Anonymous wrote:You already basically have that with IEP ogress reports. Under the IEP process, goals are written based on the individual student's needs/abilities. So, for a third grader still struggling with beginning reading, the IEP goals would reflect that. Also, IEP accommodarions can requrie that a student be assessed in different ways so, for example, a student struggling with reading could still be accurately assessed on his knowledge od social studies.

I don't know about high school, but for a younger child, where grades are more or less irrelevant, an IEP progress report would accurately reflect progress in the subjects where the student can't be realistically expected to be on grade level.

There is a difference between requiring a level of competency and requiring that each child show that they are competent in the same manner. So, in your example, there is still a level of competency required for all kids in social studies, but some kids would demonstrate it through testing, others through discussion or whatever mechanism the IEP requires. The IEP does not change that the child must be competent to advance to the next level.

As an aside, one of the benefits that we've found in Curriculum 2.0 is that competency is assessed in multiple different manners (I'm not using the correct terminology, I know). So my child, who cannot complete all of the work or test in the typical manners, can have his competency assessed through alternative means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While all this seems lovely and fluffy on the outside, with goals that attempt to 'close the gap' and 'create fairness', there is no way teachers, in a class of 27+ students, will be able to meet everyone's needs, especially in schools with very little or no parent involvement. Add to that, the current horrendous rollout of the implementation of these standards, and what I see so far is another poorly conceived program based on lofty ideals and no substance.

+1000

There is nothing about having standards in place, that guarantees all children will be able to meet them by the end of each school year.

Having common standards, and common assessments, means that you will no longer be able to hide the fact that some kids are meeting the standards, and other kids aren't.

Remember, for years states have had the requirement that all their students meet certain state level standards, but they were allowed to set their own standards, and set their own pass rates. The result was that most all kids passed their state tests -- yet many kids didn't actually learn to read or do basic math. THey were allowed to pass the tests because the tests were very easy, or because they got the "read aloud" or "use calculator" accommodation.

If your child truly can not read, and never will be able to read, and you expect that your child will not ever learn to read, and will always have to use the text to speech features of any website or computer program, then you should be happy your child gets the "read aloud" accommodation. Because once your child has that accommodation in place, there is NO INCENTIVE for a school to focus time and money on the long process of teaching your child to read.

If you hope that your child may one day learn to read independently, then fight very hard for your child to NOT have the "read aloud" accommodation on any state mandated testing. You are correct -- IEPs aren't always followed. But schools want kids to pass these tests. If your child has to read the test himself, and pass it -- the school will be more motivated to provide more resources to teach your child to actually read.

It's tricky. By not having a scribe or reader for tests, it can do tons of damage to the ego of the child- who know he/she knows the information but can't read the question correctly or write out the answer. It becomes a balancing act of doing both intense reading/writing remediation and learning how to use the available technology.

The people who wrote these standards have never taught a K kid who came to school not even knowing how to count with one to one correspondence. Kids who had never held a crayon or pencil.

I've stated this before on this board:

My educational philosophy as a teacher was to take the child where he was and push/pull him as far as I could. This works for all levels of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

While all this seems lovely and fluffy on the outside, with goals that attempt to 'close the gap' and 'create fairness', there is no way teachers, in a class of 27+ students, will be able to meet everyone's needs, especially in schools with very little or no parent involvement. Add to that, the current horrendous rollout of the implementation of these standards, and what I see so far is another poorly conceived program based on lofty ideals and no substance.

+1000

There is nothing about having standards in place, that guarantees all children will be able to meet them by the end of each school year.

Having common standards, and common assessments, means that you will no longer be able to hide the fact that some kids are meeting the standards, and other kids aren't.

Remember, for years states have had the requirement that all their students meet certain state level standards, but they were allowed to set their own standards, and set their own pass rates. The result was that most all kids passed their state tests -- yet many kids didn't actually learn to read or do basic math. THey were allowed to pass the tests because the tests were very easy, or because they got the "read aloud" or "use calculator" accommodation.

If your child truly can not read, and never will be able to read, and you expect that your child will not ever learn to read, and will always have to use the text to speech features of any website or computer program, then you should be happy your child gets the "read aloud" accommodation. Because once your child has that accommodation in place, there is NO INCENTIVE for a school to focus time and money on the long process of teaching your child to read.

If you hope that your child may one day learn to read independently, then fight very hard for your child to NOT have the "read aloud" accommodation on any state mandated testing. You are correct -- IEPs aren't always followed. But schools want kids to pass these tests. If your child has to read the test himself, and pass it -- the school will be more motivated to provide more resources to teach your child to actually read.

While all this seems lovely and fluffy on the outside, with goals that attempt to 'close the gap' and 'create fairness', there is no way teachers, in a class of 27+ students, will be able to meet everyone's needs, especially in schools with very little or no parent involvement. Add to that, the current horrendous rollout of the implementation of these standards, and what I see so far is another poorly conceived program based on lofty ideals and no substance.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying, "My child has a language disability, therefore no child in public school should be expected to achieve anything better than what my child can achieve"?

I'm the poster with the language-disabled child. What an ungracious witch you are. This isn't about holding precious Lulu back from her potential for greatness. It's to get the boot off the neck of my child with a disability.


Children with disabilities should be taken out of the grade level standards scheme. It's not workable for them. Instead, they should be measured by their progress. Whenever possible, they should be taught grade level material, be it accommodated or modified. IEPs can require this, but Common Core makes no allowances for IEPs or disabilities. It pretends that with a tweak or two, everyone will magically be on grade level if the teacher or student just discovers their "grit."

Additionally, our experience with IEPs is even though legally they are supposed to be followed, it requires constant monitoring by the parent to assure that they are followed, especially if that child is performing well on standardized testing.

They can't work if they are different for everyone. The problem will always be in the implementation of standards. You can have a great set of standards, but if you implement them poorly, the results will be poor - garbage in, garbage out, as the old saying goes.

While all this seems lovely and fluffy on the outside, with goals that attempt to 'close the gap' and 'create fairness', there is no way teachers, in a class of 27+ students, will be able to meet everyone's needs, especially in schools with very little or no parent involvement. Add to that, the current horrendous rollout of the implementation of these standards, and what I see so far is another poorly conceived program based on lofty ideals and no substance.

Anonymous wrote:
Just wondering-----I think I had a really great education in a suburban school. It was demanding and challenging. How do you think this happened without Common Core?

The question is how did all the kids do, not just the best students. Do you think your experience was true for all kids in the school, or were you in the top/advanced track?
[Report Post]

There was no advanced/top track. Teachers taught to everyone. They also gave B's and C's, and I imagine they gave F's as well.

At DC's school in VA there's an entire class working above the current standards. It's not a new concept.

Anonymous wrote:So, what if you have a first grader who starts in Sept and already meets the standards? That is what will happen. The teacher will bust their butts teaching the standards to everyone else/

They accelerate.

My daughter is at the highest reading level. She and 3 others are in the accelerated group. You can master the standards but that doesn't mean you stop. Her teacher is going beyond the benchmarks, for example, by using harder texts.

So if they've mastered the basics for this standard for grade 4- RL2 Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text; summarize the text. - they can move on to more difficult texts.

I teach English. We reinforce the same devices and concepts each year but with more advanced texts.

Furthermore, there's often a range of standards with CC. So you may see skills grouped for grades 3-5. A "low" 4th grader may be at the 3rd grade level in some areas. The goal is to help him/her improve over the year.

I do highly doubt that a first grader will have met the standards early on. If that's the case, a HGC and eventually a magnet will meet his/her needs.

I don't understand why people make such statements if they haven't even looked at the MSDE framework. It's all there.

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering-----I think I had a really great education in a suburban school. It was demanding and challenging. How do you think this happened without Common Core?

The question is how did all the kids do, not just the best students. Do you think your experience was true for all kids in the school, or were you in the top/advanced track?

15:20 I think that's what a lot of private schools do. It seems public schools do the same as well. DC just took a test on reading in 2nd grade and was told kids scored either on a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade level. They don't teach to every level, but seem to be able to modify the curriculum up or down a year.