To initiate the evaluation of Stephen’s present LRE placement, arranging an IEP meeting with all relevant parties is necessary. These include his parents, Ms. Gonzales, Mr. Kuchar, the school principal, and any other staff belonging to the Child Study Team (CST). The primary objective behind this context is to reflect upon the current educational status for Stephen while considering a possible shift in place along with its requisites that can be catered via special programs and services provided by educators catering exclusively to disabled children. It is important to emphasize how significant stakeholders such as parents must approve their child’s entitlements underlined within special education procedures through written consent while being allowed maximum participation during IEP meetings where they provide credible inputs pertaining directly towards enhancing their respective wards’ academic profiles- which ultimately culminates into better understanding on both fronts -parents having clearer insight regarding current progress. In contrast, teachers learn more about student abilities, making future planning easier.
Furthermore, Stephen’s academic journey involves vital contributors other than his parents. Ms. Gonzales and Mr. Kuchar hold paramount importance in the process as they possess direct knowledge of Stephen’s educational experience, which is crucial for this meeting to assess his progress effectively. Ms. Gonzales plays a critical role by providing instruction to him since she holds expertise in general education teaching techniques. On the other hand, Mr. Kuchar handles special education because he has an extensive understanding of how specially designed instructions can meet individual needs. Additionally, the school principal ensures that all students access free and appropriate public learning opportunities. Thus, ensuring everyone receives equal treatment while assessing whether placing them according to their respective IEP reviews are evaluated with utmost care or not lies under the jurisdiction of principals during meetings like such at schools ensuring evenness across the board.
Ultimately, the IEP team consists of many crucial players, including CST. The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) undergoes the supervision and management of the former. The responsibilities encompass the development, review, as well as modification of said plan with adeptness. As such, CSC must ensure that apt assessments are conducted while also ensuring appropriate goals are developed along with proper care services. In this light, having a comprehensive meeting involving stakeholders allows Stephen’s educational placement status quo to be reviewed, with data taken into consideration in making informed decisions on possible changes regarding his learning environment. Ongoing discussions about suitable strategies and interventions geared towards supporting Stephen within the least restrictive surroundings would also take place during these meetings.
After acquiring a fundamental understanding of the special education process and issues surrounding the specific case study, I deduced that organizing an assembly with Stephen’s parents was imperative regarding entertaining potential alternatives for his placement. It is imperious for special educators to maintain professionalism and comply conscientiously with ethical standards and legal obligations under all circumstances (Tohara, 2021). Stephen has displayed exceptionally challenging conduct among five other students within this inclusive classroom setting. This behavior impedes her effectiveness at providing suitable accommodations while shielding others from harm. To assure the maximum safety of every student in class confines, both school principals and Mr. Kuchar are inclined to change Steven’s current placement arrangement if necessary.
It is important to ascertain that considerable information has been amassed to substantiate the demand for displacement. If reliable information is available, making an informed decision can be manageable. It is important to have reliable statistics before taking definitive action. Mr. Kuchar ought to invest more time in Stephen’s class while observing his behavior so that he can offer support for Ms. Gonzales too. This collected analysis should then form the basis of arguments made during meetings between school officials and Stephen’s folks about relocating him. Furthermore, the meeting presents an opportunity for both parties to develop strategies to manage problematic behaviors exhibited by Stephan successfully. These tactics shall encompass positive measures, reducing instances when Steven gets aggressive. Additionally, it would prove expedient if one were mindful enough regarding individual needs alongside preferences specific only to Steve. Considering any resource limitations, a coherent strategy dictating how best attainable goals may helpfully serve all concerned must also undergo development. Finally, Prioritizing benefits achievable via possible placement transfers while keeping close family members abreast of arising consequences forms part and parcel of this intricate process. Special education teachers are well advised to always consider parents’ opinions, worries, and basic rights throughout everything they undertake.
