5.13.10 -- &ldquo;More Flailing Around by Texas Freedom Network&rdquo;

defund common core standards,

tagged

Donna Garner,

NCLB waivers,

ccssi,

common core standards,

nationalization of education,

national standards,

teachers pay

Print Article

Email Article

Permalink in

common core standards

Friday

May202011

Beware of Wolves In Sheeps Clothing--Texans Now Knows

Friday, May 20, 2011 at 06:21PM

“Gov. Perry Seemingly Let Texans Down”

by Donna Garner

5.19.11

It is ironic that yesterday on May 18, 2011, a national push emerged on talk radio and among conservative blogs to bring Gov. Rick Perry out into the national political arena as a possible candidate.

Meanwhile, back home here in Texas, Gov. Perry seemingly let every conservative Texan down by refusing to veto the Texas State Board of Education redistricting map (Sen. Seliger’s rogue E120).

We Texas parents, grandparents, businessmen, and citizens did our best to get Gov. Perry to listen to us because the future of our public school children is at stake.

We conservative Texans across this state stood shoulder-to-shoulder in agreement that Sen. Seliger’s rogue map (E120) is a deliberate attempt to try to hamper any efforts to elect conservative SBOE members for the next ten years.

In two weeks’ time, we grassroots citizens mounted an SBOE petition campaign. The official tally as of yesterday was 6,800 unique signatures.

On 5.4.11, twenty-four conservative leaders from around the state drove to Austin on our own time and at our own expense to film a series of three YouTubes in which we pleaded, “Gov. Perry, please stand with us. Please veto Sen. Seliger’s rogue E120 map and call a Special Session.” These three YouTubes were shown widely all across the country.

We twenty-four leaders also met with the Texas Attorney General’s Office to alert them to the problems with Sen. Seliger’s rogue E120 SBOE map.

Multiple hundreds of concerned Texans also called and e-mailed Gov. Perry’s office to voice their disdain for Sen. Seliger’s rogue map E120.

By early yesterday morning, Texas Legislators had made it clear that they believe a Special Session will have to be called to pass the budget. Why could Gov. Perry not have included the SBOE redistricting map in that Special Session?

If Gov. Perry had vetoed the map and sent it back to the Legislature, undoubtedly even the left-leaning Republicans would have realized that their Republican Governor was highly dissatisfied with E120.

Surely all Legislators would have begun to scrutinize the SBOE map issue more carefully and would soon have realized that E118 -- the map much preferred by the majority of the SBOE members -- had never even been allowed to come to the floor for debate.

With the public pressure that we grassroots Texans could have mounted, I believe the Legislators would have insisted that they take a careful look at the SBOE-preferred E118 map; and in doing so, the Legislators would have realized that E118 is by far the better map and the one that could pass court challenges.

I called the Governor’s office three hours ago to ask for an explanation as to why Gov. Perry refused to veto HB 600 (SBOE/E120 redistricting map). According to the staffer, the person with whom I need to talk is out of the office. I left a message but have received no phone call.

Rumor has it that a possible lawsuit may be mounted over Seliger’s rogue E120 because of its obvious gerrymandering of Midland County to hurt Republican conservative Charlie Garza’s chances of being re-elected in 2012. This pending lawsuit and the legal ramifications surrounding it might be the reason that Gov. Perry let E120 become law without his signature yesterday. Gov. Perry may be privvy to information that we citizens do not know.

One piece of misinformation that seems to be floating around and that I need to correct is that E120 does not go into effect immediately. Because E120 did not receive a two-thirds majority of all the members elected to each house, the law does not go into effect until 90 days after the last day of the legislative session. That would put it around Aug. 31, 2011.

I believe around that same time in August is the deadline for the Texas Attorney General’s Office to finish its investigation of SBOE Member Thomas Ratliff, a millionaire lobbyist for clients such as Microsoft that do business with the SBOE and the Texas Education Agency. This is a direct conflict of interest and is a violation of the Texas Education Code.

I personally believe that Thomas Ratliff (in business with his powerful lobbyist daddy Bill Ratliff who used to be a Texas Senator and Lt. Governor) colluded together with the left-leaning Republicans in the Senate and House to help draw Seliger’s rogue E120. (Please see details as published in my open letter to Gov. Perry.)

To those conservative Texans who stood together against the SBOE redistricting map (E120), I say, “Thank you for standing firm. We did our best, and we are very sorry that Gov. Perry seemingly chose not to stand with us.”

ACTION STEPS

1. We need aggressively to locate good, solid conservatives to run against Speaker Joe Straus, Rep. Solomons, and Sen. Seliger in 2012. These three men must be held accountable for their actions regarding the SBOE redistricting map and also the House redistricting map. These three RINO’s refused to allow an alternative House redistricting map (Nixon/Trainor) to come to the floor for debate; and once again, a map was passed that targets conservative leaders -- Rep. Wayne Christian, Rep. Erwin Cain, and Rep. Dan Flynn.

2. Please join with me in exposing Thomas Ratliff’s underhanded actions as a member of the SBOE. Tell your friends and neighbors so that whenever Ratliff speaks, everyone will know what lies behind his words.

3. It will be up to each individual to consider his position regarding Gov. Rick Perry and his decision yesterday. I do think, however, that in light of 2012 elections, we owe it to voters across the nation to let them know what happened in Texas yesterday.

In an effort to offer clear communication, I am releasing my letter that I sent to Gov. Perry on 5.13.11. Along with this letter, he was also sent the SBOE petition that contained 6,800 signatures.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

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

5.13.11

Open Letter to Gov. Rick Perry

P. O. Box 12428

Austin, TX 78711-2428

Re: Texas State Board of Education Redistricting Map

Gov. Perry, I taught English and Spanish in Texas’ schools for over 33 years; and my passion is to help strengthen the academic achievement of our public school students.

Because the Texas State Board of Education is in charge of the curriculum requirements for K-12, we must make sure that the people elected to the SBOE have the right philosophy of education. This makes it imperative to have an SBOE redistricting map that honors those who have a conservative (back-to-the-basics) belief system.

The SBOE/E120 redistricting map was deliberately drawn to disadvantage conservative SBOE members and to discourage pre-announced conservative candidates from being elected (e.g., Randy Rives, Don McLeroy).

We believe the best option would be for you to veto SBOE/E120 and to call a Special Session. Since the legislature has a perfectly good alternative SBOE map (E118), we believe that if that map and its accompanying data were allowed to be presented for debate, the members could settle on that map in less than one day of deliberations.

Below are excerpts from the articles that I have sent out to my extensive e-mail list to explain to them the background behind SBOE/E120. I worked with your staff yesterday to make sure that I understand the options that you have as Governor, and I have enclosed that information below.

5.12.11 -- GOV. PERRY’S OPTIONS

Annotation:

Texas. Research Division of the Texas Legislative Council. Guide to 2011 Redistricting. Austin: July 2010 <http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Guide_to_2011_Redistricting.pdf>, p.10.

The rules for Senate and House redistricting maps follow one set of rules. The rules for Congressional and Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) redistricting maps follow yet another set of rules. One big difference between the two sets of rules is that the Congressional and SBOE redistricting maps do not ever go to the Legislative Redistricting Board.

TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULES

Redistricting bills follow the same path through the legislature as other legislation.

Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) redistricting bills may be introduced in either or both houses.

Following final adoption by both houses, the SBOE redistricting bill is presented to Gov. Perry for approval.

(1) Gov. Perry may sign the bill into law.

(2) Gov. Perry may allow it to take effect without a signature.

(3) Gov. Perry may veto it.

If the SBOE bill is vetoed and cannot be overridden with a 2/3 majority in each of the two houses, Gov. Perry may call a special session to consider the matter; or the matter may be taken up in state or federal district court.

The final SBOE plan is filed with the Texas Secretary of State and is subject to federal preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The plan adopted, in most cases, becomes effective for the following primary and general elections, pending preclearance and judicial review.

EARLY EFFORTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE LEGISLATURE

On 4.6.11, I drove to Austin to meet with Rep. Todd Hunter, an influential and approachable member of the House. My purpose was to take to him a document that would communicate clearly what the majority of Texas State Board of Education members preferred to see on the upcoming redistricting map. After a cordial meeting, Rep. Hunter said I needed to share my document with Sen. Seliger which I did on 4.7.11. These dates are significant because they prove that the majority of the SBOE members did submit clear input to Sen. Seliger:

4.7.11 -- MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEN. SELIGER

Sen. Kel Seliger, these are the recommendations that we grassroots citizens badly want to see reflected in the new Texas State Board of Education redistricting map:

[In looking back, I believe that Sen. Seliger may have used this document that I sent to him to make sure SBOE/E120 would produce the exact opposite results. – Donna Garner]

1. Midland must be kept in Charlie Garza’s district (District 1). He is a Republican living in Democrat-strong El Paso. Charlie needs Midland where he has already developed solid relationships and good name recognition. We Republicans must not lose that seat.

2. Odessa needs to be kept in Bob Craig’s district (District 15) because he already has name recognition there. Bob Craig is a Republican.

3. David Bradley’s District 7 and Barbara Cargill’s District 8 look to be well drawn on the new SBOE redistricting map (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ -- CSHB 600). Both David Bradley and Barbara Cargill are Republicans.

4. Because there has always been a competitive spirit between Tarrant County (where Pat Hardy lives) and Dallas County (where Mavis Knight and George Clayton live), the people of Tarrant County do not want two people (Clayton and Knight) from Dallas representing them on the SBOE as is found now in the CSHB 600 map. Pat Hardy’s district is 11; George Clayton’s district is 12; Mavis Knight’s district is 13. Pat Hardy and George Clayton are Republicans. Mavis Knight is a Democrat.

