Creating an ELA summative assesment.
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Creating an ELA summative assesment.
Please view attachment!! APA Style **files (1)** – ## Assignment3Unit.docx **## Assignment3Unit.docx** **RED 567** **Assignment #3** **Using The Scaffolded Reading Experience to Develop a Content Area Unit** **Directions:** Develop three 50-minute lesson plans from a unit that integrates reading and…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Please view attachment!!
APA Style
**files (1)**
– ## Assignment3Unit.docx
**## Assignment3Unit.docx**
**RED 567**
**Assignment #3**
**Using The Scaffolded Reading Experience to Develop a Content Area Unit**
**Directions:**
Develop three 50-minute lesson plans from a unit that integrates reading and writing in a secondary school classroom subject area. The unit should cover one topic and the lesson plans should build on each other. Use The Scaffolded Reading Experience (PP. 426 – 437) as a guide for developing before, during, and after reading/writing activities (ILA Standard 1.2)
Address each of these elements: Topic Standards:
Florida B.E.S.T. Standard(s)
[https://www.cpalms.org/Homepage/BEST_Standards.aspx](https://www.cpalms.org/Homepage/BEST_Standards.aspx) that the lesson addresses (write the grade, content, indicator – ex.
_5.R.2.1 and the standard statement_): Retrieve the B.E.S.T Language Arts standards and choose the suitable standards for your unit. Objectives
Grade Level
Prior knowledge of students
Materials
Procedures to follow in detail
(ILA Standard 2.1)
Address accommodations for ELL/special needs students (ILA Standard 4.1)
Include a detailed assessment strategy for each day and explain why they used (ILA Standard 3.1) See Appendix A Lesson Plan Template
**Scoring Rubric for Assignment #3**
| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **Element** | **Not Met** | **Met** | **Exceeded** |
| Points | 0 – 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the major theoretical, conceptual, historical and evidence-based aspects of writing development, writing processes, and<br>foundational skills and their relationships with other aspects of literacy (ILA<br>1.2) | The candidate did not develop 3 adequate 50minute lesson plans for a topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, and/or did not use The Scaffolded Reading Experience strategy. | The candidate developed 3 acceptable 50-minute lesson plans for a topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, using at The Scaffolded Reading Experience strategy. | The candidate developed a superior 50-minute lesson plan for a subject area topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, using The Scaffolded Reading<br>Experience strategy. |
| Points | 0 – 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates use foundational knowledge to design, select, critique, adapt, and evaluate evidence-based literacy curricula that meet the needs of all learners (ILA<br>2.1) | The candidate did not design 3 lessons that included clear objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and assessment strategy. | The candidate designed 3 lessons that included clear objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and assessment strategy. | The candidate designed 3 comprehensive lessons that included objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and a detailed assessment strategy and why it is being used. |
| Points | 0 – 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Candidates demonstrate knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction. (ILA Standard 4.1). | The candidate did not provide<br>accommodations for ELL/special needs students. | The candidate provided accommodations for ELL/special needs students. | The candidate provided several<br>accommodations for ELL/special needs students. |
| Points | 0 – 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Candidates understand the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations (including validity, reliability, inherent language, dialect, cultural bias), and influences of various types of tools in a comprehensive literacy and language assessment system and apply that knowledge to using assessment tools. (ILA<br>Standard 3.1) | The candidate did not provide an appropriate assessment strategy. | The candidate provided an appropriate assessment strategy in detail. | The candidate provided more than one appropriate assessment strategy and discussed why it was chosen. |
| Total Possible Points | | | 30 |
Due Week 6
Total Points: 30 Points will be deducted for the following:
Late submission: -1 point per day
Excessive spelling, mechanical and/or grammatical errors Incorrect APA format
**## Assignment3Unit.docx**
**RED 567**
**Assignment #3**
**Using The Scaffolded Reading Experience to Develop a Content Area Unit**
**Directions:**
Develop three 50-minute lesson plans from a unit that integrates reading and writing in a secondary school classroom subject area. The unit should cover one topic and the lesson plans should build on each other. Use The Scaffolded Reading Experience (PP. 426 – 437) as a guide for developing before, during, and after reading/writing activities (ILA Standard 1.2)
Address each of these elements: Topic Standards:
Florida B.E.S.T. Standard(s)
[https://www.cpalms.org/Homepage/BEST_Standards.aspx](https://www.cpalms.org/Homepage/BEST_Standards.aspx) that the lesson addresses (write the grade, content, indicator – ex.
_5.R.2.1 and the standard statement_): Retrieve the B.E.S.T Language Arts standards and choose the suitable standards for your unit. Objectives
Grade Level
Prior knowledge of students
Materials
Procedures to follow in detail
(ILA Standard 2.1)
Address accommodations for ELL/special needs students (ILA Standard 4.1)
Include a detailed assessment strategy for each day and explain why they used (ILA Standard 3.1) See Appendix A Lesson Plan Template
**Scoring Rubric for Assignment #3**
| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **Element** | **Not Met** | **Met** | **Exceeded** |
| Points | 0 – 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the major theoretical, conceptual, historical and evidence-based aspects of writing development, writing processes, and<br>foundational skills and their relationships with other aspects of literacy (ILA<br>1.2) | The candidate did not develop 3 adequate 50minute lesson plans for a topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, and/or did not use The Scaffolded Reading Experience strategy. | The candidate developed 3 acceptable 50-minute lesson plans for a topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, using at The Scaffolded Reading Experience strategy. | The candidate developed a superior 50-minute lesson plan for a subject area topic that integrated reading and writing in a secondary school classroom, using The Scaffolded Reading<br>Experience strategy. |
| Points | 0 – 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates use foundational knowledge to design, select, critique, adapt, and evaluate evidence-based literacy curricula that meet the needs of all learners (ILA<br>2.1) | The candidate did not design 3 lessons that included clear objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and assessment strategy. | The candidate designed 3 lessons that included clear objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and assessment strategy. | The candidate designed 3 comprehensive lessons that included objectives, grade level, prior knowledge, materials, procedures, and a detailed assessment strategy and why it is being used. |
| Points | 0 – 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Candidates demonstrate knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction. (ILA Standard 4.1). | The candidate did not provide<br>accommodations for ELL/special needs students. | The candidate provided accommodations for ELL/special needs students. | The candidate provided several<br>accommodations for ELL/special needs students. |
| Points | 0 – 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Candidates understand the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations (including validity, reliability, inherent language, dialect, cultural bias), and influences of various types of tools in a comprehensive literacy and language assessment system and apply that knowledge to using assessment tools. (ILA<br>Standard 3.1) | The candidate did not provide an appropriate assessment strategy. | The candidate provided an appropriate assessment strategy in detail. | The candidate provided more than one appropriate assessment strategy and discussed why it was chosen. |
| Total Possible Points | | | 30 |
Due Week 6
Total Points: 30 Points will be deducted for the following:
Late submission: -1 point per day
Excessive spelling, mechanical and/or grammatical errors Incorrect APA format
Kindly View Attachment!! APA Style **files (1)** – ## Assignment2PDP.docx **## Assignment2PDP.docx** **RED 567** **Assignment #2** **Professional Development Plan: Using Technology to Teach a Lesson** **Directions:** Prepare a Power Point, Prezi, or similar presentation for other educators. It shoul…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Kindly View Attachment!!
APA Style
**files (1)**
– ## Assignment2PDP.docx
**## Assignment2PDP.docx**
**RED 567**
**Assignment #2**
**Professional Development Plan: Using Technology to Teach a Lesson**
**Directions:**
Prepare a Power Point, Prezi, or similar presentation for other educators. It should be about 30 minutes
(at least 10 slides.). The topic you will address is strategies for teaching reading using a technology tool
(i.e., blog, You Tube, Kaput!, digital storytelling, Blooket, Padlet, Plickers, JigSpace, CNN 10, Nearpod, Schoology, or a tool of your choice.). This should be prepared for teaching students in the middle grades.
Address the following components:
Description of the tool being used including accessibility and safety features
Rationale for using this technology tool as an aid to teaching
At least two strategies for using this tool to teach a content area lesson
You will upload this presentation to the discussion board by the end of week 3. Your colleagues will provide you with input by the end of week 4 and you must also provide input to two of your colleagues by the end of week 4. Submit a reflective essay describing your presentation including input given to you by colleagues (one page) when you submit your final presentation at the end of week 5. Incorporate your colleagues’ input into a self-reflection about the merits of your presentation. For example, would you change anything based on this feedback? Include this in your essay.
**You must also state what input you gave your colleagues and why.**
**Scoring Rubric for Assignment #2:**
| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **Element** | **Not Met** | **Met** | **Exceeded** |
| Points | 0 – 9 | 10 – 11 | 12 |
| Candidates integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways and assist colleagues in these efforts. (ILA Standard<br>5.3) | The candidate did not effectively describe the technology tool used, its accessibility, and its safety features and/or did not clearly explain the rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. | The candidate described the technology tool used,<br>its accessibility, and its safety features and explained the rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. | The candidate described the technology tool used in detail along with its accessibility and safety features and provided a comprehensive rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. |
| Points | 0 = 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways and assist colleagues in these efforts (ILA Standard<br>5.3) | The candidate did not effectively demonstrate two strategies for teaching using the tool | The candidate effectively demonstrated two strategies for teaching using the tool | The candidate effectively demonstrated more than two strategies for teaching using the tool |
| Points | 0 = 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Candidates collaborate with and coach school-based educators in developing, implementing, and evaluating literacy instructional practices and curriculum (ILA<br>Standard 2.4) | The candidate did not demonstrate knowledge of self-reflection of the presentation and/or did not utilize the feedback of colleagues and/or did not offer input to colleagues | The candidate offered input to colleagues and demonstrated knowledge of self-reflection by summarizing the presentation and discussing the feedback of colleagues | The candidate demonstrated knowledge of self-reflection of the presentation by effectively discussing the presentation and considering the feedback of colleagues to make revisions. The candidate offered constructive input to others. |
| Total Possible Points | | | 30 |
Due Weeks 3, 4, 5
Total Points 30
Points will be deducted for the following:
Late submission: -1 point per day
Excessive spelling, mechanical and/or grammatical errors
Incorrect APA format
Missing or incorrect title page and references
**## Assignment2PDP.docx**
**RED 567**
**Assignment #2**
**Professional Development Plan: Using Technology to Teach a Lesson**
**Directions:**
Prepare a Power Point, Prezi, or similar presentation for other educators. It should be about 30 minutes
(at least 10 slides.). The topic you will address is strategies for teaching reading using a technology tool
(i.e., blog, You Tube, Kaput!, digital storytelling, Blooket, Padlet, Plickers, JigSpace, CNN 10, Nearpod, Schoology, or a tool of your choice.). This should be prepared for teaching students in the middle grades.
Address the following components:
Description of the tool being used including accessibility and safety features
Rationale for using this technology tool as an aid to teaching
At least two strategies for using this tool to teach a content area lesson
You will upload this presentation to the discussion board by the end of week 3. Your colleagues will provide you with input by the end of week 4 and you must also provide input to two of your colleagues by the end of week 4. Submit a reflective essay describing your presentation including input given to you by colleagues (one page) when you submit your final presentation at the end of week 5. Incorporate your colleagues’ input into a self-reflection about the merits of your presentation. For example, would you change anything based on this feedback? Include this in your essay.
**You must also state what input you gave your colleagues and why.**
**Scoring Rubric for Assignment #2:**
| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **Element** | **Not Met** | **Met** | **Exceeded** |
| Points | 0 – 9 | 10 – 11 | 12 |
| Candidates integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways and assist colleagues in these efforts. (ILA Standard<br>5.3) | The candidate did not effectively describe the technology tool used, its accessibility, and its safety features and/or did not clearly explain the rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. | The candidate described the technology tool used,<br>its accessibility, and its safety features and explained the rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. | The candidate described the technology tool used in detail along with its accessibility and safety features and provided a comprehensive rationale for using this technology to teach a content area lesson. |
| Points | 0 = 7 | 8 – 9 | 10 |
| Candidates integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways and assist colleagues in these efforts (ILA Standard<br>5.3) | The candidate did not effectively demonstrate two strategies for teaching using the tool | The candidate effectively demonstrated two strategies for teaching using the tool | The candidate effectively demonstrated more than two strategies for teaching using the tool |
| Points | 0 = 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Candidates collaborate with and coach school-based educators in developing, implementing, and evaluating literacy instructional practices and curriculum (ILA<br>Standard 2.4) | The candidate did not demonstrate knowledge of self-reflection of the presentation and/or did not utilize the feedback of colleagues and/or did not offer input to colleagues | The candidate offered input to colleagues and demonstrated knowledge of self-reflection by summarizing the presentation and discussing the feedback of colleagues | The candidate demonstrated knowledge of self-reflection of the presentation by effectively discussing the presentation and considering the feedback of colleagues to make revisions. The candidate offered constructive input to others. |
| Total Possible Points | | | 30 |
Due Weeks 3, 4, 5
Total Points 30
Points will be deducted for the following:
Late submission: -1 point per day
Excessive spelling, mechanical and/or grammatical errors
Incorrect APA format
Missing or incorrect title page and references
**files (1)** – ## 635Module5responcediscassion.docx **## 635Module5responcediscassion.docx** 1.Kimberly 635-Module 5 Discussion Board 1. **How do the procedures for developing IFSPs differ from those for IEPs, and what are the key considerations in implementing each?** Although IFSPs and IEPs both…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →**files (1)**
– ## 635Module5responcediscassion.docx
**## 635Module5responcediscassion.docx**
1.Kimberly
635-Module 5 Discussion Board
1.
**How do the procedures for developing IFSPs differ from those for IEPs, and what are the key considerations in implementing each?**
Although IFSPs and IEPs both aim to support children with disabilities, the procedures for developing them reflect two different but connected systems: early intervention (birth–3) and special education (3–21). An IFSP is built around the whole family, typically developed through a highly collaborative, routine-based process that begins by learning about the child’s strengths and the family’s priorities in everyday life (Cook et al., 2020). The team—which usually includes the family, service coordinator, and relevant specialists—works together to write functional outcomes that fit naturally into daily routines, such as mealtimes or play, and to decide on services that can be delivered in the child’s typical environments (Cook et al., 2020; IamDeidreM, 2024). In contrast, IEP procedures are more school- and instruction-focused. The IEP team (which includes parents, general and special education teachers, a school representative, and others as needed) follows a structured process: reviewing evaluation data, identifying present levels of performance, documenting strengths and needs, and then developing measurable annual goals; specially designed instruction; accommodations; and, when appropriate, related services (New York State Education Department [NYSED], 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
Implementation also looks different. For IFSPs, a key consideration is ensuring that services are family-centered, culturally responsive, and integrated into natural routines instead of feeling like separate “therapy sessions” (Cook et al., 2020). For IEPs, the focus is on aligning goals with the curriculum, ensuring access to the general education environment to the maximum extent appropriate, and making sure all educators know their responsibilities under the IEP so that supports show up in day-to-day instruction (NYSED, 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
2.
**Discuss the process of amending IFSPs (Individualized Family Service Plans) and IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). What factors should educators consider when suggesting changes to these documents?**
Both IFSPs and IEPs are meant to be living documents, so amending them is a normal part of supporting a child over time. IFSPs are often revisited more flexibly—teams can meet whenever there is a significant change in the child’s needs, family priorities, or routines, not just at an annual review. Because IFSPs are grounded in family goals and daily life, any suggestion to amend the plan should start with careful listening: Have the family’s priorities shifted? Has there been a new diagnosis or transition (like starting childcare) that affects participation in routines (Cook et al., 2020; IamDeidreM, 2024)? Educators and service providers need to consider whether proposed changes are still functional, realistic in the family’s context, and clearly connected to outcomes that matter to the caregivers, while also checking that services remain coordinated and not overwhelming (Cook et al., 2020). For IEPs, amendments typically occur through a formal review process—either at the annual IEP meeting or through an agreed-upon amendment without a full meeting, depending on local procedures. When educators suggest changes to an IEP, they should be guided by updated data (classroom performance, progress monitoring, evaluations), as well as student and family voice (NYSED, 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.). Factors to consider include whether the student is making adequate progress toward current goals, whether goals or services need to be intensified or faded, and how any changes will affect the student’s access to the general education curriculum and least restrictive environment (NYSED, 2023). In both IFSPs and IEPs, amendments should be clearly documented, explained in family-friendly language, and made through genuine collaboration so that families feel like partners rather than bystanders in decision-making (Cook et al., 2020; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
**Questions:**
1. What is one main difference between an IFSP and an IEP in terms of who they are designed to support?
2. Why is family involvement especially important in the development of an IFSP?
3. How can an IEP help a student participate in the general education classroom?
4. Why might a team decide to change (amend) a child’s IFSP or IEP during the year instead of waiting until the annual review?
References:
Cook, R. E., Klein, M. D., & Chen, D. (2020).
_Adapting early childhood curricula for children with disabilities and special needs_. Pearson.
Grammarly. (2024).
_Grammarly_ (Version 1.0) [Computer software].
[https://www.grammarly.comLinks to an external site.](https://www.grammarly.com/)
IamDeidreM. (2024, December 11).
_IFSP vs. IEP: What’s the difference? | Early intervention vs. special education explained_ [Video]. YouTube.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08K3DBj2bYLinks to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08K3DBj2bY)
New York State Education Department. (2023).
_Guide to quality individualized education program (IEP) development and implementation_ (Rev. ed.). The University of the State of New York.
WeTeachNYC. (n.d.).
_Unpacking the IEP_. WeTeachNYC.
[https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/unpacking-the-iep/?collection_id=742Links to an external site.](https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/unpacking-the-iep/?collection_id=742)
2.
[**Xiaoling Yang**](https://touro.instructure.com/courses/162762/users/121283)
Jun 28 10:42pm| Last reply Jun 30 1:10pm
Reply from Xiaoling Yang
**Question 1: How do the procedures for developing IFSPs differ from those for IEPs, and what are the key considerations in implementing each?**
The IFSP is designed for children from birth to age 3 and their families. What makes it unique is that it's truly family-centered, which means it looks at both the child's development and what the family needs to support them. Services happen in the natural enviroment like the home or community, not in a clinic (Cook et al., 2020, p. 347). A service coordinator is assigned to help families navigate the system, schedule meetings, and connect with resources (Cook et al., 2020, p. 301). IFSPs are reviewed every 6 months (Cook et al., 2020, p. 286).The implementation of the IFSP is mostly family-led,and the service coordinator helps the family access the services. They value family’s goals and respect what matters to them the most(Cook et al., 2020, p. 284).
The IEP serves children from ages 3 to 21 and is more child-centered, focusing on educational needs. Services are provided in the least restrictive environment, meaning children should learn alongside their typically developing peers as much as possible (Cook et al., 2020, p. 347). The local school district takes the lead, and the special education teacher typically serves as the "case carrier" (Cook et al., 2020, p. 348). IEPs are reviewed annually (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350). The implementation of the IEP is different from IFSP. The biggest concern is ensuring the child is included with peers as much as possible. The agency needs to come up with an IEP plan that includes the teaching strategies and materials (Cook et al., 2020, p. 142). Parents have to understand the IEP process and their rights. Special eduction teacher has to monitor the student and request an EIP adjust if needed (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350).
**Question 2: Discuss the process of amending IFSPs (Individualized Family Service Plans) and IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). What factors should educators consider when suggesting changes to these documents?**
IFSPs are reviewed every 6 months (or more often if needed) (Cook et al., 2020, p. 286). When thinking about changes, educators should ask: What truly matters to this family? The outcomes should be practical and meaningful? They should fit into the family's everyday life, not just look good on paper (Cook et al., 2020, p. 298). And remember, informed written consent is required before any changes can be made (Cook et al., 2020, p. 291).
IEPs are reviewed annually, but parents or teachers can request a meeting anytime if there are concerns (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350). Following are some situations when a parent or a teacher would suggest a change: the child is not making progress; (Cook et al., 2020, p. 313). a parent has a concern; the least restrictive emvironment is not the best option for the child; change the suport method (accommodation (changing how something is taught) or a modification (changing what is taught))(Cook et al., 2020, p. 344).
**Questions:**
1. In my classroom, a mother disagreed with the IEP team's recommendation that her child had autism. Because she said no, the team could only give the child 5 hours of service per week. The textbook says parents have the right to disagree. How should teachers handle it when parents do not agree with the team's recommendations? What can we do to build trust with families?
2. In my situation, the mother disagreed with the autism diagnosis, so the team could not give more services. What should teachers do when they think a child needs more help than the parent will allow? How should the school document this?
3. IFSP services happen in "natural environments" like home, while IEP services happen in the "least restrictive environment" at school. How are these two ideas different? Which do you think works better for young children? Why?
4. The IFSP ends the day before a child's third birthday. Why do you think the age of 3 is the cut-off? What happens when a child turns 3?
**References:**
## image1.png
**## 635Module5responcediscassion.docx**
1.Kimberly
635-Module 5 Discussion Board
1.
**How do the procedures for developing IFSPs differ from those for IEPs, and what are the key considerations in implementing each?**
Although IFSPs and IEPs both aim to support children with disabilities, the procedures for developing them reflect two different but connected systems: early intervention (birth–3) and special education (3–21). An IFSP is built around the whole family, typically developed through a highly collaborative, routine-based process that begins by learning about the child’s strengths and the family’s priorities in everyday life (Cook et al., 2020). The team—which usually includes the family, service coordinator, and relevant specialists—works together to write functional outcomes that fit naturally into daily routines, such as mealtimes or play, and to decide on services that can be delivered in the child’s typical environments (Cook et al., 2020; IamDeidreM, 2024). In contrast, IEP procedures are more school- and instruction-focused. The IEP team (which includes parents, general and special education teachers, a school representative, and others as needed) follows a structured process: reviewing evaluation data, identifying present levels of performance, documenting strengths and needs, and then developing measurable annual goals; specially designed instruction; accommodations; and, when appropriate, related services (New York State Education Department [NYSED], 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
Implementation also looks different. For IFSPs, a key consideration is ensuring that services are family-centered, culturally responsive, and integrated into natural routines instead of feeling like separate “therapy sessions” (Cook et al., 2020). For IEPs, the focus is on aligning goals with the curriculum, ensuring access to the general education environment to the maximum extent appropriate, and making sure all educators know their responsibilities under the IEP so that supports show up in day-to-day instruction (NYSED, 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
2.
**Discuss the process of amending IFSPs (Individualized Family Service Plans) and IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). What factors should educators consider when suggesting changes to these documents?**
Both IFSPs and IEPs are meant to be living documents, so amending them is a normal part of supporting a child over time. IFSPs are often revisited more flexibly—teams can meet whenever there is a significant change in the child’s needs, family priorities, or routines, not just at an annual review. Because IFSPs are grounded in family goals and daily life, any suggestion to amend the plan should start with careful listening: Have the family’s priorities shifted? Has there been a new diagnosis or transition (like starting childcare) that affects participation in routines (Cook et al., 2020; IamDeidreM, 2024)? Educators and service providers need to consider whether proposed changes are still functional, realistic in the family’s context, and clearly connected to outcomes that matter to the caregivers, while also checking that services remain coordinated and not overwhelming (Cook et al., 2020). For IEPs, amendments typically occur through a formal review process—either at the annual IEP meeting or through an agreed-upon amendment without a full meeting, depending on local procedures. When educators suggest changes to an IEP, they should be guided by updated data (classroom performance, progress monitoring, evaluations), as well as student and family voice (NYSED, 2023; WeTeachNYC, n.d.). Factors to consider include whether the student is making adequate progress toward current goals, whether goals or services need to be intensified or faded, and how any changes will affect the student’s access to the general education curriculum and least restrictive environment (NYSED, 2023). In both IFSPs and IEPs, amendments should be clearly documented, explained in family-friendly language, and made through genuine collaboration so that families feel like partners rather than bystanders in decision-making (Cook et al., 2020; WeTeachNYC, n.d.).
**Questions:**
1. What is one main difference between an IFSP and an IEP in terms of who they are designed to support?
2. Why is family involvement especially important in the development of an IFSP?
3. How can an IEP help a student participate in the general education classroom?
4. Why might a team decide to change (amend) a child’s IFSP or IEP during the year instead of waiting until the annual review?
References:
Cook, R. E., Klein, M. D., & Chen, D. (2020).
_Adapting early childhood curricula for children with disabilities and special needs_. Pearson.
Grammarly. (2024).
_Grammarly_ (Version 1.0) [Computer software].
[https://www.grammarly.comLinks to an external site.](https://www.grammarly.com/)
IamDeidreM. (2024, December 11).
_IFSP vs. IEP: What’s the difference? | Early intervention vs. special education explained_ [Video]. YouTube.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08K3DBj2bYLinks to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08K3DBj2bY)
New York State Education Department. (2023).
_Guide to quality individualized education program (IEP) development and implementation_ (Rev. ed.). The University of the State of New York.
WeTeachNYC. (n.d.).
_Unpacking the IEP_. WeTeachNYC.
[https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/unpacking-the-iep/?collection_id=742Links to an external site.](https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/unpacking-the-iep/?collection_id=742)
2.
[**Xiaoling Yang**](https://touro.instructure.com/courses/162762/users/121283)
Jun 28 10:42pm| Last reply Jun 30 1:10pm
Reply from Xiaoling Yang
**Question 1: How do the procedures for developing IFSPs differ from those for IEPs, and what are the key considerations in implementing each?**
The IFSP is designed for children from birth to age 3 and their families. What makes it unique is that it's truly family-centered, which means it looks at both the child's development and what the family needs to support them. Services happen in the natural enviroment like the home or community, not in a clinic (Cook et al., 2020, p. 347). A service coordinator is assigned to help families navigate the system, schedule meetings, and connect with resources (Cook et al., 2020, p. 301). IFSPs are reviewed every 6 months (Cook et al., 2020, p. 286).The implementation of the IFSP is mostly family-led,and the service coordinator helps the family access the services. They value family’s goals and respect what matters to them the most(Cook et al., 2020, p. 284).
The IEP serves children from ages 3 to 21 and is more child-centered, focusing on educational needs. Services are provided in the least restrictive environment, meaning children should learn alongside their typically developing peers as much as possible (Cook et al., 2020, p. 347). The local school district takes the lead, and the special education teacher typically serves as the "case carrier" (Cook et al., 2020, p. 348). IEPs are reviewed annually (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350). The implementation of the IEP is different from IFSP. The biggest concern is ensuring the child is included with peers as much as possible. The agency needs to come up with an IEP plan that includes the teaching strategies and materials (Cook et al., 2020, p. 142). Parents have to understand the IEP process and their rights. Special eduction teacher has to monitor the student and request an EIP adjust if needed (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350).
**Question 2: Discuss the process of amending IFSPs (Individualized Family Service Plans) and IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). What factors should educators consider when suggesting changes to these documents?**
IFSPs are reviewed every 6 months (or more often if needed) (Cook et al., 2020, p. 286). When thinking about changes, educators should ask: What truly matters to this family? The outcomes should be practical and meaningful? They should fit into the family's everyday life, not just look good on paper (Cook et al., 2020, p. 298). And remember, informed written consent is required before any changes can be made (Cook et al., 2020, p. 291).
IEPs are reviewed annually, but parents or teachers can request a meeting anytime if there are concerns (Cook et al., 2020, p. 350). Following are some situations when a parent or a teacher would suggest a change: the child is not making progress; (Cook et al., 2020, p. 313). a parent has a concern; the least restrictive emvironment is not the best option for the child; change the suport method (accommodation (changing how something is taught) or a modification (changing what is taught))(Cook et al., 2020, p. 344).
**Questions:**
1. In my classroom, a mother disagreed with the IEP team's recommendation that her child had autism. Because she said no, the team could only give the child 5 hours of service per week. The textbook says parents have the right to disagree. How should teachers handle it when parents do not agree with the team's recommendations? What can we do to build trust with families?
2. In my situation, the mother disagreed with the autism diagnosis, so the team could not give more services. What should teachers do when they think a child needs more help than the parent will allow? How should the school document this?
3. IFSP services happen in "natural environments" like home, while IEP services happen in the "least restrictive environment" at school. How are these two ideas different? Which do you think works better for young children? Why?
4. The IFSP ends the day before a child's third birthday. Why do you think the age of 3 is the cut-off? What happens when a child turns 3?
**References:**
## image1.png
**files (1)** – ## CHS450U2.2Assignment2021.1020.pdf **## CHS450U2.2Assignment2021.1020.pdf** Due Date: 11:59 pm EST Sunday of Unit 2 Points: 10 Overview: In this assignment, you will practice your objective observation and objective writing skills. Instructions: You will watch the following videos …
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →**files (1)**
– ## CHS450U2.2Assignment2021.1020.pdf
**## CHS450U2.2Assignment2021.1020.pdf**
Due Date: 11:59 pm EST Sunday of Unit 2
Points: 10
Overview:
In this assignment, you will practice your objective observation and objective writing
skills.
Instructions:
You will watch the following videos and write a brief observation note that is objective.
Focus on the skill and the child indicated.
the video marked "preschool". "
• Watch this video of Himayah and describe her self-regulation:
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1
• Watch the girl in the pink shirt and write an objective description about how she engages in
scientific inquiry:
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-
guides/scientific-inquiry-see
• Watch the video "Preschoolers. Attending and Understanding Video 2". (Scroll down on the webpage
to view the "Preschoolers" video.) Write an objective description of Hayden’s engagement in
conversation.
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see
Be sure to read the criteria by which your work will be evaluated before you write
and again after you write.
CHS450 – Observation, Assessment
& Individualization
Unit 2.2 Assignment: Objective Observation
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see)
Evaluation Rubric for Unit 2.2 Assignment
CRITERIA Outstanding Good Fair Needs
Improvement
ECTC Standards (4 points) (3 points) (2 points) (1 points)
1a: Knowing and
understanding
young children's
characteristics
and needs, from
birth through age
8
Assignment
shows a
thorough
understanding of
child
development.
Assignment shows
a general
understanding of
child development.
Assignment
demonstrates some
understanding of
child development.
Assignment
demonstrates a lack
of understanding of
child development.
3a
Understanding
the goals,
benefits, and
uses of
assessment-
including its use
in development
of appropriate
goals, curriculum
and teaching
strategies for
young children.
Assignment
shows a
thorough
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant
information for
documentation.
Assignment shows
a general
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant
information for
documentation.
Assignment
demonstrates some
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant information
for documentation.
The assignment
includes
practices/information
that is not relevant
or developmentally
appropriate.
3.c. Knowing
about and using
observation,
documentation,
and other
appropriate
assessment tools
and approaches,
including the use
of technology in
documentation,
assessment and
data collection.
Assignment
consists of
objective
statements about
observed
children’s skills
and behaviors
and the context
of the
observation.
Assignment
includes primarily
objective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and
behaviors and the
context of the
observation.
Assignment
includes a mix of
objective and
subjective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and behaviors
and the context of
the observation.
Assignment includes
primarily subjective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and behaviors.
Presentation is
Clear and
Professional
The presentation
of reflection is
polished and
professional in
nature.
The presentation of
reflection includes
a few minor errors
that do not impede
professional
presentation.
Several minor errors
or a few significant
errors have a minor
impact on the
presentation.
Errors impede
professional
presentation of
reflection.
**## CHS450U2.2Assignment2021.1020.pdf**
Due Date: 11:59 pm EST Sunday of Unit 2
Points: 10
Overview:
In this assignment, you will practice your objective observation and objective writing
skills.
Instructions:
You will watch the following videos and write a brief observation note that is objective.
Focus on the skill and the child indicated.
the video marked "preschool". "
• Watch this video of Himayah and describe her self-regulation:
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1
• Watch the girl in the pink shirt and write an objective description about how she engages in
scientific inquiry:
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-
guides/scientific-inquiry-see
• Watch the video "Preschoolers. Attending and Understanding Video 2". (Scroll down on the webpage
to view the "Preschoolers" video.) Write an objective description of Hayden’s engagement in
conversation.
o https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see
Be sure to read the criteria by which your work will be evaluated before you write
and again after you write.
