Public policy on physical restraint of children with disabilities in public schools

James K. McAfee, Christopher Schwilk, Megan Mitruski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The US Constitution, federal and state legislatures, courts, and regulations permit physical restraint for both therapeutic (i.e., behavior change) and risk prevention purposes. Although most venues limit restraint as punishment, no government entity prohibits use of physical restraint as a response to imminent danger. This paper provides a comprehensive view of public policy of the most common form of restraint- an educator using his or her body to limit movement of a student so as to reduce risk of harm during an episode of dangerous behavior. Such restraint has been upheld by courts and requires quick decisions following careful training of educators. The intent of this paper is to provide a policy framework within which public educators (administrators, teachers and others) may develop specific practices to protect themselves and others from injury and legal action. Discussion concludes with recommendations for policies and procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)711-728
Number of pages18
JournalEducation and Treatment of Children
Volume29
Issue number4
StatePublished - Nov 1 2006

Fingerprint

Physical Restraint
Disabled Children
Public Policy
training of educators
public policy
disability
educator
Dangerous Behavior
Punishment
Constitution and Bylaws
Risk-Taking
Administrative Personnel
school
penalty
constitution
Students
regulation
Wounds and Injuries
teacher
student

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

McAfee, James K. ; Schwilk, Christopher ; Mitruski, Megan. / Public policy on physical restraint of children with disabilities in public schools. In: Education and Treatment of Children. 2006 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 711-728.
@article{259dd95be0ca47658de3e5b7c66ae013,
title = "Public policy on physical restraint of children with disabilities in public schools",
abstract = "The US Constitution, federal and state legislatures, courts, and regulations permit physical restraint for both therapeutic (i.e., behavior change) and risk prevention purposes. Although most venues limit restraint as punishment, no government entity prohibits use of physical restraint as a response to imminent danger. This paper provides a comprehensive view of public policy of the most common form of restraint- an educator using his or her body to limit movement of a student so as to reduce risk of harm during an episode of dangerous behavior. Such restraint has been upheld by courts and requires quick decisions following careful training of educators. The intent of this paper is to provide a policy framework within which public educators (administrators, teachers and others) may develop specific practices to protect themselves and others from injury and legal action. Discussion concludes with recommendations for policies and procedures.",
author = "McAfee, {James K.} and Christopher Schwilk and Megan Mitruski",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "711--728",
journal = "Education and Treatment of Children",
issn = "0748-8491",
publisher = "West Virginia University Press",
number = "4",

}

Public policy on physical restraint of children with disabilities in public schools. / McAfee, James K.; Schwilk, Christopher; Mitruski, Megan.

In: Education and Treatment of Children, Vol. 29, No. 4, 01.11.2006, p. 711-728.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public policy on physical restraint of children with disabilities in public schools

AU - McAfee, James K.

AU - Schwilk, Christopher

AU - Mitruski, Megan

PY - 2006/11/1

Y1 - 2006/11/1

N2 - The US Constitution, federal and state legislatures, courts, and regulations permit physical restraint for both therapeutic (i.e., behavior change) and risk prevention purposes. Although most venues limit restraint as punishment, no government entity prohibits use of physical restraint as a response to imminent danger. This paper provides a comprehensive view of public policy of the most common form of restraint- an educator using his or her body to limit movement of a student so as to reduce risk of harm during an episode of dangerous behavior. Such restraint has been upheld by courts and requires quick decisions following careful training of educators. The intent of this paper is to provide a policy framework within which public educators (administrators, teachers and others) may develop specific practices to protect themselves and others from injury and legal action. Discussion concludes with recommendations for policies and procedures.

AB - The US Constitution, federal and state legislatures, courts, and regulations permit physical restraint for both therapeutic (i.e., behavior change) and risk prevention purposes. Although most venues limit restraint as punishment, no government entity prohibits use of physical restraint as a response to imminent danger. This paper provides a comprehensive view of public policy of the most common form of restraint- an educator using his or her body to limit movement of a student so as to reduce risk of harm during an episode of dangerous behavior. Such restraint has been upheld by courts and requires quick decisions following careful training of educators. The intent of this paper is to provide a policy framework within which public educators (administrators, teachers and others) may develop specific practices to protect themselves and others from injury and legal action. Discussion concludes with recommendations for policies and procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750900813&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750900813&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33750900813

VL - 29

SP - 711

EP - 728

JO - Education and Treatment of Children

JF - Education and Treatment of Children

SN - 0748-8491

IS - 4

ER -