June 27, 2017

A Labyrinth of Corporate Interests in Common Core

This is a companion document connected to the video Morna McDermont made entitled Walking the Labyrinth of the Corporate Owned Common Core 

 

A SPECIAL THANKS TO KAREN BRACKEN FOR THE SERIOUS TIME AND ENERGY SHE PUT INTO (RE) CREATING THE COMMON CORE CHART AS A POWER POINT


jpeglabyrinth-slide-21

 

The following is the transcript of the narrative from the video above. (Note: Morna has added additional items she forgot to mention in the video in italics, and has inserted NOTES with extended information on certain items, and provided a list of references at the end).

Transcript begins:

Hi.  I’m Morna McDermott.  It’s July 23rd 2013 and this is my overview of corporate involvement in the Common Core.  Let’s start with U.S. Department of Education which funded, through grants and other funding, the Common Core via Race to the Top and handed it over to three major organizations: the National Governors Association, the CCSSO, otherwise known as the Chief Counsel State School Officers, and Achieve … who have partnered to disseminate, organize, manage or otherwise outsource the Common Core and the assessments that go with it.

INSERTED NOTE: I failed to mention that Achieve is funded in large part by ALEC-associated corporations including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Boeing, GE Foundation, Lumina, Nationwide, and State Farm.

(Transcript continued): So let’s start over here. The Director of Race to the Top is Joanne Weiss who worked with the Broad Foundation which also has as one of its acting members Chester Finn with the Fordham Institute. Broad Foundation is also a member of ALEC which sponsored the bill called the Parent Trigger Act. I’ll come back to that.

INSERTED NOTE: A little more background on the Eli Broad Foundation.  This foundation advertises its commitment to education in the following way (according to their website): “Broad Superintendents Academy graduates are raising student achievement faster than their peers after three years in their positions. And Broad Residents are freeing up millions of dollars for the classroom by introducing central office efficiencies … ”

Sounds nice. But there’s more… According to one author: “The network involves outspoken individuals with elitist credentials, long time neo-liberals, right-wing think tank pundits and their conservative foundation sponsors, other foundations such as Wallace and the Broad Foundations, and quasi-government agencies … Broad money is sloshed behind the scenes to elect or select candidates who buy the Broad corporate agenda in education (see Emery and Ohanian, 2004, pp.89-94). Broad’s enemies are teacher unions, school boards, and schools of education. What all three have in common is that they eschew corporate, top-down control required in the Broad business model.

(Transcript continued): The National Governors Association partners with Achieve for the Common Core. The National Governors Association also partners with the College Board. The CCSSO partners with Pearson for the Common Core (to create) the materials. The CCSSO also partners with ACT which is funded by State Farm which is a member of ALEC. Pearson, among other things, there is not enough time to cover everything in Pearson, so this is a broad sketch…acquired Connections Academy which is a member of ALEC. Connections Academy (via Mickey Revenaugh, Senior Vice President of State Relations for Connections Academy as of 2011) was actually the co-chair of the subcommittee for education in ALEC.  Pearson also acquired America’s Choice which sponsored a program called the NCEE which also partners with the CCSSO.

INSERTED NOTE: America’s Choice began as a program of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. In the autumn of 2004, America’s Choice was reorganized as a for-profit subsidiary of NCEE.

Since its founding in 1988, NCEE has been a leader of the educational standards movement in the U.S., and the America’s Choice program has become a premier provider of comprehensive school and instructional design services, technical assistance and teacher professional development. 

According to Jay Greene: “NCEE’s scheme was originally financed by a $1,500,000 pilot grant from the Gates Foundation.  It will now benefit from a sweetheart deal of $30,000,000–all taxpayers’ money. Having Gates pay for both NCEE’s start-up and the development of Common Core standards certainly helped America’s Choice to put its key people on Common Core’s ELA and mathematics standards development and draft-writing committees to ensure that they came up with the readiness standards Gates had paid for and wanted NCEE to use. NCEE has a completely free hand to ‘align’ its ‘Board’ exams exactly how it pleases with Common Core’s ‘college-readiness’ level and to set passing scores exactly where it wants, since the passing score must be consistent across piloting states.”

Other funders of NCEE who are also members of ALEC include Eastman Kodak Company, Lumina Foundation, and Ford Motor Company Fund, Boeing, Xerox, and Broad Foundation.

(Transcript cont.): The NCEE is funded by Walton- come over here-The Walton Foundation which is a member of ALEC and is basically associated with Walmart, directly funds the Common Core State Standards. And again, too many too many connections to mention- this is just brought sketch. I’m gonna come back up over here to the CCSSO (whose director is Tom Luna- correction, current Director is Chris Minnich former employee of Pearson) to look at their connections with McKinsey and Co. which is a global consulting firm. Their  big thing is called “Big Data”… they believe that the data is the answer to all things right now, (and) as you can see they’ve got their fingerprints all over everything in the Common Core. For one thing, David Coleman was one of the architects of the Common Core … he created the Student Achievement Partners which helped develop a standards, (and he) was a former consultant for McKinsey. Lou Gerstner, who is the co-founder of Achieve, was the former director at McKinsey & Co. and Sir Michael Barber was a former consultant McKinsey, is now one of the CEO’s at Pearson.  Pearson partners with the PARCC Consortium for the assessments. And I said they already partner with Achieve and ACT. The PARCC, following the screen line (in red) all the way over here, has their data collection (in) a partnership with inBloom. Now inBloom is a part Wireless Generation and is contracting with several states to collect the data for all their testing. The two key players in inBloom are Joel Klein (and) Rupert Murdoch. And in addition, members of the Board of inBloom include Margaret Spellings, Gene Wilhoit (former Executive Director) of the CCSSO, and also on the board is Bob Wise.  Bob (Wise) was the chair for the Alliance for Excellent Education which is the brainchild Jeb Bush. It’s funded by State Farm.  The Alliance for Excellent Education partners with, or supports, the Common Core. I’m gonna… follow me down here…. to the Council for Foreign Relations which supports a national curriculum and has been a big promoter at the Common Core Standards and has had direct influence on it. They created a paper in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense and with America’s Promise Alliance to craft paper call the Education Reform and National Security Report and its authors supported the Common Core State Standards initiative. So, on the Council for Foreign Relations you have Lou Gertsner, who you know is the co-founder of Achieve, as I already mentioned, and who is a former director at McKinsey & Co. Also on the Board of Directors (of America’s Promise Alliance) is general Colin Powell – one of the things that this paper mentioned was the importance of the U.S. Department of Defense in overseeing and managing the Common Core. Other signers of this paper include Condoleeza Rice – and one of the cosponsors of this paper was America’s Promise Alliance which supports the Common Core .

