numerous breaches of internal DET policy and procedure, not even a response was received.
After forwarding a complaint to then Minister for Education Dixon, who then gave Deputy Secretary the responsibility for following up the matter, the writer received a letter dated 12 March 2013.101
98 J Phillips to , Regional Director, DDT 6 February 2013 99 Letter Deputy Regional Director to J Phillips 6 February 2013 100 Attachment 24 Letter Julie Phillips to , Deputy Regional Director 7 February 2013 101 Letter to Julie Phillips 12 March 2013
48
This one-page letter addressed none of the individual complaints. response to what had occurred in the past was summed up in this one sentence.
“I am informed that the Acting Deputy Regional Director reviewed the educational plans and procedures in place for xxxx at Wendouree Primary School, as well as incident reports from 2012, and has come to the view that the school responded that xxxx needs appropriately and accordance with DEECD guidelines.”
212. And that was it. It is only by comparing response to the letter that
was sent to him that the full extent of his contempt for this process is revealed.
-
This example is typical of many other complaints the writer has assisted parents of children with disabilities to make using the internal complaints system at DET. The contempt with which DET treat such complaints reflects their complete confidence that they are not required to actually address any detail of a complaint they receive.
-
The final insult to the child and his family was that when the Ombudsman investigated the investigation, it did not exist. However clearly Deputy Secretary was not bothered by such detail when deciding to ignore allegations of the alleged abuse of a young boy with disabilities, (which the boy continues to have counselling about), and instead supported his regional office staff.
-
It is worth pausing to consider the seriousness of what is happening at senior levels of DET, including their Legal Department. Apart from the internal Legal Department advice to PASS (mentioned above in paragraphs 66 and 67) in relation to seclusion constituting illegal imprisonment, the Crimes Act 1958 supports such a view. A plaintiff need only prove that another person has unlawfully deprived them of their liberty, either intentionally or negligently, in any circumstances.
-
So here we have a complaint about something that could clearly constitute a criminal act, and , upon receiving the complaint, simply states that someone has “informed” him that the matter has been investigated. The question to be asked is, if a senior bureaucrat of DET is informed that there are possible criminal acts occurring against students with disabilities and declines to investigate, does this constitute corruption?
-
Perhaps it is a more appropriate question for IBAC. On the other hand, perhaps it is a question for the Australian community.
Case Study 4
On 19 March 2012, the parent of child with Severe Autism Spectrum Disorder wrote to Marnebek School Principal and amongst other things:
49
expressed concern about a bruise found on her son’s right arm she believed came from adult handling expressed concern about a bite mark found on her son’s chest asked for a written response on how her son would be kept safe from injuries in the future.
She received no response.
On 27 March 2012, the same parent wrote to about an incident where she saw her son being manhandled by a staff member. She received no response.
On 7 May 2012, the same parent wrote to Marnebek Principal and amongst other things, expressed concern that her son: was being locked in an outdoor garden for the entire duration of play time had been led around the school using a wrist strap ‘like an animal’ was being physically restrained at assembly was refusing to go to school - screaming, crying and refusing to walk down the hall to his classroom was self harming by smacking his head into the floor was losing his academic skills The parent said she was concerned that her son’s safety, well-being and anxiety was spiralling out of control. She advised she was withdrawing her son from the school.
She received no response in relation to any of her allegations of neglect and mistreatment.
- The above is an example, not only of DET staff disinterest in reports of abuse and neglect of children with disabilities, but also of a complaints process where parents are treated with contempt.
J. BEST PRACTICE/EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING APPROACHES 219. There is no direction from DET to teachers as to what are evidence-based and/or best practice programs. Given the challenges teachers are experiencing with basic teaching as set out above in paragraph 56, it is clear that until teaching universities change the way they approach their teaching courses, teachers require further support and direction.
Case Study 5
Reading Recovery is a 1:1 program only for students in Year 1, and runs daily for between 12 and 20 weeks. The Reading Recovery author insists that it be used only with Year 1 students.
50
The writer’s client who had a Severe Language Disorder and Borderline IQ was receiving the Reading Recovery program in Year 7. She has left school without functional literacy and numeracy skills and receives a government benefit.
Case Study 6
John had a severe language disorder and dyslexia. One of the “strategies” used with John was “silent sustained reading”. This is where a child sits with a book in front of them and a teacher hopes they will read it to themselves, but does not know because it is “silent”.
- Teachers, presumably supported by DET, have given evidence in court cases at the Federal Court criticising evidence-based literacy and numeracy programs, or upholding their rights to use such programs in non-compliance when the manufacturer’s instructions. When a student, as would be expected, then fails to learn literacy and numeracy skills, teachers have given evidence that it is because the students do not have the capacity to learn. There is no evidence of this.
