Anonymous
12/03/2015 00:20
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^Whoops, wrong thread! So, in addition to the question, "Which "language-heavy" requirements are in the Common Core math standards? Could you provide some examples, please?", could you please also explain what kind of language requirements you would consider appropriate for standards in English/Language Arts?
Just a handful:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1
Participate in collaborative conversations with diverse partners about grade 2 topics and texts with peers and adults in small and larger groups.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.a
Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions (e.g., gaining the floor in respectful ways, listening to others with care, speaking one at a time about the topics and texts under discussion).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.b
Build on others' talk in conversations by linking their comments to the remarks of others.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.c
Ask for clarification and further explanation as needed about the topics and texts under discussion.
For a child whose disability IS language, these are unattainable.
It depends on the child. The exposure from being in a classroom where this is happening is far more beneficial to my child who then picks it up vs. being in a basic classroom where he can be the top student as he knows all the material. Its ok kids struggle. That is part of learning. They need to be exposed, encouraged and supported. No, they may not be able to participate (mine cannot) but he's taking it all in and later when he can, he does. It also takes a very good teacher to draw him out, which is a very rare teacher as most don't get it.
As you said, it depends on the child. Mine child's issue is receptive language, and the way Common Core structures classrooms, he's not taking it all in. It's not visual enough and too loud and chaotic.
My child is both receptive and expressive. It does depend on the child but it also depends on the teacher. The material and how it is implemented is the issue, not the standards. We supplement at home using visuals or what ever we have to. Our speech pathologist also works heavily on it. We are at a small private as we knew loud and chaotic would be a disaster. They do parts of common core and while he cannot express what he knows, he knows it if you take the time to figure him out. My kid gets on overload with verbal instructions that are not clear and concise. If he can read the directions and they are clear, it works. If a teacher spends a few minutes explaining, he gets it (math teacher does not so she sends it home and we do it).
I feel for your child. The issue you have is class size and mainstreaming. According to IDEA, children are supposed to be educated in the least restrictive environment-the regular education classroom. Beyond 1st or 2nd grade there is only 1 teacher in the classroom with 20-30 students. And students with special needs do not get their needs met.
Our issues would have been the same common core or no common core. At some point we will have to go public as our private stops at 2nd grade. I have mixed feelings about least restrictive. While I like the idea of mainstreaming for socialization, for teaching it is not the best for many SN. My child probably be one unnoticed in a classroom as he is not a behavior problem and will get lost. Common core just sets the standards. I actually like the vocabulary book based on common core we are using. My main issue is they do not have parent classes so as a parent helping with some homework like math is difficult as I do not understand the strategies they want used. My kid has to show me some. I find the teaching style of some teachers our biggest issue. I also find some teachers write my child off because he cannot express what they expect him to for his age. Then, when he does well they act surprised and do not give him the credit he deserves. I am, by no means a fan of common core but the standards are not the primary issue for language kids. They need far more support and teachers understanding what having an expressive delay or receptive delay means and how it impacts a child. These are not bad kids but it's like someone talking to you in a foreign language you do not speak.
The other issue is many of the SN kids who are not behavior problems fall through the cracks as the focus hoes to those struggling and behavioral problems. I dread transferring my child to public before he is ready especially since we do not have an Iep in place and if he keeps progressing while most would say he needs it, depending on the test given one could say he's fine. Several professionals have straight up told us the public schools will do nothing.
Anonymous
12/03/2015 00:03
Subject: Re:Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm the OP, but not the person who was concerned about a tangent. I do feel that Common Core was written for a non-majority of kids: highly verbal, outgoing college-bound kids who are A and B students naturally. Those are the ones doing well with it, by and large. For others, like my child and yours, it functions as a straitjacket and/or anchor, weighting them down with its language heavy requirements.
Common Core is actually a form of educational discrimination in my book. And I think history will show that to be true. We will see test scores rise marginally, and then, we'll see children languish instead of being given opportunities.
CC standards are supposed to be rigorous. If you are saying that the standards are too hard, then basically, you are saying that we should not have challenging standards, and we should dumb it down. This is counter to what many are saying, that we need challenging standards to produce an educated work force. Our kids will be competing globally with kids around the world for jobs and even college placement in the future. They need to be challenged.
Most of the high paying jobs now a days require strong communication skills, yes, even STEM jobs.
If a child is not "A/B" material, as you stated, and the goal is not college, then it shouldn't matter whether that child gets A/Bs in school, thus, it shouldn't matter that the standards are too high. Also, some kids blossom a lot later in life. So, though some kids may find the standards a bit difficult to being with, you may find that some of such kids rise to the occasion a lot later.
