Keeping All Students Safe Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 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 and Head Start programs by setting federal standards, requiring data collection, and funding preventative behavioral supports.
What it actually does
The bill prohibits seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and dangerous physical restraints (like prone/supine) in programs receiving federal funds. It establishes strict conditions for the permissible use of physical restraint, requiring imminent danger of serious physical injury and trained personnel. It also mandates state plans, reporting on restraint incidents, and authorizes grants for states to implement these policies and promote positive behavioral interventions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects students, especially those with disabilities, from abusive and potentially life-threatening restraint and seclusion practices, promoting safer and more inclusive learning environments through evidence-based positive behavioral interventions and de-escalation techniques. They emphasize the need for federal oversight to address inconsistent state policies and documented harm.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill could overly restrict school personnel's ability to manage dangerous situations, potentially endangering staff and other students if certain restraints are prohibited even in extreme emergencies. Concerns could also be raised about the financial burden on states and local educational agencies to implement new training requirements and data collection systems without sufficient federal funding.
The bill is moderately detailed but accessible, allowing a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 101(a)-(b)
Prohibition of Seclusion and Certain Restraints
This provision broadly prohibits seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and any physical restraint that restricts breathing or blood flow (like prone/supine restraint) in programs receiving federal funds. It also prohibits physical restraint that is contraindicated for a student's medical condition or not in compliance with other requirements, aiming to protect students from harmful practices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a critical step to end dangerous and often traumatizing practices that disproportionately affect students with disabilities, ensuring a baseline of safety and dignity for all students.
Critics contend
Some might argue that a blanket prohibition on certain restraints, even if dangerous, could remove necessary tools for staff to manage extreme, violent outbursts, potentially leading to greater harm in rare circumstances.
Tradeoffs
Balances student safety and protection from harm against the perceived need for staff to have a full range of options for managing severe behavioral crises.
Sec. 101(e)(1)
Requirements for Permissible Physical Restraint
This section outlines strict conditions under which physical restraint is permissible: only when there is an imminent danger of serious physical injury, less restrictive interventions are ineffective, it's imposed by trained/certified personnel (or in rare emergencies by untrained staff), it ends immediately when the danger ceases, it doesn't impede communication, and uses the least force necessary. These conditions aim to ensure physical restraint is a last resort and applied safely.
Sec. 101(e)(2) and Sec. 2(15)
State-Approved Crisis Intervention Training
Requires each State to ensure a sufficient number of program personnel are trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program. The bill defines such a program to include evidence-based techniques for prevention, de-escalation, safe physical restraint, first aid, CPR, and compliance with the bill's requirements, with periodic renewal, ensuring staff are equipped to handle behavioral crises safely.
Sec. 101(e)(4)
Post-Incident Reporting and Meeting Procedures
Mandates specific procedures after a physical restraint incident, including immediate verbal/electronic notification to parents, written notification within 24 hours (detailing the incident, interventions, duration, and injury risk), and a meeting with parents, student (if appropriate), involved staff, a teacher, a program leader, and a behavior expert within 5 school days to discuss the incident, proactive strategies, and the need for behavioral assessments or plans. This ensures transparency and follow-up.
Sec. 202
State Plans and Annual Reporting on Restraint Incidents
Requires State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to submit annual plans demonstrating compliance with Title I, describing training programs, and outlining how they ensure awareness among stakeholders. It also mandates annual public reports from SEAs and Head Start agencies, disaggregated by demographics, injury, staff training status, law enforcement involvement, and school type, on physical restraint incidents. This aims to provide comprehensive data for oversight and policy improvement.
Sec. 203
Grants for Prevention and Positive Behavioral Supports
Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award 3-year grants to SEAs to help them comply with the bill's policies, improve data collection, and enhance school climate through positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), mental health supports, restorative justice, and trauma-informed care. SEAs can subgrant funds to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), providing financial incentives for systemic change.
Creates a private right of action for students or parents to file civil actions against a program (not individual personnel) for violations of the unlawful seclusion or restraint prohibition, seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory relief, and attorneys' fees. Explicitly waives Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for programs.
Sec. 101(c)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to place legal enforcement mechanisms in separate subsections. The waiver of sovereign immunity is a critical legal detail that might not be immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides a crucial avenue for accountability and redress for students who have been subjected to unlawful practices, ensuring that programs face direct legal consequences for non-compliance.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this could lead to an increase in litigation against schools, diverting resources from education to legal defense, and potentially creating a chilling effect on staff who fear being implicated even if not personally liable.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it creates a new legal pathway for enforcement and financial liability for educational programs across the country.
Explicitly excludes law enforcement officers and school security guards from the definition of "program personnel." This is significant because Section 101(c)(2) states that "Program personnel shall not be liable... for a violation of subsection (a)," implying that law enforcement and school security guards *could* be held personally liable for unlawful seclusion or restraint.
Sec. 2(9)(B) and Sec. 101(c)(2)
Why it matters:Definitions are technical but carry significant legal weight. This distinction is crucial for understanding the differing levels of liability for various staff categories, which might not be immediately obvious.
Case for: Proponents might argue that law enforcement and security personnel operate under different legal frameworks and responsibilities than educators, and their actions should be subject to different accountability standards, especially given their training and authority.
Case against: Critics could argue that this creates a two-tiered system of accountability within schools, potentially leading to situations where law enforcement or security personnel are more likely to use prohibited restraints if they perceive less personal protection from liability compared to school staff.
Estimated impact: Could influence how law enforcement and school security interact with students and the types of interventions they use, potentially leading to different legal outcomes for different categories of staff involved in restraint incidents.