According to the US Department of Education (USDE), seclusion restraints should be avoided as much as possible, unless there is no other alternative to control the child's behavior. "Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used except in situations where the child's behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others...
Introduction The best offense is a good defense—and that idea applies to writing as much as it does to sports. In writing, you need to be able to defend yourself against accusations of plagiarism. That means being smart about how you write, how you cite, and how you maintain...
According to the US Department of Education (USDE), seclusion restraints should be avoided as much as possible, unless there is no other alternative to control the child's behavior. "Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used except in situations where the child's behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others and restraint and seclusion should be avoided to the greatest extent possible" ("Restraint and Seclusion," 2012, p.2). Of course, many people are still concerned that this is too subjective a standard and that it may be abused. Guidelines have also been issued by the Department to emphasize that restraints must never be used to punish a child but rather should only be used to prevent the child doing further harm to self or others ("Restraints and Seclusion," 2012, p.12). The preferred strategy to enhance safety in the classroom is behavioral modification, not using repeated restraints. Multiple uses of restraints upon multiple students by the same individual should trigger an administrative review ("Restraint and Seclusion," 2012, p.12).
Although official USDE guidelines specifically state that restraint policies should be uniform for children with and without disabilities, in actual practice, students with disabilities are far more likely to be restrained, "usually with those who have autism or are labeled emotionally disturbed. Sometimes the students will get upset; they might even get violent" (Shapiro 2014). There is a real risk that children who are restrained physically may get hurt. There is always a delicate balance between ensuring the safety of other students, teachers, and the student him or herself versus the risks of restraints. Suggested guidelines should include suggested training for school administrators in federal education policy as well as developing guidelines about how to use restraints with maximum efficacy and minimum harm to the students. Finally, limiting the amount of time students can be restrained until a parent can be contacted is imperative, since if a child poses a real and constant risk, he or she should be removed from the school environment to a more appropriate location with experienced personnel.
Special education students should be required to take assessments for their ability level. Forcing students to take tests which do not reflect their capacity or educational curriculum is of little value to determine how and if they are progressing, which is the primary intention of implementing NCLB. "One of the hallmarks of a child with a developmental or cognitive disability is that they don't learn at the same pace" as their non-disabled peers (Berwick 2015). Schools may even be pressured to ensure more special education students are classified as so severely disabled that the students are not eligible to take such tests at all, so these students' failing performances will not be included on their school's report card. Under NCLB, students are classified as failing if they do not meet predetermined benchmarks. "The original text of NCLB, under its section on state plans, says that to make 'adequate yearly progress' (AYP) a school must test 95% of its students" (Strauss 2015). This failing grade does not take into consideration the fact that some schools have higher special needs populations than other schools.
NCLB does have some positive effects, in that regular standardized testing can be used to track student progress. But the critical aspect for special needs students is tracking progress, versus determining by how many percentiles students fail to meet existing standards. Standardized benchmarks can be used to raise the expectations for special needs students but if they are unreasonably high and the test does not even reflect the student's individualized education plan's goals, simply taking a test at which the student is set up to fail based upon ability level and lack of preparation will ultimately not benefit the student or the school.
References
Berwick, C. (2015). No Child Left Behind's greatest achievement? The Atlantic. Retrieved from:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/no-child-left-behind-one-big-achievement/399455/
Restraint and seclusion. (2012). US Department of Education. Retrieved from:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-resources.pdf
Shapiro, J. (2014). National data confirms cases of restraint and seclusion in public schools.
NPR. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/19/322915388/national-data-confirms-cases-of-restraint-and-seclusion-in-public-schools
Strauss, V. (2015). Will schools lose federal funds if kids don't take mandated tests?
The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/02/will-schools-lose-federal-funds-if-kids-dont-take-mandated-tests-fact-vs.-threat/?utm_term=.3052e2482baa
The remaining sections cover Conclusions. Subscribe for $1 to unlock the full paper, plus 130,000+ paper examples and the PaperDue AI writing assistant — all included.
Always verify citation format against your institution's current style guide.