Share Button

pay to play

I have NEVER witnessed so much political corruption and pay to play politics as I have with the School Choice agenda in Texas. This past September, I attended a School Choice Policy Summit hosted by the the not so TEXAS CONSERVATIVE COALITION. This meeting was nothing but a rally cry to promote the agenda of School Choice in Texas through the use of government subsidies titled “Education Savings Accounts” (ESA). Both School Choice and Education Savings Accounts are misnomers. We already have school choice in Texas and Education Savings Accounts (ESA) are government subsidies.

Speakers at the Pro School Choice Policy Summit were Lt Gov Dan Patrick, Senator Larry Taylor, Senator Bettencourt, State Representatives Rick Miller, Dennis Paul, Mike Schofield, and Dwayne Bohac.  Stacy Hock with Texas for Educational Opportunity and Empower Texas Board member, Mayes Middleton their “money buddies” joined them. Middleton also sits on the board of Texas Public Policy Foundation. TPPF is also a huge advocate of School Choice. Texas Public Policy Foundation provided a brochure titled “The Archilles Heel of Texas. Improving College Eligibility Rates through K-12 Education Savings Accounts.”

I could not help but notice on the bottom of the brochure was Mr. Common Core (aka) Jeb Bush’s company “ExcelinEd” listed as one of the sponsors.





Below you can see a few who fund ExcelinEd.  NOTE: BILL & MELINDA GATES




Stacy Hock






I listened for almost 2 hours to them pushing for School Choice. As the meeting wrapped up they did not welcome questions from those in the audience. I approached Senator Bettencourt afterwards and mentioned to him “I as a homeschool mother am concerned about this due to Government encroachment.  Also I do not like the government in my business knowing what I am doing and where I am”.  When I said this to him  he walked away waving his mobile phone in the air stating “you need to be more concerned about this, (the mobile phone) which always knows where your are”.  I was shocked at his response and lack of professionalism and disturbed that I had paid his company thousands over the years to protest my property taxes. NEVER AGAIN.

After further research into the money. I was shocked at the thousands of dollars that Stacy Hock and Mayes Middleton combined, have contributed to Texas politicians. I am also well aware today March 16, 2017 that Mayes makes regular visits to those legislators in Austin that he has funded to encourage them to support School Choice.


NOTE: The Montgomery County Tea Party held a debate on School Choice on March 6th. Scheduled to sit on the panel in favor of School Choice was Peggy Venable and Mayes Middleton, against school choice was Alice Linahan and myself (Ginger Russell). The tea party was notified one week prior my our modeator Dale Huls that Mayes would not make the debate and Tim Lambert from the Texas Homeschool Coalition would sit in his place.  Here is the video from that debate.

**NOTE** Stacy Hock recently returned from New York, She has no education experience. Her experience in Technology. With that said she has made her way up into the helms of the Texas Education Establishment. Governor Abbott, Mr. Pro School Choice advocate, appointed Stacy Hock to the Texas Commission of Next Generation of Assessments and Accountability. Senator Larry Taylor (author of School Choice SB 3)  also sits on this Commission. The Commission just turned over their final report in September asking Gov Abbott to align our State Standards/Accountability with the Federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

You may wonder how Stacy Hock can arrive out of nowhere and be placed in such a position to make recommendations regarding the education of Thousands of Texas Children. Look no further.

greg abbott stacy



I will highlight our new Texas Representative Briscoe Cain. Mr. Money man, Mayes Middleton and Briscoe seem to be tied at the hip on the School Choice policy issue. Could it be due to his campaign funding? Mayes Middleton, other Empower Texans board members, and unfortunately school choice advocate Texas Home School Coalition have contributed thousands to Briscoe’s campaign. Despite the fact that this is another government program reigning in Texas Home Schoolers and placing all those under the umbrella of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act,  through campaign donations,  Liberty Caucus member Briscoe Cain is part of School “Choice” elite special interest group.


