Crises Involving Restraint and Isolation

The U.S. Department of Education states in Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document ¹⁴³  that “every effort should be made to prevent the need for the use of restraint and for the use of seclusion [isolation].” Neither restraint nor isolation improves student behavior – in fact, they can lead to worsened student behavior, injury, and even death.¹⁴⁴ Restraint and isolation are prohibited for use as punishment or as a preplanned “intervention” for broad categories of student behavior. They are last resort strategies to maintain safety, and the necessity of their use in any situation can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Any use of restraint and/or isolation should serve as a cue to district staff that changes are needed in the school or district environment to ensure the student who was restrained or isolated is adequately and positively supported. Further, the repeated use of restraint and/or isolation, either with an individual student or with numerous students in the school or district, can indicate more systemic concerns about student wellbeing, belonging, and support. These concerns may be addressed by examining and improving school or district systems, policies, procedures, practices, or professional development. For more, refer to Section 2.

When district staff restrain and/or isolate a student, they must adhere to state requirements contained in RCW 28A.600.485 and WAC 392-172A-02076. These requirements are summarized in more detail below.

Definitions

Restraint

Restraint of students in Washington is defined as “physical intervention or force used to control a student, including the use of a restraint device to restrict a student's freedom of movement. It does not include appropriate use of a prescribed medical, orthopedic, or therapeutic device when used as intended, such as to achieve proper body position, balance, or alignment, or to permit a student to safely participate in activities.”¹⁴⁵ 

It is important to note that restraint as defined above does not include physical prompting or blocking (unless those are used with force to control a student). While not defined in state or federal regulations, physical prompting and blocking are commonly used practices in school settings. Their common definitions are provided below to assist the reader in understanding the difference between these practices and restraint.
 

Physical prompting is commonly defined as an instructional strategy in which an adult guides a student through a motion needed to complete a task or demonstrate a skill. Physical prompting can be delivered in a variety of ways which do not use force to control a student, including:

• A tap or light touch on a student’s arm, shoulder, or back to cue them to the next step in a task
• Hand-under-hand contact with the student to provide gentle assistance with a task
• Hand-over-hand contact with the student to provide additional assistance

Physical prompting is not considered a restraint unless it is used with force to control a student. However, overuse of physical prompts can lead to prompt dependency. Staff should use professional judgment and planning to ensure that physical prompts are delivered in alignment with evidence-based practices, such as the use of a prompt hierarchy or graduated guidance, to ensure students are not being over-prompted.

Blocking is commonly defined as a behavior management strategy in which a student is prevented from engaging in a particular behavior by an adult physically blocking the completion of the action. Blocking can be utilized in a variety of ways, and when used correctly should never involve the use of force to control a student. Examples of blocking include:

• School staff covering a light switch with their hand to prevent a student from playing with it
• School staff stepping between two students who appear to be in conflict with each other
• School staff standing in front of a door to prevent a student from exiting the building

Blocking does not involve staff initiating physical contact with a student. It is not considered restraint unless it is incorrectly used in a way that fits the definition of restraint above. 

Isolation

Isolation of students in Washington is defined as “restricting the student alone within a room or any other form of enclosure, from which the student may not leave. It does not include a student's voluntary use of a quiet space for self-calming, or temporary removal of a student from his or her regular instructional area to an unlocked area for purposes of carrying out an appropriate positive behavior intervention plan.”¹⁴⁶  

Examples of isolation include:

• School staff restricting the student alone in a room or other enclosed space, either by locking the door or by blocking the student from leaving in some other way (including creating the conditions in which the student reasonably believes they will be prevented from leaving the room)
• School staff conducting a “room clear” in which 1) the student remains alone in the room and is prevented from leaving, and 2) and school staff are outside the room

Isolation, as defined above, does not include any behavior management practice in which a school staff member is present in the same room as the students. This includes practices like classroom timeouts, supervised in-school suspensions or detentions, or room clears (so long as a staff member remains in the room with the student).

When are Restraint or Isolation Permitted?

Restraint or isolation of students in Washington is only permitted when the student’s spontaneous behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm.¹⁴⁷  This standard was introduced with Substitute House Bill 1240, which further emphasized:¹⁴⁸

“The legislature declares that it is the policy of the state of Washington to prohibit the planned use of aversive interventions, to promote positive interventions when a student with disabilities is determined to need specially designed instruction to address behavior, and to prohibit schools from physically restraining or isolating any student except when the student's behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm to that student or another person."

In their 2023 report, “Coming Into the Light: An Examination of Restraint and Isolation Practices in Washington Schools,”¹⁴⁹ Disability Rights Washington, a federally-designated state protection and advocacy agency, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, found that “the interpretation of ‘imminent likelihood of serious harm’ by school personnel is broad, inconsistent, and erroneously applied throughout Washington.” They identified a need for the legislature to clarify this standard and recommended that the standard of imminent likelihood of serious harm should not apply to property damage unless the property damage also creates risk of injury or death. District leaders are advised to review their local policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that “imminent likelihood of serious harm” is appropriately clear for staff.

Who is Impacted Most by Restraint and Isolation Use?

Students

In Washington, restraint and isolation are used disproportionately (e.g., more frequently than with other groups, relative to student enrollment share) with the following groups of students:

• Students in preschool, kindergarten, and grades 1–5
• Students with disabilities 
• Students who are Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and/or multi-racial
• Male students
• Students from low-income households
• Students experiencing homelessness
• Students in foster care placements

These disproportionalities are indicators of school systems that react more punitively to the behavior of students of color and students with disabilities, relative to other student groups. “Students of color experience more disciplinary actions, including isolation and physical restraint, than students classified as white. However, no empirical evidence demonstrates that any racial group of students commit proportionally more offenses.¹⁵⁰  Students with disabilities may engage in behaviors that are manifestations of their disability and are communicative. However, empirical evidence does not demonstrate any indication that students with disabilities engage in behavior that is proportionate to the high use of disciplinary practices….Repeated use of restraint and isolation may indicate a violation of a student’s right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) if the student’s accommodations do not provide appropriate supports and services or are not being properly implemented.”¹⁵¹ 

The tragic outcome of this practice is that many students – especially students with disabilities and students of color – experience early, and often repeated, trauma associated with their experience of being restrained and/or isolated at school. That trauma often results in more rapid fight-or-flight responses, including behavioral escalation, in situations occurring at school and with school staff. This can create a vicious cycle in which a student who is restrained or isolated once is more likely to be restrained or isolated again as a direct result of the traumatic impact of restraint and isolation and its associated adverse impact on the student’s emotional state and behavior at school.

Families

For parents and other family members of students who are subjected to restraint and/or isolation, one common outcome is disconnection with the school’s staff, community and resources. This impact is particularly troubling given that students who are repeatedly restrained and/or isolated are typically students who are already marginalized by traditional systems due to their race, disability, socioeconomic status, housing status, foster care placement, and/or experience of abuse or neglect.^{152 ,153}  Families with less access to external behavioral health resources often require the coordinated support that schools can provide – therefore, as a matter of educational justice and equity, schools and districts should do everything in their power to maintain strong and productive partnerships with families of students with extensive behavior support needs. 

In community outreach and communication, OSPI staff consistently observe that families of students who were restrained and/or isolated report feeling pushed out by inequitable school systems which were not designed with their students in mind. Parents also regularly report that school staff do not notify them of restraint or isolation use in a timely manner and/or until their child has been subjected to repeated instances.¹⁵⁴   Students who experience trauma from restraint and/or isolation use – particularly repeated use in schools that inappropriately rely on these practices – may develop mental and/or behavioral health needs that require more significant support and take a toll on a family’s wellbeing and resources.

Staff

The majority of school staff surveyed felt unsafe when having to use restraint and/or isolation.¹⁵⁵   In the 2023–24 school year, one or more staff members were injured in the course of 10% of reported incidents of restraint or isolation.¹⁵⁶  The risk of staff injury increases when staff rely on the so-called “hands-on” techniques of restraint and isolation, rather than preventative techniques like crisis de-escalation strategies. 

Survey data suggests that many teachers have less access to professional development that provides prevention-focused crisis de-escalation and other behavioral intervention skills than any other group of staff, including paraeducators, administrators and leadership, related service providers, and specialist staff. This gap in access may be even larger in rural and remote districts which often report greater barriers in accessing professional development and other services.

Prohibited Practices Related to Restraint or Isolation

Several state statutes and regulations prohibit certain unsafe and harmful practices related to restraint and isolation. Districts must ensure all staff abide by these prohibitions.

