To: Anyone who is concerned about CSCOPE’s origin and content

Feb 25, 2013 by

cscopeFrom:  Donna Garner

Date:  2.25.13

 

MY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

 

I have been looking back in my extensive computer files to find documentation that explains that CSCOPE is tied to many Type #2 advocates. (Please go to the bottom of this e-mail to see the definitions of Type #1 and Type #2.)

 

I have put this information all into one e-mail in the hopes that someone with more time than I have available can go through these entities  and tie them together in a logical and chronological pathway.  [The information below is not in chronological order, but at least I have tried to post it all in one place.]

 

The bottom line is that Common Core Standards and CSCOPE are definitely Type #2.  Common Core Standards is trying to purchase CSCOPE.  Both have an agenda to indoctrinate school students, are tied to many other Type #2 entities, and are slowly but surely distorting the way this generation and future generations are meant to think.

 

I personally do not believe CSCOPE will ever be “fixed” and usable by our Texas public school students because it is totally infused with Type #2.  Stripping out all the Type #2 lessons would be impossible.

 

One thing that has not been highlighted enough is the fact that local taxpayers are paying CSCOPE huge amounts of money; and now because of the pressure exerted against CSCOPE, TESCCC/CSCOPE is telling the local school districts that it is their responsibility to check through the CSCOPE lessons to make sure they are appropriate. As if locals could possibly read through 1,600 lessons on CSCOPE’s digitized website pages that are so scrunched up with poorly formatted and hard-to-read text that nobody in his right mind could stand to read all those lessons…  Besides that, who has time to check through all the outside links that CSCOPE has placed in its 1,600 lessons to which students are directed?  Many of these links contain anti-American/pro-Islam information and other Type #2 biased articles.

 

Also, where is the rebate in funding that TESCCC/CSCOPE should give the local school districts that have recently decided under pressure by the public not to use the materials in their entirety?  Why should districts be using our tax dollars to pay for portions of CSCOPE that are not even being used?

 

The real truth is that CSCOPE is not needed – never was needed. The curriculum standards for Texas (TEKS) are posted publicly on the Texas Education Agency website.  Because the core curriculum (English, Science, Social Studies, and Math) TEKS are specific for each grade level/each course, all teachers have to do is to look at the grade level/course that they teach, set up an overall plan for the school year to cover the TEKS, and then devise curriculum units that group the TEKS into teachable lessons.  I have even demonstrated how to do this in the following article:

 

1.24.13 – “Example of How To Plan an English Lesson” – by Donna Garner —

http://educationviews.org/burkburnett-isd-loosening-cscope-requirements/

 

 

PHIL SCHLECHTY CENTER – TASA’S ACADEMY FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND VISIONING INSTITUTE

 

I received the following from a state school board member in another state back in 10.31.07. She was trying to warn us here in Texas because of the influence Phil Schlechty was building in our state and across the country.  Sure enough, it is the Phil Schlechty Center’s model that TASA is pushing in its Academy for Transformational Leadership through which many of our Texas school administrators are trained — TASA 2012-13 — http://www.tasanet.org/2012-13-academy-for-transformational-leadership-region-six

 

From school board member in another state:

 

Donna, I have read nearly everything Phil Schlechty (Phil Schlechty Center, Louisville) has written including 3 of 4 of his books, and it makes no sense.  He is, in my humble opinion, an Effective Schools type snake oil salesman, endorsed in 1989 by Ark. Gov. Bill Clinton.  Schlechty’s whole scheme is built on 10 principles which revolve around an idea called WOW, which stands for Working on the Work. He says student’s “work” or schoolwork needs to be interesting to engage them and then everything will fall into place. 

 

What I think his leadership academy REALLY is about is extracting money from school systems to send their folks to his “leadership” courses, brainwashing school boards into thinking they are there only to follow the superintendent blindly; and to sell the schools on associated goodies like various technology.  His group is pushed by SREB, Bellsouth, Columbia Group, and the Ala. A+ Foundation/Best Practices Center…

 

 

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

In response, I wrote this article:

 

“Another Wasted Report Written at Taxpayers’ Expense”

by Donna Garner

1.27.09

According to the Houston Chronicle (1.26.09), “Some 3,500 school administrators from across the state, including about 800 superintendents, are expected to weigh in on the report this week during a three-day Texas Association of School Administrators conference that began Monday in Austin.”

This report to which this article refers is called Creating a New Vision for Public Education in Texas.  It has been produced by a group of superintendents (names listed at the bottom of this e-mail), and it is supposed to drive the legislation that gets passed by the Texas Legislature in this 81st Legislative Session.

Phil Schlecty, Lauren Resnick, and Doug Reeves are behind this Visioning Institute report (more of my comments later in this e-mail).  These three are big supporters of constructivism which focuses more on project-based learning than on the mastery of basic skills that form the true basis for higher-level thinking skills. It is the education philosophy of people such as these three [Type #2] that has dumbed down our public schools for the last fifteen years.  In other words, it is their philosophy that has gotten us into this mess.  Why is Texas turning to them for advice?

 

(And why is Texas turning to Willard Daggett and Mike Moses who are also on the TASA/TASB convention schedule?  For my comments about these two “education experts,” please refer to my 1.26.09 article or write to me offline for a copy.)

 

Throughout the Visioning report, the statements sound more like a feel-good, fuzzy, pie-in-the-sky, Utopian, “wish list.”  It is discouraging to think that taxpayers’ dollars paid for this group of superintendents to meet and produce a document that contains almost no solid, practical ideas for authentic school reform (e.g., consistent discipline of students, knowledge-based, academic curricula, emergent reading programs that have proven, longitudinal success with real kids in real classrooms, etc.).

 

The basic idea of the Visioning report is that teachers should just let students have fun in school using all of their tech toys, producing projects and portfolios that will be assessed subjectively by locals. This will be the way that schools throughout the state will be rated. Students will automatically love school and will graduate, going out into the world as real 21st Century scholars!  Not so!

 

In my opinion, the most objectionable parts of this report are “The New Learning Standards” (p. 16) and “Assessments for Learning” (p. 19).  Nowhere in the section on standards does it say that they should be (1) explicit, (2) grade-level-specific, (3) knowledge-based, (4) academic, (5) objectively measurable.

 

If these recommendations in this report were followed by our Texas Legislature, our public school students would spend even less time mastering basic skills and would be assessed almost totally through subjective means. In a society where graft, corruption, lying, and cheating have become almost commonplace, how foolish for us to think that schools would hold themselves accountable to an honest standard.

 

P. 16 — Excerpts from “The New Learning Standards”

 

III.d Assessment should be continuous and comprehensive using multiple tools, rubrics, and processes, and incorporate teacher judgments about student work and performance as well as the judgment of others, when needed.

III.e Assessment should not be limited to nor even rely substantially on standardized tests that are primarily multiple-choice paper/pencil or on similar online instruments that can be machine-scored.

III.f Standardized tests should be used primarily to identify hard-to-learn/difficult-to-teach concepts to differentiate learning experiences and focus attention on the more systemic curricular issues involving student performance. Assessments that rely exclusively on quantifiable information remove from the teacher and school informed judgment prerogatives that are necessary to be timely and productive and deny the human aspect of the daily interactions teachers have with students and each other.

P. 24 — “Accountability for Learning”

This section expresses a desire for almost total subjectivity in assessments.  I understand the vilification of the TAKS tests; but for the last ten years [since July 1997 when the “old” Type #2 TEKS were adopted], Texas has not had the right type of standards upon which these tests were based. If our standards are teachable in a year’s time, if they are clear and explicit, if they move students into real rigor, if they grow in depth and complexity from grade level to grade level, and if they lead students to college and workplace readiness, then really good, fair, and objective tests can be built upon them.  [Our new TEKS,(adopted since May 2008, in English , Science, Social Studies, and Math are Type #1 and follow the right type of education philosophy.]

The superintendents represented in this group obviously hate the TAKS tests because they represent a form of accountability.  In all fairness, the present ELAR-TAKS tests are unfair; and the scores are manipulated at will.  However, with the new and improved ELAR-TEKS passed in May 2008, we can expect to see far better TAKS tests emerge, including the end-of-course tests IF all of the new tests are indeed built upon the new ELAR-TEKS standards.

Excerpts from this section:

IV.j Standardized tests (including criterion-referenced tests) cannot measure with precision profound learning.

IV.k Much for which schools need to be accountable will require subjective measures, and the decision about what and how to measure is admittedly one of the most subjective.

IV.l Accountability systems are guided by the fact that to attach any matter highly valued by students, teachers, school leaders, or schools/districts to any single measure such as a standardized test, corrupts the test and the integrity of what it measures as well as the accountability it was intended to provide.

IV.p As single measurements, standardized norm-referenced tests, criterion referenced state tests, aptitude tests, end-of-course exams, other oral and written examinations, student performances/projects/portfolios, regular teacher assessments, and grades each give a piece of the picture; and used incombination, can provide a more holistic view. However, if a high-stakes standardized test is given a preponderanceof weight, it will become the assessment that really counts, others notwithstanding.

IV.q Standardized tests to which high stakes are attached can become substitutes for the learning standards themselves and result in “teaching to the test” rather than teaching for attainment of the standard.

IV.r Consequences (sanctions) should be associated with a performance assessment only if the assessment uses a combination of measures including sample examinations and other student performances to ascertain the degree to which the learning level is outside the variance allowed.

Page 35 contains what this Visioning group wants the Legislature to pass:

Legislative Initiatives Required

These principles and premises and the resulting vision involve major transformations throughout all aspects of public elementary and secondary education. The initial changes in laws and rules should include the following:

A. Transform the current litany of overly detailed curriculum specifications to frameworks that identify at the state level the most important topics for the new learning standards in a way that leaves room for local communities to make decisions about the details.

B. Transform the current assessment system that is cumbersome and focused on a series of snapshots for accountability to a system of multiple types of assessment that satisfies various state and district needs but has a primary focus on informing instruction and design of work for students. Invest in piloting assessment alternatives tostandardized testing.

C. Transform the Texas Education Code from a litany of overly prescriptive regulations and a myriad of practices imposed on the schools that restrict local prerogatives, distract attention, and use resources, particularly misuse of time, to a streamlined compendium of major policies that support the new learning standards and focus schools on their main purpose.

D. Transform the accountability system from one based primarily on standardized test scores with counterproductive high-stakes that result in mediocrity at best, to a system that enables excellence through inspirational standards, comprehensive review processes that ensure accuracy in reporting levels of learning, outstanding moral leadership, and a culture of commitment.

E. Transform the Texas Education Agency from an organization that is totally focused on compliance and enforcement to one that carries out its compliance function as secondary to providing leadership and technical assistance to school districts liberating them to innovate and focus on children and ensure they are accountable totheir families and communities.

F. Transform the state governance structure from a system that locates inordinate power in the governor, providing little or no insulation of schools from political expediency, to a system that has clear lines of authority and accountability and provides for general oversight of the agency. Clarify the role of the state board of education and its authority related to the core business of schools.

G. Transform the public education system by allowing some “trailblazing” districts to advance this vision. The Legislature should authorize the establishment of a network of at least 10 school districts broadly representative of the state and exempted from inhibiting laws and regulations.These districts may then design and lead a piloting endeavor to transform themselves in ways that reflect the spirit and intent of the principles and supporting premises proposed by the Texas Public Education Visioning Institute.

Please read pp. 36 – 37 to see how the Visioning Institute got started.  Phil Schlecty, Lauren Resnick, and Doug Reeves were behind this report.

Excerpts from this section:

The catalyst for bringing these ideas forward was Keith Sockwell, retired superintendent of Northwest ISD, and, at the time, with SHW Group LLP, an architectural firm in Plano…The only stipulations SHW Group made, through its Chief Executive Officer Gary Keep, were to take the long-term view, think creatively, follow through, and ask the participating superintendents’ school districts to support the effort by paying their travel costs and a minimal fee, and, more importantly, supporting their commitment and the time to make it happen…

Sockwell contacted John Horn, retired superintendent, Mesquite ISD, and now a Senior Associate with the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform. He has worked with several Texas school districts and has been facilitating planning and goal setting sessions for leaders of the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA). Along with Frank Kelly, director of educational facilities planning, SHW Group, Sockwell and Horn met with Johnny Veselka, Executive Director of TASA, who saw the need for such a visioning effort, eagerly agreed, and with the TASA Executive Committee’s unanimous support, obtained approval of the Texas Leadership Center to be the fiscal agent. TASA would provide coordination and other staff support. SHW Group agreed to pay for facilitation, materials, cost of resource speakers, and publication of the initial draft product that would be used to foster intentional conversations around the agenda promoted by the proposed principles and premises. The Visioning Institute then became a reality. The Institute contracted with the Schlecthy Center to help design and facilitate the work sessions…

The superintendents invited to participate were those with whom Sockwell had been visiting, and who, for the most part, were SHW Group clients…

The Visioning Institute had its first meeting with participants on September 6–7, 2006, and met for seven sessions during 2007 with an additional work session in November and the most recent meeting in January 2008. The Design Team continues to meet and additional sessions are likely to orchestrate the next steps.

P. 40 — Participating Superintendents, Superintendent District

[It is disturbing to notice that many of these superintendents’ wasteful, unethical, and/or illegal activities have landed them on the front pages of our Texas newspapers…]

David Anthony Cypress-Fairbanks ISD

Cathy Bryce Highland Park ISD

Gene Burton Rockwall ISD

Deborah Cron Weatherford ISD

Thomas Crowe McKinney ISD

Ralph Draper Spring ISD

Robert Duron San Antonio ISD

John Folks Northside ISD

Alton Frailey Katy ISD

Greg Gibson Crowley ISD

Annette Griffin Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD

Jim Hawkins Killeen ISD

Michael Hinojosa Dallas ISD

Rick Howard Comanche ISD

Mark Jackson Burleson ISD

Melody Johnson Fort Worth ISD

Duncan Klussmann Spring Branch ISD

Richard McReavy Waller ISD

Leonard Merrell (Retired) Katy ISD

Richard A. Middleton North East ISD

Vernon Newsom Mansfield ISD

Dawson Orr Wichita Falls ISD

Douglas W. Otto Plano ISD

Thomas Randle Lamar CISD

Rick Reedy Frisco ISD

Jerry Roy Lewisville ISD

Karen G. Rue Northwest ISD

Rod Schroder Amarillo ISD

Greg Smith Clear Creek ISD

Barbara Sultis Goose Creek CISD

Jeff Turner Coppell ISD

Stephen Waddell Birdville ISD

Ryder Warren Marble Falls ISD

Nola Wellman Eanes ISD

Leland Williams Dickinson ISD

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

 

Donna Garner’s comments to a leading policymaker on 1.29.09 — You and I share similar beliefs about the importance of knowledge-based, academic standards that are tested largely by objective measures.  Anything less than that allows unscrupulous individuals to cheat/manipulate and also impacts the classroom by lowering the academic standards. Anyway you cut it, a child must know basic, foundational information before he can ever do higher-level thinking.  People such as the Visioning group just don’t seem to understand that. The skills that a child needs in the 21st century are the same, basic skills he needed in the 19th and 20th centuries.  He must be able to read and read well, thus allowing him to access the great books and ideas of the world.  He must be able to write, speak, and spell well.  Those will never change. Setting explicit goals to motivate students to learn those skills and then measuring those goals is the only way to make sure students actually master them. That is human nature.

 

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

 

3RD L CORP OF NEW YORK – CSCOPE

 

From David St. Martin – 2.23.13 —

 

A little more research into 3rd L Corp (CSCOPE website design and curriculum content developer):

 

Performance Learning Systems Inc. (PLS) is a comprehensive educational-services company since 1969. PLS has a wholly-owned subsidiary, 3rd Learning (CSCOPE’s 3rd L Corp of New York).

 

Note one 3rd L partner/client is WHO Government Solutions LLC. Todd R. Howe is PLS President, and Lobbyist. Mr. Howe served in the Office of Governor Mario M. Cuomo.  At the U.S. Department of Labor Howe served as Deputy Chief of Staff in the office of Secretary Robert B. Reich.

 

Teacher Training by PLS: (Sample)

 

Cultural Competence: A Transformative Journey™ Online

Equips experienced and beginning educators with the knowledge, awareness, and skills they need to work in today’s multicultural classrooms. Participants will have opportunities to critically examine diversity in classroom settings where privilege and power impact educational outcomes and to understand the role of educators as agents of change for social justice. Learners will use the framework “know yourself, your students, and your practice” to better understand their roles in student achievement. By exploring diversity through multiple perspectives, participants will gain insight into how their own cultural lenses impact their relationships with students and families.

 

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

 

ED GATE EVALUATING CSCOPE – ED GATE AND JES & CO. JOIN TOGETHER – ED GATE, JES & CO., ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS NETWORK ALL TIED TO COMMON CORE STANDARDS

 

[2.23.13 — From Donna Garner to Tex. Rep. Steve Toth:  Do you see why we do not want EdGate evaluating CSCOPE?  EdGate is using a matrix of comparison that is tied to Common Core Standards – Type #2 all the way.  – Donna Garner]

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/K12CorrelationServices/prweb10352200.htm

 

EdGate and JES & Co. Announce Partnership

Correlation services by EdGate Correlation Services now available through JES & Co.

Gig Harbor, WA (PRWEB) January 29, 2013

EdGate Correlation Services and JES & Co. announced today that they are partnering to offer correlation services to JES & Co.’s Achievement Standards Network (ASN) subscribers. Many of JES & Co.’s ASN users need help correlating resources to learning objectives such as the Common Core State Standards and want to make sure that ASN uniform resource identifiers (URIs) are used. EdGate will provide these ASN URIs in their correlations, allowing their customers to use the standards data openly in their education offerings. This partnership will make it easy for publishers to obtain a quality correlation and at the same time know that education stakeholders can make an association between content and assessments without paying for the exposure of learning objective identifiers.

 

 

Sandra Schugren, General Manager of EdGate Correlation Services, said “JES & Co has done great work in developing technology and partnerships to advance standards-based education. EdGate is very excited to join forces with JES & Co. Our partnership will provide more sophisticated and seamless integration of content and standards alignment into the changing digital classroom.”

 

 

“I’ve known Sandra for many years and we have always had mutual respect for each other’s work,” explained Diny Golder, JES & Co.’s executive director. “Using ASN data in EdGate’s correlations helps the ASN’s widespread distribution, EdGate’s customer base and of course the education community that needs to blend open source and proprietary education content.”

 

About EdGate
Founded in 1997, EdGate Correlation Services is committed to delivering the highest level of service and data products to educational publishers. EdGate’s Standards Repository tracks standards from around the world and includes all subjects for U.S. states and Common Core standards correlation, as well as Common Core standards adopted by individual states. EdGate’s subject area experts align material from 200 publishers and content providers, including Apex Learning, Films Media Group, Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, Texas Instruments, NBC News, Library of Congress and the Smithsonian. EdGate also manages the powerful Curriculum Matrix® product, which is a teacher-friendly curriculum management tool. For more information, please visit http://www.edgate.com or http://correlation.edgate.com.

 

About JES & Co.

 

JES & Co., a publicly funded 501(c)(3) education research/development organization, is a world leader in the development and deployment of education programs based on open standards. With over 20 years of experience in interoperability and portability of educational resources, organizations around the world come to JES & Co. for leadership and guidance. For more information visit: http://www.JESandCo.org.

 

 

About the Achievement Standards Network

 

The Achievement Standards Network (ASN) is an open framework for the representation of educational expectations. The ASN provides for: (1) the text of an educational expectation; (2) rich metadata describing that expectation and its context; and (3) a description of relationships between the expectation being described and other related expectations. The ASN provides both a resolution service that returns machine readable text and associated metadata, and Web Services that ease the network distribution of the achievement standards data. JES & Co. is the home for ASN-US, an open source repository of state and national education standards. Visit the ASN at: asn.jesandco.org.

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/K12CorrelationServices/prweb10352200.htm

 

EdGate and JES & Co. Announce Partnership

Correlation services by EdGate Correlation Services now available through JES & Co.

