Parent tells David City board her autistic son was repeatedly secluded and shamed

Michelle spoke during public forum and urged the David City Public Schools board to stop what she called routine seclusion and isolation of her autistic son, arguing the district violated federal ADA Title II/Section 504 protections and Nebraska Rule 51. She said the U.S. Department of Education's 2012 guidance on restraint and seclusion states such measures should not be used as punishment and described being told only that her son had a “time out” after an April 21 incident. She said additional incident documentation for May 7 and May 13 had not been provided to her and that her son had been removed from peers and publicly shamed under a restriction tied to behavior charts.

Her account: why it matters. Michelle said the district’s policy 5421R mirrors federal and state safeguards and that repeated, non-emergency isolation "was punishment for disability-related behaviors," citing an Eighth Circuit decision finding repeated seclusion of autistic students unconstitutional and a federal court decision about restraint violating ADA Section 504. She urged the board to enforce policy 5421R "with fidelity," ensure independent investigations of all restraint and seclusion incidents, and protect disabled students’ civil rights. She also said she provided research sources to the board and that families deserve transparency and acknowledgment.

Board and staff context. The board did not offer an immediate substantive response during the public forum, as the meeting’s public-comment rules limit real-time replies; Superintendent Baker served as timekeeper and the district’s public-comment policy was read earlier in the meeting. No district administrator in the recorded portion of the meeting disputed or rebutted Michelle’s account on the record during public forum.

What was requested next. Michelle asked the board to: enforce Policy 5421R, ensure independent investigations of restraint and seclusion incidents, provide complete incident documentation she requested for specific dates, and protect disabled students’ civil rights going forward. The board did not announce a next-step action at the time of the meeting; the transcript shows the meeting proceeded to the consent agenda and other business.

What to watch for. Follow-up items to expect at subsequent board meetings include whether the district: (1) provides the missing incident documentation Michelle requested; (2) opens or reports on any independent investigations of the incidents identified; and (3) describes any policy-implementation steps to ensure compliance with Rule 51 and ADA obligations.