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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about other industries, but in the high tech industry, during the interview process, they are asking a lot more brain teaser type questions rather than straightforward programming questions.

For example, at Google, even for engineering jobs, they will ask brain teaser questions. You have to answer verbally. They are not looking for the "correct" answer, but rather looking at how your thought process works (kind of like how some of the CC standards want to see thought process worked out), and how quickly you can think on your feet.

I don't know much about SN kids who are nonverbal. Would such kids have issues dealing with these types of interview questions?

My point is that even in some STEM fields, verbal and written communication skills are quite important. So, even if your SN nonverbal child is good at math, but not good at verbal skills, that may still be a problem when they go into the working world. I only know about the tech field because that's what I am in. Maybe other STEM fields are different.

What kind of alternative reality are you living in? Do you even have a non-verbal child? You sound very strange arguing about a non-verbal child getting a job in stem. If your child is non-verbal as an adult, they aren't going to be graduating or getting a job. Instead of making this about you and your lifestyle, lets focus on the real need to get these kids verbal and comprehension.

OK, but I think that's for a different thread. There's a real need. No one disputes the need. People have stated that these kids need IEPs.

My post was in response to another post about how a nonverbal kid who used to do well in math before all the CC "explain your thinking" standards came, and how now, this nonverbal kid is "failing" math. The point was that today, more and more high tech companies require you to be able to "explain your thinking" during the interview process, and so even math minded kids will need to be able to verbalize their thinking.

If your child is that severely nonverbal, then I'm guessing your child has more issues in school than just "explain your thinking in math. CC standards or not, such a child would need therapy, and no one's saying such a child shouldn't get therapy. What the heck are you railing about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about other industries, but in the high tech industry, during the interview process, they are asking a lot more brain teaser type questions rather than straightforward programming questions.

For example, at Google, even for engineering jobs, they will ask brain teaser questions. You have to answer verbally. They are not looking for the "correct" answer, but rather looking at how your thought process works (kind of like how some of the CC standards want to see thought process worked out), and how quickly you can think on your feet.

I don't know much about SN kids who are nonverbal. Would such kids have issues dealing with these types of interview questions?

My point is that even in some STEM fields, verbal and written communication skills are quite important. So, even if your SN nonverbal child is good at math, but not good at verbal skills, that may still be a problem when they go into the working world. I only know about the tech field because that's what I am in. Maybe other STEM fields are different.

What kind of alternative reality are you living in? Do you even have a non-verbal child? You sound very strange arguing about a non-verbal child getting a job in stem. If your child is non-verbal as an adult, they aren't going to be graduating or getting a job. Instead of making this about you and your lifestyle, lets focus on the real need to get these kids verbal and comprehension.

OK, but I think that's for a different thread. There's a real need. No one disputes the need. People have stated that these kids need IEPs.

My post was in response to another post about how a nonverbal kid who used to do well in math before all the CC "explain your thinking" standards came, and how now, this nonverbal kid is "failing" math. The point was that today, more and more high tech companies require you to be able to "explain your thinking" during the interview process, and so even math minded kids will need to be able to verbalize their thinking.

If your child is that severely nonverbal, then I'm guessing your child has more issues in school than just "explain your thinking in math. CC standards or not, such a child would need therapy, and no one's saying such a child shouldn't get therapy. What the heck are you railing about?

Do you have a child with language issues? I'm assuming no by your rant. No one cares about worrying about how a child will do in an interview. Most young kids cannot articulate well about a "Stem" topic. This isn't about STEM. The topic is common core and SN kids. You aren't addressing either one. This isn't about getting a child therapy either. Yes, my child has been in therapy for years - intensive for years. That has nothing to do with this topic.

And, no, right now my child does not need an IEP. He does just fine in a small regular classroom with supportive teachers (he started talking at 5). He cannot answer some basic questions due to the language issues and does get marked down unfairly. But, at this point, I'm just grateful my kid is talking. I have no issue with the Common Core as a set of guidelines. I think we need standard guidelines for our schools. I am not a fan of how it is implemented and some of it makes no sense but if shown correctly, most kids, including mine get it. Many of the teachers are struggling to teach, especially the math. The class sizes are too large for individual attention. And, many kids like mine often fall through the cracks as teachers just don't understand the language issues, which is why we supplement at home (including buying the books so we can do them ahead of time).

