TOP

“Tortured language” Used To Promote Common Core in Texas

Share Button

twisted language

Dec 6, 2014 by

By Niki Hayes

12.6.14    

http://www.educationviews.org/tortured-language-promote-common-core-texas/                  

    

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

********

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

 

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

 

LINK TO PODCAST:   https://soundcloud.com/alice-linahan/women-on-the-wall-with-nakonia-niki-hayes-the-author-of-the-story-of-john-saxon

nikihayes@att.net

 

Share Button
Read More
TOP

LET’S TALK CSCOPE… TX MARXIST CURRICULUM

Share Button

CSCOPE WRECK

LET’S TALK CSCOPE

CSCOPE is the controversial online curriculum currently used by about 875 school districts in this state. It’s the one that has taught Allah is GOD, Christianity is a cult, and that dumping British Tea was a terrorist act. Students have even designed a flag for a new Socialist /Communist Country. Wow ! Everyone is doing CSCOPE. It must be terrific. Has anyone heard of any field testing that might have been done? Does anyone know anything about the the writers and consultants hired to put this together? Is anyone aware that students have been asked to read material from Socialist Robert Owen who promoted Agenda 21 where people no longer own private property but all things are granted to them through a kind Socialist Government? An article in the Brownwood Bulletin, written by a BISD staff member, defended CSCOPE Sunday, March 10, 2013, but failed to mention controversial material in the program.
CSCOPE curriculum was developed by leaders and staff of the twenty Texas Educational Service Centers using contract writers, outside curriculum consultants and technology. It is a comprehensive K-12 program, providing an early foundation, then adds layer after layer of information as the student progresses through the program. The indoctrination begins when the child enters Kindergarten.
The online curriculum system is designed to develop COMMON scope and sequential learning across the District, and most of the State. The material covers language arts, math, science and social studies. These are the four core subjects that make up Texas education standards. Throughout these core areas, CSCOPE authors have chosen words and ideas which indoctrinate rather than educate students.
Socialist doctrine is presented as an ideal state for society through writing and presentation. The material also contains factual errors, grammar/usage mistakes, and inappropriate content. Lessons are taught and there is built in frequent assessment to determine mastery of the information.
CSCOPE content has not been reviewed, monitored or controlled by the Texas State Board of Education. Classified as supplementary materials, that oversight was avoided. It is based on the premise that education should be more about how students feel about things, rather than facts. It becomes important to promote positive feelings for what they want society to be, rather than what society actually is. Thus the ongoing lessons about Socialism, the down play of the Christian religion, and the promotion of Islam. This confluence of various writers who have chosen to push their political and personal ideology has created an end result that is neither trustworthy or to be respected.
It is important to note that Region 4 Service Center Director, Dr. William McKinney, serves on the Board of Directors for Fetullah Gulen’s International Science Fair Organization. Perhaps that is why Islam has been given such extensive positive coverage in CSCOPE, and Christianity given such a short mention with negative connotation. There are about fifty Gulen Charter Schools in Texas where taxpayer funded school busses stay late, and students participate in after school religious Islam education. They are then driven home in taxpayer funded vehicles.
Although CSCOPE was paid for by taxpayers, CSCOPE leaders chose to illegally form a Private Corporation to copyright curriculum material. It is rented to the Districts each year. Parents have not been allowed to view the lessons, and teachers have had to sign non-disclosure statements.
Parents and educators brought their concerns about CSCOPE to the Texas Legislature and a Senate Hearing was held in January, 2013. There much of the controversy over the material became public. Texas Service Center leaders became testy and defiant during the hearings, and provided conflicting information to the Senate Committee. CSCOPE staff had consistently denied the existence of controversial material in the curriculum, but admitted the existence during the Senate hearings. They defended the non disclosure to parents and public stating public viewing would infringe on the copyright. The Committee recommended sharing all information, while test materials would be kept private.
Changes to allow more public and parent material review were promised. This was touched on by a BISD representative in an article published in the Brownwood Bulletin March 10, 2013. Despite the January hearing, there remain many unanswered questions about the material and limited access for parents and interested taxpayers to see what they have bought. We must remember at a 2012 training session, the following document was handed out:
“To support implementation of this detailed curriculum, districts must have processes and people in place to insure that there are sustained monitoring of the curriculum and that individual teachers do not have the option to disregard or replace assigned content.”
CSCOPE was developed, in my opinion, by Common Core advocates who were unable to get the Common Core standards pushed by Washington established in Texas through the legislative process. Consequently, CSCOPE was born. Common Core Standards are those authored by the Federal Government which define what students should learn and form the basis for national tests. The Feds used money to encourage adoption of Common Core Standards, and they are now in use in 45 states. They were adopted by those who believe mental sugar pills will make all students college ready with little thought or consideration of the dangers inherent in the acceptance and use. Common Core is a transparent attempt by the Obama Administration to nationalize public education and eventually control curriculum content with little parental oversight.
That appears to be the direction CSCOPE is going with little thought to what it will do to education in Texas. I believe the project was begun with good intentions, but went awry quickly as writers and consultants injected radical ideology.
The Texas Association of School Administrators has been lobbying vigorously for federal “Race to the Top” funds, which are contingent on the acceptance of Common Core. They will soon use state dollars to attend a conference in California where radical activist and documented Bill-Ayers associate Linda Darling-Hammond will speak. According to some, Mrs. Darling-Hammond is actually writing C-Scope material, though she is listed as a professional development consultant in CSCOPE project materials.
As an aside, perhaps many of you do not know about Obama friend Bill Ayers. He is a committed Communists/Socialist terrorist who bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon, and was instrumental in the murders of federals officers in the early 70’s. His conviction was overthrown, and he has been free all these years to spread his radical ideology as an education professor at the University of Illinois. Most recently he organized and taught in the “Occupy” movement and he remains active and committed in to destroy the free market system of the United States and bring about Socialism. He is a colleague and dear friend of Linda Darling-Hammond, whom he endorsed for US Secretary of Education prior to Arne Duncan’s appointment.
District leaders are using textbook funds rent CSCOPE each year at a cost of approximately $7.00 to $10.00 per student. The program has never been evaluated except by the users . It should be.
Many Texas Association of School Administrators members don’t know a whole lot about education. They do know a lot about perks if they follow TASA leaders. CSCOPE is a group think, collective product, adopted by districts with no research or study. It is the prelude to Common Core which your school Administrators will be learning about from the Radical Activists. . Administrators want it because of Federal money it will bring to their District., It is possible CSCOPE could, with some modification be approved by the US Dept of Education as equal to COMMON CORE and generate federal funds for the districts. In fact, there is a section in CSCOPE Corporation documents which state the federal government can take over the curriculum if Texas Education Service Center CSCOPE Corp. dissolves. Aha! Never mind this product is toxic. Remember, as soon as someone tells you something will save education; hide your children and your back pocket.
Information provided by BISD about CSCOPE indicates that all 8 principals, four teachers from each campus and three central office staff will attend the state CSCOPE conference in the summer of 2013. Conference attendees will then return and set up district staff development and learning communities to train all staff.
Parent access will probably be on demand, and they may see only what the leaders show them, rather than having blanket access.
Brownwood Independent School District should establish a parent/community review committee made up of interested parents, retired teachers trained in the subject matter, or perhaps subject matter specialists from a neighboring University. CSCOPE material should be reviewed by this committee before students are given access to the material. If that is not possible the material should be removed from classrooms, and the $100,000 or so the district spends then spent on quality supplementary materials.
Is this what is to become of Public Education? School Choice may now be almost the only option for parents who insist on quality education. When school choice is available education dollars stay with the student, rather than the district. Top charter schools that promote factual information and pride in our heritage as Americans can and should be developed. The Muslims are doing their thing in Charter Schools all over Texas. Texas families who want quality programs for their children can do it too.
There is danger ahead. Texas School Superintendents may hand Texas Public Schools over to the Federal Government without another thought, in exchange for dollars. This cannot happen .

Mrs. Mickey Mathis (RetiredSchool Administrator and School Psychologist)

Share Button
Read More