Gig Harbor, WA (PRWEB) January 29, 2013

EdGate Correlation Services and JES & Co. announced today that they are partnering to offer correlation services to JES & Co.’s Achievement Standards Network (ASN) subscribers. Many of JES & Co.’s ASN users need help correlating resources to learning objectives such as the Common Core State Standards and want to make sure that ASN uniform resource identifiers (URIs) are used. EdGate will provide these ASN URIs in their correlations, allowing their customers to use the standards data openly in their education offerings. This partnership will make it easy for publishers to obtain a quality correlation and at the same time know that education stakeholders can make an association between content and assessments without paying for the exposure of learning objective identifiers.

 

 

Sandra Schugren, General Manager of EdGate Correlation Services, said “JES & Co has done great work in developing technology and partnerships to advance standards-based education. EdGate is very excited to join forces with JES & Co. Our partnership will provide more sophisticated and seamless integration of content and standards alignment into the changing digital classroom.”

 

 

“I’ve known Sandra for many years and we have always had mutual respect for each other’s work,” explained Diny Golder, JES & Co.’s executive director. “Using ASN data in EdGate’s correlations helps the ASN’s widespread distribution, EdGate’s customer base and of course the education community that needs to blend open source and proprietary education content.”

 

About EdGate
Founded in 1997, EdGate Correlation Services is committed to delivering the highest level of service and data products to educational publishers. EdGate’s Standards Repository tracks standards from around the world and includes all subjects for U.S. states and Common Core standards correlation, as well as Common Core standards adopted by individual states. EdGate’s subject area experts align material from 200 publishers and content providers, including Apex Learning, Films Media Group, Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, Texas Instruments, NBC News, Library of Congress and the Smithsonian. EdGate also manages the powerful Curriculum Matrix® product, which is a teacher-friendly curriculum management tool. For more information, please visit http://www.edgate.com or http://correlation.edgate.com.

 

 

About JES & Co.

 

JES & Co., a publicly funded 501(c)(3) education research/development organization, is a world leader in the development and deployment of education programs based on open standards. With over 20 years of experience in interoperability and portability of educational resources, organizations around the world come to JES & Co. for leadership and guidance. For more information visit: http://www.JESandCo.org.

 

 

About the Achievement Standards Network

 

The Achievement Standards Network (ASN) is an open framework for the representation of educational expectations. The ASN provides for: (1) the text of an educational expectation; (2) rich metadata describing that expectation and its context; and (3) a description of relationships between the expectation being described and other related expectations. The ASN provides both a resolution service that returns machine readable text and associated metadata, and Web Services that ease the network distribution of the achievement standards data. JES & Co. is the home for ASN-US, an open source repository of state and national education standards. Visit the ASN at: asn.jesandco.org.

 

 

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

Donna Garner’s comments to Tex. Rep. Steve Toth on 2.21.13:

 

We do not need any group from outside Texas to evaluate our standards because the rest of the other states have bought into Type #2. Texas has not. Our new TEKS are Type #1. To control our own destiny, we need to put all instructional materials under the SBOE adoption process where our own Texas evaluators (e.g., Neal Frey of Educational Research Analysts) can make sure that the IM’s are in alignment with the Type #1 TEKS.  Because the STAAR/EOC’s in Grades 3 – 8 (2011-12) have just been scored in the last couple of weeks, nobody knows for sure whether CSCOPE has contributed to student success or failure on these tests.  In the Waco area, CSCOPE certainly does not appear to have helped on the STAAR/EOC’s.

 

We certainly do not need outsiders coming into our state, using their Type #2 philosophy (which they admit is tied to Common Core Standards) to evaluate our TEKS.

 

One thing that always looks suspicious (such as EdGate does) is under “About Us” on their website;  they never actually name names of specific people or who are behind EdGate.

 

I will do some more checking on EdGate and will hopefully have more information to share with you later.

 

Blessings,

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

 

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

 

2.23.13 — Sent to Donna Garner from a member of an education list serve:

 

BILL GATES MICROSOFT, DELL, DINY GOLDER-DARDIS, GLRC, ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS NETWORK, GATEWAY TO 21ST CENTURY SKILLS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, JES & CO. – ALL TIED TOGETHER

 

 

http://www.jesandco.org/newsletters/91-issue-1-glrc

 

Microsoft joins partnership:  http://www.jesandco.org/component/content/article/84-jes-a-co-announces-microsoft-as-a-premier-sponsor-of-the-global-learning-resource-connection-glrc

 

  • The Gateway to 21st Century Skills, the world’s oldest and the largest open access digital library of teaching and learning resources correlated to state and national curriculum standards. The Gateway is sponsored by the National Education Association (NEA) and is provided at no cost to all teachers and educators worldwide

 

  • The Achievement Standards Network (ASN) which enable states and countries to collect curriculum objectives and make them freely available for educators’ and publishers’ use

 

  • The Open Metadata Registry, an open source service where education ministries, libraries, and publishers can share vocabularies, schemes, schemas and ontologies

 

  • A set of tools and services to assist in the creation and use of GLRC solutions

 

“We are excited that Microsoft has become a Premier Sponsor of the GLRC and that Microsoft is taking such a leadership role in changing the way education resources are discovered and shared around the world,” explained Diny Golder, Executive Director of JES & Co. “As active members of the IMS Global Learning Consortium, Microsoft and JES & Co. share the goal of defining and using interoperability standards to build the next generation of educational systems and products.”

 

 

Diny Golder-Dardis designed the logo for P21:        http://www.p21.org/component/content/article/34-route-21

 

 

Another important link for Diny Golder-Dardis:  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/job-corps-dell-academy-program-preps-students-for-the-21st-century-74311262.html

 

Jobs Corps & Dell Academy!  This woman is very connected but has remained completely in the background.  She connects to P21, Gates, NEA, Job Corps, Dell Academy, Achievement Stds Network, GLRC, & Open Metadata Registry and who knows what else since no one even knows she exists.

 

TUCSON, Ariz., Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ — Despite recent economic setbacks, market analysts agree that the critical shortage of skilled workers in high tech fields is increasing. To help address the crisis, the United States Department of Labor and Tucson-based JES & Co., a non-profit education organization, will provide critically needed technology programs and 21st century skills training to applicants in Job Corps sites around the country beginning in December. Participants in the innovative program are Dell Computer Corporation and Quantum Leap. The Dell Academy, developed and administered by JES & Co., is currently deployed in schools around the country and provides training in the internationally recognized industry-standard CompTIA A+ Computer Repair Technician certification program. In addition, the Dell Academy includes supplementary courseware and resources that give students practical, real-world experience in troubleshooting and repairing Dell computers. Quantum Leap, a minority owned and operated company specializing in information technology consulting, is providing the community outreach and job placement for the comprehensive package of instructional resources and services. With a decade of experience in workforce development and job placement programs with non-profit agencies and federally funded programs, Quantum Leap expects to place at least 65% of the course graduates initially, with others pursuing additional training and certifications. “We needed a complete program, not

