³ÉÈËXÕ¾

Washington state lawmakers are once again debating a bill that would further restrict the use of restraint and isolation in schools—an issue that has sparked passionate responses from educators, disability rights advocates, and parents.

, sponsored by Senator Claire Wilson, D-Auburn, aims to strengthen existing laws by banning chemical and mechanical restraints, tightening reporting requirements, and increasing state oversight and support for schools.

Wilson, who has championed similar legislation in past sessions, argues that the bill is about protecting students while giving staff better tools to handle behavioral challenges. Some educators, however, worry that the bill removes a key disciplinary tool needed to manage disruptive students.

“It strengthens and expands current law to limit restraint and isolation of students while providing staff the tools they need to keep all children safe,” Wilson told the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee on Thursday.

Stricter oversight for schools

Under current Washington law, schools can use restraint or isolation only if a student poses an imminent risk of serious harm.

The proposed bill would add stricter oversight, requiring schools to notify parents immediately when their child has been restrained. Schools would also need to provide a written report within 24 hours detailing the incident, including what led up to it and how it was handled.

This proposal contrasts with changes being considered in House Bill 1296, which seeks to revise the so-called Parents’ Bill of Rights. That bill, backed by Democratic sponsors, would extend the timeframe for notifying parents about school incidents from immediate notice to up to 48 hours—rolling back a requirement enacted last year.

Advocates say change is overdue

Andrea Kadlec, an attorney with Disability Rights Washington, testified that thousands of restraint and isolation incidents occur in Washington schools each year, disproportionately affecting students with disabilities.

“The year we did our report, we had over 24,000 incidents of restraint and isolation against 3,800 students,” Kadlec said. “This law applies to all students, but really, this focused and targeted work is about a smaller number of students. And there’s nothing in this bill that prohibits restraint if you need to save a student’s life.”

Max Kaufman, an attorney with TeamChild, a youth advocacy group, described the traumatic effects of isolation.

“You can imagine a child locked away, their cries echoing down sterile halls—not because they pose any real danger, but because there wasn’t a better plan,” Kaufman said. “This bill gives teachers the tools and training to create safer environments without resorting to harm.”

Concerns from educators

Some educators worry that eliminating isolation as a disciplinary option could make schools less safe.

Jeffrey Kalles, president of the Washington Association for Behavior Analysis, warned that in some cases, isolation is the least traumatic way to prevent harm.

“Many students with severe disabilities cannot be safely restrained, and in some cases, isolation is actually the safest option to protect them and others,” Kalles said. “Reducing these practices requires significant training, supervision, and resources.”

Christy Tautfest, a school district employee and union representative, pointed to ongoing staffing shortages as a major challenge in handling disruptive students safely.

“Right now, my district has over 35 open positions,” Tautfest said. “In our room, it’s not uncommon for students to throw chairs, staplers, garbage cans. When that happens, we have to react quickly. Kids in my groups get scared.”

Finding common ground

Opponents of the bill argue that schools need more funding and resources before implementing such changes, while supporters say reducing restraint and isolation is a moral imperative.

Wilson acknowledged the need for continued discussions and possible adjustments to the bill.

“There’s no simple solution,” she said. “We need policies that prioritize the safety of students, educators, and school staff.”

SB 5654 had its first public hearing in the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee on Thursday, though a committee vote has not yet been scheduled. Meanwhile, its companion bill in the House, HB 1795, is further along and set for a vote by the House Education Committee on February 17.