Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, my nephews have IEPs and I know other students with IEPs. Can you explain why, in different schools in different states, the issues have been the same, i.e. teachers ignoring IEPs, administration not backing IEPs, etc?

Maybe because IEPs can be a headache for schools and teachers? I'm not any of the PPs, but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

And I don't understand what this has to do with Common Core standards. Are you saying that there shouldn't be standards because schools and teachers often ignore IEPs?

IEPs are legally binding. It's another implementation failure.

When schools and teachers ignore IEPs, it's an implementation failure of the Common Core?

What if the schools and teachers ignoring IEPs are in Virginia, or Texas, or Alaska? Is that an implementation failure of the Common Core too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, my nephews have IEPs and I know other students with IEPs. Can you explain why, in different schools in different states, the issues have been the same, i.e. teachers ignoring IEPs, administration not backing IEPs, etc?

Maybe because IEPs can be a headache for schools and teachers? I'm not any of the PPs, but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

And I don't understand what this has to do with Common Core standards. Are you saying that there shouldn't be standards because schools and teachers often ignore IEPs?

IEPs are legally binding. It's another implementation failure.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, my nephews have IEPs and I know other students with IEPs. Can you explain why, in different schools in different states, the issues have been the same, i.e. teachers ignoring IEPs, administration not backing IEPs, etc?

Maybe because IEPs can be a headache for schools and teachers? I'm not any of the PPs, but that seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

And I don't understand what this has to do with Common Core standards. Are you saying that there shouldn't be standards because schools and teachers often ignore IEPs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asking, "What's wrong with the standards" and I can clearly see that they are intensely verbal. So if your child has any kind of language disability -- which is actually one of the biggest learning disability categories between autism and specific language impairment -- your child is pretty much screwed when they walk in the door from Kindergarten.

So we shouldn't have standards, because children with language disabilities might have a problem with them? Or we should only have standards that every child is able to accomplish without any additional accommodation or adaptation?

Children with disabilities are worthless and so we should construct impossible standards for them so they are certain failures from Kindergarten on. Got it!

If they were able to meet the standards, then why would they be disabled?

The Common Core State Standards aren't designed with disabled kids in mind, because they are the standards for grade level expectations for non-disabled kids.

Just as we have PE standards --EG "By the end of grade K all students will be able to complete 10 jumping jacks"

No, this standard is not applicable to children who are physically disabled and in a wheelchair. But we don't write standards for PE based on what physically handicapped children are able to compete.

The Common Core standards are indeed the standards for ALL children, regardless of disability. Even if a child can't speak, Common Core demands conversation. Perhaps this gives a glimpse of how inflexible the standards are.

You seem unclear on what the point of a standard is. All states have had standards prior to now, and they all said that the average,non-siabled child should be able to use orall comunication.

Obviously, a non-verbal child is disabled, and needs to have special goals just for him or her. These are found in an IEP.

Yes, my nephews have IEPs and I know other students with IEPs. Can you explain why, in different schools in different states, the issues have been the same, i.e. teachers ignoring IEPs, administration not backing IEPs, etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet more examples of the Common Core making kids cry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/28/louis-c-k-common-core-makes-my-kids-cry/

Louis C-K: "New York State worksheets are confusing my kids! "

There is NOTHING about those worksheets that is specific to Common Core. They are poorly written and have numerous typos.

My kids are in MD and they are "doing" COmmon Core. The workbooks and textbooks their school have chosen are perfectly fine and not full or errors and typos.

I don't know what is going in in New York State but they should get some textbooks from MD or other states that are not having these issues.

Where did the worksheets come from?

We have had many confusing worksheets come home from school in the past. Never in private. Why does this happen in publics but not in privates? How CAN this happen? If I did this to a customer, there would be hell to pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asking, "What's wrong with the standards" and I can clearly see that they are intensely verbal. So if your child has any kind of language disability -- which is actually one of the biggest learning disability categories between autism and specific language impairment -- your child is pretty much screwed when they walk in the door from Kindergarten.

So we shouldn't have standards, because children with language disabilities might have a problem with them? Or we should only have standards that every child is able to accomplish without any additional accommodation or adaptation?

Children with disabilities are worthless and so we should construct impossible standards for them so they are certain failures from Kindergarten on. Got it!

If they were able to meet the standards, then why would they be disabled?

The Common Core State Standards aren't designed with disabled kids in mind, because they are the standards for grade level expectations for non-disabled kids.

Just as we have PE standards --EG "By the end of grade K all students will be able to complete 10 jumping jacks"

No, this standard is not applicable to children who are physically disabled and in a wheelchair. But we don't write standards for PE based on what physically handicapped children are able to compete.

The Common Core standards are indeed the standards for ALL children, regardless of disability. Even if a child can't speak, Common Core demands conversation. Perhaps this gives a glimpse of how inflexible the standards are.

You seem unclear on what the point of a standard is. All states have had standards prior to now, and they all said that the average,non-siabled child should be able to use orall comunication.

Obviously, a non-verbal child is disabled, and needs to have special goals just for him or her. These are found in an IEP.

IEPs should be written to help kids approach standards to whatever degree they can. So if the standard is to ask and answer questions, a severely disabled child might work on answering yes no questions using a communication device of some kind, a child with dyslexia might work on answering questions about a grade level text read to them and then also work on answering similar questions about a text on their reading level, and a child with significant autism might work on answering more concrete questions with the goal of scaffolding towards more inferential ones.

If oral language isn't in the standards then we're basically saying that listening and speaking skills aren't necessary for a child to be college/career ready, and that it's not the school's responsibility to develop these skills. Families with kids with communication problems know better than anyone how crucial these skills are. Their kids need instruction in these areas more than anyone else's.

Free chapter from a book that discusses and critiques Common Core, debunks the myths, etc:

http://www.glennbeck.com/publish/uploads/2014/04/Conform-Ch-15.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Yet more examples of the Common Core making kids cry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/28/louis-c-k-common-core-makes-my-kids-cry/

Louis C-K: "New York State worksheets are confusing my kids! "

There is NOTHING about those worksheets that is specific to Common Core. They are poorly written and have numerous typos.

My kids are in MD and they are "doing" COmmon Core. The workbooks and textbooks their school have chosen are perfectly fine and not full or errors and typos.

I don't know what is going in in New York State but they should get some textbooks from MD or other states that are not having these issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asking, "What's wrong with the standards" and I can clearly see that they are intensely verbal. So if your child has any kind of language disability -- which is actually one of the biggest learning disability categories between autism and specific language impairment -- your child is pretty much screwed when they walk in the door from Kindergarten.

So we shouldn't have standards, because children with language disabilities might have a problem with them? Or we should only have standards that every child is able to accomplish without any additional accommodation or adaptation?

Children with disabilities are worthless and so we should construct impossible standards for them so they are certain failures from Kindergarten on. Got it!

If they were able to meet the standards, then why would they be disabled?

The Common Core State Standards aren't designed with disabled kids in mind, because they are the standards for grade level expectations for non-disabled kids.

Just as we have PE standards --EG "By the end of grade K all students will be able to complete 10 jumping jacks"

No, this standard is not applicable to children who are physically disabled and in a wheelchair. But we don't write standards for PE based on what physically handicapped children are able to compete.

The Common Core standards are indeed the standards for ALL children, regardless of disability. Even if a child can't speak, Common Core demands conversation. Perhaps this gives a glimpse of how inflexible the standards are.

You seem unclear on what the point of a standard is. All states have had standards prior to now, and they all said that the average,non-siabled child should be able to use orall comunication.

Obviously, a non-verbal child is disabled, and needs to have special goals just for him or her. These are found in an IEP.

Yet more examples of the Common Core making kids cry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/28/louis-c-k-common-core-makes-my-kids-cry/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asking, "What's wrong with the standards" and I can clearly see that they are intensely verbal. So if your child has any kind of language disability -- which is actually one of the biggest learning disability categories between autism and specific language impairment -- your child is pretty much screwed when they walk in the door from Kindergarten.

So we shouldn't have standards, because children with language disabilities might have a problem with them? Or we should only have standards that every child is able to accomplish without any additional accommodation or adaptation?

Children with disabilities are worthless and so we should construct impossible standards for them so they are certain failures from Kindergarten on. Got it!

If they were able to meet the standards, then why would they be disabled?

The Common Core State Standards aren't designed with disabled kids in mind, because they are the standards for grade level expectations for non-disabled kids.

Just as we have PE standards --EG "By the end of grade K all students will be able to complete 10 jumping jacks"

No, this standard is not applicable to children who are physically disabled and in a wheelchair. But we don't write standards for PE based on what physically handicapped children are able to compete.

The Common Core standards are indeed the standards for ALL children, regardless of disability. Even if a child can't speak, Common Core demands conversation. Perhaps this gives a glimpse of how inflexible the standards are.

Anonymous wrote:

That's not a standard either. And what is a "simple" sentence?

You think you know what a standard is, and yet you have no clue of a "simple sentence"? I learned that back in the dark ages when I was in third grade.

See Spot run. See Spot eat food. Good doggie.

Anonymous wrote:An example of a poor standard:

Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions.

How is the teacher to know not to teach a word that is going to be an "untaught" word on a standardized test

Not all standards are going to appear on a standardized test. For example, the Common Core contains detailed speaking and listening standards, but the proposed standardized tests don't include an oral portion. In addition, this particular standard (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.2.E) is taken from first grade, federal law doesn't require standardized testing until 3rd grade, and PARCC (the CC aligned standardized assessment that both DC and MD have chosen) doesn't start until then.

As far as how to assess this standard, there are a couple of options. A good teacher is going to look for evidence that a student can perform this skill both in and out of context.

To measure a child's ability to spell words out of context, teachers often use a spelling inventory. This is essentially a spelling test made up of untaught words, that is words that haven't appeared on spelling tests or word sorts or the word wall. Spelling inventories are criterion referenced tests, and you score them to get a list of features that students have or haven't mastered. Rather than giving a score of 15 out of 20 words correct, a teacher will grade a spelling inventory by looking to tell which elements a child has mastered (e.g. they got all of the initial sounds, the initial digraphs like sh and ch, and the ending sounds correct) and which elements they're ready to learn (e.g. next they'll learn their blends/adjacent consonants like br and sl, and their short vowels). Spelling inventories are used to plan instruction, and also to measure students against benchmarks.

To measure a child's ability to spell words in context, you analyze their writing. You might, for example, have taken your class to the zoo, and now they're writing about what they saw. The snake was a big hit and several students have written about it.

Mia writes that she saw a SK. Looking at this, you know that Mia hasn't mastered phonemic awareness, as she wasn't able to pull apart the sounds in the word. She missed the G and all of the vowel sounds. She still needs practice and instruction in this skill.

Jose writes that he saw a SNAK. His phonemic awareness is stronger than Mia's. He was able to break that word into sounds accurately, but, like most first graders, he's still learning about spelling conventions. He doesn't know, for example, that the long A sound is usually spelled with two vowels.

Dionte writes that he saw a SNAIK. His phonemic awareness is strong like Mia's and he knows more about the conventions of spelling. He knows that he needs to add something to make the vowel say it's name, but because this is an untaught word that he hasn't memorized he picks the wrong convention.

Anonymous wrote:An example of a poor standard:

Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions.

How is the teacher to know not to teach a word that is going to be an "untaught" word on a standardized test

I'm not sure where this standard is coming from, because I don't think it is a Common Core State Standard (is it?)

But I think it is a great standard. All students by the end of third grade should be able to spell ANY word phonetically, even if they have never seen the word before.

How should that be tested on a standardized test -- EASY! Just give the kids nonsense words.

Very few people would be willing to do this, but as a reading/writing tuor I do it all the time and find it to be a quick, efficient way of assessing a child's writing ability.

Ask them to spell: "voose", "spoik", "glurb", "skonk", and so on. There may be one or two phonetically reasonable ways to spell these words but not that many.

If a child write "voiss", "vsoe" or "wooze" for "voose" -- you can see that they do not have full mastery of the sound-symbol connections in written English.

An example of a poor standard:

Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions.

How is the teacher to know not to teach a word that is going to be an "untaught" word on a standardized test