Language Arts instructional
strategies transition for Special
Education teachers and All Teachers
Lisa Campbell, Ed.D.
Hamilton County Educational Service Center
April 10, 2012
Reflection Question…
 Is it unrealistic to expect that students with
disabilities (outside of the small % of students who
will qualify for alternate assessment) be expected to
master the new and more challenging CCSS in ELA?
 Is this expectation long overdue?
Welcome
Your task is to join all nine dots using only four (or less)
straight lines, without lifting your pencil.
What’s the point?
We need to think differently about opportunities to
provide high quality instruction for students with
disabilities in order to meet the demands of the CCSS.
Common Core State Standards in ELA
 ELA CCSS are K-12 standards in reading,
writing, speaking, listening, and language. They
also include standards for literacy in content
areas for grades 6-12.
Common Core State Standards & Students with
Disabilities
IDEA requires that students
with disabilities participate
in high-stakes testing.
Students with disabilities
must be challenged within
the general education.
The CCSS will help students
with disabilities prepare for
and access high-stakes
testing.
Students with all disabilities
including:









(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997;
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004)

Specific learning
disabilities
Emotional and behavioral
disorders
Speech and language
impairments
Developmental cognitive
disabilities
Autism spectrum disorders
Other health impairments
Physical impairments
Sensory impairments
Severe multiple
impairments
Traumatic brain injury
What’s Not Covered in the Standards?
 Page 6 of CCSS in ELA
“Intentional design limitations” of the standards
 The Standards define what all students are expected
to know and be able to do, not how teachers should
teach.
 The Standards set grade-specific standards but do
not define the intervention methods or materials
necessary to support students who are well below or
well above grade-level expectations.
 It is also beyond the scope of the Standards to define
the full range of supports appropriate for English
language learners and for students with special
needs
Application to Students with Disabilities
 The www.corestandards.org site includes a PDF
promoting a “culture of high expectations for all
students” in a document titled Application to
Students with Disabilities
 http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-
to-students-with-disabilities.pdf
Importance of Early Intervention
 When the instructional needs of
learners are met early, students with
and without disabilities have less
difficulty and require less specialized
instruction later.
Standards-Based IEPs & Classroom Instruction
Include IEP goals based
on academic content
standards for the grade
in which the student in
enrolled (regardless of
the student’s disability).
Standards-based IEPs
should be designed to
monitor the student’s
progress in achieving
the student’s standardsbased goals.
Students with
disabilities need access
to grade-level
curriculum and
instruction.
Access can take place in
either a special
education or a general
education classroom.
(Minnesota Department of Education 2010)
Shift in Writing Applications:
Increase in Writing from Sources
Instructional Implications:
 Writing instruction needs to emphasize use of evidence to
inform or to make an argument; it includes short, focused
research projects K-12.
 Students K-12 develop college and career-ready skills through
written arguments that respond to the ideas, events, facts, and
arguments presented in the texts they listen to and read
(Appendix A, pp. 24-26; student samples, Appendix C).
 Shifting away from today’s emphasis on narrative writing (in
response to de-contextualized prompts), the standards place a
emphasis on students writing to sources, i.e., using evidence
from texts to present careful analyses, well-defended claims,
and clear information. Rather than asking students questions
they can answer from their prior knowledge or experience, the
standards expect students to answer questions that depend on
information in a variety of text selections.
Shift in Reading Standards:
Increase in Informational Text and
Text-based Answers
Instructional Implications:
 Teachers need to ensure that classroom experiences stay
deeply connected texts and that students develop habits
for making evidentiary arguments based on the text,
both in conversation as well as in writing, to assess their
comprehension of a text (Appendix A, p. 2). This
includes critical reasoning with focus on analysis and
evaluation.
 Increasing the amount of informational text students
read K-12 will prepare them to read college and careerready texts.
Additional shift requiring critical
reasoning: Text Complexity
Instructional Implications:
 In order to prepare students for the complexity of
college and career-ready texts, each grade level
requires growth in text complexity (Appendix A, pp. 517). Students read the central, grade-appropriate text
around which instruction is centered (see exemplars
and sample tasks, Appendix B).
 Teachers need to prioritize time in the curriculum for
close and careful reading and provide appropriate and
necessary supports to make the central text accessible
to students reading below grade level.
introducing background
knowledge
Scaffolding
for
Text
Complexity
immersing
students in more
15
complex language exposure and
usage that makes a difference in
their ability to access knowledge
engaging students with carefully selected
or constructed graphic organizers that
make the structure of the text visible
modeling how to interpret the meaning of texts
that use more complex approaches, like satire
or rhetorical argument
engaging pairs or teams of students with more challenging
texts as “buddies” and giving them opportunities to reflect
on those texts through discussions with each other or
through “buddy” journals
making 20 percent of their class reading “stretch” texts that
help them reach beyond their reading level
Scaffolding for students with
disabilities and all struggling readers
 Using tiered text is one way to scaffold. Teachers select an easy-
to-read text aligned with students’ entry-level background and
academic knowledge. Built on the Gradual Release of
Responsibility model, which involves explicit teacher modeling,
guided instruction, and independent practice—tiered texts
scaffold student understanding and provide background
knowledge and the multiple exposures to academic vocabulary
required for comprehension.
 Balancing the rigor of text complexity as proposed by the CCSS
with current student reading levels may seem daunting;
however, through explicit instruction in vocabulary and
by building background knowledge through the use of
tiered texts, teachers can make complex texts accessible to all
students.
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focus Lesson
Guided
Instruction
“We do it”
Collaborative
“You do it
together”
Independent
“You do it
alone”
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
A Model for Success for All Students
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual
release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Deconstructing the State Standards
for Students with Disabilities
Be aware of the student’s present level of academic
achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP).
Identify the appropriate grade level standard(s)
statements.
Unpack the standard. Identify what the student needs to
know and be able to do in the simplest terms possible.
Example of Deconstructing a Standard
Break the standard into its
component parts:

Standard
Quote accurately from a text
when explaining what the
text says explicitly and when
drawing inferences from the
text. (RL.5.1)


Quote accurately
Explain what happened
Draw inferences
Analyze the subskills

Decides on a focus. For example,
focus on explaining what
happened in the text to improve
the student’s comprehension
Determine Accommodations
and/or Modifications for student
to successfully reach standard
Determine Plan to Monitor
Progress
Accommodation vs. Modification
Accommodation:
An effort to alter the representation or
presentation of the curriculum or to modify the
student’s engagement with the curriculum to
enhance access and progress.
 Changes in the assessment or curriculum that
do not alter the validity, reliability, or security
of the test or curriculum.
Modification: Substantive changes in an
assessment or academic curriculum that change
the rigor or expectation.
Various Accommodations
Presentation Accommodations—change how an
assignment or assessment is given to a student. These
include alternate modes of access which may be auditory,
multisensory, tactile, or visual.
Response Accommodations— allow students to complete
assignments, assessments, and activities in different ways
(alternate format or procedure) or to solve or organize
problems using some type of assistive device or organizer.
Setting Accommodations—change the location in which
an assignment or assessment is given or the conditions of
the setting.
Timing/Scheduling Accommodations—increase the
allowable length of time to complete an assignment or
assessment, or change the way the time is organized for
an assignment or assessment.
(Minnesota Manual of Accommodations 2009, 12)
Facts Related to Modifications
Differentiation and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are not
modifications, adaptations, or accommodations, but are supports that
should be afforded to ALL students regularly.
Curriculum modification is based on ranging degrees in which our
educational approach becomes distinct from or maintains the
similarities to existing general curriculum.
Modifications are described by altered content knowledge,
conceptual difficulty, educational goals, and instructional method
versus building scaffolding and bridges between existing curriculum
and people involved in the educational process.
Note:
Inappropriate modifications have the potential to increase the gap
between the achievement of students with disabilities and grade
level expectations. This could adversely affect students throughout
their educational career.
What can I do TOMORROW to better prepared to implement
the CCSS with all students?
 Learn more about or solidify knowledge of differentiation
and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
 Gather and respond to data gathered from formative and
summative assessments.
 Engage in Response to Intervention (RTI).
 Practice gradual release of responsibility.
Specific to the content area of ELA:
• Phonemic Awareness
• Phonics
• Fluency
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension
• Writing
A Framework for Success: RTI
Features include:
 Focus on prevention prior to intervention
 Universal screening
 Quality instruction for ALL students
 Progress monitoring
 Data-based decisions
 Tier 1 instruction
 Intervention (tier 1)
 Tier 2 instruction
 Intervention (tier 2)
 Tier 3 instruction
 Intervention (tier 3)
References
Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010a. “Application to Students with Disabilities.”
Accessed March 26 2012. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-studentswith-disabilities.pdf.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010b. “Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.”
Accessed March 21, 2012.
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010e. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed March
23, 2012. http://www.corestandards.org/frequently-asked-questions.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L., No. 105-17, 105th
Cong., 1st sess.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et esq. (2004)
(reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities).
Minnesota Department of Education. 2003. Adaptations Form. Roseville, MN: Minnesota
Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
Samuels, Christina A. 2011. “Special Educators Look to Tie IEPs to Common Core.”
Education Week, January 11, 2011.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/12/27/15iep_ep.h30.html.