Uncategorized

As States begin to reopen, it is important that we are ready and have established protocols in place. The current strategy is to provide a structured and phased guideline for reopening while leaving it up to the Governors of each state, and regions on the exact timing for implementing each phase.  The protocol outlined below is based on the standards and requirements we are seeing across multiple regions and States.  These protocols will vary based on i.e. (1) State requirements; (2) phase of re-opening; (3) whether the training is on-site or via seminar, and (4) the client. This protocol is subject to modification. We're using the best available information at hand. HWC Training Protocols include: Participants attending HWC Training must certify they are healthy and to the best of their knowledge NOT at risk of spreading COVID (i.e. do not have COVID symptoms, do not have COVID and are not in a quarantine or stay at home period if exposed to COVID). Participants who show signs of symptoms of COVID cannot attend training. The room size provided by the organization will meet State distancing or occupancy requirements for the number of Participants expected. Prior to attending everyone (HWC trainers included) will be asked to take their temperature and make an self-health assessment that they are not experiencing COVID symptoms. We're setting 100 degrees Fahrenheit as the maximum temp permitted to participate. Please ask your staff to self-screen their temps at home on the morning of training. Prior to attending the training or entering the training room there will be a sign-in table where temperature will be taken, participants will sanitize or wash their hands, and gloves (hand sanitizing) and masks will be required.  We ask that no one enters the training room until their sign-in process is completed. Masks and gloves stay on unless the person leaves on a break.  When the person returns, s/he must resanitize and change gloves.  The same mask can be kept. Masks stay on unless you need to remove it to speak or breathe.  If the mask is taken off social distancing must be adhered to.  Before the mask is dropped the person must distance 6 feet from the nearest person.  Trainers can drop their mask for longer briefings, explanations, broadcasting training.  The trainer has to be at least 6 feet away if his/her mask is down. Where social distancing cannot be maintained, masks and gloves must be worn. During Personal Defense, each participant will keep the same partner. During the physical restraint training, including "spotting" practice, particpants will be divided into small groups and remain with that group throughout. HWC recommends that participants bring a change of clothing for after training Additionally If there is any question about scheduling HWC training, the Client should check with the State and/or licensing agency as to when training can proceed. There may be last minute schedule adjustments or rescheduling due to COVID i.e. the trainer becomes ill and there is no time to provide a substitute trainer or a substitute trainer is not available, changing COVID protocols, restrictions or limitations. If the last minute cancellation is due to HWC, we will cover HWC (not client) out-of-pocket travel costs.  If the last minute cancellation is due to the organization/client, the organization shall cover any HWC  incurred non-refundable costs.    

Handle With Care has been providing training for school staff on how to manage student populations from pre-k12 since 1985. There is generally a divide in schools between special education and general education with respect to behavior management and crisis intervention. The use of restraint in both general and special education are governed by 4 main bodies of law: Self Defense Laws: Federal, Constitutional and State laws protecting the right to defend self and others.  Ingram v. Wright (SCOTUS). The State does not have the right to limit a person’s right to defend themselves or another in any manner that is reasonable.  Bowers v. DeVit. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the right to self-defense does not terminate when a teacher or student enters the schoolhouse gates. See also, Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) Tort/Common Law: Courts have held that schools act in the place of parents (in loco parentis).  As such, schools have a duty to maintain a safe environment conducive to education.  Along with this doctrine comes a duty to train staff to handle foreseeable circumstances. It is foreseeable that children will lose their tempers and may engage in inappropriate behavior like fighting and throwing objects.  There is a duty to train staff how to manage these foreseeable situations in a way that maintains a safe environment conducive to education. Treatment and Behavioral Plans (IEPs/BPs).  This is the duty to provide professional judgment in developing educational and treatment plans.  The Supreme Court has held that the professional duty rests exclusively with the professionals working directly with the [students]. Youngberg v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In addition to the above, special education students have the additional Federal laws that must be complied with: Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Rehabilitation Act Section 504 (504). The laws specific to special needs students protect their right not to be discriminated against because of their disability, and the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which includes IEPs.

The Michigan Supreme Court overturned a 2001 decision and loosened the standard for people who want to file some civil lawsuits. The decision gives teachers the standing to take legal action when schools intentionally disregard or are deliberately indifferent to the unsafe conditions in the classroom. The standard of deliberate indifference applies to both inadequate training and inadequate supervision. It requires evidence that the school knew of a safety risk and failed to train, supervise or effectively discipline in a particular area. Now schools can be held liable by teachers for turning away from a situation that should have been addressed. In a 4-3 ruling, justices said Lansing teachers had a right to sue the school district over how it disciplined students. The case trumps a series of opinions over the last decade that had restricted the ability to go to court in a variety of disputes unless someone could show an actual injury. “By reinstating the decades-old precedent … we are restoring, not departing from, the fabric of the law and this court’s fidelity to the Michigan Constitution," Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote in an opinion released Sunday night. Four teachers and their union, citing state law, sued the Lansing School District, saying it should have automatically expelled four students, not suspended them, for violence. They were accused of throwing chairs at teachers, slapping one and striking another in the face in 2005 and 2006. Lower courts ruled against the teachers. They said school boards had discretion in how to handle students and teachers had no standing to sue. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case. But the majority said teachers have a “substantial interest" in how the district follows the law regarding student discipline. “The [law] is intended to not only make the general school environment safer but additionally to specifically protect teachers from assault and to assist them in more effectively performing their jobs," Cavanagh wrote.