North Carolina Extended Content Standards

1. North Carolina Extended Content Standards American Institutes for Research North Carolina Department of Public Instruction March, 2006

2. Seymour Sarason �It could be argued with a good deal of persuasiveness that when one looks over the history of man the most distinguishing characteristic of his development is the degree to which man has underestimated the potentialities of men.� (Christmas in Purgatory, 1965, p. 107)

3. Changing Curricular Context for Students with the most Significant Disabilities Early 1970s Adapting infant/early childhood curriculum for students with the most significant disabilities of all ages 1980s Rejected �developmental model� Functional, life skills curriculum emerged National Alternate Assessment Center 1990s Also: social inclusion focus Also: self determination focus Assistive technology 2000 General curriculum access (academic content) Plus earlier priorities (functional, social, self determination) Digitally accessible materials Let�s look at the historical progression of currricular context for students wit the most significant disabilities, so that we might better understand how we have progressed to establishing extensions to content standards as a means of determining appropriate instruction for these students.Let�s look at the historical progression of currricular context for students wit the most significant disabilities, so that we might better understand how we have progressed to establishing extensions to content standards as a means of determining appropriate instruction for these students.

4. Walk the Wall Divide into 4 teams � A, B, C, D Move to designated area Divide each team into 4 main groups (1, 2, 3, 4) - 1 group for each curricular era Assign recorder within each subgroup Record pros and cons for your curriculum era (timed) Move on to next curriculum era when directed Review pros and cons and add further points (timed) Move on to next curriculum era when directed Repeat until back to starting point Review National Alternate Assessment Center

5. Developmental Model (1970s) What it looked like� Visually track object Find partially hidden object (object permanence) Put peg in pegboard Wash hands and use the toilet Motor imitation (�Pat your head�) (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) Why rejected� Not chronologically age appropriate Not functional (i.e., did not promote skills of daily living) Readiness- never ready Students did not follow the developmental sequence �Criterion of ultimate functioning� in community-teach what student needs for life In the 1970s the Developmental Model emerged and was based upon the philosophy that students with significant cognitive disabilities ages 6-21 should be educated with adaptations to infant and preschool curriculum (Browder et al, 2004). In essence, the student�s �mental age� was used to plan the educational program, regardless of his or her chronological age. Or Because many children with cognitive disabilities were institutionalized in the 1970�s, there was a focus on a developmental model of curriculum where children were described in terms of their developmental characteristics (i.e., 6 months of age). The predominant education theories applied to children and youth with mental retardation during this period focused on theories of learning such as developmental theory and behavioral science. Curriculum guides from this era suggested a developmental focus including these familiar areas: gross and fine motor skills, track objects, imitation, put pegs in peg boards; self help; toileting, hand washing; and some pre-academic skills: writing name. An emphasis on task analysis as an essential element of instructional planning was the centerpiece of curriculum planning for students with disabilities. School programs that existed during this time were developed and supported by families who believed that their sons and daughters should be and could be educated. In addition, the first research programs focused on the learning and behavior of individuals with disabilities and was authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965). The innovation during this period was the advent of what we know today as special education � confirming that indeed children with disabilities can learn. However, as children got older, the developmental model no longer seemed to make sense for a variety of reasons but most importantly because the gap between chronological age and developmental age appeared to be uneven across major life areas. For example, an adolescent playing with an infant toy reinforced the perception that the individual was only capable of skills which characterize infants. Providing only activities according to developmental milestones widened the gap in perception about what students with moderate and severe disabilities could learn and do. In addition, the developmental theme suggested that students couldn�t move forward if they weren�t developmentally �ready�. Many of these developmentally �ready� steps would not be met at all by some children with significant cognitive disabilities.In the 1970s the Developmental Model emerged and was based upon the philosophy that students with significant cognitive disabilities ages 6-21 should be educated with adaptations to infant and preschool curriculum (Browder et al, 2004). In essence, the student�s �mental age� was used to plan the educational program, regardless of his or her chronological age. Or Because many children with cognitive disabilities were institutionalized in the 1970�s, there was a focus on a developmental model of curriculum where children were described in terms of their developmental characteristics (i.e., 6 months of age). The predominant education theories applied to children and youth with mental retardation during this period focused on theories of learning such as developmental theory and behavioral science. Curriculum guides from this era suggested a developmental focus including these familiar areas: gross and fine motor skills, track objects, imitation, put pegs in peg boards; self help; toileting, hand washing; and some pre-academic skills: writing name. An emphasis on task analysis as an essential element of instructional planning was the centerpiece of curriculum planning for students with disabilities. School programs that existed during this time were developed and supported by families who believed that their sons and daughters should be and could be educated. In addition, the first research programs focused on the learning and behavior of individuals with disabilities and was authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965). The innovation during this period was the advent of what we know today as special education � confirming that indeed children with disabilities can learn. However, as children got older, the developmental model no longer seemed to make sense for a variety of reasons but most importantly because the gap between chronological age and developmental age appeared to be uneven across major life areas. For example, an adolescent playing with an infant toy reinforced the perception that the individual was only capable of skills which characterize infants. Providing only activities according to developmental milestones widened the gap in perception about what students with moderate and severe disabilities could learn and do. In addition, the developmental theme suggested that students couldn�t move forward if they weren�t developmentally �ready�. Many of these developmentally �ready� steps would not be met at all by some children with significant cognitive disabilities.

6. Functional Curriculum (1980-1990) First options for adults with severe disabilities to live and work in the community Curriculum based on what is needed to live and work in the community �Ecological inventory�- assesses the environment to identify needed skills Chronologically age appropriate; also called �top down� curriculum Applied behavior analysis foundation for systematic instruction methods widely supported in research (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) As a response to the Development Model, the Functional Curriculum philosophy emerged, promoting functional, age-appropriate skills to help develop independent living capabilities and access to the community (Browder et al, 2004). The major life domains (vocational, home, community, and leisure) served as the foundation of the functional curriculum. or The advent of the functional curriculum in the late 70�s and early 80�s followed students with disabilities into the community and public schools. Functional curriculum activities addressed age-appropriate activities for high school age students regardless of developmental age and opened the doors of many regular public schools including high schools. Lou Brown (1982) and others put together the "functional curriculum model" where teaching "life skills" made sense, particularly for high school-age students. This model was useful for promoting transition services, (e.g., vocational training, community referenced instruction, recreation and leisure) especially as a large number of individuals moved from institutions into community settings.� Curriculum planning during this time emphasized the use of ecological inventories to assess the environments in which students would live and learn. Curriculum guides during this period advocated the selection of functional activities from home, school, and community domains. Task analysis again served a prominent role in the design of instruction. During this era, many students began to receive services in age-appropriate settings including high schools. The principles of partial participation emphasized the need for students to engage in the activity regardless if they could perform all the steps of the task analysis. In addition, the readiness hypothesis was called into question. We found that if students had to master a certain set of skills before they could progress to the next set, the progression often did not occur because of the perceived level of mastery. The functional curriculum model was and continues to be the most popular curricular model for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The problem, however, with both of these models is that social and communication skills are often the most deficient and most often the reason that students were being excluded from community settings including job sites.�From our experience with community-based instruction for children and youth with the most severe disabilities, we learned that even developmental skills (e.g., reach/grasp) could be effectively embedded in activities that provided both an appropriate context along with natural prompts and cues. However, some argued that a large portion of this population would still not become completely independent in community-based situations and, therefore, this curriculum model appeared also to be inappropriate for some students. In addition, while this model worked well for high school students, there appeared to be a �push-down effect� for elementary students, where students began working on community skills in elementary school outside of their school community which again created a disparity in perceived competence between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Because children were still largely segregated in self-contained classrooms; social, communication, and literacy skills still seemed to languish.As a response to the Development Model, the Functional Curriculum philosophy emerged, promoting functional, age-appropriate skills to help develop independent living capabilities and access to the community (Browder et al, 2004). The major life domains (vocational, home, community, and leisure) served as the foundation of the functional curriculum. or The advent of the functional curriculum in the late 70�s and early 80�s followed students with disabilities into the community and public schools. Functional curriculum activities addressed age-appropriate activities for high school age students regardless of developmental age and opened the doors of many regular public schools including high schools. Lou Brown (1982) and others put together the "functional curriculum model" where teaching "life skills" made sense, particularly for high school-age students. This model was useful for promoting transition services, (e.g., vocational training, community referenced instruction, recreation and leisure) especially as a large number of individuals moved from institutions into community settings.� Curriculum planning during this time emphasized the use of ecological inventories to assess the environments in which students would live and learn. Curriculum guides during this period advocated the selection of functional activities from home, school, and community domains. Task analysis again served a prominent role in the design of instruction. During this era, many students began to receive services in age-appropriate settings including high schools. The principles of partial participation emphasized the need for students to engage in the activity regardless if they could perform all the steps of the task analysis. In addition, the readiness hypothesis was called into question. We found that if students had to master a certain set of skills before they could progress to the next set, the progression often did not occur because of the perceived level of mastery. The functional curriculum model was and continues to be the most popular curricular model for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The problem, however, with both of these models is that social and communication skills are often the most deficient and most often the reason that students were being excluded from community settings including job sites.�From our experience with community-based instruction for children and youth with the most severe disabilities, we learned that even developmental skills (e.g., reach/grasp) could be effectively embedded in activities that provided both an appropriate context along with natural prompts and cues. However, some argued that a large portion of this population would still not become completely independent in community-based situations and, therefore, this curriculum model appeared also to be inappropriate for some students. In addition, while this model worked well for high school students, there appeared to be a �push-down effect� for elementary students, where students began working on community skills in elementary school outside of their school community which again created a disparity in perceived competence between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Because children were still largely segregated in self-contained classrooms; social, communication, and literacy skills still seemed to languish.

7. Functional Curriculum What it looks like� Task analysis of 10 steps to place an order at Burger King (Go to counter�place order�etc.) Repeated trials of counting out $5.00 Repeated trials of reading sight words: �hamburger,� �fries� Current status� Continues to be valued and promoted in texts in Severe Disabilities Some critics suggest that it promotes separate curriculum; atypical school experience Most educators blend functional with academic (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005)

8. Social Inclusion Movement (Mid 80s and 90s) Inclusion in general education as a civil right Neighborhood school, general education class, �belonging�/full membership Activities to promote social inclusion/teach social interaction Self determination Emphasis on student making own choices; person-centered planning Provide support for inclusion versus expecting student to earn inclusion by learning �prerequisite� skills (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) During the mid 1980s and 1990s, the Social Inclusion Movement emerged. This movement emphasized the importance of students with significant cognitive disabilities becoming full members of their school by developing opportunities to form friendships with non-disabled peers (Browder et al, 2004). This movement tended to focus on those social skills, such as communication and turn-taking, that provided opportunities for interactions with non-disabled peers, rather than learning academic skills. or With the advent of inclusive education and community based service delivery in the late 80�s and early 90�s, we began to see students who previously exhibited serious communication and social problems now had something to communicate about and someone to receive the communication who could respond appropriately - both highly functional skills. A social justice perspective began to influence curriculum. Neighborhood schools, membership/belonging were key words. In addition, social interactions and self determination began to emerge particularly as more students began to use communication systems. We began to recognize that the practice of embedding developmental skills that were learned in the community could also be applied to school and classroom routines and that a school day already has both functional and academic opportunities to learn.�Most importantly, albeit secondarily, we found that students could learn academic content which in turn provided natural opportunities for enhancing communication and social interactions. As students acquired academic content, perceptions about their ability to learn raised important questions about our expectations for their achievement. We learned that academic opportunities to learn are found in the explicit curriculum or the standards-based activities that provide students with rich opportunities to communicate, and achieve literacy skills (math, language arts) while the implicit or hidden curriculum still provided opportunities to learn such functional tasks as negotiating classroom routines, keeping up with materials, waiting in line, using the restroom, enjoying lunch and snack time, engaging in homework, working in groups, using the school library (all opportunities to learn "functional skills"). We found that students acquired skills at a higher rate when opportunities to learn were provided in natural environments and distributed across the day rather than in mass trials in context free situations. Generalization of skills occurred naturally as the contexts for learning became inherently authentic.� Simultaneously, general educators were facing their own crisis with curriculum. Students with disabilities were not the only ones who needed functional application of skills. With the advent of standards-based instruction, general educators found the need to explicitly link classroom learning to real-life problems and situations. Because of the vast amount of knowledge in our digital, technological age, general education students needed to construct knowledge and engage in disciplined inquiry rather than simply memorize facts. The effective construction of knowledge necessarily required that there be some value beyond the classroom either to public problems or personal experiences (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). During the mid 1980s and 1990s, the Social Inclusion Movement emerged. This movement emphasized the importance of students with significant cognitive disabilities becoming full members of their school by developing opportunities to form friendships with non-disabled peers (Browder et al, 2004). This movement tended to focus on those social skills, such as communication and turn-taking, that provided opportunities for interactions with non-disabled peers, rather than learning academic skills. or With the advent of inclusive education and community based service delivery in the late 80�s and early 90�s, we began to see students who previously exhibited serious communication and social problems now had something to communicate about and someone to receive the communication who could respond appropriately - both highly functional skills. A social justice perspective began to influence curriculum. Neighborhood schools, membership/belonging were key words. In addition, social interactions and self determination began to emerge particularly as more students began to use communication systems. We began to recognize that the practice of embedding developmental skills that were learned in the community could also be applied to school and classroom routines and that a school day already has both functional and academic opportunities to learn.�Most importantly, albeit secondarily, we found that students could learn academic content which in turn provided natural opportunities for enhancing communication and social interactions. As students acquired academic content, perceptions about their ability to learn raised important questions about our expectations for their achievement. We learned that academic opportunities to learn are found in the explicit curriculum or the standards-based activities that provide students with rich opportunities to communicate, and achieve literacy skills (math, language arts) while the implicit or hidden curriculum still provided opportunities to learn such functional tasks as negotiating classroom routines, keeping up with materials, waiting in line, using the restroom, enjoying lunch and snack time, engaging in homework, working in groups, using the school library (all opportunities to learn "functional skills"). We found that students acquired skills at a higher rate when opportunities to learn were provided in natural environments and distributed across the day rather than in mass trials in context free situations. Generalization of skills occurred naturally as the contexts for learning became inherently authentic.� Simultaneously, general educators were facing their own crisis with curriculum. Students with disabilities were not the only ones who needed functional application of skills. With the advent of standards-based instruction, general educators found the need to explicitly link classroom learning to real-life problems and situations. Because of the vast amount of knowledge in our digital, technological age, general education students needed to construct knowledge and engage in disciplined inquiry rather than simply memorize facts. The effective construction of knowledge necessarily required that there be some value beyond the classroom either to public problems or personal experiences (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

9. Self Determination Model (late 90s) What it looks like Choose restaurant; choose order Greet peer in English class Self instruction to perform job task Pass item to peer in cooperative learning activity Use switch to make choice or activate a device (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) Current Status - Some states� alternate assessment include quality indicators related to inclusion, self-determination factored into student scores - General curriculum access as a �right�; versus earning it with progression of skills The Self-Determination Model emerged during the 1990s and centered on the principle that students with significant cognitive disabilities have the right to make choices about their daily lives. This model advocated for classroom instruction in choice making and goal setting (Browder et al, 2004). The Self-Determination Model emerged during the 1990s and centered on the principle that students with significant cognitive disabilities have the right to make choices about their daily lives. This model advocated for classroom instruction in choice making and goal setting (Browder et al, 2004).

10. Access to the General Education Curriculum (late 90s to present) Not just access to general education settings but access to CONTENT and expectation for learning Even students in separate settings have this expectation Assessing progress on state alternate content standards Teaching grade level academic content with expectations for alternate achievements During the late 1990s, the emphasis on General Curriculum Access emerged based on the principle that all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, should have the opportunity to learn the general curriculum in the areas of reading, math, science, and social studies (Browder et al, 2004). This philosophy stresses the use of different academic performance levels and the importance of linking functional curriculum to academic skills, regardless of placement. Therefore, all students with significant cognitive disabilities must be taught grade level academic content that is based upon alternate achievement standards and must be assessed on their progress via state alternate assessments. Alternate achievement standards set substantially different expectations for student mastery of grade-level content because the content is more restricted in scope or complexity and may take the form of introductory or pre-requisite skills (United States Department of Education, 2005). However, the content must be clearly related to grade-level content (United States Department of Education, 2005). or The 2000 era ushered in the requirement for academic standards for all students. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind, 2002) required both achievement and grade-level content standards. This type of curricular experience provides optimal opportunities to learn both academic and functional skills for all students. Indeed, the quality of instruction in standards-based classrooms has evolved to include curricula that are universally designed and instruction that is differentiated so that the widest array of students can be accommodated in the general curriculum (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Assistive technology, too, opened the door for many students to participate meaningfully in classroom activities in more independent ways. Thus, some of the important features of standards-based, general education are increasingly becoming intertwined what has been traditionally accepted as special education.During the late 1990s, the emphasis on General Curriculum Access emerged based on the principle that all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, should have the opportunity to learn the general curriculum in the areas of reading, math, science, and social studies (Browder et al, 2004). This philosophy stresses the use of different academic performance levels and the importance of linking functional curriculum to academic skills, regardless of placement. Therefore, all students with significant cognitive disabilities must be taught grade level academic content that is based upon alternate achievement standards and must be assessed on their progress via state alternate assessments. Alternate achievement standards set substantially different expectations for student mastery of grade-level content because the content is more restricted in scope or complexity and may take the form of introductory or pre-requisite skills (United States Department of Education, 2005). However, the content must be clearly related to grade-level content (United States Department of Education, 2005). or The 2000 era ushered in the requirement for academic standards for all students. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind, 2002) required both achievement and grade-level content standards. This type of curricular experience provides optimal opportunities to learn both academic and functional skills for all students. Indeed, the quality of instruction in standards-based classrooms has evolved to include curricula that are universally designed and instruction that is differentiated so that the widest array of students can be accommodated in the general curriculum (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Assistive technology, too, opened the door for many students to participate meaningfully in classroom activities in more independent ways. Thus, some of the important features of standards-based, general education are increasingly becoming intertwined what has been traditionally accepted as special education.

11. Access to the General Curriculum What it looks like� Same/ similar materials and activities as peers in general education Indicate comprehension of main idea of story by selecting picture Use technology to solve math problem; chart data �We�re learning how to do it better each day� (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) Current status� New for most educators; including experts in the field Many students receiving academic instruction for the first time Some educators worry about loss of focus on functional curriculum; see it as either/or

12. Access to the General Curriculum All students having the opportunity to learn academic content Sequential versus catalog approach to curriculum Availability of assistive technology and digitally accessible materials Less complex performances of grade level achievement standards But high expectations are creating success stories (National Alternate Assessment Center, 2005) �Our first challenge was to gain access to school programs for children with disabilities. Now that we�re in the door, we�ll need to ensure a quality education.� Robert Pasternack, July 2002 �Our first challenge was to gain access to school programs for children with disabilities. Now that we�re in the door, we�ll need to ensure a quality education.� Robert Pasternack, July 2002

13. How did we get here? IDEIA 2004 requires that all students have access to the standard course of study in North Carolina at grade level. IDEIA requires that all students be tested in order to demonstrate proficiency with the content standards at grade level.

14. North Carolina�s response NC EXTEND1 will assess students who access the NC Standard Course of Study through content extensions derived at each grade level for the content areas of Science, English-Language Arts, and Mathematics. NCEXTEND1 will replace the NC Alternate Assessment Portfolio for 2006-2007.

15. A Common Language Towards a Common Goal Let�s establish working definitions of terms that we will be using throughout the day. Then we�ll incorporate these terms into an understanding of DPI�s process of developing content standard extensions.

16. Terminology Content Standard Extensions Establish an expectation of what students should be able to know and be able to do that differs in depth and complexity from the expectations for other students at a particular grade level A content standard that has been expanded while maintaining the essence of that standard, thereby ensuring that all students with significant cognitive disabilities have access to, and make progress in, the general curriculum You may hear �essences� � a more operational term.You may hear �essences� � a more operational term.

17. Terminology, cont. Performance level descriptors Describe how much students should know and be able to do Describe what students at each achievement level should know and be able to do

18. Terminology, cont. Entry points represent a further definition of the extensions of the standard course of study represent the breadth, depth, and complexity of the content standards at varying levels of ability should represent a continuum of opportunities for exposure to the content standards. Exposure is a key in teaching the standards.

19. Terminology, cont. Symbolic, Early Symbolic, Pre-symbolic levels of ability Activity: At your table, or within your group, discuss the varying behaviors at the Symbolic, Early Symbolic, and Pre-Symbolic levels (see handouts at your table). Identify examples of these behaviors based on your experiences with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Assign a spokesperson who should be prepared to share with the large group

20. Behaviors Related to the Symbolic Level Communicates with symbols (e.g., pictures) or words (e.g., spoken words, assistive technology, American Sign Language, home signs). May have emerging or basic functional academic skills: decoding and comprehension knowledge of meaning in a variety of symbols (pictures, logos, signs, letters, numbers, symbols or words) counting or number recognition identifying or categorizing by a variety of attributes emerging or basic number sense and/or computation understanding of models or simple representations emerging writing or graphic representation for the purpose of conveying meaning through writing, drawing, or computer keying

21. Behaviors at the Early Symbolic Level Demonstrates emerging knowledge of symbols (e.g., pictures, logos, associated objects � flag for circle time). May have limited emerging functional academic skills: limited or emerging knowledge of graphic symbols (logos, restroom signs, etc.) limited or emerging knowledge that objects may be �symbolically� or �graphically� related to an event, activity or another object (cereal box for cereal, photo of toys for �play area,� picture of bus for �go home�) may respond to a variety of instructions (verbal or pictorial) may categorize by 1 or more attributes may demonstrate knowledge of a variety of cause-effect relationships.

22. Behaviors at the Pre-symbolic Level May demonstrate intentionality � shows interest, directed focus, purpose or desire for a result through behavior Beginning to build intentional communication; may use idiosyncratic gestures, sounds, and movements to communicate with others Does not discriminate between pictures or other symbols (and does not use symbols to communicate) Associates objects or physical settings with routine activity - cup means drink, diaper means lie down Demonstrates limited or simple understanding of cause and effect with immediate and frequent routines May have the capacity to sort very different objects, may use trial and error May demonstrate emerging knowledge of cause-effect relationships May manipulate (put in mouth, touch, grab, etc.) or engage in repeated movements to gain knowledge of objects Starts to combine objects (e.g., place one block on another)

23. Terminology, cont. Depth: start with the standard and go deep The Competency The Extension Symbolic Entry Point Early Symbolic Entry Point Pre-symbolic Entry Point

24. Developing the Extensions of the NC Standard Course of Study:The Process Phase I Content standard extensions were developed through collaborative efforts of 5 divisions of the NC Department of Public Instruction (Elementary Education, Middle Grades Education, Secondary Education, Accountability, Exceptional Children) Developed for students who are performing at a pre-symbolic, early symbolic, and symbolic level of ability.

25. The Process, cont. Phase II Formation of a 48 member task force consisting of parents, school and system administrators, regular and special education teachers, and testing coordinators. 9 subcommittees were assembled within this task force representing elementary, middle grades, and secondary science, English/language arts and mathematics. This task force devised Extensions of the NC Standard Course of Study, reflecting access to the standards at the 3 levels of ability.

26. The Process, cont. Phase III The NCEXTEND1 will be developed by staff of NCDPI with stakeholder input Performance Level Descriptors for each level of ability will be developed in the fall Objective: to assure that the assessment provides valid and reliable means of assessing student performance on grade-level content standards, given the specific abilities of individual students.

27. The Process, cont. Training Overview and background Review of standards Translating standards into goals Translating standards into activities and materials

28. Let�s break!

29. Review of the StandardsTime to Dig In! Activity Based on the color of the pail and shovel on your table, take 20 minutes to: Review and discuss the content standard extensions, sampling from elementary, middle grades, and secondary and their linkage to the grade level standard Be prepared to share with the large group examples of the extensions from elementary, middle grades, and secondary level in language that you will use when explaining this to students� parents. Science English/Language Arts Mathematics

30. Head for the Door!

31. Translating Standards into Goals, Activities and Materials Creating a Balance How am I assuring access to the general curriculum? How am I assuring that this goal is functional, meaningful and relevant? Am I assuring that the goal adequately addresses the student�s present skill level?

32. Identifying Instructional Goals Step 1 Can the student address learning standards at grade-level expectations in the subject being addressed? If yes, then� Design age-appropriate instruction based on learning standards in this subject, at a level that challenges the student. If no� Proceed to Step 2

33. Identifying Instructional Goals Step 2 Can the student address entry points at this grade level that are more complex? If yes, then� Design age-appropriate instruction based on learning standards in this subject, at a level that challenges the student. If no� Proceed to Step 3

34. Identifying Instructional Goals Step 3 Can the student address entry points at this grade level that are less complex? If yes, then� Design age-appropriate instruction based on learning standards in this subject, at a level that challenges the student. If no� Proceed to Step 4

35. Identifying Instructional Goals Step 4 When it has been determined through repeated attempts that the student at present cannot address learning standards even at the least complex entry point, the student should address access skills (social, motor, and communication skills) while participating in academic instruction.

36.

37. Challenges of Educating Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Abstract Concepts Fast Pace Verbal Emphasis Appear to Require Highly Academic Skills Large Group Activities June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

38. Adapting Academic Tasks Simplify Tasks Add Information Target Much Easier Concepts Have Less to Do Make More Active Make Tangible Make Materials Larger/Add Color Make it Fun/Game-like when Possible June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

39. Analyzing a Lesson to Identify Meaningful Learning Opportunities Can any meaningful vocabulary be targeted? What general knowledge would be important to teach? Can comparisons be made? (past/present, size, shape, amount, appearance) What math skills can be targeted? June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

40. English Literature Build Vocabulary Identify Big Ideas Determine color of ink to write with Same/Different concepts Count particular items on pages Add page numbers Sign name June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

41. A 7th Grade Example Whale Rider by Witi Ihimaera

42. BIG IDEAS

43. Vocabulary Family�girl, boy, grandmother, grandfather, brother, old Ocean�water, fish, wet, dry, salt, shells, blue, white Whales�big, small, swim, eat, ride, on, gray, fish June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

44. Comparisons Girl vs Whales Big vs Little Swim vs walk Wet vs dry Old vs young June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

45. Numeracy Count stranded whales Count shells Count family members Compare number of boys to girls June Dwoning, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

46. Check for Comprehension The girl rode on the surfboard whale The girl loved her grandfather boyfriend car

47. Geometry Recognize Shapes (match) Count Like Shapes Recognize/Sort Big/Little Find Objects of Certain Shape Sort by Color June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

48. Algebra Identify Numbers (2x + 3y = 14) Match Numbers Use a Calculator Create Problems with Objects (count) Identify Largest of Two Numbers June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

49. Science Health�Decide good vs. bad things to eat, drink, do; sort by food groups Weather�Determine what to wear in different weather (concepts of hot/cold/rainy) Astronomy�Count stars/planets, match by size/color, vocabulary associated with constellations June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

50. More Science Earth Science�Care for plants, read color words (green/brown), vocabulary, read instructions (pictorial/written) Biology�Identify body parts and functions, count body parts, sort pictures (concepts of same/different) Electricity�Use of switches to turn on appliances, read words �on/off�, identify items needing electricity June Downing, Access Center Webinar, September 2005

51. Infused Skills Grid Determine which access skills are addressed in a student�s IEP Evaluate whether these skills can be taught during content instructional time Infuse skills instruction into content instructional time Thereby increasing inclusion time when appropriate.

52. Ready�Break!!! Take 10-15 minutes to recharge�

53. Let�s Dig Deeper Investigate the resources on your table, e.g. Oklahoma�s Priority Academic Student Skills, South Dakota�s Alternate Academic Content and Achievement Standards, Tasks Galore. Design activities (as many as time permits) for the content standard extensions you presented to the large group earlier today. Be prepared to share these activities with the large group in 15-20 minutes.

54. Next Steps� Establishment of Regional listserv to share activities as LEAs develop them. This training presentation is available from the Regional coordinator for you to use to train LEAs. Visit the Access Center website for additional resources, links, etc. at: www.k8accesscenter.org.