Toolbox Tuesday: Let’s talk about physical restraint.
In our firm’s Toolbox Training we offer ten “tools” to help you serve students with disabilities well and safely, even when they behave in ways that are noncompliant, disruptive, even violent. Physical restraint is not one of the tools, but we do talk about it quite a bit. We want to make sure that Toolbox participants understand that physical restraint is permitted when there is an emergency that threatens imminent harm of serious injuries to person or property. Physical restraint should be used rarely, and should be done in compliance with our state’s rules and regulations, as well as those of your school district. The state guidelines are laid out at 19 T.A.C. 89.1053.
Should you include the use of physical restraint as a technique to be used when you create a BIP (Behavior Intervention Plan) for a student? I don’t recommend it. A BIP (which is Tool #1) should include a list of the positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports you will use to bring about an improvement in the student’s behavior. Physical restraint is not a positive behavior intervention. It’s a last ditch response to an emergency. It’s something we do when all other interventions and efforts to de-escalate have failed. You don’t have to authorize the use of physical restraint in a student’s BIP—it’s already authorized by state law. Nor does it make sense to prohibit it, since you can never predict when it might be needed. So in our Toolbox Training we emphasize that physical restraint should be neither authorized nor prohibited in a student’s BIP. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be talked about. In fact, parents should be well informed that physical restraint, along with other methods of behavior management that are authorized by state law and the Code of Conduct, may be used, even when a student has a BIP.
The use of physical restraint often leads to litigation. Three administrators in a Texas district were sued personally when a parent alleged that the use of restraint amounted to excessive force and an unreasonable “seizure” in violation of the 4th Amendment. The court dismissed the claims against each of the three:
[The student] shoved a school administrator, was visibly angry, arguably attempted to elope and was known to engage in self harm. [The three administrators] could have reasonably believed the first restraint was necessary to protect [the student] from physical harm. His resistance and escalation could have led [the three administrators] to a reasonable belief that [the student] now posed an imminent, serious threat of physical harm to others.
The “resistance and escalation” noted by the court involved a headbutt and a bite on the arm of the A.P. Just another day in the life of a middle school assistant principal.
One interesting wrinkle in this case: the parents were called to the school and arrived while the restraint was still going on. The A.P. offered to release the student when the dad arrived, but the dad asked him to continue holding the student until he calmed down. That probably helped the court conclude that the use of restraint was reasonable. What also helped was 1) the proper technique used by the A.P.; 2) the documentation of the incident by the school; 3) the fact that the nurse promptly looked at the student and found no serious injury; and 4) the good legal representation provided by Bridget Robinson and Jennifer Childress of the Walsh Gallegos Law Firm. The case is Ashley v. Copperas Cove ISD, decided by the federal court for the Western District of Texas on December 9, 2020. It’s reported at Special Ed Connection, at 120 LRP 38704.
DAWG BONE: RESTRAINT RULES: NOTICE, DOCUMENTATION, TRAINING.
Tomorrow: Teacher’s testimony labeled a “showstopper.”