Time for a thread...

Rationale- context-

"Promoting and sustaining appropriate behaviour"

-what is appropriate behaviour? This meaning can vary between each educational setting due to boards of governors issuing differing behaviour policies. Methods used to sustain behaviour are not regulated.

Teacher training is based on neurotypical children, therefore it is the natural reference point for a teacher when they see "challenging behaviour" to ascertain this is bad behaviour instead of possibly a child being overwhelmed by their surroundings etc

"Engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order"

Due to the lack of mandatory training in regards SEN education, meltdowns,self regulatory behaviours and communication by SEN children is misconstrued as "bad behaviour" which therefore has led to restraint

"Causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person (including the pupil himself)"

Self injurious or destructive behaviour is usually seen when a child has past the point of verbal communication (which is important to note for later in the thread).

Unfortunately due to the fact there are no legislations in place, there is no legal duty to document such instances or even inform parent/carers it happened, its also not known if restraint is being actually used as a last resort method as seen here by our children's commissioner

Risk assessments are only carried out for those children already labelled as previously exhibiting "disturbing or distressing behaviour"

Without addressing why a child has displayed these previous behaviours restraint will become a quick go to instead of addressing the cause.

When reasonable force may be used-

"There is a developing risk to another pupil or person, or significant damage to property"

"Developing" it hasn't happened yet, other methods of de-escalation could be used however this allows reasonable force to be applied NOT AS LAST RESORT

"A pupil is behaving in a way that is compromising good order and discipline"

Again this varies between schools due to different behaviour policies. This will also vary between each individuals interpretation of such thus varying expectations in each classroom setting.Confusing

Examples-

"Pupils are fighting"

The child with the prejudicial risk assessment previously completed will be subjected to reasonable force before any other child involved, even if they weren't the instigator as there is a document to give staff probable cause that it was them.

These are clear examples of how reasonable force is not applied as a method of last resort. This allows reasonable force to occur due to simple accidents. Also if they know a child is going to run in a hallway, where are the reasonable adjustments to allow them to do so safely?

"A pupil absconds from a class or tries to leave school"

The main issue I have with these examples is why hasn't anyone considered why children are doing these things? This is communication, reasonable force won't fix the issue, it will just add to it.

"A pupil refuses to obey an order to leave a classroom"

Why? Why not find out why before issuing reasonable force? What harm is a child doing if they want to stay around a few extra minutes? What reasonable adjustments have been discussed before reasonable force is deployed?

"A pupil is behaving in a way that is seriously disrupting a lesson"

This will vary greatly between educators. ASD/ ADHD children are known to have impulsive tendencies. These behaviours can be misconstrued as disruptive. It is often only disruptive to adults, not their peers.

Although this is welcomed,its meaningless without an understanding of/or mandatory training in regards trauma informed practice and neurological development etc across all staff. Individuals need not be identified if de-escalation methods are standard practice across the board

While we have no mandatory SEN training to accommodate our growing population and awareness of additional needs in the classroom this is not fit for purpose

"Tell the pupil to stop the inappropriate behaviour"

Verbally commanding anything when a child is in a distressed state is absolutely pointless...

Commands will only confuse and distress a pupil further if they feel frustrated that their needs aren't being met.

"Ask the pupil to behave appropriately, clearly stating the desired behaviour"

If you noticed the previous tweet bullet point (first instruction in the guidance) stated you must "tell" now this one states you must "ask" the pupil. Tell first then ask after =/

Again to verbally ask or even tell a pupil to behave appropriately is futile while they are in distress. Self regulatory behaviours are often misconduct as bad behaviour, if a child is trying to regulate and you misconstrue this as bad behaviour it only confuses the pupil more.

"Tell the pupil that physical intervention will take place if inappropriate behaviour continues"

Again, it's Tell, Ask, Tell. Without a consistent approach your only confusing the child more.

This is a threat. When have threats ever calmly de-escalated a situation?

"During the incident repeatedly reassure the pupil and tell him/her that physical contact will stop as soon as he/she is ready to behave appropriately"

Reassurance will mean nothing to a child in a heightened state as they can't rationalise commands. The will give up exhausted

This is in no way compliance, this is sheer exhaustion, this then gives the adult who is carrying out the restraint a false sense that the child understands why they were being restrained. This is totally incorrect.

This practice is inappropriate.

Side note, how can we teach our young people the principles of consent if we carry out the above in the order and the way it is written. Reassuring someone while something bad is happening to them doesn't make it any less bad or wrong.

Clear guidance and ensuring correct language is used is needed here, in personal experience prone restraint and seclusion in a storeroom were both considered therapeutic interventions due to lack of understanding and training. Providing deep pressure should not involve restraint

"Physical interventions should involve the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation and calm the pupil"

Force varies each individual. Standing within an ASD child's personal space without even laying a finger on them may be extremely distressing for them.

Again, when has force ever calmed a person down? Restraint breaks spirits, it wears people down. It does not ensure compliance... it does however remove any previous respect between individuals involved and evokes a trauma response in the child for any future encounters.