Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043816

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I declare an interest in that I have three siblings who work in education, including in the SEN sector. I support the motion, which has been well laid out by the Chair and Committee members, and I thank them for tabling it. The root causes of challenging behaviour in the education setting are obvious, or they should be: children being packed into overcrowded classrooms; being placed in schools that cannot meet their needs; and being stuck on lengthy waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment. In that context, challenging behaviour will only get worse and more difficult to manage. I worry that, with the Minister's recent announcement, that difficult situation will become more prevalent and arise more regularly. Families deal with the devastating fallout of the SEN crisis at home. We hear about that, and I commend the people who have been referred to in the debate and those who have spoken out. At school, it is the education workers who bear the brunt of challenging behaviour, especially classroom assistants, who, despite the Minister's announcement last year, are still underpaid and, I think, very much undervalued. When education workers are trying to support a pupil in crisis, they need clarity on what they can do to bring the situation under control. Instead, ambiguous legislation fails to give workers the support and clarity that they need. That obviously needs to change. Article 4 of the 1998 order, as has been referred to, permits the use of restrictive practices against pupils who engage in behaviour that is prejudicial to "good order and discipline". It is not about preventing harm or further violence in a situation but about "good order and discipline". The fact that it still exists, is allowed and is on the statute books is shameful. Using restrictive practices to stop a pupil from harming themselves or others is very different from using restraint to keep something in "good order". The language is very Victorian and offensive. I support the motion's call for article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order to be repealed. As was mentioned, the independent Autism Reviewer described that as a legal and moral imperative. The use of seclusion in education settings should be banned outright. It is also worth saying that article 4 also allows for some form of restraint in certain circumstances, such as to prevent personal injury or damage or property. The idea that, without article 4(1)(c), it would be a Wild West and there would be no intervention at all by staff is simply not true. Both measures have been recommended by countless families, education workers, unions and experts in children's rights. The RCN, as we heard, called for a change in the law. It is also worth saying that the EA is cutting Team Teach training for school staff, using the justification that it is not reducing the number of violent incidents in our schools. I ask the Minister to outline what actions the Department and the EA are taking to prevent harm. I suggest that the answer is not many. The Department must immediately invest in mandatory training for all education workers on the safe and appropriate use of restrictive practices to protect not only children and young people but workers in education settings. Training on restrictive practices should be developed by education workers, including people with the practical day-to-day experience, rather than those who are disconnected from or have never been on the shop floor. That training should be given to teachers, classroom assistants and non-teaching staff. It should also be offered to permanent and temporary workers. The use of restrictive practices in schools is a symptom of a much larger crisis in special educational needs. The under-resourcing of SEN has led to the desperate annual scramble for SEN places, and we are into that cycle again. There are endless waits for statements, and there is a shortage of therapeutic services, as others touched on. That is a nightmare scenario for families and schools, as they are forced to fight so hard for adequate resourcing and access. Reimagining an inclusive, progressive and rights-based education system is often — daily and annually — put on the back-burner. The solution to the crisis is not to force schools to accept SEN pupils when they do not have the resources or facilities. The solution is not for the Education Minister or the CEO of the Education Authority to, disgracefully, try to shift the blame for the crisis on to underfunded and overstretched schools. The solutions are serious investment in early intervention and prevention as well as in child and adolescent mental health services. The solution lies in recognising the work, dedication and value of all education workers and in paying them what they are worth. The wealth and resources exist in society to do all that. The Executive refuse to invest —

— in the future of the education system. I support the motion.

818 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification