District reports seclusion and restraint data: 56 seclusions, 40 restraints among students with IEPs

The Hudson School District presented its annual seclusion and restraint report to the school board, showing the district recorded 56 seclusions and 40 physical restraints among students with individualized education programs during the 2024–25 school year. Tara, the staff presenter, told the board the annual report is legally required to be submitted to the school board by Oct. 1 and then reported to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction by Dec. 1. She said the report separates incidents for general‑education students and students with disabilities; in the current data the district recorded no seclusions involving general‑education students. According to the district presentation, the 56 seclusions involved 11 different students, the 40 restraints involved 12 students, and 23 incidents involved both seclusion and restraint at the same time affecting four students. Tara said the totals represented about 18 students with disabilities who were affected by seclusions or restraints during the 2024–25 year and noted that the annual aggregate for incidents was roughly similar to the prior year (about 74 incidents reported in a recent period). Tara explained the district’s working definitions for the practices: seclusion is “the involuntary confinement of a student apart from other students in a room or an area where the student is physically prevented from leaving,” and physical restraint “means a restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to freely move his or her torso, arms, legs or head.” She said the district requires constant supervision during seclusion and records the start and end times for every incident. The district uses CPI training (Crisis Prevention Institute) for staff who may use physical restraint. Board members asked staff for clarifications. One board member asked why Willow River Elementary had higher incident counts; Tara said the Willow River total represented 22 incidents but involved only two individual students in that building. Board members also asked for clarification about the district’s responsibilities for students at private schools; district staff said federal special‑education equitable‑services dollars are used for students with disabilities in private schools but those students are parentally placed and are not entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) provided by the district; the private schools decide how to spend the equitable‑services funds (examples given were staff training, resources or staff time purchased from district personnel). No board action was taken; the item was informational and staff said the district will submit the required state report by the December deadline.