Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014

Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014
Common Core State standards and the special educator: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014

Agenda Overview--Refresher Common Core State Standards
Assessment Systems Resources and Support Materials Developing IEP Goals Based on the CCSS Goal-Instruction Alignment Questions

Historical Overview— federal perspective

History of Special Education
1975: PL —EAHCA Child Find FAPE for All Students LRE 1977: CA Master Plan SELPAs Fiscal, Procedural, Compliance, Programs 1980s: ?????? Lack of Consistency Random Acts of Greatness Case Law

History of Special Education (cont.)
1990s: FAPE & LRE Case Law 1997: IDEA Reauthorized Access to Gen. Ed. Curriculum Increase in Litigation 1998: CA Content Standards CSTs, API 2001: NCLB Subgroups Accountability

History of Special Education (cont.)
2003: CAPA Accountability for Mod to Severe 2004: IDEA Reauthorized Greater Emphasis on Core Curriculum and Access to Typical Peers Research-Based Practices 2007: CMA 2010: OSEP—Focus on Outcomes 2014: Results Driven Accountability (RDA) : CCSS

Progression of Guidance and Structure for Standards-Instructionally Based IEPs
Lack of Guidance/Structure Increasing Guidance/Structure Standards-Instructionally Based

Common core State standards

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Standards are for (a) College and Career Readiness, and (b) K-12 – FOR ALL STUDENTS Standards are research and evidence-based, reflective of rigorous content and skills, and internationally benchmarked. Addition of 15% more information to the CCSS for each subject Includes additional information to address perceived gaps Ensures rigor of existing standards

CCSS Themes College and Career Readiness (CCR) 21st Century Learning
Learning and Innovation Skills Life and Career Skills Information Media and Technology Skills 4-Cs— Critical Thinking Communication Collaboration Creativity

Are the CCSS for ELA Similar to our Current Standards?
Existing ELA: Four Categories Called Domains Reading Writing Listening and Speaking Written and Oral English-Language Conventions CCSS ELA: Four Categories Called Strands Speaking and Listening Language

Literacy Across the Content Areas
Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects are embedded in the Reading and Writing Standards at each Grade Level, K-5. Grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12, Include Reading Standards for Science and Technical Subjects, and Writing Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

ELA/Literacy Shifts in Focus
Content-Rich Nonfiction Informational Text Evidence from Text Reading for Information Complex Text with Academic Language Linkages to Content Knowledge

Are the CCSS for Math Similar to our Current Standards?
Shift in Grade Level for some Skills Organization is Different Grade Level Standards K-8 Set of Standards for Algebra 1 Conceptual Cluster Standards for 9-12 Two Options for 8th Grade Algebra 1 Option for those Not Ready for Algebra

Mathematics Shifts in Focus
Narrowing Strongly on Focus of Standards Coherence Building Upon Each Grade Level and Linking to Major Topics Rigor Building Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Skills, and Focus on Application

Assessment systems

Five Assessment Consortia
How Did We Get Here? Five Assessment Consortia Race-to-the-Top Regular Assessment Consortia Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) GSEG Alternate Assessment Consortia Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) ELP Assessment Consortium ASSETS: Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems PARCC – 24 states SBAC – 28 states DLM – 13 states NCSC – 19 states ASSETS – 28 states 17

SBAC Assessment System
Format Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) Computer Based Testing (CBT) Paper and Pencil Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines Item Types Selected Response Constructed Response Short Extended Performance Tasks Technology Based Items

The SBAC Assessment System
English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 – 8 and High School Last 12 weeks of year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; an interactive reporting system; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools. Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks INTERIM ASSESSMENT Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks INTERIM ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE TASKS Reading Writing Math COMPUTER ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined Re-take option Optional Interim assessment system — no stakes Summative assessment for accountability * Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. Developed by The Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, version 4, July For detailed information on PARCC, go to

NCSC Overview (Not Yet Officially Adopted in CA)
Building consensus on what College and Career Ready means for students who participate in Alternative Assessment Building solid content foundations with articulated educational logic (Learning Maps; Learning Progressions and CCSS Dual Alignment); and Evidence Centered Design Computer-based delivery of assessments Resources and professional development supports to educators Assistive Technology and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AT/AAC)

The NCSC Alternate Assessment System
The NCSC Alternate Assessment System* English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School DIGITAL LIBRARY of curriculum, instruction, and classroom assessment resources; online professional development modules and support materials for state-level educator Communities of Practice to support teachers with the resources they need to improve student outcomes; guidelines for IEP teams to use in student participation decision making; training modules for assessment administration and interpretation of results; online assessment delivery, administration, and reporting. END-OF-YEAR ASSESSMENT COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE established in each state to support teacher training and use of the curriculum, instruction, and assessment resources. Resources will be available for use in all schools and districts, as locally determined. Curriculum, instruction, and formative assessment resources for classroom use Summative assessment for accountability Interim progress monitoring tools * Alternate assessment systems are those developed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and are based on alternate achievement standards.

Learning maps versus Learning Progressions

Learning Progressions
Vertical progression toward learning target Sequenced building blocks Research-based Linked to high-quality assessments Often characterized as a vertical progression within a domain, but differ in scope, breadth and grain size (Heritage, 2008). “…carefully sequenced set of building blocks that students must master on route to a more distant curricular aim” Popham (2007). “descriptions of successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about an idea that follow one another as students learn” (Wilson & Berenthal, 2005). Four Interrelated Guiding Principles (Hess, 2008) Developed (and refined) using available research and evidence Have clear binding threads that articulate the essential core concepts and processes of a discipline Articulate movement toward increased understanding Go hand-in-hand with well-designed and aligned assessments 23

Use numbers to decide which is bigger, smaller, same size
Uses place value to distinguish and order whole numbers Uses decimal notation to two places Uses the symbols =, < and > to order numbers and make comparisons Uses percentages to make straightforward comparisons Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1997). Developmental Assessment. Victoria, AU: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd. 24

Maps Allow for the Integration of Multiple Skills…
Trajectory represented early language as linear development 25

Compare two quantities up to ten using models
Use perceptual subitizing Equal quantity Identify more number of Identify fewer number of Identify more than one Identify same number of Identify different number of Identify one Compare sets Explain set Recognize wholeness Recognize same Recognize different Create a model of quantity Compare objects Imitate 26

Learning Progressions vs. Learning Maps
Centralizes notion of “superhighway” Delineates multiple pathways Learning progressions are more linear, larger, and have grosser grain size. They represent the “superhighway” route, typical for most. “A description of skills, understanding and knowledge in the sequence in which they typically develop: a picture of what it means to ‘improve’ in an area of learning.” Masters & Forster (1997) Learning maps are landscape learning progressions that are not necessarily vertical. They have a finer grain size and will cover content learning that occurs birth to college. Unlike linear learning progressions, they delineate alternate pathways thus creating alternate learning progressions. (Tatsuoka, 2009) 27

Resources and support materials

CCSS Spirals Anchor Standards—Progress Through Multiple Grade Levels
Skills Build Upon Prior Grade Levels

RST.2 Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects (RST): Standard 2 Anchor Standard: Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. = RST Grade 11-12 students Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex concepts, processes, or information presented in a text by paraphrasing them in simpler but still accurate terms. + RST Grade 9-10 Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; trace the text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process, phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text. RST.2.6-8 Grade 8 Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; provide an accurate summary of the text distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

RST.1 Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects (RST): Standard 1 Anchor Standard: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. = RST Grade 11-12 students Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to important distinctions the author makes and to any gaps or inconsistencies in the account. + RST Grade 9-10 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to the precise details of explanations or descriptions. RST.1.6-8 Grade 8 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts.