Restraint or Isolation Use Without Imminent Likelihood of Serious Harm

Restraint and isolation are prohibited for use in response to behaviors that do not meet the threshold of imminent likelihood of serious harm above. Note that a student’s behavior may cause great concern for school team members and may necessitate additional behavioral support (e.g., a Behavioral Intervention Plan [BIP] or other behavioral supports described throughout this manual) without meeting the threshold of imminent likelihood of serious harm as described above. Examples of potentially concerning behaviors that, on their own, would likely never meet this threshold, include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Not following school staff directions
• Refusal to go to class or complete schoolwork
• Refusal to sit down or use an assigned seat
• Using profane, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful language
• Ripping decorations or artwork off the wall

Restraint That Interferes with Breathing

Restraint that interferes with a student’s breathing is prohibited by RCW 9A.16.100(2)(d) and WAC 392-172A-02076. Specific restraint practices which are associated with student death by positional asphyxiation and/or cardiac distress (i.e., prone, supine, and wall restraints, and any other restraint that interferes with breathing) are also expressly prohibited by WAC 392-172A-02076.

Corporal Punishment 

RCW 28A.150.300 prohibits the use of corporal punishment in public schools, without exception. Each school district must adopt OSPI’s policy which prohibits this practice.

Use of Force

RCW 9A.16.100(1) addresses use of force on children, including by educators implementing restraint or isolation: “Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it…when occurring in an educational setting and involving an educator, actually or substantially complies with limitations on the use of student isolation and restraint under RCW 28A.600.485 including that it is used only when a student's behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm.”

Additional District Actions to Prevent Dangerous Use of Restraint and Isolation

In addition to practices which are explicitly prohibited by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) or Revised Code of Washington (RCW) there are a number of dangerous practices related to restraint and isolation which districts are advised to take steps to prohibit locally. There are also a number of practices which can increase student safety should restraint or isolation be used.

Required Actions After Restraint or Isolation Use

Parent Notification

After school or district staff use restraint or isolation with a student, the principal or their designee must notify the parent/guardian in compliance with all requirements.¹⁵⁷  

Parent notification must be completed in the following two ways:

1. Verbally, within 24 hours of the incident
2. In writing, as soon as practical but postmarked no later than five business days after the restraint or isolation occurred

Like other communication with parents/guardians, staff must follow all requirements and district policies for communication in the parent/guardian’s home language. The written report must also be provided (in the above timeline) in the language in which the school or district communicates with the family. It should also meet the requirements outlined below for the written incident report.

Debriefing

Following any use of restraint or isolation, school staff¹⁵⁸  must follow up with the student, 
parent/guardian, and staff involved. This is sometimes referred to as debriefing. During debriefing, specific items must be discussed.

When debriefing with the student and parent/guardian, school staff must discuss, at minimum:¹⁵⁹

• The behavior that led to restraint or isolation
• How appropriate this response was to the behavior 

When debriefing with the staff involved, school staff must discuss, at minimum:¹⁶⁰ 

• Whether proper procedures were followed 
• What support or training the staff member needs to avoid similar incidents in the future

RREI Demonstration Site Finding: Debriefing is Critical

Multiple demonstration sites reported the positive effects of strengthening their debriefing practices. Several pilot sites also reported that stronger debriefing practices were one of the most effective changes they implemented to reduce restraint and eliminate isolation. They shared that students, families, and staff all benefited from the time spent debriefing, reflecting, and problem-solving to address student support needs – resulting in lower rates of restraint and isolation afterward.

Effective debriefing conversations are focused on positive support for a student’s social, emotional, and behavioral learning, not on assigning blame. During all debriefing conversations, staff are strongly encouraged to approach the process in a manner that is prevention-focused, culturally responsive, anti-racist and anti-ableist, and affirming of the belonging and strengths of the student who was restrained and/or isolated. To enrich the debriefing process, school staff may consider incorporating some or all of the guiding questions below.

Guiding Questions to Consider During Debriefing

• Does the team understand why the student was in crisis and what authentic need the student’s behavior was communicating, or is more information needed?
• Were the student’s supports provided consistently as outlined in an IEP, 504 Plan, Behavioral Intervention Plan, or other support plans?
• During the specific incident, was there an imminent likelihood of serious harm that warranted the use of restraint and/or isolation?
• Were all district and state requirements followed for the use of restraint and/or isolation?
• Would the staff member benefit from additional professional development on topics such as crisis de-escalation, trauma-informed practices, or positive and proactive social, emotional, and behavior supports?
• Did the specific incident reveal gaps in staffing patterns and/or availability of trained staff that need to be addressed?

