Interrogating Sanctioned Violence: A Survey of Parents/Guardians of Children with Disabilities about Restraint and Seclusion in Manitoba’s Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing concern that restraint and seclusion are being misused in schools, most often with students with disabilities. This issue is silent at the provincial level in Manitoba, with no regulation from the Ministry of Education. In order to examine the extent to which restraint and seclusion were being used in schools in Manitoba with children/youth with disabilities, an anonymous online survey involving a convenience sample of parents/guardians of children/ youth with disabilities was conducted. The 48-item questionnaire was disseminated through disability advocacy organizations in this province. Parents/guardians reported a high frequency of the use of restraint and seclusion, limited consent to the use of these practices, and an absence of written notification that they had occurred. Of great concern, some parents reported that their child was subjected to mechanical restraint and practices known to have a higher risk of causing death (e.g. supine and prone holds, being left in rooms that were locked from the outside etc.). A majority of parents reported their child had suffered trauma, and signs of physical injury also were noted. The results of this study indicate that restraint and seclusion are being misused as behaviour management techniques, especially with students with disabilities. These practices contravene Canada’s commitment to international standards regarding the rights of children and youth with disabilities, and change is required. The implementation of regulatory standards, legitimizing the voice of parents of children and youth with disabilities, and training for educators in positive behaviour interventions and supports are proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".