Special education teachers must remain professional in all situations and are often required to make decisions that involve ethical issues. It is important that special education teachers be aware of the ethical and professional standards as well as special education law.
Review the “Case Study: Stephen.”
1,000-1,250 words, address the following:
Support your findings by citing the “Special Education Professional Ethical Principles” and an additional 3-5 scholarly resources.
Introduction: This discourse seeks to delve into the particular instance of Stephen, a scholar necessitating specialized academic services. We aim to deliberate upon the subsequent course of action required for reassessing Stephen’s current Least Intrusive Setting (LIS) allocation, the moral conundrum associated with his learning journey, the significance of robust data and supplementary assistance in the academic setting, the participation of distinct stakeholders, and the legal as well as ethical stipulations in dealing with instructional aides, mentors, or voluntary participants. The conclusions and suggestions drawn are anchored in our comprehensive understanding of the special education mechanism and the ethical guidelines and professional norms articulated in this domain.
Successive Actions and Stakeholder Engagement: Scrutinizing Stephen’s extant LIS allocation necessitates the participation of pivotal stakeholders. The subsequent individuals or entities ought to be involved:
Stephen’s parents/guardians: Being the foremost advocates for Stephen, his parents or guardians must be actively engaged in the decision-making procedure. They bear the legal obligation to be a part of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sessions, contribute their insights, and endorse any amendments to Stephen’s allocation.
Instructor for Special Education: The instructor specialized in imparting special education is entrusted with the duty of assessing Stephen’s advancements, amassing and dissecting data, and instating suitable interventions and allowances. Their role is pivotal in the decision-making procedure and in ensuring adherence to special education legislations.
Mainstream Education Instructor: If applicable, Stephen’s mainstream education instructor should also participate in the review procedure. They can offer valuable perspectives regarding Stephen’s performance in the mainstream education environment and cooperate with the special education instructor to determine suitable allowances.
School Superintendent: The school superintendent, perhaps the principal or vice-principal, ought to be engaged in supervising the special education mechanism and ensuring adherence to legal stipulations. They might also offer guidance and bolster the special education squad.
Associated Service Providers: Should Stephen be availing of any associated services, such as speech therapy or occupational therapy, the respective service providers should be consulted to offer their expert opinion regarding his progress and any potential amendments to his allocation.
School Psychologist: The school psychologist can bring their expertise to the table in assessing Stephen’s requirements and offering counsel on suitable interventions and support mechanisms.
Justification for Successive Actions: The resolution to engage these stakeholders is anchored in our comprehensive understanding of the special education mechanism and the legal obligations intertwined with it. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) enforces the participation of parents/guardians, mainstream education instructors, and special education instructors in the IEP mechanism. Collaboration among these stakeholders is indispensable for making informed decisions about Stephen’s education and ensuring his needs are satisfactorily met.
Moral Conundrum and LIS Allocation: The moral conundrum in Stephen’s particular instance resides in providing him an education that enables him to thrive while maintaining the least intrusive environment. LIS refers to the allocation that offers scholars with disabilities the opportunity to learn alongside their non-disabled counterparts to the maximum extent suitable. Transitioning Stephen to a different LIS allocation may hinder his social interactions, obstruct his access to the mainstream academic curriculum, and potentially alienate him from his counterparts. It is critical to probe other alternatives before contemplating a change in LIS allocation.
Robust Data and Absence of Supplementary Support: Robust data holds significant sway in decision-making for Stephen’s education. Accumulating and dissecting pertinent data, such as academic evaluations, progress monitoring, and behavioral observations, can provide insights into his strong points, needs, and progress. In Stephen’s scenario, the absence of supplementary assistance in the academic setting may be contributing to his hurdles. It is imperative to amass comprehensive data to pinpoint specific areas of concern and determine suitable interventions before contemplating a change in allocation.