West Virginia Code of State Rules › Agency 126 - Education › Title 126 - LEGISLATIVE RULE BOARD OF EDUCATION › Series 126-044V - Next Generation Alternate Academic Achievement Standards for English Language Artis in West Virginia Schools (2520.161) › Section 126-44V-4 - Severability

Current through Register Vol. XLI, No. 28, July 12, 2024
4.1. If any
				provision of this rule or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
				is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
				applications of this rule.
Background on the Dynamic Learning Maps Essential
				  Elements
The Dynamic Learning Maps Essential Elements are specific
				  statements of knowledge and skills linked to the grade-level expectations
				  identified in the Common Core State Standards. The purpose of the Dynamic
				  Learning Maps Essential Elements is to build a bridge from the content in the
				  Common Core State Standards to academic expectations for students with the most
				  significant cognitive disabilities. The initial draft of the Dynamic Learning
				  Maps Essential Elements (then called the Common Core Essential Elements) was
				  released in the spring of 2012.
The initial version of the Dynamic Learning Maps Essential
				  Elements (DLM EEs) was developed by a group of educators and content
				  specialists from the 12 member states of the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate
				  Assessment Consortium (DLM) in the spring of 2011. Led by Edvantia, Inc., a
				  sub-contractor of DLM, representatives from each state education agency and the
				  educators and content specialists they selected developed the original draft of
				  DLM EEs. Experts in mathematics and English language arts, as well as
				  individuals with expertise in instruction for students with significant
				  cognitive disabilities, reviewed the draft documents. Edvantia then compiled
				  the information into the version released in the spring of 2012.
Concurrent with the development of the DLM EEs, the DLM
				  consortium was actively engaged in building learning maps in mathematics and
				  English language arts. The DLM learning maps are highly connected
				  representations of how academic skills are acquired, as reflected in research
				  literature. In the case of the DLM project, the Common Core State Standards
				  helped to specify academic targets, while the surrounding map content clarified
				  how students could reach the specified standard. Learning maps of this size had
				  not been previously developed, and as a result, alignment between the DLM EEs
				  and the learning maps was not possible until the fall of 2012, when an initial
				  draft of the learning maps was available for review.
Alignment of the DLM EEs to the DLM Learning
				  Maps
Teams of content experts worked together to revise the
				  initial version of the DLM EEs and the learning maps to ensure appropriate
				  alignment of these two critical elements of the project. Alignment involved
				  horizontal alignment of the DLM EEs with the Common Core State Standards and
				  vertical alignment of the DLM EEs with meaningful progressions in the learning
				  maps. The alignment process began when researchers Caroline Mark and Kelli
				  Thomas compared the learning maps with the initial version of the DLM EEs to
				  determine how the map and the DLM EEs should be adjusted to improve their
				  alignment. The teams of content experts most closely involved with this
				  alignment work included:
Mathematics
English Language
							 Arts
Kelli Thomas, Ph.D. (co-lead)
Caroline Mark, Ph.D. (lead)
Angela Broaddus, Ph.D. (co-lead)
Jonathan Schuster, Ph.D.
PerneetSood
Russell Swinburne Romine, Ph.D.
Kristin Joannou
Suzanne Peterson
Bryan CandeaKromm
These teams worked in consultation with Sue Bechard, Ph.D.
				  and Karen Erickson, Ph.D., who offered guidance based on their experience in
				  alternate assessments of students with significant cognitive
				  disabilities.
The Alignment Process
The process of aligning the learning map and the DLM EEs
				  began by identifying nodes in the maps that represented the essential elements
				  in mathematics and English language arts. This process revealed areas in the
				  maps where additional nodes were needed to account for incremental growth
				  reflected from an essential element in one grade to the next. Also identified
				  were areas in which an essential element was out of place developmentally,
				  according to research, with other essential elements. For example, adjustments
				  were made when an essential element related to a higher-grade map node appeared
				  earlier on the map than an essential element related to a map node from a lower
				  grade (e.g., a fifth-grade skill preceded a third-grade skill). Finally, the
				  alignment process revealed DLM EEs that were actually written as instructional
				  tasks rather than learning outcomes.
This initial review step provided the roadmap for subsequent
				  revision of both the learning maps and the DLM EEs. The next step in the DLM
				  project was to develop the claims document, which served as the basis for the
				  evidence-centered design of the DLM project and helped to further refine both
				  the modeling of academic learning in the maps and the final revisions to the
				  DLM EEs.
Claims and Conceptual Areas
The DLM system uses a variant of evidence-centered design
				  (ECD) as the framework for developing the DLM Alternate Assessment System.
				  While ECD is multifaceted, it starts with a set of claims regarding important
				  knowledge in the domains of interest (mathematics and English language arts),
				  as well as an understanding of how that knowledge is acquired. Two sets of
				  claims have been developed for DLM that identify the major domains of interest
				  within mathematics and English language arts for students with significant
				  cognitive disabilities. These claims are broad statements about expected
				  student learning that serve to focus the scope of the assessment. Because the
				  learning map identifies particular paths to the acquisition of academic skills,
				  the claims also help to organize the structures in the learning map for this
				  population of students. Specifically, conceptual areas within the map further
				  define the knowledge and skills required to meet the broad claims identified by
				  DLM.
The claims are also significant because they provide another
				  means through which to evaluate alignment between the DLM EEs and the learning
				  map nodes, and serve as the foundation for evaluating the validity of
				  inferences made from test scores. DLM EEs related to a particular claim and
				  conceptual area must clearly link to one another, and the learning map must
				  reflect how that knowledge is acquired. Developing the claims and conceptual
				  areas for DLM provided a critical framework for organizing nodes on the
				  learning maps and, accordingly, the DLM EEs that align with each node.
The table below reveals the relationships among the claims,
				  conceptual areas, and DLM EEs in English language arts. The DLM EEs are
				  represented with codes that reflect the strands in English language arts with
				  the strand listed first, followed by the standard. For example, EE.RL.1 is the
				  DLM EE that aligns with Reading Literature standard 1. The grade is not
				  identified for the English language artsstandards in the table below, as
				  strands remain consistent from kindergarten through high school. Keys to the
				  codes can be found under the table.
Clearly articulated claims and conceptual areas for DLM
				  served as an important evidence-centered framework within which this version of
				  the DLM EEs was developed. With the claims and conceptual areas in place, the
				  relationship between DLM EEs within a claim and conceptual area or across grade
				  levels is easier to track and strengthen. The learning maps, as well as the
				  claims and conceptual areas, had not yet been developed when the original
				  versions of the DLM EEs were created. As such, the relationship of DLM EEs
				  within and across grade levels was more difficult to evaluate at that
				  time.
Table 1.
Dynamic Learning Maps Claims and
				  Conceptual Areas for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in
				  English Language Arts
Claim 1
Students can comprehend text in increasingly
							 complex ways.
Conceptual Areas in the Dynamic Learning Map:
C1.1 Determining Critical Elements of
							 Text
Essential Elements
							 Included
:RL*1, RL*3, RL*5, RI*1, RI*2,
							 RI*5
C1.2 Constructing Understandings of
							 Text
Essential Elements
							 Included
:RL*2, RL*4, RI*4, RI*8,
							 L*5
C1.3 Integrating Ideas and Information from
							 Text
Essential Elements
							 Included
: RL*6, RL*7, RL*9, RI*3, RI*6, RI*7,
							 RI*9, W*9a, W*9b
Claim 2
Students can produce writing for a range of
							 purposes and audiences.
Conceptual Areas in the Dynamic Learning Map:
C2.1 Using Writing to Communicate
Essential Elements
							 Included
: W*2a, W*2b, W*2c, W*2d, W*2f, W*3a,
							 W*3e, W*4, W*5, L*1a (grades K-2) L*2a, L*2b
C2.2 Integrating Ideas and Information in
							 Writing
Essential Elements
							 Included
: W*1a, W*1b, W*3b, W*3c, W*3d, W*8
							 (grades K-4)
Claim 3
Students can communicate for a range of
							 purposes and audiences.
Conceptual Areas in the Dynamic Learning Map:
C3.1 Using Language to Communicate with
							 Others
Essential Elements
							 Included
: SL*6, L*1a (grades 3-6), L*1b, L*1c,
							 L*1d, L*1e, L*1f, L*1g, L*1i, L*1j, L*3, L*4a, L*4b, L*6
C3.2 Clarifying and Contributing in
							 Discussion
Essential Elements
							 Included
: SL*1a, SL*1b, SL*1c, SL*1d, SL*2, SL*3,
							 SL*4
Claim 4
Students can engage in research/inquiry to
							 investigate topics and present information.
Conceptual Areas in the Dynamic Learning Map:
C4.1
Using Sources and
							 Information
Essential Elements
							 Included
: W*7, W*8 (grades 5-12)
C4.2
Collaborating and
							 Presenting Ideas
Essential Elements
							 Included
: W*6, SL*5
L = language; RL = reading literature; RI = reading
				  information text; SL = speaking and listening; W = writing
Resulting Changes to the DLM Essential
				  Elements
The development of the entire DLM Alternate Assessment System
				  guided a final round of revisions to the DLM EEs, which can be organized into
				  four broad categories: alignment across grade levels, language specificity,
				  common core alignment, and defining learning expectations (rather than
				  instructional tasks). The first type of revision was required to align the DLM
				  EEs across grade levels, both vertically and horizontally. The maps, and the
				  research supporting them, were critical in determining the appropriate
				  progression of skills and understandings from grade to grade. This alignment
				  across grade levels was important within and across standards, strands, and
				  domains. For example, in determining when it was appropriate to introduce
				  concepts in mathematics regarding the relative position of objects, we had to
				  consider the grade level at which prepositions that describe relative position
				  were introduced in English language arts. Examining the research-based skill
				  development outlined in the learning map aided in these kinds of
				  determinations.
The articulation of the claims and conceptual areas
				  reinforced the need for specific language in the DLM EEs to describe learning
				  within an area. Because teams assigned to grade bands developed the first round
				  of DLM EEs, the language choices from one grade to the next were not
				  consistent. Even when closely related skills, concepts, or understandings were
				  targeted, the same terms were not always selected to describe the intended
				  learning outcome. The teams of content experts who worked on this revised
				  version of the DLM EEs were very intentional in selecting a common set of terms
				  to reflect the claims and conceptual areas and applied them consistently across
				  the entire set of DLM EEs.
Another important change in this version of the DLM EEs
				  involved alignment to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Given that the
				  DLM EEs are intended to clarify the bridge to the CCSS expectations for
				  students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, it is critical that
				  alignment be as close as possible without compromising learning and development
				  over time. While there was never a one-to-one correspondence between the CCSS
				  and the DLM EEs, the revisions have made the alignment between the two more
				  precise than it was in the first version.
Finally, revisions to the DLM EEs involved shifting the focus
				  of a small number of DLM EEs that were written in the form of instructional
				  tasks rather than learning expectations, and adding "With guidance and support"
				  to the beginning of a few of the DLM EEs in the primary grades in English
				  language arts to reflect the expectations articulated in the CCSS.
Members of the DLM consortium reviewed each of the changes to
				  the original version of the DLM EEs. Four states provided substantive feedback
				  on the revisions, and this document incorporates the changes those teams
				  suggested.
Access to Instruction and Assessment
The DLM EEs specify learning targets for students with
				  significant cognitive disabilities; however, they do not describe all of the
				  ways that students can engage in instruction or demonstrate understanding
				  through an assessment. Appropriate modes of communication, both for
				  presentation or response, are not stated in the DLM EEs unless a specific mode
				  is an expectation. Where no limitation has been stated, no limitation should be
				  inferred. Students' opportunities to learn and to demonstrate learning during
				  assessment should be maximized by providing whatever communication, assistive
				  technologies, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, or
				  other access tools that are necessary and routinely used by the student during
				  instruction.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities include a
				  broad range of students with diverse disabilities and communication needs. For
				  some students with significant cognitive disabilities, a range of assistive
				  technologies is required to access content and demonstrate achievement. For
				  other students, AAC devices or accommodations for hearing and visual
				  impairments will be needed. During instruction, teams should meet individual
				  student needs using whatever technologies and accommodations are required.
				  Examples of some of the ways that students may use technology while learning
				  and demonstrating learning are topics for professional development, and
				  include:
* communication devices that compensate for a student's
				  physical inability to produce independent speech.
* alternate access devices that compensate for a student's
				  physical inability to point to responses, turn pages in a book, or use a pencil
				  or keyboard to answer questions or produce writing.
Guidance and Support
The authors of the CCSS use the words "prompting and support"
				  at the earliest grade levels to indicate when students are not expected to
				  achieve standards completely independently. Generally, "prompting" refers to
				  "the action of saying something to persuade, encourage, or remind someone to do
				  or say something" (McKean, 2005). However, in special education, prompting is
				  often used to mean a system of structured cues to elicit desired behaviors that
				  otherwise would not occur. In order to clearly communicate that teacher
				  assistance is permitted during instruction of the DLM EEs and is not limited to
				  structured prompting procedures, the decision was made by the stakeholder group
				  to use the more general term
guidance
throughout the DLM
				  EEs.
Guidance and support during instruction should be interpreted
				  as teacher encouragement, general assistance, and informative feedback to
				  support the student in learning. Some examples of the kinds of teacher
				  behaviors that would be considered guidance and support include verbal
				  supports, such as
* getting the student started (e.g., "Tell me what to do
				  first."),
* providing a hint in the right direction without revealing
				  the answer (e.g., Student wants to write
dog
but is unsure
				  how, so the teacher might say, "See if you can write the first letter in the
				  word, /d/og [phonetically pronounced]."),
* using structured technologies such as task-specific word
				  banks, or
* providing structured cues such as those found in prompting
				  procedures (e.g., least-to-most prompts, simultaneous prompting, and graduated
				  guidance).
Guidance and support as described above applies to
				  instruction and is also linked to demonstrating learning relative to DLM EEs,
				  where guidance and support is specifically called out within the
				  standards.
Conclusion
Developing the research-based model of knowledge and skill
				  development represented in the DLM Learning Maps supported the articulation of
				  assessment claims for mathematics and English language arts. This articulation
				  subsequently allowed for a careful revision of the DLM EEs to reflect both
				  horizontal alignment with the CCSS and vertical alignment across the grades,
				  with the goal of moving students toward more sophisticated understandings in
				  both domains. Though the contributions made by Edvantia and our state partners
				  in developing the initial set of DLM EEs were a critical first step, additional
				  revisions to the DLM EEs were required to ensure consistency across all
				  elements of the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment
				  System.