ESY Reflection Document: Stephanie Rutledge

I completed by practicum experience at Broadview Thomson Elementary School located in north

Seattle. Students in my ESY classroom all received special education services as outlined by
their Individual Education Plans. Autism was the most represented form of disability. I, along
with a special ed teacher, two FT Instructional Assistants (IA), 1 PT Instructional Assistant, 2 OTs
(one FT and one PT) and a peer STR resident met with students throughout the four week
period, 3.5 hours a day, 3 days a week.

The classroom was average size with a carpet at front, kidney table in the back, computers (4)
on one wall and four rectangular tables in the middle. Three tables were placed outside (along
the wall) to provide additional room for students. Games, manipulatives and books were placed
along the rooms perimeter leaving spaces for students to move and/or work away from other
students. The room was well situated to accommodate the number of students and their
physical needs.

The students were all pre-K or K, ranging in ages from 6-7. The majority exhibited autistic
characteristics in varying degrees exhibiting difficulties in social interaction, verbal and
nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors. In addition, one student has cerebral palsy
and another is blind. Each student had specific ESY goals, aligned with their IEPs. Instruction
consisted of multi-level teaching, tailored, 1:1 enabling students to work in the same subject
areas as their peers with different degrees of difficulty.

Of the autistic students in my class, one (Student B) used gestures, contextual cues and
a language board to communicate. This student was pleasant, played and interacted
with adults and children, was self feeding, but had toileting mishaps perhaps resulting
from his age and communication challenges.

Another student, Student A received 1:1 support from an OT for the full duration of the
ESY program. This student frequently escalated his behaviors by raising his voice,
spinning and move repetitively and repeatedly touching/grabbing other students (until
redirected or removed).

Student Ds behaviors were more subtle and were observable when this student was
challenged or redirected from his current activity or interest. At one time he was
entangled with another student and had to be separated.

The next student, Student C, attends Broadview Thomson during the regular school
year and she, being familiar with the school, frequently ran out of the classroom or
away from the class during lunch, recess and transitions. She later expressed interest in
music (played in the classroom) and began to bond (sit quietly nearby, calmly and
gently) with the other female student (who also enjoyed listening to music). This
student carefully inspected and sniffed food and people and consumed minimal food
during the school day.

Student L was enthralled with a particular computer program and cordless microphone.
At times he needed to be physically redirected and/or restricted to maintain his safety
and the safety of others in the classroom.

Student S, my focal student, demonstrated knowledge of math facts/processes and
reading (decoding) at 4
th
6
th
grade levels, however he did not show evidence of math
fluency or reading comprehension and did not or chose not choose to engage and
communicate his thinking when asked. Student S is highly interested and motivated by
computers, cellular devices and magnetic letters.

Student AZ, communicated predominantly non-verbally, specifically facial gestures and
by attending to contextual cues, completing directives and requests.

Student Z is visually impaired and received services from a Certified Orientation &
Mobility Specialist (COMS). Student Z will be in a general ed classroom in September
and her ESY program was designed to help her prepare socially for full inclusion.
Additionally, she received some braille instruction from her COMS. Student Z is
academically at or slightly above grade level K. With minimal assistance she toilets,
feeds and moves with the use of a cane. My time in the classroom was shared
predominantly with Student Z and Student S. While working with Student Z I learned to
verbalize my thinking and to be completely descriptive.

Lastly, Student N who has cerebral palsy, used a chair and was working on gross and fine
motor skills in addition to grade level phonics/phonemic awareness and number sense.
Student N received dedicated, 1:1 instruction and support from an IA.

The curriculum for each student varied. Each students non-ESY teacher provided ESY goals and
curriculum, work sheets, equipment/tools and recommended texts. The curriculum was
appropriate for each student, however, the goals (numerous and aggressive) seemed
unobtainable in this short ESY period, however, gains were made by many of the students in our
class.

