A LYS
Superintendent addresses some concerns about C-Scope (note: C-Scope is an vertically
aligned scope and sequence used by hundreds of school districts).
I was
recently asked a question concerning C-SCOPE and admittedly, gave a poor
response. Luckily, because of the
blog, I get a re-do, so here goes...
Most
professions have sub-specialties within the field. For example, in
medicine you don't go to a neurologist for a heart problem. In law,
attorneys that handle personal injury law are generally not experts in criminal
law defense. The profession of education is no different.
In broad
categories education has at least three sub-specialties:
1.
Operations/Finance/Policy
2.
Instruction
3. Curriculum
& Assessment
Each of these
sub-specialties can further be subdivided. For example, Instruction can
be general, special education, deaf education, and others. The problem is
many educators consider themselves experts in many if not all of these
areas. In reality, an exceptional educator will be proficient or better
in one expertise and familiar with the others. Of course many politicians
and wonks outside the field of education are without a doubt experts in all areas
of education, which is fortunate for those of us who have devoted our lives and
careers to the field.
In Texas, the
area of curriculum and assessment is being dominated by C-Scope, which has been
controversial since the day it was created. The reasons for the controversy
are many, but here are some factors:
1.
Instructional leaders (principals, superintendents) have poor understanding of
curriculum and have mismanaged the implementation of C-SCOPE. This
usually involves unrealistic mandates concerning the use of C-SCOPE by
teachers.
2. Some
teachers simply don't like being told what to teach and when to teach it.
The concept of horizontal and vertical alignment is lost to these teachers, or
worse, they just don’t care.
3. Too many
people expect perfection out of a curriculum. Every error or
inconsistency in C-SCOPE was deemed as "proof" that CSCOPE was
worthless. Newsflash: There is no perfect curriculum.
The problem
of C-SCOPE efficacy is beginning to boil over. Some districts have taken
the approach of having teachers writing curriculum for the district. The
problem with this approach is that virtually 100% of teachers (and
administrators) have 0% expertise in curriculum development. Teachers
should have expertise in instructional design and delivery. Most teachers
need only be familiar with curriculum, generally to the implementation level,
but certainly not to the curriculum design and evaluation level. To be
clearer: administrators and teachers, we must have a curriculum, and it is very,
very unlikely that very many administrators and teachers know very much about
curriculum design at all; it is a separate specialty in education.
The C-SCOPE
boil over prompted SBOE member Thomas Ratliff to release the following:
I think
Thomas Ratliff nailed it, yet problems persist. For example, there has
been a rumor floating around since October that Pearson has acquired
C-SCOPE. This is not true, but there are those
convinced none the less. This falls into the "conspiracy
theory" section that Ratliff refers to. The problem is, there
is too much truth to the Pearson "conspiracy" overall, so every time
educators hear anything about Pearson, it is assumed true. I don't think
Pearson has some evil conspiracy in mind at all. Nor do I think Pearson
has the best interest of children in mind. I simply think Pearson is
trying to make money. In many ways Pearson and its supportive
legislatures are the "heart of the vampire" Robert Scott was
referring to just a year ago.
Still, the
winds of politics are ever changing. The ultra-conservative politicians
that Texans now seem to favor would love to get the TESCCC out of the curriculum
business and turn it over to a private entity, such as Pearson, for
example. No conspiracy here either, we keep electing those that are clear
with their agenda. We just seem to
be surprised that they really are acting on that agenda.
And with this
legislative session, those who have axes to grind against C-SCOPE see an
opportunity to piggy-back on the less government, more charter school, less
public school funding, voucher coat tails. That is a shame, because in
districts that have fully and effectively implement C-SCOPE, I have never seen
anything but good results for kids.
Some
suggestions for TESCCC:
1. Your
user agreement was obviously written by lawyers to protect a product. I
get that, but many people will read the user agreement and see hidden agendas,
secrecy, skullduggery, and conspiracy. I would recommend going to a Linux
model of curriculum delivery: open source. Put everything out there and get
rid of the pay wall.
You don't
need to worry nearly as much about user agreements when you are open
source. Very few private companies can compete against what is given as
free. This is the model both Android and Linux use, and it is very, very
effective. If you don't believe it install Linux Mint 13 Mate on your PC.
You will never use another Microsoft product after you do.
2. The
exemplar lessons are a huge source of contention. I would remove exemplar
lessons from C-SCOPE as an official part of the product. I would use some
other forum for teachers to create and share specific lessons that are
organized to the C-SCOPE framework. Perhaps that platform already exists
under Project Share? Well-intended but controversial lessons will be
picked up from the battlefield and promptly fired back at TESCCC, with effect.
3.
Simplify, simplify, simplify. Go to a scope and sequence aligned to the
tested TEKS. That's it. Do it at no cost to districts.
Besides, administrators forcing teachers to teach at the C-SCOPE lesson level
are part of the problem. Those administrators are using their positions
and power to force a well intended but misguided approach to C-SCOPE
implementation. That too is battlefield pick-up being fired at TESCCC
with effect.
I am a big
fan of CSCOPE, and I would rather see it simplified, free, and open sourced
rather than lose it for any reason.
SC Response
First, everyone
should click on the link and read SBOE Member Ratliff’s short history lesson on
C-Scope. His two-page summary eviscerates the anti C-Scope conspiracy theory.
Second, I agree
with over 90% of what you have written. In Texas, the use of C-Scope is
really a no-brainer. The
Foundation Trinity is built on the implementation of a decent, vertically
aligned, and accountability test correlated scope and sequence. Not only does C-Scope fit the bill, it
is a much better tool than any individual teacher can now create. Those that argue otherwise only prove
their ignorance of the purpose, role and quality of the tool.
As for the Pearson/C-Scope
rumors, I think that began last session when our elected leaders who are
friendly with Pearson openly questioned whether the ESC’s should be building
C-Scope for districts. Our
Republican legislators have taken the position that Pearson is “better
qualified” to develop the curriculum that our teachers use. Because as we all
know, outsourcing every component of public education to multi-national
corporations is what is best for children. Or, is that what is best for
contributions to re-election campaigns? As a professional educator, I easily
get confused.
I agree with
the open source model in theory, if the state would fund C-Scope development, maintenance,
improvement and delivery. But that
is not going to happen. Our current political leadership simply refuses to fund
education at an adequate level. So
in the absence of enlightened leadership, a co-op, pay-for-use model is the
most practical solution.
I agree that
the exemplar lessons have been a significant source of contention and an on-going
work in progress. And if the state
hadn’t switched from TAKS to STAAR, I too would recommend ignoring them (which
I did). However, I am also aware
that the practice of collaborative instructional planning is almost as rare as
unicorn sightings. With STAAR, the
exemplar lesson is no longer a luxury.
Though not perfect (far form it), they do give teachers a starting point
for creating and providing aligned and paced instruction. Teachers and administrators must come
to the realization that we have to play the game we are in, not the game we
wish we were in. As you mention
above, it’s what we have been consistently voting for over the last 15 years.
Finally, I
completely agree that C-Scope biggest failing is poor leadership and poor
implementation by those in the field. Honestly, how simple can you make a
curriculum tool designed for ever-changing high stakes accountability and have
it still be effective? Maybe C-Scope should come with the following warning
label: Warning –Poor leadership and lazy practice will result in significant pain and
pushback.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
- Call Jo at (832)
477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies
available on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
- Call Jo at (832)
477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School
Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on
Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook
- Now
at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite
(Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool)
- Upcoming Presentations: TASSP
Assistant Principals’ Workshop (Featured Speaker), American Association of
School Administrators Conference (Multiple Presentations), National Association
of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations), Texas
Association of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations)
- Follow
Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation
and like LYS on Facebook
Posts
