Use of Isolation and Restraint.
Isolation or restraint of a student is permitted only when reasonably necessary to control spontaneous behavior that poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm.
Each school district must adopt a policy providing for the least amount of isolation or restraint appropriate to protect the safety of students and staff.
Student Plans.
Parents and guardians of students who have individualized education programs (IEPs) or plans developed under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (section 504 plans) must be provided a copy of the district policy at the time that the IEP or section 504 plan is created.
An IEP or section 504 plan may not include the use of isolation or restraint as a planned behavior intervention unless a student's individual needs require more specific advanced educational planning, and the student's parent or guardian agrees.
Rules adopted by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) define a behavioral intervention plan as part of a student's IEP that describes the positive behavioral interventions and supports to be used to reduce the student's challenging behaviors.
Incident Notification, Report, and Review.
After any incident of isolation or restraint, the school must review the incident with the student and the parent or guardian, and with the staff who used the isolation or restraint.
The principal must: (1) make a reasonable effort to verbally inform the student's parent or guardian within 24 hours of the incident; and (2) send written notification as soon as practical but postmarked no later than five business days after the incident occurred.
School employees, resource officers, and school security officers who use isolation or restraint must inform the building administrator as soon as possible and submit a written report of the incident to the school district office within two business days.
School districts must annually submit a summary of the staff reports to the OSPI. The OSPI must publish to its website the data received by the school districts. The OSPI may use this data to reduce the use of isolation and restraint.
Work Group Report.
Legislation enacted in 2022 directed the OSPI to convene a work group to identify trauma-informed strategies, approaches, and curricula for supporting students in distress and with challenging behaviors that prioritize relational safety. The work group's 2022 report includes four categories of recommendations: (1) eliminate isolation and chemical restraint from schools; (2) improve access to proactive and effective mental health supports and trauma-informed behavior supports; (3) increase educator training of de-escalation practices; and (4) improve data collection and reporting.
Training and Demonstration Projects.
The 2023-25 Operating Budget provided funding to the OSPI to provide: (1) statewide training and technical assistance to support the elimination of isolation and reduction of restraint and room clears; and (2) grants for 10 demonstration projects to build systems that eliminate student isolation, reduce use of student restraint, and use specified support to prevent student crisis escalation cycles.
Prohibited Practices.
Staff of school districts and providers of public educational services (education providers) are prohibited from using the following interventions on students:
Except for isolation authorized by a student's parent or guardian and two licensed health professionals as described below, neither a student nor the student's parent or guardian may consent, or be asked to consent, to the use of isolation or restraint that is prohibited.
Use of Physical Restraint.
Staff of school districts and education providers may physically restrain a student when:
Use of Isolation.
Conditions. Subject to the limitations related to students in prekindergarten through grade 5 (PK-5) described below, staff of school districts and education providers may isolate a student when:
Limitations. Beginning August 1, 2025, unless a temporary exemption has been claimed as described below, staff of school districts and education providers are prohibited from isolating a PK-5 student, unless requested by the parent or guardian of the student and unless authorized as follows:
Temporary Exemptions. The prohibition on isolating PK-5 students does not apply to school districts and education providers that claim an exemption from the OSPI by August 1, 2025. Those that claim an exemption must: (1) engage with the technical assistance provided by the OSPI; and (2) provide training as described in the staff training plan as soon as practicable. All exemptions expire on July 31, 2029; however, the OSPI may extend the expiration date for any school district or education provider that claimed an exemption by August 1, 2025, until staff have received training as described in the staff training plan. Those that claim an exemption are prioritized for any OSPI-provided intensive crisis prevention and response training and for regional coaching services.
Enclosures. School districts and education providers are prohibited from designing new construction or remodeling buildings to include a room or other enclosed area solely for purposes of isolating a student in any grade. Beginning August 1, 2029, school districts and education providers are prohibited from approving, equipping, or constructing a room or other enclosed area solely for purposes of isolating a PK-5 student, except to comply with isolation authorized by a student's parent or guardian and two licensed health professionals as described above. These prohibitions do not apply to a state-operated psychiatric hospital that serves students.
School Resource Officer.
The prohibitions and limitations on student isolation and restraint do not prohibit a school resource officer from carrying out the lawful duties of a commissioned law enforcement officer.
Follow-up Procedures.
