Purpose

This bill tightens rules around restrictive procedures and seclusion in Minnesota schools, adds reporting and oversight requirements, expands staff training, and aims to reduce and eventually end the use of seclusion. It updates the statute related to restrictive procedures (125A.0942) and creates funding and accountability provisions to support safer, trauma-informed practices and alternative strategies.

Key terms used in the bill

• restrictive procedures
• seclusion
• physical holding
• debriefings
• oversight committee
• positive behavior supports (PBIS)
• functional behavioral analysis (FBA)
• individualized education program (IEP)
• individualized family service plan (IFSP)
• emergency
• trauma-informed
• language access plan
• training program
• data reporting

Main Provisions

• Restrictive procedures plan (Subdivision 1)

  • Schools planning to use restrictive procedures must maintain a publicly accessible plan describing how they will use such procedures.
  • The plan must list the procedures allowed, describe a range of positive behavior strategies, provide links to mental health services, describe de-escalation training, and show how use will be monitored and reviewed (including post-use debriefings).
  • An oversight committee must conduct quarterly reviews of use, look for patterns or problems, and identify actions to minimize use, including concerns about race, gender, or disability status.
  • The district must publicly identify oversight committee members each year, including a mental health professional, an expert in positive behavior strategies, and school administrators.

• Restrictive procedures (Subdivision 2)

  • Restrictive procedures may be used only by qualified professionals (e.g., licensed special education teachers, school social workers, school psychologists, behavior analysts, or other certified staff with appropriate training).
  • Parental notification: districts must attempt same-day notice after a restrictive procedure; if not possible, notice within two days.
  • IEP/IFSP team actions: after use, the district must convene or review a team meeting to examine data, consider revised positive behavioral interventions, review seclusion data, and determine next steps to reduce use.
  • Pattern or high-use triggers: if a child experiences two separate uses on different days within 30 days, or a clear pattern emerges, the district must review the student’s IEP/IFSP and related plans, considering alternatives.
  • Emergency use only: restrictive procedures may be planned in the IEP/IFSP only in emergencies, and the parent must be notified per the child’s preferences.
  • Parental consent for seclusion (in some cases): seclusion of a child in grades 1–12 requires explicit written consent from a parent/guardian, in the child’s primary language with interpretation and cultural supports.

• Physical holding or seclusion (Subdivision 3)

  • May be used only in an emergency and must be the least intrusive intervention that can address the danger.
  • Not used as punishment; ends when the threat ends and the child can safely return.
  • Continuous staff observation; thorough post-incident documentation (what happened, why less intrusive options were inadequate, times, the child’s status, and post-use debriefing details).
  • Seclusion room requirements: minimum size (at least six feet by five feet), proper lighting, ventilation, heating, cleanliness, a window for observation, tamperproof fixtures, door design with immediate-release mechanisms or keyless locks, and connection to fire/emergency systems.
  • The room must be approved by local authorities for safety codes and registered with the commissioner.
  • Training: appropriate staff must receive required training, and districts must report that training to the commissioner.
  • Data and reporting: districts must report seclusion data, and the commissioner will track statewide information about seclusion and involvement of police or emergency medical services.

• Prohibitions (Subdivision 4)

  • Prohibits actions that amount to abuse or punishment, including: forcing painful physical positions, restricting senses, using intense sensory stimuli as punishment, denying basic needs (meals, water, bathrooms), sexually or physically abusive conduct, or restraining to impair breathing or cause positional asphyxia.
  • Seclusion of children birth through grade 3 is prohibited unless explicitly agreed to as part of the IEP/IFSP process with attendance by the required team members.
  • If a meeting is convened to discuss seclusion, essential professionals must be present; a parent/guardian must be shown the seclusion room before written consent is given.
  • In disputes, administrative orders cannot compel seclusion over parental objections.

• Training and supports (Subdivision 5)

  • Staff who use restrictive procedures must complete comprehensive training on: PBIS, understanding the communicative intent of behaviors, relationship-building, alternatives to restrictive procedures, de-escalation, emergency procedures, medical assistance, physiological/psychological effects of holding/seclusion, recognizing distress, positional asphyxia, post-restrictive procedure debriefings, trauma-informed care, and related policies.
  • The commissioner will maintain lists of approved training programs and experts to help IEP teams reduce the use of restrictive procedures.
  • Districts must keep training records; collaboration with community providers is encouraged.
  • Non-required staff must complete crisis prevention/management training and bias-awareness training.

• Behavior supports and allowed force (Subdivision 6)

  • Districts are encouraged to implement schoolwide positive behavior supports.
  • The bill does not preclude reasonable force when used under existing law, but requires reporting if used by untrained staff.

• Department of Education responsibilities (Subdivision 7)

  • The Department must report progress on reducing restrictive procedures and seclusion, provide districts with a list of evidence-based alternatives, designate district contacts for technical assistance, offer ongoing professional development opportunities, and include district data on restrictive procedures on school report cards.
  • The department will maintain a statewide data system for tracking seclusion and related emergency involvement.

Timeline, Data, and Reporting

• Data reporting begins in the 2016-2017 school year with quarterly submissions (January 15, April 15, July 15, October 15). Summary data for the prior school year must be reported by July 15 each year.
• A statewide system will collect data on seclusion and police/EMS involvement.
• End goal: end the use of seclusion in grades 1–12 by July 1, 2036, with annual thresholds and a decreasing-rate target for each district.
• By 2027, the commissioner must report thresholds and rates to end seclusion to legislative leaders.
• By the end of the 2028-2029 school year, districts with seclusion rates above thresholds or not decreasing at an acceptable rate must adopt vetted alternatives and may receive targeted support and resources to reduce seclusion.

Funding and Implementation (Appropriations)

• Funds are appropriated to the Department of Education to establish the data accountability system and support ongoing work to reduce seclusion and restrictive procedures.
• Separate funding is allocated for staff training and for implementing alternatives to seclusion.
• Districts must apply for these funds; funding may be prorated if applications exceed available appropriation.
• Priority funding after 2028-2029 goes to districts with higher seclusion rates or insufficient progress toward reductions.

Significance / Potential Impact

• Aims to significantly reduce the use of restrictive procedures and seclusion through:
  • stronger planning, oversight, and data collection.
  • mandatory staff training on trauma-informed approaches and de-escalation.
  • explicit consent requirements for seclusion and room safety standards.
  • mandatory review by IEP teams with data-driven decisions to reduce reliance on restrictive practices.
  • a clear pathway to end seclusion by 2036, with district-by-district targets and state support.

Implementation Considerations

• Districts will need to align IEP/IFSP processes with new review timelines, consent requirements, and escalation protocols.
• Schools may need to invest in PBIS, staff training, and safer alternatives to seclusion.
• The state will monitor progress and provide targeted assistance to districts with higher rates of seclusion or slower progress.

Relevant Terms restrictive procedures; seclusion; physical holding; post-use debriefings; oversight committee; de-escalation; IEP/IFSP; functional behavioral analysis; positive behavior supports; trauma-informed care; emergency; language access plan; training programs; data reporting; seclusion room; room safety standards; consent; statewide data system; end of seclusion; alternatives to seclusion; corrective action plan.