Deputy Head + another teacher sacked for carrying child in from playground

[Ponders]

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383941/Deputy-heads-career-ruins-sacked-carrying-naughty-pupil-6-playground.html\DM report}

given that it's DM there might be the odd fact missing but as reported, this is mad

'the pupil had been outside and refused to return into the school building. His mother was phoned but couldn't get to the school immediately.
'My client used the minimum of physical restraint to lift him up and carry him to the classroom. His mother came to the school and saw him, and made no complaint.'

boggle

Ponders, legally picking up a child is a physical intervention. They are physically restricting the child's freedom of movement. There are safe ways and offically approved ways that you can move a child against their wishes.

parents regularly pick up/move/restrain their children physically without the proper training. is that illegal?

but it is restraint. Agree or not rules on human rights, health and safety are in place to protect vulnerable individuals from harm and injury. These rules should be followed.

we don't know that they weren't followed in this instance, though

'protect vulnerable individuals from harm and injury' - good grief, what if half a dozen children at once refused to come back into school from break & scattered to different corners of the playground (& at my kids' primary, a squarish building around a quad, with playgrounds & grass on all 4 sides, that could mean most of them out of view from any one spot) - should half a dozen members of staff be removed from teaching/other duties to keep an eye on each one until the parents arrived (to pick them up any way they liked) rather than just picking them up & bringing them in?

& where would that leave the rest of the children who had gone back into class, in terms of being protected from harm & injury?

I really don't get this...

The staff were acting to avoid possible harm to a vulnerable individual. If they'd left the kid in the playground with the TA and the bloke had started a repeat performance, I reckon the mother might well have complained and the staff would still have been hauled over the coals.

good grief, what if half a dozen children at once refused to come back into school from break & scattered to different corners of the playground

ponders that is not likely to happen, and if so the school would be needing to explore why half a dozen kids would do this and reach some kind of contingency, but I would say 2 Tas could manage that safely. After working within schools for sen I would say its unlikely to happen in most mainstream schools with out prior warning identifying and planning that 6 children are likely to behave such a way without additional support.

"parents regularly pick up/move/restrain their children physically without the proper training. is that illegal?"

There is a world of difference between working in a school and being a parent. In a professional enviromnent different rules apply.

If the TA and teacher had used APPROVED methods of restraint as taught in a training course then they would not have been disciplined.

Sheesh and we wonder why kids grow up thinking their shit doesn't stink.

The boy refused to do as he was told. He was carried in. If the teachers told me they'd had to do that, I'd have thanked them and then opened up a can of whoop ass on my son.

What I would have complained about is if the teachers had left him stood outside knowing there's been some dodgy person around.

There's a bigger picture here which is that kids need to learn to do as they are told. How can a teacher expect to teach if kids can get away with not doing as they are told. We already have a much more unruly classroom now because teacher's punishment options are much more limited than in our day.

Also, whilst at school, teachers are "in loco parentis" so they act on our behalf.
They didn't do anything which I or any other reasonable parent would not have and so therefore they should not be sacked.

I agree with those who say that there's probably something else afoot here and in all likelihood this was used as a reason to sack her for something else they dislike but not enough to sack her for.

And as for restraint using only "approved" methods, get a life. Does a teacher really need to be "trained" by some accredited trainer in order to pick a small child up by his shoulders and move him?

Do you really want to live in a world where people can only do things they are "trained" to do? The world is an unpredictable place and common sense is the order of the day. In my opinion, the teachers used that. Something the muppets who bleat about training could do well with getting.

And as for restraint using only "approved" methods, get a life. Does a teacher really need to be "trained" by some accredited trainer in order to pick a small child up by his shoulders and move him?

absolutly niceguy2 and rightfully so, I wouldnt ever use armpits or shoulders to be picking up or moving my child and wouldnt expect anyone else to either. Its extremly dangerous to do so, particularly when using any amount of force.

Can you quantify the "extremely dangerous"? What is the risk? Ie. What exactly would you fear to happen?

And therefore given the situation, the teacher found herself in, what would you have done differently? Bearing in mind that parent had already been called and you have lots of other kids who are behaving to teach?

Given you are against any amount of force being used, would you instead prefer them to be left outside unsupervised for a local pervert to snatch away instead?

