Committee debates new removal/reentry process for disruptive students and a ban on seclusion rooms

Representative Reid introduced a classroom-safety bill that would define ‘‘chronically disruptive’’ behavior (three documented incidents), require a short documented removal for assessment and create a ‘‘return to classroom’’ plan developed with teachers, counselors and parents; if teachers object to an immediate return, a review panel would convene. Proponents said the measure preserves instructional time for the majority of students while providing supports for the student who is removed.

A broad panel of witnesses — including Marybeth Calabrio (Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Professionals), Sean Doyle (AFTRI), union and parent advocates, and Jeremy Senser — described frontline experiences in which disruptive students were repeatedly returned to class with little intervention, producing lost instruction and, in some cases, staff injuries. They said the bill’s goal is to create consistent, documented reentry processes and quicker connections to counseling and supports.

Madeline McGonigal (ACLU) and other civil‑rights advocates expressed concern that, without clear timing guardrails and data collection, the bill could operate as a de facto suspension mechanism and be applied disproportionately to students of color and students with disabilities. Veronica Cott (Rhode Island Legal Services) and NEA witnesses testified separately in favor of prohibiting seclusion (HB 7729), presenting photographs and case complaints alleging involuntary confinement in small rooms and urging statutory clarity, mandatory data collection and stronger enforcement.

Committee questions focused on whether schools have the staffing and counseling resources to implement return‑to‑classroom plans quickly, how the bill would ensure due process for students with disabilities, and whether the bill should require that an alternative educational placement provide continued academic instruction during the removal period. Witnesses and members generally agreed data collection and clearer procedural timing would help alleviate concerns.

What’s next: The committee requested follow-up language to clarify timelines, documentation and data collection requirements; sponsors and advocates agreed to work on amendments that would strengthen procedural safeguards and resource commitments.