House committee hears wide testimony on pilot to reduce restraint and seclusion; sponsor, advocates urge preventive approaches

The House Education Policy Committee held an extended hearing on House Bill 653, which would create a pilot program within the Department of Education to test trauma‑informed, evidence‑based alternatives to restraint and seclusion in schools.

Lawmaker summary: Representative Peter Petrino, the prime sponsor, told the committee that an interim study and testimony from families pushed the issue into focus. “The result of our work is this legislation which we are calling the Safe Schools pilot project within the Department of Education,” he said, adding the aim is exploratory: to pilot trauma‑informed practices in willing schools rather than mandate a single program statewide.

Why it matters: Parents, advocates and child‑welfare officials described cases of repeated restraint and seclusion that have lasting effects on children, and told lawmakers they are seeking proactive, preventive approaches rather than relying only on crisis‑response methods. The Office of the Child Advocate said it has received an “outpouring” of calls and continues to get reports of children restrained multiple times, including an account given to the office about a 5‑year‑old with 22 restraints in 1 day.

Testimony and evidence: Multiple witnesses urged focusing on prevention: early behavior supports, replacement skills, “ABC” antecedent‑behavior‑consequence analysis, and schoolwide systems such as PBIS implemented with fidelity. The Office of the Child Advocate said restraint and seclusion numbers have not declined and characterized restraints as often re‑traumatizing; Lives in the Balance — cited by the sponsor and child‑advocate staff — provided examples from Maine and Virginia where alternatives and practice changes yielded reductions in seclusion and restraint.

Concerns and clarifying questions: Legislators sought specifics about which alternative methods would be piloted, whether the pilot would preclude using current crisis‑management tools and the fiscal impact. Sponsors said the pilot is meant to test methods beyond standard de‑escalation and crisis prevention training (which many schools already use) and that rules would focus on proactive prevention. A 2025 fiscal note referenced an indeterminate cost; sponsors said leveraging vendor expertise and conducting school‑level data collection could keep state costs down.

Next steps: The bill generated substantial interest and will require the committee to weigh funding, pilot scope and reporting requirements should it be advanced. Proponents asked lawmakers to consider evidence from other states and to authorize a limited pilot to collect systematic data before broader policy changes.