Bill would ban seclusion and restraint in schools

Summary#

The Keeping All Students Safe Act would create a new federal law; it does not amend a named Act. Its stated goal is to prohibit seclusion and certain restraints in schools and other covered programs, while preventing and reducing physical restraint. It is an introduced bill, not law, so whether it will pass is uncertain.

• Covered programs receiving federal financial assistance could not use seclusion, mechanical restraint, or chemical restraint, or use physical restraint that is dangerous, medically contraindicated in a documented plan or record, or outside the bill’s strict limits.
• Physical restraint would be allowed only to stop an imminent danger of serious physical injury, after less restrictive measures would be ineffective. It must end when the danger ends, use the least force needed, and not interfere with the student’s communication.
• Programs would have to notify parents after each physical-restraint incident and hold a meeting with them within five school days. States would have to ensure enough program personnel are trained and certified.
• States would have to submit annual plans and public reports on restraint incidents, starting no later than two years after enactment. The Education Department would award grants to states only if Congress appropriates money; states could pass some grant funds to local education agencies.
• Students or parents could sue a program for a violation. The Education Department, or the Health and Human Services Department for Head Start programs, would investigate complaints and could withhold further payments after a violation.

What it means for you#

• Students and parents: In covered programs, seclusion and mechanical restraint would be prohibited. A student or parent could bring a court case against the program and seek remedies including compensation and legal fees. Program personnel would not be personally liable under this bill.
• Students who experience physical restraint: Parents would have to receive verbal or electronic notice the same day, and written notice within 24 hours. A meeting with the parent and specified school personnel would have to take place within five school days, unless both sides agree in writing to delay it.
• Schools and other covered programs: Physical restraint could be used only under the bill’s emergency conditions. It could not be written into an individual student’s plan as a planned intervention, though a program could set general safety or crisis policies that are not specific to one student.
• States and education agencies: States would have to monitor compliance, report restraint data publicly, and submit plans describing their policies and oversight. States receiving grants would have to use funds for required work, including policies, prevention strategies, training, and analysis of reported data.
• Private schools and home schools: The bill covers certain private schools, including those enrolling a student receiving special education services under federal law. It excludes private schools with no federal support and no students receiving support through federally funded programs. Home schools are not covered, and parents teaching children at home are not program personnel.
• Taxpayers and the public: The bill does not create a direct payment or benefit for individuals. It does require public reporting and federal and state oversight.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the supplied material. No publicly available information.

• The bill authorizes Congress to appropriate “such sums as may be necessary” for fiscal year 2026 and later years; it does not itself provide a dollar amount.
• Federal grants to states depend on money being appropriated. The bill would also require states and covered programs to carry out reporting, training, monitoring, and parent-notification duties, but gives no cost estimate for that work.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define “imminent danger of serious physical injury” or say how that standard should be applied in specific cases.
• It requires states to ensure a “sufficient number” of trained personnel but does not set a number or explain how sufficiency is measured.
• The bill calls for investigations and state monitoring but does not set detailed investigation steps, timelines, or appeal procedures.
• It does not specify how much grant funding Congress will provide, or how much states and programs will need to spend to meet the requirements.
• It sets state-plan and reporting deadlines at two years after enactment, but does not give a general start date for the bill’s other requirements.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to prevent practices it identifies as unlawful or dangerous, while reserving physical restraint for emergencies involving an imminent risk of serious physical injury.
• Requiring notice and a follow-up meeting could help parents and programs understand what happened and discuss ways to prevent future incidents.
• Public reporting, state oversight, and training grants could give governments information and tools to reduce restraint without banning all emergency physical restraint.

Case against#

• One concern is that schools may have to meet detailed training, reporting, and response duties without a specified funding level or a clear estimate of the cost.
• The bill does not fully define key standards or investigation procedures, which could leave states and programs uncertain about how to comply.
• The bill allows a student or parent to sue a program and requires withholding further payments after a violation. These enforcement measures could have serious consequences for programs, while the bill does not detail how investigations and payment decisions will work.