Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Foreign language and math are the two most challenging subjects for children. They take endless efforts and you cannot give up at any point, otherwise you lose it.
Unfortunately, American children are often bad at both.
This is true. I am a foreign language and math teacher. At least the students understand that you need math, but they don't get why they must pass a foreign language to earn a diploma. Many of the students won't even try because "it's too haaaaaaaarrrrrrrrddddd!"
I tell them that nothing that they do in college will be as easy as what I'm teaching them.
My son has 3 learning disabilities, including just recently realized dyscalculia. He passed all the Algebra courses and tests, but is now struggling greatly with Geomoetry, despite tutoring and other help.
He has a high B GPA which to you might not be impressive but to me is miraculous. He has met or exceeded all other requirements for graduation. He is talented and ambitious and is very qualified to attend an arts based university and earn a BFA.
But *you* would deny him a high school diploma and that future due to a brain based disability that affects one class?
I guarantee you he has worked harder all throughout his school career than his neurotypical sister who finds math easy.
Yes even for my son with a learning disability, all that math is required. Algebra II is no longer required to graduate in Texas but they don't like to advertise that.
ETA: I am not opposed to 3 or even 4 math classes. I wish there were options for "practical" math like personal finance. The school/state offers a zillion options for AP this and that...why is there nothing for kids on the opposite side of interest and abilities? Why are kids forced to muddle through something, causing them to loathe it even more, when they could take something that would actually be useful?
If "a diploma" means "x", then one should have to complete "x" to get it. However, there could be more than one type of diploma.
As a principal for 20 years, I think you're overstating or misstating "five different federal and state laws".
1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
2. Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
3. Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Reaources Code
4. The Texas State Dyslexia Law, originally written in 1985, implemented into the TEA in the late 90s
5. The IDEA Act (Individuals with Disabilities in Education)
Also you are mistaken regarding the diploma choices. There is no option to "opt of of Geometry" and receive a different diploma. There are three diplomas, and two of the three require the same three levels of math. If a student has a documented disability that prevents him or her from completing some portion of that, such as PE, then that student could be covered by law and allowed to take a substitute class for credit. If Texas had wanted to make that a different diploma, they could have, but that is not how it works in Texas.
Last edited by calgirlinnc; 12-06-2019 at 11:48 AM..
1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
2. Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
3. Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Reaources Code
4. The Texas State Dyslexia Law, originally written in 1985, implemented into the TEA in the late 90s
5. The IDEA Act (Individuals with Disabilities in Education)
.
Are you saying that these laws require the schools to issue a diploma to a student who flunks a course required for graduation? I think not.
I rather suspect that these laws require schools to make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. That's a very different thing.
Are you saying that these laws require the schools to issue a diploma to a student who flunks a course required for graduation? I think not.
I rather suspect that these laws require schools to make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. That's a very different thing.
You wrote that a student should have to "master" academic subjects in order to graduate.
I said that is a violation of certain laws.
Now you are changing it to accommodations.
First of all, accommodations are available under a 504. Accommodations do not change content.
Under an IEP, there are modifications to the curriculum in addition to accommodations, and yes, if a student qualifies for modifications due to a disability, that is what should happen.
Modifications however, do not show "mastery " of content, which is your standard.
And in Texas, a modified course shows on the transcript and NOT on the diploma.
I am arguing that the higher required course should not be required in the first place.
My argument is that it would be better for a student to take a lower level course in math, and teach it at regular level with accommodations, rather than forcing a high level math with modifications, which will never show mastery of that higher level math.
If you want to equate it to a physical disability, I suggested PE as an example. A physically disabled student does not usually take regular PE. Should a physically disabled child have to "master" PE? Why should a child with a learning disability have to "master" upper level math?
ETA: also under your reasoning, diplomas would only be given after showing "mastery" of these subjects. On Texas state tests, "mastered" the content usually equates to 90% or higher. So, would you require A grades in all those subjects in order to earn a diploma? (Again, this is your word choice.)
Last edited by calgirlinnc; 12-06-2019 at 12:20 PM..
