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.