HB260 revises New Mexico’s public school rules on how staff may respond to student behavior, with a focus on limiting restraint and eliminating seclusion. The bill expressly prohibits seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, and prone restraint in public schools. It allows physical restraint only in narrow circumstances: when a student’s behavior presents an imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, less restrictive interventions are insufficient, and, in the case of elopement, those same danger and intervention standards are met. The bill also clarifies that physical escort is not the same as physical restraint and may be used in some elopement situations where restraint is not authorized.
The bill requires schools to build policies and procedures into school safety plans for positive behavior interventions and supports, de-escalation, and physical restraint, with plans reviewed by a team that includes trained personnel and a special education expert and approved by the Public Education Department. It also requires biannual training for designated staff, including administrators, on de-escalation, triaging behavior incidents, restraint techniques, and documentation. Schools must maintain continuous visual monitoring during restraint, stop restraint once the danger passes, and ensure techniques do not interfere with breathing or communication or exceed what is appropriate for the student’s age and physical condition.
HB260 also strengthens reporting and parent-notification requirements. Schools must notify parents the same day, or within 24 hours if same-day notice is not possible, and provide a detailed department-issued form within three school days documenting the incident, triggers, interventions attempted, duration, location, techniques used, staff involved, and training dates. If restraint is used more than once in a school year for the same student, the school must review the incidents with a trained professional and, where applicable, convene the student’s IEP, behavioral intervention, or student assistance team within two weeks to recommend ways to avoid future incidents. Parents may also request a team meeting after a restraint incident.
The bill’s impact is to narrow and standardize the use of force in schools, remove seclusion as an available response, and create more detailed oversight, training, and documentation obligations for districts and school employees. It amends Section 22-5-4.12 NMSA 1978 and would affect public schools, administrators, special education teams, and staff who handle behavioral crises. It also preserves a limited role for law enforcement and first responders by stating the section does not govern their conduct and excludes schools in county juvenile detention centers and state-operated juvenile facilities.
The general sentiment reflected by the vote suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition, passing the House on final passage 40-26. With no committee transcript available, the record does not show specific floor arguments, but the structure of the bill indicates a policy preference for restrictive, safety-focused use of restraint and stronger protections for students. Likely points of contention include the elimination of seclusion, the limits on when physical restraint may be used, the added training and documentation requirements, and whether the bill gives schools enough flexibility to manage dangerous behavior and elopement.
HB260 would amend Section 22-5-4.12 NMSA 1978 governing school responses to student behavior. It would prohibit seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, and prone restraint in public schools, while sharply limiting physical restraint to imminent-danger situations and certain elopement cases. The bill would also require school safety plans, staff training, parent notification, detailed incident documentation, and post-incident review processes, thereby increasing compliance obligations for school districts and the Public Education Department.
The bill appears to have had a generally supportive but divided reception. Its House final passage vote of 40-26 indicates a clear majority in favor, but with substantial opposition. In the absence of committee transcripts, the available record suggests the bill was viewed as a student-safety and restraint-reform measure by supporters, while opponents likely had concerns about operational flexibility and the practical ability of schools to respond to dangerous behavior.
The main points of contention are likely the categorical ban on seclusion, the prohibition on mechanical and prone restraint, and the narrow standard for using physical restraint only when there is imminent danger of serious physical harm and less restrictive interventions have failed. Another likely area of debate is the bill’s detailed training, documentation, and review requirements, which may be seen as necessary safeguards by supporters but burdensome by critics. The elopement provisions and the distinction between physical escort and physical restraint may also be disputed, especially in special education and behavioral crisis contexts.