Massachusetts Time-Out Organizational Sign-On Letter 

Background

On March 25, 2025, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education published for public comment amendments to the current regulations on the use of restraint and seclusion (603 CMR 46.00 and 603 CMR 18.00) to address the use of time-out practices. The Public comment period for these proposed regulations is through May 2, 2025. The Board expects to take action on the proposed amendments at the June 24, 2025 meeting. The proposed amendments will make significant changes in the use of time-out rooms by school districts. The letter below raises concerns and provides recommendations to members of the Board.

May 2, 2025                                                                           
via:  email to [email protected]

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
135 Santilli Highway,
Everett, MA 02149

Re: Proposed Amendments to 603 CMR 46.00 and 603 CMR 18.00 

Dear Chairman Craven and Members of the Board: 

We are writing to address the amendments that have been proposed to 603 CMR 46.00 and 603 CMR 18.00 concerning the use of time-out and seclusion in our publicly funded schools.  While we appreciate the time and consideration that have gone into the proposed amendments, we are concerned with several elements in the proposal and with what we see as missing from the proposed changes.  

The proposed amendments establish a process by which seclusion or the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area, with or without adult supervision, from which the student is not permitted to leave, can be used in our public schools and approved private special education schools.  While 603 CMR 46.07(2) provides extensive limitations on the use of seclusion, the reintroduction of the use of seclusion into our schools[1] is extremely concerning.  There are extensive studies as to the harm caused by the use of seclusion on young children.  While it may seem benign, the danger to a student’s mental and physical health[2] is very substantial.  We know from experience that having seclusion as an option will lead to a more extensive use of seclusion than contemplated in the proposed amendments.  We urge the Board to remove Sections 46.07(2) –(5) in full. 

The approach in the amendments to the use of time-out is more commendable.  We agree that a locked setting should never be considered an appropriate behavioral strategy, whether termed a time-out or not.  However, in attempting to define the acceptable use of time-out, the proposed regulation’s efforts fall short in protecting our students.  The definition in Section 46.02 of time-out indicates that time-out, to be allowable, can only be in “an unlocked setting from which the student is permitted to leave.”  In our view, the definition appears to rely upon a student’s subjective understanding of their ability to leave a room or other area.  Given the power dynamic in a situation where an adult has removed a child from a classroom, most students will not realize that they are free to leave the setting since it is only “time-out” that is being used, not seclusion.  Students need to know and more importantly understand that when time-out is being used that they cannot be confined to any space against their will.  We suggest that the proposed amendment be modified to reflect that students should not be confined in a room with a closed door and that adults in a room using time-out should not be allowed to block egress of the student in any fashion. 

The regulations do not require any significant protections around the use of time-out when it meets the regulatory definition.  Schools may use time-out over and over throughout a school day without having to :

• report the use of time-out to parents;
  ·      document the use of time-out;
  ·      track the amount of time students are removed from the learning environment;
  ·      monitor the use of time-out;
  ·      report the use of time-out to DESE;
  ·      review the systemic use of time-out.

These protections should be adopted as part of this regulatory change.

We also urge that the Board use this regulatory change to require that all schools have regular training on alternatives to the use of time-out.  DESE has provided grant funds for such training, and experience has shown that such training results in decreasing the use of exclusionary time-outs.   The regulations currently require such training for the use of restraint.  Those regulations can be simply amended to require the same training before exclusionary time-out[3] can be used.

Finally, we do urge that the amendments to 603 CMR 18.00 be adopted.  We agree that students in publicly funded programs should have the same protection from the use of exclusionary time-out regardless of whether they are in a public school or in a private approved special education school.  We are concerned that the regulation only reaches the day portion of residential programs.  While we understand that there may be conflicts between the other regulators of residential programs, we urge that DESE work toward resolving those differences so that students receive similar treatment both during the school day and in their residence.

Thank you for this opportunity to review the proposed regulations.   The undersigned organizations urge that you make the changes suggested above.

[1] The use of seclusion in schools has been prohibited in Massachusetts since the adoption of the initial version of 603 CMR 46.00 in 2002.

[2] There are many reports of students engaging in self-injurious behaviors while in seclusion.

[3]  We have no issue with student’s voluntarily leaving their classrooms for short breaks.