Written Incident Report

If school or district staff uses restraint or isolation with a student, they must notify the building administrator (or their designee) as soon as possible. Within two business days, the staff member must submit a written report of the incident to the district office. The written report must include the following:¹⁶¹ 

• Date and time of the restraint or isolation
• Name and job title of the staff member(s) involved
• Description of the actions and circumstances that led to the restraint or isolation
• Type of restraint or isolation
• How long the restraint or isolation lasted
• Whether or not the student was injured
• Whether or not the staff member was injured
• What medical care was provided (if the student or staff was injured)
• Recommendations for student and staff member supports and resources, to avoid similar incidents in the future

In addition to these requirements, districts must also report when a school safety and security staff has used force against a student.¹⁶²  Any instance of school safety and security staff using restraint with a student is a use of force and must be reported. For guidance, refer to the Restraint & Isolation Data Reporting Guidance on the Restraint and Isolation webpage, and the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) Reporting Guidance for the current school year on the CEDARS webpage. 

Best Practices for Describing Incidents

When describing the incident and student behavior that led to restraint and/or isolation:

• Use precise and neutral language that describes the situation so a third party could understand what occurred without assumptions or misunderstandings
  • Describe the specific observable behaviors the student engaged in that met the threshold of “imminent likelihood of serious harm,” including any contextual factors staff considered when determining if the threshold was met (e.g., “the student attempted to run into the busy street in front of the school” or “the student struck the teacher in the side forcefully and repeatedly”)
• Be mindful to refrain from criminalizing language, including:
  • Referring to the student as an “offender” or “perpetrator,” rather than as “Student 1” or simply using the student’s name
  • Referring to the student’s behavior with law enforcement terms that do not precisely describe the behavior (e.g., “the student tried to assault the principal”), rather than describing the behavior using precise and neutral language as summarized above
• Use descriptions that are measurable, observable, and objective. Avoid vague, subjective, and/or emotionally loaded descriptions, such as:
  • Describing the lack of a general quality rather than the presence of a specific behavior (e.g., “the student was unsafe” or “the student was dysregulated”)
  • Using descriptions that are interpreted very differently from one person to another (e.g., “the student was defiant” or “the student was violent”)
  • Making assumptions about the student’s intentions, motivations, and/or emotions (e.g., “the student was trying to manipulate the teacher” or “the student enjoys hurting others”)

School teams should make productive use of the requirement in RCW 28a.600.485(5)(f) to document any recommendations for changing the nature or amount of resources available to the student and staff to avoid similar incidents in the future. As part of generating those recommendations, teams are advised to implement the following best practices: ¹⁶³
If the student has an FBA and BIP, the team can use the resource Guiding Questions for Reviewing and Revising a Behavioral Intervention Plan to guide problem-solving
If the student does not have an FBA and BIP, the team should consider following the processes described in Section 4 to develop them

These steps are appropriate for any student regardless of eligibility for IEP or 504 Plan services. As described in Section 4, an FBA and BIP can be completed for any student as part of the school and/or district’s implementation of Tier 3 of a multi-tiered system of supports.¹⁶⁴   

District Reporting Requirement

As required by RCW 28A.600.485(7)(a), districts must annually submit restraint and isolation data to OSPI. Restraint and isolation incidents are entered into district student information systems (SIS) and submitted to OSPI through CEDARS. Records should be entered into the district’s SIS as soon as possible to ensure accuracy and compliance with reporting requirements. In the fall of the following school year, this data is pulled to fulfill OSPI’s public data reporting requirements. The district’s CEDARS administrator can help district staff certify that this data is being reported accurately to OSPI. If a district needs to make updates or corrections to submitted restraint & isolation data, changes must first be made in the district’s SIS and then resubmitted to CEDARS. If a district has zero restraint or isolation incidents to report, then they will submit zero records in CEDARS File S. Other than submitting restraint and isolation data through CEDARS, no additional actions are necessary.

For further guidance on recording and submitting restraint and isolation data to OSPI, refer to:

• The Restraint & Isolation Data Reporting Guidance on the Restraint and Isolation webpage
• The CEDARS Reporting Guidance for the current school year on the CEDARS webpage

Reviewing Restraint and Isolation Data for Decision Making 

Districts can review their restraint and isolation data from a variety of lenses to improve practice and prioritize both student and staff safety. The primary purposes of a restraint and isolation data review should be:

• To identify any trends in usage 
• To provide additional professional development and/or other resources focused on improving proactive student supports and reducing the use of restraint and isolation 
• To facilitate root cause analyses into any patterns of restraint and isolation use, with the goal of reducing or eliminating these practices

For best results, data should be graphed and reviewed at the district level, building level, and student level on a regular basis (e.g., once every 1–2 months, depending on frequency of restraint and isolation use). Regardless of the scope, the data review should always involve a consistent multidisciplinary team, including staff representing general education as well as MTSS. Examples of common concerning data trends for teams to flag and follow up on are provided below.

