AP US HISTORY UNDER ATTACK
by Donna Garner
It is my understanding that next Tuesday (April 8, 2014) at the Texas State Board of Education(SBOE) meeting (Committee of the Full Board — http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769810402 ) there is to be a discussion about adopting a new course called Mexican-American Studies. I believe that someone from Ysleta ISD is going to present this idea and that his Hispanic supporters may be out in force. Please read my comments posted below. We need many people to testify against the development of this new course for the reasons that I have given below. At the bottom of this page, I have posted the details about how, when, and where to testify in front of the SBOE on Tuesday, 4.8.14.
To: Concerned Texas Citizens
From: Donna Garner
I believe our position should be that we want no new courses such as Mexican-American Studies or Ethnic Studies to be added to already over-burdened school districts that are trying to cope with the 5 new endorsements, foundation program, and other requirements under HB 5. Even calling the course Ethnic Studies would end up emphasizing ethnic/racial differencesamong students at a time when schools are trying so hard to create unity among the students and faculty.
I believe this Mexican American course is a direct attempt by the Democrats to turn Texas blue and that we need to stand firmly against it – creating no compromises (i.e., Ethnic Studies Course). The definitions posted below should help keep us all on the same page.
First, I have posted some definitions further on down this page that I believe will help in the upcoming SBOE meeting. I believe it is very important for like-minded conservatives to “define the terms” rather than allowing others to do so. The term needs to be Hispanic and not Mexican-American. Mexican-American is very discriminatory and much too exclusive. By defining the terms early-on, those who want to use the term Mexican-American will be identified as being discriminatory and exclusive (which they are).
Second, I hope that an attorney will testify. The attorney needs to build the case that a Mexican-American course would be highly discriminatory to other language groups, races, and ethnicities.
Third, it would be good to get demographic information from Houston ISD. I think I remember reading that HISD has hundreds of different language groups in it. A Mexican-American course would be highly discriminatory to the other language groups. (It should not be difficult to get this language group, demographic information from Houston ISD or from the TEA.)
Fourth, these questions need to be asked and answered: Under state law, can local school districts offer courses for local credit? Do those courses have to be approved by the SBOE and/or the TEA? It could be that if the voters in Ysleta ISD want to offer this multicultural/politically correct course for local credit, then they could offer local credit for it. Does the SBOE need to be brought into this issue at all – either with a Mexican-American Studies Course or an Ethnic Studies Course? The curriculum is already so full now that teachers cannot teach everything they need to teach. Why add any more courses, particularly those that could become a hotbed for indoctrination and controversy? It is evident that there is nothing that we can do to satisfy the left-leaners. If we move a little bit left, they want more. If we go all the way to their side, they still want more. I believe our best position is to make a stand, do not apologize for it, clearly state our position, and then let the chips fall. This is the way to stop the bullying and intimidation that has become so prevalent under the Obama admin. If we keep compromising, then we will keep losing our conservative principles.
Excerpts from various websites – Hispanic vs. Mexican
The term “Hispanic” broadly refers to the culture, peoples, or nations with a historical link to Spain. The term commonly applies to countries once colonized by Spain, particularly the countries of Latin America that were colonized by Spain. It could be argued that the term should apply to all Spanish speaking cultures or countries, as the historical roots of the word specifically pertain to the Iberian region. It is also difficult to label a culture with one term, such as Hispanic, as the customs, traditions, beliefs and art forms (music, literature, dress, architecture, cuisine or others) vary widely depending on country and even within the regions of said country. The Spanish and Portuguese cultures are the main cultural element shared by Hispanic peoples.
Usage Note: Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for “Spain,” has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino—which in Spanish means “Latin” but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word. · A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latinawhen used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic—the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies—is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.
JUNE 19, 2013
Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011
An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Mexicans in this statistical profile are people who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin; this means either they themselves are Mexican immigrants or they trace their family ancestry to Mexico. Mexicans are the largest population of Hispanic origin living in the United States, accounting for nearly two-thirds (64.6%) of the U.S. Hispanic population in 2011.1
: a person born, raised, or living in Mexico
: a person whose family is from Mexico
Full Definition of MEXICAN
a : a native or inhabitant of Mexico
b : a person of Mexican descent
c Southwest : a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent
: coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Latin America; also : of or relating to Hispanic people
Full Definition of HISPANIC
1: of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal
2: of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin
DETAILS ABOUT TESTIFYING ON TUESDAY AT THE SBOE MEETING
April 2014 Committee of the Full Board Tuesday
April 8, 2014
COMMITTEE OF THE FULL BOARD – Room 1-104
Public Testimony – Individual testimony will be taken at the time the related item comes up for committee discussion or action. The procedures for registering and taking public testimony at State Board of Education committee meetings and general board meetings are provided at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769804094.
A public hearing before the State Board of Education (SBOE) is scheduled for Tuesday, April 8, 2014, in the William B. Travis Building, Room 1-104. Testimony will be presented regarding new courses, including courses that might be developed in the future to align with requirements of House Bill (HB) 5.
COMMITTEE – DISCUSSION
SBOE – NO ACTION
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.
By Donna Garner
Alice Linahan’s Community Conversations — Women on the Wall Conference Call. We are taking on Common Core/ College and Career Ready, and Next Generation Learning Standards!
“Major changes to Texas high school graduation requirements because of HB 5 are about to alter the fundamentals of the public school system across the state.” WILL YOUR KIDS BE READY FOR THE REAL WORLD IF DEPRIVED OF BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS?
The truth is that the curriculum standards (TEKS) adopted by the Texas State Board of Education starting in 2008 through 2012 are rigorous and, if taught by teachers well, will get Texas students ready for college and/or careers.
By watering down the courses and allowing students to escape responsibility, the end result will be Texas producing high-school graduates who are not ready to take on the challenges of adulthood. For people to make good citizens of the United States, they all need to have a common set of foundational knowledge and skills.
Please plead with your local school officials to adopt a local requirement that all graduates must take TEKS-based English IV, Algebra II, World History, World Geography, and a fourth year of Science. Without these courses, students will not make knowledgeable employees nor capable voters with the abilities to reason and analyze well.
To read through the TEKS for each subject area, please go to this link and look under “Texas Knowledge and Skills by Chapter” — http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6148
What is it that parents want their children to learn in English / Language Arts /Reading classes, K-12? Most veteran English teachers know, but they are frustrated because they usually have no “voice.” Starting in July 1997, a group of us classroom teachers in Texas managed to be heard and could well be heard again.
The English Success Standards (ESS) document is an example of the Type #1 philosophy of education which is in direct opposition to the Type #2 philosophy of education found in the Common Core Standards (a.k.a., CSCOPE in Texas).
Link to Type #1 vs. Type #2 chart: http://www.educationviews.org/comparison-types-education-type-1-traditional-vs-type-2-cscope-common-core/
Since its inception in 1997, the classroom teachers who wrote the English Success Standards have offered their document for free to any and all – no strings attached. Users are free to utilize or change whatever they so choose.
The English Success Standards (ESS) remain today as the only standards document in the United States that was written by classroom teachers for classroom teachers.
In every classroom, there are two entities – the teacher and the student. Therefore, in the ESS, each page has two columns: The column on the left tells teachers what they should teach (not HOW to do it – that is left up to the creative abilities of the teachers), and the column on the right tells students what they should learn.
The English Success Standards (ESS) are content-rich and explicit for every grade level, increasing in depth and complexity as the student goes through school. This cognitive progression links each concept with previous concepts and produces long-term memory in students.
The ESS is built upon the empirical reading research done by the National Institutes of Health and emphasizes phonemic awareness/decoding skills (phonics). The document contains an excellent but separate grammar strand that would require schools to emphasize correct writing and speaking at each grade level.
The ESS has a clear progression of composition/research-writing skills and emphasizes the four writing modes of expository, persuasive, descriptive, and narrative. The various genres of literature are covered extensively along with the characteristics of each.
The final English/Reading/Language Arts curriculum standards for Texas (ELAR/TEKS) adopted by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education on May 23, 2008 utilized much of the content taken from the English Success Standards.
Because the public is becoming very disenchanted with the Type #2 Common Core Standards (and CSCOPE in Texas), now would be a good time for people to obtain a copy of the English Success Standards if for no other reason than to see what a Type #1 ELAR document written by actual classroom teachers looks like.
Sometimes putting the real thing (ESS) beside a counterfeit (CCS/CSCOPE) reveals the brilliance of the real thing and the shortcomings of the counterfeit.
Henry W. Burke testified to the Nebraska State Board of Education on 2.3.14, and he strongly suggested that Nebraska utilize the ESS to help them write their own state ELAR standards. This would be a good idea for other states to do also. Why “re-invent the wheel” and spend millions of dollars when the ESS is completely free for the taking?
To watch Mr. Burke’s testimony, please go to marker 1:39:00 – 1:49:00. (The scroll bar at the bottom of the screen is invisible until you click on it to move the marker.) – VIDEO —http://www.education.ne.gov/Movies/StateBoard/Feb_2014_Work_Session.mp4
To read Mr. Burke’s full report to the NSBOE, please go to:http://www.educationviews.org/proposed-nebraska-english-standards
If you would like to have a copy of the English Success Standards e-mailed to you as an attachment, please send your request to either Henry W. Burke or Donna Garner. Your e-mail addresses will not be kept, shared, nor utilized in any way:
Henry W. Burke
One thing that has become abundantly clear is the Texas Educational Service Centers that brought CSCOPE to Texas have had absolutely no oversight by the TEA. To rectify that Commissioner of Education Michael Williams has proposed new rule in the Texas Register regarding Regional Education Service Centers (ESCs) –
If you go to the Texas Register by clicking the link below. Once at this website, click on Texas Education Agency. In the body of the text, there is a reference to Figure: 19 TAC §53.1021(b) (.pdf). http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/January32014/index.html.
Commissioner Williams has proposed an ESC (Education Service Center) Performance Standards and Indicators Manual. The manual is intended to provide clear expectations to ESCs and executive directors for programs, products, and services developed and provided to school districts and charter schools. The public comment period on the proposed rule goes through February 3rd.
“Agency legal counsel has determined that the commissioner should take formal rule making action to place into the Texas Administrative Code procedures related to the regional education service center performance standards and indicators. The intent is to update, as needed, 19 TAC §53.1021 to refer to the most recently published Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual, which would be updated to remain current with applicable statutes and procedures.
Proposed new 19 TAC §53.1021 would adopt the Regional Education Service Center Performance Standards and Indicators Manual in rule as Figure: 19 TAC §53.1021(b), which would establish performance standards and indicators used in the evaluation of regional education service centers and executive directors. The manual would provide clear expectations to regional education service centers and executive directors for programs, products, and services developed and provided to school districts and charter schools. The manual would also provide clear expectations for ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
The proposed new section would establish in rule the performance standards and indicators by which regional education service centers will be annually evaluated. The proposed new section would have no locally maintained paperwork requirements.
Julie Beisert-Smith, director of regional education service centers, has determined that for the first five-year period the new section is in effect there will be no additional costs for state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the new section.
Ms. Beisert-Smith has determined that for each year of the first five years the new section is in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the new section would be to inform the public of the existence of annual manuals specifying regional education service center performance standards and indicators by including this rule in the Texas Administrative Code. There is no anticipated economic cost to persons who are required to comply with the proposed new section.
