Storey 1 Abbey Storey SPED 426 February 16, 2013 Analyzing a Team Meeting I had the privilege of attending

parent teacher conferences for three students on Thursday February 14, 2013. These meetings were held in our daily classroom and included my cooperating teacher VG, parents of students DP, GW and TM and myself as the student teacher. The goal of each of these meetings was to first provide parents with an update on their students progress with concrete data to show changes. Then each of the meetings took a different path for the remaining time period, showing that they were not static meetings. The second half of student DPs meeting was an update on his health, as he had recently been in the hospital, as well as a discussion of possible future vocational placements, what each job would entail and the probability of his liking or disliking each idea. My cooperating teacher then gave DPs mom an update on social security, PUNS funding and other legal documentation. The second half of GWs meeting was more along the lines of sharing stories about his progress, and then his parents sharing stories of how he spends his free time at home. The second half of TMs meeting was about possible job and volunteer placements and behavior management as well as updates from how he is performing at home. The communication climate of each of these meetings was very different from one another. In DPs meeting, DP attended with his mom. This led to communication being directed more at the student to have him answer questions on his preferences and share some of his progress with his mother. His mother was

Storey 2 very friendly, willing to listen to all possible ideas and changes. She also was proactive, asking for her son to have goals in grooming and lawn care that he can transfer over to his home life as well. Every person in this meeting was relaxed and comfortable in the atmosphere, equally taking time to talk and share ideas. For the entire meeting my role was that of maintenance, chiming in when I had a positive comment on progress, observing the interactions between my cooperating teacher and DP and his mother, and encouraging DP to contribute to the conversation. DP had a role of maintenance as he would observe, but when asked a question he turned to the role of task as he was providing information. My cooperating teacher had a task role as she was providing information on DPs progress and seeking information on his and his mothers opinions of possible vocational placements. DPs mother had both a maintenance and task role as she would observe and listen but also make requests for his goals. During this meeting consensus building occurred in that decisions were made to add goals of grooming and lawn care to DPs IEP and decisions were made on him liking a possible vocational placement at a soup kitchen washing dishes or Goodwill sorting items, but not liking a vocational placement at a Humane Society due to allergies. In GWs meeting, the climate was immediately positive. Both of his parents were able to attend, which I learned was rare. They brought my cooperating teacher flowers for Valentines Day and the father upon meeting me immediately thanked me for what I do. Throughout the whole meeting the climate remained positive, sharing stories about GW and brainstorming ideas for possible clothing options to

Storey 3 help reduce self-touching. Each of us switched between maintenance and task roles as we all went from initiators to listeners and supporters. The last meeting was for student TM. This meeting immediately started out with a very negative climate. His parents came in clearly with built up anger over the years at the school system ready to take it out on someone. This meeting lasted two hours as his mother had many bones to pick and to express her disapproval. Both parents did not make eye contact with my cooperating teacher or myself for most of the meeting, until the very end when the climate shifted to be a little less negative as she began sharing recent good things her son at done at home. The father had a very passive maintenance role observing and keeping to himself. The mother had a very negative role for an hour and a half as she was listing off every negative thing, accusing my cooperating teacher and demanding actions be taken. My cooperating teacher started with a task role of showing data and explaining TMs progress, but then switched to a maintenance role in order to keep the peace and compromise with this very angry and accusatory mother. I had a maintenance role as I was just an observer in this meeting, watching the tension and strategies my cooperating teacher used to aid the situation. Toward the end of the meeting the mother felt calmer about all the issues discussed and began sharing stories of positive instances her son had recently at home. This is when she switched from a completely negative role to more of a task role in sharing the stories. We were able to decide that TM will not keep attending his current job and volunteer placements and were able to brainstorm possible other options for him. We were also able to

Storey 4 conclude that instead of going to the new YMCA, TM will get exercise at the high school track and aquatic center. I observed that each team meeting can have a different tone, length and goal and that in this case, no two parent teacher conferences will run the same. I believe that each of these meetings was effective in that the parents were given concrete updates on their childs progress, were given the opportunity to ask questions, make requests or suggest changes, and every parent left the meeting having said and requested what they came to. My cooperating teacher left each meeting with new ideas and plans for each student on how to make progress on their goals and vocational sites. Effectiveness was gained due to the format of the meeting being open for discussion. I am glad I was able to experience these meetings in that I now know a positive way to run parent teacher conferences and strategies for dealing with unhappy parents.