Key Ideas and Details: Standard 1
6, [7], 8 Cite [several pieces of] textual evidence that most strongly support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. 4, [5] [Quote accurately and] refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. 1, [2], 3 Ask and answer questions [such as who, what, where, when, why and how to demonstrate understanding] about key details in a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers. K With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text. Grade—Standard CCR Anchor Standard 1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

National Center and State Collaborative
Instructional Resources Aligned to the CCSS Curriculum Resources Classroom Solutions

Instructional Resources
Curriculum Resource Guide Instructional Units Graduated Understandings Instructional Resource Guide Scripted Systematic Instruction Element Cards

Curriculum Resources Explain How to Teach Students Including those with Significant Disabilities Based on Universal Design for Learning Strategies Provide Examples

Classroom Solutions Instructional Units UDL Strategies
Multiple Means of Engagement, Representation and Expression General Education Lessons Designed to be Accessible to Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Promote Inclusive and Collaborative Strategies

Core Content Connectors: K
Progress Indicator: E.NO.1a showing mastery of the prerequisite core skills of cardinality, constancy, and 1:1 correspondence Core Content Connectors: K CCSS Domain/Cluster Common Core State Standard K.NO.1a1 Rote count up to 10 Counting and Cardinality K CC Know number names and the count sequence. K.CC.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens. K.NO.1a2 Rote count up to 31 K.NO.1a3 Rote count up to 100 K.NO.1a4 Count up to 10 objects in a line, rectangle, or array K CC Count to tell the number of objects. K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality. When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with one and only one number name and each number name with tone and only one object. K.CC.5 Count to answer “how many?” questions about as many as 20 things arranged in a line, a rectangular array, or a circle, or as many as 10 things in a scattered configuration; given a number from 1-20, count out that many objects. Progress Indicator: E.NO.1b developing an understanding of number and principles of quantity (e.g., hold up 5 fingers at once to show 5, locate things in 2s without counting; using number words to indicate small exact numbers or relative change in quantity - more, small) K.NO.1b1 Match the numeral to the number of objects in a set K.NO.1b2 Identify the set that has more Understand that the last number name said tells the number of objects counted. The number of objects is the same regardless of their arrangement or the order in which they were counted. The first row with the red label is the progress indicator from the learning progression that helps us understand how the content moves from one learning expectation to the next. This CCC represents expectation in K. The CCCs are located in the far left column labeled in purple. This would be the content eligible for instruction and assessment. The middle column is the CCSS Domain or Cluster heading. In ELA the middle column will contain the Anchor standard. The far right column represents the closest match for the grade level Common Core State Standards.

Reading Standards for Literature
College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading Key Ideas and Details 1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. 2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. 3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. Reading Standards for Literature

Sample Script (Model, Lead, Test)

What is included in IR Guide?
Overview of Systematic Instruction Importance of Finding a Response Mode Explanation of Instructional Strategies and “how to” Provides sample script for math and ELA skill for each instructional strategy Troubleshooting Q&A Constant Time Delay (CTD) System of Least Prompts (LIP) Model, Lead, Test Example/Non-example Training

Instructional Resource Guide

Communicative Competence
Career College Community Curriculum Common Core Standards Learning Progressions Core Content Connectors The NCSC partners share a common commitment to the development of a comprehensive system of supports that reflects a necessary shift in teaching and learning practices by teachers for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participating in Alternate Assessment – Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) NCSC embraces a research-to-practice approach. It recognizes that to build academic competence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, it must support teachers in building their understanding the Common Core States Standards and how to teach these standards using evidence-based instructional resources and systematic learning strategies and models, and following the pathways of the Learning Progression Framework. In addition, the project must address the learning characteristics of students who participate in AA-AAS and how students with significant cognitive disabilities build academic competence. To be fair to students and teachers, the model of student learning and cognition that teachers use during instruction and in their classroom assessments must be the SAME model that assessment developers use in designing the NCSC summative assessment. This knowledge and support must be delivered to teachers through a comprehensive approach of sustained, professional development. To this end, the project partners are developing a range of research-to-practice, evidence-based resources and trainings to support teachers as they plan for and provide instruction (in collaboration with other teachers to support instruction in a variety of educational settings), that is based on the Common Core State Standards. These resources are illustrated in the schema on the next slide. Instruction Grade-level Lessons Accommodations Systematic Instruction Assessment Formative, Interim Summative Communicative Competence

How can we tie all of this together?

