Case #1

Situation
The situation involved a special education resource specialist working within a Head Start preschool classroom who had a confrontation with a male adult who claimed to be the father of a student in the class. The class was to go on a field trip and the adult male brought the child to school without a signed permission slip to attend the field trip. The child had recently been returned to the custody of the biological mother after spending approximately one year in foster care. There was no mention of the adult male on the emergency card as someone that could take the child from school or who could act as the legal guardian. The man was inside the classroom when the confrontation took place. The resource teacher explained that because the child did not have a signed permission slip he was not able to go on the trip. The man said he was the father and would sign. The teacher told him that because he was not listed on the emergency card he could not legally give permission. She noticed that the man smelled of alcohol although it was 8:30 in the morning. The man became agitated and began using foul language which concerned the teacher because of the number of parents and young children in the classroom. He assumed a defensive posture and began to step farther into the classroom.

Response
The teacher's response was to step closer to the man to cut off his access to the room. She offered to call the child's mother to have her come down and sign the permission slip, as there was still approximately twenty minutes until the bus left. She apologized for any inconvenience and reiterated that the rules were established to ensure the safety of all children. She again reiterated that she would be happy to call the mother.

Outcome
The man continued to swear, not directed toward the teacher, but in regard to the situation. He refused to have the teacher call the mother, took the student and his younger sister who had accompanied him, and left. He continued swearing as he passed in front of other classrooms and parents and their children as he left the campus.

Reflection
What the teacher said she would have done differently was to have tried to direct the adult outside the classroom to have the discussion. This would have allowed her to separate the adult from the children in the room. It would have allowed other adults and teachers on the campus to observe the conflict and inform an administrator. Taking the adult outside would have allowed the Head Start teacher within the classroom access to the phone to call for assistance if needed.
 
 

Case #2

Situation
The parent of a developmentally delayed preschool student confronted the administrative designee regarding a raised lump on the student's forehead which the parent indicated the child received at school when she walked into a metal support for an overhead awning on the playground. The parent confronted the designee as he was leaving the campus after school hours. The parent was carrying the child and was visibly upset. She was physically agitated, unable to stand still, pacing back and forth as she verbally expressed disbelief that her child could be injured so substantially that she would have to take her to the emergency room to be examined and all the teacher did was send a note home indicating the child had bumped her head. Aside from the lump on the child's forehead she appeared to be fine. The parent continually stepped into the designee's personal space threatening to sue the district, the teacher and the designee. The parent also stated that the incident took place because the student did not have a one-on-one aide. She blamed the designee for this because at a recent IEP meeting the team was not in agreement that the child needed an assistant as the parent had stated she had wanted her daughter to have (so that the child could "go to college").

Response
The designee listened to the parent and asked her to clarify certain issues. He told her he had no knowledge of the situation, but would speak to the teacher and acquire any additional information that obviously was not included in the note. He asked to see the note that was sent home and asked if the parent would be willing to accompany him to the office so that he could make a copy. She consented and he hoped the walk to the office would provide a cooling down period. In the office the parent continued to voice concern about the supervision of her child. The designee assured her that he would look into the situation and would speak with the teacher and instructional assistants in the classroom to insure that when her daughter was outside she would be adequately supervised.

Outcome
The parent left and was still upset, but had calmed down considerably from the initial confrontation. The parent refused to send her child to school. She contacted the Director of Special Education and eventually the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. She expressed the belief that no one would listen to her concerns and she had no where else to turn for help. He informed her that the district wanted her daughter to return to school and he would have the designee call her to see what needed to be done to achieve this goal. The parent wanted to have a meeting with school personnel before having her daughter return. The designee called to schedule the meeting with the parent. She did not attend or was unable to attend several of the scheduled meetings. The designee discussed having the child return during a phone conversation. The parent agreed and had the child returned after missing approximately three weeks of school.

Reflection
The designee reported that he should have called the parent the following day to inquire about the status of the medical exam conducted and to reiterate that he had spoken with the teacher and assistants about safely monitoring her daughter when she was outside. He also should have had the teacher call the parent so she could explain exactly what had happened. He felt that if he had adequately followed up with the parent she would not have felt as if no one was listening to her concerns.
 
