CSCOPE Targets White Students!
The Bottom line is that CSCOPE is bad for All Students!
TASA is the Texas Association of School Administrators. TASA’s new vision learning promotes Online Education, a progressive education style that some students have shown to be less successful in. Of all students taking online courses, students who are most likely to be unsuccessful are:
- Males (Black, Hispanic, White),
- Students with low GPAs, (Black, Hispanic, White),
- Black students
The diagram show three students, one girl and two boys (1-black, 1-white). Without knowing these children, the two boys would be predicted to be less successful in a school using CSCOPE’s online curriculum or any online curriculum.
After studying the CSCOPE lessons, because of the many errors as well as the “discover it yourself” project based learning method, all students in schools using the CSCOPE Curriculum or other Progressive Curriculum are at risk.
Students are more successful if they have text books. So why is there such an effort by groups such as TASA to eliminate the use of textbooks for online curriculum? The same reason that Thomas Ratliff supports the online CSCOPE curriculum, which is that he is paid by Microsoft to lobby for online curriculum. TASA and the 20 Texas Education Service Centers have created and sell the online curriculum called CSCOPE. Why are they doing this when students are continuing to score poorly on the state STAAR test? I am guessing that money plays a role in this.
CSCOPE is a type of Progressive Education that is student focused. This means that students in CSCOPE schools are expected to have good background knowledge when they enter the classroom. Schema is the term being used for background knowledge.
Parents, the bottom line is that if you are not teaching and encouraging your children to read and write in correct English grammar, your children are targeted to do poorly on the STAAR tests. This is because the majority of Texas schools are using the CSCOPE Managing System. What CSCOPE has managed to do the best is to lower the education bar in Texas.
The CSCOPE progressive teaching methods encourages teachers to allow students to have the freedom to be themselves. No traditional structure. Thus, black students may speak Ebonics and Hispanic and White students may speak Mex/Tex and Red Neck slang if they want to. Is this true for All CSCOPE classes–No! But my point is that CSCOPE and other progressive education curriculum encourage the idea that children are to discover on their own –be free to be themselves—decide what they want to learn— decide what or if they want to read (called authentic reading). My thought is: Why send kids to public schools if the kids are grouped so that they learn from each other?
Parents, one thing you can do to improve education in your local schools is to demand that all student have textbooks and that the books are used in the class. If one parent insists on a textbook, the school will find a book. But, the point is that all children need a reference that parents can use to help their children.
Following is a report from Columbia Community College showing online courses to be a detrimental to education. Some students do worse than others.
For more information, See Columbia Community College Education FAQs.
How many college students take online courses?
Almost 30 percent of college students enrolled in at least one online course in 2009—a 21 percent increase from 2008. That increase is in contrast to the less than 2 percent increase in the overall higher education student population (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
What do we know about community college student performance in fully online courses?
A CCRC study of Washington State community and technical college students found that among all courses taken by all students, completion rates in online courses were lower by 5.5 percentage points.
Overall, online courses are more popular among better-prepared students; therefore, the researchers also compared completion rates of online and face-to-face courses for students who had ever enrolled in an online course (or “ever-online” students). Among all courses taken ever-online students, the completion rate for online courses was 8.2 percentage points lower (Xu & Jaggars, 2011).
Among English courses taken by ever-online students, the online completion rate was 12.8 percentage points lower, and among math courses, the online completion rates was 9.8 percentage points lower.
Students who took higher proportions of online courses were slightly less likely to attain a degree or transfer to a four-year college than those who took fewer online courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2011).
A CCRC study of Virginia Community College System students found that among all courses taken by all students, the online completion rate was 12.7 percentage points lower. Among ever-online students, online course completion was 14.7 percentage points lower. The online completion rate for English courses was 16.1 percentage points lower, and online completion rate for math courses was 18.7 percentage points lower (Xu & Jaggars, 2010).
The same study found that among ever-online students, the completion rate for online developmental English was 22.3 percentage points lower, and the completion rate for online developmental math was 22.1 percentage points lower (Xu & Jaggars, 2010).
A recent CCRC study finds that while all community college students show a decline in performance in fully online courses, some students show a steeper decline than others, including males, students with lower prior GPAs, and Black students. The performance gaps that exist among these sub-groups in face-to-face courses become more pronounced in fully online courses. For instance lower performing students (<3.02 GPA) are 2 percent more likely to drop out of face-to-face courses than higher performing students (>3.02 GAP). In online courses they are 4 percent more likely to drop out. Black students overall receive a .3 point lower grade than White students in face-to-face courses (2.7 v. 3.0). In fully online courses, they receive a .6 point lower grade (2.2 v. 2.8) (Xu & Jaggars, 2013).