AIBU to think holding children down for “educational” purposes is bad?

[MakingM2]

I watched “Don’t exclude me” last night and there were some interesting ideas but I’ll cut to the chase.

In one scene, if you haven’t seen it, the teacher is physically restraining a very young boy who clearly has additional needs. They are basically on the floor in the playground. She is holding him down. He is pulling her hair. It’s all fairly horrific. She claims this is “trauma informed practice”.

The deputy head said - it feels wrong when you do it and it feels wrong when someone else does it.

…and my thought is “Sir, that’s because it is wrong”. You are teaching this tiny child that a more powerful person can physically force them to submit to their will - and that this is something that is ok. You may as well get a cane out.

Having been a governor in two primaries and friends with teachers and teacher trainers, I personally can’t imagine many teachers would want to undertake this kind of “behaviour management” even if the children do become more compliant afterwards.

And it occurred to me, given we think that observing violence is bad for children, should we really be doing this type of thing?

So am I being unreasonable to think violence (of any kind, with any justification) has no place in an educational environment?

YABU - nah, this is fine, stop being so precious
YANBU - education should be violence free

“That children who are a danger to themselves and others might need more adjustments to receive an education that meets their needs than a mainstream environment can offer them?

I’m not sure that keeping all the children together in one kind of provision is desirable if physically restraining children, and other children seeing children physically restrained because they are a danger to them, is what it takes tbh”

I think you are waaaaay more likely to hold in a specialist setting than in mainstream. Even with lots of adjustments in place it can still get to a point where someone needs to be restrained.

@Sirzy

Well if 6 year old is being “violent” on a presumably secure playground then I can think of many steps that could be taken before physically restraining them.

What is often forgotten is that the behaviour will have a cause and too often the cause of that behaviour isn’t examined we just respond to the behaviour.

6 year olds can indeed behave violently. I'm not sure why you've used inverted commas. We've had staff members injured and hurt by KS1 children. It doesn't matter how secure the playground is if that child is attacking other people around them, whether that is adults or children. Those people matter too and deserve protection. Yes the root cause of behaviour should be examined, but in that moment you have to deal quickly with the dangerous behaviour that is currently occurring so that nobody gets hurt. As I said earlier, I've not seen the programme in question so my comment doesn't relate to the specific situation OP is referring to.

@IWantT0BreakFree

I haven't seen the programme. You say he was pulling her hair - was he behaving violently and being restrained to prevent further lashing out? What else should she have done? Allowed him to physically attack her/other children or hurt himself?

The child was clearly not in a good place but didn’t appear to be in danger tbh. He was being defiant. He began to pull her hair AFTER she started to try and hold him down. If you saw two children doing the same, you might call it scrapping.

• even if you are a child and they are a “fully trained” adult.

The difference is that the child has lost control and the adult is able to provide that.
I entirely agree that restraint can be the wrong option and can be misused and abused. Of course it can, and this has been frequently reported. However, it is often very well and appropriately used and, mostly, is a short, even momentary, intervention.
Not watching the programme though. Sounds awful.

Even with the ‘right’ provision, which most LAs don’t have and very few children have access to, these situations will occur.

Also OP, to get to the point where a student is in a more suitable provision we have to prove that every other step isn't working. That includes additional support, trained external professionals and interventions and curriculum modifications. It usually takes repeated, violent incidents and assaults for a student to be moved on to a more suitable provision. I say this having been in the receiving end of these before.

Well I do not agree, and I'd take a guess that most wouldn't agree that a child should be restrained as a way to get them to comply.

The only time I believe it is appropriate to restrain is when the child is a risk to themselves or others.

This child clearly had SEN.

In the programme, there was not 1 mention of that, or what the school are doing to help support the family get a full assesment of his needs.

This is what they should be putting all their efforts into.

What channel is this on? It does sound a bit like the situation might not have called for a hold (in my limited experience). Re the ‘violence’ of a restraint - I can see where you’re coming from but I have been told by colleagues who have been in specialist settings for a long time that sometimes young people get into holds because they genuinely crave physical contact and this is one of the only ways they get it. So much so that some of the pupils can be offered a hug to avoid getting into a hold 🤷🏻‍♀️ obviously that’s something that would need unpicking in itself but it does show that ‘being held’ appropriately can actually have a range of meanings.

It’s never going to be to ‘get them to comply’. It is about managing a situation in the safest way possible. For some children, ‘defiance’ will be a sign that they are about to seriously dysregulate and require immediate support. For others, it might just mean they’re a bit pissed off and need a reminder of the expectation. We cannot continue to consider ‘inclusion’ to mean treating all kids the same and assuming they will respond in the same way.

Every restraint has to be recorded and the context explained in these situations. There are training courses staff have to undertake in how to safely restrain, and the circumstances in which this is appropriate (from my experience working with AP schools for primary and secondary pupils). I'm sure there will be occasions where it is used inappropriately (everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and there are undoubtedly dodgy people in education, I've seen enough misconduct cases) but in the main, the purpose is safety of the child and their peers, and to a lesser extent the staff. It's not punitive.

The child was clearly not in a good place but didn’t appear to be in danger tbh. He was being defiant. He began to pull her hair AFTER she started to try and hold him down. If you saw two children doing the same, you might call it scrapping.

Sounds a bit strange to have used restraint in this case when there were apparently other means of diffusing the situation. Hard to say without having watched it myself or knowing any details. I definitely don't think that means that it's never appropriate or the safest way to deal with a situation. Imagine if your child was seriously hurt because another child had not been prevented from lashing out at them by an adult. Sometimes you have literally a fraction of second to react.

As the mother of a 5 year old with (under investigation) ADHD I agree that sometimes you absolutely have to restrain them
You can have all the strategies and provisions in place yet still unfortunately something unexpected can happen and they can still flip out and once they’re gone absolutely no talking or reasoning will calm them down, you just have to stop the violence
And whoever thinks a small child can’t hurt an adult they absolutely can, people with SN tend to be stronger anyway and also have a lower pain threshold so is quite the dangerous combination when they’re angry, my son has punched, kicked, slapped and head butted me - small or not a head but to the nose always hurts!!

@MyCatEatsPrawnCrackers

I agree that Education should be violence free, so if a child is being violent to others then he/she should be stopped. If that means by restraint as a last resort, then so be it.

I can agree with that. In unforeseen circumstances, to protect the child and others, but as an ongoing behaviour management technique? Surely having to physically restrain a child should be the final trigger for finding an educational setting that better meets the needs of the child?

Tbh I’m just as concerned for the other children and teachers who would have to go into school each day not knowing if Child A was going to have a bad day and need to be restrained. That must be disruptive to everyone surely.

I've not seen it so can't comment, but if it was shown on TV then what they did will be legally watertight, which means it must have been both necessary and proportionate.

I do agree with your point though about whether mainstream schools are the right environment for children who often display these kinds of behaviours. I have definitely felt out of my depth in the past as an unqualified, untrained TA dealing with situations like this. Obviously you do your best to keep everyone safe but I have been very nearly injured in the past in the process of doing that. I think people would be shocked if they knew how much teachers and TAs are expected to handle with very little support and often very little/no training.

@AnotherLauraLou

I watched the same episode and have a child who is autistic, I can’t imagine anyone holding him down and the thought of it upsets me. It wasn’t nice to watch. However I don’t know a lot about it either. I don’t agree with exclusion though, how does that benefit a primary aged child? It doesn’t mean anything. It is very hard to get any help or understanding for children with additional needs in main stream school.

She mentioned she had previously worked with other children, what was her background as I missed other episodes?

** It benefits all the other children in the class. Disruption of their lessons on a daily business is so unfair on them. It is also unfair on the disruptive child who cannot cope with the classroom environment. Such children benefit from being in much smaller groups.

@KingdomScrolls

My aunt is a deputy head in a SEN specialist school, she's very experienced and qualified. In addition she's vegan, Buddhist and against all forms of violence and aggression which gives you an usually into her mindset. Sometimes they have to restrain the children to prevent them causing harm to themselves or others. This is a fully trained strategy and there are mechanisms individual to each child to support their emotional regulation and safety, it's a last resort and the welfare of the child is paramount throughout. Some of the eleven year olds they have are as big as young adults and just as strong. I haven't seen the programme you're talking about, but context is key and you won't always get that with a television editing.

Your aunt and I seem likeminded, as you’ve described her. It is slightly different in SEN schools and PRUs tbh. They do the best they can and the children often have complex needs which can be completely beyond their own ability to control themselves.

I guess I’m surprised that people would be willing to accept that in mainstream settings. I’m more of the mind that we need more educational options for children so they can get what the education they need in a way that meets their needs but all the drivers seem to be to do this one-size-fits-all schooling, by restraint if necessary. It’s certainly an eye opener!

Restraint is only used as a last resort and only by trained staff. It's not a case of "Bobby hit Mrs Jones so let's restrain him to show him who's boss."

I think a lot of parents would be shocked if they could witness the levels of violence that primary school staff are experiencing. TAs needing to go to hospital to be checked over after an attack is not uncommon in my school. I can only imagine the damage that would have been caused to other children if those adults hadn't used themselves as a human shield to protect them.

I've had a relatively mild time of it compared to many of my colleagues but even I've had chairs thrown at me, had to dodge being attacked by whatever object has been closest to the child, and had to lock the classroom door to prevent a child from accessing the children in my own class. I was incredibly thankful that the safety glass in the door between us was only cracked all the way across rather than shattered completely.

