Implications for Students with Disabilities

Transcription

1 Common Core Standards Come to Nevada: Implications for Students with Disabilities Anne H. Davidson Nevada Department of Education A presentation to the National Conference on Student Assessment Detroit, 2010

2 Overview Walk through the story of Common Core State Standards (CCS) coming to Nevada Share the results of an inquiry we conducted to support our Race to the Top application process Review implications of CCS for students with disabilities Review implications of CCS for students with disabilities (SWD)

3 Nevada s Story Late 2009 Nevada discusses whether and how to adopt the CCS. NDE sets out to evaluate the relation between the CCS and the Nevada Content Standards (NCS) as basis for planning, budgeting, RTTT activities, etc January CCS committee requests feedback from states. NDE conducts preliminary, qualitative review of Draft 1 by NDE staff and field experts.

4 Nevada s Story 2010 February CCS committee releases Draft 2 and requests specific responses from states. NDE completes a standard-by-standard, d d d indicator-by-indicator i evaluation of Draft 2. March Stakeholders review the NDE evaluation results for agreement and reasonableness and provide feedback on implications. NDE and stakeholders recommend adoption of CCS 100% without addition. April May Nevada formally adopts the CCS. NDE drafts potential rollout plans in conjunction with the Phase II RTTT application.

5 February Draft-2 Evaluation Initial focusing questions To what degree do the Nevada Math and ELA standards match the CCS? To what degree do the Math and ELA standards match the CCS by grade-level expectation? Completed by NDE content specialists Indicator-level l review Not an alignment analysis (i.e., no determination of DOK alignment) Dichotomous determination of match (yes/no)

6 Results of Draft-2 ft2 Evaluation of Match NDE specialists found no exact matches due to the difference in the language and degree of specificity, but they did find a significant match of content and skills. N Math CCS 649 N ELA CCS 971 N Math CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 487 N ELA CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 725 % Math CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 75.0 % ELA CCS that t matched at least one Nevada standard d 74.77

7 March Stakeholder Review Initial focusing questions To what degree did the NDE judgments agree with stakeholder judgments? What did stakeholders recommend regarding the potential adoption of the CCS in Nevada? 49 participants representing districts, regional PD programs, and IHE 4-7 participants per grade span group Indicators level review Specific agreement decision rules used to collect concurrence data Allowed for other qualitative notes

8 Grade-level Evaluation - Math NCS CCS Grade Level Grade Level K HS Total All Codes K

9 Grade-level Evaluation - ELA NCS Grade Level CCS Grade Level K Total All Codes K H

10 Findings Differences in Grade-Level Expectations: CCS to NV Standards With some exception, skills were judged to appear in the CCS at earlier grade levels than in the NCS. 300 For ELA, instances occurred in which mastery of certain CCS skills were expected at a lower grade level l in the NCS than in the CCS. For Math in high school, 0 NCS appeared to require mastery of content that was more rigorous than in the CCS when STEM standards d were not considered. Instance of GL Match CCS more rigorous than NVS CCS more rigorous than NVS NVS more rigorous than CCS NVS more rigorous than CCS ELA Math

11 Findings In general, participants i t believed that the match between CCS and NCS was positive and endorsed statewide adoption; believed that the expectations in the CCS were developmentally-appropriate ll and accessible to all students; noted that increased rigor had significant implications for professional development; acknowledged limitations of current resources (e.g., current textbooks tb that t do not cover content t and skills at the grade levels indicated in the CCS).

12 Findings Some participants i t felt the endorsement of technology opened doors for students who were more visual in their learning; felt that the increased clarity and provision of examples in the CCS would hl help users apply these standards d if given the needed tools; expressed p concern for students, including SWD, who might be left behind by the rapid pace set by the CCS; noted the CCS emphasis on technology in middle school and high h school but felt there needed d to be greater emphasis on technology at earlier grade levels.

13 Implications for SWD - Rigor 1. Instances existed where mastery of certain CCS skills were expected at a higher grade level in the NCS than in the CCS, suggesting that the CCS are indeed more rigorous than the NCS. The distribution of these differences may indicate that the impact of increased rigor is greatest at the elementary grades. Such impact could suggest particular challenges for SWD in the early grades when identification of specific disabilities can be confused with developmental effects or misdiagnoses. Changes in the level of rigor and the introduction of new skills at earlier grades could create scenarios in which h students miss necessary skills in critical learning progressions. This scenario could have particular, negative consequences to SWD.

