Project #95855 - Special education

 

Assessment Instructions:

 

Read the case scenario below to respond to the questions that follow.

 

Jake is an energetic third-grader with a learning disability. Although he is considered “one of the gang” by his classmates and is excelling academically during the two hours he is included in a general education class, Betty, his general education teacher, feels he just “wouldn’t fit in” a general education classroom full-time. On the other hand, Sharon, his resource teacher, sees no reason why he would not be successful.

 

Betty Armstrong’s classroom is meticulously organized. There are twenty desks, exactly four rows of five, and not one even an inch out of place. In the back of the room is the small group reading table with two neat stacks of readers and workbooks beside a precisely covered box of pencils, erasers, and crayons. A few examples of students’ work, each matted in coordinating colors, are displayed in the room. Also prominently displayed is a job-board listing students’ names and the classroom chores for which each is responsible. Everything has its place and everything is always in its place––well, almost always.

 

It was 10:00 a.m., time for reading. Jake and David came into the room as they did every day. They went directly to their desks as Ms. Armstrong had always insisted. Jake bumped his desk out of place as he sat down. He cocked his head to the side, put his feet up on the wire rack under his friend Amy’s desk, and gave her a big, lopsided grin.

 

“Okay, class, it is time to work on your story projects,” Ms. Armstrong announced to her third graders, who looked at her enthusiastically. Jake fidgeted in his seat. “We just have two more days to get them done before open house,” the teacher continued.

 

Jake excitedly shuffled through the papers inside his desk. “Ah! There they are––my crayons,” he said as he grabbed them and put them on top of his desk, while still holding his desk top up with his other hand. “I will put an octopus on...”

 

Just then his left hand let go of his desktop, and down it came! BANG! His crayons fell all over the floor.

 

“Uh oh!” Jake hurried to pick up his crayons, hoping that Ms. Armstrong would not notice. As he bent down, his glasses slid off his face.

 

As all this was going on, Ms. Armstrong was watching Jake out of the corner of her eye. “That young man sure has a difficult time with organization,” she thought. She sighed as she considered the amount of energy it took to try to get him to fit in.

 

Betty Armstrong had been a teacher for six years. Her colleagues considered her to be a competent teacher committed to literacy and on top of things concerning curriculum and instruction. Betty often said that it was her goal to make kids feel good about being in school and especially about being a part of her class. She had high expectations for her students and required them to work hard to meet those expectations.

 

This year, Betty had Jake and David, two students from a special education class. They came to Betty’s class two hours a day for math and reading. Both students had a learning disability, but Jake also had some fine motor problems and behaviors typical of students labeled with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD)––although he had never been diagnosed.

 

Sharon Moss, the special education teacher in the early education class, checked regularly with Betty to see how the two students were doing. Sharon has been a special education teacher for six years and has built a good rapport with the general education teachers. Sharon decided it was time to discuss with Betty the integration of both boys in general education full time. She sat down with Betty and asked her how things were going.

 

“Oh, both kids are doing great academically. David is often the first to raise his hand with the correct answers when I verbally quiz the class, and Jake reads so well! But, Jake’s behavior––it’s just not typical. He’s a goofy little guy, you know,” she said with a smile.

 

“Well, maybe we should consider extending their time in general education,” Sharon suggested.

 

“I could see David being successful in general education full-time, but I don’t know about Jake. His behavior is really not appropriate for a general education classroom,” responded Betty.

 

“But you are always talking about how well Jake does in the classroom. You say he gets along with the other students and he really excels in math. What exactly does he do that makes you think he could not be successful if included full-time?” Sharon pushed.

 

“Well, during seat work, he never gets started on time. He’s constantly shuffling through the papers in his desk. He always needs to sharpen his pencil or something. He just can’t keep himself organized like the other kids. Sometimes he’ll even play the class clown and fall out of his desk,” she explained.

 

“Do you think that those reasons are enough to keep him out of the general education classroom?” Sharon asked gently. “I would appreciate it if you gave the idea some more thought.”

