Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, the IDEA mandates that special education students have access to the general education curriculum.

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA (IDEA ’97) attempted to address many of these problems, introducing important changes in the provision of educational services for students with disabilities. One of the most significant changes was the new requirement that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum – i.e., the same curriculum as that provided to students without disabilities (34 C.F.R. § 300.347(a)(1)(i)).

Expanding upon the earlier concepts of FAPE and LRE, the goal was to raise expectations for the educational performance of students with disabilities and to improve their educational results (U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

Four years later, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the purpose of which was to promote equal opportunity for all children to receive a high-quality education and attain proficiency, at a minimum, on challenging State achievement standards and State assessments (20 U.S.C. § 6301). NCLB includes several requirements that have implications for the participation of students with disabilities in the general curriculum.

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA ’04) (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.). IDEA ’04 maintains the emphasis of IDEA ’97 on the promotion of access to the general curriculum, while at the same time introducing a number of changes, including various points of alignment with NCLB. IDEA ’04 also alters some of the language used in IDEA ’97. For example, throughout IDEA ’04, Congress replaced the words “general curriculum” used in IDEA ’97 with the phrase “general education curriculum,” emphasizing the educational component of the general curriculum. This paper uses the latter phrase found in IDEA ‘04, unless directly quoting IDEA ’97 or NCLB.

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/interrelationship_idea04_nclb#.VIMcmWTF9uE

Special education teachers and classroom teachers are being told that we may not instruct children on below grade level standards or use below grade level texts -- they must have access to the "general education curriculum" which means they must read the same texts as student who do not have learning disabilities. We can read the texts aloud to them and have them answer orally, we may make adaptations in how they respond (drawing, speaking, etc instead of writing) but they have to be working on the same objectives as the rest of the class to prove that they are accessing the general education curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Bottom line: CC is interpreted differently because the standards are not clear. It starts at the top. The standards are inappropriate and vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

While the IEP is supposed to be an individual plan, IDEA mandates that the goals set for the child come from the general education curriculum. No exceptions. Not Common Core. IDEA>

IDEA ’97 states that students with disabilities must be involved in the general curriculum, and the law includes several requirements that help explain this involvement.

(1) ensuring that the student’s IEP goals address how the student will be involved in the progress in the general curriculum

(2) specifying in the student’s IEP (individual educational plan) appropriate supplementary aids and services, accommodations, modifications, or supports that will help the student be involved in and progress in the general curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate

(3) explaining in the student’s IEP why he or she will not participate with children without disabilities in the regular classroom

A student’s IEP must state how the student’s disability affects his or her involvement in and progress in the general curriculum and must contain measureable annual goals (including benchmarks or short-term objectives) that address how the student will be involved in and progress in the general curriculum. In order to help align IEP goals with the general education curriculum also requires that the student’s regular education teacher as well as representatives from the district who is knowledgeable about the general curriculum be a member of the IEP team.

Decisions as to which supplementary aids and services, accommodations, modifications, or supports are appropriate for a particular student are made on an individual basis by the IEP team.

It is important that these decisions do not substantially lower curriculum standards and thus deny students access to the general education curriculum.

The approach should be to create, from the beginning, a curriculum with built-in supports for diverse learners.

It is not enough for students with disabilities to participate in the general curriculum. The law also requires that the IEP address progress in the general curriculum. This involves three parts:

(1) measuring the student’s progress in reaching IEP goals

(2) including students with disabilities in State and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary

(3) developing State performance goals and indicators and providing reports on progress toward meeting these goals and indicators

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line: CC is interpreted differently because the standards are not clear. It starts at the top. The standards are inappropriate and vague.

The standards are clear. You just think they are too hard for your learning disabled child. If they were fuzzy there'd be wiggle room for teachers to make things easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, the IDEA mandates that special education students have access to the general education curriculum.

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA (IDEA ’97) attempted to address many of these problems, introducing important changes in the provision of educational services for students with disabilities. One of the most significant changes was the new requirement that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum – i.e., the same curriculum as that provided to students without disabilities (34 C.F.R. § 300.347(a)(1)(i)).

Expanding upon the earlier concepts of FAPE and LRE, the goal was to raise expectations for the educational performance of students with disabilities and to improve their educational results (U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

Four years later, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the purpose of which was to promote equal opportunity for all children to receive a high-quality education and attain proficiency, at a minimum, on challenging State achievement standards and State assessments (20 U.S.C. § 6301). NCLB includes several requirements that have implications for the participation of students with disabilities in the general curriculum.

