Spence Researchprojectfinaldraft1

Running head: YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 1
Young Children with Disabilities: Different Placements, Different Goals, Different
Experiences, and the Same Right to Education
Than Spence
Educ 315: Early Childhood Practicum 2: Observation, Assessment, and Intervention

YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 2
Table of Contents
Placement Setting Research: Program M ....................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Description of the Program ......................................................................................................... 5
Community, population, and services. .................................................................................... 5
IDEA Research: Part C ................................................................................................................... 7
Description of IDEA Law ........................................................................................................... 7
Special Education Process .......................................................................................................... 8
(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, Program M ................................................................... 8
(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder................................................................ 8
Assessment: Identification and Eligibility .................................................................................. 9
Assessment process. ................................................................................................................ 9
Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA). .................................... 10
Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F). .... 11
Ethical considerations of assessment. ................................................................................... 12
Evidence-Based Interventions .................................................................................................. 13
Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based/Floortime model...................... 13
Speech therapy ...................................................................................................................... 14
Sensory Integration Therapy ................................................................................................. 14
Progress Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 15
Placement Setting Research, School C ......................................................................................... 15
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 15
Description of the Program ....................................................................................................... 16

Community, population, and services. .................................................................................. 16
IDEA Research, Part B ................................................................................................................. 18
Description of IDEA Law ......................................................................................................... 18
Special Education Process ........................................................................................................ 19
(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, School C ..................................................................... 20
(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ................................................................. 20
Assessment: Identification and Eligibility ................................................................................ 20
Assessment process. .............................................................................................................. 21
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). ........................................................... 22
The Callier-Azusa Scale. ...................................................................................................... 23
Ethical considerations of assessment. ................................................................................... 24
Evidence-Based Interventions .................................................................................................. 25
Social Stories ........................................................................................................................ 25
Break Tasks and Procedures into Lists ................................................................................. 25
Physical Therapy................................................................................................................... 26
Progress Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 26
Final Reflection ............................................................................................................................. 27
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 27
Ideas and Practices that Resonated ........................................................................................... 27
Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 28
New Understandings and Remaining Questions....................................................................... 28
Collection of Artifacts............................................................................................................... 29
Growth as a Person, Educator, and Professional ...................................................................... 29

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 30
References ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix E ............................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix F................................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix G ............................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix H ............................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix I ................................................................................................................................ 52
Appendix J ................................................................................................................................ 54
Appendix K ............................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix L ............................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix M .............................................................................................................................. 60
Appendix N ............................................................................................................................... 62
Placement Setting Research: Program M
Introduction
Program M is an early intervention (EI) provider located in City K and provides services
to families in over 30 towns within the south-western region of New Hampshire (see Appendix
A for a brochure from Program M). The region is primarily rural with small pockets of minor
urbanization. Program M provides services through visits to the child’s natural environment; this
is primarily at a family’s house, however in some cases this is a childcare facility. The core team
consists of two speech language pathologists, two special educators, an occupational therapist, a
physical therapist, and an administrative assistant; there are additional speech language
pathologists, special educators, and occupational therapists who also work as part of Program M
but on a per diem basis.
Description of the Program
EI services are provided for children birth to age three who have developmental
disabilities and would benefit from additional supports (Hyson & Biggar Tomlinson, 2014).
Program M provides theses services to assist families in the area however they can appropriately
(see appendices B-E for brochures Program M provides to assist families). They strive to create
strong relationships with families, informing their decision-making, and enhance children’s
learning and development (Program M, 2018).
Community, population, and services.
Program M works both with children with developmental delays and the families of
children with developmental delays. Services provided include developmental evaluations,
guidance on including therapeutic activities into daily routines, speech language pathology,
occupational therapy, physical therapy, special instruction, and service coordination; service
coordination includes information about community resources, assistance with transitioning from
EI, information about advocacy groups, access to feeding/nutrition programs, access to special
medical services, and much more. Many families benefit from having additional adults’ thoughts
about how best to help their children.
The population in the community is predominantly white (96%), with a fairly even
distribution of ages containing two bubbles in the age ranges of 15-24 and 40-64 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010a). There are approximately 25% of households which have children under 18, and
the population for the area contains around 3,700 children under the age of 5 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010a). The unemployment rate for the area is 2.8% (NHES & ELMI, 2018), and 13.4%
of the families with related children under the age of 5 reported an income below the poverty
level which is higher than the 5.2% which is for all families below the poverty level (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2016a). There are approximately 110 individuals living in each square mile of
land within the area.
In terms of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model (Swick & Williams, 2006), children
part of Program M will have a microsystem that consists of their immediate family, any peers
they might have in a childcare setting, childcare providers, and perhaps service providers
depending upon the frequency which they visit the family. The child’s exosystem will include
their neighbors, any social services provided – like EI –, as well any media the child may
consume (e.g. children’s television shows, music, television left on in front of the child). As
13.4% of the families in the community with children under the age of 5 report an income below
the poverty line, many children’s exosystem will include charity and government funded
organizations like food banks, Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, and clothing drives. Program M helps
families who need assistance navigating the applications of the various initiatives. Additionally,
with the low population density of the region, many will not have access to as many supports
from neighbors due to the distance from one neighbor to the other. The children who receive
services through EI may then be aware, as they get older, of the fact that they are getting
additional supports and become self-conscious of the self-awareness if others around them are
not getting the same supports. The macrosystem for the children will include the culture of New
Hampshire and America as a whole, the political climate of the times, and societal norms which
are common within the United States. With a large political divide occurring at present, children
might feel the political stress which their family feels as well as any tension due to
institutionalized racial discrimination, as the region is predominantly and historically white.
IDEA Research: Part C
Description of IDEA Law
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the piece of legislature which
outlines special education standards and the regulations surrounding them (Bateman & Cline,
2016). IDEA consists of four sections: Part A, which covers general provisions of IDEA’s
purpose and definitions used in the law; Part B, which guarantees free and appropriate public
education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for all children with disabilities
aged three to twenty-one; Part C, which outlines how EI can assist young children with
disabilities and their families until the child is three years old; and Part D, which discusses
supporting information that is used to improve the education of children with disabilities (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004). Part C of IDEA explicitly states that all children who have a
developmental delay in at least one developmental area (i.e. cognitive, physical, communication,
socioemotional, and adaptive) or have a diagnosed physical or mental condition that likely would
lead to a developmental delay; it also outlines that families must be involved with the
development of a service plan as well as how often the plan needs review and the content of the
plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Special Education Process
For children under the age of 3 to receive services through EI, a parent, caregiver (with
permission from the parent), or physician can reach out to the intake coordinator of a local EI
program. After voicing concerns about specific delays that the child has or might face due to a
diagnosed disability, a team of professionals – usually two but it can be more – will perform a
developmental evaluation primarily through conversation with a caregiver about the
development of the child and what milestones they have reached/what behaviors they exhibit. If
a child is shown to need EI, the team will then be able to immediately have a conversation with
the family about what specific goals they would like to have their child achieve and write it all
down in an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). Every six months, there is a review of the
child’s development and the goals within IFSP; as goals are met, they are marked as completed
in the IFSP and either families can add more goals or continue with the goals they have. At any
point during the process, the family can say that they no longer wish to receive services from EI
and terminate the IFSP. Once a child reaches 27-32 months old or have reached all their goals
and are no longer developmentally delayed, they will be eligible for transition planning out of EI;
if the child is aging out of the program, the EI team will facilitate meetings with a local school to
help ease the transition from their services into the school.
(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, Program M
(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder described by the
American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th
ed.; DSM-5; APA, 2013). It outlines the criteria for an ASD diagnosis, which includes
impairments to social communication and interaction as well as restrictive and/or repetitive
patterns of behavior. It is important to note that ASD is a spectrum disorder, meaning that no two
individuals with the diagnosis will present in the same way and that each individual will have
their own strengths. As part of the communication impairment, children with ASD may exhibit
language delays and 25-50% of children with ASD do not develop verbal communication skills
(Patten, Ausderau, Watson, & Baranek, 2013). As part of the social interaction impairment,
children with ASD often show little socioemotional reciprocity, displaying few instances of
social initiation, reduced eye contact, and reduced or absent imitation of others’ behavior (APA,
2013). Additionally, children with ASD may present with sensory processing difficulties (APA,
2013).
Assessment: Identification and Eligibility
Assessment process.
Admission to services provided by Program M begins when a caregiver in a child’s life
(e.g. family member, physician, childcare provider) has suspicions about atypical child
development. Upon deciding that they would want Early Intervention (EI) services for their
child, the family would then reach out to the Early Supports and Services area agency regarding
the intake process. After all necessary paperwork was signed, two service providers from
Program M (at least one being a specialist in a domain of development) would go to the child’s
home to complete an evaluation of the child and assess the family’s need for support. For a
family who raised concerns of ASD, assessments would likely focus on behavioral,
socioemotional, and/or language development components. If a child is then found eligible for
services, Program M will assign the family a Service Coordinator who will act as the primary
liaison between Program M and the family; the service coordinator is usually a member of the
evaluation team and is usually one of the primary service providers. In the case of a child with
suspected ASD, the family would be encouraged to reach out to a child development specialist
who would be able to determine whether or not ASD would be an appropriate diagnosis for their
child.
Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA).
The BITSEA is a form in three sections to be completed by family member (on the Parent
Form) or by childcare provider (on the Childcare Provider Form). Both forms are nearly identical
with slight differences in phrasing of some of the questions (see Appendix F for a blank copy of
the Parent BITSEA Form). The first section is 42 questions regarding the child’s feelings and
behaviors requiring families to assess the frequency of the feelings and behaviors as exhibited
over the last month. The second section is 2 questions inquiring about the family’s level of
concern regarding the child’s behavioral, socioemotional, and language development. The final
section is an open-ended space for the family to write notes about their child as they see fit.
Upon completion, the family would turn it in to a service provider who would score the form and
compare it against the child’s age to determine their developmental progress.
Goals/purpose of the BITSEA.
The BITSEA is intended to identify socioemotional and behavioral problems or delays in
children 12 to 36 months old. The BITSEA is comprehensive and covers many of the common
behaviors and characteristics found in children with ASD. It can also be used as a tool to identify
children who might have socioemotional and behavioral delays who do not have ASD.
Cons of the BITSEA.

The BITSEA is written in a heavily deficit-based mindset (e.g. “refuses to eat”, “is
destructive”); if a parent were filling this out they very likely could be affected by the tone of the
questions. To balance against this, the evaluation team could ask the questions spread out over
the evaluation session without asking them all at once. Further, this document is primarily in
English with translations provided through a third-party company; such a language barrier could
pose a problem to families who do not speak English fluently or to EI agencies who do not have
the funds for translated versions. It also is not culturally flexible, some of the questions regard
Western cultural norms (e.g. eye contact) which would not be common in other cultures (e.g. in
Japanese culture, eye contact is sometimes disrespectful).
Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F).
The M-CHAT-R/F consists of two forms, each with the same 20 questions to be
completed by family members or service providers. The M-CHAT-R is filled out prior to the M-
CHAT-R/F, which is more in-depth and contains a flow-chart for each question outlining the
pass/fail conditions for each question (see Appendix G for a blank copy of the M-CHAT-R). M-
CHAT-R is intended for use by families while the M-CHAT-R/F is intended for use by
professionals. Scoring of the M-CHAT-R is included in the document, outlining the next steps
for the family depending on how their child scored.
Goals/purpose of M-CHAT-R/F.
This assessment can be quickly completed during well-child visits with a pediatrician
between 16 and 30 months of age as a screening tool. This high sensitivity tool is intended to
detect as many cases of ASD as possible by assessing what the child can do with yes or no
questions. It is available online for anyone to use.
Cons of M-CHAT-R/F.
As the M-CHAT-R is intended as a highly sensitive tool to detect possible cases of ASD,
there is often a high false positive rate. Such a condition could lead to families assuming that the
M-CHAT-R would give a definitive diagnosis while it is actually just a part of the diagnosis
process; making this point clear from the beginning would help many families. Further, this
document is listed only in English without a translation service provided, leading to a language
barrier issue for some families. While the M-CHAT-R is a specific checklist which only has yes
or no answers, the M-CHAT-R/F completed afterward also includes flow-chart answers which
end in Pass/Fail wording as well as examples of the child’s behavior. The terminology of pass or
fail within the M-CHAT-R/F is likely off-putting for families who would see this as an
assessment of their child’s capabilities.
Ethical considerations of assessment.
To understand the ethical considerations of assessment, we must understand the legal
aspect and the professional aspect of assessment. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA) outlines the legal rights which families have regarding the privacy of their child’s
information and how it is shared by different education agencies and to whom it can be shared
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Under FERPA, EI providers are not able to share their
assessments or notes with other EI provider agencies, doctors, or specialists without a family’s
expressed permission. While there may be temptation for providers to mention information
without consent, it is imperative to acknowledge the legal repercussions. Additionally, both the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Division for Early
Childhood (DEC) include in their codes of ethics terminology which highlights the importance
for ensuring privacy.

