Board debates emergency safety intervention rule after SB 170; directs staff to meet sponsor on data reporting

The Utah State Board of Education’s policy committee on June 1 debated new rules implementing SB 170 and how the state should collect and use data on emergency safety interventions (ESIs), voting to clarify that ESIs “shall not be used for disciplinary purposes,” and directing staff to meet with the bill sponsor about delaying the rule’s data-reporting start date and to return with recommended investigation-protocol language.

The issue matters because SB 170 changed the state code’s requirements for when school staff may use seclusion or physical restraint — the two techniques defined as ESIs — and for the first time requires detailed LEA reporting of each use to the board. Committee members said the changes affect student safety, staff training needs and the board’s data systems.

Deputy Superintendent Elise Nooyi told the committee the draft rule was updated to match the statute and to require LEAs to report a list of data elements for every ESI, including incident timing, duration, purpose and alternative interventions attempted. "The code requires greater reporting from LEAs on the use of ESIs in their schools," Nooyi said. She said staff propose raising the rule’s oversight category because the new reporting and monitoring will increase agency workload.

Behavior specialist Ashley Lauer, who works on restraint and seclusion policy, explained the rule language and why the committee must be explicit about permitted uses. "We don't want these practices being used for disciplinary purposes," she said. Lauer and Nooyi both emphasized that the statutory definition confines an ESI to seclusion or physical restraint when a student presents an immediate danger to self or others.

Committee members focused on three policy problems: (1) inconsistent or confusing language about what counts as an "intervention" versus an emergency safety intervention, (2) the practical mechanics of collecting the new data elements required by SB 170, and (3) whether the board should craft more specific investigation-protocol language for ESI-related complaints.

On data reporting, staff presented three short-term options because the board’s primary student-data system will not be ready immediately: (A) wait for the long-term data system (SIMS/UtahEd modernization) and start reporting only after it is ready; (B) collect aggregate year-end totals from LEAs via a single annual survey (Qualtrics or similar); or (C) provide an online incident-level form so LEAs can submit a record for each ESI when it occurs. Nooyi said district leaders preferred option C because it simplifies local recordkeeping and reduces end-of-year burden.

The committee debated tradeoffs: several members worried that an end-of-year aggregate form (option B) would miss incidents or produce unreliable aggregates if districts did not collect every field at the time of the event; others worried that option C would impose daily administrative burdens on small districts and charters that have few staff.

Beyond reporting logistics, committee members asked staff to reconcile a statutory tension: the code says seclusion may not be used as an "intervention or disciplinary practice" in some passages while the statutory term "emergency safety intervention" still refers to seclusion and restraint. Nooyi said staff would discuss the wording with the bill sponsor, and that the board’s legal team and policy staff are preparing suggested clarifications.

Votes and directions

- At the committee’s request a board member moved to amend the draft rule so that the text at line 40 reads: “An emergency safety intervention shall not be used for disciplinary purposes.” The motion passed unanimously.

- The committee voted unanimously to direct staff to meet with the sponsor of SB 170 to discuss three topics and return to the committee with findings: possibilities for legislation to delay the implementation date of the new data-reporting requirement; review of whether the board needs to write specific rules that outline investigation protocols for ESI complaints; and options for clarifying the use of the word "intervention" in the rule and the statute.

- Because those discussions may require changes to the draft rule, the committee unanimously postponed final committee action on R277-608 to the July committee meeting so staff can meet with the sponsor and prepare revised language.

What the motions mean

Committee members said the immediate change — language making disciplinary use of ESIs explicitly prohibited — provides clarity for schools and staff, and the unanimous vote signaled strong bipartisan support on that point. The directive to meet the sponsor and hold the rule until July gives staff time to propose a data-collection mechanism and to recommend whether the board should add a short, general set of investigation-protocol elements to the rule (for example: complainant and respondent interviews; witness statements; written findings; notice and appeal steps) or instead point to existing, more specific rules in areas such as special education or employment investigations.

Next steps

Staff will (1) meet with the sponsor of SB 170 to explore delaying the required start date for statewide reporting and to resolve ambiguous statutory wording; (2) draft recommended clarifications to the R277-608 text — including the new "shall not" disciplinary language — and present options for data-collection (incident-level online form vs. annual aggregate report vs. wait for the long-term system); and (3) propose a short list of required elements that an LEA investigative protocol should include or identify the specific existing regulatory processes that would apply. The committee expects staff to return with recommended language and an implementation timetable at the July committee meeting.

Reporting note: Committee discussion emphasized that the rule changes and data collection will require additional staff time and technical work to allow the board to monitor ESI use consistently across districts; the committee did not adopt a final reporting mechanism at this meeting.