Fuck Yeah! Education!

[Reginald Ret]

This is the kind of thing that needs mainstream media coverage to raise the collective rage and serious action.

I don't know about 'needs', but it deserves a nuke.

[Triple Zero]

dugg.

[Eater of Clowns]

Finally, more people who saw the headgear scene in A Clockwork Orange and thought "Say, there's an idea!"  I wonder if they play Beethoven when they zap them.  Suffice it to say, this is fucking appalling.

But the bad side of me giggled when people ITT said they were "shocked" this was happening. 

[Requia ☣]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

Most people have standards, even if it is the internet. No one wants to see this sort of thing happen. Except apparently, the parents and the school's administration.

[Freeky]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

There you have it; we're bastards, but at least we're decent human beings.

[Eater of Clowns]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

There you have it; we're bastards, but at least we're decent human beings.

I would argue that being a bastard is a requirement to be a decent human being.  Not always, but it can be necessary.

[Reginald Ret]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

Are you implying people are defending this shit?
hmmm we need to research what corners of the net try to defend this shit so we know who our enemies are.

[Triple Zero]

I've been doing the whole spreading this around the net bit.  And I have come to a conclusion.

The people here are, argumentative, spiteful, shit flinging primates who spend their time laughing at the misfortune of the country.

But at least no one here tried to defend this.

damn.

[Zyzyx]

Feels pretty helpless knowing this stuff is going on and I'm not going to do anything about it besides, perhaps, an angry comment on Digg or maybe even an angry letter to an NY councilman.

Though the Malay Black Death Curse is also an option, thanks to our good buddy Hakim Bey.

[Golden Applesauce]

Okay, this stuff is pulled from the New York State Education Department review of the JRC, with my comments underneath:

JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students
with a broad range of disabilities, many without a clear history of self-injurious
behaviors.

JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students
for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as
nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance.

Many of the students observed at JRC were not exhibiting self-abusive/mutilating
behaviors, and their IEPs had no indication that these behaviors existed. However,
they were still subject to Level III aversive interventions, including use of the GED
device. The review of NYS students' records revealed that Level III interventions are
used for behaviors including 'refuse to follow staff directions', 'failure to maintain a
neat appearance', 'stopping work for more than 10 seconds', 'interrupting others',
'nagging', 'whispering and/or moving conversation away from staff', 'slouch in chair',
as well as more intensive behaviors such as physical aggression toward others,
property destruction and attempts to hurt/injure self.

"Level III aversive" is the four or five point restraint (restraining all four limbs, and possibly the head) and/or the remote skin "shocks" (more on those later.)  I can see a real justification for severe interventions of this sort if what they're preventing is genuinely self-destructive behavior - if you can train someone to not severely injure themselves (or someone else) through pain, then you've substituted pain for serious physical harm (which is a good trade if you can do it without causing permanent psychological harm) and eventually you can take them off of the pain aversion therapy and (if it worked) they still won't try to hurt themselves.

This is not what they're doing at the JRC.

They are applying this level of aversion therapy to "failing to maintain a neat appearance" - what is that, drooling on yourself to much?  Letting your shirt get untucked?  Spilling food?  I went to school one day in 2nd grade with my pants on inside out (some combination of not noticing, and then not thinking it was important enough to change once I did notice) - would I have gotten strapped to a board and fried with a homemade device for that?

Note the list in the third bullet point:
-failure to maintain a neat appearance
-stopping work for more than 10 seconds
-interrupting others
-whispering and/or moving conversations away from staff
-slouch in chair

I don't know about you, but I've done all of those at least once per week each during my school career.  And none of those are really that serious, worth a detention at most.  I don't see any way to read this other than that some teachers have an authority complex and are willing to use any tool to acquire (undeserved) instant obedience.

And this is just the basic authoritarian bullshit that you find every now and then among teachers who think they deserve instant and absolute obediance from strangers on the basis that the strangers happen to be younger than they are (although most teachers don't have access to remote pain devices.)  It gets worse.

