The Safety Management of Schools for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, under Group 2 of the Institutions Affiliated with the Office of Special Education Administration

Abstract

Background and Aims: The implementation of safety measures in educational institutions aims to protect students, teachers, and staff to ensure their security and well-being. However, various operational issues persist, reflecting the inefficiency of the current safety management system, particularly in schools for students with intellectual disabilities. The objectives of this research were to: (1) study the safety management of special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities under the Office of Special Education Administration, Group 2; (2) compare the safety management practices of these schools based on position, educational background, and work experience. And (3) explore guidelines for improving safety management in special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities under the Office of Special Education Administration, Group 2.

Methodology: The population in this research consisted of school administrators and teachers from schools for students with intellectual disabilities under Special Education Bureau Group 2, totaling 310 individuals from three institutions. The sample group consisted of 175 individuals, determined based on Krejcie and Morgan's sample size table and selected through cluster random sampling. The research instrument was a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, with a content validity index (CVI) ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 and an overall reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.985. The statistical methods used for data analysis included frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test, and F-test.

Results: The research findings revealed that: (1) The overall safety management in special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities under the Office of Special Education Administration, Group 2, was rated at the highest level. (2) When comparing safety management practices—both overall and by specific aspects—based on position and educational background, no statistically significant differences were found at the .05 level. Regarding work experience, those with less than 5 years, 5–10 years, and more than 10 years of experience all rated the safety management practices, both overall and by aspect, at the highest level. (3) The guidelines for improving safety management in special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities, Group 2, in all four aspects are as follows: Schools should implement measures by the Office of the Basic Education Commission, including risk prevention through area inspections, assessment of the physical environment and school buildings, and evaluation of potential hazards. Schools should also instill knowledge and practices for self-protection against various threats, develop emergency response plans, and coordinate with safety-related networks and partners.

Conclusion: Safety management in special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities (Group 2) was at the highest level. There were no statistically significant differences in safety management based on position, educational background, or work experience. Developmental guidelines should follow the measures set by the Office of the Basic Education Commission, including risk assessment, knowledge dissemination, emergency response planning, and coordination with safety-related networks and partners.