Presentation on theme: "Differentiation for Special Education in a Common Core World Evaluating All Teachers of All Learners Sharen Bertrando Peter Kozik Ph.D. Special Education."— Presentation transcript:
Differentiation for Special Education in a Common Core World Evaluating All Teachers of All Learners Sharen Bertrando Peter Kozik Ph.D. Special Education Resource Assistant Professor Development Specialist Keuka College WestEd
What’s on their plate?
Take Aways 1.All students, students with disabilities (SWD) and English Language Learners (ELL) included, should be ready for learning in an environment where they feel welcomed, at ease, and comfortable. 2.When discussing teacher performance, there a multiple frameworks for the conversations about learning for all students. 3.Good teaching is good teaching, no matter the profile of the student. 4.Good teaching needs modeling, support and nurturance.
Purpose To explain and enhance evaluator’s ability to help grow teachers’ knowledge, skills, and abilities regarding the learning of all students through access to the Common Core Standards.
Greater diversity and accountability Responsibility of administrators, teachers to ensure that all students reaches highest level of achievement Responsibility for students with disabilities to demonstrate progress in general education curriculum Responsibility for students with first language other than English Responsibility for students who don’t fit the mold
Importance of the shared values There are 6.5 million students with disabilities in the U.S. The challenges for these students include: 70% of all schools in the United States that were cited as failing to achieve AYP did so because their students with disabilities failed to achieve AYP. In 2008, 42% of students with disabilities failed to graduate.
Inclusive Practices Implementation of Common Core State Standards Ensuring Equity and Effectiveness by Closing Achievement Gaps Highly Effective Teachers and Leaders 8
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge and Resources 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction 1f: Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: Classroom Environment 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures 2d: Managing Student Behavior 2e: Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction 3a: Communicating with Students 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3c: Engaging Students in Learning 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities 4a: Reflecting on Teaching 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records 4c: Communicating with Families 4d: Participating in a Professional Community 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally 4f: Showing Professionalism Danielson’s Framework For Professional Practice
NYSUT’s Framework For Professional Practice Standard I: Knowledge of Students and Student Learning I.1: demonstrating knowledge of child and adolescent development I.2: research-based knowledge of learning and language acquisition theories and processes. I.3: knowledge of and response to diverse learning needs, interests, and experiences of all students. I.4: knowledge of and are responsive to the economic, social, cultural, linguistic, family, and community factors that influence their students’ learning. I.5: knowledge and understanding of technological and information literacy and how they affect student learning. Standard II: Knowledge of Content and Instructional Planning II.1: knowledge of the content they teach, including relationships among central concepts, tools of inquiry, [and] structures and current developments within their discipline(s). II.2: understand how to connect concepts across disciplines and engage learners in critical and innovative thinking and collaborative problem solving related to real world contexts. II.3: use a broad range of instructional strategies to make subject matter accessible. II.4: establish goals and expectations for all students that are aligned with learning standards and allow for multiple pathways to achievement. II.5: design relevant instruction that connects students’ prior understanding and experiences to new knowledge. II.6: evaluate and utilize curricular materials and other appropriate resources to promote student success in meeting learning goals.
NYSUT’s Framework For Professional Practice Standard III: Instructional Practice III.1: research-based practices and evidence of student learning for developmentally-appropriate and standards-driven instruction that motivates and engages students. III.2: communicate clearly and accurately with students to maximize their understanding and learning. III.3: high expectations and create challenging learning experiences for students. III.4: explore and use a variety of instructional approaches, resources, and technologies to meet diverse learning needs, engage students and promote achievement. III.5: engage students in the development of multi- disciplinary skills, such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and use of technology. III.6: monitor and assess student progress, seek and provide feedback, and adapt instruction to student needs. Standard IV: Learning Environment IV.1: create a mutually respectful, safe, and supportive learning environment that is inclusive of every student. IV.2: create an intellectually challenging and stimulating learning environment. IV.3: manage the learning environment for the effective operation of the classroom. IV.4: organize and utilize available resources to create a safe and productive learning environment.
NYSUT’s Framework For Professional Practice Standard V: Assessment for Student Learning V.1: design, adapt, select, and use a range of assessment tools and processes to measure and document student learning and growth. V.2: understand, analyze, interpret, and use assessment data to monitor student progress and to plan and differentiate instruction. V.3: communicate information about various components of the assessment system. V.4: reflect upon and evaluate the effectiveness of their comprehensive assessment system to adjust assessment and plan instruction accordingly. V.5: prepare students to understand the format and directions of assessments used and the criteria by which the students will be evaluated. Standard VI: Professional Responsibilities and Collaboration VI.1: uphold professional standards of practice and policy as related to students’ rights and teachers’ responsibilities. VI.2: engage and collaborate with colleagues and the community to develop and sustain a common culture that supports high expectations for student learning. VI.3: communicate and collaborate with families, guardians, and caregivers to enhance student development and success. VI.4: manage and perform non-instructional duties in accordance with school district guidelines or other applicable expectations. VI.5: understand and comply with relevant laws and policies as related to students’ rights and teachers’ responsibilities.
NYSUT’s Framework For Professional Practice Standard VII: Professional Growth VII.1: reflect on practice to improve instructional effectiveness and guide professional growth. VII.2: set goals for and engage in ongoing professional development needed to continuously improve teaching competencies. VII.3: communicate and collaborate with students, colleagues, other professionals, and the community to improve practice. VII.4: remain current in their knowledge of content and pedagogy by utilizing professional resources.
Common Core Standard s Universal Design for Learning Differentiated Instruction The Student
“ The Standards should also be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outset and as permitting appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs.” Commitment to Students with Disabilities Evident in Standards ELA Standards, in section titled “What is not covered”
“Students with disabilities…must be challenged to excel within the general curriculum and be prepared for success in their post-school lives, including college and/or careers….Therefore, how these high standards are taught and assessed is of the utmost importance in reaching this diverse group of students.” Application to Students with Disabilities ELA Standards, in section titled “What is not covered”
Common Core State Standards Rigorous Knowledge and skills Globally completive Clear and consistent Logical progression Multi-state Collaborative Universal Design for Learning
Shared Responsibility Taking ownership of all students Providing opportunities for professional development – general and special education together Creating a culture where all students are general education students first... is the first hurdle to meeting the challenge
Brain Research, Technology, and Universal Design for Learning Insights from brain research New technology tools Common Core Standards Universal Design for Learning
Learner Diversity Brain Networks that Support Learning 1. Recognition Networks 2. Strategic Networks 3. Affective Networks The “What” of LearningThe “How” of LearningThe “Why” of Learning Identify and interpret sound, light, taste, smell, and touch Identify and understand information, ideas, and concepts The ability to plan, execute, and monitor actions and skills The ability to engage in actions and skills, set priorities and evaluate David Rose Ph.D., CAST
Supports for Student Diverse Recognition Networks Examples ▫ Underlining/highlighting ▫ Vertical lines/asterisks/doodles/num margin ▫ Provide multiple media/formats ▫ “Chunking” information ▫ Graphic Organizers ▫ Provide multiple examples ▫ Support background context The “What” of Learning Identify and interpret sound, light, taste, smell, and touch Identify and understand information, ideas, and concepts
Supports for Student Diverse Strategic Networks Examples – Multi-media for student expression (video, audio, text, drawing) – Concept mapping tools – Scaffolds and prompts – Checklists – Embedded coaches and mentors, peer tutors – Assessment rubrics for students The “How” of Learning The ability to plan, execute, and monitor actions and skills
Supports for Student Diverse Affective Networks Examples – Choice afforded – Age appropriate activities – Culturally relevant activities – Charts/schedules/visible timers – Display of goals – Group work/collaboration – Personal journal The “Why” of Learning The ability to engage in actions and skills, set priorities and evaluate
David Rose, founder of CAST Brain Networks Learner Variability 24
Learner variability is the norm! earner_variability.html?plist=explore earner_variability.html?plist=explore Learners vary in the ways they take in information Learners vary in their abilities and approaches Learning changes by situation and context Learners vary across their development
Pass the Profile Meet... Madison Christian Elijah Charles Kalani
The Brain How can educators better understand student variability?
Think... What other frames for discussion are important for educators to know about the brain and teaching all children? What else should evaluators know and look for?
Memory: 5 storage systems Semantic – information from words Episodic – contextual/spatial Procedural – muscle memory Automatic – conditioned response memory Emotional (Sprenger, 1999)
Semantic Memory Long term filing cabinets of factual information – New information must be connected to old known information – Difficult to access, requires repetition. – Needs to be stimulated by associations, comparisons and similarities
Episodic Memory Contextual or spatial memory Every piece of learning takes place in some location “Invisible” information blog.schoology.com
Automatic Stimuli automatically triggers response – Can open other memory lanes – Songs, pictures, places – Ability to read, multiply, add – NO comprehension
Emotional Takes precedence over all other memory metro.co.uk
Learning modalities Visual Audio Kinesthetic
Learning Style Curriculum Mastery Style: 35% Population 12% At-Risk Interpersonal Style: 35% Population 66% At-Risk Understanding Style: 15% Population 0% At-Risk Self-Expressive Style: 15% Population 22% At-Risk (Silver, Strong, and Perrini, 2000)
Second Take Away When discussing teacher performance, there a multiple frameworks for the conversations about learning for all students.
