NCEO StateLinks

NAAC Curriculum Summit for State Department of Education Leaders: A Conversation about Curricular Priorities for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (and for AA-AAS)

Preregistration required; one incoming phone line per state.

Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009

Time: 11:00 Pacific, 12:00 Mountain, 1:00 Central, 2:00 Eastern.
1.5 hours duration.

The teleconference will address:

• How do we decide the most important content when linking to state standards?

• What outcomes are we trying to achieve in teaching academics to students with significant cognitive disabilities?

• What do content experts identify as essential to content that is "really" science, math, or language arts?

While deep knowledge of curricular content is not feasible in one conversation, this teleconference will help state level educators consider how and why to articulate conceptual foundations for work in developing alternate assessment, linking to state standards, and providing professional development.

Format and Presenters: Using a conversational 90-minute interview format, a team of experts from the University of North Carolina Charlotte will discuss issues in planning alternate achievement of grade level content. The panel will be led by Dr. Diane Browder, a partner in the National Alternate Assessment Center. Participants will include four content experts: Dr. Bob Rickleman and Dr. Mary Ann Mraz in language arts, Dr. Warren Di Biase in science, and Dr. Dave Pugalee in mathematics.

During the conversation, information will be provided on the rationale for teaching academic content, conceptual models for prioritizing the content, and considerations for planning content with strong links to the curricular areas. In preparation for this curriculum summit, the UNC Charlotte team developed conceptual frameworks and sample target skills for each content area. These resources were then submitted to national experts in the curricular content, to special educators who focus on low incidence disabilities, and to teachers who administer AA-AAS. A content analysis of the participants’ feedback was used to refine the sample materials and generate topics for the summit. A sample of some of the issues follows:

• Why should science not be taught like a foreign language? Why do science educators want learners to experience "wonder"? What standards should be emphasized? What personal relevance can science have for a student with significant cognitive disabilities?

• What forms the core of most language arts instruction? Why not just teach communication skills in language arts? What changes in focus as students move across the grade spans?

• What is the most important outcome for all students in mathematics? Why are mathematics educators focusing on literacy in the context of math? How can math problem solving be taught in ways that are personally relevant for students?

• How does the "work it across" format help general educators understand the goal of linking to state standards with alternate achievement? How does this tool help special education teachers?

• What do we know now that we wished we had known when we first started trying to collaborate on teaching content standards to students with significant cognitive disabilities?

Objectives: Participants will be able to:

1. Identify how to articulate a conceptual model for content that can be used as a guide in prioritizing and extending standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

2. Plan for future discussions between general and special educators.

3. Explain the concept of differentiated expectations for achievement of grade level content.

Related products will be posted on the NCEO Web site no later than January 6 for each of these objectives.

Registration:

1. State directors will determine who will participate, and how to set up conferencing within your system to access your reservation into the teleconference. As we have done on each call, we are limiting access to one incoming call per state unless there are extenuating circumstances.

2. A single representative from the state should e-mail Rachel Quenemoen, to provide a list of who will participate on your state’s phone line, quene003@umn.edu.

3. Your state’s representative will receive a reply e-mail with the call-in number and code, and confirmation of your state’s registration. You will also receive instructions to download teleconference background materials, and ways to provide comments and suggestions to teleconference planners.

4. All conferencing fees are paid by NCEO.

Please register no later than Tuesday, January 6. Late registrations will be accepted ONLY if additional lines are still available. Please do not call in without registration – that could prevent people who have preregistered from reaching the call.

NAAC is hosting a second curriculum summit call on January 22 for institutions of higher education (personnel preparation faculty, preservice teacher trainers, and severe disabilities researchers). If you have a higher education partner in your state that you would like to invite to that call, please e-mail their name, position, and e-mail address to Jacqui Kearns at jacqueline.kearns@uky.edu immediately.

 On Tuesday, November 25, 2008, Anne Chartrand of the Southeast Regional Resource Center facilitated an Indicator 3 Teleconference with NCEO staff Jason Altman, Chris Rogers, Chris Bremer, and Mai Vang. Sheryl Lazarus introduced the call.

The purpose of the call was to:

1. Enhance understanding of the meaning behind the APR reports and what information is needed to properly analyze them.

2. Provide state personnel with clarified instructions on how to properly complete the data analysis behind the Indicator.

3. Enhance state by state APR reporting similarity.

4. Clarify the similarities and differences between the APR and Table 6 sets of data and to show shortcuts between the two sets (including the use of a new tool developed by NCEO).

5. Address Improvement Activities for Indicator 3.

NCEO is responsible for analyzing the data reported for Indicator 3 of the APR. It has become apparent there are certain aspects of this Indicator that may need further discussion. One such issue deals with the inconsistency between 618 Table 6 data, and the APR.

It is also possible that different people or workgroups within state education department structures may be charged with the responsibility of completing the requirements for the two items. This issue led to the development of a tool for state personnel to ensure the accuracy of information that is reported for the two sources. NCEO and the RRC Program addressed this and other Indicator 3 issues to help data managers prepare APR data for the February 2, 2009 submission.

The tool is available at www.nceo.info/indicator3.

  Top of page