There is no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
The public comment period on the proposal begins January 3, 2014, and ends February 3, 2014. Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez, Rulemaking, Texas Education Agency, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 475-1497. Comments may also be submitted electronically to email@example.com or faxed to (512) 463-5337. A request for a public hearing on the proposal submitted under the Administrative Procedure Act must be received by the commissioner of education not more than 14 calendar days after notice of the proposal has been published in the Texas Register on January 3, 2014.
The new section is proposed under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §8.101, which authorizes the commissioner to establish performance standards and indicators for regional education service centers.
§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…..
#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.
Stand with Texas Parents and Teachers who are fighting against the Federal Take Over of Education across our country.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Join the movement Give the Gift of American Exceptionalism to your child or grandchild.
Go into your child or grandchild’s classroom and say….. #CanISee WHAT and HOW you are teaching my child in the classroom.
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 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.
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 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.
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!
Stand with me a Texas Mom who is fighting against the Federal Take Over of Education across our country.
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!”
Much like ObamaCare but this is ObamaCore….
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:
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.
Now is our time to protect Americas children….
by Barbara Cargill
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)
Kate Alexander, liberal and biased reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, has written an article in today’s paper entitled “Activists publish CSCOPE tests online.” I have posted excerpts further on down the page.
WHAT KATE “FORGOT” TO MENTION
Kate mentions nothing in this article about the fact that the TESCCC (made up of all 20 Education Service Center directors) was the corporate owner of CSCOPE (and all its parts). TESCCC announced on May 20, 2013, that TESCCC would cease to exist.
From what has been widely publicized, the TESCCC
decided to shut itself down because it was set up originally as a “shell corporation” without the appropriate business mechanisms having been put in place; millions of taxpayers’ dollars are still unaccounted for; and lawsuits may be in the offing because of plagiarism found in the CSCOPE lessons. The Texas State Auditor, John Keel, is presently doing a formal audit of TESCCC/ESC/CSCOPE; and shortly a formal complaint may be filed with the IRS.
The TESCCC directors signed a letter saying that the CSCOPE lessons would be taken off the website on Aug. 31, 2013, when the yearly school contracts expired. In the same 5.20.13 letter, the TESCCC also announced that the ESC’s would produce and sell no more lesson plans to Texas schools.
Then up popped Thomas Ratliff who loudly began advising Texas public school administrators to let their teachers download the CSCOPE lessons and to keep using them anyway. Ratliff is a registered lobbyist for Microsoft and gets richer each time online technology in Texas schools is utilized. Because of his obvious conflict of interest, Ratliff is an illegal member of the Texas State Board of Education because of the monetary/business ties that the Texas Education Agency and SBOE have with Microsoft.
Grassroots citizens have generated a petition to have Ratliff impeached by the Texas House — www. IMPEACHRATLIFF.COM.
CSCOPE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN
At the July 17-19, 2013 Texas State Board of Education meeting, David Anderson, legal counsel for the Texas Education Agency, verbalized his interpretation of this confusing situation, saying that after Aug. 31, 2013, the CSCOPE lessons would become a part of the public domain and could be utilized by any and all. On 8.22.13, the Texas Tribune published the CSCOPE lessons on their website.
However, nothing has been decided legally about the ownership of the CSCOPE assessments. The TESCCC owned the CSCOPE lessons and the accompanying assessments; but since the TESCCC has shut itself down and its contracts with districts have ceased to exist, it seems reasonable to assume that the CSCOPE assessments should be in the public domain also.
MEANWHILE, TESCCC HAS MORPHED
On 8.12.13, the former TESCCC members met as a committee at ESC 13 in Austin and suddenly began calling themselves the Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative (TCMPC). The name CSCOPE has been changed to the TEKS Resource System, and all of the same CSCOPE “parts” are being marketed by the ESC’s except for the CSCOPE lessons (which can now be accessed on the Texas Tribune website).
CSCOPE ASSESSMENTS PUBLISHED
This week a few of the CSCOPE assessments have been put into the public domain on a public website with more assessments sure to be published soon. The question remains, “If TESCCC shut itself down, then who owns the CSCOPE assessments?”
Please go to this link to see how Texas teachers and students feel about the CSCOPE lessons, assessments, and scope and sequence: http://www.voicesempower.com/voice-of-a-teacher-and-a-student-cscope-assessments/
SBOE REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING — CSCOPE SOCIAL STUDIES LESSONS
The Texas State Board of Education is supervising the review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons since many schools in Texas have decided to keep using the CSCOPE lessons which are now in the public domain. The review teams are evaluating whether or not the CSCOPE lessons are aligned with the state-adopted-and-mandated curriculum standards (TEKS) and are free from factual errors.
As a part of the SBOE review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons, a public hearing will be held by the SBOE on Sept. 13 at 9:00 A. M. (changed from an earlier start time of 1:00 P. M.) Here is the link to the information people need who wish to testify at that meeting: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Communications/CSCOPE/Public_hearing_scheduled_on_CSCOPE/
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – PARENTAL ACCESS
For those school districts that insist on using CSCOPE lessons (or whatever the new name may be), the “elephant in the room” is still parental access 24/7 to the CSCOPE curriculum.
Statute established in the Texas Education Code (TEC) states that the school district must “allow the student to take home any instructional materials used by the student…The parent must be allowed to review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent’s child…A school district shall make teaching materials and tests readily available for review by parents.” (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle E. Students and Parents, Chapter 26. Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Sec. 26.006. Access to Teaching Materials — http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.26.htm#26.004 )
Definition of “instructional materials” – “The term includes a book, supplementary materials, a combination of a book, workbook, and supplementary materials, computer software, magnetic media, DVD, CD-ROM, computer courseware, on-line services, or an electronic medium, or other means of conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means, including open-source instructional material. (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle F. Curriculum, Programs, and Services, Chapter 31. Instructional Materials, Subchapter A. General Provisions, Sec. 31.002, Definitions, Instructional Material —
As described by an experienced Texas teacher:
Hypothetically, if a teacher ‘does’ a CSCOPE lesson, the parent will never be able to see it. It will be played out in the classroom. The only thing that will come home is a graphic organizer with a bunch of empty boxes — no explanation at the top, no content to review…
CSCOPE doesn’t provide the content — meaning the informational text for the student. That is why it is so dangerous. It provides a script for the teacher, which the parent will never see. The teacher is left to scramble for material all over the internet.
When dangerous links in the CSCOPE lessons were made public by concerned citizens, the TESCCC (corporate owner of CSCOPE) pulled those links. This is the big danger of CSCOPE and other online materials. Links and other content can be taken out or put back in ‘at the click of a mouse’ without parental knowledge.
Another expert on CSCOPE has stated:
We also need to keep going back to the fact that the TESCCC was never forced to provide actual access for parents – a requirement of the Texas Education Code. TESCCC skirted by on pledges to create a new website with total access, which turned out to be a sham since parents did not have genuine access to the lessons being used in CLASSROOMS, only samples (as was the case with the original CSCOPE domain)…
No access was ever truly granted. Therefore, the question of access is still a valid one for the courts and should be the primary focus of legal efforts.
For success in court, parents need to seek injunctive relief on the basis of being denied access to the lessons used by both the District and TESCCC. Injury on the basis of ACCESS will give all parents standing. And standing, is what judges care about.
Excerpts from this article:
A conservative blogger has published online the questions and answers for social studies tests available to hundreds of Texas school districts because she maintains they reflect a pro-Islam and anti-American bias.
The public release of the tests could render them unusable and is the latest development in an ongoing saga over a curriculum system, formerly known as CSCOPE, that has inflamed conservative and tea party activists over the past year.
Ginger Russell, half of the mother-daughter duo that sparked the CSCOPE controversy, posted the 10 tests on her website — redhotconservative.com — on Wednesday. Russell said she believed that parents needed to see the tests, which had been provided to her by teachers…
It will be left up to the school districts whether to continue using the tests, but many teachers and administrators have already expressed concern that the integrity of the assessments had been compromised, said Mason Moses, a spokesman for the state-funded Education Service Centers that developed the assessments.
“We take this very seriously. … This may be just 10 or so now, but there is concern that moving forward it could multiply significantly,” Moses said.
Posting the tests online harms the schools that have found them to be a useful resource, said State Board of Education member Thomas Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant.
“Clearly, what she’s trying to do is destroy the whole program,” Ratliff said of Russell…
If you are not going to allow your child, grandchild, niece or nephew to be used like this start by signing a petition to remove paid Microsoft lobbyist Thomas Ratliff from the Texas SBOE (State Board of Education)
Many would say that those opposing CSCOPE are anti Public School- That could not be further from the truth. At WomenOnTheWall.org we stand for Public School teachers. Our goal is to give them their classroom back. The two groups that are completely marginalized in the CSCOPE debate are Teachers and Parents which are the two groups that are actually closest to the children. Therefore their voices are the most important.
What many C-SCOPE crusaders fail to realize is that C-SCOPE has been in schools for 7 years and for many districts C-SCOPE is all they have, there is nothing to fall back on.Every district has at least one person in curriculum and instruction. We had one for every subject. Before we adopted cscope they did nothing. They had great salaries and did not work on curriculum.A new superintendent came in and they were all replaced by a new team and coaches. They haven’t done much either. They became the cscope patrols. They never taught any of the lessons. One of our new coaches just left her classroom having 60 percent of her class fail. Wow what a joke.Cscope came in this last year and we failed royally with it. Reading from scripted text that was suppose to be research based even though it wasn’t.Now we talk that we will have lots of school districts without a curriculum. Districts were paying millions for cscope so why not hire a good size group to write, adapt etc. curriculum. Money available for cscope but not for writers?Come on this cscope stuff just gave these service centers plenty of money and they could have gotten together with these curriculum writers for free and assisted with making sure the treks were covered.Cscope is a mess. It has way too many paper worksheets, tests galore and we need it dead forever.We had many, many teachers that quit the district. Now they don’t have enough teachers and they are scrambling after anyone they can hire and mostly with no classroom experience. So defending cscope as being the best out there is not true.
Excerpt from the above article.
What if half your performance evaluation was based on your co-workers’ output, not your own?
Those co-workers might not even be in your department or field.
The other half of your evaluation would depend on your supervisor’s observations.
That’s what more than 17,000 of Nevada’s 25,000 public school teachers face under the state’s first mandatory teacher evaluation system. The vast majority of teachers soon will be evaluated on the test scores of students they never saw or subject areas they didn’t teach, or both.
This is the last year under the old PDAS (Professional Development Appraisal System).Next year they will be bringing in a new system. These are the component parts of the future:Principals are trained to be enforcement officials who conduct chronic, frequent walkthroughs. That has already started. Last year Wichita Falls ISD 1,005 walkthroughs.They are anxious to link teacher evaluation to test scores. That will be factored in somehow on a point system.
Teachers will be dismissed much easier without any right to rebut a poor performance review. In the past, we were assured of a time period to improve with professional development and mentoring. That is over.What you have to remember is that teachers will move to grade levels with less testing, they will try to get out of assignments where they have to take students with learning disabilities. They will opt for positions like gifted-and-talented where the students are all likely to do well on the state test. This will make certain positions have a very high turnaround rate with young teachers.They are moving into areas this year with the new system, like frequent walk throughs. It is very demoralizing for a high performing teacher.
It is interesting because after what we witnessed in Llano (photo to the right) last Friday all the dots are connecting. There are reports that the Superintendent gave the district the day off so district employees could come to the hearing. (FYI- On the tax payers dime). They were indeed there in their orange shirts ready to defend CSCOPE.
Texas State Board of Education Chair Barbara Cargill met with Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, Sen. Duncan, and others including Marty Rowley, the CSCOPE Ad Hoc committee chair.
It was decided that Rowley’s AD Hoc committee needs to be reactivated to review the CSCOPE social studies lessons for alignment with the state-adopted TEKS and to check for factual errors and/or bias.
Because hundreds of school districts have defiantly said they are going to use these CSCOPE lessons in classrooms even past the August 31, 2013 date, it is important for the Ad Hoc to renew their work to make sure that Texas children are exposed to instructional materials that are aligned with the state-adopted curriculum standards (TEKS).
The following SBOE members have been asked to serve on the Ad Hoc — Pat Hardy, Mavis Knight, and Tom Maynard. More details will be forthcoming.
The SBOE will oversee the Ad Hoc committee process with the hopes that local school districts will take seriously the posted evaluations and recommendations regarding the CSCOPE social studies lessons.
The comments from the Ad Hoc should help school districts to implement SB 1474 —http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1474 — which mandates that teachers, district employees, members of the public, and local school board members be a part of the decision-making process to implement major curriculum initiatives.
The choices that the group yesterday had were either (1) to ignore the fact that teachers still plan to use the CSCOPE lessons or (2) to confront the situation head-on, evaluate the lessons, and make sure that the lessons are aligned with the TEKS and that errors and/or bias are removed.
The plan is to have this CSCOPE review of the social studies lessons finished by October 2013 so that the SBOE can continue with its very busy and important schedule of evaluating instructional materials.
(Comments by Donna Garner on Jane Robbins’ Excellent Report) 7.26.13
Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project has published a report that lays out the oft-stated “playbook” talking points (7 of them) by the proponents of Common Core Standards, and then Robbins documents the TRUTH about each point.
To make it easier for readers, I have reformatted the article to help them to identify easily each of the seven PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINTS and then Jane Robbins’ well-documented TRUTH ABOUT EACH TALKING POINT.
My suggestion is that the public use Jane Robbins’ careful documentation to counter the Pro-Common Core Standards talking points that the education establishment, politicians, lobbyists, and vendors love to throw around so glibly. When faced with the TRUTH, their talking points come off looking pretty empty!
My only addition to Jane Robbins’ article is the following links to three reports that detail how much it will cost states’ taxpayers to implement and administer the Common Core Standards including the cost of Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology. Not only are the CCS an inferior set of standards, but they will cost state taxpayers millions to implement! At a time when states, cities, and individuals are struggling to keep from going bankrupt, the fact that taxpayers will be stuck with millions of dollars to implement and administer an inferior set of curriculum standards that have never been internationally benchmarked nor piloted before adoption is bordering on being the “stupidest” education fad ever!
7.24.13 – AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT
“Our Response to Florida Republican Leaders’ Defense of Common Core”
by American Principles Project on July 24, 2013
By Jane Robbins
Five former Florida Republican Party leaders have urged the state GOP to ignore the parents and teachers who object to the centralization of education through the Common Core State (sic) Standards. Like other Common Core proponents, they repeat the talking points; like the others, they fail to produce evidence to support their statements. Below is a point-by-point response to their claims:
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #1: The nation’s Governors recognized this [education] problem almost 15 years ago and began a process that eventually led to states collaborating on the Common Core State (sic) Standards.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #1: The claim that the Standards resulted from a “state-led” process is misleading at best. In 2007, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Eli Broad Foundation pledged $60 million to inject their education vision, including uniform “American standards,” into the 2008 campaigns. In May 2008, the Gates Foundation awarded the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy a $2.2 million grant to promote the adoption of national standards.
Soon afterwards, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), two DC-based trade associations, began accepting foundation grants to start the Common Core Initiative and propagate the Standards. In December 2008, to provide guidance to the incoming Obama Administration, NGA, CCSSO, and their DC-based contractor Achieve, Inc., set out their vision for the Common Core Standards in a document entitled Benchmarking for Success. This report, as well, was funded by the Gates Foundation. The Benchmarking report argued for “a common core of internationally benchmarked standards” and cited the creation of Common Core as a joint project of NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, the Alliance for Excellent Education, and the Hunt Institute.
The Florida leaders’ claim that Common Core was “state-led” implies that these organizations had grants of legislative authority from individual states. In fact, the Common Core Initiative was a plan of private groups being implemented through trade associations. Since 2007, NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve accepted more than $27 million from Gates alone to advance the Standards and the connected data-collection and assessments.
