Michael Gove slackens rules on use of physical force in schools

[Triggles]

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.

Any teacher not recording what had happened would be making a serious mistake though IMVHO.
He can say what he likes now, but when things actually happen, teachers are expected to account for every second and blink of the situation, and I can't see that changing - staff need to be able to protect themselves from accusations.

It's really sad.

We can do this already. This I'd about Gove trying to suggest that schools are failing and we need the government to come to the rescue of all the pathetic teachers.

Perhaps something good will come of the fact that we are as a country discussing the fact that teachers have the right to restrain pupils. However I have had to restrain a few pupils ( and each case was recorded as is sensible ), I doubt these pupils would listen to Michael Gove or join in an informed debate on the matter.

I have worked in a school where I felt powerless and to be honest that was about poor management of that school and the fact that I was not suited to that school. Teachers working under good management systems and in a school that suits them are not powerless to discipline . This line about "teachers unable to discipline" is a myth IMO.

DSis is a teacher in the private sector. She is trained to restrain pupils and because of the kids she teaches she has had to do it on occasion. There is a small amount of paperwork to log each incident but because the school prefers their teachers to be teaching rather than filling in forms they keep the paperwork to a minimum.

I think other schools could learn from the example of her school. If teachers were trained and permitted to restrain pupils there would be none of this "you can't touch me" nonsense from misbehaving kids.

I agree with Feenie. You only need to read mumsnet to see people threatening to go into school to give their child's teacher a slap or go straight to the head based on their child telling them the teacher raised their voice at them. Lots of other mumsnetters jump in to support this too.

But in reality how often does a parent assault a teacher? And how often are teachers not supported by their Heads when a parent makes a complaint?

Is it not for the most part a lot of hot air by the parents or their misbehaving child?

Do teachers feel that an assault or litigation is around every corner?

I have worked in a school where false allegations and assault was rife. This was just a very badly run school and needed dealing with on an individual level.

Erm there is an alarming level of violence from parents actually.

Good news as far as I'm concerned. When I was doing teacher training we were told under no circumstances were we to touch a pupil. Fortunately I had the common sense to ignore the advice when a Year 7 who was about the same size as me was threatening to jump out of a window, but was worried that accusations could be levied against me. Am so grateful I'm no longer a secondary school teacher.

I don't think this changes anything, really. Although ready the last part of the article it seems to infer that the Govt had been considering making even tighter rules about physical restraint in schools, and this is just a paper grabbing way of saying they have changed their minds whilst making it look like they are being all proactive and solving school's "discipline problems".

I like this interpretation though: The Daily Mash

Female teacher here, and trained in and have used restraint techniques (the main aim of which are to prevent situations escalating to the point of needing to lay a hand on a child) with dozens of children.
If I need to restrain, something has gone wrong. Physical force should be the absolute last resort, and should be documented every time.

FWIW I have had to go to A&E twice following attacks from pupils. I would not support untrained teachers being allowed to physically restrain. It is too easy to hurt someone.

Children do not routinely need restraint unless something has gone very wrong somewhere.

Twolittlemonkeys you were given false information, that does not mean that a change in the law us needed. Nothing in terms of what you can do had changed.

Gove's ideas are a red herring. The real issue regarding poor discipline is the punishment meted out to schools who dare to suspend or expel a child. Their funding is affected, so there's a powerful disincentive against taking action.

SMTs in many schools know this, but translate their lack of power into the teacher being unable to control the class. Often this is expressed as a "failure to engage the child", i.e. your lesson wasn't interesting enough. Once I complained about an astonishingly rude child, and my lesson plans were immediately demanded.

This results in the little feckers strutting round the school, completely untouchable. The waverers, those who could be kept in line in ordinary circumstances, see this, and start to play up. Once you've lost the waverers, you're buggered.

I saw this happen in my last school in the UK. A decent school, where you could get your job done, went down the pan.

I teach in Australia now, and the staff get proper support from SMT, the students know this, so we get less crap in the first place. Sadly, the first rumblings of the "boring lesson as reason for Snotty Johnny's poor behaviour" have started here, too.:(

I suppose I may seem a bit unrealistic, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that people today have no respect for teachers (or police, or any type of authority figure). I wish there was a solid way to instill that back into the younger children and maintain it. I know... naive of me. But I wouldn't have DARED behave in school the way some children and teenagers do. And I certainly wouldn't have expected my parents to back me up if I misbehaved. If I got in trouble at school, I knew I'd be in for it at home as well.

These days, it's the teacher who gets lambasted twice - once by the parent, then twice on MN's AIBU.

This will also apply (as it does now) to those children who become disruptive and aggressive as a result of special needs not being supported. My son was repeatedly restrained during his time in primary school as he often got to the point where he just couldn't cope any more and lost his temper. A few minor adjustments to his school routine would easily have prevented his behavioural problems, but instead he was repeatedly punished for not coping because those adjustments were simply too much effort for staff to consider.

I know Gove's proposals don't change anything in practice as it's mainly just an administrative matter, but I have to say my blood ran cold when I heard the news, in light of my son's experiences at the hands of teachers who refused to support his disability and brand him as just another naughty, undisciplined brat.

streakybacon - yes, I see your point. We've been lucky in that DS2's school is incredibly proactive and very good with him (he has ADHD/ASD/SNs). But I can see where that could lead to problems in some schools where there are poor practices in dealing with SNs.

