This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Prohibits unlawful seclusion and restraints of students in any program that receives federal funds (including public schools and Head Start), sets strict limits on when physical restraint may be used, and requires training, state plans, monitoring, data reporting, parental notification, and a federal grant program to reduce and eliminate seclusion and harmful restraints. It creates a private right of action for students/parents, directs the Departments of Education and HHS to enforce requirements (including withholding funds for violations), mandates a national assessment of effectiveness, and authorizes funding for implementation from FY2026–2030.
The bill substantially limits seclusion and restraint and expands training, reporting, and enforcement to protect students—especially those with disabilities—but does so at the cost of substantial compliance, administrative, and financial burdens for schools and raises questions about liability, privacy, and remaining law-enforcement authority in schools.
Students (especially students with disabilities) will face fewer seclusion and restraint incidents because the bill narrows and bans many uses of seclusion/restraint and promotes evidence-based alternatives.
Parents and students gain clearer legal protections and remedies—narrower statutory definitions, expedited notifications, and the ability to seek court orders, damages, and fees when unlawful restraint occurs.
School and Head Start personnel must receive State- and Secretary-approved crisis-intervention training (de‑escalation, PBIS, CPR) and certification, increasing trained staff and safer responses to student crises.
Schools, SEAs/LEAs, and Head Start programs—especially underfunded and rural districts—face substantial new costs for training, certification, data systems, and compliance that can strain local budgets.
Schools and agencies will bear increased administrative burden from detailed reporting, 24‑hour notifications, data collection, and responding to information requests, diverting staff time and resources.
Narrow statutory definitions and new prohibitions may trigger disputes and litigation over whether specific actions qualify as unlawful restraint or permissible 'physical escort,' creating legal uncertainty and costs.
Introduced December 11, 2025 by Donald Sternoff Beyer · Last progress December 11, 2025