Revisiting Principles of Ethical Practice Using a Case Study Framework

Revisions in 2014

Key to the 2014 revision was recognition of the instructional placement of students with LD across the country. The U.S. Department of Education reported that more than 66% of students with LD spent most of their day in a general education classroom, and an additional 23% spent some of their day in a similar setting (Kena et al., 2014). These data suggested that general education teachers provide a large portion of the instruction received by students with LD. As such, a new population of education professionals should be aware of ethical considerations related to students with LD. Previous versions of CLD’s Principles of Ethical Practice focused on the needs of professionals within CLD, which primarily was constituted of faculty and graduate students in institutions of higher education but also included special education K–12 teachers and administrators. Individuals who do not constitute CLD’s traditional membership increasingly provide services to students with LD in schools; therefore, there is a need to expand our audience related to these principles.

Promoting the ethical standards related to individuals with LD outside of the organization’s membership was a central theme of the 2014 committee. The revisions, presented in the Figure 1, include shifting the responsibility of ethical practices solely from CLD members to other professionals who work with individuals with LD. This change supports the organization’s mission to advocate for individuals with LD. Additionally, CLD’s goals include fostering collaborative networks with and among professionals who serve individuals with LD and expanding its audience to educators, researchers, administrators, and support personnel. Finally, the revisions acknowledge the importance of using culturally responsive practices when working with individuals with LD. By sharing the newly revised standards with other professional organizations, CLD hopes to inform the practice of a wide range of professionals who work with individuals with LD. Similar to the 2008 revisions, the 2014 committee developed five case studies to support the review and dissemination of these revised standards.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

2014 revised Council for Learning Disabilities Principles of Ethical Practice. Reprinted with permission of the Council for Learning Disabilities.

Learning Denied

Rachel Rank, an experienced second-grade teacher, had a diverse classroom of students: five who were English language learners (ELL), three who received special education services, and two who received both ELL and special education services. Ms. Rank often felt stressed about having large numbers of students with special needs in her classroom. This year, a third of her class received some form of support or assistance. Rachel’s preservice teacher preparation program required all graduates to obtain ELL certification. Yet, she was not always clear about how to plan for and provide modified instruction or accommodations to these students. Rachel had not planned to work with struggling learners, yet her classes seem to have an increasing number of this population.

Seeing her struggles, the lead second-grade teacher and principal encouraged Rachel to attend professional development sessions targeting instructional strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse students. However, even after attending several full-day training sessions, Rachel continued to lack the willingness to ensure optimal learning outcomes for her students. Rachel was hopeful she would continue to get by with minimal adjustments to her current second-grade lessons.

Among the group was Yuna, a Vietnamese student whose learning disability in reading was recently identified. Yuna struggled with decoding, which affected her word identification and subsequently her reading comprehension. Ms. Rank handed out a passage and asked students to summarize the story after reading. Yuna and the other ELL students could not complete the assignment independently because of the advanced level of the passage. Ms. Rank’s classroom procedure was to ask peers to assist struggling students by reading the passage aloud. Sam sat next to Yuna and frequently assisted her with her work. “Class, Sam, is going to read the story aloud. This will be a great help to Yuna and the others who are learning our language.”

Later, when Yuna and the other students went to their ELL and special education teachers, they complained about the way Ms. Rank treated them. Specifically, the students expressed feeling frustrated and embarrassed while in their general education classroom. Ms. Figaro, a novice ELL teacher, and Ms. Rosemont, a novice special education teacher, decided to suggest Ms. Rank implement inclusive strategies for her students. Ms. Rank welcomed the suggestions and agreed to have Ms. Figaro and Ms. Rosemont come to her room and coteach some of the reading lessons, saying, “After all, these are your kids!”

When Ms. Figaro and Ms. Rosemont entered Rachel’s classroom, Ms. Rank divided the class into two groups. Yuna and the other students receiving support services were in one group, while all other students were in the second group. Ms. Rank directed Ms. Figaro and Ms. Rosemont to take the students with special needs to the back of the classroom as she handed them the materials that the students had not finished the day before. “You guys can take your students to the table in the back. Here are the materials they have not been able to complete this week. It would be very helpful if you could get them caught up.”

Although Ms. Figaro and Ms. Rosemont were uncomfortable with Ms. Rank’s directions, they did as requested and spent the class period working with the students at the table in the rear of the classroom. As new teachers, they did not want to offend Ms. Rank or perceive her as difficult. However, this was not what they had in mind. After the lesson, the two teachers requested a follow-up meeting during Ms. Rank’s planning period. Ms. Figaro said, “Hi, Rachel! We enjoyed working in your classroom today. We would like to schedule weekly meetings with you so the three of us might plan instruction together. What do you think?” Rachel smiled reluctantly but remembered how pleasing it was to have the extra help in the classroom. Ms. Rosemont continued, “We have found that students with learning challenges benefit from differentiated instruction, coplanning, and coteaching. We also can incorporate principles of universal design in our planning. We have some supplemental materials, like graphic organizers, that we would love to share. All of your students may find them beneficial. Maybe next week we can get together and discuss opportunities for the students to work in a variety of cooperative arrangements.”

Over the next several weeks, the three teachers met during Ms. Rank’s planning period. Ms. Figaro and Ms. Rosemont listened attentively to Rachel’s concerns and ideas and discussed evidence-based approaches for helping students with learning difficulties. When they cotaught in Rachel’s classroom, they modeled effective teaching practices and actively engaged all students in learning. Students began to develop their own strategies for learning and remembering. Ms. Figaro smiled when she heard Rachel discuss the merits of coteaching and her success with diverse learners in the teacher workroom.

New Teacher Woes

Lisa Rodriguez, a fifth-grade general education classroom teacher, was preparing for an upcoming IEP meeting for a student who had a learning disability. Ms. Rodriguez was a 1st-year teacher and recognized the importance of advocating for all students in her classroom. However, Lisa remained a bit hesitant about her abilities to provide appropriate accommodations, modifications, and individualized instruction for her students receiving special education services. When she had questions, she was hesitant to seek assistance for fear of appearing ill prepared by the administration and her peers. Lisa attempted to maintain thorough documentation and paperwork essential to the progress of all students. Unfortunately, she had neglected to collect pertinent data needed for an upcoming IEP meeting. Keeping paperwork organized, attending grade-level and parent meetings, attending to the demand of district testing, and serving as an after-school cheer coach for the neighboring middle school kept her very busy. Though well meaning, she had not been consistent in providing regular interventions and individualized instruction that her students receiving special education and those considered for Tier 2 instruction needed. She knew that data were requested in preparation for and during the IEP meeting, but she was worried that because of her record keeping, there would not be enough information for the committee to make decisions. Surely, this would result in embarrassment and a reprimand by the administration. She vaguely remembered Scott’s results on some of the missing assignments. She decided to fill in some approximate data to avoid any consequences. After all, it is no big deal, right? At least she would appear prepared for the IEP meeting!

As Lisa gathered materials for the IEP meeting before school one morning, her friend Karen Smith entered her classroom. Karen had been Lisa’s high school classmate. They both were excited when Molly, Karen’s daughter, was assigned to Lisa’s class. The two chatted about community news and Molly’s progress. Karen casually inquired about the progress of students in Lisa’s class. As Karen was a longtime friend, Lisa felt there would be no problem sharing information about her students. Their conversation was a natural segue into her frustrations about data keeping. Lisa shared her dilemma related to the upcoming IEP meeting. As she vented her frustration, Lisa revealed her plans to supplement the missing data. Karen seemed so understanding and Lisa felt better after having vented her frustrations to her longtime friend. “It’s hard being a new teacher and it felt good to share this with someone who genuinely cares! Now just enough time left to prepare for this afternoon’s meeting.”

Sunnyside Is Not So Sunny

Rob Evans was a 1st-year school psychologist at Sunnyside Middle School. He had been teaching special education for over 9 years, serving as a resource teacher and an inclusion specialist. Having recently earned his master’s degree, he was excited to begin a new phase in his career. Recently, Rob processed a special education referral for possible LD for Jay, a 12-year-old sixth grader referred for challenges with reading, writing, and math along with some minor behavioral incidents at school. Jay’s elementary school records reflected his struggles during his fourth- and fifth-grade years. These problems were exacerbated by a few behavior challenges that caused him to be suspended twice during fifth grade. Jay came into middle school having performed poorly on last year’s state-level exam and with suggestions from several teachers that he be referred for special education under the category specific LD.

