By Donna Garner 4.3.13

I listened to the Senate Education Committee’s public hearing on various bills yesterday morning.  One of the first people to testify was Texas Commissioner of Education Michael Williams, and various responses between him and Sen. Dan Patrick occurred as they discussed the present high-school graduation requirements vs. Sen. Patrick’s SB 3 and SB 1724.

 HB 5, SB 3, SB 1724 – DUMBING DOWN BILLS

Sen. Patrick tried to justify SB 3 by saying it increases academic requirements.  However, Tex. Ed. Comm. Michael Williams explained that presently only 20% of our high-school students elect to go into the least rigorous Minimum graduation plan because the default plan (the norm) is the more rigorous Recommended 4 x 4 plan (4 years each of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies). 

Under Sen. Patrick’s SB 3, the Foundation plan would become the default plan (the norm).  This would undoubtedly result in a much larger percentage of students choosing to take only the Foundation courses instead of taking the more rigorous Recommended or Advanced (i.e., Distinguished) courses.  

Sen. Patrick’s Foundation plan is only slightly more rigorous than the present Minimum plan. By allowing a large swath of our Texas high-school students to graduate under the Foundation plan rather than the more rigorous plans, we can expect the largest percentage of graduates under SB 3 to walk across the stage at graduation having a lower level of foundational knowledge and skills.

WHY WE MUST NOT LET OUR STANDARDS DOWN NOW

Right now, 80% of Texas students are in the Recommended degree plan; none have walked across the stage yet because they are presently high-school sophomores and freshmen. 

Out of those students who have graduated under the “old” plan, only 48% have gone on to higher education in Texas.  Sadly, 30% of those have required college remediation.  

It is for this reason that the SBOE working with the Texas Education Agency decided to implement the 15 STAAR/End-of-Course tests in English/Math/Science/Social Studies – to measure, show, and push toward better teaching and learning in these courses.

Like it or not, the fact is that high-stakes STAAR/End-of-Course tests motivate both teachers and students to strive for a higher standard.

If the legislature decides to gut these EOC’s in the four core courses (Grades 9 – 11), then how can we possibly believe that the educational level of students graduating from our Texas high schools will improve over what is occurring right now?  Presently less than half of our high school graduates go on to college (48%), and 30% of those require remediation before they can even get started receiving college credit.

THE WRONG DEBATE

A debate over Algebra II occurred at the hearing.  Sen. Patrick said he had heard that colleges/universities no longer consider Algebra II to be an indicator of college readiness. Comm. Williams said he had heard that rumor but had not seen anything definitive. Sen. Patrick asked Comm. Williams to gather data on this issue.

What the public and legislators need to understand is that the reason colleges/universities may have lost confidence in the Algebra II course is that the “old” dumbed-down TEKS (curriculum standards) have been in our schools since 1997.  The majority of students graduating under those standards (today’s juniors and seniors) most likely do not have the college-ready skills that they need. 

The requirement for students to take Algebra II is not the problem; the problem is that the rigor in math all the way through school under the old Math TEKS (passed in 1997) simply has not been there. 

TOO SOON TO BACK OFF

The new more rigorous TEKS (adopted starting in May 2008) and the more rigorous STAAR/EOC’s have not even produced any high-school graduates yet.  Only sophomores on down have been exposed to the more rigorous TEKS and STAAR/EOC’s. 

If the legislature will just take their hands off the present New Plan (15 EOC’s, 4 x 4 course requirements) and allow it to go forward, the graduates who emerge from this year’s sophomores will prove that taking Algebra II, the other 4 x 4 courses, and the15 End-of-Course tests have indeed elevated their college-ready/workforce status.

SAYING THE OBVIOUS

At yesterday morning’s Senate hearing, another discussion ensued over Pearson(the largest publishing company in the world and the producer of the STAAR/EOC’s). Sen. Patrick asked Comm. Williams to produce data to show how many tests each year Pearson scores nationally and how much time each evaluator spends on each subjectively scored question.   

Exactly!  That is why Type #1 TEKS are so important and why we fought to get Type #1 TEKS adopted by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) starting in May 2008.  The old Type #2 TEKS and TAKS tests were very subjective, and that is why teachers had to teach their students “to play the TAKS game” in order to help them pass those subjectively graded TAKS tests.