The main issue is kids with language and other disorders process differently. Very few people truly understand that and know how to work with it. Your average teacher does not. It would be great if we had separate MERLD and apraxia classrooms, like they do for autism, but I'd be hesitant to place my child in one as my child isn't struggling academically for the most part and thrives on being challenged.

My husband is an IT guy. His company, against his and others recommendations regularly hires those not qualified. The IT field is fully of quirky. Quirky is ok.. its can you produce the work they need that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

NP (special educator) here. You're right that that is the current federal guidelines for implementing IEPs. But it applies equally to states who implement CCSS and those with their own standards, it's not part of CCSS.

And yes, states do have separate standards for students with the most significant disabilities, they are often called access points and they align with the standards. So, for example, a student who is in 3rd grade where multiplication is key, but who is still working on counting skills, might work on counting items into sets (e.g. make 4 sets of 3) and then work on counting all the items, and using numbers to represent those things.

Honestly, in my opinion CCSS is a mixed blessing for kids with language disabilities, including those who are nonverbal. On one hand, they are challenging, and can be frustrating for kids. On the other hand, the trend in education for a while, starting well before CCSS is to only teach what is on the standard. Now that we have standards that require kids to do things like plan, and describe, and comment, and compare and contrast, and generate novel ideas, there's more pressure on schools to provide the tools and services that kids need to be able to do those things, and that is a good thing. I've seen schools set up communication systems that only allow kids to answer multiple choice questions, or spell words that someone else dictate, and they say they're enough because the kids can "access the curriculum". Now they can't say that, because the curriculum requires more, which pushes schools to look for more robust systems, and more flexible core vocabularies. And, in the long term, having the words to communicate ideas, and plan your life, and ask questions is going to have a much bigger impact on a child's quality of life than passing grades in elementary school.

I have a child with special needs (language based) and I agree. I may be different than some parents of children with SN my child can meet the standards with supports. But I want the resource staff to work with my child at grade level (even if it's harder for her). I don't want them to "dumb down" (I hate that phrase) the curriculum for her because she can do it.

[Anonymous]

I have two kids with speech disorders (apraxia and MERLD) and feel that my kids have to adjust to the world, not that the world needs to adjust to them. You are doing a huge disservice to your child with your attitude. Stop wasting time finding issues with common core.

[Anonymous]

The biggest challenge, however, is that when a child has a language processing issue & does poorly on a math test or on math components of standardized testing, the child may not be struggling with understanding math, but with expressive writing. This approach does put up new barriers and accommodations are harder to compensate for this new barrier. There isn't a good way to break things down right now to confirm "this child can multiply & do calculus, but give him/her a written word problem to read, & he/she will be completely unable to process that." I'm not saying they should be exempt - but if they excel at 80-90% of math, but struggle with the 10% that controls the presentation, how do we make that accessible? Do more kids need auditory versions of these tests? Do scores/grades need to be presented/tested differently? Do teachers need to better understand accommodations? Do they truly understand when a kid is not understanding the concepts or having a language barrier?

[Anonymous]

Some verbal kids who understand math are developing a hatred of math because of the constant requirement to write down how they got the answer. Some good students hate it--even though they understand it, because they find it a waste of time. You know what? I'd find it a waste of time, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some verbal kids who understand math are developing a hatred of math because of the constant requirement to write down how they got the answer. Some good students hate it--even though they understand it, because they find it a waste of time. You know what? I'd find it a waste of time, as well.

The sad thing is it's being sold as being "more rigid" and "deep" when it is neither.

