Talk

Advanced search

Michael Gove slackens rules on use of physical force in schools

(75 Posts)
Triggles Fri 02-Sep-11 07:53:05

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/01/michael-gove-physical-force-schools

I'm curious what people think of this. On one hand, I understand teachers need to have more authority in the classroom, however, I'm not really sure this is the way to go either.

Triggles Fri 02-Sep-11 07:53:39

Oh good grief, messed that up, didn't I. Here's the link:

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/01/michael-gove-physical-force-schools

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 02-Sep-11 08:10:52

I don't think this means a return to 'Whack-O!' days of canes and slippers. But some children are pretty aggressive - not to say enormous - and teachers need to be able to deal with such children physically without being frightened that there will be automatic accusations that 'sir assaulted me'.

imgonnaliveforever Fri 02-Sep-11 09:27:29

I think this is brilliant news. The changes include allowing teachers to physically restrain pupils from hurting themselves or others, and physically removing a pupil from a class, and states that the teacher will not be liable for any injury caused to the pupil in these instances.

carminagoesprimal Fri 02-Sep-11 09:31:59

Excellent news - about time.

GypsyMoth Fri 02-Sep-11 09:34:45

Yes, it's good news

But kids will use force back I guess.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fo0ffyShmoofer Fri 02-Sep-11 09:35:03

Good - There has to be something in place.

GypsyMoth Fri 02-Sep-11 09:41:43

It might work at primary level, just. Can't see it working with secondary pupils though. They will just push/fight back, probably goad teachers into being physical with them too

PotteringAlong Fri 02-Sep-11 09:43:32

But we've always been to physically restrain pupils who were in danger of hurting themselves or others. I don't see, other than a 're-launch' how this is different?

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 02-Sep-11 11:27:52

I think it's a subtle change in emphasis rather than a rewriting of the rules. If it gives teachers more confidence to engage rather than back off and if it makes the badly-behaved child a little less cocky about their 'rights' then that's good.

Reminds me of the 'householders can't fight back for fear of prosecution' mythology that sprang up around the Tony Martin case. The law hasn't changed - we've always been able to defend our homes in a reasonable, proportional way - but there have been statements on the side of the householder recently reassuring us that we're supported.

Malcontentinthemiddle Fri 02-Sep-11 11:34:40

So would you all be happy for your child to be man-handled out of a room if the teacher thought it necessary, in whatever way the teacher thought best?

And then if in the manhandling, the teachers nails dug into your child's skin and drew blood, would you be ok with that? Or he stumbles over a chair during the manhandling, and causes injury?

Jesus christ, we have threads on here demanding that teachers apologise to a child for telling him to sit down and be quiet - I dread to think of the fuuuuuming there will be when some dc get physically restrained or removed from rooms.

Stupid vile cretinous Gove, I hate him with a passion which alarms me.

bumbleymummy Fri 02-Sep-11 11:34:44

I agree that it is probably more a change in emphasis and may give teachers more confidence. I think it is a good thing.

TheCrackFox Fri 02-Sep-11 11:36:40

"So would you all be happy for your child to be man-handled out of a room if the teacher thought it necessary, in whatever way the teacher thought best?"

Wouldn't have a problem.

Malcontentinthemiddle Fri 02-Sep-11 11:43:29

I'd be surprised if that was the case universally.

I also think this insidiously works against female teachers, since on the whole a male teacher is going to have more chance of physically forcing a burly 16 year old lad out of a classroom than a female is. So presumably the women will be instructed in such cases to run and find a male nearby? That'll do wonders for their status.

AFAIK teachers can already hold back pupils who are fighting etc. It's just c*nty old Gove trying to pretend that there's no discipline in schools at all and only he can restore it.

I also like his implicit insinuation in the article that best thing that could have happened to him as an illegitimate baby was adoption, and had he not been adopted into the middle classes he just would have turned into a looter. Stupid vile man.

bumbleymummy Fri 02-Sep-11 11:44:48

If they were causing a disruption or posing a risk to the teacher/others in the class then I wouldn't have a problem with it either. I'd actually be more concerned about my child being in a classroom at risk from a disruptive child that no one can do anything about.

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 02-Sep-11 11:46:14

"So would you all be happy for your child to be man-handled out of a room if the teacher thought it necessary, in whatever way the teacher thought best?"

By and large, yes. Unlike some, I have a lot of respect for the teaching profession & do not think them to be closet, child-hating, sociopaths out to pick on children for no reason. I don't think teachers should apologise for telling children to sit down and be quiet either....

Malcontentinthemiddle Fri 02-Sep-11 12:08:57

No, nor do I - but I can't wait for the first thread on here where some child has been manhandled and an apology is demanded. I have huge respect for the teaching profession, which is partly why I don't think they should be deemed to want to resort to physical force - I doubt that's why most went into the profession.

ASByatt Fri 02-Sep-11 12:15:32

Hmm, not impressed, but tbh I too loathe Gove with such passion that I probably struggle to look at anything of his ideas objectively - not something I'm proud of.

If it's ok for teachers to be able to use force, it would worry me then that there is an expectation that they will, which I don't think is right.

Plus we've been able to restrain pupils to prevent harm to themselves or others for ages anyway.

Ramifications of this for secondary school are interesting, but as Gove doesn't live in the real world then he won't be worrying about it......

Did I say that I don't like M Gove?

numptysmummy Fri 02-Sep-11 12:18:27

I would be more unhappy with my child who had to be manhandled out than the teacher who did it tbh. It's my job to make sure my children can behave and i would hope that they always would,wherever they are. However there are children who don't know/ or don't care and i fully support anything that gives teachers some sort of powers. I'm very concerned that my childrens education could be damaged by bad behaviour from other chrildren that teachers are in no easy position to discipline. People need to start taking responsibility for their children and their childrens behaviour rather than giving grief to the people who then have to deal with it.

Malcontentinthemiddle Fri 02-Sep-11 12:19:02

It's the underlying message I don't like: 'schools are shit. There's no discipline in schools. This is because teacher's can't take physical control. By doing this I will stop teachers from lying and saying they can't take physical control, and then teachers will have no excuse for the indiscipline which I, Michael Gove, who have probably never been inside a state school, have decided is endemic in all (straw) state schools.'

ASByatt Fri 02-Sep-11 12:19:51

[Agrees with Malcontent emoticon}

Snowy27 Fri 02-Sep-11 12:25:40

Personally I would feel better about this idea if it included giving teachers proper training in restraint- as a teacher I had to ask and ask for proper training- I've had to bundle quite a few kids out of the classroom to stop them hurting others and more often themselves and I want to know how to do it properly and safely, not because I don't want to get sued but because I like these kids and I don't want to hurt them when I'm trying to help them.

I and I also hate Gove. smile

Malcontentinthemiddle Fri 02-Sep-11 12:29:37

ASByatt grin

Just spotted that I put 'teacher's' though - aargh. blush

Badgercub Fri 02-Sep-11 12:34:41

I don't understand why this is any different to the rules already in place. confused

The use of physical restraint is already allowed.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now