New Hampshire subcommittee examines bill to record restraints and seclusions for students with IEPs

At a meeting of the House Children and Family Law subcommittee, members discussed House Bill 1269, a proposal to require visual and audio recordings when restraint or seclusion is used on students with individualized education programs (IEPs). Representative Peter Petrino, clerk of the subcommittee, said he had filed the interim study motion for HB 1269 and acknowledged parents’ concerns while warning that “you would have to have cameras in every single classroom” if mainstreamed students were covered.

Why it matters: The proposal pits accountability and documentation against privacy, cost and practical concerns. Witnesses and committee members pointed to recent New Hampshire statutory changes that expanded reporting requirements and described possible alternatives such as targeted cameras in designated seclusion areas, expanded staff training and pilot programs to test evidence-based interventions.

What the law and witnesses say: Committee members contrasted New Hampshire’s approach with Maine’s statute. Members summarized Maine’s law as broadly prohibiting restraint and seclusion for covered entities, while New Hampshire’s RSA permits limited restraint but prohibits dangerous techniques. An attendee citing RSA 126-U:5 told the committee that New Hampshire limits restraint to emergency situations and that reporting forms exist but provide only summary totals in public releases; the attendee recommended stronger pattern reviews and an oversight role, possibly at the Office of the Child Advocate.

Becky Wilson, director of governmental relations for the New Hampshire School Boards Association, told the subcommittee that 2022–23 legislation (Senate Bill 179 and House Bill 491) created a detailed incident reporting form now used by public and approved nonpublic schools; she said the form documents staff training, injuries and other context. Wilson warned that expanding audio/visual recording would create significant local fiscal, storage and privacy issues and that districts already must maintain surveillance policies.

Local practice and staff perspective: Jessica Brown, director of student services at SAU 67, urged the committee to specify the intent of any recordings — whether for accountability, injury documentation or root-cause analysis — and raised concerns about student dignity and digital footprints should recordings become widely available. Toby Islin, who works in residential programs, described evidence-based training requirements, routine nurse checks after restraints and administrator reviews, and warned that overly restrictive policy could force some students into out-of-district or out-of-state placements, removing them from families and communities.

Alternatives discussed: Committee members and witnesses repeatedly recommended prioritizing prevention, expanded and standardized training, and piloting evidence-based alternatives such as Dr. Ross Greene’s Collaborative & Proactive Solutions methodology before imposing systemwide camera mandates. Petrino suggested options including keeping New Hampshire’s limited-restraint statute while adding cameras only in designated seclusion areas, or testing alternative interventions in pilot districts and incorporating successful practices into teacher preparation programs.

Next steps: The subcommittee did not take a vote or file a recommendation at the meeting. Members asked the Office of the Child Advocate and the Department of Education for additional information and data about reports, compliance and remedies. Petrino closed by saying the committee has further work to do and adjourned without formal action on HB 1269.