Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special educator and I was first excited about common core. There is more overlap between subjects, which means more exposure and review. However, the end expectation is for the student to synthesize information and explain reasoning. For students who are just grasping the facts, they are not ready for the next step.

Math is difficult because there are many students who can do the rote algorithm and show understanding in that way. Ask them to explain why and they are totally lost. That is 50% of the curriculum!

There are still many answers sought and not a lot of guidance from higher ups. There is more curriculum development for those students who are not on the diploma track, and it is leaving those students behind who are in the regular curriculum. Not to say the old curriculum was perfect, but this has presented more challenges.

This is what my child and so many others like him are facing. He now despises school. Tells me every day how much he hates it. He hates the teachers. He hates the work. Great job, Common Core!

CC is in the early stages, and yes, maybe they rolled it out too quickly without much thought to SN kids, but I think the idea behind CC is a good one in theory. Execution of it seems poorly done in most places.

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Admittedly, I don't have a SN child, but if I did, and my SN child couldn't do the work that the rest of the kids could even with an IEP and extra support, then I would want my child in a different class or learning environment, more geared towards my own child, rather than expect the entire school and curriculum to cater to my child. If I want my SN child to be in a regular class, then I would have to change my expectations of what my child could achieve. I'm sure the SN kid would still struggle, and may not get Ps, but if I want my child in a regular classroom, then I would expect my child to have to try to meet the standards just like all the other kids, knowing that my SN child may not meet those standards.

[Anonymous]

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special educator and I was first excited about common core. There is more overlap between subjects, which means more exposure and review. However, the end expectation is for the student to synthesize information and explain reasoning. For students who are just grasping the facts, they are not ready for the next step.

Math is difficult because there are many students who can do the rote algorithm and show understanding in that way. Ask them to explain why and they are totally lost. That is 50% of the curriculum!

There are still many answers sought and not a lot of guidance from higher ups. There is more curriculum development for those students who are not on the diploma track, and it is leaving those students behind who are in the regular curriculum. Not to say the old curriculum was perfect, but this has presented more challenges.

This is what my child and so many others like him are facing. He now despises school. Tells me every day how much he hates it. He hates the teachers. He hates the work. Great job, Common Core!

CC is in the early stages, and yes, maybe they rolled it out too quickly without much thought to SN kids, but I think the idea behind CC is a good one in theory. Execution of it seems poorly done in most places.

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Admittedly, I don't have a SN child, but if I did, and my SN child couldn't do the work that the rest of the kids could even with an IEP and extra support, then I would want my child in a different class or learning environment, more geared towards my own child, rather than expect the entire school and curriculum to cater to my child. If I want my SN child to be in a regular class, then I would have to change my expectations of what my child could achieve. I'm sure the SN kid would still struggle, and may not get Ps, but if I want my child in a regular classroom, then I would expect my child to have to try to meet the standards just like all the other kids, knowing that my SN child may not meet those standards.

Arne Duncan insists that all kids should sit in regular classrooms and learn Common Core Standards with no variance. He has also moved to strip states of their ability to have special needs children take alternative testing. So even if they read at a second grade level, they must sit for a 7th grade test that is now written at a 10th grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

It insists that they "describe" -- even when they don't have the language skills.

[Anonymous]

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

check out the math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Arne Duncan insists that all kids should sit in regular classrooms and learn Common Core Standards with no variance. He has also moved to strip states of their ability to have special needs children take alternative testing. So even if they read at a second grade level, they must sit for a 7th grade test that is now written at a 10th grade level.

Site evidence please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Arne Duncan insists that all kids should sit in regular classrooms and learn Common Core Standards with no variance. He has also moved to strip states of their ability to have special needs children take alternative testing. So even if they read at a second grade level, they must sit for a 7th grade test that is now written at a 10th grade level.

Site evidence please.