In either case, I don't think lowering standards is the solution.
They are biased and written for a certain set of children. The others are languishing and turning off school because the lessons are geared for a way they don't learn, even in the early grades.
Unlike when I was in school, we're forcing the entire school population to be on the college track. That won't work. The problem is, CC will keep many from even having the grades to graduate from high school.
Huh? When I went to MCPS, the majority of the kids were college track. Those of us who struggled more, went to state, community or private schools that were more willing to give kids like us a chance. (I ended up doing very well in college). I didn't even know not going to college was an option till I got to college and heard others talking about it.
Parents need to provide more support outside of school and not just rely on the school and their services to completely meet our kids needs.
How clueless can you be? My son has been receiving therapy since he was 2 years old.
Common Core is rigged against him and those like him.
My kid has been in private speech therapy since two as well. From 2-5, he went 4-5 days a week. Now 2-3 days a week private. Not clueless. If anything, trying hard to cater to my child's needs and recognizing his strengths and weaknesses. He would not thrive if we did not supplement outside of school. Its not just about being in therapy, especially if therapy and the school do not work together. We work ahead in his spelling (purchased the book) as well as his reader the school uses so he's prepared when the topics come up at school.
It's nice it's working for your child -- so far. But it's too bad that even with your son's special needs, you can't acknowledge the needs of other children, because hey, it's working -- so far -- for your kid.
I do recognize it. I also see where as a parent some kids need far more than the parents are willing and able to do. It is only working for us as we are heavily supplementing and paying for private. It has not been easy by any means but we recognize putting the time and money into it now is the only way our child may have a chance at being successful and he has to learn to adapt as no one but his family will adapt for him. That means finding ways around a broken system that does not care about my individual child and making the best of it.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 18:27
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^Whoops, wrong thread! So, in addition to the question, "Which "language-heavy" requirements are in the Common Core math standards? Could you provide some examples, please?", could you please also explain what kind of language requirements you would consider appropriate for standards in English/Language Arts?
Just a handful:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1
Participate in collaborative conversations with diverse partners about grade 2 topics and texts with peers and adults in small and larger groups.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.a
Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions (e.g., gaining the floor in respectful ways, listening to others with care, speaking one at a time about the topics and texts under discussion).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.b
Build on others' talk in conversations by linking their comments to the remarks of others.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.c
Ask for clarification and further explanation as needed about the topics and texts under discussion.
For a child whose disability IS language, these are unattainable.
It depends on the child. The exposure from being in a classroom where this is happening is far more beneficial to my child who then picks it up vs. being in a basic classroom where he can be the top student as he knows all the material. Its ok kids struggle. That is part of learning. They need to be exposed, encouraged and supported. No, they may not be able to participate (mine cannot) but he's taking it all in and later when he can, he does. It also takes a very good teacher to draw him out, which is a very rare teacher as most don't get it.
As you said, it depends on the child. Mine child's issue is receptive language, and the way Common Core structures classrooms, he's not taking it all in. It's not visual enough and too loud and chaotic.
My child is both receptive and expressive. It does depend on the child but it also depends on the teacher. The material and how it is implemented is the issue, not the standards. We supplement at home using visuals or what ever we have to. Our speech pathologist also works heavily on it. We are at a small private as we knew loud and chaotic would be a disaster. They do parts of common core and while he cannot express what he knows, he knows it if you take the time to figure him out. My kid gets on overload with verbal instructions that are not clear and concise. If he can read the directions and they are clear, it works. If a teacher spends a few minutes explaining, he gets it (math teacher does not so she sends it home and we do it).
I feel for your child. The issue you have is class size and mainstreaming. According to IDEA, children are supposed to be educated in the least restrictive environment-the regular education classroom. Beyond 1st or 2nd grade there is only 1 teacher in the classroom with 20-30 students. And students with special needs do not get their needs met.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 18:27
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:
NP here. I think the point the other poster is trying to make is that the CC stands require a lot more language learning in math. This will impact many SN kids. They will need further supports to access the curriculum (which is their legal right) but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally required supports for their children.
Yes, this.
The Common Core also creates a conundrum. Everyone is supposed to be learning the standards, with only 1 percent exception. And if you modify the standards, you are taken off a diploma track.
I don't perceive the conundrum. I even looked up the definition of "conundrum":
1: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun
2a : a question or problem having only a conjectural answer
b : an intricate and difficult problem
I'm not saying that to be snarky. I honestly don't perceive the conundrum, and I thought that maybe the word meant something different.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 18:24
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
+1 And by the ^PP's definition, there should be no standards, and each child should be given his/her own individualized curriculum, tailored to each child's learning style. Oh, wouldn't that be wonderful! I think that's called home schooling.
NP here. I think the point the other poster is trying to make is that the CC stands require a lot more language learning in math. This will impact many SN kids. They will need further supports to access the curriculum (which is their legal right) but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally required supports for their children.
Which Common Core standards require a lot more language learning in math?
And if the SN students need further supports, but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally-required supports for their children, that's not a problem with the Common Core standards.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 16:29
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
I have no problem with additional resources for kids with SN, but this isn't what that other PP was stating.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
+1 And by the ^PP's definition, there should be no standards, and each child should be given his/her own individualized curriculum, tailored to each child's learning style. Oh, wouldn't that be wonderful! I think that's called home schooling.
NP here. I think the point the other poster is trying to make is that the CC stands require a lot more language learning in math. This will impact many SN kids. They will need further supports to access the curriculum (which is their legal right) but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally required supports for their children.
The above post was in response to this post:
A child with receptive language issues needs a small quiet classroom without all the distractions. It would be nice if they had language specific classrooms but they do not. Your kid may hate a class that is too quiet but for many of ours, it would be a disaster. A child with receptive language issues is having problems processing. Having 10 kids talking over each other with a teacher doing the same would be too much and they'd just tune out. The world does not cater to SN, but when kids are young, to get them where they need to be, the SN need to be a focus so they can progress.
The way I read the post, PP thinks accommodations should include small class sizes that are quiet. This isn't possible for over crowded school districts with funding issues, which is about 99% of school districts in this country. The only way to achieve this is to have special classes for SN kids, which means they won't be mainstreamed. If you want your SN kids mainstreamed, then it means large, probably somewhat loud classes.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 16:28
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
+1 And by the ^PP's definition, there should be no standards, and each child should be given his/her own individualized curriculum, tailored to each child's learning style. Oh, wouldn't that be wonderful! I think that's called home schooling.
NP here. I think the point the other poster is trying to make is that the CC stands require a lot more language learning in math. This will impact many SN kids. They will need further supports to access the curriculum (which is their legal right) but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally required supports for their children.
Yes, this.
The Common Core also creates a conundrum. Everyone is supposed to be learning the standards, with only 1 percent exception. And if you modify the standards, you are taken off a diploma track.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 16:19
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
+1 And by the ^PP's definition, there should be no standards, and each child should be given his/her own individualized curriculum, tailored to each child's learning style. Oh, wouldn't that be wonderful! I think that's called home schooling.
NP here. I think the point the other poster is trying to make is that the CC stands require a lot more language learning in math. This will impact many SN kids. They will need further supports to access the curriculum (which is their legal right) but the school districts fight the parents who try to get these appropriate and legally required supports for their children.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 13:21
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
+1 And by the ^PP's definition, there should be no standards, and each child should be given his/her own individualized curriculum, tailored to each child's learning style. Oh, wouldn't that be wonderful! I think that's called home schooling.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 13:11
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
How do the Common Core standards restrict a FAPE for all? Did school districts in states that adopted the Common Core standards used to provide a FAPE, but then somehow, for some reason, the Common Core standards made them stop doing it? Do school districts in states that did not adopt the Common Core standards provide a FAPE in ways that school districts in states that did are unable to do, for some reason?
Anonymous
12/02/2015 13:08
Subject: Re:Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm the OP, but not the person who was concerned about a tangent. I do feel that Common Core was written for a non-majority of kids: highly verbal, outgoing college-bound kids who are A and B students naturally. Those are the ones doing well with it, by and large. For others, like my child and yours, it functions as a straitjacket and/or anchor, weighting them down with its language heavy requirements.
Common Core is actually a form of educational discrimination in my book. And I think history will show that to be true. We will see test scores rise marginally, and then, we'll see children languish instead of being given opportunities.
CC standards are supposed to be rigorous. If you are saying that the standards are too hard, then basically, you are saying that we should not have challenging standards, and we should dumb it down. This is counter to what many are saying, that we need challenging standards to produce an educated work force. Our kids will be competing globally with kids around the world for jobs and even college placement in the future. They need to be challenged.
Most of the high paying jobs now a days require strong communication skills, yes, even STEM jobs.
If a child is not "A/B" material, as you stated, and the goal is not college, then it shouldn't matter whether that child gets A/Bs in school, thus, it shouldn't matter that the standards are too high. Also, some kids blossom a lot later in life. So, though some kids may find the standards a bit difficult to being with, you may find that some of such kids rise to the occasion a lot later.
In either case, I don't think lowering standards is the solution.
They are biased and written for a certain set of children. The others are languishing and turning off school because the lessons are geared for a way they don't learn, even in the early grades.
Unlike when I was in school, we're forcing the entire school population to be on the college track. That won't work. The problem is, CC will keep many from even having the grades to graduate from high school.
Huh? When I went to MCPS, the majority of the kids were college track. Those of us who struggled more, went to state, community or private schools that were more willing to give kids like us a chance. (I ended up doing very well in college). I didn't even know not going to college was an option till I got to college and heard others talking about it.
Parents need to provide more support outside of school and not just rely on the school and their services to completely meet our kids needs.
How clueless can you be? My son has been receiving therapy since he was 2 years old.
Common Core is rigged against him and those like him.
My kid has been in private speech therapy since two as well. From 2-5, he went 4-5 days a week. Now 2-3 days a week private. Not clueless. If anything, trying hard to cater to my child's needs and recognizing his strengths and weaknesses. He would not thrive if we did not supplement outside of school. Its not just about being in therapy, especially if therapy and the school do not work together. We work ahead in his spelling (purchased the book) as well as his reader the school uses so he's prepared when the topics come up at school.
It's nice it's working for your child -- so far. But it's too bad that even with your son's special needs, you can't acknowledge the needs of other children, because hey, it's working -- so far -- for your kid.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 13:05
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It depends on the child. The exposure from being in a classroom where this is happening is far more beneficial to my child who then picks it up vs. being in a basic classroom where he can be the top student as he knows all the material. Its ok kids struggle. That is part of learning. They need to be exposed, encouraged and supported. No, they may not be able to participate (mine cannot) but he's taking it all in and later when he can, he does. It also takes a very good teacher to draw him out, which is a very rare teacher as most don't get it.
As you said, it depends on the child. Mine child's issue is receptive language, and the way Common Core structures classrooms, he's not taking it all in. It's not visual enough and too loud and chaotic.
So, you want school to be designed specific to your child's SN? You want a classroom that uses more visuals and is quiet? My kids would hate a class that is too quiet. They like that they can work in groups, talk to each other, and move around. I think most kids do.
Public education is designed for the masses, not for specific learning styles. The world also won't cater to anyone's specific SN.
A child with receptive language issues needs a small quiet classroom without all the distractions. It would be nice if they had language specific classrooms but they do not. Your kid may hate a class that is too quiet but for many of ours, it would be a disaster. A child with receptive language issues is having problems processing. Having 10 kids talking over each other with a teacher doing the same would be too much and they'd just tune out. The world does not cater to SN, but when kids are young, to get them where they need to be, the SN need to be a focus so they can progress.
They did a study once and found that young kids learn better when they can move around, and working in groups, sharing ideas, and communicating with each other. I understand that those with certain SN don't learn well this way, but again, public education is designed for the masses, not for anyone's specific SN.
Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for ALL. Common Core constricts that.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 12:51
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It depends on the child. The exposure from being in a classroom where this is happening is far more beneficial to my child who then picks it up vs. being in a basic classroom where he can be the top student as he knows all the material. Its ok kids struggle. That is part of learning. They need to be exposed, encouraged and supported. No, they may not be able to participate (mine cannot) but he's taking it all in and later when he can, he does. It also takes a very good teacher to draw him out, which is a very rare teacher as most don't get it.
As you said, it depends on the child. Mine child's issue is receptive language, and the way Common Core structures classrooms, he's not taking it all in. It's not visual enough and too loud and chaotic.
So, you want school to be designed specific to your child's SN? You want a classroom that uses more visuals and is quiet? My kids would hate a class that is too quiet. They like that they can work in groups, talk to each other, and move around. I think most kids do.
Public education is designed for the masses, not for specific learning styles. The world also won't cater to anyone's specific SN.
A child with receptive language issues needs a small quiet classroom without all the distractions. It would be nice if they had language specific classrooms but they do not. Your kid may hate a class that is too quiet but for many of ours, it would be a disaster. A child with receptive language issues is having problems processing. Having 10 kids talking over each other with a teacher doing the same would be too much and they'd just tune out. The world does not cater to SN, but when kids are young, to get them where they need to be, the SN need to be a focus so they can progress.
They did a study once and found that young kids learn better when they can move around, and working in groups, sharing ideas, and communicating with each other. I understand that those with certain SN don't learn well this way, but again, public education is designed for the masses, not for anyone's specific SN.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 12:50
Subject: Re:Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm the OP, but not the person who was concerned about a tangent. I do feel that Common Core was written for a non-majority of kids: highly verbal, outgoing college-bound kids who are A and B students naturally. Those are the ones doing well with it, by and large. For others, like my child and yours, it functions as a straitjacket and/or anchor, weighting them down with its language heavy requirements.
Common Core is actually a form of educational discrimination in my book. And I think history will show that to be true. We will see test scores rise marginally, and then, we'll see children languish instead of being given opportunities.
CC standards are supposed to be rigorous. If you are saying that the standards are too hard, then basically, you are saying that we should not have challenging standards, and we should dumb it down. This is counter to what many are saying, that we need challenging standards to produce an educated work force. Our kids will be competing globally with kids around the world for jobs and even college placement in the future. They need to be challenged.
Most of the high paying jobs now a days require strong communication skills, yes, even STEM jobs.
If a child is not "A/B" material, as you stated, and the goal is not college, then it shouldn't matter whether that child gets A/Bs in school, thus, it shouldn't matter that the standards are too high. Also, some kids blossom a lot later in life. So, though some kids may find the standards a bit difficult to being with, you may find that some of such kids rise to the occasion a lot later.
In either case, I don't think lowering standards is the solution.
They are biased and written for a certain set of children. The others are languishing and turning off school because the lessons are geared for a way they don't learn, even in the early grades.
Unlike when I was in school, we're forcing the entire school population to be on the college track. That won't work. The problem is, CC will keep many from even having the grades to graduate from high school.
Huh? When I went to MCPS, the majority of the kids were college track. Those of us who struggled more, went to state, community or private schools that were more willing to give kids like us a chance. (I ended up doing very well in college). I didn't even know not going to college was an option till I got to college and heard others talking about it.
Parents need to provide more support outside of school and not just rely on the school and their services to completely meet our kids needs.
How clueless can you be? My son has been receiving therapy since he was 2 years old.
Common Core is rigged against him and those like him.
My kid has been in private speech therapy since two as well. From 2-5, he went 4-5 days a week. Now 2-3 days a week private. Not clueless. If anything, trying hard to cater to my child's needs and recognizing his strengths and weaknesses. He would not thrive if we did not supplement outside of school. Its not just about being in therapy, especially if therapy and the school do not work together. We work ahead in his spelling (purchased the book) as well as his reader the school uses so he's prepared when the topics come up at school.
Anonymous
12/02/2015 12:47
Subject: Common Core sets up children with language disorders for constant failure: article
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^Whoops, wrong thread! So, in addition to the question, "Which "language-heavy" requirements are in the Common Core math standards? Could you provide some examples, please?", could you please also explain what kind of language requirements you would consider appropriate for standards in English/Language Arts?
Just a handful:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1
Participate in collaborative conversations with diverse partners about grade 2 topics and texts with peers and adults in small and larger groups.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.a
Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions (e.g., gaining the floor in respectful ways, listening to others with care, speaking one at a time about the topics and texts under discussion).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.b
Build on others' talk in conversations by linking their comments to the remarks of others.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.2.1.c
Ask for clarification and further explanation as needed about the topics and texts under discussion.
For a child whose disability IS language, these are unattainable.
It depends on the child. The exposure from being in a classroom where this is happening is far more beneficial to my child who then picks it up vs. being in a basic classroom where he can be the top student as he knows all the material. Its ok kids struggle. That is part of learning. They need to be exposed, encouraged and supported. No, they may not be able to participate (mine cannot) but he's taking it all in and later when he can, he does. It also takes a very good teacher to draw him out, which is a very rare teacher as most don't get it.
As you said, it depends on the child. Mine child's issue is receptive language, and the way Common Core structures classrooms, he's not taking it all in. It's not visual enough and too loud and chaotic.
So, you want school to be designed specific to your child's SN? You want a classroom that uses more visuals and is quiet? My kids would hate a class that is too quiet. They like that they can work in groups, talk to each other, and move around. I think most kids do.
Public education is designed for the masses, not for specific learning styles. The world also won't cater to anyone's specific SN.
A child with receptive language issues needs a small quiet classroom without all the distractions. It would be nice if they had language specific classrooms but they do not. Your kid may hate a class that is too quiet but for many of ours, it would be a disaster. A child with receptive language issues is having problems processing. Having 10 kids talking over each other with a teacher doing the same would be too much and they'd just tune out. The world does not cater to SN, but when kids are young, to get them where they need to be, the SN need to be a focus so they can progress.