.png)
They don't end isolation. But they could help some children
A proposal to reduce isolation and restraint in Washington public schools that passed the House last year is being heard this week in both House and Senate committees.
It is a mixed bag. The Arc of King County supports the proposal overall, especially aspects that lift up effective, trauma informed practices and phase out isolation of our youngest learners. We are grateful to the bill sponsors and their dedication to ending these practices in our schools.
But we have concerns, and some of them are significant - namely a work-around that would allow isolation to continue as an aversive psychological or behavioral treatment in school.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
We want a bill that acknowledges the harm these practices cause to students and staff and reflects urgency in ending them. We want legislation that:
- Continues the demonstration sites and makes recommended training easy to access
- Phases out isolation at all schools, starting with grades preK-5, but continuing for older students
- Limits exemptions to ending isolation and makes the time frame shorter
- Help schools collect and use data to inform staff training, improve student support and recovery, and guard against racial discrimination
Our analysis of the bill is below, followed by an outline of what the bill includes.
WHY WE OPPOSE ISOLATION
Isolation is harmful, causing suicidal ideation, trauma, and complex PTSD. It is often used with restraint to contain and then force children into isolation rooms. There is no evidence of educational, behavioral, or therapeutic value. Going back 15 years, the US Department of Education identified it as posing significant physical and psychological harm to children.
Isolation and restraint trigger cycles of escalating dysregulation, and are used disproportionately on students who are most vulnerable:
- Students in foster care
- Students who are homeless
- Students with disabilities who need effective support to resolve problems and support communication
Data also shows isolation and restraint are used disproportionately on students who are Black/African American.
Isolation and restraint are expensive. Insurance, worker compensation, and legal costs all go down, and staff retention improves, at sites that have ended the practices.
Isolation involves placing children who are in distress into spaces alone, from which they cannot leave. It prevents or delays co-regulation with a trusted adult.
We are not talking about quiet spaces where students can choose to go to de-stress/re-regulate, and from which they can freely leave.
We agree educators need strategies to work with children with big, complex behavior. But relying on isolation and restraint isn’t the fix. They make things worse.
We want the state to stop sanctioning practices that don’t work, are expensive, and are dangerous for children and staff. We want our public schools to pivot – with urgency – to preventive, trauma-informed practices that HELP.
All schools should be safe and
free from harm.
You can read the bills here:
- HB
1795 & SB
5654 - Addressing restraint or isolation of students in public schools and
educational programs. Our outline of
what is in the proposal follows our analysis, below.
- Disability Rights Washington also has a great webpage with links to various reports and resources. We recommend reading the report they completed 2 years ago that reviewed our state’s data and included information pulled from site visits and interviews.
OUR ANALYSIS
What we like about HB 1795 & SB 5654 (some with concern)
PHASE OUT FOR YOUNGEST & TECHNICAL SUPPORT: We like that the companion bills phase out isolation for young students, and that the demonstration sites will continue. Those were set up under the Reducing Restraint & Eliminating Isolation (RREI) Project, a win from last year.
We want to know when isolation will end for older students, as well.
CONTRAINDICATE: We like that isolation and restraint cannot be used when they harm a student because of a documented condition. Essentially, families could get a doctor’s note.
We appreciate that since 8 out of 10 times isolation and restraint are used on young, disabled children, this “out” for families could theoretically prevent many instances. If we can’t get a clean bill that prohibits isolation, giving families a way to opt out their children is a good thing.
But … we worry students who are not already identified as disabled or health-impaired would be exposed to harm, and families will be unnecessarily burdened. Getting a doctor’s note telling educators NOT to use a psychologically harmful practice on their child shouldn’t be on the kindergarten parent’s to-do list.
We would prefer a ban on isolation, just like we have a ban on corporal punishment.
PHASING OUT ISOLATION ROOMS: We want to see the padded cells removed from schools, and we appreciate that the bill attempts to address this. But as written, the bills allow schools to continue to build cells indefinitely “just in case” someone requests isolation as an aversive treatment. We want language that closes or repurposes all isolation rooms in public schools, by a given date.
OVERSIGHT: We appreciate the compliance and training in these bills. Schools are not given a simple pass to use these practices.
What we do NOT support:
ALLOWING ISOLATION ON REQUEST: We do not support allowing isolation to be used as an aversive intervention if a parent requests it. We appreciate the guardrails put on that (2 recommendations are needed), but we know parents are pressured to allow it as an aversive intervention. There is no evidence to support isolation as an educational, therapeutic, or behavioral intervention. There are effective, trauma-informed alternatives, backed by research.
EXTENDING EXEMPTIONS: In the bill, schools can continue to isolate young children for 6 years if they apply for an exemption. We can support time-limited exemptions IF it means schools are actively creating a plan, implementing crisis prevention strategies, and reducing isolation and restraint during that time.
We do not support extending exemptions beyond 2031. We prefer shorter exemptions of 2 to 3 years.
A note on the definition of isolation: This proposal changes the definition to add “involuntary separation.” When we talk about isolation, we often stress that it is involuntary to distinguish it from a student’s voluntary use of quiet space, from which they are free to leave. Some attorneys are concerned that schools could argue a student AGREED to enter a room from which they could not leave. They are asking that “involuntary” not be used in the legal definition.
BILL OUTLINE
What HB 1795 and SB 5654 DO
Training & technical support
The bill extends demonstration projects, with the goal of eliminating student isolation and reducing student restraint (subject to funding)
- Adds sites in central or eastern WA (subject to funding)
- Requires sites to showcase certain practices, including:
o behavior management
o crisis de-escalation strategies
o needs assessments
o use of regulation spaces
o reduced use of student isolation and restraint
o inclusionary practices
o incident data collection and reporting
- Sites must build systems that incorporate
positive, trauma-informed behavior support to prevent crisis escalation
- Sites must improve data collection and reporting systems
-
Requires a report to the legislature by November
15, 2026
Restrictions on restraint
Restraint done to prevent imminent harm – such as stopping a child from running into traffic – is still allowable. But some types of restraint would be banned, including:
- Chemical restraint by school staff
o Chemical restraint is using medications to control behavior. Medications can only be given as prescribed
- Mechanical restraint by school staff
o Mechanical restraint includes handcuffs and zip ties
- Physical restraint/escort that is life-threatening, restricts breathing, or restricts blood flow to the brain, including prone, supine, and wall restraint.
o These types of restraint can be fatal.
- Physical restraint when it is harmful to the student’s health due to their disability, health care needs, or medical or psychiatric condition
o Must be documented in a health plan; behavior intervention plan; IEP; or 504 plan
- Use of noxious sprays by school staff
Changes to isolation (also known as seclusion)
- The bill would prohibit isolation when it is harmful to the student’s health due to their disability, health care needs, or medical or psychiatric condition.
o Must be documented in a health plan; behavior intervention plan; IEP; or 504 plan
- Parents or guardians may not consent, nor be asked to consent, to the use of isolation or restraint that is prohibited
- Isolation can be used when requested by a student’s parent or guardian and authorized by 2 licensed health officials
This is a major area of concern. Research shows long-term harm, including suicidal ideation, trauma, and complex PTSD. There is no evidence that using isolation/seclusion is effective in reducing complex behaviors.
- Isolation of children in preschool and grades K-5 would be prohibited, starting in the 2027 school year, unless:
- The school had an exemption
- Parents gave written permission, and 2 qualified licensed health professionals recommended isolation and provided instructions to staff on when to isolate
This is a major area of concern. Research shows long-term harm, including suicidal ideation, trauma, and complex PTSD. There is no evidence that using isolation/seclusion is effective in reducing complex behaviors.
