84 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 35/NO, 2/2001/PP. 84-91 Making Time: A Teacher’s Report on Her First Year of Teaching Children with Emotional Disabilities Vietoria MacDonald and Deborah L. Speece, University of Maryland ‘We describe the challenges faced by the frst author during her first year teaching children identified as emotionally disturbed. In adition to academic diversity and behavioral challenges of the children, there were also issues related to working with a team of special educators and being the newcomer ‘These issues included instructional time, behavioral management, and decision-making. Implication for children and teacher education ae discussed, ‘Teaching was not my first career path, I chose to return to col- lege after 20 years in the field of real estate sales and man- agement, which made me a nontraditional first-year teacher, This gave me a unique perspective on my first year of teach- ing, perhaps because of my maturity and life experiences, My desire to return fo school and change careers was not a quickly ‘conceived, midlfe-crsis decision. My interest in teaching began many years earlier when my own children were in elementary school and diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD). At first, it was overwhelming to have two children with LD. My lack ‘of knowledge about LD was the catalyst for me. Eventually f realized that I wanted to become a special educator. This de- sire was not turned into a reality until many years later, when iy children were almost grown and I could return to schoo! as a full-time student. My training was at the University of Maryland at College Park, College of Education, Department of Special Education 1 was with great anticipation and just a little trepidation that I returned to college after so many years away from the class- room, We were faced not only witha full courseload each se- ‘mester, but also with 3 years of practicum placements with ‘demands of their own. The practicum placements, however, ‘were well-conceived and provided valuable experiences in a ‘variety of settings. This was in itself a preparation for student teaching. [ approached each course as a tool to help me un- derstand children and their disabilities better. It was like a box of secrets slowly opening before my eyes. The best part, how- fever, was that from the first moment I stepped into areal class- room with real children and real needs, I knew I was in the tight place. Despite the demands, I found my undergraduate ‘studies to be relevant, interesting, and an excellent foundation, My student teaching experience was in an Intensity Five, self-contained special education classroom for children with ‘emotional and learning disabilities, These are usually referred to.as ED (emotional disability) classrooms. tensity refers to the level of restrictiveness of the classroom in relationship to the Least Restrictive Environment mandate in the Individuals ‘with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, with each level becoming more restrictive. Intensity 6, a es- ‘dential placement, is the most restrictive. My student teach- ‘ng program provided small class size, therapeutic component, and a crisis intervention team. After a successful stuclent teaching experience I accepted an offer of employment ar the same school for several reasons. First, I believed strongly in the necessity of a therapeutic component for children at this intensity level, and this program was exceptionally well- conceived. The therapeutic or counseling component is a re- lated school service for children with emotional disabilities, In addition to the usual related services, the program at my school included individual and family counseling, psychiatric consultation, and crisis intervention. ‘Another reason for returning to the school where I com: pleted student teaching was that I wanted to follow my stu- ents to see if they were making academic and behavioral progress. Finally, I felt that the whole teaching therapeutic team at the school was dedicated and worked together as aco- hhesive unit. The majority of the teachers hud less than 3 years” experience and I felt this would make for an energetic, en- thusiastic group. So it was with a knowledge of the school, the program, the personnel, and most important, many of the same students that T entered my first year of teaching. During the first 2 months of school I encountered sev- ‘ral disappointments that led to discussions with Dr. Deborah Speece, one of my professors at the University of Maryland, needed to anchor myself by discussing my teaching experi- ‘ences and disappointment with someone I respected and who ‘Address: Deborah Sheece, Department of Special Eduction, 1308 Benjonin Bulding, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; emai dgpeccetes snd ed‘THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 35/NO, 2/2001 85 ceame from the perspective of best practice for the student, (Over the course of these early conversations, Dr. Speece co- incidentally discussed with Dr. Douglas Fuchs his interest in special issue on first-year teachers for The Journal of Special Education. We accepted Dr. Fuchs’s invitation to pursue an article, and I began keeping prospective notes and a journal ‘of my experiences. The School Setting ‘The school was located in a moderate to low socioeconomic ‘area, but the children for my special education class were bused from other areas of the county. The school was moder- ately well maintained. The special education program was housed in a wing of the general education elementary school ‘and physically separate from the rest of the school. Our wing consisted of a hallway that included four large classrooms, ‘one of which had been converted to offices and a crisis inter- vention room. This hallway connected to the main hallway of the school but had a separate exit. The children could enter the hallway from the bus in the morning and go directly into their classroom. Other rooms and offices were used in other ‘areas of the building, but the main classrooms were isolated from the rest of the school The Staff ‘The staff in the wing consisted of six full-time teachers, two Clinical social workers, two full-time crisis intervention spe- cialists, a full-time wing coordinator, five full-time instruc~ tional assistants, a part-time secretary, and a psychiatrist who ‘was shared with other sites. Five ofthe six teachers were cer- fied, held degrees in special education, and chose to work ‘with this population, The other teacher was not certified, held a degree in sociology, and mainly provided the social skills instruction. None of the instructional assistants were college ‘graduates, though most were working on an undergraduate de- ‘gree (not necessarily in education). The wing coordinator was also a special educator with considerable experience in this ‘area of special education, Both members of the erisis