Bill
HB 2936
Arizona tightens school restraint/seclusion rules with new enforcement and training; Illinois caps admin severance payouts when contracts are rescinded for poor performance.
Note on source text
- The material provided for HB 2936 appears to combine two different bills from different states: an Arizona amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes §15‑105 (student restraint and seclusion) sponsored by Representative Brian Garcia, and an Illinois amendment to the School Code (limiting certain administrative contract buyouts) introduced by Representative Rita Mayfield. This summary treats both elements separately and flags the jurisdictions and primary changes for each.
Purpose and intent
- Clarify permitted uses of restraint and seclusion in schools and establish a complaint/investigation/enforcement process administered by the State Department of Education (or the Department referenced in statute).
Key provisions
- Confirms restraint or seclusion may be used only when (1) pupil behavior presents an imminent danger of bodily harm and (2) less restrictive interventions are insufficient.
- Safety and procedural limits when used:
- Continuous visual monitoring required.
- Use must end when imminent danger ceases.
- Only trained personnel shall use techniques unless an emergency prevents summoning trained staff.
- Restraints may not impede breathing or be disproportionate to age/physical condition.
- Reporting and documentation requirements:
- Parents/guardians must be notified same day (or within 24 hours if same‑day notice is prevented).
- Written documentation to parents describing triggers (if known), behavior precursors, type and duration of technique, and a review of strategies when restraints are used repeatedly in a school year (including consideration of functional behavioral assessment).
- Law enforcement: If law enforcement is summoned instead of using restraint/seclusion, the school must still comply with the reporting/documentation/review procedures. School resource officers may respond according to their agency protocols.
- New complaint and enforcement mechanism (new subsection G):
- Any person may submit a written complaint to the Department with evidence and specific facts alleging a violation.
- The Department shall investigate and, upon finding a violation, require involved school administrators and personnel to complete a Department‑approved training program on proper restraint and seclusion use.
- Listed violations include using restraint/seclusion when statutory conditions are not met; using law enforcement in absence of imminent danger; failing to follow monitoring, ending, training, or safety requirements; adopting or failing to follow policies inconsistent with statute.
- Definitions updated/renumbered (restraint, seclusion, and “school” defined consistent with prior statute language).
Who is affected
- Public and private schools defined in §15‑105 (districts, charter schools, special education placements, Arizona schools for the deaf and blind, private schools), students (especially those with behavioral needs), parents/guardians, school staff, administrators, and the State Department of Education.
Procedural/status notes (from provided actions)
- Introduced Feb 18, 2025; various House readings and committee actions recorded; listed as Rule 19(a) / Re‑referred to Rules Committee on Apr 11, 2025.
Potential impact
- Strengthens parental notification and documentation obligations, increases oversight by the Department, and creates a formal complaint/investigative path and mandatory remedial training for violations. May increase administrative workload and training costs for schools, and could lead to more oversight/enforcement actions.
Purpose and intent
- Limit large buyout/severance payments when a school district rescinds an administrative employee’s contract because of unsatisfactory performance; placed within broader statutory section governing administrative expenditure limitations.
Key provision added (new subsection c‑5)
- A school district shall not enter into an agreement that rescinds an administrative employee’s employment contract in exchange for a payment that exceeds an amount greater than six times the employee’s monthly salary when the rescission is due to unsatisfactory performance.
Context in statute
- The change is inserted into Section 17‑1.5, which governs limits on growth of administrative expenditures, reporting, waivers, corrective actions, and related oversight by the State Superintendent.
Who is affected
- Illinois school districts (all districts with population <500,000 as defined in the section), administrative employees, school boards, and state education oversight authorities.
Procedural/status notes (from provided actions)
- Text indicates introduction in Illinois General Assembly (dates in February 2025 appear in the embedded text). The combined legislative activity log provided mixes entries from different jurisdictions; confirm jurisdiction and procedural history with the appropriate state legislature.
Potential impact
- Prevents large severance/buyout payouts to administrators whose contracts are rescinded for unsatisfactory performance, potentially reducing district administrative expenditures and limiting costly settlement arrangements. Districts may need to rely on other personnel processes (e.g., performance remediation, termination procedures) rather than high buyouts.
If you want, I can:
- Prepare a single‑jurisdiction brief (Arizona or Illinois) after you confirm which state’s HB 2936 you need summarized,
- Extract and format the exact proposed statutory language changes, or
- Identify implementing or budgetary impacts and likely next procedural steps in the relevant legislature.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
