Allison Miller

I observed three very different classrooms during my practicum. First, I was in Mrs.

Shank’s classroom. This was a self-contained class with ten students in second and third grade.

It was labeled as a class for children with learning disabilities, but in reality there was a wide

range of diagnoses. In this class I was able to assist with academics by providing one-on-one

time with some of the students, or answering questions and providing reinforcement during

group work. Most of the instruction was on academics, especially reading and math. Second, I

was in Mrs. Woodley’s pre-school class. This was designated for students with autism, and she

had six children, all of them boys. The student-to-teacher ratio was even smaller, with a teacher

and two aides. In this situation I was not so much an instructor as an entertainment for some of

the students, who would come up to show me what they were doing or try to convince me to get

them extra snacks. These classes dealt with pre-academic tasks, but also involved a lot of

instruction on language and different aspects of behavior. Finally, I was in Mrs. Blitch’s middle

school class for students with emotional disorders. This functioned more as a pull-out program,

with students coming in for instruction at different times. Being with middle schoolers was a bit

of a shock after the two younger classes, as they seemed to independent and grown-up by

comparison. These students were also working mostly on academics and behavioral support,

and could perform well in some academic subjects. I was able to assist with their academics to

some extent, but spent most of my time observing and talking to professionals at Irmo Middle.

For the standard of foundations, I noticed that the instructors are constantly assessing

their students. Assessing often and consistently is a basis of special education because it is an

evidence-based principle, as well as following present laws and school policies. It also provides

feedback to the teacher, allowing her to asses the learning program and her own performance

as well as the student’s abilities. In Mrs. Shank’s class, where academic goals predominated,

every test was an assessment and she also periodically assessed students individually. Some

of the students also took standardized tests. All of these assessments would be considered in
the students’ individualized education plans at the end of the year. In Mrs. Woodley’s class,

much of the assessment dealt with behavior and functional skills, especially language. Many of

the students required data to be taken on things like how much they ate, or whether they slept

at nap time, to inform families about their behavior and possible side effects of medicine. Their

speech was also a major part of assessment, and the students varied widely in their speaking

abilities, with some speaking fluently and others non-verbal. Mrs. Woodley would immediately

take into account an increase or decrease in skill, and adjust her expectations for how each

student should perform.

The teachers I observed often needed to balance multiple perspectives on special

education. Collaborating with other educators and taking parents’ opinions into account

introduces new ideas into the classroom. Mrs. Shank taught most of her students with small-

group, differentiated instruction. But she also used techniques common in applied behavior

analysis, such as token reinforcement systems and functional behavior assessment. She

communicated daily with the parents, and would reinforce skills being worked on at home in

school, as well as ask parents to help with specific assignments that might be challenging. Mrs.

Woodley incorporated a variety of influences into her class. Her students participated in sensory

stimulation, and some students were on a sensory schedule. Some students had special diets

related to their autism diagnosis or the type of medications they were taking.

In Mrs. Blitch’s class, I saw different attitudes toward inclusion. All of the students were

in inclusive classes for part of the day, and many participated in academic classes with peers.

The students found participation in inclusive classes highly motivating, and had many social

interactions with people outside ED class. However, I also saw some negative attitudes towards

the inclusion. The students were expected to earn access to inclusive classes through good

behavior, and an infraction meant suspension of their participation until they completed a certain

number of days without behavioral problems. I found this policy a little confusing because on the

one hand, inclusion being contingent on behavior was motivating to some students and might
influence their behavior more than other reinforcers. On the other hand, this policy meant that

access to classes was not based on ability or whether the student would benefit from the class.

Because I am not as familiar with emotional disorders as with other types of disability, I am also

unclear on what types of problem behavior are related to the disability and should be considered

out of the student’s control. This makes it difficult for me to understand whether administrators

should consider problem behavior when making decisions about academic inclusion.

One of the developmental features I noticed in all three classes was the influence of

outside factors, especially family relationships and medication. For the younger students, Mrs.

Shank and Mrs. Woodley communicated with their students’ families daily. They both used

communication sheets informing the parents how their child’s day had gone, including both

behavioral and academic factors. They both included an area for parent comments and

suggestions. Mrs. Shank also sent home a weekly newsletter for academic content only,

outlining all the homework assignments and grades for the upcoming week.

