# data[].attributes.body
Kiersey (1998) believes that “any of us, whatever our temperamental makeup, can be effective leaders, provided that we come to understand our own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of our followers, and provided that we show our appreciation whenever we note our followers contributing their intelligence to our mutual enterprise.” In other words, we cannot inspire or lead change unless we know what we and others are good at and/or what we and others need to improve on, only then, can we work with each other on a common goal. Some of strengths include resilience, determination, and collaboration. Before, I used to believe that objectivity in the way I interacted, collaborated, or supported others was also one of my strengths. However, I am human and as my experience and knowledge has grown, so has my metawareness on how I have some prejudgments that impact and interfere with my ability to support and collaborate with others. Although these are all related, some of my prejudgments include hardship, family upbringing, and socioeconomic status.

If a student has experienced a hardship in their childhood or young adulthood, such as trauma or abuse, I am more likely to help out. If a student has been taught to take care of his family and siblings, or has been parentified, I am more likely to try to give them opportunities that will allow them to feel young and carefree. If they come from a low socioeconomic background, I am more than likely to find resources for the family and the student, so that they may have the same opportunities. Although these may be considered as my own personal fights for equity, at times, they hit such a gray area that they may look like the opposite.

In my school district, all of these components vary depending on which area of Santa Clarita the students live. It is interesting, however, that my school has students from all different areas of Santa Clarita come to one campus which really puts my objectivity to the test. Nevertheless, I believe that with continued self-reflection, metawareness, and collaboration, I can be a more effective leader like Kiersney stated. Essentially, the more I know me and where I stand, the more I can help others around me.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II. Del Mar: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Mueller and Vick (2019), time and time again there has been comments on how to facilitate an effective Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting. However, there has been limited research to back these up. People started to practice “team-based approaches” which gained attention from the public. Data shows the attempt that researchers took to investigate the outcomes of “team planning, collaboration, and problem solving between families and professionals, including pre-meeting with families, establishing and following a meeting agenda, using meeting norms, utilizing lot for off-topic issues, and visual charting for graphic support during team discussion and problem solving” (67).

In fact, their research shows the conflict that some families had with districts due to “IEP meeting flaws.” In other words, due to miscommunication or challenges in the IEP meeting, families and districts were shown to have disputes with one another. Yet, the authors emphasize that is not the fault of the case manager. Instead, the authors comment that the public should be putting more emphasis on finding and investigating effective practices before placing the pressure on the families and the district to create a team approach without giving them a foundation to go off of. Nevertheless, their study determines that an effective way to uphold federal standards and avoid legal repercussions, it is to continue to include families as part of the IEP team by focusing on the student’ needs.

I agree with these authors that it is difficult to hold an IEP and be expected to include parents when not shown how to do so. I am aware that great customer service is a method that one must use with all families. Nonetheless, the method of delivery is unknown. When I first started my current job, I would hold IEPs by following the notes page. Now, I have tried to implement parts of a facilitated IEP into a normal IEP by including an emphasis on strengths. In this scenario, the family and the school goes around noting the strengths that the student has exhibited. Then, the strengths of the student because the awards of the meeting and the areas of improvement is what drives the IEP recommendations. The “Running an Effective IEP Meeting” agenda does not show an emphasis on strengths, but it does show that as a suggestion, for helping partner up with families, is by adding the reference to assistive technology and curriculum approaches under the goals page. Even though it is not a focus on strengths, it does allow all team members to create goals that are based from objective areas of need.

Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2019). An investigation of facilitated individualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster family–professional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 42(1), 67–81. doi: 10.1177/0888406417739677

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like in-service trainings/meetings are beneficial for all staff because it allows the team to bring what they learn from different areas and what each person know to apply it to the population they are working with. For example, Muste (2014) denotes that “teachers focus mainly on identifying the needs for training in relation to class management, on strengthening the knowledge regarding the changes in the educational environment and on constantly pushing their boundaries.” Essentially, teachers strive to do better for their students. What better way to do better by them than by asking your own colleagues that know your population what changes work or not. In my opinion, this method is more effective and easier to apply than any other new method out there, since it has already been tested to work. And above all, it allows the team to identify who is struggling and how one can be helpful. We aim to be helpful to one another but if we do not know how to help, we tend to stay away. Yet, if we realize someone is struggling during a meeting, we are more than likely to help him/her any way we can.

Muste, D. (2014). The attitude of primary school teachers on the need for in-service training program. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.603

# data[].attributes.headline
07/24/19 Hidden Curriculum and Deficit Thinking

# data[].attributes.subject
07/24/19 Hidden Curriculum and Deficit Thinking

# data[].attributes.body
Hidden curriculum is the implicit objectives we teach without meaning to. Hidden curriculum is connected to deficit thinking because we are already blaming their disability or background for their failure and subconsciously not wanting to push them or giving them access to a rigorous curriculum that they deserve. The message we are showing them is that “you cannot do this” or “this is too hard for you to accomplish.” One example of hidden curriculum I have seen in schools has been male vs. female where there are more male authors being read in classes and we might be subconsciously be promoting that “male authors are better than female authors.”

# data[].attributes.body
Regardless of their classification, ELs, SPED, or GATE, in my classroom, I will address my students needs by providing differentiated instruction. Because differentiation aims at proving highly effective teaching, educators goal is to do whatever it takes for students to learn well. Some strategies that I may use to differentiate instruction are wait time (time to process and/or reflect on the question or answer), rephrased questions (questions that meet their level of thinking) or different stems or frames, more examples (especially that connect to their own lives or experiences), proximity (to prompt student’s focus), grouping (i.e. interests, readiness, or modality of learning), choice of assignments (i.e. video, presentation, essay, etc.), and redo tests or assignments (in different mediums). These and many other strategies that focus on differentiating learning will allow me to promote student’s ability to perform, ability to consider others, ability to take positive risks, ability to deal with problems appropriately, but above all ability to be independent thinkers.

Wormeli, R. (2018). Fair isn't always equal: Assessment and grading in the differentiated classroom (2nd ed.). Stenhouse.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to ensure that the students that do not learn the same way that I do are successful, I will implement strategies that go over the same concept but in different modalities. I will use modalities such as visuals, auditory, or kinesthetic and check in for understanding throughout the lesson. I will use this check in for understanding in order to know which students need to be retaught or more support (such as the use of other SDAIE strategies). However, before starting that, I will make sure that I know their prior knowledge in order to activate it and be able to build off of it. My understanding of SDAIE strategies will support this goal of mine by giving me the toolkit from which I can pull from. Not every strategy might work with all students, so I will use SDAIE strategies to differentiate instruction appropriately to their current age and standing with that concept. For example, as professor Sinclair showed us, when questioning, I can use stems or frames that are specially designed for their level of understanding where 1 can mean fill in the blanks, 2 can mean concept explanation, and 3 can mean the differences and similarities between concepts.

Echevarria, J., et. al. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English Language Learners (Second Edition). Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Vogt, M.E. & Echevarría, J. (2008). 99 ideas and activities for teaching English Learners with the SIOP model. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.