Keeping All Students Safe Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
The Keeping All Students Safe Act aims to eliminate harmful restraint and seclusion practices in schools by establishing federal prohibitions, strict usage conditions, and support for preventative behavioral strategies.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the use of seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and certain dangerous physical restraints (like prone or supine restraint) in schools receiving federal funds. It establishes strict conditions for the permissible use of physical restraint, requiring it only in cases of imminent danger of serious physical injury and by trained personnel. The bill also mandates state plans for monitoring and enforcement, comprehensive reporting requirements on restraint incidents, and authorizes grants to states for implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and related training.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for protecting students, especially those with disabilities, from harmful and potentially traumatizing restraint and seclusion practices that have been shown to cause injury, psychological harm, and even death. They contend that the bill promotes safer school environments by shifting focus towards evidence-based positive behavioral interventions and ensuring accountability through reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent to protect students is laudable, overly restrictive federal mandates on restraint could disempower school personnel, making it more difficult to manage genuinely dangerous situations quickly and effectively. They might also raise concerns about the financial burden of extensive training and reporting requirements on states and local educational agencies, particularly for smaller districts or those with limited resources, without sufficient federal funding.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading of definitions and conditions. The estimated reading time is sufficient for an informed reader to grasp its core provisions.
Section 101(a) and (b)
Prohibition on Unlawful Seclusion and Restraint
This provision establishes a federal prohibition against subjecting any student to 'unlawful seclusion or restraint' in programs receiving federal financial assistance. It defines 'unlawful seclusion or restraint' to include seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, physical restraints that restrict breathing or blood flow (like prone or supine), physical restraints contraindicated by a student's health needs, and any physical restraint not meeting the bill's specific requirements. It explicitly excludes 'time out' and certain therapeutic or safety devices when used as intended.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these prohibitions are essential to prevent serious harm, trauma, and even death to students, particularly those with disabilities, who are disproportionately subjected to these dangerous practices. They contend that clear federal standards are necessary to ensure consistent protection across all schools.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the outright prohibition of demonstrably dangerous practices like prone restraint or chemical restraint. However, some might express concern about the breadth of 'seclusion' definition potentially limiting behavioral management options.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for student safety with the operational realities of managing challenging student behaviors. It seeks to eliminate harmful practices while allowing for less restrictive, safe interventions.
Section 101(e)(1)
Conditions for Permissible Physical Restraint
This section outlines the strict conditions under which physical restraint may be used. It specifies that physical restraint is only permissible if a student's behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury to themselves or others, and less restrictive interventions have been ineffective. It requires that such restraint be imposed by personnel trained and certified in a State-approved crisis intervention program, or in rare, unavoidable emergencies by untrained personnel. The restraint must end immediately when the danger ceases, not interfere with communication, and use the least amount of force necessary.
Section 101(c) and (d)
Private Right of Action and Federal Enforcement
This provision grants students or their parents the right to file a civil action against a program (but not individual personnel) in federal or state court if the student has been subjected to unlawful seclusion or restraint. It explicitly waives sovereign immunity for programs in such cases. Additionally, it empowers the Secretary of Education (and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for Head Start programs) to investigate complaints of violations and withhold federal financial assistance from non-compliant programs.
Section 101(e)(4)
Procedures Following Physical Restraint Incidents
This provision mandates specific procedures to be followed after any incident involving physical restraint. These include immediate verbal or electronic communication to the parent, followed by written notification within 24 hours detailing the incident, prior interventions, duration of restraint, and any injuries. Crucially, it requires a meeting between parents and the program within five school days (unless mutually agreed otherwise), involving key personnel and a behavior expert, to discuss the incident, proactive strategies, and the need for a functional behavioral assessment or behavior intervention plan for the student.
Section 202(a) and (b)
State Plan and Reporting Requirements
This section requires each State educational agency (SEA) to submit an annual State plan to the Secretary, demonstrating compliance with the Act's policies, describing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and outlining how personnel, students, and parents will be made aware of policies. It also mandates a public comment period for the plan. Furthermore, SEAs and Head Start agencies must annually report detailed data on physical restraint incidents, disaggregated by factors like injury, personnel training status, student demographics (including disability status), and involvement of law enforcement or security guards.
Section 203
Grants for State Educational Agencies
This section authorizes the Secretary of Education to award 3-year grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) based on relative need. These grants are intended to help SEAs establish and enforce the Act's policies, improve data collection, and enhance school climate through implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), mental health supports, restorative justice programs, trauma-informed care, and de-escalation interventions. SEAs can subgrant funds to local educational agencies (LEAs), with provisions for equitable participation by private school personnel and early childhood educators.
The definition of 'program personnel' explicitly excludes law enforcement officers and school security guards.
Section 2(9)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its placement means the operational implications for law enforcement and security guards might not be immediately apparent when reading the main prohibitions.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this distinction is necessary because law enforcement and school security guards operate under different legal authorities and training mandates than educational staff. It clarifies that while they are subject to the bill's prohibitions, their specific roles and responsibilities are distinct from 'program personnel' in terms of training and liability.
Case against: Critics might argue that by excluding law enforcement and school security guards from the 'program personnel' definition, it could create a perception of a two-tiered system where these individuals might not be held to the same standard of care or accountability as school staff, despite being present in school environments and interacting with students.
Estimated impact: This distinction clarifies who is primarily responsible for implementing the bill's training and procedural requirements, and who is subject to the liability limitations for 'program personnel'. It means law enforcement and security guards are subject to the prohibitions but not the specific 'program personnel' liability shield.
Prohibits the use of physical restraint as a planned intervention written into a student's individual education or behavior plan, but allows for its inclusion in general program safety or crisis plans not specific to any individual student.
Section 101(e)(3)
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification to prevent individual students from being pre-identified for restraint, while still allowing schools to have general emergency protocols. It's a precise legal distinction.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents the normalization of restraint for specific students and ensures that restraint is always a reactive, last-resort measure, not a pre-determined part of a student's behavioral management strategy. Allowing general plans ensures schools can still prepare for emergencies.
Case against: Some educators might argue that for students with highly predictable and severe behavioral crises, having a pre-planned, individualized protocol for safe physical restraint (developed with parents and experts) could be safer and more effective than relying solely on reactive, general responses. They might see this as overly restrictive.
Estimated impact: This provision reinforces the principle that physical restraint should never be a routine or planned intervention for an individual student, pushing schools towards preventative strategies. It shifts the focus from managing individual student behavior with restraint to preventing the need for restraint through broader supports.
Mandates that in cases of physical injury or death related to seclusion or physical restraint, local educational agencies and Head Start programs must notify the State educational agency/HHS, local law enforcement, and the relevant protection and advocacy system within 24 hours. It also reaffirms the authority of protection and advocacy systems to investigate, monitor, and enforce protections for students.
Section 302
Why it matters:While important, it's a procedural requirement for specific, severe outcomes rather than a core prohibition, making its placement in general provisions understandable. However, its significance for accountability is high.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is paramount for ensuring independent oversight and investigation into the most serious incidents involving restraint or seclusion. Prompt notification to protection and advocacy systems, which are designed to safeguard the rights of individuals with disabilities, is crucial for accountability and preventing future harm.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against ensuring oversight in cases of severe injury or death. However, some agencies might express concerns about the administrative burden of immediate notification and information sharing, particularly for smaller entities with limited staff.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly strengthens accountability and oversight for severe incidents, ensuring that independent bodies and law enforcement are promptly informed and can act. It provides a critical safeguard for students, particularly those with disabilities, who are often the most vulnerable.