|
Center-based academic programs include any program that is curriculum-based where students could be capable of working through a general
education curriculum. Academic programs are designed for students with emotional behavioral disorders (E/BD), autism spectrum disorders, or those who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (D/HH).
All programs work within the context of state and district guidelines.
Academic Team Philosophy
The teachers drafting the portion of the Framework dealing with Academic Center-Based Programs adopted a can-do attitude about standards
while still recognizing the complex environment in which center based teachers work. The transient nature of the student population; the variety of academic levels presented by students in a given classroom;
and the lack of content expertise among an often small teaching staff whose license areas are in special education are all factors that impact standards delivery in academic programs.
Philosophy:
We are educators working in academically oriented special education sites. We provide an appropriate selection of standards (to be
determined by site resources and student needs as well as the mission of each site) within a core curriculum. Our philosophy represents a shift from grouping by disability to grouping by ability.
Student and Site Stories
The following stories help illuminate the needs of students and teachers in Academic programs.
Referencing IEPs at the Site
When students qualify for special education services, the vehicle for providing those services is the IEP (individualized education plan).
Instruction is based on individually assessed needs and defined in IEP goals and objectives. Graduation standards and statewide testing do not alter the sanctity of the IEP; nor should they distort it nor detract
from the IEP process. A standards-referenced vs. Standards-driven approach to the IEP keeps the proper perspective.
|
|
Standards and the IEP
|
|
Move from . . . . . . . .
Standards-driven
|
To
Standards-referenced
|
- primary focus on achieving the standard
- based on items from assessment
- goals are limited to academic curriculum choices
|
- primary focus on student’s individual needs
- based on team decision-making
- goals organized around needs rather than content areas
|
|
|
|
Site-Level Decisions
Center-based programs for special education students have a difficult challenge in bringing standards-referenced education to their
students. The decisions made at these sites, however, can incorporate the best of the thinking from both general education and special education.
The Framework contains a decision-making timeline that offers an integration of the embedding model for standards found in general
education and the individualized model for standards found in special education. The timeline reflects a difference in realistic attainment of age-appropriate standards for students in Academic Center-Based
programs. By following the planning steps, a site reaps the benefits of the products or outcomes.
Integration Through a Cycle of Standards
By choosing a certain number of standards each year as the filter or screen for the IEP, not every standard needs to be addressed every
time the IEP is considered. This still allows a site to provide students the opportunity over a number of school years to earn the required number of standards to graduate. If students are not present at the
site during some part of the cycle, then the same rules would apply that govern general education equivalencies for standards acquisition. In that way, the burden on center-based programming is
no more or less than that in general K–12 education.
Often center-based programs draw from a large area, and students may be graduating from several different systems. Where the
number of standards a student needs to graduate is different from district to district, the center-based program must account in its entire cycle of standards the highest number needed among the
sending districts. The law states that all standards must be included in the curriculum. The distinction among districts is not which standards are taught, but which standards are scored and recorded
for graduation purposes. A district agreement clarifies that the sending district will accept the cycle and assessments of the educating district given certain assurances.
Center-based placement charts will differ from general education placement charts because they guide which standards will be
considered during that year on students’ IEPs. Using such a cycle does not automatically mean that all students in the program will be working to attain the state level on all the standards for that year,
but it does mean that those particular standards will be looked at in reference to the students’ individual needs. Narrowing the number of standards documented annually will increase the likelihood of more
standardized curriculum and assessments, more possibilities for group instruction, and a general sense of thinking about standards in a workable fashion.
Depending on the needs of the group, the difficulty level might change or the standard may not be taught at all, but over time the
goal is that the students will be able to meet greater academic challenges: more students will be expected to attempt more parts of the standard or pass at the state level as they are given more
opportunity and standards challenges.
Creating a yearly cycle of standards that will be addressed is a way to integrate the general education philosophy of delivering standards
and the special education practice of individualizing. Current practice for implementing standards in general education offers particular standards at a particular time. For example, reading, listening, and
viewing complex information might be offered in General English 9. But special education practice could imply that any standard should be offered at any time. This could mean that special education
teachers would need to be ready to deliver every standard at every level at any point in the year. The burden on individual sites to offer all levels of all standards whenever a student enrolls makes
delivering standards unmanageable. Choosing a cycle of standards to be delivered at the site provides a roadmap for navigating the standards. This helps students who are part of a program
throughout all the levels the program enrolls, and it also helps students who later transfer into the program.
Once a site has established its cycle, then the links between existing curriculum or goals and the standards become clearer, which makes
standards delivery not only possible but exciting.
Having a cycle doesn’t mean that all standards in the cycle will be assessed. For instance, if none of the 15 students enrolled in a high
school program are working at a level sufficient for them to achieve any part of the high school Chance and Data Handling standard, then it is not reasonable to assess it. But we still need to use the filter of
that standard, the careful look at the specifications of the standard in reference to each student, in order to determine that each of those students are unable to work at the state level during their years at
the site.
Decisions and Documentation
When students are able to work at the state level of the Preparatory and High Standards, smaller sites may be challenged to offer
standards instruction that is beyond the content expertise of the staff. The community and distance learning models may be a solution to this dilemma. This suggestion is included in the steps that will
guide a small site in planning, detailed on the site planning chart.
Another particular challenge for center-based special education sites is to coordinate standards assessments with all other due process
information. A Year-at-a-Glance Due Process form can be set up on a spreadsheet to keep track not only of IEP-related dates but the standards assessment dates as well.
If a high school student cannot achieve a High Standard at the state level of performance, one of two decisions needs to be made. Either
the student is able to do parts of the standard or parts of an aligned Preparatory Standard (middle, intermediate, primary), in which case the modifications would be made and achievement recorded as “Pass
Individual,” or the student is not able to work in the standard at all, in which case “Exempt” is recorded. To assist teachers in determining if students can do parts of an aligned Preparatory Standard
reference the Minnesota Content Standards. The high school level of each learning area is printed first, with middle, intermediate, and primary levels immediately following.
Exempting a student from a standard through a decision of the child study team is a valid option that does not exclude that child from the
system of standards. By exempting a student in the careful, considered manner presented here, the student is included in a system of standards and is meeting the intent of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization to move students toward a general education curriculum.
Students who might be exempt from a number of standards are often in developmental or developmental transition programs.
Many students in academic programs could be working on some standards at the state level and some at the individual level. The
complexity and number of decisions that need to be made could result in a confusing and lengthy IEP conference. The Sample Academic Transition IEP Conference script helps you understand how
a cycle of standards is considered for an individual student.
While integrating standards into small-site special education programs will be challenging, working with a cycle of standards gives
programs a reference point. Impact for programming for that year is brought into focus as each IEP is examined.
|
