Texas ESCs Exposed-Part 1

Share Button




Texas Education Service Centers (ESCs)


Some of the present and past employees of the Texas Education Service Centers (ESCs) want the public, the  Texas legislatures, the Lt. Governor, the Attorney General as well as the Governor to know the truth about the ineffective use of money poured into the ESCs each year.

The ESC employees providing answers include directors, specialists, consultants, and general staff representing many of the ESC regions. While remaining anonymous in this report, those providing answers assure me they will gladly speak directly to state legislatures, the Lt. Governor, the Attorney General as well as the Governor. The Commissioner of Education is not on this list because he as did his predecessor, Robert Scott, supports the actions of the 20 ESCs directly or indirectly by allowing these agencies to govern themselves.

Not everyone who works at the ESCs is involved in the misappropriation of funds or the creation and promotions of Anti-American instructional materials. Many ESC employees would like the Commissioner of Education and the state legislatures to cut off all funding to the ESCs. When the “chee$e” is removed, the rats will look for “chee$e elsewhere. The ESCs can then return to being Service Centers, instead of vendors with a monopoly over instructional materials.

When action is taken against the ESCs, school supervisors will no longer have any reason for not doing their jobs. They will no longer have the “common core” look-alike programs produced and sold by the ESCs promoted by TASA. WOW! I remember how wonderful Texas education was before TASA and long before TEKS and TAKS and STAAR. Texas education was modeled by other states. The textbooks that Texas selected were also selected by other states. Now few Texas schools have real textbooks and the education standards are at rock bottom. How can our Texas Commissioner of Education show his face when students can pass state math assessments by only answering less than 40% of the questions, yet many students fail?

Q1 & Q2 refer to CSCOPE, which the ESCs now refer to as TEKS Resource Service (TRS). The ESCs have been banned from selling CSCOPE lessons.


What was the objective of the CSCOPE conventions (now called the TRS conventions)?


The ESC staffers who actually present CSCOPE workshops that have been describe them as cheer-leading sessions to build support for CSCOPE or provide general overviews that use ppts that are within the CSCOPE site.

The ESC staffers who present CSCOPE workshops generally are not invited to the CSCOPE conventions. Instead, mostly the ESCs send about a dozen ESC consultants who do no CSCOPE support work with schools using CSCOPE. These are Special Education and other specialists that never work with districts in regard to CSCOPE. We did ask why they were going and got no answer.

FYI: There is a lot of unnecessary money spent sending ESC specialists to conventions and workshops that have nothing to do with the area they work with. No one confirms that money spend on travel is necessary. No one confirms that training, even in other states, is ever used to train educators.

ESC staffers are basically kept in the dark, but are supposed to do CSCOPE workshops as well as our regular ESC workshops. No compensation is given for the extra work. As previously stated, many who attend the CSCOPE conferences do not present CSCOPE training to educators.


When the ESCs were banned from selling CSCOPE lessons, were the ESC staffers aware that the CSCOPE lessons were to be given to school districts? Also, were staffers aware that the gutted CSCOPE instruction material would continue to be sold to Texas schools?


We get few to no answers when we ask about CSCOPE. This program was brought in and we were told that it would be used. No questions asked. I can tell you that what we know about CSCOPE in-house is  different from the verbiage given to the public. We get little to no clarification about what is going on —basically we know to just keep our mouths shut and don’t ask questions.


Project Share– Is this something established by TEA?

FYI: Project Share is a website where Texas teachers should be able to find free instructional materials for all  grades and subjects. The first materials mandated by the 81st legislature in the Rider 42 grant to be posted on the Project Share website were TEKS transition materials. These were professional development materials that compared the old TEKS for TAKS with the new revised TEKS for STAAR. Academies or teacher professional TEKS training were to be given free and the training materials were to be posted in the Project Share website. $150 MILLION dollars was given to develop materials for the Rider 42 grant math, science, ELAR, and social studies academies as well as create the Project Share website. To this day, 2/18/2015, there are Texas teachers and Texas school superintendents who are not aware that Project Share exists. Few Texas teachers attended or even knew about the Rider 42 PD academies.

