Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Case Study : Should All Mean All?

No description

Tasha Thompson

on 2 March 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Case Study : Should All Mean All?

Ethical Issues Should All Mean All? Option 2: Jim sees that the rights of the other students are being infringed upon by Cody's constant outbursts and rage. This classroom environment is just not safe and effective in an educational sense. Cody is removed from the class room and placed in a secluded setting. This option uses utilitarian thoughts about the ethical issue, as the presence of one was disrupting the lives of far more. The one needs to be removed. The program will not be under legal attack, then, and would be able to continue to serve many students. Faculty would also be free to give more attention to the rest of the students in an environment that is positive and more conducive to learning. Should All Mean All? Option 1: Jim sticks to the program's philosophy and keeps Cody enrolled in the inclusion classroom. Faculty are getting tired of constantly meeting and adjusting things for Cody, they believe it is just not working. The team and other parents are growing increasingly restless and even litigious in hopes of removing Cody. This option would be a libertarian approach to the ethical question, as Cody's right to be in the classroom wouldn't be infringed upon for the sake of the others.

Ethical Issue: Cody is disrupting the rights of the other students to have a safe & effective education and teachers want him removed from the regular classroom. The program's philosophy is founded on the belief that inclusion is possible and provides an effective education to all. Should All Mean All? Jim is operating on the assumption that the inclusive classroom is most effective for everyone. He may be doing this because he believes in inclusion, and the fact that he designed and built a successful program around it.
Maybe, he can keep the same motto 'all means all' and serve students differently. After all, students aren't all the same and have different needs. It is obvious to me that the regular classroom isn't working for Cody just as much as it isn't working for the rest of the students. Case Study: When All Means All Freedom Elementary School has an outstanding inclusion program.
*Developed by Jim Martin, Director of Special Education
*Faculty & community supported
*Complimented state-wide Cody Smith, a 4th grade student, enrolled at Freedom. He had serious emotional and behavioral issues, and his parents had been told that an inclusive strategy wouldn't be the best for him. They were willing to try after hearing about Freedom's success.
*After about a month, Cody's behavior took a turn for the worse, the classroom became disrupted and unsafe for other students.
*Faculty made many attempts at various strategies, none worked.
*Parents of other students became worried, upset, and called for Cody's removal from the class. If operating on the philosophy "All means all", what is the right action to take regarding the class? Jim needs to let go of his bias and intentions and think beyond himself. I know he worked hard developing the program, but the current situation isn't working for anyone. It is time to look at it with fresh eyes and adjust his constraints. 'All' doesn't have to mean 'all' if it is not good for the students. Jim is wrong for placing his self-interests (maintaining the integrity of the program philosophy) before the needs of the students. Cody should be removed and served individually, as he was showing success in this type of setting before he was mainstreamed. His progress should be objectively studied to decide when he can return to a classroom that is comfortable for him and safe for others. *Keeping Cody in the regular classroom would definitely upset parents, especially the parents who were threatening to sue the school.

*The superintendent may grow increasingly upset if charges are pressed and news makes negative public support for the school.

*The teachers may choose to work at another school, or demand that they not have any part in this program anymore. * If Jim allows Cody to be removed, he is directly undermining the philosophy and credibility of the program he designed.

*Faculty and community support may fade as they aren't doing what they set out to do.

*If Jim removes Cody, he may feel that he isn't doing the right thing to give Cody a chance at normalcy.

*Cody's parents will be upset, they may say that Jim is caving to teachers who don't want to deal with Cody.
Full transcript