standards - based iep curricular components of...

SARAH KWILINSKI QUILL PROFESSI ON AL

DEVELOPM ENT

Curricular Components of the Standards-Based IEP

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 2 Changes in Thinking

The Standards-Based IEP asks special education staff to change the intent of the IEP Previously: tell what a student cannot do, and how this will be

corrected, by describing a separate, parallel curriculum made up of small, discrete skills.

Now: assuming there is one curriculum for all students, describe how this student will be exposed to and taught the same large concepts as his peers while receiving remediation of missing skills.

From NARROW to BROAD

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 3 The G&O and the PLAAFP

The language of appropriate E-GLCE or GLCE or E-HSCE or HSCE (the Standards) is used to craft Goals & Objectives.

Data that shows to what degree a student learned those specific Standards chosen for his/her Goals & Objectives appears in the PLAAFP Statement and is used to justify all decisions made by the IEP Team. e.g. which state assessment, ESY, programming,

accommodations, etc.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

1. IEP Focus – from NARROW to BROAD

2. Get the language in the G&O.

3. Get the data in the PLAAFP.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 5 Choosing Standards for the G&O

1. Which Strands or Domains represent core curricular areas of instruction for this student?Explanation: the special education teacher will teach what s/he is responsible for…

what the child qualifies for

what the programming outlines

2. What represents a reasonable year’s worth of curriculum for this student?

3. Can some Content Expectations (CE) be taught simultaneously?Explanation: a way to balance remediation with instruction of new

concepts

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 6 Rephrasing from the Student’s Perspective

1. In what curricular areas does the student receive instruction from the special education teacher?

2. How much can this student learn in a school year?

3. What other concepts can this student learn while also receiving remediation for missing skills?

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________


2. Get the language in the G&O—define the curriculum, define the amount, don’t hold back new concepts.

3. Get the data in the PLAAFP

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 8 Standards-Based Data for the PLAAFP

The data must show how the student progressed when taught those Standards that were chosen for his/her Goals & Objectives on the previous IEP. Use the Standards language in the grade book (name

CONCEPTS not ASSIGNMENTS)

Enter multiple data points—create a line graph

Compare the student to general education students by giving the whole picture of the student as a learner—what about teacher assistance, or rate of retention?

Good data tells a story.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 9 Benefits of Using a Rubric to Collect Data

Articulated criteria understandable by anyone.

Universal scoring system can be applied to the grade book, the IEP, and the report card without translation.

Ability to measure aspects other than performance on coursework, e.g. amount of assistance provided to the student, rate of retention demonstrated over time, responsibility, specific behaviors, etc.

Shows patterns of growth over time (and allows us to look at learning like stair steps instead of a line in the sand—we can say, ―beginning to master‖ instead of ―failing‖).

Summary: gives the whole picture and makes it available to anyone.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Student Progress Monitoring Tools (A)

The Single Student Instructional Map and Line Graph

1. Enter each Domain or Strand and Content Expectation for a marking period to map out what has to be learned.

2. Measure conceptual learning (not performance on assignments) over a span of time and with a rubric to show learning rate.

3. Enter data in regular increments of time to show patterns in learning.

Summary: shows Standards that were taught, how long they were taught, and to what degree the

student mastered them.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 11 Student Progress Monitoring Tools (B)

Whole Class Line Graph

1. Easy comparison of student performance.

2. Portrayal of progress over the long term is accurate and appropriate when there is continuous learning of a few connected concepts (not appropriate for a rapid instruction/assessment cycle).

3. Ability to group multiple Content Expectations into a project or long-term unit plan for simplified reporting duties.

Summary: compares students, collects data on specific CE, and allows infrequent updating.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 12 Student Progress Monitoring Tools (C)

The Checklist

Single Student – list of CE from the IEP that are checked off with the date they were learned and a grade from a final project or test.

Whole Class – list of CE used in a unit plan with the grade each student received and the date(s) they were evaluated.

