Educ 631 – Field Experience

1. Educ 631 – Field Experience Chad Powell

2. Purpose of Field Experience • The purpose of conducting this field experience was to compare and contrast a SST meeting and a IEP meeting. The SST meeting is held in order to decide if a student will be referred for Special Education or if certain interventions can help them in their area of deficit. An IEP meeting is an annual meeting for a student in Special Education to talk with a team of people about the students progress from their previous meeting and what goals will be set forth for the student in the oncoming year.

3. SIT Meeting • Johnny Student • Age 14 – Freshman in HS • Meeting was 11/20/13 • Permission was granted by guidance counselor and principal • People in the meeting were the principal, intervention specialist, guidance counselor, his Spanish teacher, his English teacher, and myself

4. SIT Meeting Continued • Observations were done during an assembly and during lunch and snack breaks due to the fact that I could conduct a classroom observation. • Behavioral Development – Johnny was very fidgety and easily distracted during the assembly. He seemed to have a hard time concentrating on what was happening during the assembly. He was very talkative and constantly trying to dig his phone out and use it. • In my other observations, he interacts well with his peers, however it is not always school appropriate. He acts differently when he knows staff is watching. He will whisper in his friends ears and give dirty looks when staff members walk by.

5. SIT Meeting Continued • Social Development – I did not see any social problems during my observations. Socially appears to be the same as any typical high school freshman boy. His teachers report that he has a hard time following social clues in class, struggles asking for help, and tends to coast during small group work, allowing others to do the work for him. It is also reported that he does not interact with teachers in class. • Physical Development – Johnny does have a clef lip, but other than that he is active. He plays hockey on the high school team and travels to Madison to play on a club team as well.

6. SIT Meeting Continued • Cognitive Development – Johnny has a spotty education background. He bounced back and forth from public school to Virtual Academy. He struggles in both his English and Spanish class. In a matching vocabulary test in Spanish he scored 4/30. Some of the teachers report that Mom may be enabling him and doing some of his homework for him.

7. SIT Meeting Continued • Language Development – his teachers report that he has problems putting words on paper and spells phonetically. An example of this from his Spanish class is that he spelled “Jesus” – “Haysu” and did not see a problem with it. • Moral Development – He acted like most typical teenage boys. He does have a “sneaky” side which does cause an area of concern with staff. The friends he hangs out with are not known for making appropriate decisions outside of school

8. Reflection on SIT Meeting • After all information was presented and discussions held, the decision was for speech and language testing to be done. I was glad I was part of the meeting. Some parts were discouraging as some of the members of the meeting made a few “uninformed” comments based on the information discussed. I felt as though the speech and language was a good referral because Johnny seems to really struggle with expressive and receptive language.

9. Outcome Continued • Expected – The meeting had all people involved in the intervention process present at the meeting. Data was presented that was informational and conducive to the meeting. • Unexpected – I did not expect some of the comments that were made at the meeting. I thought they were not appropriate due to the lack of training some of the members have in special education.

10. IEP Meeting • Ronnie Student • Age 14 – High School Freshman • Meeting date – 11/26/13 • Attended as Regular Education teacher • People present were Ronnie, his social worker, the principal, group home director, a special education teacher, and a representative from the Department of Children and Families

11. IEP Meeting Continued • Observations comprised of three different observations that were forty-five minutes in length. Two were done in a English class and the third was done in a Study Skills class. • My main goal during observations was to see how this student interacts with other students and staff members.

12. IEP Meeting Continued • Emotional/Behavioral Development – First off, let me state that this student is a student with a Emotional/Behavioral Disorder. I concentrated mostly on his behavior as that is what obstructs his learning the most. He has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and possible Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He has also had a wide variety of educational placements ranging from public school settings to residential treatment facilities. His behavior was very distracting to others. He was disrespectful to both teachers. He was defiant in taking directions to participate in class discussions and class work. He swore multiple times at both teachers without remorse. He called the female teacher derogatory names such as “old bat”, “bitch”, and a few other colorful names.

13. IEP Meeting Continued • Social Development – Ronnie is a social student. He interacts with his peers in class without problems. He likes to put on a “show” for his peers if the opportunity arises. • Physical Development – Ronnie can be a little intimidating due to his size. He is probably 6’2” and 265 pounds. His physical development does not appear to be problematic. • Cognitive Development – His case manager informed me that is academic skills fall between the 1st and 3rd grade level and I found that to be quite accurate during my observations. He puts on a “tough guy” facade, but I did notice a “soft” side as well.

14. IEP Meeting Continued • Language Development – Ronnie functions very well in expressive and receptive language. He has no struggles with expressing how he feels! He struggles with written language due to his deficiency in reading and spelling. He is much more successful when auditory skills are involved. • Moral Development – Ronnie had a manifestation determination meeting the summer previous to this school year. He has been making smarter and more appropriate decisions since then, but still struggles with doing the “right thing”.

15. IEP Meeting Continued • The meeting revolved around four main points – His behavior, if he will graduate with his grade level peers, meetings at the group home, and a permanent placement family – adoption. While listening to everyone speak at the meeting, it seemed as though Ronnie is capable of accomplishing all of his goals, but his behavior is what holds him back. It was stressed to Ronnie that in order to accomplish his goals, his behavior needs to change. The IEP team set-up four goals for him. Three of which were set-up in order to curb his inappropriate behavior and the other goal was a academic skill level goal.

16. Rationale for Meetings and Goals • I thought that everyone in the meeting was very positive with Ronnie. It was expressed many times that we were on “his side” and we were there to help him in any way possible. • Since the meeting his behavior has not made any progress and he was even removed from the boys basketball team. • The goals that were set for Ronnie are attainable in my opinion. He agreed that the goals were attainable and that his behavior needs to improve in order for him to be successful at school.

17. Outcome of IEP • Expected – I fully expected his IEP meeting to mostly revolve around his behavior since that is what harms his education the most • Unexpected – I did not expect a member of the Department of Children and Families to be there. I also did expect Ronnie to agree with us on his goals and that they were attainable.

18. Comparing the Meetings • In my opinion, both meetings were successful in the fact that a plan was put in place for the success of the student. • The appropriate staff members were at the meetings • It was a positive environment for both meetings • There as open discussion

19. Contrasting the Meetings • One was for a possible referral for a student to gain access to Special Education, the other was for the continuation of Special Education services. • I did not agree with everything said at the SIT meeting were I did at the IEP meeting. • Parent/Guardian not present at SIT • Another SIT meeting was schedule for a month later (I was invited, but could not make the meeting)

20. Final Conclusion • Both meetings were productive and beneficial for the students • The students success was at the forefront of both meetings • I really like the fact that Special Education staff members can now be part of SSTmeetings. I have volunteered to go to as many as I can in the future. I believe it will be beneficial to have a formally trained Special Education staff member at the SSTMeetings.