Since 2020, Pennsylvania schools have seen a concerning increase in the use of physical restraints on students, particularly those with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). This trend raises significant safety concerns and highlights the urgent need to review and improve the current practices governing the use of restraints in educational settings.
Restraint and seclusion are crisis management strategies that are used in schools. Restraint is a restriction that immobilizes or limits a student’s ability to move freely. This intervention is dangerous and has led to serious injuries and even death among students, teachers, and staff. The federal guidance states that restraint and seclusion should never be used, except in situations where a child’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical harm. However, the reality is that it is often misused as a means to force a child to comply with demands. Restraint and seclusion are frequently used on the youngest and most vulnerable children. We can observe this trend in Pennsylvania, with the majority of restraints occurring in elementary schools.
The Restraint Information System Collection (RISC) annual reports, produced by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, track all reported incidents of restraints in Pennsylvania schools for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The RISC annual reports indicate a consistent upward trajectory in the use of restraints since 2020, despite existing regulations and efforts to minimize their use.
This trend poses significant safety concerns and highlights the urgent need to review and improve the current practices governing restraints in educational settings.
In the 2018–19 school year, schools reported 21,257 total restraints, involving 4,733 individual students across 676 local education agencies, with 556 reporting at least one incident of restraint. In the following year (2019–20), the total number of incidents dropped to 15,224, signaling progress toward restraint reduction. The 2020-2021 school year saw a significant decrease, with only 9,008 restraints reported. The pandemic may have contributed to the reduced numbers. However, by the 2021–22 school year, the number of incidents climbed back up to 14,891. Since the 2020-2021 school year, the number of restraints has continued to increase. The total number of restraints for the 2023–2024 period was 19,558, involving 4,711 individual students.
The data from 2020 onwards indicate that the use of restraints has not declined and, in some districts, has even increased, with cases involving the prolonged or repeated restraint of individual students. The steady increase in the number of children being restrained in schools is a failure of our school system. National trends show that students receiving special education services experience restraint and seclusion far more often than their peers without disabilities. This is also true in Pennsylvania, where students with emotional disturbance or autism are restrained at a much higher rate. The increase in the number of restraints suggests that the current system of monitoring, training, and prevention is insufficient to sustain a long-term reduction in the use of restraints.
The subsequent increase in restraints since 2020 reflects an overreliance on emergency interventions and insufficient systemic safeguards. Given the real and documented physical risks to students and staff, the Pennsylvania Department of Education must take immediate corrective steps, such as enhancing data oversight, reinforcing training, engaging families, and setting enforceable reduction goals to ensure the safety and dignity of all students served.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education publishes limited data on the use of restraints in schools. The publicly available data provide an overall look at the restraints, but do not show a breakdown by school district or individual schools. There is no data available on seclusion, as it is not possible to report when it occurs.
Although Pennsylvania regulations under 22 Pa. Code §14.133 and §711.46 require restraint as a last resort, injuries still occur at measurable rates, suggesting gaps in implementation and training. Pennsylvania’s regulatory framework dictates that restraint should only be used as a last resort for safety and requires de-escalation strategies and positive behavior support to be attempted first. However, the data show that these requirements have not sufficiently curbed use or prevented harm. Positive behavior support, which is mandatory in the code, may not be an effective intervention for preventing restraint.
The PA Department of Education should consider adopting trauma-informed, neuroscience-aligned, and neurodiversity-affirming approaches that promote alternatives to restraint. Recent news stories have documented instances of illegal and excessive restraints, reinforcing concerns about the adequacy of current oversight and prevention strategies.
Why Restraint is Harmful for Children
The use of physical restraints on children in educational settings is dangerous. While some may argue that it is occasionally necessary for safety, research overwhelmingly reveals that restraint can have lasting adverse effects on children, especially those with disabilities or emotional challenges. Restraint is disproportionately used on children with disabilities or behavioral needs, raising serious concerns about equity and civil rights. When a child is restrained, there is a risk to both the child and the adult(s) involved.
Many parents are unaware that restraint and seclusion can occur in schools. However, if you have a child with a disability, a Black or brown child, or a child with a trauma history, your child has a much greater chance of experiencing this at school. Children have suffered from broken bones, head trauma, scratches, bruises, seizures, brain injuries, and other injuries when subjected to these aversive practices. Even when immediate injuries are not apparent, repeated restraint can lead to chronic pain and permanent injury.