Ervin Knezek was an ESC employee when CSCOPE was developed as well as when the Rider 42 grant of  $150 MILLION dollars was being spent developing the Rider 42 academies and “Project Share.”  Knezek resigned from ESC 13 in June, 2010 and established the company Lead4Ward in Washington, State in June, 2010. What was suppose to be part of CSCOPE and wasn’t is on Knezek’s Lead4Ward website. What was suppose to posted on the Project Share website can be found on Knezek’s Lead4Ward website.


Yes, TEA rolled Project Share out and every school district is supposed to have access.
But there are levels of access to the Project Share website. ESC staffers used Project Share  like a linked-in account to share ideas or materials. This was the original idea for Project Share. Not only were the Rider 42 academy PD materials to be available, but teachers were to be able to publish materials that they found successful. Also, teachers were suppose to be able to have accounts where they could share ideas with other educators.

Interestingly, some of the ESC staffers have now been blocked to our share boxes. We had access to these share boxes last year, but now there is a public outcry about the CSCOPE lessons, a lot of information is no longer available. We are not sure why except that there is such paranoia in all the ESCs. If what is being told to the public is true about the CSCOPE lessons, why has the ESC  leadership become so secretive about files that were freely accessible last year?  What was open is not very hush hush and private. The directors of the ESCs seem to be concerned about information shared on the Project Share website. They must be trying to keep up with the answers they are giving about CSCOPE  since they give different answers depending on who asks the question.

Overall, most consider Project Share, like the Rider 42 PD academies expensive projects that have been very ineffective. This is due to the ESCs not developing the website and TEA not following up to see that they do. Like all grant money, once the money is gone regardless if the project is not complete, the ESCs are on to doing what ever brings in more money.

The “jig” will be over if the ESCs are ever thoroughly investigated by someone who doesn’t  benefit in some way from the actions of the ESCs.


Did State Education Commissioner Robert Scott initiate the idea for Project Share?


The plans for Project Share apparently have been bubbling for a while. Scott was so focused on internal issues that we are not sure he was very aware of Project Share, sad to say.


The Rider 42 grant provided the initial money for Project Share, thus the ESCs were to develop the content posted on this website. Project Share is affiliated with Epsilen, which is a Common Core company. Why is TEA and the ESCs using a Common Core Company when Texas is forbidden to implement Common Core? Has everyone just turned a blind eye to what grant money is used for?


We totally agree with this– No one asks or even watches what the ESCs do. As to Common Core, TASA promotes Common Core and TASA and the ESCs work together. In fact, wha ever the ESCs sell, Texas school superintendents generally buy it because TASA promotes what the ESCs sell. TASA is after all the Texas Association of School Administrators.

Comment from Janice

Think About This!

1. The ESCs provide superintendent certification training as well as training required for School Board Members. Thus, school superintendents and school board members are indoctrinated with constructists (common core progressive) education philosophy used in creating the CSCOPE instructional materials as well as the “Vision Learning” materials sold by TASA. Of course Common Core education philosophy is used in Texas Schools, but it has different titles, such as CSCOPE a.k.a. TRS Instructional Material, and Vision Learning.

2. Texas School Superintendents and School Board Members use district school taxes to pay for their personal membership fees  into private organizations (TASA/TASB) who lobby for different education bills that benefit the primary objective of TASA/TASB, which is to TRANSFORM TEXAS EDUCATION.

Yes, our Texas legislatures are swayed by TASA lobbyists as well as the Microsoft lobbyist Thomas Ratliff (illegal member of the State Board of Education) to pass bills that promote Transforming Texas Education so that it is comparable to common core.


This is part I of a series of Questions  from me and Answers from ESC # 1-20 staff past and present. The following will be addressed in following parts of this series on the “Unpacking of the ESCs.”


1. In Nov. 2011, Marlin school superintendent Marsha Riddlehuber and the district instructional director, Jamie Johnson would not allow me to view the content of the CSCOPE lessons used in Marlin ISD. Becca Bell the CSCOPE director also refused me access to the content of the CSCOPE lessons. Why? What were they hiding?

