Traditional Teaching vs Obama's Philosphy of Education Presented Across The Nation Through Common Core--All Parents Better Know The Difference Because The Results Will Come Home

“On Education Precipice: Texas Could Lose It All”

by Donna Garner

2.8.13

I am going to do my best to explain this as simply as possible.

We who care about the 5 million Texas public school students because they will determine the future of our state and even our nation have fought to get to this place in time. We now have a New Plan for everyone, and it is fair.

Without the New Plan and its accountability mechanism (including the Type #1 STAAR/EOC’s), how will parents and the public ever know whether regular public schools, charter schools, CSCOPE, Turkish Gulen Harmony Charter Schools, dual-credit courses, Texas Virtual Academy, online learning, Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate programs, Web 2.0 Tools, and Safari Montage are actually moving our school children into Type #1? 

Without a measuring stick – a yardstick, a ruler – how will we be able to prove that our public school students have been “pulled up” rather than “dumbed down”?

(If you are not familiar with the definitions of Type #1 and Type #2, please stop right now and go to the bottom of the page where I have posted the definitions.)

Texas now has Type #1 curriculum standards (TEKS) for the four core subject areas in grades K through 12 (English, Science, Social Studies, Math).  These standards are clear and specific for each grade level/each course.

Students, parents, and teachers all know what is to be taught/learned each school year. There is no more guessing – no more fuzzy, mushy goals – no more teachers who are frustrated by not being sure what it is that they are to teach their students each year – no more students and parents who have to live in doubt and fear about what the goals for each course are.  

Texas also has new Type #1 tests in the four core areas that will gauge how much students are learning and how well teachers are teaching – at each grade level/each course. These are called the STAAR tests (given in Grades 3 – 8) and the End-of-Course tests given in high school.

Texas has a new graduation plan for all students (not just the top 10%) that will produce graduates who have a large body of knowledge and skills upon which to stand as they go into adulthood.

The problem is that a “virus” has spread through the Texas Legislature, and this virus has been exacerbated by those who are trying to escape personal responsibility.

Texas public schools have been locked in Type #2 since 1997 (and even way before). Because the 1997 TEKS and the tests built upon them (the TAKS) were Type #2, then instruction in classrooms has been centered on Type #2.

It is Type #2 that has produced graduates (and drop outs) that frustrate the business community and the colleges/universities because of the lack of basic skill abilities in those coming out of our public schools.

The way to “fix it” is to do exactly what the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education, working with the Texas Education Agency, have done:  Establish clear, grade-level-specific, knowledge-based Type #1 goals, expect the teachers to teach Type #1 curriculum, and measure students at each grade level to make sure teachers and students alike are held accountable. 

However, there are some people who do not want to be held accountable. Some school administrators are afraid their schools cannot measure up to the New Plan; some teachers do not want to create new Type #1 teaching units; some students are afraid of being held accountable to the new Type #1 tests (STAAR/End-of-Course); some parents are worried their children cannot perform well on the new tests.  

The culmination of all of this fear has been targeted at the Texas Legislature.  The intent of these groups who are looking for an “escape route” from personal responsibility is to manipulate the Texas Legislature to get them to undo the New Plan.  

Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock’s HB 5 is the result (announced on 2.6.13 -- http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB5

HB 5 would take away the personal responsibility.  It would undo the new graduation plan that requires all students to take core curriculum courses (i.e., 4 x 4).  The new graduation plan allows students to take plenty of electives that they can choose for themselves.  (Please see the article posted toward the end of this article that explains the new graduation plan.)

Texas does not need to move to a 2-track system where the top 10% get a quality education and the bottom 80% go out into the world unprepared academically for college and/or the workplace.  “We have been there, done that.” That is what has been happening in Texas for the last 16 years.

What Texas must do is to “hold the ship steady” and see the New Plan through unto completion.

Let the grandfathered TAKS testers (this year’s juniors and seniors) move on through the high schools. This year’s sophomores on down are under the New Plan.  

Let teachers work hard to create new Type #1 curriculum units K-12. Let them adequately teach their students the new, mandated curriculum standards (TEKS) at each grade level. 

Let the students learn to master the new Type #1 standards at each grade level.  Let the students experience the joy of success as they grow stronger in their Type #1 abilities.  Let them see that as they master the Type #1 curriculum, they will do better each year on their Type #1 STAAR/EOC’s.  Let them see that hard work will produce ever-improving test scores and greater opportunities in all areas of their lives.  

Let parents see the confidence build in their children as they learn Type #1 knowledge and skills and then demonstrate that on their tests and in their daily lives.

If we in Texas ever want to see our public school children turn into well-educated adults, we must go through this transition period without losing our courage in the midst of change.

If the Texas Legislature backs down now, dumbs down the standards, waters down the expectations, and allows everyone to escape personal responsibility, we will pay the price for generations to come.

The way to make sure that everyone is held to a standard is to measure progress at each grade level on the same Type #1 measuring stick  -- the STAAR/EOC’s.  If all involved know the measuring stick is coming, they will obviously try harder to be prepared.  It is this day-to-day effort that will reap eventual rewards.  Without the publicly released STAAR/EOC test scores at the end of each course (Grades 3 – 11), students and teachers will become less motivated.  That is called “human nature.”

Rep. Aycock’s HB 5, unfortunately, goes right along with human nature; and if this bill is allowed to pass, in ten years we would be right back at this point trying to redeem the public schools from failure once again.

Already the present 10^th graders who took the STAAR/EOC’s in Spring 2012 are improving their scores.

Last spring, just 54.4% of ninth-graders passed the English I Writing test. After two retest dates, the passing percentage is now up to 72.6%.  (The English I Writing test is the lowest on the five end-of-course exams.)  Algebra I has improved to 84.7%,  English I Reading to 81.2%, Biology to 91%, and World Geography to 84.8%.

According to results compiled by the Texas Education Agency, the subject area with the highest STAAR passing rate at each grade level includes:

3^rd Grade: Reading (76%)

4^th Grade: Reading (77%)

5^th Grade: Reading (77%) and Mathematics (77%)

6^th Grade: Mathematics (77%)

7^th Grade: Reading (76%)

Grade 8 – 80% passed the STAAR Reading test, 76% Mathematics, and 70% Science.

This has come about because both students and teachers have begun to take the Type #1 standards and tests seriously.  They have begun to quit looking for an "escape route" and are settling in to focus on Type #1.

Many teachers have already told me that they really like the new Type #1 standards because for the first time in 16 years, they now know what to teach; the mushiness and lack of clear direction is gone. 

English teachers have told me that the new textbooks adopted and based upon the Type #1 English standards are the best they have ever seen in our Texas schools.

Even some of the students have begun to speak out, and say they like the new STAAR/EOC’s because they feel the tests actually test them more fairly on what they have been taught at each grade level.  The students like the fact that most of the test questions, even though more rigorous and thought provoking, have definite answers – not mushy choices.

Who in their right mind would not want our Texas public school students to learn the following?

RESULTS OF TYPE #1

If we want our public school children to learn to read well, we must have Type #1.

If we want them to be able to speak and write English well, then we must have Type #1.

If we want them to be patriotic citizens who revere the Founding Fathers and know and honor the Constitution, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our graduates to be knowledgeable voters who know history and can analyze current events based upon the past and the present, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our public school children to recognize that they and the whole world were created by a Higher Being, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our public school children to know their math facts to automaticity, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our public school children to be able to do well in foreign languages, then we must have Type #1 that teaches the phonetic sound system and grammar/usage in English so that they can apply that to their foreign language learning.  

If we want our public school children to read the great pieces of literature that have connected our country to past generations, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our public school children to have the skills and knowledge they need for college and/or the workplace, then we must have Type #1.

If we want to turn out scientists who are well read, logical, analytical, and who can write down their scientific conclusions, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our graduates to be able to write compositions built upon facts and persuasive techniques, then we must have Type #1.

If we want our high-school students to know how to research a topic and then put that information into well-written text, we must have Type #1.

If we want legislators who are well read and who have a deep understanding of world history/American history/U. S. legal system and how those apply to current events, then we must have Type #1.

I am not going to belabor the point any further. Either we as Texans want what is best for our public school students even though they may have to work harder to get there, or we are going to give them an “escape route” (Rep. Aycock’s HB 5) that will drag our state (and nation) down deeper into the abyss of wasted opportunities.

I beg you to read the following two articles in which I have given more details to help you understand the seriousness of this decision over HB 5: 

12.3.12 – “To Gripers: Let New Plan for Texas Public Schools Continue” --

http://educationviews.org/to-gripers-let-new-plan-for-texas-public-schools-continue/

11.28.12 – Texas Does Not Want a Two-Track System But Wants All To Be Educated Citizens” -- http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/texas-does-not-want-a-two-track-system-in-high-school-but-wants?xg_source=activity

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

TYPE #1 vs. TYPE #2

*My terminology and definitions:

(1)  Type #1 Philosophy of Education: Knowledge-based, academic, clearly worded, grade-level-specific content that is tested largely through objectively scored tests  -- These standards (TEKS) are built from K through Grade 12 and are taught mostly through direct, systematic instruction. The new TEKS adopted by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education since May 2008 are Type #1, and the new STAAR/End-of-Course tests built upon the new TEKS are Type #1.

Type #1 standards could be referred to as the traditional method – the method of teaching that people perhaps 50 years old and older experienced when they were in school.  This included the teaching of phonics, grammar, correct usage/spelling, cursive handwriting, classical literature, expository/persuasive/research writing, the four math functions taught to automaticity, fact-based and discreet courses in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Calculus, U. S. History, World History, Botany, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry.   

(2) Type #2 Philosophy of Education (adopted in July 1997 and reflected in the TEKS and TAKS) -- Project-based, subjective (emphasize cognitive domain – beliefs, opinions, emotions), subjectively assessed based upon the value system of the evaluator -- emphasize multiculturalism, political correctness,  environmental extremism, diversity, social justice agenda  -- These standards are built backwards from Grade 12 down to K (similar to trying to build a house from the roof down) and are taught mostly using the constructivist (project-based) approach.

Type #2 can be seen in Obama’s social justice agenda (i.e., Common Core Standards) that includes an emphasis on subjectivity, feelings, emotions, beliefs, multiculturalism, political correctness, social engineering, globalism, evolution, sexual freedom/contraceptives instead of abstinence, environmental extremism, global warming, victimization, diversity, an acceptance of the normalcy of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender lifestyle, redistribution of wealth, a de-emphasis on -- factual knowledge, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, and American exceptionalism.  

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Texas Grassroots Vigilance Weeds Out Radical allah is god curriculum--The Rest of America Can Not Afford To Be Asleep on Obama Plans For Common Core

[2.8.13 -- Message to the entire United States: It was grassroots citizens in Texas who got involved and uncovered CSCOPE.  We can make a difference when we do our “homework” and then contact our elected officials.  Our successful efforts in Texas to bring about change in CSCOPE can be replicated throughout this country to uncover the Common Core Standards which are the Obama administration’s takeover of the public schools right under the noses of the unsuspecting public – Donna Garner]

PRESS RELEASE – FROM TEX. SEN. DAN PATRICK, DISTRICT 7

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                CONTACT: Logan Spence (512) 463-0107

February 8, 2013       

SEN. PATRICK AND CSCOPE ANNOUNCE SWEEPING CHANGES

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist7/pr13/p020813a.pdf

AUSTIN- Senator Dan Patrick, in coordination with the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC), announces significant changes to the CSCOPE curriculum management system. 

The TESCCC has worked with Senator Patrick, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, and the State Board of Education (SBOE), to address concerns raised at a recent committee hearing on the CSCOPE system.  The two parties have agreed to several immediate as well as forthcoming changes.

The changes that take effect immediately include:

 All future meetings of the TESCCC Governing Board, beginning with the February meeting, will be public with all the respective notice requirements being met.

 The TESCCC will begin a joint review process of all CSCOPE lessons with the SBOE beginning with Social Studies.

 Amendment of all Terms of Use Agreements, signed by both teachers and districts, removing civil or criminal penalties associated with the release of CSCOPE content.

 Clarifying that all teachers and districts may post any and all CSCOPE lessons that they deem necessary.

