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, particpatns will be divided into small groups and remain with that group throughout. 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.    
SC. Officer throws student in South Carolina classroom arrest
Sadly, this video demonstrates what happens when teachers and school administrators become so disempowered that they feel it necessary to call the police to manage a fairly simple act of defiance to a legitimate request.  Two well-trained teachers could have managed this student's behavior with far less force than the Deputy Sheriff. She was acting as a passive resister and was clearly playing to her peers. Rather than fighting to remove this student from her seat, HWC would have advised the school to consider two other options: 1) slowly (and without anger) slide the student and her desk into the hall; closing and locking the door behind her or 2) leave her in her seat and move the rest of the class to another room. In both cases, she would have been left with adult supervision (but without her peer audience) to answer to whatever thoughtful and appropriate behavioral consequences had been prescribed in her IEP/IBP for defiant behavior.
Student’s family wins $300K settlement in suit against TN school for failing to protect
J.G. was a seventh grader diagnosed with Aspergers and Anxiety Disorder and was having a hard time adjusting to seventh grade, had weak social language skills  and would have "meltdowns". The school also had written documentation that J.G. would need assistance with "social negotiation" and that J.G. was teased and bullied." Based on the diagnoses, several interventions were instituted, including allowing J.G. to leave the classroom when he felt stressed, preferential seating and a card system to give him a way of signaling to a teacher that he was being bullied or felt stressed. In May, 2006, J.G.'s teacher left the room for 5 minutes and during that time there was a physical altercation where student W.K. hit J.G. in the eye with a book and J.G. sustained serious injuries to his left eye that necessitated four surgeries and left him legally blind in that eye. J.G.'s parents sued the school for negligence and failure to protect. The trial court held and an appeals court confirmed that the school breached its duty to safeguard students while at school from "reasonably foreseeable dangerous conditions including the dangerous acts of fellow students." First, the school was negligent with respect to the teacher leaving the class unattended. The school principal testified that, in light of J.G.'s condition and his complaints about being bullying, he should not have been left in the room without a teacher present.  Second, the court found the school negligent for failing to disseminate information regarding the student as the teacher that left the room was not notified of J.G.'s diagnoses and was not aware that he was the subject of bullying and teasing. See generally Small v. Shelby Cnty. Sch., No. W2007-00045-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 360925 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008) (asthmatic student injured in physical education class; jury found school system liable for failing to disseminate information about student's medical problems to teachers). The Court then upheld the $300,000 verdict handed down by the trial court, holding that given what the school knew about J.G.'s developmental limitations, including his inability to react appropriately to social cues, his tendency to have meltdowns, and that he was the target of bullying and ridicule, the school board should have foreseen that he could be injured by another student when left unsupervised.