Shift Happens: New IEP Language For A Common Core World

new realities
A Forum for School Leaders

new choices
SHIFT HAPPENS: NEW IEP LANGUAGE FOR A COMMON CORE WORLD

Dr. Judy Montgomery Judy Rudebusch, Ed.D Perry Flynn M.Ed A transcript of a live webinar on 9/18/12 sponsored by PresenceLearning
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Judy Montgomery
We know that the new world of Common Core Standards is about the real world. It is about preparing students for college and for careers --- basically for life -- with skills needed to succeed in a globally competitive workforce. It means cross-disciplinary skills; it means taking a new look at what we have been doing before. The new world of the CCSS (Common Core State Standards) has a domain that depends on students communication competence. Before, it was reading. In fact, reading has been the focus of the past decade. But with CCSS, reading is part of an integrative model that is intertwined with writing, speaking, listening, and language. Again, for the last ten years we have focused on helping students learn to read, but the new world of Common Core Standards offers much more about what we call communication competence. This integrative model is what we want to look at, and its impact on what is being taught and how it is being taught. We will in fact look at the needs to build skills, at the foundation, and finally at ways that we can improve upon what is being taught, how we can do it in different, better and with more integrative methods.
THE NEW LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON CORE

Dr. Judy Rudebusch, Ed.D and Perry Flynn M.Ed
Common Core places an emphasis on the word language, on the concept of language. Reading is language, writing is language, so is speaking and listening -- the oral language components. All of these modalities serve as a communication function depending on their purpose and they have a foundation in the area of oral language. Oral language is the core of the core. The modality of speaking and listening make up oral language. We use oral language from birth to communicate our needs, to express our feelings, to ask questions, and to carry on conversations. We tell our personal experiences, we retell stories. Sometimes we tell stories that have been read to us, and of course later on, we read them ourselves.
PresenceLearning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 580 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 | www.presencelearning.com
new realities

new choices
We use oral language and think aloud when preparing during the writing process. This shift in language is having an impact on the process of writing and aligning IEPs with the Common Core. Judy Rudebusch provides her perspective on this new language. One of the exciting features of the CCSS for speech language pathologists is that the standards require students to use a variety of grammatical elements at the appropriate grade level. Not only are we looking at complex syntaxes and semantics that are now overtly represented in the standards, but there are also metalinguistic skills that are woven throughout the Common Core Standards. All of these are areas that the speech language pathologist who practices in the school setting attends to when working with a student who has a language disorder. The standards address the students ability to think about and also discuss the features of language. You can see how important the learning of academic language is to learning content knowledge in the CCSS. Sometimes there are learning gaps between what a student is supposed to learn in terms of the content of the course or the grade-level across the four core subject areas and some gaps are represented in terms of difficulty with the language learning process. Learning content and learning academic language at high levels encircles the system that we can use to participate as speech language pathologists and address the modalities of language: speaking, listening, reading, writing so students become successful in meeting grade-level core standards. The new language of the Common Core Standards has a significant ripple effect with the speech language pathologist in terms of working with a school-aged student. The standards demand a focus on educational relevance when working with students on speech and/or language skills. What we work on is clearly spelled out in the CCSS. How we work on the language basis of learning is represented, or may consist of, a shift towards a new way of operating in the schools. We need to shift to the use of language in student products that are similar to or embedded in expressions in the classroom. We need to help our students use the expected standards for complex syntax and semantics, metalinguistics, and all of the language modalities as they write their stories, as they give oral presentations, as they produce written work in an interactive notebook, as they complete essays or any other assignment of the classroom. Educational relevance related to the Common Core standards pushes us to move away from activities, games, and use of materials in therapy settings that are not closely tied to the language target. The next thing that we do in our shift to using the new language of the Common Core standard is to consider the students language along a continuum of needs. The speech language pathologist examines the students language level and compares it to the level of what other students at the same grade are doing with language. We have to ask ourselves: What are the students strengths? What are the students weaknesses? Where are the gaps between the students language level and the academic language? What is needed in order to master the content, to understand the textbook, to understand the language the teacher is teaching and the concepts of the classroom?
new realities

new choices
We look at the students rate of learning in order to adjust the intensity in the speech pathology services we provide, and then compare that information about the child to the language standard and the CCSS. Then we develop a standards-based plan to fill in the gap. We look at the language standard and pull out significant language areas. For example, at second grade, in the conventions of standard English, students are expected to demonstrate commands of the convention of English grammar when writing or speaking. There is a list of key grammar elements that are expected of second graders. At third grade, students are expected to explain the function of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. You can see a shift to explaining language elements moves over into quite a bit of heavy metalinguistic work in terms of the students understanding of, thinking about, and ability to articulate how they are manipulating language. This represents a significant shift for us in terms of what we do as students. The next step in aligning with the Common Core Standards is to develop a plan, to implement the plan and then monitor progress related to the plan. You want to look for improved language skills. You want to look at how the child is doing in terms of progressing through the expectations of the CCSS related to language represented in each of the four core subject areas. Finally, you want to document student outcomes for the language target in order to get to the output of our system, which is increased student performance that can be measured. All of this focuses heavily on, in a new way, the language elements that are required at each of the grade levels. In thinking about how to shift to the new language of the Common Core, there are four key things that you can do to facilitate moving into delivery and the use of the Common Core. You can develop and/or acquire tools that make it easier to dig into and understand the Common Core Standards and the expectations at each grade level or for each course. You can use, for example, a crosswalk to synthesize or summarize the key expectations across grade levels and across different modalities of language. Using the crosswalk makes it easy to develop IEPs and intervention plans. You can call out the power standards for language, form, content, and use by grade level. Another important element is to establish distinct but complementary roles between the speech language pathologist, the classroom teacher and the special education teacher. You want everyone working together, each one bringing their special perspective to the work with students on language. We suggest and encourage participation in professional learning communities so you can focus on the language element in the Common Core Standards, and then whatever extent possible, we encourage an ever-increasing reliance on automating functions. Automation increases our efficiency so we can focus on the higher-level components of working on the Common Core analysis and developing customized plans for students.
new realities

new choices
Perry Flynn offers his advice about the ideal IEP process. First, the team, together, will review all the assessment information on a student. This includes not just standardized assessment information, but a variety of assessment tools, including artifacts that may already exist in a portfolio that a teacher keeps on a student. The team will collaborate in advance, including the parent, through methods like email or phone conferences. It is important that parents know that this is a draft of the IEP, not set in stone yet, that we are brainstorming in order to have the best information from all parties when we really get to the IEP table. To evaluate the students strengths and areas of need as they are related to the Common Core we need teacher input. Teachers tell us, he is able to do this skill or she is not able to do that skill as it relates to the Common Core. This is very important, educationally relevant information for the speech pathologist and the whole IEP team to have. Finally, we author a comprehensive PLAAFP (present level of academic and functional performance). A well-written present level of performance drives the entire IEP. It talks about the strengths and needs and it leads to functional goals, functional accommodations and modifications, and functional service delivery in the least restrictive environment. Thats why the present level is a very important piece of the IEP to spend some time on. When considering the Common Core process and the IEP process, offer goals that underlie what is needed for students to acquire the skills of the Common Core, rather than directly writing Common Core goals. For example, if a student is at third grade level and we write exactly third grade goals in the IEP, that suggests that there is not a need for special education. We provide the underlying skills that help kids acquire the goals of the Common Core. We may need to review previous grade levels in a developmental perspective to know what the student needs to master first, before he or she can master third grade goals. Its important to involve the entire team in offering the goals. They should not come from the discipline perspective. For example, the speech pathologist should not just offer speech goals, the OT shouldnt just focus on OT goals, and it should be collaborative. We should, together, offer all the goals the student needs. Then, secondarily, we determine the service delivery providers. Sometimes teachers are doing speech language pathology kinds of things and occupational therapy skills all day long, so it does not require the specially designed instruction of a speech pathologist to accomplish those skills. We then need to provide an environment where the student can most effectively accomplish these goals. For many students - not everyone, but for most -- it is in the classroom. We need to provide functional accommodations and modifications that are going to support the student in being successful. Whats the biggest impact on special education as we shift to these Common Core Standards? Perry Flynn believes that the Common Core creates a level playing field for special educators across the country. Its a tremendous opportunity to tie our skills and our differentiated instruction to the universal design that the Common Core provides.
new realities

new choices
And Judy Rudebusch adds that there is a new sense of urgency related to the high expectations at the grade level or the course of CCSS. There is accountability for results. Students with language disorders and students who struggle with language and learning are held to the same standard, so the pressure is on us as educators and as speech language pathologists to provide a framework and the infrastructure to allow students to master these language standards in order to produce that high level of learning.
HOW TO WRITE A CCSS ALIGNED IEP?

We know that IDEA requires that all students have access to the general curriculum. That hasnt changed with the advent of Common Core Standards. The standards provide statements of outcome that all learners must achieve, and those outcomes have indeed changed. So what has changed, if anything, about writing IEP goals as we shift to the Common Core? Perry Flynn points out that the Common Core Standards are based on Blooms Taxonomy. If you look at the standards themselves, many of them begin with a Blooms Taxonomy word. In our effort to unpack the standards, it is helpful to reference the levels of Blooms Taxonomy. In the past we have taught and tested comprehension for our students at the first, lowest level -- the remembering level -- which is wh.. questions. But the new Common Core Standards require that students comprehend material at higher levels. In fact, assessments will be for the higher-level comprehension tasks. For the understanding level, you will want to have students paraphrase things. At the applying level, theyll need to interpret information and make it their own. At the analyzing level you might have students do experiments that demonstrate their comprehension of the knowledge. At the evaluating level, perhaps have students judge or defend their view of something. Finally, at the highest level of comprehension, students construct or create new products based on the information that they have gathered. Use the very words from Blooms Taxonomy in offering IEP goals that are connected to the Common Core. It is going to help kids meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) far better than the old school, traditional kinds of things. Another thing to do is to analyze the deep structure of the standards. Have teachers identify what Common Core skills a student is able to do or not able to do. Then the speech pathologist, perhaps together with the team, should analyze those skills to determine the underlying, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, phonological, and even morphological underpinnings of the standards that only speech pathologists will see. The standards on the surface may not have syntactic or pragmatic implications, but as a speech pathologist reviews them with the knowledge of a particular student, some of these semantic, pragmatic, and other areas, may come to light. The goals will be offered in those particular strands that we deal with where we know students are showing weakness.
new realities

new choices
You might also analyze the standards for what they subsume in the areas for reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Again, the surface structure of the standard may not suggest that it is a speaking or listening standard, but it may be applied well to those domains through a speech pathology lens. Judy Rudebusch recommends a seven-step process for writing a stated goal or objective. The first step is to assess the students present level of performance, looking at both academic language and functional performance for the communication skills needed to perform well and independently at that level. Your assessment of the present level of performance as it relates to language, and the language standards embedded in the CCSS is the pivot point for leveraging change to move into the standards-based IEP goal or objective. Looking at where the child is currently performing is key. The next step is to choose your power standard. Take fourth grade, for example. There is a list of grammar elements that are needed or expected. Under the conventions of standard English part of the language standard, students are supposed to be able to use relative pronouns, progressive verb tenses, motor auxiliaries, order adjectives within a sentence, use prepositional phrases, use complete sentences, correct fragments and run-ons, and correctly use frequently confused words. You have assessed the students performance level in step one, you are choosing a power standard in step two, which might be for this particular child, that the child will produce complete sentences, which would be all forms, simple, compound, and complex, and recognize and correct fragments and run-ons. Step three is to unpack the standard by looking at the component parts of that standard in order to move towards mastery of the standard. If the fourth grader is okay with simple and compound sentences, unpack the standard to look at what elements the child needs to learn in order to use complex sentences. They are going to have to subordinate conjunctions and use clauses well. Then you move into analyzing sub-skills, step four, which is more of a task analysis level. In order to then get to step five, developing the overarching goal in writing the short-term objectives and, step six, determining bench marks. All of that ties around or loops around what is expected at a grade level in the Common Core State Standards relative to language. Finally, step seven is to monitor the students progress as you implement the intervention plan or the therapy plan, as you work on the target objectives that you have determined for the student. Again, starting by assessing the present performance level and by shifting our language in order to write the present level of academic achievement and functional performance statements on the IEP document will be pivotal for leveraging change. An example is to say, At this point in the school year most fourth grade students have mastered X or they are able to do X, relative to the language targets that we have identified.
new realities

new choices
More specifically, we could say At this point in the school year, most fourth grade students have mastered using complete sentences that are simple, compound, or complex sentences. STUDENTS skills in this area are either on grade level, commensurate with his peers, or STUDENT understands complex sentences, however, she is unable to use complex sentences in written work. Another example is: STUDENT struggles to do X or has difficulty doing X. This is a formula for writing your present level statement thats matched to a point in the school year for a grade level against the Common Core Standards. You state what is expected in the standards, you describe where the students skills are and what the student has difficulty with, and then you move on to identify the instructional priorities that are recommended for the new goal and objective in the IEP. When you are writing IEP goals and objectives, there are four things that you need to specify based on IDEA: the timeline, the conditions of performance, the observable behavior, and the level of performance. For example, if you are specifying the timeline in an IEP goal or objective, you state by when the child is going to demonstrate the skill -- by the time of the next annual review, by the end of the next grading period following the annual review, within 9 weeks, etc. You are establishing the timeline for which you are going to be responsible and student is responsible for measuring mastery of the particular goal or objective. Then you will state the condition of performance, which ties back to the Common Core State Standard and power standard that you have identified back in step three of the seven steps for developing the IEP language. The condition of performance would be to demonstrate use of complex sentences in written narratives. The observable behavior is the condition of performance by doing. It is a statement of how the teacher or the speech language pathologist will know that the child has met the standard. Finally, the level of performance is stated at a specific measurable value like 70% accuracy, 15 out of 20 trials, or seven out of ten opportunities. The level of performance is what you are going to state for the wording of your measurable goal or objective.
QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CCSS ALIGNED IEPS

What role will technology play in aligning IEP goals and objectives to the CCSS? Judy Rudebusch believes that it will be an important role as we move forward in the 21st century. She says, We need to automate as much as we can. I think we will see development apps for monitoring progress or providing a variety of different carrier phrases to word our goals and objectives against the standards. We will be able to use technology to quickly reference the language standards represented at a certain grade level. We will be able to the same for areas of language represented in the Common Core standards across conventions of English, including knowledge of language and vocabulary acquisition and use, and of course, listening and speaking.
new realities

new choices
Perry Flynn points out that the Common Core Standards reference technology frequently, and in fact, there are standards that deal with technology. I think as much as speech pathologists can incorporate technology in the therapy that we do with students, either through use of iPads or interactive whiteboards, or computers to do research -- any way we can tie our services to technology -- we are doing much more to improve student outcomes, he says. When setting a goal with CCSS, should the goal be aligned to the grade level for the child or to their instructional level? Language goals in the CCSS spiral, says Rudebusch. You can be working on language goals at the fourth grade level, but presenting the material at another. You can be working on complete sentences at fourth grade standard and be working at the first grade instructional level starting with simple sentences or compound sentences with first grade level conjunctions. We can target grade level goals while the instructional level of what we do and how we provide the material is at the childs instructional level. This is using the zone of proximal development. You cant provide something that is out of reach for the child and expect to make progress. Just a stretch, with your help, and the child will make good progress and move toward grade level mastery of the CCSS. In terms of mathematics, it is the same idea. If an eighth grade algebraic reasoning concept is at kindergarten or first grade, you would take the childs instructional level, but you would be stretching towards a grade level standard. Perry Flynn sees an important implication of the shift to Common Core for speech language pathologists. CCSS offer many opportunities to tie our skills to educationally relevant goals. It provides speech language pathologists with what is academically relevant to tie our therapy to. We have never had this kind of blueprint for educational relevance across the country. Judy Rudebush has also been delving into the CCSS, and considering the urgency with speech language pathologists need to approach the educational relevance of their work. We need to respect much more of what goes on in the classroom and the types of presentations that the child is expected to give at each grade level to show their learning, whether thats an essay or a presentation with the use of technology to express themselves, or an oral presentation or a written story, she observes. With CCSS, we need to imbed ourselves much more in educational relevance in terms of what we do and how we spend our time in therapy. Getting in line closely with the CCSS is key. Really knowing what it is that a third grader, seventh grader, or twelfth-grader is expected to do is critical to providing services. Doing so will be highly valued by the student because the child will be a stronger communicator and a stronger learner throughout his lifetime having a strong basis in language. She also stresses the importance of a team approach to determining the best level of direct and indirect services to meet CCSS-based goals. Get together with the childs team of educators, she says. Look at the data about the child. Then decide who is going to do what in terms of meeting the language needs that the child has, and how best to close the gap between academic functional performance and communication and what is expected at that grade level.
new realities

