"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 Submission on the Draft Centres’ Proposed National Framework for Reducing the Use of Restrictive Practices made the following points: in the Disability Service Sector recent DEECD Restraint Policy dated 2012 can be compared to the “The Office of the Senior Practitioner May 2011 guidelines on restrictive practices. The DEECD policy: Allows restraint to prevent the student from on ‘inflicting harm’ 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 and therefore define ‘harm’, each staff person is able to interpret the phrase individually. Allows restraint when there is reasonable that can be ‘no alternative’ taken to avoid the danger. There is no guidance to staff on what may be, and there is no definition of ‘reasonable alternatives’ ‘danger’. Disallows restraint unless to avoid the danger ‘alternative measures have been There is no attempt to give guidance on what exhausted’. 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 that staff using restraint should be trained. It ‘advisable’ gives no guidance on that training, and in fact the DEECD openly admits to using martial arts instructors as trainers. Asks staff to a number of factors such as ‘consider’ ‘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.”
"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 Sector 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.”
Submission-Senate-Inquiry-Educational-Attainment.docx