INSERT: Visible but not mentioned is endorsement on this paper by a representative of the American Enterprise Institute,Rick Hess, who ironically vocalizes public skepticism of the Common Core. See the actual document for a full list of signatories.

(Transcript continued): The chair of America’s Promise Alliance is Alma Powell. The co-chair is Greg Petersmeyer, who is a McKinsey and Co. consultant and (he) helped develop something called Fuse Corporation which, among other things, supported Teach for America. So Fuse Corp is one of the partners of America Promise Alliance which is funded by Pearson Foundation, the Walmart Foundation which isin ALEC, the Gates Foundation, Lumina which is in ALEC, Boeing which is in ALEC, and Lockheed Martin which is the world’s largest weapons manufacturer and is a member of ALEC, (and) The Ford Foundation. Bill Gates…um this is a board sketch because there are way too many things to mention about Bill Gates, but among other things… on of the Board of Directors for Wireless Generation is an employee at the Gates Foundation.

INSERT: Clarification of an error. The former Gates employee works for inBloom, not Wireless. Her name is Sharren Bates and she is the Chief Product Officer. https://www.inbloom.org/leadership. Also, on the Board of Director sits Deputy Director of the Next Generation Models Team for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Stacey Childress.

(Transcript continued): The Gates Foundation directly funded the inBloom network. Gates also funds the College Board, which is now run by David Coleman–remember from Student Achievement Partners that made the standards for Common Core, and (who) was a former consultant at McKinsey & Co–um where’d they go… Gates Foundation also directly funds the Common Core State Standards. The National Governors Association partners with the College Board and also partners with the Achieve.  The CCSSO also partners with McKinsey & Co. to manage the PARCC after 2014. This initiative is also partnered by Lumina which is a member ALEC …So after 2014, McKinsey and Co. may be managing our children data. Specifically, the state of Florida has potentially considered a contract with McKinsey and Co. to manage the PARCC as of 2015. Again, this is a broad sketch-and there’s always more than meets the eye. But if every line was on here that needed to be on here, it would be even more unreadable than it already is. I forgot to mention U.S. Department of Education… the key advisers for the 2009 U.S. Department of Education “Blueprint” included largely members at McKinsey and Co. and the Broad Foundation. So it’s curious how much ALEC contends that it opposes the Common Core yet so many organizations that are members of ALEC have funded its inception and continue to promote its perpetuation from state to state.

Makes you wonder….

LABYRINTH OF CORPORATE COMMON CORE

LIST OF (MOST) REFERENCES

inBloom:

https://www.inbloom.org/board-of-directors

http://www.americaspromise.org/About-the-Alliance/Leadership/Board-of-Directors/C-Gregg-Petersmeyer.aspx

 

Lumina and CCSSO:

http://www.luminafoundation.org/luminagrants/council_of_chief_state_school_officers_washington_dc_/

State Farm and ALEC: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State_Farm

Lockheed Martin: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin

Chester Finn: http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/147681

ACT and Pearson: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/idUS192506+02-Jul-2012+HUG20120702

David Coleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Coleman_(educator)

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

Boeing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Boeing

America’s Promise Alliance:

http://www.americaspromise.org/About-the-Alliance/Our-Donors.aspx

http://www.americaspromise.org/gradnation

Council on Foreign Relations:

http://educationalchemy.com/2012/05/11/this-is-not-a-test/

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/national+security+and+education.pdf

McKinsey and Co:

http://educationalchemy.com/2013/03/23/vampires-mckinsey-co-and-the-future-of-public-education-its-all-connected/

http://educationalchemy.com/2013/06/09/manifest-destiny-2-0-meet-the-new-colonizers/

http://educationalchemy.com/2012/06/18/the-hand-that-holds-the-data-rules-the-world/

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation

Lou Gerstner:

http://educationalchemy.com/2013/07/17/pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=179272&ticker=IBM

http://speakerpedia.com/speakers/louis-v-gerstner-jr

Alliance for Excellent Education: http://www.all4ed.org/

Grad Nation: http://www.all4ed.org/files/EducationDaily20111117.pdf

Connections Academy: http://www.connectionsacademy.com/about/management-team.aspx

Pearson:

http://www.examiner.com/article/pearson-250-million-kids-teachers-zero

http://www.thedeal.com/content/private-equity/apollo-exits-connections-education-via-400m-sale-to-pearson.php#ixzz1sSFSzLK0

American Legislative Exchange Commission (ALEC):

http://www.alecexposed.org

http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/rww-in-focus-alec.pdf

Tom Luna: http://sites.google.com/site/commonsensedemocracyfoundation/recent-articles/tomlunaseducationreformplanwasalongtimeinthemaking

Schools Report: Failing to Prepare Students Hurts National Security, Prosperity:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/schools-report-condoleezza-rice-joel-klein_n_1365144.html?ref=education

Joel Klein: http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=1248

NCEE (Natl Center for Education and the Economy): http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/gates-ncee-influence/

Other General References:

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/10/ending-99-control-of-schools-by-1.html?spref=fb

http://cnx.org/content/m34684/latest/  (Ten Most Wanted Enemies of American Public Education’s School Leadership)

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2011/02/we-know-what-commmon-core-standards.html

http://washingtonindependent.com/110525/alec-model-legislation-echoes-tppf-perry-backed-higher-ed-reforms-in-texas

http://www.artofteachingscience.org/2011/09/24/common-corporate-science-standards/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/gates-education-games_n_854431.html

 

RED ALERT! URGE NO VOTES ON NCLB REPLACEMENT (HR 5) & DATA MINING BILL (S 227) IN US HOUSE ON 2-25!