All restraint and isolation incidents should be captured in the district’s student information system. Once entered, the district’s student information system administrator can assist in extracting data for review and analysis.

Reviewing Data to Reduce Restraint and Eliminate Isolation

At the district level, concerns include:
Higher than average district restraint and isolation use compared to state rates

• Disproportionate restraint and isolation use…
  • …for any demographic group of students in the district, including groups by race or ethnicity, special education eligibility status and/or disability category, household income, or any other group
  • …in a particular school, relative to other schools in the district
• Increasing frequency and/or duration of restraint and isolation use over time…
  • …for any demographic group of students in the district, including groups by race or ethnicity, special education eligibility status and/or disability category, household income, or any other group
  • …in a particular school, relative to other schools in the district
  • …year over year across the district

At the building level, concerns include:

• Higher than average building restraint and isolation use relative to other district schools 
• Disproportionate restraint and isolation use…
  • …for any demographic group of students in the school, including groups by race or ethnicity, special education eligibility status and/or disability category, household income, or any other group
  • …in any classroom relative to other classrooms in the school (irrespective of whether the classroom is a general education or special education setting)
• Increasing frequency and/or duration of restraint and isolation use over time…
  • …for any demographic group of students in the school, including groups by race or ethnicity, special education eligibility status and/or disability category, household income, or any other group
  • …in any classroom relative to other classrooms in the school (irrespective of whether the classroom is a general education or special education setting)
  • …year over year across the building

At the student level, concerns include:

• Increasing frequency and/or duration of restraint and isolation use over time
• Documentation of student self-harm, injury, toileting accidents, school avoidance, or other indicators of trauma
• Restraint and isolation used without imminent likelihood of serious harm, and/or for behaviors that staff believe are precursors to behaviors that have posed a risk of harm in the past
• Restraint and isolation used disproportionately with an individual student relative to other students who engage in similar behaviors that pose a similar imminent likelihood of serious harm
• Restraint and isolation used without medical follow up for student injury
• Restraint and isolation used without evidence that the team mobilized significant positive, proactive and teaching-focused supports to provide the student with instruction and authentic reinforcement for alternative social/emotional/behavioral skills

---

¹⁴³ U.S. Department of Education (2012). Restraint and seclusion: Resource document (page 12).

¹⁴⁴ U.S. GAO (2009). Seclusions and restraints: Selected cases of death and abuse at public and private schools and treatment centers.

¹⁴⁵ RCW 28A.600.485(1)(b).

¹⁴⁶ RCW 28A.600.485(1)(a).

¹⁴⁷ RCW 28A.600.485(3)(b).

¹⁴⁸ Substitute House Bill 1240 (2015) Session Law. 

¹⁴⁹ DRW & ACLU of Washington (2023). Coming into the light: An examination of restraint and isolation practices in Washington schools.

¹⁵⁰ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019). Beyond suspensions: Examining school discipline policies and connections to the school-to-prison pipeline for students of color with disabilities. 

¹⁵¹ OSPI (2022). Report to the Legislature: Crisis Response Workgroup (pages 7–8).

¹⁵² DRW & ACLU of Washington (2023). Coming into the light: An examination of restraint and isolation practices in Washington schools.

¹⁵³ American Institutes for Research (AIR; 2024). Understanding restraint & isolation in Washington schools.

¹⁵⁴ DRW & ACLU of Washington (2023). Coming into the light: An examination of restraint and isolation practices in Washington schools.

¹⁵⁵ AIR (2024). Understanding restraint & isolation in Washington schools.

¹⁵⁶ In incidents that involved a staff injury, an average of 1.3 staff members were reported injured.

¹⁵⁷ RCW 28A.600.485(6).

¹⁵⁸ Though state law does not specify which school staff should facilitate this, effective debriefing might include roles like as a school administrator, a member of the school and/or district team involved in positive behavioral interventions and supports, and (if applicable) a special education leader or mentor.

¹⁵⁹ RCW 28a.600.485(4)(a).

¹⁶⁰ RCW 28a.600.485(4)(b).

¹⁶¹ RCW 28a.600.485(5).

¹⁶² RCW 28A.320.1241.

¹⁶³ U.S. Department of Education (2012). Restraint and seclusion: Resource document (pages 17–19).

¹⁶⁴ OSERS & OESE (2024). Using functional behavioral assessments to create supportive learning environments.