Decision Making to Support Standards-Based IEPs John Payne South Carolina Department of Education

1. 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.

2. Hypothesis of the IEP Quality Project 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.

3. Status: Most states use SB-IEPs. Reason: Access “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.

4. IEP Parameters Access, Program & Opportunity (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

5. Access Skills General Curriculum Standards Transition Skills IEP Parameters Standards-based, not Standards-bound. The IEP is the boundary, not the standards

7. IEP-Q Project Caveats • Instructional Time is Limited • Opportunity to Learn is Important • Procedural and Substantive Components of IEPs Matter

8. 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)

9. PLAAFP Are multiple sources of data used? Does the PLAAFP provide a descriptive snapshot of the student? Could you begin standards-referenced instruction? Resource: Planning Sheet example

10. PLAAFP Structure/Elements

11. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify Direct Need 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

12. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify Priority Content/Skill(s) Important Annual Goals Questions: • What skills must this student learn in order to become proficient on the grade-level standard? • What access skills related to the grade-level standard(s) must this student learn? • What are the component skills, and are they “equal”?

13. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify Priority Content/Skill(s)

14. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant • 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.

15. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Write Goals and Objectives • If a Goal is Needed: • Prompts to encourage that the number of annual goals is manageable and achievable . • 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.

16. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Write Goals and Objectives Implementation Plan • If a Goal is Needed: • Identify specially designed instruction including or modifications needed to access and make progress in the general curriculum • What student-specific and focused instruction is to be offered? (e.g., intense reading support, supplemental math foundational skills) • Are alterations to the complexity or focus of material needed?

17. User Feedback & Data Collection from 2 States 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.

18. Indirect Effects - State Assessment The “Promise” of Intervention Effects Shriner, Carty, Rose, Shogren, Kim, & Trach (2013)

19. 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

20. Improving Educational Outcomes in South Carolina In the Wake of Alternate Assessments based on Modified Achievement Standards John Payne February 12, 2014

21. 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

22. 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

23. SC’s Approach • Video Modules from Dr. Shriner on standards-based 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

24. 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)

25. 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_dd3d052a-8b03-495f-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 decision-making Tutorial. Journal of Special Education, 47, 175-185.

26. THANK YOU Jim Shriner jshriner@illinois.edu iepq@education.illinois.edu 217-244-9318 John Payne JRPayne@ed.sc.gov 803-734-8224