Applying SAS to Students With Complex Support Needs

1. Applying SAS to Students With Complex Support Needs December 8, 2010

2. The mission of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) is to support the efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of Special Education, and to build the capacity of local educational agencies to serve students who receive special education services. PaTTAN’s Mission

3. Pennsylvania’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Our goal for each child is to ensure IEP teams begin with the general education setting with the use of Supplementary Aids and Services before considering a more restrictive environment.

4. Essential Questions • Who are our students with complex support needs? • What are the promising educational practices for educating students with complex support needs?

5. Essential Questions • How can we ensure that students with complex support needs are accessing grade level content standards? • How can we interpret instruction for students with complex support needs at different communication levels?

6. Who are the students? • Think, Pair, Share • When you hear “learners with complex support needs”, who do you think of? • Learning characteristics • Labels • Kind of supports needed

7. Thinking About Our Students

8. Adapted from Kleinert & Kearnes, 2001 The Vision “Imagine educational practices in which learners with complex support needs have the same learner outcomes as students without disabilities”

9. Presume Competence Viewing students through the lens of a disability label may increase the likelihood of misjudging capabilities and barring some students from opportunities to learn what other students their age are learning (Jorgensen, McSheehan & Sonnenmeier, 2007)

10. Presume Competence Viewing students through the lens of abilities willincrease the likelihood of nurturing individual talents and providing all students the opportunities to learn what other students their age are learning in the general education classroom. (adapted from Jorgensen, McSheehan & Sonnenmeier, 2007)

11. The Least Dangerous Assumption • “…educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions, which if incorrect will have the least dangerous effect…we should assume that poor performance is due to instructional inadequacy rather than to student deficits…” Anne Donnellan Ph.D University of San Diego

12. Inclusive Education Membership I count Participation General Education Instruction Learning I belong Social & Other Academic Everything Else Adapted from Michael McSheehan, Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire, 2009

13. State’s Perspective

14. Federal Requirements • Federal laws and regulations required that all students, including those with the most severe disabilities, participate in the statewide accountability process: • Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act, • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 • Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 • No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

15. The Accountability System • The Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA)was introduced as the statewide alternate assessment during the 2000-2001 school year. • The test was initially designed to assess reading and math in grades 5, 8, and 11. • Grade 3 was added to the set of grades tested. • In 2005-06 grades 4, 6, and 7 were tested for the purposes of AYP for the first time • In 2007 the PASA Science in grades 4, 8, and 11 was introduced.

16. Assessing Students with Complex Support Needs • According to federal guidelines, alternate assessments judged against alternate academic achievement standards should be aligned to grade level expectations. • The PASA alternate anchors/eligible content are aligned to the grade level PSSA anchors/eligible content. • The PASA alternate anchors/eligible content are reinterpreted and limited in depth and breadth.

17. National Research and Studies • This new field of large scale assessment for students with complex support needs was “ripe” for research. • Institutions of Higher Education • National Alternate Assessment Center • National Center for Educational Outcomes • The Inclusive Large Scale Standards and Assessment group • National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment

18. PA Research and Studies

19. SALLSA Enhanced Assessment Grant (2008) • Partners include Measured Progress, UNC-Charlotte, University of Oregon, Western Carolina University, Georgia, Washington, and Wyoming • Purpose • Examine alignment of the alternate assessment to general grade level standards and anchors

20. SALLSA Enhanced Assessment Grant (2008) • Activities • Alignment study in reading and math • Curricular Indicator Survey • Findings and Suggestions • The majority of students in the sample reportedly had symbolic communication systems but teachers frequently reported teaching content at the “attention” level. • At the same time, teachers reported designing instructional activities in which they expected active participation (either with supports or independent) from their students. • Continued professional development may help teachers target deeper learning (i.e., higher levels of DOK) while retaining the expectation for independent performance.

21. SALLSA Enhanced Assessment Grant (2008) • Findings and Suggestions • Survey responses suggest that there may be room for growth in building access to the general curriculum. • Teachers did not rely extensively on their general education counterparts for assistance in developing curriculum access or teaching academic skills. • Increasing student access to the general education curriculum and better aligning instruction in order to increase academic achievement may require more professional development and strengthened relationships with general educators in the same schools.

22. A State Consortium To Examine the Consequential Validity OfAlternate Assessments Based On Alternate AchievementStandards (AA-AAS) : A Longitudinal Study (2008)or1% GSEG

23. 1% GSEG • Partners included the North Central Regional Resource Center at the University of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin • Purpose • To determine intended and unintended consequences in the utilization and interpretation of the alternate assessment

24. 1% GSEG • Activities • Survey teachers who administer the PASA • Survey administrators directly involved with the PASA (e.g., principals where the PASA is administered) • Conduct observations in classrooms of teachers who completed the survey

25. 1% GSEG • Findings • Teachers and administrators had a strong understanding of the purpose of the PASA and how to administer it. • Teachers saw the benefit of the alternate standards and anchors as helping to align special education with state standards and improve development of IEP goals.

26. 1% GSEG • Findings • Respondents were confident in the professional development received regarding the administration of the assessment. • In contrast, professional development opportunities were limited in regards to interpretation of scores and communication of results

27. Standards Aligned System • The Bureau of Teaching and Learning requested that the Bureau of Special Education incorporate students with complex support needs into the Standards Aligned System (SAS).

28. SAS Activities • The University of Kentucky through ILSSA and National Alternate Assessment System worked in cooperation with the Bureau of Special Education and PaTTAN • June 15-18, 2010 • Approximately 20 educators including special educators and general educators

29. SAS Activities • Using the Pathways to Learning in combination with SAS Curriculum Framework, educators modified lesson plans within SAS and/or developed new lesson plans • These modified lesson plans incorporated focus upon • Near links and far links to grade level content • Communication levels (pre-symbolic, emerging symbolic, symbolic)

30. SAS Outcomes • 21 lesson plans were developed in June  • Lesson plans required additional vetting • For immediate placement onto SAS, the following are ready: • 7 modified reading lesson plans • 4 modified math lesson plans • 2 modified science lesson plans

31. National Center and State Collaborative • The federal government announced General Supervision Enhanced Grants • Referred to as the NCSC GSEG • Purpose is to develop Common Core Assessment for the 1% population (new alternate assessment aligned to the Common Core)

32. NCSC GSEG • While there were approximately 6 proposals, Pennsylvania committed to this project only. • Partners include National Center for Educational Outcomes, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, National Alternate Assessment Center, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 18 state partners, and 6 entities. • There is a shared commitment for research to practice, development of a comprehensive model curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development.

33. The Future: Continuing the Vision “Imagine educational practices in which learners with significant disabilities have the same learner outcomes as students without disabilities” • Kleinert and Kearnes, 2001

34. Curricular Context for Students with Complex Support Needs

35. Research Activity

36. Number of validated research and literature review studies occurring in the past 35 years studying educational practices for students with complex support needs: 128 reading 55 math 10 science M. McSheehan: 2010 PEAL Conference, Pittsburgh PA

37. Access to general education curriculum and the role of context • Access to general education contexts • Instruction on general education content • High expectations • Participation in and progress on general education content • Participation in general education accountability measures Ryndak, Moore, Orlando and Delano, 2010

38. It’s All About the Fit… Special and General Education • IEP • Not a curriculum • Describes how the student will: • access education; • make progress in the general curriculum; and • address other unique needs. • State Standards • Drive the development of the curriculum • Are assessed by NCLB/ESEA • Reflect what all students should learn

39. Some questions to ask when looking at student performance • Is it academic? • content referenced: reading, math, science • Is the contentreferenced to a student’s assigned grade level based on chronological age? • Does the focus of achievement maintain fidelity with the content of the original grade level standard (content centrality) ? • what the student is doing Browder et al. Links for Academic Learning

40. Some questions to ask when looking at student performance • Does the focus of the performance level maintain fidelity of the original grade level standard? • the level of student performance • Is the expected student achievement to show learning of grade referenced academic content? • Is it meaningful? Browder et al. Links for Academic Learning

41. Using the Common Core Standards to Address Instruction Teachers should ….. • Apply strategies for linking to grade level content instruction • Identify clear instructional goals and objectives • Ensure that the instructional goals and objectives are assessed That results in ….. • student work that reflects appropriate constructs in reading, mathematics and science

42. Is it what we think it is? Looking at how complexity builds to fully meet the standard • Initial activity • Building knowledge and skills • Meeting the standard

43. Linking to the Common Core Standards: English Language Arts K-12 Grades 9-10 Students: Strand: Reading Standards for Literature • Analyze how an author structures a text, orders events within it (e.g., parallel plots), and manipulates time (e.g., pacing) to create mystery, tension, or surprise. Craft and structure

44. Is it what we think it is? • Josh will order notable events in Romeo and Juliet using pictures with simple captions • Is it academic/reading? Yes • Is the task typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Romeo and Juliet is adapted from a text illustrating complexity and quality from grades 9-10, but Josh is simply ordering events without an overt reference to text structure • Is the level of performance typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Josh is ordering events (application) but no analysis is involved

45. Building knowledge and skill • Josh will use a graphic organizer to lay out details from a notable event. Draft

46. Is it what we think it is? • Josh will complete a graphic organizer to lay out details of a notable event (includes distractors). • Is it academic/reading? Yes • Is the task typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Josh is working on Shakespeare but details of the event are not overtly related to text structure • Is the level of performance typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Josh is identifying (recall) and organizing details (simple application) but it does not include analysis required by the standard

47. Text Structure: Problem and Solution Reading Standards for Literature/Craft and Structure Analyze how an author structures a text, orders events within it, and manipulates time (e.g., pacing) to create mystery, tension, or surprise. • Josh will answer questions related to problem and solution (distractors included Draft

48. Text Structure: Problem and Solution Draft

49. Is it what we think it is? • Josh will answer questions related to problem and solution (distractors included) • Is it academic/reading? Yes • Is the task typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Using Romeo and Juliet Josh is investigating problem and solution, an element of text structure, but there is no evidence of how it is related to text structure • Is the level of performance typical of a student the same age working on the same content? Far link. Josh is answering questions which include recall but at least one includes a description and requires comprehension to answer, but not analysis

50. Analyzing how the author uses structure of the text to show tension, etc. Draft