The Superintendent's Corner... C-Scope

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:

http://www.texasisd.com/article_132994.shtml

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

The Superintendents' Corner: Pretty Lies and Powerful Truths (Part A)

A LYS Superintendent sends in the following:

The Path

1. There are those who want vouchers. The intent is to serve as a tax break to the wealthy.

The guise of “parent choice” is their front story.

2. The desire for vouchers as a tax break for the wealthy has been around for decades and was strongly pushed by Milton Friedman in the 1950’s, decades before high stakes testing.  

3. School testing and accountability may have begun as honest attempts to improve the quality of education.  Some schools are indeed failing, but the idea that school failure is widespread and systemic is questionable.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2002 in the Zelman case that vouchers may be legal if the voucher program met all five components of the Private Choice Test. (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 2002)

5. Point one of the Private Choice Test is that in order to be legal, school voucher programs must have a “valid secular purpose”.  SCOTUS ruled that “providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system" satisfied the “valid secular purpose” provision.

6. The Zelman ruling is a roadmap for those trying to further the agenda of vouchers as tax breaks.  It was quickly realized that in order to get voucher tax breaks in Texas, the public school system had to be “demonstrably failing.”

7. It can be argued that high stakes testing and accountability was initially implemented with good intentions, but voucher tax break proponents saw testing and accountability as a way to show that the Texas public school system is “demonstrably failing.”

8. In a parallel path, the business generated by “failing schools” went from cottage businesses to multi-billion dollar global industries. Former TEA Commissioner, Robert Scott, compares this new test building industry to the military industrial complex.

9. This has led to ever increasing test difficulty (TAAS to TAKS to STAAR) and accountability ratings so convoluted and complex that the general public and many professional educators do not understand the system.  This was the engine that was used to show the Texas public school system is “demonstrably failing”.

10. In 2009, the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) was introduced. It was a method used to predict the likely success of students.  According to TEA, TPM was 92% accurate. It is important to note that under TPM the number of “failing schools” fell by more than half. Also, TPM was implemented during the build up to an election year.  Draw your own conclusions.

11. Once state elections were decided, the multi-billion dollar testing industry and the proponents of voucher tax breaks had a vested interest in the return of “failing schools.” TPM had to go.  And it did. Quickly.

12. In 2012, the plan is almost complete. Voucher proponents are screaming “school choice” and “vouchers” marching behind the flag of “failing schools.” “Failing schools” that were created by their own design. Voucher proponents have almost satisfied Point One of the SCOTUS Private Choice Test.

13. True commitment to parent choice is questionable and it is more likely the true intention is to achieve voucher tax breaks for the wealthy.  

Putting the commitment to parent choice to the test is easy. Tomorrow, we will consider that test.

Mike Seabolt

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: Region 10 ESC Fall Leadership Conference (Keynote), Advancing Improvement in Education Conference (Multiple Presentations), TASSP Assistant Principals’ Workshop (Featured Speaker), North Dakota Association of Secondary School Principals (Keynote), American Association of School Administrators Conference (Multiple Presentations), National Association of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations)
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

A LYS Superintendent Asks... Hot Water?

A LYS Superintendent asks the following:

SC,

Do you think Commissioner Scott will be in hot water for his Mid-Winter testing remarks?

SC Response

Here is my analysis of the situation. It is pure conjecture and opinion.

I don’t think that there is any hot water. In fact, I think that the comments were a calculated move that were designed to help the Governor. Remember, Scott and Perry are tight. Though there is no question that Scott is brilliant and would be a success in almost any arena, he owes his job and stature to Perry. He understands, better than any prior Commissioner, that his job is to further the education agenda of his boss. Which means that I believe that his comments had a political purpose. The question is what purpose?

Perry based his run for the president by embracing the agenda of the far right. In the math of getting the next job, proving your conservative chops by gutting public education is worth it... if you can get elected as either President or Vice President. Obviously, he miscalculated and that ship has sailed. But now, Perry has a problem. His policies and leadership (or lack thereof) has united educators of all ranks (board to teacher) against him. The last Governor to face this was Mark White. And we know that White did not do well in his next (and last) election.

Perry does not need the educator vote to win, but typical educator indifference during the election makes his job easier. So look at the audience at Mid-Winter. It was made up of Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents, overall a politically conservative group. But this group also believes that the pendulum of accountability and belt tightening has gone to far. When Scott throws them a bone, like he did, maybe in the voting booth they hold their nose and pull the lever for Perry again, instead of his opponent.

In summary, it is my belief that Scott did not go off the reservation. His comments simply confuse those that would be tempted to support Perry’s opponent, which for Perry, equals a win. But overall, nothing has changed. STAAR is still coming and funding is still going away. That, like Scott’s comment, is by design.

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/4ydqd4t
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation
• Get the Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan App at the App Store – Fun 5 Plans
• Confirmed 2012 Presentations: Oklahoma Association of Middle School Principal’s Mid-Winter Conference; NASSP Conference; NASB Conference

A Reader Writes... Spoke Too Soon

A reader/contributor writes:

“I see that Commissioner Robert Scott shut down Pearce Middle School! I have to eat my words now! Too bad it took five years of kids getting the short end of the stick to make this happen.”

SC Response
Yet the story hasn’t ended yet, local political leaders are still trying to save the school. They are using the same old excuses.

Excuse #1: “We need more time.” So evidently after 5+ years of horrific results, they almost have it figured out.

Excuse #2: “We’ve made progress.” They can't face the reality that in the 5+ years that it has taken the campus to go from failing miserably, to just failing, means that they are harming students at a wholesale level.

Here is what we (both the LYS company and the LYS network) know: In terms of adding value and performance growth – Some schools outperform most schools; and some teachers out perform most teachers. To be the “one of the some” requires the right tools, a singular focus on students, the discipline of an extra-ordinary work ethic, and the willingness to engage in the fight against aggressive ignorance.

If you haven’t done it in five years, you aren’t going to do it at all. And it is being done, right now. Here are a few examples:

• John Montelongo (a Brezina and Brown Guy) just took Fox Tech High School from “unacceptable” to “recognized,” in two years.

• Mike Seabolt (a Brezina and Brown Guy) took Blue Ridge High School from “unacceptable” to “recognized’” in less than two years.

• And at a district level, Tommy Price and Mike Laird (both Brezina and Brown Guys) now have the following results: When they took over the district two years ago, they inherited 4 “acceptable” campuses and 1 “unacceptable” campus. Now, they have 1 “exemplary” campus, 3 “recognized” campuses and 1 “acceptable” campus. And, pay attention to this, the “EXEMPLARY” campus is the one that started out as “UNACCPETABLE.”

Time is not the critical factor for improving schools, but time does doom students.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…