# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This tool was developed by Krystal Uricchio a special education teacher at Narragansett High School in Rhode Island. Choice making is a common goal for students with significant disabilities. However, conducting activities that involve choice making and collecting subsequent data about choice can be difficult, especially in a virtual or at-home setting. This challenge can be compounded when students are nonverbal or have areas of need related to expressive communication. This tool provides a method for collecting data about choice making using a Google Form or a Word Document. For each opportunity, the educator or family member will record the two choices provided and the level of support the student needed to identify the correct choice. A video example is provided to support parents in the successful implementation of the tool.

How to Use Use the Choice Making Data Collection Tool

Below is a link to a tutorial video that supports parents in successful implementation of this tool. In this video, the educator explains how to use the tool and shows an example of using the tool to measure progress with a student. This video is a great resource to share with parents and families supporting students with choice making at home.
These lessons were developed as part of a National Center on Intensive Intervention Community of Practice with educators focused on implementing intervention virtually during Spring 2020 in response to COVID-19. Participating educators represented Colorado, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington. These activities were developed by practitioners and are intended to showcase example strategies that educators have used to deliver intervention in a virtual environment during the pandemic. Please note that NCII does not endorse specific intervention programs. As such, any programs noted in these documents are used for illustrative purposes only, or as potential resources for source materials (e.g., sample text, graphic organizers).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individualized Education Program (IEP) Goal Data Collection Tool: Choice Making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This tool was developed by Krystal Uricchio a special education teacher at Narragansett High School in Rhode Island. Choice making is a common goal for students with significant disabilities. However, conducting activities that involve choice making and collecting subsequent data about choice can be difficult, especially in a virtual or at-home setting.

# data[].attributes.headline
Coplanning for inclusive secondary classrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
Coplanning for inclusive secondary classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit co-planning for academic and college and career readiness in inclusive secondary classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access to quality general education instruction that includes academic and non-academic skills is a right for all children. To accomplish this, it is necessary to provide tools that foster collaborative planning for student success. The Unit Co-Planning Guide (UCPG) has been designed for secondary general and special educators to use during co-planning meetings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Tina Spencer, M.S., and Lee Anne Sulzberger, M.Ed.

February/March 2013

Co-teaching is one option for delivering special education services to students with disabilities in general education classes (Friend, 2007). Within this model, two or more professionals deliver content grounded in purposeful instructional intensity to a diverse group of students in the same classroom. Co-teaching partners can help meet the varying learning needs of students in their classes by adopting the principles of differentiated instruction. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) describe differentiation as an instructional approach that "results from an ongoing process of trial, reflection, and adjustment to the classroom itself" (p. 13).

Figure 1 illustrates the many ways in which teachers can differentiate instruction (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010):

Figure 1 Differentiated Instruction Graphic Organizer

When teachers differentiate instruction for students, they provide multiple ways for students to (a) access critical content, (b) make sense of that content, and (c) express what they have learned about that content (i.e., differentiation of content, process, and product). Table 1 lists examples of what can and cannot be differentiated in a specific unit of instruction.

Table 1
Differentiation Considerations for a Unit of Study

5.4 The student will expand vocabulary when reading using context to clarify meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases

Essential Under-standing

5.4 All students should apply knowledge of word structure and context clues to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words

Teaching Strategies
(Process)

Using mnemonics

Following a specific process

Guiding Questions

5.4 How can students continue to build vocabulary by applying their knowledge of word structure and context clues to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words?

Learning Activities
(Product)

Design a poster of word families

Build a model representing a word (Frayer Model)

Play scavenger hunt using vocabulary words

Write a report using a word web

Complete word sorts

Adapted from Glass (2012, December).

Decisions on how to differentiate content, process, and product are based on teachers' understanding of students':

feelings regarding their individual roles and abilities as learners (i.e., affect);

readiness to work with specific content;

interests; and

learning profiles that are influenced by factors such as learning style, gender, and culture (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010, Chapter 1).

Planning for Content
Once co-teaching partners have decided to incorporate differentiated instruction, they must determine what students should know and be able to do by the end of each lesson.

One useful tool in determining critical content is the Planning Pyramid (Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell, 1994). Using the Planning Pyramid as a guide, co-teachers determine what all students must do, what most students will do, and what some students will do (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Planning Pyramid

Dieker (2012) suggests that co-teaching partners address the following questions to determine critical content:

General educator: What three things do ALL students need to be able to do by the end of this class? Would you be satisfied if each task looked different? What is critical for students to know and be able to do?

Special educator: What must be done for the students with disabilities so they can do what you have agreed is essential for ALL students?

This process helps ensure that both teachers agree upon and understand the critical content students must learn and what must be done for students with disabilities so they can master that content.
Assessing for Success
One of the essential features of differentiated instruction is the use of formative or ongoing assessment to guide instruction. In Differentiation Central's (2010b) online video Effective Instruction Begins with Pre-Assessing the Students, Brighton shares how formative assessments can give teachers a road map to differentiated instruction within the classroom. She provides guidelines to check for student knowledge, understanding, and skills without always using paper and pencil tests and quizzes. Differentiation Central's (2010a) Daily Assessment Serves as a Compass for Next Steps in the Classroom highlights the use of exit cards and behavior checklists, two simple formative assessment strategies that teachers may wish to use.

Gravois and Gickling (2002) have created a six-step process designed to help teachers move students forward in their learning. The process, outlined below, assesses what students know, how they think, and what they can do.
Six Steps for Instructional Assessment

1. Select material for instruction at student's instructional level.

2. Develop a relationship with the student.

3. Assess the student's prior knowledge, word recognition, and comprehension.

4. Match instruction to student needs.

5. Teach on student's instructional level (i.e., provide direct instruction and remedial strategies through co-teaching variations).

6. Use data on an ongoing basis to evaluate student progress.

Creating Flexible Groups
Grouping and regrouping students through frequent use of assessment data provides opportunities for quality instruction. Valentino (2000) observed that "teachers are discovering that informally grouping and regrouping students in a variety of ways throughout the school day can make a teacher's job easier and students more productive. This teaching strategy is called flexible grouping" (para. 2).

Ford (2005) suggests the following steps when creating flexible student groups for reading instruction. The steps can easily be applied to other content areas.

Select text with a common element, written at multiple instructional levels.

Match text to individual students.

Differentiate engaging activities within each group but hold the same expectations for all students.

Assess several times within a given reading unit whether standards are being met.

Use assessment data to dissolve and form new groups of students.

Flexible groups help students practice content in a variety of ways throughout a unit. Students can work together according to similar interests, as partners, or in small groups needing to learn specific skills. Because students learn content at different rates, flexible groups should change as often as formative assessments determine there is a need to regroup students.
Research-Based Instructional Strategies
As they plan learning activities, it is important that co-teachers select instructional strategies that have demonstrated success. Instructional strategies are specific approaches teachers use to ensure successful outcomes for student learning.

Knight (2013) has identified five "high-impact instructional strategies" (p. 131) that can help improve student learning and engagement. They are:

thinking prompts (e.g., exciting and engaging video clips or works of art that stimulate dialog);

effective questions;

stories;

cooperative learning; and

authentic learning experiences.

Further, Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012) note that cues, questions, advance organizers, and nonlinguistic representations are among the effective strategies to help students develop an understanding of new material.

Teachers can help make content accessible to students by purposefully using a variety of these teaching strategies. Many can be incorporated within one lesson, as illustrated by the sequence of classroom activities below:

The general education teacher tells the objective of the day's lesson and the special education teacher shows a road map of the class as an advance organizer.

The general education teacher explains the key characteristics of plant cells and animal cells.

The special educator models the use of a Venn diagram (i.e., nonlinguistic representation) by sorting the characteristics presented by the general education teacher.

The general education teacher checks for understanding by asking students to hold up cards that say "animal cell" or "plant cell" as the teacher states different characteristics. Following the card activity, both teachers discuss the characteristics with the students. They then place the students in cooperative learning groups based on student readiness levels.

The students complete a Venn diagram showing the similarities and differences between plant and animal cells.

As a scaffolded assignment, some of the students who have difficulty writing may contribute to their group members by using nonlinguistic representations such as pictures or shapes for the characteristics.

Once the diagram is complete, the students will make group presentations. They will have a choice of presenting by writing summary paragraphs and reading their finished product to the class, creating a video presentation such as a podcast, or designing a PowerPoint presentation.

While students are working on the assignment, the teachers walk around the room asking students specific questions about the task, as well as clarifying and reinforcing effort for students who may be struggling with the activity.

The teachers give feedback to the students as they work to complete their graphic organizers and other products that demonstrate understanding and skill mastery.

Using Co-Teaching Variations
As co-teaching partners identify the instructional strategies they will use, they also determine which co-teaching variations will best meet the learning objectives for the lesson. Table 2, excerpted from the College of William and Mary's Training and Technical Assistance Center (T/TAC W&M) Considerations Packet on co-teaching, describes common variations and the amount of planning time needed to prepare a lesson using that variation. An example of classroom use is also provided. Directions for ordering this Considerations Packet and others may be found under Additional Resourcesat the end of this article.

Table 2
Co-Teaching Variations and Examples

One Teaching,
One Observing
(Whole group)

Teachers alternate roles of teaching lessons and observing students for an understanding of academic and social functioning.

A general educator teaches a whole-group lesson on writing complete sentences. The special educator collects data related to a single student or small groups of students.

The data are used to compare targeted student behavior to the behavior of others during the lesson being taught.

In future lessons, they may reverse roles when specific behaviors need to be observed.

One Teaching,
One Assisting
(Whole group)

Teachers alternate roles of teaching and supporting the instructional process.

A general educator teaches a whole-group lesson on the causes of the Civil War. The special educator walks around the classroom to assist students by answering individual questions or to redirect students who are not following the instruction. In future lessons, they may reverse roles.

Station Teaching
(Small Group)

Small groups of students rotate to various stations for instruction, review, and/or practice.

A specialist works with a small group of students on prewriting, while other students are working with the general educator on research skills. Yet another group of students is using the classroom computer to research a topic. Over the course of the week, all students work at each task/station.

Parallel Teaching
(Small group)

Students are divided into mixed-ability groups, and each co-teaching partner teaches the same material to one of the groups.

The class is divided in half, and each teacher works with a group on creating a timeline of important events in history. At the end of the session, each group shares its timeline and reviews important concepts.

Teaming or Interactive
Teaching (Whole group)

Teachers alternate roles of presenting, reviewing, and monitoring instruction.

A general educator and specialist teach a whole-group lesson on fractions. The specialist reviews the previous lesson and the general educator introduces the concept and provides initial instruction. The special educator directs the guided practice and both supervise peer practice and conduct evaluation. In future lessons, the partners may reverse roles.

Alternative Teaching (Large group/ small group)

One person teaches, reteaches, or enriches a concept for a small group, while the other monitors or teaches the remaining class members.

The specialist works with a small group of students on an enrichment project, while the general educator teaches the remainder of the students.

Adapted from Interactions Collaboration Skills for School Professionals, by M. Friend & L. Cook, 2007, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Co-teachers can create powerful instruction in their diverse classes by differentiating instruction and focusing on the three elements of ongoing assessment, flexible grouping, and use of research-based instructional strategies.
Additional Resources
Read " Designing the IEP: Measuring and Reporting Progress toward Mastery of Annual Goals" in this issue of Link Lines to learn more about monitoring progress for students with disabilities.

For more information on differentiating instruction, order the T/TAC W&M Considerations Packets Differentiating for Success in Inclusive Classrooms. To learn more about the instructional assessment, consult the Considerations Packet "Instruction Assessment: An Essential Tool for Designing Effective Instruction" or read KIDTAP: A Strengths-Based Approach to Curriculum-Based Assessmentin the February/March 2004 issue of Link Lines.

For additional information on instructional strategies, explore the following Considerations Packets:

Algebra Strategies for Middle School

Geometry Strategies for Middle School

Graphic Organizers

Inferential Reading Comprehension

Practice and Homework - Effective Teaching Strategies

These free packets and many more may be ordered online at http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/considerations/index.php
References
Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Dieker, L. (2012, October). Differentiation in co-taught classrooms: Current and future technologies and strategies. Keynote address presented at the 23rd Annual Symposium on Collaboration and Inclusive Education sponsored by the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Differentiation Central. (Producer). (2010a). Daily assessment serves as a compass for next steps in the classroom [Online video]. Retrieved from http://differentiationcentral.com/videos2.html

Differentiation Central. (Producer). (2010b). Effective instruction begins with pre-assessing the students [Online video]. Retrieved from http://differentiationcentral.com/videos2.html

Ford, M. P. (2005). Differentiation through flexible grouping: Successfully reaching all readers (Government Contract No. ED-01-CO-0011). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Friend, M. (2007, January & March). Collaborating for success. Presentation at workshop for VASSP/VSFEL in collaboration with Virginia DOE and The College of William and Mary, Richmond, VA.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Glass, K., (2012, December). Differentiated instruction aligned to the ELA common core standards. Session presented at the 2012 Learning Forward Annual Conference, Boston.

Gravois, T., & Gickling, E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp.1-13). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Knight, J. (2013). High-impact instruction: A framework for great teaching. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Schumm, S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47(8), 608-615. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201330?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Valentino, C. (2000). Flexible grouping. Retrieved from http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/valentino.html#author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessment, Flexible Grouping, and Research-Based Instructional Strategies: Powerful Tools for Co-Taught Classes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Tina Spencer, M.S., and Lee Anne Sulzberger, M.Ed. February/March 2013 Co-teaching is one option for delivering special education services to students with disabilities in general education classes (Friend, 2007). Within this model, two or more professionals deliver content grounded in purposeful instructional intensity to a diverse group of students in the same classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abraham Lincoln
Importance of Co-Planning
The importance of planning cannot be overstated. When identifying 22 high-leverage practices for K-12 special education teachers, McLeskey et al. (2017) pointed to collaboration with professionals to increase student success as the very first. Collaboration calls for "use of effective collaboration behaviors (e.g., sharing ideas, active listening, questioning, planning, problem solving, negotiating) to develop and adjust instructional or behavioral plans based on student data, and the coordination of expectations, responsibilities, and resources to maximize student learning" (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 17).

Collaboration cannot occur without co-planning. Co-planning is essential for co-teachers to identify their roles and the co-teaching methods that best meet the goals of a given lesson (Murawski & Lochner, 2011). But given numerous job responsibilities and unanticipated schedule changes, many teachers struggle to find meaningful co-planning time. In a recent case study, for example, Brendle, Lock, and Piazza (2017) found that co-teachers did not consistently function as a collaborative partnership to co-plan, but instead planned somewhat independently without true cohesion. This is highly unfortunate, for although the roles of the general and the special education teacher vary, strong collaboration helps both teachers grow in their instructional skills, increase trust and respect within their partnership, and develop comfort with co-teaching (Friend, 2018). Thus, cohesive collaboration for co-planning requires that both teachers utilize their strengths and expertise to develop an effective lesson to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.

Friend (2018) recommended that during the planning meeting, both teachers decide how to group students, how to navigate potential challenges and misunderstandings that may arise for students, and which co-teaching approaches to use. Similarly, Murawski (2009) emphasized that co-planning is about making proactive decisions as a team. Proactive planning ensures initial delivery of content that allows students to understand, be engaged and motivated, and, ultimately, learn what is being taught. In order to engage in proactive planning, both teachers should come prepared for meaningful discussion connected to their expertise. For example, the general education teacher typically provides content expertise and curriculum goals while the special education teacher offers expertise on specially designed instruction (SDI).
Tools the Special Education Teacher Can Use to Contribute to Co-Planning
Special education teachers can contribute to the co-planning session with a list of individualized education program (IEP) goals active in the classroom and a list of accommodations based on students' individualized needs. In the September Link Lines article Power Tools: IEP Planning for Specially Designed Instruction, Jones and Littleton (2018) provided an example of a matrix for IEP planning/recording for an inclusive classroom with step-by-step directions for implementation. Using the matrix during co-planning reminds both professionals of individualized student needs and makes them designate the time to ensure SDI is provided during the week. Additionally, the matrix helps teachers develop an efficient means for data collection during and after instruction.

Further, an accommodations list reminds both teachers of any changes needed to instruction and/or assessment in order to provide access to the content and ensure equitable opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge. Talking through the accommodations together may help general education teachers identify other students who may require adjustments, but who do not have IEPs.
Other Resources for Effective Co-Planning

1. Co-Planning for Student Success considerations packet consists of resources designed for co-teaching partners to improve their planning practices, including tools such as the co-planning meeting agenda and lesson plan template.

2. VDOE Excellence in Co-Teaching Initiative provides trainings on co-planning through the Real Co-Teachers of Virginia website. E-workshops include trainings for elementary and middle-high teachers and provide videos of planning sessions and well as lesson plan templates.

3. Stetson and Associates (2016) developed collaborative teaching resources, including an instructional design tool that invites both the general and the special education teacher to think through the instructional supports students need to master a lesson.

4. Knight and Sulzberger discussed effective co-planning strategies and ways to remove barriers in the planning process in their article "Remove the Barriers of Time and Space: Strategies for Effective Co-Planning" in the November/December 2013 issue of Link Lines.

Although co-teaching partners may not have four hours in one day to sharpen their axes through planning, as suggested above in the quote by Abraham Lincoln, it is critical that they find time to cohesively plan in order to meet the needs of all students in their classroom. Accessing the resources in this article will help teachers focus their co-planning time, set them up for stronger collaboration, and enhance the effectiveness of their co-teaching for students.
References
Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 538-550.

Friend, M. (2018). Co-teach! Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools (3 rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Jones, S., & Littleton, S. (2018, September). Power tools: IEP planning and specially designed instruction. The College of William and Mary T/TAC Link Lines. Retrieved from http://ttacwm.blogs.wm.edu/power-tools-iep-planning-specially-designed-instruction/

Knight, B., & Sulzberger, L. A. (2013, November/December). Remove the barriers of time and space: Strategies for effective co-planning. The College of William and Mary T/TAC Link Lines. Retrieved from https://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/consultcollaborate/removethebarriers/index.php

McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

Murawski, W. W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174-183.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abraham Lincoln Importance of Co-Planning The importance of planning cannot be overstated. When identifying 22 high-leverage practices for K-12 special education teachers, McLeskey et al. (2017) pointed to collaboration with professionals to increase student success as the very first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curricular Adaptation Decision Questions 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education and Alternative Education / Progress Monitoring Toolbox

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

# data[].attributes.headline
Data Collection Procedures and Sample Tools

# data[].attributes.subject
Data Collection Procedures and Sample Tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education and Alternative Education / Procedure Samples and Tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COVID-19 CHKD Helping Children Overcome Anxiety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Data Collection for Special Ed Teachers - Mrs. D’s Corner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data collection for special education teachers doesn’t have to be a tedious or all day task. As a self-proclaimed data nerd, I am here to tell you that it’s possible to collect data daily without feeling overwhelmed. Click to learn more about this data system, tested and implemented by licensed spec…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Start measuring progress now. No strings attached. No credit card required.
Get Started Now
Teacher Deluxe

Start using the full version now. Only $49.99 per year! Restricted to 200 students / one teacher per building. (If you exceed these numbers, check out the District version to better meet your needs!)

Subscribe Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start measuring progress now. No strings attached. No credit card required. Get Started Now Start using the full version now. Only $49.99 per year! Restricted to 200 students / one teacher per building. (If you exceed these numbers, check out the District version to better meet your needs!) Subscribe Now

# data[].attributes.body
planning tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Class Accommodations Matrix Full list 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Class Testing Accom Matrix Blank and Example 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Class Accommodations Matrix Full list 2015

# data[].attributes.headline
More Tips and Tools for Inclusive Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
More Tips and Tools for Inclusive Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Grading is an important component of an inclusive classroom. Parents or guardians and students need to understand the meaning of grades assigned to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Communication about the meaning of grades needs to be provided to everyone for inclusive classrooms - all parents, guardians, and students. When talking about grades, general education teachers and special education teachers need to have already agreed on the approach so that consistent information is provided. Both grading of assignments and report card grades should be discussed. Please refer to the other two TIPS in this series on grading:
Tip #11: Grading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms Tip #12: Standards-based Grading and Report Cards in Inclusive Elementary and Middle Schools
The purpose of this TIPS is to provide suggestions to teachers about how to effectively communicate about how grades are assigned to student work and report cards and what they mean.

Evidence

Clarity about what the grading system means and how it can be interpreted is needed for parents and students. For example, if a child earns an "A" in math, does it refer to criteria based on the product (e.g., the sum of scores on assignments), process (e.g., how a student did assignments), or student progress (e.g., change in performance)? Merging these criteria into a single grade can cause confusion for parents or guardians and students because it is difficult to determine which criterion carried more weight in the total grade (Jung & Guskey, 2007). For more information see the adaptations to grading section in TIPS 11: Grading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms. Agreement between general educators and special educators on the approach to be used for students with significant cognitive disabilities is essential in inclusive classrooms (William & Mary Training & Technical Assistance Center, 2015).

Evidence points to numerous myths about grading and what is actually the case (see Table 1).

Table 1. Myths and Facts about Grading Students with Disabilities, including Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities ​

Myth: Students with disabilities cannot legally receive a failing grade.

Fact: Student IEP status can appear on report cards but not on transcripts (Freedman, 2000).

Myth: Transcripts cannot identify the curriculum as being modified.

Fact: Schools can legally note curriculum modifications on transcripts, but cannot identify whether a student received accommodations (Freedman, 2000, 2005).

Myth: Using plus and minus letter grades better captures a student's performance.

Fact: Studies have indicated that using +/- grades (e.g., A-, C+) does not result in greater accuracy or reliability when describing performance (Guskey, 2015).

Myth: Low and modified grades limit post-secondary options.

Fact: Post-secondary options are dependent upon high school diploma and college admissions policies in each state.

Implementation

When thinking about how to talk to parents or guardians and students about grading and report cards, the first step is to be clear about the purpose of grades and how they are adapted ( see Tip #11: Grading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms​), as well as what they are addressing ( see Tip #12: Standards-based Grading and Report Cards in Inclusive Elementary and Middle Schools ​). You should know the answers to questions like:

1. "What information do we want to communicate?

2. Who is the primary audience for that information?

3. How would we like that information to be used?" (Guskey & Jung, 2006, p. 6)

The answers to these questions should make clear how grades and report cards are modified for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms (Jung & Guskey, 2007).

It is critical that the IEP team, including parents or guardians and students, has an open and ongoing dialogue about grades and their meaning for students with significant cognitive disabilities. If different performance standards are used, then those criteria must be agreed to and shared with parents or guardians and students regularly. Having these conversations helps to clarify the basis for determining whether students are making sufficient progress and, if not, what adjustments to supports and services may be needed (Jung & Guskey, 2011; William & Mary Training & Technical Assistance Center, 2015).

It is not enough to have conversations about grading only in the IEP team meeting. Teachers should talk individually to parents and guardians of students with significant cognitive disabilities, parents, and guardians of classmates of students with significant cognitive disabilities, the student with significant cognitive disabilities, and classmates of students with significant cognitive disabilities. There may also be a need to talk to school administrators. Table 2 provides ideas for what, how, and when to talk about grading and report cards with these individuals. Regardless of who the conversation is with, it should be clear, objective, and jargon-free. Different grading rubrics may require multiple conversations. Remember to ensure the confidentiality of the student with significant cognitive disabilities (and other students) during these conversations.

Summary

For a smooth inclusive classroom experience for everyone, there needs to be clear communication about grades and report cards. As these conversations occur, the confidentiality of students, particularly those with significant cognitive disabilities, needs to be maintained. If there are implications of modified grades and report cards (e.g., award ceremonies), these should be discussed as well.

TIPS Series: Tip #13, August 2020

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Reyes, E. N., Wakeman, S., & Thurlow, M. (2020). Talking About Grading with Parents or Guardians and Students for Inclusive Classrooms (TIPS Series: Tip #13). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, TIES Center.

​​The information in this Brief is not an endorsement of any identified products. Products identified in this Brief are shared solely as examples to help communicate information about ways to reach the desired goals for students.

TIES Center is the national technical assistance center on inclusive practices and policies. Its purpose is to create sustainable changes in kindergarten-grade 8 school and district educational systems so that students with significant cognitive disabilities can fully engage in the same instructional and non-instructional activities as their general education peers, while being instructed in a way that meets individual learning needs. TIES Center is led by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and includes the following additional collaborating partners: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, and University of North Carolina - Greensboro.

