Common core state standards and the special educator what you need to know
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 105

Common Core State standards and the special educator : WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Common Core State standards and the special educator : WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. Frank Donavan, Ed.D . February 26, 2014. Agenda. Overview--Refresher Common Core State Standards Assessment Systems Resources and Support Materials Developing IEP Goals Based on the CCSS

Download Presentation

Common Core State standards and the special educator : WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Common Core State standards and the special educator: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Frank Donavan, Ed.D.

February 26, 2014


  • Overview--Refresher

  • Common Core State Standards

  • Assessment Systems

  • Resources and Support Materials

  • Developing IEP Goals Based on the CCSS

  • Goal-Instruction Alignment

  • Questions

Historical Overview— federal perspective

History of Special Education

  • 1975: PL 94-142—EAHCA

    • Child Find

    • FAPE for All Students

    • LRE

  • 1977: CA Master Plan

    • SELPAs

    • Fiscal, Procedural, Compliance, Programs

  • 1980s: ??????

    • Lack of Consistency

    • Random Acts of Greatness

    • Case Law

History of Special Education (cont.)

  • 1990s: FAPE & LRE

    • Case Law

  • 1997: IDEA Reauthorized

    • Access to Gen. Ed. Curriculum

    • Increase in Litigation

  • 1998: CA Content Standards

    • CSTs, API

  • 2001: NCLB

    • Subgroups

    • Accountability

    • Increase in Litigation

History of Special Education (cont.)

  • 2003: CAPA

    • Accountability for Mod to Severe

  • 2004: IDEA Reauthorized

    • Greater Emphasis on Core Curriculum and

    • Access to Typical Peers

    • Research-Based Practices

  • 2007: CMA

  • 2010: OSEP—Focus on Outcomes

  • 2014: Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

  • 2014-15: CCSS

Progression of Guidance and Structure for Standards-Instructionally Based IEPs

Common core State standards

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

  • Standards are for

    • (a) College and Career Readiness, and

    • (b) K-12 – FOR ALL STUDENTS

  • Standards are research and evidence-based, reflective of rigorous content and skills, and internationally benchmarked.

  • Addition of 15% more information to the CCSS for each subject

    • Includes additional information to address perceived gaps

    • Ensures rigor of existing standards

CCSS Themes

  • College and Career Readiness (CCR)

  • 21st Century Learning

    • Learning and Innovation Skills

    • Life and Career Skills

    • Information Media and Technology Skills

    • 4-Cs—

      • Critical Thinking

      • Communication

      • Collaboration

      • Creativity

Are the CCSS for ELA Similar to our Current Standards?

  • Existing ELA: Four Categories Called Domains

    • Reading

    • Writing

    • Listening and Speaking

    • Written and Oral English-Language Conventions

  • CCSS ELA: Four Categories Called Strands

    • Reading

    • Writing

    • Speaking and Listening

    • Language

Literacy Across the Content Areas

  • Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects are embedded in the Reading and Writing Standards at each Grade Level, K-5.

  • Grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12, Include Reading Standards for Science and Technical Subjects, and Writing Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

ELA/Literacy Shifts in Focus

  • Content-Rich Nonfiction

    • Informational Text

  • Evidence from Text

    • Reading for Information

  • Complex Text with Academic Language

    • Linkages to Content Knowledge

Are the CCSS for Math Similar to our Current Standards?

  • Shift in Grade Level for some Skills

  • Organization is Different

    • Grade Level Standards K-8

    • Set of Standards for Algebra 1

    • Conceptual Cluster Standards for 9-12

  • Two Options for 8th Grade

    • Algebra 1

    • Option for those Not Ready for Algebra

Mathematics Shifts in Focus

  • Focus

    • Narrowing Strongly on Focus of Standards

  • Coherence

    • Building Upon Each Grade Level and Linking to Major Topics

  • Rigor

    • Building Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Skills, and Focus on Application

Assessment systems

How Did We Get Here?

Five Assessment Consortia

  • Race-to-the-Top Regular Assessment Consortia

  • Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)

  • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

  • GSEG Alternate Assessment Consortia

  • Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM)

  • National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC)

  • ELP Assessment Consortium

  • ASSETS: Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems

SBAC Assessment System


  • Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)

  • Computer Based Testing (CBT)

  • Paper and Pencil

  • Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines

Item Types

  • Selected Response

  • Constructed Response

    • Short

    • Extended

  • Performance Tasks

  • Technology Based Items

The SBAC Assessment System

English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 – 8 and High School

Optional Interim assessment system —

no stakes

Summative assessment for accountability

Last 12 weeks of year*

DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; an interactive reporting system; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.





    • Reading

    • Writing

    • Math



Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks

Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks

Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined

Re-take option

* Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.

Developed by The Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, version 4, July 2011.For detailed information on PARCC, go to

NCSC Overview(Not Yet Officially Adopted in CA)

  • Building consensus on what College and Career Ready means for students who participate in Alternative Assessment

  • Building solid content foundations with articulated educational logic (Learning Maps; Learning Progressions and CCSS Dual Alignment); and Evidence Centered Design

  • Computer-based delivery of assessments

  • Resources and professional development supports to educators

  • Assistive Technology and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AT/AAC)

The NCSC Alternate Assessment System*English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School

DIGITAL LIBRARY of curriculum, instruction, and classroom assessment resources; online professional development modules and support materials for state-level educator Communities of Practice to support teachers with the resources they need to improve student outcomes; guidelines for IEP teams to use in student participation decision making; training modules for assessment administration and interpretation of results; online assessment delivery, administration, and reporting.



COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE established in each state to support teacher training and use of the curriculum, instruction, and assessment resources. Resources will be available for use in all schools and districts, as locally determined.

Curriculum, instruction, and formative assessment resources for classroom use

Interim progress monitoring tools

Summative assessment for accountability

* Alternate assessment systems are those developed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and are based on alternate achievement standards.

Learning maps versus Learning Progressions

Learning Progressions

  • Vertical progression toward learning target

  • Sequenced building blocks

  • Research-based

  • Linked to high-quality assessments

Uses percentages to make straightforward comparisons

Uses the symbols =, < and > to order numbers and make comparisons

Uses decimal notation to two places

Uses place value to distinguish and order whole numbers

Use numbers to decide which is bigger, smaller, same size

Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1997). Developmental Assessment. Victoria, AU: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd.

Maps Allow for the Integration of Multiple Skills…

Compare two quantities up to ten using models

Use perceptual subitizing

Equal quantity

Identify more number of

Identify fewer number of

Identify more than one

Identify same number of

Identify different number of

Identify one

Compare sets

Explain set

Recognize wholeness

Recognize same

Recognize different

Create a model of quantity

Compare objects


Learning Progressions vs. Learning Maps

Centralizes notion of “superhighway”

Delineates multiple pathways

Resources and support materials

CCSS Spirals

  • Anchor Standards—Progress Through Multiple Grade Levels

  • Skills Build Upon Prior Grade Levels



Key Ideas and Details: Standard 1

6, [7], 8 Cite [several pieces of] textual evidence that most strongly support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as

inferences drawn from the text.

4, [5] [Quote accurately and] refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when

drawing inferences from the text.

1, [2], 3 Ask and answer questions [such as who, what, where, when, why and how to demonstrate understanding] about key

details in a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

K With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.


CCR Anchor Standard 1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from

it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

National Center and State Collaborative

  • Instructional Resources

    • Aligned to the CCSS

  • Curriculum Resources

  • Classroom Solutions


Instructional Resources

  • Curriculum Resource Guide

  • Instructional Units

  • Graduated Understandings

  • Instructional Resource Guide

  • Scripted Systematic Instruction

  • Element Cards

Curriculum Resources

  • Explain How to Teach Students Including those with Significant Disabilities

  • Based on Universal Design for Learning Strategies

  • Provide Examples

Classroom Solutions

  • Instructional Units

  • UDL Strategies

  • Multiple Means of Engagement, Representation and Expression

  • General Education Lessons

    • Designed to be Accessible to Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

    • Promote Inclusive and Collaborative Strategies

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading

Key Ideas and Details

1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific

textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting

details and ideas.

3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

Reading Standards for Literature

Sample Script (Model, Lead, Test)

What is included in IR Guide?

