Department of Education staff outlined draft policy revisions and implementation steps to align the agency’s special education bulletins with House Bill 684, the year’s seclusion and restraint law, and described related changes on cameras in special education classrooms.

The presentation said the department will update Bulletin 1706 (seclusion and restraint) to revise the definition of physical restraint to mean “manual restraint techniques that involve physical force applied to restrict the movement of all or part of a person's body,” to state that holding a student for less than three consecutive minutes in an hour is not considered physical restraint, and to require that only personnel trained in appropriate techniques use physical restraint except in immediate emergencies where no trained staff are available.

The department told the panel it will add a definition of “sensory room” and clarify that sensory rooms, calming spaces and time‑out spaces are not seclusion. The draft also adds post‑incident steps: employees must notify the school administrator within an hour, the administrator must call the parent by the end of the day, a school nurse or health designee must visit the student by the end of the day, the special education director must be notified by end of day, and the principal/designee and director will review any available video or audio footage. A written report is to be provided to the principal the next day and to the parent the following day. The policy removes the prior requirement to document incidents in 15‑minute increments and replaces it with continuous monitoring during seclusion or restraint; it lowers the threshold for reconvening an IEP team from five incidents to three.

On cameras, staff said revisions to Bulletin 1741 will implement HB 684’s new requirement that certain classrooms defined by statute install cameras regardless of a parent request, with that requirement to take effect Feb. 1. The department is advising school systems to verify cameras periodically and to notify parents if a camera will be out of operation for more than two consecutive days; staff noted there are circumstances (for example, statewide testing) when cameras may be disabled and recommended proactive parent notification in those cases.

Department staff described training and implementation supports. The draft requires education preparation providers to include instruction about crisis prevention programs in coursework for teacher candidates. The department said it “is going to secure statewide CPI training for school systems” and plans a train‑the‑trainer model and a statewide crisis‑intervention training program that it may develop and offer; staff emphasized the department will provide at‑no‑cost training modules and support school systems in assessing how many staff are already trained and how many more need training.

Panel members and attendees asked operational questions about whether crisis team member names must be listed in local policy (the department said the law does not require naming crisis team members but encouraged parents to ask who will respond during an IEP meeting), how to reconcile the Feb. 1 camera deadline with incidents that occur before cameras are installed (the department advised reviewing available footage where present and using “if available” language), and whether parents retain the right to request to view footage (staff said existing local procedures for requesting footage remain in place).

No formal vote or action was taken during this meeting because the panel lacked quorum; staff said they will bring final recommendations to the August meeting and will post guidance, updated parent handbooks and related templates for school systems ahead of the school year.

Implementation details noted by staff included the requirement for school systems to post their seclusion and restraint policy on local websites by Dec. 1, the requirement to report designated seclusion rooms to the local special education advisory council by May 31 each year, the department’s plan to update the special education parent handbook to include the prohibition and opt‑out option for students with medical or psychological conditions, and the department’s plan to provide technical guidance and templates to school systems.

Panel questions and comments touched on practical issues (vendor timelines for camera installation, districts that already have cameras, how to handle incidents outside camera view such as hallways or restrooms) and requests for clearer implementation flowcharts and user‑friendly guidance for parents and educators. The department said it will include the new requirements in both the bulletins and a guidance document for system leaders and special education directors.

The meeting discussion did not adopt or change policy text formally; staff characterized the session as an informational presentation of draft language and next steps for implementation and outreach ahead of rule finalization.