 

just a stack of books,” said Diny Golder-Dardis, JES & Co.’s Executive Director and developer of the Dell Academy. “The 21st Century Skills that employers are demanding today turn book knowledge into Jobs.” Anita Cardella, Director of the South Bronx Job Corps Center, couldn’t agree more. “The Dell Academy and the additional support and services provided by JES & Co. and Quantum Leap are the key to helping young people find and keep living wage employment, or go on to pursue additional training and education,” she said, adding that ResCare, Inc., which manages centers around the country, will phase in other Job Corps sites under the three year agreement. For further information, contact Diny Golder-Dardis, Executive Director of JES & Co., +1-520-881-3317. Visit JES & Co.’s Web Site at: http://www.jesandco.org

 

 

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

BILL AYERS AND LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND

 

“Bill Ayers and Linda Darling-Hammond Closely Linked”

by Donna Garner

2.10.13

 

If we ever wondered about the relationship between Bill Ayers and Linda Darling-Hammond, the following article written by Bill Ayers on 11.19.12 should make it very clear that they are very closely linked.

 

Please remember that Linda Darling-Hammond is one of the authors who wrote CSCOPE (Ector County ISD, Session 1, Slide 7: http://www.ectorcountyisd.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=231 ).

 

 

In the following post, Bill Ayers asked Obama to replace U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan with Linda Darling-Hammond.  At the end of the article, Ayers put a  link where people could sign a petition to send to Obama; 810 people signed the petition.

 

How do we know Bill Ayers wrote the following article? Here is the link that proves Bill Ayers wrote it because he is clearly one of the authors behind the Journal of Educational Controversy, Woodring College of Education, Western Washington University —  http://www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/cep/ejournal/v003n001/Authors.shtml  — Donna Garner

 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2012

Bill Ayers’ Petition — President Obama: Replace Arne Duncan with Linda Darling-Hammond

 

Excerpt from this article:

 

Bill Ayers argues:

It is time to set American education on that course, and a strong step in that direction would be appointing Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond as Secretary of Education. A teacher and recognized scholar/researcher for decades, Dr. Darling-Hammond will not be swayed by big money or political expediency or the latest fads. She will be independent, professional and principled. We can then return to the precious but fragile ideal that must power education in a democracy: Every human being is of incalculable value, and the fullest development of all is the condition for the full development of each.

To read Bill Ayers’ full article, please go to:
http://journalofeducationalcontroversy.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-ayers-petition-president-obama.html

 

 

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

 

Here is a link to a 2 minute, 48 second YouTube in which Bill Ayers explains how he plans to take over America through public school classrooms:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt9d-eRFql0&feature=youtu.be

 

“If we want change to come, we would do well not to look at the sites of power we have no access to…” Ayers says. “We have absolute access to the community, the school, the neighborhood, the street, the classroom, the workplace, the farm, the shop.”

 

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

 

1.6.13 — Info. on Linda Darling-Hammond, Bill Ayers, Lucy Calkins, CSCOPE, Common Core Standards – from Donna Garner:

 

Linda Darling-Hammond is listed in CSCOPE materials (Ector County ISD website) as one of those who developed CSCOPE.  Darling-Hammond is Obama’s education consultant who helped to establish the parameters for the Common Core Standards and is shaping the national assessments.

 

Both Darling-Hammond and Bill Ayers have close ties with each other. Darling-Hammond is the past president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and Bill Ayers was elected in 2008 as the vice-president of the curriculum division of AERA:   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Darling-Hammond  ) and

( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-ayers ).

 

Linda Darling-Hammond and Bill Ayers are closely associated with Columbia Teachers’ College where the social justice agenda is heavily enmeshed throughout the College.  Lucy Calkins, a proponent of the discredited whole language method, is constantly highlighted at CSCOPE meetings and on CSCOPE websites; and Calkins is also heavily associated with Columbia Teachers’ College.

 

 

Here is the link to Bill Ayers’ bio:  http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

 

 

Here is a link to a 2 minute, 48 second YouTube in which Ayers explains how he plans to take over America through public school classrooms:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt9d-eRFql0&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

 

 

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

 

“Obama’s Linda Darling-Hammond and Her Failed School”

by Donna Garner

4.16.10

 

Early in Obama’s presidency, it looked as if he was going to appoint Linda Darling-Hammond as his Secretary of Education.  Instead, Obama decided to empower Darling-Hammond to complete the federal takeover of the public schools by authorizing her to help develop the national tests (i.e., assessments).  These assessments are the centerpiece in Obama’s plan to put the federal government in charge of what gets taught each day to public school students.

 

By having national standards, national curriculum, national assessments, and a national database tying students’ scores directly to teachers’ pay and longevity, teachers will be forced to teach their students whatever is in the national standards and on the national assessments.

 

Today we see that Linda Darling-Hammond’s approach to education has failed.  The school she founded in California is to be closed because of low test scores and lack of significant improvement.

A similar charter school (Aspire) in the same district focused on academics; Darling-Hammond’s school focused on project-based learning, subjective assessments, portfolios, and  “students’ emotional and social lives.”

 

Aspire has succeeded; Linda Darling-Hammond’s school has failed.

An education expert at Stanford told me recently:

 

Let me repeat for everyone that the Charter School that Stanford runs and Linda Darling-Hammond heads up is one of the 188 schools on the California failing schools list.  It has been in existence for 6 years and has used all the most highly recommended Ed School teaching techniques like authentic assessments, group learning, and discovery.

 

 

Here is the EducationNews.org link to today’s story:   http://www.educationnews.org/educationnewstoday/89695.html

 

 

Posted below is an article from EdWeek.org, 2.23,10, that tells how Linda Darling-Hammond, supported by Obama, has been chosen to help develop the new national tests that will facilitate the complete takeover by the federal government of the public schools (all except for Texas and Alaska who refused to participate in Common Core Standards and Race to the Top).

 

Linda Darling-Hammond wants the national assessments to rely heavily on the same type of “authentic assessments, group learning, and discovery” that have caused her own charter school to flounder.

 

I have added my own comments in brackets [  ] to the EdWeek article.

 

Published Online: February 23, 2010

Experts Lay Out Vision for Future Assessments

By Catherine Gewertz

 

Washington

A group of high-powered policymakers and educators gathered here yesterday to build support for a new vision of educational assessment that is less a snapshot of students’ one-time performance and more like good instruction itself.

Led by Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond, a panel of experts outlined a comprehensive system that includes summative and formative tests of higher-order thinking skills, reflecting a marketplace that they say places increasing value on such skills.

 

[“Summative and formative tests” is another term for high-stakes, subjectively scored tests based upon the value system of the evaluator — a very disturbing way to evaluate students in this day and age of multiculturalism, political correctness, diversity, and social engineering. — Donna Garner]

 

They urged a move away from of multiple-choice tests that demand factual recall, toward the development of a set of deeper, more analytical questions, tasks, and projects that ask students to solve and discuss complex problems. One example is a problem that has been posed to Connecticut high school students: Figure out how to build a statue that could withstand the effects of acid rain, then describe, analyze, and discuss your findings.

 

[The question looks enticing, but just how would this question be scored?  With multiple-choice questions that are either right or wrong, the end score is much more accurate for comparing state-to-state, school-to-school, student-to-student.

 

On the other hand, questions based upon a rubric depend a great deal upon the opinion of the evaluator; and opinions differ from person to person.

 

Because Common Core Standards, national tests, national curriculum, and a national database definitely fall within the definition of “high-stakes testing,” it should scare parents to death to think that their child’s future will be based upon the “opinion” of some unknown evaluator.

 

I have been through the training for essay and open-ended responses (i.e., examples of subjectively scored test items), and I can tell you that it is very difficult to get two scorers to come up with the very same score.  No matter how explicit the scoring rubric is, people have different opinions, experiences, and expectations.

 

Not only are subjective assessments open to indecisiveness, but they are also much more expensive to score.  Are taxpayers going to want to pay higher taxes just so their students’ tests can be scored in a subjective way?  — Donna Garner]

 

Such assessments, Ms. Darling-Hammond said, can be “of, for, and as learning.” They can “embody” content standards, she said, not just approximate them. Because teachers would help create and score the assessments, and the assessments would be pegged to good-quality content standards, an aligned teaching-and-learning system would take shape that would help teachers adjust instruction in real time and help district and state administrators plot longer-term education strategy, the experts said.

 

Common Standards

 

The portrait of assessment, fleshed out in a paper by Ms. Darling-Hammond that draws on assessment practices in the United States and abroad, was presented at a discussion organized by two Washington-based groups, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. They have enlisted the support of 48 states [except for Texas and Alaska] to devise common content standards designed to ensure college and career readiness.

 

The common standards are an “essential” but “inadequate” step toward improving education, said Gene Wilhoit, the CCSSO’s executive director. They must be accompanied by improved assessment, new types of curriculum, and better teacher preparation and professional development, he said. Dane Linn, who oversees the common-standards work for the NGA, said a vital part of next-generation assessments is the role they must play in learning. “The assessments we end up with have to inform instruction,” he said. If they don’t change educators’ practice, he said, “then what good are they?”

 

Even though they are still in draft form, the common standards have garnered the support of President Barack Obama, who has offered a better shot at $4 billion in Race to the Top Fund economic-stimulus money to states that embrace them.

 

This week, the president proposed tying Title I education dollars to adoption of those or other standards validated as rigorous enough to ensure college readiness. A special $350 million pot of Race to the Top Fund money is reserved for the development of common assessments. Six groups, or “consortia,” of states, proposing differing approaches to assessment, have formed to compete for that money. In a private meeting after yesterday’s panel discussion, leaders of those consortia met at the CCSSO’s office to discuss ways they might work together on summative assessments. (“States Rush to Join Testing Consortia,” Feb. 3, 2010.)

 

In one more potent public symbol of the administration’s support for common standards and assessments, the top education adviser in the White House, Roberto Rodriguez, appeared at the panel discussion and urged states to use the $350 million to build “transformative” assessment systems.

 

As Congress begins reconsidering the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, with the first hearing scheduled this week, Mr. Rodriguez said the administration views college and career readiness as a key objective in that legislation, but that aim requires revamped systems of assessment, professional development, and accountability.

 

Offering a glimpse of the White House’s priorities, he said that a good assessment system will measure individual student growth over time, include multiple measures of achievement, and provide summative information to inform both instruction and state and district policy. It will also integrate results into data systems to guide instruction and be well-integrated with curriculum and professional development.

 

Inseparable Pieces

 

Robert L. Linn, a widely respected authority on assessment who spoke on the panel, said that in designing new assessments, it is important to think of them as inseparable parts of systems that include the conception of standards and curriculum. If those are fused, he said, teachers can avoid the worst versions of “teaching to the test” because the tests are actually sound reflections of what the teachers know is important. “The test is bigger and closer to what you care about,” said Mr. Linn, a distinguished professor emeritus of education at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

 

[How long has it been since Mr. Linn and all the rest of these supposed “experts” have taught real kids in real classrooms?  Texas has already tried teaching broad, generic, inexplicit, non-grade-level specific standards (1997-2008); and it did not work.  The very same people and organizations that are presently behind the national standards and tests were the same people and organizations that pressured Texas into adopting their doomed plan in 1997.

 

For ten years, our Texas students and teachers wandered around in a frustrated daze because they were confused and did not know what it was that they were supposed to teach and learn.

 

When the TAKS tests came along in 2003, then the only thing that teachers could cling to for direction was the tests themselves; and that is why they started “teaching to the test.”

 

The Common Core Standards with their subjectively scored assessments (as recommended by Linda Darling-Hammond) is the same failed system that Texas had from 1997 – 2008.  Texas learned its lesson the hard way, and our state is now on the way to real education reform through new-and-well-written explicit standards and tests that are largely objectively scored.  For good reason, Texas and Alaska have chosen not to participate in the doomed Common Core Standards/Race to the Top plan. — Donna Garner]

 

Another member of the panel, Edward Roeber, an adjunct professor of education, measurement, and quantitative methods at Michigan State University’s college of education, said new assessments must be paired with revamped teacher preparation. Part of studying to become a teacher must be learning how to use formative assessment in the classroom to guide instruction, and few teachers now receive that training, he said.

 

Mr. Roeber also addressed a key area of interest among those monitoring the debate about new assessments: the price tag. His work on a soon-to-be-published study will show, he said, that if 30 states work together to design assessments systems that embody the qualities panelists were discussing, they could be crafted for about the same cost as what states spend now on tests used for the current version of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, a figure Ms. Darling-Hammond put at $1.4 billion per year.

 

[I do not believe you can take a spoiled apple, sugar-coat it, and expect it to taste unspoiled.  Nor do I believe that subjectively scored assessments can be graded inexpensively.  My common sense tells me that it is much cheaper and faster to run a student’s objectively scored test through a Scantron machine than it would be to train and hire evaluators to read slowly and carefully through millions of student responses.

 

If test-makers really want to test comprehensive, higher-order thinking skills, multiple-choice questions can be carefully designed that require deep thought yet have right-or-wrong answers.

 

I well remember one professor whose college exams demonstrated his mastery at developing very difficult questions that required much thinking on my part, yet these questions had right-or-wrong answers.  Surely these testing companies to whom the taxpayers pay billions of dollars can come up with objectively scored questions that will evaluate a student’s ability to think deeply. — Donna Garner]

 

Vol. 29, Issue 23

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

RESOURCES FOR LEARNING — CSCOPE

 

http://educationviews.org/not-so-fast-cscope-resources-for-learning-bad-choice/

 

 

“Not So Fast, CSCOPE: Resources for Learning Bad Choice ”

by Donna Garner

2.2.13

ACTION STEP: REP. STEVE TOTH’S HB 760 — The CSCOPE Transparency Act To Ensure Consistent Oversight of Public School Curriculum – Please read Rep. Toth’s HB 760 posted toward the bottom of this page and then look at the list of House members who are joint authors and/or co-authors. We must have literally hundreds of House members sign on to this bill in order to get it out of the House Public Education Committee and to the House floor for a vote. This will take all of us contacting our House members and insisting that they support HB 760.   

 

CSCOPE HAS CONTRACTED WITH RESOURCES FOR LEARNING TO REVIEW SCIENCE MATERIALS

 

During the Texas Senate Education Committee hearing on CSCOPE last Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013, one of the CSCOPE staffers mentioned that TESCCC/CSCOPE has contracted with Resources for Learning (RFL) to do an independent review of CSCOPE Science.  Phase 1 of the RFL report was released on 11.29.12 (http://www.cscope.us/RFLReportSci.pdf ), and Phase 2 (the review of the actual CSCOPE lesson content) was begun in January 2013.

 

I would imagine that CSCOPE Science will only be RFL’s first contract and that they will be chosen to perform a similar review of the ELAR, Social Studies, and Math CSCOPE curriculum  in the near future.

 

If TESCCC/CSCOPE is going to choose Resources for Learning to help to legitimatize the CSCOPE curriculum, then we need to know more about RFL.  Are they a credible organization to do an independent review of CSCOPE, or do they have deep ties to Type #2 proponents?

 

(Please see the following article to get a clear understanding of the two types of philosophies of education – Type #1 and Type #2:  http://educationviews.org/to-gripers-let-new-plan-for-texas-public-schools-continue/ )

 

 

REP. TOTH’S HB 760 MUCH BETTER PLAN

 

When you get through reading the following information, you will see that RFL is NOT an independent nor qualified choice to review CSCOPE and that what we need is the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education to be charged with the responsibility of putting CSCOPE through the complete textbook (i.e., instructional materials) adoption process. This process involves the public release of all CSCOPE content (except tests and keys before they are administered) so that concerned citizens can submit their evaluations through public hearings.  The next step after that is for the SBOE members to prepare a list of errors/inappropriate content that the CSCOPE publishers must correct or pay a big penalty fine.

 

THE RESOURCES FOR LEARNING TEAM

 

Who is on the Resources for Learning team?  http://resourcesforlearning.net/about/staff.php

 

LINDA WURZBACH – PRESIDENT OF RFL

Linda Wurzbach is the President of Resources for Learning. She used to work for the Council of Chief School Officers which is closely tied to Obama’s Common Core Standards.  She graduated from the University of Texas, taught in the Austin ISD, and worked for the Texas Education Agency (TEA).  Remember that it was some of the TEA staffers back in 1997 that pushed for the Type #2 curriculum standards.  I would imagine it is Wurzbach’s ties to a few  of the TEA staffers that got her foot in the door with TESCCC/CSCOPE.

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

JUDY JENNINGS – DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT FOR RFL

Judy Jennings is the Director of Assessment for Resources for Learning.  She is working for Northside ISD and Region 20, has worked at the TEA and at Evaluation Software Publishing. Her field is statistics and psychometrics.  Nothing in her bio posted on RFL indicates that she has ever taught Science in the public schools.

This is the information that I found about Judy Jennings when she ran for the Texas State Board of Education. What this shows is that she is a leftist who has an ax to grind with the conservatives on the SBOE who worked so hard to adopt the new Type #1 ELAR, Science, Social Studies, and Math TEKS.

 

How can Judy Jennings do an independent review of CSCOPE curriculum when she obviously does not support the Type #1 TEKS?  In fact, she says that she would like to rescind the Type #1 TEKS.

 

It is obvious from Jennings’ statements that she wants evolution taught as fact.  The new Type #1 Science TEKS require that students be taught not only the strengths of evolution but also the weaknesses and that evolution be taught as a theory – not as a fact.

 

Jennings also does not support American exceptionalism in the new Type #1 Social Studies TEKS nor its emphasis on the heroes and heroines who make such good role models for our students.

 

The fact that Texas Freedom Network strongly supported Judy Jennings for the SBOE seat should give everyone pause.  To find out more about Texas Freedom Network, please go to: http://educationviews.org/2012/04/20/texas-freedom-network-has-lost-face-in-texas/

 

 

From Texas Freedom Network – 4.18.12 – SBOE Candidate: Judy Jennings —   http://tfninsider.org/2012/04/18/sboe-candidate-judy-jennings-2/

 

 

Statement by TFN:  Because of redistricting, all 15 seats on the Texas State Board of Education will be up for grabs in the November 2012 elections. The results of those elections will determine whether the religious right’s corrosive influence over public education will weaken or grow as the board considers what the next generation of public school students in Texas will learn about sex education, social studies, science and other subjects.

Extremists at the Wheel
A ultra-conservative Republicans on our Texas State Board of Education have rewritten the curriculum according to their own political agenda. Based on the advice of political extremists, they have muddled up the teaching of history, science, sex education … even math! But there is hope. Democrat Judy Jennings, a curriculum specialist, is running to bring rational decision making back to the board. She’ll take politics out of the classroom and make sure that teachers and experts are making sound curriculum decisions so our children

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

5.22.10 – From Judy Jennings’ own pen when she was running for the SBOE seat:

First of all, thank you to everyone who sent emails, signed petitions, spoke at the State Board of Education meeting, and did whatever they could to help save education in Texas. Unfortunately, the Board chose to ignore the pleas of thousands of historians, parents, and teachers to Put Our Kids First. Instead, they chose to make further ideological changes to the social studies curriculum. On Friday, the Board passed a curriculum that included amendments characterizing global organizations as “efforts to undermine U.S. sovereignty” through “forced redistribution of American wealth to third world countries.” They also required that students be taught about “the solvency of long-term entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare”…

The SBOE voted Friday to adopt Texas social studies standards that include their extremist agenda. The next two years provide additional opportunities for the State Board to make decisions based on ideology or on sound educational practice: science textbooks are scheduled for approval and adoption in 2011, social studies textbooks in 2012, and Career and Technology standards as well as Technology Applications standards will be approved in 2011. With your support, I plan to win the election this November to add one more voice of reason to the Board on behalf of the 4.7 million school children of Texas.

When I am elected to the Board I will insist on accuracy in the science and social studies textbooks that will be approved. I will also work to rescind the standards approved Friday. That will delay the implementation of the new curriculum and textbooks for a year while we go back to the standards originally proposed by the curriculum teams, and hold new public hearings. The current standards have been in place for ten years, and while I hate to delay one more year, I cannot let the students of Texas be subjected to personal ideology in the place of real history…

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

4.16.10 — “A Direct Conflict of Interest:  Judy Jennings and the Texas State Bd. of Ed.” — by Donna Garner

Judy Jennings (Democrat) is running against Marsha Farney (Republican) for the District 10 spot on the elected Texas State Board of Education.  The general election is November 2, 2010.

Judy Jennings has a Ph.D. in educational psychology which she received while working at the Texas Education Agency.

She is presently working for the Northside ISD, the Regional Education Service Center 20, and helped to manage the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) Texas High School Redesign and Restructuring Grant Program.

According to the Texas Education Agency’s online checkbook register, Resources for Learning (the company for which Judy Jennings is the Director of Assessment) was paid $1,170,619.18 from 2007-2010.

I believe the public deserves to know this information since Judy Jennings is running for a spot on the SBOE.  In my mind, Jennings is a type of vendor; and it is troubling to me that an education vendor tied to the TEA might be elected to the SBOE.  Both the TEA and the SBOE have either direct or indirect contact with multi-million dollar contracts.  Jennings and her company represent a definite conflict of interest.

Texas Education Agency Online check Register:   

2007

Resources for Learning, LLC   $482, 437

2008

Resources for Learning, LLC   $343,836

2009

Resources for Learning, LLC   $220,152

2010

Resources for Learning, LLC   $124,190
  TOTAL — 2007 – 2010 $1,170,617

                                                                                                          

Democrat Judy Jennings is what is called an “education establishment” candidate.  She is opposed to the voter-block on the SBOE that has put our Texas schools on the road to authentic education reform by rewriting the standards in English / Language Arts / Reading, Science, and Social Studies.

 

If Jennings had been on the SBOE during these rewrites, she undoubtedly would have voted with the liberal SBOE members who have tried so hard to obstruct progress. 

 

As you read through the various education ties that Judy Jennings and the other staffers at Resources for Learning have, please consider how many of these ties could directly relate back to contracts from the TEA and to decisions made by the SBOE. 

How much objectivity could Judy Jennings give to her decisions on the SBOE when so many of her consultant ties would directly be impacted by her decisions? 

I do not believe a person with such conflicts of interest should be elected to the Texas State Board of Education.

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

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

8.30.10 – An article about Judy Jennings when she ran against Marsha Farney for the SBOE seat — http://wilcoconservative.blogspot.com/2010/08/desperate-democrats-smear-marsha-farney.html

Desperate Democrats Smear Marsha Farney: Updated

Wow, Democrats working for Judy Jennings, left-wing ideologue for State Board of Education, must be getting desperate.  Recently, they launched another push poll on the SBOE 10 race in which they ask if voters know that Dr. Marsha Farney “attended a white-supremacist rally” last Summer…

These lefties are hoping that voters won’t ask which ‘white-supremacist rally,’ since they are actually referring to a Williamson County 4th of July weekend TEA Party Rally that was attended by U.S. Congressman John Carter,  and Texas House candidates Dr. Charles Schwertner and Larry Gonzales.  According to the Austin American Statesman, about 1,200 folks attended, and nary a white hood was in sight.

 

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

TRACY LAUGHLIN – SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER FOR RESOURCES FOR LEARNING

Tracy Laughlin is the Senior Project Manager for Resources for Learning.  She is the TEA’s project manager for Best Practices Clearinghouse. According to her bio, her fields are creative writing, communications, and program management/data analysis. She used to work for the Dana Center in Austin, Texas.  Nothing is mentioned in her bio about her ever having taught Science in the public schools.

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

AMY GUADAGNOLI – DIRECTOR OF CREATIVE SERVICES FOR RESOURCES FOR LEARNING

Amy Guadagnoli, Director of Creative Services for Resources for Learning, has expertise in graphic design, web site development, and visual arts. Nothing is mentioned in her bio about her ever having taught Science in the public schools.

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

EMILY SARTAIN – RESOURCE ASSOCIATE FOR RFL

Emily Sartain is the Resource Associate for Resources for Learning. She is completing her BA at the U. of Texas.  Her field of expertise is sociology and preparing reports on evaluation and assessment projects.  Nothing is mentioned in her bio about her ever having taught Science in the public schools.

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

CHRISTY COX – COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST FOR RFL

Christy Cox is the Communication Specialist for Resources for Learning. Her area of expertise is in communications, customer service, and marketing. Nothing is mentioned in her bio about her ever having taught Science in the public schools.

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

CARYN CAVANAUGH – DIRECTOR FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RFL

Caryn Cavanaugh is the Director for Professional Development for Resources for Learning. Caryn is a former teacher, literacy supervisor, and assistant principal in an urban school district in New Jersey; but her particular expertise is in Balanced Literacy (Type #2) which is another term for whole language/guided reading that has been discredited by the NIH reading research. Texas’ new ELAR curriculum standards are built upon phonemic awareness/decoding skills and not upon balanced literacy/whole language/guided reading.

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

IMPORTANT — REP. STEVE TOTH’S HB 760:

 

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB760

 

 

83R4368 VOO-D

 

 

By:  Rep. Steve Toth                                                                                            H.B. No. 760

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to State Board of Education oversight of regional education service center services and products concerning student curriculum.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Subchapter B, Chapter 8, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 8.0531 to read as follows:

Sec. 8.0531.  STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OVERSIGHT OF CURRICULUM-RELATED SERVICES AND PRODUCTS.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter or Section 8.001(c), the State Board of Education shall maintain oversight and direction of the activities of a regional education service center, acting alone or in collaboration with one or more other regional education service centers, concerning any service or product related to student curriculum.

(b)  A regional education service center, either alone or in collaboration with one or more other regional education service centers, may not develop, administer, or provide or authorize the development, administration, or provision by a public or private entity of a service or product related to student curriculum without State Board of Education approval, including approval of the form and content of the service or product, regardless of whether the service or product is provided online, in print, or in person.

SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

Primary Author Date Filed
Toth 01/28/2013

 

 

Joint Authors Date Signed On
Riddle 01/29/2013
Bohac 01/30/2013
Harper-Brown 01/30/2013
Kolkhorst 01/30/2013

 

 

Coauthors (21) Date Signed On
Bell 02/01/2013
Burkett 02/01/2013
Capriglione 02/01/2013
Fallon 02/01/2013
Fletcher 02/01/2013
Isaac 02/01/2013
King, Phil 02/01/2013
Klick 02/01/2013
Laubenberg 02/01/2013
Leach 02/01/2013
Lozano 02/01/2013
Miller, Rick 02/01/2013
Paddie 02/01/2013
Perry 02/01/2013
Raney 02/01/2013
Sanford 02/01/2013
Simmons 02/01/2013
Springer 02/01/2013
Stephenson 02/01/2013
White 02/01/2013
Zedler 02/01/2013

 

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

 

 

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

DEFINITIONS OF TYPE #1 AND TYPE #2

 

TYPE #1 vs. TYPE #2

 

*My terminology and definitions:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.