Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your headline is such a gross distortion of the article.

I am a teacher with a masters and licensure in special education. I VERY rarely engage in discussions about the common core on DCUM as it seems rather pointless. However I just have to say that your post is ridiculous.

The whole point of the article is not that students with these types of disorders can't engage in social learning, but that they need interventions and support to do so.

The point is that in the real world, students will need to be able to interact with others to solve real-world problems. Are you suggesting students with disabilities are incapable of doing this? And that we shouldn't be teaching them the skills they need to collaborate effectively?

It depends on the child's disability, doesn't it? Please describe how a nonverbal child accesses these skills.

If you are in the schools, you must see daily how many special needs students are suffering under Common Core.

It does depend on the disability and you are only focusing on the severely disabled vs. the functional kids. A child with MERLD is very different from autism and a child with MERLD by school age is generally talking but in some areas much weaker than a typical child. But, that doesn't mean they cannot do academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sympathize with your concern, but the reality is that children need to learn the skills you highlighted at a young age to ensure that they can function in today's world. The skills should be adapted to a child's capability and accommodations made when needed, but changing the standards for everyone is not the answer.

Again, detail how a child without conversational language can be forced/made to have conversations.

I agree with you, if a child can't engage in conversational language then they won't be able to meet the standard. That said, I don't think that means the standard should change.

So screw him, huh? You feel the same way about kids with physical disabilities? They shouldn't be able to use wheelchairs because there have to be "standards"?

Honestly, you made my point. We still have a mandatory PE requirement even though some children with disabilities can't fully participate. That is a skill they are not going to master. Accommodations have to be made for all children with challenges, regardless of what those challenges are, but not every child is going to meet every standard. Learning how to communicate effectively is a necessary tool in today's business world so, yes, I think it needs to be taught even though some children won't be able to fully learn that skill.

Another teacher. My school has four sections of adaptive PE. I don't teach PE, but I visit that class a lot because I have some temporary physical limitations of my own and enjoy the activities. The students make a huge effort to meet the daily goals and show improvement in the long run. There's an emphasis on measuring progress and it's an upbeat atmosphere. I try to carry that spirit over into my classroom where I have about 20% students with LAD or other challenges. Not all of them will meet the standards this year, but there will be growth in their skills and that is valuable in their future lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sympathize with your concern, but the reality is that children need to learn the skills you highlighted at a young age to ensure that they can function in today's world. The skills should be adapted to a child's capability and accommodations made when needed, but changing the standards for everyone is not the answer.

Again, detail how a child without conversational language can be forced/made to have conversations.

I agree with you, if a child can't engage in conversational language then they won't be able to meet the standard. That said, I don't think that means the standard should change.

So screw him, huh? You feel the same way about kids with physical disabilities? They shouldn't be able to use wheelchairs because there have to be "standards"?

Honestly, you made my point. We still have a mandatory PE requirement even though some children with disabilities can't fully participate. That is a skill they are not going to master. Accommodations have to be made for all children with challenges, regardless of what those challenges are, but not every child is going to meet every standard. Learning how to communicate effectively is a necessary tool in today's business world so, yes, I think it needs to be taught even though some children won't be able to fully learn that skill.

Another teacher. My school has four sections of adaptive PE. I don't teach PE, but I visit that class a lot because I have some temporary physical limitations of my own and enjoy the activities. The students make a huge effort to meet the daily goals and show improvement in the long run. There's an emphasis on measuring progress and it's an upbeat atmosphere. I try to carry that spirit over into my classroom where I have about 20% students with LAD or other challenges. Not all of them will meet the standards this year, but there will be growth in their skills and that is valuable in their future lives.

And that is the important part; keep the standard in place, but work with children to meet the standard to the best of their abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sympathize with your concern, but the reality is that children need to learn the skills you highlighted at a young age to ensure that they can function in today's world. The skills should be adapted to a child's capability and accommodations made when needed, but changing the standards for everyone is not the answer.

Again, detail how a child without conversational language can be forced/made to have conversations.

I agree with you, if a child can't engage in conversational language then they won't be able to meet the standard. That said, I don't think that means the standard should change.

So screw him, huh? You feel the same way about kids with physical disabilities? They shouldn't be able to use wheelchairs because there have to be "standards"?

Honestly, you made my point. We still have a mandatory PE requirement even though some children with disabilities can't fully participate. That is a skill they are not going to master. Accommodations have to be made for all children with challenges, regardless of what those challenges are, but not every child is going to meet every standard. Learning how to communicate effectively is a necessary tool in today's business world so, yes, I think it needs to be taught even though some children won't be able to fully learn that skill.

Another teacher. My school has four sections of adaptive PE. I don't teach PE, but I visit that class a lot because I have some temporary physical limitations of my own and enjoy the activities. The students make a huge effort to meet the daily goals and show improvement in the long run. There's an emphasis on measuring progress and it's an upbeat atmosphere. I try to carry that spirit over into my classroom where I have about 20% students with LAD or other challenges. Not all of them will meet the standards this year, but there will be growth in their skills and that is valuable in their future lives.

And that is the important part; keep the standard in place, but work with children to meet the standard to the best of their abilities.

Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's OK, because CC works for normal children. I understand it has issues for those with intellectual disabilities, and that's unfortunate. But it's hardly a reason to demonize CC.

2/3 of typical children are failing Common Core.

No, they're not. I don't know what you mean by "typical."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

Nobody fails PE these days. It's pass fail. But when an academic system is set up against you, and you go in every day and fail, how do you think that feels?

My kid went from being on a graduation track to now thinking he won't graduate from high school. Common Core is a dead end for 90 of special ed students.

[Anonymous]

The Common Core Is Tough on Kids With Special Needs

The standards don't allow enough flexibility for students who learn differently.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-common-core-is-tough-on-kids-with-special-needs/283973/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

Nobody fails PE these days. It's pass fail. But when an academic system is set up against you, and you go in every day and fail, how do you think that feels?

My kid went from being on a graduation track to now thinking he won't graduate from high school. Common Core is a dead end for 90 of special ed students.

That's my point. Just because a child doesn't meet some standards, it doesn't mean they are a failure, which is what the PP above was stating. In our school district (ES), kids still get a grade in PE, not your standard A/F grade, but still, a standards based grade that is not just pass/fail. When my kid gets a bad grade in PE, yep, he feels bad. But, I let him know that he's good in other things, and yea, he's got athletic challenges, but just keep trying.

So, if your HSer (I assume your DC is in HS since you stated he was on track to graduate), then you know that when he gets to college, he will be facing even more language challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

Nobody fails PE these days. It's pass fail. But when an academic system is set up against you, and you go in every day and fail, how do you think that feels?

My kid went from being on a graduation track to now thinking he won't graduate from high school. Common Core is a dead end for 90 of special ed students.

That's my point. Just because a child doesn't meet some standards, it doesn't mean they are a failure, which is what the PP above was stating. In our school district (ES), kids still get a grade in PE, not your standard A/F grade, but still, a standards based grade that is not just pass/fail. When my kid gets a bad grade in PE, yep, he feels bad. But, I let him know that he's good in other things, and yea, he's got athletic challenges, but just keep trying.

So, if your HSer (I assume your DC is in HS since you stated he was on track to graduate), then you know that when he gets to college, he will be facing even more language challenges.

College you have a lot more control over. You pick where you go, what you study, what classes you take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

Nobody fails PE these days. It's pass fail. But when an academic system is set up against you, and you go in every day and fail, how do you think that feels?

My kid went from being on a graduation track to now thinking he won't graduate from high school. Common Core is a dead end for 90 of special ed students.

That's my point. Just because a child doesn't meet some standards, it doesn't mean they are a failure, which is what the PP above was stating. In our school district (ES), kids still get a grade in PE, not your standard A/F grade, but still, a standards based grade that is not just pass/fail. When my kid gets a bad grade in PE, yep, he feels bad. But, I let him know that he's good in other things, and yea, he's got athletic challenges, but just keep trying.

So, if your HSer (I assume your DC is in HS since you stated he was on track to graduate), then you know that when he gets to college, he will be facing even more language challenges.

College you have a lot more control over. You pick where you go, what you study, what classes you take.

I don't know what college you are thinking about, but the ones I know in the US make you take GE type classes your first year or two, English and other liberal arts type subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core doesn't allow for that. You meet the standard -- or else you are a failure.

If a child, SN or not, did not meet some standard pre CC standards, did that make that child a failure? My child is not very athletic and usually gets a bad grade in PE. Should I rail against the PE standards? Should PE standards be reduced so that un-athletic children don't fail it?

Nobody fails PE these days. It's pass fail. But when an academic system is set up against you, and you go in every day and fail, how do you think that feels?

My kid went from being on a graduation track to now thinking he won't graduate from high school. Common Core is a dead end for 90 of special ed students.

That's my point. Just because a child doesn't meet some standards, it doesn't mean they are a failure, which is what the PP above was stating. In our school district (ES), kids still get a grade in PE, not your standard A/F grade, but still, a standards based grade that is not just pass/fail. When my kid gets a bad grade in PE, yep, he feels bad. But, I let him know that he's good in other things, and yea, he's got athletic challenges, but just keep trying.

So, if your HSer (I assume your DC is in HS since you stated he was on track to graduate), then you know that when he gets to college, he will be facing even more language challenges.

Common Core has so totally wrapped every subject in incomprehensible language that it is robbing him of his education. That is our day to day experience. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure.

[Anonymous]

Common Core is probably the best thing to happen to American education in its entire history. I'm so glad we finally have a set of national standards so shit like creationism don't get taught in public schools.

You realize that's the root of objections to Common Core, right? It is rooted in extreme right-wing activism that things we're still litigating Tennessee's Butler Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Common Core is probably the best thing to happen to American education in its entire history. I'm so glad we finally have a set of national standards so shit like creationism don't get taught in public schools.

You realize that's the root of objections to Common Core, right? It is rooted in extreme right-wing activism that things we're still litigating Tennessee's Butler Act.

Ah, no, that's maybe ONE of the objections to Common core. I hate it with a bloody passion, and I'm a liberal.

It will be the worst thing that's happened to public education, and it will be gone within the decade. After a generation of kids fails to learn.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with you. My child is learning significantly more than I did in elementary school. Are you in an underachieving school?