The Type #1 STAAR/EOC tests are a “different animal.”   These new tests contain a majority of objectively scored questions with right-or-wrong answers.  Subjectivity is a bad thing on high-stakes tests given at the state (or national) level because the value system of whoever evaluates the questions is an all-important and subjective factor.

On the new Type #1 ELAR-STAAR/EOC alone there are some 40 right-or-wrong grammar/usage objectively scored questions. This was not the case on the old TAKS tests in which much more subjectivity was the norm. The new, fact-based, academic, Type #1 TEKS have made it much easier for Pearson to create right-or-wrong, objectively scored questions; and this has cut down on the subjectivity in grading the STAAR/EOC’s.   

PATIENCE NEEDED

Comm. Williams explained that the STAAR/EOC’s have only been given for one year (School Year 2011-12) and that over time, the teachers will adjust by increasing their own content knowledge so that they are able to raise the level of instruction in their classrooms. 

The key word here is “patience.”

Parents need to be patient while the New Plan begins to take hold in their children’s classrooms.

Students need to be patient while they move steadily into learning more content knowledge at each grade level.  This in turn will eventually raise their academic levels so that the STAAR/EOC’s will not frighten them anymore.

Administrators need to be patient also.  After this year’s juniors have taken the TAKS tests, high schools will not have to worry about giving both the TAKS and the STAAR/EOC’s. By this time next year when this year’s sophomores and freshmen pass to the next grade levels, the New Plan will largely be in place except for the seniors IF only the legislature will back away from gutting what we who care about children and their future have worked ten years to accomplish – authentic education reform in Texas.

Legislators need to be patient and give the New Plan time to work. At this point only the high school sophomores on down have experienced the rigor and depth of instruction in the new Type #1 TEKS.

It would be a terrible shame for this group of Texas Legislators to go down in history as the ones who prevented Texas from leading the country in education reform.

Even worse yet, it would be a blot on these legislators’ heads if the colleges, universities, and the workforce in years to come were able to lay the blame for the downfall of the Texas economy on the 83^rd Legislative Session.  

P. S.  In listening to the Senate Education Committee public hearing yesterday morning, I heard Sen. Dan Patrick say that Sen. Van de Putte is going to come forth with an amendment to SB 3 that would make it a requirement for all high-schoolstudents to get an endorsement. Perhaps the legislators have begun to hear us on this one point…  (Please see “The Toxic Trio of Bad Bills: HB 5, SB 3, SB 1724” – 4.1.13 —  http://educationviews.org/the-toxic-trio-of-bad-bills/ )

*If CSCOPE had not slithered into our Texas public schools as an outgrowth of SB 6 (passed in the last legislative session), the education reform begun in Texas in May 2008 would have already elevated the academic achievement in our Texas classrooms.  However, because CSCOPE is Type #2, it has impeded the progress that was meant to be seen in our Texas classrooms by now.  According to the test results posted on the Texas Tribune website, CSCOPE schools did worse than non-CSCOPE schools on the STAAR/End-of-Course tests (2011-12 School Year)

by Donna Garner

4.2.13 *I took notes of this meeting as fast as I could, and I trust that the information presented is accurate.

Same story, second verse — Back on Jan. 31, 2013, the Texas Senate Education Committee held a public hearing on CSCOPE. Today, April 2, 2013, another public hearing on CSCOPE was held by the same Sen. Education Committee; but this time the hearing was tied to a piece of legislation — SB 1406.

SB 1406 seeks to give the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) oversight and direction over CSCOPE.

Photo by Scott Butner

TWO SIDES OF THE COIN

Basically two groups of people testified today.  One group was made up of the school administrators and school boards who think they cannot live without CSCOPE.  They claim CSCOPE is a much-needed management tool and that their districts cannot possibly afford the expense of writing their own curriculum. Hence, CSCOPE is the answer to all their problems!  Never mind that qualified teachers have always been able to write their own excellent lesson plans for eons.

The other group was made up of the parents and the citizens of Texas who are concerned with the many very troubling aspects of CSCOPE and who either want the Texas State Board of Education to be given oversight and direction over CSCOPE or else want to put CSCOPE completely out of business.

The first group seemed more concerned about CSCOPE giving them a system to micromanage classroom teachers while the latter group talked about their concerns over what their children and other Texas children are actually learning in the CSCOPE lessons.

In other words, the first group was concerned about control; while the latter group was focused on students’ learning and the damage done to children’s

vulnerable minds from being taught erroneous and sometimes biased CSCOPE lessons.

It is important to point out that all of the many school administrators who came to testify were getting paid for their mileage, meals, time away from school, and overnight accommodations.

The parents and the public who came to testify did so on their own dime. They took off work or else left their families to drive all the way down to Austin. If I were a Texas Senator, I would take much more seriously the concerns of those people with no vested interests.

The school administrators all talked from the same playbook (as usual). Most of them had been misinformed about the bill and thought it was a bill to take local control away from their districts.

As Senator Dan Patrick stated, “Wouldn’t it make you sleep better in the future if you knew that the SBOE had looked over the lesson plans so that you won’t have to worry about what’s in them?”

Senator Campbell explained to the school administrators that legislators appropriate dollars for education and are accountable constitutionally (1) to make sure those funds are spent efficiently and (2) to see that an adequate education is provided for Texas’ public school students.

The Senator said that since CSCOPE is flawed with errors and had been shrouded in secrecy that a light needed to be shined on it.  She emphasized that SB 1406 does not take away local control.  It makes sure that legislators are held accountable for the funds that are entrusted to them by the taxpayers.

SBOE CHAIR REVEALED CSCOPE EVALUATION PLANS FOR SOCIAL STUDIES

 Barbara Cargill, chair of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), described how she had been asked by Senator Patrick to appoint an ad-hoc committee. It met on Friday, March 29, in Dallas, Texas. The ad-hoc committee is made up of four SBOE members and three CSCOPE directors including the state TESCCC director.

Cargill explained that on April 22 – April 29, the public can start applying to be on the review panels.  May 13 is the hard deadline for SBOE members to submit their panel nominations. Three to nine people will be chosen for each panel based upon the number of CSCOPE lessons assigned to them.  Selected panel members will be notified by May 20, and passwords will be assigned. All of the reviews will be done virtually.

The end goal is to review all of the 400 lessons and tests in the Social Studies component of CSCOPE.  (The total of CSCOPE lessons in all four subject areas is close to 1,600).

The panels are to finish going through the first two six weeks of lessons between June 3 – 16.  If the panel members need to meet, they can go to their nearest Education Service Centers and participate through videoconferencing.  This will keep the costs down and will keep the panel members from having to travel and be gone from home.

The SBOE approved operating board rules in its January 2013 meeting; and taking the objectives for instructional materials approved by the Board, Cargill hopes to combine these to form an easy-to-use, objective checklist that the panels can utilize in their evaluations.

SB 1406 does not require TESCCC/CSCOPE to implement the recommendations of the review panels, but it is hoped that TESCCC/CSCOPE will choose to do so rather than experience the public’s animosity if the SBOE’s good faith gesture is ignored.  Cargill pointed out that the SBOE is doing this review without any cost to TESCCC/CSCOPE and that they should be glad to utilize the panels’ findings.

TROUBLESOME EXAMPLES PRESENTED FROM CSCOPE LESSONS

Barbara Cargill came prepared with a large packet made up of copies of CSCOPE lessons that contained factual errors, grammar/spelling mistakes, and questionably left-leaning examples from CSCOPE lessons.  These included such examples as:

•  Readability problems with Grades 1 – 5 lessons written above grade level and Grades 6 – 12 written below grade level 
• Many sentences with no periods, improper punctuation, incorrect usage such as “affects” instead of “effects”
• Two diagrams (triangles) in an Algebra I lesson that math teachers say is an impossible problem to solve
• A Grade 5 science unit on forces that contains incorrect examples of a hypothesis vs. observations
• A diagram of a circuit without the wires being wrapped around the ends of the bulb
• A lesson on law and motion using a hammer but pictured with an incorrect angle
• A lesson using a spinner to graft the data of a student’s blood sugar level but that indicates incorrect medical information that could put a person’s life in danger
• Incorrect medical information about running a fever or vomiting
• A lesson which puts the U. S. under a questionable label that should say “free enterprise and capitalism”
• A lesson with a very tiny picture of the U. S. Capitol under a label that could lead children to disrespect America
• A derogatory term used to describe a family member
• A deliberately prejudicial reference to the SBOE and its authority over instructional materials (i.e., textbooks)
• A diagram of a man climbing a staircase that shows Communism as superior

