Board hears plan to eliminate dedicated seclusion rooms, keep strict emergency rules
Loading...
Summary
PRC recommended removing dedicated seclusion rooms from division buildings while preserving strict regulation of restraint and emergency seclusion. Staff said seclusion incidents are concentrated among a small number of students; members asked for further data and training details before a final vote.
The board heard a PRC recommendation to prohibit "dedicated seclusion rooms" in Virginia Beach City Public School buildings while preserving tightly regulated emergency uses of restraint and seclusion in the division's regulations.
Cammy Linetti explained the proposed language for policy 5‑54: "dedicated seclusion rooms are not authorized in Virginia Beach City Public School buildings," a change that applies to contractors and third‑party programs operating on school property. The intent, she said, was to eliminate spaces used solely for seclusion while retaining the ability to respond in emergency situations in accordance with the regulation.
Board members pressed staff for operational detail and numbers. Dr. Robertson placed the change in perspective: "We have 64,000 students that attend Virginia Beach City Public Schools every day," and he asked the board to consider proportion and context when evaluating disciplinary practices. School staff reported that the division currently has five dedicated seclusion rooms across two contracted locations (Renaissance and Windsor Wood) and that incidents are concentrated: one presentation cited 96 incidents of seclusion at CSAP involving 22 students in the current year to date.
Advocates for eliminating the rooms — including some members of the Special Education Advisory Committee — argued that other districts and private day schools manage high‑need students without dedicated seclusion rooms. Board members and staff emphasized training, recordkeeping and a regulatory framework that spells out acceptable emergency circumstances, required documentation and limits on duration and environment. Staff said the regulation prohibits mechanical and pharmaceutical restraints and defines restraint as a physical intervention for imminent risk of harm.
Several board members asked for an informational briefing and requested a written legal/operational definition of "restraint" and a data breakdown (incidents by site and student). Staff agreed to circulate the regulation and the training materials, and to provide additional data before any final vote.
What happens next: The PRC recommendation will be returned to the board with accompanying regulation text, training and incident data; board members requested legal definitions and examples of alternatives before taking final action.
