State committee weighs requiring recordings of restraints and seclusion in schools

Representative Peter Petrino convened an interim study of the Children and Family Law Committee to review House Bill 1269, which would add language to state statute linking visual and auditory recording of seclusion and restraint to student individualized education programs. Petrino said he initially planned to recommend ITL but requested further study after hearing parents’ testimony and concerns about children returning from school injured and unable to describe what happened.

The committee heard from Maureen Tracy, an educator from Merrimack who described more than 25 years of experience in schools. "All I'm looking for is somebody else to be able to have a voice when a child is either put in a restraint or seclusion or comes home with an injury and they can't communicate," Tracy said, recounting instances she has witnessed where students were thrown or held down. Tracy and several legislators emphasized that better data collection and incident reports are needed to prevent repeat incidents.

Members focused on three fault lines: scope, privacy and implementation. The bill as drafted ties recording to an IEP or accommodation plan; Rep. Petrino warned that because many students with IEPs are mainstreamed, the requirement could imply cameras across classrooms. Rep. Long noted that an IEP-based approach could allow parents to opt out, limiting the requirement to students whose IEPs include recording. "Audio and video would be the best," Long said, explaining his view that recordings give parents direct evidence when incident reports are incomplete.

Lawmakers debated alternatives to fixed-room cameras. Rep. Deb DeSimone proposed staff-worn body cameras that could be activated like a panic button so a recording begins when an incident escalates. DeSimone said such footage could be a "teaching tool" and help determine what worked and what did not. Several members raised privacy concerns: DeSimone warned that fixed cameras in locker rooms or bathrooms would be inappropriate, and others worried cameras could capture unrelated students and infringe privacy.

Cost and practicalities were recurring concerns. Rep. Heather Raymond said camera systems and body cameras can be expensive — she cited an example of a $350,000-a-year outlay for police body cameras — and argued training and staff recruitment might be a better use of limited funds. Raymond described a new 15-page reporting form Nashua adopted that requires listing all staff involved, antecedent events, narrative justification, injury documentation, immediate phone notification to parents and superintendent review, and she urged attention to how such forms are completed and reviewed in practice.

The committee did not reach consensus on a single approach. Members suggested narrowing scope (for example, to special-education classrooms), building a step-up financing plan, or allowing funding through gifts and grants as in other states. Several legislators emphasized existing legal constraints on recordings (retention, access and criminal statutes governing audio/video) and recommended reviewing those statutes before drafting new language.

As a next step, Rep. Deb DeSimone moved that Rep. Long draft a report summarizing the committee’s discussion and recommendations; the chair recorded the motion and noted no formal vote was required. Members agreed to review any draft before formal legislation; they also noted a documentary screening and panel on Sept. 23 that could inform the committee’s work. The committee adjourned with plans to reconvene once members had a proposed draft to review.