Language Arts instructional strategies transition for Special Education teachers and All Teachers

1. Language Arts instructional strategies transition for Special Education teachers and All Teachers Lisa Campbell, Ed.D. Hamilton County Educational Service Center April 10, 2012

2. 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?

3. Welcome Your task is to join all nine dots using only four (or less) straight lines, without lifting your pencil.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Common Core State Standards & Students with Disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997; Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004) 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: • 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

7. What’s Not Covered in the Standards? • Page 6 of CCSS in ELA

8. “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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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 standards-based 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)

12. 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.

13. 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 career-ready texts.

14. 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. 5-17). 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.

15. Scaffolding for Text Complexity • introducing background knowledge • immersing students in more 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

16. 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.

17. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focus Lesson Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative “You do it alone” Independent 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.

18. 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.

19. Example of Deconstructing a Standard Standard Quote accurately from a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. (RL.5.1) Break the standard into its component parts: • 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

20. 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.

21. 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)

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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)

25. References Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010a. “Application to Students with Disabilities.” Accessed March 26 2012. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-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.