Estimated reading time: 18 minutes
Restraint and seclusion in schools are emergency interventions that restrict a student’s freedom of movement: restraint immobilizes or limits a student’s movement, by a person (physical restraint) or a device (mechanical restraint), and seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student in a room or area the student is not permitted to leave, as the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) defines them. As of October 2026, no federal statute regulates their use in all schools, so state laws set the rules, and the seven states reviewed here allow restraint only in emergencies defined by law. This guide covers K-12 schools only, not hospitals or treatment facilities: definitions, federal law and guidance, national data, state rules, what schools must do after an incident, prevention and training. It is not legal or medical advice: check your state’s rules and consult district counsel.
Table of contents
Executive Summary
About 129,700 K-12 students were physically restrained, mechanically restrained or secluded at school in the 2023-24 school year, according to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Students served under IDEA made up 15% of enrollment but 73% of the students physically restrained and 68% of those secluded.
The rules depend on the state. A federal bill to ban seclusion and limit restraint, the Keeping All Students Safe Act, was introduced in both chambers on December 11, 2025 and had not moved past committee referral as of October 2026. Florida and New York prohibit seclusion, Ohio and Virginia allow it under conditions, and deadlines differ everywhere.
Key Takeaways
- State law governs: no federal statute regulates restraint and seclusion in all schools as of October 2026.
- Students with disabilities are most affected: 73% of students physically restrained in 2023-24 were served under IDEA.
- Emergency only: the seven states reviewed allow restraint only in emergencies defined by law, never as discipline.
- Prone restraint is banned in five of the seven states reviewed, and mechanical restraint by school staff in five.
- Every incident triggers duties: parent notice, usually the same day, a written report within days, and often a debrief and FBA and BIP review.
- Prevention is the plan: positive behavioral supports, de-escalation and trained staff reduce the situations that lead to restraint.
What Are Restraint and Seclusion?
Restraint restricts a student’s movement and seclusion confines a student alone, and the CRDC definitions are the common national reference. The 2023-24 CRDC used these definitions (OCR, First Look, September 2026):
| Term | CRDC definition, paraphrased | Not included |
|---|---|---|
| Physical restraint | A personal restriction by a staff member or other person that immobilizes or reduces a student’s ability to move the torso, arms, legs or head freely | A physical escort: briefly holding a hand, wrist, arm, shoulder or back to walk a student to a safe location |
| Mechanical restraint | Any device or equipment used to restrict a student’s freedom of movement, including handcuffs or similar devices used by law enforcement or school security | Prescribed adaptive devices, vehicle safety restraints, medical immobilization and orthopedically prescribed devices used as intended |
| Seclusion | Involuntary confinement of a student in a room or area, with or without adult supervision, that the student is not permitted to leave, including when a student believes or is told they cannot leave | Rooms where all students need permission to leave; monitored separation in an unlocked setting that is part of an approved program; a separate spot in a classroom with the same access to instruction |
Some states also define chemical restraint: Michigan prohibits “the administration of medication for the purpose of restraint” (MCL 380.1307b, 380.1307h).
Time-Out, Calm-Down Spaces and Seclusion
A space a student chooses to use is not seclusion; a space a student is kept in is. New York excludes a student-requested break from “timeout” and limits timeout to unlocked, continuously monitored spaces (8 NYCRR 19.5(b)(11), (d)(1)). Washington excludes voluntary use of a quiet space for self-calming from “isolation” (RCW 28A.600.485(10)(c)), and Texas requires time-out settings to be unlocked, with an exit that is not blocked (19 TAC 89.1053(b)(9)).
Federal Law on Restraint and Seclusion
As of October 2026, no federal statute sets rules for restraint and seclusion in all public schools; federal disability laws apply to their use with students with disabilities. A peer-reviewed 2024 review of state policies found that “there is no federal law that addresses its use in schools” (Kern et al., Exceptional Children).
- IDEA: the IDEA Part B regulations (34 CFR Part 300) do not use the words restraint or seclusion. For a student whose behavior impedes learning, the IEP team must “consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior” (34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(i)), usually through a behavior intervention plan.
- Section 504 and the ADA: schools that receive federal funds may not discriminate on the basis of disability and must provide a free appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities (34 CFR 104.4 and 104.33); Title II of the ADA applies to public schools regardless of funding. In a December 28, 2016 Dear Colleague Letter, OCR explained that restraint or seclusion can violate these laws, for example by treating students with disabilities differently or by denying FAPE; see its status below.
The Keeping All Students Safe Act
The Keeping All Students Safe Act was reintroduced in the 119th Congress on December 11, 2025, as H.R. 6617 and S. 3448. Its stated purpose is to “prohibit and prevent seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and dangerous restraints that restrict breathing, and to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint in schools” (H.R. 6617). As of October 2026, the official bill status records show no action after referral to committee in either chamber.
Federal Guidance Documents and Their Status
Federal guidance on restraint and seclusion is non-binding, and the Department has marked some related discipline guidance as rescinded, so check each document before relying on it. The table reflects the Department’s websites as of October 2026.
| Document | What it says | Status, October 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (May 15, 2012) | 15 principles for state and local policies | Posted on ed.gov; the only policy guidance listed on OCR’s discipline, restraint and seclusion page (page reviewed September 23, 2025) |
| OCR Dear Colleague Letter and Q&A, Restraint and Seclusion of Students with Disabilities (December 28, 2016) | How restraint and seclusion can violate Section 504 and Title II; the letter says it does not add requirements | Still posted on ed.gov with no rescission notice; no rescission announcement found. Ask counsel before relying on it. |
| Initiative on the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion (announced January 17, 2019) | OCR compliance reviews, CRDC data quality reviews and joint OCR and OSERS technical assistance | A past initiative described in a 2019 press release, not guidance |
| Secretary Cardona letter on restraint and seclusion (January 8, 2025) | Restates the Department’s concern and the lack of evidence that these practices work; commends states that prohibited seclusion | Listed on the IDEA Policy Guidance page without a rescission label |
The 2012 principles include: prevent the need for restraint and seclusion; use them only when a child’s behavior “poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others” and other interventions are ineffective; never use mechanical restraint or use either as punishment; document each incident in writing and notify parents as soon as possible. The document adds that there is “no evidence” that restraint or seclusion reduces the behaviors that lead to their use.
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools: National Data
In 2023-24, the latest national data, about 129,700 students were restrained or secluded, and students served under IDEA were heavily overrepresented. OCR released these figures in its 2023-24 CRDC First Look (September 2026).
| Practice, 2023-24 | Students affected | Share who were students served under IDEA |
|---|---|---|
| Physical restraint | About 84,300 | 73% |
| Seclusion | About 32,300 | 68% |
| Mechanical restraint | About 13,100 | 23% |
Students served under IDEA were 15% of K-12 enrollment. Boys were 51% of enrollment and 79% of students physically restrained; Black students, 15% and 29%.
State Restraint and Seclusion Laws
Most states regulate restraint and seclusion in statute or regulation, but they differ on seclusion, notification deadlines, training and reporting. The 2024 review by Kern and colleagues found legislation in 48 of 54 states and territories; the six without were Guam, Idaho, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The table summarizes seven states, each checked in the current statute or rule as of October 2026.