CHS450 – Observation, Assessment
& Individualization
Unit 2.2 Assignment: Objective Observation
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/video/emotional-behavioral-self-regulation-video-1)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/scientific-inquiry-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see)
[https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see](https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/attending-understanding-see)
Evaluation Rubric for Unit 2.2 Assignment
CRITERIA Outstanding Good Fair Needs
Improvement
ECTC Standards (4 points) (3 points) (2 points) (1 points)
1a: Knowing and
understanding
young children's
characteristics
and needs, from
birth through age
8
Assignment
shows a
thorough
understanding of
child
development.
Assignment shows
a general
understanding of
child development.
Assignment
demonstrates some
understanding of
child development.
Assignment
demonstrates a lack
of understanding of
child development.
3a
Understanding
the goals,
benefits, and
uses of
assessment-
including its use
in development
of appropriate
goals, curriculum
and teaching
strategies for
young children.
Assignment
shows a
thorough
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant
information for
documentation.
Assignment shows
a general
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant
information for
documentation.
Assignment
demonstrates some
understanding of
appropriate and
relevant information
for documentation.
The assignment
includes
practices/information
that is not relevant
or developmentally
appropriate.
3.c. Knowing
about and using
observation,
documentation,
and other
appropriate
assessment tools
and approaches,
including the use
of technology in
documentation,
assessment and
data collection.
Assignment
consists of
objective
statements about
observed
children’s skills
and behaviors
and the context
of the
observation.
Assignment
includes primarily
objective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and
behaviors and the
context of the
observation.
Assignment
includes a mix of
objective and
subjective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and behaviors
and the context of
the observation.
Assignment includes
primarily subjective
statements about
observed children’s
skills and behaviors.
Presentation is
Clear and
Professional
The presentation
of reflection is
polished and
professional in
nature.
The presentation of
reflection includes
a few minor errors
that do not impede
professional
presentation.
Several minor errors
or a few significant
errors have a minor
impact on the
presentation.
Errors impede
professional
presentation of
reflection.
Present two effective RTI and/or EBP strategies. You can do 2 of EBP or 2 RTI or 1 on each of the topics. discussion should reflect best practice as found in the literature and not just a personal preference. The posts do not have to be long, but complete enough that others can understand the interv…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Present two effective RTI and/or EBP strategies. You can do 2 of EBP or 2 RTI or 1 on each of the topics. discussion should reflect best practice as found in the literature and not just a personal preference. The posts do not have to be long, but complete enough that others can understand the intervention or strategy and how it is used.
Posts and responses are to be reflective of the current literature, clearly state your position, and be brief but thorough. Focus the posts on specific strategies that fall under RTI and/or EBP.
Answer each question in 150-200 words each with at least 1 reference. 1. Describe the stages of the backward design process. What is the purpose of backward design? Discuss the benefits and potential challenges of this process. 2. Review the standards for physical science from the state you plan t…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Answer each question in 150-200 words each with at least 1 reference.
1. Describe the stages of the backward design process. What is the purpose of backward design? Discuss the benefits and potential challenges of this process.
2. Review the standards for physical science from the state you plan to teach in. Choose one physical science standard and describe a performance-based assessment that would match that standard. How can you differentiate that assessment to accommodate diverse student needs?
The state will be Tennessee
_**Note:**_ _When selecting state standards, be sure to copy and paste each standard in its entirety, this includes the standard code and the full verbiage as it appears on the state website._
Please see attachments **files (2)** – ## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx – ## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx **## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx** CJUS 740 **Discussion Assignment Instructions** The student will complete 5 Discussions in this course. The student will post …
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Please see attachments
**files (2)**
– ## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx
– ## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx
**## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx**
CJUS 740
**Discussion Assignment Instructions**
The student will complete 5 Discussions in this course. The student will post one thread of 500-700 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. The student must then post 2 replies of 200-300 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 4 scholarly citations in APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. The original thread must incorporate ideas and several scholarly citations from all of the
**Learn materials** for that Module: Week. The reply posts can integrate ideas and citations from the
**Learn materials** for other Modules: Weeks. Integrate Biblical principles in your personal thread and in all replies to peers.
**## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx**
**Case Study Arrest and Domestic Violence**
In 1983, preliminary results were released from a study on the deterrent effects of arrest in cases of domestic violence. The study reported that male abusers who were arrested were less likely to commit future assaults than offenders who were not arrested. Conducted by researchers from the Police Foundation, the study used rigorous experimental methods adapted from the natural sciences. Criminal justice scholars generally agreed that the research was well designed and executed. Public officials were quick to embrace the study’s findings that arresting domestic violence offenders deterred them from future violence.
Here, at last, was empirical evidence to support an effective policy in combating domestic assaults. Results of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment were widely disseminated, in part due to aggressive efforts by the researchers to publicize their findings (Sherman and Cohn, 1989). The attorney general of the United States recommended that police departments make arrests in all cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. Within five years, more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies in U.S. cities adopted arrest as the preferred way of responding to domestic assaults (Sherman, 1992:2).
Several things contributed to the rapid adoption of arrest policies to deter domestic violence. First, the experimental study was conducted carefully by highly respected researchers. Second, results were widely publicized in newspapers, in professional journals, and on television programs. Third, officials could understand the study, and most believed that its findings made sense. Finally, mandating arrest in less serious cases of domestic violence was a straightforward and politically attractive approach to a growing problem.
Sherman and Berk (1984), however, urged caution in uncritically embracing the results of their study. Others advised that similar research be conducted in other cities to check the Minneapolis findings (Lempert, 1984). Recognizing this, the U.S. National Institute of Justice sponsored more experiments—known as replications—in six other cities. Not everyone was happy about the new studies. For example, an advocacy group in Milwaukee opposed the replication in that city because it believed that the effectiveness of arrest had already been proved (Sherman and Cohn, 1989:138).
Results from the replication studies brought into question the effectiveness of arrest policies. In three cities, no deterrent effect was found in police records of domestic violence. In other cities, there was no evidence of deterrence for longer periods (6–12 months), and in three cities, researchers found that violence actually escalated when offenders were arrested (Sherman, 1992:30). For example, Sherman and associates (1992:167) report that in Milwaukee “the initial deterrent effects observed for up to thirty days quickly disappear. By one year later [arrests] produce an escalation effect.” Arrest works in some cases but not in others. As in many other cases, in responding to domestic assaults, it’s important to carefully consider the characteristics of offenders and the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.
After police departments throughout the country embraced arrest policies following the Minneapolis study, researchers were faced with the difficult task of explaining why initial results must be qualified. Arrest seemed to make sense; officials and the general public believed what they read in the papers and saw on television. Changing their minds by reporting complex findings was more difficult but continues to be important. Long-term follow-up studies have found that arrested offenders were more likely to be victims of homicide (Sherman and Harris, 2013). Even more sobering, domestic violence victims of arrested offenders were more likely than victims of nonarrested offenders to have died within 23 years of the experiment (Sherman and Harris, 2015).
Critical Thinking
1. What was your first reaction to reading this case study? Did you know about the contradictory findings regarding the use of arrest in incidences of domestic violence?
2. Can you think of other topics or claims that you think criminal justice researchers should revisit? What other common practices that are seen as absolutely true should researchers reevaluate?
Please review the
[Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432?wrap=1) [Download Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432/download?download_frd=1) prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.
**## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx**
**Case Study Arrest and Domestic Violence**
In 1983, preliminary results were released from a study on the deterrent effects of arrest in cases of domestic violence. The study reported that male abusers who were arrested were less likely to commit future assaults than offenders who were not arrested. Conducted by researchers from the Police Foundation, the study used rigorous experimental methods adapted from the natural sciences. Criminal justice scholars generally agreed that the research was well designed and executed. Public officials were quick to embrace the study’s findings that arresting domestic violence offenders deterred them from future violence.
Here, at last, was empirical evidence to support an effective policy in combating domestic assaults. Results of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment were widely disseminated, in part due to aggressive efforts by the researchers to publicize their findings (Sherman and Cohn, 1989). The attorney general of the United States recommended that police departments make arrests in all cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. Within five years, more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies in U.S. cities adopted arrest as the preferred way of responding to domestic assaults (Sherman, 1992:2).
Several things contributed to the rapid adoption of arrest policies to deter domestic violence. First, the experimental study was conducted carefully by highly respected researchers. Second, results were widely publicized in newspapers, in professional journals, and on television programs. Third, officials could understand the study, and most believed that its findings made sense. Finally, mandating arrest in less serious cases of domestic violence was a straightforward and politically attractive approach to a growing problem.
Sherman and Berk (1984), however, urged caution in uncritically embracing the results of their study. Others advised that similar research be conducted in other cities to check the Minneapolis findings (Lempert, 1984). Recognizing this, the U.S. National Institute of Justice sponsored more experiments—known as replications—in six other cities. Not everyone was happy about the new studies. For example, an advocacy group in Milwaukee opposed the replication in that city because it believed that the effectiveness of arrest had already been proved (Sherman and Cohn, 1989:138).
Results from the replication studies brought into question the effectiveness of arrest policies. In three cities, no deterrent effect was found in police records of domestic violence. In other cities, there was no evidence of deterrence for longer periods (6–12 months), and in three cities, researchers found that violence actually escalated when offenders were arrested (Sherman, 1992:30). For example, Sherman and associates (1992:167) report that in Milwaukee “the initial deterrent effects observed for up to thirty days quickly disappear. By one year later [arrests] produce an escalation effect.” Arrest works in some cases but not in others. As in many other cases, in responding to domestic assaults, it’s important to carefully consider the characteristics of offenders and the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.
After police departments throughout the country embraced arrest policies following the Minneapolis study, researchers were faced with the difficult task of explaining why initial results must be qualified. Arrest seemed to make sense; officials and the general public believed what they read in the papers and saw on television. Changing their minds by reporting complex findings was more difficult but continues to be important. Long-term follow-up studies have found that arrested offenders were more likely to be victims of homicide (Sherman and Harris, 2013). Even more sobering, domestic violence victims of arrested offenders were more likely than victims of nonarrested offenders to have died within 23 years of the experiment (Sherman and Harris, 2015).
Critical Thinking
1. What was your first reaction to reading this case study? Did you know about the contradictory findings regarding the use of arrest in incidences of domestic violence?
2. Can you think of other topics or claims that you think criminal justice researchers should revisit? What other common practices that are seen as absolutely true should researchers reevaluate?
Please review the
[Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432?wrap=1) [Download Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432/download?download_frd=1) prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.
**## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx**
CJUS 740
**Discussion Assignment Instructions**
The student will complete 5 Discussions in this course. The student will post one thread of 500-700 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. The student must then post 2 replies of 200-300 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 4 scholarly citations in APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. The original thread must incorporate ideas and several scholarly citations from all of the
**Learn materials** for that Module: Week. The reply posts can integrate ideas and citations from the
**Learn materials** for other Modules: Weeks. Integrate Biblical principles in your personal thread and in all replies to peers.
**## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx**
**Case Study Arrest and Domestic Violence**
In 1983, preliminary results were released from a study on the deterrent effects of arrest in cases of domestic violence. The study reported that male abusers who were arrested were less likely to commit future assaults than offenders who were not arrested. Conducted by researchers from the Police Foundation, the study used rigorous experimental methods adapted from the natural sciences. Criminal justice scholars generally agreed that the research was well designed and executed. Public officials were quick to embrace the study’s findings that arresting domestic violence offenders deterred them from future violence.
Here, at last, was empirical evidence to support an effective policy in combating domestic assaults. Results of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment were widely disseminated, in part due to aggressive efforts by the researchers to publicize their findings (Sherman and Cohn, 1989). The attorney general of the United States recommended that police departments make arrests in all cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. Within five years, more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies in U.S. cities adopted arrest as the preferred way of responding to domestic assaults (Sherman, 1992:2).
Several things contributed to the rapid adoption of arrest policies to deter domestic violence. First, the experimental study was conducted carefully by highly respected researchers. Second, results were widely publicized in newspapers, in professional journals, and on television programs. Third, officials could understand the study, and most believed that its findings made sense. Finally, mandating arrest in less serious cases of domestic violence was a straightforward and politically attractive approach to a growing problem.
Sherman and Berk (1984), however, urged caution in uncritically embracing the results of their study. Others advised that similar research be conducted in other cities to check the Minneapolis findings (Lempert, 1984). Recognizing this, the U.S. National Institute of Justice sponsored more experiments—known as replications—in six other cities. Not everyone was happy about the new studies. For example, an advocacy group in Milwaukee opposed the replication in that city because it believed that the effectiveness of arrest had already been proved (Sherman and Cohn, 1989:138).
Results from the replication studies brought into question the effectiveness of arrest policies. In three cities, no deterrent effect was found in police records of domestic violence. In other cities, there was no evidence of deterrence for longer periods (6–12 months), and in three cities, researchers found that violence actually escalated when offenders were arrested (Sherman, 1992:30). For example, Sherman and associates (1992:167) report that in Milwaukee “the initial deterrent effects observed for up to thirty days quickly disappear. By one year later [arrests] produce an escalation effect.” Arrest works in some cases but not in others. As in many other cases, in responding to domestic assaults, it’s important to carefully consider the characteristics of offenders and the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.
After police departments throughout the country embraced arrest policies following the Minneapolis study, researchers were faced with the difficult task of explaining why initial results must be qualified. Arrest seemed to make sense; officials and the general public believed what they read in the papers and saw on television. Changing their minds by reporting complex findings was more difficult but continues to be important. Long-term follow-up studies have found that arrested offenders were more likely to be victims of homicide (Sherman and Harris, 2013). Even more sobering, domestic violence victims of arrested offenders were more likely than victims of nonarrested offenders to have died within 23 years of the experiment (Sherman and Harris, 2015).
Critical Thinking
1. What was your first reaction to reading this case study? Did you know about the contradictory findings regarding the use of arrest in incidences of domestic violence?
2. Can you think of other topics or claims that you think criminal justice researchers should revisit? What other common practices that are seen as absolutely true should researchers reevaluate?
Please review the
[Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432?wrap=1) [Download Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432/download?download_frd=1) prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.
**## DiscussionAssignmentInstructions50.docx**
CJUS 740
**Discussion Assignment Instructions**
The student will complete 5 Discussions in this course. The student will post one thread of 500-700 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. The student must then post 2 replies of 200-300 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 4 scholarly citations in APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. The original thread must incorporate ideas and several scholarly citations from all of the
**Learn materials** for that Module: Week. The reply posts can integrate ideas and citations from the
**Learn materials** for other Modules: Weeks. Integrate Biblical principles in your personal thread and in all replies to peers.
**## CaseStudyArrestandDomesticViolence.docx**
**Case Study Arrest and Domestic Violence**
In 1983, preliminary results were released from a study on the deterrent effects of arrest in cases of domestic violence. The study reported that male abusers who were arrested were less likely to commit future assaults than offenders who were not arrested. Conducted by researchers from the Police Foundation, the study used rigorous experimental methods adapted from the natural sciences. Criminal justice scholars generally agreed that the research was well designed and executed. Public officials were quick to embrace the study’s findings that arresting domestic violence offenders deterred them from future violence.
Here, at last, was empirical evidence to support an effective policy in combating domestic assaults. Results of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment were widely disseminated, in part due to aggressive efforts by the researchers to publicize their findings (Sherman and Cohn, 1989). The attorney general of the United States recommended that police departments make arrests in all cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. Within five years, more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies in U.S. cities adopted arrest as the preferred way of responding to domestic assaults (Sherman, 1992:2).
Several things contributed to the rapid adoption of arrest policies to deter domestic violence. First, the experimental study was conducted carefully by highly respected researchers. Second, results were widely publicized in newspapers, in professional journals, and on television programs. Third, officials could understand the study, and most believed that its findings made sense. Finally, mandating arrest in less serious cases of domestic violence was a straightforward and politically attractive approach to a growing problem.
Sherman and Berk (1984), however, urged caution in uncritically embracing the results of their study. Others advised that similar research be conducted in other cities to check the Minneapolis findings (Lempert, 1984). Recognizing this, the U.S. National Institute of Justice sponsored more experiments—known as replications—in six other cities. Not everyone was happy about the new studies. For example, an advocacy group in Milwaukee opposed the replication in that city because it believed that the effectiveness of arrest had already been proved (Sherman and Cohn, 1989:138).
Results from the replication studies brought into question the effectiveness of arrest policies. In three cities, no deterrent effect was found in police records of domestic violence. In other cities, there was no evidence of deterrence for longer periods (6–12 months), and in three cities, researchers found that violence actually escalated when offenders were arrested (Sherman, 1992:30). For example, Sherman and associates (1992:167) report that in Milwaukee “the initial deterrent effects observed for up to thirty days quickly disappear. By one year later [arrests] produce an escalation effect.” Arrest works in some cases but not in others. As in many other cases, in responding to domestic assaults, it’s important to carefully consider the characteristics of offenders and the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.
After police departments throughout the country embraced arrest policies following the Minneapolis study, researchers were faced with the difficult task of explaining why initial results must be qualified. Arrest seemed to make sense; officials and the general public believed what they read in the papers and saw on television. Changing their minds by reporting complex findings was more difficult but continues to be important. Long-term follow-up studies have found that arrested offenders were more likely to be victims of homicide (Sherman and Harris, 2013). Even more sobering, domestic violence victims of arrested offenders were more likely than victims of nonarrested offenders to have died within 23 years of the experiment (Sherman and Harris, 2015).
Critical Thinking
1. What was your first reaction to reading this case study? Did you know about the contradictory findings regarding the use of arrest in incidences of domestic violence?
2. Can you think of other topics or claims that you think criminal justice researchers should revisit? What other common practices that are seen as absolutely true should researchers reevaluate?
Please review the
[Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432?wrap=1) [Download Discussion Assignment Instructions](https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/1016730/files/125649432/download?download_frd=1) prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.
Watch “Patsy Mink: Groundbreaking Congresswoman” from the University Library . Consider the challenges Patsy faced and the impact she ultimately had on the development of Title IX. What barriers did Patsy overcome to bring about needed changes to Title IX? Thinking about other federal laws that infl…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Watch “Patsy Mink: Groundbreaking Congresswoman” from the University Library . Consider the challenges Patsy faced and the impact she ultimately had on the development of Title IX.
What barriers did Patsy overcome to bring about needed changes to Title IX? Thinking about other federal laws that influence the educational environment, what additional changes do you want to …
https://video.alexanderstreet.com/p/LZBK4lARr
In _Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education_ 544 U.S. 167 (2005), the court ruled that retaliating against a person who complained about gender discrimination against others creates a private right of action and is intentional discrimination based on sex under Title IX. Read “Title IX and Retaliati…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →In _Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education_ 544 U.S. 167 (2005), the court ruled that retaliating against a person who complained about gender discrimination against others creates a private right of action and is intentional discrimination based on sex under Title IX.
Read “Title IX and Retaliation: The Impact of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education on Higher Education” from the [University Library](https://library.phoenix.edu/EDD722vZ/w1).
Using Melear (2006) and the overview provided above, what was the primary holding (decision) from that case? What is the significance of that decision on education today? What is the significance of that decision in your current professional role?