Data Collection
Hat Tip to the Florida Coalition Against Common Core~ Who put out this RED ALERT not only on HR 5 but on S 227 as well. 

Besides urging a no vote on HR 5, the Student Success Act that replaces No Child Left Behind, please contact your US representatives to vote NO on S 227, the Senate version of the federal data mining bill.  Having already passed the Senate last year and about to be passed again, it is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday February 25th in the US House.  S 227, the Strengthening Education through Research Act (SETRA) reauthorizes the 2002 Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) that has been very problematic, because it started the concept of state longitudinal databases, stepped around the prohibition on a national database by creating “national cooperative education statistics systems,”  allowed personally identifiable information to go to international agencies, and removed the  previous penalties of fines and imprisonment for misusing individual student data. SETRA continues or worsens all of that. Here are four major problems with SETRA (A detailed analysis of these points is available at http://bit.ly/1CYg31N):

1.  SETRA seeks to expand federal psychological profiling of our children
Section 132 of the bill (page 28, line 16-21) inserts the following:
”and which may include research on social and emotional learning, and the acquisition of competencies and skills, including the ability to think critically, solve complex problems, evaluate evidence, and communicate effectively…” (Emphasis added).

The US Department of Education (USED) is already a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment.  The amount of data collected on individual children, families, and teachers via USED through this law and the weakening and loopholes of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) that provided individual data to the federal government is appalling and a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment as well.  To then give the federal government the right to research the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors of free American citizens, especially innocent children, is completely unacceptable and without justification. 
2.  SETRA only appears to prohibit a national database.
Section 157 of the bill takes out the word “national” and still only by words, prohibits a national database. While this appears to be an improvement, it unfortunately doesn’t do anything to stop the egregious loss of privacy that has happened since ESRA established the national cooperative statistics systems and state longitudinal databases in 2002.  These databases have been enhanced by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, Stimulus), Race to the Top, and the America COMPETES Act.  In addition they are relying on outdated and weak student privacy laws (FERPA and PPRA), there is no enforcement mechanism, and we have seen how the federal government repeatedly and flagrantly violates its promises not to extend its authority, as with Race to the Top, Common Core and the national tests. 
 
3. The bill continues to rely on a severely outdated and weakened FERPA to protect student privacy.
Both ESRA and SETRA refer to FERPA (20 USC 1232g) in Section 182 and requires data privacy to be handled according to that law.  However, FERPA passed in 1974 long before the presence of interoperable databases and cloud computing.  It also only discusses sanctions on entities that mishandle the data and those, which used to include fines and imprisonment, were severely weakened when ESRA was passed in 2002.  Students, families, and teachers whose sensitive personal and family data about everything from “social and emotional” issues to genetic data in newborn screening data, have no redress.  According to an investigation by Politico, education technology companies are “scooping up as many as 10 million unique data points on each child, each day.” (Emphasis added) Finally, FERPA has been severely weakened via regulatory fiat to gut consent requirements and broaden access to data by federal agencies and private entities.
 
4. SETRA continues the large loophole that renders PPRA ineffective in protecting student privacy.
PPRA, cited in section 182 as 20 USC 1232h, prohibits the collection of psychological, political, religious, and other sensitive data in surveys, but not in curriculum and assessments such as in Common Core.

 

 

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 $19,81, $50, or $100 so we can keep fighting for future generations.

If you have not gotten Credential to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon, by Robin Eubanks, now is the time. She is also the author of the blog, Invisible Serfs Collar.com

Action Alert:

Vote NO are H.R. 5

ACTION ALERT: STOP THE STUDENT “SUCCESS” ACT (HR 5)

Congressional Leadership Is Bull-Rushing Through HR5, the 600 Page Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (rebranded the “Student Success Act”)

The House votes on it this week.  Call your Representative and call the Speaker of the House and tell them to vote “no” on HR 5!

Click photo for the Contact info on the U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. House of Representatives

Below are just a few of the problems with the Student Success Act H.R.5.

1. HR5 Denigrates Parental Rights and Seizes State Sovereignty

  • No program shall “operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have . . . waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Sec. 6561) (emphasis added).
  • Federal requirements will trump the rights “reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution” to lead in the education of their child. (Sec. 6564)
  • Requires states to change laws and regulations to “conform” to HR5. (Sec. 1403)
  • Alters the governance structures of states by requiring them to form “Committees of Practitioners” to whom the state must submit rules and regulations. (Sec. 1403)

2. HR5 Does Nothing to Relieve Children From No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB’s) Oppressive Testing Requirements.

3. Feds Will Effectively Direct State Education Policy through Enhanced Continuation of Heavy-Handed NCLB Policies

  • Requires states to demonstrate to the federal government that their standards, assessments, and state accountability systems meet the goal of “prepar[ing] all students to graduate high school for postsecondary education or the workforce.” (Sec. 1001)
  • Requires states to submit comprehensive state plans, which the Secretary can disapprove. (Sec. 1111)
  • States had to make the same showing and meet the same definitional goal to receive NCLB waivers and Race to the Top grants.. HR5 allows for a Common Core “rebrand.”  (Sec. 1001) and (Sec. 1111(3)(A))
  • Prohibitions against the Secretary forcing states into adopting Common Core are meaningless.

