Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Show me the "Common Core" document that states that all special education students need to be put in general education classrooms and must use their "grit" to "tough it out".

I have shown you the IDEA document that states that all students with special needs should "access the general curriculum" and be assessed on the general education standards.

And wait, now I am confused. On the ONE hand you state that before all this common core nonsense, your child was able to participate in the general education classroom. I.e. he didn't need "special classes". But now he can't participate.

But then you also say that Common Core means districts are saying you can't have pull out classes anymore.

Was your child (and the children of all the kids on your special needs boards) being pulled out for special classes before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

What does his IEP say about his reading instruction? That is where the scaffolding skills are supposed to be documented.

IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Act) requires that his IEP state grade level standards (as the eventual goal) But then the special education teachers are supposed to break down the needed steps and identify the intermediary steps he is tp meet, to progress toward that grade level goal.

THAT is where the scaffolding is supposed to take place. In the IEP, NOT in the Common Core standards.

IDEA and NCLB also mandate that your child must take state tests, the same as every other student, whether with disabilities or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are NUMEROUS accommodations available on the PARCC assessments.

And prior to Common COre, Special Education students also had abyssmal failure rates.

The latest government figures show that the dropout rate for students with disabilities is twice that for nondisabled students. Two-thirds of students with disabilities are performing well below grade level in reading and math. By the eighth grade, that figure rises to 90 percent.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/06/24/325229848/a-major-shift-in-oversight-of-special-education

PRIOR to Common Core. 90% of students with disabilities were performing "well below grade level" in reading and math by 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

What does his IEP say about his reading instruction? That is where the scaffolding skills are supposed to be documented.

IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Act) requires that his IEP state grade level standards (as the eventual goal) But then the special education teachers are supposed to break down the needed steps and identify the intermediary steps he is tp meet, to progress toward that grade level goal.

THAT is where the scaffolding is supposed to take place. In the IEP, NOT in the Common Core standards.

IDEA and NCLB also mandate that your child must take state tests, the same as every other student, whether with disabilities or not.

My state had 5 levels of state tests. Yes, my son took one of them. Arne Duncan and the DOE has ordered most of them to be abolished. Only 1 percent of students in a school will be able to take alternate assessments. So in my son's school, that would be 6 students. He won't be among them. My son will now be tested at 5 levels above his learning level.

[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.

You do understand that you do not have a special needs kid, and it is very different when you do. We would love to go to public school. My child is at a small private with more traditional teaching and functions well with no pull outs or supports. We get therapy privately. If we had gone to public he would have been put in special Ed and it would have been a disaster. He entered school reading and other basic skills. I do not want my child separated and pulled out or put with kids with behavioral issues who cannot learn at his speed because they cannot meet his needs because of common core.

It is very easy for you to comment when it is not your child in the situation. My child can master memorization but the word problem and logic is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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 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.

Then you clearly do not understand special needs and should not be commenting on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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 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.

Then you clearly do not understand special needs and should not be commenting on the subject.

"Receptive issues" is a non specific phrase and could mean anything; could be caused by who knows what -- ADHD-inattentive, hearing loss, language delay, being an ELL. If a child is having "issues" with understanding receptive language based on some of the above causes, there could well be specific and rapid remediation for the underlying issue, and that child should be expected to be working on grade level quickly with appropriate remediation.

If you mean, a child has a diagnosed receptive language disorder, then yes, that child may have difficulty working on grade level as long as working on grade level is being defined as using and understanding language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My state had 5 levels of state tests. Yes, my son took one of them. Arne Duncan and the DOE has ordered most of them to be abolished. Only 1 percent of students in a school will be able to take alternate assessments. So in my son's school, that would be 6 students. He won't be among them. My son will now be tested at 5 levels above his learning level.

Thanks to No Child Left Behind!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My state had 5 levels of state tests. Yes, my son took one of them. Arne Duncan and the DOE has ordered most of them to be abolished. Only 1 percent of students in a school will be able to take alternate assessments. So in my son's school, that would be 6 students. He won't be among them. My son will now be tested at 5 levels above his learning level.

Thanks to No Child Left Behind!

You are wrong.
NCLB led to testing, but children were tested at their current learning levels, not grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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 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.

Then you clearly do not understand special needs and should not be commenting on the subject.

"Receptive issues" is a non specific phrase and could mean anything; could be caused by who knows what -- ADHD-inattentive, hearing loss, language delay, being an ELL. If a child is having "issues" with understanding receptive language based on some of the above causes, there could well be specific and rapid remediation for the underlying issue, and that child should be expected to be working on grade level quickly with appropriate remediation.

If you mean, a child has a diagnosed receptive language disorder, then yes, that child may have difficulty working on grade level as long as working on grade level is being defined as using and understanding language.

We have been in four years of intensive therapy. Bleaker let me know with all your wisdom what quick and easy remediation there is. Receptive issues are not adhd, hearing loss or other things. Those may have a component but not the primary issue. My child can and does work above grade level if taught in a way he understands. Putting him in remedial support services with kids who cannot read, write or do basic math because the common core makes no sense to him does more harm than good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not if they give up and drop out, which even the Common Core advocates agree is about to happen.

You're now arguing that it's better for schools not to require critical thinking and more rigorous learning, because then fewer students will drop out.

+1 yea, I don't get that logic.

ES kids are not going to drop out of school. They may complain that school is harder now because they now have to think a lot more, but I seriously doubt you will see a high dropout rate for ES kids.

As parents we complain that our kids won't be ready to compete with kids from foreign countries, so most of the states implement a set of standards that push critical thinking which, in theory, should make our kids much more competitive in the work place. Then, some parents turn around and complain that the standards are not age appropriate (which is basically saying that even for HS kids, CC standards are too hard), so we need to make them easier, so they don't feel bad about themselves.

For SN kids, if the standards are too difficult, then they either will need 1. more support or 2. a different set of standards

But it's also ridiculous to say that standards for all kids should be changed because SN kids cannot meet them.

It's not just special needs kids who can't meet the standards. 70 percent of kids don't make the standards after a solid year of being taught this fabulous new way.

And in Kentucky, where Common Core Standards have been taught for 4 years, only about 35 percent pass the math portion. Four friggin years, and they still have no idea what they are doing. A whole generation's education will be lost.

Again, I think the issues are with either the teaching methods or teaching materials, or combo of both. The issue is not the standards.

Basically, what you are saying is that we shouldn't implement any kid of standards that's a bit rigorous because our kids are not smart enough; the work is too hard. We should keep the standards low so that the majority can pass the standards. We shouldn't make our kids think too much and feel bad about themselves. We should keep the standards from being too difficult because then this will help them in the future to secure a 21st century job....NOT.

I get SN kids cannot meet some of the standards. Maybe the answer is that they should have different standards.

[Anonymous]

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The issue is not the standards.

If the standards are so good, why are teachers having so much trouble teaching to them and testing them? Why are standards written by so-called "experts" in their ivory towers such a good thing?

I'm a teacher and I'm not having trouble teaching Common Core standards. They are better than the ones I used to have to use (MD State "voluntary" curriculum) as I have posted earlier. Which, by the way, were also written by so called "experts" in ivory towers.

For average kids, they are fine. I am assuming you are not a special needs teacher and someone else deals with any child who cannot minimally achieve.

I'm an ESOL teacher. About 25% of my students also have IEPs.