Regarding the first question, Describe in detail with support from the scenario and your own

thinking the basis used for making the eligibility decision in scenario 1. I believe that there were

a few problems with how the choice was made. First and foremost, the team met with

introductions, which sounded like they may not have been familiar with each other. Secondly, the

teacher sounded as if this was being reported after it had reached the point of exasperation when

she stated There is only so much I can do with Anna in the classroom. Then Mrs. Kowalski

gave a report of Annas family life, which implies that nobody took time to notice the student

besides what was required in a by the book fashion. Even at that, the mother is never told what

she can do to help Anna, she is simply informed of what she already knows. The psychology test

seemed to be rather broad, stating that she was a slow learner and that nothing could be done for

Anna. With these standards it is easy to see why the school decided not to provide special

assistance. The school was basing their answer on a special needs or not mentality and clearly

waited too long for their response. Based on that thought process, no, Anna does not have a

serious mental disability and therefor does not require special needs assistance.

Overall there seemed to be a complete lack of communication between the teacher, the

psychologist, Annas mother and the rest of the IEP team. The idea that there was nothing that

could be done was quite sad and the fact that Annas mother was never given instruction was

ridiculous. Apparently Anna is a slow learner and is henceforth doomed to remain a low grade

student. There was no mention of after school assistance, tutoring, extra reading drills or

anything beyond the teams decision to keep Anna right where she was. In the end Mrs.

Kowalski kept silent and the teacher was put in a position of frustration. I should point out that

the parents of the child are supposed to be a part of the IEP team but in this case Mrs. Kowalski

seemed to be along for the ride, without input or voice in her childs outcome. Also, dragging out
everything about Mrs. Kowalski seemed inappropriate on Mr. Stevens part. Nobody needed to

know that Mrs. Kowalski had been divorced or that her family lived away from her. While

Annas family life may impact what occurs in school, short of abuse it really was not the schools

business in my opinion. Besides, I am not sure how the school could have done anything about

her family or her marital status.

Everything I have listed thus far is in stark contrast to the second scenario. This time the team

knew each other and made introductions out of courtesy. Another important statement is how

long they have been working with Anna. This is not a last ditch effort to get Anna out of the

teachers hair and into another class. The idea that this has been tracked for a long period of time

(since the first grade), implies that they have been using the three tier system rather than a simple

exceptional needs or not coin toss. They have been reviewing her as a student, then more so

when she started falling behind, and now she is being placed in either third or second tier

depending on the outcome. This was expressed with the statement The team met several times

to review Anna's progress and to change or alter interventions. Additionally, Anna was given a

specific test for her reading ability rather than an overall cognitive capability test; this means that

the teachers knew what the problem was and focused in on that particular issue. Next Annas

mother was prompted to speak, which is important since she cares for Anna the other 16 hours of

the day. Lastly, the final decision was to give Anna an individual education plan with a specific

focus on her reading ability. This follows the guidelines in our textbooks regarding ensuring that

the student is given the best care for her situation. She was placed in a special class to focus on

her reading ability, not in a life skills class or a general education class. The decision in this case

was based upon the child, her needs, the observations of the team, and clear lines of
communication. The team caught the problem early and tried to solve it, not just place Anna in a

category.

In short, the two scenarios were as different as night and day and I believe it is obvious which

way an IEP meeting should go. Communication from all parties is key, which was mainly

reflected in the second scenario. Catching an issue before it develops is crucial, which yet again

only occurred in the second scenario. Additionally it is important that the student be treated as an

individual and not a pass or fail case.

Within the scenarios Ms. Liu, Mrs. Kowalski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Scott, Mr. Kiena, and Ms.

Denman were all members of Annas support team. Their roles were respectively Annas teacher,

her mother, a member who provided Annas physical health information, Annas new reading

teacher, Annas psychological test provider and the principle. Each one of these people played a

specific role; the teacher saw Anna part of the day, the mother saw her the rest of the day, the

physical background offered whether or not the disability was physical, the test informed that it

was psychological but not severe, the special education teacher would provide the needed results,

and the principle was directly responsible for what occurred at the school.

In conclusion, an IEP meeting should be regular, communicative, active and understanding of

the situation at hand. The sad fact is, first scenario Anna is unlikely to succeed in school if she

does not obtain the help she needs. As a slow learner she is unlikely to catch up without help.

She could be quite brilliant if someone points her in the right direction and bridges the synapses

in her mind. With an exhausted mother and a non-communicating IEP team, I do not believe

such help is likely. Prior to this assignment I was unaware of how great a difference a few tiny

adjustments can make. I have never observed an IEP team before, so I had no way of knowing

exactly how the proceedings occurred. I now have a general idea of how the proceedings work,
as well as an understanding of how much patience, understanding and communication can

change the outcome.