Briscoe money trail

                                          Rep. Briscoe Cain Money Trail


Representative Bricoe went on  Twitter calling Texas moms that are busy schooling their children and are genuinely concerned that School Choice legislation will affect their homeschooling freedom Kool-Aid Drinkers. Briscoe Kool=Aid


David “Mayes” Middleton funded Konni Burton’s campaign $5000.00.




To make matters worse School Choice advocate, Peggy Venable, posts the following photo on her Face Book page cheering their lavish dinner this week hosted by the not so Texas Conservative Coalition.  Are you seeing a pattern here?

Bricoe is holding a sign up titled EDCHOICE. EDCHOICE is a national School Choice policy pusher aligned with none other than Jeb Bush and ExcelinEd funded by Bill Gates.


So when our Texas Representatives go to Austin claiming they are conservative. I believe it will be few are far between that truly represent their constituents and adhere to their values. Sad but true.




Oh the tangled web we weave. 


Afterwards Peggy posted the following on facebook. Many responded including myself of our concerns and the money ties to this School Choice shenanigan.  Peggy Venable deleted all the post and blocked many of us. Some of the things we posted are below.



nickii truesdall






It is with much regret that the Texas Home School Coalition is no longer looking out for Texas homeschoolers now or those in the future when it comes to government infringement. We value our liberty and freedom in educating our children as see fit.


THSC has lost their way.






Mayes Middleton/Empower Texans  Money Flow Chart Coming soon.


If you are interesting in who is funding your state rep or senator check out the following links.


This is an easy one. Type in their name and click funding on the right.


If there funding is not listed you  can go to the Texas Ethics Commission and see all their contribution and expenditures. It is just a more time consuming. If you will go to the link on the left titled Search Campaign Finance and Lobbying Reports. You will click Campaign Finance once again and do the simple form. Enter their last/first name and your good to go. If you have trouble navigating your way through their call their office. They have always been more than willing to help.


























Share Button
Read More


Share Button


An editorial opinion by A. Patrick Huff, Ph.D.:

This past week the Texas Education Agency took the school accountability system to a new low, releasing a “what if” letter grade tabulation for each school and school district in the state of Texas.  This report has sent shock waves across virtually every public school district in the state.  The report was a “what if” because the letter grades are not official.  It was only released to let all the public school officials, teachers, parents and students know what their school and school district would receive if the official results were released this year.  The letter grades are based on the 2015-2016 school report card and other factors.  I say other factors because to figure out all the other factors and understand them, you could be eligible to work at mission control in NASA.  Yes, it is that complicated.  I have looked at the formulas and, trust me, I feel pretty stupid right about now.  I’m not going to bore you with the details of how each grade was determined in this article, but I am going to try and make sense of it (or nonsense).

Here is a little background to bring everyone up to speed on what all of this means.  To begin with, Texas did not invent the A-F system.  The first state to use it was Florida, under Governor Jeb Bush.  It is now in at least 15 states.  In early 2016 the Texas Legislature under House Bill 2804, established guidelines for a new state education assessment and accountability system.  The purpose of the new program was to conform to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that had previously been passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Obama in December of 2015.  HB 2804 also established a commission to review the bill and make recommendations before anything became official.  This review board was called The Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessment and Accountability.  They met in Austin seven times with each meeting dedicated to hearing from “experts” in the field testifying about what the research and practices demonstrate about each phase of the bill’s mandates.  At some of these meetings the Commission allowed public testimony.  I went to Austin and testified in one of these meetings so I got a first hand look at how it operated.  Here is the TEA website where you can read about the Commission and pull up the Commission’s Final Report to the Governor:

In the Commission report is the recommendation to approve what had already been written in HB 2804 regarding using an A-F grading format for schools and school districts.  Consider the language used in the Commission Draft Report under Long Term Vision, item 6, page 10.

