aligning education laws to effective learning frameworks kim mendenhall, ph.d

Aligning Education Laws to Effective Learning FrameworksKim Mendenhall, Ph.D.

Policy & Frameworks of Support

• Since early parental advocacy, policy has been moving in the direction of educational integration and justice for all.

• Frameworks that support learning & achievement align with policy tenets.

1965

ESEA (Elementary & Secondary Education Act)

For “educationally disadvantaged”

1970s

EHA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act)

1975 (P.L. 94-142)

FAPE/LRE

UD (Universal Design)

Physical Access

1990s

IDEA (Individuals with Disability Education Act 1990 (EHA reauthorized)

Access to learning

UDL (Universal Design for Learning)

Access to Learning

2000sNCLB – No Child Left

Behind (ESEA reauthorized - 2001)

Greater accountability for

student achievement

Greater involvement in

general curriculum

IDEA 2004

Greater accountability for

student achievement

Greater involvement in

general curriculum

2000s continued...

IDEA 2004

MTSS – system of assessment &

evidence-based practice

UDL

Framework of assessment &

research-validated instructional options

MTSS/UDL

MTSS (Multi-tiered System of Supports)

Effective Instruction – research-validated

Assessment

Interventions – teacher practices; Response –

progress within intervention

UDL

Flexible learning opportunities – research-

validated

Assessment

Implementing engaging activities that support

access to general curriculum

Discussion

IDEA 200

4

MTSS

ESEA

UDL

Policy Foundations of IDEA 2004

Raised the bar for assuring access to general education curriculum

MTSS as a framework for academic support and identification for services

Established the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) – greater access to general curriculum through technology

“...shift from focus on access to a focus on learning” (Rose et al., 2009, p. 151)

sets precedence for further research and development in new technology for the benefit of all students

integrate technology with policy and practice

Prepare students for challenges present in a competitive and advancing world.

(Gordan, 2009; Karger, 2009; Rose et al., 2009; OSEP, 2007)

Policy Foundations of ESEA Reauthorized (NCLB) &

CurrentDriven by student performance

Push for greater educational outcomes

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) – effective forthcoming reauthorization should be built on “the theme of IDEA” (CEC, 2010, pg. 1):

Focus on individual need

Better teachers

Ensure success and high levels of achievement

(Forte, 2010; CEC, 2010)

IDEA 2004 & ESEA

Both laws requirestates to establish higher and measurable standards and goals for students with disabilities and non-disabled peers

Alignment of assessments with standards

Improvement of teacher leadership

Early intervention services (EIS)

Accountability for struggling readers

Both support goal of providing appropriate education for students with disabilities

(D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Hardman, 2006; Lieberman & Walker, 2007)

Alignment of IDEA 2004 & ESEA

Attend to diverse instructional and individual needs of students in the general curriculum

Greater focus on accountability, progress, and student outcomes

Need for greater alignment with special and general education

“Scientifically-based” research

Allocation of excess funds from IDEA-Part B for schoolwide programs and ESEA activities as determined by LEA

Unified indicators to determine progress towards goals

(Hardman, 2006; Hehir, 2009: OSERS, 2007)

Alignment of IDEA 2004 & ESEA cont...Recommendations:

Find a balance with IDEA

Congress “recognize differing levels of progress toward accountability matched with appropriate supports” (CEC, 2010, p. 11)

Accommodations during instruction and assessment within a UDL framework based on individual need

(CEC, 2010; Rose, Hall, & Murray, 2009)

Vision of IDEA & ESEA

Address student needs in a more inclusionary way

Fair and equitable in meeting the needs of all students

Improve outcomes

High quality standards for teachers and learning

Greater opportunity for ALL to learn (including children with disabilities)

Greater collaboration between educators

MTSS and UDL as a joint system of support

(CEC, 2010; Blanton et al., 2011; Basham et al., 2010;Strangman et al., 2009)

Instructional Framework of MTSS

“...make general and special education a seamless system” (Division for Lerning Disabilities, 2007 p. 3)

Teacher practices = INTERVENTION

Progress within the intervention = RESPONSE

Provides early intervention and instructional supports for ALL students

(Kalberg et al., 2010; Sailor, 2009; Stangman et al., 2009; VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2011)

