Physical intervention in schools guidance: consultation analysis

3. Analysis of consultation responses

3.1 Consultation analysis approach

A mixed method approach was adopted to analyse the responses to this consultation. This involved both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses.

Further information on the methodology used in the analysis is included in Annex A.

3.2 Consultation responses

In total 104 respondents submitted responses to the consultation, 93 through the Citizen Space portal and 11 by email. 1 easy read response was submitted by email. 4 email responses were received after the consultation closed and were included in the consultation analysis.

* The 29 local authority responses represent 22 individual local authorities.

3.2.1 Quantitative analysis

Across the 8 questions, a total of 687 responses (from a potential total of 832) answered the closed questions. This represents a response rate of 83%.

A breakdown of responses by question and respondent category is included in Annex B.

3.2.2 Respondents providing further details

Across the 8 questions, a total of 581 comments (from a potential total of 832) were submitted in response to the open questions. This represents a response rate of 70%.

3.3 Key findings by question

A total of 104 respondents submitted answers and comments for the 8 questions asked as part of the consultation. Responses varied greatly in length and in completeness. Some responses from organisations focussed on the areas of the consultation most relevant to their organisation’s interests and submitted no answers to some of the questions. Where responses provided more over-arching comments that did not make specific reference to one question, these comments were included in the analysis of the most relevant questions. The same approach was taken towards the written submissions received. Key findings in this section are themes that were raised 10 times or more in response to the individual consultation questions.

• Question 1. Of the 88 respondents who answered whether the guidance is easy to understand, 64% (56 responses) answered yes and 36% (32 responses) answered no. 16 respondents did not answer. 92% of respondents (96 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Some responses commented positively on the overall clarity of the guidance, its aims and the language used throughout. However, several responses also commented negatively on the length of the guidance (discussed further in 4.1) and some on its structure and language, which they felt detracted from its clarity and accessibility.

• Question 2. Of the 86 respondents who answered whether the physical intervention definitions included in the guidance were clear, 60% (52 responses) answered yes and 40% (34 responses) answered no. 18 respondents did not answer. 76% of respondents (79 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Several responses commented positively on the general clarity of the definitions included within the guidance. However, several responses also commented that further clarity was required in relation to the definitions of staff-led withdrawal and seclusion. Some responses also requested further clarity on the definitions of physical intervention, pupil-led withdrawal and time out.

The clarity of the definitions is discussed further in 4.3.

• Question 3. Of the 83 respondents who answered whether additional safeguards for the use of physical intervention should be added to the guidance, 58% (48 responses) answered yes and 42% (35 responses) answered no. 21 respondents did not answer. 71% of respondents (74 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Some responses commented that support for the wellbeing of school staff is an important additional safeguard that should be given further consideration within the guidance. Some responses also commented that appropriate training is also an important safeguard for the use of physical intervention.

Training standards are included within the draft guidance. Training is discussed further in 4.4.

• Question 4. Of the 87 respondents who answered whether there are any other restraints used in schools that should be added to the guidance, 67% (58 responses) answered no and 33% (29 responses) answered yes. 17 respondents did not answer. 52% of respondents (54 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Some responses commented that they were not aware of any other types of restraints being used in schools that required additional guidance. Some responses commented that advice on mechanical and chemical restraint should be added to the guidance.

A definition and advice to help practitioners recognise mechanical restraint is included in the draft guidance.

• Question 5. Of the 85 respondents who answered whether there were any additions that would help the application of the guidance in schools, 78% (66 responses) answered yes and 22% (19 responses) answered no. 19 respondents did not answer. 75% of respondents (78 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Several responses commented that supporting resources, handouts and further training would help the implementation of the guidance within schools. These comments are discussed further in 4.4. Some responses highlighted that the addition of case studies would improve the accessibility of the guidance. Some responses commented that further clarity was needed on support for the school workforce.

• Question 6. Of the 85 respondents who answered whether any changes should be made to the guidance on roles and responsibilities, 52% (44 responses) answered no and 48% (41 responses) answered yes. 19 respondents did not answer. 48% of respondents (50 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Some responses commented that additional clarity on the advice provided on the roles of responsibilities of school staff, head teachers and the local authority or education provider would be helpful.

• Question 7. Of the 87 respondents who answered whether any changes should be made to the guidance on recording, reporting and monitoring of restraint, 68% (59 responses) answered yes and 32% (28 responses) answered no. 17 respondents did not answer. 71% of respondents (74 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Some responses commented that the role of the education inspectorate and national bodies in relation to the recording of restraint should be added to the guidance. Some responses commented that the guidance should include consideration of the time required to record restraint and the associated impact on the workloads of school staff. Some responses also commented on the threshold for recording restraint and asked for further clarification on the guidance’s advice in this area. Some responses commented that a statutory requirement to record restraint was needed.

The non-statutory guidance provides advice on the existing legal framework. Comments on statutory guidance are discussed further in 4.5.

• Question 8. Of the 86 respondents who answered whether any other changes should be made to the guidance, 71% (61 responses) answered yes and 29% (25 responses) answered no. 18 respondents did not answer. 73% of respondents (76 responses) provided further comments in answer to this question.

Several responses commented that further clarity on the advice on the prevention of restraint and training would be helpful. Some responses commented that further clarity of language would be helpful throughout the guidance. Some responses also commented that a change in the guidance’s status from non-statutory to statutory is needed.

Comments on statutory guidance are discussed further in 4.5.