Another key aspect which both the NAEYC and the DEC emphasize in their codes of
ethics is the use of multiple assessment tools to understand children. Principle 1.6 of the NAEYC
Code of Ethical Conduct states, “We shall strive to ensure that decisions such as those related to
enrollment, retention, or assignment to special education services, will be based on multiple
sources of information and never be based on a single assessment” (2011, p. 3). In very similar
words, the DEC states within their Code of Ethics under the Professional and Interpersonal
Behavior category, “We shall use individually appropriate assessment strategies including
multiple sources of information such as observations, interviews with significant caregivers,
formal and informal assessments to determine children’s learning styles, strengths, and
challenges” (2009, p. 2). These two professional documents agree about the importance of
having multiple sources of information to form a meaningful assessment as opposed to using a
single assessment. This will decrease the likelihood of a false diagnosis or assessment being a
key factor in a child’s education.
Ultimately however, families are the key factor in assessment for young children. They
are the ones who decide whether a child will be assessed and can withdraw consent for an
assessment and services at any time. It is important for providers to ensure that families are
feeling good about the process and to answer any questions that families might have. With the
BITSEA and the M-CHAT-R, providers need to talk the family through the screening tools
question by question and make sure that they are answering in a genuine manner and not feeling
pressured to answer in a specific way.
Evidence-Based Interventions
Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based/Floortime model

The Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based (DIR)/Floortime model
was designed to improve development through an understanding of each child’s individual
differences and create relationship-based learning (Liao, Hwang, Chen, Lee, Chen, & Lin, 2014).
The implementation of DIR/Floortime is for caregivers to spend a significant amount of time
with the child by playing on the floor, at the child’s level with the goal of engaging the child in
reciprocal interactions called circles of communication (Liao et al., 2014). These interactions can
be as small as sharing eye contact or a smile, or more meaningful by having the child make the
adult do something (e.g. blow some bubbles by putting the bubble wand in front of the adult’s
mouth). For children with ASD, the DIR/Floortime can be used to increase interaction with
caregivers by highlighting children’s preferences and encouraging caregivers to think about
activities on the child’s level (Liao et al., 2014).
Speech therapy
Children with ASD who have expressive communication difficulties may benefit from
targeted therapy to encourage language growth. One method which service providers use is very
similar to the Floortime model. When a service provider wants to engage verbally with a child
with ASD, they can follow the child’s lead to see what the child wants to play with (Bradshaw,
Koegel, & Koegel, 2017). Once they understand that, they gain the child’s attention by making it
so that the service provider needs to do something for the activity to continue (e.g. pick up a top
which had previously been spinning), provide clear and concise prompts for language through
the use of a time delay prompt followed with modeling of whichever word they were targeting
(e.g. spin) and provide reinforcement for any communication attempt, be it vocalizations, spoken
words, or signed language (Bradshaw et al., 2017).
Sensory Integration Therapy