6. Align the state accountability system with ESSA requirements.  Align the state    and federal accountability systems to ensure that the results are consistent and      share common goals. When the federal regulations regarding ESSA are released    in fall 2016, Texas will be able to use the guidance provided by the  specific federal regulations as it develops the A–F accountability system. An A–F accountability system to identify underperforming schools in Texas is scheduled to be implemented in the 2017–2018 school year  (Texas Education Agency, Next Generation Assessment Accountability, 2016, p. 10).

To note the importance of the first sentence is to state the obviously ridiculous.  The move to change the accountability system for schools and school districts to an A-F format is a federal requirement.  Once again, as I have stated time and time again, Texas is but a mini-federal U.S. Department of Education.  This is why we cannot seem to get away from doing what the federal government wants us to do when it comes to education policy.  The loss of all sovereignty occurred when each state came under the federal waiver to get out from under impossible mandates of No Child Left Behind.  Texas applied for and received their waiver in 2013.  Here is the link where you can read the entire waiver request if you so desire.  file://localhost/Users/huff_fitness/Downloads/TEA_Final_ESEA_Waiver_091613 (2).pdf

(You may get a warning on this website since it comes from my documents.  Don’t worry, it is safe to open).

If you are interested in how we moved from No Child Left Behind into ESSA and some how fell under Common Core, even though the Texas Legislature passed a law saying we would never come under Common Core, it’s all in this waiver application.  Please note, College and Career Ready Standards are the Common Core Standards.  Also in this application is where schools fell under Priority and Focus categories.  The federal Annual Measureable Objectives (updated Adequate Yearly Progress) is also in this waiver request.

Let me now turn your attention to the most important part of this article.  Superintendents across the state are decrying the issuance of the A-F ratings.  Rightfully so, I might add, they are putting out memorandums and videos that denounce these ratings and point to the unfairness of reducing a schools overall worth to a letter grade.  Yes, it’s true, a school cannot be judged based on the outcomes of a standardized test given once a year.  Here, though, is the issue. Where have the superintendents been on the outcry?  This has been going on since the early 90’s and with more high stakes involved since 2002 with the passage of No Child Left Behind.  Schools cannot be judged as Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, Met Standard, Unacceptable, or Needs Improvement based upon the yearly given standardized test.  It is a flawed policy and it increasingly affects schools negatively who have high percentages of low socio-economic students.  It discriminates with sanctions and endless shaming of the students, the teachers, the administration, the parents and the community where the school is located.  It is unacceptable that this horrid accountability system continues.  Now with the A-F system the lobbyist controlled congress (both state and federal) implements their latest in a long series of heavy handed tactics to demonstrate their disdain for the education system.  I mention lobbyist because education is an industry that makes billions of dollars every year off the backs of our children, and more specifically, by off the backs of our children in Title One schools.  Everyone knows this, everyone discusses this issue; but nothing gets done.  Our students are but guinea pigs forced to swallow the latest magic bullet curriculum program that the school district purchases for thousands of dollars.  I mention disdain by the legislators because I have been in the committee meetings, and I have testified before both the Texas House and the Texas Senate Education Committees only to be told my time is up and thank you very much.  Senator Larry Taylor did allow me more than the customary three minutes to speak, but my recommendations fell on deaf ears, just as every recommendation that came from a public speaker.  The only recommendations that were followed were those that came from the invited speakers, many of which came from the corporate sector.  The Education Committees in both houses of congress and the State Board of Education in Texas feel as though it is their duty to save public education.  The Lt. Governor and Governor feel the same.  To them, teachers can’t be trusted to teach the students.  Principals can’t be trusted to lead and manage.  Superintendents can’t be trusted to organize and implement the best, most trusted method of instruction.  No, it is the state and federal governments, the lobbyist, and the corporations that must be in charge of teaching our students.  After all, as Senator Taylor said to me when I testified to his committee, before the legislators took control students were graduating that could not read.  There was a crisis in the nation.  The government had to step in and take control.  I told him that students are still graduating that can’t read.  We don’t like it, every teacher is working to keep that from happening, but that is what happens in a free and democratic society.  A student can choose to fail if they so choose.  We don’t like it, but it is always going to be that way in a free and democratic society.  We have been under this system of accountability for going on three decades and what do we have?  We have a failed system where the controllers have their boot on the throat of every teacher, principal and superintendent and the pressure is increasing with each new phase of the accountability system.

