Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews bill that tightens limits on student isolation and restraint and expands training and reporting
Summary
House Bill 1795 would extend and expand demonstration projects, restrict some forms of isolation and restraint, require new staff training and reporting, and create technical assistance from OSPI. Testimony included survivors, disability advocates, educators and unions who supported the prevention focus but warned the policy requires funding and
The House Education Committee held a lengthy public hearing on House Bill 1795, a comprehensive measure that would expand statewide training and demonstration projects aimed at reducing restraint and eliminating the use of isolation in schools, clarify permissible uses of physical restraint, prohibit chemical and mechanical restraints, and create new reporting, training and OSPI technical‑assistance requirements.
Committee counsel Megan Wargacki gave a high‑level overview. The bill would extend the demonstration projects created in recent budgets, require OSPI to submit a final report on pilot sites by Dec. 15, 2026, and — subject to appropriations — expand pilot sites to Central and Eastern Washington. It also revises conditions under which staff may physically restrain or isolate a student, sets limits on enclosures used for isolation, establishes notification and review procedures after incidents, and requires school districts to submit updated policies and implementation plans. Key dates included a prohibition, beginning August 1, 2027, on isolation of pre‑kindergarten through grade 5 students unless a parent requests it in writing and two licensed health professionals have authorized it; an OSPI‑approved intensive crisis prevention and response training requirement beginning in August 2030; and an exemption pathway that expires July 31, 2031 (OSPI may extend exemptions until staff are trained).
The hearing drew many witnesses. Survivors and advocates described traumatic experiences with isolation and restraint. Esther Rourke of The Arc of King County, speaking as a person with lived experience and former paraeducator, said the harm persists into adulthood and can produce PTSD and other long‑term effects. Student witnesses described being restrained or isolated as children and urged passage. One student said she had been "locked in a room and zip tied to a chair" at age five.
Districts that participated in pilot projects reported promising results when they implemented relationship‑centered, trauma‑informed approaches and received coaching. Dominic Ventresco of Pullman, who described reduced incidents after targeted training, said continued demonstration funding would allow the district to extend resources and reduce restraint and isolation occurrences.
Educator groups and unions supported the bill’s goals but warned implementation requires adequate funding and staffing. Jared Mason Geer of the Washington Education Association said professional development and clear guidance are needed and raised concerns about uncertainty for educators about when they may intervene in behaviors such as running or fighting. Ross Thompson of the Association of Washington School Principals urged that districts maintain reasonable options to confine a student temporarily to an office or another room while the adult helps the student regulate, and asked the committee to be precise about what those permissible practices look like in statute. Public School Employees testified about staffing shortages and the need for resources to support transition to alternative interventions.
The bill also expands OSPI’s monitoring and technical assistance role, requires revised board policies by Aug. 1, 2026, sets expectations for annual summaries and OSPI publications of data, and calls for multiple reports to the legislature on pilot outcomes, implementation challenges and recommendations for statewide policy changes. A fiscal note has been requested; several witnesses emphasized that the benefits shown in pilot sites depend on sustained funding for training, regional coaches, and staff time.
Why it matters: the bill would codify a shift toward prevention, training and accountability for behavior management in schools while restricting some uses of isolation and restraint. Supporters said pilot sites show reduced use of exclusionary practices when districts receive coaching and time for implementation; critics and some school staff said the law must be paired with funding, clear operational definitions, and realistic staffing plans to be safely implemented.
