Standards-based IEP

advertisement
Decision Making to Support
Standards-Based IEPs
John Payne
South Carolina Department of Education
Jim Shriner
University of Illinois
Preparation of this presentation was supported, in part, by grant (R324J060002,
R324A120081) from the U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center on Special Education Research, and from the Illinois State Board of
Education (Part B-Discretionary Programs) awarded to the author. Opinions expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U. S. Department of Education or Offices
within it.
Support provided by the IEP Tutorial will
result in the development of higher
quality IEPs that:
• Help prioritize annual goals in relation to state
standards and other aspects of the general
education curriculum.
• Are used routinely in planning and
implementing instruction on general curricular
skills.
• As a result, IEP goals will be reviewed and met
with a higher frequency and there will be an
increase in students’ standards-based
achievement.
Hypothesis
of the IEP
Quality
Project
“Standards-based IEP”
• Where is the student with respect to
standards for enrolled grade?
• Which standards warrant attention?
• What goals are needed to designate
the “necessary learning –the
specially designed instruction” – that
will lead the student’s program
toward achievement of standards?
• Sources: Project Forum at NASDSE, 2010.
Status:
Most states
use SBIEPs.
Reason:
Access
IEP
Access, Program & Opportunity Parameters
(LRE & FAPE)
• The IEP articulates:
present levels of academic achievement
and functional performance and,
measurable annual goals, to enable the
student to be
involved in and make progress in the
general education curriculum
Standards-based,
not
Standards-bound.
Access Skills
General
Curriculum
Standards
Transition Skills
IEP Parameters
The IEP is the
boundary,
not the
standards
IEP-Q Project Caveats

Instructional Time is Limited

Opportunity to Learn is Important

Procedural and Substantive
Components of IEPs Matter
Project Logic

What standards? (CCSS +)

Not all Standards are “Equal”

Match to needs/deficit areas

Match to Present Levels of
Academic Achievement and
Functional Performance –
(PLAAFP)
PLAAFP
Are multiple sources of data used?
Does the PLAAFP provide a
descriptive snapshot of the
student?
Could you begin standardsreferenced instruction?
Resource: Planning Sheet example
PLAAFP Structure/Elements
Annual Goals
• Every goal must relate to a need identified in the
PLAAFP
• Standards are considered early in the process
No tolerance for:
“Write a goal; Find a standard that sort of
matches.”
•Not everything deserves a goal
- Role of accommodations
IEP-Q
Tutorial
Goal
Assistant
Identify
Direct Need
Important Annual Goals Questions:
• What skills must this student learn in order
to become proficient on the grade-level
standard?
IEP-Q
Tutorial
Goal
Assistant
Identify
• What access skills related to the grade-level Priority
standard(s) must this student learn?
Content/Ski
• What are the component skills, and are they ll(s)
“equal”?
IEP-Q
Tutorial
Goal
Assistant
Identify
Priority
Content/Ski
ll(s)
• Putting Annual Goals in
Perspective
• The IEP-Q Goal Assistant applies the logic
of Step 1 and Step 2 to suggest prioritized
Standards Clusters
• Individual Standards are selected, then
Key Elements are highlighted.
IEP-Q
Tutorial
Goal
Assistant
• If a Goal is Needed:
IEP-Q
Tutorial Goal
Assistant
• Prompts to encourage that the number of annual Write Goals and
goals is manageable and achievable
Objectives
.
• Prompts for best practice for all elements of well
written goals
• Ideas to craft meaningful short-term objectives
based on structure and intent of the goal.
• If a Goal is Needed:
IEP-Q
Tutorial Goal
Assistant
• Identify specially designed instruction
including or modifications needed to Write Goals and
access and make progress in the
Objectives
general curriculum
Implementation
• What student-specific and focused
Plan
instruction is to be offered? (e.g.,
intense reading support, supplemental
math foundational skills)
• Are alterations to the complexity or
focus of material needed?
Most consistent positive effects of a
Standards-based IEP approach:
Increased input / “buy-in” by parents and
general education staff in IEP process and
implementation.
Positive changes the way in which special
educators wrote goals and the way in which
they communicated these goals to general
ed. colleagues.
In co-taught settings, a sense of “better used”
time for critical skill instruction.
User
Feedback &
Data
Collection
from 2
States
Indirect Effects - State Assessment
The
“Promise”
of
Intervention
Effects
2008-2010 ISAT Scores by Usage Group
240
235.55
230
221.9
ISAT Scores
220
218.22
215.03
210
High
209.17
205.11
Low
208.69
200
No
199.4
199.19
190
180
2008
2009
YEAR
Shriner, Carty, Rose, Shogren, Kim, & Trach (2013)
2010
Response to Intervention (RtI),
Progress Monitoring, Standards, and
IEPs
Depending on the product used:
- will tell you that a student is improving or failing to
make progress in the area of reading fluency (ORF) or
overall comprehension (MAZE).
- will not tell you which specific reading skills or
strategies are contributing to the results.
(Decoding, vocabulary knowledge, question/context
confusion, form of error analysis or reading behavior)
What are the articulated instructional skill
needs? Do they reference standards?
Shinn (2012)
Response to
Intervention
“influences”
on IEPs
Improving Educational Outcomes
in South Carolina
In the Wake of Alternate
Assessments based on Modified
Achievement Standards
John Payne
February 12, 2014
Standards-based IEPs
• Focus on “Access” to general education
curriculum (more than physical presence)
• Do not permit “off-grade” testing
• Focus on civil right to have access to the same
information as their peers
• Focus on skill deficits in order to access grade
level content
Challenges and Successes
•
•
•
•
Standards becoming IEP Goals (duplication)
PLAAFP  IEP Goals
Accommodation Use
Collaboration between General Ed and Special
Ed (and ownership of teaching)
• New Standards; New Assessment; New Delivery
of Assessments (Computer); Allowable
Accommodations; New IEP system
• Access/Opportunity to Learn/UDL
SC’s Approach
• Video Modules from Dr. Shriner on standardsbased IEPs
• Creation of virtual PD and courses on IEP
development, implementation, goals, PLAAFP
available to all
• Onsite monitoring (focus on RDA)
• Common Core Collaboration with General
Education at multiple levels
What is it leading to?
• Investigation into LRE
• Widespread UDL training through SPDG grant
• Professional development uniquely designed for
each District
• Course titles and teacher qualifications
• Differentiated instruction and opportunity to
learn (esp with Common Core)
• Monitoring for Results Driven Accountability
• State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
References
Ahearn, E. M. (2010). Standards-based IEP: Implementation update. Alexandria, VA:
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Project Forum.
http://nasdse.org/DesktopModules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles/80_dd3d052a8b03-495f-a442-50fb9b6b543b.pdf
Etscheidt, S. & Curran, C. M. (2010). Peer-reviewed research and Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs): An examination of intent and impact. Exceptionality,
18, 138-150.
Shinn, M. (2012). The relation of AIMSweb, curriculum-based measurement, and the
Common Core Standards: All parts of meaningful school improvement. Austin, TX:
Pearson Education.
Shriner, J. G., Carty, S. J., Rose, C. A., Shogren, K. A., Kim, M., & Trach, J. S.
(2013). Effects of using a web-based Individualized Education Program decisionmaking Tutorial. Journal of Special Education, 47, 175-185.
THANK YOU
Jim Shriner
[email protected]
[email protected]
217-244-9318
John Payne
[email protected]
803-734-8224
Download
Related flashcards

Management

42 cards

System administration

65 cards

Canadian Hockey League

15 cards

Create Flashcards