The Keeping All Students Safe Act defines and prohibits seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and life‑threatening physical restraints in programs that receive federal funds. It conditions federal funding on compliance, requires states to adopt oversight and training programs, and establishes reporting and grant programs intended to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint in schools.
For administrators and compliance officers, the bill reshapes operational duties: it adds incident reporting and disaggregation requirements, mandates state‑level plans and certified crisis‑intervention training, authorizes competitive grants to build capacity, and creates a private right of action against programs that violate the prohibition. The measure is purposefully targeted at federally assisted programs and offers enforcement levers including investigations and potential withholding of federal payments.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines unlawful seclusion and a range of restraints; requires states and programs to adopt policies, state‑approved crisis intervention training, and monitoring mechanisms; and establishes annual reporting with detailed disaggregation of incidents. The Department of Education (and HHS for Head Start) will investigate complaints and may withhold federal funds for violations.
Who It Affects
Local educational agencies, special education and private schools that receive federal funds, Head Start programs, state educational agencies (for plan and oversight duties), school security guards and school resource officers, and protection & advocacy systems that will be notified after serious incidents.
Why It Matters
It ties civil‑rights and safety concerns to funding and data transparency, shifting many restraint questions from local discretion to federally defined standards. Schools must invest in approved training, new reporting systems, parent‑notification procedures, and review processes or risk enforcement actions and litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill redefines the universe of prohibited practices and then builds operational rules around that definition. It separates out mechanical and chemical restraints, seclusion, and a set of physical restraints that restrict breathing or are life‑threatening, and treats those as unlawful when used on students attending federally assisted programs.
For physical restraint that is not categorically banned, the bill creates a narrow compliance framework: it may only be used when a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury, after less‑restrictive options have failed, and only by personnel certified through a State‑approved crisis intervention training program. The law also requires that restraint end when the danger ends and that measures do not block a student’s ability to communicate in their primary language or mode.
On follow-up and transparency, the bill imposes concrete parental‑notice and review steps: parents must receive same‑day verbal notice and written notice within 24 hours; programs must hold a multidisciplinary meeting within five school days to review the event and discuss prevention strategies, assessments, or referrals for special education or Section 504 services. States must collect and publish annual data on physical‑restraint incidents with specific disaggregation categories (including injury, death, whether the staff were certified, race/ethnicity, disability status, and whether law enforcement or school security staff were involved).To drive compliance at scale, the measure requires each state educational agency to file a plan (starting within two years of enactment) describing policies, State‑approved training programs, monitoring mechanisms, public comment processes, and technical assistance activities.
The Department of Education (and HHS for Head Start) will investigate complaints and can withhold federal payments where violations occurred. The bill also creates a competitive grant program to help states and local districts build capacity—grants last three years and prioritize states based on relative need and documented incidence of restraint.The bill adds two oversight features: a national assessment to identify which interventions and personnel training models work best, and a protection & advocacy reporting pathway that requires notification to protection & advocacy systems, law enforcement, and relevant federal officials within 24 hours when a restraint or seclusion incident results in serious physical injury or death.
It also directs Interior and Defense to put similar regulations in place for schools they operate or fund and clarifies that homeschooled children and private schools without federal support are outside the statute’s reach.
The Five Things You Need to Know
State plans are due within 2 years of enactment and annually thereafter; plans must demonstrate State policies, monitoring mechanisms, and State‑approved crisis intervention training programs.
Programs must provide same‑day verbal notice and written notice within 24 hours to a parent after any physical restraint incident, and hold a multidisciplinary meeting within 5 school days (unless mutually delayed).
Annual reports must include unduplicated counts and disaggregation by injury, death, staff training status, race/ethnicity, disability status (IDEA/504/ADA), involvement of law enforcement or school security, and school type.
The Secretary will award competitive 3‑year grants to states for capacity building, data systems, training, and schoolwide positive behavioral interventions; authorization is $40 million per year for FY2026–2030.
The bill creates a private right of action against a program for unlawful restraint or seclusion while protecting individual program personnel from personal liability in those suits.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions that set coverage and exceptions
This section establishes the statutory terms the rest of the bill uses: what counts as chemical, mechanical, physical restraint, seclusion, time out, program, program personnel, school security guard, and State‑approved crisis intervention training program. The definitional choices are consequential because they determine both the universe of prohibited conduct and the carveouts (for example, therapeutic medical devices, vehicle restraints, and time out). Compliance hinges on how states and courts interpret phrases like “restricts breathing” and the boundary between a time out and seclusion.
Prohibition on unlawful seclusion and specified restraints; compliance conditions for physical restraint
Section 101 makes seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and any life‑threatening or breathing‑restricting physical restraint unlawful in federally assisted programs. It then sets a narrow compliance path for any remaining physical restraint: imminent danger of serious physical injury, prior less‑restrictive interventions, certified personnel (or narrow emergency exception), immediate cessation when danger abates, minimal necessary force, and preserving communication. Operational impact: districts must document decision points, certify staff under State programs, and assume legal risk if they deviate from the statute’s procedural checklist.
