October 25, 2014

Voices Empower with Alice Linahan

Calling Patriots Across the Country

Texas World History Standards

Photo courtesy of the Texas Tribune

Texas Needs Help with Social Studies Curriculum Materials 

By Donna Garner

10.15.14

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is in the process of adopting new instructional materials – IM’s (e.g., textbooks).  Students all over the United States use the instructional materials that go through the very careful adoption process in Texas because other states rely upon Texas to catch many of the factual errors and/or biased statements.

 

Therefore, it is important for caring Americans to get involved right now to help make sure that these new Social Studies materials are aligned with Texas’ fact-based, patriotic curriculum standards. Please go to this link to read through Texas’ Social Studies curriculum standards – the TEKS –http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/index.html .  

 

At the September SBOE meeting, the public submitted their comments about the Social Studies IM’s.  Now the publishers have submitted their responses. 

 

This coming Monday,  Oct. 20, the SBOE is going to meet in a work session to determine what it is that publishers need to change in their IM’s before they submit them to the Board for final adoption.   

 

The SBOE members are busily trying to go through the various publishers’ comments, but they cannot possibly go through every single comment to decide whether it is credible or not.  That is where the caring public comes in. 

 

Here is the link to the publishers’ comments: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769818138

 

No matter where you live in the U. S., could you please choose one publisher, go through that publisher’s responses, write down any objections you have to the rationale used by the publisher, and send your critique to the Texas State Board of Education member(s) of your choice. 

 

Please pay particular attention to the way that the publishers approach our religious heritage, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and other religions, patriotism, free enterprise, American Exceptionalism, terrorism, the U. S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Founding Fathers, etc.

 

The SBOE members will then go through your critiques and formulate a list of changes that the Social Studies publishers must make in their IM’s or else suffer a financial penalty.

 

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR SBOE MEMBERS: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=2147506719

 Texas State Board of Educaiton

I recommend that you e-mail your critiques to these SBOE members as soon as possible: 

 

Ken Mercer

Donna Bahorich

David Bradley

Barbara Cargill

Marty Rowley

Pat Hardy

Geraldine Miller

Tom Maynard

 

Your efforts can change the way that America’s school children look upon America.

 

Donna Garner

[email protected]

 

 

AP U.S. HISTORY UNDER ATTACK

AP U.S. HISTORY UNDER ATTACK

Join us from State to State as we Take a Stand!

VICTORY in TEXAS BATTLE AGAINST THE “NEW” AP U.S. HISTORY FRAMEWORK AND EXAM.  

On Wednesday, September 17, the State Board of Education (SBOE) voted 12-3 to pass an amendment that is a major step in shoring up Texas sovereignty over the Social Studies standards. 

On Friday, Sept. 19, the Texas SBOE (State Board of Education) vote 8-4 with Thomas Ratliff abstaining, Ken Mercer’s Resolution, which admonishes the College Board for their “NEW” AP U.S. History Framework and Exam. 

A video of his testimony is linked below. Listen, Learn and Pass it on and Join the Movement to stop the “New” AP U.S. History Framework and Exam! 

APUSH Provides Contempt for America in Texas High Schools

College Board Partners with Leftist Academia

bill-amesBy Bill Ames

AUSTIN, Texas (Texas Insider Report) — The recent implementation of a totally reworked Advanced Placement U. S. History (APUSH) framework has given rise to contentious debate. Mainstream American critics challenge APUSH as being anti-American. The private, APUSHLogo7unaccountable College Board APUSH creators retaliate by claiming that the new framework provides more flexibility to teachers, while addressing an alleged “whitewashing” of U. S. history.  

The debate has raged on, and does not need to be repeated here. Suffice to say that the APUSH framework, compared with most state and local standards, is like mixing oil and water.

It is time to end this debate charade, and reveal the bottom-line truth. Time to call a spade a spade. Time to cut to the chase. 

For the rest of the story go here.  

Most insightful Mom Comment: 

“Completely flaborgasted at the arrogance displayed by the College Board and their stance. This is an intolerable indoctrination of our American youth. I have a Junior that attends a private school in Dallas that is completely frustrated by the text — American Pageant — used for instruction in his APUSH class. Additionally, the required reader by Howard ZINN was even worse. He is equally saddened by classroom discussion and comments that are made by the instructor and friends aligned with liberalism, not liberty. After trying to debate the issue among friends, he is regarded as “not being as smart and not having his facts straight”. He returned from a summer credit course in history through the Hillsdale College, Hilllsdale, MI, in which the facts are taught as well as an appreciation for our exceptional country in which we are blessed to live. Are we fast headed down the road to destroy our country and the freedoms we have long enjoyed by subjecting ourselves to establishments and leaders that desire to debate the principles on which we were founded and have thrived for so many years?” ~  

 

Help WomenOnTheWall.org carry out our mission. We are the grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters of American women of all political persuasions, age and race and are the stewards of the home and hearth. We will stop at nothing to defend and protect our families. Your financial support is critical to ensuring that we can carry out our mission of protecting our nation for future generations and to fight for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren. Help us in our efforts by making a contribution of $25, $50, or $100 so we can keep fighting for future generations.

#CanISee Backpack and Boots on the Ground

“What Does a Quality Textbook Look Like?”

Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

Nakonia (Niki) Hayes; Author, “The Story of John Saxon” 

9.9.14 – Truth in American Education

“What Does a Quality Textbook Look Like?”

By Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

There’s an interesting new concern being voiced by Common Core leaders: “What does a quality textbook look like?”

Here’s a non-nuanced, concrete answer, especially for mathematics textbooks: “It gets results and doesn’t chase kids out of math.” And, yes, such textbooks do exist.

It’s not surprising that the issue of quality textbooks has come up with Common Core. After all, textbook publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry. The federally-supported mathematics and English Core standards will drive 85% of a school’s curricula and 100% of the related assessments in about 40 states.

The creation of new Core-aligned materials that prepare students for the Core-aligned assessments is already making a rich impact on publishing businesses, vendors, and peripheral activities (teacher training, consultants, etc.). So much has to be rewritten or at least republished with the words “Common Core Aligned” on the cover. Old materials must be thrown away. New materials have to be bought. Lots of profit is on the horizon.

The major problem for publishers, however, is actually in mathematics education. They must figure out how to get good, reliable, and verifiable results from American children who have become math phobic over the past 50 years. That means publishers need to listen to authors who have a proven success record and not to ideologically-driven math education leaders who have for years promoted fads with political correctness as the purpose of math education. It will be hard—and expensive—to cut the cord between publishers and embedded education “leaders” if quality textbooks are to be created. Profits may suffer at the beginning.

But here is a checklist for publishers, administrators, teachers, and parents to consider about math textbooks:

(1) Look for results, not ideology. It is about student success, not affirming adult beliefs.

·         Results are reflected in GPAs, End-of-Course exams, state tests, national tests, and/or college board exams.

·         Local comments from students, teachers, and parents give anecdotal but often powerful insight. (Surveys are especially interesting when high school students are asked about their elementary and middle school classes.)

·         Specific studies commissioned by the author(s) or publishers show results.

·         School districts or schools with similar demographics that have used the textbook should be contacted. This information can be supplied by the publisher.

 

(2) The author (not “consultants” or “advisors”) who actually wrote the textbook is named, preferably on the cover. This also helps provide accountability.

·         If no authors are listed, the book has been created by workers in publishing “development houses.” This can and probably does provide lack of continuity, different writing styles throughout the book (and supplemental materials), and thus incoherency which decrease clarity of the lessons and affect student responses. This also erases responsibility for the publisher.

 

(3) Actual examples of internationally-based problems (not simply referenced in “studies” by education researchers) are offered for review by the publisher if the textbook is listed as Common Core-aligned, since it is touted that Core standards are internationally based.

(4) The teacher’s manual does not consist of 1,000 pages for 180 days of instruction.

·         One afternoon of teacher training with a user-friendly textbook should be sufficient .

·         If it is claimed that a detailed and extensive teacher’s manual (for teaching the teacher) is needed because of weak teacher preparation or skills, then it is the school administration’s problem. They need to work with the teacher training sites to produce better candidates, not buy a truckload of supplemental materials.

 

(5) The textbook does not waste space with expensive, colored photos even if they may have a relationship to the topic. One color used for highlighting words or graphs is sufficient.

·         The textbook uses appropriate space for examples and creative repetition of exercises through every lesson of the book for practice and mastery.

·         The textbook’s focus is on mathematics. Use of social justice themes, for example, in math problem-solving detracts from the math concepts which should be the focus of students.

 

(6) The use of calculators is limited to a few “investigative exercises” to help familiarize students with calculators for later use; they are not to be used in regular problem-solving activities in grades K-6.

·         Mental math and memorization of math facts are required.

 

(7) Few supplemental materials are necessary for students, especially in basic, foundational learning.

·         A test manual and a solutions manual are sufficient as supplements for teachers.

·         A manual for specific populations (special needs or gifted) may be useful.

 

(8) No protest has ever been waged against the textbook by any organized parent group.

·         An Internet search will show if such protests have taken place.

 

(9) The textbook can be completed in one school year without skipping pages or topics.

·         Textbooks of 600-800 pages that can weigh up to seven pounds are subject to teachers’ having to eliminate topics. This creates holes in the fabric of linear mathematics education.

 

(10) Schools using the textbook can show the following:

·         a steady, significant decrease in low-level math courses and the need for remedial programs,

·         an increase in enrollment in advanced math and science courses,

·         an increase in those passing state-required exit tests, and

·         an increase in passing rates and scores on college board exams.

 

(11) In summary, does the textbook show accuracy, brevity, and clarity in its lessons so both parents and teachers can help children learn mathematics?

There are those who insist that textbooks aren’t “the curriculum.” They say it’s all about the teachers. (Common Core now says it’s about standards.) If that’s the case, let’s just give all students a copy of the Yellow Pages. Let’s save all that money spent on books and materials and finally train teachers in their content areas so they can use anything handed to them to teach—including the Yellow Pages. (And if the textbooks are so unimportant, why do progressives fight so hard to get “their” chosen textbooks adopted?)

