The headline asks the question: does new MN law governing prone restraints in schools cause new issues at Riverbend Education District?
Bluestem began to ask this question after reading a passage in "Legislative Update" emails sent October 19 from five Minnesota Republican House members: Ben Davis, Jeff Dotseth, Shane Mekeland and Dean Urdahl. The emails were about last week's Republican listening session about the effects of language restricting the use of prone restraints on students by school personal and School Resource Officers, who are police officers.
The emails included this language:
Other testimony presented during the committee painted a picture of how the new law is compromising safety in schools. An official from the Riverbend [sic] Education District in South Central Minnesota said, “My staff is on a daily basis, having their classrooms completely destroyed by students. We have police officers in town going, ‘Not our area, we don’t get involved.'” . . .
The template was also used in a press release emailed October 13 on behalf of Starbuck House Republican Paul Anderson, with a small alteration:
Anderson said testimony presented during the committee illustrated how the new law is compromising school safety. An official from the Riverbend [sic] Education District in South Central Minnesota said, “My staff is on a daily basis, having their classrooms completely destroyed by students. We have police officers in town going, ‘Not our area, we don’t get involved.'” . . .
Is the new law compromising student and staff safety at River Bend Education District? Has a School Resource Officer been pulled out of the district because of the new law, the focus of the hearing (full Republican Senate and House Caucuses listening session embedded at the end of this post.
'The full text of the official's testimony to the listening session(transcribed by Bluestem from River Bend Education District's Doug Hazen's remarks, beginning around the 50:42 mark to 52:15):
It kinda goes on with something somebody earlier said about their district being on lockdown.
This is a story about a nine-year-old boy. We can't send him home under the new rules. He did over fifteen hundred and thirty dollars of damage in one classroom in a three hour period of time. I brought in my trainers. The students left the room. But he never hit the level of immediate body harm to himself or others.
My staff is on a daily basis having their classes completely destroyed by students because the teachers and my principals are not sure where this fits in but we know that our students aren't hitting the bodily harm level and when we tell them that this is a seven-year-old, a nine-year-old, we have police officers in town going (shakes head) not our area, we don't get involved, they're too young. That's our school on a daily basis.
We have significant behaviors going on in our schools. My teachers, my principles are not sure where the line is. When we have students who don't meet that threshold--that threshold is very high for a school. When you have to have immediate bodily harm or death to yourself or another student, you're creating environments where they keep amping up the level because the line is so vague, and that's a dangerous situation for schools.
That left me with some questions.
First: what is the River Bend Education District? I'd never heard of it before, but a quick goggle search yielded an August 19 article in the New Ulm Journal, NU School Board tours River Bend and the district's website.
The River Bend About Us page notes:
River Bend Education District provides a wide variety of special education and related services to our member districts, students and their families. We are committed to ensuring that comprehensive child find activities occur in order to properly identify students who qualify for special education service and that qualifying students receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in their least restrictive environment. . . .
RBED serves the following school districts:
Section 504 is a federal anti-discrimination law that protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (29 USC §794,701 et seq.). It requires a school district to provide a “free and appropriate education,” (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability who is in the recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the student’s disability (34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a). Under Section 504, FAPE means providing regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities as adequately as the needs of individuals without disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1)(i).
That left Bluestem puzzled about why remarks by the Director of Special Education of any public school or public special education district were being circulated by the members of the Minnesota House of Respresentatives Republican Caucus (or their ghost writing caucus staff).
In mid-August, when the controversy first reared its contentious head, Eder Campuzano reported in Minnesota banned some physical holds on students. Now school resource officers have questions.:
. . . The provision was in the sweeping education bill Walz signed earlier this year. Some of the holds it prohibits have already been banned in specific circumstances; placing children in the prone position has been banned in special education settings for nearly a decade. . .
What exactly has changed for the River Bend Education District, whose mission is to provide special education for students from seven different districts in South Central Minnesota?
Perhaps the removal of an SRO or SROs by a local police department or city council?
Given that the August New Ulm Journal article placed River Bend Education District in New Ulm, I contacted the New Ulm Police Department, where I was directed to Police Chief Dave Borchert.
According to Borchert, his department does provide an SRO, but only for the New Ulm Public School, not River Bend or New Ulm's private schools.
Reports in the New Ulm Journal here (here too) confirm his statement that the department's SRO Andrew Achman had remained working in the New Ulm Public School.
New Ulm police officers--not the SRO--do get called to River Bend Education District, he said, but this was not a consequence of the new law banning certain types of restraints, but a long-standing occurence. As for officers saying it's not their area, Borchert said that Hazen had long shared concerns about students acting out. He did not believe any of his officers had used the language I read to him that Hazen said in the video.
Borchert noted that arresting or removing nine-year-olds and younger from a classroom went against Minnesota state statute, which defines a juvenile as person between the ages of 10 and 17.
Here's the Minnesota Republican House Caucus Facebook video of the informational hearing, set to start at Hazen's remarks at the 50:42 mark:
;
Conclusion: Does Hazen's testimony--used to support the contention " testimony presented during the committee painted a picture of how the new law is compromising safety in schools"?
Not if one knows the details of the testimony--stripped from the emails and the press release--or the background of the River Bend Education Academy itself.
Logo: River Bend Education District.
Related posts
- Fact check: was SRO restraint language added to ed policy bill at session's end, as Baker claims?
- Do cops actually make schools safer? Will changing new law on use of prone restraint?
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments