Finding ways to make classrooms safer for everyone who enters them is not a new topic for discussion. It's been an ongoing conversation for many years across the United States and abroad. With information just a click away for anyone with access to a keyboard, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that our schools are somehow less safe than they used to be.
According to James Alan Fox, a Criminology professor at Northeastern University, that's not the case. This begs the question of why antiquated and potentially harmful measures, in the name of safety, are still utilized in some classrooms and hospitals around the country.
Potentially allowing the use of physical restraint by teachers in classrooms is a discussion that policymakers are focusing on within the state, and it's a complicated issue. Physical restraints are often used for emergency crisis situations in hospitals when patients are so violent and extreme that they potentially risk harming themselves or others.
Are such drastic measures essential for children whose minds are still learning how to navigate through their thoughts and emotions?
Children struggling to process their strong emotions can be physically harmed by teachers and support staff who are ill-equipped to properly use the measure effectively, inadvertently creating an abusive environment for the children they are trying to help.
With increased community support for families, required training for teachers to keep their licenses, and better access to mental health in our country than ever, outdated practices like physical restraints are not necessary for our schools.
There are safer, more effective ways of introducing logical consequences that aid in the development of all students while simultaneously fostering an environment of learning.
Children learn best in environments that are conducive to their developmental growth. Physical restraints limit a child's ability to process their thoughts and feelings. Big emotions are a natural part of childhood development, and there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of using physical measures in classrooms. The potential negative impacts on children far outweigh any gain that couldn't otherwise be achieved by utilizing a non-physical response.
If the whole point of our educational system is to develop students' potential, the logical solution to confronting intense emotions would be to support them through it. Physical restraints do nothing to help promote cognitive development in students, and utilizing these tactics means that the primary purpose of educational institutions within the United States could be lost.
No one argues that creating safe classroom environments is necessary for promoting school learning. Parents and caregivers trust the teachers, staff, and administrators who come into contact with students daily to make sound, rash, and logical decisions in response to every situation they face.
When last resort crisis measures are introduced into the classroom, it begins to take away the decision-making of the adult who could handle the situation using a more individualized approach that meets the student's needs and helps them grow in the process.
Extreme consequences are for extreme situations. Children sometimes have a lot of emotions. This is a natural part of the growing process. Accountability matters, and it's equally essential that inappropriate behavior be met with appropriate consequences to help children learn through each situation. Physical restraints are ineffective, extreme, and should not be utilized in schools.