In addition to these immediate transparency and quality control changes, CSCOPE will also undergo structural, governance, and other changes, including:

 Ending the non-profit 501(c)3 arrangement that incorporates CSCOPE.

 Initiating the posting of CSCOPE lesson content to their public website.

 Creating a standing curriculum review panel, comprised of:  parents, teachers, school administrators, members of the SBOE, and TESCCC board members.

Finally, CSCOPE is notifying all participating school districts that lessons are not intended to be taught verbatim, and the Governing Board generally recommends that local districts utilize CSCOPE lessons solely as a resource. 

Until CSCOPE lessons can be reviewed through a collaborative process with the SBOE and TESCCC, districts are strongly encouraged to review all lessons at the local level, to ensure that lessons are appropriate for their students.

State Board of Education chair Barbara Cargill is encouraged by the changes, saying, "I appreciate CSCOPE's willingness to address concerns brought to light recently. The State Board of Education looks forward to working with them to resolve these issues, so CSCOPE can remain a useful tool for participating school districts.”

Anne Poplin, chair of the TESCCC Governing Board agreed, stating, "We have heard the concerns raised and are working hard to maintain the public's trust in CSCOPE.  We appreciate Chair Cargill and Senator Patrick's desire to assist us in ensuring that CSCOPE remains a valuable district resource in the future."

Senator Dan Patrick agreed, "I'm glad the CSCOPE Board realizes that immediate and long term changes must be made to address the serious issues raised by our committee, parents, and teachers. Our committee will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure they follow through with their commitments. We will also be looking at legislation to ensure these changes cannot be reversed in the future and that the SBOE continues in their role of oversight of CSCOPE content. The future of the program will depend on CSCOPE keeping the

commitments they have made and gaining the trust of the legislature, teachers, and parents.

Hearings on Tx "allah is God" curriculum pushed by CSCOPE and Heading Across America Under Common Core Standards

"Most Amazing Senate Ed. Hearing Ever -- CSCOPE"

by Donna Garner

1.31.13

 (Audio link of interview with Alice Linahan on topic--very eye-opening)

Today's Texas Senate Education Committee hearing  on CSCOPE was amazing. I watched the proceedings online from 8:30 A. M. until it finished around 3:15 P. M., and I took notes as fast as I could type. These may not be word-for-word, but I trust that I have captured the essence of the hearing. 

Texas Senator Dan Patrick led the hearing, and these are the Senators who worked alongside him to question the witnesses:  Donna Campbell, Larry Taylor, Eddie Lucio, Robert Duncan, Ken Paxton, and Kel Seliger.  (As best I could tell from online viewing, Royce West and Leticia Van de Putte did not attend the hearing.) 

What thrilled me is that all of us private citizens who have dug out the truth about CSCOPE and who have been vilified for our efforts were vindicated today because the evidence presented proved we were right all along.

FACTS REVEALED IN TODAY'S HEARING

CSCOPE was originally produced in 2005-2006  by outside consultants, one of whom was Linda Darling-Hammond who is tied to Obama and the Common Core Standards which is a takeover of the public schools by the federal government.  

In 2009 CSCOPE was incorporated as a 501(3)(c) non-charitable organization under the TESCCC (Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative), and the 20 directors of the Education Service Centers (ESC's) make up the board of directors of TESCCC.  To do this incorporation, no legal counsel was sought from the Texas Attorney General's office nor from the Commissioner of Education/Texas Education Agency. 

Now 875 districts are using CSCOPE and pay for it with taxpayers' dollars costing from $7 to $9 per student to "rent" CSCOPE each school year.  The monies collected by the ESC's are passed along to TESCCC and then to their fiscal agent, ESC 13 in Austin.

COST OF CSCOPE AND ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

The Senators asked the ESC 13 witness how much school districts have paid for CSCOPE over the last several years, but that information did not seem to be readily available.  Sen. Campbell mentioned that Ector County ISD alone had spent $1.7 for CSCOPE just this school year. 

Questions were also raised about whether the ESC staffers who handle CSCOPE  full-time are paid by TESCCC/ESC 13 or by their own ESC's and whether such an arrangement represents a type of double-dipping.

Sen. Campbell wanted to know who owns the proprietary property of CSCOPE if it was developed using public funds -- "Do the people of Texas own it?"  She also questioned whether only parents should have access to CSCOPE since all Texas taxpayers paid for it. She said there are many good educators who are active and retired who have a commitment to helping children gain a good education and that everyone in the general public should have easy access to CSCOPE -- in the same way that they do to copyrighted textbooks.  Sen. Campbell wanted to know where the checks and balances are to verify the content of CSCOPE.

Sen. Patrick told Wade Labay, Statewide Director of CSCOPE, that when a governmental body seeks to form a 501(3)(c), TESCCC should have sought legislative authority.  None was sought by TESCCC.

The Senators were very troubled by the fact that the Texas Attorney General's office has said that the TESCCC is a governmental body yet it is using public funds to develop its product; uses public dollars to pay its ESC employees;  has no TESCCC business office; does not post its agenda; does not allow the public into its meetings; and will not allow public access to its minutes. 

"PLAYBOOK" RESPONSE FROM EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT

Throughout the hearing, whenever members of the "education establishment" testified (e.g., school administrators, curriculum directors, representatives from Texas Association of School Board/Texas Association of School Administrators), it was as if they spoke from one "playbook" which had obviously been put together by ESC personnel. 

The common line used by the education establishment was, "Our district bought CSCOPE as a cost-saving curriculum management system to help our students to raise their academic achievement and to master the new STAAR/End-of-Course tests. Our teachers could not live without CSCOPE." 

However, when hard data and research were sought by the Senators from the "ed establishment" to prove the effectiveness of CSCOPE, none could be produced -- only their subjective opinions.  Almost all of the ed establishment witnesses mentioned their close-knit relationships with the ESC's, and most said they had first heard about CSCOPE through the ESC's.  Nearly all said their districts were constantly trained by ESC staff on CSCOPE.

