Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seclusion And Restraint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michelle Insala says seclusions fell in Galesville after new debriefing, but district will keep monitoring
Summary
District staff reported year-to-year changes in seclusion and physical restraint events and described new debriefing and CPI refresher steps the district says reduced seclusions in one building while some other buildings saw increases.
Michelle Insala, a district staff member who delivered the annual seclusion and restraint report, said the district is tracking a mixed picture across buildings and has added debriefing steps and refresher training to reduce restrictive interventions.
"So in Galesville last year, we had 4 seclusions, over the course of 2 students made up of those 4, and both of those students had have disabilities," Insala said while reviewing the district's breakdown by school. She reported 7 physical restraints in Galesville (involving four students) and detailed counts for Ettrick and the middle school. Insala said the district implemented routine debriefs after every seclusion or restraint and added steps in documentation that helped reduce seclusions in some buildings.
Insala described the district's approach to distinguishing seclusion (holding a student in a room or area with restricted ability to leave, with visibility and no locked doors) from physical restraint (staff using approved CPI techniques to transport or hold a student for safety). She said staff used role plays and in‑service training as part of the year's interventions and that those changes were intended to bring down incident counts and ensure required debriefs occur after each event.
Board members asked for clarification about example incidents and the percentage of staff CPI‑trained in each building; Insala said a CPI refresher was held that day and reported roughly 30–32 staff attended certain refresher sessions but said the exact percentage per building was not specified in the report. Insala also noted confidentiality limits when describing individual cases. The board did not take formal action on the report; it was presented as the district's annual DPI submission and for the board's oversight.
