Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on HB 1688 exposes sharp divide over loosening restraint and seclusion rules
Summary
Representative Mike Drago urged changes to allow staff more latitude to remove or restrain disruptive students and to reclassify some voluntary seclusion as involuntary; disability‑rights groups, special‑education administrators, NAMI, and many parents opposed the changes, citing injury, trauma, and disproportionate impact on children with disabilities.
Representative Mike Drago introduced House Bill 1688, arguing existing statutory language on restraint and seclusion (chapter 126‑U) leaves school employees insufficient authority to protect themselves and to preserve classroom learning when students are violent or severely disruptive. Drago described incidents he said were reported to him — paraprofessionals with bite marks, a staff member stabbed with a pencil — and proposed lowering the threshold for restraint from a ‘‘substantial risk of serious bodily harm’’ to a lower risk standard and changing language to allow involuntary removal from class when students disrupt instruction.
Opponents included multiple disability‑rights advocates, special‑education administrators, the New Hampshire School Boards Association, NAMI New Hampshire, and parents whose children have experienced restraint and seclusion. Witnesses argued the existing statute strikes a balance between operational needs and child safety, and they warned that HB 1688 would remove key protections, increase incidences of restraint and seclusion, and create or worsen trauma — particularly for children with disabilities.
Michael Skibby (former policy director at the Disability Rights Center) and Karen Rosenberg (Disability Rights Center policy director) walked the committee through the statute’s history, noting that the chapter was enacted after reports of serious injuries and poorly regulated seclusion practices. They warned that removing modifiers such as "serious" and "substantial" would authorize restraints in situations that should be managed with de‑escalation, escorts, or other nonphysical interventions, and that narrowing the definition of seclusion would threaten parental notification requirements and safeguards.
Special‑education leaders and parents described how training, functional behavioral assessments, and multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS‑B) can reduce the need for restraint and seclusion, and they urged the legislature to invest in training and technical assistance rather than loosening statutory limits. Several testified that restraint and seclusion disproportionately affect young children with disabilities and can cause lasting PTSD symptoms.
School administrative organizations noted extensive reporting and documentation requirements when restraint or seclusion occurs, and suggested better Department of Education technical assistance and training for administrators and staff to clarify what the statute already permits (including escorts and hand‑guided removal) rather than changing thresholds.
The committee heard living examples of harm (reports of duct‑taped children, seclusion in inadequately ventilated rooms) and of successful nonphysical interventions (behavioral assessments and low‑cost supports that ended repeated seclusion). No committee vote occurred during the hearing.
Next steps: committee may hold further hearings or request technical assistance from the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services before drafting amendments.
