Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Seclusion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Working group hears testimony on seclusion, coalesces around training, data transparency and targeted funding
Summary
A legislative seclusion working group heard testimony from Cullen Seaburger on being placed in school seclusion rooms and moved to draft recommendations focused on mandatory, evidence‑based staff training, clearer data reporting and public access, vetted alternatives with technical assistance, and targeted funding for settings using seclusion.
A legislative seclusion working group on Dec. 1 heard testimony from a guest, Cullen Seaburger, about being placed in magnetically sealed seclusion rooms during his school years and then spent the session refining draft recommendations to send to the legislature.
Seaburger described seclusion rooms as white, sparsely furnished spaces with magnetically sealed doors and a window; he said seclusion removed external stimulation and “helped me calm down,” but that physical holds, including a recent incident when he says officers pinned him down, were “scary, panicky” and worsened his distress. The chair introduced Seaburger as a guest and thanked him before excusing him.
After the testimony, Mr. George, who prepared the working group's draft report, reviewed a compiled recommendations table that organized proposals into four broad areas: mandatory staff training and supports to shift school culture; improved data collection, monitoring and accountability; alternatives to seclusion; and funding. George told members the draft will include finalized recommendations in January after additional member feedback.
Members quickly converged on a sequence of priorities. Several said the group should begin by drafting precise language around mandatory, evidence‑based training for staff who might use restrictive procedures and broader, lighter training for other school personnel. Miss Woodward and others described a layered approach: universal, preventive training for all staff on de‑escalation and trauma‑informed practices, plus a smaller, tightly trained cohort authorized to use physical holds or seclusion when legally and narrowly permissible. A school psychologist urged explicitly requiring “evidence‑based” training, and members agreed to insert that wording into draft language.
The group also debated whether to recommend a universal ban on seclusion. When the chair asked Seaburger about a universal ban across all grades and settings, he said he opposed one, arguing that for him seclusion had been a necessary tool; other members emphasized that any recommendation should be narrowly tailored and accompanied by training and supports if limited seclusion were to remain an option in certain specialized settings.
On data and accountability, members noted that districts document seclusion incidents in SpEd Forms and submit quarterly reports to the Minnesota Department of Education through StepWell. Megan Ariola, legislative policy manager at MDE, told the group that statute (Minn. Stat. 125A.0942) requires reporting that includes race, gender and disability status, and that MDE publishes an annual disaggregated state report. Members nonetheless raised concerns about whether the data are used consistently across districts and how accessible the information is to families. Several suggested adding restrictive‑procedures data to the Minnesota school report card or otherwise improving public access while preserving student privacy.
When the conversation shifted to alternatives, members reviewed about a dozen programs (including LSCI, Ukeru, the Neurosequential Model and TBRI) and discussed whether the working group should preapprove a short list or direct MDE to provide vetted examples and technical assistance. Several participants recommended that MDE maintain a vetted resource list in its legislative report and that districts be encouraged to partner with peer districts and regional cooperatives to observe and adopt practices that fit local context.
On funding, members discussed the tradeoffs between competitive grants and direct allocations. Rural and smaller districts said they lack grant‑writing capacity and favored direct funding or earmarks to ensure resources reach schools that serve students in settings where seclusion is used. The chair asked several members to work with Mr. George on concrete language for training and supports, and asked the group to review a previously proposed amendment (AML 007‑7) as a potential template.
No final votes on recommendations were recorded at the meeting; members agreed to draft specific statutory or report language between now and the next meeting, with the goal of introducing finalized recommendations in January. The chair adjourned the meeting on schedule.
