So far this semester, I have been able to attend two student meetings: one IEP meeting, and one child study meeting. Both included the student, his/her parents and teachers, and at least one counselor. In both, teachers expressed concerns regarding the students but also mentioned strengths. In both, we heard from the parents.
Despite similarities, however, they were two very different meetings. In the IEP meeting, the counselor set the tone immediately. He said to the student that even though it was intimidating to be surrounded by teachers, we were there to help him.
In the child study meeting, the counselor set a different tone. He let us know that we had been called together to discuss some concerns. This particular student was causing a lot of disciplinary problems, so we needed to talk about them.
The meetings proceeded according to the tone set at the beginning. In the IEP meeting, teachers first mentioned strengths: "He's really intelligent," "He asks good questions," He's a critical thinker." Then they mentioned areas of improvement. They identified causes for the issues raised and, altogether, the team developed solutions.
In the child study meeting, a couple teachers mentioned strengths before concerns, but the others only talked about problems, and that was the orientation of the meeting, in general. Solutions were left for the student to figure out: HE needs to adjust, HE needs to change. Only one teacher mentioned not having problems with the student anymore. She said she just had a conversation with the student about what was appropriate, but she still gave him his couple minutes to be the class clown. Unfortunately, she spoke at the end, after all the other teachers had left.
And finally, the biggest difference I noticed between the two meetings was the role of the student. Because the IEP meeting's goal, as stated by the counselor, was to help the student, we heard from him. He told us why he thought he might have these problems; we asked him what he thought might help. The student took an active role.
In the child study meeting, we never asked the student what he thought. We never asked him why he might behave the way he does, and how he can learn best. It seemed the tone set guided the meeting's message into something like this: "This is what you're doing wrong, and this is what you need to do to change."
As the title of my post implies, I believe these two meetings were different because of the way we started. I believe the child study counselor wanted to help the student, too, and I'm sure his teachers felt the same way. However, since it started the way it did, without saying from the beginning that we were there for the student and not to vent about or issues with regard to the student, it might have been a lot more productive.
