Introduction to special education

Cristina has seen many changes in her years of teaching students with signifi- cant needs. Her very first classroom was a “life skills” class in a cluster setting at an elementary school 11 years ago. She worked diligently to help her students become more independent, with the goal of placement in their neighborhood school’s general education classroom. Cristina is familiar with the academic demands of the school curriculum in the age of accountability, and she is very aware of the intense educational needs of her students. During the most recent district special education meet- ing, her director discussed the necessity for all individualized education program (IEP) objectives to be based on the gen- eral education curriculum. Thinking about the individual needs of her stu- dents, Cristina wonders if perhaps inclusion has gone one step too far. How is she going to teach IEP objectives in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies when some of her stu- dents are unable to speak, write, or use cause-and-effect software?

In keeping with principles established through previous legislative acts, the Individuals With Disabilities Educa- tional Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) maintains a focus on accounta- bility and calls for assessments of how

students with dis- abilities progress within the gener- al curriculum (Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Ken- nedy, 2005). Pre- viously, IDEA 1997 required that all IEPs include a statement of how stu- dents’ disabilities affect their involve- ment and progress in the general cur- riculum as well as measurable goals that would enable children to be involved with and to make progress in that curriculum (Byrnes, 2004; Etscheidt, 2006). Additionally, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) later mandated that each state develop achievement standards and report out- comes for all students in math, reading, and science by 2007 (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Based on these curriculum and accountability require- ments, it is clear that state achievement standards must constitute the curricu- lum framework for all students, includ- ing those with significant disabilities.

Considerable research has investigat- ed how states measure outcomes for students with disabilities (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Browder, Flowers, et al., 2004; Browder, Spooner, et al., 2004; Flowers, Browder, & Ahlgrim- Delzell, 2006; Thurlow, 2002). A num-

ber of states have alternative achieve- ment standards linked to state learning standards. Typically these alternative standards reflect a narrowing of the gen- eral education standards, and learners are instructed and measured on the basis of limited access to the general curriculum (Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, & Spooner, 2005). Although standards and outcome measures must be related to academic content, this does not prevent teachers from integrat- ing functional content into instruction. Additionally, access and assessment within the general curriculum should not require teachers to restrict instruc- tion to reading and language arts, math- ematics, and science. Indeed, to do so would deny individualization, a verita- ble cornerstone of the federal education law for students with disabilities.

IEPs require goals and objectives that reflect individual needs as well as gen- eral curriculum standards. In the past, teachers commonly administered a commercially-published criterion-refer- enced measure and drafted IEP objec-

36 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

T E A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

on a l C h il d re

n ,

V o l. 4

0, N

o .

3, p

p .

36 -3

9. C

o p yr

ig h t

20 08

C E C

.

Developing Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Objectives for Students With Significant Needs Sharon Lynch and Paula Adams

I n s t r u c t i o n a n d S t u d e n t O u t c o m e s

tives based on the items that were not mastered on the criterion-referenced test. One problem with this approach is that criterion-referenced measures may not correlate directly with state stan- dards. Although most publishers pro- vide lists of items related to state stan- dards, the items are often vaguely tied to the standards listed and many rele- vant standards are not addressed at all. In such cases, the commercial tests essentially drive the development of IEP objectives, and state curriculum stan- dards are a secondary consideration. Ideally, when developing IEP objectives, the teacher should first consider state standards which link the IEP to the cur- riculum.

Standards-Based and Individualized Programs

Considering Student Needs and State Standards

An important consideration when developing IEP objectives for students with significant disabilities is the need for intense instructional support. Agran, Alper, and Wehmeyer (2002) found that teachers of students with severe disabil- ities did not believe that access to the general curriculum was appropriate for their students, given their specific and intense educational needs. These teach- ers ranked social skills and communica- tion skills as the most important skills for access to the general curriculum. However, Browder, Flowers, et al. (2004) point out that functional skills and academic skills should not be com- peting priorities. They recommend a “threaded” curriculum approach based on academic tasks which specify func- tional materials and environments. When state standards and individual needs serve as the basis for the IEP, both functional and academic skills can be addressed.

Some students with significant needs perform at the nonsymbolic level of communication (Downing, 1999), and most commercially developed IEP pro- grams are not tailored to meet individ- ual needs (Burns, 2006). Also, it is often difficult for teachers to understand how the education of these students can be linked to state academic standards (Agran et al., 2002; Flowers et al.,

2005). However, objectives can be writ- ten that correlate to the state standards, yet meet the educational needs of stu- dents who work at the presymbolic, early symbolic, or expanded symbolic levels (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade-Little, & Snell, 2006). This method enables teachers to examine state standards and write IEP objectives that are individualized to the learner’s needs and directly related to the general curriculum.

Considering the Student’s Symbolic Level

When developing standards-based IEP objectives, consideration of students’ cognitive and symbolic levels of func- tioning is an important first step (Brow- der et al., 2006). Students who work at the presymbolic level have not yet acquired the skills to understand con- ventional symbols such as words, writ- ten sight words, pictures, or signs. Their primary means of communication may include body movements, vocalizations, facial expressions, and touching. Rather than relate to pictures or symbols, these students relate to concrete objects. At the early symbolic level, students begin to move beyond the object level and can relate to words, beginning oral lan- guage, photographs, pictures, line draw- ings, clip art, or pictured symbols. At this level, students may also have learned a few numbers and familiar sight words. Finally, students working

at the expanded symbolic level demon- strate basic academic skills such as number and letter recognition and may have learned some functional sight words and the use of money.

When developing standards-based IEP objectives, consideration of students’ cognitive and

symbolic levels of functioning is an important first step.

Using standards-based IEPs assists each child to progress in the curriculum with functional and academic skills, appropriately reflecting the child’s level of symbolic use. An additional benefit is that as teachers become aware of vari- ous symbolic levels of their students, they can better assist students’ progress in communication and use of symbols (Downing, 1999).

Developing the Standards-Based IEP

The flow chart in Figure 1 illustrates the process of standards-based IEP develop- ment. Teachers and IEP teams begin with consideration of the student’s pres- ent levels of academic and functional performance. Educators determine and consider critical functions (White, 1980)

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2008 ■ 37

Figure 1. Development of Standards-Based IEPs

Student’s Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance

Critical Functions of Curriculum Standards

Student’s Adaptive Skills Needs and Symbolic Level

Desired Functional Outcomes or Long-Range Goals

Benchmarks or Behavioral Objectives in IEP

Considered Together

of particular state curriculum standards related to the student’s adaptive skills needs and levels of cognitive and sym- bolic functioning. This analysis guides the selection of appropriate functional goals or desired learning outcomes for the student. Identifying long-range goals

helps determine and identify individual- ized measurable objectives.

When teachers target IEP objectives at the student’s symbolic level, they are able to develop objectives that are appropriate to the child’s level of per- formance, yet ambitious enough to

show progress on the general curricu- lum standards. Ultimately, the valid assessment methods and strategies included in the standards-based educa- tion plans of students with significant disabilities should inform the evaluation of their progress in the general curricu-

38 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Table 1. Sample IEP Objectives

Content Area Standard Critical Function Objective

Sample IEP Objectives in Writing

Language Arts/ Viewing/ Communication Presymbolic Level: The student uses a computer switch to print a Writing, Representing/ with others greeting card to give to a peer. After printing the greeting card, the Grade 6 Production: The through visual student uses eye gaze to choose the peer to receive the greeting card.

student produces representation. Early Symbolic Level: After orally dictating a message that is typed visual images, on the computer, the student uses a switch to print the message. messages, and Expanded Symbolic Level: After orally dictating a letter, the student meanings that copies the letter, addresses an envelope, and mails it to the person of communicate with her choice. others.

Sample IEP Objectives in Reading

Language Arts/ Reading a variety Use of receptive Presymbolic Level: The student activates a switch to listen to books Reading of texts: The communication on tape to read a book of her choice for pleasure, read a recipe that Grade 6 student reads (reading, listening, is used for a class project, read directions for walking to a different

widely for different photographs, and part of the school, and read the next step in her personal daily purposes in varied drawings) for schedule. sources. different purposes. Early Symbolic Level: The student orally reads pictured symbols to

make a choice for her daily leisure activity, follow the next step in her daily schedule, follow pictured classroom rules, follow instructions for classroom arts and crafts activities, and use a communication board to interact with peers. Expanded Symbolic Level: The student reads basic instructions with- in multiple contexts to follow directions to microwave a dinner of her choice, prepare a cake mix, follow instructions from in-building signs (e.g., BOYS, TEACHERS ONLY, EXIT, ENTER), obtain items on a grocery list, and find items in a catalogue.

Sample IEP Objectives in Mathematics

Mathematics, Measurement: The Application or Presymbolic Level: The student demonstrates time concepts by Grade 6 student solves quantitative and following a daily object schedule and going independently to the

application temporal concepts. activity from the schedule. The student selects clothing appropriate problems involving to the daily temperature. estimation and Early Symbolic Level: The student demonstrates knowledge of measurement of following concepts by discriminating objects which represent the length, area, time, descriptors such as big, little, large, small, long, short, near, far, hot, temperature, cold, heavy, and light. capacity, weight, Expanded Symbolic Level: The student measures objects to the and angles. nearest ½"; tells time to the nearest hour; selects a container of the

appropriate size for storing leftovers; reads the daily temperature and classifies it as hot, warm, cool, or cold; and differentiates two familiar objects stating which object weighs more.