Even if absolutely everybody involved with a particular child (parents, school, and other professionals) were in full agreement that a child needed a specialist setting, there is no guarantee that the child would be able to access such a place. Funding has been stripped to the bone and mainstream is far cheaper than a specialist school.

Namechanged for this OP, but I thought I would add my bit.

Let me tell you a bit about my DS. He's 8 and is already on his 7th school. Thankfully this school is a specialist provision and he will stay there until he is 18.
He has already been permanently excluded from 2 schools, one when he was in reception.
If you met my son tomorrow you would think he is a quirky little boy. However get to know him a bit better and you'll discover he's autistic, has issues with understanding speech and communicating what he wants had has bucketloads of school trauma, especially from the 1st school. And lots more besides but that's irrelevant.
And before I get labelled with the 'it's just bad parenting' label his difficulties are genetic.

He has been restrained in school before and I have no doubt he will be restrained again. Its very much an action of very last resort for him when all other intervention has failed or is known to fail. Its not just a 'grab him any way you can' thing. He has a full behaviour plan which is very systematic, and if you have got to the point where he needs to be held then it tells you exactly how to hold him. And I have had to give my consent to this as well.
Don't underestimate just how strong a child is who has totally lost all control. He has been known to pick up and throw furniture before, smash windows, bite staff and on one occasion break a member of staff's wrist. Would you rather a child is not held and can do those kind of things??

Records have to be kept of all restraint. Including exactly what holds were used and how long they were used for. And any witnesses e.t.c.
I also have to be shown the records within 24 hours of the incident occurring and I have the opportunity to discuss it with someone not involved should I feel the need. As does my son if he wants to.
The school nurse always comes to check him (and any other child who is restrained) over after he has been restrained and after one particularly difficult restraint an ambulance was called because staff were worried about him.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit but essentially there is more to this than what you might think.

I've spent many years working with children special needs and sadly yes have had to restrain children. What I would say is that every young person/child I worked with had a behaviour management plan. That was specifically aimed to descalation of behaviour using the plan. The plans had behaviour triggers and solutions and were detailed in how behaviour should be handled. The aim was always to avoid use of restraint. Restraint training always emphasised the minum use of force needed for the minimum amount of time.

We always had debriefs and mandatory reporting of restraint use after. The focus always being on what could we have done better to prevent the use of restraint.

There was also as well a holistic focus on behaviour meeting the child's sensory needs and helping them to manage their own behaviour.

‘Surely having to physically restrain a child should be the final trigger for finding an educational setting that better meets the needs of the child?’

Makes it sound so simple. You would not believe the length, complexity and general idiocy of the process to ‘find’ such a placement. Mostly those placements do not exist. They should. But they don’t. Nor does the money to provide the staff and training (ongoing, not a two hour course on ‘behaviour’) to meet the needs of some of these children so that their behaviour does not become, or continue to be, so extreme.

@Whyarewehardofthinking

Also OP, to get to the point where a student is in a more suitable provision we have to prove that every other step isn't working. That includes additional support, trained external professionals and interventions and curriculum modifications. It usually takes repeated, violent incidents and assaults for a student to be moved on to a more suitable provision. I say this having been in the receiving end of these before.

So sorry you have to go through that.

I know some people might blame the naughty child (or their parents), I’m not one of those but none of you (teacher, child, parents, other children) should be having to go through that to get the child what they need… if only to make sure everyone can learn in peace.

I really feel for you.

That children who are a danger to themselves and others might need more adjustments to receive an education that meets their needs than a mainstream environment can offer them?

True, but do you realise how difficult it is to get a child into SEN education? It's not an instant fix. One of mine had a child in their class in year R and year 1 who around once a week they'd have to evacuate the classroom while he threw chairs and attacked anyone near.

The headteacher was fighting for him to access SEN education from early on in year R. It still took over a year to get him assessed and find a place for him, it was denied at least once, and told no spaces available too.
Parents were also supportive of him moving, just it isn't instant.

It was heartbreaking seeing him trying to cope in an environment that just wasn't set up for him. He could be delightful, and his parents were lovely too. Both the parents and the school worked together for the best outcome for him, and he did very well at his new school.

I have worked with children on and off since I was 16 and I have seen a child be restrained once.
It IS upsetting, even when it’s necessary (the child in question was throwing things at other children and attempting to attack them).
Children with SEN should of course have plans in place so it doesn’t get to that point, but once a child is that far in a meltdown and being violent towards others or themselves, sometimes there’s very little else you can do.

I’ve never restrained a child and I would never want to.

If the child is not complying then they need to be restrained as a last resort. It is for their safety and the safety of the other children.