This dilemma occurred within a Queensland State School Prep classroom, involving a male student aged 5 years old.

This particular student displayed disruptive behaviour and did not respond to the Educators regular behaviour management strategy: two verbal warnings progressing to a five minute time out. This strategy is usually very effective when dealing with this particular child, although on this particular occasion the childs behaviour began to escalate to a violent and potentially dangerous level. Therefore the Educator chose to use corrective force to rectify the situation before any harm came to the child, fellow students, staff or herself. When reviewing this situation from a legal standpoint the educator was within her legal rights, as her physical contact with the child would be classified as appropriate corrective force. The educator was acting in loco parentis (that is, in place of a parent, for example, a teacher, career or guardian) therefore her use of corrective force is justified. No harm or injuries were incurred by the child during this incident. The educator also fulfilled her duty of care requirements in regards to other students and staff, as nobody involved suffered any form of harm or injury (Education
General Provisions Regulation Act 2006, Qld).

The use of corrective force in this instance was a last resort before opting for the involvement of school administrators. The child was issued with multiple warning and opportunities to correct his inappropriate behaviours, as is in accordance with behaviour management policies. Although an executive decision had to be made by the educator to defuse the potentially violent situation, this tactic was successfully deployed
(DEEWR, 2009).

When examining this instance from an ethical point of view the principal of nonmaleficence comes into play. This particular principal states that we

should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others. In particular, we should not cause avoidable or intentional harm. This includes avoiding even the risk of harm. This is extremely relevant to this situation as the Educator acted swiftly to avoid harm occurring to any of her charges. Ethical theories also relating to this dilemma include ends based and care based. This is relevant as the educator considered the best interests of all her students and staff as well as examining which option would have the best outcome for all, before she decided upon the most appropriate resolution for this particular situation (Department of Education, 2005). If the Educator decided on a different approach to resolve this situation the result could have been dramatically different. For example if she chose a rules based approach the situation could have escalated further calling for administrative intervention. In this case this option may have increased the stress and anxiety levels the already distressed child was feeling. This would not have been a beneficial outcome for any of the involved parties, as the potential of harm would continue to increase (Department of Education,
2005).

This particular educator called on prior experience and professional knowledge when dealing with this dilemma. She drew upon prior experience with this particular child and his previous emotional escalations. In addition to this the educator had recently attended behaviour modification workshops; this is where she adopted the idea of the visual cluing three step warning system (DEEWR, 2009). The three step visual cluing warning system begins with two opportunities for verbal warning where the educator would ask the student to cease their disruptive behaviour. If the child was unresponsive to these first two

warnings the next step is a five minute time out. During this time out the child would be removed from their activity or group session and asked to sit on a chair in the time out zone for 5 minutes. Once the time out is complete the Educator will talk to the child and ask them to recognise why they were sent to the time out zone and why their behaviour was considered wrong. After the child recognises their mistakes the educator asks the child to apologies as their final act of reconciliation. When the child returns to their original group setting or activity the educator ensures she positively reinforces the childs good behaviour. Upon reflection it has been made evident that the use of reasonable corrective force was the most appropriate way to deal with this particular dilemma. If the situations did not present with the possibility of harm it may have been handled without the use of force, but because the child was showing violent tendencies the situation needed to be defused swiftly. The Educator successfully fulfilled her duty of care as nobody entrusted into her care was physically harmed while the situation played out. Her actions have been classified as reasonable corrective force as her use of force minimised the potential of harm. Also her use of force did not injure the child involved and would have only had the potential to cause mild discomfort at the time. It is evident the use of corrective force is a difficult situation to justify, but as long as no physical harm was incurred by the involved child as a result of the educators actions, nor were any other students or staff in her charge victims of harm during this instance. We can justify that the use of corrective force outweighed the negative implications with positives, and can be a very useful and appropriate behaviour management strategy.