Oh and let's assume for a moment that the mum turned up and her child still refused to move. What should she do given she's unlikely to have been given training on "approved methods" so grabbing him by the scruff of his neck isn't that likely to be more dangerous than the already "extremely dangerous" (cough) under the shoulders technique we hear so many kids dying from each year?

Picking a child up under the shoulders can be dangerous for the person doing the carrying as they can receive a nasty head injury from a thrashing child who can also kick his legs in that position. It's not only for the child's protection that there are approved methods for physical handling and restraint!

I missed this thread originally but knew there must be something more to it when I saw the story in the newspapers. On the very few details we have the whole thing just doesn't ring true and I think if cases like this are going to be reported then the whole truth should be told as there is a danger of this becoming yet another oft quoted example of what's wrong with H & S legislation etc.

itsabiggy - what's wrong with moving a child by putting your hands on their shoulders, I can't see how that could be dangerous.

x posts with pandanot - I can see how you might be hurt by a thrashing child but I was imagining a situation more where the teacher propels the child by walking behind with hands on shoulders.

The rules are in place and in the workplace especially in any form of socail care and they have to be followed. You know the consequences if you don't, you are in danger of losing your job.

The way that the new secondary schools are designed in my area (open plan) when a situation such as this occurs the teachers walk away and phone the police. If there are a number of pupils being unruly the teachers lock themselves in the classroom and phone the police. This happens sometimes weekly.

for child: shoulder dislocation, muscular and sckeletal damage, break to colar bone, injury to leg feet and ankles. head, face and mouth injury.

for adult: injury from headbutting, hitting, hair pulling resulting in head injury or wiplash. instabilty resulting in a fall, stooping,twisting pulling resulting in long term back hip and knee injuries. bitting and scratching resulting in injury and infection.

is that enough niceguy? I could probably list more

The police have to be called if students won't do as they are told?

Isn't that a complete waste of resources and entirely emasculating the teachers' authority?

Itsabiggy, Yes, but you've not quantified the risks. I could list lots of risks now with me sat at my desk. I could suffer from electric shock, a plane could fall out of the sky and land on me. I could spontaneously combust (This actually does happen on very rare occasions). Everytime I cross the road, I could get run over.

But the chances of those happening are incredibly remote. As I suspect would be shoulder some of the injuries you state....as long as someone uses common sense.

I also note you haven't suggested what the teacher should have done given the situation. Bear in mind you have the luxury of sitting here with the full benefit of hindsight rather than the few seconds the teacher had of making a decision.

As for calling the police....sure. Let's leave a child standing there for an hour until the police show up (since its not an emergency). With luck the police can taser the child. I mean after all, they've been trained and approved to use the device and also in restraint techniques. What could possibly go wrong!

I'm sure had the police been called, we'd all be here now saying how ridiculous it is that a teacher cannot discipline kids without the police!

niceguy-schools are on immediate response timescales. As are alot of othe statutory buildings.

"I could spontaneously combust (This actually does happen on very rare occasions)."

I hope you have someone stationed next to your desk with a bucket of water at all times then, niceguy

most of those injuries are likely to happen in such a situation, far more likely than what you have exampled. But If you cross the road without due care and attention or proper use of the measures in place to reduce that risk, then yes you are likely to get run over. Likewise if you restrain or manhandle a child without implimenting measures to reduce probable risk then injuries most likely will occur. These are very common injuries I have described.

birdsgottafly - I don't know if what you say is true but I sincerely hope that police resources are never directed at ensuring wilful pre teens return to the classroom after lunchbreak.

You still haven't offered an alternative.

There is risk associated with everything we do. There is never a zero risk option. Therefore you cannot train everyone in everything.

We can only do what we feel is best at the time. The teacher was on the spot, she exercised her judgement and in the context of said child either running away and getting lost/hurt or getting taken by a predator, i would say her actions were proportionate.

You are actually making a mountain out of a molehill anyway. The child was lifted up and carried away. This is something which happens everyday by parents who have been untrained. The childs parent did not see fit to make a complaint.

The bigger risk here is that by not daring the touch the child, said child grows up thinking his shit doesn't stink and no-one can touch him. Right up until he pisses off someone bigger/badder than he is and he gets his ass whooped.