3. Ken Mercer’s district (District 5) needs to be centered between Bexar and Travis Counties where he has good name recognition. Again, we must not lose this seat to a Democrat. Ken Mercer is a Republican.

4. Gail Lowe (District 14 – where my husband and I live) needs to keep her two biggest counties – Denton and McLennan – where she has good name recognition. Gail has developed a sound relationship with the most successful charter school in McLennan County -- the Rapoport Academy; and she has even been endorsed twice by the normally liberal Waco Tribune-Herald. People on both sides of the aisle in McLennan County speak favorably about Gail; and this helps us to keep this seat safe for Gail, a Republican.

5. Terri Leo’s district (District 6) needs to keep the precincts where she lives, works, has strong relationships, and high name recognition. We do not want to lose this seat to the Democrats. Terri Leo is a Republican.

6. It is vitally important to make sure that the SBOE map helps to keep a Republican in the SBOE seat that includes Democrat-dominated Travis County. (Marsha Farney is in District 10 and is a Republican.)

7. The grassroots citizens of this state are very concerned about the inordinate amount of power that Thomas Ratliff seems to wield among legislators. He has only been on the SBOE for one Board meeting (January 2011), yet he has been testifying in front of the Senate Education Committee and the Redistricting Committee. He has not declared himself to be a registered lobbyist, but he is definitely not representing the SBOE in any official capacity.

The new SBOE redistricting map appears to reward Thomas Ratliff by giving him close to the very same district that his political father, Bill Ratliff, had. This looks very questionable to Texas voters, particularly because of Thomas being a registered lobbyist for Microsoft and other education-related entities that do business with the TEA and the SBOE.

Many Texas voters believe that Thomas Ratliff is in direct violation of Texas Education Code, Subchapter A, Section 7.103 (c); and they also know that the SBOE has directed Gail Lowe (chair) to request an opinion on this matter from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott:

(c) A person who is required to register as a lobbyist under Chapter 305, Government Code, by virtue of the person's activities for compensation in or on behalf of a profession, business, or association related to the operation of the board, may not serve as a member of the board or act as the general counsel to the board.

In conclusion, we grassroots citizens support the achievements that the Texas State Board of Education members have accomplished particularly in the area of the adoption of new English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR), Science, and Social Studies standards (TEKS).

These standards will help all of our Texas public school students to achieve academic excellence if implemented appropriately and if taught with fidelity.

We expect the Texas Legislature to reward the SBOE leaders (those on the Board during the adoption of these news standards) with an SBOE redistricting map that will help them to get re-elected if they so desire. We also want the newly elected Board members who support the new adopted TEKS to be successful in their 2012 elections.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

REDISTRICTING EXPERT, PAT O’GRADY

Somewhere during this interval between 4.6.11 and 4.14.11, Pat O’Grady was brought in to help draw the SBOE redistricting map. O’Grady had been the one to draw the 2000 SBOE map that had successfully gone through all court challenges. O’Grady is a proven authority on the Voting Rights Act and on other redistricting laws.

HOUSE ACTION

On 4.14.11, Rep. Burt Solomons (known as one of 11 lieutenants for Speaker Joe Straus and appointed by him as the chair of the House Redistricting Committee) sent the SBOE map (E111) out of his committee and over to the Senate Redistricting Committee. [Solomons knew full well that the SBOE map would be coming back to the House eventually, and he could do his damage at that time.]

E118 COMES ON THE SCENE

On 4.19.11, I received word from the SBOE that two improved maps had surfaced -- E118 and E119. E118 was better for Ken Mercer and Gail Lowe because it kept Mercer’s district a compact Central Texas district. It restored more of Lowe’s original district and restored Pat Hardy's original area. It kept Tarrant County split between Pat Hardy and Mavis Knight, rather than dividing Tarrant three ways, with a representative from Dallas (George Clayton). E118, which George Clayton supported, kept George Clayton in Dallas County, Rockwall County, and southern Collin County.

David Bradley and Barbara Cargill were satisfied with E118, but I was not able to get input from Terri Leo (who was deeply involved in TAKS testing because she is a Special Education teacher) to find out whether E118 or E119 contained her home, the place where she works, the places where she frequently does business, and where she has achieved high-name recognition.

E118 worked better for Charlie Garza, but E119 retrogressed Garza's District 1. Knowledgeable people said that E119 would probably be thrown out by the Department of Justice.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 13 were virtually unchanged in E118, as compared to the House engrossment map.

Marsha Farney had avoided working with the conservative SBOE members on a map, but I found out later that she was not worried because she had someone in the Lt. Governor’s office with whom she was working to give her a “dream” district.

ENTER SEN. SELIGER

Sen. Seliger is the left-leaning chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee who has only a 56% rating by Young Conservatives of Texas. He was appointed by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Fifteen minutes before Seliger’s committee was to meet on 4.27.11, he suddenly produced rogue map E120 even though a gentleman’s agreement had been struck between him and the SBOE members that he would present E118 because the majority of the SBOE members preferred it:

5.4.11 -- SBOE MEMBERS TELL ALL

Excerpts:

District 5 – Ken Mercer (R – San Antonio)

My concerns are twofold. First, the input of the conservative members of the SBOE map E118 was purposely ignored by Sen, Seliger even though I personally called Seliger's office as did a multitude of conservative groups to support map E118.

Absolutely no SBOE members nor organizations called to support Seliger’s rogue 120 map because that map was not even available when Seliger began his public hearing at 8:00 A. M.

Suspiciously, lobbyist and SBOE Member Thomas Ratliff arrived at Seliger's Redistricting Committee meeting to testify FOR map E120 when that map had never been posted for public viewing.

In District 5, I now lose most of the conservative precincts of Travis County which I represented; those went to Marsha Farney in District 10. [Farney has only been seated on the SBOE for two meetings, and she has already exhibited moderate-to-left-leaning tendencies. – Donna Garner]

Suddenly and without any explanation or discussion, I was pushed into new areas and far northern counties -- all because two Republicans did not want the east Texas conservative Republican base of Aggieland / College Station in their SBOE districts [Thomas Ratliff and Marsha Farney – Donna Garner].

Both Republican voting strength and my name ID in District 5 is decreased; and the lone Hispanic Republican on the SBOE, fellow Conservative Charlie Garza, became the primary target and #1 victim of “the RINO faction."

Sen. Seliger's rogue E120 map severely punishes conservative Charlie Garza, the lone Hispanic Republican on the SBOE. At the same time, E120 rewards two RINO’s, Thomas Ratliff and Bob Craig. What message does that map send to conservative Hispanics about the Texas GOP?

District 1 – Charlie Garza (R – El Paso)

Prior to April 28, 2011, several maps were introduced to redistrict the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) for the next ten years. All SBOE seats are open in 2012. Neither the House Redistricting Committee nor the Senate Redistricting Committee asked for any input from the lone Hispanic Republican (me) on the SBOE. Given that the state holds a majority in both houses, you would think that prudent.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 (under E118 or E120) ALL have higher numbers than was deemed acceptable in 2002. If one analyzes that data it is clearly evident that the Hispanic percent population in District 1 was 72.7%. So why is that NOT the starting point for retrogression measurement, rather than the 76.9% that was used?

So all of this extends the question of just what is retrogression, what is the baseline, and "how much is enough"? With multiple conflicting goals of various Voting Rights Act (VRA) decisions, the mathematics are such that you cannot satisfy all goals simultaneously. The primary goal was (and hopefully is) "one man one vote." E120 is woefully pitiful in this regard, particularly as compared to E118.

[One-Man-One-Vote -- OMOV -- means that ideally districts should all be about the same size so that each citizen has the opportunity to have the same amount of access to his elected official. -- Donna Garner]

Sen. Seliger determined that the “fix” to my District 1 was to remove “the white counties.” The end result under the Seliger plan is that District 1 is now approximately 60,000 less in population than the number of people needed to give me an opportunity at being re-elected in 2012.

On April 28, I initiated a call to Senator Seliger’s office and asked to speak to someone who was working on the SBOE redistricting plan. In my conversation with a staffer, I expressly asked why I had not even been given a phone call by a fellow Republican since Sen. Seliger’s plan had changed SBOE District 1 more than any other district in the state. Moreover, I requested to know why Odessa (Ector County) and Midland (Midland County) had been switched. Especially when I already have name recognition in Midland!

Approximately two hours later in a fit of anger, Sen. Seleger called me. I stated to Sen. Seliger that I had numerous concerns with the way he had conducted the Senate Redistricting Committee meeting the day before (4.27.11):

(1) He had given the public no opportunity for debate.

(2) I believe his actions violated the Open Meetings Act.

(3) The only map Sen. Seliger presented to the Senate Redistricting Committee was E120 which did not comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA), Section 2 since I would become a victim of Congressionally-mandated and judicially-enforced “racial packing.”

(4) Map E120 would also diminish the opportunity for Hispanics to have an effect on other districts by packing them into District 1.

As stated by The Lone Star Report on 2.18.11, the Voting Rights Act is not “a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion to the population.” Section 2 is not intended to create racial quotas among elected officials. In fact, that is expressly forbidden by law.

Likewise, Section 2 does not require states to create the maximum number of districts possible in which the majority of the population is composed of members of a minority group. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the establishment of a rule that would require governing bodies to maximize the number of so-called “majority-minority” districts. Instead, the purpose of Section 2 is to ensure that minority groups have the same ability to participate in elections and affect their outcomes as do other members of the electorate.

