Safeguarding Students: The Prohibition of Prone Restraints in California Schools

Key Takeaways

• California has enacted legislation banning the use of prone restraints in schools to protect student safety.
• Prone restraints have been linked to serious injuries and fatalities, particularly among students with disabilities.
• Alternatively, evidence-based behavioral interventions are recommended to effectively manage student behavior.

Table of Contents

• Understanding Prone Restraints
• Legislative Actions in California
• Impact on Students with Disabilities
• Alternative Behavioral Interventions
• Training and Implementation
• Monitoring and Compliance
• Conclusion

Understanding Prone Restraints

School communities across California have long sought ways to manage student behavior in a manner that ensures the welfare of all students, including those with special needs. However, one controversial method—prone restraints—has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. Using prone restraints involves physically holding a student face down and applying pressure to the body to control movement or behavior. Numerous health organizations and advocacy groups have sounded alarms about the dangers, highlighting links between such tactics and cases of severe injury, emotional trauma, and even death.

Experts warn that the use of dangerous restraint tactics can quickly escalate into life-threatening situations, particularly when staff are not adequately trained or when protocols are misapplied. The psychological repercussions are equally significant, as these methods can create long-term fear and mistrust among students who experience or witness such restraint.

Recognizing these risks, the U.S. Department of Education has recommended eliminating face-down, or prone, holds in school settings. According to their guidance, less restrictive means of managing behavior promote both physical safety and a positive school culture.

The need to review and reform outdated crisis management practices also comes in response to harrowing headlines where prone restraints were a factor in student fatalities. California lawmakers took action in response to such tragedies, aiming to rewrite the state’s approach to student discipline and safety.

Legislative Actions in California

California’s Senate Bill 483—also known as Max Benson’s Law—serves as the foundation for sweeping changes in how restraint is addressed throughout K-12 schools. The bill’s passage followed the tragic 2018 death of Max Benson, a 13-year-old student with autism who died after being held in a prone restraint at school for nearly two hours. State Senator Dave Cortese, who introduced the legislation, stated that California had a duty to protect vulnerable youth and prevent senseless loss of life.

With the new law, schools are categorically prohibited from using prone restraints under any circumstance. Instead, educators and administrators must use nonviolent, therapeutic, and evidence-based strategies to address behavioral incidents. Legislative leaders and disability advocates emphasize that these measures are not just about rule compliance—they are vital for restoring trust and dignity to educational environments.

Impact on Students with Disabilities

The use of physical restraints in schools is not equally distributed; data consistently show a disproportionate impact on students with disabilities and students of color. In the 2022–2023 academic year alone, California documented 6,785 incidents of physical restraint across its schools, with students with special needs comprising the majority of those affected. This disparity underscores the pressing need to replace harmful techniques with supportive practices that acknowledge the complexities of student behavior.

Federal reports reveal similar patterns across the country, where students with disabilities represent roughly 12% of enrollment but account for more than 70% of physical restraint cases nationwide. Advocates point to the cycle of trauma these practices perpetuate, underscoring that every student deserves to learn in a setting free from fear and harm.

Alternative Behavioral Interventions

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

In place of restraint, schools are increasingly adopting Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a framework that has been proven to reduce disruptive incidents and foster a positive school climate. PBIS emphasizes setting clear expectations, teaching social-emotional skills, and using data to intervene early before a crisis escalates. Many districts that implement PBIS have reported lower suspension and restraint rates, along with improved teacher and student satisfaction.

Restorative Practices and De-Escalation Techniques

Other successful alternatives include restorative justice practices and de-escalation training. Programs focused on restoring relationships, mediating conflicts, and employing calm verbal and nonverbal communication are now part of professional development in an increasing number of California school districts. Research published in Edutopia demonstrates that these techniques lead to safer, more inclusive environments, reducing the likelihood of physical altercations.

Training and Implementation

Ensuring the success of the ban on prone restraints resides in comprehensive training for school staff. Staff must learn to identify precursors of crisis behavior and understand the principles of trauma-informed care. Central to this initiative is familiarizing personnel with the risks of all physical restraints and providing tools to employ safe, supportive strategies instead. Ongoing education, paired with regular reviews of incident data, helps refine practices and ensure new policies genuinely protect students.

Monitoring and Compliance

The California Department of Education (CDE) monitors compliance with SB 483, requiring all incidents involving physical restraint or seclusion to be reported. Districts must document their interventions, the outcomes of these interventions, and ongoing professional development efforts related to behavioral management. Regular reporting empowers oversight and spotlights areas where schools may need additional support or training.

Conclusion

California’s prohibition of prone restraints in schools marks a transformative step for student rights and educational safety. By replacing outdated, dangerous restraint tactics with evidence-based supports and focused staff training, state schools lay the groundwork for environments where all students—especially those with special needs—can thrive. The collaborative efforts of educators, leaders, and families will ensure that schools remain committed to upholding these standards and embedding a culture of compassion, dignity, and true student-centered care.