A Supports Planning Model for the Learning of General Education Curriculum Content by Students with Significant Disabilities

1
A Supports Planning Model for the Learning of
General Education Curriculum Content by
Students with Significant Disabilities

• Institute on Disability/UCED
• University of New Hampshire
• OSEP Project Directors Meeting
• 2006

2
Project Staff

• Cheryl Jorgensen, Project Director
• Michael McSheehan, Project Associate
• Rae Sonnenmeier, Project Associate
• Institute on Disability/UCED
• University of New Hampshire
• http//www.iod.unh.edu/beyond-access

3
Big Concerns in the Field

• Accountability for making progress in the general
  education curriculum
• But what should our expectations be?
• How should teams work to support students?
• What do teams need to do their work well?

4
BIG PICTURE of the Beyond Access Project

• Grant Award for 4 years
• Address key concerns in the profession of
  educating students with significant disabilities
  in a general education class
• Start up Expert Panel, Literature Review
• Design, Implement, Evaluate at initial project
  sites
• RE-Design, Implement, Evaluate at 1-year
  Replication Sites
• Dissemination

5
Student Selection Criteria

• Elementary Students who
• Qualify for Alternate Assessment
• Have a label of significant disabilities
• Could benefit from AAC / A.T.
• In general education class for at least 50 of
  the day (with 2 core academic areas)

6
Literature Review Results Best Practices

• Least Dangerous Assumption High Expectations
• Class Membership and Full Participation
• Quality Augmentative Communication
• Curriculum, Instruction, and Supports
• Ongoing Authentic Assessment

7
Best Practices

• Family School Partnerships
• Team Collaboration
• General and Special Education Reform
• Professional Development

8
A Guiding Principle

• LEAST DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION
• (Anne Donnellan, 1984)
• The criterion of LDA holds that in the absence
  of
• conclusive data, educational decisions ought to
  be based on
• assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the
  least
• dangerous effect on the likelihood that students
  will be able
• to functional independently as adults.
• Furthermore, we should assume that poor
  performance is
• due to instructional inadequacy rather than
• to student deficits.

9
Membership Participation Our goal is to get
to the top
In class - participate in all typical
routines In class - participate in some typical
routines In class - participate in different
routines In and out of class - limited
participation with classmates
10
Learning Our goal is to get to the top
Learn Grade Level Curriculum (or Critical
Function) Learn Lower Level Curriculum
Learn Functional Skills in Typical
Routines Learn Functional Skills in Atypical
Routines Developmental Curriculum
11
Iterative Phases of the Model

• Phase 1 CASTS
• Comprehensive Assessment of Student and Team
  Supports
• Phase 2 Explore Describe
• Short trials (2-8 weeks)
• Phase 3 Implement Document
• Longer trials
• Phase 4 Review Sustain
• Embedded in every Phase

12
CASTS
Reflective Practice
P. D. Plans
Support Plans
Implement Document

Explore Describe
School Classroom Community
Student Team
Review Sustain
Administrative Review Team
Professional Development
13
High Quality Professional Development

• Based in comprehensive assessment and linked with
  student team support needs
• Direct instruction (workshops)
• Onsite technical assistance for one year
• Classroom observation
• Classroom coaching
• Use reflective practice strategies and structures
  to support job-embedded learning

14
Beyond Access Research Questions

• How does using BA Model affect student
  performance?
• How does using BA Model affect team performance?
• How usable is the BA Model?

15
Team Selection Criteria

• IEP Teams of Elementary Students who
• Are invested in changing and improving their
  skills, practices, and beliefs about supporting
  and educating their students
• Are invested in changing and improving their
  skills, practices, and beliefs about supporting
  and collaborating with other team members
  (colleagues, family members) and
• Are open to trying proven and emerging best
  practices.

16
Administrative Review Team

• 1 - University Faculty for Beyond Access Project
• 1 - Project Site Mentor(s) in Training
• 2 - Building Administrator(s)
• Principal or Assistant/Associate Principal
• Building Special Education Coordinator
• 1 - District Special Education Director

17
How Might We Operationalize Donnellans Least
Dangerous Assumption Principle?

• The Least Dangerous
• Assumption is to
• presume competence.
• The Least Dangerous Assumption is to design
• educational programs and provide supports based
  on that presumption.

18
How Might We Operationalize Donnellans Least
Dangerous Assumption Principle?

• For the Beyond Access Project
• For two periods a day, assume competence to learn
  the general education curriculum.
• Suspend judgment about student capabilities until
  supports are provided accurately and consistently
  and best practices are in place.
• Reflect on your assumptions frequently.

19
5 Reasons Why Our LDA Should Be to Presume
Competence

• Human intelligence is a
• multi-faceted construct rather
• than a uni-dimensional
• characteristic.

20
5 Reasons Why Our LDA Should Be to Presume
Competence

• Most students with significant disabilities
• have difficulty communicating
• and assessments of their I.Q.
• are seriously flawed.

21
5 Reasons Why Our LDA Should Be to Presume
Competence

• Research shows that a growing
• number of children and adults
• labeled retarded show they
• are more capable when they have
• a means to communicate.

22
5 Reasons Why Our LDA Should Be to Presume
Competence

• To presume incompetence could result in harm to
  our students if we are wrong.

23
5 Reasons Why Our LDA Should Be to Presume
Competence

• Even if we are wrong about students capacities
  to learn general education curriculum content,
  the consequences to the student of that incorrect
  presumption are not as dangerous as the
  alternative.

24
What is your assumption?

• Assume competence, and the student ISNT OR
• Assume incompetence, and the student IS
• Which would you rather have happen to YOU?
• Which would you rather have happen
• to your CHILD or one you love?
• What do adults with disabilities
• tell us about their educational experiences?
• What does research tell us?
• What does history tell us?

25
Publications

• Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous
  assumption A challenge to create a new paradigm.
  Disability Solutions, 6(3).
• Jorgensen, C., McSheehan, M., Sonnenmeier, R.
  (in review). Searching for presumed competence in
  the educational programs of students with
  significant intellectual and developmental
  disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and
  Developmental Disabilities.
• McSheehan, M., Sonnenmeier, R., Jorgensen, C.,
  Turner, K. (2006, in press). Beyond communication
  access Promoting learning of the general
  education curriculum by students with significant
  disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders.
• Sonnenmeier, R., McSheehan, M., Jorgensen, C.
  (2005). A case study of team supports for a
  student with autisms communication and
  engagement within the general education
  curriculum Preliminary report of the Beyond
  Access Model. Augmentative and Alternative
  Communication, 21(2), 101-115.

26
Case Study

• I dont necessarily believe as strongly as I had
  that prerequisite skills need to be demonstrated
  before presenting more challenging material.
  (p.108)
• I know that I am spending more time thinking
  more deeply about the way that materials are
  constructed and how I am presenting them to
  Jack. (p.109)
• Were beginning to realize that Jacks
  performance is linked to how well we perform. If
  we dont support Jack well, he wont do well.
  (p. 109)

27
Impact Study

• 38 participants completed BA Impact Survey
• 6 months following the initiation of the BA model
• Likert scale ratings
• Close and open-ended survey questions
• Content analysis

28
When Educators Presume Competence

• Replication site participants reported that
• Beyond Access increased their expectations
  resulting in
• (1) Membership in the classroom,
• (2) High quality supports provided,
• (3) Collaborative lesson planning, and
• (4) Student participation in, instruction in,
  and/or learning of the GE curriculum.

29

• Team members cited having the expectation that
  the student would participate in all
  instructional activities including reading,
  writing, math, and other instructional activities
  (e.g., unified arts, morning circle, centers),
  giving the student the same work as the class,
  and basing lessons for the student on the lessons
  and activities of the GE curriculum sometimes
  with modifications.

30

• Team members reported on students
  demonstrating learning of GE curriculum that
  previously had not been expected by the students.
  
• Reading a modified version of a book
• The student sometimes writes on white board.
• Teacher is learning that the student can/is
  doing the work.

31
Students Demonstration of Learning

• 56 examples cited of students demonstration of
  learning
• Included examples for reading, writing, and math

32

• For participants in this study introducing LDA
  through this approach to professional development
  resulted in the desired shift from limited access
  to team members perceptions of increased student
  membership, participation in instructional
  routines, and learning of the GE curriculum
  content.

33
IEP Analysis Study

• Five students, pre and post BA IEPs
• Inductive analysis sensitizing constructs but
  open to discovery
• More strengths-based descriptors
• Goals and objectives more aligned with GE
  standards
• Special Education services delivered in GE
  classroom
• One student moved from alternate to regular
  assessment with accommodations
• More time in GE classroom

34

• Enhanced Definitions of Presumed Competence
• Least Dangerous Assumption

35
Presumed Competence

• Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  are related to learning chronological,
  age-appropriate grade-level GE curriculum.
  Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  include demonstration of both receptive and
  expressive communication about age-appropriate
  grade-level GE curriculum. For any student not
  communicating using speech, writing, or sign
  language to meet these goals, aided and un-aided
  AAC is utilized. The symbol set that is used
  includes traditional orthography (i.e., letters,
  words, phrases, sentences) in whatever sensory
  representation is needed by the student (e.g..,
  Braille, print, finger spelling).

36
Qualified Competence Lower Level Curricula

• Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  are related to learning lower than grade-level GE
  curriculum. Learning goals and other programmatic
  elements include demonstration of both receptive
  and expressive communication about lower than
  grade-level GE curriculum. For any student not
  communicating using speech, writing, or sign
  language to meet these goals, aided and un-aided
  AAC is utilized. The symbol set that is used
  includes traditional orthography (i.e., letters,
  words, phrases) in whatever sensory
  representation is needed by the student (e.g..,
  Braille, print, finger spelling).

37
Qualified Competence Specialized or Alternate
Curricula

• Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  are not aligned with grade-level GE curriculum or
  are related to specialized or alternate
  curricula. Learning goals and other programmatic
  elements include demonstration of both receptive
  and expressive communication about specialized or
  alternate curricula. For any student not
  communicating using speech, writing, or sign
  language to meet these goals, aided and un-aided
  AAC is utilized. The symbol set that is used may
  or may not include traditional orthography.

38
Readiness Competence

• Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  are not related to learning academics. For
  example, annual goals and short term objectives
  may be related to (a) perceived prerequisites to
  communication (e.g., object permanence, eye
  contact, orientation to speaker) (b) basic
  communication skills such as expressing wants
  and needs (e.g., more, hungry, angry) (c)
  functional skills, activities of daily living,
  personal care and/or, (d) perceived
  developmentally appropriate skills (e.g.,
  matching, number recognition, sorting).

39
Least Dangerous Assumption

• Learning goals and other programmatic elements
  are related to participating in chronological,
  age-appropriate grade-level GE learning
  activities with a focus on developing access
  skills such as receptive and expressive
  communication. There is no expectation that the
  student will demonstrate learning of the GE
  curriculum. For example, students may participate
  in a learning activity by selecting from an array
  of context-appropriate and correct messages.
  For any student not communicating using speech,
  writing, or sign language to meet these goals,
  aided and un-aided AAC are utilized. The symbol
  set that is used includes traditional orthography
  (i.e., letter, words, phrases, sentences) in
  whatever sensory representation is needed by the
  student (e.g., Braille, print, finger spelling).

40
Student Participation in GE Classrooms
C N S Ty Ti
Pre-CASTS 0-20 0-20 20-40 40-60 20-40
6 mos Post-CASTS 60-80 20-40 60-80 60-80 60-80
9 mos Post-CASTS 80 80-90 80-100 90-100 90-100
41
Next Steps

• Additional studies to determine relationship
  between using the Model and student learning
  outcomes.
• Additional studies to determine the relative
  impact of various elements of the Model on
  student learning.
• Larger scale replication of the Model

42
Any Questions?
43
To Learn More

• Visit the Beyond Access Web site
• http//iod.unh.edu/beyond-access/
• Attend our Poster Session at 530 Today!

44
The Beyond Access Model in Action
45
JACK CASTS

• Included in grades 1 - 3
• Began with Beyond Access in 4th grade at age 10
• Autism
• Initial communication system
• gestures (2 finger pt.)
• some signs
• vocalizations
• Go-Talk (9 messages)
• Home - 3 sibs, active, interpret needs
• Described by team as functioning at 2 yr. Level

46
Jack CASTS-AAC
47
JACK CASTS
Jack CASTS-Membership and Participation
Jack with Assistant
General Education Classroom
Jacks Desk
48
Jack CASTS Video
49
Jack CASTS Video
50
Jack Explore Describe Enhancing
Participationby Supporting Routines
Adult Aides, then fades
Go Talk with 9 messages for Social Studies
51
Jack Implement Document Instructional Routines
What (supports) would it take for Jack to DO
____?
Students are
Alternate form of do _____
Students do ____
52
CASTS -AAC 9 Items
53
10 months after Beyond Access
54
Student Team Outcomes

• Student
• Accurate consistent YES/NO (2 mo)
• Display of 9 --gt 49 messages per display
• 80-100 curriculum related messages
• Team
• Weekly meetings for planning management
• Family involvement
• LDA
• Consensus on features of supports
• Acquisition of device

55
Jack 5th Grade
56
Adapted Grade level novel
Rewritten by team members to late 1st - early 2nd
grade level, maintaining essential content for
general education quizzes/test.
57
Classmate Paired Reading
During paired reading, literate peers read aloud
and silently with modified text
58
Independent Silent Reading
Jack with modified text. Began showing more
emergent reading skills, including vocalizing
while touching individual words.
59
Jack Instructional Supports
Gen. Ed. Materials
60
(No Transcript)
61
Jack 5th Grade Video
62
Student and Team Outcomes

• I dont necessarily believe as strongly as I had
  that prerequisite skills need to be demonstrated
  before presenting more challenging material.
  (p.108)
• I know that I am spending more time thinking
  more deeply about the way that materials are
  constructed and how I am presenting them to
  Jack. (p.109)
• Were beginning to realize that Jacks
  performance is linked to how well we perform. If
  we dont support Jack well, he wont do well.
  (p. 109)

63
Jack Fifth Grade
TEAMCOLLABORATION
MEMBERSHIP PARTICIPATION

• Participated in activities with classmates
• Partnered reading with literate peers
• Independent reading of adapted books
• Communication displays with necessary messages
  (with no prerequisite)
• Opportunity to engage key concepts (based on
  chapter quizzes)
• Battle of the Books
• Participation --gt Access --gt Learning

HIGH EXPECTATIONS LEAST DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION
CURRICULUM INSTRUCTION SUPPORTS
QUALITY AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE
COMMUNICATION
64
To Learn More

• Visit the Beyond Access Web site
• http//iod.unh.edu/beyond-access/