What are Other States Doing to Assist Students with Mild, Moderate and Severe Needs?
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Core Content Connectors Content Modules Curriculum Resource Guides Instructional Resource Guides LASSIS MASSIS Element Cards

UDL Strategies for Instruction
Strategies and lessons are taken from the general education curriculum. Principles of UDL are applied: Multiple Means of Engagement give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge. Multiple Means of Representation give learners options for expressive skills and fluency. Multiple Means of Expression provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know and provide options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort, and self regulation. The Unit Lesson Plans represent the concepts and big ideas of the grade-specific Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and provide models of universally designed instruction for all students. The lessons also provide examples of additional supports that may be used for emerging reading and emerging communication. The Unit Lesson Plans also illustrate how to target the CCCs within general education lessons. That is, they offer a model for how to engage all students in well-designed instruction for the CCSS. Many examples are offered for meeting the unique needs of students with significant cognitive disabilities.

UDL Strategies (cont.) All strategies/lessons are modified and or adapted for Emerging Readers and Emerging Communicators: Additional Considerations for Emerging Readers and Communicators Multiple Means of Engagement: Show the end first; present the concrete example of the graph; with the end in mind, have students at multiple levels solve in multiple ways; count or solve using a calculator, graph paper, 2 and 3 dimensional manipulative materials Multiple Representation: 2 dimensional paper; 3 dimensional objects; etc. Multiple Means of Expression: Picture problem choices: present 2 choices of possible correct responses and include words or pictures, tactile representations The NCSC units’ lesson plan format details how general education lessons can be broken down into steps. Within each step, specific suggestions of how to modify and adapt the lesson and materials are given for Emerging Readers ( e.g., students who use oral speech or symbol-based augmentative communication, read sight words) and Emerging Communicators (e.g., students who are learning to use regularized gestures, signs, and symbols to communicate a variety of intents). Additionally, examples of what some of the suggestions might actually look like for individual students are provided so teachers can see possible “student work.”

Universal Design for Learning
UDL is a Set of Principles that Provides All Students Equal Opportunities to Learn Recognition Networks: The “What” of Learning Strategic Networks: The “How” of Learning Affective Networks: The “Why” of Learning

Depth of Knowledge Level 1 = Recall & Reproductions
Specific Facts, Definitions, Routine Procedures Level 2 = Skills & Concepts Applying Skills and Concepts, Relationships, Main Ideas Level 3 = Strategic Reasoning Reasoning and Planning in Order to Respond Level 4 = Extended Reasoning Complex Planning and Thinking—Usually Over a Period of Time

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Level 1—Recall and Reproduction
Teacher Student Directs Shows Questions Demonstrates Compares Examines Tells Evaluates Responds Remembers Memorizes Explains Restates Interprets Recognizes Translates

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Level 2—Skills and Concepts
Teacher Student Shows Observes Facilitates Questions Organizes Evaluates Solves Problems Calculates Completes Constructs Demonstrates Compiles

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Level 3—Strategic Reasoning
Teacher Student Probes Clarifies Guides Organizes Dissects Questons Accepts Acts a Resource Discusses Debates Examines Judges Justifies Uncovers Disputes Decides

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Level 4—Extended Reasoning
Teacher Student Facilitates Reflects Extends Analyzes Evaluates Designs Takes Risks Proposes Formulates Plans Creates Modifies