 

Case #3

Situation
The situation involved an IEP meeting with the psychologist for the special education preschool program in attendance. The parent of a developmentally delayed child attending a preschool special day class was in disagreement with the educational staff. The parent was in agreement with the child being eligible and was in agreement with the goals and objectives that had been developed. The parent agreed that her child was making progress toward achieving the IEP goals. The parent requested a one-on-one aide for her daughter so she could have someone with her at all times to insure no educational opportunities were lost with her child. She stated that this was necessary because she wanted her daughter to go to college.

Response
The psychologist argued that providing a one-on-one aide would be considered a more restrictive environment. The student needed to develop independence skills and having an assistant would cause the child to become reliant on that individual. She also pointed out that the parent had agreed that her child was making progress in all developmental areas. Because of this, the psychologist stated there was no need for a one-on-one aide. The parent became upset and accused the psychologist of having ulterior motives for disagreeing with her and did not have her daughter's best interest at heart. The psychologist tried to redirect the parent again to exactly what the parent didn't think the school was doing that could be rectified by having a one-on-one assistant. The parent became more defensive and returned to the theme of wanting the best for her daughter and having a one-on-one aide was the only means of achieving this. At this point the psychologist said she was very frustrated with not being able to make the parent understand her point of view. She was also frustrated because the school had placed the student in a district program when originally they had recommended a county placement for severely delayed students. They had purposely kept the class size small and the class had the lowest student-to-teacher ratio in the district. To make a point she stated that she had made a referral to California Childrens' Services for occupational therapy service and then stated "see we do care about your daughter."

Outcome
From there the meeting went further downhill with district personnel telling the parent she could file a complaint with the state and could file for fair hearing. All parties left dissatisfied.

Reflection
The psychologist felt she should have seen that there would be no convincing the parent. It was obvious that the parent was invested in having the one-on-one aide and nothing anyone would say could sway her. The psychologist felt she continued to put the parent on the defensive by continuing to question the parent's rationale when it was obvious the parent did not have one. She also admitted that by adding the comment about the district caring for the woman's daughter was done out of frustration and was the turning point in causing the meeting to deteriorate beyond repair. She determined it was better to stop in the middle of negotiating if there was no chance to go beyond the impasse rather than making the situation worse and destroying the opportunity for compromise in the future.
 
 

Case #4

Situation
A Head Start preschool teacher arrived at her classroom in the morning and noticed several parents standing in a group together with their children. A parent went to the teacher as she was opening her door and informed the teacher that there was going to be a fight. The teacher initially assumed the fight was between two students. After she opened her door several students came into the classroom with their parents who are required to sign them in. Two of the parents were in the midst of a heated argument. It was obvious to the teacher at this point that it was the parents who were ready to fight and not two students.

Response
The teacher verbally intervened by questioning the two individuals to find out the source of the conflict. The women continued to argue and interrupted each other as each one told their side. The conflict resulted because the child of one of the individuals allegedly scratched the child of the other individual. The teacher continued to try to verbally problem solve with the individuals. The women became angrier and began to swear at each other. The teacher's intructional assistant was monitoring the children while they were eating breakfast and were observing the situation. The women then began to hit each other. The teacher stepped between them and tried to hold them apart. At this point she demanded that they both leave her classroom. She told the instructional assistant to call the vice principal.

Outcome
Once outside the classroom the teacher told the parents that fighting at school was not allowed between students or parents. She told them that their children could be removed from the Head Start program and that she could call the police and have the parents arrested. She reprimanded them for the poor example that they were setting for the children. She told them they were teaching the children that if they were unable to solve a conflict it was acceptable to beat someone up. She then told them to go across the street off school grounds if they wanted to fight. The vice principal arrived and the teacher explained what had happened and then she went back to her classroom. The vice principal listened to their story and told them to leave the campus. The students remained in the program and the parents brought their children to school the following Monday and there were no further incidents.

Reflection
The teacher said in reviewing the situation she would have tried to get the individuals involved out of the classroom much sooner than she had. Part of the problem was that it took her quite a while to deduce what the argument was actually about. By that time tempers had escalated. She also said she would have called an administrator sooner so that she could have been with her class. She regretted telling the two to go across the street and fight, but by that point she said she was so disgusted with the parents and the ridiculousness of the situation that she spoke without thinking.