Each morning the teacher began class by guiding the students through attendance, a read aloud
and calendar math. Initially, she dedicated time to instruct students on moving their pictures
from board to board, but later shortened the attendance routine due to the amount of time
required and vacillating student engagement. Similarly the teacher shortened the time spent on
the read aloud by limiting the number of post story questions, and upon completion of counting
the days of the month she reduced and/or eliminated number fluency questions.

Aides were assigned to individual students. Some rotated between students while other aides
wore solely dedicated to one student. Two students, Student D and Student AZ, close to each
other academically and socially compatible were grouped and worked interactively during
certain activities. I completed several lessons (Literacy and Math) with Student S and leveraged
the students love of technology to hook and sustain his interest in several lessons.

Student Ss IEP accurately reflected his abilities, likes, strengths and weaknesses. However, it
did not list the how in how to keep his interest. My learning was to vary the stimuli and
activity approximately every 10 minutes if a technological device is not incorporated into the
lesson.

The teachers primary behavioral management process was to reinforce positive behavior with
tickets. With the high adult to student ratio, aides and interns managed student behavior
individually: redirecting, proximity, wait time and rewarding positive behaviors with tickets,
food or preferred activities. My focal student, Student S was highly motivated by tickets,
however, I was not able to confirm if he understood they were a reward for positive behavior.
He became fascinated with tickets and he kept his bag of tickets (literally in his hand) for the
entire ESY term. The remaining students did not express interest in the tickets and were not
motivated to conform by them. The teacher introduced the tickets to students but their value
and/or the redemption options were not made clear to students. As the summer progressed
most students lost interest in them.

Although the majority of the students were not verbally communicative, the special ed teachers
language was rich in vocabulary and allowed for students to express themselves verbally.
Students need regular exposure to language and academic vocabulary. At first I felt that the
teacher was too wordy and that students were not able to follow her, but my observation was
that her use of language was in line with the general ed environment which these students will
each experience. If I could change something about the ESY experience it would be to limit the
use of excessive language and use consistent phrases and vocabulary.

The student placements met the least restrictive placement requirement per the adult to
student ratio which provided the level of supervision and individualized instruction required for
each student while allowing students to learn in a classroom of peers with varying strengths and
competencies - academic, social and physical. Student Z, who if appropriately social and
academically at or above grade level, sought interaction with the other students. Her prompting
students to engage in dialogue or be communicative encouraged several students to respond
and engage socially which may not have been the case if students were in a more restrictive
environment, i.e. paired with other non-vocal students only and/or solely with an aide for the
majority of the term. Student A is an example of a child who benefitted from the least
restrictive environment. His instruction took place primarily outside the classroom (to minimize
distractions) and he participated in all other group activities (recess, snack, story) with the other
students.

Bumpy and unclear at the onset, especially with a substitute special-ed teacher, our roles and
areas of responsibility were not clear. However, once the special-ed teacher returned and
assessed the needs of each student, their IEP requirements and the competencies of the adults
(aides, interns) we were paired or grouped with students and given full range to manage and
instruct our students during the literacy and math blocks. The special-ed teacher served more
as a consultant and provided input when requested.

From this experience I grew personally, academically, socially, and relationally. This experience
provided evidence that all students possess strengths and abilities and reinforced my role as a
teacher, which is to help students discover, build and grow upon their own talents and
strengths. I learned that time, and critical observations are required to accurately understand
and evaluate a student. I now understand why health care professionals render diagnosis after
multiple incidents of a behavior over a specific period of time. Student Ss engagement and
responses to direct requests varied throughout the day. At one moment he would be
unresponsive and another participating in a conversation using 3-4 word sentences to convey
his ideas. I learned that relationships begin the first day and that time getting to know each
student is critical before accurate assessment is possible. I also learned that environment and
varying forms of sensory output must be provided to accurately assess students. If given only
one way of responding during a lesson, students may not have access to the content or an
outlet to respond. In my classroom I will include multiple formats for students to respond
(kinetic, verbal, written) which is something I observed this summer.