However, during the first 4 months of the sixth-grade year, the Student Success Team (SST) made recommendations for Jay in all subjects, allowing him to have the opportunity for reteaching, small-group test administration, and quiet environments to complete his work. All of Jay’s teachers reported he was maintaining average grades and that he was passing at that time. His teachers generally described Jay’s academic effort and work habits as satisfactory.

Rob observed Jay in class as part of the assessment process. Jay appeared prepared and organized for class and demonstrated an appropriate level of engagement and activity. He worked cooperatively with his peers and responded to the teacher’s requests. During testing, Jay was attentive, able to carry on a conversation, communicated typically for his age, and developed an overall good rapport with Rob. Assessment results suggested that Jay was an intelligent and creative young man. Taking into account individual assessment and classroom data, Rob and the IEP team could not support an eligibility determination. Simply, Jay did not have a learning disability and did not qualify for special education services. Though the fifth-grade file left little doubt that Jay had some problems in previous years, Rob and the school psychologist suspected Jay had matured and that the support he was receiving in sixth grade would have been helpful in fourth and fifth grades. The district behavior interventionist also contributed to the evaluation and noted that Jay’s inappropriate behavior may have been rooted in not being able to keep up with the work and his embarrassment about his performance. Rob was pleased that he would be able to make a favorable report to Jay’s parents.

A few days before the meeting, Rob received a call from Darrell Stevens, Sunnyside’s principal. Mr. Stevens invited Rob to a nearby restaurant after school to see how he was adjusting to his new role as school psychologist at Sunnyside. During this casual meeting, Mr. Stevens shared his pride in the reputation of his middle school. “Sunnyside is a model school. We have strong teachers who prepare our students to perform well on the state-level exam. In fact, we have maintained some of the highest scores not only in our district, but across the state, for the last 5 years. I take personal responsibility for the success of my school.” Rob was aware of the school’s reputation for strong performance and had begun to learn of Mr. Stevens’ “hands-on approach” for managing the teachers, curriculum, and school.

“I’m so glad that you’ve come to be part of the Sunnyside team! I hear you have completed your assessment of Jay. My family and his family have been friends for years. Our boys play baseball on the same team. Jay is quite a third baseman.” He continued by discussing Jay’s academic and behavioral issues prior to coming to middle school. “Regardless of the class, Jay has struggled for many years. This is well documented. You know, everyone would agree that a smaller educational setting for academic instruction would be beneficial. Using all of the data, can’t you simply find an area of weakness that would qualify Jay for special education services?” Without giving Rob an opportunity to respond, Mr. Stevens’ continued, “His test scores are likely to negatively affect Sunnyside. Our reputation and the community’s perception must be considered; this is why I’m so attuned to the referral process.” Mr. Stevens shared his belief that if Jay received special education services, his scores would not be added to the school’s overall scores. “We need to maintain our exceptional status. This is the Sunnyside way.”

Shocked by the conversation, Rob abruptly ended it and noted the need to pick up his children from childcare. He headed home puzzled. Rob could not comprehend that he was asked to place Jay in special education even though no learning disability was evident. He believed in the assessment process and had seen it work many times. Why couldn’t Jay continue to receive support through SST or 504? He wondered if his job was in jeopardy, but the impact of labeling a student erroneously goes far beyond a job. That evening Rob reviewed his notes from his special education law class and pondered the request made by his principal. He decided to go against Mr. Stevens’ request to “beat the system” and misinterpret the assessment results. Instead, Rob planned to follow the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 regulations.

Social Media Meltdown

Donna Knotts, the ELL teacher at Taylor High School, just returned from an energizing conference on incorporating technology into the classroom. She couldn’t wait to try out some of the great tools that she learned! Donna knew that her school had a technology usage policy but, in her excitement, did not take the time to find out what it said. She knew she wanted to use technology to help her students improve their writing skills and build community. The students came from a variety of backgrounds, with varying levels of reading proficiency. However, being high school students, they all seemed to be adept with applications of technology, such as social media, iPad apps, and gaming. Ms. Knotts worked with her students to create a classroom Facebook group to encourage them to build community and experience authentic writing events.

