CART Disclaimer.  
	This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way.


3222.  NCDB.  1 p.m.
Access to the General Education Curriculum.  
Susan Weigert, Kristi Probst, Sam Morgan, Tracy EvansLouiselli, Haylee Berland
.

>> Welcome everybody, thanks for joining, we'll get started in about a minute or two.  
All right, this is Haylee Berland.  I see we're at the top of the hour, so I'll get started.  Welcome everyone to today's session, this is the DB Summit access to the DBC.  Quickly go over some few things.  If you could keep your cameras off and microphones muted.  That way we keep the focus on our presenters today.  The presentation will be recorded and archived.  The recording along with any of the materials shared in the chat or on screen will be posted in our Base Camp group.  
We have also created a web page which EC materials that you will see later on in the session.  
Okay.  I'm going to start the recording.  Then I'm going to pass this on to Kristi Probst who will start this session.  
>> Hello everyone.  Thank you so much for joining us today for our third session for Deafblind Summit.  We're really happy to have you with us today as we talk about accessing the general education curriculum.  
I am going to share my screen now.  
So, as it's loading, our first person who is going to talk to us today is Sam.  And he's going to just welcome everyone and then get us started.  So Sam Morgan, I'm handing over to you.
>> Thank you so much, Kristi.  
First of all I want to apologize for the noise, the urban noise.  It seems to increase in intensity whenever I have to present so I'll apologize for that.  
So, I want to thank the NCDB staff, especially Emma Nelson, Kristi Probst and (indiscernible) for the immense amount of work they have done to get this work off the ground.  It's really been a heavy lift.  
I would also like the thank Susan Weigert for freeing to present on the access to general curriculum.  Susan has been instrumental in providing (indiscernible) and is able to (indiscernible) concepts more clearly than many others who we have spoken can.  
Last but certainly not least, I want to thank Tracy EvansLouiselli, not only for presenting today, but for being in conversation with us over the last few months around the topic.  
We have been working on and wrestling with how best to approach this topic for all of us as a network.  We realize that there is a wide range of experience in the network.  Some who have been providing TA on Access to the General Education Curriculum in mind for a significant amount of time.  And others who are just exploring and learning.  
For some of you this foundational information may be very familiar, but I hope that regardless if it is or is not, you will, it will give us all a common starting point for working together.  
I want to acknowledge that this is an area of challenge for us as a network, for a range of reasons.  Including the intensity of need of many of the children we serve as well as the variability of the school context that you all work in and how they may or may not be addressing Access to the General Education Curriculum in their instructional planning and delivery.  
This has a significant impact on how you can provide technical assistance in this area.  
Just as a point of clarification that I think will be clear in Susan's presentation today but is important to mention.  Is that this work is focused on students who are eligible for alternate assessment.  Not those students who are Deafblind who take regular assessment and now we are referring to as sufficient communicators.  
Today and next week we will start to address this together.  Today we'll be focus on the larger ideas that the general education curriculum work is based on along with the state perspective on implementation.  Next week, you will hear from a number of state projects and their experience in providing TA within this context as well as had time to share and start working together.  
This is meant to be first steps in our work together and we look forward to hearing from you how we can support your technical assistance efforts in being here today.  
Susan.  
>> There we go.  Good afternoon everyone.  To both if Deafblind Project Director and staff who were on the call.  My name is Susan Weigert and I am the Project Officer for OSEP National Center of DeafBlindness.  
Today I want to talk to you about what the federal government means by Access to the General Education Curriculum.  And specifically what it means for students with deafblindness who may have significant cognitive disabilities.  This presentation is part one of a two part series on Access to the General Education Curriculum that the National Center of DeafBlindness is featuring as part of this year's Deafblind Summit.  
Part two of this series will be delving more deeply into the issue of implementation of the General Education Curriculum for deafblind students.  While the presentation I'm about to give provides the rationale and legal foundations of each state, district and school's requirement to provide Access to the General Education Curriculum for each and every student with deafblindness and defines important concepts embedded in this requirement.  
The topics to be covered include foundations in statute, regulation and policy guidance.  The State content and achievement standards, what's the difference between those two things.  The alternate assessment and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.  Standardsbased IEPs, what they are and how they're referred to in the law.  And foundations of communicative competence.  So those are the topics I would like to go through.  Thank you.  
Starting out, let's ask the question, why is it required that schools provide each student with deafblindness Access to the General Education Curriculum?  And what does Access to the General Education Curriculum really mean?  
So, first let's consider what the IDEA stays that IEPs must be designed to did with respect to access to the general Ed curriculum.  
And secondly, we'll consider how the regulations in part B define the general education curriculum.  
So, as you see here, under the IDEA, in order to make FAPE available to each child with a disability, the child's IEP must be designed to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, that is in the law in the IDEA.  
So you see, each child has an individual right to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum.  
Also in the regulations implementing part B of the IDEA, you'll see that the general education curriculum is defined as the same curriculum as for nondisabled students.  
The IDEA defines special education as specially designed instruction, as you know.  The part B regulations define this key term, specially designed instruction, and defines the purpose of the specially designed instruction and what it must ensure.  
So the IDEA part B regulations define specially designed instruction, which is that critical element in the definition of special education, as adapting, as appropriate, the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of that child that result from the child's disability and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdictionÊof the public agency that apply to all children.  In other words, the state standards.  
So, the Supreme Court decision in Endrew V. Douglas County in 2017 determined that the IEP must be written so as to enable appropriate progress.  So, as you see, it says, in order to provide children with disabilities the free appropriate public education guaranteed under the individuals with disabilities act, school districts must offer children an individualized education program reasonably calculated to enable each child to make progress appropriate for that child's circumstances.  
So, what does appropriate progress mean?  Well this was defined in an earlier Supreme Court decision in 1982.  In 1982 the Supreme Court's Decision in the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District V. Rowley suggests that appropriate progress for most children would allow them to be fully integrated into the classroom and to advance from grade to grade.  
More recently, in 2015, OSEP Assistant Secretary Michael Udin clarified the definition of Access to the General Education Curriculum with respect to students with disabilities.  And this was done to emphasize the importance of alignment of instruction to the general education curriculum, and to provide guidance to states whose districts and schools may have drifted from the regulatory requirements involving access to grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.  
So, as you see, I have a link here to the dear colleague letter of November 16, 2015.  And it reiterated as is in the regulations that Congress intended the meaning of the general education curriculum to be the same curriculum as for nondisabled students.  
It also clarified that the IEP must be aligned to the state standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled.  And it reiterated that each State is permitted to develop alternate academic achievement standards for students with significant cognitive impairment.  
As you know, the part B regulations require participation of all students, including students with deafblindness in State and districtwide assessments and require alternate assessments to be developed if any states have students requiring them.  And of course all states do.  
You can see this slide just summarizes that section of the regulations requiring participation in assessments or alternate assessments.  
Also the ESSA regulations in section 200.2 also mention the State responsibilities for assessments and for alternate assessments for children with the most significant cognitive disabilities, that they measure performance based on alternate academic achievement standards.  
We're going to talk about what that means, but those achievement standards are defined by each state and consistent with the law, and reflect professional judgment as to the highest possible standards achievable by such students.  So, please remember highest possible standards; or what the alternate academic achievement standards are supposed to convey.  
So, what are some additional requirements of an alternate assessment and alternate achievement standards?  How must they be developed?  
The revised ESEA and regulations require that the achievement standard be aligned with the purpose of WIOA.  
So as you say, it says in the law now, state responsibilities for assessment to ensure that a student who meets the alternate academic achievement standards; in other words, a student who tests proficient on the alternate assessment which reflects those standards, is on track to pursue post secondary education or competitive integrated employment consistent with the purposes of the rehab act as amended by WIOA in 2014.  
Let's just talk about these purposes of WIOA and what are they and what are the purposes that alternate assessment must be aligned with.  As you know, WIOA is designed to help job seekers with disabilities access employment, education, training and support services, to succeed in the labor market and to match employers with skilled workers that they need to compete in the global economy.  
Also for the peer review process at the Department of Education.  And that's a process in which panels of experts review State assessments for conformity with peer review requirements for states.  And these are technical requirements for assessments.  
For this process, states must provide evidence showing that students who take alternate assessments and pass them are indeed able to pursue post secondary education or competitive integrated employment.  
But remember that consistent with Section 1111 of the act, the alternate achievement standards must reflect professional judgment as to the highest possible standards achievable by such students to ensure that a student who meets the alternate academic achievement standards is on track to pursue post secondary education or competitive integrated employment consistent with their rehab act as amended by WIOA.  
So, as you're aware, WIOA requires states to coordinator their transition services and provide preemployment transition services to students who might be eligible for vocational rehabilitation.  And so thinking about how students get red dough for preemployment transition, and employment, the alternate achievement standards figure prominently in preparing students for this transition.  
So, now I would like to talk about the standards that states are required to develop under the ESEA to serve as the foundation for instruction of all students in a state.  
First let's distinguish between the two main types of standards, the content standard and the achievement standard.  
Content standards define what students need to know and be able to do.  And these are the standards in the core subject areas that states publish on their websites.  But achievement standards define how well the student is to perform.  They define the expectations for performance of a student who is proficient.  
Usually the achievement standards are proposed by test developers and they are approved by the state after examination of the impact on student performance statewide.  So this is often a technical process to see whether the achievement standards that are embedded in the content standards are suitable for the population that is being assessed.  
So, there are two levels of achievement permitted under the ESEA.  The grade level achievement standards which represent the expected level of achievement for the majority of students; and the alternate academic achievement standards which represent the expected level of achievement for up to 1% of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.  
Approximately 80 to 85 percent of students with deafblindness will fall into this category.  
So, what are the requirements for alternate academic achievement standards for the 1% of children eligible to take them?  First I want to review these requirements and then I want to illustrate for you the practical distinction between the alternate and the general standard.  