4. Increases Federal Data Collection To Control Curriculum

  • Empowers the Department of Education to request individual student and teacher data from State and Local Education Agencies.
  • Authorizes substantial new funding to use this data to evaluate whether schools are using “effective” instructional methods.  (Sec. 2111(b)(1)(A)) and (Sec. 2132)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Women On the Wall is Proud to stand with Pennsylvanians Restoring Education

Anita Hoge

After having Anita Hoge on the Women on the Wall Conference Call we are proud to stand with her and the team at

Pennsylvanians Restoring Education – Pennsylvanians Against Common Core.


Anita and her team have just sent out the press release below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 20, 2015, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, PA.

Citizens of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians Restoring Education, Pennsylvania Against Common Core, parents and students are asking Representative John Kline to stop the REAUTHORIZATION of ESEA, HR 5, the Student Success Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.

HR 5 denies parents their rights over their children. Reference page 488. Reference page 522-555.

HR 5 legislation creates the radical transformation of tax collection through the assigned destruction and hostile takeover of our local neighborhood schools.

HR 5 violates states’ rights under the United States Constitution.

HR 5 is designed to destroy local, public neighborhood schools through usurpation of elected school boards’ authorities and responsibilities.

HR 5 will destroy all private education in America, as well, legislating Title I “choice” vouchers that will “follow the child,” enforcing HR 5 compliance in EVERY PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.

HR 5 would legislate services to these Title I “choice” children called DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES AS A VOUCHER that must be equitable and comparable to any public school, which is needed to satisfy Common Core.

HR 5 will destroy representative government, all non-governmental schools, and standardize education across this nation. This overreach of the federal government is in direct violation of our United States Constitution which dictates separation of federal jurisdiction vs. State jurisdiction.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you state in the Student Success Act HR 5, Press Release, February 3, 2015:

“…..This proposal provides an opportunity to chart a new course….”

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, this “new course” that you are forcing on the states will end in Constitutional chaos.

HR 5 removes Constitutional states’ rights sovereignty.

HR 5 redefines parent and removes parental rights over the upbringing of their children.

HR 5 subjugates state legislatures under blatantly false pretenses about state and local control.

HR 5 presents choice vouchers defined as “direct student services,” as a means to control private and religious schools and phase out public schools.

HR 5 would transform ALL SCHOOLS into government schools. Has every state ceded the land that these schools occupy, turning them into federal lands? If the states have not ceded the land to the federal government, the federal government’s jurisdiction is determined to be severely limited, unless altered drastically by the state legislature. Questions of jurisdiction would still remain. At the least, HR 5 obfuscates state and federal jurisdictions as specified in the Constitution and affirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE Who “Grubered” your HR 5 and consigned the states to federal takeover?

HR 5 forces private and religious schools to provide services through an APPROVED state list of providers eliminating the freedom for private and religious schools to teach students to their own standards and select their own curriculum.

HR 5 forces private and religious schools to provide non-cognitive mental health areas of personality development and interventions whereby proficiency levels in the social, emotional, and behavioral domain are scored to a criterion resulting in violations of privacy under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, federal law, state law, and civil rights laws.

HR 5 uses choice vouchers to dissolve the public school system through the exodus of (departure of) Choice, Title I, at-risk students who disengage from the public school and enter a private or religious school. Public schools are presently represented by locally elected school board members in the United States. The destruction of our neighborhood public school system undermines the power and authority of property tax provisions and elected school board representation on the local level, representation which financially supports local education agencies.

HR 5 provides for the expansion of charter schools as the sanctioned alternative for

schooling. As you, Representative Kline, must know, charter schools are a system of schooling without elected boards. They use public tax monies regulated by federal government mandates, standards, assessment and teacher remediation with data tracking and trafficking and re-education toward Common Core standards.

HR 5 by design eliminates local and state representative government by removing the states’ rights and local control of education and surrenders our children’s education and future to the dictates of the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 is a Constitutional Crisis in the Making.

HR 5 requires that states legislatively surrender their rights over education in order to receive Title I funds.

HR 5 removes the parents as the final arbiters in the upbringing of their children, and wrestles control of private and religious education through federal encroachment as explained below.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, quoting from your HR 5 legislation, on page 552, you stipulate the criteria for removing the state legislature’s constitutional power, rights, and responsibilities as follows:

Subpart 4—Restoration of State Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental Rights Over the Education of Their Children

‘‘SEC. 6561. STATES TO RETAIN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES
THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE.
‘‘(a) RETENTION OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES.— No officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that

program and, in doing so, HAVE waived the State’s rights and authorities to act

inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Emphasis added)

“(b) AMENDMENT OF TERMS OF RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
An officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may release assistance under a grant program established under this Act to a State only after the legislature of the State has by law expressly approved the program (as described in sub- section (a)). This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds and any such State budget must expressly include any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act so that by approving the budget, the State legislature is expressly approving the grant program and, in doing so, waiving the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any

requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Emphasis added)

The passage of your bill out of committee to be voted on by the entire House of Representatives by February 24 must be stopped. The HR 5 Reauthorization of ESEA, amending No Child Left Behind, must be stopped because the provisions inherent in this legislation are egregious and lack Constitutional authority. Passage of H.R. 5 will bring about the destruction of the United States system of public education as well as the radical transformation of representative government both at the state and local level.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, these states’ rights issues have not been discussed at your hearings. Is each state legislature aware of the fact that these measures, hidden in federal and state statute, will remove their state’s guaranteed rights under the Constitution? Will each state, including your own state of Minnesota, have to amend its own state constitution to comply with HR 5?