Experiencing restraint can be traumatic, potentially leading to anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or behavioral regression. Students who are restrained may begin to fear adults in authority, resulting in damaged relationships with teachers and staff, as well as a reluctance to seek help when needed. Being physically restrained can be humiliating and stigmatizing, affecting a child’s self-confidence and social relationships. Fear of restraint contributes to school avoidance, absenteeism, and reduced engagement in class, directly impacting students’ learning outcomes.
Witnessing restraint can distress other students, create a climate of fear, and undermine a safe and supportive educational environment.
A comprehensive 26-year study examined fatalities among children in the United States that resulted from the use of physical or mechanical restraints. That study, which ran from 1993 to 2018, found that 79 deaths had occurred due to restraint during that time. Pennsylvania had the second-highest death count in the country, with seven deaths. We are killing more children by restraining them in schools than in all other states, except Texas. Our death count was more than double the average death count. We need to do better.
In Pennsylvania, specialized private schools are exempt from laws governing the use of restraint and seclusion. We are placing our most vulnerable students in these schools, and when we do so, they lose all the protections they are entitled to in public schools. Students placed in specialized private schools by local education agencies should be entitled to receive the same legal protections as students in public schools.
In 2016, the Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter on the use of restraint and seclusion. It states that the use of restraint and seclusion may have a traumatic impact on that student, so that even if she were never again restrained or secluded, she might nevertheless have new academic or behavioral difficulties that, if not addressed promptly, could constitute a denial of FAPE.
A recent news story from OpenNews Source found 85 children and young adults under the age of 21 who died as a result of being restrained or secluded at school, juvenile justice centers, and residential treatment facilities.
Concerns regarding the use of restraints have been ignored.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education must take a more proactive role in ensuring the safety of children in schools. This includes specialized private schools that are not currently held to the same standards as public schools.
My daughter has autism, intellectual disability, and is non-speaking. She was restrained for the first time at the age of 9 in a specialized private school. Some of the reasons she was restrained included eating snow, getting glitter in her eyes, and splashing water while washing her hands in the restroom. This resulted in significant physical and mental trauma for my daughter.
After the first restraint, the school began using restraints as a regular intervention to manage her behavior. My daughter came home covered in bruises. We reported this to ChildLine, but they found that the school had done nothing wrong. When I asked her school if they included these injuries in their restraint report, they refused to do so. I questioned the director of her school about the interventions they would implement to reduce the use of restraints, as required by the Pennsylvania code. They told me that if she attended school there, they would continue restraining her. My daughter began to show signs of trauma, such as night terrors and self-harm, after the incident. I asked for therapy for the trauma my daughter was experiencing, and they told me they do not offer it to students who cannot speak. We are still working through the trauma that occurred because of the abuse at that school. Because my daughter cannot communicate, I will never know the extent of the abuse she suffered at that school.
I reported my concerns to the PA Bureau of Special Education (BSE), but since specialized private schools have little to no accountability, there was nothing we could do except change schools. This happened during the pandemic, so it took us a while to find a new school with an opening for a new student.
We switched schools the following school year, and the new school has never had to use restraints on my daughter.
The PA Department of Education (PDE) website does not have any resources for parents regarding the use of restraint or what to do when they believe their child is being subjected to excessive restraint. The PDE strongly recommends that LEAs establish a parent session outlining emergency procedures for responding to dysregulated behavior. I am not aware of any schools that have conducted parent sessions.
The law also requires a plan to eliminate the use of restraints through the application of positive behavior support. This is often overlooked, and they continue to utilize the same behavior plan they were using before the restraint occurred. The law states that the IEP should consider whether a new functional behavioral assessment, reevaluation, or new or revised positive behavior support plan should be completed. However, when these assessments are redone, they are often performed by the same staff or consultants who completed the original evaluations.