Isolation would be allowable when:
- Less restrictive interventions would be
ineffective in stopping the imminent likelihood of serious harm to the student
or to others
-
The least amount of force necessary is used to
protect the student or another person from an imminent likelihood of serious
harm to the student or to others
-
During the isolation, the student is under the
constant visual supervision of the staff
-
The isolation of the student ends immediately
upon the cessation of the imminent
likelihood of serious harm to the student or to others; and - Beginning August 1, 2030, the staff isolating the student has received intensive crisis prevention and response training through an OSPI-approved program.
Continuing to allow isolation for older students is a major area of concern. Research shows long-term harm, including suicidal ideation, trauma, and complex PTSD. Data shows it is used disproportionately on youth in the foster care system; homeless youth; and Black/African American youth.
School exemptions
Schools that get an exemption can continue isolating young students. However, they must:- Engage in technical assistance
- Provide training for staff
- Request exemption by August 1, 2027
Exemptions expire on July 31, 2031, unless they are extended by OSPI. Extensions are granted until staff have received student behavior management and intensive crisis prevention and response training as described in the staff training plan.
Extending exemptions is a major concern. By 2031, schools will have had 6 years to create a plan and train key staff. We must consider the harm children are exposed to by allowing these practices to continue.
Follow-up procedures
- Staff must notify the principal “as soon as practicable”
- Principal must notify parents within 24 hours
- Written documentation must be sent to parents within 3 business days
If an incident of prohibited restraint or isolation occurred:
- The principal must notify the school district superintendent or chief administrator of the education provider
- Notify OSPI within 3 business days
- If services are being provided under contract, the party to the contract must be notified within 3 days
Behavior intervention plans (BIP)
- As soon as practical, a functional behavior assessment must be done for the student, if one has not already been done
- BIPs must be developed or modified
Incident reviews
- The principal must review the incident with the student and parents and inform them of BIP requirements within 1 week of submitting the incident report
- The student must be given an opportunity to meet with a counselor, nurse, psychologist, or social worker.
- The staff team must review the incident and identify needed training, coaching, or assistance for staff who used, or directed the use of, isolation, restraint, or room clear
- No less than monthly, the principal must submit a summary of the outcomes of team incident reviews to the district superintendent
Incident reports
- The principal must work with staff to prepare a daily incident report.
- At least annually, a summary of incident reports must be prepared that is disaggregated to look for trends. Summaries must be submitted to OSPI
Policies and procedures
- Policies must be revised with input from specified groups
- If district policy allows isolation of children in grades 6 to 12, policies and procedures must be submitted to OSPI annually
- School boards must monitor the impact of policies, do trend analysis, and review the staff training plan
Training:
- School board must undergo training every 4 years
(developed by OSPI and available to school districts at no cost)
- By Oct. 1, 2026, OSPI must develop a model training plan that covers student behavior management and OSPI-approved intensive crisis prevention and response
- Educator preparation programs must include student behavior management
Compliance and technical assistance
OSPI must monitor and support compliance of school districts and education providers
Technical assistance must include:
- Publishing guidance on best practice
- Publishing a list of approved intensive crisis prevention and response training programs that are evidence-based, trauma-informed, student-centered, and proactive.
- If funded, OSPI must distribute funds to educational service districts for regional coaches
School districts must make progress toward goals, or they may be put on a plan of improvement that includes targeted technical assistance and site visits
By Dec. 2025, OSPI, PESB and Paraeducator Board must submit to the legislature a joint plan for integrating into educator preparation programs and paraeducator standards of practice the elements of student behavior management.
Beginning December 2025, OSPI must add to its annual report on placements of students with disabilities at authorized entities: (1) the number of students with disabilities in authorized entities within the state and outside the state; and (2) an analysis of whether placement decisions are influenced by requirements related to student isolation and restraint.
By September 1, 2026, the OSPI must submit to the Legislature the report of a research entity contracted to analyze the impacts of room clears on students and to summarize best practices on the use of room clears.
.png)
