Keeping All Students Safe Act
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Keeping All Students Safe Act creates a national floor for student safety in programs receiving federal financial assistance. It bans seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint used for behavior control rather than treatment, life-threatening restraint, restraints that restrict breathing or blood flow, disability-contraindicated restraints, and aversive behavioral interventions. It allows only narrow physical restraint in emergency situations involving imminent serious physical injury, with limits on duration, monitoring, parent notice, documentation, and follow-up. States must submit annual plans showing compliant policies, crisis-intervention training, monitoring, enforcement, and public reporting. The Secretary of Education may make $40 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 in state grants for implementation, data systems, and positive behavioral interventions. The bill also requires national assessment, protection-and-advocacy notification after injury or death, and Interior and Defense rulemaking for schools they operate or fund.
Who Benefits and How
Students with disabilities and other students in federally funded programs benefit from enforceable limits on seclusion, dangerous restraint, and aversive interventions. Parents benefit from notice and documentation when emergency restraint is used. State educational agencies benefit from grants to build crisis-intervention training, monitoring, and data systems. Protection and advocacy systems benefit from mandatory notice after injury or death. Interior and Defense school students benefit because agency rulemaking must apply the same protections in those school systems.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Local educational agencies, Head Start agencies, Interior schools, and Defense Education Activity schools must revise policies, train program personnel, document emergency restraint incidents, notify parents, and submit data. State educational agencies must file annual plans, monitor compliance, enforce state mechanisms, and report publicly. The Department of Education must review plans, administer grants, conduct national assessment work, and enforce federal conditions. Federal taxpayers fund the $40 million annual authorization. School personnel face litigation or administrative enforcement exposure if they use prohibited practices.
Key Provisions
- Prohibits seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint for behavior control, life-threatening restraint, and aversive behavioral interventions in federally funded programs.
- Requires emergency physical restraint to be limited, monitored, documented, and followed by parent notice and review.
- Requires State educational agencies to submit annual plans covering policies, crisis-intervention training, monitoring, enforcement, and public reporting.
- Authorizes $40 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 for state implementation grants.
- Requires national assessment of restraint reduction efforts in schools and Head Start programs.
- Requires injury and death notification to protection and advocacy systems within 24 hours.
- Directs Interior and Defense to issue rules applying the Act to schools they operate or fund.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Prohibits seclusion and dangerous restraint in federally funded schools and Head Start programs, requires state plans and data systems, funds prevention capacity, mandates injury and death notifications, and extends protections to Interior and Defense schools.
Key Policy Areas
Education, Disability Rights, Child Safety, Federal Grants
Primary Purpose
Prohibits seclusion and dangerous restraint in federally funded schools and Head Start programs, requires state plans and data systems, funds prevention capacity, mandates injury and death notifications, and extends protections to Interior and Defense schools.
Policy Domains
Substantive provisions
Identified Gains
- Students with disabilities
- Parents
- State educational agencies
- Protection and advocacy systems
- Interior school students
- Defense Education Activity students
Identified Costs
- Local educational agencies
- Head Start agencies
- State educational agencies
- Department of Education staff
- Interior school administrators
- Defense school administrators
- Federal taxpayers
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona, Mr. Scott …
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in …
Introduced in House
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Defense school students, Head Start agencies, Interior school administrators
Positive-direction: Defense school students, Interior school students, Students in federally funded schools, Students with disabilities
Negative-direction: Head Start agencies, Interior school administrators, Local educational agencies, Local educational agencies and Head Start programs required to notify authorities and advocacy systems after serious incidents, Program personnel
Department of the Interior, Federal and State administrators responsible for grant selection, reporting, and oversight, Federal budget financing implementation of the Act
Positive-direction: State educational agencies receiving grants to implement the Act and related school-improvement activities, States and schools implementing the Act with support from authorized Federal funding
Negative-direction: Department of the Interior, Federal and State administrators responsible for grant selection, reporting, and oversight, Federal budget financing implementation of the Act, Federal education officials responsible for conducting the assessment and submitting reports to Congress, State educational agencies and Head Start administrators required to prepare plans, reports, and oversight systems under the Act
Parents, Protection and advocacy systems and affected students gaining stronger access to information and enforcement tools, Students benefiting from safer school practices supported by the grants
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "DOD"
- → Department of Defense
- "Interior"
- → Department of the Interior
- "Department of Education"
- → Federal grant and enforcement agency
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology