Nancy E. Bailey's Blog, page 93

Examining Common Core’s Answer for Student Differences–UDL

For a while now I have been watching FB posts and listening to parents, while trying to learn how their students, especially students who have disabilities and/or who are gifted and talented, are doing with Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL is one of Common Core’s answers to special education, but I have heard zilch about it from anyone. I’m guessing readers today who see this title will ask, what the heck is UDL? But if I go to the national website it sounds like it is very popular http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum. Maybe I have missed something.

UDL is the goal of having everyone work differently to reach the same goals. Design has some connection to breaking down barriers and is compared to physical changes to buildings to help those with disabilities. Learning is said to not be one thing (?) and the program involves a lot of drawn pictures of brains and the word neuroscience is bantered about.

All the information on UDL sounds wordy to me—the kind of thing I read over and over again to find the main idea. Or maybe it is my own hyperactivity that makes it hard for me to focus. I always get lost when there is a link to another link to another link. And honestly, the videos of adults explaining verticality etc. reminds me of the courses that gave Colleges of Education a bad name. I did like the video of the teacher teaching math, though it doesn’t look unusual to me. It didn’t grab me either. But then I’m not a math major.

All this said, here is the link to UDL so you can follow. If it makes better sense to you, by all means let me know http://www.udlcenter.org/.

One issue, I would question, is found on the first link that students will “Know how to set challenging learning goals for themselves.” Do students really set learning goals for themselves with Common Core, or are the goals chosen for them? I think we know the answer to that one. I also question whether CC is leading to more independent thinkers.   

The other big goal that stands out (I will spare you discussion on all of them) “Monitor and regulate emotional reactions that would be impediments or distractions to their successful learning.” Is it good for young children to always regulate their emotions? Every child needs some self-control, but with all the CC controversy, one must question whether the program is right when a child runs into trouble? Maybe the student is perfectly justified to have a meltdown. When you don’t pilot test curriculum, you come up weak on the implementation. Perhaps I am thinking too deeply about this stuff.

UDL has a nice ring to it because both special ed. and regular ed. teachers have always strived to get students to the point where they can work well together, especially when working with students who exhibit mild disabilities. For those students, getting assistance and encouragement to succeed in regular classes is nothing new. Special education teachers working in resource classes and as consulting teachers have helped mainstream students for years!

But try as I might, I have thus to see any current evidence UDL works. Putting the videos on this UDL website aside, when it comes to Common Core, what I keep seeing and hearing about on social media is mostly worksheets. They remind me of the old dittoes parents, teachers and students used to scorn. They usually have some terrible flaw or are age-inappropriate. UDL just doesn’t seem like any Kumbaya approach to learning.

The only possible way some of the concepts behind UDL could ever work would be to have a very small class sizes. And we know that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Ask Bill Gates what he thinks of lowering class size.

Students with differences on both ends of the spectrum will continue to reflect the great flaws in Common Core. Parents who post the dittos with the problematic questions get it. But other, less savvy, parents may never know their student is not being challenged, or they are working on material that does little to capture their interest or real capabilities.

When differentiation is mentioned it is usually paired with assistive technology—CAST. Cast is some kind of subset of UDL, I think. I’m sorry. I had to quit with this stuff when I saw the Adaptive Engine http://www.cast.org/research/projects/clipps.html. I will revisit it another day. Could UDL really be about getting all students online for their schooling? This is, I believe, the ultimate goal.  It isn’t really about Kumbaya at all. Now I need some aspirin.

Why Did Parents Ever Allow the Loss of Recess?

The Alliance for Childhood just printed Olga Jarrett’s research showing the importance of research http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/Recess_online.pdf.

I admire the good work of Olga Jarrett. I even posted a tribute to her awhile back. There is a lot of other great research out there to show the importance of recess, along with books on the subject. There’s Susan Ohanian’s What Happened to Recess and Why are our Children Struggling in Kindergarten? written back in 2002. Anthony D. Pellegrini’s insightful book Recess: Its Role in Education and Development was published in 2005. The Alliance for Childhood has much more on recess too http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/.  

