Observation Paper for Outside Project 2
- 1. 1 Observation Observation Paper for Outside Project Stefanie J. Pratt SPE 525 University of Phoenix Running Head: Observation
- 2. 2 Observation All children in the United States deserve a fair chance to be educated in environments with their non-disabled peers. Research suggests that using Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can have academic benefit (Dunn, 1997). In the following observations, I went to two sites to observe if DAP was being used in the inclusive classroom as well as the adaptations that were used in the classroom. Observation1: Rochester Childfirst Network – Inclusion Summer Program My first observation was at the Rochester Childfirst Network. The classroom was an inclusion classroom of three and four year olds. This classroom is part of the SMILE (Successful Milestones in Learning Environments) program. This has been the first year the agency has decided to provide services during the summer. None of the children identified were required to receive 12 month programming; this summer program is an experiment. As the program schedule is only half-day the center does provide care after the program has finished in other parts of the center and the families were welcome to take advantage of that if
- 3. 3 Observation desired. The classroom was named the caterpillar room and when the children “graduated” they moved to the butterfly room. The teaching staff consisted of one teacher, one teaching assistant, one speech language pathologist, and two 1:1 aides. Five of the eleven children in the classroom, are children identified as children with disabilities. Of those five children, one child has an autistic spectrum disorder, one child has a social/emotional delay or disorder, one child has a developmental delay, and the other two children have non specific delays/disabilities requiring services. Most likely their IEP’s identify them as a preschool child with a disability. The other six children are non-disabled peers. The teaching staff informed me that they were unaware how non-disabled peers were placed in the program, as the center has other programs where children could be placed. As I entered the classroom, I noticed that all of the shelves were labeled with the names of each item as well as pictures of each item to create a print rich environment. All of the items for children were on low shelves to access easily. The room was well maintained and everything was off the floor and in its place. The cleanliness, entrance, and room arrangement could facilitate the use of a wheelchair in the room if necessary.
- 4. 4 Observation The morning unfolded with the children arriving slowly. I arrived at the site shortly before the class was to begin. As I met each of the staff, one of the 1:1 aides (Marie) was preparing the daily schedule for the student with the autistic spectrum disorder (we will call him A). She did inform me that A might not enter the classroom this morning because I am an unfamiliar adult, as he has a strong need for high structure, routine and familiar faces. When A arrived, he saw me and was very reluctant to enter the classroom. Having already preplanned the scenario, Marie walked directly to meet A and his mother. She was upbeat and after greeting A’s mother got down on A’s level and began to talk to A about what a good day they were going to have with lots of fun activities. Marie especially highlighted the music activity for later in the morning. A was still reluctant to enter the classroom, part of A’s behavioral support involves allowing him to walk with a staff person to help him feel more comfortable. Marie communicated to her teaching team that she would be taking a walk with A and would be back soon. I noticed many developmentally appropriate practices in this interaction alone. Prior to A’s arrival Marie put together the schedule to support A’s need for structure and routine. According to DAP guidelines teachers need to use a wide variety of approaches to enhance learning and development (Bredekamp, 1997). By using the schedule, Marie was practicing DAP. Also, when Marie greeted A’s
- 5. 5 Observation mother she practiced DAP because of the obvious respect and collaboration she exhibited in a short exchange and enthusiastically addressing a potentially stressful situation (Bredekamp, 1997). While A was on his walk, I observed the speech pathologist (Stacy) delivering services to a student we will call J. After J had arrived and put his personal things away he made his way to the housekeeping area for play. The speech pathologist joined him and they began to engage in play. As Stacy was delivering speech services, a non-disabled peer came over to join in. The non- disabled peer was welcomed into the play experience, as Stacy continued to deliver services. Stacy even included the non-disabled peer in the game. As Stacy concluded her service delivery she quietly left the area and J and his peer continued to play for several minutes. Stacy delivered speech services while using DAP. J was given the opportunity to direct his learning by choosing the place where it would happen (Bredekamp, 1997). Also, Stacy fostered collaboration and friendship with a non- disabled peer by not excluding the non-disabled peer “because it’s speech time” (Bredekamp, 1997).