inter- vention team held college degrees. This staffing provided a low teacher-to-student ratio, crisis support, counseling, and psychiatric consultation. In my classroom T had one, some- times two, instructional assistants; I began the year with six students on my homeroom roster. The instructional assistants floated among classrooms. For each class T taught 1 might hhave two assistants, but different ones a different times. I also shared my classroom with the social skills instructor. ‘We had weekly team meetings that were facilitated by the wing coordinator, The team had the ability to set the amount of time allotted for each class, class. placement, teacher assignments, special activities, field trips, and weekly outings. The needs and concerns of staff, behavioral issues and problems, family and emotional issues of the students, academic issues, and profiles of new students were also dis- cussed, The team meeting was also the forum for a scheduled progress report on each child in the program. ‘There was a camaraderfe among the staff, and we often ‘met for social outings. The staff was designed to function as a team, and mectings were held every Tuesday aftemoon and other times as needed. The mix of professional meetings and social outings helped to bririg the team together and remove some of the pressure that resulted from working with one of the most difficult populations in special education. The Children “The maximum numberof chien inthe wing was 35. The num- ber at any particular time varig as children changed placements (ex. hospitalization, residential placement) and nev children enrolled. Children’s ages ranged from 6 to 12 years, and 75% of the children were African American, Most of the children (00%) were boys. All of the children were diagnosed as being emt diagnosed as. having_attention-deficithyperacti 9, two children were categorized as having Pervasive Developmental Disorder and one as Mildly Mentally Retarded/Autstic. The chien were primarily from poverty- level and lower socioeconomic status homes. All of the children placed in this level of special edu- cation services demonstrated severe antisocial behavior and aggression. Aggressive behavior generally is considered a ‘major component of a larger class of externalizing behavior disorders that characterize students with ED. ‘This aggres- sive behavior includes physical or verbal attacks on other people, destruction of property threats, stealing, lying, tru- ancy, fire setting, and yelling (Farmer & Farmer, 1996), Gadow (1990) found that children with ED often misinter- pret social cues, fail to adjust to the needs of their listener, and exhibit less politeness and/or persuasiveness in their in- teractions Children with ED often experience concomitant psychi- aurie conditions such as depression, attention deficits, conduct disorders, and substance abyse (Maag & Katsiyannis, 1996). ‘Also they may present behaviors that adversely affect theit educational performance notonly academically, but also in so- cial, vocational, and interpersonal domains (Maag & Katsiyan- nis, 1996), Programs that inelude services such as counseling, psychiatric consultation, an erisis intervention address the child's need to be supported emotionally So a to be available for academic instruction In addition to these characteristics, our children exhib- ited other overt behaviors that included explicit sexual ses- tures, refusal to follow dirgctions, attempts to leave schoo! property suicide threats, and other types of inappropriate, dis- tracting, and sometimes dangerous behavior. Even with one, and sometimes two, instructional assistants in the classroom and a criss team availabe, it was rare that a class period was uneventful. It was absolutely necessary that each inappropri- ate behavior be dealt with quickly, effectively, and appropri-‘86 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 35/NO, 2/2001 ately in order to keep the balance of the class on task and en- gaged. Itbecame very clear, immediately, tha the best offense against inappropriate behavior in the classroom was to keep the class actively engaged in work that was interesting to the students. This was not an easy task, given the diversity of the classroom, Reality ‘My Classroom Although I felt exceptionally well prepared, my first year of teaching was full of surprises and disappointments. During student teaching you are supposed to take over the classroom, and do, but itis sill under the guidance of the certified teacher and your university supervisor. On the first day of school in September you become the certified teacher, and everyone is looking to you for answers, decisions, and guidance. Even though I came from a previous career where I made business decisions and supervised other personnel and had raised two children as a single parent, it was still daunting to be faced with this responsibility. Like most new teachers, I found my- self in my classroom long before school began in the mom- ‘TABLE |. Teaching Schedule ing and Jong after the children had gone home in the after- noon. There were curricula to lear, solutions to behavior problems to ponder, papers to grade, lessons to plan, and a classroom to keep organized, interesting, and user friendly ‘As a new teacher [fretted about how I was going to or- chestrate coming to the end of the curriculum and the school year atthe same moment. Children were lacking prerequisite basic skills that had to be retaught before introduction of a ‘new skill, The abilities of the children in this program also ‘covered a wide range. All of the children had learning dis- abilities in addition to emotional disabilities, and many had language disorders. Within any one class it was usually nec- essary fo form three, and sometimes four, groups based on the abilities and emotional needs of the students, even though class sizes usually ranged from 6 to 10 students. My home- ‘oom class was a fourth- and fifth-grade combination, None of these students were on grade level in any area. Three of the Students were mildly autistic and functioning on first- and second-grade academic levels. The others in this group were ‘on about a third-grade level. Most of the students were diag nosed with ADHD and received medication, One of the defin- ing characteristics of ADHD isa persistent pattern of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity (Runnbeim, Frankenberger, & Period No. minuces Subject n Ability grade Age September-January 1 0 Homeroom 6 ka 10-1 2 20 Planning 3 35 Primary math 0 12 68 4 45 Language ans 6 Ka 10-11 8 35 Intermediate math 7 24 10-11 6 o Lunch & rooess 7 45 Social studies 6 Ka 10-41 8 0 ‘6h-grade math 9 +6 m2 ° 2» Social skis 6 1 1041 0 20 Actvityreinforeement 10-1 February-June 1 30 Homeroom 6 K3 1-1 2 %0 Planning 3 0 Gth-grade language 9 m2 4 oo Lunch & recess 5 45 Science & social studies 6 Ka lou 6 45 Sth-grade math 5 2s lou 7 35 Actvityreinforcemen 6 NA tou