Several states have recently added language in their state statutes that in effect cedes jurisdiction to the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE KILNE, have you advised the following states of the impact of the HR 5 legislation:

Pennsylvania has currently proposed legislation, HB 168, Sec. 121(a) (Representative Tobash), that states it will comply to federal ESEA legislation and future ESEA legislation:

“The Department of Education shall develop and implement Keystone Exams in [the following subjects:]……..as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or any successor statute.”

(lines 17, 18, 19 ) (Emphasis added)

Oklahoma, in an effort to stop Common Core, the Oklahoma legislature’s passage of House Bill 3399, Sec. 11-103.6a 4 (page 18) with the purpose to remove Common Core Standards, defined in their bill that they would succumb to ESEA federal law:

“Upon the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall seek certification from the State Regents for Higher Education that the subject matter standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics which were in place prior to the revisions adopted by the Board in June 2010 are college-and career-ready as defined in the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility document issued by the United States Department of Education.” (emphasis added)

The Oklahoma legislature codified Common Core through ESEA and gave up its state’s rights authority by surrendering education and students to federal control.

Indiana’s supposed departure from Common Core in HB 1427, (Sec. 14.5(a) C, page 9) also surrenders its state’s rights in order to comply with federal standards.

“Provides that the state board shall implement educational standards that use the common core standards as the base model for academic standards to the extent necessary to comply with federal standards to receive a Flexibility Waiver.”

(emphasis added)

South Carolina’s bill, H3893, (Sec 3, section 59-18-325, (C)(1) passed to stop Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Test is yet another example of a state surrendering its state’s rights over education and students to the federal government. In fact this law restores Common Core:

“The summative assessment must assess students in English/language arts and mathematics, including those students as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. [For purposes of this subsection, ‘English/language arts’ includes English,

reading, and writing skills as required by existing state standards.”]

NOTE: The existing State standards are Common Core. (Emphasis added)

The state of Washington is yet another example. Reference Senate Bill 6030, (Sec 6, (4)(a) page 16, lines 17-20):

“..and shall not conflict with requirements contained in
Title I of the federal elementary and secondary education act of 1965, or the requirements of the Carl D. Perkins vocational education 20 act of 1998, each as amended.” (Emphasis added)

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, have these states been apprised of the devious design in HR 5 to take away states’ rights granted under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why have your hearings not discussed the aspect of the “direct student services” that is defined as PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE FOR ALL PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS? Why have these services not been discussed…services that each private and religious school MUST “provide on an equitable basis” to meet the individual needs of each child who receives a SUPER VOUCHER? Why does the state require that private or religious schools MUST use “approved academic tutoring services as determined by a provider on a State approved list”? Schools will be subjected to discrimination charges if they deny matriculation of a Title I child even if they cannot financially support the OPEN- ENDED direct services mandated in HR 5, as explained below — even if it bankrupts them.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why is “meaningful choice” defined as complying to state standards (Common Core) and interventions identified for each “at-risk” child receiving the following services: Special Education, instructional support services, counseling, mentoring, one-to-one tutoring, and other benefits for the Title I child? Why is there wording that mandates that a private or religious school MUST comply with the Civil Rights Act, (the school cannot deny admittance to a Title I choice child) 504 Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, (MUST administer services for mental health disabilities), IDEA (MUST administer behavioral screening, response to interventions, positive behavioral interventions and supports, mental health wrap-around, BILLABLE MEDICAID SERVICES, mental health services or specialized student support services), General Education Provisions Act (GEPA).

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you know full well that HR 5 will codify the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA). This important Act, as it stands now, has been totally gutted due to President Obama’s Executive Order, EO 12866, January, 2012. FERPA now allows personally identifiable information on the student to be released without informed written parental consent. This personally identifiable information on the students includes anecdotal, psychological observations, analysis, and reeducation interventions in the affective domain by teachers, all tracked and trafficked.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why must private and religious schools provide the following specialized Instructional support on an equitable basis with public school students?

Services defined as school counsellors, social workers, school psychologists, or other qualified professional personnel providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling education, therapeutic and other necessary services defined in Sec. 602 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

when in fact Common Core has been expanded into the mental health personal trait standards defined as social, emotional, and behavioral weaknesses now coded as a disability?

The State Education Agency names an ombudsman, “an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities,” for the following equitable services in each private and religious school: monitoring and enforcement requirements of private and religious schools, including reeducation in the affective domain. Obviously, under HR 5 the SEA will operate independently with no accountability to the state legislature which has surrendered its authority and responsibility over education and the students.

Referring to the concept of Title I funds that will “follow the child” and the super voucher called “direct student services”: the Title I fund that “follows the child” is going directly to every child, bypassing state government. No one at the public hearings explained that CHOICE, TITLE I FUNDS “FOLLOWING THE ‘at-risk’ CHILD” would be used to destroy the financial base of public schools which have elected school boards and are funded by local tax dollars. HR 5 is purposely designed to destroy the traditional public school system.

Furthermore, REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, there are scores of pages in your ESEA legislation that would expand CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATING WITHOUT BOARDS ELECTED BY THE TAXPAYERS AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. THIS IS A SET UP FOR CHARTER SCHOOL TAKEOVER OF ALL EDUCATION with charter school authorizers to control private and religious schools. Yet, no one explained HOW these Title I funds “following” a CHOICE, TITLE I “at risk” CHILD will impact the intrusion into private and religious schools, which will be forced into all of the mandates that come with Common Core implementation and EVERY CHILD identified and funded through Title I and thereby subverting the mission of the private and religious school.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you have crafted HR 5 behind closed doors and put it on the fast track to correspond to the “spitball” known as the ESEA Reauthorization.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, your HR 5 merged with the Senate version of ESEA REAUTHORIZATION will NATIONALIZE EDUCATION BYPASSING LOCAL CONTROL AND STATE CONTROL, ELIMINATING LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THE HALLMARK OF A FREE SOCIETY.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, your “super vouchers” cannot buy our children. No government can deny parents their God-given rights over their children. (Pierce vs Sisters, 1925) Are you really requiring parents to waive their rights?

Similar to the waivers HR 5 requires of the states? If so, we demand that you immediately produce the waiver by which parents would sign their children over to the federal government! Explain that one to God…and your own grandchildren.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, “The family is the primary society. It does not exist by sufferance of the state.” Dr. Charles E. Rice, correspondence February 5, 1996

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, if you care about a free America, you must stop HR 5.

Our children are not “mere creatures of the state.”

(Pierce vs. Sisters, 1925)

 

#####

Global Jihad, Global Education- Attitudes, Values and Beliefs

Women On The Wall - Avoidable

 

By: Alice Linahan 1.15.2015 

Movements on the ground show the “Fundamental Transformation” of education is having impact. This is what Capitalist vs Socialist Chart happens when you move from a classical academic curriculum based on an education of opportunity – Reading, Writing, Math and History to a collectivist based education of equity – Attitudes, Values and Beliefs.  

When you gut our public education of academics and it becomes completely about attitudes, values, and beliefs the question becomes- Whose values, attitudes and beliefs will prevail?

 The Philosophy behind the Common Core Math Wars

“We first need to determine the moral, social, and political order we believe to be desirable, then set out our educational purposes, and in light of those purposes choose curriculum content and objectives”.  “What Constructivism Might Be in Mathematics Education”  Jeremy Kilpatrick (1987, Proceedings of PME (Psychology of Mathematics Education ) XI-Montreal)

A Texas Public School District, Garland ISD to host “Stand with the Prophet” conference, which is designed to help “lead the effort against Islamophobia”

Listen below to the Women On the Wall Communication Team conference call with Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy. It is a must to listen to this podcast in preparation for the protests of the “Stand With The Prophet Rally” at Garland ISD, Garland, Texas, this Saturday, 1.17.15.  Gaffney shared the very startling information about four of the speakers who have close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other very dangerous Islamist organizations.

 After listening to Frank Gaffney’s explanations about the backgrounds of the four speakers scheduled to speak at the “Stand with the Prophet Rally,” concerned citizens are encouraged to call the Garland ISD administration office  (http://www.garlandisd.net/contact/administrative.asp)  and ask to speak to Chris Moore, Executive Director, Division of Communications and Public Relations – 972-487-3256 or to some other GISD administrator.    

WomenOnTheWall’s message to America: Events like the murders in Paris are AVOIDABLE – if we will but act and hold our elected officials accountable! Their primary duty is to secure our borders and keep us safe.

WOW produced non-interactive video can be seen below OR view the personalized INTERACTIVE version through FB at: www.seeksharestand.com 



On the Conference Call linked above Frank Gaffney mentioned the Center For Security Policy’s plan to combat “Global Jihad.”  Below is a press release just out. 1.16.2015

‘TIGER TEAM’ TO UNVEIL STRATEGY FOR DEFEATING GLOBAL JIHAD MOVEMENT

HOW TO DEFEAT THE GLOBAL JIHAD MOVEMENT:       
        CENTER TIGER TEAM UNVEILS ‘SECURE FREEDOM STRATEGY’         
 
Former USMC Commandant Al Gray Applauds Plan for Countering Totalitarian Ideology of Shariah
 
     Washington, D.C.: Nine members of an informal public policy “Tiger Team” presented the “Secure Freedom Strategy” – a comprehensive plan for countering and defeating an enemy that has yet to be officially and accurately named, let alone successfully dispatched, in over 36 years of war: the Global Jihad Movement and the ideology that animates it, the supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah.
 
     The Tiger Team and the Strategy it developed with the sponsorship and support of the Center for Security Policy drew for a model on the approach successfully practiced by President Ronald Reagan for the purpose of thwarting the last totalitarian ideology that sought the West’s destruction: Soviet communism.  The Reagan strategy was formalized in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, which was signed by the President 32 years ago tomorrow.
     Among the aspects of the Strategy that were briefed at this launch event by members of the Tiger Team (in bold) were:
  • The nature and centrality of shariah to the War for the Free World and the differentiator between it represents between Muslims who are not a threat and those who are due to their embrace of shariah’s political, totalitarian program (not to be confused with the personal, pietistic practice of many non-jihadist, but devout, Muslims) – David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center and expert on shariah;
  • The unifying effect shariah has on a diverse and often fractious Muslim umma, especially as it relates to their shared commitment to forcing the submission of infidels – Clare Lopez, former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service;
  • The necessity to know the enemy if it is to be vanquished, something that is currently impermissible in the U.S. military and other national security organizations –Maj. Tommy Waller, USMC (Res.), combat Force Reconnaissance officer (speaking in a personal capacity);
  • The emphasis on a counter-ideological component in this strategy and the need for a reconstitution of capabilities for information warfare comparable to those brought to bear during President Reagan’s era – Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert in political, psychological and information warfare;
  • The requirement to operate strategically against the jihadist enemy, not simply with tactical expedients like drone strikes, which will necessitate rebuilding America’s military so as to be able to practice once again “peace through strength” – Technical Weapons Sergeant Jim Hanson, US Army (Ret.);
  • The important role of defensive and offensive economic warfare against the Global Jihad Movement and its enablers – Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and bestselling author of Secret Weapon and Gameplan;
  • The need for reality-based intelligence analysis and the rebuilding of the capacity to conduct intelligence operations aimed at, as in the Reagan NSDD, undermining the legitimacy and power of the enemy – Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst, State Department official and House Intelligence Committee professional staff member;
  • The imperative of American leadership, both domestically and of the Free World, in mobilizing the people and assets doomed to more death, destruction and enslavement if the Global Jihad Movement does not meet the same terminal fate as previous totalitarian ideologies, notably Naziism, fascism and Soviet communism – Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.
 
     An unexpected highpoint of the program was an appearance at its end by one of the nation’s most revered military leaders: General Alfred M. Gray, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), the 29th Commandant of Marines.  Gen. Gray applauded the Secure Freedom Strategy, commended its authors and urged its swift adoption by national policy-makers.
 
     A link to the hour-and-a-half-long program is available, courtesy of C-SPAN, at http://www.c-span.org/video/?323839-1/discussion-countering-terrorism. The full 94-page Secure Freedom Strategy can be found online here: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Secure_Freedom_Strategy_01-16-15.pdf
 
     A particularly poignant part of the program was Major Waller’s account of some of his personal experiences with the jihadists’ information dominance and the danger posed here at home, not just by violent ones, but by those – like the Muslim Brotherhood – who are engaged in stealthy, subversive “civilization jihad” towards the same ends: imposing shariah worldwide and establishing a global Islamic government to rule according to it.  Excerpts of the Major’s remarks can be found here:

     Other members of the Secure Freedom Strategy Tiger Team are: Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and former Chief Negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, expert on military technology and weapons proliferation; Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute and former director of the Office of Strategic Competitiveness in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; John Guandolo, combat Force Reconnaissance Marine, former Commander, FBI SWAT Team, former counter-terrorism special agent and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad in America; Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute; Joseph E. Schmitz, Esq., former Inspector General, Department of Defense, and naval officer; and Tom Trento, Director of the United West, an expert in international terrorism research and information operations.
-30-
About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
===================================================================

Rally to protest the Islamic conference in Garland, Texas on 1.17.15

=========

1.14.15 – “AFDI To Hold Stand with Free Speech Demo Outside Stand with the Prophet Conference” – by Pamela Geller — Breitbart — 

 1.7.15 – “Letter to Garland Independent School Officials” – by Lt. Col. (ret.) Roy White – Truth in Texas Textbooks –

1.14.15 — “No Coincidence: Stand with the Prophet Rally To Be Held in Texas” — by Donna Garner –

Rally to protest Islamic conference in Houston, Texas – 1.18.15

 

“Tortured language” Used To Promote Common Core in Texas

shut down learners

By Niki Hayes

12.6.14    

“Tortured language” has been an important government tool for years. (Just ask Jonathan Gruber, chief architect of ObamaCare, who bragged about the use of tortured language in writing that controversial piece of legislation.)  Such “tortured writing” uses euphemisms and flimflam when taking falsehoods and twisting them so that people will misconstrue them as truth.

 

A new example in Texas is the Education Service Center 11 (ESC 11), a governmental agency, with its chart comparing Common Core math standards with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards.  (To see the ESC 11 chart, please go to:  http://womenonthewall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TEKS-OldStandard-CommonCore.pdf.)

 

ESC 11’s chart claims that Common Core and TEKS are equal in content and scope. Therefore, they say schools can buy Common Core-aligned materials and feel safe that the materials support our TEKS. This is pure flimflam – “tortured language.”

 

I was a member of the Texas math curriculum standards writing team when we wrote the new 2012 Math TEKS.  I can state unequivocally that the new Math TEKS that we wrote and the Texas State Board of Education adopted are not the same as the federally-driven Common Core math standards. 

 

First, our TEKS document is a brand name product that was developed by 80 citizens who put in 12-hour days during three separate meetings over four months. We were charged with developing quality standards that would benefit our children and Texas citizens. We built our TEKS starting with a draft first created by a panel of mathematics experts that was commissioned by the Texas Education Agency (TEA); then we researched specific states with outstanding math standards at the time (such as Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Indiana). Most importantly, we brought to the table professional knowledge and experiences as educators in Texas classrooms. We knew our state’s children and their needs. The TEKS were personal to us.

 

In contrast, Common Core is a generic brand created largely by unknown individuals outside of Texas. Some of the main writers, whose names were finally released publicly, had never even been classroom teachers.  For many reasons, not the least of which is cost, numerous states are now struggling to back out of their federal Common Core contracts.

 

Even though Texas was one of the few states that said “NO” to the Common Core, one of the Texas Education Agency staffers tried to urge our Math TEKS writing team to use the Common Core Math Standards to craft our Math TEKS.  As a member of the Grade 3 – 5 team, I made it clear that we should not be looking at the Common Core Standards for guidance since Texas had refused to adopt Common Core Standards from their inception.

 

The same TEA staff member resisted efforts to have the required use of the “standard algorithms” specified in the TEKS. (This is the procedure used in multiplication and division that our parents and grandparents learned and which is used internationally.)  The staffer said standard algorithms are considered a “traditional math” approach and were thus considered inferior by many math reformers. 

 

I also wanted a restriction against the use of calculators for daily problem solving in elementary grades. Reformers on the writing team supported the push for technology in K-12 rather than the traditional methods (paper and pencil) of student learning.

 

Even though I vociferously advocated for standard algorithms and the restriction against calculator use among elementary students in Grades K-5, I was losing the debate. Therefore, I contacted Dr. James Milgram, one of the panel experts hired by TEA, and asked for his help.  He stepped forward, and a higher-up official at the TEA also got involved.  References to the Common Core by the TEA staff ceased.  The required teaching of standard algorithms and the restricted use of calculators in Grades K-5 were adopted in the final Math TEKS document.   

 

Despite some philosophical differences on what we should include in the Math TEKS, our group did agree that the standards had to be explicit, direct, and clear. They had to be understandable not only for elementary teachers (many of whom fear mathematics and need clarity and brevity in instructions) but also for parents as well.

 

Our TEKS writing team agreed that the new TEKS standards had to be measurable with objective criteria and that each element had to be testable through objective measurements.  Our team knew that the new TEKS would not be perfect but that they needed to be traditionally oriented standards (a.k.a., Type #1) as compared with the 1997 TEKS which were “fuzzy” standards (a.k.a., Type #2).

 

The chart that ESC 11 has created attempts to show that Common Core’s “process standards” match our new TEKS “process standards” and that makes Common Core and TEKS similar in scope. That is ridiculous!  The new Math TEKS standards that our writing team finally produced in 2012 has strong and specific expectations listed in the “Introduction” before each grade level.  No such clear, explicit, competency-based language is found in the Common Core.

 

Next, the public needs to look at our final TEKS Math Standards and compare those definitive and clear statements with Common Core’s wordy, complex explanations, many of which are not understandable because of the confusing and complicated wording. (Federal or state curriculum standards are also not supposed to mandate pedagogy [how to teach]; that is to be left up to the local educators.)  

 

Below is a comparison example from the Math TEKS and from the Common Core:

 

TEKS, Grade 5, Number and Operations 3.H:

 

“Represent and solve addition and subtraction of fractions with unequal denominators, referring to the same whole using objects and pictorial models and properties of operation.”

 

Common Core, (same standard but labeled NF1 and NF2):

 

“Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc/bd). Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example, recognize an incorrect result 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7 by observing that 3/7 < 1/2.”

 

In numerous cases, there are additional Common Core standards that, if utilized, would add to the already packed TEKS.  This would not help educators prepare their students for the STAAR-End-of-Course tests. Why risk wasting time, energy, and money on unproven and generic materials (Common Core) when the traditional approach to math has been proven successful for generations, in spite of those educators who say it hasn’t?

 

Speaking of time, it is time for many of these education “leaders” to have to teach for one year in a classroom and use the directives and requirements they have put on classroom teachers. These leaders should also be required to receive the credit or the blame for any poor student achievement.

 

More to the point, why are Texas education service centers, administrators, and political leaders allowing ESC 11’s false narrative and chart to be presented to teachers and parents as truth, especially when it is against state law to use Common Core materials and standards in Texas as stated by the Texas Attorney General (TAG). (Re: Use of the Common Core Standards Initiative by Texas school districts to teach state standards. RQ-1175-GA –https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2014/pdf/ga1067.pdf)

 

Why are Texas leaders ignoring the TAG’s ruling and flaunting the law by using public tax dollars for illegal purchases by school districts and ESC’s?

 

I believe if Texas leaders had led their classroom teachers to teach the new Math TEKS when adopted in 2012, rather than waiting until they were required to do so in 2014, students’ scores on this year’s STAAR and End-of-Course math tests would have shown considerable improvement.

 

School leaders should make sure all students in Texas public schools have instructional materials that teach the fact-based, clearly stated, explicit, grade-level specific, measurable requirements as outlined in our state’s Math TEKS.

 

Texas children, teachers, and parents deserve clarity, not confusion, from their leaders on education issues. That includes their not being victimized by curriculum materials such as Common Core that use “tortured language” and make material unnecessarily difficult to understand. 

 

********

CORRECTION TO PODCAST: In 2012 the Math TEKS (Texas’ curriculum standards) were adopted in K-12 by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education; however, the K-8 Math TEKS were not required to be implemented fully into the schools until 2014 when the textbooks (e.g., instructional materials – IM’s) were available for purchase. The high-school Math TEKS are not required to be implemented fully until 2015-16 when the new Math IM’s will be available for districts to purchase.

 

12.3.14 — PODCAST – Alice Linahan of Women on the Wall — conference call with Nakonia (Niki) Hayes, the author of The Story of John Saxon   

[email protected]

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]

 

 

“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 )

 

 

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

 

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

Breitbart News Launches ‘Breitbart London’ & ‘Breitbart Texas’ Verticals

Breitbart News Launches ‘Breitbart London’ & ‘Breitbart Texas’ Verticals

by Tony Lee 16 Feb 2014, 4:00 PM PDT

Breitbart News launched two new verticals on Sunday—”Breitbart London” and “Breitbart Texas”—that are the first steps in a multi-year expansion effort that will bridge the gap between global and regional news at a time when the rise of anti-establishment forces in politics and new media are threatening the old political and media order.

[VIEW ARTICLE]

The Breitbart Texas Team Includes:
  • Brandon Darby – Managing Director of Breitbart Texas, a former leftist organizer/activist and Andrew Breitbart protégé, leading Texas efforts for Breitbart News.
  • Logan Churchwell – Assignment Manager of Breitbart Texas, formerly Communications Director for True the Vote, Accuracy in Media, and a Capitol Hill staffer.
  • Sylvia Longmire - Contributing Editor for Breitbart Texas, focusing on border security and Mexican drug cartel activity in North America. Formerly an Air Force Officer and Special Agent, senior intelligence analyst for the California Office of Homeland Security, and author of Cartel and Border Insecurity.
  • Merrill Hope – Contributor Breitbart Texas, focusing on education nationally and locally in Texas. Formerly a contributing writer for the Hollywood Reporter and Education Action Group (EAG) News.
  • Bob Price – Contributor Breitbart Texas, focusing on the Texas political scene, legislative issues, border security, and public corruption.
  • Lee Stranahan – Contributor Breitbart Texas, investigative reporter and filmmaker, focusing on the institutional Left and corruption in the State of Texas.
  • Michael Quinn Sullivan - Contributor Breitbart Texas, former reporter and think tank executive, focusing on legislative issues, grassroots activism, and politics.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/16/Breitbart-News-Launches-Breitbart-London-Breitbart-Texas-Verticals

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 [email protected] 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