Incident Notifications. The following notifications must be made after any incident of isolation, restraint, or room clear:
In addition, the principal or building administrator must make the following notifications after an incident of prohibited isolation or restraint:
Behavioral Intervention Plans. As soon as practicable after any incident of isolation, restraint, or room clear, staff must, for the student who was isolated, restrained, or caused the emergency that resulted in a room clear:
Incident Reviews. The following reviews must be completed as soon as practicable after any incident of isolation, restraint, or room clear:
Incident Reports. For each student who was isolated, restrained, or caused an emergency that resulted in a room clear, the principal or building administrator designee must work with the staff who used or directed the use of isolation, restraint, or room clear to prepare a written daily incident report that describes all incidents involving the student during the date for which the report applies. The daily incident report must include specified information and be submitted to the school district superintendent or the chief administrator of the education provider within two business days of the date for which the report applies.
No less than monthly, the principal or building administrator must submit to the school district superintendent or chief administrator of the education provider a summary of the outcomes of the team incident reviews that describes any resources needed for incident prevention.
At least annually, school districts and education providers must submit incident report summaries with disaggregated data to the OSPI. Within 90 days of receipt, the OSPI must publish the incident report summaries on its website in a manner that allows trend analysis.
Policies and Procedures.
By August 1, 2025, and periodically thereafter, each school board and education provider's governing body must revise the student isolation and restraint policy and procedures with input from specified groups. If the policy and procedures include staff isolation of students in grades 6 through 12, the policy and procedures must be annually submitted to the OSPI.
The school boards and governing bodies must annually monitor the impact of the policy and procedures by performing trend analyses and reviewing the staff training plan described below.
Training for Governing Bodies.
Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, and every four years thereafter, each member of the school board and each member of the governing body of an education provider must complete a training program on student isolation and restraint and room clear requirements, specified resources, and other topics
The training program must be developed, and updated periodically, by the OSPI, in partnership with the Washington State School Directors' Association (WSSDA). It must be available at no cost and be easily accessible to school boards, governing bodies of education providers, and the WSSDA.
Training for Staff.
Model Staff Training Plan and Guidance. By January 1, 2025, the OSPI must develop and publish a model plan and guidance for staff training on student behavior management and OSPI-approved intensive crisis prevention and response that school districts and education providers must use when developing the staff training plan described below. Among other things, the model plan and guidance must: (1) propose training content, duration, and frequency categories by staff, program, activity, and duty codes; not all staff are required to be trained on intensive crisis prevention and response; (2) describe best practices for connecting staff training to existing systems designed to support student learning, social-emotional well-being, and positive behavior in the classroom; and (3) suggest options for compensating staff for training.
"Student behavior management" is defined to mean the knowledge and skills to: (1) implement proactive classroom management strategies that create a positive and safe learning environment; (2) recognize the emotional or behavioral distress of students and respond using evidence-based, trauma-informed behavioral health supports that are age and developmentally appropriate, are restorative, and consider any disabilities of the students; (3) understand and implement behavior management practices and positive behavioral supports within a multitiered system of supports; and (4) use evidence-based, trauma-informed, and student-centered approaches for de-escalating aggressive student behaviors that include problem-solving and conflict resolution and are less restrictive than isolation or restraint.
Staff Training Plan and Updates. By August 1, 2025, and by August 1 annually thereafter, after considering the OSPI's model plan and guidance, each school district superintendent and chief administrator of an education provider, or the school board and education provider's governing body, must submit to the OSPI a plan and timeline for training on student behavior management and OSPI-approved intensive crisis management and response that will be provided or made available to staff during the following school year. Plan development and staff prioritization of training must be informed by the team incident review summaries.
The plan and each update must also include:
Subject to appropriation, the OSPI must provide or contract for the provision of OSPI-approved intensive crisis prevention and response training with priority to staff in school districts and education providers using isolation.
Educator Preparation Programs. In establishing policies and requirements for the preparation and certification of educators, the Professional Educator Standards Board require that the programs of courses, requirements, and other activities leading to educator certification include the foundational knowledge and skills of student behavior management.
State Monitoring and Technical Assistance.
The OSPI must monitor and support compliance of school districts and education providers with student isolation, restraint, and room clear requirements.
The OSPI must provide technical assistance that includes publishing:
Before implementing the technical assistance and periodically thereafter, the OSPI must conduct focus groups on staff challenges to implement isolation, restraint, and room clear requirements.
Regional Coaches.