Depth of Knowledge--Activities
Level 1 = Recall & Reproductions Concept Map, Timeline, Keywords, Chart, Recite Facts, Cut Out, Draw, Cartoon Strip, Oral Report, Outline, Paraphrase, Retell Level 2 = Skills & Concepts Classify a Series of Steps, Construct a Model—Demonstrate How it Works, Perform a Play, Make a Game or Puzzle About the Area of Study, Explain the Meaning of a Concept, Explain Relationship Among a Number of Concepts, Multi-Step Calculations Level 3 = Strategic Reasoning Venn Diagram to Show how Two Topics are the Same and Different, Design a Questionnaire, Flow Chart to Show Stages, Conduct an Investigation, Debate, Persuasive Speech, Letter with Point of View, Research and Report on the “Why” of an Issue or Topic Level 4 = Extended Reasoning Formulate and Test Hypotheses, Perspective Taking and Collaboration, Persuasive Writing Tasks, Devise a Way To…, Sell and Idea, Write a Jingle to Sell an Idea, Develop a Menu with a Variety of Healthy Foods

The Least Dangerous Assumption
We assume that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are competent and able to learn, and we support increased educational opportunities in a range of learning environments. The project partners operate on the principle of the “least dangerous assumption” (Donnellan, 1984; Jorgensen, 2005). We assume that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are competent and able to learn and we promote increased educational opportunities in a range of learning environments. As a result of assuming competence gained by students through increased opportunities to learn academic content (rather than a lack of or limited opportunities ) the use of evidence-based instructional practices increased communicative competence, is that students will acquire new knowledge and skills and become college, career, and community ready.

Developing IEP goals based on the ccss

Developing Goals Based on the CCSS

Developing Instructionally Appropriate IEPs?
An Instructionally Appropriate IEP describes a process in which the IEP team has incorporated state content standards in its development Specific accommodations and modifications addressing student’s needs to access the general education instructional program are included in the Instructionally Appropriate IEP for student’s present grade-level and course content requirements.

Current Practice IEP Team Identifies Unique Needs
Unique Needs Are Often Discussed Without Reference to Grade-Level Standards, Curriculum and Instruction This Often Results in Two Parallel Educational and/or Instructional Programs for Students with IEPs General Education and Special Education Or, Functional and Academic

Best Practice Identify Student’s Unique Needs in Relation to the CCSS
Develop Present Levels Based on Unique Needs and CCSS Identify the Gap Between PLOP and Grade-Level CCSS Develop a Plan to Meet—or Get As Close As Possible to--Grade-Level CCSS Develop Annual IEP Goals Based on All of the Above

Developing Goals Based on the CCSS
Use Grade-Level Standards Examine the Essential Content and Skills within that Standard Based on the Student’s Identified Unique Needs Aim High--Rigor and Fidelity based on Bloom Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Universal Design for Learning Work Towards Closing Gaps Grade-Level Access with Supplemental Remediation Only As Needed

Consider All Areas Environmental Situations Social Interactions
Behavioral Needs Prerequisite Skills Curriculum Resources Instructional Resources Instructional Methodologies Accommodations and/or Modification Assessment Procedures Progress Reporting

Access to the General Education Curriculum
An IEP must include “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum.” (IDEA, 2004, 614(d)(1)(A)(i),)

Specially Designed Instruction
Developing Goals and Objectives Based on the CCSS and Specially Designed Instruction CCSS Standard IEP Goal Specially Designed Instruction

Unwrapping the Standards, or Putting the “I” in CCSS
Individualizing Grade-Level Standards Select the Standard Based on Present Levels of Performance Assessment Progress on Last Year’s Goals Curriculum-Based Assessment Circle the Verbs and/or Action Words and Terms Underline the Key Skills Develop Goals

A Word or Two About Present Levels of Performance
PLOPS are Always Directly Related to the Goal Always Include a Strength and Weakness Weakness = Goal Avoid TMI

Example of PLOP PLOP: Based on scores on the WJ (list reading or spelling scores) and curriculum-based measures (list Curriculum or supplemental materials used—e.g., work samples from Corrective Reading or Open Court) Frank understands all of his grade-level short vowel CVC words; however, he is easily distracted during class instruction and is not able to convert short vowels to long vowels using the magic “e.” Goals: By , Frank will be able to convert 20 short-vowel CVC words to long-vowel CVCV words using the magic “e” with 90% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials. Discussion

Example of PLOP (continued)
PLOP: Based on scores on the WJ (list reading or spelling scores) and curriculum-based measures (list Curriculum or supplemental materials used—e.g., work samples from Corrective Reading or Open Court) Frank understands all of his grade-level short vowel CVC words; however, he is not able to convert short vowels to long vowels using the magic “e.” Goals: By , Frank will be able to convert 20 short-vowel CVC words to long-vowel CVCV words using the magic “e” with 90% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.

What is the difference between the Traditional and Instructionally Appropriate IEP?
Traditional IEP Instructionally Appropriate IEP Focused on acquiring basic academic, access, and/or functional skills Little relationship to a specific academic area or grade-level expectations Directly tied to the Common Core standards Both the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLOP) and the annual IEP goals are aligned with and based on the state’s grade-level standards Traditionally, IEPs have focused on a student’s acquiring basic academic, access (standards-driven IEP) or functional (aligned IEP) skills and have had little relationship to a specific academic area or grade-level expectations. In contrast, the process used to develop an Instructionally Appropriate IEP is directly tied to the state’s content standards. Both the student’s present level of performance and the annual IEP goals are aligned with and based on the state’s grade-level standards which creates a plan that is aimed at getting the student to a proficient level on all state standards.

What are the benefits of a Instructionally Appropriate IEP?
Ties the IEP to the general education curriculum Provides positive directions and goals for intervention Utilizes standards to identify specific content critical to a student's successful progress in the general education curriculum Promotes a single educational system that is inclusive through common language and curriculum for special and general education students Ensures greater consistency across schools and districts Encourages higher expectations for students with disabilities MacQuarie (2009) describes the following positive benefits of an Instructionally Appropriate IEP: Ties the IEP to the general education curriculum, Provides positive directions and goals for intervention, Utilizes standards to identify specific content critical to a student's successful progress in the general education curriculum, Promotes a single educational system that is inclusive through common language and curriculum for special and general education students, Ensures greater consistency across schools and districts, and Encourages higher expectations for students with disabilities A properly implemented Instructionally Appropriate IEP will improve the student’s opportunity to receive specifically designed instruction linked to the general educational curriculum for the enrolled grade and appropriate accommodations to support achievement of grade-level expectations.

Does an Instructionally Appropriate IEP imply that the student is on grade-level in that content area? No, the student may not be on grade-level in that content area. However, they are working toward meeting grade-level expectations and are receiving grade-level content instruction. No, the student may not be on grade-level in that content area. However, they are working toward meeting grade-level expectations and are receiving grade-level content instruction. The IEP should address what needs to happen in order for the student to meet the standards. Once the IEP team has analyzed the student’s current performance and determined what the student needs to learn, the specialized instruction and related services and supports should be addressed.

Instructionally Appropriate IEP
Developing the Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLOP) PLOPs and IEP Goals are Based on CCSS—from Far Below Grade Level to At or Near Grade Level The Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLOP) provides a summary of baseline information that indicates the student’s academic achievement, identifies current functional performance, and provides an explanation of how the disability affects the student’s involvement/progress in participating in the general curriculum. An instructionally appropriate IEP should indicate how the student is performing in relationship to the CCSS at the enrolled grade-level. An instructionally appropriate IEP should identify specific skills and knowledge that will allow the student to work towards current grade-level CCSS or the next grade-level of standards.

Step 1: Review the Grade-Level Standards
All members of the IEP team, including parents, should become familiar with the general education grade level standards Note that IEPs that span two school years may require goals from both grade levels (e.g. 7th grade ELA and 8th grade ELA). Consider how the student is performing in relation to the grade-level content standards for the grade in which he or she is currently enrolled. Ask: What is the intent of the content standard? What must the student know and be able to do to meet the content standard?

