Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special educator and I was first excited about common core. There is more overlap between subjects, which means more exposure and review. However, the end expectation is for the student to synthesize information and explain reasoning. For students who are just grasping the facts, they are not ready for the next step.

Math is difficult because there are many students who can do the rote algorithm and show understanding in that way. Ask them to explain why and they are totally lost. That is 50% of the curriculum!

There are still many answers sought and not a lot of guidance from higher ups. There is more curriculum development for those students who are not on the diploma track, and it is leaving those students behind who are in the regular curriculum. Not to say the old curriculum was perfect, but this has presented more challenges.

This is what my child and so many others like him are facing. He now despises school. Tells me every day how much he hates it. He hates the teachers. He hates the work. Great job, Common Core!

I'm sorry that your child now hates school. But I don't think that means that the Common Core math standards are bad. A child should be able to demonstrate understanding, and simply being able to do the standard algorithm by rote does not demonstrate understanding.

How are the teachers requiring him to demonstrate understanding? For example, are they requiring him to write sentences, and he has a verbal disability or dysgraphia? In that case, the problem is with his lack of accommodation, not with the Common Core standards.

How are the teachers asking students to demonstrate understanding? My friend, who is a common core proponent, also stated that when she took part in grading the testing, that she started to see the flaws, i.e. that there were many ambiguities. Huge problem.

One can write standards until they are blue in the face. If they can't be implemented with clarity, it's not ready for prime time.

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.

In addition, IEPs are legally supposed to be followed, but I can tell you through experience of many I know, that they are not, and the challenge is "take it to court".

Anonymous wrote:

Approximately 6 percent of the U.S. student population has significant cognitive disabilities, including general intellectual disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, and language and reading impairments that aren’t helped by enlarged text or hearing aids, says Katharine Beals, a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education who has written about the Common Core’s impact on special education.

“The Common Core is one-size-fits-all, and there isn’t room for a student who has a cognitive age below expectations to get remediation,” Beals says. “The philosophy is driven by good intent, but it’s a lot of wishful thinking. There’s a lot of research out there suggesting that if you want a child to make progress, the most sufficient way to do that is to drop things down to their current level of development.”

When she talks of kids having a cognitive age "below expectations".... does she mean kids who are intellectually disabled? Mentally retarded?

So she is saying that kids with mental retardation are not able to meet grade level expectations under Common Core?

So that begs the questions.... in the past, have standards been set so that intellectually disabled kids could meet them? So your grade level expectations for algebra I, say, were set so that kids who had a cognitive age below expectations could reach them?

I could totally understand why parents of kids with cognitive impairments would be upset about these standards, if that's the case. Suddenly the standards have gotten a lot harder, and their kids simply aren't going to be able to meet the grade level standards anymore. Not even with work arounds and accommodations. Maybe some of them can with intensive, one on one tutoring, but no school district is going to pay for that kind of education. It would be phenomenally expensive to provide high quality individualized instruction like that, especially at the high school level.

Anonymous wrote:

I would pick having more kids have high school diplomas. Without them, almost every job opportunity is closed. You don't need Algebra 2 to do hair, be an office manager or bookkeeper, or a million other tasks.

We need a system of 2 high school diplomas. A "Common Core" Diploma, showing that children have reached the standards, and a "Basic Diploma" stating that the child attended school and passed teacher written tests, designed for the level the student was currently working at.

That way everyone can get a high school diploma if they show up and turn in their homework.

I would pick having more kids have high school diplomas. Without them, almost every job opportunity is closed. You don't need Algebra 2 to do hair, be an office manager or bookkeeper, or a million other tasks.

This is an inaccurate summary of the study.

According to the technical appendix, their baseline is the cohort of students who entered high school in 2005. Of these, 74% had graduated four years later, 8% had dropped out at some point during those four years, and 17% were still in school but hadn't graduated.

If graduation requirements become more rigorous under the Common Core standards, but the schools do nothing to help at-risk students achieve those requirements, then based on a string of assumptions, 53% of students who enter high school will graduate four years later, 14% will drop out at some point during those four years, and 33% will still be in school but won't have graduated.

This leads to three questions:

1. Is it a good idea for schools to do nothing to help at-risk students achieve the Common Core's more rigorous requirements?
2. Are the Common Core's more rigorous requirements bad because they will increase the proportion of students who do not graduate from high school in four years?
3. Given the (stupid) choice between lots of students getting high school diplomas even though they're not qualified, and lots of students who are unqualified not getting high school diplomas, which would you pick?

Pro Common Core site says it will double the high school dropout rate:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/04/will-common-core-double-the-high-school-dropout-rate/

The nonprofit Carnegie Corporation of New York, which has supported the Common Core State Standards, published a report in 2013 with some startling information that was little noticed in the education world until recently: that the high school dropout rate could double as a result of the Core initiative.

...

It says that the six-year dropout rate would rise from 15 percent to 30 percent dropout rate by 2020 unless learning environments are drastically changed — which isn’t happening even as the Core is being implemented in many states. It also projects that the four-year graduation rate would drop from 75 percent to 53 percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Site evidence please.

It's cite. Think citation.

Yes, you're right. In my line of work, I use the word "site" a lot. Fingers go on auto-pilot.