Social Exclusion and Inclusion - Education for Children with Special Learning Needs - Case Study Example

Case Study Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Case study 1 Tom’s parents would consider three concerns about his learning, which are: mobility, training staff in order to attend to Tom’s toilet needs, and Tom’s social inclusion in the school. According to the New South Wales Department of Education and Training (NSWDET) (2008), mobility refers to more than moving from one position to another in the school environment. Specifically, it includes the student’s capacity to get oriented to landmarks and significant objects within the school environment (NSWDET, 2008). As a Spina Bifida sufferer, Tom does not possess the physical capacity to run around, or even access some of the landmarks with as much ease as other students. Considering that he would need to access such places in order for him to participate in all activities that his classmates do, his parents ought to take mobility as a prime concern. Another concern that Tom’s parents ought to have relates to training staff to take responsibility in his catheterisation, and eventually teaching him how to attend to it by himself. As indicated by NSWDET (2008), parents need to know that certain areas in their child’s safety needs or personal care require specific programming. Catheterisation is one such personal care need because a dedicated staff member would need to be trained to attend to Tom’s need on the matter. It will be vital for Tom to be attended to by a person who is not only competent, but one who has empathy and a willingness and capacity to encourage him towards independency. Social inclusion is also another concern that Tom’s parents should consider. As indicated by Kelly and Lyons (2011), inclusion is attained if “the values, attitudes and understanding of all those involved” support inclusion initiatives (p. 71). The main concern for Tom’s parents therefore should be how to get Tom to participate in school activities, overcome transport constraints, and avoid being (or feeling) left out as suggested by McDonald (2011). In light of the above three concerns, Tom’s parents should consider the following three actions namely: Talk to Tom’s class teacher to find out how the child’s mobility needs are taken care of; work with a willing and able teacher, and suggest training places where he/she can gain the skills needed to attend to Tom’s catheterisation and toileting needs; and find out if the school has early intervention programmes which will aid in Tom’s social inclusion. If not, and as suggested by Kelly and Lyons (2011), Tom’s parents would need to engage in collaborative consultations and negotiations in order to create the supportive and inclusive environment that Tom needs. Kelly and Lyons (2011) note that “the successful negotiation and planning of inclusion” involves three phases namely: preparation phase (pre-inclusion), transition phase (early inclusion), and consolidation phase (continuing inclusion). Tom’s parents would need to work with his teachers to ensure that all three phases occur, and that he never suffers social exclusion during his time in that school. Tom’s parents should also consider different evaluations that would enable a role taker to understand Tom’s needs. A psychological evaluation that involves talking to Tom is the first recommendable evaluation. In this evaluation, a psychologist should talk to Tom to find out what his specific needs are. A physical evaluation done by a health professional and a special education teacher is also a recommendable evaluation as suggested by Bennett et al. (2002). Third, the parents should consider using observation methods in Tom’s educational and home’s setting as suggested by Bennett et al. (2002). For example, if Tom starts handling his catheterisation at home, the parents should encourage the school-based role taker to encourage the same behaviour in school. Case Study 2: While considering whether Amy, a year 5 student should join the rest of her class in a bus trip to Canberra, her teacher should consider several concerns. First, the teacher should consider the possibility of Amy having a post-traumatic stress attack similar to what had happened to her in year 4. The teacher should also be concerned about the implication of leaving Amy behind while the rest of the class goes on that trip. Wouldn’t that amount to social exclusion? Third, the teacher should be concerned about whether Amy will have the same amount of exposure or knowledge researching about sites on the Internet, while the rest of the class visits the actual sites. Technically, Amy is a refugee and as such, school should be a place where integration of Australians and her knowledge of Australia are enhanced. The bus trip would have offered her an opportune chance to view some of Australia’s heritage sites. Considering the above-mentioned concerns, the teacher should consider the following three actions: First, he/she should consider preparing or anticipating Amy for the upcoming bus trip. Kenardy, De Young, Le Brocque and March (2011) indicate that such anticipation or preparation enables the teacher to gauge a student’s reaction and determine whether the student needs extra support. The teacher may for example consider inviting one of Amy’s friend, parent or sibling to sit with her during the bus trip. In relation to the second concern above, the teacher should appreciate that the fact that Amy having friends in school is a reflection of positive relationships with the host community. As such, treating her differently may incline Amy to think differently of herself, or incline her friends to think differently about her. As such, the teacher should include Amy in the bus trip, only that she would need some psychological help either from professionals or the teacher to help her cope with the trip. Some of the psychological treatment indicated by Gazdich (2011), and which would probably help Amy includes cognitive behavioural therapy and exposure therapy. Exposure therapy would for example involve getting Amy into a bus at first and driving for a short-distance with her in order to build her confidence. In relation to the third concern above, the teacher should talk to Amy about the protective nature of the school’s social support. The teacher should also talk to Amy’s friends, encouraging them to support her during the bus trip in order to alleviate her fears. According to Fazel and Stein (2002), a stable social support in school enables a child suffering from post-trauma stress to develop resilience, individual competencies, self-worth and a “sense of control over their environment” (p. 368). The teacher should further consider several evaluations on Amy. First is an evaluation of existing social and health records – according to Borenson (2009), such an evaluation would enable a teacher to understand a child’s health condition and any improvement made. Second is interviewing Amy’s parents – Boreson (2009) states that parents’ views and/or roles in a child’s psychological state should be clearly understood by the teacher. If for example Amy’s parents suffer similar post-traumatic stress as their daughter, the teacher should be able to take intervention measures that involve helping the parents too (e.g. suggesting psychological counselling) in order to create a secure home environment for Amy; and an interview with Amy in order to determine her feelings about the bus trip. Notably, the case study indicates that Amy’s nightmares are no more, and she is able to relate with her classmates better. It could also be that her fear of travelling in buses has waned with time. The teacher can find that out through interviewing Amy. Reflections Working on this assignment involved reading and re-reading the assignment requirements, scanning the text book in order to get supporting materials to help me answer the questions, searching through the Internet for information and credible sources for use, drafting the answer, and finally, writing a final copy of the answers for the assignment requirements. Working alone was advantageous in that I had few distractions and did not have to put up with a barrage of ideas as would have been the case working in a group. It was also easier to schedule my research and writing hence meaning that I did not have to schedule hours to meet and discuss the assignment requirements with others. Conversely however, I am aware that working with others would have afforded me the opportunity to learn from others. Brainstorming while working with others would have possibly given rise to more diverse answers to the assignment requirements. In the course of the assignment, I have learnt that Learning Support Teams (LST) is a support mechanism that involves the whole school in planning and ensuring that students’ needs are met. The teams include parents, class/subject teachers, special education teachers, principal or nominee, and school counsellor or guidance office. It is appropriate to have an LST in school because it enables schools and teachers, parents and carers, and healthcare professionals to work together for the greater good of students (Physical as anything.com, 2013). For students with special needs, LSTs are critical because they identify the students, assess them and determine the best support system to offer them. Support offered to students with special needs includes: the provision of support teachers and/or school learning support officers; provision of individual learning plans; provision of teacher professional learning; and the intervention of home-school liaison officers. References Boreson, L. (2009). Special education criteria and evaluation for Other Health Impairment (OHI). Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved September 5 2013, from http://dpi.wi.gov/files/sped/doc/ohi-evaluation-guide.doc Fazel, M., & Stein, A. (2002). The mental health of refugee children. Archives of Disease in Childhood 87(5), 366-370. Gazdich, L. (2011). Post traumatic stress disorder. Retrieved September 5 2013, from http://www.sbbh.pitt.edu/files/powerpoint/Gazdich%20Power%20point%20PTSD.ppt Kelly, A., & Lyons, G. (2011). Practicing successful inclusion. In Foreman, P.J (Ed.). Inclusion in action (3rd ed.) (pp. 69-99). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning. Kenardy, J., De Young, A., Le Brocque, R., & March, S. (2011). Childhood trauma reactions: A guide for teachers from preschool to year 12. Queensland Government for Natural Disaster Response. 1-25. McDonald, M. (2011). What role can child and family services play in enhancing opportunities for parents and families: exploring the concepts of social exclusion and social inclusion. Australian Institute of Family Studies. 1-16. New South Wales Department of Education and Training (NSWDET). (2008). Who is going to teach my child? A guide for parents of children with special learning needs. Retrieved September 4 2013, from http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/schoolsweb/studentsupport/programs/lrngdificulties/whoteach.pdf Bennett et al. (2002). Special education for children ages 3-21: A parent’s guide. Retrieved September 5 2013, from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/parentguide.htm#InEvPro Physical as anything.com. (2013). Home. Retrieved September 5 2013, from http://www.physicalasanything.com.au/general_info/index.htm Read More