Before I had an opportunity to continue, Senator Seliger became argumentative and told me that the district in any map but his map would retrogress and that he had checked this with his attorneys. I responded by telling him that he was wrong especially since to my knowledge no definition exists on what retrogression is!

Instead of debating the merits of retrogression, Sen. Seliger continued to scold me as if I were a child.

When I tried to bring up the Open Meetings Act, Sen. Seliger, he said he would deny this allegation to any member of the media if the question were asked.

If the Republican Party truly advocates for a more inclusive big tent that includes conservative Hispanics, the Republican Party needs to address my grievous concerns right now while the SBOE redistricting map is being drawn.

District 14 – Gail Lowe (R – Lampasas)

The Solomons’ House map (E111) is particularly bad for me because my four most populous counties are given to four other board members:

1. I lose Wichita Falls area to Bob Craig.

2. I lose Wise and Denton (my most populous) counties to Pat Hardy.

3. I lose Grayson County (Sherman-Denison area) to Thomas Ratliff.

4. I lose McLennan County (Waco-- my second most populous) to Marsha Farney.

My Central Texas district would wrap around the Dallas Metroplex area to the east, instead of to the west as it is now; and I would pick up 7 new counties. Most of my population would come from these counties that I have never represented before -- 80 percent of my population would be new to me.

This map completely destroys my voter base and the areas I have represented since 2003.

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

LINKS TO ARTICLES WITH EVEN MORE DETAILS

4.22.11 -- “Monumental Attack Against Texas Conservatives” --By Donna Garner

http://www.educationnews.org/political/154610.html

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

4.27.11 -- "Every Parent's Alamo: Update on Texas State Board of Ed. Redistricting Maps" -- by Donna Garner

http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/6-politics/280-qevery-parents-alamo-update-on-texas-state-board-of-ed-redistricting-maps

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

5.4.11 -- A large group of conservatives went to Austin and meet with the Texas Attorney General’s office attorneys. This is the story of what happened:

http://alicelinahan.net/2011/05/05/governor-perry-stand-with-us-we-the-people-showed-up-in-austin-yesterday/

5.5.11 -- In another strange “coincidence,” even though the House has moved slowly on almost every other bill that has come down the pike this legislative session, suddenly, the day after a large group of influential Republicans and tea partiers met with the Texas Attorney General’s attorneys about the SBOE redistricting map, the House unexpectedly brought the SBOE map to the floor, decided to concur with the Seliger SBOE rogue map E120, and sent it to Gov. Perry’s desk for his signature. Here are more background details:

5.4.11 -- “A Vote for the Record Book” -- by Donna Garner

http://libertylinked.com/posts/7246/a-vote-for-the-record-book---/View.aspx

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

From Texas for Better Science Education - 5.6.11

Ten Reasons CSHB600 (Plan E120) needs to be vetoed:

1. Of all plans seriously considered, this is the WORST with respect to the principle of "One Man One Vote". It has very large (and likely unconstitutional) disparities in the population sizes of the various SBOE districts...far above what the Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck down in the past. (more details below). The CSHB600 (the rogue plan E120) has a total variation from the "ideal" population per district ranging from -3.78% to +2.07% for a whopping 5.85% violation of the goal of "One Man One Vote", while plan E118 has a total variation from the "ideal" population of only +/- 1%! Again, the Seliger rogue plan flaws are breathtaking.

2. Texas Senators failed to honor a "deal" struck two weeks ago in the House. The supposed deal was that the SBOE would prepare a plan (which they did over 2 weeks ago, plan E118), that the Senate would pass and the House would accept. Liberal GOP Senator Kel Seliger ignored this, and instead, rammed through a plan at the last minute that had been kept secret from interested parties.

3. To add insult, just before press it has been discovered that the rogue E120 was finalized Tuesday morning, a full day before the committee meeting, but was intentionally hidden from public view! This is in clear contrast to Legislative Council instructions that clearly state:

"Under federal regulations for the administration of the voting rights act of 1965, the state seeking preclearance of a redistricting plan from the U.S. Department of Justice is required to submit to the department materials that document the legislature's consideration of public sentiment in its redistricting decisions and show that recognized racial and language minority groups had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the process."

There was no such consideration.

4. Frankly and politically speaking, this plan is stupid for the Texas GOP, as it has been crafted to redistrict out one of the only GOP Hispanics elected to statewide office in 2010--conservative ex-Navy serviceman turned professional educator Charlie GARZA--who won fair and square in an overwhelmingly Hispanic and traditionally Democratic leaning district in 2010. The Voting Rights Act has never been held by the courts to require a particular party or candidate be preferred by redistricting as CSHB600 does--is this what it has now devolved into?

5. Most solid conservatives in the House, in spite of serious political pressure, voted against this terrible plan.

6. Ask the Governor and his staff to simply speak to the 6 SBOE conservatives themselves! Under the plan the SBOE submitted, 8 of the 15 explicitly, and 12 of the 15 members agreed verbally that E118 was the best possible all around plan. Only 1 of the 15 members is known to have even been contacted regarding E120!

7. Plan E118 has more Hispanic representation in District 1 than even plan E120 has in Districts 2 and 3, underscoring the "bad math" and blatantly political nature of plan E120!

8. Numerous Conservative and Tea Party groups around the state are absolutely outraged. One petition drive alone by a Tea Party group has garnished over 500 signatures per day since it's inception!

9. By raising the Hispanic population in District 1 (currently held by Charlie Garza) to over 77.7%...4.5% and 5.5% higher than in districts 2 and 3, respectively, the CSHB600 map (rogue plan E120) could be considered "packing" of minority citizens into this district--a practice expressly forbidden by law as it dilutes their effective representation.

10. In his book "Fed Up!", Governor Perry himself decries the blunt-instrument use of screaming "Voting Rights Act" (the redistricting equivalent to playing the race card), to justify various political and racial gerrymanders.

"I see a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin - as they are today behind the façade of ending discrimination. I see a world where race-based thinking is relegated to the bigot in the corner and not embraced by our nation's laws in the form of affirmative action [or] flawed incarnations of the Voting Rights Act..." Fed Up! by Rick Perry, p. 173

In short, Gov. Perry has an opportunity to act on his convictions above and to help remedy what one political insider described it as the "worse thing I've ever seen happen in my political career."

Please take action today-now-sign the petition AND CALL AND FAX Governor Perry.

Thank you.

TBSE Volunteers

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

5.6.11 -- WHY SHOULD BE CARE WHO GETS ELECTED TO THE SBOE? -- by Donna Garner

Why should we care who gets elected to the Texas State Board of Education? Here’s why:

The Math standards are in the pipeline. We need those who believe in back-to-the-basics instead of “fuzzy” to be in charge of these standards.

Also, there is no law that says the SBOE members cannot open up the ELAR, Science, and Social Studies standards and change them. The left-leaning element would just love to take out all the patriotic, Constitutional, pro-American parts of the Social Studies TEKS.

Health standards are also coming up soon. Can you imagine what the left-leaning SBOE members if back in control of the SBOE would do to the abstinence part of the Health TEKS? We would have contraceptive studies in every classroom. Also, if left-leaning SBOE members tied to Texas Freedom Network are able to gain control of the Board, then the whole agenda of TFN would penetrate our schools. Below I have posted an article that contains TFN’s agenda.

Also, the conservatives on the SBOE have protected the huge pot of gold -- the Permanent School Fund. By law the PSF is supposed to be spent on children’s textbooks forever. If the legislature is allowed to tap into the corpus (assets) of the PSF, the SBOE will lose their our ability to manage the fund in such a way as to make sure it grows and is able to keep paying for children’s textbooks.

If left-leaners were in control of the SBOE, they would beg the Obama administration to put Texas under the Common Core Standards/Race to the Top which is the takeover of the public schools by the feds. We would have national standards, national curriculum, national assessments, and a national database. Teachers’ evaluations/rehiring/incentives would be tied to how their students do on those national assessments. That would force every teacher to “teach to the national assessments.” The Common Core Standards have one main purpose in mind -- to force school children to accept the social justice agenda. This goal will be worked into the national curriculum and national assessment questions.

TFN already “owns” a number of the present SBOE members; if we lost even a couple more conservatives on the Board, TFN and its agenda would completely take over all the decisions that impact every public school classroom in Texas. Here are links to various articles that I have written on the subject:

4.20.11 -- “Liberals Messing Again -- Open Letter to Texas Legislature” http://libertylinked.com/posts/7154/liberals-messing-again---/View.aspx

5.13.10 -- “More Flailing Around by Texas Freedom Network”

http://ramparts360.com/corruption/more-flailing-around-by-texas-freedom-network/

3.29.10 -- “Tired of Media Bias: Texas Freedom Network vs. Texas State Board of Education”

http://www.educationnews.org/educationnewstoday/81442.html

9.6.09 -- “Texas Textbooks -- Texas Freedom Network Exposed” http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7751&posts=2

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

SBOE DISTRICT NUMBERS AND POLITICAL POSITIONS

District 1 – Charlie Garza (conservative Republican, new to Board)

District 2 – Mary Helen Berlanga (Democrat)

District 3 – Michael Soto (Democrat, new to Board)

District 4 – Lawrence Allen (Democrat)

District 5 – Ken Mercer (conservative Republican)

District 6 – Terri Leo (conservative Republican)

District 7 – David Bradley (conservative Republican)

District 8 – Barbara Cargill (conservative Republican)

District 9 – Thomas Ratliff (Republican-in-Name-Only, new to Board)

District 10 – Marsha Farney (Republican, new to Board)

District 11 – Pat Hardy (Republican)

District 12 – George Clayton (Republican, new to Board)

District 13 – Mavis Knight (Democrat)

District 14 – Gail Lowe (conservative Republican)

District 15 -- Bob Craig (Republican-in-Name-Only)

REDISTRICTING TERMINOLOGY

1. Retrogression -- This is the idea that a district cannot be redrawn in such a way that a protected minority is reduced in numbers (%, actually) from its numbers (%) in the current district. For instance, a minority district with 53 % cannot be lowered to the 49 % level of minority representation if other conditions are met. In actuality, avoiding retrogression may not be possible in all cases. For example, if a district’s population is too small based on a new census, (as is District 1), and the surrounding counties have Hispanic percentages LOWER than the current district, then ANY additional counties will DECREASE the overall Hispanic %.