Inclusion – list of CE from this student’s IEP that appear in a unit plan and the grade(s) received with the dates evaluated.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________



3. Get the data in the PLAAFP—tell the story of what this student needs in order to learn as compared to what gen ed students need in order to learn

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 14 State Assessment Considerations

Is a Standards-Based IEP only written for students who will take the MEAP-Access state assessment? Consideration: isn’t the Team pre-determining this portion of

the IEP by choosing whether or not to include Standards-based data in the PLAAFP before deciding which assessment the student will take?

Data that compares the student to gen ed peers is the basis for recommending which state assessment is most appropriate for the student—so it must be there even to explain why the student will not take the MEAP-Access.

Data that is collected to show a student’s progress on the Standards should be based on the student’s instructional program, represented by his/her own Goals & Objectives.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 15 State Assessment Considerations

―Standards-based IEPs reinforce the concepts that shape our current education principles, policies, and practices: All students are general education students.

There is one curriculum—the general education curriculum.

The IEP identifies supports necessary for students with disabilities to achieve and make progress in the general education curriculum.‖

―Standards-Based IEPs Benefit Students‖ (handout)

Retrieved: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/StandardsBasedIEPs_03-24-09_273135_7.pdf

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________



3. Get the data in the PLAAFP—tell the story of what this student needs in order to learn as compared to what gen ed students need in order to learn

4. Making the Standards an integral part of every IEP is best practice for all students.

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Grade Level Content Expectations ELA and Math Organizational Structure

English Language Arts Strands Reading Writing Speaking Listening

Domains

Word Recognition &

Word Study

Spelling Speaking Discourse

Listening Response

Comprehension Grammar Speaking Conventions

Listening Conventions

Metacognition Writing Genres Narrative Text Writing Process Informational

Text Handwriting

Critical Standards

Personal Style

Reading Attitude

Writing Attitude

Mathematics Strands Number &

Operations Algebra Measurement Geometry Data &

Probability

Domains

Meaning, notation, place

value and comparisons

Patterns,

relations,

functions and

change

Units and

systems of

measurement

Geometric

shape and

properties, and

mathematical

arguments

Data

representation

Number relationships &

meaning of operations

Representation Techniques and

formulas for

measurement

Location and

spatial

relationships

Data

interpretation

and analysis

Fluency with estimation

Formulas,

expressions,

equations, and

inequalities

Problem solving

involving

measurement

Spatial

reasoning and

geometric

modeling

Probability

Transformation

and symmetry

1

High School Content Expectations ELA and Math Organizational Structure

English Language Arts Strands Writing, Speaking,

and Expressing Reading, Writing

and Viewing Literature and

Culture Language

Standards

1.1 Writing Process 2.1 Strategy Development

3.1 Close Literary Reading

4.1 Effective Use of the English

Language

1.2 Personal Growth 2.2 Meaning Beyond the Literal Level

3.2 Reading and Response

4.2 Language Variety

1.3 Purpose and Audience

2.3 Independent Reading

3.3 Text Analysis

1.4 Inquiry and Research

3.4 Mass Media

1.5 Finished Products

Mathematics Course Algebra I Geometry Algebra II

Standards

L1: Reasoning About Numbers, Systems and Quantitative Situations L2: Calculation, Algorithms, and Estimation A1: Expressions, Equations, and Inequalities A2: Function A3: Families of Functions S2: Bivariate Data— Examining Relationships

L1: Reasoning About Numbers, Systems and Quantitative Situations L2: Calculation, Algorithms, and Estimation L3: Mathematical Reasoning, Logic, and Proof G1: Figures and Their Properties G2: Relationships Between Figures G3: Transformations of Figures in the Plane

L1: Reasoning About Numbers, Systems and Quantitative Situations

L2: Calculation, Algorithms, and Estimation

A1: Expressions, Equations, and Inequalities

A2: Function

A3: Families of Functions

G1: Figures and Their Properties

S1: Univariate Data— Examining Distributions

S3: Samples, Surveys, and Experiments

S4: Probability Models and Probability Calculation

2

Instructional Map Grade Book One Student per Spread • Rubric Key: 1 = beginning, 3 = halfway to mastery, 5 = mastery

