The debate about the use of isolation booths has become a lively one in recent days. Tes asked its behaviour columnist to take us through the issue.
In my experience, isolation is a commonly used practise in secondary schools - less so in primaries and special schools - but its use varies massively and, I’m willing to bet, its effectiveness varies massively, too.
For me, there are some questions that each school must regularly ask itself about its use of isolation.
What’s the point?
If a child can’t remain in a class because their presence is intolerably disruptive or unsafe, there should be two aims for every teacher: find out what’s happened and decide how to deal with it and support the child to ensure that they can return to learning as soon as possible. The length of this time depends on the child - it’s a judgement call that can go wrong.
The point shouldn’t be to make the experience so mind-numbingly tedious or so long that the child is bored into behaving better. If isolation is just an extension of “Sit there and think about what you did” then it will have a limited, if any, effect.
What’s it called?
When I first worked in a comprehensive in 2001, isolation was called the “pupil removal facility” (PRF). It was very clinical but it did what it said on the tin. Internal inclusion or internal exclusion (oxymoron alert) or “nurture rooms” are vain attempts at softening the blow.
Is it proportional?
Isolation runs the risk of deepening hostility when issues could be dealt with in a different way. With all behaviour issues, our aim must be to improve the situation, not simply win at all costs. Ultimately, isolation is wasted lesson time, no matter what work is provided.
Is it right?
Occasionally a justification is made for isolation in that it is used as an alternative to a fixed-term exclusion, which brings with it legal responsibilities for schools. A child cannot be excluded for more than 45 days in one academic year, the parents have the right to be informed, and the parents have the right of appeal - none of which apply to isolation. In extremis, a child could be in isolation for more than 45 days.
Is it effective?
Isolation, like all responses to behaviour issues, should not be an end in itself. If we aren’t reviewing its effectiveness, if the same children are appearing in there time and time again, then it is perfectly legitimate to ask why we’re persisting with it as a behaviour improvement strategy.
Jarlath O’Brien works in special education in London and is the author of Better Behaviour - a guide for teachers
