Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember a lot of discussions about this when I was a college freshman, around 2 am, usually involving mood-altering substances. Further proof that the Common Core standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children!

I agree. Any standard for kindergarten that states a 5 year old is expected to answer a question is developmentally inappropriate. Kindergarteners are not old enough to be able to sensibly answer a question! They should just be playing with blocks and trucks and trains and dolls.

I do not think they should be playing but the point of the topic is special needs. My child with receptive language issues knows the anwser but cannot always anwser because of it. So, by the method he fails. Standards are fine but how they are implemented is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am the OP. And yes, it sure did veer away. I personally have friends all across the U.S who are struggling with school now. And these are typical kids in Maryland, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, California, etc. Implementation is EVERYTHING. Who cares if the standards are "good" if everyone is suffering because the teachers don't truly understand them yet.

Among my Internet connections with parents of other kids with special needs, Common Core is pretty much universally despised. The creators pretty much admit that special ed students were an afterthought, and we're all experiencing this lack of planning for kids with different needs. The creators are totally tone deaf and offer garbage talk like "unpacking the standards" and accommodations that will not work for most special need kids.

Common Core is a straitjacket. To the ugly folks who say, "Well, you just hate standards because your kid can't hack it.": federal law requires a leveled playing field for people with disabilities. There's a reason there's wheelchair ramps now, instead of the "Screw you, disabled person" attitude of past (which is prevalent on this thread).

You I'll say it: Disabled children need DIFFERENT standards based in their PERSONAL needs. A curriculum that constantly moves them forward, but doesn't insist in this B.S fantasy of , "Oh, if you just give them harder tests, they'll pass them!"

Not all learning disabled children need different standards though. Plenty of parents are saying that their kids can do well on regular standards with accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that common core of no common core, today's teachers use eduspeak to communicate with parents. I have no idea what any of the standards mean and I don't think that I should have to in order to get how my kids are doing. The fcps report cards comment section is about the least useful thing I have ever seen. And at PTCs they seem to try to figure out ways to give you no real information. I do think it is important to know whether my kid is meeting standards but behind most of his classmates. Or if he is way ahead of the curve.

Just for the record, your school in VA isn't using Common Core State Standards. VA chose to stick with its VA Standards of Learning (SOLs)

I have no idea why you say you don't know what any of the standards mean. They are pretty straightforward!

[Anonymous]

Disabled children need DIFFERENT standards based in their PERSONAL needs. A curriculum that constantly moves them forward, but doesn't insist in this B.S fantasy of , "Oh, if you just give them harder tests, they'll pass them!"

Disabled children may need to be exempt from the expectation that they meet the grade level standard.

If you create an individual standard for each individual student, then there is no longer a grade level standard. This becomes individual education with individual goals. That may be appropriate for some severely disabled children, but it has also resulted in extremely low expectations for a large group of children who have minor learning disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember a lot of discussions about this when I was a college freshman, around 2 am, usually involving mood-altering substances. Further proof that the Common Core standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children!

I agree. Any standard for kindergarten that states a 5 year old is expected to answer a question is developmentally inappropriate. Kindergarteners are not old enough to be able to sensibly answer a question! They should just be playing with blocks and trucks and trains and dolls.

I do not think they should be playing but the point of the topic is special needs. My child with receptive language issues knows the anwser but cannot always anwser because of it. So, by the method he fails. Standards are fine but how they are implemented is the issue.

The kindergarten standard is that by the end of kindergarten, children should be able to answer a question about an important detail in the text that has been read aloud to him.

For example, my earlier example of of "What did the caterpillar eat to make him feel better?" the answer is "a nice green leaf."

This is a completely reasonable standard for a 6 year old child (or almost 6 year old child) at the end of kindergarten!

If a child is unable to answer such a question, that child hasn't met the standard. It doesn't mean he is bad. It does in fact mean he has failed to meet that standard.

But you KNOW that. You KNOW your child has receptive language issues. You know that your child isn't working yet at the grade level standard expected by the end of kindergarten.

Your problem and argument is with the perceived requirement that all children must be instructed on grade level, even if they aren't working at grade level, and "use their grit" to get by.

This is a separate issue from lowering the standards to be easy enough that all children, even those with severe learning disabilities, be able to master them.

You call it an "implementation" issue, but it is more than that -- there is a federal requirement that all children be instructed on grade level, and that is where your biggest problem lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am the OP. And yes, it sure did veer away. I personally have friends all across the U.S who are struggling with school now. And these are typical kids in Maryland, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, California, etc. Implementation is EVERYTHING. Who cares if the standards are "good" if everyone is suffering because the teachers don't truly understand them yet.

Among my Internet connections with parents of other kids with special needs, Common Core is pretty much universally despised. The creators pretty much admit that special ed students were an afterthought, and we're all experiencing this lack of planning for kids with different needs. The creators are totally tone deaf and offer garbage talk like "unpacking the standards" and accommodations that will not work for most special need kids.

Common Core is a straitjacket. To the ugly folks who say, "Well, you just hate standards because your kid can't hack it.": federal law requires a leveled playing field for people with disabilities. There's a reason there's wheelchair ramps now, instead of the "Screw you, disabled person" attitude of past (which is prevalent on this thread).

You I'll say it: Disabled children need DIFFERENT standards based in their PERSONAL needs. A curriculum that constantly moves them forward, but doesn't insist in this B.S fantasy of , "Oh, if you just give them harder tests, they'll pass them!"

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. I am the PP who asked if we were still discussing SpED and Common Core.

Anyhow, we met with a very well-respected psych last week to discuss updated educational testing for my MS DS. He's been on an IEP since 1st grade. The topic of Common Core came up within the first 5 minutes of our conversation. She rolled her eyes, saying that it is an utter disaster for all kids in the special ed world. That kids on IEPs were not even considered when the standards were written and implemented. This of course means we need to now give serious consideration to the very expensive option of SN private school..... because if we keep our DS in MoCo public one more year - I fear that his future will be "signed, sealed and delivered" meaning he will not be college material 6 years from now.

[Anonymous]

there is a federal requirement that all children be instructed on grade level, and that is where your biggest problem lies.

Bingo! And, the standards assume that all kids are on level--and they are not. Instructing kids above their level goes against sound educational policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

there is a federal requirement that all children be instructed on grade level, and that is where your biggest problem lies.

Bingo! And, [b]the standards assume that all kids are on level[b]--and they are not. Instructing kids above their level goes against sound educational policy.

No. The standards establish what grade level is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

there is a federal requirement that all children be instructed on grade level, and that is where your biggest problem lies.

Bingo! And, the standards assume that all kids are on level--and they are not. Instructing kids above their level goes against sound educational policy.

.... for SN kids. For other kids, there's nothing wrong with challenging them and having higher expectations than what we used to have. Kids are quite amazing. For a lot of kids, you would be surprised what they can accomplish if given the chance, maybe even some of the SN kids.

[Anonymous]

.... for SN kids. For other kids, there's nothing wrong with challenging them and having higher expectations than what we used to have. Kids are quite amazing. For a lot of kids, you would be surprised what they can accomplish if given the chance, maybe even some of the SN kids.

Lala land........a challenge is one thing, what you describe is dreamland.

[Anonymous]

.... for SN kids. For other kids, there's nothing wrong with challenging them and having higher expectations than what we used to have. Kids are quite amazing. For a lot of kids, you would be surprised what they can accomplish if given the chance, maybe even some of the SN kids.

Well, then, let's get rid of AAP, GT, LD, special needs, ESOL, etc. Just put the kids in the class--they'll do fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

.... for SN kids. For other kids, there's nothing wrong with challenging them and having higher expectations than what we used to have. Kids are quite amazing. For a lot of kids, you would be surprised what they can accomplish if given the chance, maybe even some of the SN kids.

Well, then, let's get rid of AAP, GT, LD, special needs, ESOL, etc. Just put the kids in the class--they'll do fine!

Well, some kids need more than a "challenging" curriculum (and some would call 2.0 curr. not all that challenging). And I didn't say all kids. I said "a lot" of kids, and that's why having them under 2.0 curr. is challenging enough. And ESOL kids learn the same 2.0 curr.

[Anonymous]

Using the analogy of having ramps for the disabled, the "ramp" would be an IEP. Businesses make accommodations, but they do not change the entire building, ie, make everything on one floor, with zero steps, for disabled people.

Same for the curriculum. There should be accommodations (IEP), but it shouldn't be changed completely just for SN kids. Sorry, I know it sounds harsh, but that's the reality.

I'm short, but the world is made for average sized people. It would be great for me if everything was created for people my size, but I really cannot expect that. It's made for the "average" size person. I ask for help when I need it (reaching for things on the top shelf), or I use an aid (step ladder).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anyhow, we met with a very well-respected psych last week to discuss updated educational testing for my MS DS. He's been on an IEP since 1st grade. The topic of Common Core came up within the first 5 minutes of our conversation. She rolled her eyes, saying that it is an utter disaster for all kids in the special ed world. That kids on IEPs were not even considered when the standards were written and implemented. This of course means we need to now give serious consideration to the very expensive option of SN private school..... because if we keep our DS in MoCo public one more year - I fear that his future will be "signed, sealed and delivered" meaning he will not be college material 6 years from now.

The kids with IEPs were not considered when the grade level standards were written, because the standards are indeed designed for grade level expectations for neurotypical students.

There are now challenging standards for every child in your school district AND there is an expectation that your child will make progress each year to meet those standards. The school district has a mandate now not just to help your child advance a little bit each year, but to advance each year in order to meet grade level standards.

If Montgomery County Public School is unable to educate your child to be college ready 6 years from now.... but you can prove that an expensive private school CAN do so... you have grounds to sue the school for tuition for that private school.

[Anonymous]

There are now challenging standards for every child in your school district AND there is an expectation that your child will make progress each year to meet those standards. The school district has a mandate now not just to help your child advance a little bit each year, but to advance each year in order to meet grade level standards.

The kids who are not able to do the K work do not have parents posting on DCUM. Some people need to get into the real world. Some kids have never had a book read to them.