A LYSSuperintendent addresses some concerns about C-Scope (note: C-Scope is an verticallyaligned scope and sequence used by hundreds of school districts).
I wasrecently asked a question concerning C-SCOPE and admittedly, gave a poorresponse. Luckily, because of theblog, I get a re-do, so here goes...
Mostprofessions have sub-specialties within the field. For example, inmedicine you don't go to a neurologist for a heart problem. In law,attorneys that handle personal injury law are generally not experts in criminallaw defense. The profession of education is no different.
In broadcategories education has at least three sub-specialties:
1.Operations/Finance/Policy
2.Instruction
3. Curriculum& Assessment
Each of thesesub-specialties can further be subdivided. For example, Instruction canbe general, special education, deaf education, and others. The problem ismany educators consider themselves experts in many if not all of theseareas. In reality, an exceptional educator will be proficient or betterin one expertise and familiar with the others. Of course many politiciansand wonks outside the field of education are without a doubt experts in all areasof education, which is fortunate for those of us who have devoted our lives andcareers to the field.
In Texas, thearea of curriculum and assessment is being dominated by C-Scope, which has beencontroversial since the day it was created. The reasons for the controversyare many, but here are some factors:
1.Instructional leaders (principals, superintendents) have poor understanding ofcurriculum and have mismanaged the implementation of C-SCOPE. Thisusually involves unrealistic mandates concerning the use of C-SCOPE byteachers.
2. Someteachers 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, orworse, they just don’t care.
3. Too manypeople expect perfection out of a curriculum. Every error orinconsistency in C-SCOPE was deemed as "proof" that CSCOPE wasworthless. Newsflash: There is no perfect curriculum.
The problemof C-SCOPE efficacy is beginning to boil over. Some districts have takenthe approach of having teachers writing curriculum for the district. Theproblem with this approach is that virtually 100% of teachers (andadministrators) have 0% expertise in curriculum development. Teachersshould have expertise in instructional design and delivery. Most teachersneed only be familiar with curriculum, generally to the implementation level,but certainly not to the curriculum design and evaluation level. To beclearer: administrators and teachers, we must have a curriculum, and it is very,very unlikely that very many administrators and teachers know very much aboutcurriculum design at all; it is a separate specialty in education.
The C-SCOPEboil over prompted SBOE member Thomas Ratliff to release the following:
http://www.texasisd.com/article_132994.shtml
I thinkThomas Ratliff nailed it, yet problems persist. For example, there hasbeen a rumor floating around since October that Pearson has acquiredC-SCOPE. This is not true, but there are thoseconvinced none the less. This falls into the "conspiracytheory" section that Ratliff refers to. The problem is, thereis too much truth to the Pearson "conspiracy" overall, so every timeeducators hear anything about Pearson, it is assumed true. I don't thinkPearson has some evil conspiracy in mind at all. Nor do I think Pearsonhas the best interest of children in mind. I simply think Pearson istrying to make money. In many ways Pearson and its supportivelegislatures are the "heart of the vampire" Robert Scott wasreferring to just a year ago.
Still, thewinds of politics are ever changing. The ultra-conservative politiciansthat Texans now seem to favor would love to get the TESCCC out of the curriculumbusiness and turn it over to a private entity, such as Pearson, forexample. No conspiracy here either, we keep electing those that are clearwith their agenda. We just seem tobe surprised that they really are acting on that agenda.
And with thislegislative session, those who have axes to grind against C-SCOPE see anopportunity to piggy-back on the less government, more charter school, lesspublic school funding, voucher coat tails. That is a shame, because indistricts that have fully and effectively implement C-SCOPE, I have never seenanything but good results for kids.
Somesuggestions for TESCCC:
1. Youruser agreement was obviously written by lawyers to protect a product. Iget that, but many people will read the user agreement and see hidden agendas,secrecy, skullduggery, and conspiracy. I would recommend going to a Linuxmodel of curriculum delivery: open source. Put everything out there and getrid of the pay wall.
You don'tneed to worry nearly as much about user agreements when you are opensource. Very few private companies can compete against what is given asfree. This is the model both Android and Linux use, and it is very, veryeffective. 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. Theexemplar lessons are a huge source of contention. I would remove exemplarlessons from C-SCOPE as an official part of the product. I would use someother forum for teachers to create and share specific lessons that areorganized to the C-SCOPE framework. Perhaps that platform already existsunder Project Share? Well-intended but controversial lessons will bepicked up from the battlefield and promptly fired back at TESCCC, with effect.
3. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Go to a scope and sequence aligned to thetested TEKS. That's it. Do it at no cost to districts. Besides, administrators forcing teachers to teach at the C-SCOPE lesson levelare part of the problem. Those administrators are using their positionsand power to force a well intended but misguided approach to C-SCOPEimplementation. That too is battlefield pick-up being fired at TESCCCwith effect.
I am a bigfan of CSCOPE, and I would rather see it simplified, free, and open sourcedrather than lose it for any reason.
SC Response
Second, I agreewith over 90% of what you have written. In Texas, the use of C-Scope isreally a no-brainer. TheFoundation Trinity is built on the implementation of a decent, verticallyaligned, and accountability test correlated scope and sequence. Not only does C-Scope fit the bill, itis a much better tool than any individual teacher can now create. Those that argue otherwise only provetheir ignorance of the purpose, role and quality of the tool.
As for the Pearson/C-Scoperumors, I think that began last session when our elected leaders who arefriendly with Pearson openly questioned whether the ESC’s should be buildingC-Scope for districts. OurRepublican legislators have taken the position that Pearson is “betterqualified” to develop the curriculum that our teachers use. Because as we allknow, outsourcing every component of public education to multi-nationalcorporations is what is best for children. Or, is that what is best forcontributions to re-election campaigns? As a professional educator, I easilyget confused.
I agree withthe open source model in theory, if the state would fund C-Scope development, maintenance,improvement and delivery. But thatis not going to happen. Our current political leadership simply refuses to fundeducation at an adequate level. Soin the absence of enlightened leadership, a co-op, pay-for-use model is themost practical solution.
I agree thatthe exemplar lessons have been a significant source of contention and an on-goingwork in progress. And if the statehadn’t switched from TAKS to STAAR, I too would recommend ignoring them (whichI did). However, I am also awarethat the practice of collaborative instructional planning is almost as rare asunicorn sightings. With STAAR, theexemplar lesson is no longer a luxury. Though not perfect (far form it), they do give teachers a starting pointfor creating and providing aligned and paced instruction. Teachers and administrators must cometo the realization that we have to play the game we are in, not the game wewish we were in. As you mentionabove, it’s what we have been consistently voting for over the last 15 years.
Finally, Icompletely agree that C-Scope biggest failing is poor leadership and poorimplementation by those in the field. Honestly, how simple can you make acurriculum tool designed for ever-changing high stakes accountability and haveit still be effective? Maybe C-Scope should come with the following warninglabel: Warning –Poor leadership and lazy practice will result in significant pain andpushback.
Think. Work. Achieve.
- Call Jo at (832)477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copiesavailable on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
- Call Jo at (832)477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary SchoolLeadership Tale” Individual copies available onAmazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook
- Nowat 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: TASSPAssistant Principals’ Workshop (Featured Speaker), American Association ofSchool Administrators Conference (Multiple Presentations), National Associationof Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations), TexasAssociation of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations)
- FollowSean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNationand like LYS on Facebook
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder