Restraint, Isolation, & the Rights of Students with Disabilities

Restraint, Isolation, & the Rights of Students with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Education’s position is that restraint and isolation are “harmful to children…There is ample evidence of significant harms to students due to these practices, including serious physical injury, emotional trauma, and even death.”130  Restraint and isolation can also cause additional layers of harm to students with disabilities. Federal guidance is clear that restraint and isolation, when used to discriminate against a student with a disability or to deny them their rights under federal and state law, is unlawful. This includes the use of restraint or isolation that follows “criteria, policies, practices, or procedures that are neutral in language and evenhandedly implemented with respect to students with and without disabilities but that nonetheless have the effect of discriminating against students with disabilities on the basis of disability, or defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the school’s programs with respect to students with disabilities.”131

It should never be the case that school staff assume or communicate that restraint and isolation are practices for students with disabilities. RCW 28A.600.485 explicitly prohibits the use of restraint and isolation for any student, including those eligible for an IEP or 504 plan, unless a student has spontaneous behavior that poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm. A student’s IEP or 504 Plan must not include the use of restraint or isolation as a planned behavior intervention unless a student's individual needs require more specific advanced educational planning and the student's parent or guardian agrees. For more, see “Emergency Response Protocol.”  

The use of restraint or isolation may be evidence that a student’s disability-related needs are not being adequately met by the student’s IEP or 504 Plan. School teams should never regard restraint or isolation as effective behavior support interventions for students with disabilities. If the team is repeatedly restraining or isolating a student with a disability, they should use the supports described throughout this portion of the manual to address the student’s interfering behavior with positive and proactive supports in the IEP or 504 Plan.

WAC 392-172A-02076 establishes a number of practices which are prohibited for use with students eligible for special education services “by reason of their offensive nature or their potential negative physical consequences, or their illegality.”  Some of these practices are described in greater detail in Section 6. 

The district which holds the responsibility for FAPE for a given student is also required to ensure the student is not restrained or isolated in a manner which violates state law, or subjected to practices prohibited under WAC 392-172A-02076. This means that a district which utilizes a contracted placement for a student eligible for special education services (e.g., an authorized nonpublic agency (NPA) or program operated by an educational service district) must continue to follow their responsibilities for FAPE, such as:

  • Monitoring documentation of the use of restraint and isolation with the student
  • Whenever needed, taking appropriate and data-based steps to address the student’s behavior support needs via the processes described throughout Section 5 of this manual, such as by reevaluating the student, conducting an FBA, developing a BIP, and convening the IEP team to modify the IEP to ensure it is appropriately calculated to provide educational benefit
  • Determining if and when a student at a contracted placement is being restrained and/or isolated excessively, and timely responding as described above
  • Regularly and frequently reviewing records provided by contracted placements  to ensure no practices prohibited under WAC 392-172A-02076 are used with the student

Civil Rights Violations in Restraint and Isolation of Students with Disabilities

Both the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice have the authority to investigate systematic district misuse of restraint and isolation and impose corrective actions. A review of their recent investigations suggests that district violations most commonly occur in the following area(s):

  • Denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
  • Disability discrimination
  • Parents denied meaningful participation in IEP team meetings

Districts found in violation were frequently required to provide compensatory education to students who were subjected to restraint and/or isolation, revise policies and/or procedures to ensure compliance with state and federal law, improve documentation and data-based decision making in response to restraint and isolation use, and/or provide training for staff in areas of noncompliance.

Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Many districts investigated by OCR for misuse of restraint and isolation were found to have denied students with disabilities a FAPE. Typically, districts which were found to have denied students FAPE because of restraint and isolation made at least one of the following errors:

  • Did not appear to consider whether a student’s IEP was sufficient to provide FAPE in light of the use of restraint or isolation in response to the student’s interfering behavior
  • Did not appear to consider student needs for positive behavior interventions and supports as part of the IEP after staff use of restraint or isolation
  • Did not consider reevaluating students subjected to repeated use of restraint and/or isolation to determine any necessary changes to student IEPs and/or 504 Plans to ensure a FAPE was provided
  • Especially for students at contracted placements (i.e., NPAs), district staff had incomplete or otherwise inadequate documentation of student restraint and isolation, and thus could not develop an IEP that was appropriately calculated to provide educational benefit
  • Did not address students’ lost instructional time, or consider any need for compensatory services, that resulted from the ongoing use of restraint and/or isolation

OCR has also indicated that the trauma a student experiences from restraint or isolation may deny them a FAPE if that trauma and its effects are not addressed by the IEP or 504 team. “The use of restraint or [isolation] may have a traumatic impact on that student, such that even if she were never again restrained or [isolated], she might nevertheless have new academic or behavioral difficulties that, if not addressed promptly, could constitute a denial of FAPE. Depending on the nature of his or her disability, a student with a disability may be especially physically or emotionally sensitive to the use of such techniques. That traumatizing effect could manifest itself in new behaviors, impaired concentration or attention in class, or increased absences, any of which could, if sufficiently severe and unaddressed, result in a denial of FAPE for that student. Other effects could include socially withdrawn behavior, or diminished interest or participation in class.”132  IEP and 504 teams should consider what supports should be provided to students with disabilities whose access to FAPE may be impacted by the trauma of restraint and/or isolation, such as counseling, school social work services, and school-based mental health services.133 

Disability Discrimination

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits districts from engaging in disability-based discrimination. Misuse of restraint and isolation against students with disabilities can result in disability discrimination. Factors that may contribute to findings of discrimination include:

  • Overuse and/or disproportionate use of restraint and isolation with students who have disabilities when compared to the use of these practices with nondisabled students
  • District restraint and isolation policies, procedures, and practices that routinely result in lost instructional time for students with disabilities, such as:
    • Use of restraint and isolation for behaviors that do not meet the threshold of “imminent likelihood of serious harm” in RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b), such as “to enforce school rules, to address refusals to comply with staff directives, to prevent students from leaving a room or area, and to transport students.”134 
    • Arbitrary criteria imposed by staff to end an instance of restraint and/or isolation,135  extending the time students spend in restraint and isolation and violating the requirement in RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b) to end restraint/isolation as soon as the likelihood of serious harm has dissipated 
  • Failing to leverage the range of effective practices for positive behavior support, such as FBAs and BIPs, and instead “regularly and repeatedly” using restraint and isolation to respond to behavior that district staff “should have anticipated and managed as part of educating students with emotional and behavioral needs”136 
  • Failing to implement and/or ensure the effectiveness of existing BIPs137 
  • Continuing to restrain and isolate students with disabilities “even…when students exhibited clear signs of trauma”138
Parents Denied Meaningful Participation in IEP Team

Parents have the right to participate in IEP team meetings, and districts must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the meeting.139  For a student who has experienced restraint and/or isolation, it is imperative that districts ensure parents have sufficient notice and information about the use of restraint and/or isolation to meaningfully participate in related IEP discussions.

Districts in violation of this requirement typically made at least one of the following errors:

  • Parents were not notified of the use of restraint and/or isolation, or were notified later than the timeframe required by policy
  • Documentation and/or reporting of restraint and isolation were inadequate or inconsistent, resulting in incomplete information reported to parents
  • Especially for students at contracted placements (i.e., NPAs), district staff had incomplete or otherwise inadequate documentation of student restraint and isolation, and thus could not appropriately notify or debrief parents
  • Without timely and accurate information about staff use of restraint and/or isolation for a student’s interfering behavior, the student’s parents were denied the ability to meaningfully participate in IEP team discussions and decisions

130 U.S. Department of Education (2025). Secretary Cardona letter on restraints and seclusion in schools.

131 OCR (2016). Dear colleague letter: Restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities (page 16).

132 OCR (2016). Dear colleague letter: Restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities (pages 16–17).

133 OCR (2022). Supporting students with disabilities and avoiding the discriminatory use of student discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

134 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division (2024). Letter to Wichita Public Schools (page 4).

135 For example, requiring that students in isolation sit silently with their back to the wall of the isolation room for five continuous minutes before they can exit the isolation room.

136 U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2023). Letter to Anchorage School District (page 3).

137 “For students who were repeatedly restrained or secluded, many had behavior plans that the District was not implementing, and others had plans that the District did not revise after an incident to ensure their effectiveness.” U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2024). Letter to Wichita Public Schools (page 4).

138 U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division (2023). Letter to Spokane Public Schools (page 2).

139 WAC 392-172A-05001.