So now we have the A-F system of school accountability.  Let me give you some examples of how some school districts did around the state.  The grading system of schools is broken down into four domains.  There will be a fifth added next year, but for now we will just discuss the four.  They are broken down as:

Domain I:    Student Achievement (how all the students performed on the STAAR test)

Domain II:   Student Progress (evaluating student progress in 10 student subgroup         categories, broken down into 7 ethnic groups, Special Education,  and English Language Learners, and their progress from the previous year’s results).

Domain III:  All tests from all grades results in the economically disadvantaged student       population only (These scores are compared with those from the previous  year and judged by improvement or regression).

Domain IV:  Post-Secondary Readiness (Elementary evaluated on absentee rate.

Middle Schools evaluated on absentee rate and dropout rate.

High Schools graded on a number of indicators, including absentee rate,       graduation rate, dropout rate, career and tech programs offered, AP and IB   courses offered, and a few other indicators).

Of course this is a simplified version and no mathematical statistical formulas are given to determine the outcome, so keep that in mind as I run down these results.  Keep in mind, also, that these results in no way indicate the worth or value of the education the students are receiving in these school districts.  Any comparison needs to be made with the understanding that the district with the most challenges have the most difficulty with this very flawed system that needs to be eliminated.


I hope that I have represented each district’s scores accurately.  My apologies if there are any errors.

Of course, this list is very brief and only represents a small portion of the school districts in the state.  They are, however, all large school districts with the exception of Highland Park.  Highland Park was included in this list simply to point out the disparity of the system.  This is not a slam against Highland Park.  They are a very good school district.  They do, however, have zero economically disadvantaged students.  At least none show up on the school report card.  This is why they did not receive a score in Domain III.  Highland Park received a “C” in Domain IV only because they went down in their Post Secondary Readiness Index from 96 in 2015 to 92 in 2016.  The score of 92 in Domain IV is an excellent score, but because Highland Park went down from a score of 96 in 2015 (the target score for Domain IV is 57 for high schools), they were shamed with a grade of “C”.  So, the public assumes Highland Park is just average in Domain IV, yet they had a very high score of 92.

Looking at the list provided in this article, I’m sure, makes you scratch your head and wonder how a district received the grade it did in each of the domains.  Some of the grades you can understand and others you can’t figure out how the grade could be what it is.  Due to the ramifications that go along with a letter grade, and the impressions it makes in the eyes of the public, you can see why the school officials are yelling from the rooftops that this is an unfair system and in no way reflects their districts quality and worth.  Yet it has been this way from the beginning of the Accountability System.  Those of you who have followed my articles and read my book, The Takeover of Public Education in America: The Agenda to Control Information and Knowledge Through the Accountability System, know that the central theme I keep repeating is the unjust nature and discriminatory practice the accountability system is for the entire nation, not just Texas.  But Texas is my state, so I concentrate on Texas, where I live and work.

Superintendents of the great State of Texas, I put this situation in your hands.  I think this is personal to you now.  Before, the old system of “met standards” or “needs improvement” didn’t quite have the sting of a letter grade.  Everyone identifies with a letter grade.  The Congress of Texas thinks this will motivate everyone directly involved with student testing outcomes to improve.  What Congress doesn’t realize is that school officials and teachers have been doing everything in their power to get the scores up, yet with little effect.  This is because no matter what program is brought in, or what guru is provided to help teachers teach better, the same demographic factors are almost impossible to overcome.  This, also, has nothing to do with ethnicity.  Nothing!  The schools success rises or falls with the percentages of students in Eco-Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and the Mobility Rate for the school and school district.  The Mobility Rate indicates the number of students that arrive after school begins and/or leaves before the school year ends.

