As we discussed the value of a student being present at
his/her IEP meeting, a number of conflicting thoughts tickled my brain.
When I answered the question about the student's absence from the IEP meeting on the CD-ROM, my immediate stance
was against the child hearing the deeper concerns and the strategies
planned. But during our class discussion and as I considered reasons why
Dominic or any other child should be excluded from a meeting about helping them
succeed in school, it began to dawn on me that my reasoning was not based in
anything I knew of from my own teaching experience!
Because I home schooled my children, they
were in on everything about their learning; they shared their concerns and had
the opportunity to ask questions and hear about our concerns. A
nagging thought continued to grow-- I am using a double standard! I was puzzled
at the idea that I even had a double standard. Where did I get it?
Why was I quick to exclude the children in our scenarios from their own IEP
planning meetings? I can think of children who would not be all that
interested in more than a brief "drop in," but they should get to
decide how much or how little they are involved.
I began to think back to
my experiences as an elementary student and how insecure I felt when my parents
went to meet with teachers about various learning issues. Even though I
was eventually tested and placed in a GT program (today it is AIG) I
believed the meetings were evidence that I was not doing something right,
because no one would tell me anything afterward. I remember asking and
being told not to worry about it, I was fine. I wonder if my experience
with the insecurities associated with awareness of my exclusion from decisions about my education is one of
the foundational reasons I chose to home school my children; it is a
very integrated education style where students enjoy daily open access to analysis of
their strengths and weaknesses.
These thoughts have begun to illuminate my double
standard having its root in my subconscious, chewing on past scenarios and
grappling with learning processes that had been indoctrinated throughout
my public school experience. This tradition
of exclusionary planning coldly defined a student's role in their own education
in public school as little more than that of a passenger, nothing more.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
R*E*S*P*E*C*T
According to Webster's dictionary:
respect: to take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence, to care for; to heed.
Our class discussion of "respect" revealed a greater complexity in creating a standard definition for it than I would have guessed. We all have varying concepts of what it means to be respected and how to show respect to others. Through the listing of our different ideas, the case was well made for the importance of collaborative groups to establish a working definition of respect during the forming stage of their development.
During the forming stage, the members of the group are learning about one another. It is the best time "to take notice of" and to pay "special attention" to what each group member responds well to as well as what seems to cause discomfort. As a group moves through the initial stage of polite, impersonal, watchful, guarded interactions (Friend & Cook, 2010, p.61), their collective definition of respect along with their careful regard of one another could serve as rails to keep the team moving in a productive direction. Then, as the inevitable storming phase begins to unfold, some ground rules are already in place that might help the transition into norming occur more smoothly and more quickly than if the ground rules of respectful interaction had not been established. Through the stages the team members can revisit their definition of respect to enhance it and to make it more pertinent to their needs. The focus on maintaining respectful interactions within the group seems to be a good mutual goal to keep the group from unnecessary offenses and breakdowns in their functionality.
I have been a part of a team that did not collectively determine the best way to interact. The group had very general guidelines of respectful conduct, but there was no discussion of these guidelines. Without the benefit of a collaborative definition of procedures, members chose to shut down from communication or opted out of participation when conflicts arose. Resentment over unspoken and unresolved conflict ultimately led to greater conflict and more serious disagreement. Very little was accomplished by the time of adjournment. I believe if the group had just taken some time at the beginning of their development to address their roles, procedures, and function, the outcomes would have been much more successful; alliances could have been made and strengthened instead of strained and broken.
The beginning of a collaborative group begins with respect; each member chooses to value being a part of the group and decides to make an effort to regard other members with care; valuing the input and potential of every member of the collaborative, equally.
respect: to take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence, to care for; to heed.
Our class discussion of "respect" revealed a greater complexity in creating a standard definition for it than I would have guessed. We all have varying concepts of what it means to be respected and how to show respect to others. Through the listing of our different ideas, the case was well made for the importance of collaborative groups to establish a working definition of respect during the forming stage of their development.
During the forming stage, the members of the group are learning about one another. It is the best time "to take notice of" and to pay "special attention" to what each group member responds well to as well as what seems to cause discomfort. As a group moves through the initial stage of polite, impersonal, watchful, guarded interactions (Friend & Cook, 2010, p.61), their collective definition of respect along with their careful regard of one another could serve as rails to keep the team moving in a productive direction. Then, as the inevitable storming phase begins to unfold, some ground rules are already in place that might help the transition into norming occur more smoothly and more quickly than if the ground rules of respectful interaction had not been established. Through the stages the team members can revisit their definition of respect to enhance it and to make it more pertinent to their needs. The focus on maintaining respectful interactions within the group seems to be a good mutual goal to keep the group from unnecessary offenses and breakdowns in their functionality.
I have been a part of a team that did not collectively determine the best way to interact. The group had very general guidelines of respectful conduct, but there was no discussion of these guidelines. Without the benefit of a collaborative definition of procedures, members chose to shut down from communication or opted out of participation when conflicts arose. Resentment over unspoken and unresolved conflict ultimately led to greater conflict and more serious disagreement. Very little was accomplished by the time of adjournment. I believe if the group had just taken some time at the beginning of their development to address their roles, procedures, and function, the outcomes would have been much more successful; alliances could have been made and strengthened instead of strained and broken.
The beginning of a collaborative group begins with respect; each member chooses to value being a part of the group and decides to make an effort to regard other members with care; valuing the input and potential of every member of the collaborative, equally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)