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).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Common Core standards do not structure classrooms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My husband is in IT. Communication is not the strong suit of many of his co-workers. They are not worried about communication, they are worried about delivering a quality product and coding and other skills are the priority.

Its really not a common core issue with language issues. Kids would still need to be able to verbally respond and write regardless of common core. I don't find the standards poor, just the implementation. If anything, K. standards are way too easy and my kid knew it all. He cannot always answer verbal questions and struggles with writing sentences (he can with support) but he does get all the concepts (teachers do not know that as they don't take the time to figure him out). At home he has no more issue than other kids doing the homework. I agree lowering the standards is not the solution. Changing how the standards are implemented would be far better. Have clear textbooks and worksheets. Provide instructions verbally and in writing to meet different kids styles. Provide extra supports to kids struggling in particular areas (regardless of an IEP/special needs).

The issue with common core and math is when you have to either verbally or in writing explain your work. A child with receptive and/or expressive delays or apraxia cannot always articulate why. Some with language arts or any other subject. Its not just a math/stem issue. The better answer is to give these kids far more support, more speech therapy that focuses on these deficits and insist on alternative answers that the child can produce as well as trying their best to give it the correct way.

Dumbing down is absolutely not the answer. Many of these kids can do it if taught properly.

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.

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.

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.

^^^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?

Which "language-heavy" requirements are in the Common Core math standards? Could you provide some examples, please?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your point is about you and your need vs the topic at hand. Comparing a introvert at risk for anxiety and depression is not comparable to a language child. Have you even thought about what you are saying. Ok, so you labeled your kid as an introvert. Not all introverts have mental health issues. Do you even get the real concern? What challenges our children face? How much we spend on therapies, cannot work as we are running every day to appointments, etc. we are not talking about a quiet child who prefers some down or alone time. Do you get many of our kids do not start talking till 4-5 and if they catch up, it takes years and many still always struggle. Ever worry if your child will talk? Ever worry about sending your five year old to school who cannot tell you anything thing about their day as they cannot answer basic questions.

Whoa! That chip on your shoulder is getting ever larger. I have an SN child who has gone through seven years of therapy (language plus other problems_. My NT child has medical problems and has been hospitalized three times for life threatening illnesses (think well over 25 percent fatality rates). Also two suicide attempts and two other psych admissions. I guess I could say be thankful that your child's worst problem is that he doesn't talk much.

None of this would cause me to minimize the special problems PP has with an introverted NT child. Just because the child is NT does not mean the child is free of difficult to manage problems. PP is right to be concerned about the possibility of possible mental health problems; they are nightmare to deal with. it's not a picnic to be an introvert in a society that values extroverts and thinks introverts are less than.

This is not contest--my child is worse off than yours so shut up already. If anything, having problems with your child should help make one more empathetic, not less, towards others' problems even if by some objective measure they are not of the same order of magnitude of what your child has.

Have you considered therapy?

Seriously, that is your answer. And, you are showing empathy. The topic is common core and language disorders. It is not about a personality type. Clearly your child didn't have the language issues if you are not getting the concerns many parents face with language kids. Our kids cannot answer basic questions, therefore will fail because they do not have the verbal skills - receptive or expressive to be able to speak. No one is minimizing other issues, but the topic is about language disorders. Why is there a need to dismiss kids and/or the need to lump them in with other diagnosis not fitting for them. If you want to complain about CC and your kids who are not language delayed, start a new topic.

You must be new to DCUM if you believe going off on tangents should kick a poster off a thread. And a tangent that says the way CC is implemented in many places isn't just detrimental to language impaired kids but also to many others is, by DCUM standards, not much of a tangent. Take a look at the gn at Wilson thread that has turned into a pun fest.

I am now thinking you are the the OP and not one of the PPs who said stop blaming CC--the school needs to get more language resources for the language impaired or some similar when pigs fly statement. But I wonder if singling out language impaired children only as victims of certain CC implementations actually weakens the case for change. Wouldn't showing these implementations are detrimental to many types of kids actually help get changes through to make implementation of CC successful for as many kids as possible? Just having a hard time understanding why you are so peeved at others noting problems other types of kids are having with CC as it is often implemented.

(Know saying implement so many times is redundant, but there is another PP who jumps down everyone's throat if they shortcut and just say CC because, people, they are standards, yes, standards and you cannot criticize them, deftly sidestepping the many, many posts that have focused on their implementation and not the standards themselves.)