Private suits, federal investigation, and funding conditionality
The bill permits students or parents to sue the program for violations and to seek declaratory or injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and counsel and expert fees; it bars personal liability for program personnel. Administratively, the Department of Education (and HHS for Head Start) must investigate complaints about violations and may withhold federal payments from noncompliant programs under existing GEPA or Head Start withholding authorities. Practically, programs face a dual compliance environment: agency enforcement tied to funding and civil litigation risk at the institutional level.
State plans, public comment, and reporting obligations
States must submit plans within two years showing how they will enforce the prohibition, approve crisis‑intervention training, monitor schools, and disseminate policies (including accessible public posting and a 60‑day public comment period). Annual reporting requires unduplicated incident counts, disaggregation by multiple demographics and incident characteristics, and protections to avoid revealing personally identifiable information. Practically, states and districts need new data collection processes, privacy safeguards, and public‑facing dashboards or reports.
Grants to build capacity and scale alternatives to restraint
The Secretary awards competitive grants to states (3‑year awards) based on relative need—using recent restraint incidence, data capacity needs, and whether states already run climate or PBIS initiatives. Grant funds must be used for policy development, data systems, training/certification, and evidence‑based schoolwide strategies (PBIS, restorative justice, trauma‑informed care). Subgrants to local districts and participation rules for private schools receiving federal funds are included; the section stresses public control of federally funded materials and non‑commingling of funds.
National assessment and protection & advocacy reporting
The Department of Education will run a national assessment to evaluate effectiveness and identify successful training and intervention models, reporting preliminary findings at 3 years and final results at 5 years. Protection & advocacy provisions require local agencies to notify state officials, law enforcement, and the protection & advocacy system within 24 hours when restraint or seclusion results in serious injury or death, and restate the authority of protection & advocacy systems to investigate and monitor eligible cases.
Applicability to federal schools, rule of construction, and funding
Interior and Defense must issue regulations to bring schools they operate or fund into compliance; the bill clarifies that it does not interfere with a sworn officer’s ability to arrest with probable cause (subject to Section 101(e)). It also excludes purely private schools without federal support and home schools from coverage. Funding is authorized at $40 million per year for FY2026–2030 to support grant, monitoring, and technical assistance activities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students with disabilities — stronger statutory protections, mandatory data collection on restraint incidents affecting IDEA/504/ADA students, and explicit requirements to pursue functional behavioral assessments and interventions after incidents.
- Parents and families — immediate notification rights, timely multidisciplinary review meetings, access to incident details and witness statements, and the ability to sue programs for unlawful restraint or seclusion.
- Protection & advocacy systems — statutory notification and investigatory hooks after serious injury or death, preserving their authority to monitor and enforce rights for eligible clients.
- States and local districts that implement evidence‑based alternatives — grant funding and federal technical assistance to build PBIS, restorative justice, trauma‑informed care, and data systems that reduce reliance on restraint.
- Students and staff in schools that adopt the required training — more consistent crisis‑intervention certification and emphasis on de‑escalation should reduce the frequency of dangerous physical interventions and improve overall school climate.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies and Head Start programs — new operational costs for incident tracking, reporting systems, parent notifications, multidisciplinary meetings, and implementing or purchasing state‑approved training.
- State educational agencies — administrative burden to develop, approve, and monitor State‑approved crisis intervention programs, run oversight cycles and public comment processes, and manage grant competitions and evaluations.
- Programs that rely on law enforcement or security guards for behavioral management — increased training, restrictions on certain tactics, and potential reputational and funding risk if incidents are investigated or reported.
- School finance and HR systems — costs tied to certification renewals, staffing to ensure certified personnel are available, and potential legal costs for programs facing litigation even if individual staff are insulated from personal liability.
- Smaller or rural districts and private schools receiving federal funds — may struggle to meet training, data, and monitoring requirements without sufficient grant support, particularly where substitute staffing or training access is limited.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting children from harmful seclusion and dangerous restraints while preserving a clear, usable legal path for schools to protect students and staff in rare, life‑threatening emergencies; narrowly drawn prohibitions reduce abuse risk but create operational and legal uncertainty about when and how staff may safely intervene.
The bill leaves a number of operational and legal questions for implementation. First, key phrases like “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” “life‑threatening,” and restraints that “restrict breathing” invite interpretive disputes that will determine when restraint is permissible.
Those definitions will matter for investigations, litigation, and whether funding is withheld. Second, the State‑approved training requirement delegates substantial authority to states to set curricula and certification standards; this could produce uneven protections if some states approve low‑quality programs or if certification renewal intervals are lax.
Third, the statute creates reporting and data demands that require secure, interoperable systems and careful FERPA‑compliant procedures; in practice, building those systems and ensuring unduplicated counts across agencies is nontrivial and will consume grant dollars and staff time.
There is also a tension between the private right of action and the protection of individual personnel from liability. The bill focuses institutional accountability (suits against programs) while shielding staff from personal suits; that design concentrates financial and reputational risk on school systems but may complicate deterrence dynamics and personnel morale.
Finally, the authorization level—$40 million per year—is meaningful but modest relative to the nationwide need for training, data systems, and long‑term coaching to implement schoolwide PBIS and other alternatives; states and districts may find that available funds cover initial work but not sustained capacity building, leaving smaller districts at a disadvantage.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.