3

1st Marking Period 9/

1

9/

8

9/

15

9/

22

9/

29

10/

6

10/

13

10/

20

10/

27 2nd Marking Period 11/

3

11/

10

11/

17

11/

24

12/

1

12/

8

12/

15

12/

22

Grammar.5 Grammar.5

subj/pred 1 2 3 4 artic/conj 1 4

nouns/pron 1 4 hyphens 4

Spelling.3 Spelling.3

instructed 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 instructed 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

sight 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 Sight 4 4 5 1 1 1 1 2

Writing Proc.4 Writing Proc.4

02 pre-writ strat 2 3 4 01 purpose 1 3 5

Writing Genre.5 Writing Genre.5

03 position 1 2 2 3 4 5 01 narrative 1 2 3 4 5

Personal Style.4 1 1 1 Personal Style.4 2 2

WR/WS.3 WR/WS.3

07 fluency 2 2 3 3 3 06 strategies 2 4

08 vocab 1 1 2 2 02 cues 1 3 4

04 Dolch (220) 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 04 Dolch (220) 4 4 5

05 Dolch (1000) 05 Dolch (1000) 1 1 1 1 2

Comprehen.5 Comprehen.5

02 retell 1 3 4 01 connect 1 3 5

Metacognition.3 Metacognition.3

01 self-monitor 1 2 2 01 self-monitor 2 3 3

Narrative Text.3 Narrative Text.3

02 elements 1 2 3 3 4 5 04 lit devices 1 2 3 4 5

Info Text.4 Info Text.4

01 structure, etc 1 2 3 3 4 5 03 text features 1 2 3 4 5

Numb & Oper.4 Geometry.4

34-36 estimate 3 4 01 lines 2 5 01-03 place value 2 4 02 shapes 3 5

04-07 factors 2 3 5 03 faces, etc 3 5

Measurement.4

01-02 tools 1 5 Measurement.4

03 degrees 4 10 angles 2 3 4

05 conversion 2 4 04&11 surface area 1 5

Behavior Obj. Behavior Obj.

follow directions 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 follow directions 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

appropriate

when with peers

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 appropriate

when with peers

1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

attend reg ed

successfully

0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 attend reg ed

successfully

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Line Graph Depicting Student Mastery of Content Expectations and Behavior Objectives

This sample, partial line graph depicts some of the same information presented in the Instructional Map grade book.

1. Specific Content Expectations, or behavior objectives from the IEP, are listed. 2. The number of weeks of instruction is portrayed. 3. The student is measured via a rubric. (The rubric is continued here for the sake of

comparison, but the student could also be measured via other methods). 4. This line graph portrays only one student.

Drawbacks to the line graph format:

1. Does not necessarily provide the ability to map out what will be taught in a marking period.

2. Too many Content Expectations and lines could become visually confusing. 4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

9/1

/20

07

9/3

/20

07

9/5

/20

07

9/7

/20

07

9/9

/20

07

9/1

1/2

00

7

9/1

3/2

00

7

9/1

5/2

00

7

9/1

7/2

00

7

9/1

9/2

00

7

9/2

1/2

00

7

9/2

3/2

00

7

9/2

5/2

00

7

9/2

7/2

00

7

9/2

9/2

00

7

10

/1/2

00

7

10

/3/2

00

7

10

/5/2

00

7

W.PR.04.02

R.WS.03.04

N.FL.04.34-36

Appropriate

kwilinskik

Typewritten Text

kwilinskik

Typewritten Text

kwilinskik

Typewritten Text

kwilinskik

Typewritten Text

kwilinskik

Typewritten Text

Line Graph Depicting Growth of Whole Class for One Trimester

This line graph might be used by a high school teacher to show student progress on a core set of Content Expectations or skills that are being taught over the long term. Examples

a) A Writing Project that requires students to master skills and then apply them towards the final product—multiple ELA HSCE would be included in this one project.

b) A life skills class that is reinforcing a few concepts repeatedly in several different contexts to look for mastery over time.

c) An Algebra class is learning a few core concepts and taking tests every three weeks to measure their progress towards learning those specific HSCE. The teacher has listed all of the CE that are evaluated on each test.

