STAFF DEVELOPMENT
mixhael.daaha
Module7StaffDevelopmentModule-GradingVersionsum201.pdf
Staff Development Module
1
ELAD 6423 Special Education Law
Staff Development Module
DIRECTIONS:
In Module 7, the graduate candidate will develop and present a staff development (otherwise known
as professional development) program for classroom teachers that relates to IDEA and the High
Impact Law Cases of Special Education. You are to focus this presentation on the key components of
IDEA as well as the law cases that you studied in Module 6. During the presentation, you will give an
overview of the key components of IDEA. You will also give an overview of each law case and
discuss how the ruling impacts general educators when serving students with IEPs. The activity
should be organized in a fashion that will allow you to present it in one hour or less. You are to make
the actual presentation of your program to teachers in your building. It is suggested that you arrange
the presentation through your building principal. Your site-based mentor for this program is required
to attend and to sign a verification form. The verification form will be submitted with the other
module documents. Use the verification form provided in this document. Candidates will also be
required to develop and give an exit survey about the presentation to the participants. A copy of the
exit survey will be submitted to blackboard.
This module must include the following components:
1. Announcement of the Staff Development Activity
2. A completed participant sign-in sheet (must be scanned and submitted as part of the
assignment)
3. An agenda
4. A “hand-out” that provides information to participants (you may use the information from
Module 6 for this). This may not be a printed version of the power point.
5. A PowerPoint Presentation that is used for talking points
6. Reflection: Provide the answers to the following questions within a narrative:
What did you learn from completing this assignment?
Based on the obtained results from the exit survey and experience gained from this module,
what would you change in regard to your planning and presenting of the information?
How will this knowledge and experience impact students with exceptionalities, you, and others
in the profession?
7. Mentor Verification Form
8. A copy of the exit survey to be given to the participants in order to provide you feedback about
the presentation.
The following laws and cases will be discussed in your presentation:
Central Issue
IDEA Special Education Services
When discussing IDEA, include the explanation of the following
Staff Development Module
2
terms and what IDEA expects of both special education and general
education instructors in each of the following areas. The description
should be paraphrased and not include legal language that a
non-special educator would understand.:
• Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
• Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
• Inclusion
• Individualized Educational Program (IEP)
• Extended School Year Services (ESY)
• LRE in Nonacademic Settings
• Private School Settings
1. BOE of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Placement
2. Doug C. v. Hawaii Parental Involvement
3. Larry P. v. Riles Racial Profiling
4. Deal v. Hamilton County BOE IEP
5. Florence County School District 4 v. Carter Private Schools
6. Hartman v. Loudown County BOE Discipline/LRE
7. Honig v. Doe Dangerous IEP Students
Within Honig V. Doe, include the explanation of the following terms:
• Short Fixed-Term Suspensions
• Accumulated Suspensions
• In-School Suspensions
• Expulsions; Long-Term Suspensions
• Interim Alternative Setting
• Home-Bound Settings
• Stay-Put
• Manifestation Determination
• Functional Behavioral Assessment
8. Doe v. Withers Punitive Damages
9. Clyde K. v. Pauyakkup School District BD/ED Placement
10. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro Related Services/Health
Care
Staff Development Module
3
Submitting your work:
Upon completion of the staff development activity, the eight components are to be submitted into
Blackboard. If possible, you should submit them in one document. It may be necessary for you to
submit in separate documents…especially the participant sign-in sheet, verification form and
power point.
Verification form and Rubric are below
Staff Development Module
4
MENTOR VERIFICATION FORM
ELAD 6423 SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
This form verifies that _________________________________ conducted a staff development (Print Name of Graduate Student)
activity for his/her colleagues about the High Impact Laws of Special Education. The graduate
student addressed all topics listed in the guidelines for the staff development project for ELAD 6423-
Special Education Law. The staff development activity was conducted in my presence.
Mentor Comments:
___________________________ ___________________________ Name of Mentor (please print) Graduate Student Signature
________________________________ ________________________________
Mentor Signature Date of Presentation
Staff Development Module
5
Staff Development Module Rubric
RUBRIC The Graduate Candidate: CRITERIA EXEMPLARY
5 points
ACCEPTABLE
4 points
UNACCEPTABLE
0-3 points
1.
