Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The last big "savior" was NCLB. We saw how well that worked , didn't we? Common Core will be even worse.

So, the answer is "let's do nothing" rather than "let's try something, tweak it, modify it, fine tune it"?

Yes, the argument seems to be that the last time we tried to improve education, it was bad, so we shouldn't try to improve education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back when I was growing up, in the 70's and 80's, I don't recall having one single standardized test. Back then, there were a lot more kids graduating school who could only read at an ES level, or not read at all.

Doubtful.

I guess you've never read the description of how great American schooling was in the 1970s and early 1980s, contained in the 1983 report A Nation At Risk.

(to the top PP -- I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in the 1970s and 80s.)

I also to the Iowa - K-12 was 1970-1983

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back when I was growing up, in the 70's and 80's, I don't recall having one single standardized test. Back then, there were a lot more kids graduating school who could only read at an ES level, or not read at all.

Doubtful.

I guess you've never read the description of how great American schooling was in the 1970s and early 1980s, contained in the 1983 report A Nation At Risk.

(to the top PP -- I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in the 1970s and 80s.)

PP, thanks for reminding us about this report. I just read a portion of this (a very short portion). Very alarming. This report was written about 30 yrs ago.

https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Eh. I think that A Nation At Risk was a horrible report, and it led to bad results, which we're still dealing with to this day. The main benefit of A Nation At Risk is to remind people who are nostalgic for the good old days of the 1970s and 1980s that they were not actually the good old days.

However, I don't include the Common Core standards among the bad results of A Nation At risk. I think that the Common Core standards are an improvement.

Why do you think it was a bad report?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone here think or hope that someone in the "powers that be" seat might be reading this?

Honestly, THIS is exactly how things get changed. Lots of noise, lots of complaining - but we have to complain to the right people!

So WHAT DO WE DO?! We need to stop bitching on DCUM and DO SOMETHING!

I don't know where or how to start as I am not politically savvy nor am I politically connected in any way. But i am willing to help get this in front of the right people. I'm in MoCo. In a W pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back when I was growing up, in the 70's and 80's, I don't recall having one single standardized test. Back then, there were a lot more kids graduating school who could only read at an ES level, or not read at all.

Doubtful.

I guess you've never read the description of how great American schooling was in the 1970s and early 1980s, contained in the 1983 report A Nation At Risk.

(to the top PP -- I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in the 1970s and 80s.)

PP, thanks for reminding us about this report. I just read a portion of this (a very short portion). Very alarming. This report was written about 30 yrs ago.

https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Some stats from the report:

- About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
- Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
- Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
- Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent and now constitute one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those institutions.

This is why we need to increase standards for the entire country. CC standards have their issues, but damn, something needed to change because 30 yrs after this report, not much had changed, sadly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/a-nation-at-risk-30-years-report-schools_n_3147535.html

""It's been the most influential report on education in my lifetime. It was so blunt," said Michael Rebell, a professor of law and education at Columbia University's Teachers College. "It gave us the whole standards movement.""

The last big "savior" was NCLB. We saw how well that worked , didn't we? Common Core will be even worse.

So, the answer is "let's do nothing" rather than "let's try something, tweak it, modify it, fine tune it"?

Common Core is copyrighted. Nothing can be deleted, and only up to 1o percent added.

Like it or lump it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several states have decided to adopt Dynamic Learning Maps as the alternative assessment for students with disabilities.

Objectives measured on the Dynamic Learning Map assessment are linked to Common Core grade level standards but have been adapted.

For an example a 6th grade end of year benchmark is:

RI.6.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literary nonfiction in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

For students taking the Dynamic Learning Map assessment, the 6th grade end of year benchmark is:

EE.RI.6.10 Demonstrate understanding while actively reading or listening to literary nonfiction.


A Kindergarten End of Year Skill is:

RF.K.2 Demonstrate understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds (phonemes).
a. Recognizeandproducerhymingwords.
b. Count,pronounce,blend,and segment syllables in spoken words.
c. Blend and segment onsets and rimes of single- syllable spoken words.
d. Isolate and pronounce the initial,medial vowel,and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words.* (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.)
e. Addorsubstituteindividualsounds(phonemes)in simple, one-syllable words to make new words.


This may be too hard for learning disabled children. The Dynamic Learning Map assessment only states that students by the end of K should:

EE.RF.K.2 Demonstrate emerging understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds (phonemes).
a. With guidance and support, recognize rhyming words.
b. With guidance and support, recognize the number of words in a spoken message.
c. With guidance and support, identify single-syllable spoken words with the same onset (beginning sound) as a familiar word.
d. Not applicable
e. Not applicable

In addition on the Dynamic Learning Map there are three levels of support spelled out -- no support, moderate support and heavy support (I believe).

Just to be clear, the Dynamic Learning Disabilities are not for students with Learning Disabilities. They are for students with "Significant Cognitive Disabilities", generally kids classified as Intellectually Disabled (although not the kids at the mild end of this spectrum), Autism (the subset of this disorder with significant intellectual and communication deficits), Traumatic Brain Injury (again a subset of these students), or Multiple Disabilities (when the multiple disabilities include one or more of the previously mentioned disabilities).

[Anonymous]

Back when I was growing up, in the 70's and 80's, I don't recall having one single standardized test.

You probably just don't remember. They weren't necessarily given every year and teachers did not teach to the test. They were used by the teachers for evaluation of students--not for the evaluation of teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eh. I think that A Nation At Risk was a horrible report, and it led to bad results, which we're still dealing with to this day. The main benefit of A Nation At Risk is to remind people who are nostalgic for the good old days of the 1970s and 1980s that they were not actually the good old days.

However, I don't include the Common Core standards among the bad results of A Nation At risk. I think that the Common Core standards are an improvement.