Maybe teachers can do without a book, but many of us know that students need a quality textbook. Parents and teachers come and go in the lives of children these days, but a user-friendly textbook should always be within reach for children. It can set up a satisfying relationship with positive results for them to show the world.

More than a million homeschooled students, plus many charter, private, and small public schools use a textbook that meets these listed criteria. The math education leadership hates the series because they say it is too traditional. Reams of documentation exist, however, to prove its success with students.

For more information, go to http://saxonmathwarrior.com. (Disclaimer: The author is NOT affiliated with any publisher.)

 

[Niki Hayes was one of the wonderful speakers at the #CANiSEE Solutions Conference in Austin, Texas, on June 20 – 21, 2014. To purchase a CD or DVD of her engaging presentation, please go to: http://shop.canisee.org/The-Story-Behind-Saxon-Math-5-Hayes.htm )

 

 

Now is the time to give #APUSH~ Fight back for our children!

#STANDwithMercer.001

If ever there was a time to show up in Austin-

Now is that time.

Show up ~ SPEAK UP ~ and Protect the next Generation!

APUSH-Ad-Artwork-bg (1)

From the creators of Common Core, David Coleman and the College Board, the new AP US History course is an assault on our country’s heritage.

The new AP US History (APUSH) framework presents a relentlessly negative view of American history, emphasizing every problem and failing of our ancestors while ignoring or minimizing their achievements.

The College Board’s reinterpretation of US history, as presented in the new APUSH course, is a biased and inaccurate view of many important facets of American history, including the motivations and actions of 17th -19th-century settlers, American involvement in World War II, and the conduct of, and victory in, the Cold War.

The period of the American Revolution up to the 1787 Constitutional Convention

Almost every Founding Father is omitted – no Jefferson, Adams, Madison, or Franklin. The AP US History Framework excludes Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, Saratoga, and Yorktown. The commanders and heroes of these pivotal battles are all omitted.

Civil War

Omits the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Gettysburg Address, and the assassination of President Lincoln. Once again omits crucial battles, key commanders, and the valor of common soldiers.

World War II

Omits “The Greatest Generation,” Truman, Hitler, D-Day, Midway, the Battle of the Bulge, and every military commander including Dwight Eisenhower. Inexplicably, Nazi atrocities against Jews and other groups are not required. APUSH concludes its treatment of WWII with this blunt statement: “The decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.”

Civil Rights Movement

Does not mention America’s first African-American President. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, the Navajo Code Talkers, Tuskegee Airmen, 442nd Infantry Regiment, and Barbara Jordan’s famous speech on the Constitution are all omitted.

United States Military

A word search of the entire 98-page document will not find one military commander or one Medal of Honor recipient. Our best and brightest students will thus learn nothing of the heroism and sacrifices of Americans in uniform.

Usurping Local Education Control

“The redesigned Framework is best described as a curricular coup that sets a number of dangerous precedents. By providing a detailed course of study that defines, discusses, and interprets ‘the required knowledge of each period,’ the College Board has in effect supplanted local and state curriculum by unilaterally assuming the authority to prioritize historic topics.” – Jane Robbins, American Principles Project

“Combat New AP U. S. History Course by Taking Action”

by Donna Garner 9.7.14

ACTION STEP – Sign this Petition to stand with SBOE Ken Mercer! 

[gravityform id="9" name="Petition to #STANDwithMercer to REJECT the new AP Anti- U.S. Framework and Exam"]

Members of the public (e.g., moms, pops, grandparents, concerned citizens, AP U. S. History teachers) who object to the redesigned AP U. S. History course (APUSH) are needed to testify before the Texas State Board of Education either on Wednesday, Sept. 17, or on Friday, Sept.19.

 

IMPORTANCE OF ALL TEXAS STUDENTS BEING TAUGHT THE SOCIAL STUDIES TEKS

 

Nothing in  the Texas Education Code (TEC) gives AP U. S. History teachers permission to ignore the teaching of the fact-based, patriotic, state-mandated Social Studies TEKS (Texas’ curriculum standards) adopted by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education. 

 

Nothing in the TEC states that the AP U. S. History (APUSH) Framework should displace the teaching of the Social Studies TEKS. 

 

The public testimony on the importance of all Texas public school students being taught the K-12 Social Studies TEKS will take place on Wednesday, Sept. 17. Here is the link to the SBOE agenda for that day: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769815951

 

SBOE MEMBER KEN MERCER’S RESOLUTION

 September 2014 Meeting

Texas State Board of Education

Regarding:  College Board’s new 2014 Framework

Advanced Placement United States History

WHEREAS, the purpose of College and Career Readiness Standards(CCRS) and advanced high school courses is to prepare students to understand a variety of views and opinions from across the political spectrum, and to be able to discuss and debate those ideas free from bias and outside influence; and

 WHEREAS, the systematic or deliberate discouragement of certain points of view within the scope of any curriculum framework undermines the basic tenets of our society and education system; and,

 WHEREAS, the Texas Education Code (TEC) Section 28.002(h) states:

 The State Board of Education and each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas history and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of textbooks.

      A primary purpose of the public school curriculum is to prepare thoughtful, active citizens who understand the importance of patriotism and can function productively in a free enterprise society with appreciation for the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage;and,

WHEREAS, almost 500,000 U. S. students, approximately 46,000 of whom are from Texas, take the College Board’s Advanced Placement U. S. History (APUSH) course each year; and

WHEREAS, the APUSH course may be the final U.S. History class for what many believe are the brightest and best of our high school students; and,

WHEREAS, the APUSH course has traditionally been designed to present a balanced view of American history and to prepare students for college-level history courses; and

WHEREAS, the College Board, a private, non-elected organization unaccountable to the public has recently released a new 98-page Framework that mandates a highly politicized approach to teaching the APUSH course; and

WHEREAS, the new APUSH Framework reflects a radically revisionist view of American history that is critical of American exceptionalism and emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects; and

WHEREAS, the anti-American, revisionist history of Howard Zinn and his textbook “The People’s Guide to U.S. History” is a recommended textbook in each of the four syllabi originally presented at the Summer 2014 training of APUSH educators; and

WHEREAS, the APUSH Framework includes little or no discussion of the Founding Fathers, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the religious influences on our nation’s history, and many other critical topics that have always been part of the APUSH course; and

WHEREAS, the Framework excludes discussion of the U. S. military (no battles, commanders, or heroes) and omits many significant individuals and events that greatly shaped our nation’s history (for example, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, Dr. Martin Luther King, Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo Code Talkers, the Battle of Gettysburg, the Holocaust, D-Day, liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, and the election of our first African-American President); and

WHEREAS, the Framework presents a clearly biased and inaccurate view of many important events in American history, including the motivations and actions of 17th- through 19th-century settlers, American involvement in World War II, the free-enterprise economic explosion in the 1940s through 1960s, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the development of Cold War tensions and ultimate fall of the Iron Curtain, and the successful landing of a man on the moon; and

WHEREAS, the Framework describes its detailed outline as the “required knowledge” for APUSH students, and admits that the APUSH examination will not test information outside this “required knowledge”; and

WHEREAS, because the Framework differs radically from the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)  so that APUSH teachers will have to ignore the TEKS standards to prepare students for the AP examination; and

WHEREAS, the released APUSH sample examination questions continue, via behavioral testing techniques, to promote a negative, anti-American bias toward U.S. History; therefore be it

RESOLVED, the elected Texas State Board of Education strongly admonishes the College Board for failing to listen to the numerous complaints of parents, educators and concerned citizens; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, the Texas State Board of Education recommends that a committee be convened to draft an APUSH Framework that is consistent both with the APUSH course’s traditional mission and with the shared purpose of the CCRS, the TEKS and the Texas Education Code, and with the desires of Texas parents and other citizens for students to learn the true history of their country; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, the Texas State Board of Education requests that Members of the Texas Legislature and the U. S. Congress investigate this matter; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Texas State Board of Education requests that the College Board rewrite the APUSH course and examination in a transparent manner to accurately reflect U. S. history without a political bias and to respect the sovereignty of Texas over its education curriculum; and be it

FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon approval of this resolution the Texas State Board of Education shall promptly deliver a copy of this resolution to every Member of the Texas State Legislature and to every Texas Member of the United States Congress.

Respectfully submitted by:

Ken Mercer Member: Texas State Board of Education, District 5

 

On Friday, Sept. 19, SBOE Member Ken Mercer will present his Resolution against the redesigned AP U. S. History course (APUSH). A vote on the Resolution by all the SBOE members will be taken.  

 

Registration to testify for either the Wednesday, Sept. 17 session or the Friday, Sept. 19 session starts at8:00 A. M. on Friday, Sept. 12 until 5:00 P. M. on Sept. 15. Those who call the Texas Education Agency early get to testify earlier – it’s first come first served.

CONTACTING SBOE MEMBERS

It is not necessary for you to be a Texan to submit your support for the Resolution since the new and objectionable APUSH course is being driven by the College Board into schools throughout this nation.  

 

Calls, letters, and e-mails are effective and should encourage the SBOE members to vote for SBOE Member Ken Mercer’s Resolution.  

 

If you support this Resolution, please send an e-mail to each of the elected members of the SBOE by using this common SBOE e-mail address:  [email protected]

 

Here is a link to each of the SBOE members, their bios, and contact information:  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=2147506719

 

INFORMATION FOR TESTIFIERS

 

It is important for testifiers to give specific examples from the APUSH Framework that indicate bias and that do not follow the Texas Education Code (Chapter 28)  

Link to Texas Education Code – Chapter 28: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=ED

 

Link to Public Testimony Registrations and Procedures as posted on the Texas Education Agency website — http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769804082

For those who testify, it is important for them to give specific examples from the new APUSH Framework that contradict what is in the Social Studies TEKS

 

Link to Social Studies TEKS:  http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter113/index.html

 

DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW APUSH

9.6.14 – “SBOE’s Mercer Resolution Seeks To Stop Radical APUSH Redesign in Texas”

by Merrill Hope – Breitbart Texas — http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/09/6/SBOE-s-Mercer-Resolution-Seeks-To-Stop-Radical-APUSH-Redesign-in-Texas

Here is what USED to be in the 5-page APUSH – Course Description – Effective Fall 2010 — Please go to pp. 7 – 12 to see the Themes in AP U. S. History.

http://womenonthewall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ap-us-history-course-description.pdf

 

Here is the link to the new 98-page, anti-American, 2014 APUSH – Course and Exam Description Including Curriculum Framework – Effective Fall 2014:  http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-course-exam-descriptions/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

 

9.3.14 — RESOURCE LIST – ANTI-REDESIGNED ADVANCED PLACEMENT U. S. HISTORY COURSE (APUSH)

 

8.22.14 – Short Video Clip – College Board Under Fire for New AP U. S. History Framework – by James Rosen — FoxNews.com — http://video.foxnews.com/v/3744498137001/college-board-under-fire-for-new-ap-history-framework/#sp=show-clips

 

9.3.14 – “Why Does the College Board Hate George Washington and MLK?” – by Larry Krieger — Heartland–

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/03/why-does-college-board-hate-george-washington-and-mlk

 

9.2.14 – “Imperiling the Republic: The Fate of U. S. History Instruction Under Common Core” – by  — Ketcham, Stotsky, Lewis – Pioneer Institute —  http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/imperiling-the-republic-the-fate-of-u-s-history-instruction-under-common-core/

 

9.2.14 – “U. S. History Instruction Damaged by Common Core Literacy Standards” — Truth in American Education –

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/u-s-history-instruction-damaged-by-common-core-literacy-standards/

 

9.2.14 – “Madison Scholar Condemns AP U. S. History Redesign” – by Stanley Kurtz — National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386849/madison-scholar-condemns-ap-us-history-redesign-stanley-kurtz?utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Corner&utm_source=twitterfeed

 

8.30.14 – “The Left’s Attempt To Institutionalize the Rewriting of U. S. History” – by Ron Radosh – PJ Media  

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/08/30/the-lefts-attempt-to-institutionalize-the-re-writing-of-us-history-a-new-step-forward-through-their-long-march-through-the-existing-institutions/

 

8.25.14 – “Common Core Architect’s History ‘Deeply Biased’ Against U. S. – by Leo Hohmann — Mobile World Net Daily

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/08/common-core-history-deeply-biased-against-u-s/

 

8.25.14 – “How the College Board Politicized U.S. History” – by Stanley Kurtz – National Review —

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386202/how-college-board-politicized-us-history-stanley-kurtz

 

8.22.14 – “Pushing American History As a Long Tale of Oppression” – by Peter Wood – Nat. Asso. of Scholars — http://www.nas.org/articles/pushing_american_history_as_a_long_tale_of_oppression

 

8.19.14 – “29 Biased Statements in the AP U. S. History Redesign” – by Larry Krieger — Heartland.org –http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/08/19/29-biased-statements-ap-us-history-redesign

 

8.15.14 — “Why Won’t the College Board Reveal its AP U.S. History Authors?” — by Larry Krieger and Jane Robbins — http://www.educationviews.org/wont-college-board-reveal-ap-u-s-history-authors/

 

8.13.14 — PODCAST – Alice Linahan Conference Call – Discussion of the new AP U. S. History Course (including the Framework and the new AP U. S. History test itself) and dual credit courses —https://soundcloud.com/alice-linahan/women-on-the-wall-conference-call-ap-advanced-placement-and-dual-credit-is-it-a-good-thing

 

8.9.14 – “Ken Mercer: The Texas Voice in the Uphill Battle To Push APUSH Back” – by Merrill Hope —Breitbart Texas — http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/08/09/Ken-Mercer-The-Texas-Voice-In-The-Uphill-Battle-To-Push-APUSH-Back/

 

8.9.14 — “Child Abuse – Destroying Children’s Love for America” – Donna Garner

http://www.educationviews.org/child-abuse-destroying-childrens-love-america/

 

 

8.7.14 – “New AP U. S. History:  Greatest Americans missing from proposed curriculum” – by Rhett Miller — FoxNews.com — http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/07/historic-fail-greatest-americans-missing-from-proposed-curriculum/

 

 

8.6.14 — “Anti-American AP U. S. History Course & Links to APUSH Documents” –by Donna Garner —http://www.educationviews.org/anti-american-ap-u-s-history-links-apush-documents/

 

 

8.1.14 — “Chock-Full of Info – Saving America’s Youth” — by Donna Garner

http://www.educationviews.org/chock-full-info-saving-americas-youth/

 

7.13.14 – “The New AP U. S. History Exam – Deal or No Deal?” – by Jane Robbins, Larry Krieger – Breitbart— http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/13/The-New-AP-US-History-Exam-Deal-or-No-Deal

 

7.10.14 – “Update on AP U. S. History” – by Peter Wood – Nat. Asso. Of Scholarshttp://www.nas.org/articles/update_on_ap_us_history

 

 

7.7.14 – “Look What the College Board Has Done to U. S. History” – by Peter Wood – Nat. Asso of Scholars — http://www.nas.org/articles/look_what_the_college_board_has_done_to_u.s._history

 

 

7.1.14 – “The New AP History: A Preliminary Report” – by Peter Wood – Nat. Asso. of Scholars —http://www.nas.org/articles/the_new_ap_history_a_preliminary_report

 

 

Here is what USED to be in the 5-page APUSH – Course Description – Effective Fall 2010 — Please go to pp. 7 – 12 to see the Themes in AP U. S. History.

http://womenonthewall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ap-us-history-course-description.pdf

========

Here is the link to the new 98-page, anti-American, 2014 APUSH – Course and Exam Description Including Curriculum Framework – Effective Fall 2014:  http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-course-exam-descriptions/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

Please view The Concept Outline in the new 2014 APUSH on pp. 28 – 37:http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-course-exam-descriptions/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

Here are the Related Articles in the 2014 APUSH Course Content:

  • Race and Citizenship
  • C. Vann Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow
  • The Origins of American Slavery
  • Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution
  • Crossing National Borders: Locating the United States in Migration History
  • America, the Atlantic, and Global Consumer Demand, 1500-1800
  • Teaching the Introductory Survey: Insights from the College Board’s AP Survey
  • What Is Gender History?
  • Cold War and Global  Hegemony, 1945-1991
  • Rethinking American History in a Global Context
  • From Rosie the Riveter to the Global Assembly Line
  • The Declaration of Independence in World Context
  • OAH-AP Collaboration: America on the World Stage
  • State of the Field in U.S. History: The Progressive Era
  • State of the Field in U.S. History: Teaching the 1917-1945 Period
  • A College Professor Reflects on the AP U.S. History Reading
  • Madam C. J. Walker and the Rise of the African American Entrepreneur
  • A Forum for Student Historians: Interview with Will Fitzhugh
  • Women Scientists of the Manhattan Project
  • North Korea and the Legacies of the Cold War
  • The Iraq War and the Lessons of History

 

Common Core’s Control over Curriculum, Teachers, Students, America

students_teacher_AP

By Donna Garner

9.2.14

[The Obama administration, Arne Duncan, and the U. S. Dept. of Ed. are beginning to run scared because the public, including a number of our nation’s governors, are realizing that Common Core Standards do indeed control curriculum (among other education functions that have been ripped away by the federal government from state and/or local control).

Because the USDOE is “banned by law from directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials,” governors and other citizens are realizing they have grounds to sue the federal government for breaking the law.

Below are helpful resources that prove Common Core Standards are controlling curriculum. These resources could be used to help strengthen people’s legal challenges to reject the entire Common Core Standards Initiative and the USDOE’s conditional NCLB waiver system.

-- Donna Garner]

========

[The arrows mean “lead(s) to.”]

National standards →  National assessments →  National curriculum → National teacher evaluations with teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores → Teachers teaching to the test each and every day → National indoctrination of our public school children →  National database of students and teachers containing personally intrusive information

*I began sharing this graphic way back in 1.1.09 in an attempt to warn the public against the Obama administration’s move toward the Common Core Standards Initiative. – Donna Garner

========

4.16.14 – “Common Core Is a Curriculum” – by Donna Garner –http://www.educationviews.org/common-core-curriculum/

 ========

Laura Slover, CEO of PARCC admitted in a press release on 8.22.14 that Common Core drives the curriculum: 

 

“High quality assessments go hand-in-hand with high quality instruction based, on high quality standardsYou cannot have one without the other. The PARCC states see quality assessments as a part of instruction, not a break from instruction.”http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-states-reduce-no-items-elaliteracy-portion-test

 

========

 

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s press release – 8.25.14:

 

The proponents of Common Core and PARCC continue to insist that tests and standards are not about curriculum, but that’s a ruse. Teachers already know that what is tested at the end of the year is what is taught in classrooms throughout the year. PARCC may not mandate one textbook or one pacing guide, but the CEO of the federally funded PARCC has admitted one thing: PARCC controls instruction and instruction is curriculum. (8.25.14 – “PARCC CEO Admits Goal of Test To Control Curriculum” – Office of Gov. Bobby Jindal – Press Release — http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=4655 )

 

========

2.12 — “The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers” – a Pioneer Institute White Paper — http://www.scribd.com/doc/81315338/The-Road-to-a-National-Curriculum

 

[Summary statements about this report]

 

With only minor exceptions, the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), ban the Department from directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials.

The U. S. Dept. of Education has designed a system of discretionary grants and conditional waivers that effectively herds states into accepting specific standards and assessments favored by the Departmentthe NCLB conditional waiver programis driving the states toward a national K-12 curriculum and course content.  

 

The waiver authority granted by Congress in No Child Left Behind does not permit the Secretary to gut NCLB wholesale and impose these conditions…

 

In the view of the authors, these efforts will necessarily result in ade facto national curriculum and instructional materials effectively supervised, directed, or controlled by the Department through the NCLB waiver process.

