Bill would ban life‑threatening restraints, curb new isolation rooms and require better reporting in Washington schools

The Early Learning K‑12 Education Committee heard extensive testimony on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 17‑95, a pared‑down bill that would prohibit chemical and mechanical restraints and prohibit restraints that restrict breathing or blood flow, restrict the inclusion of isolation in IEPs and 504 plans as a planned intervention except in narrowly defined, parent‑requested and medically documented circumstances, and ban designing or establishing rooms for the primary purpose of isolating students.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Callan, who represents the 5th Legislative District, said the bill is a narrower product of multi‑year negotiations and stakeholder conversations that responded to a Disability Rights Washington and ACLU report documenting disproportionate use of isolation and restraint on students of color, students with disabilities and low‑income students. Callan said the bill includes intent language aiming for a phase‑out of isolation practices by 2031 and that it provides a clearer definition of restraint to protect students while allowing necessary, medically required supports.

Advocates and district staff described demonstration projects and local reforms that have markedly reduced the use of isolation and restraint. "Centralia removed their last [isolation room] this year," Andrea Cadlik of Disability Rights Washington said, and OSPI described 22 demonstration sites in which 68 percent saw reductions in restraint and isolation year over year. Patrick Mullick of Auburn School District said his district reported 344 instances of isolation in the 2019–20 school year and 17 incidents in the 2024–25 school year after reforms and removing its last active isolation room.

Practitioners and some legislators pushed back on implementation challenges. Several speakers — including paraeducators, unions and principals — warned the bill lacks new funding for training and specialist staffing and that, without investments in staff, space and rapid access to behavioral health support, frontline staff could face unsafe conditions. Senator Cortez, drawing on practitioner experience, asked the sponsor to address concerns about excluding evidence‑based practices from behavior intervention plans, gray areas around sensory rooms and an exemption for school resource officers.

Supporters framed the bill as a realistic, short‑session step that preserves future work on training and funding while prohibiting clearly dangerous techniques. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the chair adjourned the meeting after testimony concluded.