Throughout the five-hour hearing on SB 1406, it did not seem to matter how many mistakes, flaws, misspellings, grammatical errors, factual errors, inappropriate, and biased statements were documented.  The school administrators sang CSCOPE’s praises as if they had not even heard any of the  negatives that were presented.  Hardly any of the administrators seemed bothered about CSCOPE’s secrecy, lack of transparency, the teacher “gag” order, and the highly unethical (or illegal) incorporation of TESCCC  operating as a shell company after using taxpayers’ dollars to create its product — all done without permission from the Texas Legislature.

Under questioning by the Senators, an ESC/TESCCC director indicated that a list of about 200 CSCOPE writers had been provided to the Senators and that some of these wrote entire lessons and some wrote only parts of lessons.  He also admitted that insufficient oversight and review of the CSCOPE lessons had occurred

Sen. Patrick asked one of the ESC directors to provide the Senators with a breakdown of how the $15 to $16 Million paid to CSCOPE last year was utilized (e.g., how much was paid to the writers, etc.)  The director stated that the people at the ESC’s who work on CSCOPE draw their salaries from the ESC’s and that their jobs are dependent upon CSCOPE’s success.

Since the Jan. 2013 public hearing, TESCCC has agreed to dissolve itself; but Sen. Patrick said that if CSCOPE continues to stay in the lesson plan business, it may be necessary to create a statute that will make sure no backtracking occurs.

TESTIMONY OF VARIOUS CSCOPE CRITICS

 Witness Colleen Vera presented documents she was finally able to get from TESCCC’s released board minutes that showed the directors had talked about selling CSCOPE to other states. She also found a statement from a 2011 meeting in which the directors were discussing whether CSCOPE’s primary goal should be just making money or serving the children of Texas.

 John Griffing provided testimony that proved that CSCOPE schools did worse than non-CSCOPE schools on the STAAR/End-of-Course tests (2011-12 School Year).  He stated, “CSCOPE does not work on STAAR/EOC.  Why remake the wheel?  Why not emulate the schools that are succeeding?  Why trust something that has shown us only failure?”

Testifier Peggy Venable who travels widely around the state of Texas said she has heard CSCOPE complaints everywhere she has gone.  She said she has yet to meet any citizens and/or parents who like CSCOPE.

Jeanine MacGregor presented the Senators with actual examples of CSCOPE lessons that have been plagiarized.  She also showed the Senators a slide (Slide #8) from a CSCOPE/TESCCC power point that vilified by name some of the people who had come to the Jan. 31, 2013 Senate Education Committee  hearing and had testified against CSCOPE.

Sen. Patrick was visibly upset that such a list had been circulated and said the Texas Attorney General would be notified so that he could track down who (ESC, TESCCC, local school district, individual) had initiated Slide #8.

Neal Fry offered a replacement bill for SB 1406 that would take care of the glaring double standard that exists in SB 6 regarding textbooks vs. online curriculum.

Deborah Parrish presented her concerns about the lack of phonics instruction in CSCOPE. She said that research from Johns Hopkins shows phonics is a major tool especially with low-income students. She stated that the 60% of Texas children who come from low-economic homes are the ones who are being hurt by CSCOPE the most because of the lack of phonics instruction.

FURTHER COMMENTS FROM SENATORS

Senator Campbell voiced her concern about the questionable CSCOPE lessons that have been removed by TESCCC once located but that have misinformed students for many years.

Sen. Patrick indicated his concern with the large number of curriculum standards that are found in the TEKS and wants the next legislative session to consider reducing the number of TEKS elements.

A number of people chose to register their positions rather than to testify, and the total number of people for and against SB 1406 appeared to be about equal.

============

Click the photo to sign the Petition and Join the movement to#StopCSCOPE 

Women On the Wall  takes on the issues that matter. Sharing information and updates on our weekly radio show on Monday mornings at 10 am CST. You will not want to miss this show. We will have up to date information on CSCOPE  and guests who are the experts on education and other issues that are effecting our children and grandchildren.