Barbara Brunelle

Opposition of HB 1688 I strongly oppose expanding the circumstances under which restraint is permitted in schools and treatment facilities and any changes that weaken the definition of seclusion. I am a teacher with 43 years of experience. In that time, I have learned that restraint is not a safety strategy—it is a sign that systems of support have failed. I also have a loved one with a serious mental illness and has unfortunately experienced both restraints as well as seclusion. As an adult, he suffers to this day from PTSD from those restrictive practices imposed many years ago. Physical restraint must remain a last resort, used only in situations of immediate danger. Expanding its use increases the risk of trauma, injury, and misuse, especially for students with disabilities. Weakening the definition of seclusion makes harmful isolation easier to justify and harder to monitor. What actually keeps students safe are strong systems of support: adequate staffing, evidence-based behavioral supports, trauma-informed practices, mental health services, and meaningful relationships. When these systems are in place, restraint and seclusion are rarely needed. This proposal moves us backward by lowering protections for children instead of strengthening supports. I urge you to reject it and focus on building systems that ensure safety while preserving student dignity and trust. Yes, I completely understand that additional training with educators and families would need to take place. Yet the long-term positive impact to the educational community would undoubtedly foster respect, dignity, and support for all families.