Applicability: this type of long term line graph will work best when measuring connected concept(s) that build toward mastery. It will not work as well for new content that is being introduced, mastered, and then left behind every few weeks as the plots on the graph would potentially restart at zero each time new content was being introduced.

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Week Three Week Six Week Nine Week Twelve

Annie

Jose

Maria

Keisha

Raj

Nela

Tyrone

Sam

Student Progress Checklist Long-Term Annual Record of CE Learned Each School Year

6

RECORD OF PROGRESSION & MASTERY GRADE LEVEL CONTENT EXPECTATIONS (GLCE) & HIGH SCHOOL CONTENT EXPECTATIONS (HSCE)

K READING ENGLISH LANGUAGE

ARTS

Not Taught = Leave the box blank Progressing = Enter O Mastered = Enter X

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WORD RECOGNITION & WORD STUDY

R.WS.00.01 Demonstrate phonemic awareness by the wide range of sound manipulation competencies including sound blending and deletion.

R.WS.00.02 Recognize that words are composed of sounds blended together and carry meaning.

R.WS.00.03 Understand the alphabetic principle, that sounds in words are expressed by the letters of the alphabet.

R.WS.00.04 Use grapho-phonemic (letter-sound) cues to recognize a few one-syllable words when presented completely out of context. Begin to associate letters and sounds, particularly initial and final consonants.

R.WS.00.05 Automatically recognize a small number (about 18) of frequently encountered, personally meaningful words in print.

R.WS.00.06 Make progress in automatically recognizing a few of the 220 Dolch basic sight words.

R.WS.00.07 Follow familiar written text while pointing to matching words.

R.WS.00.08 Know the meanings of words encountered frequently in grade-level reading and oral language contexts.

R.WS.00.09 In context, determine the meaning of words and phrases including objects, actions, concepts, content vocabulary, and literary terms, using strategies and resources including context clues, mental pictures, and questioning.

R.WS.00.10

In context, determine the meaning of a few words, familiar and repeated phrases including objects, actions, concepts, content vocabulary, and literary terms, using strategies and resources including picture clues, prediction, and other people.

for Writing a Standards-Based IEP

• The Standards Grade Level Content Expectations (K-8)

Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (modified GLCE)

High School Content Expectations (9-12)

Extended High School Content Expectations (modified HSCE)

Follow this link to find the E-GLCE and E-HSCE: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_28463-162769--,00.html

• The Standards-Based IEP An IEP that is based on the Standards utilizes this defined list of curricular concepts and skills to compare the educational ability and performance of a special education student to that of his general education peers.

PLAAFP Statement – includes data that was collected as a student learned specific Standards to show factors such as:

o Comparison to gen ed peers o Rate and/or patterns of learning o Benefit/lack-of-benefit from instructional supports o Specific areas within the Standards that need further remediation

Goals & Objectives – name specific Standards that the student will learn. Tips for choosing Standards:

o Focus on the child’s whole curriculum rather than narrow, discrete skills needing remediation. o Put the language of the Standards directly into the Goals & Objectives. In the sample below the

English Language Arts Strand (Reading) at a specific grade level is written into the Goal, and some Domains (WS, CM, MT, NT, IT, CS) at that grade level are written into the Objectives.

Sample Annual Goal: Student will demonstrate application of concepts and performance of skills defined in the MI GLCE 3rd grade Reading with 80% proficiency.

Sample Short-Term Objective: Student will apply concepts and perform skills in 3rd grade Word Recognition and Word Study with 80% proficiency.

Sample Short-Term Objective: Student will apply concepts and perform skills 3rd grade Comprehension and Metacognition with 80% proficiency.

Sample Short-Term Objective: Student will apply concepts and perform skills in 3rd grade Narrative Text with 80% proficiency.

Sample Short-Term Objective: Student will apply concepts and perform skills in 3rd grade Informational Text with 80% proficiency.

Sample Short-Term Objective: Student will apply concepts and perform skills in 3rd grade Critical Standards with 80% proficiency.

o When deciding which Standards are appropriate for a student consider the areas in which the child qualifies for special education, the amount of time the child receives special education instruction, and what constitutes a reasonable amount that this child can learn in a school year.

o Consider writing Objectives at multiple grade levels to allow both the remediation of missing skills and the exposure to concepts the student’s gen ed peers would be learning.

7

Attachment B

1

Standards-Based Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Benefit Students

IEPs Must Align With the General Education Curriculum

by Dr. Patricia MacQuarrie, Project Facilitator to the Standards-Based IEP Work Group for the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) makes schools accountable for the learning and achievement of all students. The need to align individualized education programs (IEPs) with the general curriculum was first introduced in the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In 2004, the IDEA was reauthorized to align with NCLB, and a powerful connection was created. NCLB drives accountability and furthers alignment with state standards and assessments administered to all students with disabilities. Related requirements in IDEA 1997, IDEA 2004, and NCLB are the driving forces that affect the planning process for IEPs.

This article explains the need for standards-based or aligned IEPs and shows how IEPs that align with the general education curriculum benefit students throughout their educational years and help prepare for postsecondary goals. It also provides general guidelines for making appropriate assessment choices for students with disabilities (see sample Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) and Goal forms below).

Why Standards-Based IEPs?

The IDEA 1997 cited findings from 20 years of research and experience that demonstrate that the education of students with disabilities can be more effective by having high expectations for students and ensuring access to the general education curriculum for the maximum extent possible. The IDEA 2004 expanded on the need for “access to the general education curriculum” by adding “in the regular classroom,” thereby increasing the access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.

According to the California Comprehensive Center, which works to implement NCLB in California, the lack of requiring a general education curriculum in special education settings prior to the IDEA 1997 resulted in the following for students with disabilities:

• Students were often excluded from the general education curriculum or only exposed in a moderate form.

• Students were almost always exposed to an alternate curriculum district and statewide, which was often “deficit-driven instruction.”

• Students were not included in district and statewide assessments.

Without active engagement in the general education curriculum, or with very limited access to the general education curriculum, students with disabilities missed opportunities

Attachment B

2

to reach their full academic potential. Some students were unable to achieve otherwise attainable postsecondary goals such as supported employment and postsecondary education because of the lack of emphasis on achieving high levels of academic success. Furthermore, because students with disabilities were not always included in statewide assessments, states and school districts were not held to a high level of accountability for the quality of special education services.

Standards-based IEPs reinforce the concepts that shape our current education principles, policies, and practices:

• All students are general education students. • There is one curriculum—the general education curriculum. • The IEP identifies supports necessary for students with disabilities to achieve and

make progress in the general education curriculum.

Standards-based IEPs encourage teachers and parents to consider all students as general education students with access to and support in the general education curriculum.

Michigan educators have an obligation to challenge students with disabilities to engage in more of the Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs). This responsibility falls on both special education teachers and general education teachers. Special education teachers must gain a deep understanding of GLCEs. General education teachers must work with special education teachers throughout the IEP process and accommodate students to ensure access and engagement in the general education curriculum.

General Guidelines for a Standards-Based IEP and Assessment Choices

When creating a standards-based IEP, the IEP team should incorporate as many of the GLCEs as are deemed appropriate for the student. All IEP team members will need to be familiar with the general education curriculum standards based on GLCEs, as well as all of the state assessments, in order to be able to make informed decisions.

Under NCLB, all students are expected to participate in a statewide assessment. The need for higher levels of student performance on assessments puts an emphasis on access to the general education curriculum; this access is supported through a standards-based IEP. Therefore, the success of teaching GLCEs to students with disabilities will be reflected in assessment scores, which are used to determine a school district’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) score. Schools failing to make AYP for two consecutive years in either English language arts or mathematics are identified for improvement and must work with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to develop plans for such improvement.

If the student is challenged with the most demanding assessment that is appropriate, the team and the student will be able to evaluate the success of learning the GLCEs. If a student were to take an alternate assessment, despite being capable of taking the regular assessment, a proficient score would still fail to inform the IEP team if the student is successfully learning from his or her curriculum. Also, parents should remember that their

Attachment B

3

A standards-based IEP, or aligned IEP, does the following:

• Ties the IEP to the general education curriculum.

• Provides positive directions for goals and interventions.

• Utilizes standards to identify specific content critical to the student’s successful progress in the general education curriculum.

• Promotes a single educational system that is inclusive through common language and curriculum.

• Ensures greater consistency across schools and districts.

• Encourages higher expectations for students with disabilities.

child may be eligible for the Michigan Promise scholarship if the student participates in the regular high school assessment, the Michigan Merit Exam (MME), with or without accommodations.

New Assessment Regulation on Target for Implementation in Michigan

In April of 2007, the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) officially introduced a regulation to NCLB and IDEA known as the “2% Regulation.” This regulation permits states to develop optional alternate assessments based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) that are aligned to grade-level content. The regulation encouraged states to develop the format and procedures for making decisions regarding state assessment(s) taken by students with disabilities. States that do not meet the USDoE deadline will not be allowed to use the flexibility when calculating results of AA-MAS taken by students with disabilities toward AYP under NCLB.

Michigan’s AA-MAS is being developed through the Michigan Department of Education’s Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) and the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE-EIS). The new assessment, MEAP-Access, like the current MI-Access assessments, is intended to be utilized when IEP teams determine that the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), even with accommodations, is not appropriate for a student with an IEP. Michigan’s AA-MAS, which has been piloted across the state, will be administered as part of the Michigan Educational Assessment System (MEAS).

The regulation has monitoring language specifying that states must develop clear and appropriate guidelines and training to ensure that teams develop and implement IEPs based on grade-level, standards-based goals, and that the state will monitor whether that is occurring. This regulation requires that all students have access to the same challenging curriculum as their peers and that IEP goals address the skills specified in state content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled. This must occur in such a way that does not preclude earning a high school diploma. Having standards-based IEPs is one way to accomplish this alignment.

As part of Michigan’s preparation to meet all of the new federal requirements, the OSE-EIS formed a work group to review the IEP requirements. The work group developed a draft of a new IEP format and will continue to develop standards-based procedural and

Attachment B

4

According to a recent study done by the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO Synthesis Report 37) and Thompson et al., 2001, there are a number of benefits to standards-based IEPs or aligned IEPs:

• “…students with disabilities had improved exposure to subject matter…”

• “…collaboration between special and general education teachers was greater when they worked with a student with an aligned IEP.”

• When using an aligned IEP, educators tended to focus on high expectations rather than academic deficits.

• The aligned IEP changed teachers’ pedagogy and attitudes to ensure that students with disabilities had access to the general education curriculum.

• There was improved use of academic interventions, accommodations, and test data.

There are barriers to standards-based IEPs or aligned IEPs as well, including:

• Lack of time for functional skills instruction.

• Philosophical disagreements related to individualized versus standardized content instruction.

guidance documents. The prototype of the IEP format and guidance documents will be distributed to school districts later in 2009; a transition to the new IEP format will begin at that time.

The majority of students, including students with disabilities, should take the regular assessment. The AA-MAS should be reserved for students who cannot be accurately assessed with a regular assessment. According to Kerri Briggs, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, “A small group of students can take the AA-MAS to ensure that all students with disabilities are counted in the accountability system and are appropriately assessed. These are students whose disabilities preclude them from achieving grade-level proficiency in the same timeframe as other students. Since all students with disabilities are to be receiving instruction in the grade-level curriculum, these tests will not only ensure their inclusion in accountability systems but also inform instruction.”