Secretary Arne Duncan has said that the work of the two consortia includes “developing curriculum frameworks” and ‘instructional modules.’

But the legal concern is that these federally funded assessments will ultimately direct the course of elementary and secondary course content across the nationThis raises a fundamental question of whether the Department is exceeding its statutory boundaries…

 

========

8.22.14 – “Federalizing Education by Waiver?” by Derek W. Black, University of South Carolina, School of Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, Forthcoming –http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485407

Abstract:

In the fall of 2012, the United States Secretary of Education told states he would use his statutory power to waive violations of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), but only on the condition that they adopt his new education policies — policies that had already failed in Congress. Most states had no real choice but to agree because eighty percent of their schools were faced with statutory sanctions and fund termination.

 

As a result, the Secretary was able to federalize two core aspects of public education over the next year. For the first time, school curriculum and the terms of teacher evaluation and retention came under the control of the federal government. 

This Article demonstrates that this particular exercise of conditional waiver power was both unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the Secretary’s statutory authority.

 

First, NCLB contained no notice that states might face waiver conditions when they first agreed to participate in NCLB, much less notice of the substance of those conditions. Spending clause doctrine requires both.

 

Second, states’ inability to say no to these conditions raises serious questions of unconstitutional coercion.

 

Third, the Secretary lacked explicit statutory authority to impose these conditions. At best, NCLB implies authority to condition waivers, but implied conditions would be limited to the scope of NCLB itself. The waiver conditions the Secretary imposed go well beyond the scope of NCLB.

 

Fourth, to treat these particular waiver conditions as falling within the scope of the Secretary’s authority would be to extend the Secretary the equivalent of law-making power, which separation of powers doctrines prohibit. The power to unilaterally impose open-ended policy through waiver conditions would be remarkable not just for its transformation of key aspects of education, but for the entire federal administrative state. It would open the door to the spread of a more expansive administrative power than ever seen before.

 

=======

2.11.12 – “Common Core Standards: Is the U. S. Dept. of Ed. Violating Federal Law by Directing Standards, Tests, Curricula?” – Truth in American Education –

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/is-the-u-s-dept-of-education-violating-federal-law-by-directing-standards-tests-curricula/

 

========

8.25.14 — “Common Core PARCC CEO Acknowledges Goal of Assessments To Drive Curriculum” — by Dr. Susan Berry – Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/25/Common-Core-PARCC-CEO-Acknowledges-Goal-of-Assessments-To-Drive-Curriculum

 

 

Do schools control the curriculum?

I believe I will stick with the team at Truth in Texas Textbooks and demand that my local school district does the same.

 

By Donna Garner 


Sent by one of the anti-Common Core people in Missouri:

This was in Politico’s morning Education report:

A ‘CONSUMER REPORTS’ FOR THE COMMON CORE: A new nonprofit funded with $3 million from the Gates Foundation and the Helmsley Charitable Trust launches today with plans to review textbooks and other instructional material for fidelity to the Common Core.

 

EdReports.org will start by bringing in teams of classroom teachers to evaluate K-8 math materials. The curricula will be judged by how well it matches the Common Core and assesses student learning and by whether it offers teachers guidance in reaching children at all levels.

  

The group will post its ratings online and invite response from the publishers. Up first: Pearson’s enVision Math, McGraw-Hill’s Everyday Math, Houghton Mifflin’s Go Math and more than a dozen other widely used curricula.

  

EdReports will turn to high-school math and language arts in future years.- The project is led by Eric Hirsch, formerly of the New Teacher Center, and Maria Klawe, the president of Harvey Mudd College. They say they hope districts will turn to their ratings to guide purchases. “Hopefully with great materials, great teachers and great standards, we will be able to move the needle on student achievement,” Hirsch said. Incoming NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia supports the effort; she says curriculum ratings could improve Common Core implementation “by shining a light” on quality materials.

So, once they have this rating system down, schools will know which curriculums to pick because they will be rated the highest. They will “shine a light” on quality materials and conversly throw mud on materials that may be very good but are not aligned to CC by either rating them poorly or not even rating them.

 

Notice that they plan to start reviewing Pearson and McGraw Hill first. Show me the school district that is going to pick a curriculum not highly rated? 

 

This first attempt to regulate the use of “common core aligned” will create the de facto national curriculum. And what a surprise Gates is funding it!

 

#APUSH The New AP (anti) U.S. History Curriculum Framework- Resources and Action Items

Elementary school class with teacher

Old – 2010 AP U.S. History Framework 

New – 2014 APUSH AP U.S. History Framework 

 

Without state push-back, this new APUSH Curriculum Framework will go into effect this fall (2014). Without state push-back, APUSH teachers may have to ignore their own state’s U.S. History standards if they hope to prepare their students for success on the new APUSH exam – which will NOT cover material outside the new Framework.  

7.18.14 – “Texas Mom Testifies Against #APUSH” – Texas mom Marijane Smitherman has 4 children who have taken a total of 41 Advanced Placement (AP) classes. She testified at the Texas State Board of Education meeting against the new AP U. S. History course (i.e., APUSH).
=========

Texas SBOE Meeting July 18th – Jeanine McGregor Expert Testimony to Reject APUSH

Texas Teacher Mary Bowen’s Testimony at the SBOE (State Board of Education) meeting. 

7.30.14 — PODCAST – Women On the Wall Show with Alice Linahan  – Hear details on AP U. S. History takeover by the federal government and push-back by concerned citizens – education bubble about to burst

LISTEN TO PODCAST OF NATIONAL AP U. S. HISTORY CONFERENCE CALL (8.4.14) – Jane Robbins, Larry Krieger, Ken Mercer hosted by Tanya Ditty, CWALAC of Georgia State Director and former AP U.S. History teacher. 

=======

Sign letter to College Board President David Coleman – Oppose AP U. S. History (APUSH)

======== 

Documents

  • Georgia APUSH Resolution (Sample resolution that can be adapted for your state)
  • Rebuttal to College Board Talking Points on the New AP U.S. History (APUSH) Framework and Exam
  • The Redesigned College Board AP U.S. History Framework- 10 Key Questions and Answers- Larry Kreiger
  • New AP United States History Course and Exam Description (College Board document)
  • Old – 2010 AP U.S. History Framework (College Board Document) 
  •  Analysis of the College Board AP U.S. History Framework (A Review of Advanced Placement Policy Documents by Larry Krieger)

 

ACTION STEPS

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE COLLEGE BOARD:

Coleman and Middleton

Dr. Richard Middleton – Southwest Regional Director for The College Board — 866-392-3017 (Ext. 1808#)

Dr. David Coleman – President of The College Board — 888-225-5427 – Press #6 – talked to clerk who took my name and phone number – said she would escalate my call – to call me back from 5 to 7 days

========

1.5.05 — “Are We a Republic or a Democracy?” – by Walter Williams – WND

========

Link to FairTest.org — “More than 800 four-year colleges and universities do not use the SAT or ACT to admit substantial numbers of bachelor-degree applicants.”

=======

7.13.14 – “The New AP U. S. History Exam – Deal or No Deal?” — by Jane Robbins, Larry Krieger – Breitbart

7.14.14 – “To Georgia and States Across America: from Jane Robbins of American Principles Project”

7.12.14 – “Common Core David Coleman’s Next Deception: The New AP U. S. History Exam” — by Dr. Susan Berry

7.11.14 — “Texans, Stop AP U. S. History Tests from Being Implemented – Illegal in Texas”
by Donna Garner

7.10.14 – “New War Over High School U.S. History” – by Stanley Kurtz – National Review

7.7.14 –“Dinesh D’Souza’s America and Our Schools” – by Stanley Kurtz – National Review

6.24.14 — “David Coleman Attacks Students’ Love of America” — by Donna Garner

6.22.14 – “Urgent: AP US History Framework Tied to Common Core – Illegal in Texas” – by Donna Garner 

7.30.14 – “Dr. Duke Pesta Exposes Common Core”

2.10.14 – Video — “Story-Killers: How the Common Core Destroys Minds and Souls” – by Terrence O. Moore

 

Join the movement Give the Gift of American Exceptionalism to your child or grandchild. 

 Understand the Challenge and take Action!  

How #CANiSEE THE SOLUTION CONFERENCE 

THESE VIDEOS WILL GIVE YOU THE KNOWLEDGE AND TOOLS TO STOP COMMON CORE

#CANISEE THE SOLUTION CONFERENCE 2014

To Watch the #CANiSEE Solution Conference 2014 — On Demand Viewing Option — please go to:

http://www.dartfish.tv/CollectionInfo.aspx?CR=p80044c92577 

 

Join the #CANiSEE™© Movement

#CANiSEE ™© WHAT you are teaching my child?  

#CANiSEE™© HOW you are teaching my child?

#CANiSEE™© WHO is benefiting financially from the curriculum on which my child’s teacher is evaluated? 

CanISee movement

Now is the time to go into your child’s classroom and say……..

#CanISee Backpack and Boots on the Ground

Stand with me a Texas Mom who is fighting against the Federal Take Over of Education across our country.

Please sign the petition linked below and then pass it onto your friends and neighbors.
 
Ask them to Join the Movement- Give the Gift of American Exceptionalism to their child!
Impeach Thomas Ratliff 

Notice of a Public Hearing on HB5 the Common Core of Texas

Jane Robbins with the American Principles Project


Ask a teacher if they think HB5 is dumbing down Texas students. I have and yes the good ones know it is and will tell you so.

Take the time to watch Dr. Peg Luksik speak at the #CANiSEE the Solutions Conference in Austin. This is just a small portion from her amazing talk on the Federal Take over of education known today as Common Core/ College and Career Ready standards.

Her full talk covers the true reality on the ground for children especially our minority students. 