Here's some information about the electrode thingies themselves:

The GED is manufactured by the JRC. While JRC has information posted on
their website and in written articles which represents the GED device as "approved", it
has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has cleared
the device for marketing as "substantially equivalent to devices marketed or classified
as "aversive conditioning devices." FDA's clearance prohibits JRC from representing
the device as FDA approved. JRC's GED was modified from other similar devices on
the market by doubling the intensity (amperage and voltage) and increasing the duration
by 10 times (from .2 to 2 seconds) of the shock administered and by expanding the
positions on the body where the electrodes could be placed. JRC also uses a device
called the GED-4, which applies an even greater intensity shock to the student when the
student fails to respond to the lower level shock.

...

In addition to the GED, JRC uses an additional form of electrical circuitry that
automatically administers a series of aversives (e.g., skin shocks) as soon as a
behavior is initiated. This device is not activated by a staff person and continues
until the behavior stops. Should the student fall, for example, after getting out of
his/her seat, the student would continue to receive electric shocks. As stated
previously, NYSED could not find evidence that this automated electric shock device
has been approved or cleared for marketing by FDA.

Since the GED has been modified in intensity and duration from other similar
devices on the market, and there is a lack of peer reviewed research on the
effectiveness and safety of the GED as used at JRC, NYSED has concerns
regarding the long term health and safety of the students, particularly those students
who may receive multiple electric shocks as part of their behavior plans.

Despite the safety warning of the GED device that the GED should no be allowed to
become wet or submerged in water, it was reported by JRC staff that for some
students, the GED device remains on them while they take a bath or shower.
Student records verified this and one student interviewed stated that she had been
burned by the GED device while taking a shower. By this student's report, a new
staff person was not adequately trained to administer the GED-4 shock during the
student's shower, resulting in a burn to her skin where the device was attached.

Key points: the FDA never approved the original device as safe or effective.  JRC decided the original, unapproved, device didn't hurt enough and doubled the intensity and multiplied the duration by 10. (note on duration - they sometimes use a series of shocks, so you might get shocked 5 times at the max of two seconds each.)  And they have an even more amped-up version for when that isn't painful enough.

Movement limitation is another commonly used Level III intervention that may be
applied manually or mechanically. When applied manually, staff members physically
hold the student. With mechanical movement limitation the student is strapped
into/onto some form of physical apparatus. For example, a four-point platform board
designed specifically for this purpose; or a helmet with thick padding and narrow facial
grid that reduces sensory stimuli to the ears and eyes. Another form of mechanical
restraint occurs when the student is in a five-point restraint in a chair. Students may be
restrained for extensive periods of time (e.g., hours or intermittently for days) when
restraint is used as a punishing consequence. Many students are required to carry
their own "restraint bag" in which the restraint straps are contained.

Personal story time: I've mentioned elsewhere on this board that I've been diagnosed with a non-verbal learning disorder, which might be closely related to Aspergers, which is probably related to the various autism spectrum disorders.  In my unprofessional opinion I don't qualify for Aspergers, if only because in the many years I've had to practice social interaction I've progressed from downright pathological to merely weird and off-putting, and that I don't think a diagnosis would actually be helpful.  But I do have a lot of the stereotypical aversions that people with real autism have - bright lights, loud noises, some textures, talking to more than one person at once, etc.  One of those is a very strong need for personal space.  I remember one doctor's visit to get some immunization shot or other (I think this was around 4 years old, but my memory is a little foggy) when my dad held me down to get the shot.  I freaked the fuck out.  The pain of the shot itself didn't bother me that much, but the experience of being held down was enough to trigger a mini panic attack.  And this was when the person holding me down was a close family member acting entirely without aggression, I knew that it would only last a for very short period (i.e., until I got the shot,) and I understood the reason for the restraint.  Imagine the experience of a profoundly autistic child being physically restrained by multiple angry near-strangers for a long and unknown duration as punishment for an offence he may not understand.  I can easily see this as being downright traumatic for a good section of the NRC's students.

Now, it might be the case that these therapies actually are effective and are administered by highly trained psychologists as part of treatment carefully tailored to the individual students, and the therapies would be defensible if that actually were the case.  In reality land, these therapies receive little to no support by mainstream psychologists ... and the typical JRC employee only has a high school education.  Here's some more:

The majority of staff in the "alternative learning centers" and "small
conference rooms" are Mental Health Aides (MHA's). (JRC employs a total of 386
MHAs and 254 Mental Health Relief Aides in the school and residences. Most of these
individuals, 468 of the total 640 MHAs and Mental Health Relief Aides, have completed
only a high school education.)

...

JRC's psychologists or clinicians develop student behavior programs. JRC's
psychology department lists a total of 17 clinicians. Of these clinicians, although 12
have some doctoral level training in psychology, only four have licensure from the
State of Massachusetts as Psychologist Providers, one is licensed as a psychologist
in another state and one has a license as an Educational Psychologist. A high level
of competence in psychology and behavior analysis is necessary for ethical practice
when the most intrusive and aversive procedures are used in the treatment of
children with behavior problems as complex and challenging as many who are
approved for Level III aversive behavioral interventions at JRC.

...

Staff development is provided via a) 2-week orientation, and b) 30 mandated hours
of in-service training. A review of the staff development plan indicates minimal, if
any, training on student characteristics; functional behavioral assessments;
reinforcement; shaping or other behavioral techniques used for increasing positive
social behavior; and educational supports that include instructional methods and
curriculum. Staff receives one hour of training on collecting and graphing data, but
no required training on positive teaching procedures. In addition, all staff appears to
receive the same training, regardless of their particular function (e.g., teachers do
not necessarily receive additional training in educational supports; QA team
members do not necessarily receive training in behavior analysis).

...

During the May 16-18 site visit, it was confirmed that the majority of staff serving as
classroom teachers at JRC are not certified teachers. One crisis classroom teacher
the team spoke to has a high school diploma and had acquired college credits
through distance learning Internet courses.

During the initial site visit, the team reviewed the credentials of the teaching staff in
the 21 classrooms at JRC:
- One is certified/licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE) as a special education teacher;
- Eleven have academic waivers for teaching "moderate disabilities" or "severe disabilities" from MDOE; and
- Nine have no certification, licensure or MDOE academic waivers to teach special education.

Oh, and they also let families take the shock devices home without really giving them training on the things:

JRC's practice of providing the shock device to families and allowing newly hired
staff with little to no training and information on a student to administer the GED
appears to be in direct violation of the FDA required safety precautions on the use of
the device.

The above couple paragraphs should scare you.  Teaching is an extremely hard job.  Teaching a classroom of ordinary children is incredibly stressful and difficult; dealing with special needs kids is infinitely worse.  It is not something you can extrapolate from experience with ordinary disruptive children; you cannot just scale up the techniques used on an ordinary student who often breaks rules to one whose disruptive behaviour is rooted in autism, bipolar, an anxiety disorder, or similar.  The obvious response that would work on a neurotypical kid often does nothing, at best, and has a good chance of actively making things worse when applied to someone with severe psychological problems.  This is why specialized training is important - handing children with severe special needs (remember, a big chunk of JRC kids ended up there after a stay in a psychiatric hospital - these aren't your garden-variety super ADHD kids) over to people who only have a normal teaching certificate is profound negligence at best, and putting them in the care of "teachers" with only a high school degree is criminal.

Of particular note is that the teachers aren't trained in instructional methods or the school curriculum, which begs the question: what are they actually teaching?  Apparently, they don't teach much of anything.  The staff/student interaction is apparently limited to this:

Classroom visitations by the review team revealed that limited interactions occur
between students or between staff and students. The main interactions witnessed
involved staff rotating GED electrodes, as required for GED safety, on students'
bodies when an alert, set at hourly intervals, instructed staff to rotate the electrodes.
The rotation of electrodes is necessary to prevent skin burns that may result from
repeated application of the shock to the same contact point on the student's body.
Other observed interactions involved staff making rote statements regarding the
student's behavior program, such as "turn around and keep working" or limited social
praise "good eating."

Note that "education" or "role-modeling" is not on that list.  So if they aren't teaching the students anything academic, then they're at least providing basic therapy and training, like social skills, speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational training, and so on, right?  Wrong.  In fact, RJC goes out of their way to deny access to therapy to children who need it.

(cont'd)

[Golden Applesauce]

A review of JRC's internal IEP admission checklist states that staff 'eliminate'
(where possible) related service recommendations, such as speech and language
therapy or counseling. While JRC employs or contracts with some related service
providers, documentation showed that JRC takes steps to have CSEs eliminate
recommendations for related services.

Student files contained documentation that JRC consistently requests that speech
and language therapy, occupational therapy (OT), and counseling be removed from
a student's IEP. A review of IEPs of NYS students showed:
-23 students had CSE recommendations for counseling that were later eliminated based on JRC's recommendation;
-12 students had IEP recommendations for speech and language therapy that were later eliminated based on JRC's recommendation;
-Seven students had IEP recommendations for OT that were later terminated based on JRC's recommendation and one continued OT on a "one hour per month – consult" basis; and
-Four students had IEP recommendations for PT [physical therapy] that were later terminated
based on JRC's recommendation.

Twenty students' current IEPs include recommendations for speech and language
therapy. JRC records indicate that 12 students are receiving speech language
therapy with most at a duration and frequency of 1x30 min/week (below the
minimum NYS regulatory requirement).

At JRC, behavioral counseling is provided in a nontraditional format in which
students are expected to learn how to self-manage their target behaviors. Students
who request to speak with a psychologist must write a note or "business letter"
requesting a session and "pay" with their tokens. (The nature of counseling is
unclear). The Director of Clinical Services indicated that other types of counseling
could be used, but that it is not routinely offered.

Based on classroom observations, there was no evidence that language instruction,
as required by NYS regulations for students with autism, was being provided.

Out of 148 NYS students at JRC, 128 students receive no related services. The
provision of related services was not observed during either visitation.

Observers did not see a structured, systematic program for teaching of
generalization of skills, self-care, social/recreational or community skills in the school
or the residences to assist students in post-secondary transitions or to promote
transitions to less restrictive settings.

There was no evidence of social skills instruction or use of a curriculum or instruction
to teach alternatives to aggressive behaviors. When asked about their social skills
curriculum, JRC staff described opportunities to socialize and opportunities for
recreational trips. None of the staff mentioned any of the published social skills
curriculum that are in common use for the treatment of children with autism
spectrum disorders or curricular for teaching prosocial and anger management
strategies. For students with autism and students with diagnoses that represent
social difficulties (e.g., oppositional defiant disorder; conduct disorder), there was no
evidence of teaching students positive social ways to communicate or of teaching or
programming for social skills during the observation periods. The complete lack of
organized, instructional social interaction periods and reinforcement for positive
social interactions also prevented developing time with other children as a
reinforcing activity. This is a particularly glaring omission in programming when
contemplating transition to a less restrictive school or adult settings where positive
social play and interaction with other children and adults is necessary for success.

This is an outrage.  Even if JRC was doing nothing else wrong, this alone would justify an immediate termination of the program and criminal prosecution of those in charge - at a bare minimum, they're defrauding state governments and parents by claiming to offer therapy and then systematically denying therapy, and I would hope a case could be made for child abuse on just on the systematic and intentional denial of speech and physical therapy to children who need it.  Ordinary, well funded schools with a halfway decent special ed program provide or help arrange for speech therapy.  That JRC goes out of their way to actively be worse than mediocre is inexcusable.

And students who want to speak to a psychologist have to request it in writing and pay for it with good behaviour tokens?  That is below bare minimum standards.  Normal schools allow access to a counselor with nothing more than asking a teacher, and I haven't seen one where a student in distress would be turned away from a drop-in appointment.

It gets worse.  JRC found a way to do one better than denying social skills classes and speech therapy to their charges: preventing them from talking and socializing altogether.

(cont'd)

[Golden Applesauce]

There was very limited social interaction between the classroom staff and students
except for 1:1 prompting (jargon) to computer tasks and/or the awarding or removal
of tokens.

JRC does not promote the development of social skills for any of their students and
in fact requires that the students not attempt social interactions with staff or
classmates as part of their behavior programs. Questions to staff about programs
for social skills development were always answered by descriptions of social
opportunities that included recess as well as scheduled recreational outings. The
recreational outings were with groups of students and provided no opportunities for
interaction with members of the general community.

Several observations were made of the outdoor recess periods and lunch breaks.
The recreation area was set up with swings and a wooden structure for climbing and
walking across bridges and several plastic slides. The area was very well
maintained and appropriate for children under seven or eight years old. However,
the students during all observations appeared to be adolescents. Staff was attentive
and providing appropriate supervision to students and the interactions between staff
and students were positive, supportive and respectful. However, they tended to be
helping interactions rather than conversations or play. During five observations
involving a total of 59 students, there were no instances of students socializing with
other students and only five instances observed of students socializing with staff.

Social interactions between students reportedly occur in the Big Reward Store
where students go to select a reward for keeping to contracts. When questioned
about friendships and social interactions among students, the students interviewed
stated that they were unable to socialize in a natural way.

Opportunities to socialize with peers must be earned through compliance with
behavioral contracts.

Students in classrooms were docile and compliant and did not attempt to socially
engage, either verbally or with eye contact, anyone in the rooms. This was also
apparent in the residences visited by the team. Staff indicated, on at least three
occasions, that it was unsafe to allow students to socialize because in the past
students had plotted against staff.

THIS IS BEYOND FUCKED UP.  This is the premeditated, intentional, systematic, and brutal dehumanization of children.  This is past mere child abuse.  We know what happens when children are socially isolated for extended periods - the effects are well-documented in the scientific literature.  With a normal, healthy child the best you can hope for is depression and some retardation of normal social development.  They are doing this on purpose and in cold blood to people who already have serious emotional (and other) problems.  This is on a level with organized rape.  There is no excuse for this.  This is crimes against humanity level of evil.

I want to call special attention to that last line in the quote:

Staff indicated, on at least three occasions, that it was unsafe to allow students to socialize because in the past students had plotted against staff.

I find this entirely sane and justified ... on behalf of the students.  This is the level of atrocity for which if nonviolent means fail to work, violence is justified in self defense and the defense of others.  This is the level of atrocity for which if legal means do not work - and they have not in the past (the center is named after a judge who ruled in their favor) - extralegal means are justified.  This is the level of atrocity that, if such a thing as a moral obligation exists, we are morally obligated to put an end to.

ETA: just wanted to clarify that I in no way think that violent or other illegal methods are justified or likely to help.  Rather, I mean that this is so beyond ordinary moral outrage that extreme methods understandable on the part of the students, who have essentially zero access to each other, let alone media and lawyers.  This is already a place where self-injury and threatening to commit suicide is "normal" - the students going on hunger strike is not going to change anything if it is even noticed.

[Golden Applesauce]

A few more selections from the report that I found particularly disturbing:

The meeting minutes from one student's CSE meeting stated the student was
unable to attend the meeting because she was in restraint. This was one of the
students interviewed and she stated that she needed to talk with her CSE
Chairperson regarding her behavior program at JRC, but was unable to attend the
last meeting. On follow up with the Chairperson, the team learned that the student
was in attendance at a more recent CSE meeting in May 2006, but was unable to
participate because she could not control her sobbing. According to the
Chairperson, the CSE recommended at the May CSE meeting that this student be
faded from the GED.

While JRC collects comprehensive data on negative targeted behaviors, there was
no evidence of the collection of data on replacement or positive behaviors to
document the development of replacement or enhancing skills. Documentation was
difficult to find for evidence of academic progress or development of positive social
skills. The program descriptions of behavioral interventions are very standardized
across students and show a lack of individualization of treatment planning.
Treatment plans do not always vary for different types of behavioral difficulties
exhibited by an individual student, even though these behaviors may serve different
functions for the student.

In one classroom it was observed that a new staff member was briefly informed that
his role in the room was to monitor 1:1 student S and second party verification was
not required before administering the GED. The new staff person was handed the
SLED (GED transmitter) and verbally given direction and instruction in when to
administer the GED. As the instructing staff person was departing, she also
informed the new staff that student S is deaf.

There is no evidence that JRC considers the potential negative effects, such as
depression or anxiety, that may result from the use of aversive behavioral strategies
with certain individual students. Several students from NYS came to JRC with
diagnoses of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), yet their behavior programs
call for skin shock. Skin shock has the potential to increase the symptoms
associated with PTSD, yet there is no evidence of data measuring these possible
side effects or therapies designed to treat these symptoms.

