Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Seclusion Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony and lays over bill to ban seclusion in schools amid sharply divided testimony
Summary
Representative English introduced House Bill 11‑78 to prohibit seclusion (involuntary isolation) in Colorado public schools. Supporters described traumatic experiences and called for a ban; district special‑education directors and administrators warned that removing seclusion without resourcing and training could endanger students and staff. The
The House Education Committee heard hours of testimony Wednesday on House Bill 11‑78, which would prohibit the involuntary seclusion of students in Colorado public schools. After more than three hours of witness statements and committee discussion the sponsor asked that the bill be laid over for action only while amendment work continued.
Representative Leslie English, the bill’s sponsor, opened the hearing with an appeal to legislators’ moral obligations and described parent and educator accounts she said show routine misuse of seclusion. “Incarceration in schools,” she said, “is the child is put into this space with no way out. Doors locked from the outside.” English cited a 2023 incident in which students were placed in a small office at a Denver school and said the practice disproportionately affects vulnerable students.
Supporters included parents, disability advocates and several school‑discipline reform groups who described seclusion as traumatizing and said alternatives exist. Madine Schoffner, CEO of a community organization working on the “Green Book” initiative, said seclusion “has never been a form of healing and it never will be.” Testimony from parents and clinicians described children who developed lasting trauma after being placed for extended periods in small rooms.
Opponents—led by special‑education directors, school administrators and behavior‑support staff—said districts need a narrowly defined last‑resort option to protect students and staff in extreme crises and criticized the bill as written. Witnesses said some students present behaviors (self‑injury, disrobing, aggressive assault) that have in practice required quick, supervised removal to a secure, monitored area to prevent injury. Directors said training, staffing and access to behavior‑specialist supports are uneven and that banning seclusion without a funded, statewide alternative could increase the frequency or length of risky physical restraints.
Committee members asked detailed procedural questions about how seclusion and de‑escalation differ under current law and how district policies and CDE rules define the practices. Sponsors and multiple witnesses discussed distinctions used in rules: a “de‑escalation” or sensory room where a student may enter and exit voluntarily, versus “seclusion” described in statute as placing an individual alone in a room from which egress is involuntarily prevented.
Representative English said she will continue to work with stakeholders on precise definitions and implementation language; the committee laid the bill over for action only and left amendment and closing comment phases open for further work.