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA ’04) (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.). IDEA ’04 maintains the emphasis of IDEA ’97 on the promotion of access to the general curriculum, while at the same time introducing a number of changes, including various points of alignment with NCLB. IDEA ’04 also alters some of the language used in IDEA ’97. For example, throughout IDEA ’04, Congress replaced the words “general curriculum” used in IDEA ’97 with the phrase “general education curriculum,” emphasizing the educational component of the general curriculum. This paper uses the latter phrase found in IDEA ‘04, unless directly quoting IDEA ’97 or NCLB.

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/interrelationship_idea04_nclb#.VIMcmWTF9uE

Special education teachers and classroom teachers are being told that we may not instruct children on below grade level standards or use below grade level texts -- they must have access to the "general education curriculum" which means they must read the same texts as student who do not have learning disabilities. We can read the texts aloud to them and have them answer orally, we may make adaptations in how they respond (drawing, speaking, etc instead of writing) but they have to be working on the same objectives as the rest of the class to prove that they are accessing the general education curriculum.

It mandates ACCESS. It does not mandate mastery, unlike the Common Core, which does.

I've had a child in special education for 10 years. Common Core is what has made things impossible for him. Previously, the IDEA paved the way for him to be in regular classrooms with a lesson plan at his learning level. It's the Common Core that took that away. My son and all his counterparts are living this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It mandates ACCESS. It does not mandate mastery, unlike the Common Core, which does.

I've had a child in special education for 10 years. Common Core is what has made things impossible for him. Previously, the IDEA paved the way for him to be in regular classrooms with a lesson plan at his learning level. It's the Common Core that took that away. My son and all his counterparts are living this.

IDEA mandated access to the curriculum.

The curriculum is based on the state standards.

The old standards did not require mastery? So they said what? "Students will, with help and support and manipulatives and drawings, be able to multiply 2 numbers".

And the Common Core standards require mastery, maybe "Students will know from memory the product of 2 numbers and state them quickly with no assistance"?

So a child with a learning disability who isn't able to memorize basic math facts was able to participate i the general ed classroom when the standards didn't require mastery, and he could sit there and draw an array to multiply, but wasn't required to work toward memorization. He got by, pushed up and promoted... but never learned to multiply automatically.

Now the standards are harder and require children to do things automatically. If my child were learning disabled I'd rather have him pulled from class and actually TAUGHT how to master multiplication, rather than have him sit in the general education classroom and be passed on through use of aids and drawings, but never learn to do the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It mandates ACCESS. It does not mandate mastery, unlike the Common Core, which does.

I've had a child in special education for 10 years. Common Core is what has made things impossible for him. Previously, the IDEA paved the way for him to be in regular classrooms with a lesson plan at his learning level. It's the Common Core that took that away. My son and all his counterparts are living this.

So your child has been in Special Education for 10 years, and still isn't working at grade level? Up until last year your school was not using common core standards right? So under the "easier" version, your child has been receiving remedial help in the grade level classroom, for 9 years, and STILL wasn't able to master the grade level objectives?

I feel this is a failure of the special ed process, and of forcing kids to work in the general education curriculum instead of providing the intensive help the need, earlier on, to develop the lagging skills that they will need in the later grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It mandates ACCESS. It does not mandate mastery, unlike the Common Core, which does.

I've had a child in special education for 10 years. Common Core is what has made things impossible for him. Previously, the IDEA paved the way for him to be in regular classrooms with a lesson plan at his learning level. It's the Common Core that took that away. My son and all his counterparts are living this.

IDEA mandated access to the curriculum.

The curriculum is based on the state standards.

The old standards did not require mastery? So they said what? "Students will, with help and support and manipulatives and drawings, be able to multiply 2 numbers".

And the Common Core standards require mastery, maybe "Students will know from memory the product of 2 numbers and state them quickly with no assistance"?

So a child with a learning disability who isn't able to memorize basic math facts was able to participate i the general ed classroom when the standards didn't require mastery, and he could sit there and draw an array to multiply, but wasn't required to work toward memorization. He got by, pushed up and promoted... but never learned to multiply automatically.

Now the standards are harder and require children to do things automatically. If my child were learning disabled I'd rather have him pulled from class and actually TAUGHT how to master multiplication, rather than have him sit in the general education classroom and be passed on through use of aids and drawings, but never learn to do the work.

All across the country, districts are reading the Common Core Standards to mean that separate classes are to be ended and that all children are to be put in regular classrooms and use their "grit" to "tough it out" through regular Common Core classes without any meaningful accommodation.

They are also to be tested without any accommodation using the regular Common Core assessments. Their failure rate is at more than 95 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It mandates ACCESS. It does not mandate mastery, unlike the Common Core, which does.

I've had a child in special education for 10 years. Common Core is what has made things impossible for him. Previously, the IDEA paved the way for him to be in regular classrooms with a lesson plan at his learning level. It's the Common Core that took that away. My son and all his counterparts are living this.

So your child has been in Special Education for 10 years, and still isn't working at grade level? Up until last year your school was not using common core standards right? So under the "easier" version, your child has been receiving remedial help in the grade level classroom, for 9 years, and STILL wasn't able to master the grade level objectives?

I feel this is a failure of the special ed process, and of forcing kids to work in the general education curriculum instead of providing the intensive help the need, earlier on, to develop the lagging skills that they will need in the later grades.

That's right. But he was PROGRESSING, slowly, every year. Before Common Core kicked in full blast two years ago, he was two years behind his grade level. Under Common Core he is now REGRESSING. He is now 5 years behind his grade level.

You are one ugly person. My son has a genetic disability that causes his learning disabilities. He has been receiving help since he was 2 years old.

[Anonymous]

^^ genetic issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's right. But he was PROGRESSING, slowly, every year. Before Common Core kicked in full blast two years ago, he was two years behind his grade level. Under Common Core he is now REGRESSING. He is now 5 years behind his grade level.

You are one ugly person. My son has a genetic disability that causes his learning disabilities. He has been receiving help since he was 2 years old.

So he's 12 years old now, old enough to be in 7th grade. Two years ago in 5th grade, he was working at a 3rd grade level. ("2 years behind"). Now in 7th grade, he is working at a 2nd grade level, due to being required to meet Common Core standards in grades 5 and 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
All across the country, districts are reading the Common Core Standards to mean that separate classes are to be ended and that all children are to be put in regular classrooms and use their "grit" to "tough it out" through regular Common Core classes without any meaningful accommodation.

They are also to be tested without any accommodation using the regular Common Core assessments. Their failure rate is at more than 95 percent.

IDEA caused that. Not Common Core.

The PARCC assessments are saying that you should not read the text aloud to children, unless they have a bona fide disability that makes it impossible for them to learn to decode. This will give schools an incentive to actually teach children how to decode. Finally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's right. But he was PROGRESSING, slowly, every year. Before Common Core kicked in full blast two years ago, he was two years behind his grade level. Under Common Core he is now REGRESSING. He is now 5 years behind his grade level.

You are one ugly person. My son has a genetic disability that causes his learning disabilities. He has been receiving help since he was 2 years old.

So he's 12 years old now, old enough to be in 7th grade. Two years ago in 5th grade, he was working at a 3rd grade level. ("2 years behind"). Now in 7th grade, he is working at a 2nd grade level, due to being required to meet Common Core standards in grades 5 and 6?

That's right. And I know scores of other parents who tell the exact same story. Because of the lack of scaffolding in Common Core, there was nothing to support the leap. So he was expected, with his 2nd grade reading skills, to automatically be reading 6th grade texts which are now more like 8th grade texts (because CCS also jumped up the reading levels overnight.) It's a fucking disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All across the country, districts are reading the Common Core Standards to mean that separate classes are to be ended and that all children are to be put in regular classrooms and use their "grit" to "tough it out" through regular Common Core classes without any meaningful accommodation.

They are also to be tested without any accommodation using the regular Common Core assessments. Their failure rate is at more than 95 percent.

IDEA caused that. Not Common Core.

The PARCC assessments are saying that you should not read the text aloud to children, unless they have a bona fide disability that makes it impossible for them to learn to decode. This will give schools an incentive to actually teach children how to decode. Finally.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. My son was fully supported under the IDEA. The Common Core took that all away. I'm on multiple special needs boards. Everyone whats the IDEA enforced like it used to be. That's what supported their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They are also to be tested without any accommodation using the regular Common Core assessments. Their failure rate is at more than 95 percent.

Then why have PARCC and Smarter Balanced, the two most widely used assessments linked to Common Core, put so much time and effort into developing accommodations, and setting up systems so that accommodations work with the computerized testing?

And why are states joining in projects like Dynamic Learning Maps that are creating assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities?