Recently, the Colorado Department of Education Asked for Feedback on Rules for the Administration of the Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act (RSA). As a parent of a child enrolled in a Colorado school, I know the harm caused by the use of physical restraint and seclusion, so I decided to answer the Department of Education’s call for feedback.

Regarding Seclusion and Restraint definitions

Let’s begin by looking at the definitions of restraint and seclusion in the proposed rules.

2.00(8) “Seclusion” is a form of restraint and means: the placement of a student alone in a room or area from which egress is prevented.  

2.00(7) “Restraint” means a method or device that is used to limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement. “Restraint” includes seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, and physical restraint.

2.00(7)(c) For purposes of these rules, a “Physical Restraint” means the use of bodily, physical force to limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement for more than one minute.

The district discounts seclusions and restraints in many ways and, as a result, doesn’t collect data around them. For example, the word “alone” is a problem. It means that situations like these are not seen as seclusion:

• Confining a child to a corner of a room with mats or temporary walls, or using one’s body
• Being inside the seclusion room with the child
• Being outside the seclusion room but ‘keeping an eye’ on the child

The child is not “alone” even if “limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement” is true, so technically, the criteria of seclusion are not met.

​They are also not classified as restraints, even if the restraint criteria “physical force to limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement for more than one minute” is met, because in these cases, they are not “physically holding” the child (i.e., a CPI restraint). Therefore, restraint data is not collected. For example, in the Boulder Valley School District, the form used to collect restraint data only refers to cases where any type of CPI restraint was deployed. If a child is temporarily held (“2.00(7)(c)(iii) Minimal physical contact for the purpose of safely escorting a student from one place to another;”)  and placed in a “safe space” by force, it is not a restraint. I have provided feedback on the form, and they updated it to include a “Seclusion” checkbox. However, because “alone” is still a defining factor for seclusion, I do not have high hopes that we will start seeing accurate seclusion data.​

Regarding Seclusion and Restraint Caveats

Next, let’s look at some of the caveats related to the use of restraint and seclusion.

2.00(7)(c) For purposes of these rules, a “Physical Restraint” means the use of bodily, physical force to limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement for more than one minute. “Physical Restraint” does not include:  

2.00(7)(c)(ii) The holding of a student by an adult for the purpose of calming or comforting the student;  

Another challenge is that restraint does not include “holding of a student by an adult for the purpose of calming or comforting the student,” which leads to restraints or seclusions seen as appropriate strategies to “calm the child down.” Because the adult intends to calm the student, the restraint and/or seclusion are not reported, even if they have a negative impact on the child. For example, the child escalates, the adult restrains the child to calm them down, the child escalates further, and the adult doubles down on a “calming” restraint or seclusion. What can happen is the child drops into a dorsal state (i.e., a panic beyond fight/flight) and loses mobility. This looks “calm” to the adult; the restraint/seclusion is seen as a successful measure that was taken, not reported as restraint/seclusion, and used again later.

A Vicious Cycle

Unfortunately, the rules proposed will likely not provide protection for students from the inappropriate use of physical restraint and seclusion, and are likely to perpetuate a vicious cycle of misuse and trauma. Let’s dive into a few more issues with the rules.

2.00(7)(c) For purposes of these rules, a “Physical Restraint” means the use of bodily, physical force to limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement for more than one minute. “Physical Restraint” does not include:

2.00(7)(c)(i) A physical intervention administered on a student that lasts one minute or less for the protection of a student, others, or property;

2.00(8)(a) “Seclusion” does not mean:

2.00(8)(a)(ii) A “Time-out,” which is the removal of a student from a potentially rewarding situation or from a situation that would otherwise produce negative reinforcement. A Time-out does not prevent a student’s egress.  

These interpretations, which justify restraints and seclusions due to safety, denying rewarding situations, or calming measures, are particularly problematic for children who are already traumatized by inappropriate support methods, restraints, and seclusions, who continue to escalate (fight/flight), and who continue to be restrained and secluded, compounding existing trauma and lowering the threshold for future escalations. A vicious cycle that tends to lead to the family unenrolling their child, and district restraint/seclusion numbers “looking better” as a result.

My child fits the vicious cycle. The problem was that the methods the staff were using were harmful and inappropriate to support an autistic child—methods rooted in compliance and behaviorism. During one year, we received 20 CPI reports of restraint (weekly restraints towards the end of the year) and three suspensions. Unofficial numbers were even higher. I know this because of things my son reported to me, but the school minimized when asked (e.g., “it was just a quick transport to a safe space”). It wasn’t until they changed schools and deployed an entirely different method of support (neuroscience-informed) that they were able to break this cycle and maintain safety and, more importantly, trust.

Autism matters in this conversation. In my school district, the Boulder Valley School District, the majority of all restraints are used on autistic students. This means there is something wrong with how we support these children. In my opinion, restraint and seclusion will continue to be “tools” the staff use, as long as they deploy incorrect support methods and think what they are doing is “right,” unaware that they are exacerbating the problem. And as long as they can use seclusion and restraint as options, they will continue to fall back on them “because of safety.” And as long as staff fail to get support/mandates from leadership to change methods, the problem will not go away.

A Few Final Thoughts

It is as if we need a third classification to account specifically for “egress is involuntarily prevented” and “limit a student’s voluntary freedom of movement” that cannot be discounted by the additional factors of “for more than one minute.” … “The holding of a student by an adult for the purpose of calming or comforting the student” or “placement of a student alone in a room or area” – additional factors which allow staff to explain away what has been done in the name of safety, benevolence, or dignity.

Or then we clean up the language and remove adult intent from the definitions because the impact on the child is the same, regardless of how adults spin the reality.

You Can Provide Feedback

The rulemaking hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2026. You can sign up to provide testimony or submit your own feedback on these proposed rules. Make your voice heard!