Lack of Inclusion
Another alternative when too many restraints are being used on a student is to change their placement to address behaviors of concern. This often involves placing children in specialized private schools. These schools are equipped with the same positive behavior support tools as public schools. If schools in Pennsylvania are all using the same toolbox, how is placing a child in a specialized private school a solution? If positive behavior supports are an effective intervention, why were they not used with the student? Is a change in placement an effective intervention for the child, or is it a way for public schools to get around the accountability of accommodating students with special needs?
Public schools can place students with IEPs in specialized private schools instead of creating inclusive learning environments that support all students. Parents are asked to sign a permission form for changes in educational placement. The state wants us to think that by signing this form, parents actually have a choice.
When the options are to allow the school to continue to potentially harm or kill your child by using excessive restraint or to place your child elsewhere, it really is not a choice.
When parents fight back against a change in placement, schools have the option of requesting a due process hearing to force the removal of the student. In Pennsylvania, if a parent does not want their child placed in a specialized private school, the child cannot be forced into that placement unless a due process hearing officer orders it after evidence is presented at a hearing. Until then, the student remains in their current placement. If it is decided that the student should stay in the public school in the due process hearing, there is no guarantee that the school will work to accommodate the student.
Under Pennsylvania’s policy, when a student’s needs are such that the public school cannot provide an appropriate education, placement in a more restrictive setting is allowed, but only after less restrictive options are exhausted. This low bar will enable schools to send students to specialized private schools instead of requiring them to provide a program that supports these students. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to educate students with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible. Pennsylvania refers to these specialized private schools as Approved Private Schools (APS), and their placement is considered highly restrictive. Instead of funding separate programs, districts can build stronger and more flexible support within general and special education programs.
When a student is believed to require frequent restraints, specialized behavioral interventions, or medical support, the risk of injury or legal complaints is higher. Placing students in an APS can shift some of the liability to the private provider, reducing the district’s risk exposure. The belief is that these APS can better manage students with challenging behaviors; however, most of these placements use the same tools as public schools. The belief is that, while they are using the same tools, the APS will have staff who are provided with more training, and that interventions will be delivered with greater consistency. If it is a matter of training and accountability, then why are public schools unable to achieve the same results? Public schools often cite a lack of available staff and resources as reasons for not providing what they expect from specialized private schools. The money they are using to pay for these students to be placed in an APS could instead be used for staffing and training.
Approved Private Schools (APS) are designed to handle higher-intensity behavioral needs in ways public schools often cannot, due to staffing, training, class size, or environmental limitations. Inclusion advocates argue that public schools can usually meet these needs with proper support and that APS placements should only be used when all reasonable public school options have been exhausted. It should not be the responsibility of parents to ensure that public schools meet these expectations. Holding schools accountable often requires hiring a special education attorney, which parents are not always able to afford. The Pennsylvania Department of Education should push Local Education Agencies (LEA) to reduce the number of students they send to outside placements.
Inclusion leads to better outcomes.
Students with disabilities who are educated alongside their non-disabled peers have better long-term outcomes. Inclusion is a matter of equity; students with disabilities should have the same opportunities as any other child to participate in school life and be held to high expectations. Research shows that inclusive schooling is linked to better post-school employment and independent-living outcomes. Students who experience inclusive education are less likely to require long-term segregated services as adults.
Being part of a general education classroom fosters peer relationships, reduces stigma, and promotes a sense of community. They benefit from peer modeling of age-appropriate social and academic skills, while non-disabled peers build empathy, leadership, and collaboration skills. Inclusion encourages students to develop independence and self-determination by navigating challenges alongside their peers. Students with disabilities who spend more time in general education settings have higher rates of high-school completion and postsecondary enrollment. In inclusive classrooms, students with disabilities often perform better on reading and math assessments compared to peers in segregated settings. Inclusion ensures that students learn the same standards as their non-disabled peers, reducing the “expectations gap” that can occur in separate settings.
What about seclusion?
In Pennsylvania, there is growing evidence that students with disabilities are unlawfully subjected to seclusion. This is often done without proper justification, documentation, or parental notification, in ways that violate both state law and their individualized education plans (IEPs). In one case, families alleged that students at the Chester County Intermediate Unit were left in seclusion for an extended time, denied sensory supports or learning materials, and placed in isolation contrary to what their IEPs allowed. In another case at Jamison Elementary in the Central Bucks School District, students in an autism support classroom were reported to have endured illegal restraint and seclusion, conditions that are likely to cause physical or psychological harm. Meanwhile, school administrators failed to adequately investigate or report these incidents to state authorities. Pennsylvania law prohibits locking students in rooms from which they cannot readily exit; however, loopholes and a lack of oversight have allowed some schools to misuse seclusion as a form of punishment or behavior control.
