Special Education Lesson Plan Unit: Three Connected Lessons With HLPs, Differentiation, Peer Review and Reflection

Final Project: Special Education Lesson Plan Unit (Three Connected Lessons, HLPs, Peer Review and Reflection)

Design a sequence of three connected lesson plans for a special education classroom in which all students have IEPs. Select a classroom case study and setting (resource room, self-contained, inclusive special education or ECSE) and three focus students; across the sequence, address at least one IEP goal for each focus student (not every lesson must address every student).

For each lesson include planning components (Minnesota Academic Standard, objective, setting, target student needs, academic language supports), at least two high-leverage practices (HLPs) with explanation, differentiation (accommodations, modifications, assistive technology, UDL components and explicit instructional supports) and assessment (formative assessment, progress monitoring and connection to IEP goals).

Submit a draft, review two classmates’ projects with the rubric (standards, IEP alignment, HLPs, differentiation, assessments and professional quality) and submit the final sequence, peer review forms and a reflection with the headings Knowledge of HLPs, Application of HLPs, Confidence and Preparedness, Impact on Student Learning and Program Reflection.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,180 words). Use your program’s lesson plan template and your case study’s actual IEP goals.

Lesson 1: Finding the Central Idea in Informational Text

Classroom setting: Resource room (grade 6 ELA, 8 students, all with IEPs; special education teacher and one paraprofessional).
Minnesota Academic Standard (ELA, Grade 6): 6.1.4.2: distinguish between stated and inferred central ideas; 6.1.4.1: cite textual evidence to support analysis of what a text says explicitly. [Confirm codes in the final 2020 Minnesota ELA standards.]
Lesson objective: Given a leveled informational article on the water cycle, students will identify the central idea and two supporting details, citing evidence, with 80% accuracy on a graphic organizer.
Target student needs: Jordan (reading comprehension IEP goal); Carlos (comprehension of academic texts in English).
Academic language supports: Pre-taught words: central idea, detail, evidence, evaporation, condensation; sentence frames (“The central idea is ___ because the text says ___”); picture-word cards.

High-leverage practices

• HLP 16, use explicit instruction: the teacher models the “Main Idea Hunt” strategy with a think-aloud (I do), guides practice on paragraph 2 (we do) and releases students to paragraphs 3–4 (you do), which gives Jordan clear steps for a skill he struggles to infer.
• HLP 15, provide scaffolded supports: a graphic organizer, highlighted topic sentences in the first section and sentence frames are faded across the lesson, supporting Carlos’s language needs while building independence.
• HLP 18, use strategies to promote active engagement: response cards and partner turn-and-talk keep every student responding.

Differentiation

• Accommodations: Text read aloud on request; extended time; reduced-distraction seating; graphic organizer.
• Modifications: Jordan reads a version of the article at his instructional level (grade 4) with the same central idea; he identifies one supporting detail instead of two on the first attempt.
• Assistive technology: Text-to-speech (for example, Immersive Reader) for Jordan; bilingual picture dictionary and translation of key words for Carlos.
• UDL components: Multiple means of representation (text, diagram of the water cycle, short video clip); multiple means of action and expression (students may write, draw or dictate details); engagement through choice of article topic.
• Explicit instructional supports: Modeling with think-aloud, guided practice with immediate corrective feedback (HLP 22) and a strategy bookmark listing the steps.

Assessment

• Formative assessment: Exit ticket: central idea and one cited detail; teacher checks for understanding with response cards during guided practice.
• Progress monitoring: Jordan: weekly curriculum-based measure of main idea identification on a fresh passage, graphed. Carlos: biweekly vocabulary and comprehension probe.
• Connection to IEP goals: Jordan’s goal: “Given an instructional-level informational passage, Jordan will identify the main idea and two supporting details in 4 of 5 trials.” Carlos’s goal: “Carlos will answer literal and inferential questions about grade-level content texts with visual supports with 75% accuracy.”

Lesson 2: Academic Vocabulary and Writing About the Central Idea

Classroom setting: Resource room (grade 6 ELA, 8 students, all with IEPs; special education teacher and one paraprofessional).
Minnesota Academic Standard (ELA, Grade 6): 6.1.8.2: examine academic and technical vocabulary in informational text; 6.2.5.1: write to inform or explain, using organization strategies common to text structures.
Lesson objective: Students will define and correctly use four academic vocabulary words from Lesson 1’s article in a five-sentence explanatory paragraph summarizing the central idea.
Target student needs: Carlos (academic vocabulary and expressive language); Maya (written expression and organization).
Academic language supports: Frayer models for four words; word wall with images; sentence starters and transition word bank (first, also, as a result).

High-leverage practices

• HLP 13, adapt curriculum tasks and materials: the paragraph task is chunked into five labeled boxes, and vocabulary is limited to four high-utility words so that Carlos can focus on depth of meaning.
• HLP 16, explicit instruction: the teacher models writing a summary paragraph using the Frayer models, then co-writes one with the group.
• HLP 17, use flexible grouping: Carlos and Maya work in a small group with the teacher, while others complete partner practice with the paraprofessional.

Differentiation

• Accommodations: Word bank; extended time; oral rehearsal before writing; checklist for paragraph parts.
• Modifications: Carlos may use a word bank with Spanish cognates; Maya writes three sentences plus a topic and concluding sentence using the boxed frame.
• Assistive technology: Speech-to-text for drafting; digital Frayer model templates; word prediction software for Maya.
• UDL components: Representation through images and cognates; expression options (typed, handwritten or dictated); engagement through partner vocabulary games.
• Explicit instructional supports: Model, lead, test sequence for each word; examples and non-examples; immediate affirmative and corrective feedback.

Assessment

• Formative assessment: Vocabulary quick-check (match word to meaning and picture); completed paragraph scored with a 4-point rubric.
• Progress monitoring: Carlos: biweekly vocabulary probe using words in sentences. Maya: weekly writing sample scored for correct paragraph parts, graphed.
• Connection to IEP goals: Carlos’s goal: “Carlos will use grade-level academic vocabulary correctly in written and oral sentences with 80% accuracy.” Maya’s goal: “Maya will write an organized paragraph with a topic sentence, three supporting sentences and a conclusion in 4 of 5 opportunities.”

Lesson 3: Organizing a Short Explanatory Essay With Self-Regulation

Classroom setting: Resource room (grade 6 ELA, 8 students, all with IEPs; special education teacher and one paraprofessional).
Minnesota Academic Standard (ELA, Grade 6): 6.2.3.1: plan and draft writing and use methods for revision; 6.2.5.1: write to inform or explain; 6.1.2.1: self-monitor understanding.
Lesson objective: Students will plan and draft a three-paragraph explanatory essay on the water cycle using a graphic organizer and a self-regulation checklist, scoring at least 3 of 4 on the organization rubric.
Target student needs: Maya (organization and self-regulation, task completion); Jordan (using evidence from reading in writing).
Academic language supports: Essay outline organizer; transition word bank; self-talk cards (“What is my next step?”).

High-leverage practices

• HLP 14, teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies: students learn a self-regulated strategy development routine (goal setting, self-monitoring with a checklist, self-instruction and self-reinforcement), which directly targets Maya’s IEP goal.
• HLP 7, establish a consistent, organized and responsive learning environment: a visual schedule, timer and clear routines for each writing stage reduce off-task behavior.
• HLP 8/22, provide positive and constructive feedback: brief conferences give specific praise and one next step for each student.

Differentiation

• Accommodations: Timer with movement breaks every 10 minutes for Maya; preferential seating; extended time; access to Lesson 1 organizer for Jordan.
• Modifications: Jordan writes two body paragraphs instead of three if needed, using sentence frames that cite his Lesson 1 evidence.
• Assistive technology: Visual timer app; graphic organizer software (for example, a mind-mapping tool); speech-to-text.
• UDL components: Multiple means of engagement (goal setting and self-tracking), representation (model essay with color-coded parts) and expression (typed or dictated drafts).
• Explicit instructional supports: Teacher models the full routine with a think-aloud, then students practice each step with gradual release.

Assessment

• Formative assessment: Self-regulation checklist completion; organizer check before drafting; draft scored with organization rubric.
• Progress monitoring: Maya: daily self-monitoring data (steps completed) and weekly rubric score graphed. Jordan: monthly writing sample checked for use of cited evidence.
• Connection to IEP goals: Maya’s goal: “Given a self-monitoring checklist, Maya will complete each step of a writing task with no more than one prompt in 4 of 5 sessions.” Jordan’s goal: “Jordan will include at least two pieces of text evidence in written responses in 4 of 5 trials.”

References

Aceves, T. C., & Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.). (2024). High-leverage practices for students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center.

Minnesota Department of Education. (2020). Minnesota K–12 academic standards in English language arts. Minnesota Department of Education.

Sample reflection; answer every question from your own program experience.

Knowledge of HLPs

1. The most prominent HLPs in my sequence were HLP 16 (explicit instruction), HLP 15 (scaffolded supports) and HLP 14 (cognitive and metacognitive strategies). Explicit instruction anchored every lesson, while scaffolds and strategy instruction were matched to each focus student’s IEP goal. 2. At the start of the program, I saw HLPs as a list of good teaching techniques. Now I understand them as an interconnected system: data-driven planning (HLPs 4–6, 11 and 12) determines what to teach, instructional HLPs determine how and feedback and progress monitoring close the loop.

Application of HLPs

1. I started planning from each student’s IEP goal and present levels (HLP 11), designed objectives that built across the three lessons (HLP 12) and then chose instructional practices that matched each need, such as strategy instruction for Maya’s self-regulation goal. Differentiation drew on HLP 13 to adapt texts and tasks, and assessment used HLP 6 to plan how I would graph data and adjust instruction. 2. HLP 16 was easiest to apply because the model-guided-independent practice sequence gave me a clear structure for writing each lesson and because I had practiced it repeatedly in field experiences.

Confidence and Preparedness

1. I feel confident implementing explicit instruction, scaffolding and engagement strategies, and moderately confident with strategy instruction. 2. I feel least prepared for HLP 10 (functional behavioral assessment) and HLP 20 (intensive instruction), because I have had limited chances to conduct an FBA or to intensify an intervention using data. Additional coaching, opportunities to co-lead an FBA with a school psychologist and practice with data-based individualization would help.

Impact on Student Learning

1. IEP goals determined which HLPs I emphasized for each lesson. Because Jordan’s goal involves reading comprehension, explicit modeling of a main idea strategy was essential; because Carlos needs language support, scaffolds and visuals were built into every step; and because Maya’s goal targets self-regulation, strategy instruction and a structured environment were central. Accommodations such as text-to-speech and speech-to-text ensured that disability-related barriers did not block access to the learning goal. 2. I believe these HLPs would improve outcomes by making learning steps visible, providing just enough support to allow success and building independence through gradual release and self-monitoring, while progress monitoring would show when instruction needs to change.

Program Reflection

1. The experiences that contributed most were field placements in which I taught and received feedback, the assessment course in which I graphed curriculum-based measurement data and peer review of lesson plans, which showed me how others applied the same HLPs differently. 2. The program has made me more intentional: I now ask what evidence supports a practice before using it and plan how I will measure whether it is working, which has strengthened my readiness to implement evidence-based practices as a special educator.

More model assignments posted today

• Leadership models in an educational setting
• Final clinical reflection (DFC)
• VTE prevention teaching handout
• CJUS 801 evaluation strategy and logic model
• HSCI 705 research ethics paper
• Modified working definition of family
• Initial working definition of family
• Two areas of life: mindfulness and strengths
• Global dynamics presentation