The madison social relationship inventory



Download 1.26 Mb.
Page18/18
Date31.05.2016
Size1.26 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18

Summary Judgment

Is it your judgment that the supportive companion relationships operative in Regular Education Experience #1 are in reasonable accordance with the values?


Yes
No
Proceed to the next Current Regular Education Experience or to the Summary Judgment Across Experiences on the last page of this component.


Current Regular Education Experience #


Are nondisabled classmates providing support to the student in Regular Education Experience # ?


Yes
No

If "Yes," describe the support provided by nondisabled classmates.



Are the supportive companion relationships operative in Current Regular Education Experience # acceptable?
Yes
No

If "Yes," report why the supportive companion relationships operative in Current Regular Education Experience # are acceptable.



If "No," report why the supportive companion relationships are unacceptable.

Are there supportive companion relationships that should be operative in Current Regular Education Experience # ?
Yes
No

If "Yes," report the supportive companion relationships that should be operative in Regular Education Experience # .





Additional Information

Record additional information that should be considered in the process of determining whether the supportive companion relationships operative in Current Regular Education Experience # are in reasonable accordance with the values.




Summary Judgment

Is it your judgment that the supportive companion relationships operative in Regular Education Experience # are in reasonable accordance with the values.


Yes
No

Proceed to the next Current Regular Education Experience or to the Summary Judgment Across Regular Education Experiences on the last page of this component.



Summary Judgment Across Regular Education Experiences
After studying supportive companion relationships operative in all Current Regular Education experiences, is it your judgment that they are in reasonable accordance with the values or are otherwise acceptable?

Record your judgment on the Social Relationship Summary Chart in the Summary and Preferences Section.



True Friendships
A True Friend is someone you really want to sit next to - you want them to like you - you want to do things with them - you relax in their presence - you talk to them about things you do not talk to others about - you have feelings of warmth and togetherness when you think of them - you like them more - you seek them out - you care extra about what happens to them - you go out of your way to help them - you learn a lot from them - you know that they will be loyal and faithful - you can count on them - you hurt when they hurt - you accept them and they accept you.
The more important the relationship, the more difficulties encountered when trying to operationally define it. Love, beauty, quality, freedom and, the phenomenon of concern here, True Friendship are examples. Few go through life with more than ten True Friends. Too often we do not realize how important they are until we lose them or something bad happens to them.
What is the difference between a travel companion, an eating companion, a teammate, a classmate, a tutor and a True Friend? Wish we knew. A True Friendship is qualitatively more, but we cannot be precise.
Few individuals with severe disabilities have True Friends. In fact, far too many do not even have one. What can we do about it? One strategy is to try very hard to articulate the components of a True Friendship and then attempt to systematically develop them. A second strategy, and the one of choice here, is to focus on a variety of other relationships with nondisabled persons that are likely to be developed with reasonable expenditures of time, effort and other resources. Then, to hope that those relationships develop into True Friendships. If we invest solely in True Friendships and do not get them, we may be left with little. If we develop travel, eating, extracurricular activity, regular education, tutor, after school-weekend and other realizable relationships and do not get True Friendships, we still have much.
True Friendships evolve best when people function in the same environments, share common experiences, spend large amounts of time together, interact frequently, see, hear and taste the same things, have mingled memories and stuff to talk about, feel for one another and understand how each other can think or act the way we do. In order to engender common experiences, an individual with severe disabilities must be involved with nondisabled chronological age peers frequently, over long periods of time and in many settings and activities.
Report the True Friendships of the student. Then report the environments in which they typically function, the days and times per day they typically interact and the factors make the relationship a True Friendship.




Is the number of True Friends the student has acceptable?


Yes
No

If "Yes," report the reasons why.


She/he has about the same number of True Friends he/she would have if not disabled.


If "No," report the reasons why not.
He/she does not have even one True Friend.
Too much of his/her time is spent alone.

Record what might be done to develop True Friendships.




Summary Judgment

Is it your judgment that the True Friendships of the student are in reasonable accordance with the values or are otherwise acceptable?


Record your judgment on The Social Relationship Summary Chart in the Summary and Preferences Section.

V. Summary and Preferences
On The Social Relationship Summary Chart record whether or not the realities of each of the social relationships addressed are in reasonable accordance with the values. In addition, report whether or not each relationship is acceptable under the circumstances, even though the realities may not be in literal accordance with the values. If the status of a relationship is not in accordance with the values or cannot otherwise be justified, it is assumed that it is a candidate for development or enhancement.
If there are meaningful discrepancies between values and social realities, interventions are almost always in order. Thus, Social Relationship Preferences should be recorded by IEP team members in concert with the significant others in the life of the student.

THE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP SUMMARY CHART


Is the Relationship Is the

in Reasonable Accordance Relationship

Relationship with Relevant Values? Acceptable?


Yes No Yes No
Eating
Travel
Tutor
Extracurricular Activity
After School-Weekend
Regular Education
True Friend








PREFERRED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS


Student Relationship

#X Eat with nondisabled classmates at school

#1

#2



#3



#4






PREFERRED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Parents/Guardians Relationship


#X Play with nondisabled peers in park after school

#1



#2




#3



#4





PREFERRED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS


Teachers Relationship


#1



#2




#3



#4



PREFERRED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Significant Other Relationship



­­________________ #1

_______________ #2




_______________ #3



_______________ #4








PREFERRED SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Significant Other Relationship



­­________________ #1

_______________ #2




_______________ #3



_______________ #4








VI. Selecting Relationships for Development

Unfortunately, there will probably never be enough time and other resources to develop all preferred relationships. Thus, extremely important decisions about which to develop must be made. Informed, experienced and concerned individuals will almost always disagree about which are the most important. Nevertheless, IEP team members should use whatever they deem necessary to establish valid priorities.


Report the social relationships selected for development by the IEP team and the significant others in the life of the student and the major reasons why.

Social Relationship #X - Eating with a nondisabled classmate in the school cafeteria

It was selected because:


At this time she eats with Special Education teacher and students with disabilities. This is unacceptable to the student and her family.

Social Relationship #1 -


It was selected because

Social Relationship #2 -


It was selected because

Social Relationship #3 -


It was selected because

Social Relationship #4 -


It was selected because

After specific social relationships have been selected for development, users are referred to the six Madison Social Relationship Development Manuals listed below and in the Reference Section. If an appropriate manual is not available, those involved are encouraged to develop one.


Brown, L., Courchane, G., Paule, K.S., Jorgensen, J., Korpela, N.C., and Keeler, M. (1994). Developing Eating Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Schoolmates. Unpublished manuscript.

Brown, L., Courchane, G., Paule, K.S., Korpela, N.C., Philpott, J., Jorgensen, J., Seiler, L., and Keeler, M. (1994). Developing Travel Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Schoolmates. Unpublished manuscript.

Brown, L., Courchane, G., Paule, K.S., Korpela, N.C., Jorgensen, J., Seiler, L., Philpott, J., Keeler, M., and Udvari-Solner, A. (1994). Developing Tutor Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Schoolmates. Unpublished manuscript.

Brown, L., Paule, K.S., Korpela, N.C., Udvari-Solnar, A., Courchane, G., Jorgensen, J., Philpott, J., and Keeler, M. (1994). Developing Extracurricular Activity Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Schoolmates. Unpublished manuscript.


Brown, L., Korpela, N.C., Philpott, J., Courchane, G., Paule, K.S., Seiler, L., Jorgensen, J., Keeler, M., and Udvari-Solnar, A. (1994). Developing After School-Weekend Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Schoolmates. Unpublished manuscript.

Brown, L., Udvari-Solnar, A., Courchane, G., Paul, K.S., Korpela, N.C., Philpott, J., Jorgensen, J., & Keeler, M. (1994) Social relationship manual. Developing Supportive Companion Relationships Between a Student with Severe Disabilities and Nondisabled Classmates. Unpublished manuscript.


References


Amado, A.N. (1993). Friendships and Community Connections between People with and without Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bennett, J. (1984, November). She deserves better than this. DeKalb County Interactions, p. 1.
Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents, educators, and inclusive education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brown, L., Rogan, P., Shiraga, B., Albright, K., Kessler, K., Bryson, F., Van Deventer, P., & Loomis, R. (1987). A vocational follow-up evaluation of the 1984-86 Madison Metropolitan School District graduates with severe intellectual disabilities. A Research Monograph of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 2, (2).
Brown, L., Schwarz, P., Udvari-Solner, A., Frattura Kampschroer, E., Johnson, F., Jorgensen, J., VanDeventer, P., & Gruenewald, L. (in press). How much time should students with severe intellectual disabilities spend in regular education classrooms and elsewhere. The Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps.

Brown, L., Shiraga, B., Ford, A., Nisbet, J., Van Deventer, P., Sweet, M., York, J., & Loomis, R. (1983). Teaching severely handicapped students to perform meaningful work in nonsheltered vocational environments. In L. Brown, A. Ford, J. Nisbet, M. Sweet, B. Shiraga, J. York, & R. Loomis, (Eds.), Educational programs for severely handicapped students. Vol. XIII, (pp. 1-100). Madison, WI: Madison Metropolitan School District.


