I do not understand the argument that the standards are bad because classroom teachers did not participate in the writing of the standards. It's pure argument from authority. Classroom teachers are the only ones who know "how our little ones learn", therefore if classroom teachers did not participate in the writing of the standards, then the standards must be bad. |
While the idea of this is correct, I do not agree when they recommend strictly play based for preschool. That is a one size fits all idea too. We tried play based and it was an epic disaster. Nothing bad but my child did not engage or play traditionally with special needs. He has thrived in structured programs that do have seated work, free play and structured social activities. I think that there needs to be a balance and reading and writing as well as basic math concepts should begin in a four or prek class. |
I do not have an issue with standards. I have an issue with how they are implemented for every child. No he main point of this topic is the impact on special needs kids who may learn differently. No one has taken the standards and modified them to make them work with the many different disabilities and delays children may be dealing with. |
I think that is an accurate prediction. I especially think that ESOL and Special Ed kids will fail at higher percentages. In MD in the past many kids in those subgroups could get accommodation on state testing such as "read aloud entire test". Yup. In READING. The test was read aloud to them, and the questions; and they selected the main idea etc. I believe that on the new tests those accommodations (read aloud entire test) will not be allowed for ESOl kids. I think it will not be allowed for most kids with learning disabilities, either -- except those for whom it has been decided they will never be able to decode independently. Since reading aloud helped a lot of poor readers be able to pass the reading test, this change alone will result in more children not passing. They still have the same ability they always had (poor ability to read) but not the test result will more accurately portray their lack of ability. |
That is correct. If you modify a standard to be different for different types of students, it is not longer a standard. |
So, basically a child like mine with receptive issues who is a smart kid in some areas is destined to fail |
|
I'm overjoyed at this thought. It deserves to go down if it's being poorly implemented. It's like saying a medicine is a wonder drug, but too bad 70 percent of the people who are taking it are dying. You made my day. |
I don't know what is meant by "receptive issues" but yes, if your child has a learning disability that makes him unable to meet grade level standards, by definition he is not working at the standard and is failing to meet them. |
So you have a bunch of children with learning disabilities, autism, fragile X, ect. who could be quite successful in life but because the standards are specifically designed to highlight their weaknesses and punish them for it, they are doomed to lifetime of public assistance because they won't get a high school diploma. I hope you and your special little kids like paying for it. |
No, it is IDEA that mandates all students access the general education curriculum. Not Common Core. The federally mandated "IDEA" - Individuals with Disabilities Act" says that students with disabilities must be instructed in the general education curriculum. No Child Left Behind then came along and mandated testing every student (not exempting special ed kids) on grade level and said schools had to have 70% 80% 90% 95% (they keep raising the target) of students passing the grade level tests. But states got to design their own general ed curriculum, and their own tests. So to be sure all 95% of students (including students with disabilities and ESOL students) could pass, they made the general ed curriculum pretty easy and made the tests very easy and allowed all sorts of accommodations. End result.... kids who cannot read are passing 8th grade state reading tests. And parents of kids with disabilities are saying, "How is my child passing these tests? Why won't you teach her to read?" However, the other end result is parents of kids with learning disabilities are not being told how far behind their students really are. Their children are managing to graduate though, so as long as they get a diploma I guess it is ok. Now the Common Core standards have come along and they are much harder than the old standards, and a lot of kids with disabilities aren't able to meet these standards anymore. Standards got harder and there is less wiggle room for teachers as there were in the older standards.... kids are actually required to learn to read! That is now an expectation. IDEA still says kids must all be taught the general education curriculum even if it isn't appropriate for a child who has a learning disability so... IDEA is what needs to be changed. Not the standards. |
Do you think that people who came up with the Common Core standards said, "Let's design the standards to highlight the weakness of children with learning disabilities, autism, fragile X, etc., so that we can punish them for their weaknesses and doom them to a lifetime of public assistance because they won't get a high school diploma! Yay!" I'm sorry. I think it's important to point out, though, that a standard is not a standard if it is flexible enough to take everybody's varied needs into account. So what you are basically arguing against is the whole idea of standards. |
No, they can get a high school diploma, just not one that says they have mastered the Common Core standards, because they haven't. But this is nothing new. Even under the old standards, students were unable to meet the standards. In New York State, students had the possibility of earning either a Regents high school diploma (they met the requirements to pass courses and state exams) or a local high school diploma (for kids who were unable to meet the requirements). A Regents high school diploma was supposed to signify that the student was prepared to do college level work without needing remediation. (I'm not sure how well it did in fact, but that's another issue). |
You are totally uniformed about the IDEA. It requires the least restricted environment in which a child should learn, but allows for an INDIVIDUAL lesson plan. But the COMMON CORE requires that everyone know the exact thing at the same time, NO EXCEPTIONS as that dimwit Arnie Duncan has said multiple times and that the afterthought 1.5 page addendum in the Common Core Standards on special education makes clear. What special education families need is for the IDEA to be ENFORCED. |
|
http://www.ncld.org/blog/a-special-educator-shares-her-perspective-on-the-common-core-state-standards/
Written by Chelsea Miller A Special Educator Shares Her Perspective on the Common Core State Standards The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) creates high expectations for student success by outlining the set of skills that students need to master at each grade level. At the end of the day, students are supposed to be equipped with critical thinking, problem solving and other career-oriented skills for college and 21st century jobs. Although the implementation of the Standards will have a big impact on students with disabilities, the authors of the Standards have provided only limited guidance in this area. In the midst of this uncertainty, I hope to provide educators and families my perspective on how to leverage the enterprise of CCSS adoption for the benefit of students with learning disabilities (LD). CCSS is explicit in outlining goals but ambiguous on how teachers should instruct or assess. Words like “analyze” and “identify” are frequently mentioned, but can have different meanings to individual teachers. It’s like the game of telephone – the original intent can get lost when standards are passed from the Standards writers to textbook publishers, teachers and finally students. |