“Discard Common Core Standards, Replace with English Success Standards”

SchoolgirlBy Donna Garner 

What is it that parents want their children to learn in English / Language Arts /Reading classes, K-12?  Most veteran English teachers know, but they are frustrated because they usually have no “voice.”  Starting in July 1997, a group of us classroom teachers in Texas managed to be heard and could well be heard again.  

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) document is an example of the Type #1 philosophy of education which is in direct opposition to the Type #2 philosophy of education found in the Common Core Standards (a.k.a., CSCOPE in Texas).   

Link to Type #1 vs. Type #2 chart:  http://www.educationviews.org/comparison-types-education-type-1-traditional-vs-type-2-cscope-common-core/

 

Since its inception in 1997, the classroom teachers who wrote the English Success Standards have offered their document for free to any and all – no strings attached. Users are free to utilize or change whatever they so choose.  

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) remain today as the only standards document in the United States that was written by classroom teachers for classroom teachers. 

 

In every classroom, there are two entities – the teacher and the student.  Therefore, in the ESS, each page has two columns:  The column on the left tells teachers what they should teach (not HOW to do it – that is left up to the creative abilities of the teachers), and the column on the right tells students what they should learn.   

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) are content-rich and explicit for every grade level, increasing in depth and complexity as the student goes through school. This cognitive progression links each concept with previous concepts and produces long-term memory in students.   

 

The ESS is built upon the empirical reading research done by the National Institutes of Health and emphasizes phonemic awareness/decoding skills (phonics).  The document contains an excellent but separate grammar strand that would require schools to emphasize correct writing and speaking at each grade level.

 

The ESS has a clear progression of composition/research-writing skills and emphasizes the four writing modes of expository, persuasive, descriptive, and narrative.  The various genres of literature are covered extensively along with the characteristics of each. 

 

The final English/Reading/Language Arts curriculum standards for Texas (ELAR/TEKS) adopted by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education on May 23, 2008 utilized much of the content taken from the English Success Standards.

  

Because the public is becoming very disenchanted with the Type #2 Common Core Standards (and CSCOPE in Texas), now would be a good time for people to obtain a copy of the English Success Standards if for no other reason than to see what a Type #1 ELAR document written by actual classroom teachers looks like.

 

Sometimes putting the real thing (ESS) beside a counterfeit (CCS/CSCOPE) reveals the brilliance of the real thing and the shortcomings of the counterfeit.  

 

Henry W. Burke testified to the Nebraska State Board of Education on 2.3.14, and he strongly suggested that Nebraska utilize the ESS to help them write their own state ELAR standards. This would be a good idea for other states to do also. Why “re-invent the wheel” and spend millions of dollars when the ESS is completely free for the taking?

 

To watch Mr. Burke’s testimony, please go to marker 1:39:00 – 1:49:00. (The scroll bar at the bottom of the screen is invisible until you click on it to move the marker.) – VIDEO —http://www.education.ne.gov/Movies/StateBoard/Feb_2014_Work_Session.mp4

 

 

To read Mr. Burke’s full report to the NSBOE, please go to:http://www.educationviews.org/proposed-nebraska-english-standards

 

 

ACTION STEP:

 

If you would like to have a copy of the English Success Standards e-mailed to you as an attachment, please send your request to either Henry W. Burke or Donna Garner. Your e-mail addresses will not be kept, shared, nor utilized in any way:  

Henry W. Burke

hwburke@cox.net

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 Those who teach

The Latest News on CSCOPE

If you are in Dallas on 5/16/2013 we highly encourage you to attend the AD HOC CSCOPE Meeting. Here is a link to the information TEA Adhoc CSCOPE Meeting 

From Donna Garner: 

Donna-Garner1Sen. Dan Patrick has taken the CSCOPE issue very seriously (please see his Facebook link posted further on down the page), and I appreciate his efforts on that education issue.

Unfortunately, while Sen. Patrick has been doing some effective investigation of CSCOPE, he and the other Legislators are doing irreparable harm to the high education standards set in place by those of us who have battled for well over 10 years to increase the knowledge-based, academic rigor of our Texas public school students:

5.14.13 – “Texas Legislators: Determining Students’ Fate” — http://educationviews.org/texas-legislators-determining-students-fate/

5.8.13 — “Duped Through Ignorance or Intent: Texas Legislators”  — http://educationviews.org/duped-through-ignorance-or-intent-texas-legislators/

To be totally honest, it is SB 6 that was passed during the last legislative session and supported by Sen. Patrick and other legislators which opened the door to the proliferation of CSCOPE and other inferior and out-of-alignment curriculum throughout our state.  Under SB 6, these materials can be purchased with taxpayers’ dollars at the local level without their having to pass through the organized and public review process of the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education.

What makes that SBOE review process so important is that it is done publicly!  First, the IM (instructional materials such as textbooks, etc.) are made public; and copies of the IM with page numbers, lesson unit numbers, and other identifiers are made available so that people who review them can designate problem passages along with the exact reference points. The hard copies of the IM make it possible for evaluators to cut/copy/paste exact passages onto a WORD document along with reference points and evaluators’ comments, expediting the ability for all concerned to be able to discuss the same passages with one another.

In contrast, CSCOPE materials are a hodge-podge of various pages; they are not consecutively paginated; the pages are erratically formatted with small and hard-to-read print, making it extremely difficult to read online. Because of the way CSCOPE is formatted, an evaluator cannot cut/copy/paste troublesome excerpts from the online site in order to put those passages into a WORD document along with proper documentation and page references for ease of transmittal to other committee members.  How can committee members discuss the problem verbiage if all of the members cannot easily locate the same passages at the same time in the CSCOPE lessons?

CSCOPE Questions, who are the wormsBefore any review can be done by anyone, including the SBOE, CSCOPE must provide their materials in print form with consistent formatting for ease of reading and with the ability for reviewers to be able to cut/copy/paste questionable passages onto a WORD document with accompanying documentation and reference points.

Until CSCOPE provides the materials in a workable format with pagination and reference points, it is useless for anyone to try to review the lesson content.  Simply putting the CSCOPE lessons online will not allow for the free-flow of discussion among the evaluators.

The good of the SBOE public review is that it will do just that – make the CSCOPE lessons public.  Then the public can testify, offer their concerns along with documentation, and discuss with the SBOE in open session the various passages.  This is the advantage of putting CSCOPE under the purview of the SBOE: transparency.

Once the problem passages are identified, they should be submitted to CSCOPE; and if the normal textbook adoption process were in place, any problem passages left in the CSCOPE lessons would accrue a sizeable penalty.  Wouldn’t it be nice if those penalties had to be paid out of the pockets of the CSCOPE directors who allowed objectionable passages to remain in the lessons?    

 ==============

 

5.15.13 – From Sen. Dan Patrick regarding the latest news on CSCOPE: https://www.facebook.com/dan.patrick.texas

5.6.13 – Letter from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to TESCCC making it clear that parents should not be charged a fee to access CSCOPE materials: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=4394