maase four focus areas whitepaper feb2018 · four focus areas white paper 2/2018 2 of 11 count,...

Four Focus Areas White Paper 2/2018 1 of 11

MAASE Four Focus Areas

History of MAASE 4 Focus Areas The Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) is committed to providing leadership for the development and implementation of quality programs and services for students with disabilities within the total education community. Special education administrators are change agents who affect the quality and future of special education and the education of students with exceptionalities. Guidance for the dissemination of knowledge and skills related to the Focus Areas is accomplished through the MAASE Seven Strategic Priorities which include: providing technical assistance and information, professional learning, networking among members, political action, encouragement and support for educational innovation, communication and collaboration with all educators, and community partners.

In July of 2015, the MAASE leadership identified Four Focus Areas: High Quality Student Evaluations, Specially Designed Instruction, Program Evaluation, and Highly Skilled Staff. The belief of the MAASE leadership was that an emphasis on these areas has the capacity to improve the quality and effectiveness of special education programs and services in Michigan. While respecting the innovative beginnings of special education in Michigan which provided access and resources for educating all students with disabilities, there has been a steady realization that the beneficial outcomes for students has become a missing element nationally, as well as in Michigan. Students with disabilities have failed to demonstrate academic and career success at levels comparable to their non-disabled peers under the current special education delivery system.

Background and Purpose The rationale for concentrating the work of MAASE on Four Focus Areas is to define the critical elements instrumental in developing a quality, systematic approach to special education, with the capacity to improve educational and life outcomes for students with disabilities. As special education has evolved over time, MAASE has sought to focus on high leverage practices which have the potential to facilitate meaningful change in student outcomes.

Over the past forty years, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has challenged educational entities to establish inclusive schools and classrooms. In 1975 nearly 1.8 million youths with disabilities were excluded from public schools. According to the federal 2013 Child


Count, over 6.9 million students with disabilities (SWD) were provided special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the general education setting. Over 62 percent of students with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80 percent or more of their school day. Early intervention services were provided to over 340,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. While the progress in accessing an education spurred by IDEA was tremendous, challenges remain for students with disabilities because access alone is an insufficient education.

Michigan was an early leader in providing special education programs and services to students with disabilities. Its earliest legislation, P.A. 198 of 1971, predated the federal mandate of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975. Special education at that time allowed SWD who were previously denied access to public school programs and services. Although de-institutionalization and the passing of EHA and IDEA were instrumental breakthroughs for students with disabilities in regards to accessing public education, a system of accountability was absent.

Since 2013, the State of Michigan has seen a series of actions related to Results Driven Accountability that brought further attention to the need for a different approach. High accountability measures were set forth for the purpose of ensuring procedural adherence to IDEA as a means of realizing improved student outcomes. Despite the practices instituted during this high accountability era, it is evident that for many students the cumulative impact of special education has not produced intended results. In Michigan, the graduation and dropout rates have been an indicator that current practices are not impacting students in special education in a positive way. The dropout rate fell slightly to 8.91 percent for the 2015-16 school year, down 0.21 percent from the 2014-15 rate of 9.12 percent. The 2015-16 school year graduation rate decreased slightly to 79.65 percent, down 0.14 percent from 79.79 percent in 2014-15.

The failure of Results Driven Accountability to have any impact on student outcomes has driven MAASE to tackle the question, “What will it take to improve outcomes for students with disabilities in Michigan?” Concepts for Consideration To help deliver successful outcomes for students with disabilities, the Four Focus Areas work in tandem and are strategically interconnected to develop a systematic, cyclical approach to the delivery of great instruction. High Quality Student Evaluations help inform the design of the


Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) to maximize individual student progress. Program Evaluations measure the impact of the SDI, including the surrounding efforts related components including curriculum, funding, etc., thereby guiding the instructional needs within a continuous quality improvement process. By engaging in the practice of the Four Focus Areas and implementing them with fidelity, special education school personnel can become more efficacious and increasingly Highly Skilled. Each of the Four Focus Areas is explained below. High Quality Student Evaluations: The determination of special education eligibility through high quality evaluations requires a means of determining the extent of the adverse impact of a disability on learning that cannot be remediated without specially designed instruction. This assumes that efforts have been made with fidelity to provide effective instruction. When assessing the likely contribution of fixed, disability-related student characteristics to underachievement, it is necessary to speculate about what cannot be directly observed. An educator may see what the student does, but can only infer that an internal, inaccessible cause is responsible. To reduce the possibility of error in too naively attributing underachievement to private events, it is most useful to begin by first addressing key learning conditions which the educator can directly control. Since these instructional variables are always present as part of a learning situation, assessing how they are present and what their contribution is to differentiated instruction is essential to understanding how to accomplish positive instructional outcomes. When additional resources are required for individualized instruction, they are essential to the construction of effective specially designed instruction. These variables involve directly observable interactions of instructional delivery, curriculum, and key aspects of the learning environment. So, high quality student evaluations are data based, problem solving processes which help identify a struggling learner’s educational, social/emotional, and/or developmental learning needs relative to instruction, curriculum, and the learning environment. This involves not only present information but analysis of a data informed learning history that has involved an ongoing, collaborative review process and progress monitoring of instructional supports over time. With this in mind, critical information to the development of specially designed instruction can be obtained through a variety of means including historical review, interviews, observations, and interpreting test results.


Specially Designed Instruction: When a student is eligible for SDI, providing it effectively is linked to a continuation of an on-going instructional problem solving process. SDI adapts, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology or delivery of instruction that result from expression of the student’s disability in the instructional setting (IDEA regulation 300.39(b)(3)). These adaptations are reflected in the student’s individual educational program (IEP) and are infused throughout the student’s learning experiences and environments. Since SDI is primarily defined in terms of what it delivers and how it is delivered, it is not constrained by limitations on where it is delivered and by whom. IDEA specifies that SDI must be provided in the least restrictive environment and that the child will be provided access to the general curriculum in order to meet the educational standards which apply to all children. With the development of instructional technology and implementation of universal design principles that include multiple options for learning access and expression, the least restrictive environment for most students is the general education environment. An additional benefit is the opportunity to prepare students with disabilities for the transition to a productive postsecondary life that accurately reflects their schooling experiences. Delivery of instruction is best provided within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). This allows for flexibility in the determination of what works throughout the school day, rather than addressing a student’s need for supports restricted to classification schemes, categorical labels, and funding streams predetermined by federal and state laws. Within an MTSS system, instruction and interventions for all students are implemented using a data-based problem-solving process that matches the intensity of support to meet student needs (both strengths and weaknesses). SDI exists within all tiers of a Multi-Tiered System of Support. The purpose of SDI at each tier is student learning and progress on the grade level standards. Most students with disabilities are served within general education settings most of the time and are assessed in relation to general education standards. The supports are reflected in the student’s individual educational program (IEP) and are infused throughout the student’s learning experiences and environments as described in the IEP. Research has demonstrated that when teachers use student progress monitoring of results, students learn more, teacher decision-making improves, and students become more aware of their own performance. Typically it is assumed that evidence-based practices implemented with high fidelity will result in improved outcomes, whereas low fidelity will lead to poorer outcomes. Special educators should prioritize practices and programs with clearly identified components that are empirically validated yet designed flexibly to match various contexts and student populations.


Program Evaluation: Once an evidence-based strategy is implemented with high fidelity, it is imperative to engage in the practice of conducting a Program Evaluation. Without this process, the effectiveness of the SDI would be unclear. Not knowing a strategy’s strength of effectiveness could jeopardize a district’s time, efforts, and expenditures which could shadow the adoption and implementation of the most effective programs. Most importantly, time is of the essence for students with disabilities. With each passing day of the implementation of an ineffective program, the window of opportunity for learning diminishes and the setbacks are great. Whether implementing a program such as a single strategy for a student, a newly adopted curriculum, or continuing current activities, school administrators should ask many questions. They should seek to determine the impact of their efforts, the benefit of the targeted stakeholders, decide to sustain or relinquish efforts, and demonstrate the need for funding renewal. To answer those questions, Michael Quinn Patton suggests conducting a program evaluation to determine a program’s effectiveness and guiding decisions about the program’s applied course of action. To aid in the decision guide, there are 5 key concepts or elements to take consideration for a successful program evaluation. These include asking the right/targeted questions, collecting information such as through surveys or experimental design, analyzing the information, reporting the information, and using the information. The results of the Program Evaluation should be used to continuously adjust to maximize successful outcomes for students with disabilities. If new to conducting program evaluation, begin with something small to build the staff’s skills and to instill their efficacy. Highly Skilled Staff: Each of the focus areas of High Quality Student Evaluation, Specially Designed Instruction and Program Evaluation necessitates the careful selection of highly skilled staff who can perform the required actions with foresight, intentionality, and depth of knowledge. Highly skilled staff have a deep educational philosophy of the alignment of the Four Focus Areas. In the absence of these skilled staff, targeted professional learning and coaching will be required to foster and develop the required skills. Critical to ensuring skilled staff is the development of human resource policies and procedures for hiring and evaluation emphasizing the principles of high quality student evaluation, specially designed instruction, and program evaluation.


Action Needed to Realize Concepts 1. Connect human resource practices to the Four Focus Areas

a. Develop and utilize job descriptions and postings with explicit connection to the Four Focus Areas

b. Develop and utilize interview questions that challenge candidates to demonstrate deep knowledge of the Four Focus Areas

c. Hire staff who have an educational philosophy that aligns with the Four Focus Areas

d. Develop and utilize staff evaluation practices that are connected with the Four Focus Areas

2. Procedures done in special education evaluations need to be done with fidelity 3. Ensure Specially Designed Instruction is determined using data from the student

evaluation 4. Emphasize and implement instructional practices and strategies that support student

learning in general education as the least restrictive environment a. Utilize assistive technology and universal design principles to increase student

access to general education setting b. Utilize collaborative planning and problem solving by special education and

general education staff to implement Specially Designed Instruction in the general education setting

c. Utilize data to inform instructional adaptations necessary within the core instruction provided in the general education setting

5. Ensure Specially Designed Instruction selected meets a recognized evidence standard a. Utilize a selection tool to evaluate evidence-based programs and practices prior

to selection b. Select instructional tools and methods that demonstrate strong evidence of

effectiveness 6. Conduct progress monitoring to systematically measure student performance

a. Develop a system of progress monitoring that includes baseline performance level, a clearly identified target performance level, a projected rate of progress, established timeframes for progress monitoring probes, and a regular analysis of the progress data collected

b. Create a system that prioritizes responsiveness relative to student progress monitoring data


7. Within a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), ensure Specially Designed Instruction exists within all tiers and is not an isolated component of the school environment

a. Establish a system of shared leadership within MTSS to foster a shared responsibility and collaboration between general education and special education

b. Establish an inclusive assessment system where all students are administered universal screening tools

c. Utilize a problem-solving process that analyzes multiple sources of student-centered data and the student’s response to evidence based interventions and instruction to design, develop and deliver instruction and supports matched to student need

8. Ensure Specially Designed Instruction is implemented as intended through the use of regular fidelity checks

a. Establish monitoring procedures to measure adherence to instructional protocols b. Establish a schedule for fidelity checks that are frequent enough to ensure

responsiveness and correction if fidelity is not evident c. Clearly define responsibilities of those who are delivering Specially Designed

Instruction d. Utilize implementation guides to definitely describe operations, techniques, and

components of a given instructional technique or tool e. Establish a feedback system regarding fidelity that leads to instructional

adjustment if fidelity is not evident 9. Conduct a program evaluation to determine effectiveness and adjust as needed

Summary MAASE strongly believes the implementation of the above actions will result in improved school and life outcomes for special education students. MAASE has a firm commitment to supporting future work related to the Four Focus Areas.


