The Colorado State Board of Education is currently seeking feedback on Rules for the Administration of the Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act (RSA). What follows is our feedback based on the proposed rules.

Chairperson McClellan, Vice-Chairperson Navarro, and Members of the State Board of Education,

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 organization 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is to inform changes in policy and practice to reduce and eliminate the use of exclusionary, punitive discipline and outdated behavioral management approaches, and to end the school-to-prison pipeline. We work with and support families and educators across Colorado and throughout the United States. I am writing to you today to provide feedback on the proposed Rules for the Administration of the Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act (RSA).

First, we appreciate that the Colorado State Board of Education is focused on the important issue of the use of restraint and seclusion in schools across the state. We also value that the intent of these rules is related to protecting students from restraint and seclusion. We have supported many families in Colorado over the years, and know all too well the harm and trauma that comes from the use of restraint and seclusion. We understand that these rules are intended to govern the administration of restraint and seclusion, staff training, documentation requirements, and review. As a national organization, we know that Colorado’s laws and rules on the use of restraint and seclusion lag far behind those of other states. This rulemaking process is an opportunity to ensure that Colorado rules intended to protect students from restraint and seclusion are aligned with federal guidance and the best state laws in the nation.

Definitions

Protecting students from the improper and inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion begins with clear and meaningful definitions. We believe it is critical that the definitions used in Colorado schools be consistent with the well-established federal definitions of the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR). All public school districts in Colorado are required to submit data on the use of restraint and seclusion to the federal government as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). When state definitions differ from federal definitions, states often need to collect two datasets on the use of restraint and seclusion: one aligned with federal definitions and guidance, and another aligned with state-specific definitions and guidance. This is duplicative, error-prone, and time-consuming. Given that the federal guidance and definitions are more comprehensive and stronger, it makes sense for Colorado to align with these well-established standards. Below, we will provide a few specific recommendations for the definitions section of the rules document.

2.00(2) “Emergency” means a serious, probable, imminent threat of bodily harm to self or others when there is the present ability to effect such bodily harm.

The standard for the use of restraint and seclusion, as set out in the 2012 guidance from the United States Department of Education, is an emergency involving the imminent danger of serious physical harm. Current proposed federal legislation suggests that the use of serious physical injury. Imminent, serious, physical harm has the same meaning as serious bodily injury as used in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It means bodily injury that involves:

• A substantial risk of death;
• Extreme physical pain;
• Protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

We recommend including the definition of serious physical injury in the rules document.

We recommend changing the definition of emergency as follows:

Emergency” means a serious, probable, imminent threat of serious bodily injury to self or others when there is the present ability to effect such serious bodily injury.

The standard of use “imminent threat of serious bodily injury” is a very high standard, and we believe that was intentional and deliberate. Sadly, many children across the nation have died as a result of the use of physical restraint and seclusion. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report titled “Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers.” As part of their investigation, they found hundreds of instances of death and abuse due to the use of restraints and seclusions in schools and other settings. Knowing that children can die when physical restraint is used, we must understand that the use of physical restraint is the use of potentially deadly force. When is it appropriate to use deadly force? We would suggest that it is only appropriate in a situation that could result in death if no immediate action were taken. This view aligns with the idea that an emergency involves the potential for imminent serious bodily injury.

Next, let’s look at the definition of restraint utilized in the rules document. Here, we will review the multiple definitions of restraint included in the rules document.

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)(a) “Chemical Restraint” means the involuntary administration of medication to a student for the purpose of restraining the student. “Chemical Restraint” does not include:

2.00(7)(a)(i) Administering prescription medication that is regularly administered to the student for medical treatment other than to restrain the student’s freedom of movement (e.g., asthma corticosteroid, mood disorder medication, insulin, or glucagon); or

2.00(7)(a)(ii) Administering medication for voluntary or life-saving medicalprocedures, including epinephrine or diazepam.