JRC is receiving federal funds to administer the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Program that are not properly payable. JRC did not have adequate
documentation to support that all meals served at the school met the minimum
standards established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). We
have notified John Magnarelli, Director of Special Nutrition Programs for USDA's
Northeast Regional Office of this finding; he informed NYS that he has instructed the
MDOE to formally notify JRC and request that they comply with the federal meal
pattern requirements immediately.

A student, reported to have extreme head banging behaviors, was observed not
exhibiting any inappropriate behaviors while having her hair braided by an adult in
the classroom. Her appropriate interactions were not rewarded and/or
acknowledged by the staff. However, the following day, this student was placed in a
higher demand activity (academic computer work) and exhibited several head
banging attempts. These behaviors were met with the ongoing loss of her contract.
Loss of contract involved returning to the academic computer work. In this case,
academic work was scheduled into the contract as a punishing consequence. The
teacher reported that she would simply continue to lose her contract award and if the
behaviors increased in intensity, it could result in the need to restrain her.
Otherwise, no other intervention strategies were being used with this student. She is
currently awaiting court approval for the use of Level III aversives.

I want to draw special attention to this one.  She can function okay in low-stress environments, but head-bangs in stressful environments.  The "solution" is to punish her head-banging by keeping her in the stressful environment until she needs to be physically restrained, and they're trying to get permission to use the remote zaps on her.

JRC has a policy on modifying contingencies due to the special "pleading" of
students. Part of the treatment program for students involves deliberately setting up
unfair or mistaken directions or decelerative (application of a skin shock with a GED
device) consequences for the students. The student is expected to handle these
unfair situations successfully and not 'plead' or appeal to a psychologist or clinician
regarding his/her treatment. In instances where the student "pleads" to the
psychologist or clinician, there are consequences imposed on the student.

It was reported by a JRC staff member that one of the BRL episodes involved
holding a student's face still while staff person went for his mouth with a pen or
pencil threatening to stab him in the mouth while repeatedly yelling "YOU WANT TO
EAT THIS?" The goal was to aversively treat the student's target behavior of putting
sharp objects in the mouth.
It was reported that during a BRL, the student would still receive a GED for
exhibiting an appropriate behavior, just less than for exhibiting a target behavior.
For example, five GED applications would be given for a target behavior, such as
mouthing towards the object, as opposed to one GED application for an appropriate
behavior such as turning away from the object.

Students placed in the more segregated and restrictive settings (i.e., the small
conference room) were not observed to receive instruction, even computer-based
instruction, and a teacher is not available to provide instruction in that setting. The
room is monitored by MHAs with high school diplomas and other nonteaching staff.

Students attend the school seven days per week from 9 AM to 4 PM; teachers are
not present on the weekend days. Teachers interviewed by the team could not
describe what the students did on the weekends at the school.

A student interviewed stated that she had entered JRC at the age of 19 with the
expectation that she would receive vocational training while she resolved her
emotional and behavioral problems. She had not received any vocational training
and still remained in the most restrictive settings offered by JRC. This student wept
as she asked the team to bring her back to New York.

Records and staff indicate that, once placed, very few students' transition out of JRC
to a less restrictive environment prior to aging-out.

A review of a student's file indicated that the student was receiving Level III aversive
interventions for "aggression", but according to the teacher's notes, the only
aggressions exhibited by the student were in anticipation of the GED. The student
was not otherwise aggressive.

There does not appear to be any measurement of, or treatment for, the possible
collateral effects of punishment such as depression, anxiety, and/or social
withdrawal.

Student interviews revealed reports of pervasive fears and anxieties related to the
interventions used at JRC. Students verbally reported a lack of trust, fear, feeling
upset/anxious and loneliness.

One student stated she felt depressed and fearful, stating very coherently her desire
to leave the center. She is not permitted to initiate conversation with any member of
the staff. She also expressed that she had no one to talk to about her feelings of
depression and her desire to kill herself and told the interviewing team that she
thought about killing herself everyday. Her greatest fear was that she would remain
at JRC beyond her 21st birthday.

[Golden Applesauce]

Full report here:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/15/school_report.pdf

ETA:
The wikipedia article looks like it was written by the JRC marketing team.  Maybe we should work on that together?