Decision Making to Support StandardsBased IEPs John Payne

Decision Making to Support Standards-Based IEPs John Payne South Carolina Department of Education Jim Shriner University of Illinois Preparation of this presentation was supported, in part, by grant (R 324 J 060002, R 324 A 120081) from the U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center on Special Education Research, and from the Illinois State Board of Education (Part B-Discretionary Programs) awarded to the author. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U. S. Department of Education or Offices within it.

Support provided by the IEP Tutorial will result in the development of higher quality IEPs that: • Help prioritize annual goals in relation to state standards and other aspects of the general education curriculum. • Are used routinely in planning and implementing instruction on general curricular skills. • As a result, IEP goals will be reviewed and met with a higher frequency and there will be an increase in students’ standards-based achievement. Hypothesis of the IEP Quality Project

“Standards-based IEP” Status: • Where is the student with respect to standards for enrolled grade? Most states use SB-IEPs • Which standards warrant attention? Reason: • What goals are needed to designate the “necessary learning –the specially designed instruction” – that will lead the student’s program toward achievement of standards? • Sources: Project Forum at NASDSE, 2010. Access

IEP Access, Program & Opportunity Parameters (LRE & FAPE) • The IEP articulates: üpresent levels of academic achievement and functional performance and, ümeasurable annual goals, to enable the student to be üinvolved in and make progress in the general education curriculum

Standards-based, not Standards-bound. Access Skills General Curriculum Standards Transition Skills IEP Parameters The IEP is the boundary, not the standards

IEP-Q Project Caveats ü Instructional Time is Limited ü Opportunity to Learn is Important ü Procedural and Substantive Components of IEPs Matter

Project Logic ü What standards? (CCSS +) ü Not all Standards are “Equal” ü Match to needs/deficit areas ü Match to Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance – (PLAAFP)

PLAAFP Are multiple sources of data used? Does the PLAAFP provide a descriptive snapshot of the student? Could you begin standardsreferenced instruction? Resource: Planning Sheet example

PLAAFP Structure/Elements

Annual Goals • Every goal must relate to a need identified in the PLAAFP • Standards are considered early in the process No tolerance for: “Write a goal; Find a standard that sort of matches. ” • Not everything deserves a goal - Role of accommodations IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify Direct Need

Important Annual Goals Questions: • What skills must this student learn in order to become proficient on the grade-level standard? IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify • What access skills related to the grade-level Priority standard(s) must this student learn? Content/Ski • What are the component skills, and are they ll(s) “equal”?

IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant Identify Priority Content/Ski ll(s)

• Putting Annual Goals in Perspective • The IEP-Q Goal Assistant applies the logic of Step 1 and Step 2 to suggest prioritized Standards Clusters • Individual Standards are selected, then Key Elements are highlighted. IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant

• If a Goal is Needed: IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant • Prompts to encourage that the number of annual Write Goals and goals is manageable and achievable Objectives. • Prompts for best practice for all elements of well written goals • Ideas to craft meaningful short-term objectives based on structure and intent of the goal.

• If a Goal is Needed: IEP-Q Tutorial Goal Assistant • Identify specially designed instruction including or modifications needed to Write Goals and access and make progress in the Objectives general curriculum Implementation • What student-specific and focused Plan instruction is to be offered? (e. g. , intense reading support, supplemental math foundational skills) • Are alterations to the complexity or focus of material needed?

Most consistent positive effects of a Standards-based IEP approach: Increased input / “buy-in” by parents and general education staff in IEP process and implementation. Positive changes the way in which special educators wrote goals and the way in which they communicated these goals to general ed. colleagues. In co-taught settings, a sense of “better used” time for critical skill instruction. User Feedback & Data Collection from 2 States

Indirect Effects - State Assessment The “Promise” of Intervention Effects 2008 -2010 ISAT Scores by Usage Group 240 235, 55 230 221, 9 ISAT Scores 220 218, 22 215, 03 210 High 209, 17 205, 11 Low 200 208, 69 No 199, 4 199, 19 190 180 2008 2009 YEAR Shriner, Carty, Rose, Shogren, Kim, & Trach (2013) 2010

Response to Intervention (Rt. I), Progress Monitoring, Standards, and IEPs Depending on the product used: - will tell you that a student is improving or failing to make progress in the area of reading fluency (ORF) or overall comprehension (MAZE). - will not tell you which specific reading skills or strategies are contributing to the results. (Decoding, vocabulary knowledge, question/context confusion, form of error analysis or reading behavior) What are the articulated instructional skill needs? Do they reference standards? Shinn (2012) Response to Intervention “influences” on IEPs

Improving Educational Outcomes in South Carolina In the Wake of Alternate Assessments based on Modified Achievement Standards John Payne February 12, 2014

Standards-based IEPs • Focus on “Access” to general education curriculum (more than physical presence) • Do not permit “off-grade” testing • Focus on civil right to have access to the same information as their peers • Focus on skill deficits in order to access grade level content

Challenges and Successes • • Standards becoming IEP Goals (duplication) PLAAFP IEP Goals Accommodation Use Collaboration between General Ed and Special Ed (and ownership of teaching) • New Standards; New Assessment; New Delivery of Assessments (Computer); Allowable Accommodations; New IEP system • Access/Opportunity to Learn/UDL

SC’s Approach • Video Modules from Dr. Shriner on standardsbased IEPs • Creation of virtual PD and courses on IEP development, implementation, goals, PLAAFP available to all • Onsite monitoring (focus on RDA) • Common Core Collaboration with General Education at multiple levels

What is it leading to? • Investigation into LRE • Widespread UDL training through SPDG grant • Professional development uniquely designed for each District • Course titles and teacher qualifications • Differentiated instruction and opportunity to learn (esp with Common Core) • Monitoring for Results Driven Accountability • State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

References Ahearn, E. M. (2010). Standards-based IEP: Implementation update. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Project Forum. http: //nasdse. org/Desktop. Modules/DNNspot-Store/Product. Files/80_dd 3 d 052 a 8 b 03 -495 f-a 442 -50 fb 9 b 6 b 543 b. pdf Etscheidt, S. & Curran, C. M. (2010). Peer-reviewed research and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs): An examination of intent and impact. Exceptionality, 18, 138 -150. Shinn, M. (2012). The relation of AIMSweb, curriculum-based measurement, and the Common Core Standards: All parts of meaningful school improvement. Austin, TX: Pearson Education. Shriner, J. G. , Carty, S. J. , Rose, C. A. , Shogren, K. A. , Kim, M. , & Trach, J. S. (2013). Effects of using a web-based Individualized Education Program decision-making Tutorial. Journal of Special Education, 47, 175 -185.

THANK YOU Jim Shriner jshriner@illinois. edu iepq@education. illinois. edu 217 -244 -9318 John Payne JRPayne@ed. sc. gov 803 -734 -8224