Sample IEP Objectives in Science

Science, Science concepts: Recognition of Presymbolic Level: The student assumes a classroom job on a Grade 6 The student knows harmful and weekly basis using an object schedule including watering classroom

that the responses helpful things for plants, feeding fish, and providing food and water for pets. of organisms are plants, animals, Early Symbolic Level: The student communicates with symbols to caused by internal and/or people. express personal states or needs such as hunger, thirst, hot, cold, or external stimuli. dark, and light.

Expanded Symbolic Level: The student tells the needs of various organisms required for life such as plants (heat, light, water, soil, and plant food); animals (food, water, and shelter); and people (food, clothing, shelter, and other people).

lum and support their inclusion in state accountability measures.

Standards-Based IEP Objectives

Table 1 provide examples of how cur- riculum standards can be addressed at the presymbolic, early symbolic, and expanded symbolic levels. The objec- tives are based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, Grade 6.

Summary and Conclusion Like Cristina, many special education professionals perceive a dilemma creat- ed by what seems to be conflicting man- dates of IDEA 2004 and NCLB 2002. Teachers and IEP teams serving stu- dents with significant disabilities are confronted with the challenge of design- ing programs that assure access to the general curriculum while at the same time provide instruction that is respon- sive to highly individualized and varied needs. In addition, IEPs must use appropriate and valid assessment strate- gies for evaluating differentiated goals while accounting for student progress within prescribed and undifferentiated statewide accountability systems under NCLB. The development of standards- based objectives can provide a means for reconciling all of these requirements and is the first step in delivering access to the general curriculum, a principle that should be supported by the IEP.

Many special education professionals perceive a dilemma

created by what seems to be conflicting mandates of IDEA 2004

and NCLB 2002.

In order to achieve appropriately individualized education plans, stan- dards-based IEP development must be driven by consideration of students’ present levels of academic and function- al performance. An examination of crit- ical functions of general curriculum standards and students’ adaptive skills and symbolic levels will guide and inform the selection of appropriate goals and objectives. As teachers establish

clear links between state standards and specific needs of students, goals and objectives selected for IEPs become extensions of the scope and sequence found within the general education cur- riculum. In this manner, the process goes beyond merely identifying the broad relevance of state standards to IEP goals and clearly sets the general education curriculum as a basis for the selection of desired functional outcomes and objectives. Once IEP objectives have well established foundations in state standards, implementation and instruction in least restrictive settings and evaluations for state accountability purposes are additional elements need- ed to assure access to the general edu- cation curriculum for all students.

As educators grapple with the often frustrating issues surrounding compli- ance with state and federal legislative mandates, the development of stan- dards-based IEPs provides a practical framework for meeting the complex legal and ethical requirements of teach- ing. It is the first step in a process that can bridge the divide between the call for uniform curriculum and assessment standards and the preservation of appropriately individualized instruction and evaluation practices for students with a significant disability.

References Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002).

Access to the general curriculum for stu- dents with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.

Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211–223.

Browder, D., Spooner, F. H., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, B., & Kar- vonen, M. (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternative assessment perform- ance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 165–181.

Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M. E. (2006). General curriculum access. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 489–525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and requirements for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The Journal of Special Educa- tion, 37(3), 157–163.

Burns, E. (2006). IEP-2005: Writing and implementing individualized educational programs (IEPs). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Byrnes, M. (2004). Alternate assessment FAQs (and answers). TEACHING Excep- tional Children, 36(6), 58–63.

Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the gen- eral curriculum for students with signifi- cant cognitive needs. TEACHING Excep- tional Children, 38(2), 6–13.

Downing, J. E. (1999). Teaching communica- tion skills to students with severe disabili- ties. Baltimore: PHB.

Etscheidt, S. K. (2006). Progress monitoring: Legal issues and recommendations for IEP teams. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3), 56–60.

Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers’ percep- tions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.

Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of three states’ alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201–215.

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 195–202.

White, O. (1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form versus function. In W. Sailor, B. Wilcox, & L. Brown (Eds.) Methods of instruction for severely handi- capped learners (pp. 47–69). Baltimore: PHB.

Sharon Lynch (CEC Texas Federation), Professor of Special Education; and Paula Adams (CEC Texas Federation), Associate Professor of Special Education, Department of Language, Literacy, and Special Populations, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.

Address correspondence to Sharon Lynch and Paula Adams, Sam Houston State University, Department of Language, Literacy, and Special Populations, Box 2119, Huntsville, TX 77341-2119 (e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 36–39.

Copyright 2008 CEC.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2008 ■ 39