Subject to appropriation, the OSPI must distribute funding to educational service districts for regional coaches to support the implementation of student isolation and restraint and room clear requirements, with priority to school districts and education providers using isolation. Regional coaches must have received OSPI-approved intensive crisis prevention and response training and must promote evidence-based, trauma-informed crisis prevention and response practices that are less restrictive than isolation and restraint, as well as classroom management techniques and the use of a multitiered system of supports.
Plans of Improvement.
When a school district or education provider is not making sufficient progress towards the goals established in its staff training plan or when disparities in use of isolation or restraint are identified in its incident report summaries, the OSPI must provide targeted technical assistance, including annual site visits.
Reports to the Legislature.
Annually by November 1, the OSPI must report to the Legislature with a summary of its monitoring and support activities. The report must describe the progress made towards providing training to staff.
Beginning December 1, 2024, the OSPI must add to its annual report on placements of students with disabilities at authorized entities: (1) the number of students with disabilities placed in authorized entities; and (2) an analysis of whether placement decisions are influenced by requirements related to student isolation and restraint.
By December 1, 2024, the Professional Educator Standards Board and the Paraeducator Board must jointly submit to the Legislature a plan for integrating into educator preparation programs and paraeducator standards of practice the elements of student behavior management.
By September 1, 2025, 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.
By December 1, 2025, the OSPI must report to the Legislature with a description of the intensive crisis prevention and response trainings made available by the OSPI to staff, the intensive crisis prevention and response training program providers used by school districts and education providers, and how the OSPI provided trainings connect to related trainings. The report must also include OSPI's progress on developing a staff training deployment strategy and its assessment of the need and demand for staff training in the coming biennium.
Definitions.
Definitions for the following terms are revised or added: BIP, chemical restraint, educational service, functional behavioral assessment, imminent, isolation, likelihood of serious harm, mechanical restraint, physical escort, physical prompt, physical restraint, provider of public educational services, restraint, room clear, staff, and students.
(In support) Students are required to go to school, so they should have a safe and supportive school environment where they are truly welcome. Challenging behaviors are a signal that a student is struggling. Currently, staff are injured by students, rooms are torn up, and property is destroyed. However, staff can address these behaviors without isolating students.
This bill implements recommendations from a legislatively directed work group. This is a difficult issue and the stakes are high. There are recommendations and needs that need to be addressed, some in this bill and some in others, to bring the full system around to reduce restraint and to eliminate isolation. The state should not uphold a school system that assumes isolation of students is needed, when solitary confinement has been abolished in juvenile detention facilities.
Students are not the adversaries of staff. Children may be punished for reacting to being hurt, and the cycle continues. The systems and mindsets that allow isolation of students for their safety or others' safety is the problem. There is daily impact and harm to students and to educators. There are limited and outdated tools available to staff to respond to students' behavioral concerns. There is an urgent need to teach students skills to manage their behaviors, which will result in social and academic growth for everyone.
A small minority of children account for most disciplinary referrals. Most incidents of isolation and restraint take place in elementary schools. These incidents are typically part of a chain of events and how staff respond can change the outcome.
Students that are most marginalized are often the most harmed because students with different demographics but who demonstrate the same behaviors are treated differently. Students experience discrimination and sometimes ableism.
Students can be injured while being locked in isolation rooms. Sometimes students remain locked in isolation rooms even after the paramedics arrive. The costs of treating students' physical and mental injuries due to isolating them is high.
Investments are needed to replace outdated school policies so that students feel safe and can trust adults. Educators need to be supported to change their practices. Restraint and isolation of students does not solve any problems; more effective and humane approaches should be used. Many states and schools have abolished use of student isolation.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) State-authorized entities accept and support students with severe mental illnesses, such as autism. For many schools, these authorized entities are a last resort before a student must be sent out of state to receive an education. Removal of practices that are used as a last resort in a continuum of possible responses will cause more harm. Staff may be harmed even when not attempting to restrain a student?the potential for injury is always there. The effect that the bill will have on student and staff safety should be considered.
The bill restrictions on physical restraint restrictions are appropriate, but eliminating isolation rooms less than two years from now is problematic. Some students act out and injure others, and then, once the student is isolated, the student has an opportunity to calm down. Some schools might have to wait an hour for law enforcement to arrive. During that time, the school needs to isolate a student to keep others safe. Schools need resources besides training.
This bill affects the lives of students, parents, and staff. The bill falls short in providing professional development to staff to address student challenges. It should prioritize training and development of staff through college programs and on-the-job training. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work.
(In support) This investment would generate infrastructure, data, and preliminary support to build safer classrooms with cost-saving measures that would reduce staff and student injury, worker compensation claims, staff absenteeism, and lost instruction time all while improving student outcomes and educator job satisfaction. An elementary phase-out will address 70 to 90 percent of isolation use. This bill will not resolve all classroom needs, but it will help provide answers with data that the districts and the state need to see concerning isolation use, room clears, and the scope of professional development and technical assistance that districts need. The bill will also lead to the creation of best practices and resources from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). This bill is a vehicle for progress to reduce overreliance on restraint and isolation, and will help build safe classrooms where everyone can learn.
This bill invests in children's mental health so they can succeed in school. Children who are isolated by staff are navigating trauma, chronic stress, and sensory overload. The right supports early in life can keep them in school and learning, which lowers costs and absenteeism rates. Technical assistance can help staff figure out what is creating the dysregulation so they can adjust the environment and build out support for children to communicate and problem solve. This bill builds on multi-tiered systems of support and inclusive practice policies in schools. Coregulation and de-escalation are part of this, but the bill provides more support by creating a structure to support overwhelmed children and helps staff maintain safe learning spaces.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) There are some remaining concerns that need to be addressed in the bill. The first is the immediacy of the notices and reporting requirements, which could take away the ability to have a required human response to restore order after an incident has occurred. The second concern is the lack of concrete funding provided for professional development that would require dedicated, purposeful, well-funded, standalone professional development. The third concern is that the professional development has not yet been determined, and there should be a more concrete vision for what that looks like for educators. There is a process right now at OSPI to gather information from families and educators to determined what would be needed for this professional development.
This is a complex and sensitive public policy area that requires hearing from parents, individuals with lived experience, advocates, and school personnel. It will take more than just changes to public policy to achieve meaningful change and ensure safe learning and working conditions; it will take ample budgetary resources as well. The level of funding needed for these changes has not been indicated in the bill. The policy changes should be connected to robust, relevant, and effective professional development, as well as additional funding for state and school level supports to make the necessary transitions to alternative interventions.
Students have suffered from being restrained at young ages and at different elementary schools, as well as from isolation at nonpublic agencies. This has caused long term trauma for children and second hand trauma for families. Families have been lied to about policies regarding student restraint and isolation processes, the incident reporting timelines, and process. Parents are not educated on what methods are being used on children, the restraint and isolation programs that educators were supposed to be trained in, or incident reporting laws. At nonpublic agencies, parents have not been told when isolation of their children occurs or how it is justified. Some students can tell parents what occurs in their schools, but other students are nonverbal and cannot advocate for themselves.
The Legislature should ban isolation policies now for all students, and not just for those in elementary school five years from now. Nonverbal children have been severely injured multiple times in small, non-padded isolation rooms, and some students have been locked in isolation rooms for over an hour at times even after emergency services have been called for medical attention. These instances have led to children being taken to the hospital due to injuries sustained while locked in isolation rooms. The Legislature should make isolation safer, if not banned entirely. The state should require school districts to follow the minimum guidelines that the Department of Health (DOH) requires for mental health treatment facilities for their isolation rooms. The state should require adequate padding on all walls, doors, and floors to protect students from injury. Isolation rooms should be a minimum of 60 square feet, and school districts should not use small closets for these rooms. School nurses should be required to authorize each incident, just like DOH requires doctors to authorize each incident. The state should also limit isolation to 20 minutes, unless there is a serious emergency and law enforcement has been contacted.
(In support) Representative Lisa Callan, prime sponsor; Richard Pope; Samantha Fogg, Seattle Council Parent Teacher Student Association; Oliver Miska, Washington Ethnic Studies Now; Melissa Spiker, Seattle Special Education Parent Teacher Student Association; Ramona Hattendorf, The Arc of King County; Ivanova Smith; Kristina De Vadder; Olga Caffee; Jen Chong Jewell, Special Education Advisory Council for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; Karen Pillar, TeamChild; and Mikhail Cherniske, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
(In support) Representative Lisa Callan, prime sponsor; Andrea Kadlec, Disability Rights Washington; Ramona Hattendorf, The Arc of King County; and Michelle Whitehead.
Michelle Harris; Heidi Barden, Treehouse; Bea Love; Sebrena Burr, Seattle Council Parent Teacher Student Association; and Charissa Keebaugh.