Thursday, February 24, 2011
HTML
I had to google HTML to see what it was before I could post this blog. Now that I know it is a "language" to set up web designs I feel very confident that I would have NO use for it at all. During the mid eighties (yes I'm dating myself) I had to take a computer programing course. I cannot even remember the computer language. I think it was...Cobal or something?? I chose to take it in the summer because professors seem to be more relaxed during the summer. A good friend of mine, who was an IS major, help me every step of the way. I couldn't tell you one thing I learned. I retained the information long enough to get through the class, then boom it was gone!!! I am all for WYSIWYG and a technology teacher standing right there to guide me through step by step. This blog and our web page has already sent me WAY out of my comfort zone. I cannot imagine learning HTML for the purpose of designing a web page. You may as well as me to give a presentation on astrophysics in French.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Creative Commons
I'm so over winter weather. This photo has two of my favorite things the sun setting and the beach!! It brings a warm feeling to my heart. Working and school is stressing me out. However, it is nice to know there are web sites which we can access with limited copyright items. As future teachers Creative Commons is a great tool. Knowing our rights as teachers with regard to copyright laws is useful given our limited funds and time. Why reinvent the wheel every time we want to create a lesson. Being able to borrow bits and pieces of things others have done saves both time and money. Technology and the knowledge of how to navigate through it will probably prove to be the most useful part of my very expensive education!!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
My Concerns
Currently I am a substitute teacher, hence I do not always have an opportunity to develop a real rapport with the students. Because I sub K-12, I am potentially changing gears daily. I could be in kindergarten on Monday and High School physics on Tuesday. With this type of schedule I must always be mindful of where I am and how I present myself to the students. I never know how things I say or do are going to be interpreted or repeated.
Once I have my own students my concerns will shift to the balancing act of keeping higher functioning students engaged and interested while not leaving lower students in the dust. I know I will also be very concerned with creating the best learning environment possible for all levels of learners. I really haven't given much thought about "legal" issues. I am much more concerned with my ability to effectively manage required curriculum and the overall learning experience of my students. I am a big believer that learning should be fun! In order for that to happen sometimes you have to think outside the box. This doesn't always mesh with what parents and/or administrators think you should be doing in the classroom.
Once I have my own students my concerns will shift to the balancing act of keeping higher functioning students engaged and interested while not leaving lower students in the dust. I know I will also be very concerned with creating the best learning environment possible for all levels of learners. I really haven't given much thought about "legal" issues. I am much more concerned with my ability to effectively manage required curriculum and the overall learning experience of my students. I am a big believer that learning should be fun! In order for that to happen sometimes you have to think outside the box. This doesn't always mesh with what parents and/or administrators think you should be doing in the classroom.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Hong v. Doe 1988
Carla McDonough
Case Review
February 2, 2011
Name: Honig v. Doe 1988
Topic: Suspending and/or Expulsion of Students Identified as Emotionally Disturbed
Issues: A school in California expelled two students, who were identified as Emotionally Disturbed, for violent and disruptive behavior related to their disability. By expelling the children the school violated the student's rights protected under EHA (Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975). Under EHA students have the right to a "free and appropriate public education". The other two provisions stated as safeguards under EHA are the "change of placement" and the "stay-put" provisions 20 U. S. C.1415(e) (3). The "stay-put " provision states that the disabled child shall remain in his/her current educational placement pending completion of any review proceedings. A concurrent issue is whether a District Court may order a State to provide educational services directly to a disabled child when the local agency fails to do so.
Facts: This was the first case to reach the Supreme Court dealing with the discipline of special education children. The facts in the case involved the proposed expulsion by the San Francisco School District of two students with emotional disabilities and aggressive tendencies. The first student, John Doe, was a "socially and physically awkward" 17-year-old who had difficulty controlling his impulses and anger. He had physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits which resulted in his being the target of teasing and ridicule. In a response to taunts from a fellow student at a developmental center for disabled students, he reacted in an explosive manner anticipated by his individualized education program (IEP). He choked the student with enough force to leave abrasions on the boy's neck.
While being escorted to the principal's office, he kicked out a window. In December 1980 Doe was suspended from school for 5 days, and the principal recommended that he be expelled. Suit was brought, and the federal district court issued a temporary order directing the school to return Doe to his then current educational placement (Bartlett 1989).
The other student, Jack Smith, was identified as an emotionally disturbed child in the second grade. Despite above-average intelligence, he experienced social and academic problems as a result of extreme hyperactivity and low self-esteem. Smith was placed in several alternative school settings, but by sixth grade was placed back in a special education program in a regular middle school. After experiencing behavior problems, including stealing, extorting money from fellow students, and making sexual comments to fellow classmates, his educational program was reduced to half-days. In November 1980 Smith made additional lewd comments to female students and he was suspended for 5 days and recommended for expulsion (Bartlett 1989).
Findings: The District Court ruled the school could not take any disciplinary actions other than a two or five day suspension against any disabled student for disability-related misconduct, or from effecting any change in educational placement without parental consent pending any EHA proceedings. The court also rule that the State must provide services for any disabled student when local agency or unable to do so. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld this decision agreeing with the District Court that an indefinite suspension in aid of expulsion constitutes a prohibited "change in placement" under EHA 1415(e)(3) and the "stay-put" provision. The court did conclude however, that a fixed suspension of up to 30 days did not fall under the reach of these provisions. It also upheld the decision that States must provide services directly to the disabled student when local agency failed to do so. Finally, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of students with behavioral difficulties to a "free and appropriate public education". Further, students with disabilities cannot be excluded from school for any misbehavior that is related to their disability. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a student could be suspended for a period of ten days. More than ten days triggers the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (484 U.S. 305, 309).