So, in the law, the requirements for the alternate academic achievement standards are, as I said somewhat before, they have to be aligned with the state's academic content standards for each grade level.  They have to promote access to the Gen Ed curriculum.  They have to reflect professional judgment as to the highest possible standards achievable by such students.  They have to be designated in the IEP as the standards that will be used for that student.  And they have to be aligned to ensure the student who meets the alternate academic achievement standard is on track to pursue post secondary education or competitive integrated employment.  
Now, in this complicated slide here, you will see a side by side of the general state standards, and in this case, we're using the Common Core state standards, that's the CCSS grade level standard in the left column.  And the corresponding alternate academic achievement standard in the right column.  
I'll be quickly comparing and contrasting these standards first for the English Language Arts standards adopted by most states for kindergarten, grade 6 and high school in that order.  And after that, I'll do the same with the math standard.  
So, when you look at the right most column Ê thank you.  You can see labeled DLM essential elements.  I'm not sure that'sÊ yeah, that's still there.  Please remember that this column is simply, represents the alternate academic achievement standard.  These alternate academic achievement standards have different names.  What you see here is used by about 24 states, the dynamic learning maps assessment consortium calls these alternate academic achievement standards essential elements.  
However, in Arizona, these standards are called core content connectors.  In Florida, the standards are called access points.  
So it's helpful when states publish these alternate academic achievement standards so that teachers know what the highest standards are that students are expected to meet by the end of the school year for that grade level.  So, please remember, this is what they should meet by the end of the school year for that grade level to be considered proficient.  
So, to look at them, I wanted to compare these standards just to illustrate how the alternate academic achievement standard is actually represented in the difficulty level of standard.  
So, let's take the first one for kindergarten, reading an Language Arts, reading literature for kindergarten.  
It says, for every child taking, you know, the general assessment, with prompting and support, the student will ask and answer questions about key details in a text.  And the alternate standard, the alternate achievement standard is reflected in the DLM essential elements, with guidance and support, identify details in familiar stories.  So, that is the objective by the end of the year.  
Another example.  For kind, in general grade level standard ask and answer questions about unknown words in a text.  For the alternate achievement standard, with guidance and support, indicate when an unknown word is used in a text, or story.  
For kindergarten, another standard for grade level, with prompting and support, describe the relationship between illustrations in a story in which they appear.  I'm sorry, between illustrations and the story in which they appear; for example, what moment in a story does an illustration depict?  And in the alternate standard, with guidance and support, identify illustrations or objects or tactual information that goes with the familiar story.  
So let's move onto the next slide.  
Another example from grade 6.  Cite evidence to support the analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.  So, fairly high level standard for grade 6.  For the alternate standard for grade 6, determine the theme or central idea of a text, how it is conveyed through details, provide a summary of the text, distinguish from personal opinions or judgments.  
Another example.  Explain how an author develops the point of view of the narrate tor or speaker in a text for grade level stand dashed.  For the alternate standard, identify words or phrases in the text that describe or show what the narrator or speaker is thinking or feeling.  
So, these are examples for grade 6 of the kind of thing the teacher is going to tempt to convey and to teach.  
So, let's look at grade 11, grade level standards in English.  For example, determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text in which the rhetoric is particularly effective, analyzing how style and content contribute to the power, persuasiveness or beauty of the text.  This is the grade level standard, grade 11, on the Common Core state standards for literature.  
The alternate standard for grade 11 or 12, determine the author's point of view and compare and contrast it with your own point of view.  
Now we're going to move into mathematics.  Count to one hundred by 1s and by 10s for kindergarten.  That is the expectation in most states for the end of the year for counting.  Count to 100 by the end of kindergarten.  For the alternate standard, the standard is starting with one, count to ten by ones, by the end of the year in kindergarten.  
Another example of kindergarten mathematics, count to answer how many for the general Ed standard, how many questions about as many as 20 things arranged in a line, a rectangular array or circle, or as many as ten things in a scattered configuration, given a number from 1 to 20, count out that many objects.  
The alternate standard corresponding alternate achievement standard, count up to three objects from a larger set, pairing each object with one and only one number, name to tell how many.  Standards for kindergarten.  
Another example, identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than or equal to the number of objects in another group, by using matching and counting strategies for kindergarten.  The alternate standard is, identify whether the number of objects in one group is more or less than when the quantities are clearly different, or equal to the number of objects in another group.  So concepts of more, less, equal to.  
Taking a look, I think I have, all right, this is in geometry.  An example of a grade level standard for kindergarten.  Describe objects in the environment using the names of shapes and describe the relative positions of these objects using terms such as above, below, beside, in front of, behind, and next to.  So that is not applicable for the alternate achievement standard.  It's not considered one that will be included in that, their general Ed curriculum expectations.  
However, if you look at the second one, correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size in the grade level standard for kindergarten.  The alternate standard is, match shapes of the same size and orientation, such as a circle, square, rectangle, triangle.  For kindergarten.  
So, moving onto grade 6 as an example of mathematics expectations for grade 6.  Fluently divide multiDIGIT numbers using the standard algorithm for division.  The alternate standard for that division for grade 6, apply the concept of fair share and equal shares to divide.  
Now for the high school level, for example this is more complex.  The grade level standard, given a geometric figure and a rotation, reflection or translation, draw the transformed figure using graph paper, tracing paper, geometry software, et cetera.  Specify a sequence of transformations that will carry a given figure into another.  That's the high school standard.  
For the alternate academic achievement standard for that standard, given a geometric figure and a rotation reflection or translation of that figure, identify the components of the two figures that are congruent.  So, more complex concepts in high school for mathematics and geometry.  
Okay let me move on for a second.  On second.  
So, let's think practically about what students must be ready to do.  When they are evaluated by the vocational rehabilitation for eligibility for employment.  
A discussion I once had with our own RSA rehabilitation services administration opened my eyes about the key skills a child must learn in school in order to become employed.  The child for the eligibility requirements or competitive integrated employment including customized employment, a student with a disability should be able to fundamentally communicate with others and problem solve on the job.  
I wanted to emphasize that standards based construction, K through 12 is what will allow a child to make appropriate progress as they advance from grade to grade, and to develop those skills.  
Before the year 2000, the IEP often functioned as the curriculum for students with disabilities.  So, whatever the teacher or the IEP team put in that IEP represented the limit of what those students were provided in terms of access to the general Ed curriculum.  
Now that standards based IEPs are a requirement, it's important to know that state standard are too numerous to list on an IEP or to use as a basis for each IEP goal.  Also it is not recommended that teachers write an IEP goal and then try to find a matching state standard.  
So, standards based IEPs.  Those IEPs that are going to be based upon for these children that we're talking about today, the alternate academic achievement standards, should just, thus pertain to the overarching standard or the strand or conceptual area of standards rather than to individual standards.  So, when written well, an IEP goal will be applicable to multiple standards.  
So, this slide is on developing standards based IEPs.  The teacher should understand the progression of standards, how those standards progress across grades, more generally as a progression of increasingly sophisticated knowledge and skill.  
And sometimes test developers call these overarching goals that I referred to as claims or strands, claims about what a child should be able to do from grade to grade.  
 And they describe the expected progression of learning from kindergarten to grade 12 in a domain such as English Language Arts or mathematics.  And these are what I think are very useful when writing standardsbased IEPs.  
So, the claims addressed for example by the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment for English Language Arts can serve here as an example of a standardsbased IEP goal.  
For example, a goal, the student will comprehend text in increasingly complex ways.  The student will produce writing for a range of purposes and audiences.  The student will communicate for a range of purposes and audiences.  The student will engage in research or inquiry to investigate topics and to present information.  
I wanted to let you know that for each of these claims that are addressed in the last slide and this slide, I have included links in the PowerPoint that you can access for online self directed professional development for each of the modules, for each of these areas, such as for ELA claim one in shared reading, teaching text comprehension and so forth.  And also for this slide, in mathematics.  
So, let's look at the claims in mathematics.  Claim one, the DLM is the overarching goal the student will demonstrate increasingly complex understanding of number sense.  The student will demonstrate increasingly complex spatial reasoning or understanding of geometric principles.  Or the student will demonstrate increasingly completion understanding of measurement, data, analytic procedures.  The students will solve increasingly complex mathematical problems.  Thee are the overarching goals that I'm referring to that are better included in a standards based IEP than the inclusion of individual standards.  
So, focusing on these general overarching learning goals of the grade level standard in the IEP is a more reasonable approach for students with significant cognitive disabilities than is expecting 80% mastery of a prioritized standard.  
Again here, I have included a link for additional professional development on teaching students with complex support needs by using these claims or standards.  
In the next section, I wanted to talk about building communicative competence, which is really the most important foundation for Access to the General Education Curriculum.  
Starting with the federal guidance on the requirements to support communication for all students with disabilities.  Guidance from leaders in the field of low in incidence disabilities.  Nor to support communicative competence.  And professional development tor teachers, (indiscernible) and pathologists.  
So, OSEP provided guidance to the field in 2014 through a joint letter with the US Department of Justice on the obligations of all public schools to meet the communication needs of students with disabilities.  And this guidance was grounded in three federal laws.  The IDEA Title II of the ADA and Section 504.  Rehabilitation Tax Act.  All of these laws in some way addressed the obligations to all public schools to meet the communication needs of students with disabilities.  
So, as you know, the IDEA requires that schools make available a free appropriate public education that consists of Special Ed and related services to all eligible children with disabilities, including children who have disabilities that result in communication needs.  
Title II of the ADA requires schools to ensure that students with disabilities receive communication that is as effective as communication with others through the provision of appropriate auxiliary aids and services.  
And an FAQ that I linked in this slide expresses the interplay of IDEA and Title II requirements.  And these can be used by schools, parents, and others to explain the students rights and the schools legal obligations to address the communication needs of students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities.  
I want to remind you that very simply put, the development of communicative competence begins Idiosyncratically and moves to more conventional communication.  
In order to accomplish this, it is critical that each child with deafblindness have a communication partner, sensitive to the child's typical forms of expression and knowledgeable of the communication plan for the child.  
The communication plan for any child with deafblindness should focus on both Access to the General Education Curriculum and access to what is called the expanded core curriculum activities which we'll discuss in a few minutes.  
An important paper published by Brady Bruce Eric con sand others inÊÊhe can Rick son and others.  In 2016.  Called communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities.  Describes changes in laws, definitions and policies and best practices for communication attainment by persons with severe disabilities.  And includes guidance regarding assessment and intervention practices.  
So, I want to read you just a bit of some of the guidance in that paper.  For individuals with severe disabilities, communication assessment and intervention must involve significant people and meaningful context across multiple environments.  Initial vocabularies should be designed to meet communication needs across learning, employment, living, and community context, including healthcare settings, by selecting Common Core vocabularies.  
I wanted to make you aware of a recent resource, a professional development, on supporting communication in inclusive classrooms.  And this is the TIES communication 101 module.  It's a professional learning series which provides evidencebased strategies for supporting communication in inclusive classrooms.  
One hour of ASHA credit is available for speech language pathologist at no charge and a certificate for one hour for credit is available for other educators.  And I put the link here to the TIES center program there.  
The second part of this talk I wanted to focus on foundations for access to the general Ed curriculum, the expanded core curriculum, and I want to include this important foundation that is required for access to the general Ed curriculum.  
So, what is the expanded core curriculum?  That refers to a set of functional skills developed for students with visual impairments, including students with deafblindness and additional disabilities, to help them access the general education curriculum and to live and work independently.  
These must be taught in addition to, and not in place of, the general education curriculum.  Students may take classes dedicated to building these kills, but teachers should incorporate these skills into academic instruction for children with deafblindness.  
So, the expanded core curriculum is built around nine core components, many of which will help students access the general Ed curriculum.  I have listed those components here.  Compensatory and functional academic skills, including communication modes.  Orientation and mobility.  Social interaction skills.  Independent living skills.  Recreation and leisure.  Career education.  Assistive technology.  And self determination.  And in the slide, I have links to information on all of those different core components.  
Finally, my last two slides will focus on an important foundational approach to making educational decisions about how children with deafblindness will access the general education curriculum.  
Make the least dangerous assumption.  The criterion of least dangerous assumption holds that in the absence of conclusive data, educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that students will be able to function independently as adults.  That was written in 84, 1984 by Anne Donnellan.  The lease dangerous assumption.  
And my last slide is just a reminder that you should bear in mind first and foremost that children with deafblindness have an individual right under the law to access age appropriate and challenging content linked to the highest standards possible for them.  
To ensure that they are prepared for post secondary education, the workforce, and for citizenship in the United States.  
Thank you.  And I know it's been a long presentation.  If you have questions, I will, my email is available.  You can always write to me.  I want to defer to NCDB to take up the next portion of this presentation.  
>> Thank you so much Susan for your information.  That is great foundational information that I'm sure the states are so thankful to hear.  
I see that I have an 8 on my chat.  So Emma were there any questions that I am to take up in the chat?  
>> Yes.  There were a few Kristi.  One is from Michelle appear son, in Florida.  She says, why does it not state that they should be offered both the VI expanded core curriculum as well as the Deaf/Hard of Hearing expanded core curriculum?  
>> That is a great point.  I think I should add that the next time.  The reason I included the VI is because it refers to deafblindness.  So, but I think that I'll take a look at the Deaf/Hard of Hearing expanded core curriculum as well.  Thank you for that suggestion.  
>> Thank you Susan.  
The next one Kristi was from Susie more row and she was wondering if you could go back to the least dangerous assumption slide again Kristi just so she can take that in again.  
>> Sure.  Well if I can get it to go, I would love to.  There we go.  
>> Okay.  
And then Sherry wrote, I was going to ask the same question as Michelle.  While I am not sure as it is widely used as the VIECC it is there and should be recognized.  
>> Yes.  Thank you for that.  
>> And Lisa Collette is wondering what the length for TIES is again?  And Lisa, we will get that and put it in the chat for you.  
Let's see, Julie wrote, here you go, Susie, make the least dangerous assumption an she copied the content back in the chat.  
Are there any other questions?  
>> Thanks everybody.  I know that's a lot.  But I thought it would be helpful to give you the foundation and let's move forward to implementation.  
>> Thank you so much.  
>> Wonderful.  Well before we move on, we just wanted to give you two minutes to kind of shake it out, get yourselves refocus.  So Emma is going to set her timer and she's going to pull us all back together in two minutes.  
>> All right everybody.  We are going to bring it back in.  I just want to give a full disclosure that we were really thinking about playing the Wiggles, everybody shake your Wiggles out but we thought maybe our teaching backgrounds were a little over the top in that way.  So I hope you had a nice time to stretch your bodies and get up and get set for the next part of our presentation.  
We are just so thrilled to have Tracy here to share some of her experiences around this stop pick.  And thank you so much Tracy, we're going to turn it right over to you.  
>> Okay.  Hi everybody.  It's really great to be with you here today.  And I'm really grateful for the work and support that I've had from Emma and Kristi and their patience dealing with my mountain of questions and thoughts about the topic of access to the general Ed curriculum.  
And to begin today, I'm going to give you just a brief overview of my journey in learning more about how to address access to the GEC for children who are Deafblind and my travails across a five different state systems.  
True confessions.  When the common measures first came out, I was confused.  I was skeptical.  I think I was absolutely Lost in Space.  And when we had the conversation around the common measures, I thought communication, got that.  Preemployment, employment, okay.  Intervenors, check.  Professional development.  Check.  Systems, okay.  General Ed curriculum was more of that, oh my gosh, I can't believe we now have to move this needle as well.  And I was really just feeling very, very out of sorts trying to figure out what direction to go in.  
So I'm not an expert on access to the general Ed curriculum specially but here's what I've experienced and learned so far.  
First and foremost, oh my goodness, the terminology and the language across states is so very different.  Things like the domain or the topic area or clusters or strands or entry points.  Some people call access skills targets.  So, I found it really helpful to find my people at each of the state departments of education to be my point people when we have questions.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  We're still field testing a lot, but again this is just my general experience so far.  
So, what I found is there is lots and lots of confusion on, mostly as we began to search information, it's on the State's Department of Ed websites but sometimes you have to dig for it.  And again the search and how you label things really does make a difference.  
What I found was, there is differences not only across but within states.  I found districts that are coming up with their own alternate achievement standards.  I found differences across providers and how they're interpreting all of this work.  And then I've also found a difference between public and private school perspectives, where I have seen more of a focus on the expanded core curriculum and functional life skills for those programs that are more residentially or private school based.  
So, I think over this past year, I've shifted my perspective a lot about this topic.  I used to think, for example, just focused on Massachusetts, that the frame works were really unrealistic and often weren't meaningful for children who are Deafblind.  
Then I found a phrase in one of the NCB models on literacy and the similarities to GEC hit me.  And in our literacy work we learned that it's not about if or when, it's about how.  And that really resonated me, resonated with me about this topic.  
I realize now that shifting the same perspective and our support of children and access to the general Ed curriculum.  
Also I've learned to begin this process by having a conversation with classroom teachers and to buddy up to my general Ed pals who know the state standards front and back.  I think as TA providers, what I definitely see to be a challenge is, if I was just focusing on fourth grade it will be he is year for me to feel more comfortable around the standards and alternate achievement standards.  But we're providing TA to a huge age range.  So I don't have the magic answers to that but I do think it is a challenge.  
Once I have that conversation and I know what direction the team or the classroom of teacher is going in.  From there I can set my course for direction for my TA, focused object either the standard or an access skill aligned to one of the standards.  
So, recently I had a teacher tell me she needed ideas for the strand around numeracy.  She was really construct on how this particular child could possibly focus on numeracy.  
So we came up with different ideas of tactile number line.  All the kids had a number line on their desk.  So we adapted the number line using puffy paint on flat board and now we're exploring different ideas to have tactile pews.  So now as kids are counting, we're giving tactile pews up on the child's upper portion of their arm.  
I never expected that this child would be so engaged in a process.  And he loves counting with his peers.  So my viewpoint at the beginning really didn't assume his competence.  And I think I've learned a lot along the way around that whole piece of assuming competence.  
What's also come to the forefront for me is that that whole notion of attitudes really do make a difference.  And we've known this for so long in the field of deafblindness yet we haven't spent enough time identifying the exact accommodations needed to support access.  
For example, one of my staff recently said to me, why are we focusing on learning standards?  Isn't that the Gen Ed teacher's responsibility.  So she wanted me to focus solely on Deafblind practices but didn't understand that Deafblind practices, the Holy Grail that we clinic to, will really never be carried out consistently if we don't help teachers embed those practices in their daily instruction so my staff and I have been on some bumpy rides but I do feel we have landed the ship and have a better understand willing of where we need to go next.  
This graphic is used by the Massachusetts Department of Ed around this whole topic and it just depicts the connection between the school curriculum, the individual chide's participation so the curriculum is at the top.  And then the child's in the middle in terms of their vision, their support needs.  And our role is to support teams in identifying what those specific accommodations are.  And the instructional strategies that are needed to support access based on either the grade level standards or the alternate achievement standards.  So I found that this graphic while it's not that slick, it helps to kind of convey the whole message.  
Prior to my work around GEC, this is sort of where I would hang my hat.  Assessment tools and Deafblind practices, you know, the AEPS, a tool, the INSITE checklist, the Communication Matrix.  These were all my talking points when I went in to work with teams.  All those practices under communication under hand, communication approaches, calendar systems, sensory access and social skills.  
I think that we've done a great job looking at those practices and highlighting the importance, but we really haven't learned how to connect that to the curriculum and support teachers and teams to do so.  
So, now, again, I go back to those initial conversations with I ask about what are the grade level learning standards.  Let's talk about learning needs.  Present levels of performance.  What are the accommodations that you've used in the past?  Okay.  Now let's drill down the that specially designed instruction and look at how we can link those practices and related to the different standards, or those access points.  
So, this graphic just gives you an overall process of what we've been looking at around providing TA.  And around supporting the students access to the general Ed curriculum.  It's a triangle divided into three sections.  The bottom represents the starting point where the initial contacts with the team members regarding again, current grade level standards, those could be alternate achievement standards.  The current performance levels, the IEP objectives, family priorities.  So, that's where you would be sprinkling in your present center planning.  
Your sensory information regarding the students vision, hearing and tactile needs.  
The middle portion of the graphic represents those accommodations modifications and instructional supports that we know are necessary for that student to really achieve at their Highest level to respond consistently, to understand information.  And then the top section of the triangle represents the areas of specially designed instruction.  They're scripted out, highly individualized.  And linked to entry points and access skills.  
And then I'm going  some people call them entry points, so use access skills interchangeably.  They're really quite different if you look at a lot of your state information.  So, that's an area that I definitely had to educate myself and more.  
I came across a document a while ago.  It's called the MCAS ALT Survey, and it really helped me make this process realistic.  The survey is something I use frequently.  It's a simple checklist.  It's supposed to be administered by the teacher before selecting an entry point or access skill.  And the subject matter required for assessment.  
But I use the checklist to really look at where the child is around their current level of knowledge, their skills and abilities and it really shows you or highlights those challenging entry points that can be selected in each strand.  
So the thing that I like about it is, I can have that conversation with the team, so that we're arbitrarily not just deciding whether or not a child can access a particular content area.  We're actually going through an assessment process to come to that decision.  
It really helps familiarize teachers with the range of entry points in a particular strand or domain.  So again, I really encourage you to connect with your state Department of Ed folks to get more information about that.  
It's also helped me really think about the possibilities of where my students can start to jump into the race.  Maybe not at the beginning of the race or the mid point, but maybe they can pass off the time.  And the point is that they're still in the race.  And that's a good thing.  
So, do people create some activities in the name of GEC.  They're arbitrary and not engaging for your kids?  Absolutely.  But I believe that my role is to help teams engage our students to the maximum extent possible, so that the child's program is rich with challenging opportunities to learn the same or modified content.  
So, here's just an example of a student that I've been working with, Lija, if you go back and forth in terms of her grade level, she's been out sick quite a bit.  These 7 years old.  Lives with her family.  She watches Blippy a lot on YouTube.  Loves the family dog.  She vocalizes to express her likes and dislikes.  
We're looking at an eye gaze program for her and she does remarkably well, will stay on Zoom for sessions up to 40 to 45 minutes.  Her background as you can see is meningitis, she has a trach, a G tube and has seizures.  In addition she halls court could call vision impairment and moderate to severe hearing loss.  
So, what I've been working with and team around is look at how we can engage her in the curriculum.  So, on this next slide it's looking at the content area, the strand, the standard, the entry point.  So we're drilling down to that access skill.  They were working on the sun and moon and stars in school.  So, we looked at how we could use pictures to even begin to approach that particular topic.  
So, for her, we're looking at having her match picture to picture of the earth, moon and stars; using the PowerPoint within Zoom.  So we'll present a particular item and then she'll vocalize whether it's a match or not.  
It's really been pretty interesting to see how well she does with this T. I will say if she's working with a peer she's much more responsive.  So it's been interesting to kind of see how, just structuring the system for her, using the eye gaze system and making those accommodations have helped her connect with what's going on in the classroom.  
In the next slide, we have really crafted out some specific information around specially designed instruction for her.  Doing some preteaching around vocabulary.  Having really consistent routines at the beginning of the session.  We always start with that particular lesson.  
We've outlined her response time.  It seems to be a good five to six seconds for her.  And she is very social and responds really well to a lot of high fives and verbal feedback and a lot of excitement.  
And then again looking at her performance standards.  So this is just one example of how we work with this team around a child who really has very complex issues as you can see.  
Now, our template that we've been working on, you folks should have a handout of those in Base Camp as well.  Just like you folks, it's around readiness and I'm not saying that every team will drill down to this level with you, but when we're looking at intensive TA, if you can get teams that will kind of begin to have that conversation with you, then I think it gives you at least a slight bit of advantage as you move forward and try and script out more detail intensive interventions.  So again we're going through that process of the standard to scale the access, the accommodations in going through, what we're trying to use is a much more structured approach in our TA.  So that template should be in your handouts.  
We start with the team interview, the routine intervention plan, the accommodations, the implementation, the feedback and coaching.  I would like to say that all of my understanding, knowledge in this area is what I learned from Doctor Jennifer Grishom and her wonderful pal, Donna Carpenter in Kentucky and the intervention plan really is grounded in the use of systematic instruction.  
And again, all of this will depend to what extent the families and teams are willing to really dig deep to script out instruction and follow a plan.  
The hand out has the initial instruction for gathering team members, for discussions regarding those accommodations, outlining the steps, and structuring your feedback and coaching.  And Goal Attainment Scale if you do get a team that's really ready and able to go that far.  And we all know it's not easy, but sometimes we get riches if we hang in there a little bit longer than we thought.  
So, I will like to leave you with a little bit of, well here, here basically, this is a work in progress.  And I would love to engage with any of you who would like to look at our TAdocks again, we can bounce around some ideas of how to make things as simple and concise as possible.  
We have portions of this that are on our database right now, but we definitely need to make some revisions.  I would again definitely say that it relates, the comfort level for consultants, it really is very specific to age groups and in different grades.  So that's something that we have to work on.  
COVID has been such a challenge for everybody.  I think trying to do intensive TA at this level has been even more challenging.  But I've been surprised at the number of families who really get this approach and I would like to leave you with this thought.  And that is, you know, I really bounced this around a lot in my head of how much I've grown and how much my perception has changed around access to the general Ed curriculum.  
But if you had an 8 yearold son or daughter, would you want them in a classroom or on Zoom studying the moon and street stars or counting with the puffy paint number line?  Or would you want them stacking plastic rings on a FisherPrice toy or putting pegs in a foam board?  
And I say that, because the latter is exactly what I observed in a classroom two weeks ago.  
For me, access to the general Ed curriculum is an optimistic way of looking at things.  I still have questions.  I'm still gathering input from folks.  But I believe access to the GEC is where we need to focus our attention.  And I'm hoping that we can create a resource that outlines accommodations and modifications that are important for this population.  
This resource could help all of us guide our TA and the teams that we work with.  And it feels so much better than stacking plastic rings and putting pegs in a foam peg board.  
I believe that access to the general Ed curriculum is a humanistic perspective and underscores that every child deserves to learn to their highest potential.  
It also underscores that we don't get to arbitrarily decide where a child jumps into the race.  I know we need to make sure that learning is meaningful for our students, but I never thought that this kid would be able to count bears with his fourth grade buddy using a puffy paint number line.  And I'm so glad that he's not in a storage room in the back of the school, stacking plastic rings and putting pegs in a foam board.  
I believe that our knowledge of effective Deafblind practices linked to the general Ed curriculum gives our students the best chance to be in the race.  
And with our fields passion and humanity, I believe we can do more and this is just the starting point.  Thanks for listening.  
>> Tracy, there is just no words.  Thank you so much for all that you shared today.  And for just believing so deeply in all of this, this work and in our kids.  It's just wonderful.  And as you can see from the chat, everyone is echoing that same sentiment.  So everybody, we're just going to take you through a really quick Next Steps.  And then I know you're disappointed but you will get out way before halfway past the hour.  So thank you all so much.  
I am going to put an evaluation link into the chat.  And we are going to give you all two minutes right now to click on that link and go try to complete it.  There is a very important piece on there, just like in session one of the first part around families, where you can put in what you would like addressed in the next session.  Or in our future work together on this topic like Tracy mentioned.  
So, Haylee, I don't know if you would mind just sticking that in the chat.  Awesome.  I'm going to set my timer and I'll be back in two minutes to close out what we're going to do next week.  
(Two minutes).  
>> All right.  30 more seconds an I'll close everybody out.  
All right.  So, next week, we are going to feature, like Tracy did, we're going to feature four more states who are diving into this work as well.  And what has been so powerful in working with Tracy and then the four states which are going next week which are Iowa, Nevada, California and Puerto Rico.  It's been amazing to see how everyone is attacking this in different ways.  Everybody is coming at it using their own strength as a project using their own connections that they have and really beginning to dig into this work.  And the, the way in which it's going to be presented next week will give you some time to hear from states, take a few moments to reflect, and then have a couple of break out sessions to really brainstorm and mind of muddle through this together.  
I hear Anna what was the fourth state.  Yes.  It's Iowa, Nevada, California, and Puerto Rico.  Thanks for asking for that clarification, Ann.  
So, then in preparation for next week, we just have three questions.  We would like you to think about.  Nothing formalized, nothing that you have to, come ready for.  It's just really to sit and think about what do you know about providing TV on Access to the General Education Curriculum.  What activities might you be doing within your state.  And then what components related to accessing the general education curriculum and alternate achievement standards are still unclear.  
And this, what I'm going to do next is put the link into the new access to the GEC web page that Peggy had put in earlier.  We're going to but that in again for all of you.  And we're also going to put a directory to the entire, every state academic achievement standard web pages.  So you'll be able to take a look through that directory, find our state and then find some resources that might be useful to you as you begin to reflect.  Thank you Peggy.  
And access to the GEC web page includes resources for you to learn more and also what you can do to help families and educators address this important topic.  
And I just really want to thank you Susan and Tracy for bringing just so much content and humanity like you said, Tracy, to this topic.  I really look forward to digging into this with all of you next week and in the coming months as we all muddle through this complex topic that's so important to all our kids.  Thank you all so much.  And we look forward to seeing you next week.  
(End of session).  
		
	CART ROUGH DRAFT