Transcript Document 7198498

Differentiation for Special
Education in a Common
Core World
Evaluating All Teachers of All Learners
Sharen Bertrando
Special Education Resource
Development Specialist
WestEd
Peter Kozik Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Keuka College
What’s on their plate?
Take Aways
1. All students, students with disabilities (SWD) and
English Language Learners (ELL) included, should
be ready for learning in an environment where
they feel welcomed, at ease, and comfortable.
2. When discussing teacher performance, there a
multiple frameworks for the conversations about
learning for all students.
3. Good teaching is good teaching, no matter the
profile of the student.
4. Good teaching needs modeling, support and
nurturance.
Purpose
• To explain and enhance evaluator’s ability to help
grow teachers’ knowledge, skills, and abilities
regarding the learning of all students through access
to the Common Core Standards.
Greater diversity and accountability
• Responsibility of administrators, teachers to ensure
that all students reaches highest level of
achievement
• Responsibility for students with disabilities to
demonstrate progress in general education
curriculum
• Responsibility for students with first language other
than English
• Responsibility for students who don’t fit the mold
Importance of the shared values
There are 6.5 million students with disabilities in the U.S.
•The challenges for these students include:

70% of all schools in the United States that were
cited as failing to achieve AYP did so because
their students with disabilities failed to achieve
AYP.

In 2008, 42% of students with
disabilities failed to graduate.
8
Implementation
of Common
Core State
Standards
Highly Effective
Teachers and
Leaders
Inclusive
Practices
Ensuring Equity
and
Effectiveness by
Closing
Achievement
Gaps
Danielson’s Framework For Professional Practice
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of
Content and Pedagogy
1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of
Students
1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes
1d: Demonstrating Knowledge and
Resources
1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
1f: Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and
Rapport
2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
2c: Managing Classroom Procedures
2d: Managing Student Behavior
2e: Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: Instruction
3a: Communicating with Students
3b: Using Questioning and Discussion
Techniques
3c: Engaging Students in Learning
3d: Using Assessment in Instruction
3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and
Responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
4a: Reflecting on Teaching
4b: Maintaining Accurate Records
4c: Communicating with Families
4d: Participating in a Professional Community
4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
4f: Showing Professionalism
NYSUT’s Framework
For Professional Practice
Standard I: Knowledge of Students and
Student Learning
I.1: demonstrating knowledge of child
and adolescent development
I.2: research-based knowledge of
learning and language acquisition
theories and processes.
I.3: knowledge of and response to
diverse learning needs, interests, and
experiences of all students.
I.4: knowledge of and are responsive to
the economic, social, cultural, linguistic,
family, and community factors that
influence their students’ learning.
I.5: knowledge and understanding of
technological and information literacy
and how they affect student learning.
Standard II: Knowledge of Content and Instructional
Planning
II.1: knowledge of the content they teach, including
relationships among central concepts, tools of
inquiry, [and] structures and current developments
within their discipline(s).
II.2: understand how to connect concepts across
disciplines and engage learners in critical and
innovative thinking and collaborative problem
solving related to real world contexts.
II.3: use a broad range of instructional strategies to
make subject matter accessible.
II.4: establish goals and expectations for all students
that are aligned with learning standards and allow
for multiple pathways to achievement.
II.5: design relevant instruction that connects
students’ prior understanding and experiences to
new knowledge.
II.6: evaluate and utilize curricular materials and
other appropriate resources to promote student
success in meeting learning goals.
NYSUT’s Framework
For Professional Practice
Standard III: Instructional Practice
Standard IV: Learning Environment
III.1: research-based practices and evidence of
student learning for developmentally-appropriate
and standards-driven instruction that motivates and
engages students.
III.2: communicate clearly and accurately with
students to maximize their understanding and
learning.
III.3: high expectations and create challenging
learning experiences for students.
III.4: explore and use a variety of instructional
approaches, resources, and technologies to meet
diverse learning needs, engage students and
promote achievement.
III.5: engage students in the development of multidisciplinary skills, such as communication,
collaboration, critical thinking, and use of
technology.
III.6: monitor and assess student progress, seek and
provide feedback, and adapt instruction to student
needs.
IV.1: create a mutually respectful, safe,
and supportive learning environment
that is inclusive of every student.