I'm not so sure it would lead to problems because in some schools it's happening already. My concern is that if these incidents no longer have to be documented there would be no evidence that they'd happened, so parents would be less able to prove that needs hadn't been met. That's very important in the world of SEN for parents trying to get their children's disability needs supported.

sorry, streakybacon - I was unclear. THAT is what I meant, only I said it rather poorly. It means that there is no documentation, which would lead to no accountability in those schools where there are poor practices in place. But I suppose it also could mean that some might look at it as "no documentation means I can do what I like". All in all, I'm not really happy with that. If they need to use restraint in some way (and I'm sure there are situations in which they must, if only for someone's safety), then I feel it SHOULD be documented. It protects the school, as well as the student, and can be referred back to if need be.

Yes, I agree - it opens the doors for some teachers to behave irresponsibly if they are so inclined. Before this they might have thought twice but might be less likely now.

Mind you, the compulsory documentation issue is a bit woolly anyway. When I tried to get ds's school records after he left, I was told I couldn't have any documents that referred to other individuals under the Data Protection Act. I suspect that some schools deliberately include all names so that they can get out of having to provide written reports of incidents in which they might have acted less than appropriately. I never did get his school records and they've probably been shredded long ago now.

In my son's case, I've no doubt that he was monstrous at the point where he was restrained and would have been causing massive disruption to the rest of the class and certainly would have been a danger to himself and others, but it would have been so easy to avoid him getting to that point in the first place had the necessary provisions been in place to begin with. I do object to Gove's assumption that all children who are disruptive and aggressive are undisciplined 'bad' kids, and I totally resent my disabled child being bracketed as one of them.

but isn't this part of a load on new guidance? like the revisions to exclusions guidance and stuff

www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00191991/new-guidance-for-teachers-to-help-improve-discipline-in-schools

here? btw it would really concern me that there was no need to record use of force - i mean seriously? what is the reasoning behind that? works against schools (ie no evidence of measures used if trying to justify exclusion) and parents (no evidence of what has been done that may have triggered an incident )

These particular points in that link concern me:

1. Heads have the power to discipline pupils who misbehave outside the schools premises and outside schools hours.

1. Schools should not automatically suspend teachers accused of using force unreasonably where other alternatives exist.

1. Heads can temporarily or permanently exclude pupils who make false allegations. In extreme circumstances, they can involve the police if there are grounds for believing a criminal offence has been committed.

1. Remove the requirement on schools to give parents 24 hours notice of detention.

1. Heads can search without consent for an extended list of items including alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property.

...

1. I'm baffled about this one. The only thing I can think of would be at a school function that is off school premises, but a specific concern that this could be misinterpreted and misused.

1. Again, not sure on this one. Isn't this to protect the teacher as well as the students to some extent? I think this would have to be on a case by case basis, but some concern that schools would see this as condoning behaviour. Very mixed on this one, to be fair.

1. If there is no documentation, how is there any way to show what happened? Wouldn't this mean some allegations would be deemed false that perhaps aren't? Wouldn't this perhaps make a student who actually has been mishandled or assaulted less likely to come forward? Waffling a bit on this, to be fair. If they're going to put this in, then restraint/physical contact (within reason obviously) should be documented. It protects the interests of both the teachers and the students.

1. This just punishes the parents. Depending on the age of the student involved, it upsets afterschool childcare plans (either being picked up or possibly an older student meeting a younger sibling and walking them home) for working parents or simply parents that have made particular plans for that day (maybe for a doctor's appointment for themselves or something). It doesn't inconvenience the student at all - this is a bad idea, as it immediately pits the parent who may be juggling a number of commitments (work, family) against the school.

1. Back when we were in school, we had lockers. The school had every right to search lockers at any time, however, I have some difficulty with persons being searched. Backpacks are a bit of a grey area. I think it would depend on how it was carried out. But an actual PERSON search, IMO, requires presence of parent or other responsible adult or police.

"So let me be crystal clear, if any parent now hears a school say, 'sorry, we can't physically touch the students', then that school is wrong. Plain wrong. The rules of the game have changed."

Gove is right in that no school can have a no touch policy- indeed, they would be negligent in doing so- but this has always been the case. Once again, he is pointing to existing legislation and taking credit for 'changing the law'

I am a teacher, and train other teachers in positive handling (restraint). I have taught in mainstream, SN and EBD settings. IMO, problems can arise when teachers are not properly trained to physically intervene- not only do they not know how, but do not know when it is appropriate to do so; and when it's not. Is it appropriate to physically prevent a child leaving a classroom? Sometimes, yes. If they are going after another child to beat them up for example. If you believe they will harm themselves or others, then yes. Because they didn't follow your instruction, then no. Deal with it later.

Presently (before Gove's changes), a teacher can restrain a pupil if:

-A child is injuring others

-A child is injuring themselves

-A child is damaging property

-A child is behaving in a way that is likely to disrupt good order.

Any physical intervention taken must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

This means that if a pupil is charging at another holding a knife, you are justified in rugby tackling them to the ground- if they are verbally abusing you, you are not.

The vague definitions do not help- 'damaging property' could mean smashing a window; it could also mean snapping a pencil in two. Legally, you could restrain a child for this, but ethically? It would be completely inappropriate. The legislation relies on teachers' judgements of what is reasonable, proportionate and necessary, and there is rarely any provision to train them to effectively make that kind of decision.

As a teacher, you have a duty of care to keep children safe, and act in loco parentis- but teachers are rarely trained to do so.

A change in the law requiring all teachers to receive training in behaviour management and physical intervention would have been far more useful (and less potentially harmful) than doing away with the requirement to record physical force used. As you say Triggles, recording the incident is as much to protect staff as it is to protect children.