The Laramie County School District in Wyoming recently voted to put an amended “Seclusion, Restraint, Forcible Physical Contact and Corporal Punishment” policy out for a 45-day review. Potential changes to policy can be reviewed on the Board’s webpage. Public comments will be accepted until September 19, 2025, at 4 p.m. online or via email.
We provided public comment to the Laramie County School Board, which can be read below. We encourage others to provide public feedback on this important policy.
Dear Members of the Board,
Hello! My name is Guy Stephens. I am the founder and executive director of the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint (AASR). AASR is a national nonprofit and a community of over 35,000 parents, caregivers, self-advocates, teachers, school administrators, paraprofessionals, attorneys, psychologists, therapists, social workers, and others working together to influence change in supporting children whose behaviors are often misunderstood. Our mission is to inform changes in policy and practice to reduce and eliminate the use of exclusionary punitive discipline and outdated behavioral management approaches, and end the school-to-prison pipeline.
On behalf of the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint, thank you for prioritizing this critically important policy. It is encouraging to see clear prohibitions on corporal punishment, mechanical restraint, and locked-door seclusion. These provisions reflect an important commitment to student safety. There are, however, several areas where the policy would benefit from clarification and strengthening to ensure safety, transparency, and alignment with emerging best practices and federal standards.
Clarify and strengthen definitions
Seclusion: The policy does not clearly define seclusion. We recommend adopting the definition used by the U.S. Department of Justice, Educational Opportunities Section: “Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in any room or area. It includes the use of any room or area in which the student is alone and not free to leave (or believes they are not free to leave).”
Physical restraint: We recommend the definition used in proposed federal legislation (Keeping All Students Safe Act): “Physical restraint means a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of an individual to move the individual’s arms, legs, torso, or head freely, except that such term does not include a physical escort, mechanical restraint, or chemical restraint.”
Additional terms needed: Please add clear definitions for isolation, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint (already referenced but should be precisely defined), and forcible/forced physical contact. Clear, consistent definitions are essential for training, reporting, family understanding, and accountability.
Resolve ambiguity about “seclusion from the learning environment”
The draft states: “The use of seclusion shall be limited to seclusion of students from the learning environment. The District prohibits the use of locked seclusion and isolation rooms.” It is not clear what this means in practice. Where is the “seclusion” occurring if not in a locked room or isolation space? How is the student “secluded,” and how is the student’s ability to freely leave assured?
We do not believe seclusion is ever an appropriate intervention. At a minimum, if any separation occurs, it should only meet the definition of non-locked time out, where the student is never alone and is always free to leave, with a focus on co-regulation and de-escalation.
Restrict physical restraint to true emergencies; remove “planned” restraint.
The draft says restraint “shall be used only as a planned behavior intervention strategy when there is an imminent threat to the safety of a student or to others.” Physical restraint should never be a planned intervention nor included in an IEP or BIP—doing so normalizes and increases its use.
Physical restraint should only be used when a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury to the student, staff, or another individual; it should end immediately when that danger has passed; it should use the least amount of force necessary; and it should never interfere with the student’s ability to communicate.
Please remove “planned behavior intervention strategy” and any language that would allow restraint to be pre-authorized for an individual student.
Align prohibited practices and training language.
The policy rightly prohibits prone restraint; please explicitly prohibit supine restraint and any restraint that restricts breathing or blood flow to the brain. Also explicitly prohibit chemical restraint except for properly prescribed and administered medication for a diagnosed condition.
The policy states that restraints are limited to those “endorsed by the District’s evidence-based training program.” To be clear: physical restraint is not an evidence-based therapeutic or educational intervention; it is a last-resort crisis management tactic with no evidence that it reduces future behavior. Training should prioritize prevention, de-escalation, and safe physical escort; restraint training must be narrowly focused on safety, not treatment or behavior change.
Strengthen notification, debrief, and reduction commitments.
Specify timelines and content for parental notification (same-day verbal/electronic notice and written notice within 24 hours), a post-incident debrief within five school days, including parents/guardians, involved staff, a school leader, and a behavior expert, and a review of precipitating factors and prevention strategies (including consideration of an FBA/BIP).
Make the policy’s purpose explicit: to prevent seclusion and to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint through positive, relational, and trauma-informed approaches.
Data, transparency, and equity
Commit to accurate, unduplicated incident tracking and routine public reporting that includes disaggregated data (e.g., disability, race/ethnicity, sex), with regular review to identify and address disproportionality.
Explicitly prohibit the use of restraint or any separation for discipline, noncompliance, property destruction (absent imminent danger of serious physical injury), or staff convenience.
In closing, we appreciate the District’s attention to the safety of the student and staff as well as the steps already taken. We would welcome the opportunity to support the Board and administration in refining this policy, providing resources on alternatives to restraint and seclusion, and helping implement training and practices that promote regulation, relationships, and real prevention.
Sincerely,
Guy Stephens
Founder & Executive Director
Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint
866-NoSclsn (866-667-2576)
