 |
| Ben Streusand, Peggy Venable, and Catherine Engelbrecht |
I learned that it has been used for nearly a decade in some
districts, mostly rural. In fact, it’s more a problem in rural areas than in
cities—although my large suburban district has been using it, at least for some
subjects. (Fun fact: CSCOPE isn’t an acronym for anything; it just seemed like
an appealing name.)
There are Education Service Centers, (ESCs) across the
state, where districts can combine, maybe county-wide or bigger, to share
information, curriculum, and other resources. In cities, there are so many
districts within a county that this simply isn’t an issue. Of those districts
using ESCs, 80% use CSCOPE; they pay a hefty chunk of taxpayer education
dollars for access to the materials.
To review, CSCOPE is supposedly a collection of lesson plans, 1600 or so,
submitted by teachers, former teachers, and curriculum writers across the state. Submitters had
to sign away their rights to review their materials and how they were used. No
organization previewed the entire set of materials before implementing them, possibly
not even the board of CSCOPE. And there are rumors that many of the materials
were written by the same curriculum writers as the federal Common Core.
Teachers and others who use CSCOPE are required to sign an
oath not to share the materials with the parents of
students or anyone else. Supposedly this was for copyright protection of
materials that are only digital. But it appears more secretive than that
purpose deserves. Curriculum is subject to review by the State Board of
Education, but CSCOPE sidestepped that requirement by claiming it is just
“lesson plans,” not curriculum.
I looked up an official definition of “lesson plan”:
A detailed description of the individual lessons that a
teacher plans to teach on a given day. A lesson plan is developed by a teacher
to guide instruction throughout the day. It is a method of planning and preparation.
A lesson plan traditionally includes the name of the lesson, the date of the
lesson, the objective the lesson focuses on, the materials that will be used,
and a summary of all the activities that will be used. Lesson plans are a
terrific set of guidelines for substitute teachers.
What’s the difference between that and curriculum? Nothing.
A lesson plan is just a small unit of curriculum. It’s like saying, “That’s not
bread; it’s a slice.” Pretending it’s something else by using a different word
is kind of a creepy way to get around having oversight, especially when you
look at it in tandem with the no disclosure policy. Under those circumstances,
we’d be remiss not to be suspicious.
Dan Patrick, my state senator and the head of the Senate Education
Committee, introduced a bill to create oversight. As of today, the bill looks
like it’s making progress. A public hearing was held Tuesday, and SB 1406 was
approved in the Education Committee Thursday (voted 7-0 in favor). Next it moves
on to the full Senate for a vote. Then it moves on to the House. It looks like
it has a good chance. (There’s a similar bill in the House, HB 760, referred to
the Education Committee, but not making as much progress yet.)
The legislation is the result of an agreement with the
CSCOPE board, to implement oversight. Dan Patrick’s press release on February 8
describes what the legislation is designed to do. In short, the agreement includes:
·
the State Board of Education (SBOE) to review
all the materials;
·
CSCOPE board meetings must be public meetings;
·
teachers who submitted lesson plans will be
allowed to review and reveal the plans;
·
parents will be allowed to review the lesson
plans online.
Of course eliminating the curriculum entirely would be
better than just overseeing it. Senator Patrick would have preferred
legislation to eliminate CSCOPE altogether. Unfortunately, he couldn’t get enough
votes to make that happen. It’s not really a problem of persuading Democrats to
join in; Dems tend to represent larger inner city districts that don’t use ESCs,
and therefore aren’t very interested in CSCOPE in the first place. It’s the GOP
representatives of rural districts that are the challenge.
If you’re looking for someone to influence, a polite call or
email to the following, suggesting they take into account your disapproval of
CSCOPE, could be helpful. It’s too late to put forth legislation this session
to eliminate CSCOPE (with the unlikely exception that SB 1406 could be amended
to the point that it essentially gets substituted with elimination, but I don’t
foresee that). But approval of SB 1406 at least improves the situation and
gives us a first step.
·
Senator Robert Nichols, District 3
·
Senator Kevin Eltife, District 1
·
Senator Craig Estes, District 30
·
Senator Kel Seliger, District 31
Here’s one more opportunity for you Texans. This bill
creates a method of review of the extremely large mass of lesson plans. The
SBOE members aren’t going to be doing that alone. You could become one of the
reviewers. Contact your representative on the State Board of Education and
offer your services. The review is starting with social studies first, and then
will move on to science. I don’t yet know all that being a reviewer entails.
Pretty certain this would be volunteer work. But it could be extremely
valuable.
It’s possible that, as we speak, the CSCOPE powers-that-be
are scrubbing the materials of the most blatantly objectionable content. But if
problems are found, those portions can be eliminated. Presumably if massive
portions are objectionable and overall value is seen as negative, maybe the
SBOE can disapprove of CSCOPE as a whole.
You can also find out if CSCOPE is used in your district and
go directly to your local school board to insist on it being eliminated. No
need to wait for the next legislative session, if we assert the power of
parents, where the power belongs.
Americans for Prosperity-Texas provides basic information as well
as links to more details.
Also review Glenn Beck's March 7 story.
No comments:
Post a Comment