The IEP team should choose the assessment that will best test the GLCEs taught in the student’s curriculum. By making appropriate modifications and providing a challenging curriculum for students with disabilities, based on GLCEs, students are given the opportunities to achieve their highest level of success. The new standards-based IEP forms to be finalized in 2009 will help guide IEP team members in making the best decisions when aligning the IEP to the general education curriculum.

Attachment B

5

Student’s Name Last: First: Middle: IEP Date:

Section 2: Option I Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)

The IEP has considered the following special factors: After reviewing this student’s progress in the general education curriculum and prior special education goals and objectives, describe the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance.

In areas of need, report baseline data with same age peer comparison such as curriculum based assessments, student work, teacher observations, parent input, and other data scores that have been collected over time.

To enable the student to access or make progress in general education curriculum based on grade level content standards for grade in which the student is enrolled or would be enrolled based on age:

Describe modifications/accommodations currently used. Describe modifications/accommodations and goal areas student needs.

ACADEMIC/PRE-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: Individual tests and/or district-wide assessments (required). Reading: Mathematics: Written Language:

TRANSITION ASSESSMENT: Age appropriate related to training, education, employment, and independent living skills.

COMMUNICATION/SPEECH & LANGUAGE:

SOCIO-EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL:

PERCEPTION/MOTOR/MOBILITY: Gross and fine motor coordination, balance, and limb/body mobility.

ADAPTIVE/INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS: Skills for academic success and independent living (where appropriate).

MEDICAL: Health, vision, hearing, or other physical/medical issues.

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY: If previously assigned.

GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM: Student involvement and progress in general education curriculum or participation in appropriate activities for preschool children.

A need for positive behavior interventions, supports, and other strategies. The language/communication mode for a student who is deaf/hard of hearing. The language needs for a student with limited English.

A need for Braille instruction. The communication needs of the student. A requirement for assistive technology.

The new forms contain two options for IEP teams to consideras they write PLAAFP statements and review a student’sprogress in the general education curriculum and on specialeducation goals. Option I (above) gives the most specificguidance to IEP teams. This is the first time MDE hasprovided options for IEP teams to consider in order to bestreflect the progress, needs, and goals of the student.

Section 2: Option I—Sample PLAAFP Statement

Attachment B

6

Student’s Name Last: First: Middle: IEP Date:

Section 5: Option I Goal and Objectives/Benchmarks

Instructional Area: (content area—strand/domain)

Michigan Content Expectations Upon Which Goal Will Be Based: (GLCE/EGLCE/HSCE/EHSCE/Preschool Outcomes)

Baseline Data: ________________ is currently _____________________ on the ________________________. (student)

Annual Goal: By ______ the _________ will ____________________________ when/at _____________________ on ___________________. (student) (demonstrate skill) (conditions criteria) (assessment/evaluation)

Position(s) Responsible for Implementing Goal Activities: Special Education Teacher General Education Teacher TC SLP SSW OT PT Other:

Position(s) responsible for reporting progress on goal: ___________________________________________________________

The transition area related to the above stated goal is: ______________________________________________________

Short-Term Objectives/Benchmarks

By the end of ___ marking period ___________, _______ will ______________________ on ______________________. (#) (school year) (student) (criteria) (assessment/evaluation)




Progress Reporting

Report Date: Progress: Comments:




Schedule for Evaluation/Reporting Progress This progress report will be sent home to parents every _____ weeks.

(#)

Base line 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th

GoalStudent's Progress

0102030405060708090

100110120

Student Progress Toward Annual Goal Based on:

Goal

Student's Progress

There are two options for IEP teams to consider as theydevelop goals and objectives for each student. Option I(above) gives specific direction on developing goals andobjectives as well as progress monitoring.

Section 4: Option I—Sample Goals and Objectives/Benchmarks

standards - based iep curricular components of...

Documents