CONCERNS OF THOSE CLOSEST TO THE CHILD

When classroom teachers, parents, or the general public testified -- the ones closest to the classroom students -- they told a completely different story.  One of the most poignant moments in the hearing occurred when a veteran Algebra teacher almost broke down in tears as he told of having to quit his teaching job recently because he was required to teach CSCOPE.  He said he could not look his students in the eyes, knowing that he was "aiding and abetting ignorance...and giving them an allusion of an education." 

A well-credentialed education researcher, who works with many Texas school districts and who intensely dislikes CSCOPE, said she had had doors slammed in her face when she sought to uncover the ideology behind CSCOPE.  She said teachers are afraid to speak out about the content of the CSCOPE lessons and the links that students are directed to investigate.  Several of these links take students to sites where Wiccans are said to be similar to Christians and where Islam and Christianity are harmonized as being similar. 

A current classroom teacher of 30 years' experience told about being offended with the lesson in which students were required to make a Communist/Socialist  flag.  She said her father had proudly fought in World War II to keep our nation free and that our students should be taught American exceptionalism.  She also said that CSCOPE content teaches none of the great novels and does not teach the young readers a systematic approach to reading using phonics.  She complained that CSCOPE instead teaches whole language and that there is no formal instruction of grammar, usage, and correct writing.

This experienced teacher gave the Senators a copy of the TESCCC/CSCOPE legal document passed out during a CSCOPE 2012 summer training session that states, "To support implementation of this detailed curriculum, districts must have processes and people in place to insure that there is sustained monitoring of the curriculum and that individual teachers do not have the option to disregard or replace assigned content."  This teacher said that when parents put their children on the school bus to come to school, they are not sending them to school for a controlled and compulsory learning environment.  They want their children's teachers to be able to be creative and to meet the individual needs of each child.  She said, "I want it recorded for the record that I have never voted for a conglomerate to take over the Texas school system, and parents have not either."

Another witness said there was no need for CSCOPE because the curriculum standards (TEKS) are on the Texas Education Agency website along with many other excellent helps that teachers can use to prepare their students for the new STAAR/EOC tests.  Good teachers working together can create their own timelines and lesson plans.

One witness asked why the TESCCC was incorporated as a non-profit.  Was it to be able to hide the content of CSCOPE from the public?  Was it to keep their meetings, minutes, and agendas secret? 

TESCCC/CSCOPE PERSONNEL -- OOPS!

When confronted with this evidence, the CSCOPE personnel at the hearing repeatedly admitted they had "Oops! Dropped the ball."  As the meeting proceeded, it became clear that a pattern of cover-up by Wade Libya/TESCCC/CSCOPE has been taking place since the public "sleuths" started digging out the facts.  The website has been changed substantially since the Senate Education Committee public hearing was announced. Now Labay says teachers are not prohibited from allowing parents to see CSCOPE materials, but Sen. Patrick could never get a confirmed "yes" that parents could go right now and see fully their children's CSCOPE materials 24/7.   

OBJECTIONABLE CSCOPE LESSONS

When the CSCOPE lesson referring to the Boston Tea Party patriots as "terrorists" was discussed (which had been in CSCOPE for seven years), Labay said it had been removed. 

When Labay was confronted with concerns over a lesson teaching the 5 Pillars of Islam, a lesson in which students role play a trek to Mecca, a lesson that teaches Allah is the same as Almighty God,  a lesson on Christopher Columbus that cherry-picks his diary to take out any of his references to his belief in God, and a lesson in which students create a Communist/Socialist flag, he gave a lame excuse about those lessons having been a part of the "old" lessons, having been left in CSCOPE at the request of teachers. 

One Senator said he found it perplexing that when these lessons were first revealed by the public "sleuths," TESCCC accused these concerned citizens of circulating "fallacious claims."  

Senators Taylor and Paxton were deeply troubled about the student project in which students were to design a Communist/Socialist flag.  They cautioned that teaching children to role play and sympathize with a particular cause is indoctrination of the mind, and they asked Labay to tell them who came up with that lesson plan?  Labay gave the lame excuse that there are over 1600 lessons and that ESC 12 CSCOPE staffers are the ones who are in charge of the content. 

One of the Senators responded, "Oh, you mean the same group that has the closed door board meetings...We have already talked about several egregious lessons today.  How many more are there that are buried up in the rest of the CSCOPE lessons that we have not located yet?"
  

NO OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF CSCOPE

The Senators kept hammering at the fact that 875 Texas school districts have been using CSCOPE for the last seven years; yet there has been no outside, independent review of CSCOPE to make sure that its lessons align with the SBOE-adopted curriculum standards (TEKS) upon which the new STAAR/End-of-Course tests are based. 

Sen. Patrick said he found it highly upsetting that it had taken the chair of the Texas State Board of Education six months to get a password to CSCOPE.  Former SBOE member Charlie Garza testified that he had asked TESCCC to have extra time to study the CSCOPE lessons, but his request was denied. 

It was also brought out that besides the per-student CSCOPE rental, TESCCC also makes money by charging publishers $100,000 per event to see the CSCOPE lessons so that textbooks can be produced that align with it.  Other vendors pay fees, and TESCCC also makes money from its yearly educators' conference. 

Senator Patrick said that the public had brought most of the CSCOPE problems to their attention over the last six to eight months and that he was upset over the lack of transparency and the secrecy demonstrated by TESCCC/CSCOPE.  He said this is the reason we need transparency, open meetings, and posted meetings  -- so that a governmental body cannot violate every entity of being a public entity.  "How many more mistakes are there? ... What is behind the curtain? ... You are in 875 school districts ... This is a very serious matter."

SBOE OVERSIGHT OF CSCOPE CURRICULUM CONTENT

One Senator said he was investigating the possibility of charging the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education with the task of verifying the content of CSCOPE to make sure it is aligned with the TEKS.  Barbara Cargill, the chair of the SBOE, said that the Board has a review process already in place that could be used for CSCOPE since it is being used in 70% to 80% of Texas school districts. 

Cargill also mentioned her concern that TESCCC in its incorporation papers states that if TESCCC is dissolved, CSCOPE goes to the federal government.  She mentioned that she is concerned CSCOPE is not aligned with publishers' textbooks and that it is very confusing for students when they read a CSCOPE lesson (or CSCOPE test) that says one thing and a textbook that says another. 

Ms. Cargill complained that CSCOPE does not align itself with the new Science TEKS in which all sides of scientific theories (both strengths and weaknesses) are to be taught. Instead, the only links she could find in the CSCOPE lessons go to material that teaches evolution as fact.

Barbara Cargill was asked by one of the Senators whether SB 6 (passed in the 82nd Legislative Session) triggered the explosive growth of CSCOPE since school administrators can now purchase CSCOPE (i.e., instructional materials including software and hardware) with state dollars without those materials having passed through the rigorous SBOE adoption process.  She said that having "100 eyeballs" to evaluate the instructional materials at the SBOE level is far superior to having only a few CSCOPE employees do so.

Pat Hardy, also a member of the Texas State Board of Education, verified that CSCOPE is a curriculum [not a "curriculum mnagement system" as claimed by TESCCC/CSCOPE] and that it is the SBOE who adopts the curriculum standards -- TEKS.

A parent whose children are in the public schools where CSCOPE is being utilized believes that the elected SBOE should have authority over CSCOPE.  However, she has a serious reservation because one of the present SBOE members is a registered lobbyist for Microsoft; and she wonders about the possible conflict of interest and corruption that could bias the SBOE/CSOPE alignment process.   

COMMON CORE STANDARDS INFILTRATING CSCOPE?

One retired science teacher said that at some point, Common Core Standards tried to purchase CSCOPE; and she is concerned because the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) is having a convention in California, using public dollars to pay for Texas school personnel to attend.  At this conference,  Common Core Standards and Linda Darling-Hammond will be featured.  Gov. Perry and both Texas Education Commissioners have said Texas will not participate in Common Core Standards.  Since CSCOPE is already in 70% to 80% of Texas' school districts, the retired science teacher is afraid the CCS ideology could be permeating CSCOPE's lessons right now.

CHILDREN BELONG TO PARENTS -- NOT TO THE STATE

One of the last witnesses reminded everyone that children belong to their parents and not to the state; school children should be able to take their CSCOPE materials home each evening; and the public should have open access to see everything except the tests and answer keys. 

Donna Garner

wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Chidren For Sale (Through Common Core Standards)

Children for Sale
By Alyson Williams

No more decisions behind closed doors!  Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core.
In the spring of 2011 I received a receipt for the sale of my children.  It came in the form of a flyer that simply notified me that my state and thereby my children’s school would comply with the Common Core. No  other details of the transaction were included. The transaction was  complete, and I had no say. In fact, it was the very first time I’d  heard about it.
I know what you’re thinking. That’s outrageous! Common  Core has nothing to do with selling things, especially not children!
Okay, so the idea that the State School Board and Governor who’d made this  decision could be described as “selling” my children is hyperbole. It is an exaggeration intended to convey an emotion regarding who, in this land of the free, has ultimate authority over decisions that directly affect my children’s  intellectual development, privacy, and future opportunities. It is not even an accurate representation  of my initial reaction to the flyer. I say it to make a point  that I didn’t realize until much, much later… this isn’t just an issue of education, but of money and control. Please allow me to explain.
That first day my husband picked up the flyer and asked me, “What is Common Core?” To be honest, I had no idea. We looked it up online.  We read that they were standards for each grade that would be consistent across a number of states. They were described as higher standards, internationally benchmarked, state-led, and inclusive of parent and teacher in-put. It didn’t sound like a bad thing, but why hadn’t we ever heard about it before? Again, did I miss the parent in-put meeting or questionnaire… the vote in our legislature? Who from my state had helped to write the standards? In consideration of the decades of disagreement on education trends that I’ve observed regarding education, how in the world did that many states settle all their differences enough to agree on the same standards? It must have taken years, right? How could I have missed it?
At first it was really difficult to get answers to all my questions. I started by asking the people who were in charge of implementing the standards at the school district office, and later talked with my representative on the local school board. I made phone calls and I went to public meetings. We talked a lot about the standards themselves. No one seemed to know the answers to, or wanted to talk about my questions about how the decision was made, the cost, or how it influenced my ability as a parent to advocate for my children regarding curriculum. I even had the chance to ask the Governor himself at a couple of local political meetings. I was always given a similar response. It usually went something like this:
Question: “How much will this cost?”
Answer: “These are really good standards.”
Question: “I read that the Algebra that was offered in 8th grade, will now not be offered until 9th grade. How is this a higher standard?”
Answer: “These are better standards. They go deeper into concepts.”
Question: “Was there a public meeting that I missed?”
Answer: “You should really read the standards. This is a good thing.”
Question: “Isn’t it against the Constitution and the law of the land to have a national curriculum under the control of the federal government?
Answer: “Don’t you want your kids to have the best curriculum?”
It got to the point where I felt like I was talking to Jedi masters who, instead of actually answering my questions, would wave their hand in my face and say, “You will like these standards.”
I stopped asking. I started reading.
I read the standards. I read about who wrote the standards. I read about the timeline of how we adopted the standards (before the standards were written.) I read my state’s Race to the Top grant application, in which we said we were going to adopt the standards. I read the rejection of that grant application and why we wouldn’t be given additional funding to pay for this commitment. I read how standardized national test scores are measured and how states are ranked. I read news articles, blogs, technical documents, legislation, speeches given by the US Education Secretary and other principle players, and even a few international resolutions regarding education.
I learned a lot.
I learned that most other parents didn’t know what the Common Core was either.
I learned that the standards were state accepted, but definitely not “state led.”
I learned that the international benchmark claim is a pretty shaky one and doesn’t mean they are better than or even equal to international standards that are considered high.
I learned that there was NO public input before the standards were adopted. State-level decision makers had very little time themselves and had to agree to them in principle as the actual standards were not yet complete.
I learned that the only content experts on the panel to review the standards had refused to sign off on them, and why they thought the standards were flawed.
I learned that much of the specific standards are not supported by research but are considered experimental.
I learned that in addition to national standards we agreed to new national tests that are funded and controlled by the federal government.
I learned that in my state, a portion of teacher pay is dependent on student test performance.
I learned that not only test scores, but additional personal information about my children and our family would be tracked in a state-wide data collection project for the express purpose of making decisions about their educational path and “aligning” them with the workforce.
I learned that there are fields for tracking home-schooled children in this database too.
I learned that the first step toward getting pre-school age children into this data project is currently underway with new legislation that would start a new state preschool program.
I learned that this data project was federally funded with a stipulation that it be compatible with other state’s data projects. Wouldn’t this feature create a de facto national database of children?
I learned that my parental rights to deny the collection of this data or restrict who has access to it have been changed at the federal level through executive regulation, not the legislative process.
I learned that these rights as protected under state law are currently under review and could also be changed.
I learned that the financing, writing, evaluation, and promotion of the standards had all been done by non-governmental special interest groups with a common agenda.
I learned that their agenda was in direct conflict with what I consider to be the best interests of my children, my family, and even my country.
Yes, I had concerns about the standards themselves, but suddenly that issue seemed small in comparison to the legal, financial, constitutional and representative issues hiding behind the standards and any good intentions to improve the educational experience of my children.
If it was really about the best standards, why did we adopt them before they were even written?
If they are so wonderful that all, or even a majority of parents would jump for joy to have them implemented, why wasn’t there any forum for parental input?
What about the part where I said I felt my children had been sold? I learned that the U.S. market for education is one of the most lucrative – bigger than energy or technology by one account – especially in light of these new national standards that not only create economy of scale for education vendors, but require schools to purchase all new materials, tests and related technology. Almost everything the schools had was suddenly outdated.
When I discovered that the vendors with the biggest market share and in the position to profit the most from this new regulation had actually helped write or finance the standards, the mama bear inside me ROARED!
Could it be that the new standards had more to do with profit than what was best for students? Good thing for their shareholders they were able to avoid a messy process involving parents or their legislative representatives.
As I kept note of the vast sums of money exchanging hands in connection with these standards with none of it going to address the critical needs of my local school – I felt cheated.
When I was told that the end would justify the means, that it was for the common good of our children and our society, and to sit back and trust that they had my children’s best interests at heart – they lost my trust.
As I listened to the Governor and education policy makers on a state and national level speak about my children and their education in terms of tracking, alignment, workforce, and human capital – I was offended.
When I was told that this is a done deal, and there was nothing as a parent or citizen that I could do about it – I was motivated.
Finally, I learned one more very important thing. I am not the only one who feels this way.
Across the nation parents grandparents and other concerned citizens are educating themselves, sharing what they have learned and coming together. The problem is, it is not happening fast enough. Digging through all the evidence, as I have done, takes a lot of time – far more time than the most people are able to spend. In order to help, I summarized what I thought was some of the most important information into a flowchart so that others could see at a glance what I was talking about.
I am not asking you to take my word for it. I want people to check the references and question the sources. I am not asking for a vote or for money. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I do believe with all my heart that a decision that affects the children of almost every state in the country should not be made without a much broader discussion, validated research, and much greater input from parents and citizens than it was originally afforded
If you agree I encourage you to share this information. Post it, pin it, email it, tweet it.
No more decisions behind closed doors! Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core
_________________________________
Thanks to Alyson Williams for permission to publish her story.

Common Core -- Orwellian Lessons in Florida By Mary Grabar

Common Core -- Orwellian Lessons in Florida

By Mary Grabar

1/19/2013

Ask any college freshman what he knows about communism and he will likely engage in a word association game. “The red scare, McCarthyism,” he will blurt out, displaying lessons well-learned from his textbooks and teachers.

One way to go beyond the idea of communism as evidence of paranoia, though, is to recall George Orwell’s Animal Farm. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” will be the phrase students recall. Students seem to get that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” never works out in reality from this fictional work.

This novel shows how literature can sometimes demonstrate historical realities better than many textbooks.

But with the Obama administration’s unconstitutional program of nationalizing education, students will not likely be able to experience the insights and pleasures of novels, like Orwell’s.

In 2009, during the economic “crisis,” states were offered part of the $4.35 billion in stimulus funds in a hurried contest called Race to the Top. After the initial application, they were told that they would have to adhere to national standards and testing called Common Core, sight unseen, and without any legislative input. Forty-eight states signed on initially; today, 45 states are committed to CC—although citizens and teachers are organizing against it.

The standards, now in place for math and English, emphasize “work and career readiness”--that is for workers who see themselves as global citizens unacquainted with their national and cultural heritage. This became apparent as I read the recent article, “Teachers Get Help with Common Core Lessons Through (sic) CPALMS,” at the NPR site. This was also because one of the CPALMS lessons for English/Language Arts was on Animal Farm.

The article explained that as Common-Core aligned assessments and textbooks are being written, the state of Florida is using a federal Race to the Top grant from the Department of Education to develop a site of resources for teachers who are scrambling to adhere to the new standards.

Pinnellas County School Superintendant Mike Grego recently told the Florida State Board of Education that there is “no resistance” to Common Core.

At the same time, Florida’s new state superintendant, Tony Bennett, is steamrolling in the curriculum. Bennett, by the way, lost reelection in Indiana, many believe, because of his support for Common Core.

The lack of “resistance” may very well be due to the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Department of Education that bypassed state legislatures and public input, often gaining the support of Republicans with vague promises of “rigor” and uniform “standards.” Most in the politically informed Tea Party Manatee audience before whom I spoke on the evening of January 8 were not aware of this federal takeover of education.

Among the points I made are those from my recent report for Accuracy in Media. National tests (being written by close, like-minded colleagues of terrorist-turned-education-professor Bill Ayers, like Stanford education professor Linda Darling-Hammond) will eventually nullify the idea of private schools and even home schools. Some Catholic and other religious schools are already beginning to adopt Common Core standards as they see college entrance exams being written to CC specifications.

The 45 participating states are also required to keep data bases of students from “cradle to career”--to use Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s favorite phrase--and submit them to the federal government, in effect making a national database.

Some conservative organizations have protested this unconstitutional power grab by the Department of Education.

But the mandate to replace literature in English classes with “informational texts”—with only half the time allotted to literature, and reduced to only 30 percent by the last two years of high school—caught the attention of even the liberal media. They became alarmed that favorites like To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye are to be replaced by such things as EPA directives.

