Special Education in this New Era of Accountability:

The Problem/Opportunity Context

Linda A. PatriarcaKevin MaginKelly GreenDavid Smith

MAASE Presentation February 14, 2006Lansing, Michigan

Agenda Overview

• Welcome remarks: Agenda Review (Magin)

• Presentation Focus: Wayne RESA Pilot

• Lessons Learned (Patriarca, Green & Magin)

• Current State Activities:Out State Initiatives in Mathematics and ELA Initiatives (Smith)

Agenda Overview

• Welcome remarks: Agenda Review (Magin)

• Presentation Focus: Wayne RESA Pilot

• Lessons Learned (Patriarca, Green & Magin)

• Current State Activities:Out State Initiatives in Mathematics and ELA Initiatives (Smith)

INTRODUCTION

What is Special Education in this age of accountability?

Or, where are we now and what are we facing?

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report:  

http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html

Report Findings

1. Current SE system places process above results and compliance above student achievement.

2. Current SE system uses an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail instead of a model based on prevention and intervention.

3. SE students are GE students first. Separating costs and tallying the cost of SE as a separate program creates incentives for misidentification and academic isolation.

Report Findings

4. When a child fails to make progress in SE, parents don’t have options.

5. The culture of compliance -- driven by litigation pressures--diverts energy from the mission of educating the child.

6. Many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity. Thousands are misidentified or not identified early enough.

Report Findings

7. Students with disabilities require highly qualified teachers. They need better preparation, support and professional development related to student needs.

8. Current system does not always embrace or implement evidence-based practices.

9. Focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives--instead of academic and social outcomes--fails too many children with disabilities.

Too few graduate from high school, transition to full employment and post-secondary opportunities despite provisions in IDEA.

President’s Commission Report: Bottom Line

• Data Driven Accountability

• Access to the General Education Curriculum

• Improved Academic and Social Outcomes

• Evidence-Based Teaching & Assessment Methodologies

• Focus on Teacher Quality

But How Do We Move Special Education in These Directions?

The Wayne RESA Special Education AYP Math Pilot Project

A Partnership of

Funded by MDE/SEEIS State Improvement Grant

SIX FEATURES OF THIS PROJECT

• Curriculum Focus

• Instructional Sequence

• Intensive Professional Development

• Assessment

• Unit Creation

• IEP Alignment

Curriculum Focus

Curriculum Focus

Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs)

Grade Level Format

Strands

Topics

GLCEs

Grade Level Format

Strands

Topics

GLCEs

Strand Format

Strands

Domains

GLCEs

Strand Format

Strands

Domains

GLCEs

Curriculum Focus

Five Strands in MI Mathematics GLCEs

•Number and Operations

•Algebra

•Measurement

•Geometry

•Data and Probability

Grade Level Format

CORE CORE

EXTENDED

CORE

FUTURE

NOT ASSESSED AT STATE LEVEL

N.FL.02.10 N.ME.02.01 N.ME.02.21 N.FL.02.12

N.FL.02.11 N.FL.02.06 N.MR.02.13 N.FL.02.17

N.ME.02.02 N.MR.02.08 N.MR.02.14 N.ME.02.04

N.ME.02.03 N.MR.02.15 N.ME.02.05

N.ME.02.18

N.ME.02.19

N.ME.02.20

N.ME.02.22

N.MR.02.07

N.MR.02.09

N.MR.02.16

Number & Operations Strand (2nd Grade)

Notice that of 22 GLCEs in the Number and Operations Strand, 11 are CORE.

20 Core Expectations (3 MEAP questions ea. = 60 Q)

11(55%) Number & Operations

6 (30%) Measurement

3 (15%) Geometry

5 Extended Core Expectations (1 MEAP question ea. = 5Q)

3 (60%) Number & Operations

1 (20%) Measurement

1 (20%) Geometry

Across the five math strands, three strands are assessed in 3rd grade on 2nd content

Overall, 85% of the 3rd grade MEAP questions address two strands: Number & Operations, and Measurement

Grade Level Content Expectations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Grade

Nu

mb

er o

f E

xpex

tati

on

s

Data and Probability

Geometry

Measurement

Algebra

Number and Operations

Data and Probability 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 7

Geometry 3 6 7 7 5 7 5 6 9

Measurement 5 8 11 13 11 10 3

Algebra 14 13 13

Number and Operations 10 16 22 21 37 23 20 9 11

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The project selected the Numbers and Operations strand as the focus for this project because it would yield the biggest bang for the buck in raising the achievement of students with disabilities.