Step 2: Examine Classroom and Student Data
Analyze the student’s performance relative to grade-level Common Core standards on: Informal class assessments, statewide assessments, real-world performance tasks, criterion-based evaluations, curriculum-based assessments, and work samples. Identify the grade-level Common Core standards that are most affected by the student’s disability. Consider whether the data are valid measures of the student’s abilities. Use the data to predict future learning needs. Consider parent and student input. Review previous IEPs and progress monitoring data regarding the student’s performance.

Step 2: Examine Classroom and Student Data
Ask: What can the IEP team learn from the data about the student’s performance on grade-level content standards and skills? Can the assessment data provide useful information for identifying the student’s strengths and needs? What gaps in knowledge and skills does the student have? What can we learn from the way the student responded to previous accommodations? Were the previous interventions successful? Are there skills from previous grade levels that the student has not learned that are crucial to acquiring the grade-level standard? Which are most important to supporting progress? Are there authentic, real-world tasks that demonstrate evidence of student learning? Are there data on student reflection and self-assessment? Is anyone collecting multiple measures? If so, who?

Step 3: Writing the PLOP Describe individual strengths and needs of the student in relation to accessing the general curriculum. Include data from evaluations, classroom and state assessments, observations, information from parents and students, and other resources (examples listed above). Identify the skills and knowledge that a student needs to achieve to meet academic grade-level content standards. Identified needs will be used to develop annual IEP goals. Identify the student’s Response Mode (e.g., Verbal, Writing, Technology, Visuals, PECS,Pointing, Eye Gaze, etc.)

Step 3: Writing the PLOP Ask:
What are the grade-level content standards? What is the student’s performance in relation to grade-level standards? What are the student’s strengths in terms of accessing and mastering the general curriculum? Include sources of this information. What are this student’s areas of need in accessing and mastering the general curriculum? Include sources of this information. What academic skills and behaviors is the student able/unable to perform? What functional skills and behaviors is the student able/unable to perform? Do functional, organizational, or social skills issues affect the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum? What strategies, accommodations, and/or interventions have been successful in helping the student make progress in the general curriculum? How does the identified disability affect involvement and progress in the general curriculum? What are the parental concerns? What are the student’s interests, preferences, and goals? Include postsecondary aspirations if age-appropriate. Is the student progressing at a rate to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year?

PLOP Quick Check Is the information educationally valuable and written in a user-friendly fashion? Does the baseline data represent the student’s needs in relationship to the general education curriculum? Would any teacher know where to begin instruction based on the information provided in the PLOP?

Instructionally Appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP):
Developing Instructionally-Appropriate Measurable Annual Goals Ask: What are the student’s needs as identified in the present level of performance? What skills does the student require to master the content of the curriculum? What can the student reasonably be expected to accomplish in one school year? IEP annual goals set targets of expected performance for individual students to accomplish in one school year. The goals in a student’s IEP should relate to the student’s need for specially designed instruction to address the student’s disability needs and those needs that interfere with the student’s ability to participate and progress in the general curriculum. Needs identified in the PLOP provide the basis for which annual goals are written.

Components of Annual Goals
Who Student Timeframe Length of Time Conditions Under What Conditions Behavior Will Do What Criterion To What Level or Degree Writing Annual Goal Components When writing annual goals, the components should include who, behavior, criterion, conditions, and timeframe. Timeframe specified in the number of weeks or a certain date for completion. Conditions specify the manner in which progress toward the goal occurs. Conditions describe the specific resources that must be present for a student to reach the goal. The condition of the goal should relate to the behavior being measured. For example, a goal relating to reading comprehension may require the use of a graphic organizer. The graphic organizer is the condition. Behavior clearly identifies the performance that is being monitored. It represents an action that can be directly observed and measured. Criterion identifies how much, how often, or to what standard the behavior must occur in order to demonstrate that the goal has been achieved. The goal criterion specifies the amount of growth that is expected.

Components of Annual Goals
Ask: Does the goal have a specific time frame? Are the conditions for meeting the goal addressed? How will you measure the outcome of the goal? Are the goals written in terms that parents and teachers can understand? Do the goals support participation and progress in the general education curriculum? Do the annual goals support postsecondary goals?