| State and rule | Who may restrain, and when | Seclusion | Parent notification | Training | Reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas: 19 TAC 89.1053 (amended effective October 4, 2026) and Education Code 37.0021; students receiving special education | Employees, volunteers or contractors, only in an emergency (imminent serious physical harm or serious property destruction); never as discipline or to gain compliance | Confinement in a locked box, closet or other specially designed locked space prohibited; time-out allowed with limits | Good-faith verbal notice the same day; written notice within one school day | Trained core team on each campus; untrained staff who restrain are trained within 30 school days | Documentation in the eligibility folder by the third school day; data to TEA |
| New York: 8 NYCRR 19.5 (amended effective August 2, 2023); all students | Trained staff, only to prevent imminent danger of serious physical harm; prone restraint banned; never a planned intervention in an IEP, 504 plan or BIP | Prohibited | Same day; copy of the documentation within three school days | Annual training for all staff; annual evidence-based training for staff who may restrain | Annual report to the state from 2024-25 |
| Michigan: MCL 380.1307 to 380.1307h (effective March 29, 2017); see our Michigan procedural safeguards guide | Only in an emergency situation and only if essential to safety; mechanical, chemical and prone restraint banned | Only emergency seclusion, unlocked and continuously observed; not for preschool children | Immediately; written report within 1 school day or 7 calendar days, whichever is earlier | Key identified personnel trained before use, including CPR and first aid; awareness training for staff in regular contact with students | Data to the state; aggregate data published quarterly |
| Ohio: OAC 3301-35-15 (effective June 24, 2021) and Revised Code 3319.46; see our Ohio procedural safeguards guide | Trained staff, except in rare emergencies, only for an immediate risk of physical harm when no other safe method works; prone, mechanical and chemical restraint banned | Allowed as a last resort in an unlocked space under constant supervision; locked seclusion banned | Immediately; written report immediately or within 24 hours | An appropriate number of staff in each building, annually, face to face | Annual report to the state |
| Florida: s. 1003.573, F.S. (2026 Statutes); students with IEPs | Authorized staff, physical restraint only after positive supports are exhausted and when there is an imminent risk of serious injury; mechanical restraint banned except by school security in grades 6-12 | Prohibited | Written notice before the end of the school day; incident report mailed within 3 school days | Annual, including CPR | Incident report within 24 hours; reports sent monthly to the district and the state |
| Virginia: 8VAC20-750 (effective January 1, 2021); all students | School personnel in an emergency, when other interventions would be ineffective, for listed purposes such as preventing serious physical harm; mechanical, pharmacological and prone restraint banned | Allowed in rooms that meet state standards, with continuous visual monitoring | Contact the same day; copy of the incident report within 7 calendar days | Initial training for all staff; advanced training for at least one administrator per building | Incident report to the principal within 2 school days; annual report to the state |
| Washington: RCW 28A.600.485 (amended in 2026); all students | Staff, only to control spontaneous behavior posing an imminent likelihood of serious harm; mechanical, chemical, prone, supine and wall restraints banned | “Isolation” allowed under the same standard; no new isolation rooms | Verbal within 24 hours; written notice postmarked within 5 business days | Not set in this section; the 2026 law states an intent to build statewide training by 2031 so that isolation can be banned | Staff report within 2 business days; annual summary to the state by January 1 |
What Schools Must Do After a Restraint or Seclusion Incident
After an incident, schools must end the intervention as soon as the danger passes, notify the administrator and parent, write a report, debrief, and review the student’s behavior plan where state rules require it. Your state’s deadlines govern.
- End the restraint or seclusion as soon as the danger has passed, and check for injury: New York requires a nurse or other medical personnel to evaluate a student when an injury is sustained or suspected.
- Tell the building administrator the same day (Texas, Virginia) or as soon as possible (Washington).
- Notify the parent within the state’s deadline, and keep a record of attempts if the parent cannot be reached (New York).
- Write the incident report: staff involved, times, location, type of restraint, what came before, de-escalation attempted, injuries and parent notice (Texas and Virginia list the contents).
- Debrief with staff and the student, as New York requires after every incident and Virginia generally within two school days.
- Review the FBA and BIP. Texas’s notice must say whether the student’s BIP may need revision; Ohio requires the IEP or 504 team to meet within 10 school days of a third incident in a school year; Virginia requires a meeting within 10 school days after the second day with an incident; Florida requires a crisis intervention plan after a second restraint in a semester. Start with a functional behavior assessment.