These schools, both private and public, often conceal their use of illegal seclusion by using different names for the rooms in which it occurs. They are frequently referred to with names such as Calm Down Room, Safe Room, Quiet Room, and Reset Room. It has been found that while these terms suggest supportive or therapeutic intent, many of these spaces function as locked or confined seclusion rooms. Schools often skirt the law by removing the doors from these rooms, and when a child is placed in the room against their will, they will use items like gym mats or classroom dividers to block the doorway, preventing the child from exiting the room.
In Pennsylvania, there is no way for schools to report the use of seclusion because it is not supposed to happen. This means that we have no way of knowing how often seclusion is actually used. The lack of recent, detailed public statistics makes it difficult for advocates, parents, and policymakers to fully evaluate the extent of non-lawful or harmful use of seclusion, or whether it is increasing or decreasing.
Parents are not always aware that what is happening to their child is seclusion and that it is not allowed in Pennsylvania schools. When parents are aware of what is happening, they often fear retaliation if they report the school to the state authorities. When it comes to specialized private schools, there are few safe options, and parents usually feel that if they speak up, their child could be expelled. If their child is kicked out of the specialized private school they are currently attending, the alternatives can be much worse.
The PA Department of Education expects the Local Education Agency (LEA) or the public school that placed the student in the specialized private school to regulate what is happening to those students. However, I have attended IEP meetings where specialized private schools disclose that they are secluding students, and the LEA does not report this to the state.
What can we do differently?
There are better ways than using restraint as a crisis management intervention. We can shift to using proactive approaches to behavior to prevent the child from escalating in the first place. If you can understand the child’s needs and address them before the child escalates, you eliminate the need to de-escalate them. Behavior is communication, and children who exhibit challenging behaviors do not have their needs met appropriately.
Schools should adopt proactive solutions rather than relying on restraints to gain compliance.
Pennsylvania schools utilize Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to control and manipulate behavior. These reward and consequence models of addressing behaviors are failing students. PBIS has been implemented in schools across Pennsylvania; however, concerns related to behavioral issues have not led to a reduction in the use of crisis management. In many cases, PBIS focuses only on observable, surface-level behavior. The focus on surface behavior and the use of outdated compliance-based behaviorism methods continue to fail students. If these methods were truly effective, we would see the number of restraints used decreasing instead of increasing.
Public schools are placing students in specialized private schools that use the same PBIS tools while expecting different results. You can read more about the problems with using PBIS and behaviorism. There are better approaches to supporting children who are currently being traumatized by punitive and outdated crisis management programs that lead to over-reliance on restraints. The Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint maintains a list of trauma-informed, neuroscience-aligned, and neurodiversity-affirming alternatives to current behaviorism-based approaches.
Conclusion
The use of restraints in schools is not only physically dangerous but also causes deep psychological harm, undermines learning, and disproportionately affects vulnerable students. Strong policy reform, training, and an emphasis on preventive interventions are crucial for protecting children and ensuring that schools remain supportive and inclusive environments. Mandatory reporting helps, but unless there is good auditing or enforcement, illegal or noncompliant use may be hidden in unreported or misclassified cases. Because RISC tracks restraints but not seclusion, its usage cannot be quantified. If a school uses seclusion, it is either unreported or classified differently.
From PaTTAN’s PDE Guidelines for De-Escalation and The Use of and Reporting of Restraints in Educational Programs: “PDE strongly recommends the use of restraint training, including an emphasis on establishing instructional environments that promote student self-regulation of behavior and reduce the need for restraint. This includes staff training on how to effectively de-escalate student behavior when it happens. The PDE also strongly recommends that LEAs establish a parent session outlining emergency procedures for responding to dysregulated behavior.” The keyword here is recommends; it is not required. Until the Pennsylvania Department of Education begins to require these trainings and enforce its current regulations, nothing will change.