Not long ago the American Academy of Pediatrics jumped in to holler about the importance of recess http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/AAP-Considers-Recess-a-Necessary-Break.aspx. They emphasized students do better in school with recess. I’d say students just need a break! Not ever being given time to step away and play, without adults breathing down your necks, must be hell for a young child.      

So why, you have to wonder, did parents ever kiss recess good-bye to begin with?

My husband and I fought for recess years ago. When our daughter was denied recess for heavy test prep we went head-to-head with the teacher. We eventually had her changed to another class (a feat that was hard to come by) with a teacher who liked to take breaks to play kickball with the students. It wasn’t giving children true freedom to do what they wanted on the playground, but it got our daughter a break. By the way, she scored exceedingly well on the tests without so much test prep.

You can’t, however, rely on teachers to save recess. They’re pressured to focus on test results and instructed to micromanage the child’s every move. Many teachers could lose their jobs if students test poorly. Having additional time to use for test prep might mean, in their thinking, that they will be able to buy groceries for their families next year.

Back when recess first began disappearing, or when the loss of recess began being used for punishment (oddly students who act out probably need recess most), I did speak to parents about the loss of recess. They either whispered they didn’t like its loss, but they couldn’t take a stand. Or they liked not having recess! They’d bought into the idea that schools needed every minute for instruction because schools were failing and their child needed to learn…not play.

Then there was the principal who once indicated to me that the children got PE. Make no mistake. PE is not recess. It’s structured. The child never gets to take a breath and do something on their own. Their time is monitored.       

But parents? Still today, one must wonder why they ever allowed for no breaks for their children. Don’t they raise questions when they wind up having to put little Billy or Susie on Adderall for ADHD? Couldn’t there be some other reason why their children can’t sit still? Now that so much research has come out about the importance of recess, why aren’t parents running to the schools to demand it for their children?

I see a lot of parents who are committed to turning things around when it comes to schools on FB. The mention of competition came up today. Parents might still worry whether their child will score high on the test. .

I think parents also worry their child will get hurt or bullied with recess. But sports are dangerous too. Parents don’t seem reluctant to let their children play sports.

Children need safe playground equipment with good soft material on the ground and good supervision. Preferably, teachers should watch students. They can learn a lot about them by observation. They can check on how students use their gross and fine motor skills. They should also be on hand for breaking up fights and for noting social interactions. Helping children iron out differences is a good thing about recess.

But I’m afraid that no matter how much I or others sputter about it…no matter how many people post their support on FB or Tweet about it, and no matter how much more research is done to show recess matters, recess is, still, either gone, or on its way out.

But wait! There is always a non-profit waiting in the wings to help. Playworks will partner with schools to provide supervised structured recess http://www.playworks.org/. Again, this seems more like structured PE and one wonders why outsiders must come in to provide recess when schools, for years, before the current education reforms, did it quite well. 

Some places like Virginia have actually restored recess. In fact, in schools that have recess—funny thing—test scores are usually better! But a lot of schools still forgo recess.

The majority of parents didn’t speak out for recess before, so I doubt they will speak out for it now. While it’s true there are a whole lot of worries about public schools these days, the loss of recess, for me, is a worry that should be at the top of the list. It can be likened to child abuse. I’m just afraid the recess issue left the station a long time ago, and while more and more research comes out in its favor, it doesn’t look like anyone is going to bring it back fully anytime soon.       

Why Education Reformers Worry about Special Education

I heard someone, a parent or teacher, blurt out at an informal education meeting, that education reformers are afraid of special education. I think that person is right. I don’t think many of those currently in charge of redoing public schools understand anything about special ed. students and how they learn.

I think they must know they are infuriating a lot of parents who have atypical students at both ends of the continuum. In the context of calculating costs and emphasizing student success on test scores, special ed. students are a thorn in the reformers side as they try to sell-off America’s schools.

They market the idea that with the right kind of super teacher, every special need or disability can be fixed. And they claim students who are gifted or talented will get enrichment…whatever that is. All students, they tell us, can function at the same level. In fact, all students should also take the same tests! No more modifications should be allowed! They sell perfection like Professor Harold Hill sold music.   

Like so much else in education, these changes in special education are coming about due to special ed. costs and the fact that education, in general, is messy. It doesn’t make for perfect sounding curriculum that churns out students who learn the same things the same way. Really, every child should be individually considered, but with special ed. students these differences stand out more.  

Thus far, education reformers have succeeded at twisting the special ed. conversation to make it work to damn schools. Saying all students can learn the same way preys upon parents who want normalcy. Use high expectations as a theme, slowly get rid of special ed. teachers and classes, and make it look like the phase-out helps children. That’s how they work.

The word “integration” makes it sound like a civil rights issue. We all know that the Achilles heel of special education is labeling. But we could work on that and honestly improve the way students receive services.

Good teachers, they insist, will succeed with these students. Bad teachers will be fired. But such messages fail to address the problems parents face as they struggle to deal with the learning difficulties their children present. They lose much-needed services and support. They have to pay to get real help in many instances. Perhaps that in itself is the ultimate goal of the education reformers. But it isn’t going to work.   

For years special ed. programs were not funded, as fully as needed, especially in poor schools. Teachers struggled to address the needs of students in self-contained classrooms without much support. I remember being told that because I had a master’s degree in special education I would be allotted fewer resources. I received $30.00 for materials at the beginning of the year—if I was lucky. I also had a lousy classroom (more about this another time).

However, in the background lurking, were those who wanted to cut costs further. One way to do this is to get rid of special ed. classes altogether and put all students back into regular classes. But parents are not as naïve as some believe.

Children who can mosey along and do O.K. on tests have Moms and Dads who are less inclined to question. They have no sense of urgency. But parents of students who are atypical, no matter how slightly—and that includes a lot of children—pay closer attention. They know that the right kind of education for their child can mean the difference between a decent life and a life of destitution.

That’s why the person who said the ed. reformers were afraid of special education, I believe, got it right. If anyone will stop the draconian changes in our public schools it will be those parents.            

Common Core and Early Childhood—Got Music?

The implication of all this for early education is clear. Although a teaspoon of Mozart may not make a child a better mathematician, there is little doubt that regular exposure to music, an especially active participation in music, may stimulate development of many different areas of the brain—areas which have to work together to listen to or perform music. For the vast majority of students, music can be every bit as important educationally as reading or writing.

—Oliver Sacks, neuroscientist and writer, from Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.

How much music does your preschooler and K-3rd grader get these days? Do you ever catch your kids humming and singing? Do you find them clapping for joy? Have they explored instrumental music in any way in school? Do they ever attend concerts on field trips? Do they like to listen to music for fun? Or do you have to pay a lot of extra money to get your child real music outside of school?

Does your school provide honest-to-goodness music classes that are enjoyable and meet regularly?

Common Core addresses music in young children by slipping it into the curriculum to build language and math skills. They “integrate” the arts into the curriculum. Students clap and count along with “The Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly,” a funny song that should make children laugh. But, while there is nothing wrong with clapping to the tune, it is all geared to learning reading and math.  

Let’s be honest here. This really isn’t music. It involves hard-core math and reading instruction with the façade of music. I wonder how many children really get a pull-out program for pure music fun anymore.   

Listen carefully. “It’s a lot more paperwork,” said a Baltimore music teacher. “It’s a lot more documentation. But for music, the new standards actually make it easier when you’re teaching across the curriculum. It’s easier to integrate lessons that go along with the general teacher’s lesson, and it kind of forces me to make those connections with other classroom teachers” http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/laurel/ph-ll-common-core-1017-20131017,0,2632731.story. Easier for who?

