Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 5 54 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy Review Committee recommends new restraint and seclusion policy; board members press for clarity, training and alternatives
Summary
The Policy Review Committee presented a revised policy (5-54) and regulation limiting use of physical restraint and seclusion to narrow circumstances. Board members asked for clearer definitions, training, data, and alternatives used by divisions that have removed seclusion.
On Dec. 11 the school board’s Policy Review Committee recommended replacing existing regulation language with Policy 5‑54 and an accompanying regulation that narrowly defines when physical restraint and seclusion may be used.
Cammy Linetti, school board attorney, said the proposed policy allows physical restraint or seclusion only when school division personnel reasonably judge that other interventions would be ineffective and one or more specific conditions exist: to prevent imminent serious physical harm to self or others, to quell a disturbance, to remove a student from a scene where property damage creates imminent risk, to defend self or others, or to obtain control of contraband, weapons, or dangerous objects. The recommendation includes clear documentation and discontinuation requirements and was drafted to align with Virginia Department of Education guidance.
Board members asked whether moving a student out of a classroom during a fight would technically qualify as seclusion and whether ordinary office‑removal practices would trigger the detailed seclusion rules (room dimensions, supervision, ventilation, windows, and documentation). Several members urged additional detail about training and safeguards. Mr. Cummings and others asked whether the policy should be split into separate policies for restraint and seclusion to reduce community concern about the term "seclusion." Several members referenced statewide trends of some divisions choosing to remove seclusion entirely and asked staff how those divisions handle similar incidents.
Support staff and administration said CSEP (the specialized special‑education program) accounts for most seclusion instances and that most VBCPS seclusion/restraint practice already tracks closely to VDOE requirements. Dr. Robertson and legal counsel said the proposed policy is generally more restrictive and intended to protect both students and staff while complying with state rules.
No final policy vote was taken; the recommendation came from PRC for board consideration and will be part of the PRC packet for action in a future meeting.
