Photo by Chris & Shelley Mallinson

Research has indicated that the language areas of the brain have no preference for language input and that the most accessible pathway for full access to linguistic information for many deaf children is through the visual channel. A visual language, such as American Sign Language, is a natural language system, functions independently from spoken language, and has a fully developed grammatical system. Delay in acquiring a first language produces poorer over-all language performance, and without complete access to language during early development, it is difficult for deaf and hard of hearing children’s language acquisition to be on par with that of hearing children.

American Sign Language (ASL) is often withheld from deaf children in the belief that it interferes with speech development. However, there is no evidence that using American Sign Language with deaf and hard of hearing children hinders or prevents spoken language development; in fact, proficiency in ASL has been shown to positively influence spoken language development and the development of English literacy in deaf students. Language is the driving force that facilitates spoken language, not the mode of communication.

A 10-year research synthesis by Marc Marschark on the language development of children who are deaf directly addresses questions related to the use of a visual language. For example:

1. It is important to note that there is no evidence to suggest that the early use of gestures or signs (ASL) by deaf children hampers their development of spoken English.

2. The available evidence indicates that, on average, deaf children who learn sign language (ASL) as preschoolers show better academic achievement and social adjustment during the school years, and superior gains in English literacy.

3. Most investigations of language development in children who are deaf have examined the development of either sign language or spoken language, but not their possible interaction. Preliminary findings suggest that programs that combine sign language (ASL) and spoken English (bilingual education programs) may prove more effective than programs that use either spoken or sign language alone. In other words, sign language and spoken language should not be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives, but as potentially complementary strategies for encouraging language development in deaf children.

Studies conducted by Christie Yoshinaga-Itano , and others, further suggest that there is a critical period for language development in the first years of life, and a longer critical period for speech development through the preschool years. The focus on language accessibility during the early months of life, therefore, becomes the top priority.

With this thought in mind, it only seems logical that a multi-sensory approach should be utilized. Certainly, deaf children acquire language in their own unique ways, but multi-sensory approaches to language acquisition ensure that when one pathway is less effective, another pathway can be utilized as an avenue for language learning. Early research in bilingual education found cognitive benefits from learning two languages; bilinguals have been shown to have greater cognitive flexibility and greater sensitivity to linguistic meaning than monolingual children. Children who are deaf have the possibility of experiencing similar cognitive benefits from learning American Sign Language and a spoken language through print and listening, as well as speaking, when appropriate.

There are linguistic and educational benefits of learning both American Sign Language and spoken/written English. Deaf children can acquire two languages simultaneously when adult language models follow language allocation strategies, where the amount of exposure to a spoken/written language is increased as the child first acquires visual language competence. ASL can function as a first language, which supports the learning of spoken/written English as a second language. On the whole, bilingual research has shown that fluency in a first language is a strong predictor of second language skill: competence in a second language is a function of proficiency in a first language.

Certainly, early language learning has ramifications for academic achievement. Deaf and hard of hearing children underperform in comparison with hearing children of similar ages in most content areas, and especially in the areas of reading and written English. This has not changed regardless of the use of various communication methodologies, and the invention of new hearing technologies.

Despite uneven outcomes, some cochlear implant teams are now advising families of children with implants to participate only in auditory-verbal therapy, and in doing so, are ignoring the enormous potential of a visual pathway to learning. The lack of early and fully accessible visual language exposure may be a contributing factor to the low levels of reading achievement in the deaf population. Delay of full language access can also have a negative impact on not only cognition and academic achievement, but on social and emotional health, as well.

In contrast to children using auditory-verbal therapy, most children from deaf families enter school having already acquired a complete first language as infants and toddlers. These children tend to perform similarly to what is expected of hearing children at the same age. Given signing adult language models, deaf children with hearing parents can also acquire visual language competence and become literate.

Hearing parents of young deaf children should be given an understanding of the critical need for providing early visual language for their child. These parents are often placed in an untenable position regarding educational and communication methodologies. Research and common sense suggests the following:

1. All linguistic input from birth should include visual input, auditory input, use of signs, gestures, facial expressions, voice, and whatever will facilitate early communication with the child. The deaf child should not be denied any means of communication that will facilitate the development of language.

2. Early accessible communication interaction between the infant and parent is absolutely necessary for the child to acquire language. No matter how much hearing loss the child has, visual input assures the child’s early accessibility to communication and language.

3. Early accessible communication directly affects the brain wiring necessary for the child’s language development. Meaningful interactions from birth that are repeated and accessible result in the formation of “neural language connections” that stay in place, Neural connections that are not used (inaccessibility to language) are eliminated.

4. There is a difference between acquiring a language and learning a language. A deaf child exposed only to a spoken language, even with a hearing aid or cochlear implant, is not necessarily able to naturally acquire the language necessary to achieve native fluency that will ultimately lead to literacy in the English language.

5. All input from birth provides opportunities to see how the child responds to auditory and/or visual input. The idea is not to “choose a method for a child” but to allow the child let us know the best and most successful ways to communicate with him or her. This can only be done in the context of “all input” to see how the child responds best to auditory or visual input or a combinations of both, then to follow the child’s lead.

6. For children who might be receiving a cochlear implant, “all input” from birth, including the use of signs, provides assured language input and an assured language base during the early months of life. A strong early visual language base can only help the child with continued language and speech development.

7. All input from birth provides time for parents to learn more about communication methodology possibilities and other issues related to their child being deaf without losing accessible language input. It is not simply a matter of presenting communication methodology choices to parents.

Often parents report they have been given communication choices, but in reality have been given one or only a very few “informational presentations.” When presented with options soon after the diagnosis of deafness and expected to make immediate either-or choices, hearing parents most typically choose “speech,” because they are hearing parents, and expect or want the child to act, think, and speak as they do. At the time of diagnosis when hearing parents are typically frightened and confused and when hearing perspectives, values, and speech are offered, of course speech is the option that will be chosen.

Hearing parents deserve to have opportunities to explore issues related to early language accessibility and acquisition presented in a non-rushed, non-pressured way in a supportive, trusting environment. This can be accomplished by having early interventionists who assist the parents in investigating ways of maximizing all avenues of communication and learning. These early interventionists should assist the parents in learning about the culture of the Deaf and American Sign Language, arranging to meet Deaf persons and Deaf mentors and other parents in order to discuss common problems and solutions. In short, to be given information, insights, and skills that will help them provide early, full and accessible communication and language for their child in ways that will most appropriately optimize the child’s communication and language development, and to wholeheartedly accept and take great pride and joy in their child who is deaf.

The deaf child should be offered a quality educational program that will truly prepare him/her to compete as an equal in the hearing world. This does not mean or suggest that the adequacy and success of deaf children be measured by how closely they resemble their hearing peers, but that they are educated to become successful Deaf human beings, not imitations of hearing people.

Author: J. Freeman King, Ed., Utah State University

References

Allen, T. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In A. Schildroth & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 161-206). San Diego: College Hill Press.

Anderson, D. (2006). Lexical development of deaf children acquiring signed languages. In B. Schick, M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 135-160). New York: Oxford University Press.

Andrews, J., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives from psychology, education, and sociology. Boston: Pearson.

Baker, S. (2011). Visual language and visual learning research brief: Advantages of early visual language. NSF supported Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Boudreault, P. (1999). Grammatical processing in American sign language: Effects of age of acquisition and syntactic complexity. Unpublished master’s thesis. McGill University.

Chamberlain, C. & Mayberry, R. (2000). Theorizing about the relationship of American Sign Language and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221-260). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. (2nd ed.) Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305-310. Data (pp. 881-938). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI.

Easterbrooks, S. & Baker, S. (2002). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing: Multiple pathways. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erting, C., Prezioso, C., O’Grady-Hynes, M. (1990). The interactional content of deaf mother-infant communication. In V. Volterra and C. Erting (Eds.). From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 97-106). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mayberry, R. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 222-229.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.

Hakuta, K. & Diaz, R. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion of some new longitudinal data. In K.E. Nelson (Ed.) Children’s Language (pp. 319-344). Hillsdale, N.J.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hoffmeister, R. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, and R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 143-163). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marschark, M. & Hauser, P. (2008). Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M. (2007). Raising and educating a deaf child. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. (2006). Understanding sign language development of deaf children. In B. Schick, M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 3-18). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M., Lang, H. & Albertini, J. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M. (2001). Language development in children who are deaf: A research synthesis. Project FORUM, National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the Office of Special Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Mayberry, R. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case for American Sign Language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258-1270.

Mayberry, R. & Eichen, E. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 486-512.

Mayberry, R. & Fischer, S. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing, Memory and Cognition, 17(6), 740-754.

Meadow-Orlans, K., Spencer, P., Koester, L. & Steinberg, A. (2004). Implications for intervention with infants and families. In K. Meadow-Orlans, P. Spencer, & L. Koester (Eds.), The world of deaf infants: A longitudinal study (pp. 218-228). New York: Oxford University Press.

Meier, R. (1991). Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist, 79, 60-70.

Newport, E. & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Volume One: the Data (pp. 881-938). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nover, S. Andrews, J., Baker, S., Everhart, V. & Bradford, M. (2002). Staff development in ASL/English bilingual instruction for deaf students: Evaluation and impact study. Center for ASL/English Bilingual Education and Research: New Mexico School for the Deaf.

Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165-189). Marwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erhbaum Associates.

Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing and deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 30-46.

Pettito, L.A. (2000). On the biological foundations of human language. In K. Emmorey &H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology in honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 449-471). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Prinz, P. & Strong, M. (1998). ASL proficiency and English literacy within a bilingual deaf education model of instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 47-60.

Schlesinger, H. & Meadow, K. (1972). Sound and sign: Childhood deafness and mental health. Berkley, CA.: University of California Press.

Singleton, J., Supalla, S., Litchfield, S. & Schley, S. (1998). From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in ASL/English bilingual education. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 16-29.

Snodden, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early intervention.. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 581-604.

Yoshinago-Itano, C. & Sedey, A. (2000). Speech development of deaf and hard of hearing children in early childhood: Interrelationships with language and hearing. The Volta Review, 100(5), 181-211.

Welcome to the spring edition of the Utah autism newsletter. So much is happening in the Autism community, and we have many resources to share.

What happened with autism insurance reform in the legislature this year?

Are you wondering where things actually ended up?  Well to recap, the original legislation, House Bill 69, sponsored by Ronda Rudd Menlove (R-Garland), was held in the House Rules Committee and was not released. This bill would have required providers of accident or health insurance policies to include coverage for the treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. It would have established a $50,000 minimum annual benefit for Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy.

Representative Menlove then introduced House Bill 272 which ultimately did pass during the legislative session.  The linked Salt Lake Tribune article explains this bill and includes several links to obtain more information.  This pilot program will pay for therapy for approximately 350 children between the ages of 2-6.  It will begin on July 1, 2012 and last for two years. For an overview, read this Salt Lake Tribune article HERE.

The headline news a few weeks ago drew the public attention to a recent prevalence study that revealed a sharp increase in the number of students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). While the rate of ASD in the general population is reported to be higher in Utah, the increase in students receiving special education services in Utah is similar to most states in the country. Factors contributing to the reported increase may be attributed to:

• Increased public awareness
• Increased knowledge among teachers
• Availability of new assessment tools
• Broader definition of autism

Regardless of the reasons for the increase in prevalence, autism has a significant impact in the classroom and on the education of the students with the disorder. The Utah school system recognizes this. We need to share the non-headline news that Utah districts, charters schools, and state leadership provide training and technical assistance for educators who serve students with autism. Some of these trainings and resources available to Utah educators include:

Conferences for Teachers:

1. Foundations of Autism Conference hosted by the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) and the Utah Personnel Improvement Center (UPDC).

This is an annual conference for parents and educators covering basic characteristics of students with autism and evidence based interventions for academics and behavior.  The next conference will be March 7^th 2013.  Jo Mascorro will be the guest speaker.

2. Southern Utah Autism Conference hosted by the Southwest Education Development Center and the Utah State Office of Education

This is now an annual conference for parents and educators in southern Utah.

3. Utah Valley University Autism Conference hosted by the college of Humanities and Social Sciences at Utah Valley University.

This is an annual conference for parents and educators emphasizing current research in ASD and support for families.

4. Utah Education Association (UEA) Convention

This annual conference hosted by the Utah Education Association includes sessions on autism. The next convention will be help October 18th and 19th, 2012 in Salt Lake City.

5. Family Links Conference hosted by the Utah Parent Center

The Family Links Conference will be March 8^th and 9^th 2013.  Jo Mascorro will present on behavior support for students with autism and other disabilities.

6. The Behavior Summer Camp, a mini-conference focusing on behavioral supports will be June 7^th & 8^th and will include:

• The Tough Kid series of publications
• SuperHeroes social skills curriculum and training
• Functional behavior
• Bullying prevention

Autism related professional development trainings, available to Utah school districts:

1. Utah’s Multi-Tiered System of Support

This Utah State Office of Education and Utah Personnel Development Center initiative focuses on working with district teams to institute best practices in academics, positive behavior supports, and coaching.

2. Discrete Trial Teaching provided by the USOE and UPDC

3. Positive Behavior Supports for Students with Autism, 2-year cohort provided by the UPDC

4. Intensive Discrete Trial Teaching by the ASSERT program at Utah State University

Professional development training opportunities provided to Utah school districts upon request:

1. STAR Autism Program training provided by UPDC

2. Pivotal Response Training provided by UPDC

3. Superheroes Social Skills training and materials provided by USOE

4. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Behavior Support provided by UPDC

5. 24 Evidence-based Practices for Students with ASD provided by UPDC

6. Other trainings customized to fit the needs of districts and charters provided by USOE and UPDC

Additional resources:

1. Autism Grants available through the Utah State Office of Education.

These grants are awarded to districts and charters to improve their capacity for working with students with ASD.  Jocelyn Taylor from the Utah State Office of Education heads the grant awarding committee.

2. Utah Essential Educator

The Utah Essential Educator is an online journal that features topics of interest to Utah teachers. This publication is created by the Utah Personnel Development Center and includes bi-monthly articles on autism spectrum disorders.

3. The Utah Special Educator Journal

The Utah Special Educator journal is published twice a year by the Utah Personnel Development Center and is provided free to all Utah special education teachers, administrators and related service providers. It frequently publishes articles on autism and related topics. Past issues are available online at the UPDC website. There have been two special monograph editions of the Special Educator that focused primarily on autism. These are the February 2008 and the December 2010 editions.

4. Utah Personnel Development Center Website – Autism Resources

The UPDC website has an autism resource area that contains archived trainings:  24 Evidence-Based Practices for Students with ASD, a DVD on high functioning autism, resources for staff development in autism and links to many other informative websites.

5. Autism Internet Modules and OCALI Webinars

The Autism Internet Modules site contains thirty-seven modules on ASD with many more in the works.  The OCALI Webinars site has modules on Autism 101, District Planning, Social Competence, and Understanding and Addressing Challenging Behaviors of Individuals with Complex Needs.

6. The National Education Association’s Puzzle of Autism – and the American Federation of Teachers’ Helping Students with Autism – Tips for Teachers

These publications are written for general education teachers and provide information on understanding and educating students with ASD.  They are free and available online.

As this list suggests, there are an abundance of training opportunities for educators available at no cost to Utah districts and charter schools. Local educational leaders assess the needs of their staff, consider the past training and current knowledge base of their staff, and take into account he unique strengths and challenges of their students in designing the most appropriate personnel development for their situations.  As scientists continue to work on the answers to the many questions raised by the recent prevalence study, Utah autism advocacy groups, institutions of higher education, state leadership, local educational agencies, and educators continue to work together to put all the pieces of the autism educational puzzle  together.

Authors: Cathy Longstroth, Utah Personnel Dev elopment Center (UPDC), Jocelyn Taylor, Utah State Office of Education (USOE), Amy Peters, UPDC

1 in 32  - The Facts Behind the Headlines in Utah Autism Prevalence Rates

Utah’s new claim to fame is the highest prevalence rate of autism in 2008 among the fourteen United States communities studied by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in their autism prevalence study. The principal investigator, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman discussed the results of the study in a press release on Thursday March 29^th. Utah’s statistics were 1 in 47 for incidence of autism in both boys and girls and 1 in 32 for boys. These numbers mean that in Utah the prevalence of autism increased 157 percent in Utah in a six-year period.  The release of these data rekindled the debate as whether these data reflect increased incidence or simply increased identification. Educators who report seeing more and more students with autism in our classrooms will probably agree with Dr. Pinborough-Zimmerman’s conclusion. “Regardless of the reasons for the changes reported in this study, increases of this magnitude will have a significant long-term impact on our communities and families”, and I would add schools as being highly affected as well.

We have included in this issue some of the most relevant articles on this newly released data.

The first article is about a research study of 7,000 children with autism in California that found 1 in 10 kids displayed dramatic improvement within a couple years.  These children progressed from being highly impacted by their autism to being characterized as “high functioning.”  Read more. . .

The second article deals with a research from University College London concerning perceptual advantages in individuals with autism.  When given difficult perceptual tasks, the individuals who did not have autism were overwhelmed.  The individuals with autism, however, never failed, even when the tasks became “maddenly difficult.” The researchers concluded that what we consider deficits may actually be “trade-offs,” a mixture of blessings and burdens.  Read more . . .

The last is an article from West Virginia on the need for more training for teachers of students with autism. Read more. . . .

Check our e-journal for more information coming out soon.

Cathy Longstroth, Specialist, UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center)

Photo Credit: Éole Wind

Abstract

Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) continues to be a common activity in schools at all grade levels for students with various levels of reading ability. Unfortunately, students who struggle to read often select books beyond their reading abilities and outside their interests and therefore do not spend much time reading. Past research has shown that such students and their teachers have a poor opinion of SSR. In this article we propose a modified approach to assisting students choose books that match their ability and interest as a means to increase their silent reading during the designated reading time. This approach can be applied across all grade levels in which students engage in independent silent reading. Interviews showed that the students’ and teachers’ attitudes improved. In addition, the students demonstrated on-task behavior and understanding of their reading.

It was 9:10 in the morning, the beginning of second period. Diane Olson welcomed her students with various disabilities to class, set her timer for 15 minutes, and reminded them that it was time for Sustained Silent Reading. Diane took her seat in front of the class and started reading. As usual, a handful of students also got out their books and started reading. Also, as usual, the rest of the class got busy with other tasks such as asking to go to the bathroom, writing notes to friends, braiding their hair and playing drums on the desktops. Sam, an 18-year-old senior with an emotional disturbance has been enrolled in special education for eleven years and has an average I.Q. of 97 and a reading comprehension score of 80 on the WJ-III. This morning he is sleeping instead of reading as is typical for him. Jabar, a 17-year-old sophomore, is student with a learning disability and has an average I.Q. of 83 and a reading comprehension score of 75 on the WIATT-II. Instead of reading he is working on his social studies homework.

Although all of the students in Diane’s class struggle with various reading difficulties, they all share a lack of interest and motivation to read for pleasure. Every day, Diane wonders why is she compelled by the school to use her precious instructional time in this way. If she is supposed to encourage her students to read silently on their own, she must find another way to increase their motivation and attitude toward silent reading. In the case of Sam, he reads at a college level, but refuses to read because he is typically non-compliant. Jabar, on the other hand, reads on a fourth-grade level, and any reading material in the classroom is below his ability.

Diane isn’t alone in wondering how she could get her struggling and reluctant readers to read during SSR. In recent years, literacy experts and teachers alike have acknowledged that the still widely used practice of Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) requires modification to be useful for many students, especially reluctant and struggling readers (Hairrell, Edmonds, Vaughn, & Simmons, 2010). The problem with the traditional versions of SSR (Hunt, 1970; McCracken, 1971) in which students are asked to choose a book or magazine on their own and then read it silently for a period dictated by a timer is that the students may or may not actually stay on task and engage in reading. Although the original guidelines about SSR specified that students were supposed to choose freely what they wanted to read, and to do the reading without restrictions or accountability measures, this procedure does not mean that struggling readers will engage. These procedures work better for students who already are motivated to read for pleasure and can engage in the process.

Nevertheless, teachers and scholars believe that, with modifications to the original idea of SSR, students can be motivated to read and can engage in a different process. For example, some guidelines for SSR (Pilgreen, 2000) instruct teachers to have a library available for students to choose reading material. However, this practice also may be a problem as students may choose something that is above their reading levels or of little interest to them, leading to off-task behavior during SSR, and as a result, a loss of instructional time (Anderson, 2009; Fisher, 2004). Students who have access to a teacher library are likely to pick up books randomly without taking the time to determine if it’s something they are interested in reading. Simply having a ‘library’ available for students to choose from with such diverse reading skills may cause problems for the students and teacher. As a result, valuable learning time is wasted, students do not become better readers, and students may even learn to dislike reading more than they would otherwise.

Other educators have devised more elaborate modifications to SSR that involve more scaffolding for students. For example, some have suggested one way to modify SSR is to make sure students select books that are interesting to them. The idea is that some students may pay closer attention, sit for longer periods, and learn more when they are reading a text that interests them (Yoon, 2002). Rehder (1980) and Cecil (1984) indicate that liking a book can affect reading achievement and students who read books in which they are interested have a higher reading attitude and better comprehension levels when compared to those less interested in their books. Preference for the books the students are reading may be a motivational element that can lead to an increase in reading attitude and reading comprehension (Yoon).

In another approach, Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR: Reutzel, Fawson, et al., 2008) made use of silent reading practice of independent-level texts selected with teacher guidance from among varied genres. Periodic teacher monitoring of and interaction with individual students is coupled with accountability through competed book response assignments. The investigators compared ScSR to Guided Repeated Oral Reading with Feedback (GROR) treatment groups from the beginning-of-year to end-of-year growth in accuracy, rate, expression, and comprehension. Students in the ScSR treatment group made progress equivalent to students in the scientifically validated (NICHD, 2000) comparison reading practice condition of GROR in reading accuracy, rate, expression, and comprehension. In a recent article reviewing the literature on SSR and struggling readers, Hairrell et. al. (2010) recommended: 1) Support book selection that matches students’ interests and reading levels; 2) Identify challenging words and promote word consciousness; 3) Preview the text and set a purpose for reading; 4) Scaffold SSR through progressively longer increments of reading, progress monitoring and paired readings; and finally; 5) Wrap up the reading and stimulate future reading.

In that spirit, we worked with Diane to develop a process that worked in her classroom to motivate her students to read and improve their attitudes toward silent reading. In addition to Sam and Jabar, there were 10 other students enrolled in her 11th grade developmental language arts class, including six with learning disabilities, three students had cognitive disabilities, and one was other health impaired for Tourette’s Syndrome. Just as those described in Diane’s class, prior to this intervention, some students read books during SSR but others were observed off task reading magazines, talking, walking around the room, and sleeping.

In our discussions with Diane, she mentioned that although she had books available in her class library, they were either too difficult or uninteresting to her students. So, we decided to devise a process to assure the students were reading books at their reading levels and that were of interest to them. We also believed that we should implement some accountability for the reading by assigning them a designated number of pages to read that we would record.

To start, we matched students’ abilities and interests to appropriate text. To do that, we conducted individual interviews in which we asked students 14 questions to gather information about their reading interests, preferences and habits. Table 1 shows the 14 interview questions. Following the interviews, we reviewed the student comprehension scores from the Qualitative Reading Inventory-3 (Caldwell, 2001) as well as the results from the interviews we conducted. The analysis of students’ scores showed the students’ grade levels ranged from 4-12. We then met with the high school librarian to identify books that matched the reading levels and interests of the students. From there, we generated a list of ten books (e.g., Slam! by Walter Dean Meyers and Things they Carried by Tim O’Brian) based upon all these factors.

