Last year the Department for Education announced that it was carrying out research, including a public consultation, into the use of reasonable force, restraint and restrictive practices in schools, to help inform an update to the Use of Reasonable Force guidance that is now 11 years old.
As part of this work it commissioned a research firm to investigate the use of such practices in alternative provision settings and special schools. The findings of this work have been published today and may offer some clues as to how future guidance will be developed.
In total, 45 schools took part - 30 special schools and 15 alternative provision schools - from across England, with primary, secondary and all-through settings all included.
These schools were working with pupils aged from 2 to 19. Some schools had fewer than 50 pupils and some over 300, while Ofsted ratings ranged from “inadequate” to “outstanding”.
Use of reasonable force in schools: key findings
Here are the main findings from the research:
- Inconsistency in the use of language
All settings reported having their own school-wide policies on the use of reasonable force that were designed to reflect pupil needs - including individualised plans, where required - and that physical restraint was specified as the last resort.
However, the research found inconsistency in the words that schools used and what they meant, and suggested more clarity was required.
For example, some schools used the phrase “supportive holding” rather than “restraint” because they felt it more “accurately described the actions staff were taking” and that it avoided making things “inflammatory” by conjuring up images of heavy-handed law enforcement-style tactics.
“When you tell a parent, ‘Your child has been restrained,’ they think you’ve held them face down on the floor like the police might do,” said a deputy head at a special school in the South East.
However, other settings said they encouraged the use of the word “restraint” so that staff understand “its severity”, as one leader outlined.
“I think it’s really important that staff know the severity of using physical restraint...they might one day end up in court having to justify themselves,” said the head of safeguarding at a special school in the North East.
- Existing guidance is too broad
Schools said the existing guidance is useful in that it serves as the basis of their own policies - and said they liked that it is quite general because it allows them to tailor their own policies.
However, this broadness was also a cause for concern.
For example, leaders noted that at present the guidance says the use of reasonable force to “remove disruptive children from the classroom where they have refused to follow an instruction to do so” and to “prevent a pupil behaving in a way that disrupts a school event or a school trip” would not be seen as acceptable for a physical intervention - not least because it could mean pupils with severe learning difficulties may face “frequent and unnecessary force”.
Others said this guidance sounded like a school’s reputation during an external event may be considered justification for force on pupils.
- The need for mandatory training
Another key point raised was that at present there is no mandatory training for staff, especially in alternative provision and special schools.
As such, the research suggested that it should become a requirement for staff to attend training programmes that provide guidance around the appropriate use of reasonable force, including physical restraint and restrictive practices, as well as de-escalation tactics.
“I think we’ve reached the time in schools where some kind of training should be given,” said a designated safeguarding lead at a special school in the East Midlands
- Don’t remove the use of restraint
Some leaders said they were worried that future guidance could suggest that schools do not use reasonable force, including physical restraint and restrictive practices, at all - something they felt would not be a good outcome for schools or pupils.
“We’re very aware that there’s political pressure around virtually outlawing holds in schools,” said a teacher and de-escalation/physical intervention trainer at a special school in the South East.
“That would just lead to loads more exclusions because there are just youngsters you could not have in a school situation, in any collective community education, if you were not able to hold them.”
- External providers and cost concerns
All but one school said they used an external provider for staff training, with around half using the same provider. Most said they felt the training was positive and prepared staff for real-life events, although not all.
Cost of the training was cited as an area of concern, too, with one school noting that it now cost £1,000 per staff member for a two-day refresher course.
Partly as a result of this, some schools had different training requirements - some trained all staff who would come into contact with a child, while others only put forward members of staff for training if they were likely to be called upon if an incident occurred.
Other schools had sent staff on training courses to become trainers so they can teach staff internally and reduce costs in doing so.
- De-escalation versus desensitisation
All schools said they attempted to defuse a situation before an incident may require physical intervention, such as by understanding and removing behavioural triggers and allowing pupils to go for a walk, use a fidget spinner, talk to another member of staff or move to a sensory room.
However, some said they worried that this would not prepare children for life beyond school and so sometimes using physical restraint was actually beneficial to help them learn how to regulate emotions, which would serve them well for the future.
Others noted that in certain situations, such as if a child was actively self-harming, there was no time for de-escalation and so physical action would always be needed in some cases.
- Recording thresholds vary
The research also revealed differences in how schools record incidents.
For example, some settings said all instances of physical contact, “including gently ‘guiding’ a child by the arm” were logged, while others said they did not view this as use of reasonable force that needed to be recorded.
This sometimes led to confusion within schools, too, such as one setting where the headteacher said all instances of physical touch were recorde, but a member of staff said they were not recording occasions when pupils had been physically guided.
There were also differences between schools in the amount of data recorded for incidents. For example, while most logged the “who, what, where and when”, others even recorded details such as the weather and temperature, as part of trying to spot any patterns linked to behaviour.
Finally, while most used digital software platforms to record incidents, some still had paper records.
- DfE data sharing
One of the most notable elements of the report was schools’ responses on how they would feel about sharing data on incidents involving force, restraint and restrictive practices with the Department for Education.
Most said they would be OK with this and some said they felt it should already be mandatory.
However, many said they would be concerned about how data would appear if it was then compared between schools, especially when removed of any context.
For example, depending on the cohorts in a school and their needs, as well as the differences in how physical interactions are classed and recorded, the data could give misleading impressions, as one head at a special school outlined.
“I would be sceptical about [reporting data to the DfE]. If I just sent a document that says, ‘115 children have been handled,’ and you look at the other special school down the road who have only handled six children, suddenly my school looks really bad,” they said.
“When, in reality, it’s about why have you been handled and what is being done to prevent it.”
When might the guidance change?
How this report feeds into the new guidance remains to be seen, as at present the DfE is still assessing the consultation responses that it received, even though the consultation closed over 10 months ago on 11 May.
Tes contacted the DfE for any update on when the new guidance may come out or the consultation responses will be published but had received no reply at the time of publication.
Nonetheless, it seems clear from the above that there are areas where the guidance may well be updated - and this could lead to more data sharing with the DfE.
