Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Case Study : Should All Mean All?
Transcript of Case Study : Should All Mean All?
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.