2.00(7)(b) “Mechanical Restraint” means a physical device used to restrict a student’s voluntary freedom of movement or the movement or normal function of a portion of their body. “Mechanical Restraint” does not include:

2.00(7)(b)(i) A device that is recommended for the student by a physician, occupational therapist, or physical therapist; is agreed to for use by the student, by the student’s IEP Team, or by the student’s Section 504 Team; and is used in accordance with the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 Plan;

2.00(7)(b)(ii) A protective device that is used to prevent a student from self-harm, is agreed to for use by the student by the student’s IEP Team or Section 504 Team, and is used in accordance with the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan.

The protective device may include a helmet or mitts;

2.00(7)(b)(iii) An adaptive device that is used to facilitate instruction or therapy for the student that is recommended for the student by a physician, occupational therapist, or physical therapist; is agreed to for use by the student, by the student’s IEP Team or Section 504 Team; and is used in accordance with the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan; or

2.00(7)(b)(iv) A positioning or securing device that is used to facilitate the student’s medical treatment that is recommended for the student by a physician, occupational therapist, or physical therapist; is agreed to for use by the student, by the student’s IEP Team or Section 504 Team, and is used in accordance with the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan.

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

2.00(7)(c)(iii) Minimal physical contact for the purpose of safely escorting a student from one place to another; or

2.00(7)(c)(iv) Minimal physical contact for the purpose of assisting a student with a task or response.

2.00(7)(d) “Prone Restraint” means a restraint in which the student who is being restrained is secured in a face-down position.

Section 2.00(7) includes an umbrella definition for restraint. We don’t believe that it is necessary or advantageous to include this broader definition, and recommend its removal from the rules document. Further, this definition suggests that seclusion is a form of restraint, which is inconsistent and confusing.

We suggest using the definitions from the Office of Civil Rights 2021–22 Civil Rights Data Collection guidance for physical and mechanical restraint. We also strongly advocate removing the one-minute threshold from the rules’ definition. It is a physical restraint the moment you prevent an individual from moving freely, and should be reported as such. The definitions are as follows:

Physical restraint refers to a personal restriction, imposed by a school staff member or other individual, that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move their torso, arms, legs, or head freely. The term physical restraint does not include a physical escort. Physical escort includes a touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, or back of a student for the purpose of inducing a student to walk to a safe location, when the contact does not continue after arriving at the safe location. Encouraging, inducing, or forcing a student to walk to a safe location in a way that involves methods utilized to maintain physical control of a student should be considered a physical restraint.

Mechanical restraint refers to the use of any device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement. The term includes the use of handcuffs or similar devices by law enforcement officers or other school security to prevent a student from moving the student’s arms or legs. The term does not include devices used by trained school personnel or a student that have been prescribed by an appropriate medical or related services professional and are used for the specific and approved purposes for which such devices were designed, such as:

• Adaptive devices or mechanical supports used to achieve proper body position, balance, or alignment to allow greater freedom of mobility than would be possible without the use of such devices or mechanical supports;
• Vehicle safety restraints when used as intended during the transport of a student in a moving vehicle;
• Restraints for medical immobilization; or
• Orthopedically prescribed devices that permit a student to participate in activities without risk of harm.

We suggest using the definitions from the Keeping All Students Safe Act to define chemical restraint. The definition is as follows:

Chemical restraint means a drug or medication used on a student to control behavior or restrict freedom of movement that is not:

prescribed by a licensed physician, or other qualified health professional acting under the scope of the professional’s authority under State law, for the standard treatment of a student’s medical or psychiatric condition; and

administered as prescribed by the licensed physician or other qualified health professional acting under the scope of the professional’s authority under State law.

Next, let’s review the definition of seclusion included in the proposed rules document. The document defines seclusion as follows:

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(8)(a) “Seclusion” does not mean:

2.00(8)(a)(i) Placement of a student in residential services in the student’s room for the night; or

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.