Even if the process had been state-led, one might ask, so what? Why should other states have a vote in what Floridians teach their children? Why should California or New York or any other state have any input into what goes on in Florida schools? Florida parents and teachers recognize the dangers of this, even if politicians don’t.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #2: Common Core is not a federal dictate or national mandate. States are free to adopt the standards or to not adopt them. And, if they have already adopted them, they are free to drop out at any point.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #2: The federal government was deeply involved in “persuading” states to adopt Common Core, by tying the Standards’ adoption to the chance to receive federal grants through the Race to the Top competition. A state that refused to adopt Common Core and the aligned assessment lost 70 points in the competition (out of 485 possible points). This meant the state had no hope of compiling enough points to receive a grant (and in fact, no state was awarded a grant without adopting Common Core and the national test). During a time of deep recession, few states were willing to forego the chance at federal money – regardless of the strings attached. If the Common Core proponents were honest, they would admit that they never could have convinced enough states to sign onto the national standards without the federal “persuasion.” The U.S. Department of Education (USED) reinforced the desirability of retaining the Standards by linking No Child Left Behind waivers to their implementation. So states have kept the Standards to increase their chances for more federal favors. But they are certainly free to drop out, and we encourage them to do so.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #3: Some have alleged that the new standards change laws around student data and privacy. They don’t. Regardless of adopting the Common Core, states remain in control of their students’ private information, just as they are now. The federal government does not have access to individual student-level data – just aggregate information by school on how students are performing. States must remain vigilant in working with local school districts to continue protecting student information.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #3: This claim ignores the cooperative agreement between USED and the PARCC testing consortium, of which Florida is the leader. That agreement obligates PARCC to send to USED all student-level data it receives from Florida during the testing of Florida students. And once that data gets to USED, it can be sent to literally anyone in the world. That is because USED has gutted, by regulation, federal student-privacy law. USED plans to use student-level data not only for evaluating education programs, but for unrelated “research.” So students’ personally identifiable information could go to the Departments of Labor, or Health and Human Services, or the IRS – literally anywhere. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Labor has been explicit about what it will do with the student-level data it receives from USED – “developing or improving state workforce longitudinal data systems with individual-level information [and] enabling workforce data to be matched with education data to create longitudinal data systems . . . .” Parents will have no right to object to these uses of their children’s information; in fact, they won’t even know the sharing has occurred.
Even if Florida withdrew from PARCC, USED is becoming increasingly aggressive in demanding student-level data. Education officials in Texas, which did not accept Common Core or the national tests, have had multiple disputes with USED about the data its bureaucrats have demanded. USED has invested millions of dollars in Florida’s school data systems, and the hope that it will not demand the fruits of its investment is naïve at best. The federal government can’t build a workforce for a managed economy without student data, and student data it will get – unless Florida officials step in to stop it.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #4: The Common Core State Standards only set academic expectations in English and Math. They do not dictate curriculum – the textbooks used, the reading assignments handed down, the lesson plans employed by teachers, and the thousand other methods or materials used to help students learn. The standards are merely benchmarks for what a student should know by the end of the year at each grade level, from K-12. Ultimately, local school districts and teachers remain in control of their curriculum and in charge of their classrooms.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #4: In the first place, content from other subject areas will be injected into English classes through the English language arts (ELA) standards, which are entitled “English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.” More importantly, the claim that Common Core has nothing to do with curriculum is simply untrue.
As former US Department of Education (USED) general counsel Kent Talbert and Robert Eitel have documented, curriculum inevitably follows from standards. That’s the point of standards. From Talbert and Eitel’s report: “These standards and assessments will ultimately direct the course of elementary and secondary study in most states across the nation, running the risk that states will become little more than administrative agents for a nationalized K-12 program of instruction and raising a fundamental question about whether the Department if exceeding its statutory boundaries.” States and local districts’ “flexibility” will be reduced to choosing one Common Core-aligned textbook over another Common Core-aligned textbook.
Textbook developer and curriculum designer Robert Shepherd bemoans the Standards’ “content-free” design and its inevitable negative effect on curriculum. He writes: “The fact that the ‘standards’ are entirely highly abstract descriptions of skills to be demonstrated, that they are content free, will be ENORMOUSLY distorting in their effects on curriculum development
. . . . The abstract standards will drive the curriculum development. It’s the tail wagging the dog . . . .”
In addition, the two testing consortia funded by the federal government are using the money, explicitly, to “develop curriculum frameworks” and “develop instructional models.” And what is on the national test will control what is taught in the classroom – especially when the teachers’ evaluations are tied to the test scores.
The claim that the national Standards “do not dictate how teachers should teach” is, in many respects, false. An English teacher who spends 80 percent of her time teaching great literature may not continue to do so, but must substitute a large chunk of nonfiction texts. A geometry teacher who uses the traditional Euclidean method must now teach Common Core’s experimental approach instead. A first-grade teacher who teaches the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction is forced to use alternative “fuzzy math” approaches. One middle-school math teacher reports that he was told to abandon his direct-instruction method of teaching and employ instead the “project” method, which he recognizes to be ineffective in math, because that is what Common Core requires. In these and many other areas, the Standards dictate the methods.
The mandates to teachers about teaching methods are particularly evident in the mathematics standards for the early grades. A child who solves problems using the standard algorithms (i.e., the methods that have been used for thousands of years) finds her correct answers marked wrong. The only acceptable answers are those that require her to “explain” her answers by parroting arbitrary “alternative” methods for working the problems.
Despite the Common Core proponents’ claim that this mandate promotes “critical thinking,”this is nothing but the same recycled “new math” that was tried and abandoned decades ago. Ignoring this history of failure, Common Core tries again to impose the notion that students must spend less time working math problems and more time explaining the underlying concepts of what they are doing.
Does the research support the argument that students are more successful with math using this technique? To the contrary – research concerning top-performing countries shows that students do better in math if they are required to work math problems (lots of them), not merely explain math problems. A report by the American Educational Research Association examined the math standards of high-achieving countries, Finland, Japan, and Singapore, and discovered very little alignment to Common Core. All three of these countries “place a much greater emphasis on ‘perform procedures’ than found in the U.S. Common Core standards.” In fact, “[f]or each country, approximately 75% of the content involves ‘perform procedures,’ whereas in the Common Core standards, the percentage for procedures is 38%.” If the Common Core math drafters want U.S. students to compete with students from these countries, perhaps imposing standards with only half the math-performance requirements is not the best way to go about it.
Most parents see Common Core’s “math explanation” techniques as a colossal waste of time. Forcing teachers to require students to explain their work in highly scripted ways is accomplished at the expense of essential practice in working math problems with the standard algorithms. Not only does the “explanation” focus waste precious class time, it slows down the progression, as students who have mastered a skill are stalled with the busy-work of drawing pictures and memorizing scripted explanations. Generations of mathematicians, scientists, accountants, and engineers excelled without learning the “critical thinking” of Common Core, which suggests it isn’t so critical after all.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #5: Some have expressed concern about Common Core’s impact on parental choice. Common Core State Standards in no way impact the right of parents to choose the best educational opportunity for their child. We already have academic standards; we are just raising the bar. Home school parents and parents with children in schools that do not receive state funding remain completely unaffected. In non-traditional public schools that receive either voucher money or other state-funding, the current dynamic remains unchanged.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #5: David Coleman, the non-English-teacher who wrote the ELA standards, is now the president of the College Board. He vows to align the SAT with Common Core. Common Core alignment is also expected of ACT and GED. If all this happens, private-school students and homeschooled students who intend to go to college will be forced into a Common Core-aligned curriculum. This means, among other things, that they will have to learn strange and experimental ways of doing math, and will be forced to focus on more nonfiction than great literature. And homeschoolers are already seeing that some of the curricula available to them are being aligned to Common Core. The idea of the Common Core proponents is that, ultimately, Common Core will engulf all of American education. There will be no escape.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #6: Any exercise of this magnitude will have its supporters and detractors, its legitimate criticisms and its inevitable conspiracy theories. The simple questions for Florida are these: Will these new standards ensure we provide our kids with a better education and the taxpayers with a better return on their investment? Will the new assessments be better than the existing assessments? Will students graduate high school more prepared for college and the workforce?
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #6: In fact, these are not the only questions to be asked in a constitutional republic. Even if the answer to these questions were “yes” (it isn’t), the further critical question is how Floridians could achieve the same result without relinquishing their constitutional autonomy over education to unaccountable private interests and the federal government. The answer is simple: Florida could upgrade its own standards and testing to something far superior to Common Core. Even the Fordham Institute, which the Gates Foundation has paid $6 million to promote Common Core, admits that Indiana’s previous standards, for example, were better, and in fact some of the best in the nation. (In fact, Fordham rated Florida’s previous math standards superior to Common Core.)So why doesn’t Florida keep its math standards and adopt Indiana’s ELA standards? If implemented properly, those standards could propel the state to educational success – and Florida would reap the benefits of out-competing the mass of states that settled for Common Core. It is quite astonishing to see supposedly conservative Republicans accept the argument that a centralized national “solution” is better than one crafted at the state and local level.
PRO-CCS BOGUS TALKING POINT #7: Read [the Standards]. Listen to what teachers say about them. If you disagree, do so from an informed perspective.
THE TRUTH ABOUT POINT #7: All across America, teachers and parents who were deprived of a voice on Common Core before it was adopted are now researching the Standards and assessing whether this is the best we can do – and whether it’s what we should do in a constitutional republic. We are finally having the debate the people were deprived of in the rush to get the Standards implemented before the backlash could begin. We welcome the discussion.
The Pioneer Institute gives the national costs, and Henry W. Burke then breaks those costs down into individual states, showing the costs vs. how much states received in awards from the federal government. For instance, here are a few excerpts from Mr. Burke’s report:
1. California will lose $2,084 million ($2.084 billion) on CCS implementation. (Translation: California taxpayers will have to take $2.1 billion from their state coffers to pay for CCS.)
2. Illinois will lose $733 million on CCS implementation.
(Translation: Illinois taxpayers will have to take $733 million out of their state coffers to pay for CCS.)
3. Pennsylvania will lose $647 million on CCS implementation.
4. Michigan will lose $569 million on CCS implementation.
5. New Jersey will lose $564 million on CCS implementation.
6. Indiana will lose $387 million on CCS implementation.
7. Arizona will lose $349 million on CCS implementation.
8. Missouri will lose $336 million on CCS implementation.
9. Washington will lose $331 million on CCS implementation.
10. Wisconsin will lose $313 million on CCS implementation.
LINKS TO THREE REPORTS SHOWING THE COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS
2.21.12 — “National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards” – by Pioneer Institute – http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/national-cost-of-aligning-states-and-localities-to-the-common-core-standards/
10.15.12 – “States’ Taxpayers Cannot Afford Common Core Standards” – by Henry W. Burke —
10.18.12 — “Non-Common Core States Will Save Millions of Dollars,” by Henry W. Burke —http://educationviews.org/non-common-core-states-will-save-millions-of-dollars/
From District to District across the state of Texas Moms, Dads and Teachers should be demanding their voice be hear.
Demand a hearing before CSCOPE is adopted or renewed in your district and that the process for adoption follow SB1474.
There is an unknown bill that passed in the Texas Legislature that is not getting play and we believe it needs to.
BILL ANALYSIS SB 1474 by Sen. Duncan
Senate Research Center S.B. 1474
83R10136 CAE-F By: Sen.Duncan
AUTHOR’S / SPONSOR’S STATEMENT OF INTENT
S.B. 1474 provides a process for school districts to follow before any major curriculum initiative is adopted. By doing so, school districts would be given the opportunity to obtain feedback while deciding if any proposed curriculum meets the needs of their district. Before a district adopts a major curriculum initiative, they would be required to gather input and opinion from both teachers and district employees. The local school board would also gather input and opinion from both teachers and district employees and would be required to have a hearing to discuss the proposed initiative and allow feedback from community members.
As proposed, S.B. 1474 amends current law relating to the adoption of major curriculum initiatives by a school district.
This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1. Amends Section 28.002(g), Education Code, as follows:
(g) Requires a school district (district), before the adoption of a major curriculum
initiative, including the use of a curriculum management system, to use a process that:
(1) includes teacher input;
(2) provides district employees with the opportunity to express opinions
regarding the initiative; and
(3) includes a meeting of the board of trustees of the district at which information
regarding the initiative is presented, including the cost of the initiative and any
alternatives that were considered, and members of the public and district
employees are given the opportunity to comment regarding the initiative.
SECTION 2. Effective date: upon passage or September 1, 2013.
The curriculum your district uses in not the choice of the local Superintendent who wants a consulting position when they retire with the ESC (Education Service Centers), TASA (Texas Association of School Administrators) or TASB (Texas Association of School Boards).
It is the choice of Teachers, District Employees, the local School Board and Parents.
It is time to be EMPOWERED!
BackPacks and Boots on the Ground in Conroe, Texas hosted by the Montgomery County Tea Party was attended by Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Senator Dan Patrick. By all accounts they were shocked by the information they heard.
The question is are these leaders willing to actually lead and get to the bottom of the political corruption involved in the TESCCC’s CommonCore/CSCOPE illegal invasion of Texas schools? Those of us who were there understand the political game and that these two men are running for Lt. Governor. They were both there seeking support from grassroots leaders and their organizations who were attending. What the Lt. Governor and Senator may not understand is that the people who were there could care less about these men’s political careers , and the people are going to do what it takes to protect their children and grandchildren.
Therefore just talking the good talk and getting photo opportunities will not work. There must be action and it must be taken immediately before Texas children are harmed anymore in the 2013 and 2014 school year by the Common Core philosophy that is coming in the back door through CSCOPE and the corrupt education non-government organizations such as TASA (Texas Association of School Administrators), TASB (Texas Association of School Boards) and the ESCs (Education Service Centers) who have direct access to our tax dollars.
If these political leaders want support from the grassroots action is needed and it is needed Now!!!
We are calling on a full audit by the State Auditor to look into direct conflicts of interest and illegal actions by the TESCCC. In addition , an audit must be done of TASA and TASB. From what public information requests revealed there may be grounds for legal action to be taken by tax payers of Texas.
Lastly we are demanding that Texas Leadership find a remedy to remove Thomas Ratliff as a Texas State Board of Education elected official. The Attorney General has already ruled that he is not eligible to be on the SBOE because he is a paid lobbyist.
We also request that you watch this short talk by Dr. Everett Piper on the Common Core philosophy of education and why it is not a “GOOD IDEA”.
Time is of the essence~ Texas Children must be protected!!
Click here to read page 6, “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool(HECAT)3; existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.
You might say…… “We won’t allow it in our schools. We will go to the school board.”
“Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic.” The whole idea behind Common Core is to create universal standards.
Question Parents are you okay with Tx Sen. Wendy Davis proposing to provide age-appropriate health education to students. Understand folks here is how Planned Parenthood wants access to your children. Through the education system.
In Texas Common Core is coming in the back door- by the ESC’s (Edcation Service Centers) who formed an NGOs (Non-governmental organizations 501c3) who has access to our tax dollars. CSCOPE exposed exactly how they do this. Develop a product or curriculum they can rent to the district on a yearly basis. It is a money making gold mine.
Nora Gelperin, was the recipient of the national 2010 Mary Lee Tatum Award from the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education! http://answer.rutgers.edu/page/nora_award
Deb Hauser has been with Advocates for Youth for almost 20 years, first as Director of the Support Center for School-based Health Care, then as Executive Vice President. In January 2012, Deb became the organization’s fourth President and Executive Director, representing Advocates with the media, funders and colleagues organizations and speaking nationally and internationally about young people’s rights to honest sexual health information, confidential sexual health services and equitable social and economic opportunities.
Director of Training and Curriculum Development
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
You might remember hearing about GLSEN and Kevin Jennings back in 2009
POSTED: Sept. 13, 2009
Kevin Jennings, now the “safe schools” appointee in Barack Obama’s US Department of Education, is a prominent homosexual activist who has devoted his career to pushing homosexuality in the nation’s schools. Founder of the nationwide Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
“Of course educating kids to be accepting of people who are different from them is good. Nobody is opposing that. But Obama’s appointment for Safe-School “czar” and those supporting him have other agendas to undermine the efforts of parents who try to protect the innocence and morality of their children.”-Matthew Warner
I totally agree with Matthew Warner
On page 12 it says
“By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to: Use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.”
On page 14 it says:
“By the end of 5th grade, students should be able to: Describe male and female reproductive systems including body parts and their functions. Identify medically-accurate information about female and male reproductive anatomy. Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”
On page 9 under “Guiding Values and Principles”
“Instruction by qualified sexuality education teachers is essential for student achievement.”
Wouldn’t that be the parents? Who decides who is “qualified”?
“Students need opportunities to engage incooperative and active (I underlined those two words) learning strategies, and sufficient time must be allocated for students to practice (I underlined that one too) skills relating to sexuality education.”
What does that mean? Something like this?
And I just have to highlight this principle:
Students need multiple opportunities and a variety of assessment strategies to determine their achievement of the sexuality education standards and performance.
I know this is already in many of our schools. This is sex-education on steroids. You can download your own copy of the standards here.
I have only highlighted a very few of the items I, as a mom, find objectionable. You may not have any issues with the standards, principles and skills that children will be taught as a part of the Common Core Standards. I’m not asking you to agree with me. After all these are only minimum standards. Page 6 – Outline what, based on research and extensive professional expertise, are the minimum, essential content and skills for sexuality education K–12 given student needs, limited teacher preparation and typically available time and resources. I just want you to be aware of the details.
If Common Core is so wonderful, why did they bring it in the back door without legislation? Education we are paying for, without representation.
Have you ever had one of those Oh MY GOSH moments when listening to a radio show? Well that happened on the Women On The Wall radio show this morning. Click and listen to the audio and then check out the Pamphlet by the American Library Association that Education Correspondent Mary Bowen shared with us on the show here>> womenonthewall.org/wp-content/uplo…wyourrights.pdf
The Library lesson Mary referenced in the show is found in this video on Sexting. www.teachingchannel.org/videos/danger…-sexting?fd=1