Lisa Andresen

EDUW 695
Portfolio Entry #9

Manifest a Professional Code of Ethics and Values

Case analysis forces a person to put aside their own reasons for a decision, put aside their filters
and prejudices and look at the facts; just the facts. Then, decisions are made based on the facts of a
situation rather than what the perceived outcomes should be. A consequentialist decision is one in
which the resulting decision leans to answer the question What will produce the most good? A
nonconsequentialist decision follows the theory that The rule is the rule and we must follow the rules.
It is relatively easy to state facts and then decide if there is a rule to follows. It is the consequentialist
way of looking at cases that complicates matters. In the first case I am the L.D. teacher. I did not want to
retain the student; I did not want the added work. I wanted the student to go to the C.D. classroom to
receive services.
Case example #1: C.U.
Facts:
C.U. is a 6th grade boy currently receiving special education services in the L.D. room. He has an older
sister in high school who has a learning disability, but is not receiving special education services. He has
a younger sister in 4-year old kindergarten that has a slight speech impediment and other learning
delays. Each of the children has a different father and Mom and the three children live with her
boyfriend, Ben, the father of the youngest child. Ben owns a roofing business. Mom works full-time
outside the home, with a rotating schedule. Ben is against using prescription medications and convinced
both C.U. and Mom that he should not take them. Mom wanted C.U. to take them but when working
nights, Ben would not give them to C.U. in the mornings before school. Mom wanted essential oils to be
used but would not send them to school. C.U. is small for his age, but otherwise appears normal for
his age. He wants to fit in, yet lacks many of the social skills for a student his age.
Cole underwent an extensive evaluation at Gundersen Hospital. His diagnosis was mixed, with
the main issues being A.D.H.D., low I.Q. (72) and an anxiety disorder. Suggested interventions for school
are currently being implemented in the L.D. room as well as in his specials classroom: spell/grammar
check, standing desk with foot swing placed close to the teachers desk, sound muffling headset,
frequent breaks; mints and gum, extra time given for tests and given in the L.D. room, hand
manipulatives, tests can be read to him; modified assignments in length/type of question; he may listen
to music when working in the L.D. room, written assignments are submitted via Google docs, he is given
multi-faceted project assignments for science and history and he has a 1:1 Chromebook. Some of his
math and language arts is via on-line games (specific sites) and his main math, reading and spelling are
all given using direct instruction.
Ethical Issue:
Should C.U. receive services in the L.D. room or the C.D. room?

Arguments:
Pro/Move to C.D. Room:
~He is a C.D. kid by I.Q.
~The C.D. teacher has worked with him in the past so they are familiar and comfortable with each other

~The C.D. teacher is a male and it is suggested that he needs more positive male role models
~The C.D. teacher only has 6 students on his caseload; two students share a full time aide. The L.D.
teacher has 12 students and a part time aide.
~The C.D. teacher has more experience teaching students with C.D. The L.D. teachers experience is E.D.
~The C.D. teacher has more time to devote to another student, especially one who will be in the room
2/3s of the day. Academically he would have more 1:1.
~The L.D. teacher wants him to go to the C.D. room. She feels the academics are more important than
the social skills at this point because he is at a grade level equivalency of 1.1 in reading and 1.5 in
math.

Con/Stay in L.D. Room:

~He is currently in the L.D. room for math and English/L.A.
~The only boys in the C.D. room are both younger, non-verbal, and very low functioning. He would not
have any peers to appropriately interact with.
~There are no other 6th graders in the C.D. room.
~Since he is socially active he would have no true peer in the C.D. classroom.
~He wants to stay with his current teacher, the L.D. teacher.
~He does not look or act C.D.
~He has an established routine with the L.D. teacher. Just need to modify the existing schedule to add
science and history.
~Mom and Ben want him to stay in the L.D. room
~Several team members feel moving him to the C.D. room would stigmatize him socially.

Ethical Decision and why:

Cole was placed in the L.D. room for English/L.A., math, science, and history. He has four large motor
sensory breaks added to his schedule. The team decided that even though C.U.s I.Q. was low enough to
be placed in the C.D. classroom, the social skills he would gain by being in the L.D. room with peers
would better meet his needs and I.E.P. goals. The team felt that with a modified schedule the L.D.
teacher could meet his academic needs.
Consequentialist decision on the part of the team

Case example #2: Early Childhood Screening

Facts:
Early Childhood screening took place. Four stations, each run by a special education teacher,
screened a specific area. The cognitive testing station was run by the L.D. teacher, utilizing a scripted
test. The test was published in 1990. Both the L.D. teacher and the Speech and Language questioned
whether or not there was a newer version, but the 1990 printing was the most recent printing. The
questions showed a picture and then asked the student to identify which one of several answer pictures
went with the first to test for relationship comprehension.
At the half-way point the questions gave 3 pictures in the question rather than one. One
scripted question read as such: This picture (picture #1) goes with this (picture #2), just like this (picture
#3) goes with. The student was shown six other pictures: a train, a bus, an airplane, a bicycle, a boat

and a motorcycle. The train, located in the lower right corner, was drawn at an unusual angle and was
difficult to identify. The bus looked like a modern bullet train and was located in the lower left corner.
The first four students identified the bus as the train. After the tester asked the question a second time
and they identified the picture they selected as the train, the tester became concerned that the poor
quality drawing of the train was swaying students to select the bus, which looked like a modern bullet
train. The tester questioned whether or not this specific question was valid and wondered if asking the
question a second time or in a different manner would more accurately reflect a childs knowledge of
relationships in this situation.
Ethical Issue:
Should an ill-drawn picture in a dated screening test be considered valid for screening purposes and if
so, should the tester deviate from the script to verify that a students answer accurately reflects their
knowledge of relationships depicted in a test question?
Arguments:
Pro/Deviate from script in order to reflect student knowledge more accurately:
~The datedness of the test was a red flag
~Poorly drawn depictions made adults question the validity of the test.
~The script deviation did not give the child any information to lead them to a conclusion
~The script deviation meant that the child had to identify all six possible answers and the relationship
between the three question pictures
Con/Read the Script only:
~In order to get accurate results the script must be followed word for word.
~The tests are scientifically created in order to ensure accuracy.
~Keeping to the script ensures that each student receives the same test
~Deviation from the exact wording of the script will result in inconsistency.

Ethical Decision and why:

When students chose the picture of the bus the tester went back to the original three pictures, asked
the student to name the objects (road, car, train track) then asked what went with the track. If the
student stated a train/choo choo the teacher asked the student to name the items in the answers. Most
students then chose the ill-drawn picture of the train rather than the bus.
Consequentialist decision on the part of the tester