1

Steven Clark
Chapter 3 Case Study
My opinion of scenario one is that the IEP was done rather quickly. The personalization
to the process was very cold as stated with the introductions being done quickly. This would lead
me to the assumption that most of the individuals at the meeting had not met previously. Anna is
now in third grade and her first evaluation was done at the beginning of the second semester
(January 15) to be exact. This tells me that she has gone through kindergarten through second
grades without a prior evaluation as to her slower learning ability. This puts the team in question
two years behind schedule already.
Ms. Liu, her current teacher stated that Anna turns in partially completed assignments or
cannot complete them altogether. She also informed the group that Anna cannot write in cursive.
This makes me wonder if the issue has been addressed at all in her previous grades and if
anything was done to assist her before this meeting. Ms. Liu has asked Anna if she needs help
and she replies that she does not. This is not an acceptable action to not give further assistance
just because Anna says she does not need help. As a teacher we must assess when a child needs
further help even if they believe that they do not need it. By not having Anna read aloud in class
like the other children Ms. Liu is not protecting her feelings but enabling her and hurting her
learning for the long term. This could quite possibly give Anna a phobia regarding reading aloud
also. Her statement of I just cant give her individual attention in reading with 25 other students
in the class. I think Anna needs help!" It is not Anna that needs the help in this situation it is her
teacher Ms. Liu. We do not find excuses as to why we cannot teach a child that is behind we find
ways to teach that child.

Mr. Stevens is the schools social worker and did go the Annas house to meet with her
mother, Mrs. Kowalski. Mr. Stevens collected a lot of information about Anna and her mothers
living situation but offered no recommendations. There are many single parent families in this
exact situation where the children are able to succeed in the classroom. The fact that Anna is
capable of doing regular household chores and some cooking indicates that she can be a capable
learner with the proper instruction. In this scenario it states that Annas homework is selfcompleted but it does not define if it is checked at home by her mother, It only states that Mrs.
Kowalski works until after six pm. Annas mother did state that she is concerned but does not
know how to help. There is an obvious disconnect between school and home communication at
this time.
Mr. Kiena, the school psychologist, did standard testing to confirm that Anna is one to
two years behind in her learning ability. All of the tests showed that she learns at a slower level
that other children of her same age and grade level. The key factor to his evaluation is that
There is no significant discrepancy between her ability and her level of academic achievement.
This is Mr. Kienas official opinion of Annas ability.
Ms. Liu was unhappy with the assessment but it is not defined in the group as to why she
was dissatisfied. Ms. Denman, the special education director, found that Anna was not severe
enough between achievement and potential to qualify for special education services. The fact that
Mrs. Kowalski said nothing at the conclusion only verifies how comfortable she is with dealing
with the school personnel and feels as if she has no voice in her daughters education. The team
concluded by stating that Anna was not eligible for special education services and that the
teacher would have to continue working with her as best she could in reading. This is only

repeating a process that has already failed Anna and is completely unacceptable. There is no plan
for Anna moving forward, which only assures that she will continue to fail.
My understanding of scenario two is that the IEP was already in motion from previous
years and that all of the parties at the meeting were already acquainted with one another. Anna
had regular interventions since first grade and the communication as to her ability and altering
the way in which the teaching was done had been recorded. Mrs. Kowalski was already involved
and aware of what each step for Anna was and knew that this meeting was a continuing step in
the process of Annas success for learning.
Mr. Kiena was very detailed in the specific tests that Anna had undergone and the
solutions that had brought them to this current time. This scenario not only evaluated but offered
solutions for Annas improvement in the class. Ms. Liu continued from Mr. Kienas statement,
which shows that they are communicating regularly in regard to Annas education and learning
ability. To further that, Ms. Liu stated that Mrs. Kowalski and her-self had continued working
with the team to help Anna with her reading. Every member of this team is communicating
together and working as one unit, not each as an individual. Mrs. Kowalski was involved as a
member of the team and related that she works with Anna nightly and feels she needs more
assistance in her third grade ability.
Mr. Stevens now has the proper information to make an informed decision as to Annas
eligibility for special education. The team now can make a group decision for Annas next step in
her IEP. The decision does not lie solely on Mr. Stevens alone. Once eligible Anna now gets
specialized reading instruction from Mr. Scott and is not in all day special education. This is an
accurate decision because Anna is struggling in reading which is causing slower learning in other
subjects. This also includes Anna in the general education class to be a part of her peers and feel

more comfortable with her learning abilities. The research and documentation of Annas abilities
from first grade to now have placed her on a path to be empowered in her education and not
ashamed. This process continues from this point to monitor Annas progression and alter the
structure in which she learns as needed moving forward. This team has worked together to
provide Anna with a solution that is in her best interest and will prove to be successful.
After reading the scenarios I have learned that the IEP process is very different for every
school. There is no true process in place it only carries the same name. I am sure that for every
child it may help it could damage as many. There needs to be a more defined set of parameters
that need to be met that are in the best interest of each child at a national level, not just each local
level. The answer is not easy but needs to be addressed for these exceptional children.
The people present at each meeting were the same with the exception of Mr. Scott, the
individualized reading instructor in scenario two. Ms. Denman was the special education
director, Ms. Liu was the grade three teacher, Mr. Kiena was the school psychologist, Mr.
Stevens was the school social worker, and Mrs. Kowalski who is Annas mother. All had very
contrasting roles from one scenario to the next. The biggest difference is the amount of time and
communication amongst each other that was put forth in the IEP. Scenario one was individual
opinions of Annas ability with a small amount of time for the information needed to make a
decision. Scenario two had more longevity for information to be gathered and amended for Anna.
This scenario also had the entire team working and deciding together instead of one person
having the final decision. This provides for a more open and diverse plan for the best outcome
for Annas education. Scenario two is a better model in my opinion for Annas success.