One St. Johns County School District (FL) student was restrained 119 minutes. However, the restraint summary the division provided to U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for the student stated “restraints he experienced lasted as long as 35 minutes” even though the incident reports “recorded a restraint lasting five times longer—119 minutes.”

Another student was “restrained 77 times, including 14 times in the span of just three and a half weeks.” Yet, OCR found no evidence that the student’s “Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team ever meaningfully discussed the impact of restraint on the services he was receiving or may have needed”. In addition, over the two-year period reviewed by OCR, it identified one student who was restrained 120 times, another who was restrained 126 times, and another who was restrained 84 times.

October 17, 2024, OCR entered into an early resolution agreement with the school division to “ensure that its restraint policies and practices do not deny students with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE).” October 21, 2024, OCR released the resolution agreement and the letter of findings that details OCR’s investigation and the findings that led to the resolution agreement.

Although OCR’s resolution agreement states that nothing in it “constitutes an admission by the District that it failed to comply with Section 504 or Title II”, the school division agreed to voluntarily enter into the agreement with OCR. OCR found that the division has “clear and detailed policies prohibiting the use of seclusion and limiting restraint to emergency situations only.” However, OCR also identified high rates of restraints of students who have disabilities, which led to it having serious concerns about the division’s denial of FAPE and its recordingkeeping practices.

OCR’s Denial of FAPE Concerns

OCR’s investigation failed to find evidence that the division “consistently re-evaluated students with disabilities subjected to repeated restraints, or otherwise assessed whether the regular or special education services those students received were sufficient to provide them a FAPE.”

OCR found no evidence that staff were “clearly or consistently advised” about the implications of the use of restraint on students’ abilities to receive a FAPE. OCR states that, although division witnesses acknowledged that students who had been restrained had lost instructional time, the witnesses “gave inconsistent responses concerning whether lost time was in fact discussed in IEP team meetings and whether or how lost time was tracked. At least one teacher was not even aware whether lost time was tracked, let alone discussed by IEP teams.” OCR gave the example of one student for whom “her IEP team never discussed whether she may have needed compensatory services, even though she had been restrained dozens of times, including for more than two hours."

OCR’s Recordkeeping Concerns

The previous example of inconsistent documentation related to the student whose restraint summary documented up to 35 minutes of restraint, and whose incident reports documented 119 minutes of restraint, was one of many inconsistencies OCR identified. In another example, OCR cited concerns of the division undercounting the actual number of restraints because it “may have excluded instances of immobilization during transportation that would meet the definition of restraint.”

OCR stated concern that these inconsistencies prevented IEP teams from fully understanding the extent to which restraint was being used and thus prevented the teams from “fully addressing those students’ disability-related needs.” According to records reviewed by OCR, crisis teams met frequently to discuss ways to address students’ behaviors. However, the information wasn’t integrated into IEPs or 504 Plans. In addition, signed IEP pages that might confirm IEP meeting attendance were missing from IEPs the division provided to OCR. Although OCR requested the signature pages, it states “the District has yet to produce them.”

Resolution Agreement

The Agreement addresses two groups of students: “Group A” and “Group B”.

OCR defines Group A “as the 132 students who were subjected to restraint during the 2017-2018 school year, the 153 students who were subjected to restraint during the 2018-2019 school year, according to the documentation the District provided to OCR during this investigation, and who are still enrolled.”

OCR defines Group B as “students outside of Group A, with and without identified disabilities, who were restrained by the District from the 2017-2018 school year through the date this Agreement is signed." Although OCR previously has advised other school divisions to address graduates and other students who are no longer enrolled in the division for other reasons, neither graduates nor other unenrolled students are specified by OCR.

Within 30 days of this agreement the division must contact parents, guardians, and/or students over the age of 18 about the opportunity for IEP or 504 meetings.

Within 60 days of receiving a request to hold an IEP or 504 meeting, the “team for each student will have before it a record of all restraints the student was subjected to from the 2017-18 school year through the date the Agreement is signed  to determine “(1) if the student’s current interventions and supports are sufficient or whether any changes are needed and (2) whether the student requires any compensatory services for denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) or other instructional services missed as a result of restraint.” The Agreement includes the criteria that the district must use to make these determinations and reporting requirements.

Within 120 days of the execution of the Agreement, the division must revise its procedures “regarding when and how to use and document the use of restraint of District students.”

Within 120 days from the execution of the Agreement, the division must “implement a monitoring program or revise its current program to assess the District’s use of restraint on a monthly basis.” This includes developing a records maintenance system that ensures accurate reporting and training staff. A revised program and accurate reporting can’t be implemented if staff aren’t trained.