A first grader in Michigan spent forty minutes alone in a padded room this spring, the kind of incident that used to disappear into a district’s internal files.

This year it didn’t.

The account became part of a renewed statewide push to restrict seclusion in Michigan schools, one entry in a pattern spreading across statehouses in 2026: after seventeen years of federal inaction, restraint and seclusion in schools are drawing legislative attention nationwide.

Congress reintroduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act this year, a bipartisan bill that would appropriate $40 million annually through 2030 to set the first national floor for how schools receiving federal funds handle physical intervention. The bill would prohibit seclusion outright, ban mechanical and chemical restraints, and outlaw any restraint that restricts breathing. It would also require states to collect and publicly report incident data — numbers, injuries, deaths, broken down by demographic group.

Check Out: Restorative Practices for 2026

That reporting requirement addresses a specific, documented failure. A 2020 Government Accountability Office investigation found more than 2,000 school districts, including some of the country’s largest, reported zero restraint or seclusion incidents in a given year, a figure investigators later determined understated the true count, sometimes badly. Without federal law, oversight has fallen to individual states, and the result is a patchwork. Some states require detailed incident logs and same-day parent notification. Others have no reporting mandate at all.

At least a handful of states moved on their own this year. Massachusetts finalized updated guidance in February clarifying its regulations on physical restraint, tightening the definitions separating an ordinary classroom “time out” from a regulated seclusion event requiring parental consent. Indiana passed a bill requiring school districts to report every seclusion or restraint incident involving a school resource officer to the state education department. New Mexico restricted restraint and seclusion to situations of imminent physical danger and added new staff training requirements. None of these are novel ideas. A version of the Keeping All Students Safe Act has circulated in Congress since 2009. But 2026 has produced more state-level movement than any year since the original GAO report exposed the scope of underreporting.

A recent survey by the Education Commission of the States counted at least fourteen states introducing restraint and seclusion legislation in a single session, with four of those states enacting new law.

The bills vary widely in scope. Some address reporting alone.

Others set training mandates, require a formal complaint process, or specify who reviews an incident after it happens. Indiana’s law, for instance, added a seat on the state’s restraint and seclusion commission for a school resource officer association, a detail that signals how much these bills are being negotiated locally rather than modeled on a single template. The variation itself is part of the problem the federal bill is designed to solve: a student secluded in one district faces different legal protections than a student secluded one county over.

For school districts and the behavioral health organizations that train their staff, the legislative trend converges on one practical question: what happens in the minute before a restraint decision gets made. Every version of this legislation, federal or state, treats restraint and seclusion as a last resort, permissible only after other interventions have failed. That framing puts the weight on what happens earlier — the training staff receive on recognizing escalation, communicating during it, and de-escalating before physical intervention becomes the only option left.

The neuroscience behind that framing hasn’t changed even as the policy landscape has.

A student in active crisis is operating from a dysregulated nervous system, not making calculated choices about a teacher’s instructions. Verbal commands, consequence explanations, and rule restatements land as noise on top of a system already overloaded. Instruction requires a brain still able to hear it. That’s the case for training staff in co-regulation and early-recognition skills long before a restraint decision is ever on the table. It isn’t only the humane approach. It’s the one the emerging legal framework is explicitly built around.

That shift shows up in how training programs describe themselves. The field has moved from calling itself “crisis intervention” toward “prevention-first” language, with providers increasingly marketing reduced restraint and injury rates as the primary outcome, not compliance certification alone.

Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks, already common in special education, are being used to position de-escalation training as a Tier 1 intervention: something every staff member gets, not just those working in the highest-need classrooms. Research cited across these frameworks links predictable routines and regulated sensory environments to incident reductions in the range of 30 to 50 percent in special education settings, a figure that keeps surfacing in the same conversations as the new legislation.

None of the pending legislation, state or federal, eliminates restraint and seclusion from the toolkit entirely. Every version preserves an exception for imminent danger. What they do is narrow the circumstances under which restraint is legally defensible and raise the documentation bar for using it. A district that cannot show what happened in the minutes before an incident, what de-escalation was attempted, by whom, using what training, is the district exposed under the reporting requirements now spreading state by state.

Check Out: Managing Conflict in Remote and Hybrid Schools

For training providers and the districts they serve, that’s the practical translation of a bill that hasn’t passed the Senate yet. The federal Keeping All Students Safe Act remains stalled, as its predecessors have for over a decade. But the state activity around it, and the reporting infrastructure several states have already built, means the documentation and de-escalation-first standard the federal bill describes is arriving anyway, one legislative session at a time. Staff trained to recognize the earliest signs of dysregulation, and to intervene verbally before a crisis reaches its peak, are the ones keeping their districts on the right side of a standard tightening year over year. The gap between where a district’s training currently sits and where this legislation is heading is the gap worth closing now, before a reporting mandate makes the difference visible in public data.

Quick Answer

Restraint and seclusion in U.S. schools remain unregulated at the federal level, but 2026 has brought the most legislative activity on the issue since a 2009 GAO report first exposed widespread underreporting. Congress reintroduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act this year, proposing $40 million a year through 2030 to ban seclusion and dangerous restraints and require public incident reporting. At least fourteen states introduced related legislation in a single session, with four enacting new law, including new regulatory guidance in Massachusetts and reporting requirements in Indiana. None of the pending bills eliminate restraint outright; all narrow it to imminent-danger situations and raise the documentation bar, which is pushing districts toward prevention-first, de-escalation training as the practical way to stay compliant with a standard tightening state by state.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is there a federal law regulating restraint and seclusion in schools?
No. As of 2026, no federal law governs the use of restraint or seclusion in U.S. public or private schools. The Keeping All Students Safe Act, reintroduced in Congress this year, would create the first national standard, but it has not passed.

2. What would the Keeping All Students Safe Act do?
It would appropriate $40 million per year from fiscal year 2026 through 2030 to prohibit seclusion, mechanical and chemical restraints, and any restraint that restricts breathing, and to require states to publicly report incident data, including injuries and deaths, broken down by demographic group.

3. How many states have passed new restraint and seclusion laws in 2026?
At least fourteen states introduced restraint and seclusion legislation in a recent session, and four states enacted new laws, according to the Education Commission of the States. Requirements range from incident reporting to formal complaint processes and staff training mandates.

4. Why did a 2020 federal investigation into school restraint and seclusion matter?
A Government Accountability Office investigation found more than 2,000 school districts, including some of the nation’s largest, reported zero restraint or seclusion incidents in a given year, a figure later found to understate the true count. That finding is a major driver of the reporting requirements written into current legislation.

5. Does new legislation ban restraint and seclusion completely?
No pending bill eliminates restraint and seclusion outright. Every version, state or federal, preserves an exception for situations involving imminent physical danger, while narrowing when restraint is legally defensible and increasing documentation requirements when it is used.

6. How does staff training relate to restraint and seclusion legislation?
Because current and pending laws treat restraint and seclusion as a last resort, districts need documented evidence of what de-escalation was attempted before physical intervention. That has pushed training providers toward prevention-first, early-recognition and co-regulation models, positioned as a Tier 1 support under Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks.

7. What should school administrators do to prepare for these changes?
Administrators should review current state reporting requirements, confirm staff training covers de-escalation and co-regulation ahead of a restraint decision, and ensure incident documentation practices would hold up under the transparency standards several states have already enacted.

Expert Summary

The regulatory direction for restraint and seclusion in U.S. schools is consistent across every bill moving through Congress and state legislatures in 2026: narrower permissible use, heavier documentation, and public reporting. The federal Keeping All Students Safe Act remains stalled, as prior versions have since 2009, but state-level activity, from Massachusetts’s updated guidance to Indiana’s reporting law, is building the same infrastructure the federal bill describes. For districts and the organizations that train their staff, the practical response is prevention-first de-escalation training that gives staff the skills to intervene before restraint becomes the only option, and gives districts the documentation trail current and pending law increasingly requires.

(Sources: New America) The Washington Post)