Common Core Tough on Kids with Special Needs

[Anonymous]

"The standards don't allow enough flexibility for students who learn differently."


Here's a great article that details how devastating Common Core is for those with special needs

www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-common-core-is-tough-on-kids-with-special-needs/283973/

In a recent discussion board thread on reading comprehension challenges in autism, a special-education teacher commented that her students can’t understand the assigned reading passages. “When I complained, I was told that I could add extra support, but not actually change the passages,” she wrote. “It is truly sad to see my students’ frustration.”

Why must this teacher’s students contend with passages that are too complex for them to understand? She attributes this inflexibility to the Common Core, new standards—created in 2009 by a group of education professionals, none of them K-12 classroom teachers or special-education experts—that have been adopted by 45 states. Though most Common Core goals are abstract and schematic, collectively they constitute a one-size fits-all approach that, in practice, has severely straightjacketed America’s special-needs students.

She’s echoing the concerns of dozens of other special-education teachers I’ve spoken with, most of whom have already gotten the message from their supervisors or superiors that they must adhere to the standards and give all their students the designated grade-level assignments.

...

And now that this general curriculum is being shaped by dozens of grade-specific Common Core standards, and that teachers (including special-ed teachers) are increasingly expected to align each day’s lesson with one or more of these standards, there’s even less room for remediation or acceleration.



As additional Common Core documents explain, the texts for the different grade levels must be at a certain grade-appropriate level of verbal complexity. The Common Core Myths vs. Facts page notes, “the Standards require certain critical content for all students, including… America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.” And an appendix explains that sample texts, which include The Adventures of Tom Sawyer for eighth grade, “exemplify the level of complexity and quality that the Standards require all students in a given grade band to engage with.” So, while one might supplement a text, say, with glossaries and storyboards, one can’t adjust the text itself to match the student’s reading level.

[Anonymous]

So we should just water down the standards? Parents should know if their child is meeting grade level standards or not. If you give special needs students an easy test and they do well then the schools tell the parents, "look at how well your child is doing, no need for any extra services of supports". Most special needs kids should fail the test if they are getting help with academics. If they were on grade level then why would they need help with academics?

[Anonymous]

All "special needs" kids cannot be lumped together. Some special needs children need technology to access the curriculum- like text to speech, speech to text, or word prediction software, audio books, scribes... Some special needs children need fewer distractions, quieter environments, extra time.... Most can pass the standard cognitively if the method of testing is modified. Some special needs children cannot pass the standard cognitively and some of those will be able to on a longer time line - those should be given an extra time (years) to complete their HS education. All of these can be addressed through the current IDEA, IDA and other laws for education. Common Core did not repeal those laws.

Standards are helpful to flag students who have LDs and/or other types of issues that impair their abilities to access the curricula. Standards need to be high enough for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All "special needs" kids cannot be lumped together. Some special needs children need technology to access the curriculum- like text to speech, speech to text, or word prediction software, audio books, scribes... Some special needs children need fewer distractions, quieter environments, extra time.... Most can pass the standard cognitively if the method of testing is modified. Some special needs children cannot pass the standard cognitively and some of those will be able to on a longer time line - those should be given an extra time (years) to complete their HS education. All of these can be addressed through the current IDEA, IDA and other laws for education. Common Core did not repeal those laws.

Standards are helpful to flag students who have LDs and/or other types of issues that impair their abilities to access the curricula. Standards need to be high enough for that.

+100

[Anonymous]

sometimes having Special Needs means that person just cannot do the job. We've gotten so far away from that concept, we as a country believe that anyone with any Special Need can do anything if they're just accommodated correctly.

Sometimes that's true, and it's amazing to see. I've personally helped blind people ski. SKI.

However sometimes it's not true. Sometimes, a person with classic autism is not going to be able to do the job at hand -- mastering the Common Core, say, because he cannot read The Illiad. No matter what.

For him, maybe he gets his own study plan, whatever that is. Then the other 98.873 percent of the kids in his school without classic autism will read The Illiad without dilution, without drama. Without modifying the curriculum for their one classmate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She’s echoing the concerns of dozens of other special-education teachers I’ve spoken with, most of whom have already gotten the message from their supervisors or superiors that they must adhere to the standards and give all their students the designated grade-level assignments.

