TOP

Destroying our Children’s Love of America

Share Button

goodbye

We can stop this new AP U. S. History (APUSH) course if we as millions of concerned citizens stick together and pressure our local schools NOT to purchase any more College Board products (AP, SAT, PSAT, GED) since David Coleman as president of the College Board and architect of the Common Core has stated that he is aligning them with the Common Core, starting with the APUSH course.  Because the College Board is profit driven, if they see their profits going down the drain, even they will be forced to change direction.  – Donna Garner]

 

=======

 

“Child Abuse – Destroying Children’s Love for America”

By Donna Garner

Originally published on 8.6.14; updated on 8.9.14

 

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

 

 

[Over 650 people nationwide were on this AP U. S. History (APUSH) conference call because of the tremendous concern over the “child abuse” that would occur if our brightest and best students in America are taught to hate America through this newly rewritten, Common Core-aligned,  high-school AP U. S. History course.]

 

PLEASE LISTEN TO PODCAST OF NATIONAL AP U. S. HISTORY CONFERENCE CALL (8.4.14) Jane Robbins, Larry Krieger, Ken Mercer, and others — http://georgia.stopcommoncore.com/APUSH-MP3_Format.html 

 

=======

 

Sign letter to College Board President David Coleman – Oppose AP U. S. History (APUSH) — http://opposenewapstandards.us/

 

========

 

Resources – New AP (Anti) U. S. History Curriculum Framework — http://www.cwfa.org/resources-new-ap-anti-u-s-history-curriculum-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).

 

LINK TO MARIJANE SMITHERMAN’S ANTI-APUSH TESTIMONY:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq04TyqpLs0&feature=share

 

*LINKS TO SEE BOTH THE 2010 APUSH FRAMEWORK AND THE NEW 2014 ANTI-AMERICAN  VERSION:  http://womenonthewall.org/apush-the-new-ap-anti-u-s-history-curriculum-framework-resources-and-action-items

 

========

 

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

 

=======

 

7.30.14 — PODCAST – Alice Linahan Radio Show – Hear details on AP U. S. History takeover by the federal government and pushback by concerned citizens  – education bubble about to burst —  https://soundcloud.com/alice-linahan/women-on-the-wall-conference-call-is-the-education-bubble-about-to-burst

 

 

=======

 

7.18.14 –  “Statement by Dan Patrick, Texas State Senator and Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor against the use of Common Core in AP U. S. History in Texas — http://www.scribd.com/doc/234371019/PR-14-07-18

 

========

 

7.14.14 – “Scary New AP. U. S. History Course” — The College Board under David Coleman (architect of the Common Core Standards) is changing AP U. S. History for schools all across America.  —  Interview of Ken Mercer, member of Texas State Board of Education, by Glenn Beck:  http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=34576601

 

 

ACTION STEPS 

 

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE COLLEGE BOARD:

 

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 — http://www.wnd.com/2005/01/28331/

 

========

 

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.”  http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional

 

=======

 

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

 

7.14.14 – “To Georgia and States Across America: from Jane Robbins of American Principles Project” — http://www.educationviews.org/common-core-revealed-ap-u-s-history-framework/

 

7.12.14 – “Common Core David Coleman’s Next Deception:  The New AP U. S. History Exam” — by Dr. Susan Berry — http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/11/David-Coleman-s-Second-Deception-After-Common-Core-The-New-AP-U-S-History-Exam

 

7.11.14 — “Texans, Stop AP U. S. History Tests from Being Implemented – Illegal in Texas” — by Donna Garner — http://www.educationviews.org/texans-stop-ap-u-s-history-tests-implemented-illegal-texas/

 

7.10.14 – “ New War Over High School U. S. History” by Stanley Kurtz – National Reviewhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382400/new-war-over-high-school-us-history-stanley-kurtz

 

7.7.14 –“Dinesh D’Souza’s America and Our Schools” – by Stanley Kurtz – National Reviewhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382097/dsouzas-america-and-our-schools-stanley-kurtz

 

6.24.14 — “David Coleman Attacks Students’ Love of America” — by Donna Garner — http://www.educationviews.org/david-coleman-attacks-students-love-america/

 

6.22.14 – “Urgent: AP US History Framework Tied to Common Core – Illegal in Texas” – by Donna Garner — http://www.educationviews.org/ap-history-framework-tied-common-core-illegal-texas/

7.30.14 – Video — “Dr. Duke Pesta Exposes Common Core” — http://m.youtube.com/watch?list=UUgzhBnWlX2Mz_Pd-d_GqoXQ&v=0pzR6-3r-p8

======

 

JANE ROBBINS – EXPLAINS THE MANY PROBLEMS WITH COMMON CORE (11.12.12)  – Q&A FORMAT

 

(This 5-Part Series on Common Core was recorded before the new AP (Anti) U. S. History Framework came out in June 2014.  The new APUSH verifies all of the concerns that Jane Robbins and others have shared about Common Core.)  