- 6. 6 Observation As my observation continued, I noticed many other DAP practices happening in the classroom. The other staff in the classroom helped the other children get ready for the day’s activities and engage in the centers that were already set up as they arrived. Children were free to choose what activities they wanted. Staff joined the children in chosen activities and had conversations about what they were doing and they engaged the children with each other in conversation. I did observe one of the greatest examples of a push-in service in my professional experience. The OT came in to provide services to a few specific students but did so in a large group game. As the OT came in children were told when they finished with their activities they could join her on the circle rug. As each child finished in his/her own time they put their activities away and joined the game on the rug. Just before the game began the OT communicated to the staff in the room the children that needed to join the game and the staff encouraged those children to join the game. This game flowed from the centers that had been open and were being closed as children left. There were no large, screaming announcements about the children having to join the large group activity or that there were only five minutes left before a tumultuous transition to get everyone on the circle rug. It was a smooth transition and the game kept going until all children had joined the game. In the meantime, A had returned from his walk. As the game transitioned
- 7. 7 Observation to something else, the children received a finger puppet they were going to take through a tri-colored tunnel. All of the children were encouraged, when ready to pass through the tunnel. All of the children on the rug had many chances to go through the tunnel. A had a chance to sit with Marie and watch while holding one of the finger puppets. At the end of the session, the OT came and spoke with A and thanked him for his participation. I think this activity was the most inclusive of everything, I observed. I also want to note how the teaching staff worked as a collaborative team to assist all of the children in engaging in the program and therefore all of the children will benefit from the program. There were no physical adaptations to the classroom environment, but it did seem conducive to children who may need to use a wheelchair in the classroom. The playground, however, was a typical playground that wouldn’t be conducive to a child with movement disabilities. The program would have to adapt the playground in order to serve a child who required the use of a wheelchair. Observation 2: Augustin Children’sCenter My second observation took place at the Augustin Children’s Center. This center was originally apart of the local chapter of United Cerebral Palsy. However, the local affiliate has split from the national organization and is now known in the area as CP Rochester. This organization provides a wide area of services to people
- 8. 8 Observation from birth to death. The facility has some of the best state of the art services for all of the people they serve. Upon my arrival I was given a complete tour of the facility and a briefing of all of its services. I arrived in the pediatric wing of the building in which there are speech services, occupational therapy services, physical therapy services, and adaptive physical education. As well as a fully adapted playground that can accommodate any disability. The playground included adaptive swings and equipment to climb on and a surface suitable and friendly to wheelchairs. All of the facilities in this building were completely handicap accessible in the truest sense of the terms. This program had a similar half-day schedule to the first site. The program I visited had eight children and only one child was a non-disabled peer. The accounting for this was that most of the families of the non-disabled children typically choose not to go to the school in the summer. They are however, more than welcome to join if desired. On my tour, I was told that I would observe a highly educational and highly structured program. The staff in the room consisted of a Special Education teacher, a caregiver, a volunteer, a 1:1 aide and a speech pathologist. The children in the room had more significant disabilities than the previous site. Many of the children were non-verbal or minimally verbal. The first activity was block play. I immediately noticed that all of the block play was
- 9. 9 Observation teacher directed. The teacher directed the children in building a tower with a pattern versus asking the children what pattern they can build. The speech pathologist was also working with two students and again directed the students in what to build in the process of giving speech services instead of assisting the child in initiating a building project and delivering the services within that context. I noticed that staff minimally encouraged peer to peer interaction. If students weren’t interested in building they could color. The activity provided was a copied coloring sheet. In that activity there wasn’t any conversation during the activity and the activity seemed to have no purpose. The activity after the block/coloring time was snack. Snack time was a time in which a myriad of services were provided. At this center all services are push-in unless the services are extremely intense. During snack time, there were more adults in the room then children. While eating one child received OT services, a second SLP came in to provide a service to one child, the Special Ed teacher and the other SLP worked with another child, other service providers worked with other children and all of which became difficult to track and observe. I observed both SLP’s and the Special Ed teacher providing specific speech services involving picture exchange communication system (PECS). At one point during the snack, one SLP used her hands to direct one student’s attention to the Special Ed teacher when he wanted
- 10. 10 Observation to communicate with his friend sitting next to him. After snack the class made their way to Adaptive PE. This was probably the only place where I witnessed DAP. The gym was set up in centers and the children were given choices in where they wanted to play and what tools/toys they wanted to use. However, there still wasn’t any peer to peer communication in these activities. I didn’t notice many DAP practices happening in this environment. The school is approved by the NYS board of education and invites non-disabled peers to the site from the local school district. I didn’t notice that the environment was print rich and I didn’t notice many books in the classroom. This concerns me. Even though, a number of the students are significantly disabled they are with their non-disabled peers and the non-disabled students do need exposure to print to develop literacy skills. The teaching in the room didn’t enhance development and learning, it was mainly focused on treatment (Bredekamp, 1997). Also, concerning the snack time, I felt that a huge opportunity was lost for peer to peer interaction. I think at least the speech services could’ve been delivered in the context of supporting efforts to get a peer to peer conversation going. With the speech service where PECS was being used the student was required to make a choice of what she would like a bite of and give that to the SLP and then receive a bite. I’ve never liked teaching someone to use PECS in this manner. I think that at
- 11. 11 Observation mealtime of any sort the person with a disability should be able to pick up the food he/she wants and eat without first having to tell someone. I think this service costs the person with a disability a great deal in independence. I was told that the purpose of the service was to teach the student to use the PECS to communicate and understand the symbols in front of her. I think that a better approach would have been to show the PECS after she choose what to eat and not before. In that approach the student doesn’t seem to need to ask permission to take a bite. I realize that all of these services are required by the IEP’s. I just think there is a better approach to reaching the goal. Another area that seemed inappropriate is that, when all of the adults were present at snack time, in between trials the service providers had conversations with each other that didn’t include the students and sometimes were about the students. This doesn’t respect the dignity of all students and again all students are loosing out on an opportunity to develop language and conversation skills with each other, which in time will form the bonds of friendships (Bredekamp, 1997). In this instance, it appears that treatment for the special need superseded the need to support development for all children. Children with special needs need to develop their abilities in the areas of cognition, social interaction, emotional expression, language expression, and literacy like their non-disabled peers. All of
- 12. 12 Observation these areas seemed to be neglected in some of the activities provided. The school was only focused on treatment of the disability. I don’t think treatment alone enhances the total development of the individual. In conclusion, I would say I would want my child to attend the first site I observed. Despite all of the state of the art services available to the students at the second site, I saw very little developmentally appropriate practice. I would like to see a place where the facilities of site two and the practice of site one were one place. That would probably be the perfect combination. This experience taught me a great deal about observing, the types of services available in my area, how I want my practice to be, how I would like to see inclusion happen in my classroom.
- 13. 13 Observation Bibliography Bredekamp, S. &. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Washington DC: NAEYC. Dunn, L. &. (1997, October). Developmentally Appropriate Practice: What Does Research Tell Us. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1997/dunn97.html Novick, R. (1996, April 11). Developmentally Appropriate and Culturally Responsive Education: Theory in Practice. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory: http://www.nwrel.org/cfc/publications/DAP2.html#Disabilities