Teachers should coordinate what they do, to a certain extent, and come together to understand students and their progress. And incorporating the arts into the general curriculum is fine too. But when you hear about all the documentation and making a song work for the subject it raises questions.

Can’t music be valued for the sake of music? Music is enjoyable! It is also healing and can help a child experiencing difficulties in their life. I’d say at least a couple times a week students should get some time for pure enjoyable music exposure that isn’t tied to standards. It could actually be an area of strength for a young student that will eventually lead them to real showmanship!

There are a few things about Common Core I like—like analyzing writing samples and keeping records of progress—up to a point. But everything is too micromanaged. Students don’t work  well that way —especially young children—and so much documentation can steer the teacher’s focus away from the child to the paperwork. With Common Core everything is measured. It’s not necessary. It’s especially not necessary with music!

I think it is an overemphasis on control and a lack of trust. The adults who created Common Core don’t trust children, so they have to micromanage everything they do. They don’t give children any space to be themselves. That’s why the arts get short shrift with Common Core, because the arts involve free thinking and they are not able to be tested really. Children get little, if any, free time to think and imagine.  

Consider the New York State School Music Association’s “A Standards Crosswalk Between Common Core and Music” http://www.nyssma.org/a-standards-crosswalk-between-common-core-and-music. Aside from it being unclear how the reading Core Curriculum Standards match the music objectives (the standards seem obscure, thrown together without much thought), the standards are also age inappropriate. Consider “Create text in response to literary work” matched to “Music composition.”  What does this even mean? Can’t we just let children enjoy music? They can learn a little about composers too—but let’s not overdo.      

I have never understood why those who wrote the CCSS are so controlling, measuring every child’s moment. It stresses me to think about it. What must it do to children? Everything surrounding this curriculum seems calculating and serious. In the long run we know this will cause stress and other serious problems. It could make students hate school. It will also destroy the child’s love of the arts…and in this case music. Music is powerful in its own right. Just let it be.

Parents and teachers…forget order! Don’t measure a darn thing! Get out the funny musical CDs. Sing outloud with your young children! March! It does not matter if your child sings off key, or whether they clap funny or are not learning reading and math in the process. Maybe they have a different rhythm all their own! Perhaps someday they will be a successful Avant-garde musician.

Find some empty oatmeal boxes and pots and pans—beat some drums (adults you might need some aspirin)! Shake some bells! Blow some horns! Just make noise! Try to attend community concerts for children. Trust your children to learn when they are having fun! It really is the best learning there is! Not only will they love you for it, they will, in the end, be smarter too.

Here are some good links. http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/learning/toddler_music.html# and http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/learning/preschool_music.html

As always, I value comments, suggestions and new resources to share.

Gifted Students are Short-changed with Common Core State Standards

Today I am going to write about gifted students and the Common Core State Standards. There is plenty to write about this neglected area of special education without discussing CCSS. The needs of gifted students have never been fully addressed because, in general, people think gifted students learn fast and school will be easy. Parents of gifted students are often happy their child is diagnosed as gifted, and fearing they look presumptuous, may not discuss issues that directly affect the school curriculum and their child.

 

They also might think all is well when it really isn’t. I think some gifted parents and parents whose children appear to be doing everything right in school—passing all the tests with flying colors—are content to sit back and believe the changes happening to the curriculum are just fine. Since their student appears to do well, why should they question anything?

 

For example, parents of gifted students might not feel the need to opt their child out of any test. Many gifted kids like tests. Tests are like a game to them. They score well and then, mentally rewarded, they get ready for the next test. It becomes a never ending vicious circle. I say vicious because, while gifted students might do well on the tests, it doesn’t mean they are getting a good education. Their needs are never being fully addressed. In many cases they aren’t getting much real intellectual stimulation at all.

 

It certainly isn’t gifted education like it should be. It is far from it. Here is what the National Association for Gifted Children has to say about Common Core State Standards:

 

The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will have significant implications for teachers. The CCSS calls for general education teachers to recognize and address student learning differences, and incorporate rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills. Despite the obvious connection to the field of gifted education, the nature of advanced work beyond the CCSS is not addressed.  In fact, the authors of the CCSS state, ‘The Standards do not define the nature of advanced work for students who meet the Standards prior to the end of high school’ (English Language Arts Standards, p. 6).

 

Although the CCSS are considered to be more rigorous than most current state standards, they fall short in meeting the specific needs of gifted learners, and if held strictly to the standard, could actually limit learning.  To overcome this pitfall, it is imperative that gifted educators create a full range of supports for high-ability learners through differentiated curriculum, instruction, and assessments.

 

In addition, it will become increasingly more important for gifted education coordinators, facilitators, and teachers to reaffirm and advocate for the need for specialized services for academically advanced and high-potential students. Beyond providing direct student services, gifted education professionals play an important role in the translation of the CCSS to the classroom by collaborating with other teachers and serving as a valuable resource for implementing differentiated curriculum and assessment. Gifted education professionals may also need to expand their role and act as a mentor/peer coach in providing sustained, job-embedded professional development to school personnel to ease implementation issues. Moreover, the research base from gifted education can contribute to the professional development that school administrators may need to support complex curriculum and deep student learning.

 

Here is an example of what happened with gifted education in Hoosier territory due to the Common Core: http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/common-core-ends-gifted-programs-must-teach-student-at-grade-level/. Notice the gifted program is “to follow on grade level the CCSS.” This pretty well insures that nothing special will occur for students who are gifted even though the document goes on to say the students will get enrichment activities. It really implies that all children will get the same activities.

 

When it comes to gifted students, like all students requiring a special education, the notion of enrichment is vague. It is hard to imagine teachers with large class sizes being able to devote much time at all to differentiating the curriculum. Gifted students, like all students, run the risk of never having their interests identified. Common Core, in its narrowness, will not prepare them well. Gifted students continue to be slighted in their public schooling. I should also add all schooling since Common Core is now a part of private schools, parochial schools and homeschooling.

 

I would love to hear from parents and teachers of gifted students. What do you think about Common Core State Standards? 

Why Do Catholics Care About Common Core?

And every student deserves to be prepared for a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of a deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith.

Gerard Bradley and Catholic Scholars October 16,2013

Valerie Strauss’s post about Catholic scholars rejecting the Common Core is an important read http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/02/catholic-scholars-blast-common-core-in-letter-to-u-s-bishops/. That so many Catholics find it necessary to come out against Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is at first glance puzzling.

Catholics have always been fiercely independent when it comes to their own brand of school instruction, so why don’t they leave the CCSS alone and move on? Why do they even care about it?

Likewise, why are homeschooling parents crying foul when it comes to Common Core? If they originally removed their kids from public school because they didn’t like the curriculum and wanted to do it on their own, why don’t they just…do it on their own? Why are private schools signing on to CCSS as well? No wonder so many Republicans are in a tizzy about the CCSS. The way it is taking over all the schools leaves them no choice…none at all.

So why is Common Core, a program with no pilot testing, sweeping the nation?

David Coleman, you remember, the CCSS heavy hitter who is considered the “architect” of the Core, who never was a teacher or studied teaching or children, etc., and who also said no one gives a “bleep” about student narrative writing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu6lin88YXU,  now sits as president of the College Board and is busily devising a way to align the CCSS with the ACT and the SAT and the Accelerated Placement (AP) tests parents must buy for their students. Parents and students know all these tests are a portal into college. If you have to learn the CCSS in order to pass the ACT, SAT, and the AP tests, all students, no matter where they attend school, will need to understand the CCSS to do well on the tests. If they don’t do well they can kiss college goodbye…or so it seems.

More and more parents point to colleges and universities which have stopped requiring the ACT, SAT, and AP. Here they are http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional. There are certainly some great schools here and a lot of obscure ones too. But you will notice most state schools and certainly the Ivy League still do require these tests. And even if your child chooses to attend one of the colleges on the list, they still have to endure the Common Core in their classes (the exception is homeschooling).

Ironically, one of the complaints of the Common Core, and the gist of the Catholic letter, is that the Common Core doesn’t look like the kind of curriculum that will really prepare students for college. Instead, young people will receive a very minimal education. This worries a lot of people…including Catholics. Instead of so much fiction there will be more nonfiction. Studies will focus on informational text. One commenter noted students would need to read refrigeration manuals. One wonders why the universities not on the list haven’t spoken out against the Common Core. Don’t they care about the kinds of skills applicants will come to their schools with eventually?

Common Core is seen as dumbing down the curriculum. You have to wonder why such an effort exists. What possible good can come from a country that is mediocre and where students will have to struggle to learn more on their own if they are to succeed? And why all the talk about college prep when it really isn’t college prep?

I’m afraid, though, that the Catholic Scholars’ letter, as important as it is, will, like other voices against the Common Core, be lost. But thumbs up anyway. It’s nice to see that they get it and want the rest of us to get it too. It’s also great they are on the side of the anti-CCSS group. I mean if anyone is going to pull off a miracle it will likely be them.       

Another Teach For America Ra Ra Study to Slam Real Teacher Ed. Programs

Tennessee is all abuzz with another study to go after real degreed and credentialed teachers. I say “real” because the powerhouses have even tampered with certification. In many places a certified teacher doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Teach for America and other alternative training programs rule in this state. They are running away with money bags throughout the nation too http://www.politico.com//story/2013/10/teach-for-america-rises-as-political-powerhouse-98586.html. So how does one fight back?

 

I am perplexed and tired that at this time in history, a country like ours is trying to claim that with five weeks of training someone with a degree in a subject, any subject, will do a better job teaching than someone who takes coursework in education. I’m also tired of trying to prove real teachers who spend time studying how children learn and obtain student teaching experience before they teach are better at teaching. It seems like a goofy argument.

 

I mean it is disturbing that many ever bought into this fake debate to begin with. Teaching should be a real career. Other countries know this. I was suspect of TFA from the start. I never liked it when it was sold as simply a sweet program to go to where there were no teachers. With the money flooding TFA they could have spiced-up more College of Ed. programs to help disadvantaged students and recruited real teachers to go to the tough schools….Better yet, they could have fixed the schools—through support and resources—and helped their communities! Now TFA is promoted as the best mode of teaching…yet less can never be more!

 

I know the argument. Some will say schools of education haven’t always done a good job. Maybe. Sometimes they haven’t. But many of them did do a good job once upon a time. I know because I attended three universities that once were outstanding. And if they weren’t as good as they should have been we should have made them better (I’m thinking Finland) not get rid of them altogether.

 

We also know now that many of the claims made, that our public schools were failing were false. So shouldn’t we backtrack and try to reclaim some of what we had—fixing what needed to be fixed? It would seem to me that would include creating a real career teaching force.

 

Often the TFA fans say that if you are teaching a subject like biology, you should study more biology in college and not have to take namby pamby education courses. To which I would say you should take a lot of biology AND education courses to help you understand the students you will be working with and how to instruct them in that particular subject. There is much pedagogy to learn about teaching in different areas and at different grade levels. To think otherwise is both arrogant and naïve.

 

I’ve known career changers who go into teaching thinking teaching is a piece of cake. They learn pretty fast it isn’t easy. They either get additional skills to make it or they abandon ship. With TFA, no matter how badly one might do, there is always the opportunity to leave and possible move on to administrative positions in education! So even if you know little about children—how they learn and the best way to teach them—you can wind up in a position of command. This really makes no sense.

 

It is time to bring back the American education degreed and credentialed teacher. One who has subject expertise and who has studied how to actually teach and reach the students who come to school with uniqueness and individual challenge. If you teach math, you should learn about math and how to teach it. If you teach special education, you should be qualified in the particular disability area or in multiple areas before you are allowed to work with children. Credentials should matter! Regulations here are important.

 

In the meantime, parents ask all your children’s teachers what they studied and where they got their degree. Along with everything else you are being asked to do, I think it is important to put pressure on your school administrators and local school district not to hire those with little teaching experience unless they can actually show you they tried but could not get a genuine teacher. Then work to bring more truly degreed and credentialed teachers into your schools.

 

Good-bye NICHCY! But Why?

[image error]

For decades the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) has been a go-to website for families and educators seeking information about how to find support for young students and students with disabilities. My website is a work in progress and when I went to add NICHCY to the section on Special Education, I learned to my shock and dismay, NICHCY had been shut down as of  September 30, 2013.

Parents and teachers, the resources and information will be available for a year from that date. The sections on the website include the following: Disabilities, Babies and Toddlers, Children (2-22), Disability & Education, Laws and Research and a section for those who speak Spanish.

I am uncomfortable when groups who provide valuable information for children and children with disabilities go under. If anyone knows please inform me. I wonder why the U.S. Department of Education quit funding this important group providing resources and research. In the meantime, go to the site while it is still available and make use of their information http://nichcy.org/.

.    

 

Real Student Zombies by Next Halloween?

According to Wikipedia, the term “Zombie” figuratively applied describes “a hypnotized person bereft of consciousness and self-awareness, yet ambulant and able to respond to surrounding stimuli.”

Are students being turned into zombies in our schools?

Think about this. The reformers want “rigor”—short for rigor mortis. Children are being over-tested.They’ve lost their recess. Children, who may get few breaks in school, might get classified as have ADHD. Or they just can’t sit still for so long. A lot of medication is being doled out for ADHD http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/children-and-adhd_b_1026477.html.

Also, Common Core is, well, common. Student data is being used for—it’s anyone’s guess. Students are not allowed to socialize much and many have lost the arts and most opportunities for free expression. Then there is the matter of extreme zero tolerance….

Are public schools with all the reforms turning students into zombies? 

The notion of student zombies was played out in Philadelphia last January when students protested the draconian changes in their schools, by acting like zombies, showing they’re not zombies at all.  http://thenotebook.org/blog/135513/psu-students-protest-school-closings-zombie-flash-mob.

Then in February, Rhode Island high school students dressed like zombies again to protest the rigid use of the NEAP tests that would keep some students from graduating http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2013/02/student-zombies-march-on-ri-department-of-education-in-protest.html.

Students shouldn’t have to protest what’s taking place in their schools. They should be learning and enjoying and doing all the funny things children and teens are known for. Adults are supposed to do the right thing by them and cherish and relish who they are at each period of development as it takes place. But that’s not what’s happening. Students, even the younger ones, know they aren’t being treated right.

The question is how long will our young people, and their parents, be able to speak out and recognize students are being turned into zombies? How long will it be before the kids don’t know they’re zombies and they and their parents don’t bother to speak out or challenge what is being done to their schools.

That’s pretty scary! We can’t let it happen.

Happy Halloween. Be careful out there.   

Advocacy Groups for Parents of Children with Disabilities

On Monday I wrote about two significant class action suits that steered the course for students with disabilities to receive a more “appropriate” education in their public schools. Today I am providing lists of some advocacy groups for parents to contact if they are dissatisfied with the Common Core and/or other issues negatively affecting their students in school.

Here’s a listing of advocates by state. I recommend researching these groups a little more thoroughly if interested http://www.education-a-must.com/advocates.html#FL.

The Council for Exceptional Children has a section for policy and advocacy that might be helpful http://www.cec.sped.org/Policy-and-Advocacy?sc_lang=en.  

In Tennessee, Vanderbilt has a nice resource page for the state. They also have a help line http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pathfinder/resources/page.aspx?id=1263.

Wrightslaw has a lot of information, although I could not find anything about Common Core http://www.wrightslaw.com/.   

I will add these to the Special Education section of the website which has other groups that may be helpful. Let me know of additional sources when you learn of them and I will post. Good luck parents!