Comments on the Draft GA Dept. of Education Restraint Rule
We have four serious concerns with the language and legality of this rule that we bring to your attention.
First, we disagree with the section of this rule that bans the use of restraint as part of an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) or Behavioral Plan (“BP”) as consented to by parents and implemented with the advice and consultation of a doctor or behavior management specialist.
Second, we object to the GA DOE distorting the English language into a form of “newspeak” (George Orwell 1984 reference). The draft rule defines physical restraint as: “direct physical contact from an adult that prevents or significantly restricts a student’s movement . . . that does not include prone restraint.”
This definition is absurd. If law enforcement (generally an adult) or a child restrains a student in a face down / prone position, it’s call “physical restraint.” But if an adult not law enforcement places a student in a face down / prone restraint — it’s not called “physical restraint.” The draft rule is, bluntly, constructed around a lie. This inversion of customary meanings designed to diminish the range of thought that words represent is a form of censorship, thought and speech control that should not, never, be tolerated.
Third, the proposed rule incorrectly presumes that prone restraint puts physical pressure on a student’s body (which we will presume to mean torso). This is not true. There are several face down restraint techniques that do not place weight on the student’s back, chest, stomach or diaphragm and that does not restrict or prohibit breathing while still maintaining control. The documents on HWC’s web site www.handlewithcare.com (first page) explain why prone restraint is often more therapeutic and safer than face up. This is not a debate between floor and non-floor holds. This discussion is when it has been determined that floor restraint is necessary.
Fourth, the proposed rule creates two sets of standards for what is acceptable intervention for the defense of self and/or others. This is quite illegal under both the 5th and 14th amendment equal and due process protection clauses. There are links on Handle With Care’s web site: www.handlewithcare.com to a white paper explaining the actual laws governing the use of restraint in schools along with a powerpoint presentation you can also download.
Discussion:
We do not believe that is within the purview of the Georgia Department of Education to be enacting rules governing how students should be “treated” from a clinical perspective. Nor do we believe that Georgia Department of Education has the legal authority to curtail a persons right to provide for their or another’s safety by any means reasonable.
We strongly believe that both the voices of the-restraint free interest groups should be heard as well as the voices of the children and families that would opt for physical intervention as part of an IEP or BP for their child. The children and families whose children are in classes with behaviorally challenged children also need to be heard as well as the voices of the teachers, paraprofessionals, school administrators and experts.
The proposed rule unlawfully and unduly restrictively ties the hands of teaching facility , treatment providers, case managers, doctors, team clinicians and parents who have the direct responsibility for the child’s care, treatment and safety.
These same administrators, clinicians, professionals and faculty must also balance the treatment, safety and behavioral needs, not only of the child in question, but within the overall context of school safety and the right of the other children to safety and a quality education.
* Not intervening when a therapeutic response (both physical and emotional) is called for is not so much prevention of restraint as it is an abdication of adult responsibility.
* The use or non-use of physical intervention for treatment or behavioral purposes is a highly personal decision that should be left to those with the personal and emotional interest, and clinical or professional expertise to make this determination.
* The use of physical intervention for the protection of self or others is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments not to mention numerous Georgia State laws and cannot be abrogated or diminished by an administrative rule.
Government Departments should remove themselves from the business of trying to parent each child and superimposing its will on what should or should not be included in a child’s treatment plan. The same goes for micro-managing school safety. Federal and State courts have long held that the responsibility of maintaining a safe environment rests with the entity i.e. school itself. We did not see an indemnification provision in the proposed rule.
For a copy of the draft rule: http://www.thegao.org/Rule.pdf
If you agree with our comments or have comments of your own, we would direct you to contact:
Kathy Cox
Georgia Department of Education
State Superintendent of Schools
Email: state.superintendent@
doe.k12.ga.us
Tel: (404) 656-2800
Chief of Staff: Stephen Pruitt
Email: spruitt@doe.k12.ga.us
Tel: (404) 657-6165
[...] http://thetruthaboutpronerestr.....on-restr... [...]