TIES Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326Y170004) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

TIES Center

University of Minnesota

Institute on Community Integration

2025 East River Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530
www.tiescenter.org
This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TIES TIPS | Foundations of Inclusion | TIP #13: Talking About Grading with Parents or Guardians and Students for Inclusive Classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grading is an important component of an inclusive classroom. Parents or guardians and students need to understand the meaning of grades assigned to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Communication about the meaning of grades needs to be provided to everyone for inclusive classrooms - all parents, guardians, and students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Grading is the most widely used way to evaluate students' academic progress. Teachers in inclusive classrooms must carefully consider the grading process to provide fair and equitable grades for the range of students in their classrooms. The basis for grading is often dictated by school or district policies and can vary by school level (i.e., elementary, middle, high school). Grading can be based on rubrics, a point system, a completion checklist, or a combination of these. Teachers often calculate grades by determining the earned points out of the total possible points or by assigning weights to assignments based on the length or complexity of the assignment (Brooksher, 2017). The purpose of this TIPS is to share grading considerations and potential adaptations for grading to provide fair and accurate grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Links to additional TIPS in the grading series are provided at the end.

Grades are recorded and reported in a variety of formats. Electronic formats, learning management systems, or school information systems may be used for reporting grades. Understanding how to navigate the grading process for students with significant cognitive disabilities can be complex. A foundation of a strong grading system is to identify the purpose of the grade in a fair and equitable grading system (i.e., what is the intended meaning of the grade). Establishing what a grade "means" for a student leads to increased student, parent, and teacher satisfaction in an inclusive classroom (Munk & Bursuck, 2004). Grading requires a collaborative process to determine both what is being graded and how it is being graded.

Evidence

Research has been conducted on grading practices for the majority of students in classrooms (McMillan, 2001; McMillan et al., 2002), but research is lacking on grading practices for students with disabilities, especially for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Jung, 2009; Jung & Guskey, 2010) in inclusive settings. In a survey of teachers working in K-12 inclusive classrooms (Kurth et al., 2012) results showed (a) general and special education teachers use different practices and have different preferences for grading students with low-incidence disabilities; (b) general and special educators reported differences in their level of comfort and training for grading, with special educators feeling more prepared to grade these students; (c) elementary teachers were more likely to accept modified work than secondary teachers; and (d) secondary teachers reported using modifications to instruction less frequently than elementary school teachers.

Two Types of Grading

Common Grading System

A common grading system involves teachers assigning letter grades to students based on percentage of points earned toward accuracy on an assignment. Grades are typically reported as A, B, C, D, or F. In this grading system, a student cannot pass a course with a grade of F, or failing. Work habits such as participation, effort, and attendance may factor into the points system and account for a portion of the total letter grade.

Standards-Based Grading

Standards-based grading involves teachers grading students based on specific academic learning standards and assigning a grade based on student mastery on the standards (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Grades often are reported as 4 (advanced), 3 (proficient), 2 (basic), and (1) below basic. A rubric is used to describe the performance at each level. Behaviors such as responsibility, work habits, and attentiveness are rated separately. Standards-based grading is recommended for use at all grade levels and with students with disabilities (O'Connor, 2009).

Implementation

Implementing a fair and equitable grading system for students with significant cognitive disabilities in an inclusive classroom should be based on both quality considerations and the focus of the learning criteria.

Four Quality Considerations for Grading

The William & Mary Training & Technical Assistance Center (2015) outlined four quality considerations for grading within the inclusive classroom. These included (a) grades are accurate, (b) grades are meaningful, (c) grades are consistent, and (d) grades are supportive of learning. The authors suggest that these conditions must be in place for all students in inclusive classrooms. For more information about the four quality grading considerations see: Inclusive Grading and Progress-Monitoring Practices

Three Types of Learning Criteria

Effective grading focuses on establishing clear standards for how learning is measured across three main categories. High-quality grading and reporting for all students consider how graded items fit into three types of learning criteria: product, process, and progress (Jung & Guskey, 2010). Teachers should report grades in each learning criteria category separately to eliminate the possibility of having one grade reflect a combination of the types of evidence (Jung & Guskey, 2010). Having information aggregated by each category can help inform intervention decisions (Jung & Guskey, 2007).

Table 1. Product, Process, or Progress

Adaptations for Grading

The practice of making grading adaptations is not a new practice, but within an inclusive classroom, teachers must ask, "what does the grade mean?" Teachers must use a systematic approach when making decisions on how to adapt grading for students. Research suggests that grading adaptations may be a solution for students with disabilities who have a history of low or inaccurate grades, and could result in improvement in mastering general education standards (Silva et al., 2005). Grading adaptations require teachers to use informed judgment in a systematic way to address students' individual strengths and needs. Silva et al. (2005) identify five types of grading adaptations that involve basing all or part of a student's grade on the following criteria: (a) progress on IEP objectives, (b) improvement over past performances, (c) performance on prioritized content and assignments, (d) use of process and effort to complete work, and (e) modified weights and scales.

Table 2 lists possible adaptations to grading and cautions for their use provided by Silva et al. (2005). To these, added here are suggestions for how to implement the adaptations in academics for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Table 2. Adaptations to Grading with Academic Examples

Focusing heavily on process can lead to low-quality products

A portion of a student's grade can come from using editing strategies, such as revising sentences to add a capital letter at the beginning and punctuation at the end each sentence.

Focusing heavily on process can lead to low-quality products

A portion of a student's grade on a classwork assignment can come from effort on homework by measuring on the number of attempted problems on a homework assignment.

Adaptations to grading are possible regardless of which learning criteria are used as measurement: product, process, or progress. For example, if a student with a significant cognitive disability has an IEP goal of, "Given new vocabulary terms, the student will use those terms in context correctly 8 out of 10 words over three consecutive units", IEP objectives can be measured within a product (i.e., completed portfolio for a science unit on life cycles), in a process over time (i.e., homework and quizzes on life cycles), or progress (i.e., a comparison of pre-test and post-test scores on life cycle standards).

Process for Adapting Grading

Table 3 is an adapted version of Munk and Bursuck's (2004) outline for implementing grading adaptations for students with disabilities. The original steps have been adapted to be used with a students' collaborative team to plan for effective grading for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. The process starts with a meeting between the general education teacher and special education teacher, prior to meeting with parents. Next, the team will implement the plan and review its effectiveness. Table 3 includes an example of the team using some of the adaptations from Table 2.

Table 3. Grading Adaptation Implementation Process

Description

Example for a Student with a Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Elementary Science Class

General education teacher and special education teacher meet to clarify purpose of classroom grades (i.e., what does the grade mean?)

Is it reflection of accuracy of content? Work effort? Progress toward standard? All of those things? Is the purpose different for students with disabilities?

The teachers discuss that the purpose of grading in the inclusive science class is to reflect both accuracy of content, work effort, and progress toward standards.

Select an adaptation that meets the mutual agreement for the grading purpose and addresses the grading problem previously identified

Summary

Grades for all students should be meaningful and informative for teachers, students, and parents. Research evidence supports the use of standards-based grading for students with disabilities (Jung & Guskey, 2007; Muñoz & Guskey, 2015; O'Connor, 2009). When teachers are grading students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms, a multifaceted approach is needed. Teachers must first determine what the purpose of grading is and then decide what adaptations may be needed for making the grade meaningful for the student. R

TIPS Series: Tip #11, August 2020

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Reyes, E. N., Wakeman, S., & Thurlow, M. (2020). Grading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms (TIPS Series: Tip #11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, TIES Center.

TIES Center is the national technical assistance center on inclusive practices and policies. Its purpose is to create sustainable changes in kindergarten-grade 8 school and district educational systems so that students with significant cognitive disabilities can fully engage in the same instructional and non-instructional activities as their general education peers, while being instructed in a way that meets individual learning needs. TIES Center is led by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and includes the following additional collaborating partners: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, and University of North Carolina - Greensboro.

TIES Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326Y170004) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

TIES Center

University of Minnesota

Institute on Community Integration

2025 East River Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530
www.tiescenter.org
This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TIES TIPS | Foundations of Inclusion | TIP #11: Grading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The purpose of this TIPS is to share grading considerations and potential adaptations for grading to provide fair and accurate grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Standards-based grading and report cards align with a standards-based curriculum to provide an accurate appraisal of student progress or performance. They achieve the primary purposes of grading and reporting grades, which include that grades are accurate, meaningful, consistent, and support the learning process (O'Connor, 2009). Standards-based grading is a recommended grading practice for students with disabilities in inclusive classes (Jung, 2012; Jung & Guskey, 2015). This TIPS sheet provides guidance on how to provide fair and accurate grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. It also addresses ways to report standards-based grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Evidence

Research is lacking on grading practices for students with disabilities, specifically for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. However, standards-based grading and reporting practices are recommended for all students with disabilities because of the direct connection to the curriculum standards. This connection between the content standards and the grading and reporting process improves accuracy, consistency, and meaningfulness (Jung, 2012; Jung & Guskey, 2015). Standards-based grading practices are recommended for use at all grade levels provided that they are aligned with grade-level content standards and performance expectations (Guskey & Bailey, 2001; O'Connor, 2009; Wormeli, 2006). Content standards are related to curriculum and achievement standards refer to statewide assessment performance. These are not the same. Content standards should have foundational alignment to the grade-level standard.

Implementation

Standards-based grading involves assigning grades based on mastery of specific learning standards (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). It communicates specific meaningful performance information against established standards and can be used for "diagnostic and prescriptive purposes" (Guskey & Bailey, 2001). One of the major benefits of using standards-based grading is that teachers can identify strengths and areas of need for each skill within a content area. Effective reporting of student performance focuses on the description of how the student performs on an explicit set of skills such as how the student sets up an addition word problem (Jung & Guskey; 2010). Example 1 illustrates a standards-based grading report card for reading in second grade.

A rubric is used to describe student performance. The number of levels in a rubric can be used across content areas, although the description of what each number means may differ. The rubric used in Example 1 has three levels of performance; the same three levels can be used across multiple content areas.

Sample Standards-based Grading Rubric

3 = Meets grade-level standard and can apply key concepts independently. Demonstrates processes and skills.

2 = Approaching the grade-level standard, requires some support to demonstrate key concepts, processes, and skills.

1 = Progressing toward the grade-level standard with on-going intensive support or modifications.

For example: A student scoring a "3" for the requirement of "Using basic skills to read fluently" consistently demonstrates grade-level expectations and independently applies key concepts and skills." A score of "1" indicates the student is progressing toward the standard but still requires intensive supports.

When a grading rubric includes a "below standard level" that indicates "no progress even with support," best practice suggests that there should have been communication about performance and appropriate supports provided well before the report card is delivered.

Report cards may also contain an evaluation of work behaviors such as responsibility, work habits, attendance, and homework. These should be rated separately so that teams and families can determine where additional supports are needed - for academic content or for work behaviors such as organization, work habits, or motivation. Example 2 shows a report card on work behaviors using a 3-level rubric.

A three-level rubric is used to describe student performance on each work behavior. The rubric used in Example 2 has three levels of performance.

Sample Rubric for Work Behaviors

3 = Demonstrates consistency and independence.

2 = Requires occasional support and reminders.

1 = Often requires support and reminders.

Grading Prerequisite and Foundational Skills

When a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities is working on prerequisite or foundational skills related to a grade-level standard, grading and reporting should be adapted to include the specific prerequisite or foundational skills. The prerequisite or foundational skills should represent those approved under the state's alternate assessment program and, as much as, be possible directly related to the specific grade-level content standards. In addition to the specification of the standard, the grading rubric may be adapted to more clearly communicate specific learning outcomes. Grades of a student's progress on prerequisite and foundational skills may also be provided in a separate progress-monitoring report. An example of a possible rubric for these skills is:

Sample Rubric for Prerequisite and Foundational Skills

3 = Student meets prerequisites [foundational] skills related to the grade-level standard and can apply key concepts independently. Student demonstrates processes and skills.

2 = Student is approaching the prerequisites [foundational] skills of the grade-level standard. Student requires some support to demonstrate key concepts, processes, and skills.

1 = Student is progressing toward the prerequisites [foundational] skills related to the grade-level standard, with on-going and intensive support or modifications.

Reporting progress on IEP goals that may be unrelated to the content standard should occur in regular progress reports that may be separate from report card grading. Example 3 is a completed Standards-based Report Card for a student working toward grade-level standards who does not have an IEP that also includes work behavior grading. Example 4 is for a student who has an IEP and is working on Foundational Standards aligned as closely as possible to grade-level standards.

Standards-based Grading for Middle School

The primary principles of standards-based grading and reporting are similar at middle school in that the grade is directly related to the content standards. Reported letter grades (e.g., A, B, C, D, F) are based on weighted classroom assignments and summative classroom tests. Classroom assignments generally are rated using a rubric with a 1 - 5 scale, while classroom tests typically are reported in terms of the percent of correct responses. Of course, retakes of assignments, along with learning labs and peer-based tutoring assistance, are generally available and can contribute to revised scores. The combination of the information from the two sources (classroom assignments and classroom tests) results in a percentage-based score. Grades can be based on where the percentage falls within a range of percentages assigned to a grade. The same reporting process should be followed for students with significant disabilities and ensure the reference to the content standard is clear, with the percentage based on the performance expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Summary

Grades for all students should be meaningful and informative for teachers, students, and parents. They should accomplish the purposes for which grading is intended, ensuring that the report is accurate, meaningful, consistent, and supportive of future learning (O'Connor, 2009). Standards-based grading is an effective grading practice for all students, including those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, because of the clear linkage to the standard.

TIPS Series: Tip #12, August 2020

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Kearns, J. F., Taub, D., & Thurlow, M. (2020). Standards-based grading and report cards in inclusive elementary and middle schools​ (TIPS Series: Tip #12). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, TIES Center.

TIES Center is the national technical assistance center on inclusive practices and policies. Its purpose is to create sustainable changes in kindergarten-grade 8 school and district educational systems so that students with significant cognitive disabilities can fully engage in the same instructional and non-instructional activities as their general education peers, while being instructed in a way that meets individual learning needs. TIES Center is led by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and includes the following additional collaborating partners: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, and University of North Carolina - Greensboro.

TIES Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326Y170004) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

TIES Center

University of Minnesota

Institute on Community Integration

2025 East River Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530
www.tiescenter.org
This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TIES TIPS | Foundations of Inclusion | TIP #12: Standards-based Grading and Report Cards in Inclusive Elementary and Middle Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This TIPS sheet provides guidance on how to provide fair and accurate grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. It also addresses ways to report standards-based grades for students with significant cognitive disabilities

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating Rubrics: Templates and Resources

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating Rubrics: Templates and Resources