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

[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.

Except for those pesky genreal education requirements, 50-60 credits.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but if you are STEM major, you can get by with poorer grades in gen ed requirements and get a job based on your STEM skills. I work with plenty of people who are very good on the quantitative side but struggle to put together a one page memo--we let them do what they are good at and limit the extent to which they are expected to write. They are valuable members of the team.

I am sure we have many smart and productive scientists like this. It would have been a shame if they got the message they were poor at math because they could not orally explain their answers with their fellow second graders. It is very hard to make it through school receiving daily messages that there is nothing, really, that you are good at. Had we had this system in the past, we would no doubt have been deprived of many of the brilliant research scientists and engineers we have today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you base this statement on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but if you are STEM major, you can get by with poorer grades in gen ed requirements and get a job based on your STEM skills. I work with plenty of people who are very good on the quantitative side but struggle to put together a one page memo--we let them do what they are good at and limit the extent to which they are expected to write. They are valuable members of the team.

I am sure we have many smart and productive scientists like this. It would have been a shame if they got the message they were poor at math because they could not orally explain their answers with their fellow second graders. It is very hard to make it through school receiving daily messages that there is nothing, really, that you are good at. Had we had this system in the past, we would no doubt have been deprived of many of the brilliant research scientists and engineers we have today.

Exactly this. Many smart people will have their lives ruined by Common Core. We will waste some of the best minds of this generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you base this statement on?

Read The Atlantic article. Details it all in there. You MUST work on grade standards, even if you read five years behind your grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You probably don't know why you hate it "with a bloody passion."

I bet now you'll prattle on nonsensically about testing companies, however.

I'm sorry you decided to go in with the hard right on this issue, but you're in the minority. We can already see CC changing American education for the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you base this statement on?

Read The Atlantic article. Details it all in there. You MUST work on grade standards, even if you read five years behind your grade.

That is not a requirement of the Common Core standards. If students are required to do this, then the requirement comes from the school, school district, or state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly this. Many smart people will have their lives ruined by Common Core. We will waste some of the best minds of this generation.

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Life-ruining!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You probably don't know why you hate it "with a bloody passion."

I bet now you'll prattle on nonsensically about testing companies, however.

I'm sorry you decided to go in with the hard right on this issue, but you're in the minority. We can already see CC changing American education for the better.

You are in la-la land. More and more despise Common Core each year. It's toxic. States are dropping it and the testing.

Once the Obama administration isn't there to prop it up, it's toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but if you are STEM major, you can get by with poorer grades in gen ed requirements and get a job based on your STEM skills. I work with plenty of people who are very good on the quantitative side but struggle to put together a one page memo--we let them do what they are good at and limit the extent to which they are expected to write. They are valuable members of the team.

I am sure we have many smart and productive scientists like this. It would have been a shame if they got the message they were poor at math because they could not orally explain their answers with their fellow second graders. It is very hard to make it through school receiving daily messages that there is nothing, really, that you are good at. Had we had this system in the past, we would no doubt have been deprived of many of the brilliant research scientists and engineers we have today.

Exactly this. Many smart people will have their lives ruined by Common Core. We will waste some of the best minds of this generation.

I wrote the post in the quote. I actually am not anti-common core at all; the standards are aimed at developing a deep number sense, which is only to the good. What I dispute is that meeting this objective requires strong pragmatic language skills and believe CC can and should be implemented without such heavy reliance. WE need more scientists and engineers, not more lawyers who can actually do math.

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't be a bad thing if more lawyers could actually do math.

[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.

What do you base this statement on?

Read The Atlantic article. Details it all in there. You MUST work on grade standards, even if you read five years behind your grade.

That is not a requirement of the Common Core standards. If students are required to do this, then the requirement comes from the school, school district, or state.

Straight from the Feds:

Beyond offering a free appropriate public education, individualized education programs for students with disabilities should meet grade-level requirements, federal education officials say.

In guidance released Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Education said that all IEPs should conform to “the state’s academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled.”
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/11/17/feds-ieps-grade-level/20972/


And if you want a real education, read the comments section from parents and teachers about how their kids are getting screwed over by this across the U.S.

(But you have blinders on, and won't of course.)

[Anonymous]

It's probably true... CC standards do require use of more language arts across the board. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, it's made school harder for those SN kids that have a hard time with this. So, does that mean we should only have standards or curriculums that the lowest level can meet? I don't understand this logic. Let's dumb down the curriculum so *everyone* can meet them?

SN kids need supports. Isn't that what IEPs are for? So, if your school/teacher is not providing that so that your SN child can try to meet the standards, then that's an issue with the school/teacher, not the standards. Or, maybe they should have completely separate standards for SN kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wouldn't be a bad thing if more lawyers could actually do math.

No, it wouldn't. But how many more lawyers do we really need? We need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. Superior language skills are not required for success in their fields, just as superior math skills are not required for success in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's probably true... CC standards do require use of more language arts across the board. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, it's made school harder for those SN kids that have a hard time with this. So, does that mean we should only have standards or curriculums that the lowest level can meet? I don't understand this logic. Let's dumb down the curriculum so *everyone* can meet them?

SN kids need supports. Isn't that what IEPs are for? So, if your school/teacher is not providing that so that your SN child can try to meet the standards, then that's an issue with the school/teacher, not the standards. Or, maybe they should have completely separate standards for SN kids?

Standards that cut off a sizable number of kids from having a successful education should be shitcanned.