Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special education director reports 79 seclusions and 102 restraints in 2024–25; district expands preventative training
Summary
The district reported 79 incidents of seclusion involving 27 students and 102 incidents of physical restraint involving 32 students in 2024–25, and said district staff receive Nonviolent Crisis Intervention training and a newer "Ukiro" approach will be rolled out to specific teams.
The Milton Cross Plains Area School District director of special education reported to the board on Aug. 25 that during the 2024–25 school year the district recorded 79 seclusion incidents involving 27 students and 102 physical‑restraint incidents involving 32 students.
"Seclusion is defined as the involuntary confinement of a student apart from other students in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving," Director of Special Education Sydney Malcheski told the board, and she read the district’s definitions for seclusion and physical restraint as part of the state‑required annual report. She said seclusion and restraint are to be used only as a last resort when there is a clear, present and imminent risk to safety and when less‑restrictive interventions are not feasible.
Malcheski described the district’s prevention and training strategy. The district’s universal approach is Nonviolent Crisis Intervention (NVCI); staff are trained annually and each building has representation of trained staff. The district is also piloting Ukiro training with two staff trained as instructors; Ukiro emphasizes verbal and nonverbal de‑escalation, building comfort‑focused environments over control, and uses cushioned blocking tools in some circumstances.
When incidents occur, Malcheski said teams must debrief, parents are notified, and for children with disabilities the student’s Individualized Education Program team must reconvene after two incidents of seclusion or restraint. She described post‑incident supports including limiting language, using visuals and involving a trusted adult to help deescalate and build therapeutic rapport.
Board members asked for clarification on overlap between seclusion and restraint numbers; Malcheski said individual students may be subject to both in a single incident and the counts are not mutually exclusive.
Why it matters: Seclusion and restraint are high‑impact interventions. State rules require public reporting, parent notification and IEP team review thresholds; the district described training and procedural safeguards but the report also showed measurable use of seclusion and restraint that the community may want to monitor.
No formal board action was recorded; the presentation was informational and met the state reporting requirement on seclusion and restraint.