- Apply discipline rules correctly. If the incident leads to a disciplinary removal that changes placement, IDEA’s manifestation determination rules apply.
Preventing Restraint and Seclusion
Prevention means a schoolwide positive behavior framework, de-escalation, and individual plans based on why a student’s behavior happens. Ohio requires every district to implement positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS) system-wide, with professional development at least every three years (OAC 3301-35-15(B), (C)), and Michigan encourages an FBA and a support plan when a student’s behavior poses a substantial risk of a future emergency (MCL 380.1307d(c)).
- Teach replacement skills. A BIP built on the FBA teaches a behavior that meets the same need; see behavior IEP goals.
- Plan the response, within state limits. Michigan recommends a written emergency intervention plan developed with the parent, and Florida requires a crisis intervention plan after repeated restraint. New York bars restraint as a planned intervention in an IEP or Section 504 plan; Washington allows it only at the parent’s request, with medical documentation and written consent.
- Watch patterns. New York requires administrators to act on multiple incidents in the same classroom or with the same staff (8 NYCRR 19.5(d)(6)), and Florida requires each district to set a goal for reducing restraint.
Restraint and Seclusion Training
Restraint and seclusion training is required by state law, covers prevention and de-escalation before any physical technique, and is usually annual. Texas requires restraint training to cover prevention, de-escalation and alternatives, and recommends crisis training annually for high-risk staff and every two years for others (19 TAC 89.1053(d), (j)). Michigan lists 16 required topics for key identified personnel, from de-escalation and signs of physical distress to CPR and first aid (MCL 380.1307g). Ohio requires face-to-face training with a simulated experience and a demonstration of proficiency (OAC 3301-35-15(H)).
Paraprofessionals are often the adults closest to a student in crisis; plan their training with our guide to paraprofessional training, and check that any program you buy covers every topic your state lists.
Funding and Staffing
Federal funds can support prevention. Up to 15% of a district’s IDEA Part B funds may go to coordinated early intervening services, including behavioral training for staff and behavioral supports for K-12 students not identified for special education (34 CFR 300.226). Title IV-A of ESSA lists “implementation of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports” among allowable activities (20 U.S.C. 7118). Staffing remains the constraint: 45 states reported special education teacher shortages in 2024-25 (Learning Policy Institute, 2026).
Common Mistakes District Leaders Make
- Treating time-out rooms as exempt. If a student cannot leave, most definitions call it seclusion.
- Writing restraint into IEPs in states that bar it as a planned intervention.
- Counting incidents loosely. Texas counts each restraint separately, even when restarted.
- Missing the parent deadline because the report waits for a signature.
- Training a few staff and calling it compliance, when several states require training for all staff.
- Debriefing without changing the plan. Repeated incidents call for a new look at the FBA and BIP.
Recommended Actions
- Compare your board policy line by line with your state’s rule.
- Use one incident form with every element your state requires.
- Track deadlines for parent notice, reports and team meetings in one system.
- Review incident data monthly by school, classroom, staff and student.
- Train before the school year starts, and keep training records.
Questions District Leaders Should Ask
- How many restraints and seclusions did each school report last year, and how many students account for most of them?
- How many incidents involved students with IEPs, and did their teams review the FBA and BIP?
- Were parents notified within the state deadline every time?
- Which staff restrained a student without current training?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary goal of restraint and seclusion?
Safety in an emergency. Michigan defines emergency physical restraint and seclusion as last-resort safety interventions that give the student an opportunity to regain self-control “while maintaining the safety of the pupil and others.” Texas forbids restraint as discipline, behavior management or a way to gain compliance, and requires it to end when the emergency no longer exists. Neither is a behavior management tool.
When should incidents of restraint and seclusion be documented?
Every time, starting the same day. State deadlines for the written report vary: within 24 hours in Florida and Ohio; one school day in Texas, or the earlier of one school day or seven calendar days in Michigan; two school days to the principal in Virginia; three school days for the parent’s copy in New York. Texas counts each restraint separately, even when restarted.
Should restraint and seclusion be viewed as emergency procedures?
Yes. The Department of Education’s 2012 Resource Document says physical restraint or seclusion should be used only when a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm and other interventions are ineffective. State laws reviewed here say the same in binding terms, such as Michigan’s “emergency seclusion” and “emergency physical restraint” and Texas’s restraint “only in an emergency.”
What training do staff need for restraint and seclusion?
It depends on the state, but the rules share a pattern: prevention and de-escalation first, safe physical techniques second, and regular refreshers. Ohio requires annual face-to-face training with a simulation; Florida requires annual training that includes CPR; Michigan requires key personnel to be trained before using emergency seclusion or restraint; New York requires annual training for all staff.
What should a restraint and seclusion policy include?
A policy should follow the state’s rule, and state rules list the minimum. New York’s, for example, requires factors that may lead to timeout or restraint, time limits, a ban on locked rooms and prone restraint, staff training, information for parents, same-day notification and data collection. Virginia requires the policy to be posted on the division’s website and reviewed at least annually.
What is Michigan’s seclusion and restraint law?
Michigan’s law is MCL 380.1307 to 380.1307h, effective March 29, 2017, applied through the Michigan Department of Education’s Policy for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint, approved by the State Board of Education on March 14, 2017. It bans mechanical, chemical and prone restraint, allows only emergency seclusion and restraint, and requires a written report to parents within one school day or seven calendar days, whichever is earlier.
Does restraint or seclusion reduce problem behavior?
There is no evidence that it does, according to the Department of Education’s 2012 Resource Document, and Secretary Cardona’s January 2025 letter repeated the lack of evidence. Reducing the behaviors that lead to restraint depends on prevention: positive behavioral supports, de-escalation and plans based on a functional behavior assessment.
Related Resources
- Behavior Intervention Plan
- Functional Behavior Assessment
- Manifestation Determination
- Behavior IEP Goals
- Paraprofessional Training
- Autism Classroom Setup
Conclusion
Restraint and seclusion are governed by state law, used most often with students with disabilities, and never a substitute for a plan. Districts that keep them rare know their state’s rule, train staff in prevention first, meet every deadline, and treat each incident as a reason to revisit the student’s FBA and behavior plan.
Sources: OCR, 2023-24 A First Look: The Civil Rights Data Collection (September 2026); U.S. Department of Education, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (May 15, 2012); OCR, Disability Discrimination: Discipline, Restraint and Seclusion; Secretary Cardona, Letter on Restraints and Seclusion in Schools (January 8, 2025); U.S. Department of Education, press release on the restraint and seclusion initiative (January 17, 2019, archived); H.R. 6617, Keeping All Students Safe Act (119th Congress); S. 3448, Keeping All Students Safe Act (119th Congress); Kern et al., A Review of U.S. Policy Guidance and Legislation on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools, Exceptional Children 90(4), 2024; 34 CFR 300.324, Development, review, and revision of IEP; 34 CFR Part 104, Section 504 regulations; Learning Policy Institute, An Overview of Teacher Shortages: 2026 (July 2026). State statutes and rules are linked in the state table.
Join the 2027 Special Education Pilot
Preventing a crisis depends on skills a student practices long before the hard moment, such as asking for a break or naming a feeling, and adults rarely have time for enough 1-on-1 repetitions. Telo AI is being adapted for students with IEPs: patient, 1-on-1 practice aligned to each student’s IEP goals, including social-emotional learning. We are inviting districts to shape it with us in a 2027 pilot.
Apply to pilot Telo AI in your Special Education program
Found this guide useful?
Preferred sources show up more often in your Google results, including AI Overviews.