K. IMPACT 221. The impact of all the discrimination, non-provision of Allied health professional support, insufficient funding, bullying and failure to use evidence-based best practice teaching principals has the following consequences for students:
a. failure to obtain basic literacy and numeracy skills; b. acquisition of psychological/mental health disorders due to mistreatment and abuse;
c. home schooling and Distance Education; d. failure to acquire socialisation skills that are integral part of attending school at mixing with other students;
e. all of the above. 222. The consequences for parents are as follows: a. parent unable to work to the refusal of schools to accept students full time;
b. parent unable to work due to school constantly calling parent asking they take the child home due to unaddressed challenging behaviours;
c. parental depression/anxiety/mental health disorder due to long-term stress of dealing with school;
d. parental depression/anxiety/mental health disorder due to inability to protect child from abusive practices in school.
- The consequences for society are as follows: 51
a. when challenging behaviours exhibited by students with disabilities in mainstream schools are not professionally addressed, a negative and unfair impression is created of those students and affects the perception of disability by students without disabilities;
b. when students are segregated from students without disabilities in special schools due to mainstream schools encouraging parents to enroll their children there, students without disabilities are not growing up side by side with their disabled peers which can often contribute to discrimination in later life against people with disabilities.
- The consequences for government of students with disabilities being uneducated include:
a. students with disabilities not been provided with the basic academic skills to undertake tertiary education;
b. students with disabilities going from school straight to the Disability Support Pension due to their inability to work;
c. students with disabilities moving from school straight to disability services due to trauma and is challenging behaviours acquired during their school experience;
d. loss of taxes paid; e. increased financial support being provided to the juvenile justice system.
- There are no positive impacts or consequences, the writer submits, to any part of society as a result of the current inadequate state of education for students with disabilities.
52
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) If the Victorian Department of Education and Training had any intentions of removing the many and varied barriers that students with disabilities had to accessing their education, it would have done so after receiving the statutory reports referred to throughout this submission, in 2012.
If the Victorian Department of Education and Training viewed the education of students with disabilities as a serious issue, there would have been ramifications for senior DET employees in 2012 in response to reports which clearly reflect significant failure.
If the Victorian Department of Education and Training was minded to begin reallocating the millions of dollars they spend on litigation to student support, they would have done so by now. They have not.
Given the significant costs to the Commonwealth Government of students with disabilities leaving secondary school without the necessary skills to undertake further education or gain employment, it is the writer’s submission that only the Commonwealth may have an interest in, and the power to, change the course of education for students with disabilities.
Recommendation: That funding to State Governments be contingent on specific criteria being met in relation to educational outcomes of students with disabilities, and the elimination of restrictive practices. Such criteria needing to be specific and measurable, in order that it is meaningful.
(2) Case law reflects that Australia’s antidiscrimination legislation is inadequate.
Recommendation: That recent reviews of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 be acted upon.
(3) Recommendation: That the Commonwealth require an Education Worker Exclusion List be established, modelled on the current disability services models.
(4) Recommendation: That the Commonwealth require every school in every state to advertise its use of restrictive practices in order that parents are able to have complete information about the risks of enrolling their students in those schools.
(5) Recommendation: That the Commonwealth ensures there is an independent body to receive complaints relating to students with disabilities in schools across Australia.
53
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Speech Pathology Plan 2012
Attachment 2. Submission on the Disability Standards for Education 2005
Attachment 3 Individual Education Plan Panton Hill Primary School
Attachment 4 Individual Education Plan Sydenham Hillside Primary School
Attachment 5. History requesting Individual Education Plan.
Attachment 6. Individual Education Plan Mt Erin Secondary College
Attachment 7 Courtyard Marnebek School
Attachment 8. Bulleen Heights School Pens
Attachment 9 Southern Autistic School Pen
Attachment 10 “Safe Room” Bendigo Special Developmental School
Attachment 11 Position Paper on Positive Management Strategies PASS
Attachment 12 Behaviour Management Plan Bendigo SDS
Attachment 13 Timeout Wantirna Heights School
Attachment 14. Map Marnebek School
Attachment 15. Student Code of Conduct, Marnebek School
Attachment 16. DET Restraint Policy
Attachment 17. SSG minutes Wendouree Primary School
Attachment 18. MAT Program Eastern Metropolitan Region
Attachment 19. ANZUK Advertisements for Martial Arts Trained Aide.
Attachment 20. Behaviour Plan Golden Square Primary School
Attachment 21 Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2010
Attachment 22 Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2011
Attachment 23 Behaviour Plan Marnebek School 2011/2012
Attachment 24 Letter Julie Phillips to , Deputy Regional Director
7 February 2013
54
ABBREVIATIONS
DET Department of Education and Training
IBAC Independent Broad-based Anticorruption Commission
FBA Functional Behaviour Assessment
MAT Martial Arts Therapy
MSO MAT Support Officer
ODSC Office of the Disability Support Commissioner
OPA Office of the Public Advocate
PASS Principals Association of Special Schools
PECS Picture Exchange Communication System
VE0HRC Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
55