Prohibits the use of certain restraints and aversive interventions against students; includes policies and procedures for responding to students who have mental health crises in school safety plans; provides that no student shall be subjected to chemical restraints, mechanical restraints, or seclusion on school property; requires the board of education or trustees of each public school and school district to develop a procedure to notify the parent or legal guardian of a student on the same day a physical restraint is applied on such student, such student is placed in a time out room, or such student is subjected to a prohibited form of discipline.
A06046, the “Protect Our Students In School Act,” would add a new article to the Education Law restricting the use of corporal punishment, aversive interventions, seclusion, and certain forms of restraint in New York schools. The bill defines these practices in detail and generally prohibits their use on school property or at school functions by school employees, while preserving a narrow exception for reasonable physical force used to protect a student or others from imminent physical injury. It also bars parents or guardians from waiving these protections for a student, including through an individualized education program (IEP).
The bill allows physical restraint only in limited emergency circumstances involving a significant and imminent risk of bodily harm, and only if a series of safeguards are met, such as avoiding prone or supine restraint, not interfering with breathing or communication, using only the minimum force necessary, and ending the restraint when the threat passes. It also requires same-day parental notification when a physical restraint, timeout room placement, or prohibited discipline is used, and directs the State Education Department to adopt regulations, collect standardized data, and issue annual reports on restraint use.
In addition to the discipline provisions, the bill amends school safety planning requirements to require policies and procedures for responding to students experiencing mental health crises without contacting law enforcement unless there is an implied or direct threat of violence or other criminal activity. This would affect public schools, BOCES schools, approved preschool programs, and state-operated or state-supported public schools, as well as school district emergency planning and reporting obligations.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective of students and oriented toward limiting harmful or punitive school discipline practices. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests a child-safety and student-rights rationale, especially for students with disabilities and students in behavioral or mental health crises.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broad restrictions on school discipline tools and the limits it places on school staff discretion in emergencies. Likely areas of debate include whether the physical restraint standard is workable in real-time crises, whether banning child-specific exceptions in IEPs is appropriate, and whether the requirement to avoid law enforcement involvement in most mental health crises could constrain school safety responses.
The bill would create a new Education Law article governing discipline practices in schools and would significantly narrow when school employees may use physical force, restraint, or timeout-related interventions. It would prohibit corporal punishment, aversive interventions, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, and seclusion, while allowing only tightly defined emergency physical restraint. It would also impose new parental-notice, data-collection, training, and annual reporting requirements on school districts and the State Education Department, and it would amend school safety plan requirements to include mental-health-crisis response procedures that generally avoid police involvement.
The bill’s tone and policy direction are clearly student-protective, emphasizing safety, dignity, and limits on punitive or coercive practices in schools. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no measurable legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to address concerns about harmful restraint practices and the treatment of students with disabilities or behavioral health needs.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s strict limits on restraint and discipline, especially the prohibition on seclusion and chemical or mechanical restraints and the ban on child-specific exceptions in IEPs. School administrators and staff may view the physical-restraint standards as difficult to apply in emergencies, particularly where student or staff safety is at risk. Another likely point of debate is the mental-health-crisis provision, which directs schools not to contact law enforcement unless violence or criminal activity is implicated; supporters may see this as a de-escalation measure, while critics may argue it could reduce flexibility in urgent situations.