Because Mrs. Blitch’s students were older, they were responsible for more of the

communication and were encouraged to advocate for themselves and discuss their schoolwork

with both parents and instructors. Mrs. Blitch wanted them to consider parental expectations

and desires, but also to develop independence, especially in terms of being self-motivated. The

students filled out self-monitoring sheets that were sent home.The students also developed their

own academic and behavioral goals, and had an official meeting with administrators to develop

plans to meet their goals. The instructors also supported the student’s involvement in parent

meetings and developing their IEP’s, as well as getting ideas for their transition to high school.

All the instructors were aware of their students’ medication needs, and attended to ways

that the medications could influence their behavior. For the youngest students, Mrs. Woodley

and the paraprofessionals recorded all relevant information about medications for the families.

This included their appetites, sleep schedule, and toileting as well as behavior. In this class,

instructors were partially responsible for administering medicine. Some of the students took
liquid forms diluted in drinks, which required a lot of attention in making sure that the student got

the correct amount and did not spill or throw away the medicine, as well as making sure none of

the other students shared a sip. In Mrs. Shank’s class, the medication was administered by a

nurse before lunch, and some of the students had a rise and fall in energy levels over the day.

Mrs. Blitch’s students were responsible for getting their medication from the school nurse, but

they could also experience mood changes throughout the day. Instructors have to be aware of

how and when drugs impact the student, and balance keeping demands on the student with

their physical state.

Individual differences was the easiest standard for me to observe. In every class that I

went to, the students were as different from each other as from typically developing peers. In

Mrs. Shank’s class, the students had widely varying abilities and developmental levels. Each

student had strengths and weaknesses, and there was often a dramatic difference between

skills. This makes instruction more difficult, as each lesson has to be tailored to each student.

There would often be three or more different learning levels for a particular subject, with some

students at or near grade level and others a grade or more behind their peers. The positive

aspect of this variability is that the students can both give and receive peer support and tutoring,

as they may be better at one subject or skill than peers and need help with another.

In the autism class, there is also a wide variety of skill levels. Especially in terms of

language abilities, the students were spread across the spectrum. Some of the children spoke

fluently with vocabularies similar to peers; some had verbal ability, but had difficulty with speech

and were difficult to understand. Other students were non-verbal and were working on sign

language and alternative communication. In this case also, instruction needed to be fitted to

each student’s goals and abilities while simultaneously including them in the same activities for

most of the day. In Mrs. Blitch’s class, the students were also very different academically. Some

of the students were in honors academic courses while others were far behind their grade level

standards. Some of the students seemed to have consistent behavioral problems, especially in
talking or being aggressive towards others, while others could work independently and function

well with their same-age peers most of the time. Although in all of these cases the students

shared a common diagnosis, their exceptional conditions manifested in different ways and were

influenced by the student’s personal characteristics and experiences. The students could share

a general trait in one area, but were always unique individuals with particular learning goals and

strengths. This means both that the students can work together and balance each other out,

and that instructors have the task of finding a way to personalize each content area for each

student.

Across all three standards, my overlying impression is the importance of person-

centered planning and knowing the students and their families. In all the classes, the students

had different strengths and weaknesses and distinct personalities. Each student needed support

in certain areas, and to be pushed for independence and accomplishment in other subjects and

activities. The students would also have different future environments; for some their goal was

to transition to general education, others to work on career planning, and some to continue

attending a self-contained class. The size and involvement of their families was different, and

each family had differing points of view on their child’s disability and how their education should

function. Their cultural backgrounds also influenced how the students responded to different

types of instruction, and what interested them. A majority of the students I observed were on

medication. The instructors have to be cognizant of the types of medication, and how and when

they will influence the student’s behavior. Some students focused much better in the afternoon

after taking medicine, while others might react by feeling hungry or tired.

All these factors interact in complicated ways, meaning that an instructor must tailor both

the curriculum objectives and the teaching method to each student. It would be impossible to

develop a single class that would fit all of them. The teacher has to develop plans centered

around the student, taking into account their family, culture, abilities, preferences, and physical

and medical issues. The students will benefit from working in groups and attending general
education classes, but their education must be truly individualized in order for them to get the

most benefit out of their education.