To assure that the books offered to the students were within their abilities, each book‘s readability was determined with the Flesch-Kinkaid Readability Index, a tool found in Spelling and Grammar in Microsoft® Word. It is important to select at least three passages of text to ensure that a representative sample of the book is being evaluated. See Box 2 for step-by-step directions on how to conduct the readability test. The students were then shown ten different books and given a description of each book. They were asked if they had read the book, if they would like to read it and then ranked their top four choices. The first assigned book for the study was the students’ first or second choices from their personal rankings. Subsequent books assigned included both those from their original rankings, author preference or other student recommendations. As students completed books, we met with them individually to select their next books. We reviewed the students’ previous book survey and then conducted an individual ‘show and tell’ with the student by showing them books on topics in which they were interested (i.e., from the reading survey) and then providing them with a detailed description of the books contents. The students were offered 2-3 books from which to choose.

We observed several interesting changes in the reading engagement of the students over the semester. Students who had exhibited limited willingness in the past to engage in silent reading, were participating and enjoying their reading. All of the students read and several completed whole books. Table 2 shows a complete list of the books and number of pages each student read. In addition, students were asking for more time to read beyond the 15 minutes allotted to them in the morning. Sam who was quite vocal about hating school, made several comments about how much he liked the books he was reading and often wanted to talk about what he was reading. He indicated an interest in reading historical fiction and fantasies. His first book was Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brian, set during the Vietnam War; it is an in-depth exploration of the life of a soldier. His second book called MEG, by Steve Alten, was an adventure story about searching for a long-lost ocean dinosaur. At mid-semester, he dropped out of school, but called Diane to tell her that he had checked out from his local library the sequel to one of the books he had read.

Jabar indicated that he only read picture books, sports books, and biographies. He read three books in their entirety throughout the course of the semester, including Forged by Fire, by Sharon M. Draper, a realistic novel about an abusive family. His other book choices were, Slam!, by Walter Dean Myers, and Running Loose, by Chris Crutcher, both about high school athletes. He complained to Diane on several occasions that the assigned reading time was too short and often asked to have additional time. Other students read a variety of books including love stories and mysteries. They often recommended books to one another from the list we created.

We also were interested to learn that students’ overall attitudes toward reading improved. To figure this out, we administered The Rhody Secondary Reading Attitude Assessment (Tullock-Rhody & Alexander, 1980) to all the students before and after completing our study. This instrument is a 25-item checklist to categorize a student’s attitude toward reading and books. The scale allows students to express their feelings ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Some example items from the scale are, “You think people are strange when they read a lot,” “You like to get books as gifts,” and “You are willing to tell people that you do not like to read” (p. 612). Of course these data are limited, because the checklist is a self-report and may not be reliable.

We found that eight students’ attitude scores increased and four of the students’ attitude scores decreased by no more than five points. Three of the students had a substantial increase in their attitude scale score; Sam increased his attitude score by 22; Jabar increased his score by 29 and Sue by 41 points.

The students also were interviewed with a protocol we developed. When interviewed at the conclusion of the study, 11 of 12 students made very positive comments about the SSR procedure. Eleven students reported that the SSR study was a positive experience for them. In reference to SSR the students made comments such as: “Add 5 more minutes to the reading time” and “Not enough time to read.” One student said, “…reading is cool if you have a good book.” Sean was the only student who expressed dislike for the modified version of SSR. These results suggested that the attitude survey data may have been inconclusive.

Three students whose attitudes decreased (Ned, Cy, and Stan) indicated in the interviews an interest in continuing SSR for the following year.

In the end, Diane was thrilled to see the changes in her students because of the modifications to the process. She said she would continue SSR the following year and we learned that she has done so for three years since. At the conclusion of the project, she asked to keep all the materials for her to use the next school year, including the books used, the quizzes and all the materials for the game. To help you integrate these ideas see Box 1.

Discussion

We now know that students who struggle with reading and have a variety of disabilities, may be motivated to read when they are supported in finding the appropriate books. In the future, we hope to expand the findings into bigger classrooms that contain a mixture of students enrolled in both general and special education. Although this particular project was conducted in a high school, the process can be applied to any setting in which students are struggling to read silently. The most exciting aspect of implementing these procedures into SSR is the potential for creating a positive atmosphere in the classroom and the potential for inspiring students to want to read. Keep in mind that once you have generated your book list and their associated reading level, although it is time intensive up front, you will have a comprehensive list you can refer to later. This will decrease the time required for future classes. It is truly gratifying to observe students growing as readers, and it is a pleasure to be in a classroom where students are learning and achieving. Any effort required to make this happen is well worth it in our view.

Authors: Natalie A. Williams and Kristin L. Nelson, Weber State University

Anderson, R. (2009). Interested reader or uninterested dissembler? The identities constructed by upper primary aged dyslexic pupils during silent reading lessons. Literacy, 43(2), 83-90.

Caldwell, L. L. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory-3. New York: Longman.

Cecil, N. L. (1984). Impact of interest on the literal comprehension of beginning readers: a West Indian study. The Reading Teacher, 37, 750-753.

Collins, C. (1980). Sustained silent reading periods: Effects on teachers’ behaviors and students’ achievement. Elementary School Journal, 81, 108-114.

Dwyer, E. J., & Reed, V. (1989). Effects of sustained silent reading on attitudes toward reading. Reading Horizons, 29, 283-293

Estes, T. H., Estes, J. J., Richards, H. C., & Roettger, D. (1986). Estes Attitude Scale. Austin TX: PRO-ED.

Fisher, D. (2004). Setting the “opportunity to read” standard: Resuscitating the SSR program in an urban high school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 138-150.

Grumbaugh, S. (1986). Initiating sustained silent reading in your school: Ask, “what can ssr do for them?”. Clearing House, 60, 169-174.

Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaugh, S., & Simmons, D. (2010). Independent silent reading for struggling readers: Pitfalls and potential. In E. H. Hiebert & D. R. Reutzel (Eds.), Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers (275-289). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harris, A. J., Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability. (9th Ed.) White Plains, New York: Longman.

Herbert, S. (1987). SSR: What do students think? Journal of Reading, 30, 651.

Hunt, L. C. (1970). The effect of self-selection, interest, and motivation upon independent, instructional and frustrational levels. The Reading Teacher, 24, 146-151, 158.

Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a difference? Reading World, 23, 375-380.

Mazur-Stewart, M. (1986). Ideas in practice: Bringing sustained silent reading to developmental readers. Journal of Developmental Education, 10, 20-22.

McCracken, R. A. (1971) Initiating sustained silent reading. Journal of Reading, 14, 521-524

Mikulecky, L., & Wolf, A. (1977). Effect of uninterrupted sustained silent reading and of reading games on changes in secondary students’ reading attitudes. Reading: Theory research and practice. Twenty sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. ED# 227440 p. 126-130.

Minton, M. J. (1980). The effects of sustained silent reading upon comprehension and attitudes among 9th graders. Journal of Reading, 23, 498-502.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Pasco, B. (1990). Selecting books for reluctant readers. Media and and Methods, 26, 53-54.

Pilgreen, J. L. (2000). The SSR handbook: How to organize and manage a sustained silent reading program. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers

Rehder, L. G. (1980). Reading skill in a paperback classroom. Reading Horizons, 21, 16-21.

Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A., (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37-50. complement to guided repeated reading

Sadoski, M. C. (1980b). An attitude survey for sustained silent reading programs. Journal of Reading, 23, 721-726.

Teale, W. H., & Lewis, R. (1981). The nature and measurement of secondary school students’ attitudes toward reading. Reading Horizons, 21, 94-102.

Tullock-Rhody, R., & Alexander, J. E. (1980). A scale for assessing attitudes toward reading in secondary schools. Journal of Reading, 23, 609-614.

Yallay, S. (1992). Reaching the reluctant reader. The Book Report, 10, 22-23.

Yoon, J. C. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading: A Meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39, 186-19.

[…] As time went on Collin became pretty obsessed with Pixar movies. He still wasn’t talking much at all but he would pick Monsters, Inc. out of a stack of ten movies without hesitation. The same with The Incredibles, any of the Toy Story movies, and Cars was always a big hit. It got to the point where before he had even seen a Pixar movie, he could identify the case and pick it out of a pile. We assumed he was using the iconic cover art that had become a staple for the Pixar films to identify them, but then one day we found out he was reading the titles. How did we know? We were in our family room and I can’t remember if it was Jackie or me, but one of us went into the kitchen where Collin was playing with the letter refrigerator magnets like he had done many times before. This time, however, he left us a message: “Disney Pixar Animation Studios Proudly Presents, A Toy Story”

Read more here: Dear Pixar, Thank You – RYAN D. SULLIVAN.

All states, including Utah, are struggling to meet federal guidelines regarding assessment of teachers.

“For a long time critics have suggested that raising academic test scores is too narrow a focus. It appears in the attached article that teachers, effective in raising academic outcomes, do much more and have a life long impact – effective  personnel development has just increased in value in very human terms. The research has considerable substance.” Alan Hofmeister

Big Study Links Good Teachers to Lasting Gain

Elementary- and middle-school teachers who help raise their students’ standardized-test scores seem to have a wide-ranging, lasting positive effect on those students’ lives beyond academics, including lower teenage-pregnancy rates and greater college matriculation and adult earnings, according to a new study that tracked 2.5 million students over 20 years.

The paper, by Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard and Jonah E. Rockoff of Columbia, all economists, examines a larger number of students over a longer period of time with more in-depth data than many earlier studies, allowing for a deeper look at how much the quality of individual teachers matters over the long term.

The study, which the economics professors have presented to colleagues in more than a dozen seminars over the past year and plan to submit to a journal, is the largest look yet at the controversial “value-added ratings,” which measure the impact individual teachers have on student test scores. It is likely to influence the roiling national debates about the importance of quality teachers and how best to measure that quality.

“Everybody believes that teacher quality is very, very important,” says Eric A. Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and longtime researcher of education policy. “What this paper and other work has shown is that it’s probably more important than people think. That the variations or differences between really good and really bad teachers have lifelong impacts on children.”

The average effect of one teacher on a single student is modest. All else equal, a student with one excellent teacher for one year between fourth and eighth grade would gain $4,600 in lifetime income, compared to a student of similar demographics who has an average teacher. The student with the excellent teacher would also be 0.5 percent more likely to attend college.

Replacing a poor teacher with an average one would raise a single classroom’s lifetime earnings by about $266,000, the economists estimate. Multiply that by a career’s worth of classrooms.

“If you leave a low value-added teacher in your school for 10 years, rather than replacing him with an average teacher, you are hypothetically talking about $2.5 million in lost income,” said Professor Friedman, one of the coauthors.

Author: Anne Lowrey, the New Your Post

Access this article HERE>

We understand the issue more and more every day. For years, we’ve been told that our students don’t stack up in math when compared with their peers in other countries. Our performance isn’t that bad at the fourth grade, but TIMSS and PISA data clearly show significant comparative declines as our students end eighth and tenth grade. One of many interpretations of these data is that math at the intermediate and middle grades is an exceedingly weak link in our educational system.

Were that not enough, the link between mathematical competence and success in the workplace is becoming ever clearer as the economy slowly emerges from a deep recession. A recent and fascinating issue of the Atlantic Monthly (Davidson, 2012) provides a lucid account of the extraordinary gaps in knowledge between highly successful manufacturing workers and their less skilled counterparts who are employed, at least for now, on the same factory floor. The former possess increasing amounts of quantitative knowledge, while the latter live in fear of automation or outsourcing. Success in math at the middle grades, which is obviously fundamental to success in high school and beyond, is a cornerstone for securing the future for American students.

Standards, such as the Common Core, are one way to renew our commitment to raising mathematical performance. Yet the challenges are significant, as evident in a recent survey of school districts from around the country (Center on Educational Policy, 2011). Most districts agreed that the Common Core Standards are more rigorous than most state standards and that if implemented well, they will improve student math skills. Yet respondents also felt that new curricular materials as well as fundamental changes in instruction would be needed.

The Need for Professional Development

Every business organization including school districts wants to hire “turnkey” employees. These are teachers who can hit the ground running and deliver instruction at a high level. Yet with changing standards and what we know about how long it takes any professional to develop a high level of skills, this desire is unrealistic. The hope for turnkeys also puts aside the millions of teachers who already work in our schools. Again, the international message is clear and consistent: high achieving countries hire the best candidates they can, but they continue their professional development through many years of employment (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; McKenzie & Company, 2007). We need to adopt this thinking if we have any hope of raising the math performance of our students in today’s schools.

There are distinct features to high quality professional development in mathematics for today’s teachers. First, it is crucial that teachers understand the concepts they are teaching. Some would argue that this means extensive refresher courses in college level mathematics, most of which is taught in a traditional, symbolic fashion. Learning more formal mathematics can possibly help some teachers, but it is an unlikely solution for most. Also, there is little guarantee that any of this kind of professional development transfers to the classroom. Instead, teachers need vivid demonstrations of key concepts (or “big ideas”), as well as opportunities to engage in learning activities that promote the kinds of instruction advocated in the Mathematical Practices component of the Common

Core. Teachers – and their students – need opportunities to analyze, discuss, and reason about concepts. They also need to solve the kinds of problems that promote strategic thinking and persistence. Naturally, how to integrate thoughtful skills practice is also part of the picture.

Teachers also need to see the “big picture” within the different strands of mathematics. For example, they need to see how rational numbers develop in complexity over grades 3 through 7. This kind of connected understanding of a strand helps teachers see how the big ideas link together, how what was taught at a previous grade level needs to be reviewed, and how what one does at their grade level is important for the next one.

Vivid examples of classroom practice are also critical. How do I use fraction bars effectively? How do I orchestrate a classroom discussion with an eye toward students who do not normally participate? How do I assist students when they get stuck grappling with rich mathematical problems? Well designed video examples can go a long way to improve practice, and they are something teachers can return to again and again.

Finally, teachers need a tremendous amount of assistance when it comes to instructional planning. Linking the content of a district’s math adoption to Common Core Standards is challenging in itself. Even more, creating opportunities within a unit of instruction for students to engage in mathematics at a high level is new to many teachers. It is easy to skip this kind of instruction, particularly if it is a new kind of classroom practice.

Teachers need guided assistance doing this as well as developing a variety of assessments that tap into the kind of thinking we want today’s students to do in math.

There is good news. We can provide the kind of professional development our teachers need. Our challenge is to accept the fact that this kind of work is an unavoidable feature of today’s successful school systems.

Author: John Woodward Ph.D., Dean of the School of Education, University of Puget Sound

References

Davidson, A. (2012, January/February). Making it in America. The atlantic monthly. Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/2012/ 01/ making-it-in-america/8844/

McKenzie & Company. (2007). How the world’s best performing countries come out on top. Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/ downloads/ reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

Akiba, M. & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teacher workforce

in a global context. New York: Teachers College Press.

Center on Education Policy (2011, September). Common core state standards:

Progress and challenges in school districts’ implementation. Washington, DC:

Center on Educational Policy.

Why choose mathematics in high school? Here’s why.

Despite the availability of well-paid jobs in fields such as engineering, statistics, and technology, many students do not take enough math courses. They see it as hard, boring, and irrelevant — not true. Here are twelve excellent reasons to learn math:

It makes you smarter.

Math is to learning what endurance and strength training is to sports: the means to excel in the specialty of your choice. You can’t become a major sports star without being strong and having good cardiovascular ability. You can’t become a star in any profession unless you can think smart and critically. Math will help you do that.

You’ll make more money.

Winners of American Idol and other celebrities may win big bucks, but they are few and far between. If you skip auditions and instead do your homework — especially in math — you can go on to get an education that will get you a well-paid job. You can earn more than what pop singers and sports stars make — perhaps not right away, but over a lifetime.

You’ll lose less money.

When hordes of idiots throw their money at pyramid schemes, it is partially because they don’t know enough math. If you know a little bit about statistics and interest calculations, you can see through economic lies and wishful thinking.

You’ll have an easier time at college.

Yes, it is hard work to learn math properly while in high school. But when it’s time for college, you can skip reading pages and pages of boring, overly explained texts. Instead, you can look at a chart or a formula and understand how things relate. Math is a language, more concise and effective than other ones. If you know math, you can work smarter, not harder.

You’ll live in a global world.

You will compete for interesting jobs against people from the whole world — and the smart kids in China, India, and eastern Europe regard math and other “hard” sciences as a ticket out of poverty and social degradation. Do as they do: Obtain knowledge that makes you viable all over the world, not just in your home country.

You’ll live in a world of constant change.

New technology and ways of doing things change life and work daily. If you have learned math, you can discover how and why things work, and avoid scraping by through your career, supported by Post-it Notes and Help files, scared to death of accidentally pressing the wrong key and running into something unfamiliar.

It doesn’t close any doors.

If you don’t choose math in high school, you close the door to interesting studies and careers. You might not think those options are interesting now, but what if you change your mind? Besides, math is most easily learned when you’re young, whereas the social sciences, history, art, and philosophy benefit from a little maturing.

It’s interesting.

Too many people — including teachers — will tell you that math is hard and boring. What do they know? You don’t ask your grandmother which game console you should get, and you don’t ask your parents for help in sending a text message. Why ask if math is hard? If you do the work and stick it out, you will find that math is fun, exciting, and intellectually elegant.

You’ll meet it more and more in the future.

In the future, journalists and politicians will talk less and analyze more. Police officers and military personnel will use ever more complicated technology. Nurses and teachers will have to relate to numbers and technology every day. Car mechanics and carpenters will use chip optimization and stress analysis as much as wrenches and hammers.

You can get through, not just into, college.

Even if you cherry-pick the easy stuff in high school, you’ll be eligible for college. Having a diploma is nice, but don’t think it makes you ready for higher education. You will notice this as soon as you enter college and have to take remedial math programs, with ensuing stress and difficulty.

It’s creative.

Many people think math has to do only with logical deduction and somehow is in opposition to creativity. The truth is that math can be a supremely creative force if the knowledge is used correctly, not just as a tool for problem solving during your career.

It’s cool.

You have permission to be smart; you have permission to do what your peers do not. Choose math so you don’t have to, for the rest of your life, talk about how math is hard. Choose math so you don’t have to joke away your inability to do simple calculations. Besides, math will get you a job in the cool companies, the ones that need brains.

 Original author: Espen Andersen, Norwegian School of Management, Originally published 2006 © Edutopia.org; The George Lucas Educational Foundation

EDITOR’S NOTE:

In medicine, the public demands that practitioners be knowledgable of and use proven, research-evidened practices. To do anything less would be considered malpractice, resulting in harm to the patient and litigation against the practitioner.

In education, practitioners are often allowed to use pseudo-science, and teaching strategies that reinforce their biases, opinions and comfortable teaching styles, even when the evidence shows that many practices are ineffective and cause “educational harm” by limiting student achievement.  The cumulative results are evidenced by low student performance of U.S. children and youth relative to countries such as Finland, Singapore and India. It is no wonder that the general public is increasingly agitated with our slipping proficiency scores and educators whom they hold responsible. Sadly, the axiom of “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes” is alive and prevalent in education.

“We can, whenever we choose, to teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.” Ron Edmonds

“We already know more than we need to do that” refers to decades of irrefutable research and effective practices that appear to have been somehow “lost”, and replaced by lesser practices.  If you are not familiar with the work of Zig Englemann, the father of Direct Instruction, please continue reading. The Common Core Standards raise some questions about what kindergarden children are capable of learning in math.  Most of the children in the film were taught by Zig for two school years. Two of the children were in the preschool only one year as kindergarteners. Consider the following true story and accompaning video from 1966!

The following story is abridged from an original blog post by Cathrine Johnson, from: www.kitchentablemath.blogspot.com, and includes selected passages from Englemann’s book (now out of print) War Against the Schools’ Academic Child Abuse.

Engelmann Teaches Fractions to Disadvantaged 5 Year Olds

In the summer of 1966, the Anti-Defamation League expressed interest in making a film showing the achievements of the disadvantaged black preschoolers we had been working with at the University of Illinois. Two years earlier, these kids had been selected for the project as four-year olds on the basis that they came from homes that were judged particularly disadvantaged and nearly all of them had older siblings in classes for the mentally retarded. These kids came to our school half-days as four-year-olds and as five-year-olds.

We managed to teach these kids more and make them smarter than anyboy else had done before or after. That was our goal, particularly with this first flight of kids–to set the limits to show what could be done. We felt that this demonstration was particularly important because Headstart was looming in the wings, and it was clearly moving in a direction of being nothing more than a front for public health, not a serious educational project. We saw this as a great contradiction because disadvantaged kids were behind their middle class peers in skills and knowledge.

We taught reading, language, and math to our preschoolers. And they learned these subjects. They also learned to learn well and therefore how to be smart. A film showing what these kids could do might moderate what seemed to be the inevitable mandate of the Office of Economic Opportunity to designate Headstart as a “social experience” based on the model of the middle-class nursery school. It seemed obvious that the model would not work.

We rounded up seven of the kids who were in our top group. (We grouped kids for instruction according to their performance.) They were in the middle of summer vacation, and we didn’t have an opportunity to work with them before the film to “refresh” or rehearse them. A professor at the University of Illinois found out about the filming and asked if she could bring her class to view it. Why not?

So seven little black kids came into the classroom, sat in their chairs in front of the chalkboard with big bright lights shining on them, with two big cameras on tripods staring at them, and with a class of university students in the background. And these kids did it. There were no outtakes, no cut sequences, nothing but the kids responding to problems that I presented, the types of problems I had taught them to work. These were not necessarily the problem types that one would present preschoolers as part of a 12 grade sequence, but they were good problems to show that these kids could learn at a greatly accelerated rate.

On the film, the kids worked problems of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and fractions. They worked problems in which they found the area of rectangles and problems in which they found the length of an unknown side of the rectangle (given the number of squares in the rectangle and the length of one side). They worked column-addition problems that required carrying and problems that did not require carrying. They even worked problems involving factoring expressions like 6A + 3B + 9C. And they used the appropriate wording: “Three times the quantity, 2A, plus 1B, plus 3C.”

The kids told me how to work a simple algebra problem: “The man at the store tells you that 1/4 of a pie costs 5 cents. You want to buy the whole pie. How much is the whole pie?” After telling me how to work the problem by multiplying the reciprocal of 1/4, I wrote the answer as $20. The kids jumped up to correct my sign error, one boy observed, “Wow, you have to pay that much for a pie?”

And the kids did dimensional analysis involving the equation: A + B = C. They told me how to rewrite the equation so it told what A equals (A = C – B), what B equals (B = C – A), and what C equals (C = A + B).

The last problem type I presented on the film was the simultaneous-equation problem:

A + B = 14     A – B = 0

They had worked on similar problems in which A and B were the same size (inferred from A – B = 0) and they quickly told me that the numbers were 7 and 7. There was still time left so I presented them with a brand new problem type:

A + B = 14    A – B = 2

I pointed out that when you start with A and minus B, you end up with 2. So A is bigger than B. They frowned, they thought; and finally the little girl sitting on the end of the group — who is now an engineer — said in a wee voice, “8 and 6.” These were kids who had not yet entered first grade.

The film made no difference in deterring Headstart from becoming a program that produced no real gains. Nor did it give notice that failure with disadvantaged kids was a failure in instructional practices. We had shown , however, that all the disadvantaged black kids we worked with could learn to read and perform basic arithmetic operations in the preschool and that the average IQ gain of these kids was 24 points.