However the uncertainty usually centers around several items:

A. To what is the baseline compared? For a long time, the prior census from prior districts was used. If that were still the case today, NO plans regress in any way. However, if the baseline is the current SBOE districts’ populations compared to any new redistricting plan, then that is a much higher bar to which to hold. Courts have typically ruled that a small amount of regression in a few districts, depending on the overall provisions in the rest of the plan (including other districts), does not invalidate the entire plan. However, the courts have been inconsistent on how much regression is allowable.

B. “One man one vote.” This refers to the ideal district where each person would be represented equally. In an extreme case, one could have 3 million people in one district but only 1 million in another. The ideal average would, of course, be 2 million; and any difference from that perfect population would be called a “deviation.” In other words, deviation is based upon how the district deviates from the idea of “one man one vote.” The deviation from OMOV (one-man-one-vote) would occur because some individual voters get less or more of a representative share of the total board or legislature.

Note: Eight out of fifteen members of the SBOE explicitly agreed to E118, and at least 11 were “in the boat” one way or another. Three of the SBOE members were not contacted because two of the three were known as the instigators of the “against-conservatives-map.” One Democrat was not available. Let’s contrast this with Seliger’s rogue E120 where at best only three or four SBOE members were contacted, including the same two or three who contrived the E120 map.

OMOV is the most important part of redistricting, and Sen. Seliger’s rogue E120 map is far worse than the SBOE-preferred E118 map in this regard. Zero deviation is not generally a realistic goal, but +/- (1%) has been used, and plans with their deviation at around +/- (1. 5%) have been found to be unconstitutional.

2. “Packing” is the term used when TOO MANY of the protected minority is put into a single district, thus having the effect of them being less effective in other districts. Under Seliger’s rogue E120, it looks as if Hispanics are being packed in at 5 percentage points higher than the next highest district and at 17 percentage points higher than a plan submitted that was said to be in compliance (but did not pass).

As engineers and mathematicians realize, when two or more criteria or "design constraints" are used, one sometimes cannot completely satisfy all goals. When a good faith effort is made, as was the SBOE-preferred E118, the courts would likely support that, even with its few warts. When a poorly transparent effort is made, such as Seliger’s rogue E120, with its serious flaws and political motivations, that would have a much higher chance of being declared unconstitutional.

Footnote: Thomas Ratliff actually argued for keeping together "communities of interest" -- whatever that is. The Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) has ruled, however, that as desirable as that concept is to some parties, that is not justification for gerrymandering or violating One-Man-One-Vote (OMOV) or for retrogressing in excess. In essence, Thomas Ratliff was arguing for a already rejected legal theory!

It is OMOV (One-Man-One-Vote) issue that makes Seliger’s rogue E120 unconstitutional.

CASE AGAINST SEN. SELIGER’S ROGUE E120

Sen. Seliger’s rogue E120 ignores the cherished “One Man One Vote” principle. The SBOE-preferred E118 is far better.

Here are some additional observations relating to the Hispanic Department of Justice (DOJ) Districts 1, 2, 3. We must bear in mind that numerous cases have struck down redistricting plans based on districts being too uneven. Striving for zero deviation (i.e. “One-Man-One-Vote”) is one of the major goals of the courts — stronger than “retrogression” as that is sometimes mathematically unavoidable as populations change:

POPULATION |

DEVIATION | %Hispanic

District E118 E120 | E118 E120

1 -0.61% -3.63% | 74.1% 77.7%

2 +0.73% -0.74% | 72.4% 73.2%

3 -0.36% +0.72% | 72.0% 72.2%

ALL…1-15 low -1.01% -3.78%

ALL…1-15 high +1.0 % +2.07%

All…1-15 range 2.0 % 5.85%

(font changed to Courier New for the tables…it’s a “typewriter” font that does not use proportional letter spacing.)

Note first that under the “One-Man-One-Vote” principle, E118 is closer to the ideal than E120 in all three DOJ Hispanic districts -- District 1, 2, and 3.

In District 1, this is especially true with the ratio of the E120 % to E118 % being a whopping 5.95 to 1 (i.e. 3.63/0.61)! (Courts have held that even less than 2% can be high enough to be ruled unconstitutional, with 1% or less being a reasonable goal.)

E118’s total deviation from ideal districts ranges from -1.01 % to +1.0 % where E120 more than doubles the deviations to -3.78 % to 2.07 %.

Note second, and perhaps more importantly that the level of Hispanic voters in District 1 in the E118 plan (74.1%) EXCEEDS the level of Hispanic voters in the E120 plan (Districts 2 and 3 -- 73.2 % and 72.2%, respectively).

It would seem that advocates of E120 are satisfied with lower levels of Hispanic voters in Districts 2 and 3 than in District 1, with the difference within E120 (District 1) in excess over Districts 2 and 3 being 4.5 and 5.5%, respectively!

Absent reasonable explanations, this would be considered “packing” in District 1. It also begs the question of why 74.1% is not considered suitable for District 1 in plan E118 when it is .9% and 1.9% higher than in Districts 2 and 3 in plan E120!

Additionally, though it failed, another proposal (E121) sought to create another Hispanic opportunity district with only 60 % Hispanic population.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

common core state standards,

tagged

Donna Garner,

1. “A Call for Common Content,” American Educator (published by American Federation of Teachers), vol. 35, no. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 41-45.

redistricting in Texas,

Monday

May092011

Shanker Institute Manifesto--A Critical Response To It As America Should Not Be Dumbed Down--By Those Whose True Goal is Power

Monday, May 9, 2011 at 10:49PM

Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America

Closing the Door on Innovation

A Critical Response to the Shanker Institute Manifesto and
the U.S. Department of Education’s Initiative
to Develop a National Curriculum and National Assessments
Based on National Standards

We, the undersigned, representing viewpoints from across the political and educational spectrum, oppose the call for a nationalized curriculum in the Albert Shanker Institute Manifesto “A Call for Common Content.”1 We also oppose the ongoing effort by the U.S. Department of Education to have two federally funded testing consortia develop national curriculum guidelines, national curriculum models, national instructional materials, and national assessments using Common Core's national standards as a basis for these efforts.2

We agree that our expectations should be high and similar for all children whether they live in Mississippi or Massachusetts, Tennessee or Texas. We also think that curricula should be designed before assessments are developed, not the other way around.

But we do not agree that a one-size-fits-all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject makes sense for this country or for any other sizable country. Such an approach threatens to close the door on educational innovation, freezing in place an unacceptable status quo and hindering efforts to develop academically rigorous curricula, assessments, and standards that meet the challenges that lie ahead. Because we are deeply committed to improving this country’s schools and increasing all students’ academic achievement, we cannot support this effort to undermine control of public school curriculum and instruction at the local and state level—the historic locus for effective innovation and reform in education—and transfer control to an elephantine, inside-the-Beltway bureaucracy.

Moreover, transferring power to Washington, D.C., will only further subordinate educational decisions to political imperatives. All presidential administrations—present and future, Democratic and Republican—are subject to political pressure. Centralized control in the U.S. Department of Education would upset the system of checks and balances between different levels of government, creating greater opportunities for special interests to use their national political leverage to distort policy. Our decentralized fifty-state system provides some limitations on special-interest power, ensuring that other voices can be heard, that wrongheaded reforms don’t harm children in every state, and that reforms that effectively serve children's needs can find space to grow and succeed.

The nationalized curriculum the Shanker Manifesto calls for, and whose development the U.S. Department of Education is already supporting, does not meet the criteria for sound public policy for the following reasons.

First, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula. The two testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education have already expanded their activities beyond assessment, and are currently developing national curriculum guidelines, models, and frameworks in accordance with their proposals to the Department of Education (see the Appendix). Department of Education officials have so far not explained the constitutional basis for their procedures or forthcoming products. The U.S. Constitution seeks a healthy balance of power between states and the federal government, and wisely leaves the question of academic standards, curriculum, and instruction up to the states.3 In fact, action by the U.S. Department of Education to create national standards and curricula is explicitly proscribed by federal law, reflecting the judgment of Congress and the public on this issue.4

Even if the development of national curriculum models, frameworks or guidelines were judged lawful, we do not believe Congress or the public supports having them developed by a self-selected group behind closed doors and with no public accountability. Whether curriculum developers are selected by the Shanker Institute or the U.S. Department of Education’s testing consortia, they are working on a federally funded project to dramatically transform schools nationwide. They therefore ought to be transparent and accountable to Congress and the public.

Second, there is no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement. The Shanker Manifesto suggests that the only possible way to achieve high academic achievement is through a single national curriculum. Yet France and Denmark have centralized national curricula and do not show high average achievement on international tests or a diminishing gap between high- and low-achieving students. Meanwhile, Canada and Australia, both of which have many regional curricula, achieve better results than many affluent single-curriculum nations. The evidence on this question has been exhaustively addressed elsewhere.5 It does not support the conclusion that national standards are necessary either for high achievement or for narrowing the achievement gap.

