Bryanna was identified by Child Find as a child with a disability andone who is in need of special needs education. Child find had visitedseveral schools including Bryanna’s school. Therefore, permissionwas granted from the school’s administration as well as fromBryanna’s parents if Bryanna could be evaluated as a disabledchild. With the need to assess all areas that are related toBryanna’s disability, Bryanna was assessed in varied fields. Thereading skills of Bryanna were assessed after a given period throughwhich an intervention had been administered to determine her level ofparticular need. Bryanna was given a reading test after a periodafter the commencement of the assessment process. The reading testwas divided into oral reading fluency and retell fluency. Bryanna’smathematical skills were also tested during the evaluation process.Tera Nova screening measures were used, together with a quarterlyassessment to determine the extent of the progress of Bryanna withinthe classroom. The results of the evaluation were afterward used todetermine if Bryanna was a special needs child.
A group of professions that is, the teachers within the school, thespecial needs education teachers, officials from Child Find and theparents of Bryanna took a look at the performance of the student. Theunity within the evaluation was able to determine the fate of Bryannain term of the special needs education. The assessment that had beenprovided to test Bryanna’s skills in Mathematics and to read provedthat Bryanna was a special needs child as she had performed below theset standard performance rates of her class. The success of theassessment was because all the members of the evaluation team had acollective view of the performance of Bryanna.
Bryanna having been found to be a child with the disability as perthe IDEA standards, special education services and programs weredesigned for Bryanna as she was eligible for such services. Thedesigning of these programs, however, took place within a period pfthirty days after the evaluation process was completed. An IEPmeeting was conducted by Bryanna’s school system. All the requiredparticipants and parties in the meeting were contacted early enoughas by the early scheduled date of the IEP meeting. Parents werecontacted and notified early enough for them to be present during thepreparation of the special education intervention program (MacKichan& Harkins, 2013). The meetings time and location were within theschools systems. Hence, all parents had an easy accessibility to themeeting. Professionals who had knowledge and expertise in the fieldof special education were invited to the meeting as they wouldprovide a detailed and varied ideas during the meetings.
The IEP meeting was held according to the scheduled time and venuewhile all of the occurrences during the meeting were documented.Parents of Bryanna were a significant part of the placement team asthey were conversant with the needs and wants of their child. Theparents gave consent and hence after the meeting, the specialeducation services that were aimed at equipping Bryanna with therequired skills commenced. The parents of Bryanna were a significantpart of the program as they were at times mediators during thelearning process. Bryanna’s class was taught by a special needseducation teachers who was well aware of the unique areas thatBrianna required attention. The special needs teachers would interactwith Bryanna for sixty minutes a day for every five days within aweek. Bryanna was also introduced to fifty-full tuition on a dailybasis for two times in every week. Cooperative learning is anotherprogram that was presented to Bryanna’s class as Bryanna would workin a group of six students. Through this group, Bryanna would equipherself with the required skills, develop on her confidence levels aswell as an increase in her motivational levels. The progress ofBryanna was tested through regular tests, and the scores wererecorded and compared with her previous scores during the pastperiods. Bryanna’s weak areas were developed depending on thescores from the assessments carried out.
The school ensured that the IEP program that was being carried outwere according to the set rules and standards during the meeting.All-important stakeholders in the school and Bryanna’s educationwere given a copy of the IEP (MacKichan & Harkins, 2013). All theessential stakeholders of the program were given roles that theywould, in turn, ensure that the special education program within theschool was conducted according to the standards. The teachers, aswell as the child providers of Bryanna, had significant roles inensuring that Bryanna’s education was as per the set standards. Inthe case of modifications during the program, Bryanna’s parents,and special need teacher played significant roles as it was themalone who could give a go ahead for the recommended modification inthe program.
The IEP had stated that regular assessments of the progress ofBryanna were to be carried out on a daily, weekly, two-week, monthly,quarterly basis, half, and annual basis. The assessments were aimedat measuring the long-term and the short-term goals within theintervention. The parents of Bryanna were therefore informed on theprogress of their child on a two-week or a monthly basis. Theclassified information would, in turn, ensure that the parents werewell aware of every individual progress that was taking place withinthe education life of Bryanna. The parents were therefore briefedwithin the two-week and the monthly basis. However, when thebriefings were after results of exams or after a release of a report,Bryanna’s parents were provided with these reports for keeping.
The progress of Bryanna was reviewed on a yearly basis to assess theachievement of the intended goal. Bryanna’s parents and teachers,however, on the other hand, had the extraordinary power of asking fora review of the IEP in case they see the need for the study(MacKichan & Harkins, 2013). In case a review was accepted,Bryanna’s parents had to be present at the meeting as they had thepotential of providing necessary and sensitive information thatwould, in turn, boost the performance of Bryanna within theclassroom. Bryanna’s parent had the power to disagree with reviews.As a result, several tests had to be made in the program to determinethe necessity of the requested review within the program.
Bryanna’s progress and education skills were reevaluated afterevery three-year basis as more advanced and updated interventionprograms could be available. The reevaluation would mostsignificantly determine if Bryanna remained as a child withdisability or she had progressed and could hence be viewed as ofsimilar academic standards as other students. Due to the need forBryanna’s parents to give consent for the reevaluation, the parentshas the power to agree that it is not necessary for reevaluation ofBryanna depending on her behaviors.
MacKichan, M. D. & Harkins, M. J. (2013). Inclusive Education:Perceptions of Parents of Children with Special Needs of theIndividual Program Planning Process. Electronic Journal forInclusive Education, (3)1.