Concerns Raised about Students in Minnesota Being Subjected to Restraint Tactics Used on George Floyd

Minnesota Democratic lawmakers voted earlier this year to authorize police officers to use a risky form of restraint on students in schools, citing a compromise they had reached. A task force comprising law enforcement agencies, disability advocates, and others was set up to develop a model policy aimed at reducing the use of prone restraint, the face-down hold utilized by Minneapolis police on George Floyd.

However, concerns have arisen among some advocates regarding the task force’s apparent inclination to stifle discussions concerning the fundamental issues central to the ongoing debate on the dangers associated with having police in schools.

In the task force’s initial meeting in June, Khulia Pringle, a task force member representing Solutions Not Suspensions, relayed that the executive director of the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training stated that the group would not be tackling topics such as prone restraints or use of force during their discussions.

The responsibility for overseeing the development of the model policy lies with the board responsible for licensing law enforcement officers.

Advocates like Pringle contend that the compromise legislation necessitates the committee to address various issues concerning school resource officers’ use, which has significantly escalated student arrests in schools. They expected the model policy, to be adopted by law enforcement agencies with officers stationed at schools, to outline when police intervention is warranted in schools and propose alternatives to the use of force.

The task force is gearing up for the second of four scheduled meetings on July 18 and plans to finalize the model policy by mid-September. Some advocates fear that the outcome may not align with best practices because the group members have limited information on the policies dictating police presence in schools.

Concerns have been raised by Erin Sandsmark, another leader of Solutions Not Suspensions, about ensuring that children are safeguarded by an appropriate model policy. She finds it extreme that resorting to a dangerous hold is deemed necessary.

By law, the task force had to include representatives from the police licensing board, five other law enforcement organizations, four statewide education organizations, and three community groups, including groups advocating for special education students. Maren Christenson, executive director of the Multicultural Autism Action Network, expressed apprehension over the inadequacy of representation for the most affected students.

“We understand who primarily faces disciplinary measures in schools, particularly students of color with disabilities. Excluding them from this discussion doesn’t serve their interests,” she states.

The U.S. Department of Education has urged the banning of prone restraints, and in 2022, the Justice Department issued comprehensive recommendations on in-school policing.

A recent study by the Government Accountability Office, drawing from federal arrest data, highlighted significant disparities based on race, gender, and disability status. At schools with police officers, teachers and administrators frequently rely on them to handle student misbehavior, leading to increased arrest rates.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, numerous districts, including Minneapolis, ceased stationing police in schools. Minnesota lawmakers went a step further in 2023 by prohibiting the use of in-school prone restraints altogether.

However, the issue of in-school policing remains contentious, with Democrats in Minnesota, grappling with a rural-urban divide on policing, amending the ban but introducing stringent requirements on training, data collection, and a model policy.

During the legislative session, the debate was hampered by a lack of data on police presence in Minnesota schools, raising concerns among advocates.

Pringle recollects that lawmakers were unable to provide concrete figures on the number of restrained children, emphasizing the importance of accurate data collection moving forward.

Disability advocates have long advocated for banning prone restraints following their linkage to numerous child deaths. In Minnesota, legislation was passed in 2015 to prohibit school staff from employing the hold and reducing other forms of physical restraints disproportionately used on disabled children.

Although data may be skewed due to COVID-related school closures, the use of physical restraints on students with disabilities in schools decreased significantly in recent years. Certain student demographics, such as Black and Native American children and those with autism or emotional behavioral disorders, are disproportionately subjected to restraint.

As the task force gears up for their upcoming meeting on July 18, examples of model policies have been requested from participants, with Solutions Not Suspensions being the sole contributor of comprehensive guidance beyond the legislative requirements.

Various policy models submitted encompass those formulated by the Minnesota School Boards Association and a school system in Georgia with its police department. The Minnesota association typically develops general policies to cater to districts with limited capacity to devise their own.

The task force, according to officials from the law enforcement board, will utilize the school board policy as a foundational document. The group is expected to present a completed model policy by September, pending approval from the law enforcement board.

Responding to concerns raised by advocates, Misselt reiterated that all members of the working group are encouraged to voice their opinions during meetings. Amidst the ongoing development of the model policy, lawmakers await updates.

Pringle remains skeptical about the task force’s ability to deliver a comprehensive recommendation within the allotted time, expressing concern that the policy may not prioritize the interests of students.