 

Pt. 1 of 5:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coRNJluF2O4&list=PLWqL2Og4ICdvllViIJu00MBc15yaXp2UH

Pt. 2 of 5:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FJ1U90HIg

Pt. 3 of 5:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnpqT_XirPo

Pt. 4 of 5:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geLCamWdblE

Pt. 5 of 5:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjJFjNx6jOI

 

 

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

 

 

 

Share Button
Read More
TOP

COMMON CORE ARCHITECT DAVID COLEMAN’S NEXT DECEPTION: THE NEW AP U.S. HISTORY EXAM

Share Button

BRIGHT

“Common Core David Coleman’s Next Deception:  The New AP U. S. History Exam:

 

By Dr. Susan Berry

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/11/David-Coleman-s-Second-Deception-After-Common-Core-The-New-AP-U-S-History-Exam

Polls increasingly show that as more Americans learn about the Common Core standards, they don’t like what they see.

Hopefully, Americans will feel the same way as they learn more about how the new Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. History exam will decimate the teaching of traditional American history, turning it into a leftist view of an America that is based on identity politics rather than a Constitution meant to protect the rights of individual freedoms.

 

The new AP U.S. History exam has been authorized under David Coleman, known as the “architect” of the Common Core standards and, now, the president of the College Board, the organization responsible for the SAT college entrance exam and the various Advanced Placement exams.

 

Conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for National Review Online, wrote on Thursday about the secretive manner in which the AP U.S. History exam was rolled out as well as the significance of this new exam.

 

“We are witnessing a coordinated, two-pronged effort to effectively federalize all of American K-12 education, while shifting its content sharply to the left,” Kurtz states.

 

He explains that while the College Board under Coleman has put on a public display of a lengthy “framework” for the new AP U.S. History exam, that framework actually contains only a few sample questions.

 

“Sources tell me, however, that a complete sample exam has to be released, although only to certified AP U.S. History teachers,” Kurtz continues. “Those teachers have been warned, under penalty of law and the stripping of their AP teaching privileges, not to disclose the content of the new sample AP U.S. History exam to anyone.”

 

Perhaps Coleman’s method of operations with the AP U.S. History exam is more recognizable now since it is one and the same as the method used in stifling public access to the Common Core standards. With the latter, English and Language Arts expert Dr. Sandra Stotsky and mathematician Dr. James Milgram, who were both invited to be members of the Common Core Validation Committee — apparently for little more than to serve as “window dressing” — said they were sworn to secrecy not to reveal discussions at their meetings with the committee. Subsequently, their recommendations regarding the standards were then promptly ignored by Coleman and the other lead writers.

 

Public access to the Common Core standards was also curtailed through a liaison with the federal government in which states could be enticed into adopting the standards by dangling federal funding and the promise of relief from federal No Child Left Behind restrictions in front of their eyes.

 

Without much ado, 45 state boards of education, having been strengthened in power over local school boards through years of legislation as well as a useful relationship with the U.S. Department of Education, adopted the unproven, untested standards — sight unseen.

 

Coleman’s achievement of keeping Common Core from public and media scrutiny is extraordinary when considering that the standards were developed by three private organizations in Washington, D.C.: the National Governors Association (NGA), the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and progressive education company Achieve Inc. All three organizations were privately funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and none of these groups are accountable to parents, teachers, students, or taxpayers.

 

In addition, there is no official information about who selected the individuals to write the Common Core standards. None of the writers of the math and English Language Arts standards have ever taught math, English, or reading at the K-12 level. In addition, the Standards Development Work Groups did not include any members who were high school English and mathematics teachers, English professors, scientists, engineers, parents, state legislators, early childhood educators, and state or local school board members.

 

With his attention now turned to the AP U.S. History exam, Coleman is simply repeating a method that worked well for him with Common Core.

 

“This is clearly an effort to silence public debate over these heavily politicized and illegitimately nationalized standards,” writes Kurtz. “If the complete sample test was available, the political nature of the new test would become evident. Public scrutiny of the sample test would also expose potential conflicts between the new exam and existing state standards.”

 

Another deception observed by Kurtz is the College Board’s claim that the highly controlled new framework for AP U.S. History can be adapted according to the preferences of individual states, school districts, and teachers.

 

Once again, the parallel here is the now predictable pro-Common Core talking point that “the standards are not curriculum.” Supporters of the controversial standards claim teachers and local school districts can choose whichever curriculum they desire to comply with the standards. Of course, if they want their students to pass the Common Core-aligned tests, their best bet is to choose Common Core-aligned textbooks and lesson plans, which means content will be coming from those.

 

Regarding the AP U.S. History exam, Kurtz says that while it is true that the new AP framework allows teachers to include their own examples, the framework “also insists that the examples must be used to illustrate the themes and concepts behind the official College Board vision.”

 

Consequently, Kurtz observes:

 

The upshot is that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders are largely left out of the new test, unless they are presented as examples of conflict and identity by class, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. The Constitution can be studied as an example of the Colonists’ belief in the superiority of their own culture, for instance. But any teacher who presents a full unit on the principles of the American Constitution taught in the traditional way would be severely disadvantaging his students. So while allowing some minor flexibility on details, the new AP U.S. History framework effectively forces teachers to train their students in a leftist, blame-America-first reading of history, while omitting traditional treatments of our founding principles.

 

Fortunately, leading the charge against Coleman’s latest deception, the new AP U.S. History exam, is Texas, which comprises about 10 percent of the College Board’s market.

 

As Kurtz explains, Ken Mercer, a member of the Texas School Board, is attempting to introduce a resolution that would rebuke and reject the new AP U.S. History exam. Mercer is being told, however, that the resolution cannot be introduced until September, when it will be too late.

