Those are the words of Patricia Davis, a school bus aide for St. Lucie County Public Schools, who was charged with child neglect in March stemming from an incident with a student with autism on board the school bus. This week, she was exonerated of legal responsibility after not intervening when a student with autism repeatedly hit his head against the window causing injury to himself.

It may very well be a case of confusion over what is and is not allowed when it comes to restraint of a student. I'm not talking about child safety restraints used in bus seats, but the confusing issue that has garnered so much attention from the feds and the media over the past year.

Davis did not attempt to physically stop the student from striking his head against the window to the point of bleeding. She told prosecutors and a local ABC news affiliate that her inaction was caused by the fact that she was new to this specific bus and had never received training with this particular child. Prosecutor Jason Bruin called the case "bothersome" but said Davis' actions, or lack thereof, did not constitute a crime.

But it remained especially troubling to hear of an apparent lack of training, especially when dealing with a student with severe disabilities. But, in many people's minds, the entire issue of when and how to restrain a child remains very much of a grey issue. At the least it can be one of those issues that are considered to be "above my pay grade."

Yet, the feds have stated that schools must incorporate exact procedures for how all school employees should restrain or seclude a violent or emotionally disturbed student, which must be regularly reviewed, and there must be proper documentation of all incidents. And the feds excluded child restraint systems from being confused with the act of restraining or secluding a child.

Meanwhile, transportation experts have also said that there must be a clear policy on the differences between seclusion and restraint and the use of the child safety restraints for securing children in their seats during the bus ride. Still, there appears to be a prevalent lack of exact training for the transportation set when it comes to dealing with behavior problems or with students acting out on the bus. Depending on the operations, some departments train their bus drivers and aides to never get involved with physically touching a student or intervening between students during an episode.

But sometimes, depending on a variety of circumstances, it could be determined that a school employee should have known before an incident took place that a student was prone to that type of outburst. What does the child's IEP say about the condition? If the school knows about a potential type of behavior, can't it be found liable for failing to act? Many special educators have said the IEP should provide assurance to schools that the parent or guardian would allow certain disciplinary actions and that the teacher, or a bus driver/aide would have training in performing a restraint.

Still, the St. Lucie incident, remember, does not set precedent as it was merely a prosecutor's decision not to pursue a criminal charge. What about civil liability? I wouldn't be surprised if the school district hasn't heard the last of this case.

This is not to say that bus drivers and aides should always intervene when a student or students are putting themselves or others in harm's way. Certainly a non-violent attempt to diffuse a situation should always be used as the first course of action. But each situation is different. It depends on a wide variety of factors including employee(s) involved, their sex, their physical size, the age of the student(s), the behavior, and the type of disability. It could be a reasonable failure to intervene or just as easily an unreasonable failure.

Taking the guessing game out of the equation is the best answer. Schools can train their drivers and aides on not only identifying behaviors but techniques that can diffuse the situation.

There is training from situation management experts that can and should address these issues. For an industry that prides itself in self-training, it should recognize how confusing it can be to suss out the proper policies and procedures for restraining and secluding students. The courts have ruled that and there should be no shame in reaching out for the help it needs.

A meeting of the minds took place this week in Warrensburg after the Monday session of the NCST proceedings. After a enjoyable meal at the local Applebee's, Denny Coughlin, Cheryl Wolf, Charley Kennington, Susan Hunt and Kathy Furneaux (co-presenter Jean Zimmerman was not able to attend the meeting) met to discuss the ins and outs of the workshop, which would include two school buses, a smoke machine, some cameras, some school bus seats and a lot of pre-planning. It was interesting to sit back and watch the combined years of experience working together to plan out all aspects of the class, to see the workshop slowly take shape into something that everyone involved was excited about.

This is just one glimpse into all the work that goes into every EXPO workshop, or any conference workshop for that matter. The people involved do so because of their passion to educate, working long hours with no pay and not enough recognition. The next time you take a workshop, not matter what conference you attend, think about all the planning involved, the hours spent organizing thoughts and the passion behind the information provided.

In 2008, Ryan Coomber was severely injured when he was run over by a riding lawnmower. Ryan's left leg was amputated below the knee, as well as four toes from his right foot, his thigh bone was broken and his pelvis was shattered. After a year of rehabilitation, he was able to walk with the help of a prosthetic leg. While most would see this as an inspiring story, some older students on Ryan's Prairie South School Division school bus (in Saskatchewan, Canada) decided to use this to torment him, which included attempting to pull off his artificial limb.

Ryan's parents approached local law enforcement after Ryan was given a black eye during a recent bus ride. After deciding not to press charges and finding that the bully's parents were unwilling to help, Coomber approached the school district, which has decided to remove Ryan from the bus. This reverse punishment led Coomber to contact Saskatchewan Education Minister Ken Krawetz, who said that an investigation is currently underway.

Bullying is something that will never go away. For whatever reason (and there are many), some children will always attempt to exploit other's weaknesses. In a move in that many in the industry are applauding, Kevin Jennings, the assistant deputy secretary for the U.S. Department of Education's Safe and Drug Free School program, will be addressing the issue in a webinar on May 19 at 2 p.m. Eastern. Jennings knows about bullying, as he was teased for being gay while growing up in Florida and North Carolina.

House Bill 3393, which would create the Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, is currently in committee, but is expected to be voted out by next week, paving the way to Gov. C. Brad Henry's desk. The scholarship program would qualify students with disabilities (i.e. Down's syndrome, autism, etc.) who are on an IEP for a scholarship to attend any public or private school that meets the accreditation requirements of the State Board of Education.

"Oklahoma would not be breaking new ground with this law but would still be one of the more advanced states when it comes to serving children with special needs,” said Richard Komer, senior attorney at the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, in a recent article. "There are already five other states with similar scholarship programs that [sic] so clearly constitutional that no one has even tried to challenge them under the federal constitution."

The bill is similar to laws already passed in both Florida and Georgia. Now if only we could expand this to a national level...

Today's edition of Special Ed e-News published by LRP includes a piece on the five questions to ask parents when they request these related services. As we've reported previously, these requests have increased dramatically in this economy because parents are looking to schools to help them not only juggle busy schedules but to help lighten the burden of job cuts and less money. This certainly includes vision therapy, horse therapy, swim therapy and music therapy, as LRP suggests.

But what about those services that are not as "different or outlandish" as these requests? Heather Pierson of law firm Udall, Shumway & Lyons in Arizona makes the point that just because a service is new or unheard of doesn't make it irrelevant. Hence schools run the risk of a due process hearing amid claims that they have predetermined a student's needs without consulting the entire IEP team.

First and foremost, shouldn't transportation be considered? Far too many schools are still failing to include transportation in the IEP process, so I would think schools should also be reminded that this essential related service move to the top of the list. Not to begrudge a student's need for these other services, but junior needs to get to and from school in the least-restrictive environment ready to learn before he or she can take advantage of other programs offered by a school.