Transcript Evidence Based Practices for Students with Severe Disabilties

Evidence Based
Practices for Students
with Severe
Disabilties
Diane M. Browder, PhD
UNC Charlotte

Based on
 Browder,
D.M. & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003).
Evidence-based practices for students with
severe disabilities and the requirement for
accountability in “No Child Left Behind.”
Journal of Special Education, 37, 157-163.
Resources on Education of Individuals with
Severe Disabilities
Professional consensus research
 Intervention research
 Expert opinion (textbooks)
 Perspectives of families and students
themselves
 Legal requirements

Snapshot of Best Practice by
Considering No Child Left Behind
Requirement to assess all students in
reading and math (coming soon: science)
 Expectation for adequate yearly progress

Students with Disabilities Included in
Educational Reform Movement


1997 IDEA Amendments…all students included
in state and district assessment…using alternate
assessment if not able to participate in testing
with accommodations
2002 NCLB requires reporting adequate yearly
progress (AYP) in reading, math, coming soon
science… also allowed alternate assessment to
be used for Ss with disabilities not able to
participate in testing with accommodations
Understanding Key Terms

Alternate Assessment
 Alternative
procedure used by states to evaluate
student progress on state standards

Academic Content Standard
 Educational
outcome for all students in academic
curricular domains like language arts & math

Alternate Achievement Standards
 Different
level of performance on the same academic
content standards
Major Decision: Alternate
Achievement Standards


Federal Register December 9, 2003 amend Part 200Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the
Disadvantaged:
(d) Alternate academic achievement standards. For
students under section 602(3) of the IDEA with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate
assessment, a State may, through a documented and
validated standards-setting process, define alternate
academic achievement standards…..
Alternate Achievement Standards (cont)

provided those standards
 1 Are
aligned with the State’s academic
content standards
 2 Promote access to the general curriculum;
and
 3. Reflect professional judgment of the
highest achievement standards possible
Other stipulations


Alternate assessment must yield results for the
grade in which student is enrolled in at least
reading/language arts, mathematics and
beginning in 2007-2008 science
May include proficient and advanced scores of
students with significant cognitive disabilities up
to 1% of all students in the grades assessed
Current Realities




All states have alternate assessments
All states now include assessment of language
arts and math in their alternate assessments
All students participate in assessment, including
those with most significant disabilities
1% of students with significant cognitive
disabilities can “count” for AYP if they meet
state’s alternate achievement standards
Implications
All students need access to the general
curriculum including instruction in
reading and math
 Students with significant cognitive
disabilities need instruction that is
effective in helping them achieve state’s
alternate achievement standards for
reading and math

What is Special About Curriculum
for Ss with Severe Disabilities?
Are students with severe disabilities in the
general curriculum?
 Or are do they need a separate, functional
curriculum?

Curriculum Context: Historical View

Early 1970s
 Adapting infant/ early
childhood curriculum
for students with
severe disabilities of
all ages
 Rejected by early
1980s as “not
functional” and “not
age appropriate”

1980s


1990s



Functional, life skills
curriculum
Add social inclusion focus
(general ed)
Add self determination
focus
2000

What about academic
standards and
accountability? Do we
reject the above or add to
it?
Research on Curriculum


Students with severe disabilities can learn
functional skills that relate to major life domains
(Review by Snell, 1997)
Few of the students represented in this research
had significant physical or multiple disabilities;
some research supports can learn partial
participation (Snell, Lewis, & Houghton, 1989;
Kennedy & Haring, 1993)
Academic Research



Fewer than 10% of studies with students with
severe disabilities have focused on academics
(Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, & Shrikanth, 1997)
Several studies show Ss with severe MR
learned sight words (Browder & Xin, 1998)
At least 10 studies show Ss with severe MR
learned math skills of time; money (Browder &
Grasso, 1999)
Academic “Access”

At least one study shows students can
learn access skills (e.g., grasp/release;
choice making) in context of general
education class academic lesson
 Hunt,
Staub, Alwell, & Goetz (1994)
Research Evidence vs.
Current Need for Practice



Strong evidence for
acquisition of functional
skills
Sparse literature with
students with most
significant disabilities
Some research showing
success in functional
academics and access
skills

Practitioners need to
teach and assess skills
that link to wide range of
content standards
(beyond sight words and
money)
What’s So Special About
Curriculum?



All students need access to general curriculum
per IDEA 1997 and NCLB
Students may need to have academic content
linked to real life activities
We don’t know what academic skills this
population can learn because of a priori
assumptions that academics were not
appropriate based on type and level of disability
Alternate Achievement Standards
SAME academic content standards
 ALTERNATE achievement (performance
indicator)

 But
one that continues to align to academic
content standard (really reading and really
math)
Adequate Yearly Progress

States have wide variation in alternate
assessment processes (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, et
al., in press).


Similarly, will vary in how define alternate
achievement standards…but nearly all AAs
focus on student having demonstrated skill
performance (Thompson & Thurlow, 2001)
Educators across states have common need to
help Ss with severe disabilities meet these
standards through effective instruction
Effective Instruction…
Team Planning
 Target responses
 Instructional support
 Assistive technology

Team Planning

Teams have been effective in…
 Developing
positive behavior support
(Ellingston, et al., 2000)
 Promoting parental involvement (Miner & Bates,
1997)
 Eliminating
barriers to inclusion (Salisbury, et al.,
1997)

Need for research on impact on planning for
general curriculum access
Target Responses
One of the “special” features of education
for students with severe disabilities is need
to prioritize within the curriculum
 In some states, teachers choose the
responses that will be assessed to
document progress on state standards
(e.g., portfolio model)

Options for Responses

Specific, discrete response like choice making
(Kennedy & Haring, 1993)


Set of discrete responses like a list of sight
words (Collins, Branson, & Hall, 1995)
Chained response like task analysis for laundry
(McDonnell & McFarland, 1988)

Generalized response like requesting (ChadseyRusch & Halle, 1992)

Pivotal response like self-initiation (Koegel, et al.,
1999) or problem solving (Hughes, et al., 1996)
Target Responses and NCLB
Do the target responses align with
academic content standard?
 Will they lead to achievement of state
standard for that grade level?
 Are they fully accessible for this student?
(e.g., physically can make the response;
has meaning)

Instructional Support for Acquisition
of Target Responses

Systematic prompting with feedback used
extensively in research with students with severe
disabilities
 (Review by Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Gast, 1989)
 Features




include
Specific prompts
Method to fade prompting
Specific feedback/ reinforcement for corrects
Method for error correction
Issues in Applying Systematic
Instruction
Most research in self contained special
education settings (Snell, 1997)
 Experts recommend their use in inclusive
settings (Jackson, et al., 2000), but general
educators may not endorse (Billingsley, et al.,

1994)
Options for General Education
Contexts





Peer Tutors (Collins et al., 1995; Wolery, et al., 1994)
Cooperative Learning Groups (Hunt et al., 1994)
Observational Learning (Werts, et al., 1996)
Embedding “Trials” in General Education
Lecture (Collins, et al., 1999)
General Education Teacher Runs Mixed
Ability Small Group Using Systematic
Instruction (Schoen & Ogden, 1995)
Another Option: Self-Directed
Learning
Self instruction-pictures (Krantz, et al., 1993)
 Self instruction-audiotape (Grossi, 1998)
 Problem solving (Agran, et al., 2000)

Use Assistive Technology
Can be used to acquire symbol use (e.g.,
meaning of pictures or words)(Kozleski, 1991)
 May decrease problem behavior (Horner et

al., 1990)

May increase peer interaction; turn taking
(Hunt et al., 1991)
Do Practitioners Use These
Procedures?

Presence of best practice may be related to both
teacher skill and implementation difficulties (Ayres,
et al., 1994)

General education teachers may use a few of
these techniques like prompts…but not
systematic prompting like time delay (Agran & Alper,
2000)

Special education teachers may not yet “buy in”
to students with severe disabilities benefiting
from access to general curriculum (Agran et al.,
2002)
What is or Is Not Unique

Not Unique


Need for access to general
curriculum
Annual grade level
assessment in reading and
math

Unique



Prioritizing within the
curriculum (alternate
achievement standards)
Use of alternate
assessment
Need for skills beyond
general curriculum
(functional skills and
therapy)
In Summary

Have effective instructional techniques been
developed?
 A foundation
has been laid with research on
functional skills; not enough is known about teaching
reading and math and teaching Ss with complex
physical disabilities

Are the techniques being used?
 Not
enough research on implementation; what we
have suggests only partially used

Are these techniques unique to/ require
special education?
 Some
current practices may be overly
“special” (i.e., lack of access to general
curriculum)
 Planning instructional support and prioritizing
target responses need special educator within
planning team…also need general educator
for clear curricular alignment