The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) recently invited public comment on draft rules for the Administration of the Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act (RSA), and the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint (AASR) submitted detailed feedback grounded in federal guidance, neuroscience, and lived experience. In its written summary of comments and responses, CDE acknowledged concerns but largely declined to strengthen the rules in response to key recommendations, repeatedly citing statutory language and framing many suggested improvements as beyond its authority.

CDE’s request for comments

When CDE opened rulemaking on 1 CCR 301‑45, it described the amendments as clarifying that seclusion is a form of restraint, narrowing the conditions for use, updating training and documentation requirements, and expanding complaint options. The rulemaking was presented as an implementation step for Colorado’s new Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act, HB 25‑1248. Our initial reflection was that the intent to “protect students from restraint and seclusion” was hard to reconcile with draft rules that still gave schools broad discretion to restrain and seclude children and left in place long‑standing loopholes that undermine safety and transparency.

Our initial call to action

In our response, we approached the CDE request as both advocates and parents who have experienced the harm of restraint and seclusion in schools. We highlighted that the proposed rules preserved a system that normalizes physical restraint and the use of rooms or spaces where students are not free to leave, despite well‑documented trauma, injuries, and long‑term impacts. We also drew attention to specific provisions, such as a one‑minute threshold for defining physical restraint, that virtually guarantee under‑reporting and allow schools to explain away restraints and seclusions as “calming,” “comforting,” or “safety” measures.

Key themes in AASR’s formal feedback

In our formal comments to the Colorado State Board of Education, we thanked the Board for focusing on restraint and seclusion while making clear that Colorado’s law and rules remain out of step with federal expectations and lag behind many other states. We urged the Board and CDE to use this rulemaking process to close dangerous loopholes, strengthen definitions, and move the state toward eliminating seclusion and sharply limiting physical restraint.

Definitions: emergency, restraint, and seclusion

We recommended revising “emergency” so that restraint or seclusion could only be used when a child’s behavior presents an imminent threat of serious bodily injury, incorporating the federal definition of serious bodily injury. We urged CDE to move away from an umbrella definition that treats seclusion as a form of restraint and instead align with Office for Civil Rights (OCR) definitions used for federal civil‑rights enforcement and Civil Rights Data Collection. We also recommended eliminating the one‑minute threshold that excludes brief restraints from the definition and adopting a seclusion definition that covers any situation in which a student is not free to leave, including when staff remains in the room.

Standards for use and the Keeping All Students Safe Act

We asked CDE to replace Colorado’s relatively broad “emergency” standard with the stronger standard reflected in the Keeping All Students Safe Act (KASSA), a proposed federal law that would prohibit seclusion and severely limit restraint in any school receiving federal funds. Specifically, we recommended that restraint be permitted only when there is an imminent danger of serious physical injury, after less restrictive interventions have been tried and failed, applied only by trained personnel, and ended immediately once the danger has passed.

Training, notification, review, and data

We urged CDE to require trauma‑informed, neuroscience‑aligned, neurodiversity‑affirming training for staff, to establish a clear statewide baseline for training, and to develop a CDE‑approved list of training providers to ensure quality and consistency. We recommended immediate verbal notification to parents or guardians, written notice within 24–48 hours, narrative documentation explaining the imminent danger, and required IEP/504 meetings or evaluations after any restraint or seclusion. We also proposed that schools or districts with more than a small number of incidents be required to develop concrete reduction plans, and that data reporting align with Civil Rights Data Collection categories and be posted publicly on a timely basis.

How CDE framed its authority and role

In the written comment matrix, CDE’s responses follow a very consistent pattern: polite acknowledgment of concerns, citation of statutory language, and refusal to recommend substantive changes, often coupled with a statement that the Department “defers to the State Board.” CDE explicitly describes its rulemaking approach as providing “high‑level guidance that reflects statutory directives” and notes that it generally does not include “the deeper level of values and approaches” in rule, leaving those decisions to local education providers.

That framing allows CDE to treat many requested protections, especially those that reference federal guidance, trauma‑informed practice, and more robust accountability, as outside the scope of rulemaking, even where statute does not prohibit stronger safeguards. In effect, CDE reads the statute as both floor and ceiling, minimizing its own discretion to do more to protect students.

CDE’s responses to AASR’s specific recommendations

The responses to AASR’s comments reflect this posture and make clear how little CDE was willing to change in response to the feedback.

• On “emergency,” CDE states that the term is defined in statute and that the 2012 U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion Resource Document offers “non‑binding guidance,” concluding that the rules will mirror state law rather than federal best practice.
• On the umbrella definition of restraint and the statutory statement that seclusion is a form of restraint, CDE simply restates the statutory language and declines any clarifying re‑structuring.
• On mechanical restraint, CDE acknowledges that the phrase “agreed to for use by the student” appears to be a drafting error and interprets it as involving IEP or 504 team consent, but does not adopt OCR’s clearer definition or remove the implication that a student can “agree” to being mechanically restrained.
• On the one‑minute threshold and OCR’s broader definition of physical restraint, CDE notes that federal guidance does not use time‑based thresholds but asserts that Colorado law “establishes a different framework” that the rules must follow.
• On seclusion, CDE contrasts the OCR definition with Colorado’s statutory language and states that the rules will mirror statute, including the statement that “seclusion is a form of restraint.”
• On incorporating KASSA’s standard for use of restraint, CDE notes that KASSA is proposed federal legislation and reiterates the state framework that allows restraint and seclusion in an “emergency” and, in some cases, to prevent property destruction that poses a “serious, probable, and imminent threat of bodily harm.”

