Tweet

() Comments

Report

Our district calls it "curriculum cornerstones, Teks Resource
something or other, staying in your lane, building your house,
the "what and the why but not the how", and probably a few
other names. Teachers call it crap. CSCOPE is alive and well
and still sucking up money because they tied it into to
Eduphoria, so when you do lesson plans you better be selecting
the TEKS that match the YAG, regardless of what you are really
teaching.

Our district responded to low test scores by saying teachers
will get more training in Curriculum Cornerstones. I'll sit in
the training, keep my mouth shut, I'll do lesson plans to
please them, then I will teach the way I want to, screw 'em.

On 6/16/14, PsyGuy wrote:
> A rose by any other name, its still the same product. The
> ESC's are most certainly pushing TRS.
>
> Activist teachers are just that activists, they are like
> the tea party, they are far from representative.
>
> On 6/15/14, Cscope crashes--fight on! wrote:
>> Everybody knows that school districts don't use the
>> dreaded word CScope anymore because it is as over as
>> burnt toast. And no one is pushing the TEKS Resource
>> System either. Teachers don't even know what it is in and
>> fewer care. Pull up the audit that was recently finished
>> on CSCOPE. Activist teachers and parents demanded that
>> the state investigate. According to the audit, CSCOPE was
>> a financial mess. Teachers who speak out are making a
>> difference. We can fight against robotizing teachers, fed
>> led ed., feeding the Pearson monster and lining Gates'
>> pockets...we are chopping away
> at
>> the money tree and regaining our right to teach. Join in.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>>> CSCOPE didnt crash, and hasnt burned. The exemplar
>>> lessons got removed, that was it and the product is
>>> still licensed at the
>> same
>>> price.
>>>
>>> No admins are cringing.
>>>
>>> Its already been renamed.
>>>
>>> It had a lot of work into design and implementation, but
>>> the
>> focus
>>> was maximising revenue and minimizing cost.
>>>
>>> On 6/15/14, I am on team AW wrote:
>>>> 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