Closing the Opportunity Gap for Students with Disabilities

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

2. 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.”

3. 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

4. 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

5. Project Leading Questions • 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)

6. 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

7. Why is this important? • First national (SEC) project including students with IEPs (and those with significant cognitive disabilities) addressing: • Intended curriculum Enacted curriculum • Assessed 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

8. SEC Content Framework Topics by Cognitive Demand Surveys of Enacted Curriculum The intended curriculum: State standards / CCSS—What students should learn The assessed curriculum: State (and other) assessments—tested learning The learned curriculum: Student outcomes based on school learning The enacted curriculum: What teachers teach

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

15. SEC Data Map for CCSS Gr. 8 Instr. (State H) Gr. 8 CCSS 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

16. Content analysis: Topic by Cognitive Demand + Emphasis

19. www.SEConline.org

20. 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 Alignment Standards –State Academic , Extend + CCSS (M, ELA) State Assessments-- EOG, Extend + Achieve. gains

21. 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

22. 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?

23. CCSSELA by KS Assessed Stds gr 5

24. KS Bringing ELAR Instruction Into Focus Gen. Ed. Elem Spec Ed Elem Gr. 5 CCSS

25. KS ELAR Writing applications KS Teachers Writing Appl. CCSS Gr 5 Writing Appl.

26. Kansas ELAR Writing applications Gen. Ed. Gr 5 Spec Ed Gr. 5

27. KS DLM EE stands Gr. 6 by Common Core ELA

28. KS DLM EE stands Gr. 4 by Common Core ELA

29. KS SpEd 1% teachers by DLM EE Gr 4 Standards

33. 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

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

35. OH Bringing Math Instruction Into Focus Teachers Gr 6-8 Spec Ed Teach Gr 6-8 CCSS Gr 6-8

36. OH Gr 6-8 Math: Basic Algebra Teachers Gr 6-8 Spec Ed Teach Gr 6-8 CCSS Gr 6-8

37. Common Core Math Progression Gr. 7 and Gr. 8

38. OH SpEd 1% teachers x OH Ext Stands

39. OH Ext Stands Math X CCSS gr 6-8

40. OH Math Instructional Practices by % IEP in class Group Activities Math State teachers Central OH district

41. Go to Cross-state research

42. 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

43. 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)

44. 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

45. “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. 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 — Carl Glickman, 2002

46. Using SEC to develop a Shared Vision for Teaching and Learning

47. 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?

48. Common Core Instructional Shifts ELA 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.

49. 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 

50. 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)