Across topics such as training content, notice timelines, post‑incident meetings, incident‑driven corrective action, and data reporting, CDE’s responses repeatedly state that statute sets specific requirements and that the rules reflect those requirements, while often deferring to the State Board on whether to consider any additional changes.

Tone and overall stance of CDE’s responses

CDE maintains a professional tone in the matrix, frequently opening responses with “The Department appreciates…” or “CDE notes…,” and recognizing the value of lived‑experience testimony and advocacy expertise. However, the substance of the responses is largely dismissive of the core concerns, in that CDE rarely engages the underlying trauma, equity, and civil rights implications, and instead relies heavily on statutory language to justify inaction.

For example, when commenters describe how definitions and exceptions create loopholes that lead to under‑reporting and continued harm, CDE occasionally offers to “use” the feedback to strengthen training and technical assistance but declines any definitional changes. When families and advocates call for a ban on seclusion, immediate notification, mandatory post‑incident meetings, or more detailed data reporting, CDE responds that the statute requires less and that the rules simply align with those minimums. Taken together, the overall stance is to maintain the status quo and treat community input as something to acknowledge rather than act on.

Colorado law vs. federal guidance and stronger state models

Colorado’s Protection of Students from Restraint and Seclusion Act represents movement, but it still does not align with federal guidance or with the strongest laws in other states. Unlike the direction encouraged by federal policy, Colorado law continues to allow seclusion, uses a broader “emergency” definition than an imminent serious bodily injury standard, and relies on one‑minute and five‑minute thresholds that undermine accurate data and meaningful oversight.

Federal guidance and policy letters have repeatedly documented that restraint and seclusion are harmful, disproportionately affect students with disabilities and students of color, and lack evidence as effective behavior supports. Secretary Miguel Cardona’s January 2025 letter explicitly commends states and districts that have prohibited seclusion and significantly reduced reliance on restraint, calling a shift away from these practices “long overdue.” Colorado’s current statutory framework falls short of that vision and continues to normalize practices that many other states have chosen to end.

Legislative changes Colorado should pursue

Because the rules are tightly tethered to statute by CDE’s own reading, genuine change in Colorado will require legislative action. Future legislation should:

• Prohibit seclusion outright in all public school settings, including any practice that isolates a student in a space they are not free to leave, regardless of whether adults are present.
• Replace the current “emergency” definition with a narrowly drawn standard requiring an imminent threat of serious bodily injury, using the federal definition of serious bodily injury.
• Eliminate time‑based thresholds and align definitions of restraint and seclusion with OCR and DOJ guidance, so any qualifying event counts, no matter how brief.
• Require that physical restraint be used only as a true last resort, after less restrictive strategies have failed, and only by staff trained in safe, trauma‑informed practices, using the least amount of force for the shortest possible time.
• Mandate immediate verbal notice to parents or guardians, written documentation within 24–48 hours, and required IEP/504 meetings or evaluations after any restraint or seclusion, recognizing each incident as a serious system‑level failure.
• Require annual reduction plans whenever a school or administrative unit reports more than a minimal number of incidents, with an explicit trajectory toward eliminating seclusion and dramatically reducing restraint.
• Strengthen transparency by requiring timely, disaggregated public reporting that allows families and communities to track use and disparities over time.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act offers a coherent federal blueprint: it would prohibit seclusion in schools that receive federal funds, sharply limit the use of restraints, and require robust training and oversight. Aligning future Colorado legislation with KASSA’s core principles would move the state from a compliance mindset to a genuine commitment to safety, dignity, and civil rights.

What CDE can and should do now

Even with current statutory constraints, CDE can do far more than it has signaled in this rulemaking. The Department has broad general‑supervision authority under federal and state law, as well as a clear moral responsibility, to ensure that Colorado students are educated in safe, inclusive, and abuse-free environments.

Secretary Cardona’s 2025 letter calls on states and districts to reject seclusion and shift away from reliance on restraint, urging them to adopt evidence‑based, proactive practices that support social, emotional, physical, and mental health needs. CDE can honor that call by:

• Developing and promoting a robust, statewide training framework that is explicitly trauma‑informed, neuroscience‑aligned, and neurodiversity‑affirming, with clear expectations for content and quality, even where statute is silent.
• Using its complaint, monitoring, and general supervision authority to investigate patterns of restraint and seclusion, identify noncompliance and systemic issues, and require corrective actions that emphasize prevention, not just paperwork.
• Issuing guidance, model policies, and technical assistance that encourage districts to voluntarily phase out seclusion, adopt internal standards stricter than state minimums, and invest in relational, regulation‑focused supports.
• Leveraging existing state data to identify high‑use schools and districts and working directly with those systems to reduce incidents through targeted support, training, and accountability.

In its comment responses, CDE chose a narrow, statutory reading of its role and largely dismissed detailed, good‑faith recommendations from families, advocates, and disability rights organizations. What Colorado’s students need is a Department that treats every restraint and seclusion as a serious warning sign and works relentlessly with districts, families, and the legislature to make those events exceedingly rare or nonexistent.