Common Core State Standards

1. Common Core State Standards Students with Disabilities

2. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners

3. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Students with disabilities (SWD) must be challenged to excel within the general curriculum and be prepared for success in their post school lives, including college and/or careers. • Create a culture of high expectations. • Opportunitiesfor SWD to have access to and attainment of rigorous coursework. (CEC, 2012)

4. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Students with disabilities continue to demonstrate the capacity to succeed in the general curriculum with appropriate specialized instructions, supports, and accommodations. • Students with a variety of learning profiles are continuing to demonstrate greater capacity to perform at higher levels than was previously thought (National Center on Educational Outcomes). (CEC, 2012)

5. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Students with special needs are thought of as a general education student first, who, with supports and accommodations,can be expected to proceed in the general curriculum with mastery of grade-level standards as the goal. • Students can be active learnersin21stcentury learning environments when they have the following: • Instructional supports that invite their engagement. • Instructional accommodations that change materials and procedure, but not the standards. • Assistive technology that ensures access to the standards and the curriculum. (OSEP, 2012)

6. The Emphasis of IDEA “Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.”(sec. 1400 (c)(1)). (IDEA 2004)

7. Recommendations fromCongressional Commission • Focus on results NOT on procedures. • Embrace a model of prevention NOT a model of failure. • Consider children with disabilities as general education children first. (IDEA, 2004)

8. IDEA - Congressional Findings Districts should consider the use of whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children. (IDEA, 2004)

9. IDEA: Assumptions and Beliefs • Prevention and early intervention work. • Student performance is influenced most by the quality of the instruction and interventions we deliver and how well we deliver them - not preconceived notions about child characteristics. • Decisions are best made with data. • Our expectations for student performance should be dependent on a student’s response to intervention, not on the basis of a “score” that “predicts” what they are “capable” of doing. • Students with disabilities are general education studentsfirst.

10. Purpose of IDEA • High expectations for children to access general education curriculum. • Prepare children to lead productive and independent adult lives. • Prepare children for further education. • Strengthen role and responsibility of parents. (IDEA, 2004)

11. Definition of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • Children with disabilities are educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible. • Removal of children from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 2004)

12. Florida’s SWD Program Eligibility Source: EIAS Membership Brief, October 2011.

13. SWD as Percent of Total Population

14. Celebrate Accomplishments

15. Regular Class Placement

16. 2011 FCAT ReadingStudents with Disabilities Grades 3 – 10

17. 2011 FCAT MathStudents with Disabilities Grades 3 – 8

18. Florida Alternate Assessment Reading

19. Florida Alternate Assessment Math

20. Graduation Rate

21. Dropout Rate

22. Post-school OutcomesContinuing Education and/or Employment

23. Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP) • Nationally, educational outcomes for SWD have not improved as much as expected. • SWD are part of, not separate from, the general education population. Special education accountability should strengthen and align other accountability (i.e., ESEA). • An emphasis on compliance over results fails to properly acknowledge achievements in this area. • The accountability system should provide meaningful information to the public regarding the effectiveness of state and local educational agencies in educating children with disabilities.

24. OSEP and ESEA • OSEP’s Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) in Special Education will be aligned with ESEA. • The goal is to reformaccountability to improve educational outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. • Focus on results NOT on procedures. • Embrace a model of prevention NOT a model of failure. • Consider children with disabilities as general education children first.

25. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Common Core Standards (CCS): A focus on results not means. • The CCS has the intention of improving outcomes for all students, including SWD, by raising expectations. • The standards do not define the following: • The intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below grade-level expectations. • The full range of supports appropriate for students with special needs, though the standards stress that all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards. (CCSSO & NGA, 2010)

26. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • How the standards are taught is of the utmost importance, particularly the following: • Instructional support for learning including, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), differentiated instruction, and RtI within a multi-tier system of support. • Prepared and highly effective teachers. • Supports and related services to enable access to the general curriculum. • Individualized education plans (IEPs) that include annual goals aligned with, and chosen to, facilitate attainment of grade level academic standards. • Instructional accommodations. • Assistive technology devises . (CCSSO & NGA, 2010)

27. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Common Core Standards: • Rich with literacy, numeracy, and cross-disciplinary skills (e.g., communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and use of technology). • Embedded throughout is clear evidence that the CCS should allow for the broadest range of students to participate fully from the outset, along with appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation for students with special needs. (CCSSO & NGA, 2010)

28. Students with Disabilities as 21st Century Learners • Common Core Standards • The standards note the following: • Instruction in reading for SWD should allow for braille, screen-reader technology, or other assistive devices. • Instruction in writing should include the use of a scribe, computer, or speech-to-text technology. • Speaking and listening should include the use of sign language. (CCSSO & NGA, 2010)

29. Why Differentiate Instruction? When a teachertries to teach something to the whole class at the same time, chances are that… …one third of the kids already know it, …one third will get it, …and the remaining third won’t. So two thirds of the kids are wasting their time. • (Scott Willis, ASCD Curriculum Update, • November 1993)

30. Universal Design for Learning(UDL) “Consider the needs of the broadestpossible range of users from the beginning” • Ron Mace, Architect,

31. Universal Design • Not one size fits all. • Alternatives are designed from the beginning, not added on later. • Increases access opportunities for everyone. • Examples: ramps, curbcuts, electric doors, captions on television, easy grip tools. (CAST, 2012)

32. Origins of Universal Design for Learning Definition: • “UDL is an educational approach to teaching, learning, and assessment, drawing on new brain research and new media technologies to respond to individual learner differences.” (CAST, 2012)

33. Universal Design for Learning • Drawbacks of Retrofitting • Each retrofit solves only one local problem. • Retrofitting can be costly. • Many retrofits are UGLY! (CAST, 2012)

34. New Assumptions: UDL • Students with disabilities fall along multiple continua. • Typical classes are highly diverse. • Teacher adjustments benefit all learners. • Curriculum needs fixing, not the students. • Curriculum materials must be flexible, varied, and diverse. • General education and special education teachers plan curriculum. (CAST, 2012)

35. Differentiated Instruction • A Working Definition of DifferentiationDifferentiation has come to mean “consistently using a variety of instructional approaches to modify content, process, and/or products in response to learning readiness and interest of academically diverse students.” • Carol Ann Tomlinson • The Differentiated Classroom

36. When Differentiating Instruction, The Three Most Important Questions to Continually Ask Ourselves... What do we want students to know, understand, and be able to do? What will we do instructionally to get ourstudents to learn this? How will our students show what they know?

37. Similarities between UDL and DI • Recognize the reality of classroom diversity. • Dignify the learner and learning while valuing equity and excellence. • Identify and articulate clear learning goals before developing methods, materials, and assessments. • Support multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement for all.

38. The Education of Exceptional Students is A SERVICEnot A PLACE

39. Benefits of LRE for Students with Disabilities • Access to the core curriculum. • Opportunities to participate in the life of the school community. • Increase in communication and social interaction opportunities. • Access to age-appropriate models of behavior and skills. • Opportunities to build a network of friends.

40. Essential Questions • What is the student’s academic level? Areas of strength? Areas needing additional support? • What intervention, support, or enrichment does the student need to be successful? • Who can provide these services? • Where can these services be provided?

41. Points to Remember • The goal of the Continuum of Services is to assist schools with developing academic independence as the student strives towards graduation and postsecondary options. • Base students’ schedules on need, not label. • Base teachers’ schedules on student need. • Interventions, services, and supports should be assessed regularly to determine impact on student performance.

42. Challenge • The most significant challenge will be in preparing and further developing the knowledge and skills of not only special educators, but all teachers who are sharing the instructional responsibilities for students with disabilities. (CEC, 2012)

43. The Vision – One System! A system in which instruction and learning is based upon common standards, sound research, collaboration, problem solving driven by multiple sources of student data, and culminating in increased student achievement.

44. A Collaborative CultureInvolving Parents • We need to work with parents as partners. • Involving parents versus informing parents. • They have valuable information that we need to help us identify the best ways to support their children. • Our work is best when we are able to build strong, collaborative partnerships with our parents with a focus on points of agreement.

45. Professional Growth "The growth of any craft depends on shared practice and honest dialogue among the people who do it. We grow by private trial and error, to be sure - but our willingness to try, and fail, as individuals is severely limited when we are not supported by a community that encourages such risks." -- The Courage to Teach; Palmer, 1998, p. 144

46. Creating Results Orientation • School-, district-, and statewide multi-tiered systems of supports require a collaborative culture focused on results. • Members of School Based Learning Communities continually assess their effectiveness on the basis of results: tangible evidence their students are acquiring the knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential to their future success. • Essential elements: Clarify priorities, establish indicators of progress to be monitored carefully, embed continuous improvement throughout the organization. • DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., • & Many, T. (2006).

47. BEESS Mission • The mission of exceptional student education in Florida, a committed alliance for the development of the unique gifts of each exceptional person, is to ensure the achievement of each and every individual’s extraordinary purpose by expanding opportunities through collaboration of families, professionals, and communities, who guarantee highest expectations and individual success.

48. Thank you! • On behalf of BEESS, we look forward to partnering with you as we create an environment where all students, including students with disabilities,will thrive as 21st century learners.

49. BEESS Resources • Resources available to assist with implementation of Common Core can be found on our website. BEESS Resources for Common Core

50. References Common Core Standards: What Special Educators Need to Know. (2010, September). CEC Today. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CEC_Today1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=15269 Council of Chief School State Officers & National Governors Association. (2010) Application to students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), 20 U.S.C. S. 1400. Palmer, P. J. (1999). The Courage to Teach - Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. Hoboken, New Jersey; Wiley. Reichstetter, R. (2006, October). Defining a Professional Learning Community: A Literature Review. E&R Research Alert, No. 06.05. Retrieved from http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0605plc_lit_review.pdf Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2012, April). Summary 4-25-12. OSEP document. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2012, April). RDA Q and A 4-25-12. OSEP document. Willis, S. (1993, November). ASCD Curriculum Update.