New Exceptions: In 1994 Congress modified the change in placement and pendency rules. The new exception which would allow schools to unilaterally-imposed interim placement for students with disabilities who bring guns to school (Lometa 2001).
Implications: As educators we must be aware of the rights of disabled students with regard to disciplinary actions. Credible sources estimated that 3% to 10% of school aged children are diagnosed with emotional disturbance (Kauffman 2005). IEPs are legal documents and are fiercely protected. We must be mindful of the emotional status of our students and document any and all behavioral issues. Schools must have alternative educational programs for disturbed students who, per the misconduct, cannot function in their current education program.
Sources
Bartlett, Larry (1989). Disciplining handicapped students: legal issues in light of Honig v. Doe. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3130/is_n4_v55/ai_n28583183/
Kauffman J.M. (2005). Characteristics of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders of Children & Youth (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River. Nj: Merrill/Prentice Hill.
Lometa (2001). Honig v. Doe 108s. Ct. 592 (1988). Honig v. Doe@Everything2.com
United States Supreme Court 484 U.S. 305 (1988). Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. Doe, et al. No. 86-728. www.wrightslaw.com.
Case Review
February 2, 2011
Name: Honig v. Doe 1988
Topic: Suspending and/or Expulsion of Students Identified as Emotionally Disturbed
Issues: A school in California expelled two students, who were identified as Emotionally Disturbed, for violent and disruptive behavior related to their disability. By expelling the children the school violated the student's rights protected under EHA (Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975). Under EHA students have the right to a "free and appropriate public education". The other two provisions stated as safeguards under EHA are the "change of placement" and the "stay-put" provisions 20 U. S. C.1415(e) (3). The "stay-put " provision states that the disabled child shall remain in his/her current educational placement pending completion of any review proceedings. A concurrent issue is whether a District Court may order a State to provide educational services directly to a disabled child when the local agency fails to do so.
Facts: This was the first case to reach the Supreme Court dealing with the discipline of special education children. The facts in the case involved the proposed expulsion by the San Francisco School District of two students with emotional disabilities and aggressive tendencies. The first student, John Doe, was a "socially and physically awkward" 17-year-old who had difficulty controlling his impulses and anger. He had physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits which resulted in his being the target of teasing and ridicule. In a response to taunts from a fellow student at a developmental center for disabled students, he reacted in an explosive manner anticipated by his individualized education program (IEP). He choked the student with enough force to leave abrasions on the boy's neck.
While being escorted to the principal's office, he kicked out a window. In December 1980 Doe was suspended from school for 5 days, and the principal recommended that he be expelled. Suit was brought, and the federal district court issued a temporary order directing the school to return Doe to his then current educational placement (Bartlett 1989).
The other student, Jack Smith, was identified as an emotionally disturbed child in the second grade. Despite above-average intelligence, he experienced social and academic problems as a result of extreme hyperactivity and low self-esteem. Smith was placed in several alternative school settings, but by sixth grade was placed back in a special education program in a regular middle school. After experiencing behavior problems, including stealing, extorting money from fellow students, and making sexual comments to fellow classmates, his educational program was reduced to half-days. In November 1980 Smith made additional lewd comments to female students and he was suspended for 5 days and recommended for expulsion (Bartlett 1989).
Findings: The District Court ruled the school could not take any disciplinary actions other than a two or five day suspension against any disabled student for disability-related misconduct, or from effecting any change in educational placement without parental consent pending any EHA proceedings. The court also rule that the State must provide services for any disabled student when local agency or unable to do so. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld this decision agreeing with the District Court that an indefinite suspension in aid of expulsion constitutes a prohibited "change in placement" under EHA 1415(e)(3) and the "stay-put" provision. The court did conclude however, that a fixed suspension of up to 30 days did not fall under the reach of these provisions. It also upheld the decision that States must provide services directly to the disabled student when local agency failed to do so. Finally, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of students with behavioral difficulties to a "free and appropriate public education". Further, students with disabilities cannot be excluded from school for any misbehavior that is related to their disability. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a student could be suspended for a period of ten days. More than ten days triggers the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (484 U.S. 305, 309).
New Exceptions: In 1994 Congress modified the change in placement and pendency rules. The new exception which would allow schools to unilaterally-imposed interim placement for students with disabilities who bring guns to school (Lometa 2001).
Implications: As educators we must be aware of the rights of disabled students with regard to disciplinary actions. Credible sources estimated that 3% to 10% of school aged children are diagnosed with emotional disturbance (Kauffman 2005). IEPs are legal documents and are fiercely protected. We must be mindful of the emotional status of our students and document any and all behavioral issues. Schools must have alternative educational programs for disturbed students who, per the misconduct, cannot function in their current education program.
Sources
Bartlett, Larry (1989). Disciplining handicapped students: legal issues in light of Honig v. Doe. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3130/is_n4_v55/ai_n28583183/
Kauffman J.M. (2005). Characteristics of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders of Children & Youth (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River. Nj: Merrill/Prentice Hill.
Lometa (2001). Honig v. Doe 108s. Ct. 592 (1988). Honig v. Doe@Everything2.com
United States Supreme Court 484 U.S. 305 (1988). Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. Doe, et al. No. 86-728. www.wrightslaw.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)