Moreover, population mobility does not justify a national curriculum. Only inter-state mobility is relevant to the value of a national curriculum, and inter-state mobility in this country is low. The Census Bureau reports a total annual mobility rate of 12.5% in 2008-9,6 but only 1.6% of the total rate consists of inter-state moves that a national curriculum may influence. Other data indicate that inter-state mobility among school-age children is even lower, at 0.3%.7

Third, the national standards on which the administration is planning to base a national curriculum are inadequate. If there are to be national academic-content standards, we do not agree that Common Core’s standards are clear, adequate, or of sufficient quality to warrant being this country’s national standards. Its definition of “college readiness” is below what is currently required to enter most four-year state colleges. Independent reviews have found its standards to be below those in the highest-performing countries and below those in states rated as having the best academic standards.8

Fourth, there is no body of evidence for a “best” design for curriculum sequences in any subject. The Shanker Manifesto assumes we can use “the best of what is known” about how to structure curriculum. Yet which curriculum would be best is exactly what we do not know, if in fact all high school students should follow one curriculum. Much more innovation and development, and research evaluating it, is needed to address this knowledge gap. This means we should be encouraging—not discouraging—multiple models. Furthermore, the Shanker Manifesto calls for national curricula to encompass English, mathematics, history, geography, the sciences, civics, the arts, foreign languages, technology, health, and physical education. We wonder what is not included in its sweeping concept of a national curriculum.

Fifth, there is no evidence to justify a single high school curriculum for all students. A single set of curriculum guidelines, models, or frameworks cannot be justified at the high school level, given the diversity of interests, talents and pedagogical needs among adolescents. American schools should not be constrained in the diversity of the curricula they offer to students. Other countries offer adolescents a choice of curricula; Finland, for example, offers all students leaving grade 9 the option of attending a three-year general studies high school or a three-year vocational high school, with about 50% of each age cohort enrolling in each type of high school. We worry that the “comprehensive” American high school may have outlived its usefulness, as a recent Harvard report implies.9 A one-size-fits-all model not only assumes that we already know the one best curriculum for all students; it assumes that one best way for all students exists. We see no grounds for carving that assumption in stone.

Conclusion

The Shanker Manifesto does not make a convincing case for a national curriculum. It manifests serious shortcomings in its discussion of curricular alignment and coherence, the quality of Common Core’s national standards, course sequence and design, academic content, student mobility, sensitivity to pluralism, constitutionality and legality, transparency and accountability, diverse pedagogical needs, and the absence of consensus on all these questions. For these reasons, we the undersigned oppose the Shanker Manifesto’s call for a nationalized curriculum and the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative to develop a national curriculum and national tests based on Common Core’s standards.

**************************************************************************************************************************

Signatories

Initial signatories before May 6, 2011

John Agresto
President, St. John’s College, Santa Fe, 1989-2000, Member Board of Trustees & Past Provost, American University of Iraq, Author, The Supreme Court & Constitutional Democracy

G. Donald Allen
Associate Head & Professor, Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, Director, Center for Technology-Mediated Instruction in Mathematics

Hon. Steve Baldwin
Former Chairman, California State Assembly Education Committee, Former California State Assemblyman, Former Executive Director, Council for National Policy

Gary Beckner
Founder & Executive Director, Association of American Educators

Hon. Marian Bergeson
Former California State Secretary of Education, Former President, California School Boards Association, Former California State Senator

Michelle D. Bernard
President and CEO, the Bernard Center for Women, Politics, and Public Policy

Ben Boychuk
Former Managing Editor, School Reform News, Heartland Institute

Hon. Christian N. Braunlich
Vice President, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Former Member, Fairfax County (Va.) School Board

Matthew J. Brouillette
President & CEO, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Former middle and high school history teacher, Former charter school board member

Morgan Brown
Director for School Improvement, Charter School Partners, Former Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota State Department of Education, U.S. Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education for Innovation and Improvement, 2006-2008

Audrey V. Buffington
Former State Supervisor of Mathematics, Maryland State Department of Education, First Recipient, Mathematics Educator of the Year Award, Maryland Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1978

Doug Carnine
Former Director, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, Co-Author, Direct Instruction mathematics series, Former Member, Advisory Board, National Institute for Literacy

Michael C. Carnuccio
President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

M. Bloucke Carus
Chairman, Carus Corporation, Chairman, Education Committee, Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, Publisher of 14 leading children’s magazines, Past Chairman, International Baccalaureate North America, Developer, Open Court reading program

Walt Chappell
Member, Kansas State Board of Education

John E. Chubb
Distinguished Visiting Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Chief Academic Officer & Co-Founder, Edison Learning, Co-Author, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools

Paul Clopton
Research Statistician, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, Past Member, California State Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee, Past Commissioner, California State Commission on Teacher Credentialing

John Colyandro
Executive Director, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute

Kim Crockett
President & General Counsel, Minnesota Free Market Institute

David Davenport
Counselor to the Director & Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, President, Pepperdine University, 1985-2000, Past Distinguished Professor of Law & Public Policy, Pepperdine University

Timothy C. Draper
Founder & Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson (venture capital), Former Member, California State Board of Education

Brandon Dutcher
Vice President for Policy, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Publishing Editor, Choice Remarks

John C. Eastman
Founding Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Donald P. Kennedy Professor and Former Dean, Chapman University School of Law

Michelle Easton
President, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute
Former Deputy Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education, Former President and Member Virginia, State Board of Education

Karen R. Effrem, MD
President, Education Liberty Watch

Robert S. Eitel
Member, Talbert and Eitel,PLLC, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2006-09, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2005-06

Siegfried Engelmann
Professor of Special Education, University of Oregon, Recipient, Award of Achievement in Education Research of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, 2002, President Engelmann-Becker Corporation (curriculum development)

Robert C. Enlow
President & CEO, Foundation for Educational Choice

Richard A. Epstein
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, Peter & Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus & Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

William A. Estrada
Director of Federal Relations, Home School Legal Defense Association

Bill Evers
Research Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Policy, 2007-2009, Commissioner, California State Academic Standards Commission, 1996-98, 2010

William Felkner
Founder & Director of Policy, Ocean State Policy Research Institute

Liv Finne
Director for Education, Washington Policy Center

Will Fitzhugh
Founder & President, The Concord Review

Greg Forster
Senior Fellow, Foundation for Educational Choice

John Fonte
Senior Fellow & Director of the Center for American Common Culture, Hudson Institute

Jamie Gass
Director, Center for School Reform, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation

Ronald J. Gidwitz
Co-Founder & President, GCG Partners, Former CEO, Helene Curtis, Member, Board of Governors & Chairman of Governmental Relations Committee, Boys and Girls Club of America, Former Chairman, City Colleges of Chicago, Former Chairman, Illinois State Board of Education

Jay P. Greene
21st Century Chair & Head of the Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, Fellow in Education Policy, George W. Bush Institute

Walter Mellor Haney
Professor, Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation Program, Lynch School of Education, Boston College

David R. Henderson
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Senior Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers

Collin Hitt
Senior Director of Government Affairs, Illinois Policy Institute

Hon. Pete Hoekstra
Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Former Member, U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, Former Member, U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education

Robert Holland
Senior Fellow for Education Policy, Heartland Institute, Policy Analyst, Lexington Institute

Gisele Huff
Member, Advisory Committee, Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University

Lance T. Izumi
Koret Senior Fellow and Senior Director of Education Studies, Pacific Research Institute, Immediate Past President, Board of Governors, California Community Colleges

Franklin Pitcher Johnson, Jr.
Founding Partner, Asset Management Company, (venture capital), Former Member, Board of Trustees, Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Krista Kafer
Fellow, Centennial Institute

Kevin P. Kane
President, Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Hon. Greg Kaza
Member, Michigan State House of Representatives, 1993-98, Executive Director, Arkansas Policy Foundation

C. Ronald Kimberling
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Postsecondary Education, 1985-88, Former Chancellor, Briarcliffe College, Member, Illinois Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy, 2008

Hon. Keith King
Co-Founder, Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy; James Irwin Charter High School, Colorado Springs Early Colleges, Colorado State Senator, Member, Colorado State Senate Education Committee

E. Floyd Kvamme
Partner Emeritus, Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers (venture capital), Past Executive Vice President, Apple Computer, Past Co-Chairman, President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology

John R. LaPlante
Policy Fellow, Minnesota Free Market Institute

Hon. Yvonne W. Larsen
Past President, California State Board of Education, Past President, San Diego City School Board, Vice Chair, “A Nation at Risk” Commission

Casey Lartigue , Jr.
Director, Overseas Relations, Center for Free Enterprise (South Korea), Former Education Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Co-editor, Educational Freedom in Urban America: Brown v. Board Education after a half century

Doug Lasken
Retired English Teacher & Debate Coach, Los Angeles Unified School District

Howard H. Leach
Vice President, Leach Capital, Former U.S. Ambassador to France, Former Chairman, Board of Regents, University of California

Briana LeClaire
Education Policy Analyst, Idaho Freedom Foundation

George Leef
Director of Research, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Former Vice President, John Locke Foundation, Book Review Editor, The Freeman magazine

George W. Liebmann
Executive Director, Calvert Institute for Policy Research

Dan Lips
Former Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, Former Research Associate, Cato Institute, Senior Fellow of Education Policy Studies, Maryland Public Policy Institute

Hon. Peggy Littleton
El Paso County Commissioner, Colorado, Former Member, Colorado State Board of Education

Carrie L. Lukas
Executive Director, Independent Women’s Forum, Former Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Former Senior Domestic Policy Analyst, U.S. House Republican Policy Committee

Paul Lundeen
Member, Colorado State Board of Education

J. Robert McClure
President & CEO, James Madison Institute, Former Member, State of Florida Education Strategies Planning Council Member, Florida Committee for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Michael W. McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford University, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Federal Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Kelly McCutchen
President and CEO, Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Michael McKeown
Professor of Medical Science, Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology & Biochemistry, Brown University, Co-Founder, Mathematically Correct (math-education advocacy group)

Matt A. Mayer
President, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

Edwin Meese III
Former Attorney General of the United States, Former Rector (chairman of governing board), George Mason University, Former Professor of Law, University of San Diego

John D. Merrifield
Professor of Economics, University of Texas, San Antonio, Editor, Journal of School Choice, Director, E.G. West Institute for Effective Schooling

Stan Metzenberg
Professor of Biology, California State University Northridge, Science Consultant, California State Academic Standards Commission, 1998, Former Commissioner, California State Curriculum Commission

R. James Milgram
Professor Emeritus, Department of Mathematics, Stanford University, Member, Validation Committee, Common Core Standards, 2009-10, Former Member, NASA Advisory Council

Charles Miller
Former Chairman, Education Policy Center of Texas, Former Chairman, Board of Regents, University of Texas System, Chairman, U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission)

Marcia Neal
Vice-Chair, Colorado State Board of Education

Hon. Janet Nicholas
Former Member, California State Board of Education

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform, Member, Board of Directors, ParentalRights.org, Former Economist & Chief Speechwriter, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Daniel Oliver
Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission

Gen Olson
President, Pro Tem, Minnesota State Senate, Chair, Minnesota State Senate Education Committee

Chris Patterson
Former Director of Research, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Member, Policy Advisory Board, Texas Institute for Education Reform

John W. Payne
Education Policy Researcher, Show-Me Institute

Hon. Betty Peters
Member, Alabama State Board of Education

Sally C. Pipes
President & CEO Pacific Research Institute

Daniel P. Racheter
President, Iowa Association of Scholars, President, Public Interest Institute, Co-Editor, Federalist Government in Principle and Practice

Howard Rich
Chairman, Americans for Limited Government

Roberta R. Schaefer
President & CEO, Worcester (Mass.) Regional Research Bureau, Former Vice Chair & Member, Massachusetts State Board of Education

Hon. Bob Schaffer
Chairman, Colorado State Board of Education, Former Vice-Chairman, Colorado State Senate Education Committee, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1997-2003

Wilfried Schmid
Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of Mathematics, Harvard University, Member, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department o Education, 2006-08, Member, Steering Committee, NAEP Mathematics Assessment, 2000-01

Pete Sepp
Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union

Gilbert T. Sewall
Director, American Textbook Council
Former history instructor, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., Former Education Editor, Newsweek magazine

Hon. John Shadegg
Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1995-2010

Hon. Florence Shapiro
Chair, State Senate Education Committee, State of Texas, Member, Southern Regional Education Board, Commissioner, Education Commission of the States

Jane S. Shaw
President, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy

John Silber
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Texas, 1967-70, President, Boston University, 1971-96, Chairman, Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1996-99

Eunie Smith
(widow of Congressman Albert Lee Smith, Jr.), President, Eagle Forum of Alabama

Lisa Snell

Director of Education & Child Welfare, Reason Foundation

Don Soifer
Executive Vice President, Lexington Institute, Member, Public Charter School Board, District of Columbia

Joel Spring
Professor, Department of Elementary & Early Childhood Education, Queens College & Graduate Center, City University of New York

Shelby Steele
Robert J. & Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Author, The Content of Our Character

James Stergios
Executive Director, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research

Terry L. Stoops
Director of Education Studies, John Locke Foundation

Sandra Stotsky
21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, Senior Associate Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1999-2003, Member, Validation Committee, Common Core Standards, 2009-10

Christopher B. Summers
President, Maryland Public Policy Institute

Robert W. Sweet, Jr.
Former Acting Director & Deputy Director, National Institute for Education, Former Reagan White House Policy Staffer, Former Senior Staffer, U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce

Kent D. Talbert
Partner, Talbert & Eitel, PLLC, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2006-09, Former Education Policy Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Peter Thiel
President Clarium Capital (hedge fund), Managing Partner, The Founders Fund (venture capital), Founder, Former CEO & Former Chairman, PayPal

Abigail Thernstrom
Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Member, Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1995-2006, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Stephen Thernstrom
Winthrop Research Professor of History, Harvard University, Co-Author (with Abigail Thernstrom), No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning.

Jeremy Thompson
Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum

Lil Tuttle
Education Director, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, Former Vice President and Member, Virginia State Board of Education

Richard Vedder
Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Distinguished Professor of Economics, Ohio University, Commissioner, U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission)

Herbert J. Walberg
Distinguished Visiting Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, University Scholar, University of Illinois at Chicago, Former Member, National Board for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Hon. Pete Wilson
Former Governor, State of California

Jim Windham
Chairman, Texas Institute for Education Reform

Ze’ev Wurman
Senior Policy Adviser, U.S. Department of Education, 2007-2009, Commissioner, California State Academic Commission, 2010, Past Member, California State Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee

Hon. Kimberly Yee
Member, Arizona State House Representatives, VIce Chairman, Arizona House Education Committee

*************************************************************************************************************************

Appendix: Excerpts from the Assessment Consortia’s
Plans to Develop a National Curriculum

According to the proposal by the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium in its application for a U.S. Department of Education grant in June 2010, it intends to:

“interpret or translate [Common Core’s] standards before they can be used effectively for assessment or instruction” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal. Page 34]

– “translate the standards into content/curricular frameworks, test maps, and item/performance event specifications to provide assessment specificity and to clarify the connections between instructional processes and assessment outcomes.” [SMARTER Proposal, page 35]

– provide “a clear definition of the specific grade-level content skills and knowledge that the assessment is intended to measure” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 48]

– “convene key stakeholders and content specialists to develop assessment frameworks that precisely lay out the content and cognitive demands that define college- and career-readiness for each grade level.” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page74]

– “develop cognitive models for the domains of ELA and mathematics that specify the content elements and relationships reflecting the sequence of learning that students would need to achieve college and career-readiness” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 76]

Similarly, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium proposed in its application to the U.S. Department of Education in June 2010 to:

– “unpack the standards to a finer grain size as necessary to determine which standards are best measured through the various components … To do this, the Partnership will engage lead members of the CCSS writing teams … and the content teams from each state, assessment experts and teachers from Partnership states.” [PARCC Proposal, page 174]

– “develop challenging performance tasks and innovative, computer-enhanced items … [that] will send a strong, clear signal to educators about the kinds of instruction and types of performances needed for students to demonstrate college and career readiness.” [PARCC Proposal, page 7]

– ”develop model curriculum frameworks that teachers can use to plan instruction and gain a deep understanding of the CCSS, and released items and tasks that teachers can use for ongoing formative assessment.” [PARCC Proposal, page 57]

**************************************************************************************************************************

End Notes

See

Grover Whitehurst, Don’t Forget Curriculum, Brookings Institution, 2009; Neal McCluskey, Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards, Cato Institute, 2010.

**************************************************************************************************************************

common core states standards,

tagged

education reforms,

shanker institute manifesto

national curriculum,

no child left behind,

race to the top,

Print Article

Email Article

Permalink

Monday

Apr182011

Will Parents Allow Their Children To Suffer Child Abuse In Public Schools

Monday, April 18, 2011 at 10:56PM

“Child Abuse by the Federal Government -- How and Who?”

by Donna Garner

4.18.11

To set our public school children up for failure is an example of child abuse; and when the federal government does it, it is still child abuse.

If you are a citizen, taxpayer, and/or a parent and you are desperately concerned about what is being taught to our public school children, you must take a few minutes to listen to this videotape from a legislative public hearing and to read the notes posted below.

One of the people who testified is Dr. Sandra Stotsky who tells about her first-hand experiences as a member of the Validation Committee for the Common Core Standards.

At the same time that the Obama administration has been federalizing the healthcare system, his administration has been federalizing the public schools across this country.

The Obama administration through Sect. of Ed. Arne Duncan and the U. S. Department of Education has mounted a massive effort using Stimulus dollars to pressure all states to participate in Common Core Standards/Race to the Top/national assessments/national database.

In a time of tight budget constraints, please join me in contacting your Congressmen and asking them to cut completely all spending on the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, national curriculum, national assessments, national teacher evaluation system, and a national database.

THE TRUTH COMES OUT -- TEXAS PUBLIC HEARING

On 4.14.11, various experts testified before the Texas House Sovereignty Committee in support of HB 2923. Among those were Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, Pioneer Institute Executive Director Joe Stergios, and Dr. Sandy Stotsky (Professor of Education Reform, University of Arkansas).

TESTIMONY BY TEXAS COMMISSION OF EDUCATION ROBERT SCOTT

The insightful remarks made by Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott start at marker 23.30 - 43.20. Scott has worked for Democrats and for Republicans and has also spent time on Capitol Hill. He pointed out in his testimony these very valid reasons not to support the Common Core Standards:

Even before NCLB became law, there was already a prohibition against the U. S. Department of Education funding curriculum standards, curriculum materials, and assessments. However, because the Common Core Standards were produced with Stimulus funds and not with NCLB funds, the Obama administration has decided that they have not violated federal law. Scott, who is an experienced attorney and an expert on education law, believes the administration is making a fallacious argument.

Scott also said he is troubled by who owns the CCS, who could change them, and how often. He has sought the explicit legislative authority given to the USDOE, yet no one has been able to provide him with that language.

One reason Scott did not want Texas to participate in CCS is that he does not like the idea of the federal government having the authority to establish a teacher evaluation system that will determine which teachers get terminated and which ones get to stay.

Scott feels strongly about the dangers of the national data collection system that is tied to CCS. Student-identifiable data that is used for state programs should not be shipped out to Washington, D. C. on someone’s thumbnail drive where the data could be compromised.

TESTIMONY BY JIM STERGIOS, PIONEER INSTITUTE

Jim Stergios, the Executive Director of Pioneer Institute, makes his very interesting remarks at marker 43.29 - 1:01.00.

TESTIMONY BY DR. SANDRA STOTSKY, MEMBER OF CCS VALIDATION COMMITTEE

Dr. Sandra Stotsky’s testimony is posted at marker 1:01.00 - 1:23.24.

VIDEOLINK TO PUBLIC HEARING

Here is the video link from the Texas House State Sovereignty Committee Meeting:

http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/committee-broadcasts/committee-archives/player/?session=82&committee=460&ram=11041410460

PROVISIONS IN TEXAS HB 2923

HB 2923 ensures that the state of Texas has sovereignty over its public schools and that for Texas schools to be accredited, they must follow the state-adopted standards, curriculum requirements, and tests.

HB 2923 also states that Texas will not participate in a national database.

HB 2923 would discourage any Texas school district from participating in the national takeover of the public schools by the federal government (i.e., CCS/RTTT).

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. SANDRA STOTSKY

Testimony for Texas Legislative Hearing on HB 2923 -- April 14, 2011:

Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, University of Arkansas

I thank Chairman Creighton and the members of his committee for the opportunity to speak in favor of House Bill No. 2923, a bill on state sovereignty over curriculum standards, assessments, and student information.

My professional background: I draw on much state and national experience with K-12 standards, curricula, and assessments. I was the senior associate commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999-2003 where, among other duties, I was in charge of the development or revision of all the state's K-12 standards. I have reviewed all states' English language arts and reading standards for the Fordham Institute in 1997, 2000, and 2005. I co-authored Achieve's American Diploma Project high school exit test standards for English in 2004. I co-authored the 2008 Texas English language arts and reading standards. Appointed by then Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, I served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel from 2006-2008. Finally, I served on Common Core's Validation Committee from 2009-2010.

I will speak to the following points:

1. The mediocre quality of Common Core's English language arts/reading standards, especially in grades 6-12, and what its lack of international benchmarking means.

2. The high academic quality of Texas's 2008 English language arts/reading standards.

3. The non-transparent process that was used to develop Common Core's standards.

4. The non-transparent process now being used to develop a national curriculum and national tests based on Common Core's standards by the two testing consortia funded by the U.S. D.E.

COMMON CORE’S LACK OF COLLEGE READINESS FOR ELAR

Point One: Common Core’s “college readiness” standards for English language arts and reading do not aim for a level of achievement that signifies readiness for authentic college-level work. They point to no more than readiness for a high school diploma (and possibly not even that, depending on where the cut score is set).

Despite claims to the contrary, the Common Core are not internationally benchmarked. States adopting Common Core’s standards will damage the academic integrity of both their post-secondary institutions and their high schools precisely because Common Core's standards do not strengthen the high school curriculum and cannot reduce the current amount of post-secondary remedial coursework in a legitimate way.

In fact, the Common Core standards may lead to reduced enrollment in advanced high school courses and to weakened post-secondary coursework because Common Core's "college readiness" ELA/R standards are designed to enable a large number of high school students to be declared "college ready" and to enroll in post-secondary institutions that will have to place them in credit-bearing courses. These institutions will then likely be under pressure from the USDE to retain these students in order to increase college graduation rates.

TEXAS’ NEW ENGLISH / LANGUAGE ARTS / READING STANDARDS

Point Two: To avoid the charge of bias, I draw on Fordham's own 2010 review of Texas's 2008 English language arts/reading standards. Fordham gave the Texas standards A- and Common Core's ELA standards B+. Here is Fordham's overall judgment:

"Texas’s ELA standards are more clearly written, better presented, and logically organized than the Common Core standards. The Texas standards include expectations that more thoroughly address the comprehension and analysis of literary and non-literary text than Common Core, including helpful, detailed standards that outline genre-specific content and rhetorical techniques. In addition, Texas has prioritized writing genres by grade level. Grade: A-"

QUALIFICATIONS FOR WRITERS OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS

Point Three: After the Common Core Initiative was launched in early 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers never explained to the public what the qualifications were for membership on the standards-writing committees or how it would justify the specific standards they created. Most important, it never explained why Common Core's high school exit standards were equal to college admission requirements without qualification, even though this country's wide ranging post-secondary institutions use a variety of criteria for admission.

Eventually responding to the many charges of a lack of transparency, the names of the 24 members of the “Standards Development Work Group” were revealed in a July 1, 2009 news release. The vast majority, it appeared, work for testing companies. Not only did CCSSI give no rationale for the composition of this Work Group, it gave no rationale for the people it put on the two three-member teams in charge of writing the grade-level standards.

STOTSKY’S EXPERIENCES ON COMMON CORE VALIDATION COMMITTEE

Another seemingly important committee, a Validation Committee, was set up with great fanfare on September 24, 2009. The 25 members of this group were described as a group of national and international experts who would ensure that Common Core's standards were internationally benchmarked and supported by a body of research evidence.

Even though several of us regularly asked to examine this supposed body of research evidence, it became clear why our requests were ignored. In December 2009, the Parent Teacher Association, indicated the real role of this committee--more like that of a rubber stamp. The PTA predicted that: "both sets of standards will be approved simultaneously in February 2010 by members of the Validation Committee." Why did it think so? Why did the Gates Foundation think so, too? Vicki Phillips and Carina Wong published an article in the February 2010 issue of Phi Delta Kappan talking about Common Core's standards as if they had already been approved. The final version of these standards didn't come out until June 2010.

After submitting many detailed critiques from October 2009 to May 2010 in a futile effort to remedy the basic deficiencies of Common Core's English/reading standards, I, along with four other members of the Validation Committee, declined to sign off on the final version.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENTS

Point Four: Both testing consortia, funded by the USDE, are currently developing curriculum frameworks, models, and guides, as well as instructional materials, behind closed doors, with no public procedures for the selection of curriculum developers, for public comment and further revision, and for final public approval if what the USDE and these testing consortia are doing is constitutional and legal. Below are excerpts from the two testing consortia’s approved applications that show clearly their intentions to develop a national curriculum. In addition, the Albert Shanker Institute issued a "manifesto" in March applauding Common Core's goals and quality and urging the development of a national curriculum based on its standards. Among the signers is the president of the Fordham Institute.

QUOTES FROM ONE ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM -- SMARTER

According to the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium's application to the USDE in June 2010, it intends to:

“interpret or translate [Common Core’s] standards before they can be used effectively for

assessment or instruction” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal. Page 34]

– “translate the standards into content/curricular frameworks, test maps, and item/performance

event specifications to provide assessment specificity and to clarify the connections between

instructional processes and assessment outcomes.” [SMARTER Proposal, page 35]

– provide “a clear definition of the specific grade-level content skills and knowledge that the

assessment is intended to measure” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 48]

– “convene key stakeholders and content specialists to develop assessment frameworks that

precisely lay out the content and cognitive demands that define college- and career-readiness for each grade level.” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page74]

– “develop cognitive models for the domains of ELA and mathematics that specify the content

elements and relationships reflecting the sequence of learning that students would need to

achieve college and career-readiness” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 76]

QUOTES FROM SECOND ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM -- PARCC

Similarly, the June 10 application from the other testing consortium funded by the USDE, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), is planning to:

– “unpack the standards to a finer grain size as necessary to determine which standards are best measured through the various components … To do this, the Partnership will engage lead

members of the CCSS writing teams … and the content teams from each state, assessment

experts and teachers from Partnership states.” [PARCC Proposal, page 174]

– “develop challenging performance tasks and innovative, computer-enhanced items … [that] will send a strong, clear signal to educators about the kinds of instruction and types of performances needed for students to demonstrate college and career readiness.” [PARCC Proposal, page 7]

– ”develop model curriculum frameworks that teachers can use to plan instruction and gain a

deep understanding of the CCSS, and released items and tasks that teachers can use for ongoing formative assessment.” [PARCC Proposal, page 57]

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

From Donna Garner - 4.18.11

FOLLOWING ARE STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM MY NOTES OF THE 4.15.11 HEARING

States typically pay 90% of their own education costs. Why give the federal government, which pays only 10%, complete control over a state’s public schools?

Common Core Standards (CCS) completely de-emphasize the teaching of the great pieces of literature.

Texas’ new English / Language Arts / Reading standards (adopted in May 2008) are the best in the entire United States.

Math Professor Jim Milgram believes the new Math framework and standards presently being developed in Texas may become the best in the country.

CCS do not have discreet standards for courses such as Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. CCS “blends math.” Where is the empirical research to show that teaching “blended math” courses will produce well-prepared math and science graduates?

CCS have not been internationally benchmarked, and there is nothing to prove that students who are taught the CCS will be competitive wth students from other countries.

By the time Texas’ Social Studies standards were adopted in 2010, the Texas State Board of Education had had five public hearings during eighteen months of intense public input. The CCS had no public hearings in Congress nor anywhere else. No votes were ever taken on the CCS by Congress.

Under pressure from concerned citizens, the DOE finally established a short public comment period on the CCS; but nobody has been allowed to see the actual feedback submitted by the public.

A member of the CCS Validation Committee attempted to establish an interchange with a CCS draft writer and was told such exchanges were prohibited.

When the Texas Education Agency looked at the fiscal note to implement the CCS in Texas, it would have cost $3 Billion extra dollars; and Texas would have had to dump its own standards, tests, and accountability system that have taken years and millions of dollars to develop.

The CCS will allow one monolithic vendor to get the entire federal contract.

The writers of the national assessments (SMARTER and PARCC consortia) cannot develop test items unless there is well-defined curriculum content by grade level in the CCS; and there is not. Therefore, the two consortia are struggling because they have been forced to produce curriculum content first before they can possibly begin to develop the actual assessments. This means that these two assessment consortia (funded by the federal government) will be telling local teachers not just what to teach but how and when. The entire assessment package is required under the DOE contract to be ready by 2014-15.

Since 2009, there have been at least 230 data breaches in America. CCS requires a national database of personal information on all public school students, families, and educators. A national database would be a sure target for data mining and for security breaches.

Using its CCS national database, would the federal government try to nudge students into certain career pathways?

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

common core states standards,

tagged

Sandra Stotsky,

national teacher evaluation,

national database,

Tuesday

Mar222011

Prevent Federal Take-Over Of Education Through Common Core Standards-Contact Congressman John Kline

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 11:07PM

“Our Hope Rests with Congressman John Kline”

by Donna Garner

3.19.11

When I originally mailed this letter on Nov. 14, 2010 to U. S. Representative John Kline, he was not yet the chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; and I also did not have the e-mail addresses of his staffers. Therefore, I had to send this as a "snail mail" version.

Today, 3.19.11, I have turned this letter into a digitized version that contains many links to the various documents referenced and to updates which have occurred since November 2010.

Please feel free to share this e-mail widely because it clearly explains how the Obama administration working with U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have managed to take control of the public schools in our country.

This is the bottomline: We must convince the Congressmen to cut the funding for Common Core Standards and Race to the Top right now before the national standards, national curriculum, national assessments, and intrusive national database are institutionalized and are considered “too big to fail.”

[Note -- The arrows mean “lead to.”]

National standards → national assessments → national curriculum → teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores → teachers teaching to the test each and every day → national indoctrination of our public school children → national database of all students and educators

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

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

March 18, 2011

Congressman John Kline

U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Tel: 202-225-4527
Fax: 202-225-9571

Dear Congressman Kline:

I am a retired teacher who taught for 33+ years. I have written prolifically on the federal takeover of the public schools by the Obama administration through Common Core Standards/Race to the Top (CCS/RTTT).

I have researched and tracked this takeover from well before Obama was even elected. For the first year, it was a pretty lonely experience as most people thought I was in error. Now that the agenda is inundating the public schools in our nation, parents and the public are growing terribly concerned.

Thankfully, you have given me encouragement. I have read some of your comments on education, and you seem to understand the federal intrusion into the public schools and favor returning that control back to the states and local school districts. I am thrilled to know that you have not been fooled by the Obama rhetoric.

I receive no remuneration for what I write but feel compelled to warn people of the dangers of the Obama administration’s plan for our school students.

Please go to the following link to read my 3.18.11 article entitled “Taxpayers, Grab Your Wallets” --

http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/3-local/251-taxpayers-grab-your-wallets

This explains how terribly expensive the implementation of CCS/RTTT will be for the states.

Not only has the federal government spent $100 Billion (Stimulus), $350 Million for development of assessment tests, $4.35 Billion for RTTT (2010), and $1.35 Billion for RTTT (2011); but the states are going to be left with huge expenditures as they try to implement the online assessments, teacher training, national curriculum, and the national database.

I have asked myself a million times, “Why have the fiscally conservative Congressmen and conservative news media not been vocal about trying to defeat CCS/RTTT even though I and other people have done everything possible to reach them with fact-based articles?” I believe I have the answer.

The Obama administration thought up a scheme to silence the Republicans who normally would have been the ones to oppose this massive takeover of the public schools by the federal government.

The White House/USDOE decided to “divide and conquer” the conservative Republicans. If the Administration could get the Republicans to think CCS/RTTT was going to help raise academic achievement among students, then who would speak out against that? Nobody.

(1) The first thing the Administration did was to glorify charter schools, and I believe they used Davis Guggenheim (director of Waiting for Superman) to do it. The theme of his very popular movie is to glorify charters as only Hollywood can do. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grants helped to publicize this movie at the Los Angeles Film Festival and across the country.

Please consider Congressman Darrell Issa’s report on 8.26.10 to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Public Relations and Propaganda Initiatives.” [http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/08/16/issas-report-on-obamas-first ]

In this report on pp. 9-12, we learn that the Obama administration is accused of doing the following:

Analysis: The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications firm of the White House is unlawful. Using a government email account and government personnel and resources to host a call urging artists and arts groups to support the President’s agenda is a clear violation of federal law and the Hatch Act. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for representatives of the White House, NEA and CNCS to formally ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the President’s agenda because many of these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods.

It is my contention that film director Davis Guggenheim (director of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth) and recently Waiting for Superman may have been present during the conference call that took place on 8.10.09. In this call, U. S. Government and White House staffers pressured the 75 members of the art and entertainment community to promote Obama’s agenda “by creating art consistent with the goals of United We Serve.”

At the end of the call, the participants were reminded of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) federal grants ($155 million for FY 2009) and the fact that “each grant dollar typically generates up to seven times more in matching funds.” Three days after the conference call, 21 people from the arts community who had been recipients of the NEA grants endorsed the Obama agenda.

I believe that the Obama administration used Waiting for Superman to push its charter school initiative on the American people, partly to tamp down any concerns by the Republicans over CCS/RTTT.

Republicans basically love charter schools; but what they do not understand is that the Obama model of charters is completely different from the charters that most of us conservatives support. We want charter schools that offer deep academic curriculum and set high standards for students. The Obama Administration envisions charters that are themed charter schools (e.g., gay, environmental, Muslim, social justice) that can be used to indoctrinate students into the Obama agenda.

(2) The second ploy the Administration decided to use in order to “divide and conquer” the Republicans was to vilify the teachers’ unions. Of course, nearly all of us Republicans are opposed to teachers’ unions; and we all want to get rid of poor teachers and reward good teachers. At least that sounds good, doesn’t it?

What the Obama Administration did, however, is to use this wedge issue to force their agenda into the schools. If teachers’ pay, evaluations, and contracts are tied to how well their students do on the national assessments, then every teacher will be forced to teach the national curriculum each and every day in his classroom. Voila! You have the] national indoctrination of America’s public school children.

Following are various articles that contain very important information to guide you when considering the dangerous ramifications of the takeover of the public schools by the Obama administration.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything that I can do to help you in your efforts to bring the authority over our public schools back to the state and local level.

Donna Garner

wgarner1@hot.rr.com

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

NORTH TEXAS NAVIGATOR NEWS

2.14.11 -- “Let’s Get Off the National Standards Train” -- by Henry Burke & Donna Garner

http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/4-national/206-lets-get-off-the-national-standards-train

Let’s pose a question. If you wanted to “sell” something that a number of people did not need, how would you do it? You might try setting up a contest where everyone competes for a significant financial prize. After all, Americans love to compete, especially when money goes to the winner.

Here are the contest details: The competitors are strapped for cash; the competitors must give up some of their prized possessions in order to qualify; and the game organizers do not announce all of the rules until the game is well underway. How fair does this sound?

This is exactly what Barack Obama and U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have done with Common Core Standards (CCS) and Race to the Top (RTTT).

Under Obama and Duncan, the federal takeover of our schools is rapidly spreading across our nation.

It is not too late for the "contestants" to quit playing this game. States that have taken no federal Common Core Standards (CCS) money can drop out of the game. Even states that have received some of their Race to the Top (RTTT) funds could make a plea to Congress to pass a "hold harmless" clause that would allow these states some relief.

The questions that states must answer are, "Do we really want the federal government taking control of our public schools? How much will it cost the cash-strapped taxpayers of our state to make up for the lost CCS/RTTT federal funding?”

(CONTINUED AT: http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/4-national/206-lets-get-off-the-national-standards-train )

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

EDUCATIONNEWS.ORG

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=100137

9.16.10 -- “Am I a Wacko Now?” by Donna Garner

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

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=105680

9.1.11 -- “The Obama Administration’s Bullying Agenda” -- by Henry W. Burke and Donna Garner

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

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1243

3.18.11 -- “Schools Are Failing To Keep Students Safe” -- by Tracy Russo -- U. S. Department of Justice

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

11.6.10 -- Link to New York Times article, “In Efforts to End Bullying, Some See Agenda”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07bully.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=education

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

http://www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/108436.html

2.24.11 -- “The Race to the Top Scheme” by Henry W. Burke and Donna Garner

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

http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/107827.html

2.16.11 -- “Making Texas the Laughing Stock of the Nation” -- by Donna Garner

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

http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/32-editorials/207-obama-trying-to-do-an-end-run-around-texas-citizens

2.15.11 -- “Obama Trying To Do an End Run Around Texas Citizens” -- by Donna Garner

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

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=104319

12.10.10 -- “Obama’s National Data Base Is Upon Us” by Donna Garner

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

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=103613

11.29.10 -- “Time To Resurrect My Article on Marc Tucker” by Donna Garner

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

http://www.educationnews.org/headlines/151603.html

3.18.11 -- “The Further Dumbing Down of America: Marc Tucker, GED” by Donna Garner

Donna Garner

wgarner1@hot.rr.com

tagged

Arne Duncan,

Donna Garner,

Obama,

US Rep John Kline,

comm,