The Keeping All Students Safe Act (formerly the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in the Schools Act) will help make all classrooms safer for students, teachers, staff and the entire school community. To help clear up any confusion or misinformation about this legislation, here is a rundown of how the rumors stack up to reality.
MYTH: Restraint and seclusion are effective therapeutic interventions that can help students improve behavior.
FACT: No evidence-based research has demonstrated restraint or seclusion to be therapeutically effective in modifying behavior. To the contrary -- research has shown that restraint and seclusion can be physically and psychologically harmful and can even result in more emotional and behavioral disruptions.
MYTH: This legislation doesn’t outright ban seclusion and restraint and therefore won’t be effective.
FACT: It would be naïve to ban all restraint and seclusion – there are rare and extreme emergencies when it may be necessary to physically intervene, but only when administered by properly trained staff and only in situations when a student is posing imminent danger of physical injury to himself or to others.
This bill is consistent with the Children’s Health Act of 2000 and federal protections already in place in other settings. The bill allows physical restraint and seclusion in cases where danger is imminent, when there is no other choice, and only when administered by trained staff. Rather than taking an unrealistic approach, this bill makes a balanced effort to make classrooms safer for kids without taking away necessary emergency interventions from trained staff.
MYTH: Restraint and seclusion are effective therapeutic interventions that can help students improve behavior.
FACT: No evidence-based research has demonstrated restraint or seclusion to be therapeutically effective in modifying behavior. To the contrary -- research has shown that restraint and seclusion can be physically and psychologically harmful and can even result in more emotional and behavioral disruptions.
MYTH: This legislation doesn’t outright ban seclusion and restraint and therefore won’t be effective.
FACT: It would be naïve to ban all restraint and seclusion – there are rare and extreme emergencies when it may be necessary to physically intervene, but only when administered by properly trained staff and only in situations when a student is posing imminent danger of physical injury to himself or to others.
This bill is consistent with the Children’s Health Act of 2000 and federal protections already in place in other settings. The bill allows physical restraint and seclusion in cases where danger is imminent, when there is no other choice, and only when administered by trained staff. Rather than taking an unrealistic approach, this bill makes a balanced effort to make classrooms safer for kids without taking away necessary emergency interventions from trained staff.
MYTH: Parents and educators should be able to plan for the use of these
behavioral interventions as members of their child’s Individualized
Education Program (IEP) team.
FACT: This bill does not allow the use of physical restraint or seclusion as a planned intervention to be written into any document tied to an individual student. This is also consistent with the Children’s Health Act, which does not allow physicians or medical staff to write restraint or seclusion as a standing order or as an option on ‘as-needed’ basis.
Since restraint and seclusion do not constitute therapeutic programs, treatments or educational services and may actually deny a student access to education, the practices should not be included in an IEP as planned interventions. The bill does allow schools to establish school or classroom plans with appropriate procedures to be followed in a variety of crisis circumstances.
This is an important distinction based upon what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered. In situations where these planned interventions have been written into IEPs, parents reported that their understanding was incomplete and their consent ultimately resulted in abuse. For example, in one case examined by the GAO, a family consented to their student occasionally being placed in a room to compose himself, when in fact he was being left alone in a locked room for hours at a time. Planning for the use of these procedures often means those interventions are used as a first -- rather than last -- resort.
MYTH: This legislation will allow the federal government to dictate how schools and teachers can discipline their students, and will restrict law enforcement activities in the schools.
FACT: Currently, we have a very weak patchwork of state oversight. In the bill, states have two years to establish their own policies, procedures and enforcement mechanisms that are at least as strong as the minimum federal standards – giving states the flexibility to tailor policies and procedures to meet their needs.
No teacher or school will be told how to discipline their students – this bill simply limits the use of physical interventions to ensure the safety of both students and staff. Additionally, the use of “time out” for calming purposes is specifically protected in the bill. School resource officers would be subject to the same safety standards and training requirements as other school personnel. If the police are called in by a school to handle a dangerous situation, this bill will not interfere with their ability to execute their duties as police officers.
Many educators and school administrators are caring individuals who are working very hard to keep students safe and view this legislation as supporting their efforts. This bill has the support of the National School Boards Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and many other leading education advocates who welcome this opportunity to work together to make schools safer.
MYTH: This bill will mandate that all teachers must undergo a certain type of training.
FACT: The bill doesn’t mandate that all teachers are trained. While no specific number of trained staff is required, states and schools must be able to show that they have an appropriate number of trained personnel given the needs of the specific population of students being served. This maintains local control while improving the safety of all children and staff. States must also plan for how all school staff and parents will be made aware of the requirements surrounding the use of restraint and seclusion.
The bill also leaves it up to individual states to choose or develop acceptable training programs for staff, giving states flexibility and independence to meet their needs, while keeping staff and students safe.
MYTH: There won’t be trained staff available in every circumstance, creating safety problems with violent students.