Children with ASD often have difficulties with sensory processing and sensory
functioning Preis & McKenna, 2014). Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) is targeted sensory
input which directly affects the nervous system in a specific way which results in increased
attention, behavior, and learning (Preis & McKenna, 2014). Examples of SIT include activities
such as swinging, bouncing on a ball, wearing a weighted vest or blanket, and squeezing or
pulling putty (Preis & McKenna, 2014). As their sensory input becomes regulated, the child will
be more likely to show behavior appropriate for their developmental age (Preis & McKenna,
2014).
Progress Monitoring
In the EI setting, children’s progress is monitored primarily through notes taken by
service providers during their visits. The service provider would note any changes they had
noticed since the last time they had seen the child or that the family had reported seeing. During
a DIR/Floortime session, the service provider might make note of the total number of circles of
communication that they share with the child and make note of it. These anecdotal observations
are supplemented through standardized tools which give empirical measures on progress; for
example, the Early Communication Indicator is used to measure the number of gestures,
vocalizations, single word utterances, and multiple word utterances used by children to illicit a
response from an adult over the course of six minutes (see Appendix H for a blank copy). All of
these get reviewed during six-month and annual evaluations to determine the child’s growth and
progress through the program.
Placement Setting Research, School C
Introduction
School C is a nonpublic school in City K that provides education and medical services to
roughly 20 children with complex medical and developmental needs. School C is a component of
Center C, which also includes residential care for many of the students (see Appendix I for a fact
sheet from Center C). As School C primarily has residential students, the children’s home
communities are all over New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont; there are some children who are
local day students who receive transportation to go to school. There are three mixed age
classrooms which each have around six learners; each classroom has one special education
teacher and a number of one-on-one Licensed Nursing Assistants (LNAs) equal to the number of
students. The total staff number is roughly 100, consisting of Registered Nurses, Licensed
Practical Nurses, LNAs, Respiratory Therapists, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists,
Speech Therapists, Special Educators, and facilities staff, as well as administrative staff.
Description of the Program
School C exists to provide education for learners who might otherwise not be able to
attend school due to intense medical needs (see Appendix J for a newsletter for families and
Appendix K for a newsletter for staff). Center C’s mission statement includes a commitment to
“enrich the lives of children with complex medical and developmental needs, support their
families, and collaborate with other community providers to build a continuum of care” (2018, p.
1).
Community, population, and services.
School C provides education services for learners aged 3- to 21-years old for children
who have a medical necessity to be in a specialized care setting; because of the age range of
individuals at Center C, the staff call the residents “learners” as it would not be appropriate to
call a 20-year-old a child. Center C provides residential care to individuals from infancy to 21-
years old, and the majority of the learners over the age of three attend School C – some attend
school in a less restrictive environment. The School and Center C primarily interact with the
children under their care, however there is limited community interaction (see Appendix B for a
brochure sponsored in part by Center C). The children in School C receive individualized
education as determined by their teacher as well as their Individualized Education Program
(IEP). The IEP can include services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical
therapy, instruction from a teacher for the blind and visually impaired, instruction from a teacher
for the deaf, and consultation with adaptive technology specialists.
School C is located within City K. While the region of children served is the states of
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, the majority of the learners who attend School C are
either local day-student learners or learners who live at Center C; for this reason, the community
discussed further will be of City K as this is the community which will affect the children most.
The city is predominantly white (91.6%) with the plurality of the population being in the 18-24
age range, likely to the two post-high school institutions in the city (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b).
There are approximately 15% of households which have a child under the age of 18 years and
the city has almost 4,700 children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). The unemployment rate for the
area is 2.8% (NHES & ELMI, 2018), and 10.8% of the families with related children under the
age of 18 reported an income below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016c). There are
approximately 630 individuals living in each square mile of land within the area.
In terms of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model (Swick & Williams, 2006), children
attending School C will have a microsystem that consists of any family that regularly
communicates, their school peers, the LNAs, teachers, and other facility staff the children
regularly interact with. This may give the children a disproportionate view of gender distribution
as women are over twice as likely to be employed in the above listed professions (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2016b). The child’s exosystem will include their neighboring schools’ children, as well
any media the child may consume (e.g. children’s television shows, movies, and music,
educational games played on a computer). The population density of the city allows for multiple
schools to be in the same region and thus allows for local schools to come visit School C on an
infrequent basis, so both populations of children have exposure to the other. The macrosystem
for the children will include the culture of New Hampshire and America as a whole, the political
climate of the times, and societal norms which are common within the United States. With a
large political divide occurring at present, children might feel the political stress which their staff
feel as well as any tension due to institutionalized racial discrimination, as the region is
predominantly and historically white.
IDEA Research, Part B
Description of IDEA Law
As previously discussed, IDEA outlines the special education regulations and is broken
into four sections (Bateman & Cline, 2016). Part B guarantees free and appropriate public
education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for all children with disabilities
aged three to twenty-one (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). A child with a disability is
defined as a child “with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness),
speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional
disturbance …, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health
impairments, or specific learning disabilities” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, 20 USC §
1401(3,A,i) ). School C provides FAPE as the children who attend School C come from school
districts which have determined that the child would receive a higher quality of education at
School C than at their own schools due to the advanced medical needs of the child; this means
that the families do not have to pay for children to attend School C, rather that the school pays
for the cost of the child’s education. The children at School C experience their own LRE as they
are in a setting with other children, are allowed independent play – when developmentally
appropriate –, and they would receive lesser quality education in a different school setting – if
they were in a more traditional school, they would not receive the medical treatment they need
nor the individualized attention for instruction; if they were in a more traditional residential
program, they would be receiving less formal education.
Special Education Process
The children at School C receive their special education through their home school
district, as carried out by School C. When a child turns three-years old, they are eligible for
services as described through IDEA Part B. After the school district conducts or receives the
results from an evaluation of the child’s development and confirms the need for special
education services, they would write an IEP which includes goals for the child’s development
and they would add a statement dictating where schooling would occur in a section where
appropriate. The IEP would be written with input from the child’s family, the home school
district, and School C. At School C, they hold quarterly update meetings to talk to everyone
involved with the IEP writing process about developmental updates, as well as any goals which
need to be added or adjusted as children develop and meet goals. Annually, the a child will
receive a new IEP based upon the growth that they have had over the past year. Every three years
students will receive evaluation testing to determine eligibility again. Once a child is 14-years
old, they are invited to attend their IEP meetings and they will begin to plan for when a child
reaches 21-years of age and will no longer be eligible for services through School C or Center C.
While the learner will no longer be eligible for School C, Center C provides a grace period where
they will continue residential care for learners until they are 25-years old if they need additional
time for an opening to appear at a different residential care facility.
(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, School C
(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
If a person’s mother drank alcohol during pregnancy, that person is susceptible to fetal
alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) (CDC, 2018); the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) outline three signs and symptoms for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), one of
the more common FASDs: abnormal facial features – a smoothed ridge between the nose and the
mouth, a thin upper lip, and narrow, wide-set eyes; growth problems – height and/or weight; and
central nervous system problems – including, but not limited to, a small head, general neurologic
problems, cognitive deficits, executive functioning deficits, motor functioning delays, attention
problems, difficulty regarding social skills, and sensory sensitivities (CDC, 2018). While
knowing that a mother had no alcohol consumption during the pregnancy, being unsure would
not prevent a diagnosis of FAS and confirming the alcohol consumption would only strengthen
the diagnosis as opposed to solidify it (CDC, 2018). As FAS is an FASD, it is important to note
that, as a spectrum disorder, individuals with FAS may show symptoms/characteristics of FAS to
varying degrees. In addition to the signs and symptoms described previously characteristics of
FAS can include understanding phrases at literal level, expressive or receptive language deficits,
difficulty regulating behavior, deficits in short and/or long-term memory, difficulty
understanding cause-and-effect, difficulty reading social cues, difficulty following multi-step
directions, and difficulty understanding rules (Miller, 2006).
Assessment: Identification and Eligibility

Assessment process.
Learners come to School C primarily because they are residents at Center C. Due to the
advanced medical needs of the learners who live there, many home school districts for the
learners are ill equipped to care for the medical needs of the learners and the admission process
is somewhat backwards, with learners beginning to live at Center C before starting school at
School C. To qualify for School C, learners need to have an IEP which outlines the services they
will receive. For a child with FAS, their EI team will either initiate communication with the
child’s school district to set up all the assessments needed to determine eligibility; depending
upon the severity of the FAS, a child might qualify for different disabilities outlined by IDEA:
developmental delay, specific learning disability, or other health impaired. For the sake of clarity
this example will focus on a child with FAS who receives services through IDEA through the
“other health impaired” disability; according to the State of New Hampshire (NH), this child
would need an assessment of their academic performance and of their health (NH Department of
Education, 2017) (see Appendix L for the complete list of require assessments for different
disabilities in NH). Once the assessments are completed and a learner is found eligible for an
IEP, School C will create a team of the director of special education for School C, the learner’s
teacher, the therapists involved with educating the learner, the learner’s family, a representative
from the learner’s home school district, and anyone else the learner’s home school district or
family would want. Once the learner’s IEP was complete, then they could start attending School
C. It is important to note that the process would be similar for learners not living at Center C;
they would live at their house while this process was occurring, possibly attending their home
school district’s schools if there was a classroom which was mildly prepared to provide the
education and medical care needs for the learner.

Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI).
The PEDI consists of three parts: the first part contains 197 items of functional skills on a
capable/incapable rating; the second part contains 20 items of functional activities rated 0-5 on
how much assistance the child needs; and the third part contains 20 items of functional activities
rated on how much modification is needed for the child to complete the activity – N (no
modifications), C (child-oriented), R (rehabilitation equipment), or E (extensive modifications).
The questions will be answered through either an interview with a primary caregiver or through
observation of the child in their natural environment. The assessment targets children who are
aged 6 months to 7.5 years old. The PEDI can be completed by therapists or teachers who have
been trained to run the assessment.
Goals/purpose of the PEDI.
The PEDI can be used both to measure a child’s growth by measuring their normed
developmental score at the start of a child’s school experience compared to later during their
schooling and as an evaluation tool when looking at their scaled score. The comprehensive list of
questions allows for high accuracy with determining the functional capabilities of the child. This
includes many components which involve gross and fine motor development. The PEDI has also
been translated into many languages. It was normed with a sample of 400 children.
Cons of the PEDI.
With most of the questions based on a simple capable/incapable dichotomy, family
members could easily become discouraged about the performance of their child, perceiving
failure while the skills might not be age appropriate. As the PEDI focuses on functional skills, it
cannot be used to assess cognitive skills. Talking through all of the total 217 questions would
take a considerable amount of time; so that is a consideration when completing a PEDI
assessment.
The Callier-Azusa Scale.
The Callier-Azusa is the assessment which School C primarily uses. It was designed to
assess children under 9 years old who need large levels of support, specifically for those who are
visually or hearing impaired. It breaks down development into five different areas: motor
development; perceptual development; daily living skills; cognition, communication, and
language; and social development. Each area has three to four different sub-skills. The test has
questions associated with each sub-skill at different levels, with the child’s progress being
marked on a score sheet as the test goes on. Through observation, a primary caregiver or
educator will indicate a child’s developmental level based on what they have or have not seen a
child do.
Goals/purpose of the Callier-Azusa.
Despite being written in 1978, the Callier-Azusa remains relevant through its use of
simple and timeless assessment areas (see Appendix M for a section of the Callier-Azusa). The
score sheet is easy to read and interpret, quickly seeing graphically where the child is in their
development. This ease of reading also makes it easy to compare a child’s growth over time from
an initial assessment to subsequent assessments. Having been designed for children with
disabilities, the assessment puts an asterisk next to areas of development that some children
might not be able to display competency in.
Cons of the Callier-Azusa.
The wording of the directions show signs of the person-second language that was
prominent during previous decades; if a family member or child saw this assessment, they might
become disheartened by this demeaning language. Completion of a full assessment takes

significant time to work through all of the questions associated with the development areas and
each sub skill, as the primary means of assessment is observation. Additionally, as an
observation only assessment, the professional will only record what the child shows externally; a
child may have internal thoughts about a task but not physicalize them, giving a false negative.
Ethical considerations of assessment.
To further understand the ethical considerations of assessment, we must understand the
legal aspect and the professional aspect of assessment. When assessing children who have
medical complications which should be taken into consideration with the crafting of an IEP or in
the continuation of care for a child with medical needs included in their IEP, the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) needs to be taken into consideration. A
law outlining how health insurance works in the United States, HIPPA includes a Privacy Rule
which protects the privacy of individuals’ health information as well as how disclosures of
information can be made without patient authorization (U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, 2015). In the case of patients not expressly authorizing consent to allow an institution
to release information to a private individual or different institution, no information will be
shared. What HIPPA is to healthcare and medical practices, FERPA is to education; both laws
are concerned with maintaining privacy of individuals and the only difference lies in the field
which the law is concerned about.
The NAEYC and DEC have further guidelines regarding assessment that are applicable.
Principle 1.5 of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct states, “We shall use appropriate
assessment systems, which include multiple sources of information, to provide information on
children’s learning and development” (2011, p. 3). This applies to the PEDI and the Callier-
Azusa because while they each individually only are one assessment, when used together with
other assessments, they form a more concrete understanding of a child’s developmental progress.
The DEC also mentions assessments further by affirming “we shall respect, value, promote, and
encourage the active participation of ALL families by engaging families in meaningful ways in
the assessment and intervention processes” (2009, p. 3). This inclusion of the families in
meaningful ways ensures that the families’ time or resources are not wasted completing
assessments or interventions which would not benefit the child. The NAEYC also mentions
families and assessments in Principle 4.5: “We shall be knowledgeable about the appropriate use
of assessment strategies and instruments and interpret results accurately to families” (2011, p. 6);
here ensuring that families not only are aware of how the assessment will be completed, but also
interpreting the results for the family so that they can understand how their child is developing.
Evidence-Based Interventions
Social Stories
A social story is a short story designed to teach the usually unspoken rules around a
certain situation (Ryan, 2006). For example, one social story a child with FAS might use could
be about playing a game of Go-Fish and taking turns instead of repeatedly asking for the other
players’ cards; this would support the child to develop social awareness of reading body
language when their other players might not verbally say that it was the child’s turn, cause and
effect understanding as every turn would begin with someone asking for a card which would
cause an effect from a different player, and it would more solidify the rules surrounding how to
sit at a table with others and not being in their personal space.
Break Tasks and Procedures into Lists
Children have different levels of success when attempting to retain multiple instructions
mentally at the same time. Children with FAS often have a more difficult time remembering the
order of steps or even subsequent steps to the first; as such by breaking a larger task down into a
list of smaller steps, children with FAS can better grasp the task at hand by following down the
set of directions to get the correct final product (Duquette, Stodel, Fullarton, & Hagglund, 2008).
This would strengthen the child’s problem solving skills as they could begin to see problems as a
succession of smaller tasks as opposed to one large task.
Physical Therapy
Physical therapy is a targeted form of therapy which helps individuals move their body
around in space. As children with FAS have less physical growth than their peers and some have
cognitive impairments which decrease coordination, targeted physical therapy can increase a
child’s ability to navigate their world (Bertrand et al., 2004). One aspect of physical therapy
might include working on using alternating feet while on a staircase or working on walking using
ankle-foot orthotics to help stabilize the joint.
Progress Monitoring
At School C, most of the progress monitoring is completed through each learner’s
individual IEP goal sheets. Each goal in a learner’s IEP will have its own sheet, and the front of
the sheet will have the full text of the learner’s IEP goal, and the back will have the goals for
increasing the difficulty of the goal so that it can be achieved in a reasonable time period. Each
goal sheet has an attached chart of completion of the goal to be signed off by the learner’s
educator. Some goals are written to be practiced every day, while others are practiced as
infrequently as twice a week. Another major progress monitoring document is School C’s
Quarterly Review sheet (see Appendix N for a blank copy). This document, done on a quarterly
basis, breaks down all of the different components of a learner’s needs, the family’s concerns,
and any new goals which might need to be added between official IEP goals.
Final Reflection
Introduction
This past semester I had the opportunity to complete two practicum experiences: one with
an early intervention provider and the other at a non-public school for children with medical and
special needs. I was with the early intervention provider for 71 hours, spaced over roughly three
days a week for roughly five weeks; this was to facilitate children taking naps and families not
wanting to have appointments too early in the morning. I shadowed speech language
pathologists, an occupational therapist, and special educators as they went to childcare facilities
and families’ homes to work with children and their families. I was at the non-public school for
71 hours, spaced over two days a week for 5 weeks, with one extra hour when I attended an IEP
meeting on a day I normally would not have gone to school. I shadowed a special education
teacher and often followed children to their therapies and observed all the staff interact with the
children there.
Ideas and Practices that Resonated
With the early intervention provider, I found such joy in working with the young children
and seeing the professionals interact with family members to encourage them to perform
different best practices with their children. However, one thing that I also discovered is that
while I would enjoy doing EI home visiting, I would miss the social interaction that young
children have between each other. It was a realization that came slowly and then all at once; I
first realized I would want to be an infant or toddler room teacher and do early intervention as a
per diem basis but as I write this I think I realized why I like the classroom environment better.
At the non-public school, I found it so important to give the children attending school
there as many opportunities as I could. They have limited exposure to the outside world and
anything that other staff do not frequently offer the children to explore. The concept of giving
opportunities and sharing joy with the children when they get to experience something new and
fresh is my biggest take-away from this school.
Challenges
For early intervention, I was most challenged to not make assumptions about families
based upon how they looked, talked, acted, or where they lived. I’m a pretty unassuming person;
if someone is reaching out to early intervention for support then they have to be doing something
right. However, there were times when families would do or say something that gave me a bit of
cognitive dissonance and I had to keep on reminding myself that the bottom line for their child
rearing is that they are the parent/guardian and have the right to decide what is best (aside from
when it is literally harmful to the child).
At the non-public school, I was most challenged to perceive competence for the children.
Going into the school and seeing how other staff interacted with the children – and other staff
while around the children – it gave me a false sense that the children were less capable than they
are. It occurred to me one day that the way that I was thinking was wrong and that I hadn’t seen
the children show me that they couldn’t do more, and when I started thinking that way I started
seeing them do more things than I had before. It’s powerful to note how our perceptions color
our observation skills.
New Understandings and Remaining Questions
I know that I just talked about this, but I want to emphasize how high I think the
importance of perceiving competence is. Perhaps it’s because of how much I’ve shifted my
mindset of non-inclusion classrooms; I used to think that they were an acceptable alternative to
an inclusion classroom if a child showed the signs that they would not benefit from it. However,
I know realize that even if a child might not show signs that they are benefitting from an
inclusion classroom, they almost certainly are at least in a small way. Additionally, after
watching Dan Habib’s film, I have a better understanding about how important perceptions of
competence are toward individuals with disabilities in their daily life: when an other treats an
individual with disabilities as competent, they will go so far.
Going forward, I hope to continue to learn about how to improve inclusion in my future
classrooms. I’d also love to find out how I can help a movement to get Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
tests taken out of the assessments for disabilities; the tests don’t correlate one-to-one to either a
person’s ability to exist nor to their disability and often act as a barrier for those with low IQs
with disabilities who are perceived incompetent or for those with high IQs who test too high to
“have” a disability.
Collection of Artifacts
The collecting of artifacts was a unique experience; I had previously learned about many
of the topics (e.g. assessments, family communication, community resources) but holding them
in my hand and having the impetus to think critically about them caused me to stop and consider
them in depth. Each of the documents I found had a concrete use and reason to exist, and each of
the artifacts that I selected – as I did not use every document I brought home – embodied some
aspect of the education profession in a way that I didn’t fully comprehend until the artifact was
in front of me.
Growth as a Person, Educator, and Professional
This semester, I think that I’ve continued to come into my own and become more of who
I want to be. I’ve always had an idea in the back of my head that I want to be someone who
creates more good in the world than he takes away. And through my actions both inside and
outside of school, I find myself being nicer and warmer to more people as opposed to my usual,
small group of friends. The psychology student inside me can’t help wonder, though, how much
of this perceived change is due to my continued weight loss and improving self-image.
As an educator, I’ve concluded that co-teaching is incredible. I had never given it much
thought, however with seeing it implemented flawlessly by my professors this semester I’ve
come to appreciate how much planning it takes to do well (Sileo, 2011). Additionally, I begin to
see co-teaching more when I think of it less as a mechanism which is forced but rather a natural
course of action that occurs when two professionals are in the same environment together
teaching.
As a professional, I’ve made progress toward developing more of the professional
dispositions which teacher candidates are supposed to display (KSC, 2018). The most prominent
disposition I noticed improvement in is 11, “Recognizing the legal and ethical obligations of the
profession” (KSC, 2018, pg. 1); over this semester, I have spent far longer than I expected to
looking over laws, codes of ethics, and recommended best practices from various organizations
and government agencies. That, coupled with spending time in practicum placements where I got
to see the law in practice, gave me a better depth of understanding surrounding the laws.
Additionally, and I have touched on this somewhat already, I feel that I have grown in
disposition 8, “Being open to diverse perspectives and backgrounds” (KSC, 2018, pg. 1); being
forced somewhat out of my comfort zone in terms of being in an environment where an educator
would have no control was slightly jarring. However the experience made me better understand
the power dynamic that families and professionals should have: cooperation rather than dictating
how things should be.
Conclusion
I am very fortunate to have the opportunity to attend educator preparation school at an
institution that gives students so many opportunities to explore the different parts of early
childhood education and for so long that I get to explore them. This semester has shown me
through both placements things that I know that I want to emulate in my own classroom and
things that I want to learn more about so that I can implement them better – rather than just
abandon the concept. One of the biggest things that I think that I’ve gained through this process,
however, is my growing professional network. At each of the previous practicum placements
I’ve had, I know that if I came to them with a question or asking for advice, they would know
exactly who to ask or how to find the answer and help me to find what I want to know, and that
is almost more important than having the knowledge yourself.

References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bateman, D. F. & Cline, J. L. (2016). A teacher’s guide to special education. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Bertrand, J., Floyd, R.L., Weber, M.K., O’Connor, M., Riley, E.P., Johnson, K.A., Cohen, D.E.,
National Task Force on FAS/FAE (2004). Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Guidelines for
referral and diagnosis. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bradshaw, J., Koegel, L., & Koegel, R. (2017). Improving functional language and social
motivation with a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with Autism Spectrum
Disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2443–2458.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3155-8
Center C (2018). About [Center C]: Quick facts about [Center C]. City K, NH: Center C.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASDs).
Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/diagnosis.html
Division for Early Childhood (2009). DEC code of ethics. Retrieved from: www.dec-sped.org
Duquette, C., Stodel, E., Fullarton, S., Hagglund, K. (2008). Teaching students with
developmental disabilities: Tips from teens and young adults with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder. TEACHING Exceptional Children, (39)2, 28-31.
Hyson, M. & Tomlinson, H. B. (2014). The early years matter: Education, care, and the well-
being of children, birth to 8. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Keene State College. (2018, Fall). Teacher candidate dispositions assessment [EDUC 315 class
handout]. Keene, NH: [author unknown].

NAEYC (2011). Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment. Position Statement.
Washington, DC: NAEYC.
New Hampshire Department of Education (2017). New Hampshire Standards for the Education
of Children with Disabilities. Concord, NH.
New Hampshire Employment Security & Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau
(2018). Top job prospects: Short-term employment projections, 2017 Q4 to 2019 Q4.
Concord, NH: ELMI Publications.
Patten, E., Ausderau, K. K., Watson, L. R., & Baranek, G. T. (2013). Sensory response patterns
in nonverbal children with ASD. Autism Research & Treatment, 1–9.
Preis, J., & McKenna, M. (2014). The effects of sensory integration therapy on verbal expression
and engagement in children with autism. International Journal of Therapy &
Rehabilitation, 21(10), 476–486.
Program M (2018). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.mds-nh.org/index.php/who-we-
are/partners/11--sp-742/-sp-450/184-mds-birth-to-three
Ryan, S.M. (2006). Instructional tips: Supporting the educational needs of students with fetal
alcohol spectrum disorders. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(2) Article 5.
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 43(5), 32-38.
Swick, K. J. & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological
perspective for early childhood educators: Implications for working with families
experiencing stress. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(5), 371-378.

U.S. Census Bureau (2010a). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010
demographic profile data. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Census Bureau (2010b). Population, housing units, area, and density: 2010 – United States
– county by state; and for Puerto Rico 2010 census summary file 1. Retrieved from
U.S. Census Bureau (2010c). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010
demographic profile data. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
U.S. Census Bureau (2016a). Selected economic characteristics: 2012-2016 American
community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
U.S. Census Bureau (2016b). City K, NH. Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/keene-
nh/#demographics
U.S. Census Bureau (2016c). Selected economic characteristics: 2012-2016 American
community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Statute and regulations of IDEA. Retrieved from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/#statute
U.S. Department of Education (2013, November 7). Student privacy 101: FERPA for parents
and students [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/nhlDkS8hvMU
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2015). The HIPAA Privacy Rule. Retrieved from
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html
This page is intentionally blank.

Appendix A
Brochure from Program M about Program M
The following document is a brochure from Program M targeted to families unfamiliar with
Program M, what services they provide, and how to receive services. All edits to the brochure
have been made to ensure confidentiality of the program and any employees there.

Appendix B
Brochure from Program M about Playgrounds in a City
The following document is a brochure from the Program M office which provides an illustrated
map of playgrounds in one of the cities served by Program M. This is used as a resource for
families to understand what is around them in their community. It was sponsored in part by
Center C.

Appendix C
Brochure from Program M about Supports for Survivors of Abuse
The following document is a brochure from the Program M office which has resources to assist
individuals who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms of
abuse. Resources described include emergency shelter, support groups, court and police
advocacy, and hospital advocacy. This is used as a resource for families to understand what is
around them in their community.


Appendix D
Brochure from Program M about Childhood Milestones
The following document is a brochure from the Program M office which helps families visually
understand normative development for young children. This is used as a resource for families to
comprehend typical development and when to start having concerns about atypical development.

Appendix E
Leaflet from Program M about Typical Development
The following document is a brochure from the Program M office which details many
developmental milestones for typical child development. While like Appendix D and made by
the same organization, Appendix E was picked in addition because of its inclusion of a Spanish
translation on one side. This is used as a resource for families to comprehend typical
development and when to start having concerns about atypical development.


Appendix F
Brief Infant-Toddler Social Emotional Assessment
The following document is a blank copy of the Parent Form for the BITSEA tool. Families can
fill out the front and back of this document and hand it to professionals to score to better
understand their child.


Appendix G
Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up
The following form is a copy of the M-CHAT-R. Similar to the M-CHAT-R/F, this is a brief
look at a child’s behavior and capabilities as a screening tool for Autism Spectrum Disorder. It
includes scoring instructions and next steps based on the scoring.


Appendix H
Early Communication Indicator
The following form is a blank Early Communication Indicator tool. It can be filled out by
various professionals as they work with children and assess their communication development.

Appendix I
About [Center C]: Quick Facts about [Center C]
This is a fact sheet available to families, school districts, and donors who would want to learn
more about the program in brief. It contains information about the services provided, specific
medical diagnoses Center C can care for effectively, as well as licensing information and a map
of the areas served. All edits to this fact sheet have been made to ensure confidentiality of the
center and any employees there.


Appendix J
The [Center C] Gazette
This is a copy of a newsletter which goes out to families a few times a year. It includes articles
written by staff and updates on the children’s activities. It also appears to be written in part for
donors. Ultimately this is a form of communication with members of the Center C community
who do not interact with the center on a frequent basis. All edits to this newsletter have been
made to ensure confidentiality of the center and any employees there.


Appendix K
Staff Newsletter November 9, 2018
This is a newsletter geared for staff members at Center C. This communication helps those
working at Center C stay on the same level of awareness of the events going on as well as
communicate important information that is easiest conveyed through written media. All edits to
this newsletter have been made to ensure confidentiality of the center and any employees there.

Appendix L
The New Hampshire Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities
This document, produced by the state, outlines how IDEA works for the state of New
Hampshire. This selection includes the assessments required for each disability which Part B of
IDEA recognizes as well as who is qualified to perform each assessment.


Appendix M
The Callier-Azusa Scale
This is a portion of a full Callier-Azusa Scale. This is an assessment used to determine a child’s
development. Included in this portion is the table of contents to illustrate the different domains
and sub-categories, as well as the introduction, directions, and one of the sections in full. The
selection is concluded with a blank scoring sheet.


Appendix N
Center C’s Quarterly Review form
This is a blank quarterly review form from Center C. Here each staff member at a quarterly
review meeting will take notes about each of the different areas outlined on the sheet.

Spence Researchprojectfinaldraft1

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Spence Researchprojectfinaldraft1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Running head: YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 1

Young Children with Disabilities: Different Placements, Different Goals, Different

Experiences, and the Same Right to Education

Educ 315: Early Childhood Practicum 2: Observation, Assessment, and Intervention

Placement Setting Research: Program M ....................................................................................... 5

Description of the Program ......................................................................................................... 5

Community, population, and services. .................................................................................... 5

IDEA Research: Part C ................................................................................................................... 7

Description of IDEA Law ........................................................................................................... 7

Special Education Process .......................................................................................................... 8

(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, Program M ................................................................... 8

(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder................................................................ 8

Assessment: Identification and Eligibility .................................................................................. 9

Assessment process. ................................................................................................................ 9

Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA). .................................... 10

Ethical considerations of assessment. ................................................................................... 12

Evidence-Based Interventions .................................................................................................. 13

Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based/Floortime model...................... 13

Speech therapy ...................................................................................................................... 14

Sensory Integration Therapy ................................................................................................. 14

Placement Setting Research, School C ......................................................................................... 15

Description of the Program ....................................................................................................... 16

Community, population, and services. .................................................................................. 16

IDEA Research, Part B ................................................................................................................. 18

Description of IDEA Law ......................................................................................................... 18

Special Education Process ........................................................................................................ 19

(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, School C ..................................................................... 20

(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ................................................................. 20

Assessment: Identification and Eligibility ................................................................................ 20

Assessment process. .............................................................................................................. 21

Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). ........................................................... 22

The Callier-Azusa Scale. ...................................................................................................... 23

Ethical considerations of assessment. ................................................................................... 24

Evidence-Based Interventions .................................................................................................. 25

Social Stories ........................................................................................................................ 25

Break Tasks and Procedures into Lists ................................................................................. 25

Final Reflection ............................................................................................................................. 27

Ideas and Practices that Resonated ........................................................................................... 27

New Understandings and Remaining Questions....................................................................... 28

Growth as a Person, Educator, and Professional ...................................................................... 29

Placement Setting Research: Program M

but on a per diem basis.

Description of the Program

learning and development (Program M, 2018).

Community, population, and services.

children with developmental delays. Services provided include developmental evaluations,

about how best to help their children.

land within the area.

In terms of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model (Swick & Williams, 2006), children

institutionalized racial discrimination, as the region is predominantly and historically white.

IDEA Research: Part C

Description of IDEA Law

plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

Special Education Process

developmental evaluation primarily through conversation with a caregiver about the

(Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention, Program M

(Dis)ability or Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder described by the

impairments to social communication and interaction as well as restrictive and/or repetitive

Assessment: Identification and Eligibility

Admission to services provided by Program M begins when a caregiver in a child’s life

Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA).