Case Study Analysis: 3.2 Leigh Scott

Kelly M. Staten

Edison Community College

 

Abstract

Case Study 3.2 – Leigh Scott deals with a high school social studies teacher who is confronted by one of her students concerning a grade that she gave him as well as another student.   During the initial confrontation the student, Aaron Washington, was clearly upset by his tone and his attitude.  At the tail end of the conversation Aaron makes an accusation that Ms. Scott is gave the other student a better grade due to his race.  Ms. Scott diffused the situation by agreeing to meet with Aaron to discuss the grade the next morning.  Prior to the schedule meeting with the student Ms. Scott is forced to re-examine her reasons for grading each student in the manner that she did.  The other student, Dale, is a learning disabled student mainstreamed into Leigh’s class, he was put in her class because the Ms. Scott was considered to be a teacher who could be responsive to his needs and recognize their efforts. 

 

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 3.2 LEIGH SCOTT

In the Case Study 3.2 Leigh Scott, a high school social studies teacher is faced with a student that is unhappy about his grade.   The student, Aaron Washington, complains to Ms. Scott he received a ‘D’ compared to another student who received a ‘C’.  The other student, Dale, who is white, is also a learning-disabled student being mainstreamed into Ms. Scott’s class.  Aaron believes that he worked harder and deserves the same grade that Dale received or that Dale deserves the grade he received.  Aaron’s approach is aggressive and intimidating; he even goes so far as to accuse Ms. Scott of racial bias in her grading.  This confrontation makes Leigh Scott re-examine the performance of both students.

The situation outlined in this case study brings out a few immediate dilemmas for Ms. Scott as well as the debate over the practice of mainstreaming students.  The first dilemma for Ms. Scott has to explain her grading system and the criteria used to evaluate their performance?  The second dilemma is whether Ms. Scott should be prepared to change the grade to avoid any further confrontations? 

I believe that during her conversation with Aaron, she needs to explain to him his lack of effort and participation she viewed and that affected his grade.  I hope that this would not be the first time that Aaron would be hearing of her disappointment with his classroom behavior.   It is clear in the story that Ms. Scott has some valid issues with Aaron’s participation level.  Should the criteria used to measure both Aaron’s and Dale’s achievements be the same?  This is more difficult to answer definitively; when possible everyone in the class should be held to the same standard.  An overall grade should take multiple things into consideration, hard scores is one but effort, and attitude and participation should be part of the grade too.  If the mainstreamed students shows a more positive attitude toward learning and puts more effort toward doing his work his grade would be more heavily weighted in those areas.  Unfortunately, I do believe Ms. Scott needs to be prepared to change the grade, as it is more than probable that she will not receive support from the school when the other parts of the confrontation are considered, the racial bias accusation. 

Overall the case study brings up the question of is mainstreaming of learning-disabled students into average-level class the appropriate solution.  I do believe that learning-challenged students can compete in a classroom with average students so long as they possess the core skills necessary to complete the work; reading, comprehension and writing ability.  If they can’t do this independently and need assistance for everyday assignments I think a better alternative would be to have them work on the same level assignments but with students that are their peers.