Benefits/Features of MTSS

Research-validated core curriculum

Framework of supportive tiered interventions

Universal screening and progress monitoring

Use of data for instructional decisions and monitoring progress

3+ levels of support:Tier 1 – universal/primary

Tier 2 – supplemental

Tier 3 – tertiary/intense

Instructional Framework of UDL

Encourages flexible learning opportunities & student choice

Eliminate barriers:Meeting goals

Utilizing materials

Conducting assessment

Provide research-validated options for ALL learners to

Acquire information

Become engaged

Express themselves(Basham et al., 2010; CAST, 2011; Jimenez et al., 2007; Rose & Gravel, 2009; Stangman et al., 2009

Benefits/Features of UDL

Improvement in student productivity, performance, and behavior

More engagement and enthusiasm for learning

Greater focus on student need

More collaboration

Greater enthusiasm for teaching

Reduction in special education referrals

Improved test scores

Curricular enhancement through use of technology

(Gordon 2009; Rose, 2009; Sopko, 2009)

Bridging MTSS and UDL

Emphasis of both:Effective instruction

Research-validated curriculum

Differentiating instruction

Assessment – inform instruction & intervention

Bridging MTSS and UDL cont...

UDL ≈ MTSSEncouraging flexibility

Research-validated instruction & curriculum

MTSS ≈ UDLScreening students

Progress monitoring

Decision on course of action

Tiers of support

(Stangman et al., 2009)


Access to learning environmentsMTSS = Tiers of support

UDL = modifying curriculum, accommodations

Researchers – effective decision makingAligning UDL & MTSS

Focus on preventing difficulties

Differentiation

Instruction – engages & motivates

(Basham, 2010; Hehir, 2009;Jimenez et al., 2007; Stangman et al., 2009)


IDEA 2004 – UDL Assistive Technology Act

Rose (2009)Appropriating educational funds – innovative technology:

Assistive technology

Digital curricula – digital representation displayed in a variety of ways more effectively than print

UDL framework for ALL students

Continuum of funding – advancing assistive & augmentative technology

Innovative technology – accessible for ALL students

(Edyburn, 2010; Rose, 2009; Sopko, 2009)


IDEA 2004 – NIMASFurther development & alignment of curriculum & assistive technologies

UDL & technologiesBreakdown of barriers

Greater access

MTSS & UDLBridge special and general education

Ensure “that all children reach a high level of achievement” (CEC, 2010, p. 1)

(CEC, 2010; Rose et al., 2009)

Aligning IDEA & ESEA within a Unified MTSS & UDL

IDEA & ESEA unitedAccess to curriculum

High quality education – bridge between special and general education

IDEA & ESEA separateMeeting high performance = could overshadow meeting student needs

IDEA provides a balance to high standards of ESEA

(Hehir, 2009; Karger, 2009; Owen, 2011)

Aligning IDEA & ESEA within a Unified MTSS & UDL cont...

IDEAIdentify students with disabilities

Provide fair and appropriate academic experience

ESEAProvided accountability to carry out “IDEA’s goal of aiding disabled students’ educational achievement” (Owen, 2011, p. 9) at a time when expectations and accountability for their teaching and learning was suffering.


Next reauthorizationCohesion & balance between general & special education

More prepared and stronger workforce of educators

Equal access to assessment and accountability for ALL students

Meeting needs & improving outcomes of ALL students (included gifted learners)

Balancing IDEA & ESEA within a collaborative system of support

Implementing UDL – unbiased assessment tool for students

Accommodations with individual needs in mind

School wide plans – include UDL & MTSS

Increase in ESEA funding for school improvement

(OSERS, 2007)


Researchers suggest:Differentiation of research-validated curriculum in unified MTSS & UDL frameworks –

Fewer tiers needed for intervention with an increase in universal student response

Great emphasis on effective instruction and curriculum

Teacher quality maximized

Reduction in special education referrals

Funding reallocated within a collaborative and unified system

(Stangman et al., 2009; Levenson, 2011)


UDL supports inclusion & meeting diverse needs

MTSS supports addressing students needs (intervention) & identifying progress through collection of data (response)

Aligned IDEA & MTSS - facilitate successful outcomes through unified MTSS & UDL

(Kalberg et al., 2010; Rose, 2009; Sailor, 2009; VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2010)

Conclusion

Common Core State Standards Initiative

Alignment of important components of IDEA & ESEA with effective learning frameworks of MTSS & UDL – can work within this initiative

Funding for ESEA needs to increase (CASE, 2011) = greater success in alignment

An aligned IDEA & ESEA, within a unified MTSS & UDL framework may reshape education in an equitable way for all students.

aligning education laws to effective learning frameworks kim mendenhall, ph.d

Documents