new choices
You need to look at rate of learning, the significance of the gaps of where the child is in terms of pragmatics and social communication, and look also at adult variables. We want to know how experienced the teacher is and how objective the teacher is at working intuitively and naturally beyond the language component, representing the CCSS. We need to consider how much time it will take for the adults to blend as a team on behalf of the student you are working on together. If a young child has a significant language disorder, more than an hour a week of therapy or more than an hour a week of service targeting the language standards may be in order, but it is an individual decision. The older the child gets the more emphasis there is on social use of language. We expect older children to communicate well and to express themselves for school-based tasks or for moving into a job or career task. Older children with gaps can do more independently and less direct time is needed. There is unfortunately no formula that works for all children in terms of direct time versus indirect time. Should all IEP goals be aligned to the CCSS? Flynn says no. There might be some things the SLP does that are connected with the Common Core, but arent tied directly to it. There can be a mix of things that are directly tied to the Common Core and it is easy to find the goals that they come from, but there might be some things that are more in the functional performance area that might not directly tie to the Common Core. I think you will be hard pressed to find speech language pathology goals that are not tied to the Common Core. The goals need to meet individual needs in every case, and the decisions are up to the IEP team. I would encourage the IEP team to consult the kids as much as possible in determining the goals that they feel are most important for them to achieve.
new realities

new choices
About SPED head

SPED Ahead is an opportunity for school administrators and special education specialists to catalyze discussions about new ideas and promising practices that help exceptional students achieve. With a series of free interactive online events and related multimedia webbased resources, we will explore answers to tough questions and shape effective leadership strategies for addressing special needs students challenges for literacy skills, scholastic achievement and peer relationships.
About PresenceLearning
At PresenceLearning, we love to see children thrive, which is why we are making the promise of live online speech therapy (sometimes called telepractice) come true. With the ongoing shortage of SLPs (speech language pathologists) and budget pressures in school districts reaching crisis proportions, innovative modes of delivery have become essential for giving children the speech therapy services they need. A large and growing body of research, starting with a seminal study by the Mayo Clinic in 1997, demonstrates that live online speech therapy is just as effective as face-to-face therapy. Our mission is to make live online speech therapy practical, affordable and convenient while providing an extraordinary therapy experience for each child. The PresenceLearning solution includes: access to our large and growing network of top-notch SLPs the latest video-conferencing technology the most engaging games and evidence-based activities time-saving collaboration and practice management tools targeting SLPs and educators Join the growing group of SLPs, educators and parents committed to seeing children thrive as part of the online speech therapy revolution.
1 0
new realities

new choices
About The Authors

Judy Rudebusch, EdD, CCC-SLP
SPED Ahead is an opportunity for school administrators and special education specialists to catalyze discussions about new ideas and promising practices that help exceptional students achieve. With a series of free interactive online events and related multimedia webbased resources, we will explore answers to tough questions and shape effective leadership strategies for addressing special needs students challenges for literacy skills, scholastic achievement and peer relationships.
Perry Flynn, M.Ed. CCC/SLP

Perry Flynn, M.Ed. CCC/SLP is an Associate Professor at University of North Carolina/ Greensboro and consultant to the NC Department of Public Instruction in the area of Speech Language Pathology. He is a member of ASHAs Board of Directors and the Chair of the Speech-Language Pathology Advisory Council. He is co-author of ASHA publications: Developing Educationally Relevant IEPs and Conducting Educationally Relevant Evaluations and has presented several ASHA webinars on topics related to Federal and State Law.
Judy Montgomery, PhD, CCC-SLP

Judy Montgomery, PhD, CCC-SLP, is professor and program director at Chapman University in Orange, California. She administers and teaches in a graduate-only CSD program with an innovative clinical education program utilizing authentic school, private practice, and medical settings in the community. She worked for 23 years as an SLP in three school districts in Orange County, California, and as a school principal and director of special education. She is a board-recognized specialist in child language and editor-in-chief of the journal Communication Disorders Quarterly.
11

Shift Happens: New IEP Language For A Common Core World

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shift Happens: New IEP Language For A Common Core World

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

new realities

A Forum for School Leaders