CEC Standard
6.2
IGC-IIC 6 K3
Major
Legislation
Uses foundational
knowledge of IDEA and
current issues to provide
guidance/information to
the general education
teacher regarding their role
in serving individuals with
exceptionalities [e.g.,
provides a clear, accurate
and detailed explanation of
IDEA and its components]
Uses foundational
knowledge of IDEA and
current issues to provide
information to the general
education teacher [e.g,
provides a general
overview of the law but
does not include the role
of the general education
teacher].
Fails to use accurate
foundational knowledge of
IDEA and current issues to
provide information to the
general education teacher
[e.g, provides a general
overview of the law but
does not include the role of
the general education
teacher].
2.
Special
Education
Process and
Procedures
CEC Standard
6.1
ICSI 6K6
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Hendrick Hudson v.
Rowley case (to include
issues, assurances, and due
process rights related to
assessment eligibility and
placement within a
continuum of services) and
leads a discussion on how
the outcome impacts
special and general
education teachers when
serving students with
IEPs.
Presents an accurate
overview with information
about Hendrick Hudson
v. Rowley case (to include
issues, assurances, and due
process rights related to
assessment eligibility and
placement within a
continuum of services).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about
Hendrick Hudson v.
Rowley.
3.
Role of
Families
CEC Standard 6
ICSI 6 K7
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Doug C. v. Hawaii case
(to include the role of
families in the educational
process) and leads a
discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Doug C. v. Hawaii case
(to include the role of
families in the educational
process).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about
Doug C. v. Hawaii case.
4. Presents a clear, accurate Presents a clear, accurate Presents an unclear and
Staff Development Module
6
CEC Standard
6.3
IGC-IIC 6 K7
Diversity
and detailed overview with
information about the
Larry P. v Riles case (to
include diversity as a
complex human issue that
can interact with the
delivery of special
education services) and
leads a discussion on how
the outcome impacts
special and general
education teachers when
serving students with
IEPs.
and detailed overview with
information about the
Larry P. v Riles case (to
include diversity as a
complex human issue that
can interact with the
delivery of special
education services).
inaccurate overview with
information about
Larry P. v Riles case.
5.
Planning of the
IEP
CEC Standard
7.3
ICSI 7 K2
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the Deal
v. Hamilton County BOE
case (to include the roles
of individuals with
exceptionality, families
and school and community
personnel in the planning
of an IEP) and leads a
discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the Deal
v. Hamilton County BOE
case (to include the roles
of individuals with
exceptionality, families
and school and community
personnel in the planning
of an IEP).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about
Deal v. Hamilton County
case.
6.
FAPE
CEC Standard 6
IGC-IIC 6 K8
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Florence County School
District 4 v. Carter case
(to include providing
FAPE in the least
restrictive environment)
and leads a discussion on
how the outcome impacts
special and general
education teachers when
serving students with
IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Florence County School
District 4 v. Carter case
(to include providing
FAPE in the least
restrictive environment)
and leads a discussion on
how the outcome impacts
special and general
education teachers when
serving students with
IEPs.
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Florence County School
District 4 v. Carter case.
7. Presents a clear, accurate Presents a clear, accurate Presents an unclear and
Staff Development Module
7
LRE
CEC Standard 6
IGC-IIC 6 S2
and detailed overview with
information about the
Hartman v. Loudown
County BOE case (to
include the ethical
responsibility to advocate
for appropriate services for
individuals with
exceptionalities) and leads
a discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
and detailed overview with
information about the
Hartman v. Loudown
County BOE case (to
include the ethical
responsibility to advocate
for appropriate services for
individuals with
exceptionalities).
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Hartman v. Loudown
County BOE case.
8.
Discipline and
Dangerous
Students
CEC Standard 6
ICSI 6 K2
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Honig v Doe case (to
include the laws, policies
and ethical principles
regarding behavior
management planning and
implementation) and leads
a discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Honig v Doe case (to
include the laws, policies
and ethical principles
regarding behavior
management planning and
implementation).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Honig v Doe case.
9.