You wrote that a student should have to "master" academic subjects in order to graduate.
. . .
My argument is that it would be better for a student to take a lower level course in math, and teach it at regular level with accommodations, rather than forcing a high level math with modifications, which will never show mastery of that higher level math.
If you want to equate it to a physical disability, I suggested PE as an example. A physically disabled student does not usually take regular PE. Should a physically disabled child have to "master" PE? Why should a child with a learning disability have to "master" upper level math?
ETA: also under your reasoning, diplomas would only be given after showing "mastery" of these subjects. On Texas state tests, "mastered" the content usually equates to 90% or higher. So, would you require A grades in all those subjects in order to earn a diploma? (Again, this is your word choice.)
No doubt it is true that a student should be able to take a lower level course in math to learn something with more quality than learn nothing at a higher level math course.
However, most of the pressure (too much) is placed on teachers to "pass" students.
Also, socially, a student would feel awkward among his/her peers if they all passed or "passed" but not that particular student.
The purpose of school is to learn academic subjects. The standard curriculum includes algebra, reading, history, sciences, etc. PE is a side issue; it is not an academic subject. Everyone knows this. There's a huge difference between PE and algebra in their positions in the academic curriculum.
If you want to argue that no student should be required to take algebra to graduate, that's one position, which could be argued (unsuccessfully, I think). If you want to argue that students who have disabilities should receive assistance in the learning of the academic subjects that are part of the curriculum, that's certainly a reasonable position, and one that's legally supported (I'm not going to entertain arguments about the term of art "assistance"; I'm using it in the common sense and you know very well what I mean). If you want to propose that students who do the best they're able but have disabilities that prevent them from completing the required curriculum even after reasonable "assistance", "accommodations" or whatever vocabulary word you want to use, are provided, should receive some other kind of certificate, that's a reasonable position to take too.
If you want to argue that someone who is incapable of learning a part of the required curriculum of academic subjects should be given the same diploma as the students who did learn it, I'm going to disagree.
By the same token, should the North Texas State music department be required to give degrees in music to profoundly deaf students even though they are unable to complete the curriculum due to their disability?
No doubt it is true that a student should be able to take a lower level course in math to learn something with more quality than learn nothing at a higher level math course.
However, most of the pressure (too much) is placed on teachers to "pass" students.
Also, socially, a student would feel awkward among his/her peers if they all passed or "passed" but not that particular student.
Yes. All "the system" has done is make my child hate math, instead of giving him an opportunity to learn things that would actually be useful to him.
It may surprise some posters to know that at the university level, students with documented learning disabilities are able to get exemptions for certain classes and replace them with appropriate classes. For example, instead of having to take foreign language, these students can take a cultural appreciation course. Math is often replaced with a non-math based science class.
There are well documented examples of LD students at schools like Yale and University of Michigan doing just that. And those students received the same diploma as everyone else from their schools.
In fact, due to laws like the ones I cited above, it is often easier to do this at college than it is in high school.
By the same token, should the North Texas State music department be required to give degrees in music to profoundly deaf students even though they are unable to complete the curriculum due to their disability?
Wow, you really don't understand, do you.
The whole point is that a profoundly deaf student would not be *required* to take a higher level music curriculum.
My child with 3 learning disabilities is *required* to take upper level classes in which he has a proven disability.
It is as challenging in that regard as if he were deaf, or in a wheel chair, or whatever.
Under the law, all these disabilities are the same, yet LD students do not get the full benefit of their legal protections due to thinking like yours. I mean, LD kids should just "work harder", right?
LD kids are not stupid; in fact, many have high IQ's and outstanding abilities in other areas. But they will never learn some things. Dyslexic Henry Winkler (the actor) actually had to sue his school in NY after he failed Geometry multiple times. He won, BTW.
If public schools taught neurotypical children in the way that LD kids learn, then neurotypical children would struggle.
Also I am not "arguing vocabulary"; these are legally used terms that have ramifications.
Last edited by calgirlinnc; 12-06-2019 at 01:13 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
