Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

[Anonymous]

Instead of trying to get kids to pass tests, teachers should be able to start with the child where he is and help develop his skills in that manner. The new standards encourage starting at too high a level. Kids miss the basic steps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is the problem?

The home environment. Poor schools are a reflection of kids who get little support at home. This starts years before they come to school. Yes, teachers can make a difference--but standards are not the problem.

But a school district cannot regulate or control the home environment. They can, however, control the standards. So, they do what they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is the problem?

The home environment. Poor schools are a reflection of kids who get little support at home. This starts years before they come to school. Yes, teachers can make a difference--but standards are not the problem.

So as long as the home environment is good, it doesn't matter what teachers teach in school? Children from a good home environment will learn just as much in a school in Oklahoma (which is using its old, inadequate standards) as in a school in Massachusetts (which Common Core opponents point to as a state that had better standards than the Common Core standards)?

[Anonymous]

But a school district cannot regulate or control the home environment. They can, however, control the standards. So, they do what they can.

More progress could be made if they eliminated the tests and concentrated on helping the kids. It's not the standards. You don't teach standards, you teach kids. CC seems to forget that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of trying to get kids to pass tests, teachers should be able to start with the child where he is and help develop his skills in that manner. The new standards encourage starting at too high a level. Kids miss the basic steps.

Please show me where the Common Core standards forbid teachers from starting with the child where the child is.

Also, the testing requirement has nothing to do with the Common Core standards. The testing requirement comes from the No Child Left Behind Act, which Congress passed in 2001.

[Anonymous]

So as long as the home environment is good, it doesn't matter what teachers teach in school? Children from a good home environment will learn just as much in a school in Oklahoma (which is using its old, inadequate standards) as in a school in Massachusetts (which Common Core opponents point to as a state that had better standards than the Common Core standards)?

That's pretty simplistic, but yes. Where do you think the best rated schools are located? In any state, they are located in the more affluent neighborhoods. And, it's not because all the best teachers are there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But a school district cannot regulate or control the home environment. They can, however, control the standards. So, they do what they can.

More progress could be made if they eliminated the tests and concentrated on helping the kids. It's not the standards. You don't teach standards, you teach kids. CC seems to forget that.

Yes, you teach kids. But what do you teach kids? That's the question that the Common Core standards answer.

[Anonymous]

Please show me where the Common Core standards forbid teachers from starting with the child where the child is.

The teacher knows the kids are going to be tested. They are forced (if they want their school to pass) to get the kids to pass the test. Doesn't matter if they really understand the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please show me where the Common Core standards forbid teachers from starting with the child where the child is.

The teacher knows the kids are going to be tested. They are forced (if they want their school to pass) to get the kids to pass the test. Doesn't matter if they really understand the material.

Are you saying that there is no correlation between understanding the material and passing the test? Do you agree that if the kids really understand the material, it is more likely that they will pass the test?

[Anonymous]

Are you saying that there is no correlation between understanding the material and passing the test? Do you agree that if the kids really understand the material, it is more likely that they will pass the test?

Od course, there is some correlation--but it is also possible to pass a test and not understand the material. Especially, if you have had lots of practice tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So as long as the home environment is good, it doesn't matter what teachers teach in school? Children from a good home environment will learn just as much in a school in Oklahoma (which is using its old, inadequate standards) as in a school in Massachusetts (which Common Core opponents point to as a state that had better standards than the Common Core standards)?

That's pretty simplistic, but yes. Where do you think the best rated schools are located? In any state, they are located in the more affluent neighborhoods. And, it's not because all the best teachers are there.

To repeat -- you're saying that, as long as the home environment is good, it doesn't matter what teachers teach in school?

What a low opinion you must have of teachers and school.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying that there is no correlation between understanding the material and passing the test? Do you agree that if the kids really understand the material, it is more likely that they will pass the test?

Did you never cram for a test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But a school district cannot regulate or control the home environment. They can, however, control the standards. So, they do what they can.

More progress could be made if they eliminated the tests and concentrated on helping the kids. It's not the standards. You don't teach standards, you teach kids. CC seems to forget that.

Unfortunately, this goes back to square one. Too many kids were allowed to move up a grade or graduate without being able to read at a certain level because there were no standards or testing to catch such issues. Yes, in an ideal world, every child would have a good home environment and all teachers would care about the kids and be great teachers, but sadly, this is not the case. If it were, then *maybe* we wouldn't need testing to ensure kids don't fall through the cracks. I think we still need standards, however, because some districts could decide to have really low standards, then what do you have? A whole bunch of kids that can only read at a MS level, while a neighboring district has kids reading at college level. How is that fair to the kids in the "lower" standard districts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you saying that there is no correlation between understanding the material and passing the test? Do you agree that if the kids really understand the material, it is more likely that they will pass the test?

Od course, there is some correlation--but it is also possible to pass a test and not understand the material. Especially, if you have had lots of practice tests.

If it's possible to pass a test and not understand the material, then the test is a bad test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please show me where the Common Core standards forbid teachers from starting with the child where the child is.

The teacher knows the kids are going to be tested. They are forced (if they want their school to pass) to get the kids to pass the test. Doesn't matter if they really understand the material.

That's your claim, but there's absolutely nothing in Common Core that is forcing teachers or schools to do that. There is no such requirement from Common Core.

If they are choosing to teach to the test, rather than teaching viable content the way they should, then that's strictly the teachers' and schools' own doing, it's not the doing of Common Core.

If that's what you're doing, you're doing it wrong.