As the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill enters Stage 1 of the parliamentary process, the EIS has been clear in its opposition to the Bill and is calling on you to make your voice heard.

Introduced by Daniel Johnston MSP on 17 March 2025, in response to sustained campaigning by parental groups, third sector organisations and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Bill seeks to place guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in Scottish schools on a statutory footing, and to introduce statutory requirements in terms of recording and reporting incidents when restraint interventions occur.

At first blush, these proposals may seem innocuous and well-meaning. Most people would agree that restraint and seclusion should be measures of last resort, only used by those trained in their use and as part of a whole school approach, which focuses on prevention and early intervention. This, after all, is the basis upon which the current Scottish Government non-statutory guidance is framed.

So, what are the objections to the introduction of statutory guidance under the Bill?

Concerns about the impact of statutory guidance

The EIS has long advocated that the focus of guidance on physical intervention in schools should be on the promotion of positive relationships, behaviour and wellbeing; on prevention and early intervention; on minimising the use of restraint and seclusion; and in the adoption of a rights-based approach, which acknowledges the rights of all in the school setting.

A central feature of such an approach is the development of positive relationships between teachers and school staff and children, young people and their families.

Some teachers might already be afraid or reluctant to intervene in some situations, for fear of potential legal or disciplinary consequences

Relational approaches are the bedrock to establishing trust and openness, and in building a culture in which teachers and school staff can work with pupils and their families to identify preventative strategies and supportive practices.

This is especially important in the current context, as staff are increasingly struggling to cope with the increased levels of violent, aggressive and distressed behaviour of children and young people, against a backdrop of large class sizes, rising additional support needs, crippling poverty, and cuts to education staffing and budgets.

When such behaviour requires intervention, staff should be able to discuss this openly with pupils, parents and partner organisations to review the support provided and plan accordingly.

This needs time, staffing and resourcing and given the importance of de-escalation and early intervention, significant additional investment in Education if existing guidance is to be implemented effectively, without adding to the already excessive workloads of teachers.

The EIS is concerned that the adoption of statutory provisions which will be legalistic in nature could militate against a culture of openness, collegiality and partnership working, instead engendering a culture of fear and leading to increased anxiety and feelings of isolation in teachers and school staff.

Some teachers might already be afraid or reluctant to intervene in some situations, for fear of potential legal or disciplinary consequences, particularly if the escalation of the incident is sudden and unexpected with no apparent trigger. Incidents of this nature can escalate quickly, are emotionally charged and traumatic for all involved. However, we know that failure to act can also leave a teacher or member of staff in a precarious position.

If the Bill is enacted, then a culture of fear and anxiety will inevitably become entrenched and lead to defensive practice which will do nothing to deliver meaningful outcomes for children and young people or to foster the positive relationships between teachers, school staff, pupils and their families, central to GIRFEC policy and an Empowered School system.

Concerns about the rationale for change

Whilst it is important to have clarity about the rights and responsibilities of all in the use of physical intervention, guidance in this area must be inclusive and supportive, based on principles of professional trust and openness.

Statutory guidance, by its nature, is unlikely to achieve this, and the numerous references in the Policy Memorandum accompanying the Bill, to an anticipated increased use of complaints processes would appear to signal a lack of trust in school staff and the apparent adoption of a more adversarial approach.

This is in stark contrast to current Scottish Government guidance which makes it clear that the process should not be ‘about apportioning blame or finding fault with practice, but about what can be adapted or changed to reduce the likelihood of the distressed behaviour occurring in future’.

Concerns about the timing of the Bill

The EIS believes that the introduction of this legislation is premature, some four months after refreshed non-statutory guidance from the Scottish Government was published, the impact of which has yet to be assessed and considered.

The Scottish Government has committed to review the effectiveness of implementation of the recently issued guidance one year from the date of publication as part of the process. We need to give the non-statutory guidance time to embed, and to have its impact assessed in light of the acknowledged changed and challenging circumstances in which our schools are currently operating.

Concerns about resources

A central area of concern is that the debate around whether guidance should be statutory or non-statutory in some way removes the focus from the major barrier to implementation of effective practice in this area – that of resourcing.

Guidance alone will not deliver the changes needed to realise the policy ambition of preventing or minimising the use of restraint and seclusion in schools.

The Scottish Government must commit to the allocation of sufficient staffing, time and resources to support the implementation of early intervention measures and restorative practice: to allow for effective multi-agency and parental cooperation; to facilitate professional learning and collaboration; and to ensure sufficient time is available for teachers, families and other professionals to build the meaningful relationships, which will be key to successful implementation of this approach.

The imperative for additional resourcing is acknowledged in the Policy and Financial Memoranda, accompanying the Bill. However, if additional resources were allocated to the non-statutory guidance, then this may alleviate some of the criticisms which are levelled about implementation and which are being used to justify the introduction of legislation.

In summary

If there is a genuine commitment to minimise the use of restraint and seclusion in our schools, the answer is not the introduction of statutory guidance – guidance which will polarise relationships, lead to defensive and adversarial practices and add to the stress and anxiety which many teachers and school staff experience on a regular basis.

Rather the Scottish Government needs to invest in education – invest in children and young people, their families, and in teachers and school staff. Investment in prevention, early intervention and health and safety will deliver better outcomes for children and better working conditions for school staff.

We cannot forget that pupils have the right to learn, and that teachers and school staff have the right to work in a safe environment, free from violence and aggression, and in which all are respected and valued.

What can you do?

Read the EIS submissions to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on the general principles of the Bill
……………………………………………………………..
Write to your MSP, stating your opposition to the Bill and urging them not to support the Bill progressing further
……………………………………………………………..
Raise awareness of the EIS concerns at a local level, urging colleagues to makes their voices heard too.