 

Considering that if Texas could reject the new AP History exam the entire project could be cast into limbo, Ken Mercer needs to introduce his resolution.

 

Kurtz urges Texans to demand that Mercer’s resolution be introduced and passed as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the other 49 states should demand similar action.

 

“The public should also insist that the College Board release its heretofore secret sample AP U.S. History test for public scrutiny and debate,” Kurtz adds. “There is no excuse for withholding this test from the public.”

 

“The controversy over the AP U.S. History Test is going to transform the national battle over Common Core,” Kurtz told Breitbart News. “The changes to the AP U.S. History Exam, enforced by none other than David Coleman, architect of the Common Core, confirm widespread fears that the Common Core will lead to politicized indoctrination.”

 

“Up to now, Coleman and his allies have done their best to avoid overtly ideological moves,” he continued. “Now they’ve tipped their hand. The AP controversy is going to energize the anti-Common Core forces and push this battle to a whole new level.”

 

“The AP controversy will also make it vastly harder for anyone to claim that Common Core is a conservative reform,” Kurtz added. “Battle lines will soon harden and the controversy over K-12 education in America is about to take off.”

 

According to Education Views, Texans are alerted to contact the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office and urge him to stop the AP U.S. History exam from being implemented this fall. More information can be found here.

 

Share Button
Read More
TOP

BREITBART TEXAS CRACKS THE BOOKS AT SXSWEDU 2014

Share Button

AUSTIN, TEXAS–Every year, the education and technology communities converge in Austin for the SXSWedu conference. It is a four day series of speakers and seminars that their website calls “the platform for education’s most energetic and innovative leaders from all backgrounds of the learning landscape including teachers, administrators, university professors, business and policy leaders.”

Breitbart Texas was at this year’s conference, March 3-6 to report back on some of the technocrats and education reformers. We went into sessions where the achievement gap, equity/educational equality/equalization, social and emotional learning, accountability, big data, advocacy, policy, and STEM were among the revolving themes of the day.

Leading the pack of prominent progressives were education historian Diane Ravitch; architect of the Common Core ELA standards and College Board president David Coleman; and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten. PBS, Teach for America, and CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning) sent their people.

Former Superintendent of Indiana and Florida schools Tony Bennett was also on hand to address the pros and cons of the Common Core with former Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott. Other highlighted Texans included Thomas Ratliff (Vice Chairman of the State Board of Education); Representative Jimmie Don Aycock, and Senator Wendy Davis, the Democratic challenger to Republican favorite Greg Abbott, currently the Texas Attorney General. Local educrats featured were UT Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa, UT Austin Ph.D. David Yeager, Austin Community College president Richard Rhodes and Austin ISD superintendent Meria Carstarphen.

SXSWedu 2014 sponsors included all the familiar names of Fed Led Ed — Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, Dell,  Pearson and the Pearson Foundation, the College Board, Scholastic, Amplify, inBloom, Samsung, McGraw Hill Education, Cengage Learning, connectedu,  Lumina Foundation, Xerox, among others. Local sponsors included Educate Texas, a public-private initiative of Communities Foundation of Texas; University of Texas at Austin; and the Texas Tribune.  TASA (Texas Association of School Administrators) and the Austin Chamber of Commerce were listed as event supporters.

SXSW, which is short for South by Southwest is a series of events held in Austin’s downtown. It kicked off with SXSWedu 2014, March 3-6, and then continues through March 16 with music, film and interactive festivals.

Follow Merrill Hope on Twitter @OutOfTheBoxMom

Share Button
Read More
TOP

COMMON CORE 101: WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT OUR CHILDREN?

Share Button

breit

 

by MERRILL HOPE

Outraged parents. Fleeing teachers. Anxiety-ridden and medicated students. Fuzzy math. Crazy history assignments posted on

Facebook. Longitudinal databasesSilenced community members at school board meetings in YouTube footage. Newfangled public

school pathways of college and career readiness under the banner of “STEM” (science, technology, engineering and math) on a wild,

21st-century, technocentric highway that’s littered with stakeholders who are up in arms over federally mandated testing, national

curricula alignment, data collection, and questionable content packaged into one-size-fits-all education.

classroom There’s yelling and screaming from all sides of the political spectrum about the educational mandate known best as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). It raises a  lot more than emotions; it’s a nationwide debate. Proponents tout CCSSI as the greatest achievement since the Enlightenment, while opponents compare it to the Dark Ages,  a deliberate dumbing down of America, as Charlotte Iserbyt would say. Iserbyt was the Reagan admin whistleblower who struck a major blow to the technological forerunner to  the tracking and data-mining age.

So what is Common Core?

Common Core is federally-led education introduced in the Obama administration’s 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“stimulus package”) through a contest called    Race to the Top (RTTT). States could apply and compete for federal grant money. Four billion in federal taxpayer dollars were offered with a catch:

  Awards in Race to the Top will go to States that are leading the way with ambitious yet achievable plans for implementing coherent, compelling, and comprehensive        education reform. Race to the Top winners will help trail-blaze effective reforms and provide examples for States and local school districts throughout the country to follow   as they too are hard at work on reforms that can transform our schools for decades to come.

Out with the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind (NCLB),” criticized for its “high-stakes” strategy of always teaching to the test. In with the Common Core, a uniform set of standards and curricula that, according to their critics, ratchet up the role of government in education, as well as student data collection, teacher evaluations, and NCLB “empathetic” learning. The result is a Fed-led ed cocktail constructed on the premise that our public schools are low performing, broken, and lacking the kind of rigor necessary for students to compete in the global marketplace.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia jumped onboard with CCSSI, intent to raise the roof beam high on rigor to meet international benchmarks.

Best perk? A student could be in Ohio on Tuesday. Wednesday, the family moves to Nevada. Theoretically, he’d pick up in math on the same next page. Wow, sign me up for that! And the online tech tools – they’re brilliant. Click on a standard. ProQuest K12 from SIRS (Social Issues Resource Series) takes you to scrubbed content from premier education provider of the Common Core, Pearson, the London-based conglomerate. Only problem is the info’s on the school-sanctioned and cyberlocked iPad.

Common Core has raised a valid concern: what exactly are they teaching the children?

Common Core was well pitched as state-led and “voluntary.” Even according to the US Department of Education (DOE), public education is described as “…primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States… it is states and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.”

Yet it’s the DOE’s actual role in education that prompted opponents like Diane Ravitch, a two-year veteran of the education department (1991-93) under Lamar Alexander and author of Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools, to call the Common Core “NCLB 2.0.” Translated: No Child Left Behind on steroids.

Ravitch lashed out at DOE chief Arne Duncan, contrasting him with now-Sen. Alexander, whom she characterized as “scrupulous about not interfering in local decision making. He used his bully pulpit, as all cabinet secretaries do, but he never tried to influence the choice of local leaders. He respected the principle of federalism. Apparently, Duncan missed the class on federalism.”

Duncan’s not the only target of CCSSI critics. Robert Holland, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, suggested in a Baltimore Sun interview that one reason Common Core “[has] attracted so much opposition from both the right and left is that it was developed in elitist fashion, bankrolled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, presented as a fait accompli without public hearings and then pushed hard by the Obama administration…”

Back in June 2010, CCSSI released the English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics standards with promises of next-generation Science standards by 2013 and Social Studies standards by 2017. Esteemed educators handpicked to sit on the ELA and math validation committees, Drs. Sandra Stotsky and James Milgram, didn’t sign off on the standards, labeling them as inferior.

Stotsky, who developed one of the nation’s strongest sets of K-12 academic standards and licensing tests for prospective teachers, is now an outspoken staple on the “Stop CCSSI” circuit. Recently, in a Breitbart News interview, she discussed the spin machine surrounding the standards, saying, “Everyone was willing to believe that the Common Core standards are ‘rigorous,’ ‘competitive,’ ‘internationally benchmarked,’ and ‘research-based.’ They are not.”

Common Core is like the convoluted plotline of a daytime drama, impossible to explain in 25 words or less. That’s why so many bloggers, news organizations, and talk radio personalities cover it in manageable bites. Ultimately, it lives up to the unfortunate axiom coined by Nancy Pelosi when speaking about Obamacare in 2010: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” We have, one worksheet at a time.

In school work that comes home, we see how foundational math, taught in a spiral fashion to build on concepts from grade to grade, is gone. This is replaced by math lattices, ladders, and linguistics-based long-winded division and distributive property word problems loaded up with social issues, like the “heroin habit” high school math homework that made the rounds. This is only the tip of the iceberg and one reason that critics like Michelle Malkin call it “Rotten to the Core.”

When Common Core was originally introduced, the National Governor’s Association (NGA) was its “front man,” only these governors weren’t governors of any states. NGA is a private non-profit with the Center for Best Practices that co-owns the Common Core State Standards copyright with another non-profit, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

Yes, CCSS is copyrighted; its content cannot be changed. Teachers cannot write their own content. Proponents say there is no content, but there are assessments. These must be testing something, and it stands to reason that whoever controls the tests controls the curricula, and whoever controls the curricula, one fine day, controls the country.

For now, many deem Fed-led ed a failure – not good for the kids, not good for the teachers. States like New York and South Carolina lead the pack in efforts to shut down the test; they join Wisconsin and Indiana parents and teachers who stand against centralized education, preferring individual state standards.

Big business and big bucks abound in Big Ed, though. CCSSO boasts a wow-list of corporate partners on its website topped off by Microsoft, Prometrean, Scantron, K12, Metametrics a.k.a. Lexile, Scholastic, Pearson Education, Apple, and Amplify. Also on the list are the familiar philanthropic and educratic faces: Bill & Melissa Gates (Foundation), Eli Broad, Jeb Bush, Linda Darling-Hammond, Bill Ayers, Achieve, Microsoft, SmarterBalanced Assessment Consortium, PARCC (Partnership for Assessment Readiness for College and Careers), Pearson, InBloom, and the Annenberg Foundation. There was Mike Huckabee. He was for the Core, but now no more, he says.

One on NGA’s massive corporate fellows list is McKinsey & Co., whom David Coleman, president of the College Board, consulted prior to creating think tank Student Achievement Partners, LLC. Although Coleman’s never taught a class K-20, he’s busy aligning every high school assessment for college (including high school equivalency GED) to CCSSI, with SAT alignment to follow in 2016. Coleman’s credited as CCSSI architect along with cronies math professor Jason Zimba and Education Analyst/Curriculum Specialist Susan Pimentel.

They say nothing comes from nowhere. Common Core’s no exception.

Flashback to November 11, 1992, before the Clinton Administration’s Y2K “Improving America’s Schools Act,” to an 18-page “Dear Hillary” letter that resides in the Congressional Record. Penned by Marc Tucker,  president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, this letter may well be the blueprint for the Common Core.

The letter was written one week after Bill Clinton was elected president. Hillary served with Tucker on the NCEE board. In it, Tucker outlined to Hillary the transformation of the entire American system into “a seamless web that extends from cradle to grave” and is the “same system for everyone,” coordinated by a “system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and job matching will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.” The mission of schools would change from “teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards” in an outcome-based system “guided by clear national standards of performance,” set to “international benchmarks” that “define the stages of the system for the people who progress through it.” In this “new system of linked standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system.” Best of all, college loans debt will be forgiven for “public service.” Sound familiar?

Tucker understood the need for community buy-in to sell the plan. He recommended to Hillary that “…legislation would require the executive branch to establish a competitive grant program for these states and cities and to engage a group of organizations to offer technical assistance to the expanding set of states and cities engaged in designing and implementing the new system.” Can you say Race to the Top?

Tucker described the roll-out plan: “[As] soon as the first set of states is engaged, another set would be invited to participate, until most or all the states are involved. It is a collaborative design, rollout and scale-up program.” The endgame was to “parallel the work of the National Board for College Professional and Technical Standards, so that the states and cities (and all their partners) would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they become available…” The result was that the whole apparatus would be operational in the majority of states within three years from “the passage of the initial legislation.” Common Core implementation began in 2010.

In the “Elementary and Secondary Education Program” portion of the letter, Tucker speaks directly to Hillary: “so we confine ourselves here to describing some of those activities [to restructure schools] that can be used to launch the Clinton education program,” noting that early childhood education “should be combined with quality day care to provide wrap-around programs that enable working parents to drop off their children at the beginning of the workday and pick them up at the end.” Universal daycare, preschool to pre-kindergarten?

Congress passed every one of the “Dear Hillary” letter ideas. Signed by President Clinton in 1994, the Goals 2000 ActSchool-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) were all funded through federal taxpayer dollars and according to many are the very legislation that drives the education machine’s mandates at a federal level today.

Goodbye 3R’s. Hello socially engineered education.

Very long story short, this is the Common Core.

 

 

 

 

Share Button
Read More
TOP

Ratliff & Whiteker Share a “LOVE” for Education Transformation!

Share Button

Ratliffheart 1

State Board of Education Member Thomas Ratliff and Hudson ISD superintendent Mary Ann Whiteker seem to have a “love” in working together in   promoting a progressive ideology (Type 2 standards) within the Texas School System. Below you find find a press release authored by the two critiqued by Educator Donna Garner.

 

10-17-2013 A Critique by Donna Garner

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

Can you say, “SUBJECTIVE SCORING?” Can you say, “PR GONE BERSERK”? Can you say, “RIGGED BY THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK GOOD?” Can you say, “CLASSES WILL CONSTANTLY BE DISRUPTED FOR PHOTO-OP PROJECTS, FIELD TRIPS, COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES, PARADES, CELEBRATIONS, GIGANTIC TECHIE-PRODUCED EVENTS — ALL OF WHICH WILL ROB THE SCHOOL DAY OF AN EMPHASIS ON ACADEMICS.”

 

October 14, 2013

PUBLIC SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY: THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

For several years we have advocated for a public school accountability system that looked at all 180 days of the school year, not just those days that involve a #2 pencil and a bubble sheet when our kids are taking the state’s standardized tests.

We’re proud to say the Texas Legislature, through the passage of House Bill 5, took public school accountability to the next level. Who benefits from this you ask? Parents, students, local communities, school boards, teachers, and taxpayers, just to name a few. How? Let us explain.

 

House Bill 5 added Section 39.0545 to the Education Code that will create a new LOCAL accountability system that will supplement the STATE accountability system. While the state’s system is still too focused on standardized test results that will grade schools with an over-simplified A-F rating, the local accountability system will look at fine arts, wellness and physical education, community and parental involvement, student participation in community service projects, workforce development, second language acquisition, dropout prevention, gifted and talented programs, and several others. Can you say transparency and accountability?

 

The results of these two accountability systems working together will better inform parents, local communities, interest groups, taxpayers and policymakers of what is really going on in Texas public schools. These two systems will show how school districts are preparing well-rounded students to have the tools to be good citizens, not just good test takers.

Here’s our unsolicited advice for school boards and school district leadership for the 1000+ public school districts. Don’t just tell us what you are doing well. Tell us where you feel you need improvement. Tell us about your shortcomings. Tell us about your successes. We all know public education, like life, can be messy and imperfect sometimes. If the public only sees the positives being reported, we’ll wonder what you’re not telling us. We have have seen countless examples of local communities rallying around their public schools in good times and bad. This will be no exception. Parents, local employers, school board members all stand ready to celebrate with you or roll up our sleeves and work with you, but it starts with open and robust communication.

We believe Texas owes a big THANK YOU to the 83rd Texas Legislature for giving our schools this new tool to inform local communities. We should mention the best part of this new law. It’s implemented and designed by LOCAL communities, without another unfunded mandate being passed by the legislature and implemented by the Texas Education Agency. God Bless Texas.

Here’s our request of the media. Please report the results of BOTH of these systems to our local communities. Please provide your readers/viewers with “The rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say.

 

Thomas Ratliff Mary Ann Whiteker

Vice-Chair Superintendent

State Board of Education Hudson ISD, Lufkin

 

 

===========

ANOTHER PLAN ON THE WAY TO DESTROYING AN EMPHASIS ON ACADEMICS

 

Please read what another group of administrators is up to (excerpts from the 10.15.13 DMN article posted further on down the page).

 

The Texas High Performance Schools Consortium consortium is setting up its own accountability system and will try to “sell” the idea across the state. They are going to base their accountability system on the PSAT, SAT, and AP scores. Remember that all of these are products of The College Board which is now headed by David Coleman, the lead author of the Common Core Standards for English (i.e., ELA & Literacy in History, Social Studies, Science, and Technology). Coleman has already said he is going to align all of these products with the Common Core Standards.

 

Then, too, these administrators are also going to base scores on students’ portfolios. Do you know what this means? Portfolios are totally scored subjectively and will include techie-produced projects by students (constructivism gone wild). Portfolio assessments were tried in California 15 years ago, and they were a total failure because of their subjectivity. Kentucky also used subjective assessments some years ago. The grade inflation and lack of true accountability have been well documented in both states.

 Do you get it? The push by Ratliff, Whiteker, Texas High Performance Schools Consortium is to have subjective evaluations AND constructivist projects – Type #2 all the way! No “measuring stick” (STAAR/EOC’s) tied to Type #1 standards and tests…

 This is a huge coup for Microsoft, Gates, Pearson, TEKS Resource System, and all of the other big players who will make a fortune from Common Core Standards and techie-based, constructivist accountability systems.

 

These are the direct results of HB 5, HB 866, and the terrible damage that the 83rd Legislative Session did to our Texas public schools when they disrupted the roll out of the 4 x 4 and the Type #1 TEKS and Type #1 STAAR/EOC’s.

Now schools will take their eyes off the ball (academics) and will be double-minded as they attempt to implement a two-track system. This is the dumbing down of America and the indoctrination of our students.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

 

=========

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20131014-texas-school-districts-plan-ratings-without-staar.ece

 

Texas school districts plan ratings without STAAR

 

By JEFFREY WEISS

STAFF WRITER

 

Published: October 14, 2013 10:56 PM

Updated: October 15, 2013 9:42 AM

Despite the governor’s veto, a coalition of Texas school districts is trying to create an accountability system that doesn’t depend on STAAR.

Members of the Texas High Performance Schools Consortium are set to meet in Dallas on Thursday to consider the framework of the new system. It would be voluntary and run parallel to the state ratings.

Current standards, mostly based on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, “focus on a shame and blame environment to drive school improvement,” said Dawson Orr, superintendent of Highland Park ISD, a consortium member.

 

The new idea uses other tests already employed by some school districts. It would tailor some ratings and standards locally. It isn’t designed to compare school districts or schools. There’s no set of rewards for success or penalties for failure.

 

…Northwest is a fast-growing district with about 17,000 students. About 20 percent are Hispanic and 6 percent are black. About a quarter are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The system that Rue has been creating uses information the district is already gathering; no additional testing is needed.

“We’ve had all this data for years,” she said. “Now we’re going to share it.”

The consortium was created by state law in 2011, charged to develop “innovative, next-generation learning standards and assessment and accountability systems.”

 

The group’s leaders generally share a skepticism about the validity of the state’s tests and a preference for national tests such as the SAT and ACT. They oppose the use of “one-day, high-stakes” state tests as the most important tool of accountability. They want to use non-test techniques — portfolios, for instance — for aspects of education not easily captured on a multiple-choice exam. And they want much greater local control over how districts define success.

 

Their opponents, including some educators and business leaders, say the state tests are superior to national exams at determining whether students are learning the Texas-mandated curriculum. And that standards not based on tests given statewide are too easily manipulated.

 

A bill passed without opposition by state legislators this session would have granted the 23 districts in the consortium — with about 5 percent of the state’s students — the right to avoid some STAAR tests and the state’s ratings.

 

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill.

 

“Flexibility and innovation are important, but we will not compromise academic rigor or student outcomes,” Perry wrote in his veto message.

 

What did that leave for the consortium? Several members have been working on developing an alternate accountability system for several years. So they’re going ahead with it even as they comply with state requirements.

 

“We hope to present information to those policymakers that this might be a better way to assess students,” Orr said.

Several North Texas districts are included in the consortium: Coppell, Duncanville, Highland Park, Irving, Lancaster, McKinney, Northwest, Richardson and Prosper.

The idea to be presented Thursday includes two components: one that might be roughly comparable across districts and one that would be intensely local.

The broad standards include checking reading, math and science for elementary and middle school students — but not every year for every grade. STAAR tests might be included. But other assessment tools that already test kids regularly through the school year could be employed.

 For high school students, measures of “postsecondary readiness” could include PSAT, SAT, AP and other national tests that some districts already provide for all students. A fourth category, “postsecondary success,” would use a tracking system that allows districts to follow the college record of graduates.

 

The local standards, created by each district, could include other ways to check on academic success, as well as assessing the effectiveness of career and technical training, measuring student engagement and determining how connected schools are to the community…

 

Share Button
Read More
TOP

CSCOPE: HOW DID TEXAS GET IT HERE?

Share Button

cscope in the making

 

CSCOPE: HOW DID TEXAS GET IT HERE?

By Danette Clark

In 1992, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) entered into a partnership with Texas Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and Austin Interfaith to direct funds to low-performing schools for use in teacher training, parent leadership training, and after-school enrichment. From this partnership, several IAF ‘Alliance Schools’ were created.

Texas IAF is part of the Saul Alinsky-founded and Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation. Saul Alinsky is the Marx-loving, God-hating community organizer known for his influence on President Obama and ACORN.

According to a 2009 study by the Annenberg Institute, Texas IAF’s Alliance Schools network grew to ”roughly a quarter of the Austin Independent School District’s elementary schools and half of the district’s high-poverty schools” in an eight-year period.

 

The study also reveals that Texas IAF and Austin Interfaith developed a collaborative relationship with former Austin ISD Superintendent, Pascal Forgione.

The Alliance Schools model can now be found in approximately 160 schools throughout the state – a speck on the map when compared to the number of Texas schools infected by the Coalition of Essential Schools.

As I wrote in Unravelled! The 30 Year Agenda Behind Common Core, the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) is the radical reform movement behind both CSCOPE and Common Core.

 

CES, which is modeled after secularist reformers like John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Paulo Freire, and George Counts, functions as a communist-style education movement with the stated intent of ‘educating for a more democratic and just society’.

Westbury High School in Houston and R.L. Paschal High School in Fort Worth are two of the original twelve schools that were established (or ‘redesigned’) by Theodore Sizer in 1984 to become CES member schools.

 

According to StateUniversity.com, the R.L. Paschal Essential School, which is a small autonomous unit embedded within the larger Paschal High School, survived and flourished by “keeping a very low profile“.

 

The largest expansion of CES progressive reform in Texas came years later by way of the Houston Annenberg Challenge.

In 1993, then President Bill Clinton announced that Ambassador Walter Annenberg would donate 500 million dollars to improving public schools in America. It was this 500 million, plus matching grants from private sources, that aided in the nationwide expansion of Theodore Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools.

Through the Annenberg grant, communist and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, wherein he and Barack Obama served on the board to further expand CES schools in the State of Illinois.

Both Ayers and President Obama have continued to this day to do their respective parts to promote and expanded CES schools nationwide. Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop still aids schools and districts across the country in implementing progressive reform through smaller learning community grants and funding from sources like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Brown University, and the Annenberg Institute.

In addition to the well known Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Walter  Annenberg’s ‘Challenge to the Nation‘ also provided for the expansion of progressive reform to Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay area, South Florida, and Houston.

 

In Houston, it was the Brown Foundation, Houston Endowment Incorporated, and several corporate and business leaders who collaborated to apply for a piece of the challenge grant money being offered by Annenberg.

Delia Quintanilla served as the first director of the Houston Annenberg Challenge (HAC). Six local universities were called on to provide support to the HAC by providing university staff, faculty, and students to interact with districts and aid in implementing reform.

The Annenberg Institute kicked off the HAC by choosing eleven ‘Beacon Schools’ to “‘light the way‘ to quality school reform for other funded schools”.

According to Chester Finn, Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the  Beacon Schools chosen appeared to have been ’cherry picked’. Finn reported that the eleven schools chosen by Annenberg were doing better than the Houston average when they entered the program and were performing at about the same level three years later. Therefore, although it may have appeared to outsiders that the first few years of reform in those eleven schools was effective, as Finn stated, he could “scarcely tell what was caused by Annenberg and what may have been shaped by other influences”.

 

In 1995, Humble Independent School District opened Quest Early College High School. Quest is an Annenberg Challenge Grant Beacon School, a First Amendment School and a Coalition of Essential Schools Mentor School.

 

CES mentor schools act as a model of reform for others schools, offering school study tours, advocacy training, legislative action sessions, and professional development opportunities.

A Houston Annenberg Challenge 2 year summary report revealed that by 2001, approximately 100 metropolitan schools had already introduced Critical Friends groups on their campuses and the HAC had trained 300 coaches in both Annenberg-funded and non-Annenberg-funded schools.

 

The report further revealed that promising teachers and curriculum trainers were identified through group collaborations. Specifically:

“Teachers from Annenberg schools collaborate actively in Critical Friends Groups, Literature Study Circles, Professional Academies, Teacher Writing Groups, and Teacher Action Research Teams. From these activities expert teachers emerge as peer leaders in roles such as Critical Friends Group Coaches, Content Specialists, and Reading Learning Facilitators. Furthermore, a number of teachers have become certified as curriculum trainers in national programs including the Coalition of Essential Schools and the New Jersey Writing Project.”

Just as educators were identified and chosen through these collaborative efforts, some were also identified as not worthy to continue their involvement in the progressive reform process.

According to an article printed by the Houston Press in 1998, director Delia Quintanilla was dismissed a little more than a year after the Houston Annenberg Challenge got off the ground, and a troubleshooting team from the Annenberg Institute was being sent to Houston to “evaluate and audit the effectiveness of the local administration of the grant”.

 

Annenberg Challenge National Coordinator, Barbara Cervone, expressed “serious concerns about the leadership, coherence and pace of the Annenberg effort in Houston”.

Despite tensions between proponents of CES’s radical reform methods, HAC pressed on with strict oversight and instruction from the Annenberg Institute and further donations from ‘philanthropic’ organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation.

Annenberg established the New Visions in Leadership Academy to train like-minded radicals for placement as principles into Texas Annenberg/CES schools. According to this job posting, “more than 300 seated school leaders from Houston-area K-12 districts” graduated from New Visions in the first 10 years.

 

In 2002, Humble ISD passed a $230,000,000 bond measure to build Atascocita and Kingwood Park High Schools and redesign existing elementary, middle, and high schools.

Cecilia Hawkins, who served as the principal of Quest Early College High School for four years, left her position at Quest to work with community organizations in an effort to expand district reform.

From CES’s website (2005):

 

“Inspired by its experience with the Coalition of Essential Schools and the Houston Annenberg Challenge (now the Houston A+ Challenge) through Quest High School… Humble has not only put into place a process to remake its high schools but it has reorganized its entire district…”.

What has come as a surprise to many involved in exposing CSCOPE is the fact that several principals and superintendents seem to have no problem with the Anti-American content, errors, and ’fuzzy math’ found in CSCOPE lessons.

Understandably, it must be difficult to accept that there could be that many radical educators in a state like Texas, willing to break the law and deceive children and parents for profit or to advance a political agenda.

The fact is, Texas is a big state with several universities; and universities, for the most part, have often been a refuge and breeding ground for radicals.

CES schools have always relied heavily on the school-university partnership to implement and advance K-12 reform. ‘Professional development schools‘ are often created wherein universities and schools collaborate to ”prepare new teachers, to renew the professional knowledge of veteran teachers, and to conduct site-based research into teaching and learning”.

 

In many states, CES has infiltrated and affected university course offerings for up and coming teachers, principals, and superintendents.

For example, Sam Houston University, as a requirement for superintendent certification, offers an internship course led by Dr. Shirley Johnson. Johnson is the executive director of Texas Coalition of Essential Schools.

 

According to Johnson’s course syllabus and guidelines, all interns must complete a “Leadership Profile”, the cost of which is to be paid by the student directly to Texas CES. Students are then given the opportunity to attend a feedback session related to the leadership profile — no doubt to allow the instructor to gauge whether the student would be a productive leader in a CES-style school.

 

Several other avenues exist for identifying prospective radical educators for placement in these indoctrination centers. Texas ASCD, for example, who partners with CES and actively promotes and expands CES reform, identifies, recruits, and trains teachers and curriculum leaders, many of whom are identified in collaboration with local universities.

Read about the connections between Texas ASCD and educators behind CSCOPE and Common Core here and here.

 

CSCOPE is Common Core

 

In January of 2010, Governor Rick Perry formally rejected the nationally proposed Common Core State Standards, stating that he would not “commit Texas taxpayers to unfunded federal obligations or to the adoption of unproven, cost-prohibitive national standards and tests”.

Ironically, the very people behind Common Core were already actively working within Perry’s state and had been for many years.

Linda Darling Hammond, one of several radical educators behind the design of CSCOPE, has worked with Texas schools for years through her organization, School Redesign Network.

Achieve, Inc., an organization that has aided in authoring the Common Core standards, launched the American Diploma Project in 2005. Texas was one of 13 states to join the America Diploma Project Network.

 

As I wrote here, Achieve, Inc. is not only made up of several Coalition of Essential Schools/Annenberg reformers, but it was literally created by leaders of the National Governors Association and the Annenberg Institute.

 

The Grow Network (now owned by McGraw-Hill) was founded by David Coleman, who is said to be ’the architect’ of Common Core. In 2004, the Texas Education Agency entered into a four-year, 17.7 million dollar contract with Grow Network for online Personalized Study Guides to be provided to Texas educators and students.

Considering many of the same educators behind CSCOPE are also behind Common Core, and considering the rumor that Common Core offered to purchase the CSCOPE program for use with the national standards; it appears that CSCOPE was a ‘test-run’ for Common Core.

 

It seems likely that Texas is the guinea pig and CSCOPE a pilot project –being tested before going all in and using it with Common Core standards in more than 45 states.

It can’t be a coincidence that the same educators behind Common Core just-so-happened to have been chosen to contribute to the design of CSCOPE. Those educators, Wiggins, Tighe, Hammond, Jacobs, and others, have spent years providing professional development to Texas educators over, and over, and over on how to use their designs and teaching strategies, the same designs they are teaching Common Core states to use with Common Core standards.

 

Here’s an interesting side-note – Although it has been more than three years since Texas rejected Common Core, former Austin ISD Superintendent Pascal Forgione, the same superintendent who has worked hand-in-hand with Alinsky’s IAF and Linda Darling Hammond’s School Redesign Network, is participating in a conference later this year inAustin to discuss Common Core.

 

Forgione is now executive director of Educational Testing Service’s K-12 Center located in Austin.

 

K-12 Center works in partnership with the CCSSO and other organizations to develop Common Core assessment systems and also partners with the Alliance for Excellent Education, where Linda Darling Hammond serves on the board.

 

The conference on Common Core, in which Forgione will be the keynote speaker, is scheduled to take place August 12th-14th in Austin.

 

Did Forgione not get the memo that Texas rejected Common Core, or does he know something that we don’t?


Share Button
Read More