Some restraint of pupils is necessary

Teaching would be so much more satisfying and successful for many practitioners if it were not for matters of discipline and authority.

When energy, time and worry is poured into maintaining classroom control rather than learning,  everyone is the poorer.

Education is hindered by pupils who command teacher attention, other pupils as well as the teachers become frustrated.

For some teachers authority comes naturally and easily.  For others, this is a struggle, and they need as much support as possible.  They might be "natural" teachers in other ways but are handicapped  in this area.  Any such vulnerability has always been exploited by pupils.

Many teachers must find it too tough and leave.

A 2011 OCED report, which examined the time it took teachers to control unruly pupils, put New Zealand  at 50th out of 65 countries for disruptive children.  Not surprisingly, Asian countries ranked towards the top.  Britain was 32nd and the United States 22nd.  Clearly, this country has problems.

Increasing numbers of pupils have  major underlying behavioural issues.  They could well arrive at school with no experience of boundaries, unable to concentrate for any length of time or even sit still.  Others are violent, and physical and sexual assaults have increased.

Sensibly, the bad old violent days of corporal punishment were banished from the last New Zealand schools as recently as 1987 (legislation followed in 1990).  But the need for firm discipline and action remains.

Parents from all sorts of families seek order, back rules and support schools with strong leadership.

Systems of "restorative" measures have developed  — such as peer monitoring, buddy systems and no-blame approaches to bullying.  But schools also face demands for miscreants to be punished and have to tread a line between attempting rehabilitation and taking care of  safety.

The rules limiting how teachers can react have gone too far, however.

Reported yesterday was the case of a teacher, who carried a  child to a principal’s office, being found guilty of misconduct by the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal. As  Pat Newman, the president of the Tai Tokerau Principals Association said, common sense was missing.  The law is such the tribunal had to find the teacher guilty, but the law should be changed to broaden the ability of teachers to constrain pupils.

The matter, as outlined by the tribunal, began when four distressed boys complained the child had dragged them through mud and thrown stones.  When the pupil refused to explain himself he was told to go to the principal’s office. When he started going in the other direction the teacher put his hand on the boy’s shoulder and steered him the right way.

Near the office, the boy shouted, tried to run away.  The teacher caught hold of him and was struck.The teacher next prised the boy’s fingers free from metal bars near the staff room.  Then, when the boy tried to run away, the teacher picked him up and carried him to the principal’s office.

Usually, if a boy runs away little harm might be done.  For the most difficult cases, that will mean more work for the police to carry out later on. In this case, the tribunal accepted the teacher was in a difficult position because of the boy’s history of behavioural problems, and he might have hurt others.

But any force is not allowed unless  the teacher, or others, are in imminent danger. Even then,  any restraint  must be the minimum possible.

As Mr Newman pointed out, if a pupil starts smashing windows or furniture, teachers could be powerless to intervene effectively.

More scope for discretion is required.  Discipline in schools is hard enough without teachers being hamstrung.The law needs to be changed so reasonable restraint is possible.