Closing the Opportunity Gap for Students with Disabilities KS State Consortium SEC Special Education Project CCSSO NCSA June 21, 2013.

Closing the Opportunity Gap for

Students with Disabilities

KS State Consortium SEC Special Education Project

CCSSO NCSA June 21, 2013

U.S. Department of Education EAG grant #S368A100013 to Kansas State Department of

Education

• “The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.”

Session Objectives Share findings from 3-State study of classroom

instruction and alignment to standards Demonstrate Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC)

in special education and improving opportunity to learn

Work with data to identify areas for improvement and how to apply the SEConline tools

Learn key instructional transitions with Common Core

Plan next steps for implementation in your state or district

Panel Information

Debbie Matthews, Project Director, KS

Rolf Blank, CCSSO PI

Wendy Stoica, Ohio

Sandra Warren, ASES Adviser

Anne Chartrand, consultant

Neal Kingston, KU, Discussant

Project webpage: www.SECsurvey.org

Project Leading Questions 1) What is the fidelity of classroom instruction in relation to

standards and assessments? Now, Common Core Standards? (Alignment question)

2) How can we analyze instruction related to standards for students with IEPs, including students with significant cognitive disabilities? (Design R/D question)

3) What are the differences in instruction and content taught between special education and general education?

What are the implications for decisions on curriculum and instruction? (Opportunity to learn question)

4) What is the relationship of instruction students receive to student achievement results in math and ELA? (Effects Q)

State SEC SPED Consortium

Grant: U.S. Department of Education (2010 – 2012)

Consortium: 3 States—Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio, CCSSO, Univ. of Wis./ Wis. Center Ed. Research, WestEd (evaluator)

Each Participating State– Voluntary: 4-6 Districts, Elementary and Middle Schools, involve gen. ed. and spec. ed teachers

Project rationale-- use research/data to guide improvement in practices, curriculum, assessment

Developed through Partnership – two SCASS project Interests -- ASES SCASS – special education OTL question, transition to

Common Core Standards, 1% teachers -- SEC SCASS -- extend online data and instructional analysis,

school-level professional development

Why is this important? First national (SEC) project including students

with IEPs (and those with significant cognitive disabilities) addressing:Intended curriculum Enacted curriculumAssessed curriculum Learned curriculum

Identifying “what we don’t know” – (i.e., building knowledge and capacity through R/D)

Opportunity to support teachers in work with students with disabilities

Surveys of Enacted Surveys of Enacted CurriculumCurriculum

SEC Content Framework

Topics by Cognitive Demand

The intended

curriculum: State

standards / CCSS—What

students should learn

The enacted curriculum:

What teachers

teach

The learned curriculum:

Student outcomes based

on school learning

The assessed curriculum:

State (and other)

assessments—tested learning

Key Steps in Project 2010-12

Project Design and Instrumentation with 3-state consortium

Local district/school on-site orientation and purpose

Collect data-- teachers use SEC Online surveys

Analyze standards and assessments using SEC Framework

Conduct PD Data analysis workshops with local teams in each state

Provide webinars with CCSS experts –Instructional Shifts for transitions to Common Core (ELA, Math, Spec. Ed)

Key Steps, cont. Develop online PD modules for school-level use of data

National conference to Disseminate research findings, materials, models for use of

Website with all products: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Surveys_of_Enacted_Curriculum_(SEC).html

Teachers-Schools Data

Grades 4 – 8 -- Elementary or Middle Schools 1) General Education teachers – report on Language

arts/Reading OR Mathematics teaching 2) Special education “Co-teachers” – also report on

Language arts/Reading or Math teaching 3) Teachers of students with significant cognitive

disabilities (students taking alternate assessments)

4)School-level data (school context) – LRE average, teachers by assignment and grade

5) Student achievement scores – state assessments, two years data, linked to teachers

Types of Data Collected, Reported

1) Content Analysis: standards and assessments using SEC Content Framework and descriptive language

• Trained, 4-person teams of subject specialists

2) Classroom instruction reported by teachers: Grades

4 – 8 Elementary or Middle Schools

Report class time on content and practices – what is taught? Using SEC Online survey with same content framework

3) State student Achievement data – linked to teachers, two years of data per student

Project OutcomesReports/products: go to www.SECsurvey.org

• State and Local Reports and PD– Instructional alignment analysis–district, school level

shifts in instruction for CCSS – Local professional development on use of data

Cross-state Research & Development – New Survey tools for Special Education; Online

reporting– Effects of aligned instruction for special education

• Web-based Resources – Webinars on transition of instruction CCSS– Online PD Guide School-level applications --see

www.SECsurvey.org

The SEC provides mapping of current

instruction to Common Core –

Topics by Expectations (or

cognitive demand)

Data collected online – Charts reported

quickly and easily for three or more

teachers per grade

SEC Data Map for CCSS Gr. 8 Instr. (State

H)Gr. 8 CCSS

Content analysis: Topic by Cognitive Demand + Emphasis

Coarse Categories of Cognitive Demand

Content Areas

Memorize Perform Procedures

Demonstrate Understanding

Conjecture, Hypothesize

Non-routine problems

Number Sense

Operations

Measure-ment

Basic Algebra

Advanced Algebra

Geometric Concepts

www.SEConline.org

Analysis of Opportunity to Learn and Alignment – Spec. Ed, Gen. Ed

Classroom Instruction (Content + practices)—GE, SE Teacher Surveys (2011): 3 states, 50 schools, 600 (4-8 M,

ELA)a

Standards –State Academic , Extend + CCSS

(M, ELA)

State Assessments-- EOG, Extend

+ Achieve. gains

Data Examples – KS data

• Common Core x State Standards

• Instruction: Gen. Ed vs. Spec. Ed-to CCSS

• Fine grain maps

• DLM x CCSS

• 1% Instruction x DLM

• Instructional practices by Students in class

Instructional Content Data—What to look for

• Topic by Cognitive Expectations— How instructional time is used? (look at dark colors) Where are gaps?

• Instructional content -- Differences by Teacher position – Gen. Ed and Special Ed. teachers– Expected data? Why?

• Where to focus transition efforts with CCSS?

CCSSELA by KS Assessed Stds gr 5

Gen. Ed. Elem Spec Ed ElemGr. 5 CCSS

KS Bringing ELAR Instruction Into Focus

KS Teachers Writing Appl. CCSS Gr 5 Writing Appl.

KS ELAR Writing applications

Gen. Ed. Gr 5 Spec Ed Gr. 5

Kansas ELAR Writing applications

KS DLM EE stands Gr. 6 by Common Core ELA

KS DLM EE stands Gr. 4 by Common Core ELA

KS SpEd 1% teachers by DLM EE Gr 4 Standards

Data Examples – OH data

• Common Core x State Test

• Instruction: Gen. Ed vs. Spec. Ed-to CCSS

• Fine grain maps

• Grade progressions

• 1% Instruction x OH Ext Stds Math,

• Instructional practices by Class Student composition

Ohio Math Assessment Gr. 7 (2011) by Common Core Math

Teachers Gr 6-8 Spec Ed Teach Gr 6-8CCSS Gr 6-8

OH Bringing Math Instruction Into Focus

Teachers Gr 6-8 Spec Ed Teach Gr 6-8CCSS Gr 6-8

OH Gr 6-8 Math: Basic Algebra

Common Core Math Progression Gr. 7 and Gr. 8

OH SpEd 1% teachers x OH Ext Stands

OH Ext Stands Math X CCSS gr 6-8

State teachers Central OH districtGroup Activities Math

OH Math Instructional Practices by % IEP in class

Go to Cross-state research

What have we learned? (so what?)SEC Special Education Consortium Project –Final (1)

• Instructional content data from classrooms in 3 states show general consistency in opportunity to learn between general ed. and special ed. but instruction differs at the fine grain (specific topic) level in many schools

• The SEC data reported by teachers reveal wide variation in instructional practices used in Math and ELA, and among classes taught by special education and general education teachers

• Demonstrated for schools, districts, & states a method of analyzing and using data on alignment of instruction to standards –two dimensions are important – Topics by Cognitive expectations

• Cognitive expectations for teaching and learning were found to be a major gap between current instruction and Common Core Standards— SEC charts proved useful to focus shifts needed for transition to CCSS

What have we learned? (so what)SEC Special Education Consortium Project –Final (2)

• Analyzed school LRE indicator and instruction– Schools with more inclusive classrooms (higher LRE scores) had greater alignment of instruction to Standards –both students with IEPs and Gen.Ed. students

• Tested a new method of reporting on instruction to students with significant cognitive disabilities (1% group), and reporting on relation of instruction to Extended Standards

• Analyzed effects of instructional alignment on gains in student achievement: a) Better alignment of ELA instruction to Common Core positively related to student achievement gains, b) Math instruction alignment to prior standards related to gains in achievement

• Model for professional development with use of data at school level, involving teacher teams by grade level (Online PD Modules)

What If—Educators had cost-effective,

reliable data on how well classroom instruction is aligned to Common Core Standards?

Understanding the SEC Online Survey and Reporting Tools

— Carl Glickman, 2002

Research has found that faculty in successful schools always question

existing instructional practice and do not blame lack of student achievement on

external causes.

— Carl Glickman, 2002

“Research has found that faculty in successful schools always question existing instructional practice and do not blame lack of student achievement on external causes.” — Carl Glickman, 2002

cessful schools always question existing instructional practice and do

not blame lack of student achievement on external causes.

Using SEC to develop a

Shared Vision for

Teaching and Learning

Instructional Content Data—What to look for

• Topic by Cognitive Expectations— How instructional time is used? (look at dark colors) Where are gaps?

• Instructional content -- Differences by Teacher position – Gen. Ed and Special Ed. teachers– Expected data? Why?

• Where to focus transition efforts with CCSS?

Common Core Instructional ShiftsELA Instructional Shifts – with Common Core Standards •Regular practice for all students with complex text and its academic vocabulary

•Reading and writing, as well as speaking and listening, grounded in evidence from text•Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction and informational texts

•Writing instruction needs to emphasize use of evidence to inform or to make an argument; 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

•Students writing to sources, i.e., using evidence from texts to present careful analyses, well-defended claims, and clear information.

Common Core Instructional Shifts

Mathematics CCSS Shift 1: Focus•Significantly narrow the scope of content and deepen how time and energy is spent in the math classroom•Focus deeply only on what is emphasized in the standards, so that students gain strong foundations•Four content topics in elementary math lead to focus in middle grades  Shift 2: Coherence: •Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades•Carefully connect the learning within and across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years. •Solid conceptual understanding of core content and build on it. Each standard is not a new event, but an extension of previous learning.

Shift Three: Rigor•Equal intensity in conceptual understanding, procedural skill/fluency, and application (real-world, non-routine)•This requires equal intensity in time, activities, and resources in pursuit of all three 

Shifts: Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

• Transitioning from an emphasis on ACCESS to an emphasis on LEARNING

• Active participation and interaction during learning• Transition from “Reductionist interventions” –which are sequenced

and hierarchical, employ drill and practice to train• Emergent: Literacy is learned through interaction with and exposure

to all aspects of literacy (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing)

• All children can learn to use print meaningfully• Literacy abilities/skills develop concurrently and interrelated

• (Karen Erickson, April 2012, CCSSO webinar)