There was no official follow-up — that would have required funding, etc. However, Engelmann kept in touch with those students over the years.

 One day I phoned Engelmann-Becker offices in Eugene about something different and was privileged to speak with Engelmann himself. I immediately asked about those children. He told me they had had one or more reunions and these kids had continued to do well in school, despite attending rather poor inner-city elementary schools. They finished high school, some, maybe most, went to college and have “middle class” occupations. One (a girl) became an engineer (electrical engineer, I think); another is a loans manager for a major Chicago bank, another became an officer in the Marines. They did well for themselves and their promising beginning did not “wash out” the way many other early interventions seemed to do.

1966 Film of Zig Talking and Demonstating DI Math from Zig Engelmann on Vimeo.

Although the children don’t have a large repertoire of number-facts, they demonstrate understanding of operations for solving the different types of problems Zig presents.1966  http://www.zigsite.com/trainingvideos/zig_math_video.html

Zig Englemann is responsible for more than 9 funded research grants, 18 books, 27 book chapters and monographs, and 47 articles. Furthermore, Engelmann has put his ideas into practice through an inspiring array of instructional programs: 20 in reading, 8 in spelling, 18 in mathematics, 10 in language, and 3 in writing.

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in square holes, the ones that see things differently. They are not fond of rules,and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them, because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world…are the ones who do.”(Excerpt from an Apple commercial)

Math Standards for the early grades, particularly K and 1, are distasteful, but the new Common Core Standards may have premiere distasteful status.

What makes them distasteful? A subtle combination of vagueness, misplaced specificity, and a lack of understanding about teaching young children. But let the committee or braintrust that made up the descriptions about the standards speak for itself.

Below is a sidebar summary of seven mathematical practices for K and 1. They aren’t practices for teachers, but presumably practices that are induced in children through instruction that complies with the standards. Think of at-risk kindergarten children as you read the list.

Mathematical Practices

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively. 3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

4. Model with mathematics. 5. Use appropriate tools strategically. 6. Attend to precision. 7. Look for and make use of structure.

There is no doubt that these mandates are composed of English words and follow English syntax, but some of them don’t seem to convey more than a suggestion of meaning or relate in an obvious manner to any specific standard or combination that would induce the mandate.

Mandate 1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

This item raises the question of whether the authors or committee who wrote it has a clear idea of what kindergartners are. They are little guys who are just getting their feet wet in the sea of formal instruction. Do we design material so it is easy for them? Not according to mandate one. Rather, it appears that we’re going to make math “challenging” so kids have to frown and struggle as we remind them, “Persevere, damn it.”

If this interpretation seems like a stretch, consider mandate one with the p word replaced by a Webster definition:

Make sense of problems and persist in the undertaking in spite of

opposition or discouragement. If children are going to persevere, we’re going to have to do our part and provide them with opposition and discouragement. Why? Apparently so we can show them that they are to persevere, damn it.

Mandate 2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

This mandate is what seems to be a tautology, words that are strung together and say nothing more than what we would know if we said that the children are to learn math. In other words, if children learn anything relevant about math or even math applications, they have to learn to reason abstractly and quantitatively.

To confirm that the person on the street understands this interpretation I asked an unkempt person who was pushing a grocery cart down the sidewalk, “Can young children do math without reasoning abstractly and quantitatively?”

He looked at me and said, “No. Got any change?”

I think this response, particularly the reference to monetary application, is quite as thoughtful as mandate number 2, which is a good number for this tautology.

Mandate 3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

If we’re talking about kindergarteners, what mathematical arguments are they going to construct? And how are they going to determine their degree of “viability” without knowledge of facts?

For math applications nearly all relevant arguments will hinge on whether something is true or false. On the K level, we could expect the viable argument and critique might go something like this.

“I got more money than you do cause I got four dollars.” “Oh yeah? Show me.” “Those aren’t dollars. They’re pennies. You only got four pennies.”

In a broader sense, exactly what are the properties of a viable argument? Is it one that’s supported by or based on sound evidence? Is it unassailable or irrefutable in logical form? Or is viable some kind of slush word that refers to constructing, developing, growing through the complexities of dynamic interaction? I forgot to ask the person with the grocery cart this question, so I remain unsure.

The ultimate question, however, is, what central role would arguments or critiquing the reasoning of others have to do with kindergarten math? The children do not have extensive knowledge of the facts and relationships needed to formulate either arguments or critiques. And most relevant, where are the K standards that provide the instruction children receive to create these viable arguments and critiques?

Mandate 4: Model with mathematics.

No, Virginia, I don’t know what this means. In this sentence, the word model is an intransitive verb; I have some idea of what mathematics is, but modeling with mathematics? I strike out. The dictionary doesn’t help a lot. One meaning of model is: To design or imitate forms. I don’t know what forms are being designed? Do kids design something out of mathematics? If they make a concrete model of anything it will be replete with mathematical details, but this isn’t really modeling with math.

Another meaning of model is: to act as a fashion or art model. This possible meaning provokes some pretty strange images, like kids walking down the runway with numbers and geometric forms all over them. In this case, at least a kid would be able answer the question, “What on earth are you doing?” “Modeling with mathematics.”

Mandate 5: Use appropriate tools strategically.

This mandate seems to have redundant parts. If you use appropriate tools, it’s given that you know that they’re appropriate for particular “strategies.” We could also express the same idea without reference to appropriate. “Use tools strategically.” If we use them strategically, we must have selected the ones that are appropriate.

Even if we accept the mandate as being clear in form, however, the mandate does not suggest what kindergarten tools are related to math. Let’s see: a calculator? Probably not, but certainly not as a central “tool.” If we’re talking about ruler, scissors, pencils and crayons, they are tools, all right, but for these, the best-phrased mandate would be something like, “Use tools appropriately.” That mandate would imply both information about how to use the tools and also, what not to do with them. For instance, “Don’t hit Daniel with your ruler; stop cutting Lynn’s hair with your scissors, and don’t ever write on the chalkboard with your crayons again, or stick pencils up your nose so you look like a walrus.”

Mandate 6: Attend to precision.

Granted, these mandates are for math, not physics, but the committee who wrote the mandates should have some knowledge about the “scientific” relationship between precision and accuracy. The problem with attending to “precision” without reference to accuracy is that a little guy could give evidence of being very precise but dead wrong. For instance,

What’s 5 + 1? (Five.) What’s 3 + 1? (Three.) What’s 9 + 1? (Nine.) What’s 1 plus 9? (One.)

The proof that the responses are precise is that that we could make big bets on how the learner would respond to an item that was not tested, such as, “What’s 18 plus one?”

We could even make sure that the learner is attending to precision by telling him to “Think carefully before you answer.”

In the math arena we are concerned with accuracy, not only with the answers, but accuracy in the steps that the learner takes to arrive at the answers. Are the steps and answers correct? If so, the process is accurate. Note, however, that the students’ accuracy is the result of the precision with which the process is designed and taught to the learner. So the precision is properly in the teacher’s bailiwick, and we need to be very compulsive about precision, so the teacher will be able to accurately judge from the children’s responses whether or not they are learning what is being taught.

Mandate 7: Look for and make use of structure.

Once more, Virginia, I am perplexed. Is this structure in the problems kiddies are working, in the surroundings, in the knowledge children have, or does structure lie in some intricate relation between hosts of the structural elements? Maybe nobody knows where the structure is and that’s the reason the kids have to look for it. Or maybe the game is simply based on pragmatics. Find something— anything—you can make use of. That thing (whatever it is) has structure.

But once we’ve found the structure, how do we go about making use of it? Do we use it as a basis for performing mathematical operations? If so, the mandate is opaque and would be more clearly stated as, “Identify numerical relationships and express them in number operations.”

In summary, singly or as a group, these sidebar mandates are an insult. Somebody might argue that they don’t really reflect the actual standards for K. They are simply some kind of window dressing designed to call attention to … The words that follow are the ones that would make this justification an easy target to shoot down. What possible virtue would a document that is designed to change the lives of children through education have if it is cloaked in vagueness, with directives that have no obvious application to kindergarteners?

The sidebar is not the only problem. On the same page is an overview of what children are to learn more specifically in K. One item presents a very sophomoric analysis.

Number and Operations in base 10:

Work with numbers 11–19 to gain foundations for place value.

No, we’re not going to carp over the fact that the heading refers to only one number, but focus on the assertion that the teen numbers (which should really start with 10 not 11 in base ten) provide a good foundation for place value. If you really thought about it and tried to come up with the most confused, screwed up, non- generalizable decade, 10–19 would win in a landslide. In other words, this decade, isolated from the other two-digit decades, teaches very little about place value.

Consider the relationship between the names and what the kindergartener is to write. One name is sixteen. For that name, you say the 6 first, but write it last. Hmmm. The same pattern holds for all the numbers that end with the word teen, 13 through 19. For some of these numbers the name for the second digit is a familiar counting number, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19. For 13 and 15, the name you say before saying “teen” is not really a counting number. You don’t say threeteen or fiveteen, but you write a three or five as the second digit.

Then you have 10, 11,and 12, which have names that are totally independent of what you write. If they followed the pattern of 14, 16, and the others, the name for 10 would be zeroteen; 11 would be oneteen; 12 would be twoteen. Also, if all the teens were regular, 13 would be threeteen and 15 would be fiveteen.

Even though the pattern for the teen numbers is very lumpy, at best, let’s say that we work on it until children are super firm in writing numbers from dictation and reading teen numbers.

Have they learned solid foundations for place value? Unless they work on other two-digit numbers, the answer has to be no. Here’s the test. We tell them, “You’re going to write a number you have written before. This number has two parts, but does not have a one in it. Write the number 75. Remember, write two parts—a part for 70 and a part for 5.”

What are the odds of them writing it correctly? Given that the children don’t know how to write 70, they wouldn’t write 570 (the 5 before the 70.) They might write 57. They might forget the ban against using 1 and write 517 (thinking that the 10 in 70 is really 17). But they would have absolutely no basis for knowing that the 7 was the first digit.

Yet, the conventions that apply to 70–79, apply to 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and all the other decades through 99. So with respect to the relationship of name parts with what you write, which is more generalizable for place value, 70–79 or 10– 19? Clearly, 70—79. It doesn’t have oddball irregular names for 70, 71, and 72 (compared to 10, 11, 12). The name for each digit to write is specified by the name, and they are written in the same order they occur in the name, not in reverse order.

Not only are there problems with the relationship of name to the order of digits. Children can’t really learn much about place value for base ten numbers before they learn a range of two-digit numbers. If they become familiar with all numbers to 100, it is now possible to show them how the digits relate to place value. The rule we present is simply that the first digit tells the number of tens. The second digit tells the number of ones.

Now it’s just a question of presenting examples like 56, 34, 81, 27, and 13, and asking the children:

How many tens? How many ones?

If children can write and read the numbers correctly, this relationship is pretty easy to teach. But if the only numbers that children work with are 10–19, it doesn’t make a lot of sense because the number of tens is no variable. There’s always one ten. So this is a poor foundation because it doesn’t show the relationship between the number of tens (the first digit) and the number of ones (the second digit). In other words, the only reasonable foundation for place value is the understanding that both digits of the numeral tell about groups. The first digit specifies the number of groups that have ten; the second digit specifies the number of groups that have one.

I haven’t presented viable arguments and critiques about any of the actual standards for K, but I have pointed out enough slop to suggest why at least some of the actual standards would be distasteful. Most of this distastefulness results from the committee’s strange notions of how children learn. The standards clearly follow the Piagetian myth that children first manipulate then internalize the manipulations, which slowly grows into “concrete operations,” and later into “abstractions” or formal operations.

It does not work that way, and manipulatives are an instructional nightmare in K. The products—what children actually learn from manipulation activities—are trivial compared to what could be taught directly in the same amount of time. This fact implies the fundamental problem with these and other standards for the early grades. Committees keep writing standards that are not based on empirical evidence of what children are able to learn about math and the specific technical details of instruction that cause the learning.

Until those who create standards for the early grades let go of superstition and start looking at facts of performance, math standards continue to be a potpourri that includes standards that are perfectly reasonable both in terms of what is teachable and what is necessary for good math instruction, and nonsense standards that instructional programs have to incorporate if these programs are to be adopted by all the states that have bought into the latest distasteful standards.

Author: Zig Engelmann, author of Direct Instruction, reprinted with permission from the author, http://www.zigsite.com/index.htm

Numeracy is Everywhere!

Educators of young children know that early literacy skills are an important foundation for each child’s success. Today there is a similar and urgent awareness with respect to the importance of numeracy. Early numeracy skills are the building blocks for children to make sense of their surroundings, creating a solid foundation not only in mathematics but also in science, social studies, and technology.

Children demonstrate an innate curiosity and interest in mathematics. As they explore their physical world, they are demonstrating their enjoyment of early informal experiences with mathematics. Children are ready to expand and deepen their conceptual knowledge through the guidance and encouragement of adults who create enriched mathematical environments in the home, preschool and daycare setting. Teachers should be eager to provide numeracy opportunities by enhancing a child’s natural interests and varying their experiences. They provide mathematical language, materials, and researched-based strategies; giving children ample time to explore, discover, and learn new concepts. Special Educators have  additional knowledge and skills to provide specialized instruction that supports and challenges individual children.

The joint position of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2010) affirms  ”that high-quality, challenging, and accessible mathematics education for 3- to 6-year-old children are a vital foundation for future mathematics learning. In every early childhood setting, children should experience effective, research-based curriculum and teaching practices. Such high-quality classroom practice requires policies, organizational supports, and adequate resources that enable teachers to do this challenging and important work.”

Numeracy is everywhere! However, this does not mean preschoolers’ acquisition of math skills can be haphazard, unsystematic or left to chance. High-quality learning during the preschool years is often informal. Mathematics needs to be thought provoking, giving children multiple opportunities for active learning across a variety of settings that are rich in mathematical language.

“The message that more talk about math may have the potential to increase children’s math skills is a simple one, but one that holds promise for increasing the preparedness of large numbers of young children for the challenges they will face in elementary school and beyond” (Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenocher, Vasilyeva, and Hedges 2006). Mathematical language is vital to a preschooler’s cognitive development. There is a significant relationship between a preschooler’s growth of mathematical knowledge when mathematical language is embedded continuously and consciously into everyday activities.

Teachers share in the excitement as children learn and develop positive attitudes toward mathematics. When appropriate materials are strategically placed in interest areas, children as individuals or in groups are able to manipulate, explore, experiment, create and integrate mathematics concepts. Teachers support high interest areas by modeling mathematical vocabulary, connecting current mathematical skills and introducing new experiences and concepts. Through the use of a researched-based curriculum, teachers will acquire strategies and activities to enrich the classroom and promote the engagement of children in their learning. It is also imperative to keep parents involved and empower them with knowledge and skills to expand mathematical experiences at home and in the community.

Number sense and operations, geometry, measurement, algebra and data analysis have been identified as core areas of study from preschool through high school. Within each of these areas, there is a broad range of developmental skills teachers need to understand to support and assess the diversity present in all learners. As with literacy, children do not learn mathematics in compartmentalized areas or at specific times. Literacy enhances all the areas of study in mathematics. It is important to strategically place books in your interest centers around the classroom in order to integrate literacy and numeracy.

Below is a description of these areas and a few suggestions to supplement and reinforce the numeracy activities already in your classroom.

Number Sense and Operations – Understanding, identifying and expressing numbers and number words, ways to represent numbers, relationships among numbers, addition and subtraction. Of all the standards, number concepts are easily recognized in the preschool setting.

• Music, rhyme, finger plays, chants and action songs engage children through the use of multiple learning modalities.

• Objects within all interest centers encourage counting, both rote and 1:1 correspondence.

• Number books and materials with printed numbers (spinners, menus, telephones, cash registers, etc.) encourage number recognition.

• Writing tools (markers, crayons, white boards, paints, etc.) give children experience in writing numbers. Emphasis should be placed on the concept of numeral representation vs. accurate formation of the number.

• Identify and name numbers; increase awareness that written numerals convey the idea of quantity.

• The idea of quantity can be developed through activities that allow children to count or group objects in sets. Playing games with dice, dominoes and playing cards helps children to recognize sets without counting (subsidizing).

• Compare two sets of objects so children learn to determine which set has more, less, fewer, or the same.

• Manipulate objects by taking them apart and putting them together will emphasize whole/part relationship. (Cutting pretend pizza into four pieces then making it whole again.)

• Use ordinal numbers in daily routines that emphasize order of numbers e.g. Johnny is first, Kathie is second….

• Combine or remove objects to create new sets to introduce the idea of more or less (adding and subtracting).

Geometry – Explore, identify and describe two- and three-dimensional shapes, manipulate and combine shapes, and describe spatial relationships. Mathematical vocabulary is important to use as children play, create and explore. This draws attention to geometric concepts.

• Block areas naturally encourage children to explore and manipulate shapes with two and three dimensions.

• Art materials encourage children to create and explore shapes and spatial relationships (popsicle sticks, cardboard tubes, egg cartons, boxes, buttons, cookie cutters, paint, brushes and paint rollers of varying sizes, sponges, finger paint).

• Play dough and other moldable materials allow hands to create  different shapes.

• Games give opportunities to sort, match, identify and label shapes. (‘Going on a Shape Hunt’ or ‘I Spy’)

• Use of descriptive words in the classroom increases awareness of shapes and size in the environment (the table is a circle, cereal boxes are rectangles, Papa’s shoe is big, my shoe is little).

• Technology allows children to easily interact with shapes in a unique manner.

• Obstacle courses reinforce the concepts of: in, on, behind, through, and under, over, in front of, in between, on top of, and next to.

• Snack can be a time for introducing geometry. Fold napkins into shapes, cut sandwiches in squares, rectangles or triangles. Use foods like pretzels or licorice to make shapes.

• Toys such as puzzles and shape sorters encourage activities related to transformation.

Measurement – Use simple measurement vocabulary and tools to strengthen knowledge of such attributes as length, volume, weight, area and time. Use knowledge to compare and order objects. Children use measurement vocabulary and concepts informally to describe their surroundings and are ready to expand their experiences and learning in this area.

• Use rulers, measuring tapes, yardsticks for measurement.

• Use a variety of materials to create units of measure (building blocks, linking cubes, yarn, ribbon, or a child’s foot print).

• Use measuring cups and spoons as tools in the sand and water tables.

• Use nesting cups for size and predicting skills.

• Estimate how many cups of water it will take to fill up a bowl.

• Put tape on the floor and measure a broad jump.

• Arrange containers in the kitchen area by size.

Algebra – Identify, create and extend patterns visually, auditorially, and motorically. In a young child’s environment, patterns and changes are all around them. Reinforcement of early algebra concepts is a key to basic math understanding.

• Create patterns with blocks, beads, linking cubes, seasonal items (leaves), teddy bear counters.

• Create patterns with foods (goldfish/m&m/goldfish/m&m)

• Extend patterns – ABA, ABB, ABC.

• Find patterns in fabric, wallpaper, rugs, scarves, etc.

• Read books that illustrate patterns! (Three Billy Goats Gruff: Trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap)

• Sing nursery rhymes and chants.

• Encourage body Percussion: stomping, clapping hands or knees (Miss Mary Mack, Mack, Mack)

• Use instruments to make patterns (rhythm sticks, drums, maracas, bells, sand blocks)

Data Analysis – Collecting, organizing and representing data to draw conclusions. When children learn how to collect, organize and interpret information about their world, they are developing reasoning skills to solve problems and make decisions.

• Describe and compare attributes

• Use Yes/No Charts

• Organize data through charts and graphs to draw conclusions.

(Who is here today? Who had milk or juice for snack? What is your favorite color?)

• Use materials for simple data representation (pictures, blocks, name cards, tally marks, poker chips, clothes pins, etc.)

• Categorize (farm animals vs. zoo animals)

There are countless ways to make your classroom rich in numeracy experiences. As your children’s confidence in mathematics grows, their interests and competence will also grow!

Authors: Mary James and Kathleen Sciurba, Jordan School District

A Summary of Nine Key Studies: Multi-Tier Intervention and Response to Interventions For Students Struggling in Mathematics

What is Response to Intervention? What is a multi-tiered intervention system?

Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn (2008) provide a working definition of Response to Intervention (RTI) and the multi-tiered system of instruction in critical areas such as reading and mathematics:

“The context for preventing academic difficulty in the schools has changed over the past 5 years with the introduction of multi- tiered prevention systems. Adapted from the health care system, school-based multi-tier prevention systems typically involve three tiers. The first tier is research-principled or validated classroom instruction. Students who are deemed at-risk for difficulty with the classroom program, usually on the basis of screening near the beginning of the school year, also receive a second tier of prevention, using a standard, validated small-group tutoring protocol (that can be expected to benefit most students). Only students who prove unresponsive to classroom instruction and to tutoring are referred for a comprehensive evaluation to consider the possibility of a disability that requires a third, more individualized tier of prevention, usually special education. Because such a multi-tier prevention system involves assessing students’ responsiveness to intervention (RTI), it is conventionally referred to as an RTI prevention system…”

At its core, Response to Intervention (RTI) is invariably coupled with multi- tiered interventions in academic and social domains. A strong multi-tier RTI model requires:

• use of evidence-based practices in classroom instruction so that a minimal number of students will struggle to learn the content;

• regular screening of all students using valid and reliable measures to see which students require additional support in their regular classrooms in core academic areas such as reading/language arts and mathematics;

• use of preventative methods (typically small group instruction/ tutoring) for the students requiring additional assistance. This type of in-class support or tutoring is called Tier 2 intervention;

• regular use of formative assessments to ensure that these students are progressing (progress monitoring); and

• use of valid diagnostic tests as part of a comprehensive evaluation of a student’s strengths and weaknesses to guide instructional planning.

An overarching goal of the tiered RTI prevention system is the use of evidence-based practices across all tiers of intervention. This goal has not yet been fully reached in any field, which is particularly true in the area of mathematics. However, a good deal of progress has been made recently, especially in terms of measures to use for universal screening, and effective Tier 2 preventative interventions for students in the primary grades.

The purpose of this summary

This summary of nine studies provides information about evidence-based practices for Tier 2 interventions and how to use RTI in mathematics. It gives a critical technical analysis and review of research on RTI and multi- tiered instructional systems. In an earlier Center on Instruction publication, we described valid and reliable measures for early screening and identification of students with mathematics disabilities and systems for progress monitoring in mathematics (Gersten, Clarke, & Jordan, 2007).

Research articles are often hard to read and filled with irrelevant information. With the reauthorization of IDEA, state and local school officials have been given permission to use Response to Intervention as one way to help students in need of instructional intervention and to identify those students who need further services. Interest in Response to Intervention has increased tremendously as a result, especially in Title I schools. This summary will help inform those who are interested in this field about the most current research available.

FIRST AND SECOND GRADE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 INSTRUCTION 

Two studies are presented, with conclusions

THIRD GRADE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 INSTRUCTION

A recent survey asked algebra teachers to describe the major deficiencies that they see in students who enter algebra classes ill-prepared (Zimmer, Christina, Hamilton, & Weber Prine, 2006). The two major issues that surfaced were (a) a lack of understanding of fractions, ratio, and proportion, and (b) an ability to transfer word problems into mathematical expressions or equations.

