_______________________________________________________________________________________________


                              Tentative Course Schedule & Assignments

                                   
                                                     Fall 2006

and hit return.

This will take you to the SPED 651 class blog. The course instructor will provide comments or provide

discussion topics throughout the semester. It will be your responsibility to provide comments or ask

appropriate questions.

Getting to Comments Page

At the bottom of the professor’s blog entry, there is a hyperlink labeled as “__comments.” Select it.

This will take you to a second page that contains a “leave your comment.” Dialogue box.

Create Blog Account

I have set up this blog as only accepting comments from identified users…which means that you will

be required to create a blog account (you can start your own blog but it is not required for this course).

IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU USE YOUR PROPER NAME SO THAT I CAN EASILY GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR

YOUR ENTRIES (i.e., using screen names such as “Hot_Tamale” will not work). Once you establish your

page. Enter your comment in the dialogue box, enter your username and password at the bottom and

select the “login and publish button.”

Viewing Comments on Blog

 The main blog page for SPED 651 will come up. Hit the refresh/reload button on your browser to make

sure you have the latest version of this web page. Select the “_comments” link at the bottom of the

professor’s entry. This will take you to the comments page which should include your latest entry.

There are a total of 10 points possible for this activity. In order for students to earn full credit,

participation must be ongoing and must be substantive in nature. Regardless of number of entries,

students can earn a maximum of one point per week. This means that it is not a good idea to wait until

Class participants will develop a needs assessment, plan a staff development experience based on the

findings of the needs assessment, collect materials, and develop the training, develop plans for follow-up

and evaluation of the staff development experience.

The experience may be designed for one or more of the following groups:

will include the following elements:

education teacher/early childhood specialist/resource specialist/School Psychologist.

The Resource Notebook must have
• Clearly selected heading areas.
• Content for heading areas.
• Organized information.

The notebook should end up being a valuable resource tool. Make it work for you!
Possible heading might include:
• District/School site phone numbers and email addresses
• COE & SELPA phone numbers and email addresses
• District Discipline information
• District policies and procedures re. Special education
• Staff Development Experience (Very Important!)
• Articles about SPED Law
• CA Code of Regs/Selected Topics
• SPED 651 handouts


Scoring Rubric
Clearly Selected Headings 1 2 3 4 5
Organization of Content 1 2 3 4 5
Relevance of Content 1 2 3 4 5
Thoroughness of Content 1 2 3 4 5
Staff Development Experience 5 6 7 8 10

NOTE: Merely duplicating your district’s sped manual DOES NOT satisfy the requirements of this

Appendix D

The best way to deal with a legal problem is to prevent it from occurring. The first step in any program of

preventive law is for general educators, administrators, and special education practitioners to be

knowledgeable of the legal issues in special education. As an educational leader within your school site

and district, you have a professional responsibility to empower other professionals around you with

knowledge about special education law and how it relates to compliance with Federal and State

Regulations.

This assignment has a 15-page limit (double-spaced) and requires that you analyze a student’s current IEP

and determine areas in which the IEP was in and out of compliance. You will provide a list of

recommendations in which the IEP could be brought back into compliance. If there are minimal areas in

which there was non-compliance, you will identify those areas in which the IEP was completed correctly

and will develop a plan for emulating those practices.

Most information will be in the student’s current IEP, however, be aware that you may need to seek

teacher re. Current makeup of classroom, etc.). Each review will include:

a. Brief description of the case at hand (4 pts.)

• The student: This description will include relevant information about the student to include age, grade,

placement, eligibility category, main areas in which disability impairs student’s ability fully participate in

general education, & other relevant information about the student.

• Current Placement: description of current placement to include disabilities being served, number &

types of students being served, % of day student participates in general education, areas in which student

is included in general education.

• School: provide a description of the school the child attends to include a general geographical

description of the area, general SES of the area, number of students enrolled, grades served, ethnic

makeup of the school, & school-wide performance & API scores.

b. 2-3 compliant points of the plan (4 pts.)

• The compliance areas should address both procedural (adherence to timelines, parent notification, IEP

attendees, signatures, paperwork completed properly, etc.) and substantive (correct placement, meaningful goals and objectives, LRE & FAPE provided, etc.) issues. Specify which laws are being followed.

• The NON-compliance areas should address both procedural (adherence to timelines, parent notification,

IEP attendees, signatures, paperwork completed properly, etc.) and substantive (correct placement,

meaningful goals and objectives, LRE & FAPE provided, etc.) issues. Specify which laws are NOT being

followed.

d. Recommendations to correct the non-compliant points of the plan (8 pts.)

• In this section you will provide a list of recommendations that will bring the IEP back into compliance on

Staff Development

personnel determine their own needs, develop steps to address those needs, and evaluate their

professional growth. Under ideal circumstances in-service is one useful component of a long-range,

ongoing staff development program to provide professional development that serves the needs of

teachers, administrators, support personnel, and parents in the school system. Professional

development is a fundamental part of the general plan for improving education for all students

(Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999).

Staff development and In-service

·        Engage in needs sensing

·        Conduct needs assessment

·        Analyze the results of the needs assessment

·        Staff development plan: a sequence of topics to be addressed based on analysis of results

·        Provide information on key points to be discussed in each topic in sequence

·        Select the topic to be featured in your in-service

·        Provide rationale for selecting topic

·        Outline the presentation

·        Choose a catchy, upbeat title for the in-service

·        Determine presenters who will contribute, if appropriate

·        Decide on incentives, promotion, and publicity.

·        List the equipment and room arrangement needed

·        Plan carefully the content to be covered

·        Prepare handouts and visual materials

·        Rehearse the presentation

·        Determine an evaluation procedure for the activity

·        Plan for the follow up activity.

________________________________________________________________________________________

used to denote deviant expectations of others. In recent years, "behavioral disorders" has gained favor over

"emotional disturbance" as a more accurate label leading to more objective decision-making and fewer negative

connotations. Public Law 94-142 defines serious emotional disturbance (SED) as "a condition exhibiting one or

more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, which adversely effects

educational performance: --An inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health

factors. --An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.

--Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. --A general pervasive mood of

unhappiness or depression. --A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or

school problems." (U.S. FEDERAL REGISTER, 42, August 23, 1977, pp. 42478-42479).

The federal definition includes children who are diagnosed as schizophrenic, but excludes socially

maladjusted children "unless it is determined that they are seriously emotionally disturbed." Although autism

impaired."

In A STUDY OF CHILD VARIANCE, Rhodes and Tracy (1974) identified several conceptual models for

understanding emotional and behavioral disorders.  Biophysical, psychoanalytical, behavioral, sociological, and

ecological models offer different theoretical perspectives on the nature and causes of behavioral deviance.

HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED?

Estimates of the number of school-age children and adolescents with emotional or behavioral disorders

depend on the definitions and criteria that are used. At some point in their lives, most individuals exhibit

behavior that others consider excessive or inappropriate for the circumstances. Thus, frequency, intensity,

duration, and context must be considered in making judgments of disturbance. Unlike some other educational

disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders are not necessarily lifelong conditions.

Although teachers typically consider 10%-20% of their students as having emotional or behavioral problems, a

population. Currently, less than one-half that number are formally identified and receive special education

services.

WHAT ARE TYPICAL PATTERNS OF DISORDERED BEHAVIOR?

There is considerable agreement about general patterns or types of disordered behavior. Achenbach (1982)

suggests two discrete patterns which he calls "externalizers" (aggressive, disruptive, acting out) and

"internalizers" (withdrawn, anxious, depressed). Quay (1972) identifies the following four dimensions:

CONDUCT DISORDERS (aggression, disobedience, irritability); PERSONALITY DISORDERS (withdrawal, anxiety,

physical complaints; IMMATURITY (passivity, poor coping, preference for younger playmates); and SOCIALIZED

PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS (including autism and childhood schizophrenia) and LEARNING

DISORDERS (including attention deficit disorders with hyperactivity). Not all behaviorally disordered students

experience academic difficulties, but the two factors are often associated.

WHAT ARE THE EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS?

Educational interventions should match the established needs of students with behavioral disorders.

Multidisciplinary educational teams, including  parents, must design programs to meet the individual

behavioral and academic needs of identified SED students. Most students can benefit from supportive

treatments provided in regular programs. For others, at least temporary placements in special classrooms,

schools, or institutional programs may be appropriate.

Special programs usually attempt to provide a "therapeutic milieu," a structured environment where students

 experience a high degree of success; rules and routines are predictable; and students are consistently

economies, contracting, and time-out, which rely on direct measurement and monitoring of behavioral change,

discussion, and rehearsal are frequently used to help students increase control over their behavior and

improve their relations with others. In addition, supportive therapies involving music, art, exercise, and

relaxation techniques,  as well as affective education, individual, and group counseling are sometimes employed

 to improve self-understanding, self-esteem,  and self-control.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Diagnostic Criteria

A. A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of

individuals of comparable age and developmental level.

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational

functioning.

C. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a Psychotic or Mood Disorder.

D. Criteria are not met for Conduct Disorder, and, if the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met

for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Conduct Disorder Diagnostic Criteria

A. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate

societal norms or rules areviolated, as manifested by the presence of three (or more) of the following criteria in

K. often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., "cons" others)

L. has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g., shoplifting, but without breaking

and entering; forgery)

Serious violations of rules

M. often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years

(or once without returning for a lengthy period)

O. is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational

 functioning.

C. If the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Specify type based on age at onset:

•Childhood-Onset Type: onset of at least one criterion characteristic of Conduct Disorder prior to age 10

years

 
•Adolescent-Onset Type: absence of any criteria characteristic of Conduct Disorder prior to age 10 years

Specify severity:

•Mild: few if any conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis and conduct problems

cause considerable harm to others

DETERMINATION of SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (SED) and EDUCATIONALLY HANDICAPPING

CONDITIONS A psychologist will: evaluate the child's personal, social, and emotional status for students

referred for a suspected emotional disturbance that is educationally handicapping in nature. A period of

observation of the student and consultation with staff and parents is an integral part of this process.

For coding purposes: there must be a condition other than social maladjustment, as judged by the

psychologist, to warrant a determination of an emotionally disturbing condition. Emotionally Disturbed, by

definition, is distinguished from the delinquent (trouble with law) and the socially maladjusted/behaviorally

disorder child. The psychologist makes this determination through clinical judgment of the observable

behavior combined with information found within the testing situation and relevant factors in the home and

emotional disturbance.

Student Name:

has / has not been found by a psychologist to have a condition of emotional disturbance and therefore

can/cannot be considered educationally handicapped by the team under the provisions of IDEA and/or the

CA Standards. If the student can be considered by the team to have a condition of emotional disturbance

following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, which adversely affects

more of the above Characteristics. (Note: if only a, b, or b, c or a, c applies he/she is not eligible).

If the student can be considered by the team to have a condition of emotional disturbance that manifests

one of the 6 characteristics, the team should complete the DETERMINATION OF SERIOUS EMOTIONAL

DISTURBANCE AND EDUCATIONALLY HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS. DETERMINATION of SERIOUS

suppress maladaptive behaviors -- they must simultaneously try to teach appropriate substitute behaviors.

Q. Do the new positive behavior intervention regulations specifically prohibit some behavior programming

properly trained school personnel may use prone containment. The regulations contain very specific guidelines

on the handling and documentation of emergencies. However, even in emergencies (and in all other behavior

services) behavior interventions may not include:

(1) Release of toxic or unpleasant sprays near the student's face;

(2) Denying adequate sleep, food, water, shelter, bedding, comfort, or access to bathroom facilities;

(3) Subject the student to verbal abuse, ridicule or humiliation or cause emotional trauma;

(4) Use locked seclusion;

(5) Impede adequate supervision of the student;

(6) Deprive the student of one or more of his/her senses; or

(7) Employ any device, material, or object that simultaneously immobilizes all four extremities (except for prone

student's disability. Thus, expulsion would be prohibited. In California,  a special education student cannot be

expelled unless the IEP team determines that she was appropriately
placed at the time of her misconduct. [Cal.

Ed. Code Sec. 48915.5(a)(3).] Thus, if a student did not receive a positive behavior assessment and intervention

for a behavior that fit the definition of serious behavior problem (see Question 21), the IEP team should find that

she was not appropriately placed at the time of her misconduct. This situation would also preclude expulsion.

However, school districts may suspend special education students for misconduct even though the behavior

 involved is targeted for change in the student's positive behavior intervention plan -- subject to the limitations

services to address serious behavior problems must exist in California. In 1990, the Legislature enacted

Assembly Bill 2586 (Hughes). [Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56520 to 56524.] This law prohibited the use of aversive

behavior interventions and mandated the development and implementation of positive behavior intervention

plans for special education students with serious behavior
problems. In addition, the law required that CDE

develop regulations to implement positive behavior intervention services for special education students in

school. The regulations are at Title 5, California Code of Regulations, Sections 3001 and 3052. The "Positive

Behavioral Intervention Procedural Flowchart" at the end of this chapter sets out procedures to (1) identify and

assess behavior problems, and (2) develop intervention plans. The second page of the flow chart sets out

greater access to a variety of community settings, social contacts and public events, and ensure that her

behavior does not hinder her placement in the least restrictive educational setting. Positive behavioral

interventions respect the student's dignity and personal privacy and assure physical freedom, social interaction,

 an individual choice. Positive behavioral interventions do not include procedures which cause pain or trauma.

problem receive a functional analysis assessment. The assessment is then used in developing a positive

behavior intervention plan for him. The plan becomes part of his IEP. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 3001(f).] The plan

has its own set of goals and objectives related to reducing maladaptive behaviors and substituting appropriate

behaviors.

Personnel with training in behavior analysis, with an emphasis on positive behavior intervention, must perform

the functional analysis assessment, develop the positive behavior intervention plan, and supervise the

the IEP team for every student with serious behavior problems. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 3052(a)(1).]

The regulations include many other procedures for evaluating the intervention plan, for modifying the plan, and

for documenting emergency interventions. You can obtain a copy of the positive behavior intervention

serious property damage or (3) is severe, pervasive, and maladaptive, and for which instructional/behavioral

approaches specified in the student's IEP are found to be ineffective. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 3001(y).]

If the child's behaviors are not to the level of a serious behavior problem which would entitle her to a functional

analysis assessment, parents should insist that any behavioral interventions used be specified in the IEP. If the

milder behavioral problems develop into more severe, pervasive and maladaptive behaviors, but nothing has

been specified in the IEP to address them, a child may not technically meet the definition of "serious behavior

problem," and a school district may insist on one more opportunity to try to address the otherwise serious

setting, the activities going on, and the student's degree of choice at the time);

(4) The consequences that maintain the behaviors (for example, does the behavior serve a communicative

 function for the student -- is it a request or a protest?);

(5) A description of the frequency of alternative behaviors, the circumstances under which they occur, and the

consequences of those alternative behaviors. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 3052(b)(2).]

The functional analysis assessment involves a great deal of observation of the student and study of his

environments and past history as part of the process of obtaining the information described above. [5 Cal.

(2) An objective and measurable description of the targeted serious behaviors and positive replacement

behaviors;

(3) Goals and objectives specific to the targeted behaviors;
 

(4) A detailed description of the behavioral interventions to be used and the circumstances for their use;
 

(5) Schedules for recording the frequency of use of the interventions and the demonstration of replacement

behaviors;

(6) Criteria for determining when the interventions will be phased out or replaced with less intense or less

frequent interventions;

 
(7) The extent to which interventions will be used in the student's home and in other settings.

 
(8) Specific dates for the IEP team to review the behavior intervention program's effectiveness. [5 Cal. Code

Regs. Sec. 3001(f).] Behavior intervention plans must contain sufficient detail to direct their implementation.

displays, or is likely to display, a targeted serious behavior problem. Behavior interventions must not simply

eliminate serious behavior problems, but must simultaneously teach alternative positive behaviors. [5 Cal.

Code Regs. Sec. 3052(a)(2).] In other words, school districts should not use techniques that simply contain or

suppress problem behaviors unless they also teach the student substitute appropriate behaviors.

The procedures include, but are not limited to:

(1) Altering events in anticipation of a serious behavior problem to try to prevent its occurrence;

(2) Teaching an alternative behavior that produces the same results for the student but is more socially

acceptable;

(3) Teaching adaptive behaviors, that is, methods of coping with unanticipated events; and/or

(4) Manipulating the consequences for serious behavior problems and appropriate behavior so that appropriate

behavior achieves the desired outcome and serious behavior problems are ignored. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec.

or others or serious property damage, the school personnel may use emergency interventions, including prone

containment by trained staff, for the time necessary to address the emergency. [5 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 3001(c),

parent (and residential care provider, if appropriate) shall be notified of the emergency intervention, or if serious

property damage occurs, within one school day and a Behavioral Emergency Report shall be filed. If the student

does not have a behavioral intervention plan, then an IEP meeting shall be scheduled within two days to

determine whether a functional analysis assessment is necessary and to determine the necessity for an

interim emergency behavior, then an IEP review shall be conducted to see if the plan needs to be modified.

and social interaction, be administered in a manner that respects human dignity and personal privacy, and that

ensure a pupil’s right to placement in the least restrictive educational environment.

(2) That training programs be developed and implemented in institutions of higher education that train teachers

and that inservice training programs be made available as necessary in school districts and county offices of

education to assure that adequately trained staff are available to work effectively with the behavioral

intervention needs of individuals with exceptional needs.

56523 (b), (1),(2) (A-F) (1) specify the types of positive behavioral interventions which may be  utilized and

specify that interventions which cause pain or trauma are prohibited.

(3) ....the pupil’s individual education plan includes a description of the positive behavioral interventions to be

Handicapped Children, subchapter 1.  Special Education, Article 1.

General Provisions Section 3001 (f)

“Behavioral intervention” means the systematic implementation of procedures that result in lasting positive

changes in the individual’s behavior. “Behavioral intervention” means the design, implementation, and

evaluation of individual or group instructional and environmental modifications, including programs of

behavioral instruction, to produce significant improvements in human behavior through skill acquisition and the

reduction of problematic behavior. “Behavioral interventions” are designed to provide the individual with greater

access to a variety of community setting, social contacts and public events; and ensure the individual’s right to

placement in the least restrictive educational environment as outlined in the individual’s IEP. “Behavioral

interventions” do not include procedures which cause pain or trauma. “Behavioral interventions” respect the

individual’s human dignity and personal privacy such interventions
shall assure the individual’s physical

freedom, social interaction, and individual choice.

The U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Judith Heumann, sent a

of having as a part of an IEP, services addressing positive behavioral strategies! The 1997 Amendments to IDEA

state that, “ the relationship between behavior and learning must not only be considered but acted upon”. The

amendments are explicit in what is required in an IEP team addressing behavior problems of children with

disabilities”.

IDEA 614(d)(3)(b)(i):

The team must explore the need for strategies and support systems to address any behavior that may impede

the learning of the child with the disability or the learning of his or her peers IDEA 653 (c)(3)(D) (vi).

States shall address the needs of in-service and pre-service personnel (including professionals and

paraprofessionals who provide special education, general education, related services, or early intervention

services) as they relate to developing and implementing positive intervention strategies.

34 CFR Parts 300 and 303 300.550 General LRE requirements

(b) (1) That to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private

educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular

classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily 300.551 Continuum

of alternative placements. (b)(2) Make provision for
supplementary services...to be provided in conjunction with

regular class placement. 300.552 Placements

 
(a) the placement decision – (1) is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons

knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the
evaluation data, and the placements options; and (2) is made

 in conformity with the LRE provisions (c) ...the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if

nondisabled, (e) A child with a disability is not removed from education in age appropriate regular classrooms

solely because of needed modification in the general curriculum.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

your goals are based on the student's past performance and that they are stated positively. Behavior goals must

be relevant to the student's needs. Start slowly, choosing only a couple of behaviors at a time to change. Be sure

to involve the student, this enables him to take responsibility and be accountable for his/her own behavior

modifications. Be sure to provide some time of form to enable the student to track and or graph his/her

successes.

Sample Statements:

______ will be accountable for inappropriate actions.
______ will complete tasks in the allotted time.
______ will be on time for each class.
______ will start tasks when asked.
______ will make appropriate decisions during recess and at lunch hour.
______ will complete and hand in assignments when asked.
______ will raise his/her hand before speaking.
______ will follow routines, instructions and directions promptly.
______ will use acceptable problem solving skills.
______ will interact with peers in a positive manner.
______ will demonstrate respect for others and the property of others.
______ will make positive contributions when called upon.
______ will act in a cooperative manner.
______ will follow routines. (List the specific routines and or rules)
______ will exhibit anger management.
______ will employ good decision making skills.
______ will work independently during.......
______ will work quietly without distracting others.
______ will use self control when confronted with a variety of situations. (Be specific)
______ will remain on task.
______ will work legibly and produce quality assignments and tasks.
______ will use the acceptable voice tones as instructed by the teacher.
______ will use appropriate language at all times and will display self control.

Remember to write goals positively, avoid using terms like ______ will not_______. Write goals that can be

measured, be specific as to the duration or the circumstance under which the goal will be implemented and use

specific time slots when possible. Remember, once the behavior plan is written, it is imperative that the student

is taught the goals and fully under stands what the expectations are. Provide him/her with tracking devices,

students who present behavioral challenges that disrupt the class or isolate the student from peers. At least one

team member must have expertise in developing behavioral interventions for students with behavioral or

emotional challenges. We are assuming that your team has a person with experience working with students with

behavioral challenges who can lead the team through the activities
required to develop a positive behavior plan.

If your team does not have a member with expertise in this area, add such a team member before attempting to

develop a behavior plan for a student. A poorly constructed plan or a plan that is implemented inconsistently or

incorrectly can make the problem worse instead of better! The information presented in the curriculum is not

sufficient for a team without such expertise to do an adequate job in this area.  All behavior is meaningful and

serves to communicate needs. We all use behaviors that meet our needs and stop using behaviors that do not.

Most students use hand raising, for example, to communicate a need for attention. When waiting with hand up

consistently gets attention, students learn that hand raising meets their need for attention. Some students learn

that speaking out in class gains them more attention than hand raising does. When their talking out is attended to

their need is met and they are likely to speak out again. The more this happens the less time will be spent waiting

 with “hand up” and the more time spent speaking out since speaking out works and “raised hand” does not

work as well. It is helpful to categorize the needs that behavior communicates into the following areas:

Attention: The behavior serves the need to draw attention away from other  sand to oneself.

Avoidance/Escape: The behavior serves the need to end an event or activity that the student does not like or to

avoid an event.

Control: The behavior serves the need to be in control of events.

Revenge: The behavior serves the need to punish others for something that was done to the student.

Self-Regulation/Coping: The behavior serves the need to regulate feelings (e.g., boredom, embarrassment,

anger, fear, anxiety), or energy levels. Inappropriate behaviors such as speaking out in class can serve to

communicate any of the needs listed above. For example, students might speak out in class:

1. For teacher or peer attention;

2. To escape from or avoid an unpleasant situation (student knows he will be asked to leave class for speaking

out);

3. For revenge (student trying to disrupt the teacher’s class to get back at the teacher for a real or imagined

grievance);

4. As a self-regulation strategy (student speaks out because he cannot wait for more than a few seconds or he

becomes very anxious); or

5. For play (it is fun to watch the teacher get upset).

Until we analyze the behavior and the situations in which it occurs, we do not know the need the behavior

communicates, but we do know that it is communicating a need and it works for the student. The Supportive

Classroom curriculum includes a process, forms and procedures for helping a team develop positive behavioral

plans for students who present challenging behaviors.

The Success Plan provides a framework for gathering and summarizing important information about each student

in the class. The process for developing the Success Plan is divided into several tasks or activities that can be

arranged in various ways depending upon the needs of the students and the desires of the instructional team.

The tasks to be accomplished include the following:

• Get to know each student.

• Identify each student’s strengths and interests.

• Identify family concerns that may impact on each student’s ability to participate in school activities.

• Identify collaborative skills and other priority skills for each student to learn or practice.

• Identify supports for helping the student succeed.

Understanding each student’s strengths and interests provides teachers with a wealth of information for

developing motivating learning activities and themes. The public recognition and regard for each student’s

strengths and interests communicates to them that they are cared for and valued. In addition, information on

strengths and interests can be used to facilitate students developing positive relationships with each other and

learning to respect similarities and differences among people. The use of a strengths-based approach to planning

is essential for developing effective student support plans. Often students, especially those who present learning

or behavioral challenges, are primarily described in terms of their needs, what they cannot do, and their

inappropriate behaviors. A narrow focus on students’ needs provides little information on how they can be

academically, socially and emotionally supported.

For example, describing a student as hyperactive, severely emotionally disturbed and engaging in such

behaviors as being loud and disruptive in class, refusing to do school work and thro we can arrange class

be successful.
__________________________________________________________________________

lifestyles that worsen their severe heart disease and greatly threaten their lives.

Myth: Change is motivated by fear

Reality: It's too easy for people to go into denial of the bad things that might happen to them.

Compelling, positive visions of the future are a much stronger inspiration for change.

Myth: The facts will set us free

Reality: Our thinking is guided by narratives, not facts. When a fact doesn't fit our conceptual

"frames" -- the metaphors we use to make sense  of the world -- we reject it. Also, change is

inspired best by emotional appeals rather than factual statements.

Myth: Small, gradual changes are always easier to make and sustain

Reality: Radical, sweeping changes are often easier because they quickly yield benefits.

Myth: We can't change because our brains become "hardwired" early in life

Reality: Our brains have extraordinary "plasticity," meaning that we can continue learning

and adults, be positive about your own abilities and school, follow rules, and do your best work.

 But some kids with learning disabilities (LD) and/or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(AD/HD) also may develop behavior problems that add to the risk of failure. Here are a few

warning signs:

•The child has trouble following directions or getting along with other kids.

•She’s discouraged or says she "hates school."

•She’s frequently "in trouble" in school or sent to the principal’s office.

•None of the usual techniques — rewards, consequences, home-school communication,

their physical needs — food, clothing, shelter — kids need fun, freedom, power, and a sense of

belonging. If these needs aren’t met in positive ways, problems develop.

In some classrooms, kids have to sit quietly and listen for long periods of time, and this can be hard for

them. Sometimes, you’ll find the child just hasn’t learned age-appropriate social skills. Here are some

quotes that reflect how a child might express her needs through her behavior:

•Freedom: If I don’t get some choice in the way I work or what I learn, I won’t work at all.

•Fun: If my teacher never cracks jokes, seems to enjoy teaching, or thinks up interesting lessons, I’ll make

my own fun.

•Belonging: If I don’t feel I’m a one of the smart kids, I’ll be one of the kids who has problems and show I

don’t care.

•Power: If I can’t be a class leader, know a lot in a class discussion, or do an assignment well, I’ll be the class

clown and get noticed.

Why Do Behavior Problems Develop?

Kids with LD and/or AD/HD may not pick up on cues around them. They may not understand what teachers

or other kids expect from them or how to bargain with others. They may have a hard time waiting for the

teacher to call on them. They may have a problem concentrating on things that aren’t interesting to them.

They may not have learned skills to be a good group member — taking turns, giving and accepting feedback,

getting agreement, and compromising.

If the child with LD and/or AD/HD also has these problems, she may decide, "I’d rather be bad than stupid!"

She’s figured out if she doesn’t try hard or turn in assignments, others won’t know just how difficult the work

really is for her.

How Do You Find the Cause?

Think of behavior as an attempt to get something or complain about something. Since behavior is a form of

communication, you’ll need to figure out the child’s message. Is she trying to gain something — attention,

an opportunity to move around? Is she trying escape or avoid something -doing an assignment she doesn’t

understand, sitting next to a child who annoys her? Once you understand what her behavior communicates

about her needs, you can help her learn more appropriate behaviors.

What Happens Next?

After you’ve figured out the "why" of the child’s behavior, these questions will help you develop a plan of

action.

•What new skill — behavior — should the child learn to replace the problem behavior?

*How will she learn the new behavior? Who will model (show her how to do it) - another child, the teacher?

Where will she role play (practice) it?  Who will cue (remind) her to use it?

•What changes need to be made in the child’s environment — time of day, space, materials, interactions?

*What reinforcer will help her use the new behavior – stickers, a special activity or privilege, praise? How

often should it be given? Who should give it?

*How should problem behavior be handled if it happens again? Are there specific words, cues, or

consequences that should be used to stop the behavior quickly?

*How will everyone (parents, teachers, and child) involved work together? How often should they

communicate?

Behavior Modification is based on the concept of using techniques for changing undesirable behaviors into

those that are more appropriate and acceptable. There are many ideas on this subject according to various

psychological schools of thought. However, all agree that the following are essential:

*Identifying the behaviors that need to be changed.

*Educating oneself on various techniques.

*Choosing techniques that target the specific child behavior problem and fit the child.

*Using appropriate hands-on child behavior tools for implementing the techniques.

The following four principles for changing a child’s behavior will be effective if you are both patient and

persistent.

Principle 1:

Change your initial response first. This is important because children’s behavior generally requires a pay-off,

which may be your attention or an attempt to defeat you.
The most important principle about changing

children’s behavior is to change your own behavior first. So if your child' whines (a child's version of water

torture) to get his own way refrain from answering back or giving in.

Principle 2:

Practice with the child the behavior that you want. The notion of behavior rehearsal is fundamental to

learning a new behavior. Don’t just

Principle 3:

Minimize the behavior you don’t want. That means when children continue their old behavior despite your

brilliant suggestions ignore it, sidestep it or implement a consequence but don’t nag or harp on it.

Remember it takes time often to change a behavior, particularly if it has been happening for a long time.

Principle 4:

Spotlight the appropriate behavior. When the children behave in the desired way show your sincere

appreciation. We often take children for granted or rather we are trained to give children no attention when

they are good, but plenty when they are less than perfect. The behaviors we focus on expand so we need to

focus our attention on desirable behaviors more than on the negative behaviors. For our young whiner it is

essential to make a fuss when he uses a normal voice to get what he wants. Like any process it will only

work if you stick to it and follow it through. And don’t be afraid to adapt it to suit your circumstances.

Remember, it is the fact that you have a plan rather than the nature of the plan that is most powerful in

achieving a change in the children’s behavior

___________________________________________________
Landmark Cases in Special Education

  

The first federal laws designed to assist individuals with disabilities date back to the early days of the nation. In

1798, the Fifth Congress passed the first federal law concerned with the care of persons with disabilities

(Braddock, 1987; cited in NICHCY, 1997). This law authorized a Maine Hospital Service to provide medical

services to sick and disabled seamen. By 1912, this service became known as Public Health Service. However,

prior to World War II, there were relatively few federal laws authorizing special benefits for persons with

disabilities. Those that existed were intended to address the needs of war veterans with service-connected

disabilities. This meant that, for most of our nation's history, schools were allowed to exclude-and often did

exclude-certain children, especially those with disabilities.



In 1948, only 12% of all children with disabilities received some form of special education. By the early 1950s,

special education services and programs were available in school districts, but often, undesirable results

occurred. For example, students in special classes were considered unable to perform academic tasks.

Consequently, they went to special schools or classes that focused on learning manual skills such as weaving

and bead stringing. Although programs existed, it was clear that discrimination was still as strong as ever for

those with disabilities in schools.



Legislation and court cases to prevent discrimination in education first came to notice in 1954 with the famous

case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In Brown, the Court ruled that it was illegal practice under

the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to arbitrarily discriminate against any group of people. The

Court then applied this principle to the schooling of children, holding that a separate education for African

American students is not an equal education. In its famous ruling, separate but equal would no longer be

accepted (347 U.S. 483).



Brown set the precedent for future discrimination cases in education. People with disabilities were recognized as

another group whose rights had been violated because of arbitrary discrimination. For children, the

discrimination occurred because they were denied access to schools due to their disabilities. Using Brown as

their legal precedent, students with disabilities claimed that their segregation and exclusion from school violated

their opportunity for an equal education under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution-the Equal

Protection Clause. If Brown could not segregate by race, then schools should not be able to segregate or

otherwise discriminate by ability and disability.



In the 1960s, parents began to become advocates for better educational opportunities for their children. Around

the same time, many authorities began to agree that segregated special classes were not the most appropriate

educational setting for many students with disabilities. By the end of the 1960s, landmark court cases set the

stage for enactment of federal laws to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents. This section

presents an overview of some of the most historical court cases in special education in their order of occurrence.


Hobson v. Hansen (1967). In Hobson v. Hansen, a U.S. district court declared that the District of Columbia school

tracking system was invalid. However, special classes were allowed, provided that testing procedures were

rigorous and that retesting was frequent (Sattler, 1992).
 

Diana v. State Board of Education (1970). In this case, California was mandated by the Court to correct bias in

assessment procedures used with Chinese American and Mexican American students. Diana had three very

important holdings that would later influence the enactment of federal special education laws:

1. If a student's primary language was not English, the student had to be tested in both English and his or her

primary language.

2. Culturally unfair items had to be eliminated from all tests used in the assessment process.

3. If intelligence tests were to be used in the assessment process, they had to be developed to reflect Mexican

American culture (Diana v. State Board of Education, C-70: 37RFT (N.D. Cal., 1970).

PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). In this case, a U.S. federal court in Pennsylvania ratified a
consent agreement assuring that schools may not exclude students who have been classified with mental
retardation. Also, the Court mandated that all students must be provided with a free public education.
Testimony in this case indicated that all mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting from an educational
program. Some are capable of self-sufficiency and some achieve self-care. It also shows that the earlier the
program is started, the more the person will learn.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had taken it upon themselves to provide a free public education to all of
its children between the ages of six and twenty-one, including exceptional children. This caused the
Commonwealth not to be able to dent any mentally retarded child access to a free public education.
It became their responsibility to make this education and training appropriate for the chil


Wyatt v. Stickney (1972). In Alabama, a federal court ruled that mentally retarded children in state institutions had a

constitutional right to treatment (Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 387, M.D. Ala 1972).

Larry P. V Riles (1972): Larry P. Was a black student in California, and his complaint led to an
expansion of the ruling in the Diana case. The court ruled that schools are responsible for providing
tests that do not discriminate on the basis of race. In the class-action case of PASE v. Hannon (1980),
however, the fudge stated he could find little evidence of bias in the test items. The Larry P. Case also
set a precedent for the use of data indicating disproportionate placement of minority groups as prima
facie (sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved) evidence of discrimination. However,
subsequent cases have undermined this precedent (Marshall et a. v. Georgia [1984] and S-I v. Turlington
[1986]).



Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School (1972). In Arizona, a U.S. district court agreed to a stipulated agreement

that children could not be placed in educable mentally retarded classes unless they scored lower than two standard

deviations below the population mean on an approved IQ test administered in the child's own language. Guadalupe

v. Tempe Elementary School also stipulated that other assessment procedures must be used in addition to

intelligence tests, and that parental permission must be obtained for such placements (Sattler, 1992, p. 779).



Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972). This case set forth future guidelines for federal legislation,

including the rights of students with disabilities to have access to a free public education, due process protection,

and a mandated requirement to receive special education services regardless of the school district's financial

capability (Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 Supp. 866, CD. DC 1972; contempt proceedings,

EHLR 551:643 CD. DC 1980). 


Lau v. Nichols 1974

This civil rights case was brought by limited-English proficient Chinese students living in San Francisco.
The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak
English, help which they argued they were entitled to under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because
of its ban on educational discrimination on the basis of national origin. Finding that the lack of
linguistically-appropriate accommodations (e.g., educational services in Chinese) effectively denied the
Chinese students equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity, the Supreme Court in
1974 ruled in favor of the students, thus expanding the rights of limited English proficient students around
the nation. Among other things, Lau reflects the now-widely accepted view that one's language is so closely
intertwined with one's national origin (the country someone or her ancestors came from) that language-based
discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.

Lau remains an important decision in the areas of civil rights and language rights, and is frequently relied upon
as authority in many cases. (The San Francisco Unified School District remains covered by the consent decree
that was ultimately entered into in the Lau case, and civil rights groups continue to monitor SFUSD's compliance
with that decree.)


 

PASE (Parents in Action on Special Education) v. Joseph P. Hannon (1980). In this case regarding bias in IQ testing,

the judge (Judge Grady in Illinois) found that on the IQ tests he examined, only nine of the 488 test questions were

racially biased. Consequently, IQ tests were found not to be discriminatory. Furthermore, Judge Grady indicated

that clinical judgment also plays a large role in interpreting IQ test results. He stated: "There is no evidence in this

record that such misassessments as do occur are the result of racial bias in test items or in any aspect of the

assessment process currently in use in the Chicago public school system." Therefore, the decision in PASE

resolved some of the controversy about the use of IQ tests for special education classification. As a result, the use

of intelligence tests was acceptable in psychoeducational assessment as long as they followed all other procedural

safeguards under federal law (PASE v. Joseph P. Hannon, No. 74 C 3586 N.D. Ill. 1980).



Luke S. and Hans S. v. Nix et al. (1982). In the state of Louisiana, all evaluations had to be completed within a 60-day

time period. The plaintiffs in this case argued that thousands of students were not being appropriately evaluated

within this time period. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and informed the state of Louisiana that greater

prereferral assessment should be done before a referral is made (Luke S. and Hans S. v. Nix et al., cited in Taylor,

1997, p. 13).



Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (1982). In Rowley, the parents of Amy Rowley, a

deaf student with minimal residual hearing and excellent lip-reading skills, sought the services of a full-time

interpreter in her regular classes. Amy had been provided with an FM trainer (a teacher of the deaf) for one hour

per day, and speech for three hours per week. Even though Amy was missing about half of what was being

discussed in class, she was very well adjusted, was performing better than the average child in the class and was

advancing easily from grade to grade.



Based on these facts, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School

District v. Rowley that Amy was receiving an "appropriate" education without the sign interpreter. In reaching this

opinion, the Court concluded that the obligation to provide an appropriate education does not mean a school must

provide the "best" education or one designed to "maximize" a student's potential. However, the program must be

based on the student's unique individual needs and be designed to enable the student to benefit from an education.

 In other words, the student must be making progress (Hager, 1999, p. 5).



Jose P. v. Ambach (1983). In this case, the plaintiffs filed suit against New York City. Their complaint involved the

inappropriate delivery of services. The plaintiffs argued that many students in special education were not receiving

services in an appropriate time frame. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and stated that from the time of

referral to evaluation there can be a maximum of 30 days that can elapse. The court informed the defendants that all evaluations must be "timely evaluations" (Jose P. v. Ambach, cited in Taylor, 1997, p. 13).

Roncker v. Walter, 700 F2d. 1058 (6th Circuit Court 1983)
addressed the issue of "bringing educational services to the child" versus "bringing the child to the services".
The case was resolved in favor of integrated versus segregated placement and established a principle of
portability; that is, " if a desirable service currently provided in a segregated setting can feasiblely be delivered
in an integrated setting, it would be inappropriate under PL 94-142 to provide the service in a segregated
environment" Questions used to determine whether mainstreaming can be accomplished.


1) What is it in the segregated program that makes it better than a mainstreaming program?

2) Can these things (modified curriculum, teacher) be provided in the regular school environment?

"It is not enough for a district to simply claim that a segregated program is superior: In a case where the
segregated facility is considered superior, the court should determine whether the services which make
the placement superior could be feasibly provided in a non-segregated setting (i.e. regular class). If they
can, the placement in the segregated school would be inappropriate under the act (I.D.E.A.)."
(Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir.) at 1063, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983))
The Roncker Court found that placement decisions must be individually made. School districts that
automatically place children in a predetermined type of school solely on the basis of their disability
(e.g., mentally retardation) rather than on the basis of the IEP, violate federal laws.
 

Larry P. v. Riles (1984). In this California case, using IQ tests as the assessment measure for placing African

American students in special education as mentally retarded was found to be discriminatory. Schools in California

were mandated by the Court to reduce the disproportionate representation of African American students in special

education.In Larry P. v. Riles, the court determined that IQ tests were discriminatory against African Americans in

three ways:

1. IQ tests actually measure achievement rather than ability. Because African Americans throughout their

educational history have been denied equal educational opportunities through schools segregated by race, they

will inevitably have achievement scores lower than the norms and thus be discriminated against in testing.

2. IQ tests rest on the plausible but unproven assumption that intelligence is distributed in the population in

accordance with a normal statistical curve (bell shaped), and thus the tests are artificial tools to rank individuals.

3. IQ tests lead to the classification of more African American students than white students in dead-end classes for

students with mild to moderate disabilities [(No. C-71-2270 RFP (1979) and No. 80-4027 DC No. CV 71-2270 in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1984)].



Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v. State of Georgia (1984). A U.S. court of appeals ruled that black

children schooled in the state of Georgia were not being discriminated against solely because there was a

disproportionate number of them in classes for low achievers. The court explained that there was no evidence of

differential treatment of black and white students. Overrepresentation of black children in classes for the mentally

retarded by itself was not sufficient to prove discrimination (Sattler, 1992).

 

Honig v. Doe, et al. Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction 1988

Problem

Two students were to be expelled for being violent and disruptive. Both of the students had Iep's
and recognized emotional disabilities. According to zero reject, should the boys have been
separated from school?

Ruling
Expulsion would violate zero reject and IDEA.

Results
Students cannot be excluded from the classroom and programs because of violent or disruptive
behavior that stems from their recognized emotional disabilities.
LEA's have a right to suspend for up to 10 days even if a parent requests due process.
If schools believe a student to be truly dangerous to self or others, they may file a preliminary
injunction against the student and his inclusion in school.
The student's present placement is favored, but may be denied if his behavior would likely
result in injury to self or others.
A student may be disciplined as if he were disabled as long as his actions do not stem from
his disability.

 In Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1988), the court held that a
school district’s IEP did not provide the student FAPE. The court ruled that a student’s IEP must be “likely
to produce progress, not regression or trivial educational advancement.” The Sixth Circuit has followed the
language of Polk: “[I]n order to be ‘appropriate,’ the educational benefits provided by the states must be
more than de minimis.” Doe by and through Doe v. Smith, 879 F.2d 1340, 1341 (6th Cir. 1990), citing Polk,
853 F. 2d at 182.

Undeniably, this minimal educational requirement must be viewed on a case by case basis as the disability
of each student poses unique challenges. More important than advancing from grade to grade is whether the
student made more than trivial progress toward his or her IEP goals. Some students, due to the extent of their
disabilities, will never be able to perform at grade level and will require several years to achieve what would
be a year’s worth of progress to a non-disabled student. Conklin v. Ann Arundel County Bd. Of Ed., 946 F.2d
306, 316 (4th Cir. 1991). “Progress” for a special education student has more to do with advancing toward IEP
goals than performing at grade level.

How, then, should parents of a special education student determine whether their child is making “more than
trivial progress” toward his or her IEP goals? The answer is through testing, data collection, and interpretation;
the most accurate way to assess educational benefit or regression is through changes in test scores over time.
The starting point for the development of any IEP is a complete evaluation to determine the present levels of
educational performance in all areas –academics, behavior, and social skills – with a potential impact on the
student’s achievement. The appropriate assessment of these areas provides the baseline data from which all
future progress can be measured. Parents and administrators should be careful, therefore, when incorporating
the present levels into the IEP, that they identify specific skills and/or deficits of the student. Vague general and
subjective statements should be avoided.
 

Results
Schools and school districts have to try harder. They must provide children with special
needs not a minimum, but a MEANINGFUL BENEFIT from their educational program.

Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989). Daniel R. R. is one of the leading cases opening the door to

increased inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education classes. The court noted that Congress created

a strong preference in favoring mainstreaming; that is, educating the student in the regular education classroom

with supports. Ironically, the court determined that it was not appropriate to include the child in this case in full-time

regular education. However, the court's analysis of the least restrictive environment requirement, especially its

interpretation of what is meant by providing supplementary aids and services in the regular classroom, has been

followed by a number of other courts (Hager, 1999, p. 6).



In determining whether it is appropriate to place a student with disabilities in regular education, the student need

not be expected to learn at the same rate as the other students in the class. In other words, part of the required

supplementary aids and services must be the modification of the regular education curriculum for the student,

when needed. The court in Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education noted, however, that the school need not

modify the program "beyond recognition." Also, in looking at whether it is "appropriate" for the child to be in

regular education-in other words, whether the student can benefit educationally from regular class

placement-the school must consider the broader educational benefit of contact with nondisabled students, such as

opportunities for modeling appropriate behavior and socialization (Hager, 1999, p. 6).



Gerstmeyer v. Howard County Public Schools (1994). In the Gerstmeyer case, Howard School District had been

told that a child needed an evaluation for the first grade four months before entering the first grade. The evaluation

was not done prior to entering the first grade. The parents sent their child to private school and the evaluation was

only done six months after the initial referral. The parents sued the district for the costs of private schooling and

tutoring caused by the delay. In Gerstmeyer v. Howard County Public Schools, the Court ruled in favor of the

parents and made Howard School District reimburse them for all associated costs (cited in Taylor, 1997, p. 13).


 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Star Principals Selection Interview
Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc.
Martin Haberman
Distinguished Professor University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Research and Development

The development of this questionnaire involved merging the knowledge and research base with the most effective practices of star urban principals. The research and theory base was summarized in the 24 domains of the Knowledge and Skill Base and laid out in Principals for Our Changing Schools published by The National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Star urban principals in three great city school districts were identified: 27 in Houston, 18 in Milwaukee and 84 in Chicago. "Star" principals were invited to participate using the following criteria: achievement scores had risen in their schools for a three year period; they were rated by their faculties as effective instructional leaders; central office personnel identified them as accountable fiscal managers; and parents described them as effective in developing community support for their schools. These stars then engaged in a process of explaining their effective leadership behaviors. They participated in consensus building activities which involved grouping and ranking the performance functions which they believed constituted best practice and which they believed explained their success. The domains of the written knowledge base and the functions performed by the urban principals were then synthesized into eleven functions. This synthesis represents the functions that star urban teachers identified as their effective behaviors which can also supported in the research literature.

Questions designed to assess the eleven functions of star urban principals were then developed to assess this synthesis of research and practice. In order to validate that the content of the questions dealt with the content they purported to be assessing, all the principals of the Milwaukee Public Schools in 2001 (167) were personally interviewed by Prof. Haberman over a period of 53 days. This process established content validity. Respondents, regardless of their level of administrative effectiveness, agreed that the questions dealt with the stated functions. The results of this study indicated that the effective functions cited by star principals which were also supported in the literature were indeed communicating common meanings to respondents. In addition, all question wordings that were ambiguous were clarified or discarded. In an ancillary study, 51 assistant principals were also interviewed. In spite of the fact that assistant principals were typically relegated to disciplinary duties, they identified ten of the eleven functions on the questionnaire as explanations of star principals' effectiveness.

In addition to establishing content validity, this lengthy, in-depth process also provided a pool of responses to the same questions from principals deemed to be less than satisfactory as well as responses from star principals. (Unsatisfactory or "failure" principals were those with attributes opposite to stars: their schools had declining achievement; they were not regarded as instructional leaders by their faculties; they were identified by central office administrators as "in trouble"; and they were not supported by their parents and communities. These were individuals in the process of retiring, being assigned principal coaches or being moved out of schools and reassigned.)

As a result of these procedures, eleven functions representing sound theory and practice were developed into valid interview questions. Since our studies had included both stars and failure principals' responses it was also possible to score responses. The scores reflect the degree to which respondents' answers are closer to those made by star urban principals or to those made by failure principals to the same questions.

These procedures required one year to accomplish. At the conclusion of the year the questionnaire was taken back to the original three groups of star principals in Houston, Chicago and Milwaukee. The numbers of these groups had declined slightly(2 less in Houston, 1 less in Milwaukee and 8 less in Chicago). The star principals were asked to repeat the very same process they had engaged in initially; that is, they engaged in a process of consensus building in which they identified and ranked the behaviors they believed explained their effectiveness. The results of these activities indicated that the behaviors star urban principals had identified the previous year were the same ones they identified a year later. The second finding was that the answers of all the initial respondents' identified as stars were, in every case , closer to the star respondents identified in the Milwaukee sample than to the responses of the failing principals. The third finding was that the questionnaire could be administered with inter-rater reliability; different interviewers scored respondents answers in the same ways.

In sum, the developmental approach followed here has yielded a questionnaire which synthesizes what the knowledge base indicates makes principals effective and what star urban principals themselves identify as explanations for their success. When this synthesis was replicated one year later it yielded the same explanations of success. The interview questions developed from this synthesis have content validity for both star principals and failure principals. The scoring of respondents is reliable when used by various questioners who have been trained to use the interview..

Individuals have been trained to use the interview in Washington, D.C., Rochester, N.Y., Buffalo, N.Y., San Francisco and numerous smaller cities in Kansas, Missouri, Michigan and Texas. Dallas ISD is in the process of receiving training. All cities report that the quality of the principals that they have hired using the interview has markedly improved. Each city collects its own achievement data and may be contacted for further information.

If your school district is interested the "Star" Principal Selection Training, please contact the Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc. Star Principals Selection Interview
Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc.
Martin Haberman
Distinguished Professor University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

IDEA 2004 Summary

The Law and Special Education-Instructor's Materials

Please answer the following questions about the DEPRESSION article.

reflected in school phobia, social isolation, low self-esteem, poor grades, and antisocial behavior such as stealing or lying.


4. Describe depression in older children and adolescence.
Older children and adolescents may say they feel sad, although more often they describe feeling bored or
empty. They may experience severe mood swings, act out their feelings in dangerous activities, be more
influenced by peers or new romantic or sexual relationships, and be more ambivalent about separating from their
parents. Substance abuse, running away, stealing, and lying are all red flags for depression in adolescence.

5. Describe treatment for depression in children and adolescents.
Effective, first-line treatment options for depression in children include cognitive behavioral therapy ( It involves recognizing

unhelpful patterns of thinking and reacting, then modifying or replacing these with more realistic or helpful ones. Its

practitioners hold that typically clinical depression is associated with negatively biased thinking and irrational thoughts.),

interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT is based on the belief that psychological problems are due to communication problems,

which are formed due to attachment styles ), antidepressants, psychosocial intervention ( Psychosocial interventions are

increasingly delivered by nurses in mental health settings and include psychotherapy interventions such as cognitive

behavioural therapy for depression, anxiety and psychosis. Nurses will work with people over a period of time and use

psychological methods to teach the person psychological techniques that they can then use to aid recovery and help manage

any future crisis in their mental health. In practice, these interventions

Answer the following questions about Schaffer v. Weast

1. Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing?

2. Who has the natural advantage expertise and information?

3. When do school districts need to provide prior written notice?

4. What is to be included in prior written notice?

5. Where does the burden of STAY Put lie?







1. Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing?

We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.

2. Who has the expertise and information?

School districts have a natural advantage in information and expertise.

3. When do school districts need to provide prior written notice?

The decision in Schaffer v. Weast focused on revisions in IDEA 2004 and “Prior Written Notice” (PWN). These revisions require that school districts to provide “Prior Written Notice” (PWN) when the school district “refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child.”

4. What is to be included in prior written notice?

(A) a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency; (B) an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action and a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action; (C) a statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; … (E) a description of other options considered by the IEP Team and the reason why those options were rejected; and (F) a description of the factors that are relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.” See 20 USC §1415(c)(1) (Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004, page 100)

5. Where does the burden of STAY Put lie?

The Court suggests that the IDEA’s stay-put provision, 20 U. S. C. §1415(j), supports placement of the burden of persuasion on the parents.

 
Duty to Protect

The first element, the duty to protect, is clearly part of a teacher’s responsibilities. Teachers have
a duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take necessary precautions to protect students in
their care (McCarthy & Cambron-McCabe, 1992). Specifically, teacher duties include: adequate
supervision, maintenance of equipment and facilities, and heightened supervision of high-risk
activities. In the majority of negligence cases against teachers, the duty to protect is easily proven
(Fischer et al., 1994 ). Clearly this duty applies to activities during the school day, however, courts
have also held that this duty may extend beyond regular school hours and away from school grounds
(e.g., after school activities, summer activities, field trips, bus rides).

Failing to Exercise a Reasonable Standard of Care

The second element that must be proven in cases of negligence occurs when teachers fail to
exercise a reasonable standard of care in their duties to students. If a teacher fails to exercise
reasonable care to protect students from injury, then the teacher is negligent. Courts, in negligence
cases, will gauge a teacher’s conduct on how a "reasonable" teacher in a similar situation would
have acted. The degree of care exercised by a "reasonable" teacher is determined by factors such
as: (a) the training and experience of the teacher in charge, (b) the student’s age, (c) the environment
in which the injury occurred, (d) the type of instructional activity, (e) the presence or absence of the
supervising teacher, and (f) a student’s disability, if one exists (Mawdsley, 1993; McCarthy &
Cambron-McCabe, 1992). For example, a primary grade student will require closer supervision
than a secondary student; a physical education class in a gymnasium or a industrial arts class in a
school woodshop will require closer supervision than a reading class in the school library; and a
student with a mental or behavioral disability will require closer supervision that a student with
average intelligence.

A number of cases have held that the student’s IEP, disability, and unique needs are all relevant
factors in determining the level of supervision that is reasonable (Daggett, 1995). Additionally,
school officials may be liable for damage claims resulting from a failure to supervise a student
with disabilities when that student injures another student.


Proximate Cause

The third element that must be proven in a negligence case is whether there was a connection
between the breach of duty by the teacher and the student’s injury; that is, the teacher failed to
exercise a reasonable standard of care (element two) and this breach of duty resulted in the
subsequent injury to the student (element four). This element, referred to as proximate cause,
often hinges on the concept of foreseeability. That is, was the student’s injury something that
could have been anticipated by a teacher? If the injury could have been foreseen and prevented
by a teacher if a reasonable standard of care had been exercised, a logical connection and,
therefore, negligence may exist. To answer questions regarding proximate cause, courts will
attempt to ascertain "was the injury a natural and probable cause of the wrongful act
(i.e., failure to supervise), and ought to have been foreseen in light of the attendant
circumstances?" (Scott v. Greenville, 1965). Negligence claims will not be successful if the
accident could not have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care.


Actual Injury

The final element that must be proven in negligence cases is that there was an actual physical or
mental injury. Moreover, although the injury does not have to be physical, it must be real as
opposed to imaginary (Mawdsley, 1993). Even in instances where there is negligence, damage
suits will not be successful unless there is provable injury.

__________________________________________________________________________
Law Suits

The decision in Ferraro v. Board of Education of the City of New York (1961) indicated that
courts will hold school personnel liable if a student attacks and injures another student and the
teacher should have known that such an attack or aggressive behavior was possible and,
therefore, could have prevented the injury. A student with a long history of behavior problems
assaulted Josette Ferraro in a junior high school classroom. The student had assaulted peers
on a number of occasions and was constantly aggressive toward students as well as teachers.
On the day of the assault, a substitute teacher was in charge of the class. She was not informed
of the student’s tendency to misbehave and attack other students. Josette Ferraro, who was
injured when attacked, sued the school. The court found the school negligent because they had not
informed the substitute of the student’s aggressive behavior toward others. The court reasoned
that had she known, the substitute teacher could have taken actions to prevent the assault.
A similar case was heard by a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In Cohen v. School District
(1992), a special education student with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and known
violent tendencies was mainstreamed without adequate supervision. Without provocation, the
student attacked and injured a peer in his classroom. The parents of the injured student sued
the school maintaining that the injured student’s rights had been violated. The court held that
placing a student with behavior problems in the general education setting is not unconstitutional
per se. That is, it is not a violation of law to place a potentially violent student in a general
education classroom. The court stated such a placement, however, may result in school
officials being held liable if the officials knew that a student with disabilities was violent, and
they placed the student in the general education classroom without adequate supervision.

In Grooms v. Marlboro County School District (1992), school officials permitted a 15-year-old boy
with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems to leave his classroom unescorted if he thought
his behavior would be disruptive. Additionally, the boy was supposed to go to the school janitor for
supervision. Specifically the boy was told that when he going to misbehave he could "skip" class
and go to the school janitor’s office. He was supposed to stay there until he was ready to "go back to
class and behave." In one instance, the boy walked out of his classroom and got into a fight in the hall.
The janitor did not intervene and the boy suffered severe head injuries. The parents brought suit
against the school district alleging negligent supervision. The court ruled that the case had merit
and could go forth. The court reasoned that the school’s policy of allowing the student, "whose
judgment was impaired by the disability," to simply leave the classroom unescorted and report to a
person who "did not have the level of expertise necessary" to deal with the student may have
constituted gross negligence.

In McMahan v. Crutchfield (1997), a school district paid to settle a lawsuit involving a special
education student who assaulted a five-year-old girl. Allan Crutchfield, who had mild to moderate
mental disabilities and had a history of behavioral problems, was participating in a job-training
program when the assault occurred. He had a history of assaultive behavior, and a mental health
evaluation had stressed that he be under constant supervision. His job-training program involved
work in a college cafeteria. One morning a college student brought her five-year-old daughter into
the cafeteria. When the girl went to the bathroom, Crutchfield, who was unsupervised, followed her
in, forced her head into a toilet, and began to strangle her. A college student hearing screaming
ran into the bathroom and chased Crutchfield away. The young girl was unconscious and injured,
but she eventually recovered. Crutchfield was later found incompetent to stand trial and committed
to a state psychiatric hospital. The girl’s mother sued the school district. Rather than going to court,
school officials admitted their liability and paid the girl’s mother $400,000.

What to do?

One of educators most important obligations is to provide a reasonable standard of care for all
students (Mawdsley, 1993). School districts should take actions to make certain that administrators,
special and general education teachers, and other personnel are aware of their care and supervisory
duties under the law (Daggett, 1995; Freedman, 1995; Mawdsley, 1993). The following are
suggestions to assist administrators and teachers in meeting these responsibilities:

• School districts should develop policies regarding standards of care and supervision. These policies
should be in writing. Because this area of law changes rapidly, legal developments should be monitored,
and school policies should be updated when necessary. Additionally, tort laws vary by state. It is
extremely important, therefore, that prior to developing policies, school district officials should
understand tort laws in their states.

• The IEP team should address potential safety risks and plan for them when appropriate.
The IEP should include actions that will be taken to minimize these risks. If a precaution is listed in the
IEP, it is convincing evidence that a school district has taken precautions to prevent student injury.
If, on the other hand, procedures listed in the IEP are not followed and an injury results, the school’s
negligence can more easily be proven (Daggett, 1995). In addition to members of the IEP team,
general education teachers and other personnel (e.g., paraprofessionals) involved with a student
should be aware of any safety issues, potential problems, or required supervisory issues.

• Preventive training. Special education and general education teachers, as well as administrators
and other staff, should be trained in their responsibilities under the law. Training may be important in
convincing a court that a school district acted with care and good faith. Moreover, appropriate training
will help to ensure the safety of all students, teachers, and staff. Such training should stress supervisory
responsibilities especially in activities which could foreseeably result in an accident or injury to a student.
Preventive training should be conducted with all teachers and support staff such as paraprofessionals,
substitute teachers, lunchroom supervisors, and bus drivers.

• Don’t rely on waivers. Educators sometimes assume that teachers and schools can release
themselves from damages by having parents sign waivers or releases. This is untrue because
parents cannot waive their children’s claim for damages (Fischer et al., 1994; Freedman, 1995; McCarthy
& Cambron-McCabe, 1992). Teachers always have a duty to their students to prevent foreseeable injury
by providing appropriate supervision. Parental releases, waivers, or permission slips do not relieve
teachers or schools of liability if they fail to discharge their duties in an appropriate manner. According to
Fischer et al. (1994), such waivers may be useful for public relations purposes, but will not relieve
teachers or school officials of possible liability for negligence.

• Keep thorough records. The importance of record keeping cannot be stressed too much.
Anecdotal records can be crucial in liability cases. Whenever possible, records should include
the signatures of witnesses. Table 2 is a example of a behavior incident record. Administration,
supervisory personnel, and parents should be notified of any situations that could result in liability claims.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Sample Incident Report

Student:_________________________ Date:________________
Teacher:_________________________ Time:_______________



Student behavior prior to the incident:



Description of incident:



Did behavior endanger the safety of students or disrupt the learning environment? If yes, how?





Description of teacher action to correct the misbehavior:

Results of action:



Remarks:



Parents notified: ___Yes ___ No



Signatures

Teacher: ____________________________

Principal: ____________________________

Witness: _____________________________

Parents: _____________________________


Next Section - Previous Section

Online Discussion - Back to Author Online Page

___________________________________________________________________________