Ms. Knotts used the LCD projector and SmartBoard in her classroom to have the students develop the class Facebook page together. Aya, a student with LD, was extremely engaged in this process and pleased that several of her suggestions were used. Ms. Knotts encouraged all of the students to “like” the page and showed them how to do so, using her personal account as the example. As soon as the bell rang, Aya discreetly used her cell phone to “like” the page and share it with her friends.

Later that evening, Ibrahim Amin, a student in Ms. Knotts’ class, “liked” the class Facebook page, and suddenly, images of Ms. Knotts began popping up on his newsfeed. These images showed her consuming alcohol and engaging in other activities that were not school appropriate. In addition, several of her status updates included comments about students with LD that were descriptive enough such that Ibrahim discerned their identities. A few comments even noted frustrations she experienced from time to time working with her students. His newsfeed also included posts and comments directed toward Aya from other students at the school. These communications were veiled insults that he recognized as bullying, but her responses indicated she was unaware of the intended messages. Ibrahim was offended by Ms. Knotts’ disclosures and upset by the way Aya was treated online. Unsure of what to do, he showed his mom, who was a teacher at the elementary school. Mrs. Amin contacted her principal, who then contacted Mr. Benson, the high school principal, to notify him of the concern. Mr. Benson went online to research the claim before e-mailing Ms. Knotts to request a meeting the next day.

Evidence Based or Not, That Is the Question

Research and education are among the main tasks of university professors, and this was the focus of Dr. Resa Brooks, until she received tenure and promotion. With concentrated effort and a great deal of time spent on research, writing, and presenting at national/international conferences, she was tenured and promoted to associate professor based on her research on learning styles. For the next 15 years, Dr. Brooks developed learning styles assessment inventories and other learning styles materials. She taught undergraduate and graduate courses at her university and provided professional development seminars based on her learning styles work. She was recognized in her local area and was frequently called upon to provide professional development in local school districts.

Recently, her work brought her unwanted media exposure on a local television program. In an early morning interview, one of her junior colleagues, Dr. Abeke Obi, whose research focused on evidence-based instructional strategies, questioned learning styles research. Dr. Obi also had communicated her concerns about their program’s overemphasis on learning styles in a recent department meeting. She called learning styles an urban legend. “There are fundamental problems in regards to both the diagnosis of learning styles and the alignment of instruction to these styles” (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013). “We are mistaken to equate cognitive strengths with learning styles.” She continued by saying, “Searching the research literature for specific empirical evidence on learning styles, you can’t find any support.” Dr. Brooks simply replied, “Students learn better and more quickly when teaching methods match their preferred learning styles. Frankly, our students and local teachers enjoy hearing about learning styles.”

Lakeland ISD, a local school district, had contacted Dr. Brooks with an interest in contracting her to conduct a full-day professional development seminar on inclusive practices for their newly hired teachers. She eagerly agreed to the opportunity and planed to provide a seminar format she had used in many previous professional development sessions. The training would begin with a background on learning styles. Participants would take a learning styles inventory and then break into groups based on styles. She usually used an engaging activity to encourage discussion within the groups about learning styles preferences. Once back in the large group, Dr. Brooks would dedicate the remaining 2 hours to teaching the group about how to teach to various learning styles. As the seminar date approached, Dr. Brooks was contacted by the Lakeland ISD’s central administration, wanting to verify the seminar’s agenda and the research supporting the use of learning styles. Dr. Brooks began to read recent work related to learning styles and found that some researchers had concerns about the validity of learning styles. “Of course they are wrong about this,” she thought. She had an intuitive feeling about learning styles—after all, this had been her life’s work. She communicated with the district that there was sufficient evidence for using learning styles, although she was unable to locate research that clearly supported the practice as evidence based using more recent guidelines. Dr. Brooks delivered her seminar to the Lakeland teachers in her usual format; however, she could hear some of them discussing the validity of learning styles as an evidence-based practice. Some teachers left eager to assess the learning styles of their new class, while others questioned the information provided.