S-3448-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Christopher Murphy (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would prohibit seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and any physical restraint that restricts breathing or blood flow in schools and programs that receive federal financial assistance. It would allow physical restraint only as a last resort when a student poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and only by trained and certified personnel. The bill would also require states to submit annual compliance plans, mandate detailed public reporting on restraint incidents disaggregated by student demographics, authorize federal grants to states for training and prevention programs, and create a private right of action allowing students or their parents to sue programs in federal or state court for violations.
Who benefits
Students with disabilities, who are disproportionately subjected to restraint and seclusion in schools — particularly those with individualized education programs (IEPs) or Section 504 plans. Students of color, who data show are restrained at higher rates than white peers. Parents of students with behavioral or psychiatric conditions who would gain notification rights and a legal remedy. Disability rights advocacy organizations and protection and advocacy systems, which would gain expanded investigative authority. Early childhood program participants, including Head Start enrollees. Students in Bureau of Indian Education and Department of Defense schools, who would be covered by the bill's requirements. School personnel who would receive standardized crisis intervention training.
Who is hurt
School districts and local educational agencies that would face new compliance costs, reporting burdens, and potential liability. Special education schools, which would face mandatory annual site visits and heightened scrutiny. States that currently permit broader use of restraint or seclusion would need to overhaul existing policies. School personnel who currently use restraint as a behavioral management tool could face civil suits, even though the bill limits individual liability to the program rather than the individual. Private schools that enroll students receiving federal special education services would be subject to the bill's prohibitions. Programs that rely on restraint as a planned behavioral intervention would need to restructure individualized education plans. Taxpayers would bear the cost of grant programs and federal oversight infrastructure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that seclusion and restraint have caused documented student deaths and injuries — the Government Accountability Office found hundreds of such incidents in a 2009 report, and subsequent federal data collection has continued to show disproportionate use on students with disabilities and students of color. They contend that no federal floor currently exists, leaving students' safety dependent on a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, and that evidence-based alternatives such as positive behavioral interventions and supports have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the need for physical intervention without compromising school safety.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a federal prohibition on planned restraint interventions could remove a tool that, in rare cases, is the only safe option for students with severe behavioral conditions — and that removing it from individualized education plans could expose other students and staff to serious harm. They contend that the bill's compliance mandates, annual state plans, and private right of action impose significant administrative and litigation costs on already resource-constrained districts, and that education policy is traditionally a state function under the Tenth Amendment, making a federal mandate of this scope an overreach into an area where states have primary authority.