IEP Goal development and instructional alignment

Aligning IEPs to the Common Core State Standards for Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities (Courtade & Browder, 2011) Speaking and Listening IEP Goal Speaking and Listening Standard Comprehension and Collaboration Engage Effectively in a range of collaborative discussion (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) Comprehension and Collaboration Frank will use picture communication in group context to acknowledge others’ communication

There’s an App for That…. CCSS App by SCOE

Common Core Standards (by Mastery Connect)
CCSS App

IEP Goal Development and Instructional Alignment—Based on CCSS
1. Identify the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance. 2. Identify the appropriate grade level standard(s). 3. Unpack the standard. Identify what the student needs to know and be able to do in the simplest terms possible. For example: Divide the standard into its component parts. Analyze the sub-skills. Determine accommodations and/or modifications needed for the student to successfully reach standard. Determine a plan to monitor progress.

CCSS Goal and Instructional Strategies Alignment Tool
CCSS Standard Possible Goal Areas Instructional Strategies Accommodations/Modifications Goal Format (Given—Will—Measured By) Goal

CCSS Goal and Instructional Strategies Framework
Group Activity: Identify the Standard Identify the Goal Area Develop Three Goals Based on the Same Standard and Goal Area: Goal Format (Given—Will—Measured By) Mild Moderate Severe

What is the Current Status?
CCSS Goals Statewide Work Group CA Standards-aligned IEP Project (CSIP) Tools & Resources for Instruction and Goal Development Smarter Balanced Pilot Districts/Sites Pilot Test Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines NCSC Not Officially Adopted in CA CDE Hired New Person to Oversee Advisory Board Communities of Practice South—Central—North Will Expand Across the State Developing Instructional Strategies/Curricula More Information Soon

What are the Key Areas to Consider in Making the Transition?
Digital Divide Curriculum Alignment CCSS Anchor Standards Shift from M/M and M/S to Mild—Moderate—Severe Collaboration: Gen. Ed. & Spec. Ed. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Staff Development Is Spec. Ed. Staff Included? Service Delivery Models Values and Beliefs

What Happens to the CMA? CMA—Science for Grades 5, 8 and 10
Will continue as part of the CMAPP beginning until a successor science assessment aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards is adopted by the State Board of Education CMA—ELA for Grades 3 – 11 and Math for Grades 3 – 7 and Algebra I and Geometry will be available on a voluntary basis for and to be administered at the Option and Cost of the LEA

When Do We Start Using the SBAC?
SBAC for will Field Tested in Both ELA and Math Will Include CMA Students Scores from the SBAC Field Tests will not be reported

SBAC—Testing Administration Info.
Testing Windows 1. 3/18 – 4/4 2. 4/7 – 4/25 3. 4/28 – 5/16 4. 5/19 – 6/6 Field Test Frequently Asked Questions

What About the CAPA? The CAPA Continues to be our State Test for students with significant disabilities (one percent) as determined by IEP Teams for the School Year AB 484 Requires the Use of the CAPA for Grades 2-11 to continue unless the State Board of Education adopts an Alternative Assessment ..

How Do We Document the in our IEPs?
At this time, how we document State Testing in our IEPs is a Local Decision We have yet to receive guidance on this from CDE We expect to receive guidance soon…. Many County Offices of Educations, SELPAs, and Districts are recommending that we remain Status Quo at this time up until we receive guidance in this area Check with your District and/or SELPA before changing the way you document State Testing in IEPs

What About Digital Goal Banks?
There are Many Private Vendors Available CDE Workgroup Complete Tool Kit and Resource Bank Other States Have Their Own Versions District/SELPA Teams are Working on Them Professional Organizations are Working on Them Get Ready for the Tidal Wave

AB 484 Assessment Implications (Courtesy of Santa Ana Unified School District)

SBAC Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines (Courtesy of Santa Ana Unified School District)

Questions?

Additional Resources

Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Frank Donavan, Ed.D. February 26, 2014"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback