History of Special Education 1975: PL 94-142—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 Increase in Litigation
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) 2014-15: 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 (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) 21 st 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 Reading Writing Speaking and Listening Language http://www.scoe.net/castandards/
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 8 th Grade Algebra 1 Option for those Not Ready for Algebra http://www.scoe.net/castandards/
Mathematics Shifts in Focus 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
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
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
Optional Interim assessment system — no stakes Summative assessment for accountability 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. Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined PERFORMANCE TASKS Reading Writing Math COMPUTER ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT Re-take option The SBAC Assessment System * Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 – 8 and High School Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks INTERIM ASSESSMENT Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks INTERIM ASSESSMENT Developed by The Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, version 4, July 2011. For detailed information on PARCC, go to http://PARCConline.org. http://PARCConline.org
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 * English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School END-OF-YEAR ASSESSMENT * Alternate assessment systems are those developed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and are based on alternate achievement standards. 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. Curriculum, instruction, and formative assessment resources for classroom use Summative assessment for accountability Interim progress monitoring tools 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.
Vertical progression toward learning target Sequenced building blocks Research-based Linked to high-quality assessments
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 =, 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.
Maps Allow for the Integration of Multiple Skills…
Create a model of quantity Recognize wholeness Identify one Identify more than one Use perceptual subitizing Compare two quantities up to ten using models Explain set Compare sets Imitate Compare objects Identify different number of Identify same number of Recognize same Recognize different Equal quantity Identify more number of Identify fewer number of
Learning Progressions vs. Learning Maps Centralizes notion of “superhighway” Delineates multiple pathways
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.2.11-12 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.2.9-10 Grade 9-10 students 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 students 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.1.11-12 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.1.9-10 Grade 9-10 students 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 students Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts. +
Key Ideas and Details: Standard 1 6, , 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,  [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, , 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 https://wiki.ncscpartners.org/mediawiki/index.php/ Main_Page https://wiki.ncscpartners.org/mediawiki/index.php/ Main_Page
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
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 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.1a3 Rote count up to 100 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.1a4 Count up to 10 objects in a line, rectangle, or array Counting and Cardinality K CC Count to tell the number of objects. K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality. a)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) Core Content Connectors: KCCSS Domain/ClusterCommon Core State Standard K.NO.1b1 Match the numeral to the number of objects in a set Counting and Cardinality K CC Count to tell the number of objects. K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality. a)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. K.NO.1b2 Identify the set that has more Counting and Cardinality K CC Count to tell the number of objects. K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality. a)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.
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
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
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.
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
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--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. 54
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),)
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 2-26-14, 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 2-26-14, 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 IEPInstructionally 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
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
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.
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
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. 7 th grade ELA and 8 th 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?
Components of Annual Goals Who Student Timeframe Length of Time Conditions Under What Conditions Behavior Will Do What Criterion To What Level or Degree
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 Standard Comprehension and Collaboration Engage Effectively in a range of collaborative discussion (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) Speaking and Listening IEP Goal Comprehension and Collaboration Frank will use picture communication in group context to acknowledge others’ communication
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 ModerateSevere
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 2013-14 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 2013-14 and 2014-15 to be administered at the Option and Cost of the LEA
When Do We Start Using the SBAC? SBAC for 2013-14 will Field Tested in Both ELA and Math Will Include CMA Students Scores from the SBAC Field Tests will not be reported
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 2013-14 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)