Inclusive Classroom Are the principles of UDL utilized? Are the recognition, strategic, and affective networks utilized? Is there evidence that the classroom learning is brain compatible? Is there evidence that learning and assessment are designed, developed, and implemented using multiple modalities, learning styles, and intelligences?
Let’s Watch a Lesson
Strengths:Challenges: 40 Traditional Materials: Textbooks
Strengths: Tactile formats Re-representation of spoken language Can refer back to reinforce what’s been learned Accurate record of past events Can be reread, reconsidered, reexamined Challenges: Sight Decoding skills, fluency Turning pages Background knowledge Follow/remember information lacks inherent expressiveness of speech Bound by conventions (e.g. newspapers, journals, novel, reference) Re-purposing information 41
Reading Standards for Informational Text 6-12: Grades 11-12: Key Ideas and Details 1.Cite strong and thorough textural evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. Linking the annual goal to the CCSS Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History /Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects
How do we build accessibility and transition to college and career for Shane... Keeping the end in mind...
Selecting a goal Reading Informational and Literary Text Foundational Skills Reading with Fluency 4.Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. a.Read on-level text with purpose and understanding. b.Read on-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. c.Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition.
Differentiating Instruction As the planning and delivery of classroom instruction that considers the varied levels of readiness, learning needs, and interests of each student. Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd)
Why differentiate? Because... ▫ Systematic learner variability ▫ State and Federal mandates ▫ Evidenced-based practices ▫ Diversity of students
Third Take Away Good teaching is good teaching, no matter the profile of the student.
Supports in School All students can learn if the school and school district support teachers in providing access to the Common Core Standards in general education classrooms.
1. All Learners and Equal Access Does our school clearly articulate and communicate a vision for and commitment to educating all students in effective classrooms? If so, how? If not, what barriers to full inclusion and equal access for ELLs and students with disabilities exist and how can they be addressed? Do our school’s classrooms have appropriate class sizes and composition? How can redesigning class size and composition ensure better proportionate representation? How does our school ensure that legal and educationally sound procedures are followed when identifying and placing ELLs and students with disabilities in appropriate educational placements? Does our school provide ample opportunities for ELLs to interact with fluent speakers of English in order to acquire academic and social language, and to support the acculturation of these students into the school and society while maintaining their first language and culture? Does our school provide all educators with access to students’ individualized education program (IEPs) and Section 504 individualized accommodation plans? Does our school inform and support educators in understanding and implementing these individualized programs? How can we ensure that the best plans to meet all students’ individual needs are implemented as intended? Does our school provide all educators with access to data (e.g., grades, observations, curriculum-based assessments, formative assessments, records and test scores) related to students’ academic achievement and English language development? Does our school provide support to educators in interpreting these data to promote students’ academic, social and behavioral success, and to ensure that ELLs learn language and content simultaneously?
2. Individual Strengths and Challenges and Supporting Diversity Does our school utilize strategies that help all students develop ongoing, natural friendships and supportive relationships with other students and teachers? How do the adults in our school model and support respectful friendships and relationships with all community members? Do all students in our schools have opportunities to engage in co-curricular and extracurricular programs? If not, how can we redesign our co-curricular and extracurricular offerings to ensure that every student has access to them? Does our school provide a variety of individualized, coordinated services designed to address the unique strengths and challenges of all students, such as pre-referral services, English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and services, response-to-intervention systems), first- and second-language support programs as appropriate, schoolwide positive behavioral supports and anti-bullying programs? How can we improve these systems of support for all students? Does our school help all students make successful transitions (e.g., between classes, from elementary to middle school, from school to work/postsecondary education) and develop self-determination? Does our district achieve and sustain a 100 percent graduation rate with all students advancing to fruitful and self- fulfilling postsecondary opportunities? If not, what steps can we take to help students make successful transitions and develop self-determination, and how can we reduce the rate at which students leave school before achieving a high school credential? Are our school’s services, policies and practices diversified? Do they take into account the cultural, linguistic and experiential backgrounds of all students and their families? Who is represented in our community, and how can we provide them a voice regarding our school’s services, policies and practices?
