Tweet

() Comments

Report

According to the audit, the ESC's have to get approval to create
any more statewide products, so their power has been limited. The
problem is that these leeches don't have any money of their own,
so they have to take and waste our tax dollars. We have to let
legislators know that the schools can use that wasted money in
other ways. Have you seen the fabulous, luxurious buildings at
the service centers? It will be hilarious if they stay in bed
with the pushers of online learning, because we can log in and do
our trainings online, don't you think? That would render the
ESC's obsolete, just like teachers will lose their jobs if they
push IPads and 21st century learning for the classroom.
Administrators were pushing CSCOPE because they thought they were
going to move up and out of their dingy little office and into the
big consulting jobs. The bottom line is that teachers outnumber
admins and our activism can be the wrecking ball that keeps our
jobs relevant and alive. But we have to stand up, speak out and
be real! Thanks to those of you who are speaking out like "Hey
Miss" and keep it going by tipping off parents to Opt Out. I
spend a lot of time informing teachers about how they can make a
difference. We are winning.

On 6/16/14, Hey Miss wrote:
> My ESC was wondering how to get more people to come to
> trainings. Some of their workshops are actually quite good. I
> told them what the problem was. I told them to their face if
> ESCs had not spent all that time convincing the superintendents
> and school boards that CSCOPE was all they needed, they might
> still be encouraging their teachers to go to workshops. But why
> the hell does anyone need to go to a workshop when they are
> doing all they can do to overcome the restrictions of this
> wonder-curriculum? I told them to their face that they created
> the very monster that was now biting them and they'd better
> figure out what to do about it if they wanted to increase
> attendance (and stay relevant).
>
> On 6/16/14, The winds of change are blowing harder wrote:
>> The ESC's are too busy scratching their heads trying to figure
>> out how to stay relevant to push anything. The region service
>> centers prostituted themselves by turning into monster
>> brainwashing centers. Real teachers talk in the teachers
>> lounge. Teachers are losing their fear because more and more
>> teachers are speaking out. FYI, teacher organizations are in
>> bed with the enemy. They superficially stand for you while
>> politically standing for issues that will line the pockets of
>> the people that want to replace you with computer screens and
>> dancing cartoon teachers. Join the resistance and fight on
>> the side of parents and teachers who get that Common Core, Fed
>> Led Education, Bill Gates, free IPads, and grant money are not
>> our friend. PsyGuy sold out long ago to teach-in-a-box Common
>> Core. This is Texas. We kick crap like Common Core to the
>> curb.
>>
>>
>> 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