  • Overview of Systematic Instruction

  • Importance of Finding a Response Mode

  • Explanation of Instructional Strategies and “how to”

  • Provides sample script for math and ELA skill for each instructional strategy

  • Troubleshooting Q&A

  • Constant Time Delay (CTD)

  • System of Least Prompts (LIP)

  • Model, Lead, Test

  • Example/Non-example Training

Instructional Resource Guide





Common Core Standards

Learning Progressions

Core Content Connectors


Grade-level Lessons


Systematic Instruction


Formative, Interim


Communicative Competence

How can we tie all of this together?

What are Other States Doing to Assist Students with Mild, Moderate and Severe Needs?

  • Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

  • Core Content Connectors

  • Content Modules

  • Curriculum Resource Guides

  • Instructional Resource Guides



  • Element Cards

UDL Strategies for Instruction

  • Strategies and lessons are taken from the general education curriculum.

  • Principles of UDL are applied:

  • Multiple Means of Engagement give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.

  • Multiple Means of Representation give learners options for expressive skills and fluency.

  • Multiple Means of Expression provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know and provide options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort, and self regulation.

UDL Strategies (cont.)

  • All strategies/lessons are modified and or adapted for Emerging Readers and Emerging Communicators:

Additional Considerations for Emerging Readers and Communicators

  • Multiple Means of Engagement: Show the end first; present the concrete example of the graph; with the end in mind, have students at multiple levels solve in multiple ways; count or solve using a calculator, graph paper, 2 and 3 dimensional manipulative materials

  • Multiple Representation:  2 dimensional  paper; 3 dimensional objects; etc.

  • Multiple Means of Expression: Picture problem choices: present 2 choices of possible correct responses and include words or pictures, tactile representations

Universal Design for Learning

  • UDL is a Set of Principles that Provides All Students Equal Opportunities to Learn

    • Recognition Networks: The “What” of Learning

    • Strategic Networks: The “How” of Learning

    • Affective Networks: The “Why” of Learning

Depth of Knowledge

  • Level 1 = Recall & Reproductions

    • Specific Facts, Definitions, Routine Procedures

  • Level 2 = Skills & Concepts

    • Applying Skills and Concepts, Relationships, Main Ideas

  • Level 3 = Strategic Reasoning

    • Reasoning and Planning in Order to Respond

  • Level 4 = Extended Reasoning

    • Complex Planning and Thinking—Usually Over a Period of Time

Depth of Knowledge (DOK)Level 1—Recall and Reproduction











  • Directs

  • Shows

  • Questions

  • Demonstrates

  • Compares

  • Examines

  • Tells

  • Evaluates

Depth of Knowledge (DOK)Level 2—Skills and Concepts



Solves Problems






  • Shows

  • Observes

  • Facilitates

  • Questions

  • Organizes

  • Evaluates

Depth of Knowledge (DOK)Level 3—Strategic Reasoning











  • Probes

  • Clarifies

  • Guides

  • Organizes

  • Dissects

  • Questons

  • Accepts

  • Acts a Resource

Depth of Knowledge (DOK)Level 4—Extended Reasoning




Takes Risks






  • Facilitates

  • Reflects

  • Extends

  • Analyzes

  • Evaluates

Depth of Knowledge--Activities

  • Level 1 = Recall & Reproductions

    • Concept Map, Timeline, Keywords, Chart, Recite Facts, Cut Out, Draw, Cartoon Strip, Oral Report, Outline, Paraphrase, Retell

  • Level 2 = Skills & Concepts

    • Classify a Series of Steps, Construct a Model—Demonstrate How it Works, Perform a Play, Make a Game or Puzzle About the Area of Study, Explain the Meaning of a Concept, Explain Relationship Among a Number of Concepts, Multi-Step Calculations

  • Level 3 = Strategic Reasoning

    • Venn Diagram to Show how Two Topics are the Same and Different, Design a Questionnaire, Flow Chart to Show Stages, Conduct an Investigation, Debate, Persuasive Speech, Letter with Point of View, Research and Report on the “Why” of an Issue or Topic

  • Level 4 = Extended Reasoning

    • Formulate and Test Hypotheses, Perspective Taking and Collaboration, Persuasive Writing Tasks, Devise a Way To…, Sell and Idea, Write a Jingle to Sell an Idea, Develop a Menu with a Variety of Healthy Foods

The Least Dangerous Assumption

We assume that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are competent and able to learn, and we support increased educational opportunities in a range of learning environments.

Developing IEP goals based on the ccss

Developing Goals Based on the CCSS

Developing Instructionally Appropriate IEPs?

  • An Instructionally Appropriate IEP describes a process in which the IEP team has incorporated state content standards in its development

  • Specific accommodations and modifications addressing student’s needs to access the general education instructional program are included in the Instructionally Appropriate IEP for student’s present grade-level and course content requirements.

Current Practice

  • IEP Team Identifies Unique Needs

  • Unique Needs Are Often Discussed Without Reference to Grade-Level Standards, Curriculum and Instruction

  • This Often Results in Two Parallel Educational and/or Instructional Programs for Students with IEPs

    • General Education and

    • Special Education


    • Functional and

    • Academic

Best Practice

  • Identify Student’s Unique Needs in Relation to the CCSS

  • Develop Present Levels Based on Unique Needs and CCSS

  • Identify the Gap Between PLOP and Grade-Level CCSS

  • Develop a Plan to Meet—or Get As Close As Possible to--Grade-Level CCSS

  • Develop Annual IEP Goals Based on All of the Above

Developing Goals Based on the CCSS

  • Use Grade-Level Standards

  • Examine the Essential Content and Skills within that Standard Based on the Student’s Identified Unique Needs

  • Aim High--Rigor and Fidelity based on

    • Bloom

    • Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

    • Universal Design for Learning

  • Work Towards Closing Gaps

  • Grade-Level Access with Supplemental Remediation Only As Needed

Consider All Areas

  • Environmental Situations

  • Social Interactions

  • Behavioral Needs

  • Prerequisite Skills

  • Curriculum Resources

  • Instructional Resources

  • Instructional Methodologies

  • Accommodations and/or Modification

  • Assessment Procedures

  • Progress Reporting

Access to the General Education Curriculum

  • An IEP must include “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum.”

    (IDEA, 2004, 614(d)(1)(A)(i),)

Developing Goals and Objectives Based on the CCSS and Specially Designed Instruction

Unwrapping the Standards, or Putting the “I” in CCSS

  • Individualizing Grade-Level Standards

  • Select the Standard Based on Present Levels of Performance

    • Assessment

    • Progress on Last Year’s Goals

    • Curriculum-Based Assessment

  • Circle the Verbs and/or Action Words and Terms

  • Underline the Key Skills

  • Develop Goals

A Word or Two About Present Levels of Performance

  • PLOPS are Always Directly Related to the Goal

  • Always Include a Strength and Weakness

  • Weakness = Goal

  • Avoid TMI

Example of PLOP

  • PLOP: Based on scores on the WJ (list reading or spelling scores) and curriculum-based measures (list Curriculum or supplemental materials used—e.g., work samples from Corrective Reading or Open Court) Frank understands all of his grade-level short vowel CVC words; however, he is easily distracted during class instruction and is not able to convert short vowels to long vowels using the magic “e.”

  • Goals: By 2-26-14, Frank will be able to convert 20 short-vowel CVC words to long-vowel CVCV words using the magic “e” with 90% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.

  • Discussion

Example of PLOP (continued)

  • PLOP: Based on scores on the WJ (list reading or spelling scores) and curriculum-based measures (list Curriculum or supplemental materials used—e.g., work samples from Corrective Reading or Open Court) Frank understands all of his grade-level short vowel CVC words; however, he is not able to convert short vowels to long vowels using the magic “e.”

  • Goals: By 2-26-14, Frank will be able to convert 20 short-vowel CVC words to long-vowel CVCV words using the magic “e” with 90% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.

What is the difference betweenthe Traditional and Instructionally Appropriate IEP?

What are the benefits of a Instructionally Appropriate IEP?

  • Ties the IEP to the general education curriculum

  • Provides positive directions and goals for intervention

  • Utilizes standards to identify specific content critical to a student's successful progress in the general education curriculum

  • Promotes a single educational system that is inclusive through common language and curriculum for special and general education students

  • Ensures greater consistency across schools and districts

  • Encourages higher expectations for students with disabilities

Does an Instructionally Appropriate IEP imply that the student is on grade-level in that content area?

  • No, the student may not be on grade-level in that content area. However, they are working toward meeting grade-level expectations and are receiving grade-level content instruction.

Instructionally Appropriate IEP

  • Developing the Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLOP)

  • PLOPs and IEP Goals are Based on CCSS—from Far Below Grade Level to At or Near Grade Level

Step 1: Review the Grade-Level Standards

  • All members of the IEP team, including parents, should become familiar with the general education grade level standards

  • Note that IEPs that span two school years may require goals from both grade levels (e.g. 7th grade ELA and 8th grade ELA).

  • Consider how the student is performing in relation to the grade-level content standards for the grade in which he or she is currently enrolled.

  • Ask:

  • What is the intent of the content standard?

  • What must the student know and be able to do to meet the content standard?

Step 2: Examine Classroom and Student Data

Analyze the student’s performance relative to grade-level Common Core standards on:

  • Informal class assessments, statewide assessments, real-world performance tasks, criterion-based evaluations, curriculum-based assessments, and work samples.

  • Identify the grade-level Common Core standards that are most affected by the student’s disability.

  • Consider whether the data are valid measures of the student’s abilities.

  • Use the data to predict future learning needs.

  • Consider parent and student input.

  • Review previous IEPs and progress monitoring data regarding the student’s performance.

  • Step 2: Examine Classroom and Student Data

    • Ask:

    • What can the IEP team learn from the data about the student’s performance on grade-level content standards and skills?

    • Can the assessment data provide useful information for identifying the student’s strengths and needs?

    • What gaps in knowledge and skills does the student have?

    • What can we learn from the way the student responded to previous accommodations?

    • Were the previous interventions successful?

    • Are there skills from previous grade levels that the student has not learned that are crucial to acquiring the grade-level standard? Which are most important to supporting progress?

    • Are there authentic, real-world tasks that demonstrate evidence of student learning?

    • Are there data on student reflection and self-assessment?

    • Is anyone collecting multiple measures? If so, who?

    Step 3: Writing the PLOP

    • Describe individual strengths and needs of the student in relation to accessing the general curriculum.

    • Include data from evaluations, classroom and state assessments, observations, information from parents and students, and other resources (examples listed above).

    • Identify the skills and knowledge that a student needs to achieve to meet academic grade-level content standards.

    • Identified needs will be used to develop annual IEP goals.

    • Identify the student’s Response Mode (e.g., Verbal, Writing, Technology, Visuals, PECS,Pointing, Eye Gaze, etc.)

    Step 3: Writing the PLOP

    • Ask:

    • What are the grade-level content standards?

    • What is the student’s performance in relation to grade-level standards?

    • What are the student’s strengths in terms of accessing and mastering the general curriculum? Include sources of this information.

    • What are this student’s areas of need in accessing and mastering the general curriculum? Include sources of this information.

    • What academic skills and behaviors is the student able/unable to perform?

    • What functional skills and behaviors is the student able/unable to perform?

    • Do functional, organizational, or social skills issues affect the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum?

    • What strategies, accommodations, and/or interventions have been successful in helping the student make progress in the general curriculum?

    • How does the identified disability affect involvement and progress in the general curriculum?

    • What are the parental concerns?

    • What are the student’s interests, preferences, and goals? Include postsecondary aspirations if age-appropriate.

    • Is the student progressing at a rate to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year?

    PLOP Quick Check

    • Is the information educationally valuable and written in a user-friendly fashion?

    • Does the baseline data represent the student’s needs in relationship to the general education curriculum?

    • Would any teacher know where to begin instruction based on the information provided in the PLOP?

    Instructionally Appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP):

    Developing Instructionally-Appropriate Measurable Annual Goals


    • What are the student’s needs as identified in the present level of performance?

    • What skills does the student require to master the content of the curriculum?

    • What can the student reasonably be expected to accomplish in one school year?

    Components of Annual Goals

    Components of Annual Goals

    • Ask:

    • Does the goal have a specific time frame?

    • Are the conditions for meeting the goal addressed?

    • How will you measure the outcome of the goal?

    • Are the goals written in terms that parents and teachers can understand?

    • Do the goals support participation and progress in the general education curriculum?

    • Do the annual goals support postsecondary goals?

    IEP Goal development and instructional alignment

    Aligning IEPs to the Common Core State Standards for Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities (Courtade & Browder, 2011)

    Speaking and Listening Standard

    Speaking and Listening IEP Goal

    Comprehension and Collaboration

    Frank will use picture communication in group context to acknowledge others’ communication

    • Comprehension and Collaboration

    • Engage Effectively in a range of collaborative discussion (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led)

    There’s an App for That….CCSS App by SCOE

    Common Core Standards (by Mastery Connect)

    CCSS App

    IEP Goal Development and Instructional Alignment—Based on CCSS

    1. Identify the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance.

    2. Identify the appropriate grade level standard(s).

    3. Unpack the standard. Identify what the student needs to know and be able to do in the simplest terms possible.

    For example:

    • Divide the standard into its component parts.

    • Analyze the sub-skills.

    • Determine accommodations and/or modifications needed for the student to successfully reach standard.

    • Determine a plan to monitor progress.

    CCSS Goal and Instructional Strategies Alignment Tool

    • CCSS Standard

    • Possible Goal Areas

    • Instructional Strategies

    • Accommodations/Modifications

    • Goal Format (Given—Will—Measured By)

    • Goal

    CCSS Goal and Instructional Strategies Framework

    Group Activity:

    • Identify the Standard

    • Identify the Goal Area

    • Develop Three Goals Based on the Same Standard and Goal Area: Goal Format (Given—Will—Measured By)

    • MildModerateSevere

    What is the Current Status?

    • CCSS Goals Statewide Work Group

      • CA Standards-aligned IEP Project (CSIP)

      • Tools & Resources for Instruction and Goal Development

    • Smarter Balanced

      • Pilot Districts/Sites

      • Pilot Test Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines

    • NCSC

      • Not Officially Adopted in CA

      • CDE Hired New Person to Oversee

      • Advisory Board

      • Communities of Practice

        • South—Central—North

        • Will Expand Across the State

        • Developing Instructional Strategies/Curricula

    • More Information Soon

    What are the Key Areas to Consider in Making the Transition?

    • Digital Divide

    • Curriculum Alignment

    • CCSS Anchor Standards

    • Shift from M/M and M/S to

      • Mild—Moderate—Severe

    • Collaboration: Gen. Ed. & Spec. Ed.

    • Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

    • Staff Development

      • Is Spec. Ed. Staff Included?

    • Service Delivery Models

    • Values and Beliefs

    What Happens to the CMA?

    • CMA—Science for Grades 5, 8 and 10

      • Will continue as part of the CMAPP beginning 2013-14 until a successor science assessment aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards is adopted by the State Board of Education

    • CMA—ELA for Grades 3 – 11 and

      Math for Grades 3 – 7 and Algebra I and Geometry will be available on a voluntary basis for 2013-14 and 2014-15 to be administered at the Option and Cost of the LEA

    When Do We Start Using the SBAC?

    • SBAC for 2013-14 will Field Tested in Both ELA and Math

      • Will Include CMA Students

    • Scores from the SBAC Field Tests will not be reported

    SBAC—Testing Administration Info.

    • Testing Windows

      • 1. 3/18 – 4/4

      • 2. 4/7 – 4/25

      • 3. 4/28 – 5/16

      • 4. 5/19 – 6/6


    • Field Test

    • Frequently Asked Questions



    What About the CAPA?

    • The CAPA Continues to be our State Test for students with significant disabilities (one percent) as determined by IEP Teams for the 2013-14 School Year

    • AB 484

      • Requires the Use of the CAPA for Grades 2-11 to continue unless the State Board of Education adopts an Alternative Assessment

    • ..

    How Do We Document the in our IEPs?

    • At this time, how we document State Testing in our IEPs is a Local Decision

    • We have yet to receive guidance on this from CDE

    • We expect to receive guidance soon….

    • Many County Offices of Educations, SELPAs, and Districts are recommending that we remain Status Quo at this time up until we receive guidance in this area

    • Check with your District and/or SELPA before changing the way you document State Testing in IEPs

    What About Digital Goal Banks?

    • There are Many Private Vendors Available

    • CDE Workgroup

      • Complete Tool Kit and Resource Bank

    • Other States Have Their Own Versions

    • District/SELPA Teams are Working on Them

    • Professional Organizations are Working on Them

    • Get Ready for the Tidal Wave

    AB 484 Assessment Implications(Courtesy of Santa Ana Unified School District)

    SBAC Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines (Courtesy of Santa Ana Unified School District)


    Additional Resources









  • Login