3. Reflective, Responsive, Differentiated and Evidence-Based Practices Does our school provide all students with access to a challenging, high-quality and developmentally appropriate curriculum aligned to the state’s standards within and across content areas? If so, how can we improve this access? If not, how can we improve the quality of the curriculum and redesign curriculum delivery to make sure it is fair and provides equal access for all students ? Does our school give all students access to effective and varied instructional practices, and an appropriate amount of instructional time? If so, how can we ensure continual improvement of these practices and instructional time allocations? If not, in what ways do we need to change our instructional practices and time allocations so that all students’ strengths, challenges, diversities, backgrounds, language needs, styles, abilities and preferences are addressed? Does our school provide all students and teachers access to current and innovative instructional and assistive technologies? If not, how can we find and utilize our available resources so that all students and teachers have access to these technologies? Does our school support classroom instruction that is characterized by differentiation, flexible groupings, student- and group-directed learning, high-quality language development, cultural sensitivity and responsiveness, and authentic and relevant learning experiences? If so, how can we continually improve these practices? If not, in what ways can we provide the necessary professional development and support to change our classroom instruction to encourage and sustain these practices? Does our school utilize a variety of valid and reliable measures to assess student learning progress and inform instruction? Does our school offer students the appropriate assessment accommodations and alternatives they need to demonstrate their learning? What additional measures, assessment accommodations and alternatives can we use to evaluate student learning and inform instruction? Does our school implement a comprehensive and multifaceted evaluation of all aspects of its programs, and make improvements based on the data collected? How do we use data to enhance our educational programs so they benefit all students? What additional data can we utilize? Does our school utilize a variety of strategies and supports to help all students develop academic, social and civic-engagement skills? How can we make sure that meaningful engagement is encouraged, modeled and celebrated at the school, in the lassroom and with individual students?
4. Culture, Community and Collaboration Do our educators, students, families, caregivers and community members collaborate to communicate, share resources and expertise, make decisions, and solve problems? Does our school provide educators with adequate time to collaborate with each other and to communicate with families, caregivers and community members? What can we do to improve our system of collaboration and professional development to ensure better sharing of resources, decision- making and problem-solving? Does our school provide the resources, adult supports, time, scheduling arrangements and high-quality professional development to educate all students in inclusive classrooms? What can we do to encourage focused and fruitful collaboration and high-quality professional development? Does our school communicate a sense of community where individual differences are valued? How can we create an even stronger sense of community?
Fourth Take Away Good teaching needs modeling, support and nurturance.
References August, D., Salend, S., Staehr Fenner, D. & Kozik, P. (2012). The Evaluation of Educators in Effective Schools and Classrooms for All Learners. E3TL The Educator Evaluation for Excellence in Teaching and Learning ConsortiumCommon Core State Standards Initiative Darche, S., Nayar, N., & Bracco, K.R. (2009). Work-based learning in California: Opportunities and Models for Expansion. WestEd & the James Irvine Foundation Dynamic Learning Maps Alternative Assessment System consortium National Center and State Collaborative Partnership (NCSC) Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algazzine, B. & Karvonen, M. (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), Center for Applied Special Technology from Common Core State Standards Initiative Dawson, P. & Guare, R. (2012). Coaching Students with Executive Skills Deficits. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Grisham-Brown, J., & Kearns, J. (2001). Can performance goals be set for all students? Creating standards-based individualized education. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Kearns, Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp ). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Heacox, D. (2009). Making Differentiation a Habit. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing
References Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum Access for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities: The Promise of Universal Design for Learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum from Jorgensen, C. M. (1995). Essential questions, inclusive answers. Educational Leadership, 52(4), Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Alternative Assessment: Measuring Outcomes and Supports for Students with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Maryland State Department of Education (2011). A Route for Every Learner: UDL as a Framework for Supporting Learning and Improving Achievement for All Learners in Maryland. Prekindergarten Through Higher Education from 06_2010.pdf 06_2010.pdf National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC) (2001). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation from nstruction_udl nstruction_udl
References National Center on Universal Design for Learning from Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers Purcell, S. & Grant, D. (2002). Assistive Technology Solutions for IEP Teams, Verona, Wisconsin: IEP Resources. Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
References Silver, H.F, Strong, R., & Perini, M.J. (2000). So That Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8. Strategies to Improve Access to the General Education Curriculum, n.d. Retrieved on June 4, 2010, The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics 2009 National and Pilot State Results from UC Davis, MIND Institute, Center for Excelling in Developmental Disabilities, National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders Summer Institute Training, June 14-18, 2010 U.S. Department of Education, (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington DC: Author.