 

Betty shrugged her shoulders and gave a questioning look, “Okay, I’ll think about it.” Betty patted Sharon on the shoulder before leaving. She felt she had failed to convince Betty. How was she going to persuade Betty that Jake deserved a chance to be included in the general education class full time? “Betty has always been one of the best teachers for welcoming students with disabilities into her classroom. Some teachers don’t even want our kids in their rooms. I have got to work this out,” Sharon said to herself with determination.

 

Using the CEC Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards as a guide, address the following prompts:

 

 

 

 

 

  1. In a 250-500-word response, discuss any legal implications arising from Betty’s resistance to having Jake in her class. Should Jake’s parents and other education professionals be involved in the decision process? Provide at least three references that support your response. 

 

 

 

  1. In a 500-750-word response, create an action plan that discusses the use of paraeducators, tutors, and/or volunteers to help Betty be more comfortable with having Jake in her classroom full-time as well as help Jake make a successful transition to a full-time general education classroom.

 

 

 

Standards Assessed:

 

Standards assessed in the benchmark assignment:

 

  • InTASC: 9 (c), 9(j), 9(o)

  • CEC:  6.1, 6.2, 6.6

  • COE Program Competencies:

 

    • D6 6.1: Candidates use ethical principles and professional practice standards to guide their practice.
    • D6 6.2: Candidates incorporate foundational knowledge as well as current issues when developing their professional practice.
    • D6 6.6: Candidates provide guidance and direction to paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers.

 

 

 

 

 

Scoring Rubric:

 

 

 

CATEGORY:

NO EVIDENCE

NOMINAL EVIDENCE

UNACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE

ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE

TARGET EVIDENCE

CRITERIA

0

69

74

87

100

Resistance and Readiness Short Answer

 

InTASC 9(j)

CEC 6.1

 

 

20%

No submission.

Response fails to convey applicable guidance and direction in case of teacher resistance and teacher responsibility.

Response provides inadequate guidance and direction in case of teacher resistance; is overly simplistic or vague in promoting teacher responsibilities and advocacy for classroom placement.

Response provides general guidance and direction in case of teacher resistance, clearly promoting teacher responsibilities and advocacy for classroom placement.

Response clearly and convincingly promotes teacher responsibilities and advocates for student. Thoroughly and appropriately addresses concerns of general education teacher and is respectful in tone.

Legal Implications Short Answer

InTASC 9(o)

CEC 6.2

COE: D6 6.2

 

20%

No submission.

Response fails to describe applicable legal implications or who should be involved in the decision-making process.  References are not cited, or do not relate to case.

Response superficially addresses applicable legal implications related to the placement decision, inadequately describes the roles of others within the decision making process, and/or is not clearly supported with research.

Response broadly describes applicable legal implications and who should be involved in the decision making process. Description is supported with research.  

Response thoroughly and accurately describes legal implications and who should be involved in the decision making process. Response is strongly supported by references.  

Action Plan Short Answer

InTASC 9(c)

CEC 6.6

COE: D6 6.6

20%

No submission.

Action plan fails to describe acceptable steps for using paraeducators, tutors, and/or volunteers to increase the likelihood of a successful general education classroom transition.

Action plan does not fully describe appropriate steps for using paraeducators, tutors, and/or volunteers to increase the likelihood of a successful general education classroom transition.

Action plan describes broad, appropriate steps for using paraeducators, tutors, and/or volunteers to increase the likelihood of a successful general education classroom transition.

Action plan describes detailed, well-crafted steps for using paraeducators, tutors, and/or volunteers to increase the likelihood of a successful general education classroom transition.

Ethical Principles Incorporation

 

InTASC 9(j)

CEC 6.1

COE: D6 6.1

 

30%

No submission.

Responses fail to apply the CEC Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards in decision-making.

Responses ineffectively apply the CEC Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards in decision-making.

Responses are generally supported by the CEC Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards in decision-making.

Responses reflect thoughtful, realistic application of the CEC Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards in decision-making.

Mechanics of Writing  (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

 

10%

No submission.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct, but not varied.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. It is free of mechanical and conventional errors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject General
Due By (Pacific Time) 11/25/2015 05:00 pm
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy