School committee reviews updated physical-restraint policy, defers vote for clarifications

At its Feb. 4 meeting, the North Attleborough School Committee reviewed proposed revisions to the district’s physical-restraint policy, including new language on de-escalation, a grievance procedure and reporting requirements, but deferred a vote so staff can clarify specific language and regulatory references.

The revisions were presented by Melissa Twohk, who identified herself as an intern in special-education administration and team chair at Martin School. “Physical restraint, of course, is always a last resort,” Twohk said, and the updated policy emphasizes “de-escalation and proactive measures” and spells out the district’s prevention curriculum and training.

Twohk told the committee the changes were prompted by an integrated monitoring review conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The review found the district’s practices in compliance but noted the written policy did not reflect all practices observed. The draft policy adds a description of the district’s prevention curriculum (Safety Care), notes use of a universal social-emotional curriculum (Second Step) in pre-K–8, updates reporting and notification language and — for the first time — includes a formal grievance procedure.

Committee members pressed for clarifications on several points. One member asked whether the policy should specify categories of students for whom restraint should never be used (for example, students with a trauma history); Twohk said the draft allows for a waiver for individualized needs tied to trauma or medical complications. Members also sought clarity on a provision that reads “a member of the school committee shall not be precluded from using such reasonable force,” asking why committee members — rather than only trained staff — would be referenced. Twohk said the language came from sample policies Meg reviewed with legal counsel and that staff would follow up.

Members also questioned notification timelines in the draft. The policy notes an effort to orally notify a parent within 24 hours of a restraint; committee members said that could read as the district waiting up to 24 hours, and staff responded that calling parents immediately is common practice and that 24 hours is the statutory maximum. Staff agreed to consider tightening the policy language to reflect that immediate efforts will be made and that the 24-hour window is the legal maximum.

Other clarifications discussed included: the role of the principal if a restraint continues longer than 20 minutes (the draft references principal approval at that threshold, which staff said is aligned with state regulations), how Safety Care training is applied across age groups, and whether school resource officers may be involved only if a police presence is required. Twohk said district trainers tailor scenarios by age and individual needs and that SROs generally do not participate unless called.

The committee did not vote on the updated policy. Members requested staff verify the source and intent of the language about committee members and confirm regulatory citations and timelines; the item will return for further review at a future meeting.

The discussion also addressed broader civil-rights and procedural safeguards. Twohk said the grievance procedure was added to allow review when there is concern about misuse of physical intervention.

Next steps: staff will consult with legal counsel and return with clarified language and citations before the committee takes a formal vote.