Committee Statements

Before we begin, I want to recognize Chairman Miller and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for their hard work on this issue. Every member of this committee was disturbed by the findings of the Government Accountability Office, and every one of us believes our schools must provide a safe environment for both students and teachers.

This morning, our goal is to find the best path toward our shared goal of protecting students. This is a complicated question that has provoked a spirited and sometimes emotional debate between parents, teachers, and school administrators. It may provoke a spirited debate here in this committee as well. But at the end of the day, we need to remember that we all share the same goal – protecting students.

With that goal in mind, I’d like to express a few preliminary concerns with the legislation before us.

First, I fear we may be prescribing solutions to a problem we do not fully understand. We don’t know how prevalent these techniques are in schools, and we don’t know whether there are significant differences from school to school and from state to state. We need answers to these questions because states that fully understand the problem will be able to develop more effective solutions.

And speaking of states, I’m also concerned states will be delayed in the development and implementation of strong policies governing seclusion and restraint if the federal government becomes a middleman in this process.

Already, 31 states have policies in place regarding what, if any, seclusion or restraint techniques can be used in their schools. If we mandate a two-and-a-half year federal regulatory process, states may delay putting new safeguards in place or abandon existing protections because of fears that they will not comport with whatever these specific new federal requirements will be.

I’d also like to raise a concern about the application of this legislation to private schools. While some modest steps have been taken to reduce the federal burden on private schools, this bill would still impose a significant new mandate on independent schools that have traditionally been excluded from such Washington requirements. None of the incidents uncovered by the GAO took place in private schools; their inclusion in this bill seems both unnecessary and intrusive. 

In its investigation, the GAO identified a number of specific concerns about the use of seclusion and restraint in our schools. These techniques were used unnecessarily and excessively. Teachers were not trained in how to safely restrain students, resulting in danger for the students being restrained as well as their classmates and teachers.

Among the most troubling findings of the GAO is the vexing reality that teachers who have physically and emotionally harmed students remain in our classrooms. Even after losing their teaching credentials, some of these individuals were able to cross state lines and reestablish themselves in positions of trust. Parents in their new environments likely had no idea their children were left in the hands of someone with a history of harmful behavior.

These are serious problems, and I believe it is incumbent on states to act quickly to ensure the stories uncovered by the GAO are not repeated for any other children or their parents.

Again, I thank Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Chairman Miller for using the congressional bully pulpit to draw attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraint in our schools. Finding solutions will not be easy, but by listening to the spectrum of stakeholders and moving forward thoughtfully, I believe states can – and will – make our schools safer for students and teachers.

 

# # #