First, stating that seclusion is a form of restraint is confusing and misleading. We recommend using the definition of seclusion from the Office of Civil Rights 2021–22 Civil Rights Data Collection guidance, which is as follows:

Seclusion refers to the involuntary confinement of a student in a room or area, with or without adult supervision, from which the student is not permitted to leave. Students who believe or are told by a school staff member that they are not able to leave a room or area, should be considered secluded. The term does not include: a classroom or school environment where, as a general rule, all students need permission to leave the room or area such as to use the restroom; a behavior management technique that is part of an approved program, which involves the monitored separation of a student in an unlocked setting, from which the student is allowed to leave; or placing a student in a separate location within a classroom with others or with an instructor, so long as the student has the same opportunity to receive and engage in instruction.

The United States Department of Justice has also provided a definition for seclusion, which is as follows:

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).

We recommend using the definition provided in the Office of Civil Rights 2021–22 Civil Rights Data Collection guidance. We see any situations where staff are with a child preventing egress, but not reporting it as seclusion. We believe that when the child is isolated, even if an adult is present, if they are not free to leave, it meets the criteria for seclusion.

Restraint Prohibition: Exceptions

Regarding the prohibitions on the use of restraint, our concerns focus on section 3.00(2)(d).

3.00(2)(d) The use of physical restraint or seclusion in an emergency:

3.00(2)(d)(i) after the failure of less restrictive alternatives, or.

3.00(2)(d)(ii) after the determination that less restrictive alternatives would be inappropriate or ineffective during the emergency.

We recommend using the Keeping All Students Safe Act as a model for the use of physical restraint.

The use of physical restraint by any program personnel, a school security guard, or a law enforcement officer shall be considered in compliance with the requirements of this subsection only if each of the following requirements are met:

(A) The student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury to the student, program personnel, a school security guard, a law enforcement officer, or another individual.

(B) Before using physical restraint, less restrictive interventions would be ineffective in stopping such imminent danger of serious physical injury.

(C) Such physical restraint is imposed by:

(i) program personnel, a school security guard, or a law enforcement officer trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program; or

(ii) program personnel, a school security guard, or a law enforcement officer not trained and certified as described in clause (i), in the case of a rare and clearly unavoidable emergency circumstance when program personnel, a school security guard, or a law enforcement officer trained and certified as described in clause (i) is not immediately available due to the unforeseeable nature of the emergency circumstance.

(D) Such physical restraint ends immediately upon the cessation of the imminent danger of serious physical injury to the student, any program personnel, a school security guard, a law enforcement officer, or another individual.

(E) The physical restraint does not interfere with the student’s ability to communicate in the student’s primary language or primary mode of communication.

(F) During the physical restraint, the least amount of force necessary is used to protect the student or others from the threatened injury.

The standard of use specified in the Keeping All Students Safe Act would ensure that the use of physical restraint is exceedingly rare, as it should be, and only used when a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury to themself or others after all other options have been exhausted. 

Seclusion Requirements

Regarding the seclusion requirements, as included in the rules document. We recommend a comprehensive prohibition on seclusion in Colorado schools. Seclusion should be fully prohibited in all Colorado schools. Seclusion, like corporal punishment, is an outdated, harmful, and abusive practice that has no place in our nation’s schools. In a January 2025 letter, the previous Department of Education Secretary, Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D., implored school districts to prohibit the use of seclusion and limit the use of restraint in schools and early childhood programs. Current proposed federal legislation, the Keeping All Students Safe Act, would fully prohibit the use of seclusion in our nation’s public schools. Many states, including Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Texas, prohibit seclusion; let’s add Colorado to that list.

Limitations and Duties 

We agree and support many of the limitations included in the rules document. Restraint should only ever be used when there is an imminent danger of serious physical harm, and should end the moment there is no longer the imminent danger. Restraint should not be used as a form of punishment or discipline. However, more could be included here. In its 2012 guidance, the United States Department of Education outlined 15 principles for the use of restraint and seclusion. We recommend reviewing and including the following:

1. Every effort should be made to prevent the need for the use of restraint and for the use of seclusion.

2. Schools should never use mechanical restraints to restrict a child’s freedom of movement, and schools should never use a drug or medication to control behavior or restrict freedom of movement (except as authorized by a licensed physician or other qualified health professional).

3. Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used except in situations where the child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others, and other interventions are ineffective and should be discontinued as soon as the imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others has dissipated.

4. Policies restricting the use of restraint and seclusion should apply to all children, not just children with disabilities.

5. Any behavioral intervention must be consistent with the child’s rights to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse.

6. Restraint or seclusion should never be used as punishment or discipline (e.g., placing in seclusion for out-of-seat behavior), as a means of coercion or retaliation, or as a convenience.

7. Restraint or seclusion should never be used in a manner that restricts a child’s breathing or harms the child.

8. The use of restraint or seclusion, particularly when there is repeated use for an individual child, multiple uses within the same classroom, or multiple uses by the same individual, should trigger a review and, if appropriate, revision of strategies currently in place to address dangerous behavior; if positive behavioral strategies are not in place, staff should consider developing them.

9. Behavioral strategies to address dangerous behavior that results in the use of restraint or seclusion should address the underlying cause or purpose of the dangerous behavior.

10. Teachers and other personnel should be trained regularly on the appropriate use of effective alternatives to physical restraint and seclusion, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, and, only for cases involving imminent danger of serious physical harm, on the safe use of physical restraint and seclusion.

11. Every instance in which restraint or seclusion is used should be carefully, continuously, and visually monitored to ensure the appropriateness of its use and safety of the child, other children, teachers, and other personnel.

12. Parents should be informed of the policies on restraint and seclusion at their child’s school or other educational setting, as well as applicable Federal, State, or local laws.

13. Parents should be notified as soon as possible following each instance in which restraint or seclusion is used with their child.

14. Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion should be reviewed regularly and updated as appropriate.

15. Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion should provide that each incident involving the use of restraint or seclusion should be documented in writing and provide for the collection of specific data that would enable teachers, staff, and other personnel to understand and implement the preceding principles.

Training

To reduce the use of physical restraint and eliminate seclusion, we need to go upstream. It is not just about crisis management; the focus should be on crisis prevention. We recommend that staff be trained in trauma-informed, neuroscience-aligned, neurodiversity-affirming, relationship-driven, and collaborative approaches. We also recommend that all staff be trained on Colorado state law regarding the use of restraint and seclusion. The Colorado Department of Education should develop required training on state law and policy related to the use of restraint and seclusion. We also recommend that the Colorado Department of Education have an approved vendor listing for crisis management training.

Documentation and Notification 

This section of the rules document covers documentation and notification requirements. We will begin by providing some feedback on section 7.00(1), which says:

7.00(1) If there is a reasonable probability that a physical restraint or seclusion may be used with a specific student, the local education provider shall provide written notice to the parent of the student and, if appropriate, to the student, regarding physical restraint or seclusion procedures that may be used, the circumstances in which physical restraint or seclusion might be used, and the local education provider’s employees or agents who may be involved. The local education provider shall meet with a parent who received a written notice pursuant to this subsection 7.00(1) and requested a meeting to discuss the written notice.

There should never be a reasonable probability of use. Restraint and seclusion are crisis management techniques, and should only be considered in situations that involve the imminent threat of serious physical harm. It should never be a planned intervention. How would one determine reasonable probability? Would you examine the data, which likely indicates that there is an increased use of restraint and seclusion for children with disabilities, Black and brown children, and children who have trauma histories? Would those students be considered students with reasonable probability? This could be discriminatory. A policy related to the use of restraint and seclusion should be shared with all families.

In terms of notification, which is included in section 7.00(2)(c), we recommend that families should be notified verbally immediately following a restraint or seclusion incident, and a full written report should be provided within 48 hours of the incident. The child’s parent or caregiver should always be notified before the child goes home for the day, as the use of restraint or seclusion can lead to significant trauma. In addition to the criteria required  in the written report, we recommend the following:

• A narrative that explains how the child’s behavior posed an imminent danger of serious physical harm to themselves or others.
• Information about whether the child was evaluated after the incident for physical or psychosocial harm (trauma).
• A plan for how staff will support the child to reduce the likelihood that restraint or seclusion will be needed in the future.