FACT: There is no one single method that will solve all the challenges our teachers and school staff face in classrooms. It would be unrealistic to think that there will never be emergency situations where an untrained teacher needs to intervene to protect the immediate safety of students.
What this bill does make clear is that untrained staff can only restrain and seclude a child in the case of a clearly unavoidable emergency – and only when trained staff members are not available. Restraint or seclusion must end immediately when the crisis ends. Parents must always be notified. Lastly, states must annually report the number of instances of restraint and seclusion which were imposed by untrained individuals. This will go a long way toward addressing the current safety gaps that have led to too many misuses of restraint and seclusion.
MYTH: This bill imposes more federal regulation where it is not needed.
FACT: This bipartisan legislation takes a balanced approach to address a very serious problem. The Government Accountability Office found hundreds of allegations that children have been abused, and some even died, as a result of misuses of restraint and seclusion in public and private schools, often at the hands of untrained staff. In just two states alone last year, over 33,000 “emergency” interventions were reported.
The fact that this bill is supported by a long list of diverse groups – representing everyone from teachers, school boards, pediatricians, nurses, disability advocates and children’s advocates – shows that these protections for both students and staff are welcomed. We applaud and acknowledge the collaborative and cooperative efforts of everyone involved in crafting this legislation.
FACT: This bill does not allow the use of physical restraint or seclusion as a planned intervention to be written into any document tied to an individual student. This is also consistent with the Children’s Health Act, which does not allow physicians or medical staff to write restraint or seclusion as a standing order or as an option on ‘as-needed’ basis.
Since restraint and seclusion do not constitute therapeutic programs, treatments or educational services and may actually deny a student access to education, the practices should not be included in an IEP as planned interventions. The bill does allow schools to establish school or classroom plans with appropriate procedures to be followed in a variety of crisis circumstances.
This is an important distinction based upon what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered. In situations where these planned interventions have been written into IEPs, parents reported that their understanding was incomplete and their consent ultimately resulted in abuse. For example, in one case examined by the GAO, a family consented to their student occasionally being placed in a room to compose himself, when in fact he was being left alone in a locked room for hours at a time. Planning for the use of these procedures often means those interventions are used as a first -- rather than last -- resort.
MYTH: This legislation will allow the federal government to dictate how schools and teachers can discipline their students, and will restrict law enforcement activities in the schools.
FACT: Currently, we have a very weak patchwork of state oversight. In the bill, states have two years to establish their own policies, procedures and enforcement mechanisms that are at least as strong as the minimum federal standards – giving states the flexibility to tailor policies and procedures to meet their needs.
No teacher or school will be told how to discipline their students – this bill simply limits the use of physical interventions to ensure the safety of both students and staff. Additionally, the use of “time out” for calming purposes is specifically protected in the bill. School resource officers would be subject to the same safety standards and training requirements as other school personnel. If the police are called in by a school to handle a dangerous situation, this bill will not interfere with their ability to execute their duties as police officers.
Many educators and school administrators are caring individuals who are working very hard to keep students safe and view this legislation as supporting their efforts. This bill has the support of the National School Boards Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and many other leading education advocates who welcome this opportunity to work together to make schools safer.
MYTH: This bill will mandate that all teachers must undergo a certain type of training.
FACT: The bill doesn’t mandate that all teachers are trained. While no specific number of trained staff is required, states and schools must be able to show that they have an appropriate number of trained personnel given the needs of the specific population of students being served. This maintains local control while improving the safety of all children and staff. States must also plan for how all school staff and parents will be made aware of the requirements surrounding the use of restraint and seclusion.
The bill also leaves it up to individual states to choose or develop acceptable training programs for staff, giving states flexibility and independence to meet their needs, while keeping staff and students safe.
MYTH: There won’t be trained staff available in every circumstance, creating safety problems with violent students.
FACT: There is no one single method that will solve all the challenges our teachers and school staff face in classrooms. It would be unrealistic to think that there will never be emergency situations where an untrained teacher needs to intervene to protect the immediate safety of students.
What this bill does make clear is that untrained staff can only restrain and seclude a child in the case of a clearly unavoidable emergency – and only when trained staff members are not available. Restraint or seclusion must end immediately when the crisis ends. Parents must always be notified. Lastly, states must annually report the number of instances of restraint and seclusion which were imposed by untrained individuals. This will go a long way toward addressing the current safety gaps that have led to too many misuses of restraint and seclusion.
MYTH: This bill imposes more federal regulation where it is not needed.
FACT: This bipartisan legislation takes a balanced approach to address a very serious problem. The Government Accountability Office found hundreds of allegations that children have been abused, and some even died, as a result of misuses of restraint and seclusion in public and private schools, often at the hands of untrained staff. In just two states alone last year, over 33,000 “emergency” interventions were reported.
The fact that this bill is supported by a long list of diverse groups – representing everyone from teachers, school boards, pediatricians, nurses, disability advocates and children’s advocates – shows that these protections for both students and staff are welcomed. We applaud and acknowledge the collaborative and cooperative efforts of everyone involved in crafting this legislation.
