| ||||
|
| ||||
|
 |
Transcript for Lesson 2 Presentation: Standards-Based Instruction |
 |
Standards and Students with Disabilities: Where does it all start?
National issues abound in regards to including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems, both of which are based on standards. Here are some of the major issues: Appropriateness of standards for students with disabilities. Since we have information that indicates most states developed their standards without all students in mind, there is now great concern that all students must demonstrate mastery on them. An analysis of 47 states' content standards conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes in 1997 showed that standards were quite varied and included several non-academic standards. Even though states indicated that standards were established for all students, 11 states did not mention students with disabilities at all. Although nine states considered student with disabilities as part of "all" suggesting that accommodations would need to be given in order to allow access to the standards, very few states indicated that special educators were a part of the standard setting process. Participation policies or practices. Previous to IDEA 1997, most students with disabilities were excluded from state and district assessments. In turn, if students are not included in the assessments then there was less concern about these students' accomplishment or achievement of the standards measured. As one person (Ken Olsen, Director, Mid-South Regional Resource Center, 1997) put it, "what gets tested, gets taught." The changes in IDEA 1997 mandate that students participate in assessment and have direct access to the general education curriculum; however, it is unclear how well administrators and teachers understand the importance of this. Accommodation policies or practices. Here, issues surround how accommodation decisions are made for both instruction and assessment. We know there are some tests that limit the type of accommodations allowed on assessments. However, instruction is a different story. There are a number accommodations that can be used during instruction that are needed by students. Some of these instructional accommodations may not be appropriate to use during assessment, however they should be an integral part of the instructional process. For example, a teacher may verbally prompt or coach a student to a correct answer by using successful approximations to the correct answer. However, this type of accommodation or teaching tool would not be appropriate to use during a classroom test or district/state assessment. Development of an alternate assessment. July 1, 2000 was the deadline for states to have in place an alternate assessment. The big issue here is who takes the alternate assessment? The original notion behind this assessment was that it was for students with significant cognitive disabilities who could not participate in regular assessments, even with accommodations. While it would appear that eligibility for the alternate assessment is clear--more and more concern is being raised about the students in the middle or in the gray area. What if students don't neatly fit into either assessment? And, what standards are measured by the alternate assessment? Availability of data on who is excluded. Although the requirement to include all students is encompassed in IDEA 1997, the implementation still is of concern. While we know we must include and account for all students with disabilities in either the regular assessment or alternate assessment, how are we sure that students are taking the most appropriate assessment? What standards should they be learning? Decisions to have students take a different assessment are not a universally defined practice. That is, some of these decisions may be based on the feeling of adults who think the regular assessment is too difficult or those students are not learning the same curriculum or standards. Availability of data on who receives accommodations. States and districts provide accommodations to students, but often don't keep track of what kinds of accommodations are provided. Important research can be conducted with on this information--cost analysis, logistics of providing them, and so on. So many issues, so little time. It is easy to see that there remains a lot of work to do for us to understand the importance of inclusive accountability and assessment systems and standards for all. |
 |
Standards-Based Education: What are the components?
Standards-based education continues to top the list of reforms sweeping the nation. It is at the top of both national and state educational agendas. Like it or not, all schools must be accountable for their students' performance. No matter how large or small or on what side of town schools are located, we must continually ask ourselves "Are students learning what they should? How do we know schools are making progress in educating all students? What are we doing for schools that are not making progress?" It is the attempt and effort to answer these questions that forces us to take a close look at standards and assessments that include all students, framed by the standards-based reform movement. There are some basic principles that we need to be sure are in place before the standards-based reform in today's schools really has purpose or impact. Examine the following principles and see which ones that are in place in your local school, district, or state. The accountability system is accountable to itself. This means that the accountability system itself is under constant scrutiny. There is a constant review of inputs and processes that make up the accountability system. The belief here is that we cannot hold others accountable if we don't hold ourselves accountable. For example, to hold you accountable, I need to be sure that I provide you with the tools, materials, resources, etc you need to do your job well. Accountability is built on standards that reflect all students in our schools. A common question you may hear is "what part of all don't you understand?" In other words, standards-based education is about all students, high expectations, and providing multiple opportunities to learn. Opportunity to learn is a primary element in the accountability system. No one-shot learning opportunities exist in a standards-based education system. Differentiated instruction that reflects the needs of learners on the standards is the backbone of meeting the needs of all students, including students with disabilities. All constituents or stakeholders of the accountability system have a clear understanding of the components of the accountability system, including rewards and sanctions. This simply means that we all are aiming at the same target. The target is clear and we understand what happens should we miss it or even better get a bull's eye! |
 |
Standards-Based Classroom vs. Business as Usual
The following is a brief list of how the standards-based classroom differs from that of the traditional classroom: Seat time is not sufficient to gain credit. Students must demonstrate proficiency of a skill required of each standard. One can no longer put in seat time, show up, and/or behave and pass a course. "D's" are not passing grades. No longer is anything less than a 'C' considered passing. In some places a "courtesy D" has been given to those students who are clearly failing but are "trying their best." As tough as it sounds, one's best is not good enough in a standards-based classroom. All students are evaluated not against themselves, but the static target of a standard. Emphasis on core academic disciplines. Core academics are emphasized throughout all coursework. This integrated approach to teaching standards promotes student learning as well as generalization of knowledge. Nothing is taught that isn't linked to a standard. All students are en route to the same finish line, but may get there using a different path. In a standards-based world, opportunity to learn is a biggie. Due to the vast diversity of learning among students, some will achieve mastery of a standard before (or after) other students. It is important that teachers incorporate correctives and extensions for students in order to meet the needs of all students. |
 |
Relevance for All Students
When looking at your state and district standards, it doesn't take long to notice that not all students will be able to attain the content and/or performance standards. However, most students with disabilities will be able to work toward the standards set for all. It has been estimated that 85% of students with disabilities are able to participate in the typical district or state assessment. Some can do so without accommodations; others need accommodations. These same students must be learning the standards and skills, with instructional accommodations when needed, and they should be taking the standards-based assessments designed to measure progress toward meeting these standards. So, what about students for whom existing standards are not necessarily relevant? For example, what about students with more significant cognitive disabilities who are working on life skills or a functional curriculum? Are the state or district standards appropriate for them? If your answer is "yes," hooray! But in most cases, your answer will be "no." Then what? Many districts and states have taken existing standards and have made them more functionally relevant for students with more significant cognitive disabilities. Generally, folks have made the decision to expand, extend, or bridge established standards so that they will be relevant for these students. Other places are working to rewrite or create another set of standards for these students. The bottom line - everything is based on standards! No longer can teachers say -"my students are working on life skills." Rather teachers now can say "all my students, including my students working on daily living or functional skills are working on standards that we want all students to know and be able to do." |
 |
Trademarks of a Standards-based Classroom
Doesn't standards-based instruction, standards-based classroom or standards-based anything nicely roll off your tongue? But what does it really look like in the classroom? What are the trademarks of a successful standards-based classroom? Try the following on for size: Students know the standards and level of proficiency required. Effective educators announce upfront the standards, goals, and proficiency requirements -at the start of each semester, lesson, and unit of instruction - and they reinforce them throughout instruction. They see instruction and assessment as inextricably linked. Nothing is kept a secret. In fact, students are part of some of the instructional planning. After all, it is proficiency not seat time that matters in standards-based classrooms. Students are provided multiple opportunities to learn. Students are given opportunities to revise, review, and debate work over the course of days or unit of instruction. This is not how it has been done typically in the past. Often students are given one chance to "get it right." We know of teachers who give assignments and never return them or give students a grade without corrective feedback or opportunity to revise. What ever happened to mastery learning? Only in turn when these things occur - when students are allowed to reach mastery - do students really learn from their work. Student assignments reflect an integration of facts, concepts, and strategies. That is, assignments reflect the depth and breadth of skills being taught. They don't simply skim the surface. Students are given the opportunity, over the period of several days or an even more extended period of time, to integrate their knowledge of a topic with other academic areas. In a standards-based classroom, teachers are aware of the standards in other content areas and integrate and reinforce them where ever and whenever possible. Each assignment is an assessment in itself. The purposes of classroom activities are to build skills in ways that can be assessed using different techniques. Proficiency is required of more than the one skill being taught. It reflects cumulative knowledge and proficiency. Teachers in standards-based classrooms understand the instruction-assessment cycle. Instruction feeds assessment and vise versa. |
 |
Aligning IEPs with Standards
Among the many changes in special education law is the restructuring of the IEP -- to include (1) goals and benchmarks the student is working toward that reflect involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, (2) the district and state assessment students with disabilities will participate in, and (3) what assessment accommodations are needed. Before the change in law, in general, IEPs of most students with disabilities reflected only individualized goals and objectives, without any connection to any standards that even remotely related to the general education curriculum. There are a variety of reasons why this might have been true:
|
 |
Linking the IEP to Standards
Today, 13 states have a required IEP format. In many districts where the state hasn't mandated a form, IEPs have been redeveloped to guide teachers through an errorless method of linking a goal and objective to a state or district content standard. For example, the teacher identifies the goal and objective for the student and then indicates what content standard it addresses. If you are in a state that has established a set of broad standards, let's say eight, for students with significant cognitive disabilities, and then you would perhaps have at least eight IEP goals and objectives reflecting instruction in these required areas. Some argue that this method takes the "I" or individualization out of the IEP. Not so. In addition to these areas, a student's IEP must reflect his or her current levels of need in the areas that may not be covered by standards. In this manner, a student's IEP reflects the standards being worked toward by other students as well as individual areas in need of further development. The IEP goals and objectives reflect the district standards for all students. Each objective is linked to a standard or area of the general curriculum. Please refer to Handout 1 for examples. Backmapping Standards to Instruction. Once we have the IEP linked to the standards, then what? How do we teach the standards? What do the standards look like in the instructional process? How do we know we have taught to the standard? All of these are critical questions in the process of aligning standards, instruction, and assessment or what is called backmapping. The term backmapping is a relatively new one. It has evolved from the need to link standards to instruction in order to align it with assessment. Backmapping makes sense in that once you have identified the desired result of learning (standards and benchmarks) you can begin the instructional process by asking assessment questions. It is time for educators to think like assessors. For example,
Here's how backmapping works. Start with a standard, any standard. Examine it in terms of its elements of instruction. For example, let's examine the following science standard: Students will identify different kinds of energy and describe how energy can be transmitted, reflected, and absorbed.This standard has several elements or skills embedded in it, including but not limited to:
|
   |