We also recommend that any instance of restraint or seclusion prompt an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 meeting if the child is covered under an existing plan. If not, an initial evaluation should be conducted to determine whether the child needs an IEP or 504 to access a free and appropriate public education.

Annual Review of the Use of Restraint

In addition to what is outlined in section 8.00(1), we recommend that each annual review process include a plan for how the education provider plans to reduce the use of restraints and eliminate the use of seclusion in the coming year. This should be a requirement for all education providers who report more than 5 incidents of restraint or seclusion in their annual review.

Annual Reporting

Annual reporting is critical to protecting students from the harms of restraint and seclusion. In addition to the data elements mentioned in the rules document, we suggest disaggregating the data by the same categories used in the Civil Rights Data Collection. Common fields:

• Disability status and type (IDEA vs 504)
• Disability categories (such as autism, emotional disability, and intellectual disability)
• Race and ethnicity
• Gender
• Age of the student

We also recommend that all data be made publicly available within 30 days of the June 30th submission.

Complaint Procedures and Regulations

What is the process for filing a complaint if the child does not have an IEP? Section 10.00(3) states that the complaint must be delivered to the IDEA State Complaint Officer. If this is suggesting it is an IDEA complaint, it would not be an option for students not covered under IDEA.

Final Thoughts and Recommendation

The Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act represents a critical opportunity for Colorado to align its rules with the strongest protections available to students under federal guidance and proposed federal legislation. The Office for Civil Rights’ definitions and reporting expectations, together with the Keeping All Students Safe Act, offer clear, consistent, and well‑understood standards that can guide Colorado toward safer and more equitable practices. Bringing Colorado’s definitions, rules, policies, and practices into alignment with these federal frameworks will not only reduce confusion and duplicative reporting but will help ensure that every student in Colorado is afforded the same basic protections as students across the country.

Most importantly, this rulemaking process must be grounded in the fundamental goal of protecting children from harm. The use of physical restraint and seclusion is not a neutral intervention; it is a crisis response strategy that can and does result in trauma, injury, and, in some cases, death. Children, families, and educators across Colorado and the United States have borne the consequences of outdated, coercive practices that were often justified as necessary for “safety,” but have instead too often undermined trust, damaged relationships, and derailed learning. Colorado has the chance to take a clear stand that schools must move away from the overreliance on these dangerous practices and toward approaches that are trauma-informed, neuroscience-aligned, neurodiversity-affirming, relationship-driven, and collaborative.

To that end, the final rules should draw a clear line around what is and is not acceptable in Colorado’s schools. We strongly recommend that the rules clearly and unequivocally prohibit seclusion, as well as prone restraint, supine restraint, chemical restraint, and mechanical restraint. These practices are inherently high‑risk and inconsistent with a modern, evidence‑aligned understanding of how best to support children who experience emotional dysregulation. Clear prohibitions will provide needed guidance to districts, reduce the risk of serious harm, and encourage schools to invest in safe, effective alternatives and supports.

Other states have already moved to prohibit seclusion and the most dangerous forms of restraint, and federal guidance and proposed legislation offer a roadmap for doing so in a thoughtful and coherent way. By explicitly anchoring Colorado’s rules to the definitions and standards articulated by the Office for Civil Rights and the Keeping All Students Safe Act, the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education can reduce ambiguity, strengthen accountability, and better protect the civil rights of all students—particularly students with disabilities, Black and brown students, and students with trauma histories, who are disproportionately subjected to restraint and seclusion.

Finally, the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint stands ready to assist as Colorado undertakes this important work. As a national organization that has supported families and educators across Colorado and the country, AASR can offer technical assistance, training, and policy guidance as the State Board of Education and the Department of Education revise definitions, refine rules, and implement new requirements. We can and must do better for Colorado’s children. With clear rules aligned with federal guidance and proposed federal legislation and with a shared commitment to prevention and dignity, Colorado can become a leader in creating safer, more inclusive schools where every student is protected from the harms of restraint and seclusion.

Respectfully,

Guy Stephens
Founder and Executive Director
Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint