# data[].attributes.body
Teachers are required to cover curriculum, regardless of student learning.
This is a fallacy because there is no one size fit all curriculum and in my school we are bombarded everyday on how you must cover the curriculum. And my question is always the same, How, when my kids are reading and writing on a kindergarten level and they are in a 6/7 grade class? The standard answer is you must expose them to it and if you have time circle back around. As stated in the text Teachers are required to cover curriculum, even if that means students are not learning the content. I thought that we as educators are teaching the students not standards? I would rather teach depth than breath any day because i fell that is when real learning happens.
We as special education teachers should not be expected to keep up the pace with the rest of the grade team. My self-contained students are not yet capable with keeping up. Learning looks a little different in my class because I want the to understand the content and this may require a bit more time and a whole lot of differentiation.

# data[].attributes.body
Fallacy 2:

Teachers are required to cover the curriculum, regardless of

student learning.

Our assignment calls for an explanation of why these fallacies are fallacies.  But, shamefully, it seems Fallacy 2 is borderline fact in my school.  When school started, there was so much emphasis on deep thinking, decision questions, and discussion.  Then I, a brand new teacher, was given a class of special education students who clearly needed much more background review than I thought they would. I spent some time trying to gauge who knew what so I could continue with the curriculum  but was told to move on...

"Even when students would be more successful with

grade-level content if they received instruction on back-

ground knowledge, skills and strategies for the curriculum,

there is an impetus to begin at the curriculum’s starting

point and move at the same pace through the curriculum in

preparation for large-scale assessments" (Page 59). This quote sounds like it came from a fly on the wall in New Explorers High School.  Even if I prepare my students to pass a state exam or Regents, how much of it will they retain if they do not have the missing fundamentals?  In a school where there is so much pressure to crank out "passing" grades, state assessments are often the bread and butter for keeping the doors of a renewal school ajar.  Thankfully, I work with a few teachers who understand Fallacy 2 but focus on the students' understanding of the content.

"...Monitoring progress during

instruction provides information on how quickly students

are acquiring skills so that they can move on to more

complex skills at an appropriate pace (National Association

of School Psychologists, 2003)" (Page 60).  At least we are advised to have several checkpoints throughout the lesson to ensure the students are understanding the concepts.  How could we bulldoze through a lengthy curriculum without making sure the previous topic has taken root?  Particularly in math, certain definitions or formulas must be understood for application in future topics. If you're not sure what a variable is, how can I tell you to solve for the variable in a given equation?  Does my student know what an equation is yet or do I need to explain that they've seen it before with the "=" symbol?

One challenge that I am having is following a curriculum that both ensures student understanding and pleases the masses with Regents prep. However, in October, we were presented with a requirement for a pre-assessment to be followed by mid-year and end-of-year assessments; the MOSL.  "...It

would be more revealing for students to complete a pre-test

of a large-scale assessment so that teachers could design

year-long instruction according to diagnostic and useful

information" (Page 60).  Although these tests seem controversial, they could be useful for lesson prep - if administered at the beginning of the school year.  If we could see which areas need more review or which areas we could skip, much valuable time could be used on targeting the tougher topics.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts and fallacies
When it comes to Fallacy 2, I feel that teachers do feel pressure to cover curriculum, however, I also feel we are always monitoring student learning.

Differentiating student work should always be considered since students learning styles are all different.  As a result, students benefit from multiple ways of academic instruction.  The “one size fits all,” model is not a true indicator of student learning, rather an assessment of how well students learned the information in the way it was presented. Sometimes only small adaptations may be needed.  Other times, it could include a different text, handout, or graphic organizer.   As a Special Education Teacher, I am constantly differentiating work to fit my students individual needs.   When the curriculum is given in a manner that is closely tied to how students learn, they will acquire and retain that information easier, leading to higher results on assessments, given the assessment is also adapted to suit their learning needs.

Differentiated techniques also lead to increased student involvement.   The article discusses how learning centers can be used to assess each student's ability, allowing for you to make grouping according to learning style and level.  At times, I feel educators are reluctant to having independent group work for fear of losing control of their class.  What I have found is that if you give your students clear, precise directions and everything that they need, they will complete the activity.  Although it may not be as quiet as you would like, the work gets done and the students are discussing the information with each other.

Progress monitoring is a great way to gather what students are learning.  Sears discusses that in order for a student to be successful, you must first find out what they know.  In order for the student to learn the content, it is important they you review any academic language needed ahead of time.  It is also important to continually monitor progress as to adjust the flow of content taught as well as if it needs to be retaught and how.

# data[].attributes.body
In the beginning of the school year I felt over whelmed with this idea that I had to teach the same content, on the same curriculum map and pacing calendar as the general ed and the ICT classes. I immediately thought about how this was going to be impossible. I could not think of any ways for this to be successful. And then I realized that as a special educator, it was my Job to adapt these curriculum maps to meet the needs of my kids in the self contained setting. I was to teach the same content to them, but give them an opportunity to access it differently. I needed to give my students the opportunity to 'access to instructional content by designing a variety of
presentation and practice opportunities that provide
choices for how students receive, practice and learn
content' just like the article states. I have not been able to successfully accomplish this yet. Everyday I am thinking about something else that I can do to reach a different student, but my kids are learning!
Instead of quizzes because the second that they see that they have to write out or read to many words they instantly get frustrated, I have found that card sorts are a great way to gather formative data on my students learning and this is something that the article points out when it state s "access to assessment by accepting multiple methods for
students to show what they know." In the first couple of weeks of school, I saw so many of my kids being discouraged during I-ready testing and it broke my heart because it didn't make them mad, it made them think of themselves as stupid and incapable. its unfortunate that students need to be made feel this way during these major school wide assessments.

# data[].attributes.body
Students with disabilities are incapable of learning in the general education setting: False. Students with disabilities can learn in the gen-ed setting, as long as they are provided the support that enables them to keep pace with their peers. In my experience, when SPED students are provided extra time for processing/thinking and to complete exams, students perform better. I have a student who takes a little while to respond when asked a question, but will have the correct answer. King-Sears agrees that students benefit from extra proccesing time in the form or tutoring, "students with
learning disabilities who received mathematics instruction
from the general education teacher along with intensive
tutorial support achieved higher levels of growth between
October and February (King-Sears, 2008, Pg. 4)." A second proof that the first statement of this response is a fallacy, is that differentiated materials provide access for SPED learners to keep pace with the general-ed students. I have another student with a speech impairment who takes a longer than usual time to copy notes from the board. Guided notes help him tremendously. I think the author would connect scaffolding in this way to the universal design for learning techniques he mentioned in the article. Research supports this model for student learning, "the students who received the concrete-representational-abstract approach seemed to have a
stronger conceptual understanding of fractional equivalency
on one sub-category than students who received instruction
using the representational-abstract approach." Although I think this is a lengthy term (concrete-
representational-abstract), I agree that students should have a choice in how they will demonstrate their learning. It's important to present choices for students when assigning projects or class assignments; I think it automatically increases engagement and participation ratio - rather than students feeling forced to do this one assignment/project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fallacy #1: Students with disabilities are incapable of learning the general education curriculum. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fallacy #1: Students with disabilities are incapable of learning the general education curriculum. 

# data[].attributes.body
Giancarlo Marotti

This fallacy may be rooted in antiquated teaching methods that would make learning difficult for any student, regardless of academic ability. When curriculum content is force-fed by a single method, without any regard for environmental context or differentiated presentations, it becomes pedagogically exclusive. Here, I am referring to the way that students opportunities for success are blocked because they cannot learn in the specific way that the teacher insists on disseminating information. The article by King-Sears references a study by Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins and Cutter (2001) that links advanced teaching practices to increased student achievement among students with disabilities. This same study, along with the studies of Baker, Gersten and Scanlon (2002) and Montague & Applegate (2000) saw marked achievement growth in general education students as well. This shows us that if the general education curriculum is modified to be accessible, it benefits all students. Special education students cannot be expected to receive the general education curriculum in the same way as a typical student; it is the responsibility of the teacher to make the content individualized and differentiated so that every student in class has an equal opportunity to absorb curricular instruction.

In my ICT class, I use both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. I present information from multiple access points and make sure that my lesson is modified to include all of my students.  Something that has worked particularly well is having students present their work to the class, sometimes anonymously. The other day, we were all designing individual experiments and I had students use sticky notes to post their experiment ideas on the board. This created a board of ideas for struggling students that was accessible for everyone without being explicitly designated as a scaffold in front of the class.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose fallacy 1 because I believe that it's a false belief that students with disabilities are incapable of learning in general educational courses. Students of all backgrounds are going to have many different learning styles. It's how the teachers can deliver the lesson to the students. No matter what learning style it's solely up to the teachers to make the modifications in the lesson to deliver it to the students. In the article it explains how accessing the students thinking and reasoning processes can make them think and evaluate their thoughts. Giving the students an environment where they can engage with their peers in a effective educational establishment. I believe this an important part for students with disabilities to give them options so they can understand they are various ways to come to a solution or make a decisions. In my experience with workin with special education students most of them hate the stigma of special education and I don't blame so I make the classes educational, fun, and the most effective teaching practices. I want them to engage with each other and have a voice. It's their life to chose what they want to do in the future. What the can control is their outcome in school.