References ASCD. (2018). Differentiated Instruction - Articles, Books, Resources. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/research-a-topic/differentiated-instruction-resources.aspx Assistive Technology Industry Association. (2018). What is AT? Retrieved from

https://www.atia.org/at-resources/what-is-at/ Bell, S. (2011). Evaluating educational programs. ETS Research Report, (77), 1-26. Retrieved from EJ1111177

Blase, K., Fixsen, D., & Porter, F. (2013, February). Core Intervention Components: Identifying

and operationalizing what makes programs work. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/ASPE-Blase-Fixsen-CoreInterventionComponents-02-2013.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012, May 11). Introduction to Program

Evaluation for Public health Programs: A self-study guide. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/guide/introduction/index.htm#ftn5

Colorado Department of Education. (2015, September). Special Education within a Multi-

Tiered System of Support. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/mtss/sped Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-Based Practices and Implementation Science in

Special Education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135-144.doi:10.1177/001440291307900201

Decoding Eligibility Under the IDEA: Interpretations of Adversely Affect Educational

Performance”. (2016). Campbell Law Review, 38(73). Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/58705186-Decoding-eligibility-under-the-idea-interpretations-of-adversely-affect-educational-performance.html


Florida Department of Education. (2014, August 1). What's Special about Special Education? Specially Designed Instruction for Students with Disabilities within a Multi-tiered System of Supports. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/pdfs/njcld/SpeciallyDesignedInstructionTAP.pdf

Frechtling, J., Mark, M., Rog, D., Thomas, V., Frierson, H., Hood, S., & Hughes, G. (2010,

December). The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.purdue.edu/research/docs/pdf/2010NSFuser-friendlyhandbookforprojectevaluation.pdf

Gamble, J. A. (2008). A Developmental Evaluation Primer. Retrieved from

https://mcconnellfoundation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/A-Developmental-Evaluation-Primer-EN.pdf

Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing Fidelity with Flexibility and Fit: What do

we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools. Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001440291307900204

Ingham Intermediate School District Student Support Services. (2015, August). Specific

Learning Disability Guidelines. Retrieved from https://masp.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/IISD%20Specific%20Learning%20Disabilities%20Guidelines.pdf

Leeds, L. (2018). Statewide Graduation and Dropout Rates Show Little Change. Graduation

Rate Remains at 79 Percent. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-26847-407443--,00.html

Maine Department of Education. (2011, October 11). Maine's Form for the Determination of

Adverse Effect?: A tool for IEP teams. Retrieved from https://www1.maine.gov/doe/specialed/support/technical/listen/previous/oct-13-2011.pdf

Metz, A. (2017, October). Why Conduct a Program Evaluation? Five reasons why evaluation

can help an out-of-school time program. Retrieved from http://childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/child_trends-2007_10_01_rb_whyprogeval.pdf

Michigan Department of Education. (2016, March 14). MDE - Program Evaluation Tools.

Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-81376_51051-328384--,00.html


Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative. Retrieved from https://miblsi.org/

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2018). RTI-Based SLD Identification Toolkit.

Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/getstarted/sld-identification-toolkit National Center On Universal Design for Learning. (2017, April 24). UDL Guidelines: Theory &

Practice Version. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines_theorypractice

National Implementation Research Network. (2007). The Hexagon Tool: Exploring content.

Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-Education-TheHexagonTool.pdf

O'connor, J. L. (2016). Great Instruction, Great Achievement for Students with Disabilities: A

road map for special education administrators. Council of Administrators of Special Education.

Rose, B. (2015, October 1). Whitepaper – Program Evaluation Essentials for Non-Evaluators.

Retrieved from https://bradroseconsulting.com/whitepaper-program-evaluation-essentials-for-non-evaluators/

Safer, N., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Research Matters: How student progress monitoring

improves instruction. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 81-83. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb05/vol62/num05/How-Student-Progress-Monitoring-Improves-Instruction.aspx

State of Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional and Student Services. (2018).

Fidelity of Implementation. Retrieved from http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/format/pdf/Fidelity%20of%20Implementation_Revised_SR_09.08.10.pdf

State of Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student

Services. (2018). Florida's Multi-tiered System of Supports: Guides and Tools. Retrieved from http://www.florida-rti.org/educatorResources/guidesTools.htm


Stecker, P., & Hosp, M. (2005). Applications of Progress Monitoring to IEP and Program Development [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/Co-Teaching%20Modules/Module%204/25%20Progress_Monitoring_and_IEP_Devel opment_.pdf

United States Department of Education. (2016). Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using evidence to

strengthen educational investments. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

Wright, J. (2010). The RIOT/ICEL Matrix: Organizing data to answer questions about student

academic performance and behavior. Retrieved from http://www.interventioncentral.org/sites/default/files/rti_riot_icel_data_collection.pdf