Superintendents, I call on you to organize.  Organize not around TASA.  In my opinion, The Texas Association of School Administrators has not served you well.  They have kept you in the status quo.  You must have an independent voice in order to get the attention of the state legislators.  Yes, the federal government wants this A-F system, but they have also said they want states to have more autonomy in determining their accountability systems.  Use this as your leverage point.  Apart from the parents of the state, whom the legislators have already demonstrated they do not listen to, the superintendents of the state are the only hope for reversing the A-F grading system, and the entire accountability system.  The whole system is flawed to its core and needs to be eliminated.  Let’s all come together and speak in one voice to eliminate the A-F grading system first, then the entire accountability system.

Dr. Patrick Huff is the author of “The Takeover of Public Education in America: The Agenda to Control Information and Knowledge Through the Accountability System”, 2015. The book can be found at  Dr. Huff is a retired middle and high school principal with 34 years in the public education profession. He currently works as an adjunct professor at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.  He lives with his wife, Connie, of 35 years in Tomball, Texas and can be reached at


Share Button
Read More

Education 101

Share Button


“Education 101”

by Donna Garner



Where should concerned parents and the public start when it comes to understanding the educational jargon used by the schools? Having taught for more than 33 years, I know the confusion that abounds as people attempt to enter the world of education acronyms!


I receive frequent queries from people who make this type of statement: “Donna, I am so worried about my child. I know he is not learning what he should, but I do not know what to do.  I feel inadequate to talk about Common Core/CSCOPE to the teacher and/or administrators, yet I believe I should be fighting to protect my child.”




First, we have to understand the two education philosophies – Type #1 vs. Type #2:




Second, we need to understand the realities of those who are involved in the education world that surrounds Common Core/CSCOPE.  I call it “the RED, YELLOW, and  GREEN” people.  


The “RED” people working in the background are using the “YELLOW” and the“GREEN” people as pawns to make sure that America is dumbed down so that future voters and the destiny of our country are completely changed from the Great American Way.  


The “RED”  people know exactly what they are doing. They have long-term goals to change America, and they realize that the best way to do this is to indoctrinate this and succeeding generations of school children into the Common Core philosophy.    


Into the “RED” group fall the proponents of the Common Core Standards/CSCOPE, Obama, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Linda Darling-Hammond, Bill Ayers, liberal-left politicians, the drive-by media, national education organizations, and many other left-leaners.   


The YELLOW people are those who are driven by greed, money, power, and fame. Many of these people are vendors, lobbyists, or school employees who overlook the egregious content of their products so long as they themselves are benefitting.  Into this group fall Bill Gates, Pearson, U. S. Dept. of Education employees, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Common Core/CSCOPE/Education Service Centers/TEKS Resource System employees, Thomas Ratliff (Texas State Board of Education member), TASA, TASB, the Ratliff and Moses clans, Achieve, Inc., Fordham Institute, etc.  


The “GREEN” people (many of whom are educators)are those who go-along to get-along; they follow the status quo and are content to go along with whatever teaching fad is in vogue at the present time. These people are not bad people but are easily deceived by those who have ulterior motives (i.e., the “RED” and “YELLOW” people). 


Politicians can come in all different colors – RED, YELLOW, or GREEN.


Those politicians whose aim is to change America from a capitalistic, free-market Republic into a Socialist, Communist, Marxist country are “RED” people. 


Those politicians who seek fame, fortune, and/or control for themselves are YELLOW” people.


Those politicians who choose to be blind followers are “GREEN” people.




We here in Texas should be very pleased with our Type #1 TEKS (Texas’ curriculum standards). We realize the new TEKS (adopted since 2008) in ELAR, Science, Social Studies, and Math are not perfect; but at least a high percentage of the elements are intentionally explicit, knowledge-based, academic, clearly worded, grade-level specific, and measurable. That is more than can be said of the Common Core Standards and of the other states’ standards that are built upon Type #2.  


Because our Texas law requires the state-mandated tests to follow the TEKS, then our STAAR/End-of-Course Tests (EOC’s) are largely Type #1 tests.  Type #1 State Board of Education members have taken the STAAR/EOC’s and have affirmed they are aligned with the Type #1 TEKS. 


Pearson, who normally is totally in league with Type #2, has the Texas contract for the STAAR/EOC’s; but Pearson has been monitored very closely by the past Texas Commissioner of Education (Robert Scott), the present Texas Commissioner of Education (Michael Williams), and by Type #1 SBOE members to make sure the Pearson test bank is aligned with the Type #1 TEKS. 


We have been told that even though Pearson had to create a different test bank for Texas from that of the Type #2 test bank used in other states, the Pearson staffers actually found it was much easier to create good test questions for the STAAR/EOC’s because of the explicit/grade-levelspecific/measurable Type #1 wording in the new TEKS.




The STAAR/EOC’s are not perfect, but they are built upon the best Type #1 curriculum standards in the entire U. S. 


We are telling parents IN TEXAS NOT TO OPT THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF THE STAAR-EOC’S because it is those Type #1 tests that are the only way we have to force Texas educators (many of whom are “GREEN” people) to follow the Type #1 TEKS.


How will parents know whether their child’s teacher has actually taught the new Type #1 TEKS and taught them well if there is no objective measurement (e.g., STAAR/EOC’s) at each grade level/course except for the teacher’s own grading system?


What if a huge number of Texans opt out their children from the STAAR/EOC’s, and the state testing data from the Texas Education Agency is no longer valid?


What if the child’s teacher taught Type #2 curriculum materials instead (e.g., Guided Reading, CSCOPE, Safari Montage, TASA iCLOUD, Lead4Ward, Pat Jacoby’s, Expeditionary Learning, etc.), and the parents opted out their child from the STAAR/EOC tests?  How will parents know before it is too late and their child has been indoctrinated and/or “dumbed down”?


What if parents find out too late that their Suzy Q. had teachers in several untested STAAR/EOC grade levels/courses who taught Type #2 lessons instead of the Type #1 TEKS?  Example:  Type #2 — no systematic teaching of phonemic awareness/phonics, no systematic teaching of grammar/usage/correct spelling/cursive writing, no emphasis on learning the four math functions to automaticity  –


Now Suzy Q. is in Grade XXX and is several grade levels behind in her pre-requisite skills because her Type #2 teachers have been passing her right along because of their subjective evaluations.  Suzy Q.’s parents have opted to keep her out of STAAR/EOC testing, and they have not had an objective “measuring stick” to help them to know that Suzy Q. is academically being left behind.  Now it is almost too late, and it will be close to impossible to go back and help Suzy Q. to learn the Type #1 skills that she should have been learning all along.


This same scenario could happen if the grade-level-specific STAAR/EOC’s are not required yearly and/or if parents opt out their children from taking them. The way to get teachers to teach the Type #1 academic knowledge and skills mandated by the Texas Education Code at each grade level/course is to hold them and their students publicly accountable on the STAAR/EOC’s.  “What gets tested gets taught.  What gets measured gets treasured.”     


HB 5 passed by the last legislative session decimated the high-school STAAR/EOC tests (reducing the number of EOC’s from 15 to 5), but the Grades 3 – 8 STAAR tests are still in place.  If we lose the leverage that those tests give the public, Texas teachers (many of whom are the “GREEN” people) will go right back to their Type #2 curriculum units that the old 1997 TEKS/TAKS utilizedWithout the STAAR/EOC test results, parents will have no way to prove whether Suzy Q. was taught Type #1 or Type #2. 


Sadly, Texas was right on the cusp of authentic education reform with all students K – 12 moving into the new TEKS/STAAR/EOC’s and the rigorous but doable 4 x 4 graduation plan when our legislature dominated by “YELLOW” people (and by powerful “RED” people) dumbed things down with HB 5. The vendors and lobbyists (“YELLOW” people) got their way which suited the “RED” people perfectly. 




On the other hand, people WHOSE CHILDREN ARE IN THE COMMON CORE STATES SHOULD DEFINITELY OPT OUT THEIR CHILDREN FROM THE PARCC/SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENTS AND FROM THE ACCOMPANYING COMMON CORE NATIONAL AND PERSONALLY INTRUSIVE DATABASE. Those assessments are meant to indoctrinate children’s minds, and there are over 400 data points of personal information that are set to be collected by the national database if the Common Core roll-out is allowed to go forward. 




Type #2 CSCOPE (the Texas version of Type #2 Common Core Standards) came slithering into Texas under the radar and captured 845 school districts during the time that the rest of us were fighting to get the Type #1 TEKS passed(2008 – 2012).


The reason CSCOPE successfully infused itself into so many Texas schools is because 20 of the 19 Education Service Center (ESC) directors formed a corporation (TESCCC) and then began selling CSCOPE and its curriculum management system through the ESC’s. These are mostly “YELLOW” people.


Administrators (mostly “GREEN” people) fell for the “YELLOW” people’s plan and took their local taxpayers’ dollars and poured them into CSCOPE.  


SB 6 was passed in 2011 by the Texas Legislature, and SB 6 made it possible for locals to purchase instructional materials (IM’s – digitized curriculum, textbooks, etc.) such as CSCOPE by utilizing the Permanent School Funds. 


SB 6 took away the authority over IM’s from the elected members of the SBOE.  SB 6 basically set up a “work around” so that locals no longer have to purchase the IM’s that have gone through the SBOE public hearing process. The SBOE public hearing process catches factual errors that are documented, and publishers have to correct them or else pay a monetary penalty. 


SB 6 provides for no such SBOE public process, and the IM’s that are sold to schools under SB 6 (e.g., CSCOPE) have not been through careful public scrutiny. In fact, CSCOPE materials could not be viewed by the public because teachers had to sign agreements saying that they would not show CSCOPE materials to Texas parents.


Once we were sufficiently able to publicize the Texas law (TEC Title 2, Subtitle E, Chap. 26, Sec. 26.006 ) which requires parents to be able to see all curriculumtheir children are taught (even digitized materials), then the TESCCC shut itself down.


Many Texans thought the problem was resolved only to find out a few months later that the TESCCC had rebranded itself as the TEKS Resource System. The “YELLOW” people put CSCOPE lessons into the public domain, but districts who purchase the TEKS Resource System are basically using the Type #2 CSCOPE lessons and making sure teachers utilize them by forcing their students to take the assessments sold by the TEKS Resource System.




The reason that Texas public school students are struggling on the STAAR/EOC tests is that they have not been taught the Type #1 TEKS at each grade level/course during the years leading up to the first administration of the STAAR/EOC tests. How do we force the “GREEN” people to start teaching the Type #1 TEKS?  It is to use the “measuring stick” – the Type #1 STAAR/EOC tests – to pressure the “GREEN” people through public disclosure of those test scores to teach children Type #1 curriculum.


By doing this, we will divest ourselves of the “RED” people with their Type #2 indoctrination and the “YELLOW” people who are involved because of greed, money, power, and fame.


Parents in Common Core states must opt their children out of the Common Core assessments to protect their children from the indoctrination of the computer-adaptive tests. Parents in Common Core states must battle to keep their own family’s personally identifiable data from being poured into the Common Core national database which can be shared with third parties without parental permission.  




6.6.14 — “We Have the Answer: #CANiSEE Solutions Conf. On Demand for a Year” — by Donna Garner —




Donna Garner





Share Button
Read More

Hit Counter provided by Skylight