[Anonymous]

More articles on how bad Common Core is for the SN community:

http://blog.dyslexicadvantage.org/2015/07/27/the-problem-with-common-core-math-and-dyslexia-showing-work/

The Problem with Common Core Math and Dyslexia – Showing Work

From Education News: “…the amount of work required for explanation turns a straightforward problem into a long managerial task that is concerned more with pedagogy than with content. While drawing diagrams or pictures may help some students learn how to solve problems, for others it is unnecessary and tedious.” – Barry Garelick, Education News

If the task is tedious for non-dyslexic students, it may be physically impossible for some and perhaps even a majority of age-matched dyslexic ones. The unfortunate fact today, too, is that the average classroom teacher has little or no training in dyslexia, so they won’t know how to accommodate their dyslexic students to new Common Core demands, let alone target their instruction specifically to how these students learn best.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like some parents' of SN kids on this board don't want the world to cater to their kids, and others seem to want a different set of standards for their's. Again, can't please everyone.

Whatever the issues, a curriculum should be challenging for most kids, SN or not. Maybe the solution is to have a scaled down set of standards for SN kids, but I'm going to assume that parents of SN kids aren't saying that a curriculum should be only designed towards their kids' needs, right?

[Anonymous]

I have just about given up on this thread. The CC standards are set up to develop a much deeper number sense. I agree with this objective, as well as many of the sub standards.

A number of PPs, however, treat a critique of how CC is implemented in many places as an attack on CC. But it is perfectly possible to applaud the CC standards while simultaneously ruing they way it is often implemented.

Plenty of examples have been given here and on other threads on how confusing many of the instructions are in some of the CC-implementing materials. Poor instructions are an impediment to NT kids, but even more so for those with language problems. I have argued that these materials need easy to digest instructions. This has been taken as a plea for dumbing down standards for the language impaired. These, it is argued. should be getting special services. But unless a child is severely language impaired or nonverbal, that is simply not happening on today's school budgets.

Alternatively, we could have really skilled math teachers starting in K and first grade, but that is not happening any time soon either.

All in all. really good materials that have been road tested with moderately language impaired children who are otherwise math capable would seem to be the most practical solution. This does not make me anti-CC or an advocate for separate, lower standards for kids with language problems. All children do better when they don't have to slog through murky instructions to try to figure what is being asked.

[Anonymous]

PP at 15:44, confusing instructions are a problem regardless. There were bad math worksheets with confusing instructions before the Common Core standards. There are now bad math worksheets with confusing instructions supposedly (or even actually) aligned to the Common Core standards. There will be bad math worksheets with confusing instructions long after the Common Core standards have been overhauled or abandoned or whatever happens to the Common Core standards. Bad math worksheets with confusing instructions are the problem, not the Common Core standards (as you say) or even implementation of the Common Core standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some parents' of SN kids on this board don't want the world to cater to their kids, and others seem to want a different set of standards for their's. Again, can't please everyone.

Whatever the issues, a curriculum should be challenging for most kids, SN or not. Maybe the solution is to have a scaled down set of standards for SN kids, but I'm going to assume that parents of SN kids aren't saying that a curriculum should be only designed towards their kids' needs, right?

There is a huge variation in what students with SN need. Many students with SN can and should be asked to meet the same sets of standards as their nondisabled peers, with specialized instruction to help them get there, and accommodations to help them show their knowledge.

Some students, particularly those with the most significant cognitive and communication impairments will need different standards. Ideally these standards will be aligned and connected to the grade level standards, but they won't be identical. These students need specialized instruction, accommodations, and modifications.

And some students need a combination. For example, a student with a severe hearing impairment, may need modifications to standards and assignments that address phonemic awareness, or music, but only accommodations for math.

School systems have an obligation to put together a system of standards, curricula (including curricula designed specifically for students with disabilities), and supports, that is rigorous and also flexible enough to develop the skills of every student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest challenge, however, is that when a child has a language processing issue & does poorly on a math test or on math components of standardized testing, the child may not be struggling with understanding math, but with expressive writing. This approach does put up new barriers and accommodations are harder to compensate for this new barrier. There isn't a good way to break things down right now to confirm "this child can multiply & do calculus, but give him/her a written word problem to read, & he/she will be completely unable to process that." I'm not saying they should be exempt - but if they excel at 80-90% of math, but struggle with the 10% that controls the presentation, how do we make that accessible? Do more kids need auditory versions of these tests? Do scores/grades need to be presented/tested differently? Do teachers need to better understand accommodations? Do they truly understand when a kid is not understanding the concepts or having a language barrier?

