Michael Rozalski

Review of State Policies Concerning the Use of Physical Restraint Procedures in Schools

Recent injuries and fatalities among students due to the use of physical restraint procedures in schools, and the resulting media attention and litigation have started to place pressure on many state and local education agencies to develop policies or guidelines concerning their use in schools. The authors investigated existing state policies and guidelines concerning the use of physical restraint procedures in educational settings across the United States. Currently, thirty-one states were identified with established guidance concerning the use of these crisis intervention procedures. Several states are either developing or revising their existing policies or guidelines. The authors reviewed the policies and guidelines which were identified in order to compare common content elements found in these documents, and make recommendations for states, schools or districts interested in developing their own policies or guidelines.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education: 2005 to 2007

Education Act (IDEA) has spawned much litigation in which parents of children with disabilities and school districts disagree over the content of a student’s special education (Huefner, 2002; Yell, 2006). The majority of this litigation has occurred in the federal district courts. The federal court system consists of more than 100 U.S. District Courts, 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The most significant of these federal courts is the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court rulings are of tremendous importance because they establish the legal standard for, and must be followed throughout, the entire country (Huefner; Yell). In the 30 years since the passage of the IDEA, from 1975 to 2005, the Supreme Court had only heard seven cases (Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982; Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 1985; Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 1999; Florence County School District v. Carter, 1993; Honig v. Doe, 1988; Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 1984; Smith v. Robinson, 1984) that directly involved students with disabilities and the IDEA. In the period from 2005 to 2007, the Supreme Court heard four cases on special education and issued rulings in three of these cases. This represents a significant increase in the special education cases heard by the high court. These rulings are of great importance to students with disabilities, their parents, and school districts. Moreover, the three rulings all addressed the procedural rights of parents. In this article, we review these decisions. We first provide a brief synopsis of the procedural rights that the

Chapter 7 The Peer-Reviewed Requirement of the IDEA: An Examination of Law and Policy

In this chapter we consider the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (IDEA 2004) provision that requires that students’ special education services in their individualized education programs be based on peer-reviewed research (PRR). We begin by reviewing federal legislation (i.e., Educational Sciences Reform Act, 2002, IDEA 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2001; Reading Excellence Act, 1998), which influenced the PRR principle and eventually the PRR language in IDEA. Next, we examine the US Department of Education’s interpretation of PRR in IDEA 2004 and review administrative hearings and court cases that have further clarified the PRR requirement. Finally, we make recommendations for teachers and administrators working to meet the PRR requirement when developing intervention plans for students with disabilities.

VIOLENCE IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY OPTIONS

This paper provides a brief review of the legal and other responses to the problem of childhood violence in the USA. Landmark court cases and their implications for practice are discussed. Tensions are highlighted between some traditional educational practices and childrens civil rights. The paper goes on to describe the positive move towards more preventive and remedial approached to EBDs in US schools.

CCBD's Position Executive Summary on School-Based Mental Health Services

[Image omitted: See PDF.]This document provides administrative recommendations of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) regarding the need for school-based mental health services (SBMHS) in schools ([Kern et al., 2017]). It includes (a) an introduction, (b) key considerations for successful SBMHS, and (c) recommendations regarding local, state, and federal administrative guidelines. Examples of specific recommendations are designated by italics.Consistent and compelling evidence indicates that the mental health needs of our school-age population are not being met and there is a need for SBMHS (e.g., [Forness, Kim, & Walker, 2012]). Although mental health services may be available outside of the school setting, such services are rarely utilized (e.g., [Langer et al., 2015]). The consequences of insufficient mental health services have been chronicled for decades and can be seen in the form of poor educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, compromised physical health, substance abuse, underemployment, and ultimately premature mortality ([Brooks, Harris, Thrall, & Woods, 2002]; [Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2002]; [Ghandour, Kogan, Blumberg, Jones, & Perrin, 2012]). In addition, youth mental illness has been estimated to cost society approximately US

Disciplining Students with Disabilities.

247 million annually when factors such as health care, special education services, juvenile justice services, and decreased productivity are considered ([Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013]).In the last 20 years, media has highlighted instances of school violence ranging from bullying to drug distribution to mass shootings. Comprehensive SBMHS can provide the structure to facilitate early identification, prevention, and intervention to prevent escalation of mental health issues in a timely manner (e.g., [Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011]). SBMHS are effective for families and children from varied cultural backgrounds and result in increases in prosocial behavior, appropriate classroom behavior, and academic achievement of participating students (e.g., [Harry, 2008]).Keys to Effective SBMHSProgrammatic ConsiderationsAdministrative support is necessary to build infrastructure, ensure efficient allocation and use of resources, enhance implementation with fidelity, and facilitate organizational management. The use of evidence-based practices is a critical expectation of SBMHS in that instructional practices should be supported by high quality research that offers empirical demonstration of effectiveness ([Weist et al., 2014]). With a focus on prevention, the initiation or worsening of mental health challenges can be mediated ([Anello et al., 2016]). A preventive approach relies on instructional procedures that teach the skills needed for healthy development and positive social interactions. Curricular components of a tiered intervention delivery system help educators target specific instructional strategies to students at different levels of need. Any instruction or intervention should reflect culturally responsive practices, particularly as racial and ethnic disproportionality have been documented in identification, as well as the types and quality of school-based special education and mental health services for students with emotional disorders ([Clauss-Ehlers, Serpell, & Weist, 2013]). Such practices would include specific teacher training in culturally responsive pedagogy and positive support strategies.Schoolwide PracticesAn essential schoolwide practice is regular and universal screening of all students to identify those with and at-risk for mental health challenges, rather than waiting the estimated 8 to 10 years to provide services after symptoms of mental illness first appear ([Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012]). In addition, it is critical that schools have crisis plans and procedures that (a) define the events that are crises, (b) identify and train a crisis team, (c) determine how to assess trauma levels, (d) delineate how to access resources and support, (e) specify reporting procedures, and (f) include review procedures. …