Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Restrictive Practices in Education Settings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5043770
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is important to recognise the courageous and sustained efforts of those families that are coming into the public domain to highlight serious concerns about the use of restrictive practices in schools and other education settings. Through the efforts of parents and carers, the issue has been the subject of significant public debate and scrutiny. Parents and carers have often been left in the dark about what has happened to their children. It is therefore extremely disappointing to find that legislative reform and statutory guidance are not yet in place to adequately safeguard children and young people and to support the education and health staff who support them. Schools and other educational settings are operating in a vacuum and have often found themselves alone in implementing restrictive practices without strict legal safeguards. In June 2023, in its concluding observations to the UK, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recommended prohibiting the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings and said that there should be a child-rights based approach to addressing violence and other disturbances in schools. Children's rights advocates continue to highlight the fact that the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion practices in our school and other education settings is not infrequent. There are many cases in which children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, some of whom cannot speak up for themselves, have been physically held down, isolated in locked rooms or removed from classrooms altogether. Children with special needs and disabilities can face behavioural challenges. However, those behaviours often arise from unmet needs, sensory overload, communication barriers, anxiety, difficulty processing emotions or being in the wrong education setting. A wide range of evidence demonstrates that children and young people who are subjected to restrictive practices often suffer from physical injuries and emotional trauma. The long-term consequences of those can include a profound mistrust of authority figures, a sense of powerlessness and an exacerbation of mental health challenges. Furthermore, many children and young people who are subjected to restrictive practices never have an opportunity to learn alternative, healthier ways of coping with overwhelming emotions or situations. It is vital that schools and other education settings are supported to implement positive therapeutic interventions. Education and health staff who work with children should have access to appropriate training and guidance. It is vital that proper monitoring of the use of restrictive practices is in place to ensure accountability and transparency. We cannot afford to keep turning a blind eye to those practices. We cannot accept a system that puts children and young people in harm's way. We have a system that is in crisis, children without places and children being placed in the wrong settings. We need leadership. Let us work together to ensure that every child, regardless of their additional needs or disability, is treated with dignity and respect. All children deserve equality.
482 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.