IV.2: create an intellectually challenging
and stimulating learning environment.
IV.3: manage the learning environment
for the effective operation of the
classroom.
IV.4: organize and utilize available
resources to create a safe and productive
learning environment.
NYSUT’s Framework
For Professional Practice
Standard V: Assessment for Student
Learning
Standard VI: Professional
Responsibilities and Collaboration
V.1: design, adapt, select, and use a range of
assessment tools and processes to measure
and document student learning and growth.
V.2: understand, analyze, interpret, and use
assessment data to monitor student progress
and to plan and differentiate instruction.
V.3: communicate information about various
components of the assessment system.
V.4: reflect upon and evaluate the
effectiveness of their comprehensive
assessment system to adjust assessment and
plan instruction accordingly.
V.5: prepare students to understand the
format and directions of assessments used
and the criteria by which the students will be
evaluated.
VI.1: uphold professional standards of practice
and policy as related to students’ rights and
teachers’ responsibilities.
VI.2: engage and collaborate with colleagues
and the community to develop and sustain a
common culture that supports high
expectations for student learning.
VI.3: communicate and collaborate with
families, guardians, and caregivers to enhance
student development and success.
VI.4: manage and perform non-instructional
duties in accordance with school district
guidelines or other applicable expectations.
VI.5: understand and comply with relevant
laws and policies as related to students’ rights
and teachers’ responsibilities.
NYSUT’s Framework
For Professional Practice
Standard VII: Professional Growth
VII.1: reflect on practice to improve instructional
effectiveness and guide professional growth.
VII.2: set goals for and engage in ongoing
professional development needed to
continuously improve teaching competencies.
VII.3: communicate and collaborate with
students, colleagues, other professionals, and
the community to improve practice.
VII.4: remain current in their knowledge of
content and pedagogy by utilizing professional
resources.
Common
Core
Standard
s
Universal
Design for
Learning
Differentiated
Instruction
The
Student
Commitment to Students with
Disabilities Evident in Standards
“The Standards should also be read as allowing
for the widest possible range of students to
participate fully from the outset and as
permitting appropriate accommodations to
ensure maximum participation of students with
special education needs.”
ELA Standards, in section titled “What is not covered”
Application to
Students with Disabilities
“Students with disabilities…must be challenged to
excel within the general curriculum and be
prepared for success in their post-school lives,
including college and/or careers….Therefore, how
these high standards are taught and assessed is of
the utmost importance in reaching this diverse
group of students.”
ELA Standards, in section titled “What is not covered”
Common Core State Standards
Multi-state Collaborative
Rigorous
Globally completive
Knowledge and skills
Logical progression
Universal Design for Learning
Clear and consistent
Shared Responsibility
• Taking ownership of all students
• Providing opportunities for professional
development – general and special education
together
• Creating a culture where all students are general
education students first . . . is the first hurdle to
meeting the challenge
Brain Research, Technology, and
Universal Design for Learning
•
•
•
•
Insights from brain research
New technology tools
Common Core Standards
Universal Design for Learning
Learner Diversity
Brain Networks that Support Learning
1.
Recognition Networks
2.
Strategic Networks
3.
Affective Networks
The “What” of Learning
The “How” of Learning
The “Why” of Learning
Identify and interpret
sound, light, taste, smell,
and touch Identify and
understand information,
ideas, and concepts
The ability to plan,
execute, and monitor
actions and skills
The ability to engage in
actions and skills, set
priorities and evaluate
David Rose Ph.D., CAST
Supports for Student Diverse
Recognition Networks
Examples
▫ Underlining/highlighting
▫ Vertical
lines/asterisks/doodles/num
bers @ margin
▫ Provide multiple
media/formats
▫ “Chunking” information
▫ Graphic Organizers
▫ Provide multiple examples
▫ Support background context
The “What” of Learning
Identify and interpret sound,
light, taste, smell, and touch
Identify and understand
information, ideas, and
concepts
Supports for Student Diverse
Strategic Networks
Examples
– Multi-media for student
expression (video, audio, text,
drawing)
– Concept mapping tools
– Scaffolds and prompts
– Checklists
– Embedded coaches and
mentors, peer tutors
– Assessment rubrics for students
The “How” of Learning
The ability to plan, execute,
and monitor actions and skills
Supports for Student Diverse
Affective Networks
Examples
– Choice afforded
– Age appropriate activities
– Culturally relevant activities
– Charts/schedules/visible timers
– Display of goals
– Group work/collaboration
– Personal journal
The “Why” of Learning
The ability to engage in
actions and skills, set
priorities and evaluate
David Rose, founder of CAST
Brain Networks
• Learner Variability
• http://udlonline.cast.org/page/module1/l156/
24
Learner variability is the norm!
• Learners vary in the
ways they take in
information
• Learners vary in
their abilities and
approaches
• Learning changes
by situation and
context
• Learners vary
across their
development
• http://udlseries.udlcenter.org/presentations/l
earner_variability.html?plist=explore
Pass the Profile
Meet . . .
•
•
•
•
•
Madison
Christian
Elijah
Charles
Kalani
The Brain
• How can educators better understand student
variability?
Think . . .
• What other frames for discussion are important for
educators to know about the brain and teaching all
children?
• What else should evaluators know and look for?
Memory: 5 storage systems
(Sprenger, 1999)
•
•
•
•
•
Semantic – information from words
Episodic – contextual/spatial
Procedural – muscle memory
Automatic – conditioned response memory
Emotional
Semantic Memory
Long term filing cabinets of factual information
– New information
must be connected to
old known information
– Difficult to access,
requires repetition.
– Needs to be stimulated
by associations, comparisons
and similarities
Episodic Memory
• Contextual or spatial memory
• Every piece of learning takes place in some
location
• “Invisible” information
blog.schoology.com
Automatic
Stimuli automatically triggers response
–
–
–
–
Can open other memory lanes
Songs, pictures, places
Ability to read, multiply, add
NO comprehension
Emotional
Takes precedence over all other memory
metro.co.uk
Learning modalities
• Visual
• Audio
• Kinesthetic
Learning Style Curriculum
Mastery Style:
35% Population
12% At-Risk
Interpersonal Style:
35% Population
66% At-Risk
Understanding Style:
15% Population
0% At-Risk
Self-Expressive Style:
15% Population
22% At-Risk
(Silver, Strong, and Perrini, 2000)
Second Take Away
• When discussing teacher performance, there a
multiple frameworks for the conversations about
learning for all students.
Inclusive Classroom
• Are the principles of UDL utilized? Are the
recognition, strategic, and affective networks
utilized?
• Is there evidence that the classroom learning is
brain compatible?
• Is there evidence that learning and assessment are
designed, developed, and implemented using
multiple modalities, learning styles, and
intelligences?
Let’s Watch a Lesson
40
Traditional Materials: Textbooks
Strengths:
Challenges:
41
Traditional Materials: Textbooks
Challenges:
• Sight
Tactile formats
• Decoding skills, fluency
Re-representation of spoken • Turning pages
language
• Background knowledge
• Follow/remember information
Can refer back to reinforce
what’s been learned
• lacks inherent expressiveness of
speech
Accurate record of past
• Bound by conventions (e.g.
events
newspapers, journals, novel, reference)
Can be reread, reconsidered, • Re-purposing information
Strengths:
•
•
•
•
•
reexamined
Digital Text . . .
Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts & Literacy in History /Social
Studies, Science and Technical Subjects
Reading Standards for Informational Text 6-12:
Grades 11-12: Key Ideas and Details
1. Cite strong and thorough textural evidence to
support analysis of what the text says explicitly as
well as inferences drawn from the text.
Linking the annual goal to the CCSS
How do we build accessibility and
transition to college and career for
Shane . ..
Keeping the end in mind . . .
Reading Informational and Literary Text
Foundational Skills Reading with Fluency
Selecting
goal accuracy and fluency to support
4. Read with a
sufficient
comprehension.
a. Read on-level text with purpose and
understanding.
b. Read on-level prose and poetry orally with
accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on
successive readings.
c. Use context to confirm or self-correct word
recognition.
Differentiating Instruction
• As the planning and delivery of classroom instruction
that considers the varied levels of readiness, learning
needs, and interests of each student.
Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd)
Why differentiate?
• Because . . .
▫
▫
▫
▫
Systematic learner variability
State and Federal mandates
Evidenced-based practices
Diversity of students
Third Take Away
Good teaching is good
teaching, no matter the
profile of the student.
Supports in School
• All students can learn if the school and school district
support teachers in providing access to the Common
Core Standards in general education classrooms.
1. All Learners and Equal Access
• Does our school clearly articulate and communicate a vision for and commitment to educating all students in
effective classrooms? If so, how? If not, what barriers to full inclusion and equal access for ELLs and students
with disabilities exist and how can they be addressed?
• Do our school’s classrooms have appropriate class sizes and composition? How can redesigning class size and
composition ensure better proportionate representation? How does our school ensure that legal and
educationally sound procedures are followed when identifying and placing ELLs and students with disabilities in
appropriate educational placements?
• Does our school provide ample opportunities for ELLs to interact with fluent speakers of English in order to
acquire academic and social language, and to support the acculturation of these students into the school and
society while maintaining their first language and culture?
• Does our school provide all educators with access to students’ individualized education program (IEPs) and
Section 504 individualized accommodation plans? Does our school inform and support educators in
understanding and implementing these individualized programs? How can we ensure that the best plans to
meet all students’ individual needs are implemented as intended?
• Does our school provide all educators with access to data (e.g., grades, observations, curriculum-based
assessments, formative assessments, records and test scores) related to students’ academic achievement and
English language development? Does our school provide support to educators in interpreting these data to
promote students’ academic, social and behavioral success, and to ensure that ELLs learn language and content
simultaneously?
2. Individual Strengths and Challenges and
Supporting Diversity
• Does our school utilize strategies that help all students develop ongoing, natural friendships and supportive
relationships with other students and teachers? How do the adults in our school model and support respectful
friendships and relationships with all
community members?
• Do all students in our schools have opportunities to engage in co-curricular and extracurricular programs? If
not, how can we redesign our co-curricular and extracurricular offerings to ensure that every student has
access to them?
• Does our school provide a variety of individualized, coordinated services designed to address the unique
strengths and challenges of all students, such as pre-referral services, English as a Second Language (ESL)
programs and services, response-to-intervention systems), first- and second-language support programs as
appropriate, schoolwide positive behavioral supports and anti-bullying programs? How can we improve these
systems of support for all students?
• Does our school help all students make successful transitions (e.g., between classes, from elementary to
middle school, from school to work/postsecondary education) and develop self-determination? Does our
district achieve and sustain a 100 percent graduation rate with all students advancing to fruitful and selffulfilling postsecondary opportunities? If not, what steps can we take to help students make successful
transitions and develop self-determination, and how can we reduce the rate at which students leave school
before achieving a high school credential?
• Are our school’s services, policies and practices diversified? Do they take into account the cultural, linguistic
and experiential backgrounds of all students and their families? Who is represented in our community, and
how can we provide them a voice regarding our school’s services, policies and practices?
3. Reflective, Responsive, Differentiated and
Evidence-Based Practices
• Does our school provide all students with access to a challenging, high-quality and developmentally appropriate
curriculum aligned to the state’s standards within and across content areas? If so, how can we improve this access? If not, how can we
improve the quality of the curriculum and redesign curriculum delivery to make sure it is fair and provides equal access
for all students ?
• Does our school give all students access to effective and varied instructional practices, and an appropriate amount of instructional time? If
so, how can we ensure continual improvement of these practices and instructional time allocations? If not, in what ways do we need to
change our instructional practices and time allocations so that all students’ strengths, challenges,
diversities, backgrounds, language needs, styles, abilities and preferences are addressed?
• Does our school provide all students and teachers access to current and innovative instructional and assistive technologies? If not, how can
we find and utilize our available resources so that all students and teachers have access to these technologies?
• Does our school support classroom instruction that is characterized by differentiation, flexible groupings, student- and group-directed
learning, high-quality language development, cultural sensitivity and responsiveness, and authentic and relevant
learning experiences? If so, how can we continually improve these practices? If not, in what ways can we provide the necessary professional
development and support to change our classroom instruction to encourage and sustain these practices?
• Does our school utilize a variety of valid and reliable measures to assess student learning progress and inform instruction? Does our school
offer students the appropriate assessment accommodations and alternatives they need to demonstrate their learning?
What additional measures, assessment accommodations and alternatives can we use to evaluate student learning and inform instruction?
• Does our school implement a comprehensive and multifaceted evaluation of all aspects of its programs, and make improvements based on
the data collected? How do we use data to enhance our educational programs so they benefit all students? What additional data can we
utilize?
• Does our school utilize a variety of strategies and supports to help all students develop academic, social and civic-engagement skills? How
can we make sure that meaningful engagement is encouraged, modeled and celebrated at the school, in the lassroom
and with individual students?
4. Culture, Community and Collaboration
• Do our educators, students, families, caregivers and community members collaborate to
communicate, share resources and expertise, make decisions, and solve problems? Does our
school provide educators with adequate time to collaborate with each other and to communicate
with families, caregivers and community members? What can we do to improve our system of
collaboration and professional development to ensure better sharing of resources, decisionmaking and problem-solving?
• Does our school provide the resources, adult supports, time, scheduling arrangements and
high-quality professional development to educate all students in inclusive classrooms? What can
we do to encourage focused and fruitful collaboration and high-quality professional
development?
• Does our school communicate a sense of community where individual differences are valued?
How can we create an even stronger sense of community?
Fourth Take Away
Good teaching needs
modeling, support and
nurturance.
References
August, D., Salend, S., Staehr Fenner, D. & Kozik, P. (2012). The
Evaluation of Educators in Effective Schools and Classrooms for
All Learners. E3TL The Educator Evaluation for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning ConsortiumCommon Core State
Standards Initiative www.corestandards.org
Darche, S., Nayar, N., & Bracco, K.R. (2009). Work-based learning
in California: Opportunities and Models for Expansion. WestEd
& the James Irvine Foundation
Dynamic Learning Maps Alternative Assessment System
consortium www.dynamiclearningmaps.org
National Center and State Collaborative Partnership (NCSC)
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/projects/NCSC/NCSC.html
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
www.parcconline.org
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algazzine, B. &
Karvonen, M. (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies
reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research
& Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 165-181.
Center for Applied Special Technology from www.cast.org
Common Core State Standards Initiative www.corestandards.org
Dawson, P. & Guare, R. (2012). Coaching Students with Executive Skills
Deficits. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Grisham-Brown, J., & Kearns, J. (2001). Can performance goals be set for all
students? Creating standards-based individualized education. In H. L.
Kleinert & J. F. Kearns, Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and
supports for students with disabilities (pp. 17-28). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Heacox, D. (2009). Making Differentiation a Habit. Minneapolis, MN: Free
Spirit Publishing
References
Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum Access for Students with Low-Incidence
Disabilities: The Promise of Universal Design for Learning. Wakefield, MA:
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum from
http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/promise_of_udl
Jorgensen, C. M. (1995). Essential questions, inclusive answers. Educational
Leadership, 52(4), 52-55.
Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Alternative Assessment: Measuring
Outcomes and Supports for Students with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Maryland State Department of Education (2011). A Route for Every Learner:
UDL as a Framework for Supporting Learning and Improving Achievement for
All Learners in Maryland. Prekindergarten Through Higher Education from
http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/Exec/MSDE/SB467Ch305HB59Ch3
06_2010.pdf
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC) (2001).
Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation from
http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_i
nstruction_udl
References
National Center on Universal Design for Learning from
http://www.udlcenter.org/
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
www.parcconline.org
Purcell, S. & Grant, D. (2002). Assistive Technology Solutions for IEP Teams,
Verona, Wisconsin: IEP Resources.
Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age:
Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
References
Silver, H.F, Strong, R., & Perini, M.J. (2000). So That Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles
and Multiple Intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8. Strategies to
Improve Access to the General Education Curriculum, n.d. Retrieved on June 4, 2010,
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/strategies_to_improve_access.asp
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2011). The Nation’s Report Card:
Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics 2009 National and Pilot State Results from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011455.asp
UC Davis, MIND Institute, Center for Excelling in Developmental Disabilities, National
Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders Summer Institute Training,
June 14-18, 2010
U.S. Department of Education, (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington DC: Author
.
Reflection
• Questions?
• Comments?