Tweet

() Comments

Report

Now that CScope has crashed and burned, and administrators
feel the cringe factor whenever they talk about it, they are
scrambling to rename it. It was a red hot mess. It had no
mystical inherent design. It was a bunch of junk lessons
thrown together to make money, and now it is a bunch of junk
lessons thrown away. The only problem is that the fat cats at
the service centers have to figure out a way to convince
legislators that they are still relevant.

On 6/15/14, AW -- I don't think so wrote:
> You are giving way too much credit to the designers of
> cscope. (IMHO) It was a way to make money and sell a
> project -- with lessons thrown together or stolen over the
> internet. There was not that much thought put into the
> whole mess.
>
> On 6/14/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>> There is no contradiction, the mean does not equal the
>> point of pass/fail. The average means, the arithmetic
>> mean. CSCOPE was designed for average students, defined
>> as those +- 1 SD of the mean. From a practical
>> standpoint, the idea was focused on those students who
>> were very very close to passing, and get them across the
>> goal.
>>
>> On 6/14/14, Hey Miss wrote:
>>> Average may be defined as one SD from the mean, but you
>>> didn't originally say "average". You said "average who
>>> aren't passing". So would that be one SD below the mean,
>>> or 34%? (You have a habit of contradicting yourself to
>>> stand by an argument.)
>>>
>>> On 6/12/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>>>> The development protocols are not public information.
>>>>
>>>> Understand that average is defined as plus and minus
>>>> one standard deviation of the mean. That's about 68% of
>>>> the student population within any particular
>>>> demographic.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/12/14, hmm responding wrote:
>>>>> Please give links to these developmental documents.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the comment about cscope being for average
>>>> students
>>>>> who are failing, I would just like to say that my
>>>>> classroom (like all classrooms) has a variety of
>>>>> levels from high achievers to very low SPED students.
>>>> Therefore,
>>>>> the passing rate was for all the various levels. I
>>>>> even had a SPED student to achieve a level 3 score.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is interesting to say that cscope is meant for
>>>>> average failing students when most classrooms have
>>>>> various
>>>> levels
>>>>> of abilities. Cscope was shoved down our throats as
>>>>> the one size fits all that must be used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, yeah, I know psychoguy will have a comment to add
>>>>> since he is such a brilliant person who is omniscient
>>>>> in all areas.

Posts on this thread, including this one