Reported is, former Huntsville ISD superintendent Steve Johnson had retired leaving the school district looking for a new superintendent. If the truth be known, Mr. Johnson has secured a position at Education Service Center VI but not without first finalizing and approving thousands of dollars worth of contracts between Huntville ISD and ESC VI. Seriously? Is there not something wrong with this picture.
Mr. Johnson began his new “retirement” on 9/1/14 with a salary of $76, 814. If only all those who retired could be so lucky. The scratch my back and I will scratch yours is rampant throughout the Texas Education system. Huntsville ISD also has a school board member Sam Moak whose wife Kathy Moak works for ESC VI on the services provided to Huntsville ISD. I have yet to find where Mr. Moak has recused himself from voting on the contracts.
DALLAS, Texas — On the week of November 17-21, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) will reconvene for a final week of meetings in the ongoing Social Studies textbook adoption process. Called Proclamation 2015 to reflect the 2015-16 school year that these instructional materials will be implemented. The Social Studies textbooks were last updated last in 2002.
Breitbart Texas has reported on the Social Studies adoption process, noting Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) beef with the open and transparent process that requires public participation. Breitbart Texas also reported on the troubling textbook findings that emerged — blaring historical omissions, factual errors and leftwing bias.
TFN education establishment progressives have painstakingly tried to convince Americans that the Texas public K-12 Social Studies department has been taken hostage by the Tea Party and Christian evangelicals.
Through TFN’s Education Fund (TFNEF), they “contracted” professors at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, the University of Mary Washington in Virginia and the University of Texas at Austin for a review independent of the one conducted by the SBOE, according to TFN.
Breitbart Texas looked at TFNEF’s Texas Rising, which seeks out “young leaders” on Texas college campuses for the group’s stated mission — to develop a “social justice-minded” generation to push “progressive public policy in Texas.”
On the other hand, TTT, also conducted an independent review. Coalition founder Ret. Lt. Col. Roy White told Breitbart Texas they formed for the “single purpose of improving the factual accuracy of social studies textbooks for the five million children of Texas who will use these textbooks beginning in the 2015-16 school year.”
These unpaid reviewers included scholars, curriculum accuracy experts and 100-plus volunteers who donated thousands of hours to reviewing the Social Studies textbook. Among them were Dr. Andrew Bostom, Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School also known for his recognized analyses on Islam, Jihad and Muslim anti-Semitism; and Dr. Amy Jo Baker, the retired director of Social Studies for the San Antonio Independent School District and president of the Texas Council for History Education. She is affiliated with the National Council for History Education.
Dr. Sandra Alfonsi, who oversees textbook review programs for ACT! for America and Textbook Alert, also participated. Previously, she told Breitbart Texas that the textbooks were loaded up with bias — progressive bias.
TTT reviewed the same textbooks as TFN — from publishing giants Pearson, McGraw Hill, Discovery Education, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Worldview, Perfection, and Cengage.
TFN’s review netted hysterical headlines about Moses as the father of our country. A former SMU educrat trembled to the Texas Tribune that students would believe that the Hebrew lawgiver “was the first American.”
Barring leftwing hyperbole, someone thought he played some role. The perceived likeness of Moses adorns the US Supreme Court with the 10 Commandments. He is also the central of 23 historical figures hanging overhead in the House Chamber of the United States Capitol.
The Washington Post, the Associated Press (AP) and the Huffington Post all chimed in on TFN’s false narrative, alleging a fantastical rightwing grip on Texas public education, attacking the textbook adoption process itself for allowing Joe Public to participate, and slamming the Texas education state standards, which TFN opposes.
In their review, TFN bashed government and U.S. history textbooks that “suffer from an uncritical celebration of the free enterprise system.” They lamented that the “legitimate problems of capitalism” and “the government’s role in the U.S. economic system” were omitted. They targeted the Tea Party repeatedly. In one instance, they blamed constitutional conservatives for one government book espousing “anti-taxation and anti-regulation arguments.”
TFN’s never-ending left-of-left politically motivated agenda included the usual suspects — climate change science and social justice-based math, but what about the facts?
Ironically, TFN’s meme of textbook honesty has been “Those who don’t know history are destined to delete it.”
TTT’s review was equally revealing, addressing factual flaws that TFN academic sleuths overlooked or missed.
For example, in Pearson Magruder’s American Government, the pivotal role that the 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan played in the Berlin Wall being torn down was omitted. In fact, the factually documented work of Reagan, Britain’s then Prime Minister, the late Margaret Thatcher, and the Pope in the fall of the Soviet Union was non-existent.
“The Soviet Union did not have the resources to implement a ‘Star Wars’ system that Reagan supported. Others have already chronicled the role Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II played in the last great revolution of the 20th century. That it was largely a peaceful revolution in the context of decades of nuclear menace makes it all the more breathtaking,” the TTT review stated.
Sometimes facts are just facts and they have no political agenda. Case in point: In Pearson’s United States History 1877 to Present students are given an exercise to analyze a map. They are asked what can they predict about where the major battles of World War I would be fought.
Problem was “they have not yet been given any of the facts concerning any of the reasons for WWI or the countries involved,” stated Alfonsi.
Before predicting events, she said students “need to be given the facts upon which they are to base their analysis.”
In another example, Pearson presented a misleading statistic as fact, accounting for “more than 120 million who did not vote in the last presidential election.” The correct figure is 102 million. The TTT review explained that textbook writers erroneously folded into their calculation, 20 million resident aliens.
“Resident aliens are not allowed to vote in federal elections. Their voting in federal elections is a criminal offense that can result in one year in prison and deportation,” the TTT review noted.
This flub came up in McGraw Hill’s U.S. History to 1877 — three lessons on Islam were inserted into a chapter on North American development and history. TTT tagged it “irrelevant to the topic.”
Houghton Mifflin’s United States History: Early Colonial Period through Reconstruction also plunked irrelevant Islamic history into a Teacher’s Edition class exercise “designed to focus student attention on Islam,” wrote Baker and Alfonsi.
Discovery Education felt the same urge to plop the Arab world into 19th Century American history. In U.S. History: Civil War to Present, a drawing of the Arabian Coast in 1859 accompanies a drawing that describes how, with the advent of the telegraph in America, “companies rushed to put up telegraph lines all across the country and the seas.”
The American West’s cowboy was historically attributed to 8th Century North African Moors by Discovery Education. The role of the horse was credited incorrectly to the Spaniards first learning to handle horses and use them effectively as wartime tools because of the Moors. TTT noted that the Spain’s history with the horse pre-dated the Moors’ invasion.
Islamic historical intrusions appeared in other American history books. In a section about annexing the Philippines was instead a “story from the Byzantine Empire.” A Women of the West chapter linked to 10 videos on the women of Afghanistan in the “more to explore” section. Immigrant Women contained videos on Israel and the Middle East.
TTT scholars agreed that these videos were more appropriate in a World History and not US History textbook. Conversely, TFN lamented negative stereotypes of Islam in their report.
In a Houghton-Mifflin US History book, the importance of the Bill of Rights was omitted “even though events that are counter to those rights are addressed,” the review emphasized.
McGraw Hill’s American Revolution chapter in U.S. History to 1877 deleted the battles of Lexington and Concord. There was no mention of Paul Revere other than in a side reference to him as a former slave’s ride. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were the only Southern Generals acknowledged historically. Not even Braxton Bragg, namesake of Fort Bragg, was mentioned.
TTT reviewers found that McGraw Hill’s U.S. History to 1877 largely ignored the checks and balance system of American government and left out that members of the courts (judiciary) have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.
Examples of PC cherry-picked information in McGraw Hill’s American Government included “executive privilege” It was presented with former president Bush invoking six privileges, “including to avoid giving Congress information on the use of FBI mob informants” while President Obama was said to have invoked the privilege by executive order only one time for “Fast and Furious.” Reviewers noted biased diction that made Bush’s actions appear nefarious while Obama’s noble. President Clinton’s 14 executive privileges were not mentioned.
Partial truths ran rampant, according to the TTT review. Houghton Mifflin told half of the story of DDT, the insecticide, exposing the negative effects but none of the positive, primarily in curtailing malaria outbreaks in Africa.
TTT noted that Hispanic-rights groups La Unida Raza (La Raza) and MEChA were depicted only in a positive light, omitting Reconquista calls to overthrow the U.S. government. This radical ideology was the reason Tucson Unified School District shut down and banned its Mexican-American Studies program in Arizona.
In other textbooks, pro-lifers were depicted as aggressive “abortion foes” while pro-abortion demonstrators were portrayed as peaceful. Hezbollah was never mentioned as an Islamic terrorist organizations but again, the Tea Party was called out as “militant, radical and fascist.”
Another textbook stated that the U.S. has a “national government,” which TTT reviewers cited as factually incorrect. “The U.S. Constitution created a ‘federal’ government of nation-states that grant a federal system limited powers,” they stated. “Limited powers” of the federal government was omitted. Worldview’s American History left out America’s founding fathers.
Right now, publishers are responding to these textbook reviews and SBOE recommendations. White hopes that after reading TTT’s findings, concerned Texans will attend the final textbook adoption meetings. Public comments are encouraged at the meeting on Tuesday, November 18, at 1 PM in Austin. The SBOE votes on the Social Studies books on Friday, November 21.
Texas education is for from being autonomous. Federal agencies have their hand in every aspect of the Texas education system and parents and teachers are really starting to realize the reform taking place. I don’t see a need for the Texas Education Agency any longer.
Education is the biggest expenditure in the state and they keep screaming for more money but we all know it is not for the classroom. The corruption taking place is astronomical and the students are the ones that suffer.
The Committee of Economic Development partnered with the Texas Association of School Administrators and wrote the following policy brief. https://www.ced.org/pdf/Digital_Learning_Issue_Brief_Final.pdf which outlines the radical reforms taking place across the country with the implementation of common core even in Texas (though they don’t call it that here). It is not surprising that the research brief is funded by no other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
An assembly line approach to education is being implemented and equality, social emotional learning and the building of a global society is what our education system is becoming about. The destruction of America and it’s values will be the unfortunate result.
Texas Education Service Center 13 in Austin presently is looking for someone to fill their Gestapo position. It has to be a certified teacher of at least 5 years teaching experience and you can go fill this postition at a minimum salary of approximatley $50, 000. This individual also would benefit by having some knowledge of the Cscope system. Why? Cscope is about a Marxist philosophy of teaching based on the collective.
Below are Notes from the document above making reference to info and individuals involved in this process.
Karla Burkholder
Here is another document put out by Texas Association of School Administrators.
Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) is funded with our tax dollars through our local school districts millions yearly. Their office is 2 blocks away from the state capitol and when the legislative session opens they spend their time lobbying our legislators for bills that will profit their agenda.
TASA has created a transformation program called Creating a New Vision, a plan to transform and reform our Texas School districts.
Texas is Cloning Teachers
The Texas’ education system is made up of different groups that are supposed to work together. If they actually did work together, Texas would be providing the the best education in the world.
The Texas Education Service Centers are Cloning Teachers
Texas ESCs Are
Cloning Teachers
One reason the different parts of the Texas Education System do not work together is that the Commissioner of Education has allowed the different agencies to basically do their own thing.
1. The State Board of Education (SBOE) is in charge of the TEKs-state standards. There is no verification that these standards are correct. No verification that the groups writing the TEKS are qualified.
2. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is in charge of STAAR/EOC tests that are suppose to be aligned to the TEKS. TEA test writers make their own interpretation of the TEKS but do not share this with Texas educators. There is no verification that these TESTs are valid to assess students.
3. The ESCs –Education Service Centers have taken control of interpreting the TEKS and school superintendents are responsible for purchasing the ESCs TEKS interpretations. The Commissioner of Education, Michael Williams allows the 20 ESCs to govern themselves. Governor Perry chose the Railroad Commissioner, Michael Williams to be the Commissioner of Education.
The ESCs now train teachers with a minimum of five years of teaching experience to be Instruction Coaches. These Coaches are given authority to govern what teachers teach. These coaches mandate that the ESC interpretation of the TEKS, AKA Unpackaged TEKS, are used with fidelity. Meaning that not one word that is not in the TEKS may be included in lessons. These Instruction Coaches are part of the PLC program.
The diagram of people with no facial features is a good representation of the cloned teachers that the Texas Education Centers are now creating with their new PLC program.
The PLC program is not restricted to Texas. In fact it is more of a common core program that the ESCs are implementing.
Following is a teacher’s comment about working in a school with a PLC Instruction Coach.
AnonymousSeptember 28, 2014 at 2:29 PM
I transferred to a campus with the “PLC” mentality after eight reasonably successful years of teaching. I had been used to a system where we’d share ideas once a week, we’d be teaching the same SE, some of the materials we used were the same because they worked well for all of us. However, we were always free to review or extend as needed, and to use alternate texts if we felt they would work better with our particular students – as long as we were teaching the skill and could show results.
On this new campus, I was immediately thrown into a world in which I not only no longer had an opinion, but was essentially prohibited from adding any personal touches to the lessons that were given to us by the department heads under the guise of “collaboration”. It was same day, same story, same “foldable”, same power-point for everyone in the department – and none of it was near the standard of quality that I had previously implemented in my classroom. A lot of it was disjointed, or shallow, or only loosely connected to the SE… but saying as much made me a huge target.
On the first common assessment, I was “caught”, as my students scored significantly higher in some areas than my colleagues – and instead of being questioned about my methods in some positive way, I was reprimanded, because they knew I was tweaking what they had been giving me. The team leader began a vicious campaign against me, interrogating me during meetings, accusing me of doing a poor job, etc. – and the administrators were right with her. They began visiting my classroom several times a week, e-mailing me about the words or bits of assignments that didn’t seem to be consistent with my colleagues…
Additionally, we were required to use 4 out of 5 of our weekly planning periods (which are legally protected in my state from organized activities by the administration) to attend these “planning meetings” in which we were told what to do, how to do it, and interrogated as to whether we were in lock step.
To make a long story short, I lasted 3 months, began having panic attacks, and was reprimanded for it. This worsened the anxiety, and despite being under medical care, they panic attacks increased in frequency… The constant threat of visits, the interrogation, being told I was not doing well after years of being respected by former colleagues… it was all too much. I resigned for medical reasons, and I’m unsure if I’ll ever teach again.
When CSCOPE hit the news, most of the attention was focused on the lessons.
Much less attention was paid to the money side of CSCOPE.
But there were so many questionable practices from contracting to accounting, that the Texas State Auditor was
asked to get involved.
The Auditor’s report stated that the ESCs had such poor accounting practices that:
“auditors were not able to fully answer the audit objective to determine the amount of revenue and expenditures
related to the development, installation, distribution, and marketing of CSCOPE.”