...

And now that this general curriculum is being shaped by dozens of grade-specific Common Core standards, and that teachers (including special-ed teachers) are increasingly expected to align each day’s lesson with one or more of these standards, there’s even less room for remediation or acceleration.

The solution is not to change the standards, which are the end goals for each grade level and should not be made flexible.

The solution is to tell those supervisors that students with IEPs need remediation to get to the standard, and that best practices dictate meeting students at their level of instructional need.

The students' IEPs should specify that students should be taught using reading passages at or slightly above their reading level, not at grade level.

[Anonymous]

http://www.naesp.org/principal-septemberoctober-2012-common-core/access-common-core-all-0

A key factor in creating better instruction is providing opportunities for general and special education teachers to share knowledge about evidence-based practices or interventions, as well as how to apply these to instruction in the CCSS.

Several specific interventions have effectively improved learning for students with disabilities. The common features of these instructional interventions include providing explicit, intensive instruction and frequent monitoring of individual student learning. This translates to teachers being able to precisely identify the conceptual and procedural knowledge and skills in mathematics, English language arts, and science that students are expected to learn; teach those skills directly and clearly; and provide opportunities for students to have concentrated time and instruction to master the skills.

As this pertains to the CCSS, let’s look at a Grade 4 English Language Arts Standard: “Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.” While many students may be able to achieve fluency through repeated practice of silent or oral reading, students who struggle with reading need specific fluency instruction. Again, using a common example, they need direct or explicit practice with reading passages beginning at levels where they are fluent and with reading in small, timed segments. This, coupled with continuous assessment or monitoring of the reading errors, helps teachers identify the specific areas or words that are causing problems, so they can focus specific attention on building those skills. This type of practice must be provided until mastery, and must be of sufficient time and consistency (intensity) to move the student forward.

However, in addition to the state assessments, schools must put together an assessment system that can monitor student progress. Principals need to develop systems that build on continuous monitoring of student progress to augment the end-of-year snap-shot measurement approach. These include curriculum-based measures, such as reading fluency probes, as well as performance-based tasks that can
be measured across classrooms with common rubrics. Teachers, both general and special educators, should have time to examine and discuss student work and identify exemplary performance, as well as those areas where students are faltering.

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education suggests the following six steps for creating a successful standards-based IEP.

Step 1: Consider the grade-level content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled or would be enrolled based on age.

Step 2: Examine classroom and student data to determine where the student is functioning in relation to the grade-level standards.

Step 3: Identify the present level of academic achievement and functional performance.

Step 4: Develop measurable annual goals aligned with grade-level academic content standards.

Step 5: Assess and report the student’s progress throughout the year.

Step 6: Identify specially designed instruction, including accommodations and/or modifications needed to access and progress in the general education curriculum.

I see nothing in the above list that requires a 5th grade student reading at a 2nd grade level to be instructed using 5th grade reading materials. If principals are telling teachers that is what they must do, I agree that is a problem but it is not due to Common Core standards.

[Anonymous]

Don't they still have to take the test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't they still have to take the test?

Yes, they do. No matter where they are at, they get to understand just what failures they are once they take a Common Core test.

[Anonymous]

Well, isn't that a great use of time in school? Would you like to take a test that you knew you would fail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, isn't that a great use of time in school? Would you like to take a test that you knew you would fail?

Do you think that kids should only have to do things they will succeed at?

[Anonymous]

How do kids with sn do on the msa's? I thought many schools were getting in trouble for telling sn kids to be absent on test days, etc. . .

It sounds like your issue is with standardized testing which is really a No Child Left Behind issue and not a Common Core issue.

[Anonymous]

CC is using tests as the form of assessment. Duncan has stated that teacher evaluation must be tied to student achievement.

[Anonymous]

http://dianeravitch.net/category/common-core/

If you want to understand the problems, you must read this. Ravitch is a liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CC is using tests as the form of assessment. Duncan has stated that teacher evaluation must be tied to student achievement.

There are a lot of problems with tying teacher evaluation to student achievement.

Having standards (Common Core or otherwise) is not one of these problems.