There were more than 4,000 suspensions of children aged 5 and under in England last year, prompting calls for teachers to have greater powers of restraint over violent and disruptive pupils.

Of the 400 suspensions of children aged 2 and 3 from nursery last year, 310 involved accusations of physical assault or threatening behaviour against a child or an adult, government figures show. They highlight the difficulties that some schools have in controlling troubled children who, in their distress or anger, may throw chairs or bite, hit and shout abuse at teachers and classmates.

Teachers were given stronger powers to restrain pupils in 2006. The rules enable them to use reasonable force to remove disruptive children from class or prevent them from leaving a room. They can also forcibly search children they believe are carrying dangerous objects. But many are still afraid to use force for fear of being accused of assault themselves.

Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary, who obtained the figures in a parliamentary answer, was staggered by the number of suspensions given to very young children. “Ministers have eroded teachers’ ability to keep order by restricting their powers to deal with disruptive and violent children. We want to restore the authority of teachers to ensure a safe and secure environment for children of all ages to learn in.”

According to the figures, there were 3,750 suspensions of children aged 4 and 5 last year. The total number of suspensions of those aged 2 to 11 exceeded 45,500, up from 40,000 the year before. Most cases involved violence or the threat of it. The figures for individual age groups peak at 10,600 for nine-year-olds.

Teachers can physically restrain a child only if the action “constitutes a proportionate punishment in the circumstances of the case”. A Conservative government would remove the word proportionate. A party spokesman said: “This word is a goldmine for lawyers and a nightmare for the public because it gives lawyers the chance to take any case to court and quibble over the precise boundary of what may be proportional.”

A Tory government, he said, would issue guidance making it clear to the police and courts that teachers should be punished for physically restraining a child only if it was clear that they had acted unreasonably. Schools would no longer have to keep written records for ten years for every episode involving physical restraint, as this created a disincentive for teachers to keep order.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that the Government had already given teachers stronger powers to use physical restraint against pupils. The high numbers of very young children being suspended was evidence that teachers were clamping down and taking a hard line against physically disruptive pupils. He said that the figures for suspensions were up last year because more schools were using them over temporary exclusions.

Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that many teachers did not have the confidence to use the powers. “The moment a hand is laid on a child, whistles are blown and social services become involved. Unless the teacher can show they have been trained in the use of physical restraint, they can find themselves walking a tightrope,” he said, adding that sometimes there was no other option but to use physical force.

He argued that suspension could sometimes be counterproductive. “Where a child is displaying poor behaviour because there are problems in the home, simply sending them back home is not always a terribly good idea.”

The solution was better cooperation between schools and social care and health agencies as soon as problem behaviour was identified. Mr Brookes said that violent or disruptive behaviour in a very young child might be because of undiagnosed autism. In such cases specialist support, not punishment, was needed.

Primary and nursery schools were seeing an increasing number of parents who had simply lost control of their children. He said: “Some of these children seem never to have heard the word no. It’s down to poor parenting.”

Times recommends

• Undergraduates to get 'consumer rights'
• Schoolgirls think cosmetic surgery is normal
• Lying parents may face court over school places