Legal
Responsibilities
of Educators
CEC Standard 6
ICSI 6 K4
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the Doe
v. Withers case (to
include the legal
responsibilities of general
educators working with
individuals with
exceptionalities) and leads
a discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the Doe
v. Withers case (to
include the legal
responsibilities of general
educators working with
individuals with
exceptionalities).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Doe v. Withers case.
10. Presents a clear, accurate Presents a clear, accurate Presents an unclear and
Staff Development Module
8
Continuum of
Placement and
Services
CEC Standard 6
IGC-IIC 6 K5
and detailed overview with
information about the
Clyde K. v. Puyallup
School District case (to
include an understanding
of a continuum of
placement and services
available for individuals
with exceptionalities) and
leads a discussion on how
the outcome impacts
special and general
education teachers when
serving students with
IEPs.
and detailed overview with
information about the
Clyde K. v. Puyallup
School District case (to
include an understanding
of a continuum of
placement and services
available for individuals
with exceptionalities).
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Clyde K. v. Puyallup
School District case.
11.
Related
Services and
Specialized
Healthcare
CEC Standard 6
IGC-IIC 6 K6
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Irving Independent
School District v. Tatro
case (to include laws and
policies related to
provision of specialized
healthcare in educational
settings) and leads a
discussion on how the
outcome impacts special
and general education
teachers when serving
students with IEPs.
Presents a clear, accurate
and detailed overview with
information about the
Irving Independent
School District v. Tatro
case (to include laws and
policies related to
provision of specialized
healthcare in educational
settings).
Presents an unclear and
inaccurate overview with
information about the
Irving Independent
School District v. Tatro
case.
EXEMPLARY
9-10 points
ACCEPTABLE
7-8 points
UNACCEPTABLE
0-6 points
12.
Written
Presentation
Skills
CEC
STANDARD
6.5
ICSI 6 S12
Engages in activities that
promote advocacy and
mentoring; provides
evidence of written
presentation skills
(informational sheet to
participants identifying
topics of discussion is
detailed, and accurately
addresses all required
information).
Provides evidence of
written presentation skills
(informational sheet to
participants identifying
topics of discussion).
Provides little if any
evidence of written
presentation skill (fails to
provide informational sheet
to participants and/or
informational sheet is
inaccurate, and/or fails to
address required
information; unorganized.)
13.
Oral
Presentation
Skills
CEC Standard 6
ICSI 6 S4
Conducts professional
development activities in
compliance with
applicable laws and
policies [as evidenced by:
Presentations utilize talking points and
discussion and are highly
organized; clearly
Conducts professional
development activities in
compliance with
applicable laws and
policies [as evidenced by:
Presentations utilize talking points; power point
is present].
Conducts professional
development activities that
are inaccurate and/or
unorganized; little
evidence of utilization of
talking points in compliance with applicable
laws and policies.
Staff Development Module
9
addresses all required
court cases and terms;
power point is present].
EXEMPLARY
5 points
ACCEPTABLE
4 points
UNACCEPTABLE
0-3 points
14.
Participation in
Professional
Activity
CEC Standard
6.4
ICSI 6 S2
Participates in professional
activities and learning
communities [as
evidenced by: provides
written announcement of
activity; provides sign-in
sheet; develops agenda;
provides; conducts
evaluation of PD].
Participates in professional
activities and learning
communities [as
evidenced by: provides
written announcement of
activity; provides sign-in
sheet; develops agenda].
Fails to participate in
professional activities and
learning communities
and/or PD is poorly
executed.
15.
Reflection
CEC Standard 6
ICSI 6 S11
Reflects on one’s practice
to improve instruction and
guide professional growth
[as evidenced by: provides
detailed reflections that
provide support for beliefs
that relate back to
standards; addresses all
required components in
the reflection guidelines in
a detailed manner].
Reflects on one’s practice
to improve instruction and
guide professional growth
[as evidenced by: provides
reflections that provide
support for beliefs;
addresses most required
components in the
reflection guidelines.]
Either fails to provide
reflections or reflections
are poorly developed.
EXEMPLARY
15 points
UNACCEPTABLE
0 points
16. Verification
Form
Mentor Verification Form
is Present
Mentor Verification Form
is Not Present
