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.
I really like this revelation, and I have to agree that I was in the same spot. I thought Nicki was too young for the IEP meeting, but through the chalk talk "discussion" I started to think that maybe any IEP meeting could be shaped to include the child. After all, should parents really be saying anything about their child that they wouldn't want the child to hear?
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this situation as well. I initially believed the child should not be present during the meeting because of the things that would be discussed. However, after our class discussion, I was inclined to think otherwise. Yet, I cannot say I agree 100% with students being present. My case is this: suppose you have a struggling learner who is not making progress, or a student who has behavior issues and has not accomplished the goals that were set and has exhausted every imaginable resource. Would it be beneficial in either situation to have the student present? Would that be uplifting or a form of discouragement? In essence, they are hearing…there is nothing else we can do for you. I have sat in meetings that were similar situations. Parents were overwhelmed and tried to appear strong. Administration was exhausted yet tried to remain positive. I know children are extremely smart and know where they lie academically. Ultimately, I believe it is wise for all parties to consider the situation carefully and then make a decision as to whether the student should be present. I wish I could make a firm decision in regards to this, but the jury is still out. =)
ReplyDelete