Ban Dangerous School Restraints

Summary#

This bill would ban most seclusion and many kinds of restraint of students in schools and programs that get federal money. It sets rules for when physical restraint may be used, requires training, and requires states and schools to report and track restraint incidents. The broad goal is to reduce harmful restraints and protect students, especially students with disabilities.

• Main change: Prohibits seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and dangerous restraints that restrict breathing or blood flow in federally funded programs. Limits physical restraint to rare situations of imminent danger and only under strict conditions.
• Training and certification: Requires States to approve crisis intervention training programs and to ensure enough staff are trained and certified.
• Data and transparency: Requires schools and Head Start programs to report annual, disaggregated data on physical restraint (including injuries and deaths) and for States to submit plans and public reports.
• Enforcement and remedies: Parents or students can sue programs. Federal agencies may investigate and can withhold federal payments from programs that violate the law.
• Funding: Authorizes $40 million per year for 2026–2030 for grants to States to implement the law.
• Scope: Applies to public schools, Head Start, special education schools, and private schools that receive federal support. Home schools and private schools with no federal funding are not covered.

What it means for you#

• Students (including students with disabilities):

  • Cannot be placed alone in a locked room (seclusion).
  • Cannot be subjected to chemical or mechanical restraints.
  • Physical restraint is allowed only if the student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious bodily harm and less restrictive options would not work.
  • If restrained, parents must get same-day verbal notice and written notice within 24 hours. A meeting with school staff must happen within 5 school days.

• Parents:

  • Can file a civil lawsuit against a program that violates the ban on unlawful seclusion or restraint.
  • Will receive quick notice and a required meeting after any physical restraint incident.

• Teachers, school staff, and school security guards:

  • Must follow strict rules about when and how physical restraint may be used.
  • Many staff must be trained and certified in State-approved crisis intervention programs (which include de-escalation, first aid, and CPR).
  • Program personnel are not personally liable in suits under this law; the program (e.g., school district) can be sued.

• Law enforcement officers assigned to schools (school resource officers):

  • Are covered by the prohibitions when acting in schools. They must meet the same training and limits when they impose physical restraint, except the bill says a sworn officer with probable cause may arrest a student for a crime consistent with the restriction rules.

• School districts and State educational agencies:

  • Must develop and publish State plans and monitoring systems.
  • Must collect and report detailed data on restraints, including by race, disability status, and whether restraint caused injury or death.
  • May lose federal funds for violations.
  • Can apply for federal grants to help implement training, data systems, and prevention programs.

• Head Start programs and special schools:

  • Must follow similar requirements. The Department of Health and Human Services will coordinate enforcement for Head Start programs.

• Private schools and home schools:

  • Private schools that do not receive federal funds are not covered. Home schools are not covered.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill authorizes $40,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 for grants to States.

• Direct federal authorization: $40 million per year (2026–2030).
• Additional likely costs (not quantified in the bill): State and local costs for training staff, running certification programs, expanding data collection and reporting systems, monitoring and site visits, and providing technical assistance and alternative supports (mental health, positive behavioral programs).
• Grants: The Department of Education will award multi-year grants to States to help pay for implementation and may allow States to make subgrants to local districts.
• Fiscal note: No detailed federal or state cost estimate is included in the bill text.

No publicly available information on total implementation costs beyond the authorized grant amounts.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to stop harmful practices and protect student safety by banning seclusion and dangerous restraints.
• Supporters may argue the bill would reduce injuries and deaths tied to restraint and seclusion.
• It could increase transparency by requiring annual, disaggregated data on restraint incidents.
• The bill supports training and positive behavioral approaches (like schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports) to prevent crises before restraints are needed.
• Grants aim to help States and districts build capacity for training, prevention, and data systems.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is the potential administrative and training costs for States and school districts not covered fully by the authorized grants.
• The bill does not specify exactly how many trained staff each school must have; this could create uncertainty about compliance.
• It is unclear how quickly certification must be renewed and how States will approve and quality-control training programs.
• The definition of “imminent danger” and “least amount of force necessary” could lead to disputes about when restraint was permitted.
• The law allows programs (e.g., districts) to be sued but protects individual staff from liability; some may see this as a mismatch in accountability.
• Reporting requirements are detailed and may raise privacy or administrative burdens; the bill exempts very small counts to protect privacy but implementation details are left to States.
• How enforcement (including withholding federal funds) will work in practice is not fully spelled out.