Why do you think it was a bad report?

Well, I don't like the alarmism much. Maybe they thought that otherwise nobody would notice the report, or that people needed to be alarmed out of complacency, but I think that the alarmism in A Nation At Risk is a major cause of the public belief, in spite of the data, that public schools are bad and getting worse.

A Nation At Risk also led to a lot of ideological attacks on the basic idea of public school, like tuition vouchers, public schools run by for-profit businesses, attacks on teachers' unions, and corporate education reform. Although maybe all of those things would have happened anyway.

[Anonymous]

Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched

Partly the result of elimination of trace schools and the push to graduate all kids. Prior to this, there were other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Just to be clear, the Dynamic Learning Disabilities are not for students with Learning Disabilities. They are for students with "Significant Cognitive Disabilities", generally kids classified as Intellectually Disabled (although not the kids at the mild end of this spectrum), Autism (the subset of this disorder with significant intellectual and communication deficits), Traumatic Brain Injury (again a subset of these students), or Multiple Disabilities (when the multiple disabilities include one or more of the previously mentioned disabilities).

It sounds as if the Dynamic Learning Map assessments will be useful though, for the kids OP is talking about -- kids like hers who have severe learning disabilities in processing and using language. For example, someone -- I think it was OP, said that while in K her child might have been able to understand a detail in a text, he would not have been able to communicate the response to the teacher as other children in K were able to do, due to his receptive language issues. That's a pretty severe communication disability if he can't communicate even with the accommodations allowed to all students. So this type of assessment would be a godsend for that small percent of the population that really needs it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core is copyrighted. Nothing can be deleted, and only up to 1o percent added.

Like it or lump it.

Just because it is copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Individual states can't change it, but it can indeed be changed.

But I think a better change would be to lobby to include more students on proper alternative assessments. If it is true that alternative assessments like the Dynamic Learning Maps are essentially for kids who are severely intellectually disabled (IQs of less than 55 for example) then it is not the right assessment for students who have average or above average intelligence but also have severe learning disabilities and are several years below grade level and it isn't expected that they will ever catch up. So there needs to be some alternative assessment for this group as well, however small a group it may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just to be clear, the Dynamic Learning Disabilities are not for students with Learning Disabilities. They are for students with "Significant Cognitive Disabilities", generally kids classified as Intellectually Disabled (although not the kids at the mild end of this spectrum), Autism (the subset of this disorder with significant intellectual and communication deficits), Traumatic Brain Injury (again a subset of these students), or Multiple Disabilities (when the multiple disabilities include one or more of the previously mentioned disabilities).

It sounds as if the Dynamic Learning Map assessments will be useful though, for the kids OP is talking about -- kids like hers who have severe learning disabilities in processing and using language. For example, someone -- I think it was OP, said that while in K her child might have been able to understand a detail in a text, he would not have been able to communicate the response to the teacher as other children in K were able to do, due to his receptive language issues. That's a pretty severe communication disability if he can't communicate even with the accommodations allowed to all students. So this type of assessment would be a godsend for that small percent of the population that really needs it.

I am the OP. My son does not qualify for these assessments. Only 1 percent of students at a school will be able to take it -- that's Arne Duncan's decree, regardless of how many kids it would benefit. At my son's school, only about 6 kids would qualify, and because t has the cognitive disabled population, he won't be in that mix.

They have decided to limit this to very, very low IQ students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just to be clear, the Dynamic Learning Disabilities are not for students with Learning Disabilities. They are for students with "Significant Cognitive Disabilities", generally kids classified as Intellectually Disabled (although not the kids at the mild end of this spectrum), Autism (the subset of this disorder with significant intellectual and communication deficits), Traumatic Brain Injury (again a subset of these students), or Multiple Disabilities (when the multiple disabilities include one or more of the previously mentioned disabilities).

It sounds as if the Dynamic Learning Map assessments will be useful though, for the kids OP is talking about -- kids like hers who have severe learning disabilities in processing and using language. For example, someone -- I think it was OP, said that while in K her child might have been able to understand a detail in a text, he would not have been able to communicate the response to the teacher as other children in K were able to do, due to his receptive language issues. That's a pretty severe communication disability if he can't communicate even with the accommodations allowed to all students. So this type of assessment would be a godsend for that small percent of the population that really needs it.

I am the OP. My son does not qualify for these assessments. Only 1 percent of students at a school will be able to take it -- that's Arne Duncan's decree, regardless of how many kids it would benefit. At my son's school, only about 6 kids would qualify, and because t has the cognitive disabled population, he won't be in that mix.

They have decided to limit this to very, very low IQ students.

Well, THAT's the issue I think needs to be changed. Instead of trying to get Common Core state standards repealed, try to expand access to alternative assessments to the 2% of severely disabled students who really need it. The 1% rule you reference should be returned to 2% or whatever it used to be. That's where the real problem lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the point of an IEP, to individualize the curriculum based on the special needs of a student. Unless they end them, I think it will be fine.

What we are telling you is there is a huge disconnect. Because the Common Core is a slapdash set of standards, figuring out how to accommodate students was never truly considered.

Thousands of standards, and one and a half pages on Common Core dealing with special ed. It was a disaster from the beginning.

The Common Core is standards. Only that. Just standards. The Common Core is not a curriculum, or administration, or accommodation for special education. How to accommodate students in special education is up to the state, the school district, and the school, in compliance with the various federal and state laws and regulations.

+1000%

[Anonymous]

The Common Core is standards. Only that. Just standards. The Common Core is not a curriculum, or administration, or accommodation for special education. How to accommodate students in special education is up to the state, the school district, and the school, in compliance with the various federal and state laws and regulations.

Therefore, the standards mean nothing. Just a lot of time and money and frustration. Helps no one.