Saint Paul, Minnesota — Advocacy groups gathered at the state capitol on Thursday to oppose an amendment to the Senate education policy bill that makes exceptions for the practice of “seclusion,” in which students with disabilities are placed in separate rooms at school during emergencies.
Two years ago, the legislature prohibited seclusion for children in third grade and younger, citing concerns that the technique could be harmful and used abusively. However, in late April, the Senate approved a bipartisan amendment as part of a larger education bill that simultaneously expands the ban through sixth grade while also creating a new exemption that allows seclusion if “explicitly agreed to by the student’s parents and the rest of the individualized education program team.”
Molly Hoffard, the mother of an autistic son and a former school employee, expressed guilt about using seclusion with her own students. She attended a press conference in the Capitol on Thursday afternoon, along with Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid and other organizations.
“I’m disturbed we’re even here talking about this,” Hoffard said. “I did it, and it’s something that made me quit that job and never go back.”
According to Jessica Webster, a staff attorney with Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, 195 seclusion rooms have been registered by 50 school districts in Minnesota. She has lobbied the legislature to outright ban the use of seclusion in schools.
“It is not limited to a single suburb or location in rural Minnesota. “It’s a statewide issue,” Webster explained. “It’s not okay anymore to spank or hit children. Seclusion is not acceptable anymore. We’ve moved on, and we need to ban it for all kids.”
The Senate amendment to allow more exceptions for seclusion was written by DFL Sen. Judy Seeberger, whose adult son had behavioral issues in school.
“He would especially feel bad if he hurt somebody, or destroyed some property in the middle of his dysregulation,” Seeberger told me. “Using seclusion helped him stay safe. It helped keep others safe. It kept the property safe. As a mother, I was confident that he would be safe at school.”
She believes that the outright ban on seclusion among younger age groups, which was included in the 2023 education bill, has gone too far and that the practice should be permitted as long as parents and staff members agree to seclusion in the individualized education program, or IEP. According to state law, seclusion can only be used in an emergency with direct supervision and cannot be used as a disciplinary measure.
“I recognize that it has been misused in the past, and it should never be used as a disciplinary tool. “That’s completely inappropriate,” Seeberger stated. “And it should not be used in situations where it could be even more traumatic and damaging to students. These are decisions that must be made with the IEP team, the parents, and the school psychologists.”
On April 24, Seeberger explained her amendment on the Senate floor during a lengthy debate over the education bill, which received support from Republicans including Sen. Julia Coleman.
“The language is clear as day here,” Coleman explained. “It is explicitly agreed to by the students’ parents, who know that child and how to protect them best.”
The Senate passed its education policy bill with that amendment, but the House has yet to pass its version. The proposed House language contains no new exemptions for seclusion.
After the House passes its version of the education policy bill, it will go into conference committee with the Senate to work out differences and determine whether the seclusion amendment will be included in the final legislation.
DFL Rep. Kim Hicks stated that seclusion is a “civil rights issue for people with disabilities” and that parents are frequently unaware of what is included in their child’s IEP. She opposes any attempt to reverse portions of the 2023 seclusion ban for younger age groups.
“We have worked to move this forward,” said Hicks, “and we’re committed to not making a U-turn.”