14 Implications for SWD - Assistance 2. The NCS includes the phrase with assistance to some standards, whereas the CCS did not use this language. Differences in the CCS stance toward assistance could have implications for SWD and their learning and assessment opportunities. Removal of assistance options could remove opportunities from scaffolding of skill or knowledge. CCS discussion of college and career readiness de-emphasizes process standards (e.g., writing standards) and emphasizes mastery. Such emphases may make it more difficult to diagnose where SWD are on given learning progressions.

15 Implications for SWD - Preparedness 3. A 75% match between CCS and NCS suggests that Nevada schools are prepared for adoption of CCS to some degree. However, the relative preparedness for implementation of the CCS depends on: degree of alignment (e.g., relative overlap of content and complexity expectations); direction of match (e.g., whether the CCS are more inclusive and cover more content than the state standards or vice versa); whether educators are successfully using the state standards for all students already; how educators will unpack the CCS effectively for SWD.

16 Implications for SWD PD 4. Successful and equitable implementation of the CCS depends on professional development with particular focus on SWD. The advent of the CCS puts new pressure on LEAs to unpack standards effectively and at grade level for all students, including SWD. Differences in grade-level rigor could require a significant shift in curriculum, instruction, ti and assessment design. This shift could have specific consequences for SWD if the presentation of learning progressions differentially supports certain groups of students, learning styles, or are otherwise biased toward particular learning needs. Standards will only be as effective as the capacity of teachers and test developers to translate the standards into effective, differentiated instruction and assessment for all students. Given the huge task of interpreting the new set of standards, capacity could be a bottleneck without necessary resource and support.

17 Implications for SWD - Technology 5. The CCS emphasis on technology and digital media support universally-designed curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Technology could open doors for students with specific learning styles and needs. For example, students who were more visual in their learning could benefit from technology solutions. Technology solutions and digital it media will benefit SWD as long as they are built with universal design principles (e.g., multiple means of representation, expression and engagement) to be inclusive and accessible. While technology solutions are embedded into the CCS at middle school and high school, Nevadans emphasized the need for technology-enhanced instruction and assessments at earlier grade levels is necessary as well. Concerns remain about the necessary infrastructure to support technological requirements of the CCS-aligned instruction and assessment.

18 Implications for SWD Coordination 6. Implementation of the CCS demands d intensive coordination of system elements in order to support SWD. Until we move to a more coordinate system to support standards-based IEPs, differentiated instruction, universal design in instruction, teachers will be responsible for untenable, disconnected and onerous workloads and struggle to make it through h a day at a time. Limitations of current resources (e.g., current textbooks or data sources that do not cover content and skills at the grade levels l indicated d in the CCS) threaten the successful transition to CCS. Coordinated efforts to supply efforts is essential.

19 Implications for SWD - Assessment 7. Comprehensive assessment systems aligned to the CCS could have positive outcomes for SWD. Having assessments aligned to the CCS will allow for cross-state comparisons of results. Cross-state t administrations i ti will improve the technical quality of assessment systems previously limited by small sample sizes and provide better evaluation of bias, construct stability, and comparability. Measuring student ability closer to the time of instruction (e.g., formative, interim/benchmark, through-course) could mitigate changes in rigor at each grade level.

20 Conclusions Inspecting the Common Core State Standards d in light of a set of state content standards helped tease out specific implications for students with disabilities. Positive implications include: positive match between CCS and state standards, suggesting a degree of state preparedness, emphasis on technology integration could promise new opportunities for SWD, and potential for improved assessment systems could particularly benefit SWD.

21 Conclusions Negative implications include: differences in rigor and grade-level sequencing of skills and knowledge could be particularly problematic for SWD, concern that not all teachers are using the state standards currently could suggest a lack of preparedness, and limitations of capacity, resources, and system coordination could threaten a successful rollout of the CCS for SWD.

22 Thank you! Special thanks to Lisa Ford and Cindy Sharp Contact: Anne Davidson