Brown, L., Shiraga, B., York, J., Zanella, K., & Rogan, P. (1984). A life space analysis strategy for students with severe intellectual disabilities. In L. Brown, M. Sweet, B. Shiraga, J. York, K. Zanella, P. Rogan, & R. Loomis (Eds.), Educational programs for students with severe handicaps, Vol. XIV, (pp. 23-31). Madison, WI: Madison Metropolitan School District.
Brown, L., Udvari-Solner, A., Frattura Kampschroer, E., Schwarz, P., Courchane, G., VanDeventer, P., & Jorgensen, J. (1991). A strategy for evaluating the vocational milieu of a worker with severe intellectual disabilities. A Monograph of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.

Buchley, J.D., & Bellamy, G.T. (1986). Day and vocational programs for adults with severe disabilities: A national survey. In P. Ferguson (Eds.), Issues in transition research: Economic and social outcomes (pp. 1-12). Eugene: University of Oregon, Specialized Training Program.


Cheney, D., & Foss, G. (1984). An examination of the social behavior of mentally retarded workers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19 (3), 216-221.
Cole, D.A. & Meyer, L.H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25 (3), 340-351.
Daniel, C. (1987, April). Wanted: Just one friend. Parent to Parent, p. 6.
Forest, M. (1984). Education/integration: A collection of readings on integration of children with mental handicaps with regular school systems. Toronto: National Institution on Mental Retardation.
Gaylord-Ross, R. & Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1991). Measurement of work-related outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 25 (3), 291-304.

Hagner, D. C. (1989). The soical integration of supported employees: A qualitative study. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy.


Haring, T. G. (1991). Social relationships. In L. H. Meyer, C.A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 195-217). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hayden, M. F., Lakin, K. C., Hill, B. K., Bruininks, R. H., & Copher, J. I. (1992). Social and leisure integration of people with mental retardation in foster homes and small group homes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27 (3), 187-199.
Kennedy, C. H., Horner, R. H., & Newton, J. S. (1989). Social contacts of adults with severe disabilities living in the community: A descriptive analysis of relationship patterns. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14 (3), 190-196.

Kennedy, C. H., Horner, R. H., & Newton, J. S. (1990). The social networks and activity patterns with severe disabilties: A correlational analysis. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15 (2), 86-90.


Kiernan, W. E., & Bruininks, R. H. (1986). Demographic characteristics. In W. E. Kiernan & J. A. Stark (Eds.), Pathways to employment for adults with developmental disabilities (pp. 21-50). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kregel, J., & Wheman, P. (1989). An analysis of the employment outcomes of young adults with mental retardation. In P. Wehman & J. Kregel, (Eds.), Supported employment for personas with disabilities: Focus on excellence (pp. 257-268). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Rhodes, L., Sandaw, D., Mank, D., Buckley, J., & Albin, J. M. (1991). Expanding the role of employers in supported employment. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 213-217.
Sailor, W. (1988). The educational, social and vocational integration of students with the most severe disabilities. In D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Schalock, R.L., McGaughey, M.J., & Kiernan, W.E. (1989). Placement into nonsheltered employment: Findings from national employment surveys. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94 (1), 80-87.
Shafer, M.S., Rice, M.L., Metzler, M.D. (1989). A survey of nondisabled employees' attitudes toward supported employees with mental retardation. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 137-146.
Stanfield, J, (1973). Graduation: What happens to the retarded child when he grows up? Exceptional Children, 39, 548-552.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1987). On accepting relationships between people with mental retardation and nondisabled people: Towards an understanding of acceptance. Syracuse University, New York, Center on Human Policy, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
Ulrich, M. (1989). Social Relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Van Deventer, P., Yelinek, N., Brown, L., Schroeder, J., Loomis, R., & Gruenewald, L. (1981). A follow-up examination of severely handicapped graduates of the Madison Metropolitan School District from 1971-1978. In L. Brown, D. Baumgart, I. Pumpian, J. Nisbet, A. Ford, A. Donnellan, M. Sweet, R. Loomis, & J. Schroeder (Eds.), Educational programs for severely handicapped students, Vol. XI (pp. 1-177). Madison, WI: Madison Metropolitan School District.
Wisconsin State Journal. (12-18-93) "Girl asks Santa Claus to stop teasing." An article in newspaper.

Additional Contributors


The following made significant contributions to the production of this inventory.

Madison


Mary Fish

Kathy Zornig

Patricia Van Deventer

Cristina Hogetop

Fran Johnson

Jackie McDaniel

Dedra Hafner

Robyn Rynlander

Marian Matthews

Rebecca Finnerud

Linda Brown

Jackie Schmelling

Alison Ford

Ruth Loomis

Lisa Seiler

Jacqueline Philpott












Directory: ~lbrown -> wp-content -> uploads -> 2012


Share with your friends:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page