Teaching At Sun Valley High School

The first Friday of New Year, Darrell didn't want to go to the supermarket parking lot to met Tyray because he didn't want to be scared of Tyray. He decided that he didn’t want pay to him again. At school, Tyray came and asked Darrell about his money, but the teacher came in so Tyray went away. When they went to eat lunch, Tyray and Darrell started fighting and then Tyray was crying because he broke his wrist. Finally, they were both sent to the principal office. At that time, Darrell told the principal what happened. In conclusion, Tyray got suspended and Darrell got a warning.

Federal court case, David DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants, involves the maltreatment of a disabled child in the state of Ohio. Participants of this case include plaintiffs’, David and Mary Doe (parents of disabled child), John Doe (disabled child) and defendant Big Walnut School District Board of Education (school board). John Doe has been diagnosed with Cognitive disability as a result he is required to have an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"). Due to ongoing “below average general intellectual functioning, self-direction, and communication deficits” listed within his IEP from May 24, 2007, John was placed in a Resource Room at Big Walnut Middle School to assist in the advancement of his education. There were reports of inappropriate behavior involving John Doe’s interactions and encounters with other students, which Principal House was made aware of by the facilitators. John Doe expressed his constant torment of victimization with

This case involved a 17 year old student that was elgiable for the IDEA services at the school. The student explosively responded to the taunts of a peer by choking the student and then kicking out a school window as he was escorted to the principal’s office. Doe was suspended for 5 days. On the fifth day of Doe’s suspension, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Placement Committee notified his mother that it was recommending his expulsion and that his suspension would continue indefinitely until the expulsion proceedings were complete. (Steketee, n.d.) The mother disagreed with this ruling and pressed further. The courts later granted the student a preliminary injunction, the trial court entered a permanent injunction

Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2007). Special Education and The Law: A Guide for Practitioners (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

In 1991 the Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This law was passed to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. It requires that each child with a disability “have access to the program best suited to that child’s special needs which is as close as possible to a normal child’s educational program” (Martin, 1978). The Individualized education program (IEP) was developed to help provide a written record of students’ needs and procedures for each child that receives special education services. The IEP will list all the services to be provided, the student's performance level, academic performance, and

Artifact number four will review a scenario in which a seasoned high school principal refuses a disabled student education due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school might not be the best placement for Jonathan. The topics discussed all pertain to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Cedar Rapids v Garret, Board of Education v Holland, and Timothy v Rochester. The facts that will be reviewed in this information will be discussed which could be used to defend Young’s decision, but make sure that Jonathan’s rights are not being stepped on.

The last presented case discusses a child with Down's syndrome named Christy. Christy's parents tried to enroll her in a regular classroom when she was five, however, they refused to have her evaluated. Another two years later, her parents tried pushing her into a regular classroom setting without consent to have her evaluated. The school district requested a due process hearing to get ahold of an order granting an evaluation. During this process, Christy was enrolled in a Kindergarten class that had children with no disabilities. When she was evaluated, her evaluation showed how she functioned in the mentally handicapped range. The IEP tried to piece together a doable program for Christy. One suggestion proposed placing Christy in a self-contained

I also see that they are creating an IEP like that of other students who have suffered the same type of injuries. I would think this is goes against the IDEA regulations, as they should not mimic other IEPs, but instead write a whole new IEP based on the student and her needs. I can see the district getting in trouble as they are

Clancey Smith, mother of Isaac Smith (5th Grade), arrived at EES on Friday, 9-23-16 and proceeded to visit Mrs. Tokar and Mrs. Taylor’s room to observe Isaac in the classroom. I was radioed by EES office staff due to Ms. Smith proceeding to the classrooms without permission. As I arrived she was walking into Mrs. Taylor’s room. Ms. Smith sat down in the classroom and I approached her to ask if I could help her or if there was something I could do for her. She responded by saying no, that she just wanted to observe the class. Again, I asked her if I could help her and she responded by asking why Isaac was not in the general education classroom. I asked her to follow me and we would review Isaac’s IEP together. We acquired Isaac’s IEP and proceeded

Several weeks ago, I was approached by the EC Director for our school system to create a document that tracks use of classroom modifications and accommodations for students with an IEP. In the past, our school system has not required documentation of how and when these were used but a recent incident at one of our schools brought to light this immediate need. After creating a document, I presented our new policy and procedure for documenting classroom mods & accommodations at each grade level Professional Learning Community (PLC) meeting. I was met with some resistance at one PLC with several complaints about the tedious nature of the new policy as well as disgruntling over not wanting to use what little paper we are given for something one teacher felt was not related to instruction.

With an astounding 14% of students in the United States being eligible for special education under IDEA, there has been greater regulation of educational services and identification of legal rights than ever before. (National Center for Education Statistics) IDEA, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, was an amendment to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act that in essence changed the name of the law, but maintained the purpose of ensuring that all those with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate public education. One of the many requirements of IDEA is the development of an IEP, or Individualized Education Program, for each student in special education. (Hallahan et al.) In light of the prevalence of special education in the United States, it is essential that all educators, not just special educators, be aware of the purpose, elements, and process of creating an IEP.

On Monday, September 25th, I participated as the general education teacher in an IEP team meeting. The meeting was for a student with Down syndrome, identified at birth, who qualified for services under the category of the intellectually disabled. This student is in a self-contained classroom, therefore, his current teacher, served as the special education teacher for the purposes of this meeting. Meeting participants included: Mrs. Fields (ARC Advocate), Dr. Neiman (the county’s lead speech-language pathologist, participated over the phone), Mrs. Bennett (LEA representative), Mrs. Diggs (ACS EC Director, as a precaution because the parents expressed concerns for the education of their child), Mrs. Sikes (General Education Teacher), Mrs. Bernard (Special Education Teacher), Mrs. Liles (Speech Therapist), Student’s Parents. This particular student is fourteen and although invited to attend this meeting, he declined.

During the first couple days of my observation, I was unable to identify the students in Ms. Heim’s class that had any exceptionalities. It wasn’t until one day that Ms. Heim was gone that I noticed a student, Eddie, had a behavior problem. Eddie was acting out and calling the special education teachers names because he did not want to go to the resource room for math. After discussing this with Ms. Heim the next day, I found out that Eddie does not like change. I also learned that Eddie has an IEP for behavior problems and learning disabilities. Ms. Heim said Eddie’s learning disabilities and behavior problems came from a brain injury when he was younger and because he has had a very rough childhood. I also learned that when the fifth grade teachers met before the school year started to

I have been tutoring people for over 5 years. I first started tutoring by teaching classmates english when I was living overseas. Soon afterwards it was my main supply of income. I have continued to tutor/teach people off and on for the past 5 years and I currently work for the writing center at my college as a writing tutor with a specialization in ESL work.

Much like the larger corporations supporting choice program, teaching staff in many of these schools do not have a vested interest in students of color, let alone education. Teaching in some choice schools like the Rocketship program is based on little teacher-to-student focused attention, so there is not much of a need for a full staff of qualified educators. Teachers at choice schools are not required to be certified and their curriculum does not have to be approved by an outside entity (Molnar 1998: 10). This lack of regulation allows for choice schools to stray away from academically focused professional staff. This process deviates largely from the public school system. To be specific, 95% of MPS teachers are certified, but only 69% of teachers in voucher schools are certified (Borsuk 2009). This means that students in these schools are being taught and supervised by a large groups of individuals who may have done little to no study in the area of education and ways to boost success among students of color. They are not held to the same standards as certified teachers and they do not necessarily have the same level of passion. This argument is exemplified through the Rocketship program’s use of Teach for America employees, who are not required to have received a degree in education and are only put through a five to seven week training period the summer before their school placement (Teach for America 2015). Because Rocketship schools are using Teach for