Bills: HF3776, HF3557, HF3585

Keywords: screen time, preschool, kindergarten, early childhood education, digital media, tablets, smartphones, educational technology, EdTech, classroom devices, publicly funded preschool, school policy, child development, special education, IEP, 504 plan, IFSP, Minnesota education law, climate literacy, education

Summary: The committee first approved the previous day’s minutes, then took up House File 3776, as amended by the A2 amendment, which clarified how the bill would apply to students with IEPs and 504 plans. The bill’s author argued that Minnesota should address screen time for preschool and kindergarten students, saying current law is too broad, that young children are especially vulnerable to developmental and attention harms from screens, and that parents and teachers should have more control over device use. The bill was laid over after discussion. Testimony on HF 3776 was split. Amanda Faye of Minnetonka Public Schools opposed the bill as drafted, saying it would conflict with existing academic standards, READ Act screening requirements, accessibility tools, and local control, and would force districts back to paper-based screening. Katherine Myers of Live More Screen Less supported the bill, citing concerns about early childhood screen exposure and arguing that screen-free time supports child development. Members raised concerns about local control, parental rights, and how to protect students who need devices for accommodations; the author and nonpartisan staff noted that schools can already adopt cell phone policies, but exceptions may be needed for certain students and uses. After laying over HF 3776, the committee began House File 3557. Representative Craft introduced the bill as a voluntary program to promote practical science education and workforce development tied to climate literacy, including a proposed Minnesota Seal of Climate Literacy for high school students. The bill was only introduced before the transcript ended, with no vote or final action recorded on HF 3557.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when it comes to the IEP/IFSP requirements one, two, three, the new four, I did notice some alignment
• to<00:26:55.200> um<00:26:55.760> the<00:26:56.080> IEP<00:26:56.640> IFSP
• And when it comes to um the IEP IFSP And when it comes to um the IEP IFSP requirements<00:26:58.400

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the prior meeting minutes and then spent most of the meeting discussing draft recommendations and a Senate amendment, 007-7, related to seclusion in schools. The chair explained the history of the issue, including Minnesota’s 2023 ban on seclusion from birth through grade 3, and described 007-7 as a compromise developed with stakeholders that would extend the ban through grade 6 unless strict conditions are met. Those conditions include explicit written informed consent from all parents or guardians in their primary language, oral translation of safeguards, showing the seclusion room before consent, mandatory follow-up IEP meetings after repeated use, outreach and education for families, and data reporting on use of seclusion. The chair also said the amendment would prevent judges or other officials from ordering seclusion over a parent’s objection. Members then reviewed the draft recommendations line by line. They agreed to revise language to add “and fund” after “mandate” in the first section, and discussed changing references from “level three and level four” to “level three and higher,” though several members ultimately preferred keeping the focus on school settings and not expanding into medical or correctional settings. They also discussed replacing the word “subjected” with more neutral language such as “experience” or “whose IEP includes seclusion.” Another issue was whether the recommendations should distinguish between students whose IEP already includes seclusion and students who experience seclusion in an emergency but do not have it in their IEP; members suggested splitting that into separate recommendations and possibly adding a new item for the latter situation. A final discussion focused on whether the working group should recommend a mandated alternative-to-seclusion program and whether such a mandate should be tied to funding. School district representatives said many districts already use programs such as CPI, but others, especially outstate districts, charter schools, hospitals, and residential settings, may face significant costs if required to adopt new programs like Ukeru. Members generally agreed that if the legislature is asked to require implementation of new alternatives, funding should accompany the mandate. The chair also noted that existing law already requires an IEP team meeting after restrictive procedures are used twice in 30 days, and encouraged members to compare that with the 007-7 language before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• At Palmer's first IFSP meeting, a meeting we were dreading based on our previous experiences, they started
• imagine at most caring people you can imagine at Palmer's<00:23:41.520> first<00:23:41.880> ifsp
• meeting<00:23:43.360> a<00:23:43.480> meeting<00:23:43.799> we Palmer's first ifsp
• meeting a meeting we Palmer's first ifsp meeting a meeting we were<00:23:44.080> dreading<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• restrictive programming procedures during an emergency before adding seclusion to a student's IEP or IFSP
• ><00:02:43.519> student's<00:02:43.840> IEP<00:02:44.319> or<00:02:44.480> IFSP
• <00:02:45.200> or seclusion to a student's IEP or IFSP or seclusion to a student's IEP or
• IFSP or behavior<00:02:46.080> support<00:02:46.480> plan.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the minutes from its previous meeting by motion and vote. Members then began discussing a set of proposed recommendations submitted by Woodward, Havman, and Hull aimed at addressing concerns about the use of seclusion in special education settings. The recommendations focused on several areas: requiring a mental health professional on the IEP team before seclusion is added to a student’s plan; replacing passive parental consent with explicit written consent in the parent’s native language; limiting seclusion to students receiving setting 3 or setting 4 services; requiring annual review of seclusion frequency and duration data by the IEP team; and creating stronger monitoring and accountability through a reporting system modeled on Minnesota’s existing disproportionality process. The group also proposed mandatory annual staff training, more preventive crisis-intervention supports such as CPI and Ukeru, direct funding and technical assistance for districts, and incorporating restraint/seclusion data into disproportionality calculations. Members discussed how the proposed accountability system might work in practice, including whether a third party or parent reporting mechanism should be added. Woodward explained Minnesota’s current disproportionality framework, including year 1, year 2, and year 3 notifications and the possibility of required coordinated early intervening services if problems persist. Participants also raised concerns about whether schools should track law-enforcement involvement as an alternative or related response to student behavior; some noted that such data is already collected in certain district reporting systems and could be useful to monitor alongside seclusion data. The discussion remained ongoing, with no final action taken on the recommendations during this portion of the meeting.