The ethical dilemma in enabling Stephen to thrive academically lies within his current aggressive conduct towards other pupils and the disagreement between his teacher and parents on how to handle it. Although transferring him from a regular classroom would be the utmost modification for him, according to his guardians, Ms. Gonzales believes she cannot proficiently meet Stephen’s requirements while maintaining safety measures for others. Moreover, available details collected thus far have been somewhat inconsistent with regards to supporting placement change prerequisites now due to standard special education progression, which incorporates conducting systematic interviews as well functional behavior assessments aimed at identifying behavioral patterns featuring specific functionality – both aspects yet ongoing when it comes Stephen’s case (Howe et al., 2018). Besides, the LRE shift is currently not feasible without approval by a Child Study Team. They must also develop IEP so that he gets necessary support services from transferred surroundings until investigations are over. Then after such completion, it can happen accordingly afterward.
Data is key to understanding and deciding Stephen’s educational placement (Rumrill et al., 2020). With quality data, it is easier to accurately identify and address Stephen’s specific needs and determine the best placement for him. The lack of additional support in the classroom is also a factor in this decision. Stephen’s behaviors are the most severe of the five other students in the inclusion classroom who receive special education services. Ms. Gonzales feels she needs to work on effectively meeting Stephen’s needs while keeping the other students safe. Additional support would ensure that Stephen’s needs are met while maintaining a safe learning environment for the other students.
Before a change in LRE placement is considered for Stephen, additional support in the classroom should be explored. This could include providing Ms. Gonzales with additional support, such as a paraprofessional to help manage Stephen’s behaviors and provide one-on-one instruction. Providing Stephen with social skills instruction would also be beneficial in teaching him more appropriate ways to interact with his peers. A behavior specialist could also be brought in to guide Ms. Gonzales and Mr. Kuchar on behavior strategies and management. Lastly, data should be collected consistently to accurately assess Stephen’s behavior and determine if a change in placement is necessary. All these supports should be explored before considering a change in placement.
Stephen may benefit from the presence of paraeducators, tutors, volunteers, and related service providers. Paraeducators can provide a supportive atmosphere for Stephen, which guides him toward success, while tutors can be useful in bridging any academic gaps he experiences. Additionally, having volunteers around will enable Stephen to interact with positive role models who help alleviate his anxiety within the class environment. Related services providers such as cognitive behavior or occupational therapists also offer professional assistance that ensures individualized support is given throughout lessons. To ensure this approach’s effective implementation, clear guidance and instruction are provided beforehand when engaging these stakeholders in classrooms where they work alongside Stephen. For example, they should be fully informed about his unique needs stemming from diagnosis strengths and strategies employed before dealing with challenging behaviors. Moreover, they must receive training emphasizing confidentiality maintenance, like professional boundaries.
Special education teachers should satisfy legal and ethical standards when collaborating with volunteers, tutors, or paraeducators. In addition, they must ensure that confidential student data management meets quality requirements. To accomplish this, they must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which promises students privacy rights (FERPA & RECORDS, 2018). Additionally, these practitioners must meet specific state regulations such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA); Special Education Teachers also bear an ethical duty regarding the secure storage of private data for learners(Howe et al., 2018.). This implies ensuring adequate instruction to pertinent stakeholders regarding confidentiality practices and guaranteeing safety measures during instructional support services from nonprofessional staff like Para educators and tutors. These professionals should provide detailed information about responsibilities while maintaining a high training level.
References
FERPA, W. I., & RECORDS, W. A. E. (2018). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). https://medicine.ecu.edu/studentaffairs/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/238/2019/02/FERPA-Flyer.pdf
Howe, K. R., Boelé, A. L., & Miramontes, O. B. (2018). The ethics of special education. Teachers College Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5LRoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Special+Education+Professional+Ethical+Principles&ots=E6s1QqBNFu&sig=iI26LC-1m_55RLiSeM7sde5yWEo
Rumrill Jr, P. D., Cook, B. G., & Stevenson, N. A. (2020). Research in special education: Designs, methods, and applications. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ApnODwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Data+plays+a+key+role+in+understanding+and+making+decisions+about+Special+need+children+educational+placement&ots=gtnhiPZN9t&sig=1LKzWbQ8AeIzwtrtnKcelnly6Qk
Tohara, A. J. T. (2021). Exploring digital literacy strategies for students with special educational needs in the digital age. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(9), 3345-3358. https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i9.5741
write