Integrating the Core

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Aug 2012Integrating the Core Jean Blosser, EdD, CCC-SLP Froma P. Roth, PhD, CCC-SLP Diane R. Paul, PhD, CCC-SLP Barbara J. Ehren, PhD, CCC-SLP Nickola W. Nelson andPhD, CCC-SLP Janet M. SturmPhD, CCC-SLP Jean Blosser Google Scholar More articles by this author , EdD, CCC-SLP, Froma P. Roth Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP, Diane R. Paul Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP, Barbara J. Ehren Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP, Nickola W. Nelson Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP and Janet M. Sturm Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.17102012.12 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In By now, we’ve all heard much talk of—and are feeling the push to partner with our colleagues to implement—the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Across the nation, state departments of education are rolling out these new benchmarks, which provide clear descriptions of what students should learn from kindergarten to grade 12. Thus far, 45 states, Washington, D.C., and three territories have adopted the CCSS as the basis for instruction. The vision is that students will be successful in school, leave high school with common knowledge and skills, and be prepared for postsecondary education and/or employment. For more background on the standards, see “Core Curriculum” (The ASHA Leader, April 3), the first of this two-part primer on how they apply to speech-language pathologists and speech-language service delivery. That article encouraged school-based SLPs to embrace their new roles and responsibilities, provided examples of CCSS across content area domains and grade levels, and offered recommendations for setting priorities. As with similar hot topics, the CCSS mandate prompts more questions than answers. SLPs are debating how to serve those who are at risk for failure in school, those with communication challenges that interfere with literacy, or those with severe disabilities who have been working toward more functional goals (read more online about two points of view on working with students with severe disabilities). Many questions have surfaced recently, including: What if my school doesn’t understand the integral role of SLPs in school CCSS initiatives? How do I explain my role? What information and guidance can SLPs provide to teachers—and vice versa? Where do I begin? Are there a few typical standards that SLPs in the schools tend to address? How can SLPs link their intervention goals to the standards when there are communication skills to address? What are some communication skills associated with the CCSS that are critical for students to perform successfully? What tools can SLPs use to provide appropriate assessment, intervention, and support? Do I need to tie my students’ individualized education program (IEP) goals to grade-level standards? Would it ever be appropriate to target the CCSS for chronologically younger children? Communicating the Role of the SLP Educators, school administrators, and even some SLPs may not fully understand the breadth of the SLP’s role and responsibility with regard to the CCSS, academic outcomes, scores on statewide achievement tests, and annual yearly progress scores. They may not recognize that these aspects relate directly to school speech-language service delivery. These questions are likely the result of their perception that SLPs focus only on “correcting” speech and language skills that are impaired. Getting beyond this limited view of the role of school-based SLPs (ASHA, 2010) requires understanding that communication plays an important role in all aspects of the curriculum, as well as in success at home, school, work, and community (see ASHA’s recent professional issues statement about the roles and responsibilities, and “ What’s So Important About Roles and Responsibilities?”). Collaborating With Teachers There is no better time than now to help educators, parents, and other constituents understand the foundational underpinnings of language and literacy and the value SLPs can bring through intervention and collaboration. Like other professionals, SLPs can experience greater professional success if they know how to tailor their programs to fit the expectations, context, goals, and culture of their environment. To that end, school-based SLPs can contribute to all students’ educational success if they integrate key information about a student’s educational performance and challenges into their planning, assessment, and intervention. This integration enables SLPs to align their programs and intervention goals with educational expectations and to identify and measure a student’s functional communication in the context of the curriculum standards. This approach improves students’ ability to access the curriculum and can contribute to their academic outcomes, especially in the areas of communication, language arts, and functional literacy—but also in mathematics, science, history, and technology. General and special education teachers also are seeking better ways to teach the general curriculum standards to students with special needs, and SLPs can help in this area. For example, in the case study about Tyler (Case Study 2), one teacher commented about a specialized writing program for providing differentiated writing instruction: “Up until this year, my students, who are high-school age, have been copying and tracing and writing their name and address. This program gives us a way to provide differentiated instruction to our students that allows them to be authors and to share their writing with us and with their peers” (Sturm, in press). Critical Communication Skills As members of the educational team, SLPs should develop an awareness of the content standards and objectives that their students are expected to learn. But where should you begin? There are so many standards, and for each standard there are benchmarks and grade-level indicators. The English Language Arts standards make sense as a starting point because they include reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language, all of which require critical communication skills