Absolutely. Straight from the government:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=1810-AB16

D/OESE RIN: 1810-AB16 Publication ID: Fall 2014
Title: Title I--Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
Abstract: The Secretary will amend the regulations governing title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to phase out the authority of States to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards in order to satisfy ESEA accountability requirements. These amendments will permit, as a transitional measure, States that meet certain criteria to continue to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards and include the results in accountability determinations, subject to limitations on the number of proficient scores that may be counted, for a limited period of time.

[Anonymous]

Site evidence please.

It's cite. Think citation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

It insists that they "describe" -- even when they don't have the language skills.

If the one single way that the Common Core standards assume people think is that people have language, then I really don't have a problem with that. I think it's a valid assumption. A child who does not have language should get accommodation in the classroom.

Also I don't think that "describe" necessarily means "explain in words, using complete sentences".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

check out the math

I've checked out the math, thanks. I still don't understand what this comment refers to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

It insists that they "describe" -- even when they don't have the language skills.

If the one single way that the Common Core standards assume people think is that people have language, then I really don't have a problem with that. I think it's a valid assumption. A child who does not have language should get accommodation in the classroom.

Also I don't think that "describe" necessarily means "explain in words, using complete sentences".

You are so obtuse. It's not "one" single way....it's a drop in the bucket. Common Core also wrongly and stupidly assumes that children have abstract thought WAY before many of them do. It's killing education for children with autism. The parent message boards are lighting up over this. I know YOU don't care about children with disabilities, but many of us do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Arne Duncan insists that all kids should sit in regular classrooms and learn Common Core Standards with no variance. He has also moved to strip states of their ability to have special needs children take alternative testing. So even if they read at a second grade level, they must sit for a 7th grade test that is now written at a 10th grade level.

What are these 7th grade tests written at a 10th grade level?

I guess that I don't know what the solution is for the alternative testing -- as opposed to the regular testing with accommodation. If you're in seventh grade but reading at a second-grade level, should you take the second-grade test? Or the seventh-grade test? Or no test? Should the answer depend on why you're reading at a second-grade level? I am definitely no fan of NCLB, but I think the results of the standardized NCLB testing demonstrate that there are a lot of children in the US who are not learning what they should learn, and it's a good thing that we know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

It insists that they "describe" -- even when they don't have the language skills.

Some teachers accept "describe" as drawing pix. However, I do think that kids without SN do need to learn how to describe it in words, as well. I know some kids are not very verbal, but they should have to try. The ability to communicate your thoughts verbally or written is a pretty critical skill in the workplace. I work in IT, and some people in this field are very weak in this area which causes all kinds of problems.

For SN kids and depending on the SN, I would think that teachers who are aware of the child's SN would accept a drawing. If that is not the case, then I'd talk to the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think you can expect any curriculum to meet the needs of *every* student. It's not possible. Yes, CC is about explaining your thought process, which is a critical skill. Are you saying that they should have a different set of standards for those with SN? If so, wouldn't this lead to those with SN being in a separate class by themselves, they way it used to be before integrated classrooms?

Unfortunately, not all people "think" the same way. CC assumes that they do. The kids have to learn the CC way.

What is the one single way that the Common Core standards assume that everybody thinks? Could you please explain?

It insists that they "describe" -- even when they don't have the language skills.

If the one single way that the Common Core standards assume people think is that people have language, then I really don't have a problem with that. I think it's a valid assumption. A child who does not have language should get accommodation in the classroom.

Also I don't think that "describe" necessarily means "explain in words, using complete sentences".

You are so obtuse. It's not "one" single way....it's a drop in the bucket. Common Core also wrongly and stupidly assumes that children have abstract thought WAY before many of them do. It's killing education for children with autism. The parent message boards are lighting up over this. I know YOU don't care about children with disabilities, but many of us do.

Please don't assume that I don't care about children with disabilities.

But the whole point is that the Common Core is standards. By definition, standards do not apply to everybody everywhere under every circumstance. For some children, the standards are way less than they could be doing. For other children, the standards are too difficult, or developmentally inappropriate, or inappropriate for their disability. If children with autism are having trouble with Common Core standards, the solution isn't to change the Common Core standards so that children with autism can achieve them without extra help. It's to provide extra help to children with autism.