Physical Intervention in Schools – One Year Review of Guidance

Other respondents

Within this category, 2 responses were received from the Care Inspectorate and 5 responses from Trade Unions. Two of the Trade Union responses were written responses in a format unsuitable for inclusion in the survey analysis. Instead, where appropriate, quotes have been presented. The low number of responses means a smaller number of responses will have a large influence on the percentages therefore the number of responses has been presented here instead of percentages.

Implementation of the guidance

Feedback from respondents in this group on the implementation of the national guidance shows mixed views. Awareness raising was generally seen as supportive, with 3 respondents indicating the guidance was very or somewhat supportive. One respondent indicated it was neither supportive nor unhelpful, and one found it very unhelpful.

Perceived effectiveness in reducing restraint and seclusion was low. Most respondents (4 respondents) felt the guidance was neither effective nor ineffective or was very ineffective.

Respondents in this group found most helpful aspects of the guidance to be the training advice (2 respondents). Areas identified for strengthening include prevention advice (2 respondents) and post incident reporting (2 respondents).

The impact on learning and working environments was mixed. Some saw a positive impact on the learning environment (2 respondents), others no impact (2 respondents) and 1 respondent found it to have a negative impact. 3 respondents indicated that the guidance had no impact on the workload of teachers and school staff, with 2 respondents stating it had a negative impact.

One written submission from a trade union noted:

“Whilst there is much in the current Guidance which is positive and is rooted in sound relational practice and GIRFEC policy, without the allocation of additional funding and resources, it will fail to deliver on the pressing aim of implementing a relationships and rights-based approach to physical intervention in schools.”

Another written submission from a trade union which included responses were received from members in 24 local authority areas noted:

"...comments reflected on the growing number of incidents while resource available declines. Some felt that the guidance did not reflect the realities faced in schools and others noted that more guidance was needed on safeguarding of staff in these challenging situations – for example, situations where seclusion is the only viable option to prevent harm. These comments were accompanied by criticism of the national guidance as lacking a clear framework for staff to work within. Some reported bureaucratic reporting which was time consuming which resulted in no additional support/action/response from outwith the school.

Finally, some noted that while their guidance had been updated it had not yet been rolled out to schools, as such their answers may offer a negative response relating to the current position for some questions but this should be more positive when the guidance has been rolled out to schools.”