Aggression, Restraint Pressure, and a Three-Week IEP Deadline

Do not run a standard FA. A functional analysis that deliberately arranges attention, escape, and tangible conditions is an experimental procedure with a predictable probability of escalating aggression and self-injury. The child has no medical clearance for protective equipment, only 2 hours per week of observation, and no additional staff. Under the Ethics Code, I would not accept a procedure whose risk is not justified by likely benefit.

Propose a phased descriptive assessment:

• Review records and conduct a functional assessment interview with the teacher, paraprofessional, and parent.
• Collect ABC data and a scatterplot for 10 school days, with staff recording antecedent, behavior, consequence, and time.
• Calculate conditional probabilities against base rates-for example, how often attention follows aggression compared with how often attention occurs in the classroom generally.
• Conduct brief, non-escalating structured observations during transitions and iPad removal, recording latency and staff responses.
• Build a hypothesis and a safe initial intervention; reserve experimental analysis for later only if medical clearance, protected space, and trained staff are available.

Justification to the principal: This approach gathers information on the two most probable contingencies without creating new risk. It also produces data the IEP team can review in three weeks. Saying 'we cannot ethically do an FA today' is not refusing assessment; it is choosing a lower-risk assessment that still informs treatment.

What the data support: Aggression is correlated with transitions (.62) and iPad removal (.58), and staff attention follows 85% of episodes. That pattern is consistent with multiple possible functions-escape from transition, access to a tangible item, and attention-and the data do not isolate one.

What they do not support: A conditional probability is not a function. To interpret .62, compare it with the base rate of transitions and the base rate of aggression outside transitions. If transitions occupy 40% of the day, .62 is less impressive. Also, 85% attention after aggression could be a consequence of aggression rather than its reinforcer; if staff attention is already high throughout the day, the contingency may be weak.

Additional data needed: (a) conditional probability of attention given aggression versus base rate of attention; (b) latency from aggression to staff response; (c) whether attention ends the behavior or is simply delivered; (d) separate data for self-injury; (e) a scatterplot to see time patterns. Only after these would I rank hypotheses. If a trial-based test is later approved, test attention and tangible conditions first because those are the lowest-risk manipulations.

Do not authorize prone restraint. I would tell the principal that I cannot recommend or sign off on a restraint procedure that is not part of an approved crisis plan, not trained, and not justified by assessment. Restraint carries risk of injury and is a restrictive procedure requiring proper consent, medical review, and regulatory safeguards.

Interim safety plan:

• Increase antecedent support during transitions: visual schedule, warning, preferred item before transition, choices.
• Teach and reinforce a functional communication response (for example, a break card) before problem behavior.
• Keep preferred items accessible during transition rather than removing them abruptly.
• Assign one staff member to shadow during high-risk periods; use blocking and de-escalation only as trained.
• Document every episode and call an emergency IEP meeting if risk remains.

Longer term: Request medical and nursing review and district approval for any emergency physical intervention; train staff to fidelity; reconvene the IEP team. I would offer to present the descriptive data at the meeting and propose a two-week data review. If the principal attempts to implement restraint without approval, I would escalate through the agency's compliance and ethics channels.