Family First sticking up for teachers
Embattled teachers who, in all but extreme circumstances, are prohibited from restraining children who run amok (Horror stories fail to shift the ministry, September 20), have an ally in Family First.
National director Bob McCoskrie said some classrooms were becoming unsafe, abusive environments that would be emotionally harmful to children who just wanted to enjoy school in an atmosphere of safety, and the Ministry of Education was responsible for the “idiotic and nonsensical” approach being imposed on teachers.
“It seems ironic that as we are saying no to violence within families and our community, schools are expected to tolerate an unacceptable level of violence and unruly behaviour, and school staff are wasting hours of valuable time having to complete documentation on the physical restraint of disruptive and unruly students in primary schools,” Mr McCoskrie said.
“We are quickly creating an unsafe environment where children know their rights, but not their wrongs.
“Restoring authority to school staff will make our children happier and our communities and schools safer.”
Ministry of Education documents showed that more than 1000 reports of physical restraint had been lodged by schools in seven months after the new rules were introduced in August last year.
Seventy-five per cent of those incidences occurred at primary schools, involving children as young as five. Eighty-five per cent of the children were boys.
“This also means that more than 5000 forms or reports will have had to be completed by school staff — an incident report, information for the ministry, a staff reflection form, a debriefing form with the principal, and a debriefing with the parents,” Mr McCoskrie said.
“The ministry suggests that the number of reported incidents is ‘a small percentage,’ but the real issue is whether teachers are ignoring or unable to deal with unruly and unacceptable behaviour in very young children because (they) are no longer confident or are unsure of their right to restrain students. This then places all students at risk.
“Teachers also say they are scared to even break up schoolyard fights, or are standing back while a student trashes the classroom.”
Ministry guidelines stated that physical restraint was a serious intervention, and that the emotional and physical impact on the student being restrained could be significant.
School staff were not to use physical restraint in situations including behaviour that was disrupting the classroom but not putting anyone in danger of being hurt; refusal to comply with an adult’s request; a student trying to leave the classroom or school without permission; a student who is damaging or removing property, unless there was a risk to safety.
If the situation escalated, teachers were advised to “move further away”.
“Teachers are right to be concerned about the potential harms and hassles of handling unruly and violent students, and the possible effect on their professional status,” Mr McCoskrie added.
“Common sense has been expelled from schools, and no amount of ‘guidelines’ and ‘professional development courses’ can make up for teachers being able to respond quickly and instinctively in the most effective way in often very stressful and exceptional circumstances. Parents also want assurance that their children will be kept safe from violent or unruly students.”
“Combined with the chilling effect of the anti-smacking law, this is all having the adverse effect of parents and teachers becoming too afraid to administer any physical control or restraint of children. Children have received the message that adults cannot touch them, or even tell them what to do. This seriously undermines the authority of parents, teachers, and even the police, hence the increasing violence and disrespect towards parents, teachers and police.
“Student behaviour and bullying will continue to deteriorate for as long as we tell them that their rights are more important than their responsibilities, proper parental authority is undermined by politicians and subject to the rights of their children, and there are no consequences of any significance when they cross the line.”