Some of this makes no sense. My child with language issues is doing on math if explained properly and someone shows him. Giving him a verbal test with language processing makes no sense. He is far stronger in reading than verbal skills so a written test is far better. Your comments may work for your child but not all kids. Every child is different and has different needs. My child needs small class sizes with teacher who will take the time to show as well as tell. He often does not complete his math at school as the teacher does not recognize that he needs a bit of extra help (yes, we've said something many times) and has gotten lazy and just sends the work home for us to help him with. He does far better by keeping him age appropriate and not dumbing down the work. I am one of the posters that strongly we should not dumb down our kids and from our experience pushing him ahead has helped with the language issues as he is exposed to higher level concepts that are interrelated. If a child just has language processing its very different from a child who has ADD/ADHD or other learning issues. A straight language child by school age will continue to struggle if it is not resolved by school age but for every child its going to be very different as it depends they are MERLD, Expressive, Receptive, Apraxia, etc.

You don't want to dumb down or change the curriculum. We need to find better ways to teach all kids to understand the concepts and give more support to those who need it (SN or not). If you change everything and dumb it down, our kids are going to struggle in college and with employment as they need to meet the same qualifications as others. I'm ok if my child's grades are not what they should be (mainly because the teachers don't get he knows it as they don't get how to speak to him or get the information out they need) as I know my child is learning and thriving. Hopefully the grades will come but as long as he passes that is all I care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have just about given up on this thread. The CC standards are set up to develop a much deeper number sense. I agree with this objective, as well as many of the sub standards.

A number of PPs, however, treat a critique of how CC is implemented in many places as an attack on CC. But it is perfectly possible to applaud the CC standards while simultaneously ruing they way it is often implemented.

Plenty of examples have been given here and on other threads on how confusing many of the instructions are in some of the CC-implementing materials. Poor instructions are an impediment to NT kids, but even more so for those with language problems. I have argued that these materials need easy to digest instructions. This has been taken as a plea for dumbing down standards for the language impaired. These, it is argued. should be getting special services. But unless a child is severely language impaired or nonverbal, that is simply not happening on today's school budgets.

Alternatively, we could have really skilled math teachers starting in K and first grade, but that is not happening any time soon either.

All in all. really good materials that have been road tested with moderately language impaired children who are otherwise math capable would seem to be the most practical solution. This does not make me anti-CC or an advocate for separate, lower standards for kids with language problems. All children do better when they don't have to slog through murky instructions to try to figure what is being asked.

I agree with you comments. My child can do it if given the chance and proper instruction. Normally if he gets something wrong it is because the wording or worksheet is confusing and on a few occasions has gotten it wrong as I didn't understand the instructions. Common core is a set of standards. The issue is the materials and how they are being implemented. They are very different issues. I think its good to have a universal standard as then if kids change schools things are similar. The issue is the teaching skill and the materials being used. If a child is that severely impaired, they will be at a special school and this is a non-issue. A non-verbal child is not going to most likely be in a regular classroom.

I would be really pissed if they dumbed down the standards for my child. Its the teaching style and teachers lack of understanding about his language needs that are our issue. He's very capable of working on grade level and sometimes beyond. But, if a teacher explains it poorly, too wordy and does not also show while speaking, it often gets lost (as it would with many other kids).

[Anonymous]

Agreed, the issue is with the implementation and/or the lack of good training for the teachers, and not the CC standards themselves. But, this is a universal issue for all kids, not just those with SN. As people have noted, even kids without any SN are having trouble understanding some of the instructions on the worksheets.

However, the title of this thread, as with others, simply state that it is CC standards that is the problem. This is why many on this thread (and others) are arguing that dumbing down the curriculum is not the solution.