The interventions described in these four articles attempt to teach at-risk third graders to translate word problems into mathematical equations. The first study describes, and evaluates the effectiveness of, a Tier 1 intervention, a curriculum program taught to all students to address a common problem, that is, the relatively poor level of proficiency in translating word problems into mathematical expressions.

The next three studies examined Tier 2 interventions that addressed the same topic, but did so with much more intensive, small group instruction. These interventions were only used for students who demonstrated weak mathematics performance at the beginning of the year. Taken together, these studies presented a picture of a multi-tiered intervention system attacking a major problem area in mathematics.

Authors: Rebecca Newman-Gonchar, Benjamin Clarke, Russell Gersten,  Instructional Research Group. Reprinted, with permission, the Center on Instructional Research Group, the Florida Center for Reading Research, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston; and the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at the University of Texas at Austin. The contents of this document were developed under cooperative agreement S283B050034 with the U.S. Department of Education

Download this entire research study HERE> 

“What We Have Learned!”

As a special education teacher, I am challenged each school year with a math class of diverse abilities and disabilities as well as with different ages, gender, and grade levels. One of the main issues we encountered in our class was the dissimilar academic level of each student, and our ability to create an atmosphere of individual academic success for all our students. Most of them have Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s), but some do not. The latter are behind their peers only in math, and have been placed in our classroom via recommendations from their regular education teachers, our principal, or our Special Education Team to assist them in the attempt to catch up with their peers (RtI in action). Our students with IEP’s run the gamut from those who are classified mild/moderately learning disabled, to the occasional student having severe and profound disabilities. They include the 4th through the 8th grades. In addition to myself, we have one to two paraprofessionals assisting in our individual instruction math class each term.

Our school is the John Hancock Charter School, a public charter as well as a Core Knowledge school. Our regular classroom core curricular materials include the Saxon Math system, Singapore Math, as well as several other selections that are classroom-tested and research-based. Currently, we include sample tests of the statewide math assessment for everyone. John Hancock Charter School has aligned with the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)–all with the goal to meet the individual needs of our students, and to reach AYP on the annual state-wide assessments.

Human Resources

I have always been intrigued by the art as well as the science involved in educating the exceptional student. Throughout my teaching career, I have looked to exemplary programs and master, award winning teachers who share their “best practices”. I have been inspired by many of these educators. Although some of their ideas don’t always fit our unique classroom situation, I have found numerous tools that work well with my special need students. Rafe Esquith, one of the recent Disney American Teacher of the Year award honorees, has been a role model for me. He is a fifth grade teacher in an inner city school who brings a special kind of passion and innovation to the field of teaching. I highly recommend any of his three books listed later to “light your fire” to be the best possible teacher you can be. Others who have had a profound effect on our classroom are . . . Dr. Stanley Pogrow, who urges teachers to use “drama” in their daily instruction; Dr. Frank Wang, a math guru who uses his “compelling story of his transformation from an overlooked, underperforming student to a mathmatics PhD teacher and CEO of a major mathmatics publishing company;” Donalyn Miller, author of the The Book Whisperer, who inspired me to have my math students read a book when they finish doing their math lessons (we require our math students to bring a book and water bottle to class each morning); Doug Lemov, author of Teach Like a Champion, who has not only a book but a DVD detailing the methods and skills of the champion teacher; and by the editors and authors of The Utah Special Educator and Teaching Exceptional Children journals, and the online journal The Essential Educator. I impatiently wait for each month or season that brings the new issues, and the information they present to help me lift my students. Through these professionals, we have lifted not only our students, but ourselves professionally to assist us to be the very best we can be in our classroom.

Putting It All Together

We decided that we could meet the needs of each child by doing the following:

• teaching with passion and creativity

•  having a strongly organized daily lesson structure

•  giving substantial and immediate attention to the needs of each child

•  reducing what we were requiring during each class lesson (one completed lesson per class)

•  incorporating computer technology in both presentation and as part of the math lesson

We have included a daily warm-up exercise activity for the students to transition from other activities to math instruction. We use white boards (large wall as well as individual ones of various sizes) to help solve their most difficult equations. This idea was gleaned from the US Military Academy at West Point who have all their cadets solve their math equations at the wall board in their classrooms. We have reconfigured our classroom by removing group tables and replacing them with individual desks, and there has been a marked improvement in both math accuracy and production. Because we have students at different levels, we have students bring their regular classroom assigned books to read after completion of their daily desk work. In addition, we play classical baroque music during our desk work lessons to assist our students during their study time. This idea came from our school’s participation in Quantum Learning. It has made a difference in our results.

Several years ago we began to utilize the Utah Education Network (UEN) interactive websites for math grades 3rd through the 8th after they complete the daily math lesson from their textbooks. Recently, we have utilized the Timez Attack web program for multiplication improvement. For positive reinforcement for a job well done, we use rewards that do not involve food or candy. We use pencils, pens, erasers, and other safe play related items to present to the students for a job well done.

During the month of April, our students return to their regular classrooms to prepare for the math section of the state core exam. We have had some of our students raise two to three grade levels during their time with us, with all improving at least one level. Although we do not think we have all the answers to our situation, we think we are on the right track to raising our exceptional students’ learning levels and creating successful experiences in math.

Author: John N. Kernan, EdD,John Hancock Charter School, Pleasant Grove, UT

Counting Objects – a Free Math Resource for Teachers Of Students with Disabilities

The ability to count a specific number of objects and counting objects in random order are basic skills that are essential for continued progress in math instruction and for life skills. Also, the ability to demonstrate one-to-one correspondence is a skill needed for early literacy. We know from research that teaching these skills involves systematic instruction with prompt fading procedures (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Harris, 2008).

The Utah Personnel Development Center has worked with Alan Hofmeister, Ph.D. and Davis School District to republish some researched-based, highly effective public domain lesson plans for teaching these skills. The materials are available in a spiral-bound book that contains ten scripted, direct instruction lessons. These lessons help the student progress from the skill of sliding and counting pencils on a sheet of paper to counting objects in any array of random placements. The materials also contain specific instructions on motivation, fading assistance, and error correction procedures. Included in the book is a DVD that shows an instructor teaching each lesson as well as ready-to-use games for fun applications of the skills that have been mastered. These books are free to Utah teachers.

Contact Cathy Longstroth at cathyl@updc.org. to request your copy. These materials are also available on-line at http://www.updc.org/counting-objects/.

A group of educators at Grantsville High School in Tooele District came back from a conference on professional learning communities (PLC) at the beginning of the year, they began talking about how to more closely align the departments in their school. During their designated meeting time, they started meeting for 20 minutes as a department, then spent the rest of the time as intermingled groups. It allowed the staff at Grantsville High to get a wide range of ideas from different points of view as they were problem solving school issues.

As the problem solving process started, the team made some priorities of issues at their school. They came up with the following five things:

1. Unified grading system
2. Accepting late work
3. Smart Goal
4. PRIDE (School wide expectations) Behavioral and Rewards
5. Intervention Scheduling.  The team focused on a SMART goal and the topic was Numeracy.

The team created an intervention schedule that would not affect the three other schools in Grantsville. They decided that the first 3 minutes of each class would be used as a “Math Bellringer” time school wide.  The teachers would start by giving the students two numbers, which they had to add, subtract, multiply, and divide.  As they checked the scores they learned that many of the students were extremely low in math skills.  So, the next step was to have a more in-depth problem during the 2^nd period of everyday.  The math department provided a power point and explanation of how the problem works (to ensure all teacher understood it). The next step was to conduct school-wide math assessment to check for effectiveness.

The following are the equations left on the board in every room:

A + B

A – B

A x B

A / B

A=

B=

A and B are numbers chosen by the teacher every other day for a high school block schedule.  One teacher reported that the intervention has also set up a form of organization, “One day I walked in a few minutes late to class to find the students sitting at their desks, pencils in hand and papers on desks, waiting for the math bellringer.”

What a great example of a “bright spot” in the state of Utah.  The staff at Grantville High are using data for decision making and working through a problem solving process through inter-department collaboration.  Great work!

 Authors: Heidi Mathie Mucha, Program Specialist, UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center), S. LaRenzo DeGraffenreidt, Grantsville High School

In the world that Barbie lives, we can laugh about her math difficulties. Maybe like Barbie, we have had our own difficulties with math, knew someone who felt they had poor math skills, didn’t like math in school, had adverse feelings towards math in school or just couldn’t “get it”.

Why do some kids “get it” and some struggle with basic math skills? Math instruction does not have the extensive research that has benefited literacy instruction, but there is research starting to emerge in mathematics education that will hopefully assist educators to inform their instruction. In the book “Why Is Math So Hard for Some Children? The Nature and Origins of Mathematical Learning Difficulties and Disabilities” edited by Berch and Mazzocco, 2007 various researchers look at the specific characteristics of those students who may have a math learning disability versus those who have difficulty with math. The following article focuses on some of the rich research from the book regarding the definition of a math learning disability, the impact of working memory and the possibility of a connection between a reading learning disability and a math learning disability on a student’s ability to develop math competency.

Some students may struggle with math for a year or two and then the “light” goes on and they move forward. Some students may not respond to initial traditional or classroom instruction. These students might just have a brief developmental delay in acquiring or understanding basic math skills or need more targeted instruction in the general education classroom, but are they learning disabled in math? One of the difficulties in defining or identifying a math learning disability is agreeing on a definition.

One barrier to developing a consistent definition is that math content becomes increasingly difficult as a student moves through his or her schooling. This is to be expected as math requires a wide variety of skills, from the very basic of counting to those of higher reasoning skills used, for example, in analytic geometry. Some students’ cognitive skills may develop slower than their peers, but with targeted and effective instruction in the general curriculum they move ahead. It may be the mathematics material itself. The novelty of new materials may be difficult at first, but when a student masters the material they no longer perform below average. But is not having higher reasoning skills, being slower at the development of basic skills, or having a poor attitude towards math, a basis for a math disability? The research doesn’t answer these questions, yet. Although the research hasn’t resolved many math issues and in some cases lack consensus, there are some areas that research has come to a consensus.

One area of consensus from the research is the importance of memory, especially working memory on math competency. There is strong evidence which suggests that a student with a suspected math learning disability has difficulty with working memory. Working memory is the ability to hold a mental representation of information in the mind while simultaneously being engaged in other mental processes. In other words, working memory is the ability to retrieve information while being distracted in some capacity. A typical working memory task is digit span…repeating numbers forward and then in reverse. Working memory increases from preschool through elementary school. A preschooler can typically hold three or four number words in working memory, whereas a fourth grader can hold five to six number words in working memory (pg. 110). The ability to do this memory task is related, beyond development issues, to strategies such as rehearsal, concentration or attention skills, and speed of processing information. The student may have difficulty concentrating on the task at hand or not paying attention to the skill required. A student with a suspected math disability struggles with retrieving numbers and makes many more errors than his or her peers. A student with an overall poor or weak working memory uses immature developmental problem-solving strategies (e.g. finger counting). A student with a suspected math learning disability continues to rely heavily on finger counting skills through the elementary grades, which may then contribute to more procedural errors. In contrast a student who does not have a math learning disability or difficulty will master and use more mature problem solving strategies. These skill deficits related to working memory do not appear to improve as a student with a suspected math disability moves through his or her schooling.

There is consensus that the building of a student’s fluency in basic math skills can have a positive impact and be the most productive and effective math instruction. This skill can be improved or reinforced with as little as 10 minutes a day of instruction. A student’s ability to retrieve basic math facts with fluency and accuracy is crucial to a student’s ability to problem solve and to understand math concepts (pg. 16).

Solving math word problems requires diverse skills and these skills are required whether a student reads a math word problem or the teacher reads a math problem to the student. A student must be able to perform numerical operations, hold verbal information in memory, understand relevant vocabulary, access previous information and then use the information to solve the word problem. Reading may or may not have a significant impact on acquiring mathematics skills. What research shows, is that a student‘s reading difficulties may aggravate math difficulties and that early difficulties in reading may predict difficulties in math. (pg. 117)

Finally, like Barbie, many of us may have had our own personal experiences with math acquisition. We may have had students who say they “just don’t get it” or “why do I need math” or say how much they “dislike math”. A negative attitude towards math is not new and seems to start as early as 2nd grade. Berch and Mazzacco’s book reports that 35% of second graders saw math as hard as compared to 10% who saw reading as difficult (pg. 39). How much of an impact a negative attitude has towards learning math is still up for debate, but it can present a barrier to learning.

In the Berch and Mazzacco book many more issues are addressed which may impact math such as language, cognitive issues and gender. It is fascinating reading and an excellent starting point to understand the multiple variables required for math learning and instruction. But regardless of what research supports or doesn’t support, the one constant that is supported by research is this: one textbook, one methodology, or one instructional approach will not be effective for all students. Multiple strategies, perspectives and approaches will be needed to effectively and equally instruct all students as they prepare to move into the world of college and career.

Source: Daniel B.Berch and Michele M. Mazzocco, eds. Why is math so hard or some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Brookes 2007 Baltimore, MD

Author: Janet Gibbs, Specialist, Utah State Office of Education

District professional development responds to secondary common core math needs

In a recent interview, Kristine A. Cunningham, Math Coordinator for Washington County School District (WCSD), gave insight to the ongoing effort to support secondary math teachers as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Mathematics are implemented (her words are enclosed in quotes in this article). The district has created a professional development model that looks at the current level of student performance and provides direct support to teachers to broaden their knowledge and enhance teaching skills. Although not a curriculum, the expectations of the CCSS, with more problem-solving in a real world context, are addressed in the training. It follows the recommendations of current research showing a correlation to the number of hours teachers receive in training to a boost in student achievement (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, Shapley, 2007).

The district’s project started in 2009-2010 and continued last year in response to the need for a collaborative approach with special education and general education teachers.  Less than half of WCSD students with disabilities scored below the proficient mark on the statewide assessment results and more than an acceptable amount of general education high school student were not making proficiency in Algebra and Geometry. Monthly study groups were created for high school math teachers (special education, algebra, geometry) to improve their instructional practices. As a result of this effort, the number of students scoring proficient on the Secondary Math CRT has increased.

This school year (2011-2012) brought new focus as the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics was implemented in to grades 6, 8 and 9. Core Academies were held in the summer, but the ongoing support from district personnel helps answer the many questions that arise during this phase of implementation. Special education teachers are part of this training. Photos are from a recent training session where Wayne Watson, a Washington County Senior Volunteer and Consultant/Specialist for Johns Hopkins University gave instruction to the teachers.

Question : How does special education fit into this district project?

“With the implementation of the Common Core, we realized we had to do something to meet the needs of the special education students. So, with a committee of some math teachers, and some input from special education teachers, we came up with a matrix that looked at the performance of special education students, so that the kids that actually manifested they needed the extra help were getting it. It just wasn’t because they were lazy or not doing their homework. Those students are in a general education math class and then they have a math support class. It helps scaffold what they are learning. Every school does it a little bit differently because it depends on the level of math, but what generally happens is that a special education teacher comes into the classroom with the general education math teacher. Some of them are comfortable co-teaching and some of them aren’t, but they at least see what the kids are learning. In a lot of cases, they are learning and getting the information and then when the students have a support class, the special education teachers know what their homework is and they know how the teacher taught it. This is mostly happening in the middle schools with the 8^th and 9^th grades.

With the high stakes testing, it’s not feasible to require the special education teachers to go back and get all their qualifications in all subjects. Who would want to teach special education if we required all of that?  In reality, that’s not going to happen. We have to find a way for them to feel successful. The highly qualified teacher teaches the content and special education teacher helps support it. Their gifts, strengths and their special education training come in to help us.”

How does the Support Class work?

“Students can get help with their homework, or get help clarifying concepts because the teacher has seen the lesson. Maybe (the teacher will) reteach what the student didn’t get and they can address what the IEP says, so if a student needs help with multiplication facts, then that’s part of the support class. It’s not just a study hall. It needs structure. I’ve told the support teachers that a good rule of thumb is to change the activities every 20 minutes because brain research indicates that we need to ‘chunk and chew’ in order to learn. Students best remember the beginning and the end of a lesson, so you need to create a lot of beginnings and ends so they will retain the information. The challenge for math teachers is to limit the amount of lecture and instead create those beginnings and ends. So, if they ‘chunk and chew,’ they spend 20 minutes on re-teaching something the students were unsure of, 20 minutes practicing it and then 20 minutes of homework or maybe 20 minutes on something else they didn’t get – like multiplication facts. It’s a lot easier management-wise and students retain more of what we want them to learn. Teachers must provide lots of structure. Although there are still a few kinks, we’re on the right track.”

How do the Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) help facilitate this effort?

“A special education teacher is identified to be the 8^th grade math person and will adjust the schedule to go into the general education class. Because of curriculum mapping in our building PLCs, all the math teachers are at the same place (in the curriculum). They all have their own teaching styles, but all of the information is the same. And, so the special education teacher only sees one 8^th grade math class, but is able to help all the 8^th grade students. They do it for 9^th grade, too. An accommodations we have made at our school, Dixie Middle School, is when the special education teacher works with the general education teachers to implement the goals and expectations of the IEP. They have a better idea of what the IEP says – perhaps the student doesn’t have to do the full assignment or something else. When the special education teacher signs on the top (of the assignment), we know this is acceptable for a full assignment because of our collaboration in PLCs. Or, we’ll give them regular credit for the assignment. There are a lot of conversations to see that the students’ needs are met. These decisions are made in the PLC.”

Systemic and ongoing professional development is the key to improved student achievement. Last year’s district CRT math results showed an increase in the number of secondary students who reached the proficient mark – a noble goal of any targeted professional development plan. Collaboration, training and looking at the data provides the momentum for continual growth in teacher skills and helps facilitate better student achievement.  For this purpose, Washington County School District is addressing the needs of students and teachers by providing targeted ongoing support in the area of secondary mathematics.

Author: Peggy Childs, Program Specialist, UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center)

Mapping the Utah Math Common Core

Granite School District is going through some big changes in the area of mathematics. Not only has our district adopted the Common Core State Standards for Math (CCSSM), we are also adopting one math curriculum district-wide for all students beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. With all of these changes in our district comes a tremendous opportunity for general education and special education teachers to work together to help all students achieve in mathematics.

To help special education teachers better understand the CCSSM I took the K-5 math domains and created a vertical alignment chart, a Special Education K-5 Scope and Sequence. K-5 standards are placed together because they have the same domains. Beginning in sixth grade the domains are different and align with seventh and eighth grade. The Scope and Sequence allows teachers to see more clearly the progression of the skills throughout the grade levels.

Download K-5 Scope & Sequence by clicking here

The Scope and Sequence is set up for special education teachers who work with students in conjunction with the general education math classes. The focus is on the standards that are the foundational skills students need to succeed in math. The standards that are not included will be covered in the students’ general education classes. The vertical alignment of the standards allows a teacher to identify the grade level skill the student requires and back up to locate the instructional level. The teacher then can link all of the prerequisite skills needed before the grade level skill can be obtained. This alignment has not only assisted our special education teachers in developing appropriate IEP goals, it has also allowed general education teachers to gain a better understanding of the prerequisite skills necessary for students to acquire before they can attempt to gain full understanding of grade level skills.

Download 6th Grade Scope & Sequence by clicking here

Now that our district will be offering one math curriculum for all students I created a “Teaching Flowchart” to help facilitate the multi-tiered system of support that we have in place for all students in Granite District. This is a visual for teachers to see how the systems of support should work in their schools. The color coding is an essential part of the flowchart to enhance everyone’s understanding of how and when supports may be implemented for students. Green is Tier One Instruction, yellow is Tier Two Instruction, and red is Tier Three Instruction.

Download Teaching Flowchart by clicking here

To begin, the general education teacher administers a Prerequisite Skills Inventory. This will help the teacher to identify any skills that the student may not have from the previous grade. Students who have missing prerequisite skills can be put into a small group that addresses those skills or they may use a computer program to work on the identified skills. Students having the necessary prerequisite skills would move on to the Chapter Pre-Test. This test will identify the skills needed for that specific chapter. If students are in need of additional help for the chapter, they would join the intervention groups that are listed on the chart in yellow. Those students not needing extra assistance would follow either the independent work group (also coded in yellow), or the advanced learners group, which would be provided additional enrichment opportunities, (coded in yellow as well).

The students who have gone through Tier One math time (green groups), have received interventions (yellow groups), and are still demonstrating deficits would then move to an Intensive Intervention Group. This group is coded in red and is most likely taught by the special education teacher. Students in this group are missing foundational skills that they have not mastered from previous grades. The teacher would then teach the skills at the student’s instructional level.

This Scope and Sequence, along with attention to the Teaching Flowchart and Systems of Support, will have a long-term and positive impact on the progression of math skills in our district.

 Author: Becky Unker, Granite District Elementary Special Education Math Specialist

Comprehensive information and Common Core standards are available HERE> http://www.uen.org/commoncore/

How Tier I Instruction, Collaboration, and Focused Professional Development has Increased Student Achievement in Salt Lake District

Jessica, a second grade special education student at Parkview Elementary, draws circles, makes a “math mountain” and then correctly writes an equation on her white board for the following story problem:

Taleigha had 12 pencils.  She lost some.  Now she has 5.  How many pencils did she lose?

Jessica compares her work to her partner and then they both raise their hands. In the past, this would have been an extremely difficult problem for Jessica. She is successful due to high expectations, collaboration between the special education teacher and general education teacher, and a common curriculum, all students have access to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in math.

As Utah transitions to the Utah Common Core, collaboration between general education and special education will become more essential. Salt Lake City School District transitioned to the CCSS in grades K-2 last year, (2010-2011) and is working toward all students having a deeper understanding of mathematics. Based on the recommendation from the Utah State Office of Education, sixth grade began implementation of the Utah Common Core this year as well. Instead of complaining, special education and general education teachers are embracing the new standards. The implementation of the Common Core for both general and special education in Salt Lake District has been successful as the academic mathematics coaches assist schools to focus on these three areas: ALL students receiving Tier 1 instruction, collaboration among all teachers, and focused professional development.

Tier I Instruction

Teachers must believe that all students can succeed. When teachers believe that some students cannot achieve higher levels due to environmental factors or learning disabilities, the standards are relaxed and the curriculum is often watered down. The CCSS stresses high standards for all students when it states, “…all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the knowledge and skills necessary in their post-school lives. The Standards should be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outset, along with appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs” (p. 4).

Academic coaches play an important role to make sure that ALL students receive Tier 1 instruction with the same math goal for each lesson. Working together, coaches and teachers discuss content objectives, instructional strategies, and appropriate accommodations that result in all students working toward mastery of the Core. An example of how this has been successful includes choosing problems that can be solved using various strategies. Teachers anticipate how students might work on the problem and discuss what solution strategies they will want to have students share with the class. During the lesson, teachers orchestrate when to have whole class and small group discussions. This is not trivial and teachers who have mastered this art know how to have students engaged in meaningful math conversations. Meaningful math discourse, also known as math talk, needs to be part of every math class.  Students communicate about their thinking, explain their strategies, and defend their reasoning. The more students discuss the math, the more they ‘own’ the concepts themselves.  Also, teachers can more easily adjust instruction when they listen to student thinking.  This is a great informal assessment strategy teachers can use to identify what students understand and what misconceptions they have. It is also important to mention that administrators, teachers, and coaches also work together to make sure sufficient Tier 1 instructional time is scheduled (60 – 90 minutes each day).

Collaboration between General Education and Special Education Teachers

Many Salt Lake City elementary schools participate in weekly grade level collaborative meetings, often facilitated by academic coaches.  It goes without saying that strong collaboration among teachers makes a difference in student success. The schools that also include special education teachers in collaborative meetings have even more success. Emily Berry, a self-contained Academic Support teacher at Backman Elementary, explains “Being part of the collaborative meetings this year has allowed me to learn new math concepts from more experienced teachers, plus it lets the team recognize I have something to offer as well. The team realizes my students can do more than just work on basic skills. The teachers have shared their Smartboard lessons that I didn’t even know existed. I now give the same assessments they do and make sure my students are given the chance to learn the same core as their peers.”

As much as possible, collaborative meetings provide time for teachers to discuss curriculum, instructional strategies, and common assessments. Upcoming lessons are analyzed, and often during this time, special education teachers add valuable insights to differentiation while the general education teacher “unpacks the math.”  When common assessment data are analyzed to determine who will receive additional Tier 2 instruction for specific objectives, all team members are responsible to provide this support for their students.

Focused Professional Development

In the past, professional development had great mathematics content and pedagogy, but teachers had to make it fit in with the textbook or other resources they were using. Currently in Salt Lake District, we have adopted a common program that allows us to facilitate conversations that tightly align both the content and pedagogy with our implemented program. This is extremely important due to the high mobility rate in the district. Using the same curriculum and sticking to pacing guides, students that move frequently can easily pick up where they were. This may seem small, however, when students move, there is little lost when teachers are using common strategies, models, and vocabulary. All students are taught what are referred to as “Accessible Algorithms.”  Math Expressions, the program adopted in Salt Lake District, provides a set of algorithms, or computational procedures, that research has shown to be highly accessible and meaningful to all learners. The area model, or rectangular sections method, is one effective algorithm. Double digit multiplication, which was once a confusing algorithm, is now doable and understood by more students. Another accessible algorithm called, “new groups below” for addition, has students put the new ten at the bottom of the equation rather than the top. This simple change in a traditional algorithm has helped many students who often reverse the order of digits. For examples and more explanations about accessible algorithms, please visit eduplace.com at the following URL: http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g4/algorithms/

Professional development is the catalyst for taking the vision mentioned throughout this article to reality. It is one thing to have this vision, it is another to implement and sustain the vision. The coaching initiative is our primary professional development and includes modeling Tier 1 instruction in classrooms, facilitating grade level collaboration meetings, presenting the transition outline of the Common Core in faculty meetings, developing pacing guides and benchmark assessments, and analyzing data with teachers to improve instruction. Implementation of Tier 1 instruction, effective grade level collaborative meetings, and systemic change via professional development are a result of a strong coaching team who share the same goals. It is important that the special education and academic coaches work closely together. They attend the same meetings and have similar goals. All coaches work alongside teachers to develop and implement strategies to increase student learning. Coaching is embedded in teachers’ classroom experiences, focused on examining student work and using research-based practices.

Jessica, who solved the problem about Taleigha and the pencils, knew many strategies to solve the problem.  All of the different strategies she was taught highlighted different attributes of math concepts.  Students in her class use multiple strategies such as “math mountains”, number lines, drawings, and equations to solve real life problems.  With collaboration, strong Tier 1 instruction, and continued focused professional development, all students have access and can be successful with the Common Core State Standards.

 Authors: Kathy Lambert, Academic Mathematics Coach, & Joleigh Honey, Mathematics Supervisor, Salt Lake City School District

Reference:

NCTM Mathematics Teaching Today  2007

Supporting High Expectations for Students with Disabilities

We are the two special education academic support coaches “unofficially” known by our elementary special education self-contained teachers as the “curriculum enforcers” for the Salt Lake City School District. Our positions were created three years ago when Salt Lake City School District leadership adopted the expectation that elementary students with disabilities who were expected to take grade level CRTs at the end of the school year, even those in self-contained programs, would use the district math and language arts curriculum. The expectation was to use the district-adopted curriculum rather than a parallel curriculum regularly taught in special education classrooms. The programs affected by this change included our elementary Academic Support, Behavior Support, and Diagnostic self-contained classrooms.

Our positions as special education academic coaches were created to support elementary special education teachers in self-contained programs. Our role is to help teachers in transitioning to using the district-adopted elementary language arts and math curricula and to assist teachers in understanding the purpose for holding students with disabilities to high expectations in accessing grade level content. Debbie focuses on the lower grades and is assigned to work with the literacy coaches for the district. Brenda focuses on the upper grades and is assigned to work with the math coaches for the district. However, we both support language arts and math in our respective coaching classrooms.

Although our roles have evolved in the past three years, especially with the adoption of the common core for math and language arts, the rationale for teaching grade-level curriculum in special education classes remains constant. District leadership has confidence that the selected math and language arts curricula have effective instructional components as well as supplemental and intensive materials to ensure students with disabilities can be successful. These include:

• Both curricula have a spiraling instructional pattern to provide multiple exposures to essential skills, which support “specialized instruction.”

• Through each spiral, students are able to engage more actively in learning essential concepts and skills to move forward from grade to grade rather than being distracted with a separate scope and sequence from using a special education curriculum.

• Through the supplemental and intensive intervention materials, students are provided with more exposures to the same content being taught in general education classrooms. When students with disabilities are prepared to mainstream from their special education classrooms to their general education grade-level classes, they have had common lessons and are at the same lesson in the materials.

Hugs and Slugs for the “Curriculum Enforcers”

Three years ago, as we introduced ourselves to our hesitant teachers, we recognized the importance of honoring the teachers’ previous work as the first step in implementing system change. Yes, that meant chocolate and nifty office supplies. Bringing a gift as part of initial contact was crucial to laying the foundation for the relationships we would need to develop with our teachers. Hey, when you get a gift, aren’t you more open to new ideas?

Initially in our new positions, we felt at a loss as to where to start. We both had ideas about what we thought the job would look like, only to find out that part of the process was creating our roles to fit our perceptions, as well as the needs of the teachers. First, we needed to make sure all our teachers had access to the evidence-based district level curriculum that was expected to be used. That’s where we got our first set of “slugs”, with comments like, “I didn’t order these materials,” “My kids can’t read this,” “My students can’t do this math,” “You want me to teach three grade levels of materials, are you kidding me?” This began our conversations about high expectations and requirements of accessing grade level core.

Historically, we as special educators felt we had high expectations. The high expectations we had previously embraced were about “hole-filling” deficits based at the students’ current levels of performance. As we began to understand the need for even self-contained students to access grade level core curriculum, we knew we needed to explain this in a meaningful way to the teachers we were coaching. We needed a visual support (like many of our students) to get our heads wrapped around this complex idea and to give us a framework for ongoing discussions about how to make this a doable endeavor. Enter the creation of “Building the Wall of Success”! Our “wall of success” was our way of explaining high and doable expectations for students with disabilities and of showing how the district’s chosen evidence-based programs in math and language arts supported the core curriculum by providing scaffolding and intensive interventions. The capstone is the core standards and objectives. The bricks in the wall are the interventions used to support mastery of essential subskills. As we met with teachers, we explained that as special educators we were no longer full-time interventionists taking a step-by-step approach. Rather, students with disabilities are held to the same accountability goals as the general education population, so it is our obligation as special educators to expose our students to the same CORE for which they are held accountable. In other words, the curriculum focus in classrooms had to change. We began coaching teachers to move from the traditional skills-based approach to teaching to a process-focused approach of specialized instruction, which could have many different ways to get to the end result.

By working with and studying the programs, we have been able to provide a rationale or “buy in” of why we need to continue to move forward and why the curriculum can be accessible.

The Old Instructional Model emphasized the step-by-step mastery of skills before moving onto the next level of instruction locking students into basic facts even into secondary school.

The New Instructional Model emphasizes that students with disabilities often have abilities beyond their basic skill levels. They can think and problem solve when given the opportunity. This may involve going up to go down, multiple pathways for access and sometimes, “shooting them out of a cannon.”

What Self-Contained Academic Coaching looks like . . .

We are lucky to work in a district that has an established academic coaching model in place. Our mission was to join these pre-established teams of content coaches in math and literacy with the purpose of making meaning of their expertise for our self-contained special education classrooms. In the first year, we were unsure of our place and our ability to participate in a knowledgeable and meaningful way in their professional learning communities, yet we needed the expertise of the content coaches if we were going to figure it out for students with disabilities whose placement was in a special class. The process of working collaboratively has not only hugely built our capacity but has had an impact on building capacity of the coaches about students with disabilities. This helped to build the necessary relationships to start meeting the needs of ALL students, including those students who had traditionally had been taught in separate programs.

Becoming part of the district-level academic coaching model and the math and literacy coaches’ professional learning communities also opened the door for accessing the grade level collaborative meetings held at most of our elementary schools. District coaches support classroom teachers at the schools during their grade level collaborative time, where student data and progress are regularly reviewed and discussed. We realized that for self-contained teachers to better understand the math and language arts curriculum and core standards that they needed to better understand grade-level standards. We suggested that teachers choose just ONE grade level to participate with other grade level general education teachers at their schools in order to become more familiar with grade-level expectations and with using student data for instructional decision making. This process built a powerful connection between Tier 1 instruction and scaffolded Tier 1 instruction needed in our self-contained classrooms. As we modeled and coached in the self-contained classrooms, our teachers began using the curriculum with more confidence and fidelity. In addition, we supported them by developing and designing adapted materials and classroom supports for them to use as part of their daily instructional routines to better meet the needs of their students.

At the same time a critical step was to provide self-contained teachers with their own professional development with the continued focus on high expectations for students with disabilities. Self-contained teachers are spread throughout our district and rarely have the opportunity to meet and discuss unique issues specific to special education student needs in implementing district curriculum in a multi-grade classroom. As this difficult work of teaching the core was being implemented, we recognized that the special education teachers needed their own support system in place to expect any kind of success. Monthly meetings have provided special education teachers opportunities to share successes and to address concerns.

Now in our third year, we are really starting to see the fruits of our labor. As expected with a systems change model, teachers are in different places in the implementation process. However, the message remains consistent—special education students must have access to grade level curriculum. We continue to meet our teachers where they are in the process and coach them in implementing the district’s math and language arts curricula. The hugs are when teachers see that their students can access grade level material and become active participants in learning. Our experience has been that when students have access to the general education CORE, they rise to the occasion and find new confidence in their abilities. This enthusiasm is contagious to teachers as well as the other students. When we go to self-contained classrooms, we now regularly see students with disabilities fully engaged in doing grade-level work. This is occurring even as our district is implementing the common core curriculum

Next Steps

The future for students with disabilities offers great prospects. It is exciting to see how the achievement gap continues to close as students in self-contained programs are taught using grade level district curriculum. Each year, our coaching becomes more explicit and focused on addressing the needs of students who need differentiated, specialized instruction in order to progress. We know that not all students will show proficiency in every area at the same level or pace. However, we also know if they don’t get the opportunity to try, how will we know what they can do?

As our district has begun implementing the common core curriculum, our role as special education academic coaches includes support for students with disabilities in common curriculum discussions among all coaches and teachers. There’s still an occasional slug, but the hugs keep coming! We are all on a path to the common goal — student success!

Author: Debbie Palm and Brenda Bates, Self-Contained Academic Coaches, Salt Lake City School District

Helping All Students to Succeed

“If you want to bring about a fundamental change in people’s belief and behavior, a change that will persist and serve as an example to others, you need to create a community around them, where those new beliefs can be practiced and expressed and nurtured.”

Malcolm Gladwell,The Tipping Point (2002) 

Salt Lake City School District is a district rich with diversity, and we celebrate that diversity. Our commitment to students and families is to help all children succeed, and our district leadership team meets regularly to look at district-level data and collaborate between departments to address the achievement gap. As a diverse district, our demographics provide a picture of the opportunities and challenges of closing the achievement gap for students.

Consider the following demographics of Salt Lake City School District:

• The district serves over 24,000 students with over 80 languages being spoken in its schools.
• Within the district’s boundaries, some neighborhoods report over 90% of families and children living in poverty while other neighborhoods feature multi-million dollar homes.
• There are 36 schools in the district: 27 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 3 high schools and one alternative high school. Of the 36 schools, 16 elementary schools and two middle schools are Title 1 schools.
• Students in the Salt Lake City School District hail from around the world. Ethnic minorities make up 53% of our students, and the district serves a significant refugee population from Eastern European or African countries.
• Approximately 60% of our students come from low-income families, and just over 33% of them are learning English as a second language.

District special education demographic data in grades K-8 closely mirror the district’s demographics.

• A total of 12.8% of K-8 students receive special education services.
• The percentage of ethnic minority students receiving special education services (58%) is comparable to the district K-8 ethnic minority population (58.1%).
• Across the district’s 32 elementary and middle schools, 57.4% of the total student enrollment is in Title 1 schools whereas 59.2% of the total K-8 special education students are in Title 1 schools.

However, demographics only tell part of the story for Salt Lake City School District. District leadership collectively accepts its responsibility to hold all schools to high expectations for their students, including students with disabilities. In elementary and middle schools, where students acquire and firm up literacy and numeracy skills, “our story” remains consistent–together we can create a community of learners where new beliefs can be practiced, expressed, and nurtured. This, however, calls for a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2007) and a collective focus between departments, schools, and classrooms. For Salt Lake City School District, creating this focus has involved systematically changing how teaching and learning occur in our schools.

Components of Our Growth Mindset

In shifting to a growth mindset, district leadership recognizes systems change in schools calls for a common message by all departments; we call it “our story”. DuFour, et.al. (2004) refer to the ”story” as communicating a message that all policies, programs, and practices are considered through the lens of  “How does this impact student learning?” For Salt Lake City School District, the message is delivered through the following components, which include district supports, common practices and teacher expectations. Although elementary schools have been the initial target group, these components of a growth mindset are now being extended to secondary schools.

Core Materials

The first component was the adoption of district core materials for elementary language arts (Story Town) and mathematics (Math Expressions). Why district-adopted core materials? The core materials align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The common core materials also ensure that a systematic approach to grade-level core with materials that are available for the range of learners in our classrooms, including special education classrooms. The core materials provide a more seamless experience for students as they move from one grade to the next and help to ensure that students experience increasing complexity in skills taught from one grade to the next. The core materials include evidence-based interventions that align with Tier 1 instruction, critical not only to students with disabilities but other students needing supplemental and intensive support. With the adoption of core materials, the work of coaches and district professional development have become more focused.

Academic Coaches

The second component are the district literacy and math coaches whose roles are to support teachers in using student data for instructional decision making, changing their classroom practice to address all learners, and using formative assessments to adjust instruction. District coaches, including the two special education academic coaches assigned to support self-contained classrooms, provide teachers with school-based modeling in the implementation of the district-adopted language arts and mathematics curriculum, effectively using the targeted instructional times for language arts and math, and maintaining an appropriate level of instructional pacing by using the district-developed pacing guides. The district coaches share our common “story” to all schools and classrooms. This communicates a common and consistent message from the district level to school level to classroom.

Pacing Guides

The literacy and mathematics departments have developed pacing guides to help schools align the work being done in classrooms. The district-developed pacing guides provide benefits for both students and teachers. For our mobile students, the pacing guides help when students move from school to another. They do not miss lessons just because they are now attending a new school. It is important for all students to have access to the entire grade-level core, which is supported by the use of pacing guides. Slowing the introduction of content is not generally an appropriate intervention for struggling learners. Because both language arts and mathematics curriculum have a spiral effect, students have multiple opportunities throughout the scope and sequence for exposure and practice of essential skills.

For teachers, pacing guides help to increase teacher accountability toward peers and students, and they help to ensure that the entire core is taught before CRTs.  Greater teacher accountability occurs with pacing guides, and meaningful collaboration is fostered between teachers at the same grade level and between teachers in different grade levels. Finally, when teachers are working on the same content, they can develop and analyze common assessments and use formative assessments to measure instructional effectiveness.

District Benchmark Assessments in Mathematics and Language Arts

District benchmark assessments, developed by the language arts and mathematics departments, are another component of our growth mindset, and they have helped to monitor student learning of the core throughout the year. Given with appropriate accommodations, the benchmarks provide a check for teachers to see that students are maintaining concepts previously taught and give teachers opportunities for error analysis at both the individual and whole class level.  When teachers meet together, the benchmarks serve as a collaborative tool so teachers can make comparisons and share effective instructional strategies to address learning gaps. For students, the district benchmark assessments provide practice using testing strategies before the summative high-stakes tests.

Monitoring Student Progress and Checking for Understanding

Through professional development, teachers are taught that checking for understanding with students should be an integral part of every lesson. By doing so, student engagement increases as well as greater accountability for lesson outcomes occurs. Checking for understanding provides teachers with immediate feedback on student understanding and allows teachers to adjust instruction to increase student understanding.

To assist teachers in focusing on what mathematics concepts from the core should be mastered at a given time, the mathematics coaches have created Essentials Trackers. The Essentials Trackers align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Each one-page document provides an overview of the unit, using the learning targets as a way to help teachers and students focus on what students should know. Under each target, explicit instructional strategies and tools are listed to define how students should be able to show their understanding. There is also space provided on this page for teachers to check for student understanding, which allows teachers to adjust instruction when students struggle.

Teacher Preparation and Student Engagement Time

Another component of the district’s growth mindset is that teacher preparation is a key element in effective instruction. All teachers are expected to be prepared for their lessons. The expectation includes making professional decisions about the use of core materials. Planning includes: content and language objectives, a variety of appropriate learning activities, questioning and grouping activities, making connections among lessons, incorporating cultural relevance, assessments and checks for understanding, pacing and timing, strategies for engaging students in the content, and being sure that materials are prepared and available.

With appropriate teacher preparation, student engagement increases. Student engagement means that students are actively participating in understanding the lesson content. Teachers are taught that effective student engagement strategies include asking questions and randomly selecting students to respond, having students respond to questions on individual white boards, and asking students to share ideas with a partner or group.

Collaboration

Teacher collaboration is a critical component and form of professional development that employs dialogue with colleagues to improve student learning. In effective collaboration, teachers gain new ways to understand and respond to student work and progress monitoring. Grade level collaboration time occurs regularly in schools, and while teachers are collaborating, students should be involved in meaningful, high-quality content instruction. When academic coaches are involved in collaboration time with grade-level teachers, their role is to facilitate teachers in sharing ideas about student progress and strategies to close achievement gaps. In addition coaches may offer their own contributions, if appropriate. Collaboration time should be structured and focused on student learning by looking at student work, benchmark assessments, progress monitoring, and student needs.

Seeing Results and Looking Toward the Future

Our story is only as effective as the results that are produced.  Our school administrators, teachers, academic coaches, and district departments continue to focus on helping all students succeed. Successes are celebrated for whole school achievements and student group achievements. For example, in 2010-11, one Title 1 school had 84% school-wide proficiency and 84% proficiency for students with disabilities in language arts as well as 81% school-wide proficiency and 84% proficiency for students with disabilities in mathematics. A second non-Title 1 school had 64% school-wide proficiency in language arts and 64% proficiency for students with disabilities with no safe harbor. With both examples the achievement gap is closing.

As our district leadership looks toward the future, supporting schools in the implementation of the mathematics and language arts common core has already begun. With the growth mindset components that we have identified, the task is not as daunting. Rather it is a new opportunity to take on a new challenge of helping all students in Salt Lake City School District succeed.

Authors: Randy Schelble, Director, Exceptional Children Services, Barbara Kuehl, Director, Academic Services & Joleigh Honey, Math Supervisor, Academic Services, Salt Lake City School District

In 2010 as part of the Utah State Board of Education’s, the Board adopted new Utah Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The purpose of the Board’s adoption of the CCSS is to ensure all students, including students with disabilities, are prepared for college and post-secondary training prior to exiting Utah’s public education system. This important and primary Board goal aligns perfectly with the purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which drives the Individual Education Program (IEP) for each eligible student with disabilities. In reviewing the math CRT proficiency data for students with disabilities in Utah from 2008-2011, it is imperative that we revise expectations and instruction in math, in response to the lack of a substantial increase in student proficiency.

These new core standards demand new educational expectations and behaviors for both students and educators. Both general and special educators will need to implement skills placing greater emphasis on embedding analysis, critical thinking, and problem solving in all content areas. Changes in mathematics content structure brings an immediate need to increase educator content knowledge of mathematical properties and understanding of mathematical processes, to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to access and progress in the general curriculum. The Utah CCSS establish grade-specific standards of what students need to learn, they do not dictate how educators should teach, specific interventions, or materials that should be used with students with disabilities. That decision remains the responsibility of schools, educators, parents, and IEP teams, while maintaining and considering the clear expectation that all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the knowledge and skills necessary in their post-school lives. This requires school staff and parents, during IEP meetings, to consider the curriculum standards and skill requirements of the student’s grade, and using those requirements to develop IEPs that address the student’s individual needs. Clearly defined performance standards for all students will aide in closing achievement gaps by ensuring that school personnel, students, and families are working towards the same targeted goals. Please watch for additional information and upcoming professional development opportunities available to Utah special education personnel on math instruction and CCSS for students with disabilities.

 Author: Glenna Gallo,Director of Special Education, Utah State Office of Education

Editors’ Note:

21st Century Skills and 21st Century Learners are not just buzzwords for old concepts in new packages. There is a growing movement of educators and practitioners dedicated to fundamentally changing the way K-12 education is conceptualized and delivered to students through the increased use of technology.  At the same time, the majority of states, including Utah, have adopted the Common Core Standards, a mandate that provides guidance to teachers in increasing academic rigor, in order to increase the global competitiveness of American children and youth.

How do these two major initiatives go together? What are the commonalities, and most importantly, how can educators increase their knowledge and intervention skills to incorporate these important mandates and trends? There are many non-profit organizations (and of course for-profit companies) that are actively pursuing solutions to these questions. One (free) resource is offered here as an example or starting point.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is a coalition of education and businesses who focus on technological solutions for using technology to enhance educational outcomes. Together, they have authored a resource called the Framework for 21st Century Learning, a toolkit to assist educators in implementing the common core using technology. This resource offers guidelines and examples for educators, including core academic subjects, curriculum and instruction, standards and assessments, technology and media, critical thinking and career skills, and collaboration, creativity and communication.

The complete 45-page P21 Common Core Toolkit is available as a free PDF download HERE, at: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21CommonCoreToolkit.pdf

Walk in most any class where computers are available and you will find students accessing them by scrolling and clicking a mouse and typing on a QWERTY keyboard. However, when students have multiple disabilities or other impairments which impede their effective use of these typical methods of input, they are often found passively watching what others have selected for them to view on the computer screen. Some may believe these students are not intellectually or physically able to use a computer. Yet advances in assistive technology have provided multiple alternatives to accessing computers.

Alternative access hardware often includes adapted keyboards, trackballs, joysticks, and switches. Because these devices require physical ability, other alternative access may be necessary, such as a microphone with speech recognition software, sip-and-puff technology, and vision-based input devices.

In 1994, Boston College Computer Science Professor Jim Gips developed an innovative eye-controlled technology called EagleEyes, which enables users to access the computer by simply looking at the computer screen. Users are connected to the unit by electrodes placed on their faces, and the unit is connected to the computer via a USB port. EagleEyes measures a user’s electro-oculographic potential that indicates the position of the eyes relative to the head. The mouse cursor follows where the user is looking on the screen. The eyes essentially replace the mouse, and therefore EagleEyes is usable with any commercial software. Each selection is made by looking at a small area of the screen for a short period of time, which causes a mouse click.

The EagleEyes technology has been used at the Boston College Campus School for almost 20 years to evaluate and teach students with multiple and physical disabilities. In 2005, the Opportunity Foundation of America began a partnership with the Boston College EagleEyes Project and signed a formal license agreement to manufacture, distribute and provide training for the technology. Together they are bringing EagleEyes to the forefront of the assistive technology community.

EagleEyes is used for entertainment, communication, and education. It is appropriate for those who are unable to access computers with a typical mouse or other means which requires physical or verbal skills. Students who have intentional eye gaze are good candidates for this technology. Many EagleEyes users have profound or multiple disabilities, are non-verbal or have very limited methods of communicating, or have paralysis. Recent success has been experienced with students who have cortical visual impairments.

In 2000, Professor Gips developed Camera Mouse, a mouse replacement system to access a Windows-based computer with a webcam (free download available at www.cameramouse.org). This technology is most appropriate for those who do not have reliable control of their hands, but do not need to use EagleEyes because they have purposive head control. The technology has found its major application in helping people with multiple disabilities, cerebral palsy, spinal muscular atrophy, ALS, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury and various neurological disorders.

The Camera Mouse technology is less restrictive than EagleEyes as it does not involve putting on electrodes. It involves sitting in front of a webcam and moving one’s head. Thus, people who have good head control are encouraged to try Camera Mouse first. If the user is not successful with Camera Mouse, EagleEyes is another option for a mouse replacement.

There have been 700,000 downloads of Camera Mouse since it was first publically available in 2007. More than 2,000 Camera Mouse downloads are running each day all over the world.

In the early learning stage of using an alternative mouse, users experience simple cause-and-effect activities such as those developed by Dr. Gips where users “paint” with their eyes, and shoot aliens by moving their eyes across the computer screen. Other commercial or public domain software is also appropriate for teaching cause-and-effect. Once users are successful at controlling the mouse cursor, they can proceed to use other software for educative or communicative purposes. Advanced users can access anything on the computer screen that is available to users who use a keyboard and a typical mouse. The basic Microsoft package includes an on-screen keyboard (click on the “Start” button and search for “on-screen keyboard” to bring it up), and a more child-friendly keyboard is available for free (www.midastouch.org).

While these technologies may not be appropriate for some individuals with severe or multiple disabilities, they have been successful for many. Two users will be highlighted below.

EagleEyes for Angel. Eight-year-old Angel (Angelina) Danis attends Jordan Valley School in the Canyons Schools District. Angel has been diagnosed with Rett Syndrome and is non-verbal with very limited use of her hands. At the beginning of the school year, Angel’s teacher, Linda Eller, suggested to her parents that Angel would be a good candidate for the EagleEyes technology.

The first time Angel tried EagleEyes she was able to intently focus and was very engaged. Each time her EagleEyes volunteers come into the classroom room, she gets excited because she knows it’s time to learn and play. After using the technology consistently for 5 months, Angel has improved her ability to respond to her surroundings, to positively participate in her daily activities, and to be actively involved in her education.

EagleEyes has also given Angel a voice and the ability to communicate with the world around her. Linda Eller shares, “Her smile is worth a million dollars but to watch her succeed in an educational game or activity is priceless. The symbol for Rett’s is a butterfly. Angel is my inspiration and she fights every day to let us know she is here, and to let her fly. My goal as her teacher is to set her free, to open her world to education and to the fun life that every eight-year-old girl wants.”

After watching Angel’s success at school, her parents decided it would be very helpful for Angel to also have the technology at home. This proved to be true. Tracey Danis, Angel’s Mom, shares, “EagleEyes has been amazing for our daughter. It has allowed her to be more independent and not have to rely on ‘hand over hand’ to complete a task. It gives her the chance to make her own choices instead of always having them made for her. She can now play games like any other eight-year-old child. She gets so excited to use EagleEyes and it has really awakened her. She knows she has control of the mouse and she loves it. The most amazing thing for me was when I watched my daughter count for the first time. I watched as she counted the spots on a ladybug and then selected the correct number symbol. Not only does this show that she is ‘in there,’ but that she understands and has the ability to learn and grow academically. I hope with EagleEyes to someday teach Angel how to read and write.”

Camera Mouse for Darrin. A mother of Darrin, who uses Camera Mouse, wrote to Maureen Gates, EagleEyes Project Director at the Boston College Campus School. She writes:

Dear Maureen, I want to thank you and let you know what a great help you and Camera Mouse have been. You have changed a young man’s life overnight!

My son loves shooting aliens, painting, spelling and exploring other games programs on his brother’s computer. It is amazing to watch him. He can now spell out his name on the keyboard for the first time ever. He played on the computer for almost 3 hours yesterday. What a transformation.

The experience gave him and me some real hope after all the doctor visits, wheelchair issues, and insurance and school problems.

Thank you, Maureen, Professor Gips and Boston College for Camera Mouse!

Technology has the power to change the lives of individuals with significant disabilities. However, without access to assistive technology and the training necessary for effective implementation, the full effects of this power will not be realized. For the past five years teacher candidates at Brigham Young University have been trained to use EagleEyes and Camera Mouse. These teacher candidates have given students at Oakridge School opportunities to engage in learning activities that were previously not considered due to the significant nature of the students’ disabilities. Currently, teachers at 21 schools across the state of Utah and in 2 schools in Ireland have received training and regularly use EagleEyes with success. Many EagleEyes units have been purchased or donated to families for use in their homes.

While EagleEyes and Camera Mouse may not be silver bullets to “cure,” or “fix” the disabilities these users experience, they may be important components in a multi-element plan to expose users to an electronic world that their peers, teachers, and families rely upon daily.

To learn more about EagleEyes and to view videos of individuals using the technology, visit www.bc.edu/schools/csom/eagleeyes or www.ofoa.net. To inquire about a demonstration of EagleEyes for a potential user or for teacher candidate and teacher training, contact Debbie Inkley of the Opportunity Foundation of America at debbieinkley@ofoa.net. For more information about Camera Mouse, contact Dr. Gips at james.gips@bc.edu.

Authors: Tina T. Dyches, Brigham Young University, Debbie Inkley, Opportunity Foundation of America, & Maureen Gates, Boston College Campus School

Utah Technology Standards

On January 12, 2012 the Utah State Board of Education approved Technology Standards 2012 for Utah public schools. The standards address access to technology, professional learning, and technical support. One key sentence in Technology Standards 2012 states, “With these standards, each student has constant access to technology, and assistive technology as needed, as part of the general curriculum.” With these new standards, technology and assistive technology products are going to be even more important in the lives of Utah students.

What are the technology tools our students should embrace and how can we facilitate the appropriate use of these products? A few years ago, teachers and parents were screaming for laptop computers for their struggling students. Recently, Apple iPads have been a hot item. Assistive technology experts across the country are hearing, “My student needs an AT assessment.” The AT experts then asks, “So the student will be able to do what?” Caller: “So he can get an iPad.” The AT expert then asks, “What educational tasks will the iPad support?” Caller: “What???”

We need to select assistive technology products for our students based on the SETT Framework. SETT stands for Student, Environment, Tasks and Tools. First we need to consider the student’s abilities and limitations. In what environments will the student use the technology? What task does the student need to do that they are not currently able to perform? What AT device (tool) will help them accomplish that goal? An iPad is a great tool in some circumstances, but it is not the right tool for many students who need assistive technology. Deciding on the tool before considering the student, environment and tasks is a backwards approach. A pencil grip, a picture communication page, or a software program might be a better solution. Once we have an idea which device might be most helpful to the student, we need to give the student some time to try that device. During that trial period, take some data to confirm that the device is helping the student progress toward their education goals. Finally, make a decisions based on the data collected. For additional information on the SETT Framework, see: http://www2.edc.org/ncip/workshops/sett/SETT_Framework.html

Keeping up with new assistive technology products can be a daunting task since new devices, apps and software are released daily. As you consider assistive technology in IEP meetings, here are three new reading tools that may be worth considering.

NaturalReader 10 Free Version

NaturalReader is text to speech software for use on Windows or Macintosh computers. A student with limited reading skills can use the software to have the computer read text in a computer voice. In the picture below, I loaded a book, The Count of Monte Christo, from Project Gutenberg, a free electronic library with over 36,000 books available HERE: www.gutenberg.org/

When I click on the play button , NaturalReader begins to read the words of the book in a computer voice, highlighting word by word as it progresses through the page. You can pause when desired, adjust the speed of the reading or change the font size to make reading easier. Version 10 has an enhanced feature that may help even more students. It will read the text in web pages. So with NaturalReader, a student could load a web page such as a news story from the Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News and read and listen to current news. Natural Reader has paid versions with higher quality voices. You might want to try the free software program before investing in the commercial version to see if it has the potential to help one of more of your students.

Pros – NaturalReader has a free version, it is easy to use, it reads and highlights text.

Cons – NaturalReader does not sound as natural as you may wish. It is a computer voice reading text and for some students, it is tedious and monotonous.

For more product information, see: http://www.naturalreaders.com/free_version.htm

Read 2 Go

A new iOS app from Bookshare/Benetech is Read 2 Go. It works on the Apple iPad and iPhone and is available for $19.99 from the Apple App Store.

Read2Go is essentially a DAISY book ereader. It allows you to browse, search, download, and read books directly from Bookshare using your Bookshare membership, as well as read DAISY books from other sources. The app gives you full control over visual choices for font size and color, background and highlighting color, and text-to-speech preferences. Read2Go features word-by-word highlighting for multi-modal reading.

Pros – Read2Go makes it easy to acquire new books, read the books in a computer voice and it works on mainstream products that are considered “cool” by other students.

Cons – Works only with iOS products from Apple, many of the books require a Bookshare membership. Students may tell you they are reading when they are really playing Angry Birds.

For more product information, see: http://www.bookshare.org/_/aboutUs/2011/09/read2GoUpdate

Achieve Tablet

Intel introduced the Intel Reader in 2009. The Intel Reader will soon be replaced by the Achieve Tablet.

Achieve pic

The Intel Reader (product in lower left of the picture) provides instant access to the general curriculum for students who have limited reading skills. It does this with Intel’s “point, shoot, listen and learn” technology. A camera transforms printed text to the spoken word, enabling students with disabilities to listen and read along with information from a textbook that may be well beyond their current reading level. Intel-GE Care Innovations is now moving the Intel Reader to an Acer tablet platform called Achieve.

The company fact sheet states, “One of the most consistent messages that has been received from our user base across learning disabled, low vision and blind is that there is stigma attached to using specialty devices to accommodate a disability. Tablet platforms allow us to reduce the stigma associated with ‘specialty’ devices, hence, reducing a significant barrier to adoption.” The Achieve products include the Achieve tablet, software and camera. It will include high-quality, natural speaking voices, faster capture to playback time, a touch screen interface and easier navigation and renaming of files. Text captured on the new Achieve tablet can also be used on the Intel Reader, thus increasing the lifetime of the previous generation of the product. Exact pricing has not yet been announced, but will be posted at the company website very soon. Indications are that the new Achieve tablet will be less expensive than the Intel Reader.

Pros – The Achieve Tablet provides quick access to the regular curriculum for students with limited reading skills, it has features that make reading easier, since it is on a tablet, it will be socially acceptable.

Cons – Price has not yet been announced, since it is on a tablet, the student may use it for games or other activities not intended by their teacher.

For more product information, see: http://www.careinnovations.com/

To learn more about assistive technology tools that might help your students, contact your local UAAACT team members at: www.uaaact.org

You may also contact Craig Boogaard at the Computer Center for Citizens with Disabilities at UCAT.Email: cboogaar@utah.gov

Phone: 801 887-9533

iTunesU is a free collection of academic content available to the public. Schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and other education organizations like OpenUniversity make selected lectures and full semester courses available for download. Students – or anyone – can download the video podcasts to their computers or mobile devices for playback anytime, anywhere.

Due to the nature of the medium (audio and video lectures), it may be difficult for those with hearing impairments to fully benefit from these offerings. Apple’s iTunes software offers automatic closed captioning (subtitles) for videos that are formatted correctly, but it can be difficult to sift through the thousands of items to find those which offer it. Here is a step-by-step guide to limit a search in iTunesU to content with Closed Captions.

1. Click on Power Search under Quick Links in the iTunes Store
2. Change the Category to iTunesU
3. Check the box to “Search only for closed captioning in iTunesU”
4. Enter a Title, Description, and/or Institution and press Search

Step 1 - Select Power Search in iTunes

Author: Nathan Cashion, UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center) Media Technician

Yes, you read that correctly. The TWO DOLLAR interactive whiteboard.

But first… The $2,000 interactive whiteboard

While watching the video, count how many times the kids are interacting with each other while using the board. Mouse over here for the answer. But I guess that’s OK, because, according to one teacher, “It really does cut down on behavior problems ’cause they’re really motivated and interested to sit and look at the board and pay attention.” Is that what good teaching is?

Before you jump to the conclusion that I am some technology-hating Luddite, I want you to know that I love technology. I train other teachers how to use technology effectively. In my physics lessons, I use technology with my students, but only when the pedagogy demands the technology. I have a SMART Board in my classroom. I’m a SMART Exemplary Educator. My waves lesson on the SMART Exchange website has over 400 500 600 700 downloads — the most of any high school physics lesson. There was an article written about me when I first got my SMART Board. Some students say I’m the best SMART Board user in my school. But no one said the SMART Board helped them understand physics.

According to this Washington Post article, some educators question if electronic interactive whiteboards raise achievement:

As he lectured, Gee hyperlinked to an NBC news clip, clicked to an animated Russian flag, a list of Russian leaders and a short film on the Mongol invasions. Here and there, he starred items on the board using his finger. “Let’s say this is Russia,” he said at one point, drawing a little red circle. “Okay — who invaded Russia?”

One student was fiddling with an iPhone. Another slept. A few answered the question, but the relationship between their alertness and the bright screen before them was hardly clear. And as the lesson carried on, this irony became evident: Although the device allowed Gee to show films and images with relative ease, the whiteboard was also reinforcing an age-old teaching method — teacher speaks, students listen. Or, as 18-year-old Benjamin Marple put it: “I feel they are as useful as a chalkboard.”

The word “interactive” for the the $2,000 electronic interactive white board (eIWB) means interaction with a piece of hardware to manipulate virtual objects on a screen. And most eIWBs only interact with one person at a time.

The $2 interactive whiteboard

$2 whiteboard

The word “interactive” for the $2 WB means interaction among students. Students are working together to collectively construct knowledge, explain their reasoning processes, and get feedback from the teacher and each other. Students are interacting with each other in small groups when preparing the whiteboards. Then they interact with the whole class when they present and field questions from the class and the teacher. At all times, the teacher can see and hear student thinking and challenge them with questions. This process is called “whiteboarding.”

So, what are some of the benefits of whiteboarding with $2 whiteboards?

• Encourages students to think, question, solve problems, and discuss their ideas, strategies, and solutions.
• Allows students to articulate their preconceptions so the teacher can confront and resolve them.
• Allows for regular classroom evaluation and interpretation of evidence. Students come to know not only what they know, but how they know it.
• Provides opportunities for students to learn from and correct their own mistakes, and to learn from the successes and mistakes of others as they check and critique each others work.
• Helps create a culture of questioning. (<– go read this!)
• Allows for the discussion of student-generated ideas rather than the teacher merely presenting information.
• Engages students in a collaborative learning community.
• Promotes strongly coherent conceptual understanding while decreasing traditional lecture.
• Provides opportunities for students to teach one another, practicing using the language of the science to one another in order to develop personal meaning.

(List compiled from Whiteboarding in the Classroom and Whiteboarding.)

In my year-end survey, my students frequently comment about how the whiteboarding process was an effective teaching method for them. For example:

The whiteboard discussions are different from the traditional “put your answers on the board” in that we can really see what went wrong and explain our understanding. I feel as though we learn through the explanations we have to give and the little question prompts you give us.

Districts spend tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars on electronic interactive whiteboards, plus thousands more for professional development to show teachers to use them in order to write, move, reveal, and resize virtual objects. How about taking all that money and spending it on professional development for learning how to engage students in Socratic dialogue, effective questioning, reformed science teaching methods like modeling instruction, and other inquiry learning methods? How about using the money for substitutes so an entire department can go and watch other teachers using these instructional methods in other schools?

Teachers should be spending their precious lesson planning time designing lessons to engage kids mentally and push them to higher levels, not creating flashy Powerpoints.

What skills do we want our students to have when they leave our classrooms? How to use a piece of technology? Or how to work collaboratively, ask great questions, think critically, and problem solve?

Please, instead of thinking about how to get your students to interact with a $2,000 electronic whiteboard, think about how you can get your students to interact with each other using a $2 whiteboard.

Where should we place our time and money?

Here?

 Tom, please place a photo of an electronic whiteboard here

Or here?

credit: whiteboardsusa.com

Resources for whiteboarding

Where to buy them:

Home Depot and Lowes sell large 4′x8′ sheets of white shower board or tile board for about $12 each. You can have it cut at the store into 6 pieces that are 24″x32″ in size. Hence, the $2 whiteboard. If you say you’re a teacher, they may do the cutting at no extra charge.

Whiteboards USA sells the 24″x32″ boards for $9 each with rounded edges and a handhold cut. (I am not affiliated in any way this company.)

How to use them (including academic references):

Modeling Instruction – My page of introductory links about modeling in science class. Includes information about teacher workshops happening nationwide!

Resources for the modeling classroom (scroll down to “Discourse in the Modeling Classroom”)- Arizona State University

Whiteboarding in the classroom – Buffalo State

Whiteboarding – Whiteboards USA

Socratic Dialogues in the Science Classroom – Whiteboards USA

Author: Frank P. Noschese, high school physics teacher

Source: Action-Reaction blog

The” iGeneration” is the now generation. 

In order to reach the students of today, educators need to bring technology to the classroom.  At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, Wasatch Elementary in Davis School Distict, was chosen to pilot a 1:1 computing environment. Each student in grades 3-6 would be equipped with a Netbook computer. Wasatch Elementary is a Title 1 school where 66% of students are classified as economically disadvantaged. Due to that economic disadvantage, many of our students do not have access to computers at home. Providing access to computers gave us the ability to bridge the technology gap with our students, thus developing 21st century skills necessary to be college and career ready.

To reach students in our demographic area, differentiating instruction is a necessity. This necessity is problematic for teachers without the access to advanced technology. This new technology allowed teachers at Wasatch to shift their thinking to a more student-centered, project-based approach to learning. Teachers have seen growth in motivation and engagement beyond what they initially expected.  Students feel the freedom to create and express themselves while producing a quality product. When students are invested in choosing and creating their work, we have found that they are more invested in their learning process. Student accountability for learning has increased and data driven discussions are now commonplace in the classrooms at Wasatch.

Our students now have ownership of their  academic progress. Students are tracking and graphing their grades and scores using spreadsheet software. Students use their own data to drive their parent conferences. Teachers have seen a positive increase in student/parent interactions while discussing this data. Students classified as ELL (English Language Learners) also have the opportunity to explain charts and graphs to their parents in their native language which has proven to be a very effective learning strategy. These opportunities are helping us to create a community of competence at Wasatch Elementary and we are excited about the results we are seeing!

Author:  Kate Hall, Wasatch Elementary, Davis School District

First impression

When I looked at the handwriting of David , a normal, healthy looking fourteen year old freshman, my facial expression must have given away my concern. My classroom experience with “at risk” students has numbed me a bit to the limitations and expectations of the teens that are assigned to my credit recovery program. I take pride in creating a classroom that is a safe place for students to learn. I believe in differentiating instruction to meet the unique needs of every learner.  Yet, I was shocked at the sloppy, craggily, jumbled handwriting of a journal response that David had written on the first day of class in English 9A.

I quickly judged him on his unreadable handwriting, hardly audible soft-spoken voice, and downward cast eyes…my “teacher brain” wondered if this kid was even literate?  How could an “illiterate” teenager have gotten this far in school?  How had the educational system allowed this boy to get to high school without being able to write?  Could he even read?  Was he autistic, dyslexic, “low and slow”, or just plain dumb?

David looked at me and defiantly stated, “I’m not as dumb as you think.”

Something in me clicked….this kid sitting in front of me and this example of his writing ability did not fit together.  I knew that I needed to learn more about how David learned in order to help him learn. Immediately, I asked him to read his journal entry:

He read his own writing timidly, awkwardly.  He could not read what he had written in a flowing, comfortable manner.  I then asked him to read from the book that he had with him, The Road, written by Cormac McCarthy.  He read beautifully and skillfully, not missing a pronunciation of a word. He read each sentence with the fluency that the author had intended. When finished, David was able to extract the depth of content between the characters in the book.  I was impressed, especially since I use this book for my 11^th and 12^th grade English classes. This kid was literate, meaning he could read and understand the richness that comes from reading; however, he could not put on paper what he was thinking.

In my diverse classroom, I have to quickly differentiate who needs what on a constant basis.  Since David did not have an IEP, I approached special education teachers and began asking questions about this student.  Through direct dialog with David’s former special education teacher, I learned that David had the symptoms of dysgraphia, a childhood disorder of written language expression.  Developmental dysgraphia is described in conjunction with dyslexia, motor clumsiness, or spatial difficulty (Deuel, 1994).  Students with dysgraphia write slowly, they form letters incorrectly, and their final product is messy and often illegible (Lewis, Graves, Ashton, & Kieley, 1998).  Tackling this learning disability is difficult because writing requires a complex set of motor and information processing skills, therefore, saying that a student has dysgraphia is not sufficient when trying to design accommodations in the learning environment (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2006).

David’s “environment” at school and at home was not conducive in giving him positive stimuli to want to produce readable material. He had tested out of SPED in 7^th grade due to his Superior IQ of 118 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 2004) and his listening comprehension score of 141 – a 18.0 age -equivalent percentile on the Woodcock Johnson III test.  As I learned more about David, I realized that he needed short periods of specific direction in a classroom that felt safe, challenging, and interactive.  By creating a holistic learning environment that used positive rewards/stimuli such as a choice of candy or soda pop from my “hidden classroom stash”, or a chance to sit on my classroom couch with the upperclassmen, or verbal “atta boys” from peers, we were able to create a programmed learning plan for David through scaffolding and explicit direction.

Assistive Technology

Research shows that the use of a word processor can enhancesthe academic outcomesof students with writing disabilities (Hetzroni & Shrieber, 2004).  Since he had not learned keyboarding skills due to being in resource classes, we began with having him “play” with the computer. David was allowed to use the Internet to search for typing programs that he would enjoy using and help him develop the technical skills needed to write via the keyboard.  We also taught David to use the Dragon NaturallySpeak® speech recognition software program which allowed him to speak into a microphone and have his voice appear magically on the computer screen.  We gave him the tools to take his brilliant thinking capacity and direct him towards sources such as typing games and word processing that enabled him to communicate through written expression. Below is a sample of David’s skillful use of the English language via his newfound skills with the aid of technology.

 

The Road,  by David

The smell of death looms in every inch of the burnt earth. Nothing remains of the majestic beauty that once was. Now the sun no longer shines and all that we see is the chard husk of our Mother Earth, dead and gone. She no longer provides her children with protection and nourishment. Left to fend for their own, they begin to struggle for what is left.  Once that is gone they turn on each other, raising people as cattle in this nightmare that we do not wake from.  But, through all of the peril there is still good. The few remnants of good that remain are in a constant struggle for survival. Against such extreme odds a father and son continue to fight their way down the once busy roads that now remain eternally silent except for the rare shuffling of a few desperate souls searching, always searching for the few crumbs others did not find.

A: A father and son live in this post-apocalyptic waste land. The land is bleak and covered in ash that cloud out the sun and turns the once beautiful Snow black. Nothing remains free of this horror; it covers the world as a blanket of death. People are now living in the shadow of their forefather’s failure. The ones supposed protect doomed their descendants to a most miserable end slowing and painful.

B: they are bound to a life of hardship in this world of chaos. It takes every bit of strength they have keep to alive, getting sick can mean the end in most cases. People eat people death hangs in the air danger is awes lurking waiting to catch you with your back turned. The worst mistake is letting your guard down.

C: the lack of food is the last thing that you half to worry about, the biggest danger is the other people that are out there in the gray distance. The cannibals herd people like cattle, it is so horrific mothers would eat their own children.

D: the destruction has left man a mere twisted image of its former self, there is no longer compassion no more help the week there is no mercy. For most there self is the only thing that matters except for a few people. The boy is one he awes worries about others first, a light in the endless dark wen all others go out he shines brighter.

E: Etiquette is long gone people care not for the petty feelings of the weak of heart. The man is one of the few gentlemen left he teaches his son respect honor and even manners thou he may never get a chance to use them in his life. In this way he teaches his son to be caring and respectful of people.

F: sacrificing one’s self for another is one of the greatest showing of love and devotion there is. The father gave his life to get the son to safety. He pushes himself to the point of no return with only one thought in his head his son. His whole reason for continuing on is so his son’s safety. He died getting his son to a safe place.

Author: David Bryson, Credit Recovery Teacher, Grand School District

Bibliography

Deuel, R. K. (1994). Developmental dysgraphia and motor skill disorders. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 6–8.

Grobecker, B. (1999). Mathematics reform and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 43-58.

Hetzroni, O.E., & Shrieber, B. (2004).  Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities:  A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 95–108.

National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), 2006. What is dysgraphia?  LD OnLine.org [On-line], Article 12770.

Rippa, S. Alexander (1971). Education in a Free Society, (2nd. Edition). New York: David McKay Company.

Skinner, B.F (1971).  Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1^st Edition).  New York:  Knopf.

Steele, M.M. (2005, April 30). Teaching Students With Learning Disabilities: Constructivism Or Behaviorism? Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(10).

Thayer, V. T. (1965). Formative Ideas in American Education. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company.

Tracey, D.H. & Morrow, L. M. (2006).  Lenses on Reading.  New York:  Guilford Press.

Wechsler, D. (2004).  The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, (4^th Edition).  London:  Pearson Assessment.

If you were to walk into my home, you would quickly realize that anything with a circuit board and integrated circuits are my friends. I have a passion for technology. From amateur radio to computers, I’m involved. I was once told by a mentor that I should teach with my passion, to share with my students my interests in order to improve their exposure to new things and improve their quality of life. They didn’t have to tell me twice!

Alpine School District has blessed me with technology. Over the past few years, I’ve accumulated three classroom computers, a smartboard, and 5 iPads (three are provided by the district, two are personal iPads that I share) that are used on a daily basis. Not a class period goes by that I don’t hear “Can we use the iPads?” or “When can we use the computers?” Since our students are so comfortable and familiar with technology, it only makes sense to make sure that they have access to it in their classrooms. My big focus this year has been effective integration of iPads to reinforce instruction.

Whether it’s English, reading, life skills or math my students are engaged in station activities. Each class begins with a lesson for 15-20 minutes. At the conclusion of the lesson, I direct students to break into three smaller groups to rotate through stations. One of those stations is the “iStation.”

The purpose of the iStation is to use iPad apps that either reinforce the lesson that was taught, or focus on students accomplishing their IEP goals.

In English Class students:

• Fill out online job applications on iPads to practice their personal information skills, using forms I’ve created in Google forms.
• Practice their spelling or sight words, using one of many magnetic letter apps.
• Use the Whiteboard app to practice their spelling words or sight words.
• Use the Dragon Dictation app to put their thoughts down on virtual paper. This is particularly useful for journal writing for my students who really struggle with writing.
• Create sentences in iSentence. This is a great way to help students on various levels.
• Create their own stories using another amazing tool, Story Builder. With three levels of prompting, and the ability to record a student’s voice telling a story, this one is extremely useful in my classroom.

In Reading class students use iStation to:

• Learn grocery words, restaurant words, and safety words using apps from The Conover Company.
• Recognize sight words. There are hundreds of sight words apps that one can use. It’s just a matter of finding one you like that is effective for student learning.  Most are customizable, and some even keep track of data.
• Discover sequencing in Making Sequences, an app that requires students to make sequences out of 2, 3, or 4 events.
• Engage in the text. Comixology and iBooks is an app that helps locate graphic novels for students. If you have an iPad 2 and a projector, be sure to get the VGA adapter so you can show the stories to everyone!

For Life Skills, students use:

• The Comic Book app to make comics of role play scenarios found in the Super Skills book by Judith Coucouvanis. With an iPad and role play scenario assigned to each group, students, with peer tutor assistance, create comics to help them better understand how to engage in certain social situations or solve problems.

The “What Would you do at School If…” app that provides students with a variety of school-based scenarios. You break the students at the station into two teams. A teacher or aide reads the scenario to the students at the station. If they provide a correct answer they get a point!

In Math class, students:

• Use Mathboard, an app that allows teachers to not only customize math problems, but also create profiles that track students’ scores.
• Learn to tell time in Telling Time HD. Whether you’re working with a student on telling time to various time increments or solving passage of time problems, this app is extremely useful.
• Count out a customizable amount of change in Making Change. This app includes an onscreen prompt to assist students in the task.
• Practice determining the place value of a number with the Place Value app. This app will ask the student what number is in a specific place, and they respond by placing the appropriate number of fingers on the screen–a great hands-on activity!

There are thousands of math apps that are available, but we only use a handful.

Finding the right app

One thing that I am always asked is “How do you find these apps!?” You need to have a goal in mind when you go into the app store. If you’re looking for an app about fractions, type in “Fractions” in the search window. Otherwise, you’ll be browsing through thousands of pages in the education section what you’re looking for. Don’t get me wrong, you’ll still be busy sifting even after you search a specific topic; however, it’s not quite as daunting. Once you have narrowed down your search, just look at those with three or more star ratings and you’re good to go.

Creativity

Sometimes you have to leave the education section of the app store to really find what you are looking for. Earlier in the year I was trying to find a way to get my students more involved in a story we were reading. The book was Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen. I wanted my students to understand the dangerous situation the main character, Bryan, was in after the pilot died. I went home that evening and found the answer. The next day, I plugged my iPad into my VGA adapter, and placed two chairs near my desk. I then launched a flight simulator app I had downloaded (X-Plane 9), and told the students to imagine that they were Bryan from the story, and they had to try and keep the plane in the air. This got their attention, and they quickly realized how difficult it is to fly a plane with no previous experience! We’ve also been known to use soundboard apps during read-a-louds to help the students become more involved with the stories as well. We’ve also created a way to collect data on the iPad merging Google forms and the iPad, but that’s an entirely different article!

The iPad is truly an amazing piece of technology. Students of all ability levels are able to participate, no matter the subject. The only limiting factor is the creativity of the teacher.

Author: Jonathan Lindberg, Life Skills Teacher, Alpine School District

“…Cognitive support refers to the assistive aspects of technology that enhance the mental capabilities and avoid the limitations of users.” (Wogalter and Mayhorn)

Usually, when you enter a transition period in a classroom full of students with significant cognitive disabilities, multiple disabilities or autistic students there is a lot of movement, noise and organizing taking place. Students are trying to find out what materials they need, where to get them and moving around the room in general. It takes time to get the students settled down and focused for instruction. This is not the case in Barabara Hegland’s class at Hartvigsen School in the Granite School District. In contrast, as the transition period begins the students know where to go to get their materials, they pick them up and go straight to their seats to begin instruction. The instruction is on iPads! During an observation it was noted that within five minutes all students had focused attention on their assignments. After twenty-five minutes, the class was still engaged with 100% concentration on instruction.

This is an impressive educational outcome of cognitive support technology (CST). The concept of cognitive support technology helps build independence for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It also encompasses and is useful for students with traumatic brain injury and multiple disabilities. Research has shown that very young children can benefit from having access to a variety of assistive technology devices as well. Assistive technology uses any tool or device that a student with a disability needs to do a task that he or she could not otherwise do without it or any tool the student needs to do a task more easily, faster, or in a better way. They can be “low-tech” devices like pencil grips, or “high-tech” devices such as a computer. Utilizing assistive technology has become an accepted practice in special education.

Research-based interventions such as making decisions within a task sequence, following a schedule, using the internet, computer skills and assistive devices show that students have fewer external prompts, fewer errors, more tasks successfully completed and more complex tasks are evident. Students using cognitive support technology can stay on task while at school, stay on a schedule and for secondary students, it may also aide them in staying on task on the job.

The Effects of Technology in the Classroom

These tips are from Janice Hill, Teacher of a self-contained Significant Cognitive Disabilities Classroom, Weber School District. She notes that all of these technologies have become available within the last ten years.

In my classroom technology has given us …

• Many ways and options for students who are non-verbal to communicate.

• Alternative pencils so that students who cannot hold or control a pencil can have writing experiences.

• Engaging alternative ways to learn new skills. (There’s an App for that!)

• Provide access to reading, math, social studies, and science to those who are Significantly Cognitively Disabled. For some it has leveled the playing field just a little more with their typical peers.

• New and innovative ways to teach communication and social skills through social stories and video modeling.

My Favorite Devices or Technology

• iPad! I have never found another piece of technology as engaging and versatile as the iPad and the wealth of apps available for use. The possibilities seem somewhat endless.

• Boardmaker – Thank you Mayer Johnson for taking away my days of coloring, cutting and pasting!

• Springboard Lite and/or Vantage.

• Smartboard – There are so many uses within a classroom for this piece of technology. Again like the iPad, it is very engaging for the students.

• Ablenet’s switches – My favorite is the Step by Step.

The following guiding questions are suggested for someone considering the use cognitive support technology:

• Are you considering the environmental impact of the technology, e.g. arrangement in the classroom, support available to both the student and the staff, materials and equipment, access issues, attitudes and expectations of staff, family and others.

• What specific tasks occur in the student’s natural environments that enable progress toward mastery of the IEP goals and objectives?

• What specific tasks are required for active involvement related to communication, instruction, participation and productivity?

There are five top strategies suggested for successful assistive technology implementation in the schools. They are:

1. Develop an Assistive Technology (AT) Committee.

• Do this within your school and/district/ or LEA.
• Facilitated committee meeting by an AT Coordinator.
• Share latest tools and programs.
• Share tips from workshops.
• Determine AT tip of the month.
• Focus on a topic of the month.
• It is all about a team approach and coaching one another!

2. Establish an AT point person in each building.

• This may be the same point person assigned to the committee.
• Attend trainings as possible and bring back information.

3. Create an AT Toolbox for each school.

• Start small with some low-tech and some mid-tech materials.
• Toolbox may include things such as: timers, Motivators, pencil grips, small white boards, non-slip placemats, Bingo markers, calculators with extra large numbers, HandiTak to hold things down, communication systems, simple switches, etc.
• Provide a variety of programs available (submit a grant to get money) .
• Some program suggestions might be: SOLO, CLOZ Pro, and Boardmaker Plus.
• Information on Free Downloads like: Word Talk, Readplease, My Studybar.
• Begin a library of additional programs and tools .
• You may want to have AAC tooklkits as well.

4. Develop District Assistive Technology Handbook

• Establish an AT flowchart within the LEA or school.
• Make a set of expectations for each teacher.
• Make decisions about how to collect data.

5.  Provide or be involved with on-going professional development

Here is a testimonial to the importance and success teachers are finding with cognitive support technologies.

Marilyn Sanderson, teacher in the Uintah School District reports that she has a boy in her classroom who throws pencils at classmates along with other challenging behaviors. “He basically does not do his work because of his major behavior problems. He is non-verbal and very bright. He is also autistic. He will work without behavior problems when he knows he will get the use of the iPad for 15 minutes at the end of his math and/or reading session. There has been great progress with him since using the iPad and programs that catch his attention. The class is very happy and so am I!”

Becoming familiar and comfortable with effective cognitive support technologies will take an effort, some planning, and concerted teaming with others. Reach out to other teachers and do something. Don’t get left behind in offering the excellent learning opportunities that assistive technology brings to a classroom.

Author: Christine Timothy, Specialist, Utah State Office of Education

RESOURCES

ATSTAR Knowability Services, www.atstar.org .

Bowser, Gayle; Fonner, Kelly; Marfilius, Scott, “Making Memory: Using Technology for Memory and Cognitive Supports”, 2012.

Downing, June E., Including Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities in Typical Classrooms, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2008.

Key, Kelly; Kean, Kerry, “Top Five Strategies for Successful AT Implementation in the Schools”, Barrington 220 Community Unit School District, 2012.

Wogalter, M. S.; Mayhorn, C. B. (2005), “Providing cognitive support with technology-based warning systems”. Ergonomics, 48, 522-533.

On September 2, 1945 eleven Japanese military officers, politicians and dignitaries took the long, painful walk along the deck of the battleship USS Missouri. Those eleven individuals were commissioned with the distasteful task of surrendering their country to the armed forces of the United States and its Allies, bringing an end to the Second World War. Admiral Sadatoshi Tomioka was one of those eleven. Just before the war he was one of the few high-ranking officers to oppose the Pearl Harbor attack, as well as the Midway operation, which turned the tide of the war. Most of the officers simply followed the thinking of those with a higher rank who in turn followed the thinking of another with a still higher rank.

Not long after the surrender, Tomioka directly blamed the Japanese educational system for the defeat of his great nation. He claimed the Japanese system “taught facts and figures at the expense of individual thinking”. Tomioka came to this damning conclusion after seeing first hand that the rank and file soldier, sailor and airman were unable to think their way through the rapidly changing scenario of war and could not act independent of their superiors. Though highly educated, his nation was defeated because of the inability of individuals to think independently. They could accomplish tasks but could not complete enough independent thinking to focus those tasks. The Japanese were not taught to creatively solve problems. They were taught what to think, not how to think. They were limited to the mechanics of thinking and were not expected to the next level: individual creative thought.

A major cornerstone of the foundation of what made this country great is the ability of individuals to think creatively. No other country has invented the computer, the space shuttle, the Internet, TV, radio, the cancer surgery that saved my life, the airplane, or the telephone. The list goes on and on and on.

No other country has educated its population and allowed its young to have such a dramatic impact on the world. For example, Marc Andreessen was only 23 by the time he had helped revolutionize the Internet with the browser concept. Bill Gates was 21 when Microsoft was launched. Steve Wozniak was 26 and Steve Jobs was 21 when Apple Computers was formed. Mark Zuckerberg was 20 when he started Facebook.

Obviously these examples are extraordinary, but the point is, other countries have extraordinary individuals also. The difference is, they are not taught, allowed nor encouraged to think creatively. What does this have to do with those who are ordinary, or perhaps those of us who don’t quite measure up to ordinary? As special educators we have been given the task to even the playing field for our students who struggle the most. How do we accomplish that task?

We must cater to the strength of our student’s creativity rather than force-feed them with additional failure. Our students who struggle need to be relieved of the burden of the mechanics of our educational system in order to access the content contained within them. As special educators we must learn how to separate mechanics from content. Technology has helped quite dramatically in this endeavor during the last 20 or so years.

Let me give an example. As a student back in the 70’s I was terrified to hand in any written paper. I was a terrible writer. I was embarrassed by every paper I submitted. My grades reflected my reluctance. It wasn’t until a college professor was able to look past my terrible handwriting and told me that my content was viable. Only when word processing separated my content from the mechanics of writing, was I able move forward. I was able to concentrate on what I was writing. I no longer had to worry about my lousy handwriting or the possibility of misspelled words. Help was given for that blasted punctuation issue. I even had a backup authority for my sentence structure. The word processor was the great equalizer for me. I was able to focus my limited efforts on thinking, rather than on confusing mechanics.

We must use technology’s ability to separate mechanics from content to move our students forward in their thinking and reasoning. This will give them the education they deserve. This will give them the freedom to live life as they choose, rather than how they are told. If all we do with technology, as special educators, is to transfer the worksheet from paper to the screen, we have accomplished nothing. If we only use technology to acquire and manage data for our students, we have accomplished nothing. If we only use it as a memory bank, we have accomplished nothing.

We live in the information age. Technology is the great equalizer for special education students. In order for our students to succeed, not only educationally but in life, they must be able to think independently. By separating the mechanics of education from the content, our students can use and create information, not simply acquire it.

Author: Bret MacCabe, Special Education Coordinator, Provo School District

Technology is such an important tool in today’s special education classroom. Our students are being exposed to technology all around them and if we do not keep up with them and teach them more about technology we are not preparing them for their adult lives. We must have classrooms that offer a variety of technology tools to engage them in their learning. We are past the days of giving a student a worksheet and expecting that they will be engaged, on-task, or even interested. David A. Sousa writes in his book, How the Special Needs Brain Learns, “The brain of today’s students are attracted more than ever to the unique and different-what is called novelty.” (p. 16)

As a classroom teacher I have noticed a huge difference between student academic and behavior outcomes when technology is being used, especially hands on technology. When I use the Promethean board, computers and iPads all in the same lesson, students are more focused and excited to learn. Students are more tech savvy now than ever due to the constant exposure to computers, video games, cell phones and movies. Students have different learning styles and the iPad can meet the needs of the tactile, visual, and auditory learner. I especially like the iPad applications that require the user to shake the iPad to clear the screen or to go on to the next screen. There are so many applications that are basically worksheets, except that they are interactive and they engage the senses that help to motivate the students. Educational apps provide immediate feedback if the student has the correct answer, this is vital to keep the students attention. As a special education teacher, it is important for me to collect data daily on students so that I can adjust my instruction to meet their needs. Several apps offer immediate data/scores which I can use for monitoring progress. The iPad also allows for easily differentiating instruction for students of varying academic levels.

If you haven’t yet heard the phrase, there’s an app for that, it’s because once you immerse yourselves and your students in this technology you too will see there really is an app for just about everything. Some of my favorite types of educational apps for the classroom are: timers, whiteboards, math facts, interactive story books, fractions, voice recorders, Pages, Keynote, dictionaries, calculators, PBS, Evernote, UPAD, even many text books can be accessed on line on the iPad.

I have also sent iPads home with students for homework. This has so many advantages. One advantage is that the iPad is a great bargaining tool for getting desired academic outcomes and social behavior results. I have a class rule that if the student’s behavior meets the set expectations, they turn in their assignments and homework to me on time, and there attendance is regular, they can earn the opportunity to take the iPad home with them for the night to do homework. The second advantage is that I have students come back to school the next day and tell me that they showed their parents and siblings all of the fun things that they are learning at school. Homework can be a challenge for students and parents to take the time each evening to work together. However, I have never had a student that was sent home with iPad homework tell me that they didn’t do their homework, or that their parents couldn’t help them, or that their dog ate it. Instead I get details of how the evening was spent reading interactive books with their parents, their parents using the iPad to help them learn English, and students asking me when they can take the iPad home again for homework. The third benefit is that our economically disadvantaged students who may not have internet connection or a computer at home can still have access to technology as most apps on the iPad do not require an internet connection.

I also believe that special educators must give our students with special needs that extra edge, that extra piece that could make them stand out in a positive way. If we can teach these students how to access technology and how to use a variety of technological tools it may give them the advantage that they need when they eventually have to go out into the job market and compete against people who do not have learning disabilities. I want to give every student the opportunity and ability to use technology. In order to do this I need to keep myself current in the latest technology. Several teachers come from the generation that there were no computers when we were kids. When I was in college it was the first time that I used a computer in a computer lab to type a paper. I had no idea how to use it and needed one of the computer techs next to me through the process. I want the students who come through my class to be technology literate. Technology is here to stay and we must embrace it and teach it to our students or they will be left behind.

My recommendations to other educators is to keep yourselves current on the latest technology, go to trainings often and learn what other teachers are doing in their classrooms with technology. Update your iPads with new apps on a regular basis, you have the novelty, don’t let that novelty become ordinary. My last recommendation is to begin with the end goal in mind. We want our students to be productive members in society, give them the edge that they will need to achieve, compete, and succeed in the technological world.

Here is a list of some great websites and downloads:

http://www.prometheanplanet.com/en-us/

http://freeappaday.com/n/mi.php

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/15667/applejack

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx

http://www.ixl.com/

http://www.raz-kids.com/

http://www.spellingcity.com/

http://www.arcademicskillbuilders.com/

 Author: Evaluce Quintero, special education teacher, Provo School District

Changing the Landscape of Teaching and Learning in Provo School District

In May of 2011, the UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center) showcased Provo School District’s technology immersion initiative to improve achievement of all students. This immersion has changed their landscape of teaching and learning for all teachers and students.

This article first highlights the big ideas presented by Provo District’s Technology Director, Ted Kelly. Next, it highlights responses from a cross section of educators who have been instrumental in implementing technology immersion and it’s success.

Big Ideas: Ted Kelly, Special Education Director and Technology Director

“Focusing on integrating the use of technology is a subject, but not the purpose. That’s really, really important to know. To provide specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with disability — that’s our purpose.

“Always focus back on your purpose. We’re showing you a tool, a methodology, that helps us enrich and achieve our purpose.”

“We have three technology immersion schools in Provo School District: Spring Creek Elementary, Franklin Elementary, and Sunset Elementary. When it comes to the amazing teachers and students, the teaching and the learning using technology, it’s a cooperative effort. In Provo School District we aren’t a bunch of separate departments that are divided. We work together and together we’re stronger.”

“We’ve aligned to national technology goals. They give seven recommendations:

1) Strengthen leadership, 2) Consider innovative budgeting, 3) Improve teacher training, 4) Support e-learning and virtual schools, 5) Encourage broadband access, 6) Move towards digital competence, and 7) Integrate data systems.”

“In Provo we are connected by gigabytes, fiber, and wireless networks. We’ve crossed many barriers and what we’re doing is the right thing. Acquisition of technology is not the victory. My people hear this all the time. Buying something doesn’t achieve anything. Access is not enough. Teachers and students must make optimum use of the technology. The technology must help us reach our purpose. Structures must be put into place that guide application and trained and skilled delivery. We have a clear plan to evaluate it’s effectiveness.”

Selected Responses from Provo Educators

Why allow your students to use technology during instruction?

“What does technology do for you? Ok, starting Monday, for one month, don’t access a computer, no cell phones, no debit cards. Just try it. Again, we think the kid’s world is still paper pencil. All this is so integrated into our society that we don’t understand and grasp the fiber support behind it and how it is changing the life of every child we teach.” ~ Ted Kelly, District Special Education Director and Technology Director

“If we are to prepare our students for the 21st century workplace, they should be learning using 21st century tools.” ~ Jarod Sites, Principal, Spring Creek Elementary ( Now the Principal at Dixon Middle School)

“These kids know technology! They are more comfortable with technology than most of their teachers. It’s about using what is applicable to them. It’s no longer relevant to just come in and write on a chalkboard and have the kids follow along. If it works for them and if it’s engaging, I think that’s what makes it relevant to their generation. The same kid that won’t read a book will sit down with the iPad and read for fifteen minutes because he’s got technology in his hands.” ~ Jordan Dille, Special Education Teacher, Dixon Middle School

“This generation is so ready to soak up anything technology wise.”~ Lisa Bringhurst, Sixth Grade Teacher, Spring Creek Elementary

“The students are more excited because they have more ownership. Their progress is better because they can self-monitor and self-pace, they get immediate feedback. They hear themselves and can self-judge. That’s a big carryover to conversation which is the end result we are after.” ~ Carrie Mecham, Speech Pathologist

How do you use the technology during instruction?