for attainment. One step SLPs can take is to obtain a summary of the progression of expectations for the content areas from grade to grade, and then determine the communication skills that would be required for meeting that expectation. Teachers are the experts who can provide this valuable progression information during their collaborative exchanges with SLPs. Linking Intervention Goals to CCSS Knowing the academic content standards helps SLPs better assess students, develop intervention goals and objectives, provide intervention, and collaborate with teachers. Haskill (2004) suggests that SLPs use either a standards-referenced approach or a standards-based approach to develop relevant goals and activities. In standards-referenced, the SLP and team develop the goals and then identify the standard that best matches that goal. In standards-based, the standard serves as the starting point for generating the goals and objectives. Another approach is to use the flow chart [PDF] developed by Flynn and Power-deFur (2012) that starts with reviewing the content for the grade, aligning it with the student’s current functioning level, and designing an intervention based on teacher collaboration, IEP goals, and classroom materials. For students with severe disabilities, Staugler (2007) suggests establishing differentiated responses such as reliable communication signals and messages as a potential mode to enable students to meet curricular goals during standards-based learning activities. Goals for students with severe disabilities should result in increased participation, increased ability to exercise control over their own lives, increased opportunities for others to interact with them, and potential to develop new skills for further learning. Tools The standards will be fully effective when newly aligned assessments are implemented in several years. Many state departments of education and educational and professional organizations, including ASHA, are developing tools to provide instructional, curricular, and assessment guidance and support. Progress-monitoring tools used in schools to track students’ progress in acquisition of the curriculum offer new opportunities to SLPs who are interested in determining if their intervention is affecting students’ classroom performance. Some Guidance We have identified six principles (see sidebar) to help you make CCSS-related decisions about how to accommodate individual students and how to integrate the standards into your services. We also have provided three student profiles as examples. These profiles provide practical insights into how the context of the curriculum standards can be combined with instruction and intervention to help students achieve greater success. Each profile presents a student with a different disability, a different type of need, different levels of support, and ways that the SLP and teacher collaborate. SLPs have a complex, multifaceted role to play with students who demonstrate the full range of abilities and disabilities, from those who are having reading difficulties in general education classrooms to students with significant intervention and support needs. SLPs can collaborate with general and special education teachers to integrate the CCSS into the daily school routine. A standards orientation, blended with functional instruction when needed, can provide school personnel with a framework to optimize student outcomes, foster independence, and support future goals. The authors are members of the Committee on Speech and Language Learning Disabilities in Children of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Communicative Disabilities and Deafness. The division, chaired by Diane Paul, promotes the welfare, development, and education of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with communicative disabilities or who are deaf or hard of hearing. Selected References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.(2010).Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools[Professional Issues Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy. Blosser, J. (2012).Outcomes matter in school service delivery. In Golper, L. (ed.), Outcomes in speech-language pathology, 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Preparing America’s students for college & careers (2012). Available from www.corestandards.org. National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (2003).Position statement on access to communication services and supports: Concerns regarding the application of restrictive “eligibility” policies. Available from www.asha.org/policy or www.asha.org/njc. Critical Communication Skills Six principles can guide SLPs’ efforts to integrate the CCSS in school-based programs. These principles provide guidance on how to link the CCSS with students’ current goals and demonstrate optimal ways to collaborate with school counterparts. The principles may be used to ensure that students with communication disabilities and other special needs: Have access to the general education curriculum. Are held to appropriately high academic standards. Receive supports to help them achieve their highest potential and independence. Principle I—Focus on Student Outcomes In the context of the CCSS, all educators, including SLPs, must focus on preparing students to achieve their highest potential for independence and postsecondary education and/or employment. Principle II—Ensure Educational Relevance The CCSS are interrelated and should not be taught in isolation. Instead, instruction should occur within and across standards rather than teaching one standard at a time. Communication intervention goals may be linked directly to the CCSS, particularly those in the areas of language arts and literacy. In many states, SLPs and school districts have started to develop individualized education program and other resource and tool banks that provide standards-based checklists for teachers, SLPs, and other educators. Principle III—Establish Distinct but Complementary Roles Teachers and SLPs have distinct, but complementary roles, working collaboratively to provide multiple types and levels of support. The SLP’s focus should be to support the success of students and to prepare them to access the curriculum, communicate to learn, and achieve academic goals. SLPs are not charged with teaching the general education curriculum. Collaborative efforts should include clarity of roles and responsibilities; confirmation of the commitment to implement agreed-upon strategies; and identification of the appropriate standards, curriculum objectives, and instructional/intervention opportunities. A simple conversation can confirm these important aspects. Also review ASHA’s professional issues statement on the roles and responsibilities of school-based SLPs (ASHA, 2010) with your team members and administration. Principle IV—Tools Communication difficulties have a direct effect on a student’s academic performance. Teachers and SLPs can monitor progress using standards-related measures. The standards include grade-level indicators that can serve as checkpoints to help educators monitor an individual student’s progress toward achieving benchmarks or the specific components of the knowledge or skill identified by a standard. For some students, the standards of a lower grade (below the student’s chronological age) may be the appropriate benchmark for ensuring access to academic instruction at a level that could provide the foundation for more age-appropriate learning. When a student can’t perform a specific task or demonstrate the appropriate level of performance, SLPs and teachers may need to modify instructional strategies, methods, procedures, environment, or communication to provide necessary support. For continued educational relevancy, we need to be open to modifying our programs and services to make sure that we have identified goals, objectives, strategies, and service models that are appropriate to meet students’ needs. Principle V—Address the Continuum of Need Teachers and SLPs provide services along a continuum of need with increasing levels of frequency, duration, intensity, and individualization (Blosser, 2011; Roth, Dougherty, Paul, & Adamczyk, 2010). Instructional goals and strategies need to be individually adjusted based on the academic, social, behavioral, and communication skills exhibited by each student. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to service delivery will not work either within or across students. Therefore, the amount and type of services, as well as the location and provider of those services, should be matched to each student’s ability and disability. Decisions should be based on strengths, type of disability, impact on learning and participation, specialized interventions required, and expertise needed for instruction or intervention. Principle VI—Focus on Academic Standards Does Not Preclude Functional Skill Instruction Students with severe disabilities should have access to a standards-based curriculum for those areas relevant to their needs and skills. However, students continue to need functional skill instruction in areas such as home, school, community, and self-help skills. SLPs and teachers should work together to determine the optimal balance between teaching functional life skills and following a standards-based curriculum. Serving Students with Severe Disabilities: Two Points of View Clinicians, as well as educators, may have different views about where the standards-based curriculum may fit into educating and treating students with severe disabilities. One viewpoint is that the desired outcome of independence and transition to adult life can be best assured by focusing on teaching functional skills that are personally relevant, and that time should not be wasted on teaching academic skills that are too far out of reach (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011). A second view is that functional goals do not preclude attention to a standards-based curriculum with expectations for students to receive instruction in concepts and skills that are part of the general education curriculum, such as reading and writing (Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012). These two points of view can stimulate educational teams to explore ways to support learning of the academic curriculum for students who might previously have been thought to be “too impaired” to benefit from such instruction (National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities, 2003). To meet students’ needs effectively and help them reach their individual potential, a blend of different approaches may be appropriate. By understanding the rationale for others’ points of view, SLPs can be prepared to engage in discussions with their education and/or clinical colleagues. In a discussion about the two common points of view, Courtade, Spooner, Browder, and Jimenez (2012) present the following seven compelling reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: Students with severe disabilities have the right to a full educational opportunity to learn general curriculum content. Inclusive practices include access to the general education curriculum, community-based instruction, and interactions with typically developing peers. A standards-based curriculum is relevant to students with severe disabilities because it can expand options and opportunities. Access to curricular standards that are personally relevant can help with the transition between school and adult life, including job opportunities. We do not know the full potential of students with severe disabilities. Research has demonstrated the potential of students with disabilities to develop literacy, math, social studies, and science concepts beyond previous expectations. Functional skills are not prerequisite to academic learning. Functional life skills do not need to be mastered before academic instruction occurs. Functional skill instruction should appear on IEP objectives, but they are not a prerequisite to access to the general education curriculum. A standards-based curriculum is not a replacement for a functional curriculum. Access to general curriculum content doesn’t mean just teaching state standards. Community-based instruction, daily living skills, and development of jobs skills also are necessary and priorities may shift over time. An individualized curriculum is limited when it is the only curriculum. Standards-based instruction promotes sequential learning with a longitudinal plan and builds competence over time. Students are creating changing expectations by their own achievements. Functional and standards-based instruction should approach students with dignity, focus on strengths, value personal preferences, and recognize that disabilities don’t define individual potential. Should you teach functional life skills? Should you follow a standards-oriented curriculum? You may be able to do both to foster independence. Engage in a meaningful discussion with your speech-language pathology and education colleagues. Collaborate to arrive at a mutually agreeable approach that can be implemented consistently to ensure that the services provided are personally relevant and can build upon and/or complement one another so that time with students in treatment and in the classroom can be maximized. Common Core Case Studies Case Study 1: Milo Milo, age 6, is struggling with first-grade reading. His native and only language is English, and he has an unremarkable history of sensory, motor, neurological, physiological, and social-emotional problems, with no previous language difficulties. He does not have an individualized education program, but his teacher is concerned about his struggle to learn to read and meet the demands of the grade-level curriculum objectives. Student Characteristics At the beginning of the school year, Milo demonstrated grade/age appropriate phonemic awareness skills on the first-grade screening tasks. He successfully blended orally produced single-syllable CVC phonemes (consonant phoneme → vowel phoneme → consonant phoneme) into CVC words (for example, c-a-t → cat) and segmented orally produced single-syllable words into their individual properly sequenced phoneme segments (for example, cat → c/a/t). He received curricula-based reading instruction in a whole-class setting, which focused on the development of phonics and word-recognition skills. Based on his classroom performance and results of regularly administered progress monitoring tasks, Milo did not demonstrate expected progress during the first two months of reading instruction in several instructional areas including: (1) sounding out common consonant digraphs; (2) decoding regularly spelled one-syllable words; and (3) decoding common two-syllable words. The assessment data clearly indicated that Milo required further instructional support to attain this foundational reading standard. Milo was placed in a small group with students who displayed similar needs and received additional instruction to supplement the whole-class format. The teacher and SLP developed a uniform set of recommendations for this additional instruction, which occurred daily in the classroom for 20 minutes: Make instruction more explicit and systematic; increase opportunities for practice; track Milo’s mastery of the targeted skills, re-teaching as necessary, slowing the pace of instruction; and provide specific positive and corrective feedback following each response. Both the teacher and SLP provided the small-group instruction, alternating days according to their schedules. This collaborative effort resulted in a consistent instructional program that could be implemented with a high degree of fidelity. It also enabled meaningful communication between the educators with expertise in learning and the language of learning. Examples of specific teaching strategies included (1) sounding out words along with the teacher; (2) identifying examples and non-examples of correct pronunciation; (3) using visual cues (underline or each use to and providing opportunities by students to work together to each of the instructional objectives. The outcome of this instruction was Milo demonstrated in all three areas of reading, but continued to struggle in one area not attain the level for skill decoding two-syllable words. further review of the assessment Milo’s to be (1) he did not consistently words according to their and (2) he words with Based on these performance data and his recent in other areas of reading, the teacher and SLP that Milo would likely benefit from a level of differentiated instruction. plan included providing additional instruction with increased frequency, and of over time until Milo demonstrated the ability to apply these skills when reading words and With this increased level of support, the teacher implemented several instructional (1) decoding instruction with two-syllable where each as a to the (2) use a small set of words for instruction along with to Milo’s focus on and (3) additional including following mastery of the so that Milo could apply his own knowledge to new to the teacher administered and Milo demonstrated performance for decoding two-syllable as well as his in the two other areas of the teacher will Milo’s reading performance to determine the level of support services needed, as well as follow Milo’s and degree of progress toward mastery of this reading standard. Standards 1: Skills and apply grade-level phonics and skills in decoding words. the for common consonant regularly spelled one-syllable words. and common vowel team for vowel knowledge that must have a vowel to determine the of in a two-syllable words following by the words into words with and read spelled words. Instruction Some examples of whole-class instructional and a such as and or a or of beginning with words as writing the on the read it to the and point out two or three of the the and students to each time they a that has the students to other words that with and these words on the and students to of that with the Have them out two or three a and have each student one of his or to on the As students their them to the and have the name of the the name of the the this instructional for two additional and students to into by Have students the name of each as they on CVC using a for you it and & with three small to each several or single-syllable words on the students to for and the they know such as , or to the students to out each to blend the into the part students to their by it into a to see if it the words from a or other have students read the in the in which the by into a of common two-syllable words on the and explain that these words are of words can