Anonymous wrote:Your headline is such a gross distortion of the article.

I am a teacher with a masters and licensure in special education. I VERY rarely engage in discussions about the common core on DCUM as it seems rather pointless. However I just have to say that your post is ridiculous.

The whole point of the article is not that students with these types of disorders can't engage in social learning, but that they need interventions and support to do so.

The point is that in the real world, students will need to be able to interact with others to solve real-world problems. Are you suggesting students with disabilities are incapable of doing this? And that we shouldn't be teaching them the skills they need to collaborate effectively?

+1000

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.

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.

If your child is still non-verbal in elementary school and not starting to talk by 4-5, you have bigger problems to worry about then your child passing common core or the curriculum set up for it. Nor, are you worrying about your child getting into a STEM field. You are pouring thousands into private therapies and advocating for public therapies just to get your child to even say "mom" or "I love you." Do any of you have late talkers (late as in 4-5-6, not 2-3) or non-verbal older kids? Seriously, we aren't worried about STEM or common core. We are just trying to get our kids verbal. I could not care less what my child passes or fails as long as he tries his best.

If a company will not hire someone due to their lack of language skills, that is an issue with their hiring practices. This has nothing to do with Common Core unless OP is arguing that students with poor language skills should be exempt from common core standards. Not sure how this will help kids with language disorders since such exemptions will most likely will make language issues worse.

Are you complaining about grades in English courses for your child with language disorders? Or that there is a foreign language requirement for high school?

As a side note, when we visited the model Asperger's program at Ivymount, their director was very proud of the fact that their curriculum followed and met Common Core standards.

There is a large difference between nonverbal kids and those with low normal language skills. The former will get SN supports, at least by law they should, but the latter will not. No one is arguing that nonverbal kids who are good at math are easily hired--they are not.

But you do not need high language skills to succeed at tech--low normal will do. You may not make it to the highest levels or the most prestigious companies, but you can do well enough, particularly if you have really outstanding quantitative skills.

The concern is that those sorts of people will be deemed low normal at math as well because common core is being implemented in such a language heavy way. This sets them up for not succeeding in an area they could do well in and actually much better than high verbal, low normal quantitative kids who are being catered to in this type of implementation.

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.

It is likely that in many STEM areas, strong verbal skills help you to get the top or to the most coveted jobs. That still leaves a lot of jobs that don't require them. By definition a nonverbal could not answer any questions orally.

At a company like Google, a person who couldn't successfully pass this part of the interview wouldn't even be hired for a low level eng. job. And again, it's not just Google that does this. Many companies are going this route.

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.

It is likely that in many STEM areas, strong verbal skills help you to get the top or to the most coveted jobs. That still leaves a lot of jobs that don't require them. By definition a nonverbal could not answer any questions orally.

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.

Anonymous wrote:It's probably true... CC standards do require use of more language arts across the board. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, it's made school harder for those SN kids that have a hard time with this. So, does that mean we should only have standards or curriculums that the lowest level can meet? I don't understand this logic. Let's dumb down the curriculum so *everyone* can meet them?

SN kids need supports. Isn't that what IEPs are for? So, if your school/teacher is not providing that so that your SN child can try to meet the standards, then that's an issue with the school/teacher, not the standards. Or, maybe they should have completely separate standards for SN kids?

Many of these kids would not be identified as SN. They could score well on quantitative and spatial reasoning tests but low normal on verbal tests. They would not qualify for any supports.

Even those who do qualify for supports will not get nearly adequate supports. Spend some time on the SN boards if you think this is not true. School district budgets are very strained and they cut corners wherever possible with SN supports.

The fact is that to be successful in math and STEM more generally in the real world you do not need particularly strong verbal skills. So why are schools demanding this as a prerequisite for doing well in math?

Again, I do not think that meeting the objectives of Common Core, with which I agree, requires strong language skills. It is simply the way that education majors in charge of putting together materials are advocating implementing CC because, as a general matter, their verbal abilities are much stronger than their quantitative abilities. Looks like confirmation bias to me.

As an aside, their verbal abilities do not seem to be all that strong either if they are producing the kinds of poorly written worksheets that an OP on another thread has shown us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wouldn't be a bad thing if more lawyers could actually do math.

No, it wouldn't. But how many more lawyers do we really need? We need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. Superior language skills are not required for success in their fields, just as superior math skills are not required for success in law.

Yes, we do need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. I don't think that the Common Core standards interfere with this goal. (Nor do they encourage people to go to law school.)

And if they all drop out because the language requirements made them feel like failures? Or they simply couldn't pass such a language-heavy curriculum?

Just human collateral damage to the likes of you.

I think it's quite unlikely that all future scientists and engineers are going to drop out because the Common Core ELA standards made them feel like failures or because they were unable to meet the Common Core ELA standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's probably true... CC standards do require use of more language arts across the board. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, it's made school harder for those SN kids that have a hard time with this. So, does that mean we should only have standards or curriculums that the lowest level can meet? I don't understand this logic. Let's dumb down the curriculum so *everyone* can meet them?

SN kids need supports. Isn't that what IEPs are for? So, if your school/teacher is not providing that so that your SN child can try to meet the standards, then that's an issue with the school/teacher, not the standards. Or, maybe they should have completely separate standards for SN kids?

Standards that cut off a sizable number of kids from having a successful education should be shitcanned.

They need IEPs. What you are saying is that the standards are challenging, and so we should dumb it down because too many kids can't meet them. What about providing a challenging curriculum to the rest of the kids? Should we short-change their education?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Standards that cut off a sizable number of kids from having a successful education should be shitcanned.

How would standards do this? All the standards say is, this is what a person should know/be able to do by the end of grade X, to be on grade level.

If there are groups of students who need additional help to get there, then they should get that additional help. That is what special education services are for. If the students are not getting that help, then that's a problem with the special education services, not the standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wouldn't be a bad thing if more lawyers could actually do math.

No, it wouldn't. But how many more lawyers do we really need? We need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. Superior language skills are not required for success in their fields, just as superior math skills are not required for success in law.

Yes, we do need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. I don't think that the Common Core standards interfere with this goal. (Nor do they encourage people to go to law school.)

And if they all drop out because the language requirements made them feel like failures? Or they simply couldn't pass such a language-heavy curriculum?

Just human collateral damage to the likes of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wouldn't be a bad thing if more lawyers could actually do math.

No, it wouldn't. But how many more lawyers do we really need? We need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. Superior language skills are not required for success in their fields, just as superior math skills are not required for success in law.

Yes, we do need more scientists and engineers with passable language skills. I don't think that the Common Core standards interfere with this goal. (Nor do they encourage people to go to law school.)