“We’re a technology immersion school. We have a 2 to 1 student to computer ratio in our upper grades. We use technologies to help with reading comprehension, reading fluency, mathematics, problem-solving, science, history, grammar, and especially with writing.” ~ Jarod Sites, Principal, Spring Creek Elementary ( Now the Principal at Dixon Middle School)

“Everyday, we’re using the iPads, Promethean Boards, and computers to model concepts, to have students demonstrate understanding, and complete assignments to show mastery.” ~ Jordan Dille, Special Education Teacher, Dixon Middle School

“The iPad is exciting! Often our students find apps that we can use in the classroom to practice and master what we’re learning. I use “Puppet Pals” to reinforce vocabulary. Students use the characters and move them in the app to create a play using the vocabulary words. They give me ideas. They say ‘What about this app? Have you tried this app Mrs. Bringhurst?’ There’s always new apps. It’s always growing! ~ Lisa Bringhurst, Sixth Grade Teacher, Spring Creek Elementary

How is it changing the landscape of teaching and learning?

“The excitement of our children is unbelievable! We hear kids saying: ‘Can we use the technologies today? Can we use the iPads today?’ No students have been heard saying: Can we fill out a worksheet today?” ~ Jarod Sites, Principal, Spring Creek Elementary ( Now the Principal at Dixon Middle School)

“Students are more engaged. More excited to be in school and in class. Much more active participation during instruction.” ~ Ryan McCarty, Special Education Teacher, Spring Creek Elementary

“From day one my students were excited to get the iPads out and start using them. These kids go home and they get around on You Tube. They’re constantly coming in and telling me: ‘Have you checked out this?’ I  hardly make worksheets anymore. This generation is so ready to soak up anything technology wise.” ~ Lisa Bringhurst, Sixth Grade Teacher, Spring Creek Elementary

“I’ve noticed that the computer forces you to approach it in a certain way, how you face the screen, using the keyboard and mouse. With the iPads I’ve noticed that students are up and down, engaging more in conversations about their work, showing each other their work — there’s greater engagement with learning and with each other. ”  ~ Rem Wiscombe, Technology Specialist

“Students are more interactive with each other during learning tasks. Students are more independent. I go around much more answering questions about the learning.” ~ Heather Petersen, Sixth Grade Teacher, Provo Peaks Elementary

“Many of our students in one of our preschool classes were non-verbal. Debbie Carr, the preschool teacher approached the district and requested having a Promethean Board in her classroom. “I ready,” she said. She uses this technology to engage her students in language. These students first verbal responses were to the technology inviting them to speak. Now they are speaking! ~ Anine Mack-Leavitt, Speech Pathologist

“What I love about the iPads the most is that you can completely individualize the learning by student.” ~ Kim Broadbent, Technology, Westridge Elementary

Conclusion: 

I’m convinced that what Provo is doing in technology immersion is replicable in any district or school in the Utah. When it comes to technology immersion, Provo School District is committed to skilling up and scaling up the attitudes and aptitudes of it’s principals and teachers in the appropriate use of technology to improve teaching, learning, and most importantly, the achievement of students.

I’d like to conclude by addressing two deflection tactics that are sometimes used to thwart our efforts to be technology immersed.

1) We have too many students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, and students of poverty.

I posed this deflection tactic to Jarod Sites when he was the principal at Spring Creek Elementary. His response was: “We’re deliberately putting iPads into their hands because it helps close the achievement gap that much faster. One-to-one para-professionals working with a child who is not engaged is just torture for both the adult and the child. We put a powerful tool into the child’s hands and give them reins to do something, within the teachers’ set parameters, and their learning is that much better. The number of students requiring tier 2 and tier 3 interventions is less because teachers can focus more on how to make the concepts stick and students are engaged in activities that are tied to the concepts and are excited to demonstrate what they’ve learned. Get started by putting the technology into the hands of your disadvantaged kids.”

2) It’s too hard to change and not everyone will agree.

I posed this deflection tactic to Ted Kelly, Technology Director and Special Education Director. His response was: “In Provo, we do have moments. Our moments do not change our focus and our goals. If you’re not committed to no whining, you’re committed to It can’t be done. We can’t afford it. That change will make somebody mad. We can’t alter that program, we’ve done that forever. You either live in no whining or you live in mourning. Change happens so fast that we lose perspective of what it really means. Can you imagine when people saw the first television or the first motor vehicle? We weren’t there. Change happens so fast that we morph it so we limit our perspective. The world is changing. We get to get on board or it moves on without us.”

The landscape of teaching and learning in Provo has changed and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of it’s students because a small group of educators said “let’s get on board”. Margaret Mead said: “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

This is Provo’s secret in becoming a technology immersed district. It’s not in acquiring computers, iPads and Promethean Boards. It’s about students being ready to take on post-secondary opportunities, being employed in the 21st century work place, and being contributing citizens in their community. It’s about students taking their rightful place in society. They’re learning by doing! So can you!

Author: Suraj Syal, Coordinator, UPDC (Utah Personnel Development Center)

There is much talk about the difference between 20th and 21st Century education. The differences between the students of the 20th Century and those we teach now are profound, well known and documented. From these differences, plus the differences that exist in the world we live in now and the world our students will occupy, it is safe to assume that education to must change. So this is an attempt to compare the predominant educational approach of the 20th Century and that of the 21st Century.

Comparing 20th and 21st Century Education paradigms

Click to Download the Full PDF

Source:Educational Origomi, www.edorigami.wikispaces.com/Comparing+20th+%26+21st+Century+Education

Technology can enhance learning — educators must take a leadership role in determining the ways in which technology is used to support educational goals.

We’re all familiar with the extravagant promises of technology: It will make our students smarter — and it will do it faster and cheaper than ever before. Moreover, the promise suggests, this miracle will occur almost by osmosis. We need only place a computer in a room, stand back, and watch the magic take place. If only life were that simple and learning that easy!

Those of us who remember the 1980s, when computers were first making their way into our classrooms, probably also remember a great deal of bad software. As educators, we were unfamiliar with the technology and uncertain about its possibilities. So we stepped back and let software developers, hardware vendors, and other technicians define not only what we could buy, but also how those products would be used. In many ways, the technology drove the educational process. And guess what? It didn’t work very well!

Now, we’ve entered an era in which technology is no longer an intimidating novelty. Its use in business and industry is both accepted and expected. And pressure abounds-from the federal government, from local school boards, and certainly from the media-for educators to get on board and see to it that students become technologically skilled.

But is mere technological skill enough? Two points should be considered.

Technology as a Tool

Technology is a tool that can change the nature of learning.

First and foremost, educators want students to learn. It is certainly not enough to tell educators that they need to use the boxes and wires that have invaded their schools simply because they are expensive or because students need to know how to use the latest widget. If it’s clear that technological tools will help them achieve that goal, educators will use those tools.

The real world is not broken down into discrete academic disciplines. I’ve heard a number of teachers say that they would like to be able to change the way they teach–to find ways to implement project-based, multidisciplinary lessons. Let’s think about how that might happen when technology is used to support learning.

Technology lends itself to exploration. But before technology can be used effectively, exploration must be valued as important to both teaching and learning. In a technology-rich classroom, students might search the Web for information, analyze it, and then chart the results and record what they’ve learned on the computer.

In such an environment, acquiring content changes from a static process to one of defining goals the learners wish to pursue. Students are active, rather than passive, producing knowledge and presenting that knowledge in a variety of formats.

In such an environment, educators can encourage a diversity of outcomes rather than insisting on one right answer. Learning can be evaluated in multiple ways, instead of relying predominately on traditional paper and pencil tests. And perhaps most importantly, teachers and students can move from pursuing individual efforts to being part of learning teams, which may include students from all over the world.

Of course, active learning is rarely a clean, neat process. Students engaged in such a process can create busy, noisy, and messy classrooms. It’s important to recognize that this kind of learning takes practice, for both the teacher and the students.

Activities and learning environments must be carefully guided and structured so learners are fully engaged in their learning. Students must learn that exploration doesn’t mean just running around doing what they want and ending up who knows where. Educators must recognize that if students are investigating and asking questions, writing about what they’re learning, and doing those things in an authentic context, then they are learning to read and write and think.

In a technology-rich classroom, students don’t “learn” technology. Technology merely provides the tools to be used for authentic learning. It is a means, not an end.

Technology provides educators with the opportunity to move from simply streamlining the way things have always been done to really imagining things they would like to do.

What a wonderful opportunity!

Choosing and Using the Tools

Teachers must determine how technology tools are used, and they must have a hand in designing the staff development process that trains them.

What will it take to realize the full potential of that opportunity? First, teachers must insist on being part of the planning for technology integration, rather than merely the recipients of other people’s ideas.

They must work together to create exemplary units, and then they must share their experiences with one another.

Teachers must take responsibility for helping design the staff development process so that it really meets their needs, so that it includes time to practice using the equipment, to watch teachers model lessons that infuse technology into the curriculum, and to mentor other teachers.

Of course, teachers cannot revolutionize the educational system by themselves, and make no mistake about it, that is what we’re discussing.

Have you heard the story about the administrator who came to observe a teacher? The classroom had five computers, and the students were all busy on an investigation. Some of the students were using the computers, and others were working on projects or creating information. Some students were working together. Others were working alone. The administrator walked up to the teacher, who was assisting a small group of students, and said, “I’ll come back when you’re teaching.”

As that story demonstrates, we also have to help administrators understand what a technology-rich lesson looks like. We have to insist that administrators provide us with time to work together, to explore, and to play with technological tools. We have to make sure that support for lifelong learning for educators, as well as for students, is built into our schools.

Teachers are creative, intelligent people, and once they learn to use technology in their professional lives, for keeping records, for creating documents, and for enhancing their own learning they will soon discover the many ways in which technology can enhance what they are doing with their students.

Working Together

In order to successfully infuse technology into their classrooms, teachers must have the support of all stakeholders in the educational community. They must resist the notion that learning to use the “gadgets” is an end in itself.

They must provide desperately needed leadership to find the best ways of using technology to enhance teaching and learning. They must expect and demand the best and most interesting software to enhance their educational goals. They must be included in planning the technology implementation, and be encouraged to experiment with the available tools.

Finally, teachers must educate themselves on how to best use those tools to enhance teaching and learning.

It is an exciting time to be teaching, and we must seize this moment to challenge ourselves, our students, our administrators, and policymakers throughout the country to help all teachers make the best use of the technology tools available to them.

Author: Lynne Schrum, associate professor in the department of instructional technology at the University of Georgia.

Are you a Digital Dinosaur?

If someone would have projected five years ago that social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter would catch on and be so prevalent, I would have laughed and called them crazy. After all, radio talk shows had existed for a long time, but generally appealed to older listeners in limited or very focused nitch audiences. So, if someone would have projected that adolescents would lead the way in embracing electronic communication to the extent that they have, I would have laughed, as adolescents are not known for their communication skills or practices.

How wrong could I be.

If Facebook were a country, it would have the world’s second largest population behind China. Recent statistics suggest that 71% of school-age youth have posted public profiles online, access their Facebook accounts a staggering number of times per day, and spend an average of twenty-three minutes each visit. This is powerful data, but does “social communication literacy” translate to more students doing better work? The jury seems to be out.

Writer and educator Marc Prensky (www.marcprensky.com/), in considering technology in teaching and learning coined the terms Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Five years ago, an UMTA conference (Utah Mentor Teacher Academy) featured Ian Jukes, an educational advocate for embracing technology in education. He proposed that the world is now divided into three groups: 1. Digital Natives, 2. Digital as a Second Language Users, and 3. Digital Dinosours. His presentation caused strong, yet polarized reactions among participants; educators (mostly younger) either loved his message and agreed, and others (mostly older) who rejected the message and disagreed. Where do you fit?

Digital Natives (DFL:Digital as a First Language)

These are our students of today. According to emerging research, their brains are wired differently, and as such learn best when they can use digital tools that they have mastered. I have heard digital native youth referred to as Screenagers (not teenagers). Speaker Ian Jukes presents a strong case in this YouTube video on understaning the Digital Generation at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecFizWZgIiA

Digital Immigrants (DSL: Digital as a Second Language)

Do you work with any DSL educators? Do they roll their eyes and sigh every time their favorite tech programs or software are “updated”, and begrudgingly struggle through the learning curve to reach a functional level of competence? Do they say that they support the idea of social media and technology in their teaching , yet, admit to struggling in how to integrate DFL learning strengths in their lessons.

Digital Dinosaurs (DD’s)

Do you know any educators who are hard to reach via email or through texting? Have you heard statements similar to these from teacher peers? “My students just don‟t _____ like they used to,” Digital Immigrant educators grouse. I can‟t get them to ____ or to ____. They have no appreciation for _____ or _____ . (Fill in the blanks, there are a wide variety of choices.)” Marc Prensky

Our goal in planning this special monograph edition of the Utah Special Educator was to examine and highlight current hot topic issues emerging through the use of technology in education, and in particular, application to special needs populations. There are many examples of educators, schools and districts in Utah that have embraced technology in a big way, and we wanted to present a sampling of these as well. The deeper we went, the more difficult the task became. This was not due to the lack of technology-related articles in the media, far from it, but from a lack of consensus and limited research linking technology to increased learning outcomes. Consider the research.

Research: Digital Natives vs. Analog Schools

A widely regarded meta-analysis of thirty years of educational research is the book What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2002). It was only published ten years ago, yet, does not even address technology as a then current or promising practice to increase achievement. Visable Learning (Hattie, 2008) is a more recent meta-analysis of 800 educational studies over the past fifteen years, yet, mentions technology in passing, but does not examine it in a meaningful way. It would appear that technology and its’ use in education is moving so rapidly, that the quantitative research cannot keep up. Research on specific hardware tools will never be able to keep pace with the rapid advances in models and features of tools such as iPads. If educational technology advocates are correct, the digital divide between digital natives and analog schools must be addressed if students in the United States are to be competitive in the global economy.

“The real goal, they say, is not to install more and more technology but to think more creatively about how each new piece of it can be used to further the real goal of 21st Century learning. In other words, they say, it’s really not about hardware at all: it’s about headware. “ (Marc Prensky)

Author: Michael Herbert, Editor, the Utah Special Educator

CLEAR TEACHING

What if Charles Darwin had written The Origin of Species and nobody noticed? Or Copernicus had shown that the earth went around the sun and nobody be-lieved him? Or Jonas Salk had found a cure for polio and nobody cared? Such has been the fate of Siegfried Engelmann, pioneering inventor of a better way to teach that almost nobody uses.

Engelmann has spent the last 50 years working out answers to basic questions every good teacher asks. What should I teach my students? How can I teach them so that they all learn what I’m trying to teach? How can I accelerate their learning as much as possible and help those who are behind? How do I know in what order to teach things and what not to teach at all? How will I know right away if a student is learning or is confused and needs help? How do I re-teach? How do I get my students to pay attention and work hard? How do I get them to trust me? How do I get them to trust themselves? In sum, how can I become the best teacher possible?

Author: Shepard Barbash, Education Consumers Foundation

Download the entire book free HERE>

Our celebration of "Heroes Everywhere" was a huge success. Photo by Randy Robertson

“My mom is a hero,” Alfredo said, cutting me off one sentence into a picture book about Martin Luther King, Jr. His chubby second-grade body perpetually squirmed on the rug where my 32 students were seated. “She brought us here from El Salvador by herself. Me, my two sisters, and our baby brother. We walked.”

“My mom is a hero too,” said Catalina. “She brought us from Mexico. But we came in a truck.”

“The desert was hot,” Alfredo cut her off.

“The truck was hot,” Catalina said. The two began to argue. I closed the book. Other students had started telling stories about grandparents and parents who had immigrated. Some listened to each other and engaged in conversation; others talked over each other.

This was my first year teaching, a year when the majority of my lesson plans looked completely different when they were implemented. I had failed to activate my students’ prior knowledge and ask them what they already knew about heroes. When Alfredo cut me off, I recognized this. […]

Author: Elena Aguilar via Edutopia

Continue reading here: Good Instruction Activates Prior Knowledge and Uses Authentic Assessment | Edutopia.

Big Ideas

“The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn. This simple shift– from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning– has profound implications for schools.” (Richard DuFour)

“Professional Learning Communities judge their effectiveness on a basis of results. Working together to improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every teacher-team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress.” (Richaed DuFour)

Author: Steve Barkley

Read more HERE>

Photo by Len Radin

This story is just one example of why theater and arts are important in our lives.  There really is nothing that compares to the magic that happens between a live performance and it’s audience.

“It was generally agreed by all that the show was “kind of rough” (tech wise). But after the show we learned that there was a 5 year old autistic child in the house. He had never spoken. But as the lights went down, he began to talk. In full sentences. He called the teacher by name. She had no idea he even knew her name. He was engaged in the show – at one point commenting to the teacher that if there is a dragon then there will be fire. And there was fire. He talked all throughout the show. When the lights came back up – he quite talking and returned to his world. So, yes, I could list all the little things that wrong today but that is not what this show is about. And that little boy certainly didn’t see those things as he sat talking in the dark theatre watching Harold and his Purple Crayon.”

Read more here: Incredible story from Seattle Children’s Theatre & Children’s Theatre Company « Seattle Pockets.

The following “Five-by-Five” approach to differentiation contains ideas that we have found effective in our classrooms. It is not a road map: It doesn’t offer step-by-step directions. Instead we think of it as a compass: It is a set of strategies that guide our work with students.

Our first five points are about “setting the stage” for effective differentiation, while the other five highlight actions teachers can employ daily.

5 Ways to Set the Stage

1. Assessing: At the start of the year (and, in fact, throughout the entire year), we want to find out more about where our students’ skills are, a process that informs our differentiation approach. Education researcher Robert Marzano has called formative assessment “one of the more powerful weapons in a teacher’s arsenal.”

2. Building Relationships: Marzano says positive relationships with students are a “keystone of effective teaching.”

3. Keeping Students Moving Forward

4. Teaching Life-Skills Lessons

5. Creating a Community of Learners

5 Day-to-Day Actions

Authors: Katie Hull-Sypnieski and Larry Ferlazzo, educators, Burbank High School CA.

Read more HERE>

Educational researchers Brian Lord, Kate Cress, and Barbara Miller (2008) describe hard feedback as crucial to instructional improvement. They explain: “By hard feedback, we refer to instances where a teacher leader’s honest critique of classroom practice is issued even though the critique actively challenges the teacher’s preferred practice and may lead the teacher to experience some level of professional discomfort”. Hard feedback is necessary to facilitate deep and sustainable changes in teachers’ practice.

We must redefine the improvement process to include challenging but meaningful conversations about instruction, making nonpunitive collegial critique an accepted and expected part of teaching practice. Conversations intended to assess and address student and teacher learning needs should be a common component of teachers’ interaction.

Authors: Melinda Mangin, Rutgers University, and Sara Ray Stoeinga, Urban Education Institute

Read the full article HERE>

Use Student Friendly Language!

Rubrics are a beast. Grrrrrrr! They are time-consuming to construct, challenging to write and sometimes hard to use effectively. They are everywhere. There are rubrics all over the web, plus tools to create them, and as educators, it can overwhelm us. Rubrics are driven by reforms, from standards-based grading to assessment for learning. With so many competing purposes, it only makes sense that rubrics remain a beast to create and to use. Here are some (only some) tips for designing and using effective rubrics. Regardless of the reforms and structures you have in place, these can be used by all educators.

1) Use Parallel Language

Make sure that the language from column to column is similar, that syntax and wording correspond. Of course, the words will change for each section or assignment, as will the expectations. But in terms of readability, you need to make sure that the rubric can be easily read from left to right or vice versa. In addition, if you have an indicator described in one category, then it needs to be described in the next category, whether it is about “having” or “not having” something. This is all about clarity and transparency to students

2) Use Student Friendly Language!

3) Use the Rubric with Your Students… Please!!!

4) Don’t Use Too Many Columns

5) Common Rubrics and Templates are Awesome

6) Rely on Descriptive Language

 Author: Andrew Miller, Buck Institute for Education

Read more HERE>

Education professionals increasingly focus on identifying programs, practices, and strategies that are research based. To be considered as the highest (“gold”) standard of research based, educational practices must have evidence (a) that is supported by rigorous and scientific data (high quality) and (b) that has a body of studies that demonstrate positive outcomes (high quantity).

To be considered scientifically based, research should be objective, empirical, replicable, have valid and reliable data, use particular research designs, and use rigorous data analysis.

Source: The Access Center 

Read more HERE

Strategies for motivating students —including students with disabilities—in science courses and programs.

Knowledge of popular culture is useful in making personal connections with students and is often a key to unlocking their understanding of scientific concepts (Hesse, 1966; Thiele & Treagust, 1995). The concept of protein channels and active transport in cell membranes is difficult for many students to comprehend. Labora- tory experiments do not reveal the microscopic process, and images and animations do little to help students grasp the concept. An analogous macroscopic (large- scale) process can help students visualize a microscopic (small-scale) process. Most students are familiar with the cartoon Scooby DooTM and are aware that in almost every episode, a character grabs an object, such as a book or candlestick, and an entire section of wall flips to reveal a hidden room. This “flipping” action is very similar to the action of active transport proteins within the cell membrane.

Historically, students with disabilities have experienced difficulties in fully accessing and participating in middle school and high school science programs and courses. Moreover, teachers have held lower expectations for students with disabilities than for students without disabilities in science programs (Cunningham & Noble, 1998). This situation continues to disenfranchise students with disabilities because they exit high school unprepared for college courses that can lead to a career in the sciences (Vogel, 1993). In addition, few students with disabilities exit high school inspired to attend college and pursue careers within the sciences.

Authors: Peg Lamb and Mary Brown, ,Lansing Community College, Bill Hodges and Dave Foy, Holt High School

Read more HERE:

Photo by Marwa Morgan

One way to create effective literacy instruction for English learners in the elementary grades is to provide extensive and varied vocabulary instruction.

Provide high-quality vocabulary instruction throughout the day. Teach essential content words in depth. In addition, use instructional time to address the meanings of common words, phrases, and expressions not yet learned.

Source: U.S. Department of Eduation

Read more HERE

Photo by Casey David

There are a variety of grouping formats that have been proven effective for teaching reading to students with learning disabilities: whole class, small group, pairs, and one-on-one. This article summarizes the research and implications for practice for using each of these grouping formats in the general education classroom.

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) believe that Response to Intervention (RtI), sometimes referred to as Response to Instruction or multi-tiered interventions, holds great promise as an instructional process to benefit all children and youth. NASDSE’s RtI publications, Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation and Response to Intervention: Research For Practice have been disseminated throughout the country to thousands of people interested in learning about RtI.

NASDSE and CASE believe there is a need for additional publications to help policymakers and implementers focus on the components of a framework or blueprint to guide the implementation of RtI. Professionals from around the country with experience and expertise in RtI implementation at the state, local district and school building levels agreed to contribute by writing and/or editing blueprints. This publication, Response to Intervention Blueprints: State Edition is one of three publications. The other publications in this series are the school building level and district level editions.

The documents can be downloaded free-of-charge from NASDSE’s website at www.nasdse.org and CASE’s website at www.casecec.org. Print copies will be made available for the cost of printing and handling from NASDSE.

Read more HERE>