Spokesmen tried to alleviate fears. They directed skeptics to the standards: “the Standards require a certain critical content for all students including classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.” Plus, they “intentionally do not offer a reading list.”

David Coleman the well-connected new president of the College Board, which writes and administers college entrance exams, has pointed to these caveats, and repeated the claim that the standards call for evidence-based writing instead of writing based on personal experience and feelings. (See the very funny takedown by the Pioneer Institute’s James Stergios of how the advocate of “close reading,” David Coleman, mixed up Federalist 51 and 10 in an instructional video.)

Animal Farm would seem to fall into the category of classical literature that the bureaucrats and educrats refer to in attempts to mollify critics. Those who wrote the ninth and tenth-grade lesson plans for CPALMS (Collaborate, Plan, Align, Learn, Motivate, Share) seemed to have this in mind.

First, the novel is put into the broad category of “fables” from Aesop, with a list of those usually taught to young children like “The Tortoise and the Hare.” In typical Common Core fashion, students are to search out “elements” of a fable and then mechanically fill in a chart that is provided as a hand-out in the lesson plan.

Did anyone consider, though, that the comparison to a fable for preschoolers might be insulting to teenagers? The teacher’s version of the chart has the blanks filled in, with the element of the “problem” described as “Power can make the animals corrupt; they struggle to take care of the farm and with leadership.”

The “resolution” is “The farm ends up being worse with the animals in control because of too much power and corruptness by the pigs.” The “moral/lesson” is “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” (The source for this quotation, the conservative historian Lord Acton, is not mentioned, however.)

All this is very general. And when one compares it to other sample lessons in Common Core and its standards, one sees that it is deliberately so. While one small mention is made in a sheet on the “elements of a fable” that Animal Farm is “satirized Stalinist Communism, in particular, and totalitarianism, in general” it is clear that the novel is to be taught in a historic vacuum. The pointed criticisms of communism are generalized to an indictment of a vague sense of too much “power.”

This exercise recalls one that gave consternation to teachers when they were instructed to read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without emotion and without providing any historical context. Common Core reduces all “texts” to one level: the Gettysburg Address to the EPA’s Recommended Levels of Insulation.

This leveling is demonstrated in another lesson plan at CPALMS that involves the historical young adult novel Kidnapped in Key West, where teachers are told to “avoid giving any background context or instructional guidance at the outset of the lesson while students are reading the text chorally.”

This kind of “close reading” presumably “forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend the text.”

Leveling the playing field is a primary objective of the Obama Department of Education, and Common Core presents a means to do so by encouraging such “close” or “deep” reading. Reading the “text” “chorally,” which Merriam-Webster defines as "sung," implies reading aloud in unison. It ensures that all students, including struggling readers, are brought along with the group.

Such objectives are in line with Darling-Hammond’s educational agenda. The former Obama education transition team director is in charge of using $176 in Race-to-the-Top funds to develop tests for one of two consortia and is implementing her “five-dimensional grading rubric” of personal responsibility, social responsibility, communication skills, application of knowledge, and critical and creative thinking.

This assessment philosophy had the dubious distinction of placing her Stanford New Schools on California’s list of the lowest-achieving five percent. Now about half of American students will be required to take her tests.

The sample test questions released by her consortia give no indication that acquisition of knowledge is important. As I noted in my other reports, social responsibility is the aim of the new curriculum materials being developed. They follow Arne Duncan’s stated purpose for schools: to be part of the “battle for social justice.”

Many have been fooled by rhetoric that simply repeats the talking points of the Department of Education and the well-connected leftists in the education field who will profit from our tax dollars by selling teacher training, software and hardware, and Common Core-aligned curricula. Bernie Reeves even called David Coleman an “education hero” in American Thinker. I thought it might be a satire, or Newspeak.

Duncan, who worked with Bill Ayers in Chicago on education issues, is on the same page, as is Darling-Hammond. Obama’s signature education initiative has been dubbed “Obama Core” for good reason. It is an Orwellian re-education campaign.

Florida’s sample lesson for teaching, among all things, Animal Farm, provides an illustration of how this is being done.

Mary Grabar earned her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia and teaches in Atlanta.

http://townhall.com/columnists/marygrabar/2013/01/19/common-core-orwellian-lessons-in-florida-n1490561

Obama Interested in Allah is God Curriculum--Dangers of Computerization In Schools--Lesson From Texas--This Is Just The Beginning

[Comments from Donna Garner -- CSCOPE is a digitized curriculum used in Texas public schools that can be deleted, changed, or added back “at the click of a mouse.”  SB 6 created this problem in Texas by opening the door for digitized curriculum to replace hardcover textbooks. How can parents know what is being taught to their children when digitized content can be changed instantaneously? 

What’s more, CSCOPE is not even available to parents or to the public to see even though it is they whose tax dollars support the public schools.  Teachers have been forced to sign a gag order to keep the CSCOPE materials from being sent home to parents and/or to the public to read.  

Now because of John Griffing’s excellent investigate journalism, we find out that Common Core Standards is trying to buy CSCOPE as a vehicle to bring Obama’s social justice agenda into the Texas public schools and also into other states.  Texas is one of the few states that said “No” to the Common Core Standards and to the national CCS assessments.

The elected Texas State Board of Education has adopted its own curriculum standards – the most fact-based, articulate, and patriotic standards in the entire country.  By law, these standards are supposed to be taught in all Texas public schools.

CSCOPE and Common Core Standards are trying to make an “end run” around Texas law set by Texas Legislators.  Hopefully the Texas Legislature will respond with legislation to correct the ills of SB 6 and to force CSCOPE to go through the State Board of Education’s public hearings and adoption process. – Donna Garner]   

--------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-interested-in-allah-is-god-curriculum/

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA INTERESTED IN 'ALLAH-IS-GOD' CURRICULUM

Source says federal officials pursuing program used in Texas

Published: 1.13.13 -- 3 hours ago

by JOHN GRIFFING Email | Archive

CSCOPE, the controversial online curriculum that taught “Allah is God” and currently is used in 80 percent of Texas school districts, has caught the attention of the Obama administration’s Department of Education.

A source in the Texas education system has told WND that Common Core operatives in the U.S. Department of Education are actively pursuing CSCOPE as a way around the Texas legislative process.

Texas is one of the few states still resisting implementation of Common Core, Obama’s national standards initiative, which many feel is a transparent attempt to nationalize education and progressively control classroom content with minimal parental oversight.

Implementation of Common Core is known to have been made a condition of school systems’ receipt of federal dollars under Obama’s “Race to the Top” program.

CSCOPE recently has come under fire for evidence of what sources claim to be radical content and secrecy. Now new information of such a radical agenda has surfaced showing CSCOPE connections to Obama mentor and self-acknowledged terror group member Bill Ayers.

WND has documented a strong link between Ayers and CSCOPE heavyweight and Common Core advocate Linda Darling-Hammond.

An unrepentant terror group member (and known Obama supporter, financier, and ghost-writer), William “Bill” Ayers was part of the notorious Weather Underground which attempted to bomb the Pentagon in the seventies. After 9/11, Ayers was interviewed by the New York Times, and was quoted as saying he had “no regrets.”

Ayers gave Darling-Hammond an enthusiastic endorsement for education secretary when Obama was first elected. Ayers has worked extensively with Darling-Hammond on many of the same projects, even editing her work. Both are part of what some education experts have termed the “small schools movement,” which allegedly emphasizes “emotional” responses and output over factual mastery.

Darling-Hammond is mentioned throughout CSCOPE literature, has given innumerable lectures on behalf of CSCOPE, and was part of Obama’s educational transition team. She is a primary advocate and proponent of Common Core in Texas, and observers see the acquisition of CSCOPE by the U.S. Department of Education as a logical next step.

This scenario has alarmed those concerned about classroom content accountability. Previously, WND reported how CSCOPE lessons promote Islam, teaching conversion methods and presenting verses from the Quran that denigrate other faiths. In CSCOPE curriculum, the Boston Tea Party is likened to an act of terrorism on par with 9/11. In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the Second Amendment is portrayed as a “collective,” not an individual right, despite the Supreme Court’s recent rulings to the contrary.

The CSCOPE website has posted a response to concerns about certain lesson plans, including an extensive discussion of the Boston Tea Party. But critics say that such lessons should never have appeared in the first place.

Sources within the Texas education system recently informed WND that Wicca, thought by many to be akin to witchcraft, was being taught in CSCOPE curriculum alongside Christianity, but was removed before the news media could access it, a fact which represents one of the biggest concerns for followers of CSCOPE.

CSCOPE apparently immediately deletes controversial content once leaked, making it impossible at any one time to know exactly what students are learning and in what order. Defenders of this process say that this responsiveness to public scrutiny is a form of self-auditing. Others have said that it simply leaves parents, teachers and those in charge of curriculum oversight powerless to stop agenda-driven lesson plans and the damage the ideas therein might do to students.

WND has documented numerous instances of lessons being deleted after their use in classrooms.

When it was discovered that Islam was being given preferential status as a part of a study on the world’s major religions, CSCOPE administrators deleted the lesson plan and associated PowerPoint in the presence of two sources, leaving no trace online.

However, through available technology, documentation of this lesson plan and other such controversial content has been retained and reviewed by Texas educators and WND.

See the lesson.

In CSCOPE World History/Social Studies, Lesson 2, Unit 3 under the heading, “Classical Rome,” students are told that Christianity is a “cult,” and given a link to a BBC article saying the early Christians were “cannibals,” i.e. the Eucharist, which students are then led to conclude is the reason for Roman persecution.

See the lesson.

This lesson has since been removed, but documentation in WND’s possession confirms that the lesson existed. Critics contend that this ability to change content on a whim to evade scrutiny or accountability is a persistent risk with a system like CSCOPE. An organic curriculum – if regulated – might be advantageous, but without transparency, these types of occurrences will likely be more frequent, critics say.

Speaking with WND, Texas Sen. Dan Patrick, new chairman of the education committee, communicated his intent to hold high-profile hearings and investigate CSCOPE.

Sen. Patrick noted, “Any system where the chairman of the state board can’t get a password to explore their site in detail for six months, requires teachers to sign an agreement that could subject them to criminal penalties, and is not easily transparent to parents, needs to be closely examined by the legislature.”

When asked if he would support placing CSCOPE under state oversight and/or local school board oversight, Sen. Patrick answered carefully, explaining,

“We will make that decision after our hearings. However, I have concerns of any curriculum program that is in the majority of our school districts without some level of oversight by either the SBOE, TEA, or the legislature.”

Patrick, along with many other Republicans, supported the 2011 legislation that took power over Internet curriculum review away from the SBOE, though this provision was admittedly ill-understood in its implications and was originally intended to reduce the cost-burden to school districts in obtaining and distributing the curriculum. While reducing costs, this move also created the basis of the current controversy.

Opponents of CSCOPE, on the other hand, desire a lawsuit. They do not want to wait for hearings. As they contend, CSCOPE is already violating Texas public statutes, which require all “instructional materials” to be available to parents. CSCOPE places all primary content – apart from summaries – behind a pay wall.

Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) Governing Board minutes, obtained only by Texas Public Information Act request, reveal that even the governing board in charge of CSCOPE may not be fully aware of CSCOPE content issues.

Minutes for the meetings covered show that governing board members were told by CSCOPE Executive Director Wade Labay that they will only be involved in content-related issues if “politically sensitive,” what Labay calls “’911′ type messages or those deemed critical.” In other words, in addition to the absence of state oversight, corporate oversight within CSCOPE might be lacking.

The fears of some that CSCOPE is replacing textbooks, a claim denied by Texas SBOE member Thomas Ratliff, would appear justified if governing board minutes are considered.

In addition to outlining when and under what circumstances CSCOPE would communicate with the TESCCC governing board, pending textbook alignments with Pearson, McGraw Hill, et al., were discussed and delayed with the support of governing board members. Some attendees lamented even having to align CSCOPE content with textbooks, since “the mission of CSCOPE is to change instruction in the classroom.”

TESCCC has now asked the Texas Attorney General to make its minutes exempt from public information requirements.

Stand In The Gap For Our Children--Conference Feb 9th