House panel lays over bill to ban seclusion after lengthy testimony from parents, educators and advocates

Representative Meg English introduced a bill to prohibit the routine use of seclusion in Colorado public schools and to require clearer reporting and oversight; after extensive oral testimony, the House Education Committee laid the measure over for action only, leaving the amendment phase open for further work.

What the bill seeks to do: English told the committee the bill would ban seclusion practices that leave a student alone in a room or area from which egress is involuntarily prevented. She said the statute referenced a separate definition (C.R.S. § 26‑21‑02) and that committee work must clarify the difference between trauma‑informed de‑escalation spaces and locked seclusion.

Why it matters: Supporters, including disability advocates and parents, described long‑term harm from seclusion. Several witnesses said seclusion can cause PTSD‑like symptoms and cited cases in which children later required hospitalization or repeatedly experienced nightmares after being placed in small locked spaces. "He has frequent nightmares about being locked in a small room," a parent‑witness said of her son who was later hospitalized.

Opposition and operational concerns: Special‑education leaders and district staff told the committee they use de‑escalation and sensory rooms and described rare circumstances in which seclusion was used to protect students and staff from acute harm — particularly where physical restraint would risk injury. Witnesses described buildings and training practices: some districts use supervised, impact‑resistant rooms with staff monitoring at the door; others described last‑resort scenarios in which restraints led to injuries and seclusion had been used to reduce continued harm.

Key technical issues raised in testimony - Definition and boundary problems: Several witnesses and members asked for a clear statutory definition that differentiates a supervised, voluntary de‑escalation area (student can freely enter and exit) from involuntary seclusion (student is alone and prevented from egress). English acknowledged the text needed clarification and flagged statutory cross‑references (for example, section 26‑21‑02) that the committee should reconcile. - Data and reporting: Testimony showed districts vary widely in how they record seclusion and restraint. Some districts reported few seclusion incidents; others showed more frequent use of de‑escalation rooms. Several witnesses called for stronger reporting and oversight so misuse could be detected. - Training and staffing: District leaders emphasized shortages of staff trained to de‑escalate students. Several superintendents and principals said removing seclusion without clear, funded alternatives would increase risk to educators and classmates and could push more students into restraints, arrest or out‑of‑home placements.

Committee action: Representative English asked that the bill be laid over for action only to allow additional drafting and stakeholder work. The committee granted that request and left the amendment phase open. English and advocates said they will continue to work with educators, parents and rule‑makers to tighten language and clarify reporting and enforcement.

Proponents and opponents: Proponents included parents, disability‑rights advocates and community groups (The Arc of Colorado, Advocacy Denver and family‑led organizations) who called seclusion a form of incarceration in schools. Opponents and cautionary witnesses included the Consortium of Directors of Special Education, district special‑education directors and school principals who said bans without funded alternatives and training could create safety risks for students and staff.

What’s next: The bill was laid over for further amendment and stakeholder work; sponsors and advocates said they will continue negotiations on precise statutory language, reporting metrics, and transitions to alternatives and staff training.