To Watch the #CANiSEE Solution Conference 2014 — On Demand – please go to:

http://www.dartfish.tv/CollectionInfo.aspx?CR=p80044c92577

To order CANiSEE SOLUTIONS CONFERENCE DVD’S via mail & pay with check or credit card visit:
http://www.vaulteventmedia.com/images/CanISeeOrderForm.pdf

HB5 which many of us have been saying is the Common Core philosophy of education. A public notice has been release you need to know about so that you can do your part to be there or make sure your friends and neighbors know the truth about HB5.

Donna Garner wrote…

“Revealed: The Dumbing Down of Texas’ Public Schools”

Under HB 5 (passed by the last legislative session), Texas’ high school graduates will no longer be required to take both World History and World Geography. They also will not be required to take the capstone course in English which is English IV. Neither will all Texas graduates be required to take Algebra II and higher-level math and science courses. Not requiring these courses will send our Texas students out into the world bereft of basic foundational knowledge that will plague them the rest of their lives not to mention the fact that Texas public school graduates will go into college and/or careers with a shallow academic degree.

I tried desperately before, after, and during the 83rd Legislative Session to get people to listen to my concerns about dropping the 4 x 4 graduation plan and gutting the individual student and teacher accountability at each grade level/course level. Now the Texas State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, and local school districts are stuck trying to implement HB 5 which mucks up every public school in Texas.

I stand by my comments; and as each day passes, more Texans are beginning to see the damage that HB 5 is doing. Here is what I said on 6.17.13 – “For the Historical Record: Texas Will Rue This Day” –

SENATE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEE: Education
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Tuesday, August 26, 2014
PLACE: E1.028 (Hearing Room)
CHAIR: Senator Dan Patrick

The Committee will hear invited testimony followed by public testimony on the below interim charges.

Senate Interim Charge #1 (Portion of Charge):

Examine STAAR writing scores for elementary, middle and high school students. For grade levels tested in writing, review the types of writing required. Explore the need for targeted professional development in writing.

Senate Interim Charge #2:

Monitor the implementation of legislation addressed by the Senate Committee on Education, 83rd Legislature, Regular and Called Sessions, and make recommendations for any legislation needed to improve, enhance and/or complete implementation. Specifically, monitor the following:

· HB 5, relating to public school accountability, including assessment, and curriculum requirements; providing a criminal penalty;

(NOTE: Discussion on HB 5 will be limited to an update from our previous hearing on the passing rates of STAAR End-of-Course assessments for the graduating class of 2015)

· HB 1926, relating to the operation of the state virtual school network and courses provided through other distance learning arrangements;
· SB 376, relating to breakfast for certain public school students; and
· HB 617, relating to transition and employment services for public school students enrolled in special education programs.

Public testimony will be limited to two (2) minutes per person.

#CANiSEE THE SOLUTION CONFERENCE VIDEOS ARE AVAILABLE
THESE CONFERENCE VIDEOS WILL GIVE YOU THE KNOWLEDGE AND TOOLS TO STOP COMMON CORE

#CANISEE THE SOLUTION CONFERENCE 2014

To Watch the #CANiSEE Solution Conference 2014 — On Demand – please go to:

http://www.dartfish.tv/CollectionInfo.aspx?CR=p80044c92577

To order CANiSEE SOLUTIONS CONFERENCE DVD’S via mail & pay with check or credit card visit:
http://www.vaulteventmedia.com/images/CanISeeOrderForm.pdf

 Join the Movement we need your support!

Help WomenOnTheWall.org carry out our mission. We are the grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters of American women of all political persuasions, age and race and are the stewards of the home and hearth. We will stop at nothing to defend and protect our families. Your financial support is critical to ensuring that we can carry out our mission of protecting our nation for future generations and to fight for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren. Help us in our efforts by making a contribution of $25, $50, or $100 so we can keep fighting for our conservative values.

 
   
 
 
 

Join Texans As We “STAND” for Our U. S. History and Our HEROES!

 Mercer Stand.001

Parents, Grandparents and Tax Payers “YOU”
are being called to ACTION!

AP U.S. HISTORY IS UNDER DIRCT ATTACK

Join Texans in Austin for the State Board of Education (SBOE) Meeting 

It is Time to Take a Stand!

Friday July 18th

9 A.M.

William B. Travis (WBT) State Office Building

1701 North Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78701 

Please contact the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott 512-463-2100 - Texas State Board of Education Members, State Legislators, Congressmen, elected officials, school administrators, teachers; and tell them that the AP U. S. History Framework/curriculum/exams must be stopped. 

Then SIGN THE PETITION: http://womenonthewall.org/

How will the New AP US History Framework coming down from College Board President David Coleman affect TEXAS children this Sept.?

 

New War Over High School U.S. History

As Stanley Kurtz stated in his article New War Over High School History….http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382400/new-war-over-high-school-us-history-stanley-kurtz 

“Americans are only just now waking up to a quiet but devastatingly effective effort to replace the teaching of traditional American history in our high schools with a new, centrally-controlled, and sharply left-leaning curriculum.

The College Board, the company that issues the SAT and the various Advanced Placement (AP) exams, has created an elaborate new framework for the AP U.S. History Exam that will effectively force nearly all American high schools, public and private, to transform the way they teach U.S. History. 
 Texas is at the forefront of the resistance to the new AP U.S. History Exam, but the battle is not going well.  Ken Mercer, a member of the Texas School Board, is attempting to introduce a resolution rebuking and rejecting the new AP U.S. History Exam.  Unfortunately, he is now being told that he must wait to introduce the resolution until September, when it will be too late.

Texas makes up about 10 percent of the College Board’s market.  Were Texas to reject the new AP U.S. History Exam, the entire project could be put into doubt.” 
As Stated by SBOE Ken Mercer in his latest Op-ed. 

“For today’s patriots, this is our Valley Forge and our D-Day – 
this is the Revolution of 2014!”   Ken Mercer, Texas State Board of Education

TEXAS SBOE Ken Mercer goes onto say….

“How bad is the new AP U.S. History Framework? Here are a few key items verified with Larry Krieger (retired teacher and author recognized by the CB as one of the best AP teachers in 2004 and 2005) and Jane Robbins (Senior Fellow at the American Principles Project):

 
  • In the period of the American Revolution up to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, almost every Founding Father is omitted – no Jefferson, Adams, Madison, or Franklin. The Framework excludes Lexington, Concord,  Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, Saratoga, and Yorktown. The commanders and heroes of these pivotal battles are all omitted.
 
  • The lessons on the Civil War omit the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Gettysburg Address, and the assassination of President Lincoln. The Framework once again omits crucial battles, key commanders, and the valor of common soldiers.
 
  •  The lessons on World War II omit “The Greatest Generation,” Truman, Hitler, D-Day, Midway, the Battle of  the Bulge, and every military commander including Dwight Eisenhower.  Inexplicably, Nazi atrocities against Jews and other groups are not required. The CB concludes its treatment of WWII with this blunt statement:  “The decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.”
 
  • The lessons on the Civil Rights Movement do not mention America’s first African-American President. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, the Navajo Code Talkers, Tuskegee Airmen, 442nd Infantry Regiment, and Barbara Jordan’s famous speech on the Constitution are all omitted.
 
A word search of the entire 98-page document will not find one military commander or one Medal of Honor recipient. Our best and brightest students will thus learn nothing of the heroism and sacrifices of Americans in uniform.
 
The CB instead presents an overwhelmingly negative viewpoint of U.S. history that will please America-haters such as former Illinois professor Bill Ayers.
 
This unelected body is rewriting United States history and promoting among our students a disdain for American principles and a lack of knowledge of major American achievements.
 
History is a dramatic story which, if taught well, allows students to study both the good and bad of America. The new APUSH Framework purposely stresses the negative while dismissing America’s positive contributions.
 
If we do nothing, this radical AP U.S. History course will enter our high schools this fall.

SO WHAT CAN TEXAS PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS AND TAX PAYERS DO?

Sign the Petition.
SHOW UP IN AUSTIN JULY 18TH AND SUPPORT THOSE WHO TESTIFY.  

I STAND WITH TX SBOE KEN MERCER AND REJECT THE NEW AP U.S. HISTORY FRAMEWORK AND EXAM

I STAND w/ SBOE Ken Mercer to REJECT the new APUSH Anti US Framework and Exam

[signature]

Share this with your friends:

   

 

#CANiSEE What Will Be Taught in AP U.S. History next school year?

AP US HISTORY UNDER ATTACK

Jane Robbins with the American Principles Project

I STAND WITH TX SBOE KEN MERCER AND REJECT THE NEW AP U.S. HISTORY FRAMEWORK AND EXAM

I STAND w/ SBOE Ken Mercer to REJECT the new APUSH Anti US Framework and Exam

[signature]

Share this with your friends:

   

 Schoolgirl

Texans Needed To Testify at SBOE Meeting — Against Mexican American Course

Photo from Breitbart.com

Photo from Breitbart.com

by Donna Garner

4.2.14

It is my understanding that next Tuesday (April 8, 2014) at the Texas State Board of Education(SBOE) meeting (Committee of the Full Board — http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769810402 ) there is to be a discussion about adopting a new course called Mexican-American Studies. I believe that someone from Ysleta ISD is going to present this idea and that his Hispanic supporters may be out in force.  Please read my comments posted below. We need many people to testify against the development of this new course for the reasons that I have given below.  At the bottom of this page, I have posted the details about how, when, and where to testify in front of the SBOE on Tuesday, 4.8.14.

==========

To:  Concerned Texas Citizens  

From:  Donna Garner

I believe our position should be that we want no new courses such as Mexican-American Studies or Ethnic Studies to be added to already over-burdened school districts that are trying to cope with the 5 new endorsements, foundation program, and other requirements under HB 5.  Even calling the course Ethnic Studies would end up emphasizing ethnic/racial differencesamong students at a time when schools are trying so hard to create unity among the students and faculty. 

I believe this Mexican American course is a direct attempt by the Democrats to turn Texas blue and that we need to stand firmly against it – creating no compromises (i.e., Ethnic Studies Course).  The definitions posted below should help keep us all on the same page.

MY SUGGESTIONS

First, I have posted some definitions further on down this page that I believe will help in the upcoming SBOE meeting. I believe it is very important for like-minded conservatives to “define the terms” rather than allowing others to do so. The term needs to be Hispanic and not Mexican-American.  Mexican-American is very discriminatory and much too exclusive. By defining the terms early-on, those who want to use the term Mexican-American will be identified as being discriminatory and exclusive (which they are).

Second, I hope that an attorney will testify.  The attorney needs to build the case that a Mexican-American course would be highly discriminatory to other language groups, races, and ethnicities.

Third, it would be good to get demographic information from Houston ISD. I think I remember reading that HISD has hundreds of different language groups in it.  A Mexican-American course would be highly discriminatory to the other language groups.  (It should not be difficult to get this language group, demographic information from Houston ISD or from the TEA.)

Fourth, these questions need to be asked and answered:  Under state law, can local school districts offer courses for local credit?  Do those courses have to be approved by the SBOE and/or the TEA?  It could be that if the voters in Ysleta ISD want to offer this multicultural/politically correct course for local credit, then they could offer local credit for it.  Does the SBOE need to be brought into this issue at all – either with a Mexican-American Studies Course or an Ethnic Studies Course?  The curriculum is already so full now that teachers cannot teach everything they need to teach. Why add any more courses, particularly those that could become a hotbed for indoctrination and controversy?  It is evident that there is nothing that we can do to satisfy the left-leaners. If we move a little bit left, they want more.  If we go all the way to their side, they still want more. I believe our best position is to make a stand, do not apologize for it, clearly state our position, and then let the chips fall. This is the way to stop the bullying and intimidation that has become so prevalent under the Obama admin. If we keep compromising, then we will keep losing our conservative principles.

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

Excerpts from various websites – Hispanic vs. Mexican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

The term “Hispanic” broadly refers to the culture, peoples, or nations with a historical link to Spain. The term commonly applies to countries once colonized by Spain, particularly the countries of Latin America that were colonized by Spain. It could be argued that the term should apply to all Spanish speaking cultures or countries, as the historical roots of the word specifically pertain to the Iberian region. It is also difficult to label a culture with one term, such as Hispanic, as the customs, traditions, beliefs and art forms (music, literature, dress, architecture, cuisine or others) vary widely depending on country and even within the regions of said country. The Spanish and Portuguese cultures are the main cultural element shared by Hispanic peoples.[6][7]

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hispanic

Usage Note: Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for “Spain,” has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino—which in Spanish means “Latin” but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word. · A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latinawhen used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic—the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies—is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.

======= 

JUNE 19, 2013

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/19/hispanics-of-mexican-origin-in-the-united-states-2011/

Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011

BY ANNA BROWN AND EILEEN PATTEN

An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Mexicans in this statistical profile are people who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin; this means either they themselves are Mexican immigrants or they trace their family ancestry to Mexico. Mexicans are the largest population of Hispanic origin living in the United States, accounting for nearly two-thirds (64.6%) of the U.S. Hispanic population in 2011.1

===========

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mexican

Mex·i·can

 noun \ˈmek-si-kən\

: a person born, raised, or living in Mexico

: a person whose family is from Mexico

Full Definition of MEXICAN

1

a :  a native or inhabitant of Mexico

b :  a person of Mexican descent

Southwest :  a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hispanic

His·pan·ic

 adjective \hi-ˈspa-nik\

: coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Latin America; also : of or relating to Hispanic people

Full Definition of HISPANIC

1:  of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal

2:  of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially :  one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin

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

DETAILS ABOUT TESTIFYING ON TUESDAY AT THE SBOE MEETING

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769810247

April 2014 Committee of the Full Board Tuesday

TUESDAY
April 8, 2014

1:30 p.m.

COMMITTEE OF THE FULL BOARD – Room 1-104
Public Testimony – Individual testimony will be taken at the time the related item comes up for committee discussion or action. The procedures for registering and taking public testimony at State Board of Education committee meetings and general board meetings are provided at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769804094.

1. Public Hearing on New Course Development 

A public hearing before the State Board of Education (SBOE) is scheduled for Tuesday, April 8, 2014, in the William B. Travis Building, Room 1-104. Testimony will be presented regarding new courses, including courses that might be developed in the future to align with requirements of House Bill (HB) 5.

COMMITTEE – DISCUSSION
SBOE – NO ACTION 

 

Women On The Wall.org Community Conversation Conference Call

Donna Garner

Donna Garner

By Donna Garner 

Alice Linahan’s Community Conversations — Women on the Wall Conference Call. We are taking on Common Core/ College and Career Ready, and Next Generation Learning Standards! 

“Major changes to Texas high school graduation requirements because of HB 5 are about to alter the fundamentals of the public school system across the state.” WILL YOUR KIDS BE READY FOR THE REAL WORLD IF DEPRIVED OF BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS? 

The truth is that the curriculum standards (TEKS) adopted by the Texas State Board of Education starting in 2008 through 2012 are rigorous and, if taught by teachers well, will get Texas students ready for college and/or careers. 

By watering down the courses and allowing students to escape responsibility, the end result will be Texas producing high-school graduates who are not ready to take on the challenges of adulthood. For people to make good citizens of the United States, they all need to have a common set of foundational knowledge and skills. 

Please plead with your local school officials to adopt a local requirement that all graduates must take TEKS-based English IV, Algebra II, World History, World Geography, and a fourth year of Science. Without these courses, students will not make knowledgeable employees nor capable voters with the abilities to reason and analyze well. 

To read through the TEKS for each subject area, please go to this link and look under “Texas Knowledge and Skills by Chapter” — http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6148

LINK TO ALICE LINAHAN’S PODCAST:

“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

[email protected]

Donna Garner

[email protected]

 Those who teach

Texans Let Your Voices Be Heard~ New Performance Standards for Education Service Centers Proposed

Photo Courtesy of Education Blog Dallas Morning News

Photo Courtesy of Education Blog Dallas Morning News

You have between now and February 3rd for your voices to be heard Texas.

One thing that has become abundantly clear is the Texas Educational Service Centers that brought CSCOPE to Texas have had absolutely no oversight by the TEA. To rectify that Commissioner of Education Michael Williams has proposed new rule in the Texas Register regarding Regional Education Service Centers (ESCs) - 

If you go to the Texas Register by clicking the link below.  Once at this website, click on Texas Education Agency.  In the body of the text, there is a reference to Figure: 19 TAC §53.1021(b) (.pdf).  http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/January32014/index.html.

Commissioner Williams has proposed an ESC (Education Service Center) Performance Standards and Indicators Manual.  The manual is intended to provide clear expectations to ESCs and executive directors for programs, products, and services developed and provided to school districts and charter schools. The public comment period on the proposed rule goes through February 3rd. 

 

“Agency legal counsel has determined that the commissioner should take formal rule making action to place into the Texas Administrative Code procedures related to the regional education service center performance standards and indicators. The intent is to update, as needed, 19 TAC §53.1021 to refer to the most recently published Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual, which would be updated to remain current with applicable statutes and procedures.

Proposed new 19 TAC §53.1021 would adopt the Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual in rule as Figure: 19 TAC §53.1021(b), which would establish performance standards and indicators used in the evaluation of regional education service centers and executive directors. The manual would provide clear expectations to regional education service centers and executive directors for programs, products, and services developed and provided to school districts and charter schools. The manual would also provide clear expectations for ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

The proposed new section would establish in rule the performance standards and indicators by which regional education service centers will be annually evaluated. The proposed new section would have no locally maintained paperwork requirements.

Julie Beisert-Smith, director of regional education service centers, has determined that for the first five-year period the new section is in effect there will be no additional costs for state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the new section.

Ms. Beisert-Smith has determined that for each year of the first five years the new section is in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the new section would be to inform the public of the existence of annual manuals specifying regional education service center performance standards and indicators by including this rule in the Texas Administrative Code. There is no anticipated economic cost to persons who are required to comply with the proposed new section.

There is no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.

The public comment period on the proposal begins January 3, 2014, and ends February 3, 2014. Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez, Rulemaking, Texas Education Agency, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 475-1497. Comments may also be submitted electronically to [email protected] or faxed to (512) 463-5337. A request for a public hearing on the proposal submitted under the Administrative Procedure Act must be received by the commissioner of education not more than 14 calendar days after notice of the proposal has been published in the Texas Register on January 3, 2014.

The new section is proposed under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §8.101, which authorizes the commissioner to establish performance standards and indicators for regional education service centers.

The new section implements the TEC, §8.101.ESC Manual

§53.1021.Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators.

(a) In accordance with the Texas Education Code, §8.101, the commissioner of education shall establish performance standards and indicators for regional education service centers to be used in the annual evaluation of each regional education service center and executive director.

(b) The specific performance standards and indicators by which the commissioner shall evaluate each regional education service center and executive director are described in the Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual provided in this subsection.

Figure: 19 TAC §53.1021(b) (.pdf)

(c) The specific criteria used in the Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual are established by the commissioner and communicated to all regional education service centers and executive directors.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the proposal and found it to be within the state agency’s legal authority to adopt.”

 

 Time is of the Essence to stop the “Fundamental Transformation” of education in America. It is time for parents and grandparents to give the “Gift of American Exceptionalism” back to their child or grandchild. To do this we must go into our children’s school and say…..

 

Can I see Photo cover

#CanISee WHAT you are teaching my child, #CanISee HOW you are teaching my child and #CanISee WHO is financially benefiting from the curriculum products my child’s teacher is being evaluated on.

To follow the movement building a coalition of parents and teacher to give the gift of ”American Exceptionalism” to the next generation follow the hashtag #CanISee on Twitter.

If you think it is important I do urge you to support Women On the Wall and our efforts to educate people. 

Screen Shot 2014-01-10 at 9.32.45 AM

Stand with Texas Parents and Teachers who are fighting against the Federal Take Over of Education across our country.

Please sign the petition linked below and then pass it onto your friends and neighbors.
Ask them to Join the Movement! 

 Impeach Thomas Ratliff

 

South Carolina Common Core Break Out Session

Call for Review Panels for K-12 Social Studies and more…..

Text Books

Please listen to the Women On The Wall Radio show posted below with Texas Mom Kara Sands as she shares  just how important the Text book Review Panels are in Texas. The far left is working to fundamentally transformation education in America and it is our time to give the gift of American Exceptionalism to our children, the next generation. 

The shift is from American Exceptionalism to Globalization. 

There is a Call out now for State Review Panel Nominees 

The Texas Education Agency is now accepting nominations to the state review panels that will evaluate instructional materials submitted for adoption under Proclamation 2015.

To nominate yourself or someone else to serve on a state review panel, please complete the form posted at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769808256&libID=25769808258 and submit it to the TEA on or before Friday, January 24, 2014.

Proclamation 2015 calls for instructional materials in the following areas:

·   Social Studies, grades K-12

·   Social Studies (Spanish), grades K-5

·   Mathematics, grades 9-12

·   Fine Arts, grades K-12

State review panels are scheduled to convene in Austin for one week during the summer of 2014 to review materials submitted under Proclamation 2015. The TEA will reserve hotel lodging and reimburse panel members for all travel expenses, as allowable by law.

 

· Panel members should plan to remain on-site for five days to conduct the evaluation. 

 

· Panel members will be asked to complete an initial review of instructional materials prior to the in-person review. 

 

· Panel members will receive orientation and training both prior to the initial review and at the beginning of the in-person review. 

 

· Panel members might be asked to review additional content following the in-person review.

 

· Because many of the samples will be delivered electronically, panel members should be comfortable reviewing materials on-screen rather than in print.

 

· Panel members should also have a working knowledge of Microsoft Excel.  

 

Upon initial contact by a representative of the TEA, state review panel nominees begin a “no-contact” period in which they may not have either direct or indirect contact with any publisher or other person having an interest in the content of instructional materials under evaluation by the panel. The “no contact” period begins with the initial communication from the Texas Education Agency and ends after the State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts the instructional materials. The SBOE is scheduled to adopt Proclamation 2015 materials at its November 2014 meeting.

 

Nominations are due on or before Friday, January 24, 2014.  The nomination form is posted on the TEA website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769808256&libID=25769808258.  

 

If you have any questions, please contact [email protected]

 

Join the movement Give the Gift of American Exceptionalism to your child or grandchild. 

 Understand the Challenge and take Action! 

Go into your child or grandchild’s classroom and say….. #CanISee WHAT and HOW you are teaching my child in the classroom. 

CanISee movement

Now is the time to go into your child’s classroom and say……..

#CanISee Backpack and Boots on the Ground

Help WomenOnTheWall.org carry out our mission. We are the grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters of American women of all political persuasions, age and race and are the stewards of the home and hearth. We will stop at nothing to defend and protect our families.Your financial support is critical to ensuring that we can carry out our mission of protecting our nation for future generations and to fight for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren. Help us in our efforts by making a contribution of $25, $50, or $100 so we can keep fighting for our conservative values.

The Battle Is On for Your Childs Mind-

Texas Board of Education 2013

TODAY’S CALL TO ACTION- TELL THE (SBOE) DO NOT ADOPT THE PROPOSED SCIENCE TEXT BOOKS!

TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Texas State Board of Education decides what every student in Texas public schools will learn from kindergarten through high school. This is done by adopting curriculum standards and textbooks for public schools in Texas. 

The board is made up of 15 members elected from districts across the state. 

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHO

YOUR STATE SBOE REPRESENTATIVE IS?  

Barbara Cargill, Chair
Thomas Ratliff, Vice Chair
Mavis B. Knight, Secretary

INSTRUCTION
Tom Maynard, Chair

Sue Melton-Malone, Vice Chair
Martha M. Dominguez
Geraldine Miller
Marisa B. Perez

SCHOOL FINANCE/PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND
Patricia Hardy, Chair

Lawrence A. Allen, Jr., Vice Chair
David Bradley
Ken Mercer
Thomas Ratliff

SCHOOL INITIATIVES
Donna Bahorich, Chair

Marty Rowley, Vice Chair
Barbara Cargill
Ruben Cortez, Jr.

Mavis B. Knight

 

This week the State Board of Education (SBOE) decides whether the next generation of Texas public school students have textbooks that teach 21st-century/Common Core science which is filled with  Global Warming/Climate Change propaganda that demonizes the oil/ natural gas industry. If these textbooks are approved Texas’ oil/natural gas industry will eventually be destroyed. The oil/gas industry drives our Great State’s economy and provides thousands of jobs–we must protect it.

Call write, tweet, facebook do what ever it takes to let them know you do NOT want them to adopt the proposed Science text books. 

 

This is the situation. Final evaluations by the text books reviewers were sent to the publishers in mid-September, who would not address the concerns that the reviewers had. This vote on the Texas Science Textbooks will determine which science, K-8 math and Tech Apps textbooks are put on the state adopted list.

 

The problem is that the publishers choose to basically stick with the Common Core philosophy of education and would not change what the Texas Reviewers requested. If they vote for these textbooks they are voting to basically align with the Common Core Type 2 Philosophy in our Texas text books.

 

The board has scheduled a final public hearing on the textbooks for today Wednesday afternoon in Austin. 

On Thursday board members will debate the adoption of the textbooks and take a preliminary vote most likely that afternoon. The final, official vote on the adoption is set for Friday. 

To be clear. The forces working to change the hearts and minds of the Next Generation use strategies and tactics to get their agenda in no matter how the (SBOE) votes. We as parents and grandparents must go into their classroom and say…. #CanISee WHAT you are teaching my child and HOW you are teaching my child. 

Here is the proof.  Full video is linked Here.  

Join the movement – Give your child or grandchild the gift of American Exceptionalism back.

Say #CanISee WHAT and HOW you are teaching my child in the classroom! 

Dewhurst (1)

Now is the time to go into your child’s classroom and say……..

CAN i SEE slide 1920 x  1080 (3) 

Things you need to know-

School-board-300x163

Ethics Complaint against Thomas Ratliff

Texas Teachers Understand and Parents will STAND

Race To the Top in Texas?

Stand with me a Texas Mom who is fighting against the Federal Take Over of Education across our country.

Please sign the petition linked below and then pass it onto your friends and neighbors.
Ask them to Join the Movement! 
Impeach Thomas Ratliff from the SBOE

Fundamentally Transforming America through our Children~

AND WE ARE PAYING FOR IT WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

“A short trip to HELL”

fish bateJust a note from Ray Myers to explain how Obama and his team plan to fundamentally change our country. His plan is simple, yet very sinister. Here is the short version.

Think of it like this: When any government agency, City Hall, School Board, County Commissioner or State Agency accepts stimulus money for anything. Obama will gladly send the requesting agent millions of stimulus dollars. Here’s the catch—when the stimulus money runs out, the fine print states that the agency must keep up the programs with continual tax dollars. When the in debt agency calls Mr. Obama and says, but Mr. President–we are out of stimulus money and we cannot afford to continue these programs. Here is the TRAP—He sets the Hook! Well that is GREAT—don’t worry about a thing—we will take your agency over and run it ourselves. The city /school etc has taken the bait. From the School House to the State House—“Don’t Take The Money!” “Don’t Take The Bait!”

 

grey_reef_shark45The challenge we face is that Congress may just throw us to the sharks….

Much like ObamaCare but this is ObamaCore….

S. 1094, the “Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013,“ is a 1200 page regulatory tsunami on local school systems.  All local control of your child’s education will be washed away if this bill passes.  It includes forced implementation of Common Core Standards and puts all decisions on education policy in the hands of Washington, DC bureaucrats.

They’re creating a national school board by Jason Laird

If you thought No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top were bad, think again.

The U.S. Senate is poised to pass a bill that’s far worse. 

S.1094, the “Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013,” is a 1200 page regulatory tsunami on local school systems.

All local control of your child’s education will be washed away if this bill passes.

Why is it so bad?

S.1094 puts approximately 150 new reporting requirements on states relating to:

  • Teacher evaluations
  • Learning goals
  • Curriculum standards
  • Standardized testing
  •  Annual reporting 
S.1094 also continues the war on local schools through FORCED implementation of Common Core Standards.
 
A longstanding line of defense used by Common Core advocates is that it is voluntary for the states to participate.
 
With the passage of S.1094, participation and implementation of Common Core Standards will be required of states.
 
This bill puts every single major decision on American education policy in the hands of Washington DC bureaucrats in the U.S. Department of Education. 

Yikes!What’s worse is that local school systems are required to implement all of these new federal mandates and standards in a very short time frame.

This means that teachers and local school administrators will be spending more time trying to comply with silly federal mandates and less time on actually teaching your child.

The Education Freedom Committee opposes S.1094 because we fundamentally reject the idea that the federal government should have any role in the education of our children.

 
We would like nothing more than for the Congress to replace No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top with. . .
 
NOTHING!
 
If this bill passes, parents, teachers, and students will be sent to the sidelines.The bill has already been rubber stamped in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and could be voted on in the U.S. Senate at any time.
Now is our time to protect Americas children…. 

“Lesson Learned” – CSCOPE

by Barbara Cargill

photo (3)Chair of Texas State Board of Education

Now is the time to ride the wave of public concern and outrage about CSCOPE. Although many past lessons may have been corrected or changed, why was there poorly written, biased content in the first place? (I read the lessons myself, using my own assigned password.) This issue is only the tip of a huge iceberg. There are other instructional materials that contain questionable content, and they are not being reviewed for the quality of their content.

 

In 1995 the legislature voted to limit the State Board of Education’s authority over the review of textbook content. Since that time, there has been no public, transparent, citizen-led process for vetting the quality of content in our children’s textbooks. Now that almost all textbooks are online, this becomes an even greater issue of concern because content can be changed with a few strokes on a keyboard. 

 

How were textbook reviews done in the past? Before 1995, the board could instruct review panels (consisting of volunteer parents, teachers, industry leaders, and other citizens) to check for factual errors and also to review thequality of the content.