The ESCs collected $73.9 million for CSCOPE, but they couldn’t account for over $6 million of public funds.
No one involved suffered any consequences. They are all still on the public payroll because, according to the Auditors report:
“the education service centers do not have specific contract laws that they must follow “
“there were no specific state funds appropriated for the development, implementation, and operation of CSCOPE.”
And even though the CSCOPE contracts “lacked fundamental provisions to help protect the State’s and taxpayers’ interests,” none of it was illegal because
What I found, from the standpoint of financial accountability, is another “CSCOPE.”
But this time, instead of just having poor contracting and accounting procedures with public funds, I have a video of a government entity explaining how they defied the Legislature and by-passed Texas law in order to operate TxVSN, and their elected officials rationalizing their actions.
I don’t have enough room to print everything, so I have chosen a few highlights of my findings to share here.
The Texas Legislature passed SB 1788 in 2007 establishing the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN) and funding the
operations with state funds.
The Commissioner of Education was given authority over the network resources and instructed in statute to contract with an
ESC for“the ESC to operate the network.”
The Legislature chose ESCs to operate the network because one of their statutory purposes is to “implement initiatives
assigned by the legislature.” (8.220)
Texas Education Agency (TEA) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) entitled “Central Operations for the Texas Virtual School Network” with the deadline for submission 3/5/08. Eligible proposers were limited to the 20 Texas ESCs.
The purpose was to “identify the regional service center to operate the network.” The RFP stated, “a collaborative of ESCs will also be considered.”
The RFP included other qualifications such as HUB percentages, an understanding of
TxVSN, etc. as well as a statement that the proposer had not
“communicated directly or indirectly the proposal or bid made to any competitor or any
other person engaged in such line of business during the procurement process for this
contract.”
According to discussions held in a public meeting on 2/26/13, The Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) wanted
to bid for Central Operations of TxVSN, but was excluded by the mandates of the legislation because they are not an ESC.
Excerpts from HCDE’s public discussion concerning TxVSN:
(Note: Translation is approximate because some is difficult to understand. Please watch video for exact wording.)
John Sawyer (HCDE Superintendent): “… we wanted to bid on the contract. So I negotiated with (ESC)Region 10 who said, “We don’t know how to do it.” And I said, “We do. But we can’t bid.” So they bid and we are doing about 70% of the infrastructure work. And they are the front of the Texas School. And they handle the money and the student registrations and all that. ..“
John Sawyer (HCDE Superintendent):“…When the law was passed the wording in the law said that the only people who could bid were Regional Service Centers…We don’t qualify as a Regional Service Center. I never could decide if that was purposeful or accidental, but it didn’t matter. We got our share of the business anyway…”
Kay Smith (HCDE Trustee):“I have a question just for clarification. We could not bid on this directly?”
Sawyer: “That is correct”
Smith: “So they bid on it and then they sub it out to us?”
Sawyer:“The director at Region 10 is a former school superintendent that I happen to know pretty well… When I realized that we were not going to be allowed to bid on the project, and the bid was due in Austin on Tuesday of (the) next week…I called Buddy and said, “OK. Here is the deal.” I told you that conversation. He said, “John, we don’t know how to do this.” I said, “We do. But we can’t bid.” So we sent a team to Dallas…And spent the weekend. Wrote the proposal. We delivered it to TEA on Tuesday. Jointly. I mean we helped them with the proposal. And they got awarded the contract and we get about 70% …”
(Note: After the discussion, only one Trustee, Kay Smith, voted not to approve the contract.)
Three weeks before the final proposal for Central Operations of TxVSN was due, TEA held a conference in Austin “to assist potential proposers in clarifying their understanding of the scope and nature of the work…” It was open to “all potential proposers.”
Records show exactly who attended:
ESC-11 sent 3 people
ESC- 4 sent 1 person
ESC-12 sent 1 person HCDE – not qualified to bid – sent 6 people
ESC 10 – DID NOT ATTEND
Yet, TEA awarded the contract to operate the Texas statewide on-line school to ESC-10, an ESC that:
did not even attend TEA’s proposers conference, and
John Sawyer claims said, “We don’t know how to do it.”
(Note: I requested to view the winning bid from ESC-10, but TEA asked for a ruling from the Texas Attorney General Open Records Division – brings back more memories of CSCOPE.)
Esc-10’s first TxVSN contract period was 4/10/2008 through 8/31/2008 for $750,000.
ESC 10 immediately subcontracted with HCDE
(NOT an ESC and NOT an HUB) to provide 74.5% of the work for $559,138.
The first sub-contract with HCDE covered the same dates, 4/10/2008 through 8/31/2008.But records show the work began months before the contract was formally signed. HCDE’s Board didn’t even vote to approve the contract until 2 WEEKS BEFORE IT ENDED.
4/10/08 – Sub-contract began
7/15/08 – HCDE’s expenditure sheet for $325,997.98
7/24/08 – ESC-10 signed sub-contract
7/28/08 – ESC-10 received $325,997.98 HCDE invoice
(Note: I did not find records showing the date HCDE signed the contract.)This sub-contract has been renewed or extended every year with the same discrepancies repeating themselves.During HCDE’s February 2013 Board meeting, HCDE Trustee Erica Lee Carter asks this question about their 12/13 TxVSN contract:“Why are we voting on a contract thatstarted last September?”
But dates and signatures are only part of the contracting concerns.
Documents show that ESC-10 did not request bids before it sub-contracted the development of TxVSN Central Operations
to HCDE.
Instead, ESC-10 claimed, “No bid required since professional services.”
But this was a TEA contract which had to follow State of Texas contract guidelines. Texas Government Code 2254 defines “profession services” as services within the scope of the following professions:
accounting
architecture
landscape architecture
land surveying
medicine
optometry
professional engineering
real estate appraising
professional nursing
Technology is not listed.
Appendix 1 of the TEA contract reads:
“No funds shall be used to pay for food costs (ie refreshments, banquets, group meals, etc.) unless requested as a specific line item in the budget by the contractor and approved (prior to expenditures occurring) by TEA.”
I did not find budget line items or TEA prior approval documentation, but I did find the following purchases in the HCDE check registry under TxVSN budget codes:
Statute dictates that an ESC will operate the network and TEA awarded ESC 10 the Central Operations contract.
But I found multiple contradictory statements as to who is actually “operating” the network:
The TEA website claims: “ESC Region 10 serves as central operations for the TXVSN” and “oversees the day to day operations of the network”
The ESC 10 website claims: “ESC Region 10, in collaboration with the Harris County Department of Education, has been awarded Central Operations of the TxVSN”
The TXVSN website claims: “ESC Region 10, in collaboration with the Harris County Department of Education, is Central Operations.”
The HCDE website claims:“Harris County Department of Education, in collaboration with the Education Service Center (ESC) 10, has been awarded central operations of the TxVSN.”
“Harris County Department of Education was awarded Central Operations of the TxVSN.”
Since TxVSN is online school for thousands of students across Texas, I decided to see who is really operating the network by checking who registered and owns “txvsn.org.”
The result? HCDE I checked the form participating school districts need to send to TxVSN Central Operations for the mailing address.
Whose address is it? HCDE
If you call the TxVSN Central Operations Help Desk…
Where is the phone answered?
HCDE
Then I looked at the original “Scope of Work” descriptions spelled out in ESC-10’s sub-contract with HCDE, it is obvious who is actually “operating” the TxVSN.
TEA / ESC -10
HCDE
But there are two major issues with HCDE operating the TxVSN. First – State statue dictates that an ESC will operate TxVSN. HCDE is NOT an ESC. (30A.052) Second – Documents show the name “HCDE” is actually an “aka” of the “County School Trustees of Harris County.”
Why would a government entity go down to the county courthouse and file documents in order to conduct business under an assumed name?
Well, HCDE is actually an old county school board leftover from the days when counties still ran the public schools (1889 to mid-1900s) – before Texas instituted our current ISD system. They still exist in Harris County because of a loophole in the law which allows them to remain in operation under old, repealed county school statutes.(11.301)
“After December 31, 1978, no state funds shall be used to support … a board of county school trustees…”
TxVSN central operations is funded with state dollars.(30A.152)
Would someone question a contract using state funds being issued to “County School Trustees of Harris County?”
They might.
Would someone question a contract using state funds being issued to “HCDE?”
Much less likely.
Just as with CSCOPE, I end up asking a whole series of questions….
When it comes to Texas education dollars, who is watching the store?
Do the ESCs and other government business enterprises like HCDE really operate unchecked?
Do the Commissioner of Education, TEA and the Legislature really not know what is going on – or are they part of the problem?
Could the answers to all of these questions be something as simple as… … follow the money? Is it just a coincidence that less than a year after leaving TEA, Robert Scott, the Commissioner of Education from 2007-2012, became a paid “consultant” for HCDE?
(Note: Notice this first payment from HCDE to Rob Eissler was 12/21/12 – while he was still officially the Chairman of the House Public Education Committee??? )
Is it also just a coincidence that emails show when HCDE’s Superintendent warned Rob Eissler this past May that his lobbying group’s $269,500 HCDE “consulting” contract may be in jeopardy, Eissler called a current member of the Texas House Public Education Committee,Rep. Dan Huberty, who then called HCDE Board President, Angie Chesnut, and the contract remained intact?
I am sure, just like the HCDE name change, they are all just remarkable coincidences.
With CSCOPE, the ESCs got off scott free because the Legislature left so many loopholes in the statute governing them.
But with TxVSN, the Legislature dictated the funding and the operations in statute so I have personally asked the State Auditor’s Office to investigate the contracting of the TxVSN.
If you agree, you may contact the State Auditor’s Office and urge them to investigate Texas Education Agency’s TxVSN contracting with ESC-10 and HCDE @ 512-936-9500 or email.
You may contact the Texas Senate Education Committee and urge them to request a state audit of TxVSN contracting @ 512-463-0355 or email
You may contact the Texas House Public Education Committee and urge them to request a state audit of TxVSN contracting @ 512-463-0804 or email
[10.7.14 — I wonder when reporters such as Terrence Stutz are going to try to investigate exactly why Texas’ public school students have lost ground on the SAT. Could it be (duh?) that leading up to this last round of SAT testing, at least 893 ISD’s, charters, and private schools in Texas have been using the Texas version of Common Core called “CSCOPE”?
CSCOPE was sold to Texas educators as being the answer to all problems! It was started in 2006; and in 2013 alone, the Education Service Centers collected over $15,000,000 ANNUAL fees from taxpayers for CSCOPE license fees.
With that huge amount of funding and the large numbers of schools using CSCOPE, Texas should have seen dramatic academic results on the SAT if CSCOPE (now referred to as the TEKS Resource System) were really working.
Obviously, CSCOPE (a.k.a., Common Core Standards) is not raising students’ SAT scores but instead is causing them to drop.
Texas has good Type #1 curriculum standards (TEKS). That is not the problem. The problem is that CSCOPE and Common Core are Type #2; and the subjective, constructivist philosophy of education is causing chaos in our schools and decreasing students’ academic results.
Taxpayers and parents should demand that their tax dollars not go to pay for CSCOPE, TEKS Resource System, Common Core, or any other Type #2 curriculum (progressive). Not only is that money down the drain, but students’ academic achievement is suffering because of the wrong-headed Type #2 philosophy advocated by those products. – Donna Garner]
AUSTIN — Texas high school students slipped to their lowest SAT math scores in more than two decades this year, while reading scores on the college entrance exam were the second lowest during that period.
Results being released Tuesday by the College Board, which administers the exam, showed that the average score on the math section of the SAT dropped four points from last year to 495. That was the lowest figure since 1992, when Texas students recorded an average score of 493. A perfect score is 800.
In reading, the Class of 2014 in Texas scored an average 476. That was down slightly from last year but still two points better than their worst showing in the past two decades. That occurred in 2012.
In writing, Texas students registered an average 461 for the third year in a row.
Students across the U.S. saw their scores in math drop slightly. But the long-standing achievement gap between Texas and the nation grew significantly this year. In reading, the average score nationwide increased slightly and remained well above the average in Texas.
State education officials have attributed the declining SAT scores in Texas to an increase in the number of minority students taking the exam. Minorities generally perform worse than white students on standardized achievement tests like the SAT and ACT, the nation’s two leading college entrance exams.
However, California students outperformed Texans by big margins this year — 15 points in math and 22 points in reading. Demographics of the student populations in the two states are similar: California is 52.7 percent Hispanic and 25.5 percent white, while Texas is 51.3 percent Hispanic and 30 percent white.
In addition, more than 60 percent of seniors in both states took the SAT. School districts have in recent years encouraged students to take either the SAT or ACT to get them thinking about what to do after high school.
The drop in SAT math scores is likely to rekindle debate over the state’s recent decision to no longer require that all high school students take Algebra II. Over the objections of business and minority-rights groups, the Legislature and State Board of Education dropped Algebra II as a requirement except for students in advanced graduation plans.
Among those groups were the Texas Association of Business and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Bill Hammond, a former Texas House member who leads the influential business group, said at the time that the state’s retreat on Algebra II and other more challenging courses “dooms generations of students to a mediocre education and low-wage jobs.” Hammond also pointed out that research shows students who skip the course get lower scores in math on the SAT and ACT and are less prepared for college.
Officials for the College Board said an analysis of this year’s results shows that too many students missed opportunities that would have helped them do better on the exam and be better prepared for college-level classes.
Foremost is a more challenging lineup of courses that includes four or more years of English, and three or more years of math, science and social studies.
“The latest SAT results reaffirm that we must address the issue of preparedness much earlier and in a more focused way,” said Cyndie Schmeiser, chief of assessment for the College Board. “Students in the Class of 2014 missed opportunities that could have helped more of them make successful transitions to college and career.”
The College Board reported that just over a third of the 179,036 Texas students who took the SAT met its college and career readiness benchmark, which requires a score of 1,550 out of a possible total of 2,400. That was well under the national average of 42.6 percent who hit the benchmark.
Most minority students, as in the past, fell far short of the benchmark. Only 19 percent of Hispanic and 14 percent of black students in Texas met the college readiness standard. Both percentages trailed the national averages for those groups.
…In Texas, about 61 percent of high school seniors who took the SAT were minorities, compared with a national average of 47.5 percent.
NORTHSIDE ISD sent out the following flyer to parents of 51 schools informing them of the GREAT NEWS of being able to receive FREE BRECKFAST & LUNCHES for their children. FREE? Is the food being donated? NO!! The taxpayers are funding this project. The form states that there is no application to fill out in order to receive the free food though parents did receive another flyer asking parents their income and if they qualify for the program.
I response to this questionnaire is “IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS HOW MUCH MONEY WE MAKE”.
The Texas Commissioner of Educator and the Texas State Board of Education are responsible for all the state content standards.
Having “Personal” in the title of the newly added math TEKS about finances is a clue that parents need to be more involved in the content of the instructions in Texas public schools.
While identified as math standards, the list for the Personal Financial Literacy for Kindergarten students is more like an upper level study for economics.
What does a list of skills required for jobs have to do with math for kindergarten children?
What does income mean to a kindergarten child?
Children in K-8 are only familiar with their own family income.
Its no secret that the government welfare system has gotten out of control. It is no secret that many people receiving welfare payments could and should be working to earn their income. It is no secret that welfare payments for some is higher than income from an entry job. Yes, politicians buy votes by promising higher welfare payments.
Is the intent of the Personal Financial Literacy TEKS suppose to fix the Welfare System?
Yes, there are families that need help, and the welfare system was set up for this purpose. Like anything that is “not earned” the welfare program is being abused. The financial literacy standards added to the Texas math TEKS is not going to solve this problem. If anything, it will make it worse.
Sadly if teachers have students to make a list comparing all the wonderful things about working and earning money vs. receiving welfare, which path do you think young children will think the best choice? Work or not work and receive equal or more money? UMMMM!
Texas has opened Pandora’s Box with the Personal Financial Literacy TEKS. Instead of including these TEKS as part of school standards they need to be posted on the office walls of every politician in Austin as well as in Washington DC. Our students need to know the fundamentals of math.
Are the new Financial Literacy Standards another way to add data to the state DATA Mining CART?
Most of the Texas Public School Districts are using school taxes to pay the personal membership fees of Administrators and school board members into private organizations. The State Board of Education has a lobbyists as its vice-chairman, which is illegal. The Texas education system as a whole needs to teach students by example about financial responsibility.
By definition, unearned income is considered to be that income which is not from wages, salaries, tips, or self-employment business income. Thus welfare is unearned income. Since a large percent of Texans receive welfare, how do teachers instruct 5 year old children about jobs and earning an income when the family income is by definition unearned?
Elementary children should not be stressed over getting jobs, going to college, earning income.
What is the real reason that the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education have come up with standards about personal income? Why have they dumped the TEKS and STAAR/EOC tests that cost so many millions of dollars to develop and suddenly introduce the most bizzare set of Math standards ever?
The Timeline for 5th grade math TEKs shows what the Texas Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education members are not revealing to the public. On top of the line is the progression of what were called the transition TEKs for STAAR. Millions and millions of dollars were spent developing these math standards. The Control for scoring the math TEKS was set in 2012. Thus, the STAAR tests aligned with these TEKS have only been given for two years 2013 and 2014.
Now the Commissioner of Education announces that this transition from TAKS testing to STAAR testing was a minor change. REALLY? If so, why was $200 million dollars given by the Rider 42 grant just to prepare training materials for teachers to make this transition.
The Texas Commissioner of Education and the SBOE are not providing Texans with the real truth.
Why was the Texas Commissioner of Education and the SBOE secretly developing a second set of math TEKS at the same time the transition set of math TEKS were being developed? WHY develop two sets of TEKS during the same time period?
Please ask your state representatives to find out why two sets of math standards were developed.
Texas Teachers have had enough of the bureaucracy “crap” in their schools but unfortunately need a job and live in fear of losing it if they speak up. Many have gone to social media to vent under a pseudo name. Below are a few comments from Texas teachers who are concerned with the Texas Eduction Transformation. Who is responsible for this? The whole Texas Education Bureaucracy, Texas Education Agency, Schools, School Boards, Texas Education Service Centers, Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), Texas Higher Education Board, Texas Legislators, SBOE, etc… etc… etc…It is all about money and ideology today not students and what is best for them.
Texas School Administrators and School Board are trained and are experienced in intimidating questioning parents and citizens. DON’T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS…ASK THEM CAN I SEE WHAT YOU ARE TEACHING MY CHILD AND DO NOT BACK DOWN.
They are data mining any/all info on you child and your family. This has to stop!
Children enjoyed school and were better educated before the STAAR/EOC tests.
The Texas Commissioner of Education has no concern for children. It is all about the STATE testing, which have been shown not to be correct, yet these tests are used to determine whether students are promoted.
Students in Texas public schools are only taught information that could be on the state tests. Nothing else is important. Thus, Texas children are being dumbed down by the state educational officials.
Did you know that parent rights are limited in the Texas Code of Education? Read the following from this code and you will find this statement: The decision of the grade placement committee is final and may not be appealed. There is no one reviewing the STAAR/EOC tests other than TEA and Pearson Publishing who is being paid millions to do this.
One way to improve Texas Education is to stop the STAAR/EOC tests. Please opt your children out of the
(e) A student who, after at least three attempts, fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument specified under Subsection (a) shall be retained at the same grade level for the next school year in accordance with Subsection (a). The student’s parent or guardian may appeal the student’s retention by submitting a request to the grade placement committee established under Subsection (c). The school district shall give the parent or guardian written notice of the opportunity to appeal. The grade placement committee may decide in favor of a student’s promotion only if the committee concludes, using standards adopted by the board of trustees, that if promoted and given accelerated instruction, the student is likely to perform at grade level. A student may not be promoted on the basis of the grade placement committee’s decision unless that decision is unanimous. The commissioner by rule shall establish a time line for making the placement determination. This subsection does not create a property interest in promotion. The decision of the grade placement committee is final and may not be appealed.
What about this situation:
A child passed all class assignments and tests but failed all three STAAR 5th grade reading tests. The placement committee decided to retain the child in the 5th grade.
During the summer, the child attended a private reading academy. The child’s reading level was raised to meet requirements for the 6th grade. Do the parents not have the right to appeal the decision of the grade placement committee?
DALLAS, Texas — Splashed onto the cover of September 6, 2014 Outlook section of the Houston Chronicle was an opinion piece penned by Kathy Miller, Texas Freedom Network (TFN) president, in which she slammed the state’s textbook adoption policy, namely the current review of Social Studies instructional materials, calling it “deeply flawed and politicized” and that “Texas families simply can’t trust it.”
Right now, the State Board of Education (SBOE) is in the process of Proclamation 2015, reviewing the textbooks for next year as part of the policy written into Chapter 28 of the Texas Education Code (TEC) relating to Chapters 31 and 39. Section 28.002 (c) ensures the “the direct participation of educators, parents, business and industry representatives, and employers.” This process will continue until November.
In a brief overview of the textbook adoption process, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) explains that the SBOE calls for bids from publishers, listing curriculum standards, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skill (TEKS), and other requirements. The publishers then submit completed textbooks to the TEA, 20 regional service centers (for public review), and state review panel, all of whom, make recommendations to the Commissioner of Education who prepares a preliminary report on the textbooks for the SBOE, who will vote to accept or reject these title.
However, Miller voiced, if given her druthers, she would prefer the process to be less transparent because she wants it to be for “teachers and scholars” only. Miller’s griped about a low level of college level scholars on the panel yet there have been a total of 144 Social Studies textbook panelists of which 136 are education professionals who work in a variety of capacities including on a university level, based on data provided to Breitbart Texas by the TEA. That means there are only a miniscule eight parent or business community members on these panels.
Then Miller balked that the “panels include a number of people with no relevant qualifications or teaching experiences” and “political activists” descending on the process in the last Social Studies materials adoption process, 2002.
State Board of Education (SBOE) chair Barbara Cargill, told Breitbart Texas “We are told to nominate parents, industry leaders as well as educators.” She added, in reference to Miller’s complaints, “But when we do they are never deemed good enough. They can’t have it both ways.”
Last year, Miller did not like how the committee review panels were structured for the Science curriculum standards either and railed against the process and specifically against Cargill, a certified science teacher who taught high-school biology in the Texas public education system. She is also the creator of a reputable summer science camp.
Miller tried to play “gotcha” by glomming onto the conservatively challenged Thomas B. Fordham Institute to prove her points about the “right.” Using this policy wonk-house to slam the Texas standards in 2011, she accused the education of being a ‘politicized distortion of history’ filled with contempt for historians and scholars “whom they derided as insidious activists for a liberal academic establishment.”
It is a weak stretch, though, to use the Fordham Institute to try to smack down conservative Texas textbook reviewers by using a group that embraced the Common Core State Standards.
Miller also back peddled on panelist credentials in her written rant, groaning that it is not that panelists are not qualified but those poor qualified scholars must “spend their limited time debating panel colleagues who have an ideological agenda but lack any real qualifications” like the one she razzed as being “retired from a career in car sales.”
She likely meant business community member Mark Keough, also the Republican candidate for Texas House of Representatives, District 15. He’s a history buff who applied to review textbooks through the TEA formal application process. Cargill commented that Keough would not have gotten onto a history panel without the agency deeming his knowledge base was proficient.
“The agency considers all applications and chooses reviewers based on their content knowledge, background, and adequate geographic representation. They try to form panels that are well rounded with educators, parents, business leaders, and other interested citizens,” Cargill added, emphasizing that Texas has an elected state board, which means that the board is held accountable to their constituents.
Miller’s name calling is an extension of when in January, the TFN reminded the Texas Federation of Teachers, the state’s chapter affiliated with the second largest union in the nation, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), about the upcoming Social Studies textbook review process. Texas AFT issued their own APB for citizen textbook reviewers that read:
“There’s an unfortunate tradition in Texas of undue influence on textbook selection by nincompoops with an ax to grind. Hence, as the folks at TFN have said, ‘It’s critical that truly qualified individuals serve on the review teams and counter far-right efforts to politicize the textbooks.”
Interestingly, it was a handful of the very people the Texas AFT called “nincompoops” who exposed the politicized radical left lessons being taught like the Boston Tea Party as an “act of terrorism” under the highly biased and controversial curriculum management system CSCOPE, which Breitbart Newsreported.
Miller also falsely asserted that the state requires its official reviewers to determine only whether proposed textbooks cover the curriculum standards. While reviewers might note some factual errors, “there is no requirement that they do so. Making matters worse, there is not sufficient time for diligent reviewers to examine the materials for errors in any systematic and thorough way. So most reviewers don’t do it.”
Cargill corrected Miller. She told Breitbart Texas, “Reviewers are absolutely told to check for factual errors! I’m not sure how she could get this so wrong.”
According to Cargill, reviewers work in teams so that if one panel member misses an error, there are other sets of eyes to catch it. Besides, she said, “Now that we know what college professors want our children to learn, as evidenced in the APUSH framework, now more than ever we need parents and other citizen patriots to take a stand.”
Cargill referred to the national firestorm started by the College Board’s radical rewrite of the Advanced Placement US History (APUSH) framework. SBOE member Ken Mercer will present the Mercer Resolution requiring that the College Board acknowledge and accommodate TEKS alignment.
The rhetoric coming from Miller is expected. Prior to heading up TFN, she served as TFN’s deputy director from 1996-2000. She’s also been Public Affairs Director for Austin’s Planned Parenthood Federation. In 2005, she returned to head up TFN and is the registered agent on file for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund (TFNEF).
In 2006, TFNEF created Texas Rising, seeking out “young leaders (ages 18-29)” on college campuses throughout Texas. The group states its mission “to this work because developing an emerging generation of social justice-minded, informed and engaged leaders is essential to the long-term health of our communities and the development of progressive public policy in Texas.”
Throughout her arguments, Miller attacks the SBOE nominated panelists alleging they demonstrate an “open contempt for expertise.” She dismisses findings from “general public book review committee members” or watchdog groups, chalking them up to “ideological objections from people with strong opinions but few (if any) actual facts to back them up.”
Retired Lt. Col. Roy White chairs up such a group, the Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT). This coalition of concerned citizens is participating in the Texas Social Studies textbook review.
White gave Breitbart Texas an exclusive sneak peak at the preliminary Social Studies textbook findings TTT has found including distortions, omissions and half-truths all passing for accurate high school history.
In a mild example, Edmentum’s “World History Since 1815” contains a passage:
“Before Lincoln could carry out his policy towards the conquered South, he was assassinated by a disgruntled Southerner.”
This lightly nuanced passage didn’t even acknowledge President Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, by name nor did it mention the venue, Ford’s Theatre, which TTT highlighted.
Meanwhile, Perfection’s “Basic Principles of American Government” displays open bias in an excerpt:
“The radical right consists of groups that sometimes gather under the flag of militant anticommunism. Often known as reactionaries, they denounce most forms of government regulation, including progressive taxation and restrictions and industry. Strangely enough, these radicals would not hesitate to use the government’s police power to enforce the changes they desire. Examples of political groups on the radical right are the John Birch Society, the National States & Rights party, The Christian Crusade, and the Tea Party movement.
TTT called this “editorial opinion stated as fact” noting there is no evidence that the Tea Party movement is militant or has used the government’s police power to enforce anything. “Identifying the Tea Party as radical and fascist is false and without merit,” they noted.
TTT also questioned the definition of “radical,” posing that if it means using the government’s police power to enforce desires changes, then the modern IRS, EPA, NSA and other federal departments bureaucracies which have used the police power of the government should be included.
The complete list of TTT’s preliminary Social Studies textbook review findings follow this report.
This is a typical Type #2 Common Core technique; and English teachers all across America are being pressured to utilize this method (pedagogy) with their students.
“Cold” reading means reading historical text with little-to-no prior background knowledge. Students are not taught deep content knowledge by the teacher with a fact-based emphasis but are put in groups where they discuss among themselves what they think, what are their opinions, and how they feel about the selection. The students are expected to react and respond to text without having the background knowledge upon which to base their statements. (This is the same as telling students to “fix the tire” without giving them the tire tools needed to do the job.)
Oftentimes, the Common Core also emphasizes excerpts, snippets, or paraphrased versions instead of having students read the originaltext.
Now let’s look at this teaching unit as posted on the MISD website. First, please notice that the students do not actually read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s entire nor original “I Have a Dream” speech – only a paraphrased “excerpt.”
Right off it is obvious that the excerpt version to which the MISD students will be exposed does not convey the magnificent pace, rhythmic repetition, cadence, and deeply held emotions that Dr. King’s original speech conveyed.
The “stripped down” version that is on the MISD website does a real disservice to the students by reducing King’s speech to a mere shadow of his original text.
A true study of Dr. King’s speech should have started with an in-depth investigation of the mores, values, and historical events of the time.
Dr. King gave this speech on August 28, 1963, and called for an end to racism in the U. S. He stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington in which 250,000 civil rights supporters were present. When Mahalia Jackson yelled from the crowd, “Tell them about the dream, Martin,” Dr. King left his prepared speech and in his impassioned style, reiterated his dream of liberation and equality in America for all.
It was Dr. King’s speech which shaped modern America and led him to be named the Man of the Year by Time magazine in 1963 and to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.
Instead of studying the rich background behind Dr. King’s speech and listening to the actual recording of the entire speech, the MISD students are to be taught with the Common Core “cold reading” method in which they do not even read the entire, original speech; and the SOAPSTone Chart gives students only two lines upon which to write their “surface” responses.
This “fill in the blank” assignment will not elicit the depth of understanding that students should gain from studying Dr. King and his famous speech. Instead, students will come away with no real appreciation of the stature of this courageous man and of the part he played in the civil rights movement.
Students are not taught how this speech impacted the contemporary writers of Dr. King’s day, how the speech was perceived by other Americans, nor how the speech is still influencing society today after some 51 years.
MISD students are not even expected to learn more about Dr. King’s life nor about his tragic death by assassination – nothing about Dr. King as a man, his childhood experiences, his family, his education, his lifetime struggles.
Cold reading is indeed pedagogy, and it is highly illegal for the federal government (U. S. Department of Education under Arne Duncan) to force pedagogy upon states and locals.
As an ex-English teacher of more than 33 years, my heart aches when I think about how this “cold reading” assignment will kill students’ love of reading, exploring, soaking in great literature, and learning about the historical impact that expert writers can have.
The end result is that students will come out of this shallow unit without experiencing the beauty of Dr. King’s rhetoric nor the literary and historical aspects that surround him and the civil rights movement.
Of course, now MISD can rightly say, “Yes, our students have studied Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” However, the real truth is “No, they have not.” Students have studied Dr. King in name only. What MISD has really done is to check off a few boxes on their Common Core curriculum guides, but their students have not actually studied Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. nor the noble “dream” he had for America.
Howard Zinn, was a card-carrying member of the communist party. Zinn authored a book titled “The People’s History of the United States“. Unfortunately for our country his book is read throughout numerous College and High School classes as in the AP History Class of Bellaire High School in Houston, Texas.
Zinn is bent on destroying the fabric of America with his revisionist history and unfortunately his ideals of America are promoted as truth on many impressionable minds. The new AP History written and sold by an outside agency, the College Board has taken a radical leftist view and has been purchased and implemented in most high schools throughout the country. Texas State Board of Education Member Ken Mercer has been fighting to have the new AP History removed from Texas class rooms. Unbeknownst to parents and taxpayers Texas superintendents and school administrators have pushed forward with purchasing and implementing the curriculum.
I personally have notified my local school district’s superintendent and school board of Magnolia ISD and have received no response from any school board member. I did receive one email from the superintendent, Todd Stephens informing me they will teach the TEKS. There are 181+ TEK requirements missing out the of the curriculum. So in other words the AP Test will not cover much of the TEK’s requirements and will be aligned with Common Core. Parents are going to have to wake up and find out what is going on in their schools and districts. Our country is in peril. s
by Merrill Hope
DALLAS, Texas — It is like a Texas sampler platter of the 2014-15 Common Core offerings served up around the state — Sadlier “Common Core Enriched Edition” Vocabulary, Springboard and Carnegie Math. There is even a kindergarten handout that defines the importance of the term “Common Core.” Parents are up in arms. More so, they are worried. They have heard endlessly that there is no Common Core in Texas. It is the law.Yet, this is what is coming home in the backpacks.
To her surprise, a Boerne Independent School District (ISD) parent pulled out the “6 Math Terms to Know (in primary grades)” from her kindergartener’s Fabra Elementary take home folder in the Texas Hill Country. Apparently, “Common Core” itself is a math term that five year olds need to know.
The sheet places a high value on Common Core, which is defined as “The Common Core State Standards are expectations our state has adopted to provide a framework for teaching, answering the question – what should our students know by the end of the year? As a school, we have chosen to use specific mathematical processes to teach the Common Core Standards.”
It also provides a link to the official Common Core site for the five year old, who may or may not be reading yet, but she or he will be able to find numerical patterns using a process called “subitizing” to identify the number of items in a small set without counting. It’s all part of what the handout calls, the new number sense or “an understanding of number relationships that allows students to work mathematical problems without a traditional algorithm.”
The parent who provided the handout asked Breitbart Texas to withhold her identify for “fear is that my children will be targeted at school by Common Core supporters.”
Breitbart Texas reached out to the Fabra Elementary principal at whose school the Common Core handout was given to a kindergarten class. The Communications Director for Boerne ISD, David Boggan, instead, spoke to Breitbart Texas. He said that the district ascribes to the TEKS (Texas Essential Skills and Knowledge), the Texas standards, and not the Common Core. That said, he added the sheet “was obtained through the teacher out of her own resources.” He advised that that the teacher had been spoken to and that the district “is confident that this will not happen again.”
This isn’t the first time Breitbart Texasreported about a teacher who just happened to throw in a Common Core assignment or handout with the exact same explanation given by a district representative.
However; it doesn’t explain the happenstance of a Texas class being given a “Common Core” textbook. Last school year, Breitbart Texas questioned Education Commissioner Williams about similar Common Core books and learning materials surfacing in the schools. He explained, “Typically, textbook companies are trying to sell to the largest market so they also align to the Common Core. Some of the standards are similar to the TEKS but that doesn’t mean Texas is part of Common Core.”
Similar enough to use the same books, maybe. Texas, which rejected Common Core still wrestles with its own demon, CSCOPE, the controversial curriculum management system that had its own issues with biased and incorrect historical content. Today, it lurks in the shadows as the rebranded TEKS resource system.
Breitbart Texas contacted the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to better understand if Sadlier’s “Common Core Enriched” vocabulary was just another fluke in Northwest ISD or something else.
Spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson told Breitbart Texas that “the local districts have the authority to purchase them from either the State Board of Education (SBOE) approved list, a locally adopted list, online materials and/or e-materials.”
The SBOE’s list is 247-pages with every approved item for the 2014-15 school year. It also shows to what degree materials are TEKS aligned. Most products have Texas in their titles such as Texas Comprehensive, Texas System, Texas Edition, Texas Student Pack and, although not everything identifies as “Texas” on that list, SBOE member Ken Mercer, the Lone Star voice in the Advanced Placement US History pushback, assured Breitbart Texas that to be on that list means “it has to be TEKS aligned.”
Interestingly, on pages 107-08 of the SBOE adopted materials list, Carnegie Math Grade 6 was ranked 100% TEKS aligned yet Breitbart Texas received a Carnegie 6th grade math packet from a Clark Middle School family in Frisco ISD that outlined the Common Core standards correlation for every chapter.
Then, on the Carnegie Math website, it stated that their curricula “are fully aligned to state and national mathematics standards for grades 6 through Algebra II.” Breitbart Texas could not find any corresponding TEKS curriculum standards online at Carnegie Math.
The Texas Education Code (TEC) 28.002 states that a district superintendent, along with the Local Board of Trustees are required to certify that the district has instructional materials that cover all TEKS elements as part of the required curriculum, other than physical education, for each grade level, according to the TEA; although, there is a provision that allows for non-TEKS instructional materials under 66.1307 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).
The Commissioner of Education can determine an allotment amount for instructional materials that may be allocated to a public or open-enrollment charter school based on Public Education Information System (PEIMS). The provision reads (c)1(C) “non-adopted instructional materials” as a potential purchase but this expenditure would go through the Commissioner.
Regardless of how these materials are getting into Texas classrooms, parents are upset. Mercer added, that they should be outraged “and screaming at their local boards” especially if their school boards “chose Common Core books over SBOE approved materials. ”
Mercer emphasized that it isn’t only public schools, private school families are experiencing the same Common Core surprises with instructional materials.
“We need the legislators to give the power back to the state board (of education),” Mercer stated. He was referencing Senate Bill 6 (SB 6) which diminished a lot of the board’s oversight capabilities, ramped up online learning, created a 50% TEKS alignment rule, and may have also filled the gap with the illusion of local control, according to Mercer. Then throw education bureaucrats and lobbyists into the mix.
“This is not local control by moms and dads it’s control by lobbyists,” Mercer added, saying that the SBOE’s strength was in their approval process. School districts could only buy books from that approved list. There were a variety of choices per subject per grade but the materials were “clean,” as he put it.
“A book vetted through the SBOE has been through a clear and transparent process. We invited parents and educators to vet the books too. That’s the beauty of that whole process,” he said, suggesting with stronger SBOE oversight, there’d wouldn’t be Common Core materials slipping through the cracks into the classroom.
Despite the controversy and public outrage surrounding Cscope, the Texas Education Service Centers (ESC) continue to lease Cscope to many Texas School districts. Due to Cscope getting a bad name they have changed the name to Teks Resourse System. What I want you to understand Cscope is leased to school districts yearly costing taxpayers thousands. From my perspective it keeps a job opening available for superintendents in the future, kind of like scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
Cscope is a Marxist curriculum management system bent on having all school district across the sate on the same page daily. It eliminates the creativity a teacher can bring to a class. Science Author Janice VanCleave asked the Cscope director Becca Bell from Region XII “What if I wanted to bring in a butterfly cocoon in teaching metamorphosis or bring in the fall leaves that are changing colors, with Cscope I am not allowed to do that, correct? ” Becca Bell confirmed that those would not be allowed to be taught in the classroom unless the Cscope Scope and Sequence called for it at that time but may be taken to another grade level that may be learning about that subject. Seriously? Many good experienced veteran teachers have left the profession due to the control Cscope has.
Cscope was and has not been a SBOE reviewed curriculum. Lessons were part of the leased product until is was found it was riddled with controversial material. Though they have removed the lessons from the password protected website we know that the ESC’s called from teachers to download the lessons before they were removed and ESC’s have sold USB storage devices with the lessons on them. To give you an idea of the mindset of those responsible for implementing this in our Texas Schools you can view some of the lessons HERE.
Parents and taxpayers need to wake up as to what your school district is purchasing and using to teach your children. A radical leftest turn has taken place with the funding from the federal government.
Dr. Brent Hawkins was the assistant directors from ESC VI in Huntsville. In a conversation with Dr. Hawkins regarding Cscope he told me I would not tear apart something they had implemented. Well 2 years later Cscope has become a huge controversy and Dr. Brent Hawkins has left the ESC to become superintendent of Livingston ISD. On the districts superintendent page I was surprised that Mr. Hawkins in going to phase out the product he was 100% supportive of. Why a change of heart? Don’t be fooled though I am sure Livingston ISD will write another curriculum management system bent on the same progressive/Marxist philosophy as Cscope.
Grand Prairie ISD partners up with AVID, a company working on implementing the Common Core Standards and the Marxist progressive teaching philosophy built on the collective. In 2011 staff from Grand Prairie ISD went to Florida to present at the 2011 AVID National Conference. The 2013 AVID conference was held in Grand Prairie, Texas.
It stands to reason that the school district does not inform parents or the community that their tax dollars are funding the demise of their children and grand children’s education.
Grand Prairie ISD also hires individuals that are not qualified teachers to facilitate and tutor students with the AVID curriculum, here is the tutors job description.
AVID and the Federal Government work together in implementing the program for low income students. It has everything to do with equity and nothing to do with opportunity.
Senator Dan Patrick called for a Cscope Audit in 2013. The audit was released in June/2014. The results are telling in relation to the mishandling of taxpayers money by the Texas Education Service Centers. Below is a list highlighting some of the auditors findings.
Despite the audit report the same individuals within the Texas Education Service Centers changed the name of Cscope to the Teks Resource System and they are still leasing this mess to the school districts. Seriously?
Will n0one be held accountable? Will anything be done to stop this?
Education Service Centers reported they collected 73.9 million from School districts, private schools, charter schools from Sept 2005 through August 2013.
Education Service Centers reported a expenditures to be 67.8 million.
Auditors were not able to verify the total amount that education service centers reported they paid for the development, installation, distribution, and marketing of CSCOPE because some of the education service centers did not separately track CSCOPE-related expenditure transactions
Some of the Texas Education Service Centers did not separately track their Cscope revenue transactions.
As a result, auditors were not able to fully answer the audit objective to determine the amount of revenue and expenditures related to the development, installation, distribution, and marketing of CSCOPE.
Auditors identified deficiencies in the processes used to procure and monitor the CSCOPE contracts.
The contracts between Region 8-Mount Pleasant and National Education Resources, Inc. from 2006 through 2011 lacked significant elements. (Ratliff District)
Region 8-Mount Pleasant was unable to provide its 2005 contract for the development and implementation of the curriculum management system because it destroyed all supporting documentation from the 2005-2006 school year based on its records retention schedule. (shocking?)
Auditors identified deficiencies in Region 8-Mount Pleasant’s procurement of the CSCOPE contracts in effect from 2006 through 2011.
Auditors were not able to determine the total amount of rebates paid to Region 8-Mount Pleasant or the other education service centers.
On November 12, 2013, Amy Lacey , the principal of Texas’ Hempstead Middle School, was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired when she made a simple request to students: speak English.
Now that the gag order has expired, Lacey is speaking out about what happened that day, dispelling rumors that she banned Spanish from the school’s campus.
“I informed students it would be best to speak English in the classrooms to the extent possible, in order to help prepare them for [state] tests,” she wrote in a letter to the Houston Chronicle explaining her side of the story. “It is important to note that I did not ban the use of Spanish anywhere in the school or at any time, even though teachers had reported to me that they had experienced instances in which students had been asked to stop talking during instruction, and they responded that it was their right to speak Spanish — ignoring the fact that they shouldn’t have been speaking [in any language] during class without permission. The perception of the teachers was that students were being disrespectful and disrupting learning, and they believed they could get away with it by claiming racism.”
By telling students to speak English, Lacey was not being racist, she was merely pointing out that the academic language in Texas is, by law, English.
“Even so, I did not suggest that there would be any adverse consequences for any student speaking Spanish at any time. I merely encouraged students to speak English in classrooms by advising them that it would be to their advantage to do so especially with regard to state testing,” she continued. “English language immersion is an accepted best-practice teaching strategy, and Hempstead ISD board policy provides for its practice.”
She ended the letter thanking those who supported her “even when true facts were never given to the media” because she and others were not allowed to publicly defend her position.
“I think the public needs to know that in public education there are only one or two district personnel designated to talk to media,” she wrote in closing, “so any teachers that would have liked to speak on my behalf were not allowed without risking their job status.”
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”
[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.]
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).
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
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
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.)
With the transformation of education throughout Texas and the rest of the US, cursive writing is thought to be archaic and becoming a thing of the past. How better to eliminate future generations from learning accurate history. With the cursive writing being eliminated in public schools your children will not longer be able to read any of America’s founding documents.
After speaking to a family member this weekend she stated that her twins are not able to read their birthday cards from grandma. I then realized my grand children will not be able to read a journal I am writing to leave for them.
Not only is cursive writing faster but there are psychological benefits in learning cursive.
s
, the principal of Texas’ Hempstead Middle School, was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired when she made a simple request to students: speak English.
