Assignment 6
Review pages 17-60 of the
2019 Access for All Guidethat you read. Identify two academic areas AND two non-academic areas you need to concentrate on to improve your instructional delivery to special education students. Pinpoint specifically what you will do to make those improvements in your instruction (i.e., what strategies will you use for instruction? What accommodations and modifications will you allow that you did not try before?). Include in your paper the reasons for your decisions.
Requirements: 250 words minimum and 500 words maximum. Assignment should be typed in APA format (title page, body, and reference page). ACCESS
FOR ALL
GUIDE
Fairness doesnt mean giving every child the same
thing, it means giving every child what they need.
-Rick Lavoie
2
2019 Access for All Guide
Carey M. Wright, EdD, State Superintendent of Education
Nathan Oakley, PhD, Chief Academic Officer
Mississippi Department of Education
Post Office Box 771
Jackson, Mississippi
39205-0771
Office of Special Education
601-359-3498
mdek12.org/ose
The Mississippi State Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, the Mississippi School for the Arts, the Mississippi School for the Blind, the
Mississippi School for the Deaf, and the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin,
age, or disability in the provision of educational programs and services or employment opportunities and benefits. The following office has been designated to handle
inquiries and complaints regarding the nondiscrimination policies of the above- mentioned entities:
Director, Office of Human Resources
Mississippi Department of Education
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Terminology: Accommodations and Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Accommodations and Modifications in Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
What Research Says . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hierarchy of Accommodations and Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Awarding Carnegie Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Individualized Education Programs and Specially Designed Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Whose Responsibility Is It Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Universal Design for Learning and Equal Access for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Conclusion: Success for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Access for All Guide Instructional Implementation 17
DEFICIT AREA: ACADEMICS
Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Word Recognition/Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Auditory or Language Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fine Motor Control/Spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Dyslexia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
General Math Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Recalling Facts or Steps in a Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Word Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
More Abstract/Complex Mathematical Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Basic Math Facts/Foundations Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
DEFICIT AREA: PHYSICAL
Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chronic Health Problems, Congenital Conditions, and Head Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
DEFICIT AREA: SPEECH/LANGUAGE
Speech Impairments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Language Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
DEFICIT AREA: SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL
Depression and Unhappiness, Physical Symptoms and Fears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Inappropriate Social Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Relationships and Social Interactions, Building and Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Trauma Induced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4
DEFICIT AREA: BEHAVIORAL
Academic Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Incomplete Classroom and Homework Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Inability to Accept Constructive Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Does Not Follow Written or Oral Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Disorganized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Impulsiveness and Over-Excitement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Inappropriate Social Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Irresponsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Non-Compliant with Classroom Rules, Teachers, or Other Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Outbursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Initial Reluctance to Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
DEFICIT AREA: ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS
Physical Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Time Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Keeping Track of Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Access for All Centers, Offices, and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5
Acknowledgments
The Mississippi Department of Education gratefully acknowledges the hard work of the following individuals for
their involvement in developing the Access for All Guide:
2018-2019 Principal Advisory Panel………………………………………………..Mississippi Department of Education
Suzanne Bean, PhD ……………………………………… Mississippi State University Research and Curriculum Unit
Ronnie Boyd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Union County Schools
Nicole Brazeal …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Lee County Schools
Connie Carnes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Kosciusko Schools
Sharon Coon ………………………………………………………………………………….. Mississippi Department of Education
Marla Davis, PhD…………………………………………………………………………….Mississippi Department of Education
Lindsay Dickerson ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Kosciusko Schools
Margaret Ellmer, PhD ……………………………………………………………………. Mississippi Department of Education
Kellie Fondren ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Mississippi State University
Kytonya Gibbs……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Tunica County Schools
Madelyn Harris ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Jackson Public Schools
Denise Harrison …………………………………………………………………………….. Mississippi Department of Education
Christy Hunt ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… University of Mississippi
Casey Johnson …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Attala Schools
Ashley Kazery ………………………………………………………………………………… Mississippi Department of Education
Teresa Laney ………………………………………………………………………………….. Mississippi Department of Education
Coke Magee ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Lee County Schools
Julie McCullough ……………………………………………………………………………………………..Myrtle Attendance Center
Nathan Oakley, PhD ………………………………………………………………………. Mississippi Department of Education
Myra Pannell, PhD……………………………………….. Mississippi State University Research and Curriculum Unit
Allison Paige Pigott………………………………………………………………………………….. Mississippi School for the Deaf
Mississippi School for the Blind
Bobby L. Richardson ……………………………………………………………………… Mississippi Department of Education
Kristen Richey …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. New Albany Schools
Gina Shavers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..Hancock County Schools
Amy Shelly ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… University of Mississippi
Lee Staten …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Kosciusko Schools
Susan Sullivan ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Kosciusko Schools
Edryce Thompson ………………………………………………………………………….. Mississippi Department of Education
Jacqueline Thweatt-Burton ………………………………………………………………………………… University of Mississippi
6
Introduction
The dissemination of the Access for All Guide signals an
important shift in the way that educators in Mississippi view
the provision of accommodations and/or modifications. This
guide will aid in providing quality classroom instruction for
all students, including general education students and students
with disabilities who receive instruction in general education
settings. In order to provide access for all, meaningful
collaboration between administration, general educators,
special educators, parents, and the students themselves must
take place. It is important to recognize that no policy exists that
prohibits the awarding of Carnegie Units if accommodations
and/or modifications are used. Therefore, it is important to
develop accommodations and/or modifications individually
for students based on their personal learning styles and
interests. Providing appropriate accommodations and/or
modifications for instruction and other classroom activities
will ensure success for students. Recent legislation promotes
accountability and facilitates the inclusion of all students. The
legislation demands educators ensure equal access to grade level content standards. Academic content standards
are educational targets for students to learn at each grade level. Teachers can ensure that students work toward
grade-level content standards by using a range of instructional strategies based on the varied strengths and needs
of students. Providing accommodations and/or modifications during instruction and assessments will promote
equal access to grade-level content (Maryland State Department of Education, 2012).
Terminology: Accommodations and Modifications
Confusion often arises regarding the definitions of accommodations and
modifications. In this context, accommodations and modifications are types of
adaptations that are made to the environment, curriculum, instruction, or assessment
practices in order for all students to be successful learners and for students with
disabilities to actively participate with other students in the general-education
classroom and in school-wide activities. The overall objective in implementing
adaptations should be to keep the INTENT of the standard but change the DELIVERY.
(Kent Independent School District, n.d.).
Accommodations help a student overcome or work around deficits affecting
their ability to master the curriculum. Accommodations do not reduce learning
expectations; they provide access. Accommodations change the way a student
accesses learning without changing the actual standards a student is working toward.
Using accommodations can be challenging. The goal is to find a balance giving students equal access to learning
without watering down the content (University of Kansas, n.d.). Allowing students who have trouble writing to
give their answers orally is an example of an accommodation. Students are expected to know the same material
and answer the same questions as fully as the other students, but they do not have to write answers to show that
they know the information. These changes are usually physical or environmental changes (Hamilton & Kessler,
2018). Accommodations do not substantially change the instructional level, content, or performance criteria.
Keep the
INTENT
but change the
DELIVERY
Questions to ask yourself:
1. Is my main objective to
teach all students in my
classroom?
2. Do I want all students to
learn the same concept from
this class?
3. If a child has a limited
memory, what is the most
important thing for him or
her to know?
7
Accommodations may include changes in
the following:
Presentation of a lesson
Instructional strategies
Student response format and
procedures
Time/scheduling
Environment
Equipment
Modifications may include changes in
the following:
Instructional level
Content/curriculum
Performance criteria
Assignment structure (e.g.,
paper/pencil work) (Shaker
Heights School District, 2006)
What is most important to know about modifications and accommodations is that both are meant to help a
student learn (Supports, modifications, and accommodations for students, 2017). Both are allowable in a students
attempt to earn Carnegie Units.
Modification means a change in how the student accesses or displays an understanding of content. Adjusting
the readability level of an assignment is an example of a modification. Modifications are generally connected to
instruction and assessment, which can be tangibly changed or modified. The changes are made to provide the
student with opportunities to participate meaningfully and productively.
Accommodations and Modifications in Policy
Having a disability can pose a serious challenge to learning and to fully demonstrating knowledge and abilities.
Accommodations and modifications can help students overcome or minimize the barriers presented by their
disabilitieswhich is why federal law requires their use when necessary (Newman and Madaus, 2015).
Three critical elements come together in this new world of accountability. Schools must now carefully consider:
What students with disabilities are studying
IDEA 1997 greatly emphasized the involvement of students with disabilities in the general education
classroom. IDEA 2004 further strengthened this requirement.
What students with disabilities are expected to know
It is important for students with disabilities to be held to the highest possible academic standards.
How well students with disabilities are learning
Without testing students how will we know if they are actually learning what they need to know or what
they may still need to master? (Kent State University, 2018)
Current federal and state laws require public school students participation in annual testing in specific academic
areas and grades, including students with disabilities. Requiring the inclusion of all students with disabilities helps
to ensure schools, school districts, and states are held accountable for the achievement of these students. IDEA 2004
mandates that all students with disabilities participate in state-wide and district-wide testing with appropriate
accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary and as indicated in their respective individualized
education programs (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines
Johnson, who believed that full educational opportunity should be our first national goal. The updated April
2007 regulations explicitly call for the participation in such assessments of all students [Sec. 1111 (3) (C) (I)]. (The
term such assessments refers to a set of high-quality, yearly student academic assessments.) It also requires that
8
these assessments provide for the reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilitiesas
defined under Section 02(3) of IDEA necessary to measure the academic achievement of such students relative
to state academic content and state student academic achievement standards [Sec. 1111 (3) (C)(iii)] (Maryland
State Department of Education, 2012). The latest reauthorization, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) as
amended in 2015, requires each state to adopt challenging academic content standards in mathematics, reading or
language arts, and science that apply to all public school students in the state including students with disabilities.
ESSA also requires each state to adopt academic achievement standards that include the same knowledge, skills,
and levels of achievement expected of all public school students in the state except for students identified as having
the most significant disabilities. This means that the vast majority of students with disabilities will take academic
assessments. ESSA requires that students with disabilities participate in the assessment for their enrolled grade. In
other words, a student in grade 6 cannot be given the assessment designed for grade 4. This ensures the academic
progress of students with disabilities is based on their enrolled grade, which provides critical information for
schools and parents (United States Department of Education, 2017).
The ESSA requires states to provide appropriate accommodations and/or modifications (including
assistive technology) that are essential for measuring the academic achievement of students with disabilities.
Accommodations and/or modifications provided to students during state assessments must also be provided
during classroom instruction, classroom assessments, and district assessments. It is important for the students
individualized education program (IEP) committee to make decisions regarding the accommodations and/or
modifications to be provided during the assessments; therefore, IEP committee members must be familiar with
state academic content standards and state accommodation and modification guidelines. Educators must provide
students testing accommodations and/or modifications to avoid invalidating assessments.
Testing accommodations and/or modifications should be
reviewed annually, and updated and revised as needed.
Accommodations and/or modifications included in students early school years may not be needed as they
develop the skills, knowledge, and experience to demonstrate what they know (Maryland State Department of
Education, 2012). While the IEP committee is responsible for determining the specific accommodations and/or
modifications a student needs to participate in state assessments, having an IEP may not exempt a student from
participating.
What Research Says
Research has provided few definitive answers regarding the effectiveness of accommodations and/or modifications
for students with disabilities. What is known is that approximately two-thirds of special education students have
been afforded accommodations and/or modifications on statewide assessments, the most common being extended
time, alternative setting, and/or read-aloud accommodations and/or modifications. Accommodations and/or
modifications appear to impact test scores for students with disabilities by lowering test scores in some cases
but raising them in most others. Lowered scores appear to occur when accommodations and/or modifications
are poorly matched to student need or when the student has not had sufficient opportunity to practice using the
accommodations and/or modifications in day-to-day settings prior to the testing situation. The use of read-aloud
accommodations and/or modifications, the use of braille for blind students, and the use of extended time have
been found to be among the most effective accommodations and/or modifications (Luke & Schwartz, 2007). The
systems of supports must be balanced and provided through quality instruction for the student to succeed (Fisher,
Frey, and Kroener, 2013).
9
Hierarchy of Accommodations and Modifications
The following table portrays each accommodation and modification based on its effect on the general curriculum.
SUPPORT LAYER 0
(No Changes)
All students complete the same assignments. Grading criteria is the same
for everyone.
SUPPORT LAYER 1
(Minimal Classroom
Changes)
Minimal Accommodations
All students complete basically the same
assignments. Some receive additional support or
reinforcement.
Grading criteria is the same
for everyone.
SUPPORT LAYER 2
(Classroom Changes)
Complex Accommodations
All students receive instruction on basic content.
There are changes in how it is learned or tested.
Grading criteria may differ
slightly.
SUPPORT LAYER 3
(Some Changes to
Curriculum)
Accommodations and Modifications
Some students complete reduced or similar
assignments at a less frustrating level.
Grading criteria is based on
individual goals and class
participation.*
SUPPORT LAYER 4
(Moderate Changes to
Curriculum)
Moderate Accommodations and Modifications
Students complete smaller parts of the general
curriculum.
Grading criteria is based on
individual goals and class
participation.*
SUPPORT LAYER 5
(Significant Changes to
Curriculum)
Significant Accommodations and Modifications
Students complete alternative activities relating to
the general curriculum.
Grading criteria is based on
individual goals and class
participation.*
Figure 1 (Shaker Heights School District, 2006)
* What constitutes individually challenging goals and objectives are determined by the IEP committee and documented in the IEP
document.
Fewer than 10% of the special education students participating in general education classes need Layer 4 or 5 supports. The majority
of special education students can be successful and master most of the general education curriculum with Layer 2 or 3 accommodations
and/or modifications. Carnegie Units may be awarded regardless of the layer of support provided.
Awarding Carnegie Units
There is no policy that prohibits the awarding of
Carnegie Units if accommodations and/or modifications
are used so long as the student demonstrates mastery
of the content. Accommodations and/or modifications
must be designed to make adaptations to the presentation
and response of material outlined in the standard. As
long as the content is not changed, a Carnegie Unit may
be awarded. Teachers must consider accommodations
and/or modifications when considering a students
work towards earning Carnegie Units.
There is no policy that prohibits
the awarding of Carnegie units if
accommodations and/or modifications
are used as long as the student
demonstrates mastery of the content.
10
Some examples include:
A student is expected to examine the contributions of archeology in the Middle East (History of the
Ancient Middle East 2000 B.C.-100 A.D.). Having the material presented at a lower readability level
would not keep the student from mastering the content.
A student is asked to cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text
explicitly says as well as inferences drawn from the text (English II RL.10.1). Allowing the student to
present the material orally or visually would fulfill this requirement.
The student is asked to explain why the sum or product of two rational numbers is rational; the sum of
a rational number and an irrational number is irrational; and the product of a nonzero rational number
and an irrational number is irrational (Algebra 1 N-RN.3). This standard would be mastered if the
student gave the answers orally, using graphics or utilizing
SHOW MORE…
Week 3 Assignment – Conceptionalising Analysis. NO PLAGARISM PROFESSOR USES TURNITIN
After reading Chapter 5, provide a summary of the following Intelligence models:
The Intelligence Cycle
Gill’s Cybernetic model
The SARA model
The NIM business model
The 3-i model
Investigative Intelligence- Chapter 5 Lecture Notes
AWASH WITH TERMINOLOGY
a. What is criminal intelligence?
There are various definitions for criminal intelligence and no agreed standard terminology
A common thread is that criminal intelligence is more than simply information
b. What is crime analysis?
Equally difficult to define, with various organizations promoting different definitions
Crime intelligence is a term designed to bring together crime analysis and criminal intelligence analysis
c. Data, information and knowledge?
The traditional role of the collator has been replaced by knowledge workers who do more than simple information storage
Old knowledge criminal intelligence; New knowledge crime analysis
information + analysis = intelligence; fails to recognize the wide range of data and information sources that are of variable applicability and quality.
d. DIKI continuum
datainformationknowledgeintelligence
Data are the observations and measurements we can make about crime
Information is data with greater relevance and purpose
Knowledge is data and information with added context, meaning, and a particular interpretation
Intelligence action part of the process. Knowledge products can generate understanding, but intelligence products are supposed to generate action
e. From knowledge to intelligence
For conversion of knowledge into actionable intelligence, analysts have to know their clients environment and manage that relationship
LEVELS OF CRIME INTELLIGENCE
Tactical Support for frontline areas, investigations and other operational areas in taking casespecific action to achieve enforcement objectives
Operational Supporting area commanders and regional operational commanders in planning crime reduction activity and deploying resources to achieve operational objectives
Strategic Aiming to provide insight and understanding, and make a contribution to broad strategies, policies and resources
a. NIM levels
Level 1 local
Level 2 Regional
Level 3 National
b. Viewpoint: A practitioners perspective on the National Intelligence Model
CONCEPTUALIZING ANALYSIS
The intelligence cycle is nicely cyclical, but does not emphasize policing or the role of decisionmakers
Gills cybernetic model a useful and instructive model but may be more academically relevant than operational?
SARA model a relevant model that doesnt specifically include decision makers but is action oriented with an evaluative component
a. NIM business model
Original model has distinct parallels with SARA.
New approach has a different definition of knowledge, with more prosaic and bureaucratic meaning, relating to familiarity with current legislation and case law, codes of practice, manuals of standards and ACPO guidance etc.
b. The 3i model
Analysis
Interprets Criminal Environment, and
Influences Decisionmakers who have an
Impact on the Criminal Environment.
CAN MODELS REFLECT REALITY?
Time constraints often limit the ability of a model to be followed correctly
NIM terminology has been criticized for complicating a simple process
Models that emphasize relationships may be better for analysts to follow and understand