Within that strand, we address the Core GLCEs.

Instructional Sequence

Instructional Sequence

We have the strand and the core GLCEs.

Now teachers need a MAP that organizes and sequences the topics in a developmental order and a more finely grained way

Let’s “Scope Out” Part of an Instructional Sequencein the Number & Operations Strand

Meaning of addition and subtraction.

Addition/subtraction fact families and relationships.

Subtraction as take away & comparison.

Place Value(bridge to next area)

Intensive Professional Development

Intensive Professional Development

General and special education teacher pairs (and some administrators) participated in five-day intensive workshops during the summer.

For each of the “big” ideas along the instructional sequence, we modeled the teaching content using anchor manipulatives that could be used across the entire strand.

The anchor manipulatives were: money, number lines, and base ten blocks.

Assessment

Assessment

Seven assessment inventories covering content along the number & operations strand were developed:

• Sequential numeration and place value

• Sequential addition

• Sequential subtraction

• Sequential multiplication

• Sequential division

• Sequential decimal (basic)

• Sequential fractions (basic)

Let’s take a look at a sample of assessment inventories.

SEQUENTIAL NUMERATION AND

PLACE VALUE INVENTORY

Student Name: ____________________________ School: ________________ Grade: ____________ Copyright © 2005 Assessment developed by Charles Allan, Linda Patriarca, and Wayne Scott with partial support provided by a USDE State Improvement Grant, (Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education). All rights reserved.

SEQUENTIAL ADDITION INVENTORY

Student Name: ____________________________ School: ________________ Grade: ____________ Copyright © 2005 Assessment developed by Charles Allan, Linda Patriarca, and Wayne Scott with partial support provided by a USDE State Improvement Grant, (Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education). All rights reserved.

Unit Creation

Unit Creation Template

1. Decide on the problem and its location on the learning sequence

2. Narrow the scope.

3. Decide on manipulative model to use (Bustable, proportional; Tradable,

proportional; Tradable, non proportional; Number Line) and the amount of practice

needed.

4. How the model looks when drawn; how to transition from the model to picture

drawing and the amount of picture drawing necessary.

5. The transition from the model (manipulative and picture) to an algorithm.

6. Determine any alternate algorithms which the model could represent. Consider

both left to right and right to left algorithms.

7. Determine questioning sequence children are to use.

8. Determine sequence of difficulty levels.

9. Sequence the learning activities.

10. Check prior requisite knowledge

11. Instruct at each step

12. Check application

13. Comparison of this model to other representations.

Sample UnitComparison Subtraction with the Number Line

Comparison subtraction with the number line has been chosen as the unit for several reasons:

1. Comparison subtraction is frequently not illustrated in textbooks.

2. Many teachers have not used the number line as a manipulative model for instruction in numeric operations.

3. This combination of process and model leads easily to an alternate algorithm.

IEP Alignment(Kelly Green)

Big Idea

There needs to be a visible, transparent connection between curriculum, instruction, assessment and a student’s IEP

Aligning the IEP with the GLCEs

Aids in student transition from district to district, school to school

Puts on same page with general education

Guides choice of curriculum – choice of $$ for resources

More benefit

Provides consistency in instruction

Brings parents into the loop with student’s progress

Issues

IEP goals are very broad; GLCEs are more specific – how do you connect them?

IEP goals should not be so specific that they “become curriculum” – need to link back to curriculum and inform instruction

How do you align assessment – e.g. psych evaluation, testing for retention over time, mid-year assessment, MEAP, MI Access?

Establish a Process Assessment drives the Present Level of Academic

Achievement and Functional Performance statement

PLAAFP guides the development of broad goals

Objectives are conceptually linked to GLCEs

Instructional units address pre and post assessment, learning sequences and strategies and accommodations

By June 2006

IEP Companion Document (DRAFT) Address both procedural and

instructional issues Provide IEP and PLAAFP language Identify classroom and norm

referenced assessments Align GLCEs and sample units and

learning sequences

Lessons Learned:

Implications for Local Directors

Designer/Implementer Perspective: Linda Patriarca

Director Perspective: Kevin Magin

Teacher Perspective: Kelly Green

Current State Activities on the School Improvement Grant

• Out State Initiatives in Mathematics

• ELA Initiatives

David Smith,

Michigan Department of Education

Questions and Discussion