CSCOPE Researcher Lucy Calkins

Print Friendly

If CSCOPE Researchers model Obama’s Common Core Standards (CCS),

is CSCOPE aligned with Obama’s Common Core Standards?

CSCOPE's top researchers model OBama's Common Core Standards.

CSCOPE Researcher Lucky Calkins

Cscope is modeled after Lucy Calkins.

According to Ms. Calkins, she has worked hard the finesse the adoption of the Common Core Standards.

“As challenging as it must have been to write and finesse the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, that accomplishment is nothing compared to the work of teaching in ways that bring all students to these ambitious expectations. The goal is clear. The pathway is not.”
—Lucy Calkins, Mary Ehrenworth, and Christopher Lehman

CSCOPE is instructional material patterned after researchers who promote Obama’s Common Core Standards.

Texas has not adopted Obama’s common core standards. So why have the Texas Education Agencies written and sold CSCOPE to Texas public schools?

See more about Ms. Calkins’ methods that CSCOPE is patterned after at Pathways to the Common Core.

For more about Ms. Calkins’ methods, see Donna Garner’s Article, CSCOPE: Not Aligned with new TEKS or new STAAR/EOCS.

 More information about Lucy Calkins )


Share Button


  1. Jackie Dammann says:

    The State of Texas has not adopted the Core Standards, so CScope has no reason to incorporate only them. The curriculum the state has set forth is our TEKS ( and some of those are based on national math and science standards) so CScope aligns the STATE CURRICULUM, as it should. Until Texas adopts the Core Standards, CScope will not need to base the materials on them. According to Marzano, one of the top 9 elements of school improvement is a vertically aligned curriculum. CScope provides districts with a FRAMEWORK on which to build their district curriculum. That is where people are getting hung up on the purpose of CScope. It is a FRAMEWORK, people.

    • Hi Jackie,
      As to the Common Core Standards —the National Math and Science standards,
      the Texas TEKS, etc….. It isn’t the content of these objectives. They each have
      their good and bad points.

      The connection to Common Core Standards is more than a list of topics to
      teach in each subject. Its the controlling tentacles of the federal government.
      Is Linda Darling-Hammond, Obama’s education agent taking over our
      state education program. Its the testing proposed by Ms. Hammond that
      responds to student answers. If the answer is wrong, the program gives the
      student an easier question. How does this fit into TEA’s idea of rigor?

      Because the CSCOPE assessments are so incorrect and do not relate to
      the CSCOPE lessons, schools are having to make adjustments so all
      students do not fail. Some schools are allowing students to take the
      tests over. Others even allow students to have copies so they can
      find the answers. The problem is that students are being forced to
      learn wrong facts. They can get the correct A, B, C, or D answer
      listed as correct, but will miss a related question on the STAAR/EOCs.

      The corrected assessments for 5th grade science are worse than
      last year.

      Is the framework you refer to the CSCOPE scope and sequence?
      If so, the list of TEKS divided into time segments that teachers
      are forced to follow is absurd.

      I think you are not seeing the whole picture. The purpose of
      CSCOPE changes as the content of this material is being
      revealed. Why would a school district pay $10.00 per student
      per year for a framework? This fee doesn’t cover all the CSCOPE

      As to Robert Marzano–he didn’t invent vertical alignment.
      CSCOPE promotes their vertical alignment document like
      it is something new. Go to the TEA website and you can
      create your own vertical alignment without paying a fee.

      So what does CSCOPE curriculum have that is not found
      on the TEA website? Specificity–This is such a farce.
      Look at the science Vertical alignments. Rewriting the
      TEKS in outline form is called identifying the important
      verbs. DUH!!! Is this what schools are paying for?
      Go the the TEA website and find the TEKS modified
      and you are given information. Why pay for information
      that is free?

      • Hi Janice
        Thanks for the reply. I guess you and I are the only ones discussing this:)
        One common misconception many districts fell prey to is that the assessments are written from the lessons. The assessments are written from the Instructional Focus Documents, so if the teacher uses the assessments and the IFD to plan their instruction, then there really is not a need to follow the lessons. The IFD is an anchor a teacher uses to design their lessons/instruction. The lessons are simply designed as a resource to use in the delivery of the curriculum. If teachers are not well versed in the 5E model, then the lessons are hard to use as written. They may have some good links or activities, but not necessary to use as written.
        The intent of the TESCCC is to vertically align the TEKS in the VAD ( and also pull them into IFDs based on the bundling of those TEKS) so teachers don’t have to. As TEKS are revised, the core group can make those changes and move the TEKS around as needed in the vertical alignment document,, based on those revisions. Teachers may not have the time or pedagogy to do that.
        A major implementation mistake of many districts was to hand Cscope to their teachers and tell them this is the new curriculum and only use it, without any sort of training or support on how the different components are designed to help build the district curriculum. By framework, I was simply referring to using CScope VAD and YAG ( the bundling of the TEKS into 6/9 weeks units) to build the district curriculum by using other resources available and tying all of it together to design instruction. Districts have the option to move TEKS around in the bundling, and the 25 day timeframe is just that: a suggested timeframe. If students master the TEKS in a unit of study in 20 days instead of 25, then move on and start the next unit, even if that unit is part of the next 6 weeks period.

        I don’t feel the TESCCC feels they created vertical alignment or that Marzano did. They use his research and best practice to promote good, solid instruction from a vertically aligned curriculum. All of the pieces of CScope are designed to help teachers plan instruction and meet the rigor of the TEKS.

        • I find so very few things about CSCOPE worth using. I disagree—-CSCOPE is a money Cow and TESCCC is milking it as fast as possible.

          • When the state stops spending $1 billion per annum for testing materials/tests from a foreign country, I’ll be happier to talk about budgeting.teachers across the country hate common core testing, and are finding out what Texas teachers have felt for years. The root of most of the current evils in the country’s education began with NCLB, which is absolute garbage. The root of problems in Texas is how strongly tests are tied to political agendas. In my 25 years as an elementary classroom teacher, I’ve seen the passing percentages get jicked around until they’re a joke. Under TAAS, some junior high tests only required a 43% to pass. The same was true for many elementary tests, especially under TAKS. I can always predict how we’ll do with passing rates by looking at what the state wants the public to feel about schools. After the huge budget butcher job that violated the students of Texas, Perry is bragging about the passage rate. (ie – Those schools are doing so well with so little.) 3rd grade reading and math for 2012 required less than 50% to pass. Legislators are moving in the right direction this session. They fear for their jobs because the parents joined forces and are on them to make changes. No one will call CSCOPE a curriculum, because then it will fall under the new curriculum law that takes effect on or before 9/1/13.

      • I loved the “olden days” when we were given the course scope and sequence, the corresponding state mandates, and told to go do our job. teachers supported each other, materials were shared, and students could really learn. My first students are productive adults with children in, or just finishing, their K-12 years. They were more prepared for college rigor than today’s students.