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 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
StandardsInstructionally
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
• 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 8th 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
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS
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
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.
INTERIM ASSESSMENT
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
INTERIM ASSESSMENT
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
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 2011. For detailed information on PARCC, go to
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
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
Interim progress
monitoring tools
Summative assessment
for accountability
* 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
Progressions
• Vertical progression
toward learning target
• Sequenced building
blocks
• Research-based
• Linked to high-quality
assessments
Uses percentages to
make straightforward
comparisons
Uses the symbols =,
< and > to order
numbers and make
comparisons
Uses decimal
notation to two places
Uses place value to
distinguish and order
whole numbers
Use numbers to
decide which is
bigger, smaller, same
size
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1997). Developmental Assessment.
Victoria, AU: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd.
Maps Allow for the Integration of
Multiple Skills…
Equal
quantity
Compare two
quantities up to
ten using
models
Identify
more
number of
Identify
same
number of
Use
perceptual
subitizing
Identify
fewer
number of
Identify more
than one
Identify
different
number of
Identify one
Compare
sets
Explain set
Recognize
wholeness
Recognize
same
Recognize
different
Compare
objects
Imitate
Create a model
of quantity
Learning Progressions vs. Learning Maps
Centralizes notion
of “superhighway”
Delineates multiple
pathways
RESOURCES AND
SUPPORT MATERIALS
CCSS Spirals
• Anchor Standards—Progress Through Multiple Grade Levels
• Skills Build Upon Prior Grade Levels
• http://ctaipd.ning.com/page/deeper-dive-into-the-common-core-
state-standards-and-assessments• http://api.ning.com/files/E12ZO5fIjR2btsFSJ3bENitBMEuc6Jox
o42FFoDTrL5unURlrZNVm*xAJVloUEq6kTr8aAv45N2z43DKR
0lLFKnsLSRZXnX0/A28SpiralsforGTCWorkshop.pdf
Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and
Technical Subjects (RST): Standard 2
RST.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.
Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical
Subjects (RST): Standard 1
RST.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, [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
• 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
Core Content
Connectors: K
showing mastery of the prerequisite core skills of cardinality, constancy, and 1:1 correspondence
CCSS Domain/Cluster
Counting and Cardinality
K.NO.1a1 Rote count up to 10 K CC Know number names and
the count sequence.
Counting and Cardinality
K.NO.1a2 Rote count up to 31 K CC Know number names and
the count sequence.
K.NO.1a3 Rote count up to
Counting and Cardinality
100
K CC Know number names and
the count sequence.
K.NO.1a4 Count up to 10
Counting and Cardinality
objects in a line, rectangle, or K CC Count to tell the number of
array
objects.
Common Core State Standard
K.CC.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.
K.CC.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.
K.CC.1 Count to 100 by ones and by tens.
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: K
CCSS Domain/Cluster
Common Core State Standard
K.NO.1b1 Match the numeral
Counting and Cardinality
K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting
to the number of objects in a K CC Count to tell the number of to cardinality.
set
objects.
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
Counting and Cardinality
K.CC.4 Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting
has more
K CC Count to tell the number of to cardinality.
objects.
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
Grade 3 students:
1. Ask and answer questions to
demonstrate understanding of a text,
referring explicitly to the text as the
basis for the answers.
Grade 4 students:
1. Refer to details and examples in a
text when explaining what the text says
explicitly and when drawing inferences
from the text.
Grade 5 students:
1. Quote accurately from a text when
explaining what the text says explicitly
and when drawing inferences from the
text.
CCCs
3.RL.h1 Answer questions related to
the relationship between characters ,
setting, events, or conflicts (e.g.,
characters and events, characters and
conflicts, setting and conflicts).
CCCs
4.RL.i1 Refer to details and examples
in a text when explaining what the text
says explicitly.
CCCs
5.RL.b1 Refer to details and examples
in a text when explaining what the text
says explicitly.
3.RL.i2 Answer questions (literal and
inferential) and refer to text to support
your answer.
4.RL.i2 Refer to details and examples
in a text when drawing basic inferences
about a story, poem, or drama.
5.RL.b2 Refer to specific text evidence
to support inferences, interpretations,
or conclusions.
3.RL.i3 Support inferences, opinions,
and conclusions using evidence from
the text including illustrations.
4.RL.k1 Use details and examples in a
text when explaining the author’s
purpose (e.g., what did the author use
to scare you, surprise you?).
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
Career
College
Community
Curriculum
Common Core
Standards
Learning Progressions
Core Content
Connectors
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.
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 (DOK)
Level 1—Recall and Reproduction
Teacher
Student
• Directs
• Responds
• Shows
• Remembers
• Questions
• Memorizes
• Demonstrates
• Explains
• Compares
• Restates
• Examines
• Interprets
• Tells
• Recognizes
• Evaluates
• Translates
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Level 2—Skills and Concepts
Teacher
Student
• Shows
• Solves Problems
• Observes
• Calculates
• Facilitates
• Completes
• Questions
• Constructs
• Organizes
• Demonstrates
• Evaluates
• Compiles
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Level 3—Strategic Reasoning
Teacher
Student
• Probes
• Discusses
• Clarifies
• Debates
• Guides
• Examines
• Organizes
• Judges
• Dissects
• Justifies
• Questons
• Uncovers
• Accepts
• Disputes
• Acts a Resource
• Decides
Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Level 4—Extended Reasoning
Teacher
Student
• Facilitates
• Designs
• Reflects
• Takes Risks
• Extends
• Proposes
• Analyzes
• Formulates
• Evaluates
• 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.
54
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),)
Developing Goals and Objectives Based on the
CCSS and Specially Designed Instruction
IEP Goal
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 shortvowel 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 shortvowel 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
•
•
Focused on acquiring basic
academic, access, and/or
functional skills
Little relationship to a
specific academic area or
grade-level expectations
Instructionally Appropriate IEP
•
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. 7th grade ELA and 8th grade ELA).
• Consider how the student is performing in relation to the gradelevel 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 ageappropriate.
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
Student
Who
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
Speaking and Listening IEP Goal
• Comprehension and
• Comprehension and
Collaboration
• Engage Effectively in a
range of collaborative
discussion (one-on-one, in
groups, and teacher-led)
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 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
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
• http://californiatac.org/about/smarter-balanced/testingwindows/index.html
• Field Test
• Frequently Asked Questions
• http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/sbac-faqs.asp
• http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_FAQ.pdf
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)
Questions?
Additional Resources
• http://www.ocde.us/CommonCoreCA/Pages/default
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.aspx
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/smarterbalanced.as
p
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/ab250.asp
www.corestandards.org
www.commoncore.org/maps
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/
http://www.ncscpartners.org/
www.udlcenter.org