Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavior Supports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines new training and reporting after changes to restraint and seclusion law
Summary
Oregon City School District staff described new training, reporting procedures and planned rollouts after state law expanded definitions and reporting requirements for restraint and seclusion. The district plans CPI de‑escalation training, expanded access to online modules and a behavior-supports “think tank” to coordinate elementary rollout.
The Oregon City School Board heard a detailed update on district-wide behavior supports and staff training Monday night, including changes required by recent state law and next steps for staff development.
District behavior leads Sarah Crane and Melissa Berg told the board the district has updated staff guidance after the state redefined abuse to include unlawful restraint and seclusion and added new reporting and evidence-preservation requirements. "The law changed the definition, of abuse now includes violations related to seclusion and restraint," Crane said, urging staff to follow the new reporting sequence and to preserve video and other records when incidents occur.
The board was told the district already documents restraint and suspension incidents in its student information system and that Oregon Department of Education and other agencies must be notified in certain cases. Berg described the district’s plan to expand access to short online modules (3-7 minutes) known as 3-2-1 Insight, and to offer in-person Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training for staff who must be certified to perform physical restraint. "CPI ... is really about de‑escalation," Berg said of the program the district uses; the instructor-led portion includes roughly eight hours in person after online prework.
Crane and Berg said the district will not train all staff in physical restraint because doing so can increase incidents; instead it will emphasize universal de‑escalation strategies for all student-facing staff and maintain a required percentage of staff trained to perform restraints where legally required. They described work to extend training beyond classroom staff to transportation staff and others who encounter students daily.
The pair described a district “think tank” convened to select a common, districtwide approach for elementary behavior supports. Alternatives being considered include collaborative problem solving (CPS), CHAMPS and the Responsive Classroom model; the plan is to pilot approaches this spring and train half of staff next year and the remainder the year after. Crane said schools will be supported to develop targeted interventions for students who do not meet thresholds for an IEP or 504 plan but who need additional behavioral instruction.
Board members asked how the district will include bus drivers and after‑school staff; Crane said the grant application and rollout would include differentiated training opportunities and that brief one‑page family materials would be developed so parents and community coaches can use the same language at home and in after‑school programs.
The board was also briefed on suspension reporting rules: in‑school suspensions count as suspensions for regulatory purposes and trigger required procedural reviews for students on IEPs or 504 plans. Crane said the district continues to record and report incidents and will cooperate with outside investigations led by child welfare or education agencies.
The presentation closed with next steps: finalize which universal approach the think tank recommends, continue the CPI rollout for required staff, expand 3-2-1 Insight access and work on parent-facing materials so families and coaches can reinforce school expectations.
Board members praised the mix of litigation-aware compliance steps and practical, classroom-level training; Crane said the work will continue into summer trainings and the coming school year.