 

Here are a few things panel members could review prior to 1995:

·        Does the textbook content present positive aspects of U.S. heritage?

·        Does it contain balanced, factual treatment of political and social movements?

·        Does the textbook promote respect for citizenship, patriotism, recognized authority, individual rights, the free enterprise, and respect for the work ethic? 

·        Does it reflect an awareness of various ethnic groups?

·        Does the book reflect the positive contributions of individuals and groups on American life? 

 

What changed? In the board’s current textbook review process, panelists are instructed to check for factual errors and for TEKS coverage, period. Checking for TEKS coverage is NOT checking for the quality with which the TEKS are covered. For example, George Washington is required to be covered in American history, since he is listed several times in the TEKS. How he is covered in the content, however, is not part of the review.

  

It is time for the citizens of Texas to demand change and to regain the right to vet the quality of content in our children’s textbooks! The same public passion that resulted in content changes in CSCOPE lessons must be harnessed and directed toward state policy-makers who can reinstate the vetting of content quality to the board’s adoption process.

 

What can you do?

I highly encourage you to ask your child’s teachers what curriculum and textbooks they use.  Parents must stay informed about what is being taught in the classroom; it is your right. According to the Texas Education Code 26.006, parents are “entitled to review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent’s child; and review each test administered to the parent’s child after the test is administered.” As we approach the 2014 election season, ask elected officials and candidates their position on this issue. We must be advocates on behalf of our schoolchildren; let’s show them that we have learned our lesson about what can happen when quality of content goes unchecked.

 ____________________________________________________

If you are not going to allow your child, grandchild, niece or nephew to be used start by signing a petition to remove paid Microsoft lobbyist Thomas Ratliff from the Texas SBOE (State Board of Education) 

 

Screen Shot 2013-08-19 at 9.53.19 PM

What Kate Forgot to Mention: “CSCOPE Assessments Now Posted on Public Website”

Donna Garner

Education writer Donna Garner

By Donna Garner

Kate Alexander, liberal and biased reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, has written an article in today’s paper entitled “Activists publish CSCOPE tests online.” I have posted excerpts further on down the page.

 

WHAT KATE “FORGOT” TO MENTION

Kate mentions nothing in this article about the fact that the TESCCC (made up of all 20 Education Service Center directors) was the corporate owner of CSCOPE (and all its parts).  TESCCC announced on May 20, 2013, that TESCCC would cease to exist.

From what has been widely publicized, the TESCCC

decided to shut itself down because it was set up originally as a “shell corporation” without the appropriate business mechanisms having been put in place; millions of taxpayers’ dollars are still unaccounted for; and lawsuits may be in the offing because of plagiarism found in the CSCOPE lessons. The Texas State Auditor, John Keel, is presently doing a formal audit of TESCCC/ESC/CSCOPE; and shortly a formal complaint may be filed with the IRS.

The TESCCC directors signed a letter saying that the CSCOPE lessons would be taken off the website on Aug. 31, 2013, when the yearly school contracts expired.  In the same 5.20.13 letter, the TESCCC also announced that the ESC’s would produce and sell no more lesson plans to Texas schools.

Screen Shot 2013-08-19 at 9.53.19 PMTHOMAS RATLIFF INFLUENCES HIS CRONIES

Then up popped Thomas Ratliff who loudly began advising Texas public school administrators to let their teachers download the CSCOPE lessons and to keep using them anyway.  Ratliff is a registered lobbyist for Microsoft and gets richer each time online technology in Texas schools is utilized.  Because of his obvious conflict of interest, Ratliff is an illegal member of the Texas State Board of Education because of the monetary/business ties that the Texas Education Agency and SBOE have with Microsoft.

Grassroots citizens have generated a petition to have Ratliff impeached by the Texas House  — www. IMPEACHRATLIFF.COM.

 

CSCOPE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN

At the July 17-19, 2013 Texas State Board of Education meeting, David Anderson, legal counsel for the Texas Education Agency, verbalized his interpretation of this confusing situation, saying that after Aug. 31, 2013, the CSCOPE lessons would become a part of the public domain and could be utilized by any and all.  On 8.22.13, the Texas Tribune published the CSCOPE lessons on their website.

 

However, nothing has been decided legally about the ownership of the CSCOPE assessments. The TESCCC owned the CSCOPE lessons and the accompanying assessments; but since the TESCCC has shut itself down and its contracts with districts have ceased to exist, it seems reasonable to assume that the CSCOPE assessments should be in the public domain also.

 

MEANWHILE, TESCCC HAS MORPHED

On 8.12.13, the former TESCCC members met as a committee at ESC 13 in Austin and suddenly began calling themselves the Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative (TCMPC).  The name CSCOPE has been changed to the TEKS Resource System, and all of the same CSCOPE “parts” are being marketed by the ESC’s except for the CSCOPE lessons (which can now be accessed on the Texas Tribune website).

 

CSCOPE ASSESSMENTS PUBLISHED

This week a few of the CSCOPE assessments have been put into the public domain on a public website with more assessments sure to be published soon.  The question remains, “If TESCCC shut itself down, then who owns the CSCOPE assessments?”

 

Stop CSCOPETEXAS TEACHERS SPEAK OUT

Please go to this link to see how Texas teachers and students feel about the CSCOPE lessons, assessments, and scope and sequence:  http://www.voicesempower.com/voice-of-a-teacher-and-a-student-cscope-assessments/

 

SBOE REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING — CSCOPE SOCIAL STUDIES LESSONS

The Texas State Board of Education is supervising the review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons since many schools in Texas have decided to keep using the CSCOPE lessons which are now in the public domain.  The review teams are evaluating whether or not the CSCOPE lessons are aligned with the state-adopted-and-mandated curriculum standards (TEKS) and are free from factual errors.

As a part of the SBOE review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons, a public hearing will be held by the SBOE on Sept. 13 at 9:00 A. M. (changed from an earlier start time of 1:00 P. M.)  Here is the link to the information people need who wish to testify at that meeting: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Communications/CSCOPE/Public_hearing_scheduled_on_CSCOPE/

 

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – PARENTAL ACCESS

For those school districts that insist on using CSCOPE lessons (or whatever the new name may be), the “elephant in the room” is still parental access 24/7 to the CSCOPE curriculum.

Statute established in the Texas Education Code (TEC) states that the school district must “allow the student to take home any instructional materials used by the student…The parent must be allowed to review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent’s child…A school district shall make teaching materials and tests readily available for review by parents.”  (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle E. Students and Parents, Chapter 26. Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Sec. 26.006. Access to Teaching Materials — http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.26.htm#26.004 )

 

Definition of “instructional materials” – “The term includes a book, supplementary materials, a combination of a book, workbook, and supplementary materials, computer software, magnetic media, DVD, CD-ROM, computer courseware, on-line services, or an electronic medium, or other means of conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means, including open-source instructional material. (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle F. Curriculum, Programs, and Services, Chapter 31. Instructional Materials, Subchapter A. General Provisions, Sec. 31.002, Definitions, Instructional Material –

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.31.htm )

 

As described by an experienced Texas teacher:

 Hypothetically, if a teacher ‘does’ a CSCOPE lesson, the parent will never be able to see it. It will be played out in the classroom. The only thing that will come home is a graphic organizer with a bunch of empty boxes — no explanation at the top, no content to review…

CSCOPE doesn’t provide the content — meaning the informational text for the student. That is why it is so dangerous.  It provides a script for the teacher, which the parent will never see. The teacher is left to scramble for material all over the internet. 

When dangerous links in the CSCOPE lessons were made public by concerned citizens, the TESCCC (corporate owner of CSCOPE) pulled those links. This is the big danger of CSCOPE and other online materials.  Links and other content can be taken out or put back in ‘at the click of a mouse’ without parental knowledge.  

Another expert on CSCOPE has stated:

We also need to keep going back to the fact that the TESCCC was never forced to provide actual access for parents  – a requirement of the Texas Education Code. TESCCC skirted by on pledges to create a new website with total access, which turned out to be a sham since parents did not have genuine access to the lessons being used in CLASSROOMS, only samples (as was the case with the original CSCOPE domain)…

No access was ever truly granted.  Therefore, the question of access is still a valid one for the courts and should be the primary focus of legal efforts. 

For success in court, parents need to seek injunctive relief on the basis of being denied access to the lessons used by both the District and TESCCC. Injury on the basis of ACCESS will give all parents standing. And standing, is what judges care about.  

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

Austin American Statesman Writer Kate Alexander

Austin American Statesman Writer Kate Alexander

9.5.13 – “Activists Publish CSCOPE Tests Online” – by Kate Alexander, Austin American-Statesman –

 

Excerpts from this article:

A conservative blogger has published online the questions and answers for social studies tests available to hundreds of Texas school districts because she maintains they reflect a pro-Islam and anti-American bias.

 

The public release of the tests could render them unusable and is the latest development in an ongoing saga over a curriculum system, formerly known as CSCOPE, that has inflamed conservative and tea party activists over the past year.

 

Ginger Russell, half of the mother-daughter duo that sparked the CSCOPE controversy, posted the 10 tests on her website — redhotconservative.com — on Wednesday. Russell said she believed that parents needed to see the tests, which had been provided to her by teachers…

 

It will be left up to the school districts whether to continue using the tests, but many teachers and administrators have already expressed concern that the integrity of the assessments had been compromised, said Mason Moses, a spokesman for the state-funded Education Service Centers that developed the assessments.

 

“We take this very seriously. … This may be just 10 or so now, but there is concern that moving forward it could multiply significantly,” Moses said.

 

Posting the tests online harms the schools that have found them to be a useful resource, said State Board of Education member Thomas Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant.

 

“Clearly, what she’s trying to do is destroy the whole program,” Ratliff said of Russell…

Join the Movement!

If you are not going to allow your child, grandchild, niece or nephew to be used like this start by signing a petition to remove paid Microsoft lobbyist Thomas Ratliff from the Texas SBOE (State Board of Education) 

 

Screen Shot 2013-08-19 at 9.53.19 PM