2. During the time that CSCOPE lessons were being sold to Texas public schools, the state comptroller,      , allowed the ESCs to write their own evaluation. This is obvious since the wording of the comptrollers evaluations were word-for-word the same as publicity written by the ESCs to promote the CSCOPE materials. Did the comptroller ever ask anyone about the CSCOPE product that was not benefiting in some way?

These questions and many more will be coming soon.



Share Button
Read More

“Tortured language” Used To Promote Common Core in Texas

Share Button

twisted language

Dec 6, 2014 by

By Niki Hayes



            “Tortured language” has been an important government tool for years. (Just ask Jonathan Gruber, chief architect of ObamaCare, who bragged about the use of tortured language in writing that controversial piece of legislation.)  Such “tortured writing” uses euphemisms and flimflam when taking falsehoods and twisting them so that people will misconstrue them as truth.


A new example in Texas is the Education Service Center 11 (ESC 11), a governmental agency, with its chart comparing Common Core math standards with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards.  (To see the ESC 11 chart, please go to:


ESC 11’s chart claims that Common Core and TEKS are equal in content and scope. Therefore, they say schools can buy Common Core-aligned materials and feel safe that the materials support our TEKS. This is pure flimflam – “tortured language.”


I was a member of the Texas math curriculum standards writing team when we wrote the new 2012 Math TEKS.  I can state unequivocally that the new Math TEKS that we wrote and the Texas State Board of Education adopted are not the same as the federally-driven Common Core math standards. 


First, our TEKS document is a brand name product that was developed by 80 citizens who put in 12-hour days during three separate meetings over four months. We were charged with developing quality standards that would benefit our children and Texas citizens. We built our TEKS starting with a draft first created by a panel of mathematics experts that was commissioned by the Texas Education Agency (TEA); then we researched specific states with outstanding math standards at the time (such as Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Indiana). Most importantly, we brought to the table professional knowledge and experiences as educators in Texas classrooms. We knew our state’s children and their needs. The TEKS were personal to us.


In contrast, Common Core is a generic brand created largely by unknown individuals outside of Texas. Some of the main writers, whose names were finally released publicly, had never even been classroom teachers.  For many reasons, not the least of which is cost, numerous states are now struggling to back out of their federal Common Core contracts.


Even though Texas was one of the few states that said “NO” to the Common Core, one of the Texas Education Agency staffers tried to urge our Math TEKS writing team to use the Common Core Math Standards to craft our Math TEKS.  As a member of the Grade 3 – 5 team, I made it clear that we should not be looking at the Common Core Standards for guidance since Texas had refused to adopt Common Core Standards from their inception.


The same TEA staff member resisted efforts to have the required use of the “standard algorithms” specified in the TEKS. (This is the procedure used in multiplication and division that our parents and grandparents learned and which is used internationally.)  The staffer said standard algorithms are considered a “traditional math” approach and were thus considered inferior by many math reformers. 


I also wanted a restriction against the use of calculators for daily problem solving in elementary grades. Reformers on the writing team supported the push for technology in K-12 rather than the traditional methods (paper and pencil) of student learning.


Even though I vociferously advocated for standard algorithms and the restriction against calculator use among elementary students in Grades K-5, I was losing the debate. Therefore, I contacted Dr. James Milgram, one of the panel experts hired by TEA, and asked for his help.  He stepped forward, and a higher-up official at the TEA also got involved.  References to the Common Core by the TEA staff ceased.  The required teaching of standard algorithms and the restricted use of calculators in Grades K-5 were adopted in the final Math TEKS document.   


Despite some philosophical differences on what we should include in the Math TEKS, our group did agree that the standards had to be explicit, direct, and clear. They had to be understandable not only for elementary teachers (many of whom fear mathematics and need clarity and brevity in instructions) but also for parents as well.


Our TEKS writing team agreed that the new TEKS standards had to be measurable with objective criteria and that each element had to be testable through objective measurements.  Our team knew that the new TEKS would not be perfect but that they needed to be traditionally oriented standards (a.k.a., Type #1) as compared with the 1997 TEKS which were “fuzzy” standards (a.k.a., Type #2).


The chart that ESC 11 has created attempts to show that Common Core’s “process standards” match our new TEKS “process standards” and that makes Common Core and TEKS similar in scope. That is ridiculous!  The new Math TEKS standards that our writing team finally produced in 2012 has strong and specific expectations listed in the “Introduction” before each grade level.  No such clear, explicit, competency-based language is found in the Common Core.


Next, the public needs to look at our final TEKS Math Standards and compare those definitive and clear statements with Common Core’s wordy, complex explanations, many of which are not understandable because of the confusing and complicated wording. (Federal or state curriculum standards are also not supposed to mandate pedagogy [how to teach]; that is to be left up to the local educators.)  


Below is a comparison example from the Math TEKS and from the Common Core:


TEKS, Grade 5, Number and Operations 3.H:


“Represent and solve addition and subtraction of fractions with unequal denominators, referring to the same whole using objects and pictorial models and properties of operation.”


Common Core, (same standard but labeled NF1 and NF2):


“Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc/bd). Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example, recognize an incorrect result 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7 by observing that 3/7 < 1/2.”


In numerous cases, there are additional Common Core standards that, if utilized, would add to the already packed TEKS.  This would not help educators prepare their students for the STAAR-End-of-Course tests. Why risk wasting time, energy, and money on unproven and generic materials (Common Core) when the traditional approach to math has been proven successful for generations, in spite of those educators who say it hasn’t?


Speaking of time, it is time for many of these education “leaders” to have to teach for one year in a classroom and use the directives and requirements they have put on classroom teachers. These leaders should also be required to receive the credit or the blame for any poor student achievement.


More to the point, why are Texas education service centers, administrators, and political leaders allowing ESC 11’s false narrative and chart to be presented to teachers and parents as truth, especially when it is against state law to use Common Core materials and standards in Texas as stated by the Texas Attorney General (TAG). (Re: Use of the Common Core Standards Initiative by Texas school districts to teach state standards. RQ-1175-GA —


Why are Texas leaders ignoring the TAG’s ruling and flaunting the law by using public tax dollars for illegal purchases by school districts and ESC’s?


I believe if Texas leaders had led their classroom teachers to teach the new Math TEKS when adopted in 2012, rather than waiting until they were required to do so in 2014, students’ scores on this year’s STAAR and End-of-Course math tests would have shown considerable improvement.


School leaders should make sure all students in Texas public schools have instructional materials that teach the fact-based, clearly stated, explicit, grade-level specific, measurable requirements as outlined in our state’s Math TEKS.


Texas children, teachers, and parents deserve clarity, not confusion, from their leaders on education issues. That includes their not being victimized by curriculum materials such as Common Core that use “tortured language” and make material unnecessarily difficult to understand. 



CORRECTION TO PODCAST: In 2012 the Math TEKS (Texas’ curriculum standards) were adopted in K-12 by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education; however, the K-8 Math TEKS were not required to be implemented fully into the schools until 2014 when the textbooks (e.g., instructional materials – IM’s) were available for purchase. The high-school Math TEKS are not required to be implemented fully until 2015-16 when the new Math IM’s will be available for districts to purchase.


12.3.14 — PODCAST – Alice Linahan of Women on the Wall — conference call with Nakonia (Niki) Hayes, the author of The Story of John Saxon




Share Button
Read More

Texas Education has been Destroyed

Share Button

education destroyed


Texas education is for from being autonomous. Federal agencies have their hand in every aspect of the Texas education system and parents and teachers are really starting to realize the reform taking place. I don’t see a need for the Texas Education Agency any longer.

Education is the biggest expenditure in the state and they keep screaming for more money but we all know it is not for the classroom. The corruption taking place is astronomical and the students are the ones that suffer.

The Committee of Economic Development partnered with the Texas Association of School Administrators and wrote the following policy brief. which outlines the radical reforms taking place across the country with the implementation of common core even in Texas (though they don’t call it that here).  It is not surprising that the research brief is funded by no other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


An assembly line approach to education is being implemented and equality, social emotional learning and the building of a global society is what our education system is becoming about. The destruction of America and it’s values will be the unfortunate result.

























Texas Education Service Center 13 in Austin presently is looking for someone to fill their Gestapo position. It has to be a certified teacher of at least 5 years teaching experience and you can go fill this postition at a minimum salary of approximatley $50, 000. This individual also would benefit by having some knowledge of the Cscope system. Why? Cscope is about a Marxist philosophy of teaching based on the collective.

content specialist


Below are Notes from the document above making reference to info and individuals involved in this process.

Karla Burkholder, Ed.D.

Karla Burkholder



Here is another document put out by Texas Association of School Administrators.


Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) is funded with our tax dollars through our local school districts millions yearly. Their office is 2 blocks away from the state capitol and when the legislative session opens they spend their time lobbying our legislators for bills that will profit their agenda.

TASA has created a transformation program called Creating a New Vision, a plan to transform and reform our Texas School districts.




Share Button
Read More


Share Button

cscope is alive

Despite the controversy and public outrage surrounding Cscope,  the Texas Education Service Centers (ESC) continue to lease Cscope to many Texas School districts. Due to Cscope getting a bad name they have changed the name to Teks Resourse System. What I want you to understand Cscope is leased to school districts yearly costing taxpayers thousands.  From my perspective it keeps a job opening available for superintendents in the future, kind of like scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

Cscope is a Marxist curriculum management system bent on having all school district across the sate on the same page daily. It eliminates the creativity a teacher can bring to a class. Science Author Janice VanCleave asked the Cscope director Becca Bell from Region XII “What if I wanted to bring in a butterfly cocoon in teaching metamorphosis or bring in the fall leaves that are changing colors, with Cscope I am not allowed to do that, correct? ” Becca Bell confirmed that those would not be allowed to be taught in the classroom unless the Cscope Scope and Sequence called for it at that time but may be taken to another grade level that may be learning about that subject.  Seriously? Many good experienced veteran teachers have left the profession due to the control Cscope has.

Cscope was and has not been a SBOE reviewed curriculum. Lessons were part of the leased product until is was found it was riddled with controversial material. Though they have removed the lessons from the password protected website we know that the ESC’s called from teachers to download the lessons before they were removed and ESC’s have sold USB storage devices with the lessons on them.  To give you an idea of the mindset of those responsible for implementing this in our Texas Schools you can view some of the lessons HERE.

The concerns surrounding the  finances and management of Cscope were validated with the release to the State Audit Report this past June. An Article by Brietbart Texas highlights some of these concerns.

Parents and taxpayers need to wake up as to what your school district is purchasing and using to teach your children. A radical leftest turn has taken place with the funding from the federal government.



Dr. Brent Hawkins was the assistant directors from ESC VI in Huntsville. In a conversation with Dr. Hawkins regarding Cscope he told me I would not tear apart something they had implemented. Well 2 years later Cscope has become a huge controversy and Dr. Brent Hawkins has left the ESC to become superintendent of Livingston ISD. On the districts superintendent page I was surprised that Mr. Hawkins in going to phase out the product he was 100% supportive of. Why a change of heart? Don’t be fooled though I am sure Livingston ISD will write another curriculum management system bent on the same progressive/Marxist philosophy as Cscope.

phasing out


Texas Education Service Center promoting Obama’s Agenda


Texas Education Service Centers “Strategic Plan to Create Workforce”

Share Button
Read More

Anderson-Shiro CISD wasting Taxpayers $$$$

Share Button



Anderson-Shiro CISD is continuing to LEASE the controversial CSCOPE product (aka Teks Resource System). There was a state audit in regard to the finances surrounding the Cscope material which was condemning. Here is the report. The contents of the product can be accessed free from the Texas Education Agency with exception of the assessments, which are useless and nothing more than a document to collect data on students. A test and assessment are different. A test is used to access a students knowledge on material learned. Assessments are used to access students on data they do not know and collect the data. Assessments do not come home.


Anderson-Shiro CISD has also signed onto the radical transformation of education with Texas Association of School Administrators called Creating a New Vision of Texas Education .  This transformation is built on the leveling the playing field for all students. The ISD has hired an outside consulting company Engage 2 Learn  whose purpose is to convince the community what a great idea this transformation is.

Anderson-Shiro CISD paid Engage 2 Learn over $10,000 in April, 2014. Why does the district feel the need to spend thousands to convince the community how wonderful this transformation is?engage anderson




Former Anderson-Shiro Superintendent Brandon Core  initialed this transformation. Mr. Core has now gone to work for the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) who is responsible for this transformation. So Mr. Core supported the company  TASA with our tax dollars while superintendent; now he has gone to work for the same company. Wow! Sad thing is numerous Texas ISD are doing the same thing supporting with your tax dollars outside consulting firms and agencies then going to work for them.





Share Button
Read More

Senator Dan Patrick and AG Greg Abbott What Now?

Share Button

John Keel


Senator Dan Patrick called for a Cscope Audit in 2013. The audit was released in June/2014. The results are telling in relation to the mishandling of taxpayers money by the Texas Education Service Centers. Below is a list highlighting some of the auditors findings.

Despite the audit report the same individuals within the Texas Education Service Centers changed the name of Cscope to the Teks Resource System and they are still leasing this mess to the school districts. Seriously?

Will n0one be held accountable? Will anything be done to stop this?



  • Education Service Centers reported they collected 73.9 million from School districts, private schools, charter schools from Sept 2005 through August 2013.
  • Education Service Centers reported a expenditures to be 67.8 million.
  • Auditors were not able to verify the total amount that education service centers reported they paid for the development, installation, distribution, and marketing of CSCOPE because some of the education service centers did not separately track CSCOPE-related expenditure transactions
  • Some of the Texas Education Service Centers did not separately track their Cscope revenue transactions.
  • As a result, auditors were not able to fully answer the audit objective to determine the amount of revenue and expenditures related to the development, installation, distribution, and marketing of CSCOPE.
  • Auditors identified deficiencies in the processes used to procure and monitor the CSCOPE contracts.
  • The contracts between Region 8-Mount Pleasant and National Education Resources, Inc. from 2006 through 2011 lacked significant elements. (Ratliff District)
  • Region 8-Mount Pleasant was unable to provide its 2005 contract for the development and implementation of the curriculum management system because it destroyed all supporting documentation from the 2005-2006 school year based on its records retention schedule. (shocking?)
  • Auditors identified deficiencies in Region 8-Mount Pleasant’s procurement of the CSCOPE contracts in effect from 2006 through 2011.
  • Auditors were not able to determine the total amount of rebates paid to Region 8-Mount Pleasant or the other education service centers.




Share Button
Read More

WARNING: 21st Century Learning

Share Button




There is not a district in the state of Texas  not incorporating the progressive/radical transformation of the Common Core agenda. Thanks to lobbying efforts of the tax funded organizations,  Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) and Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) and Texas Association of School Business (TASBO) and a legislature that are completely oblivious to the lobbyist agenda and tactics, Texans are now seeing the transformation in their local school districts. Parents across the state have been screaming about testing, lack of traditional math, no textbooks, no spelling, no cursive, fuzzy math, etc……

With the use of massive roll-out of technology schools are now promoting what they are calling 21 Century Learning or Project Based Learning where students are working more in groups. Individual achievement is becoming a thing of the past. It is all for the collective good. AKA.. MARXISM


I discovered this agenda when I discovered that 875 school districts has purchased the Marxist Curriculum CSCOPE from our Texas Education Service Centers (ESC’s). Our ESC’s created this Marxist product and have continued to lease it to our school districts, yearly. Due to public outcry the ESC’s have now changed the name of the product to TEKS RESOURCE SYSTEM. And the age-old saying goes a rose by any other name is still a rose, and so goes the Marxist product of the Teks Resource System. Our ESC are still peddling it today for a pretty hefty price. Though a state audit has shown that ESC’s are incompetent when it comes to handling taxpayers money.

ESC 2o and along with many others promote 21st Century Learning. If I remember correctly man got to the moon using a BIG CHIEF TABLET. To think there is some new phenomenon that needs to be implemented for students to learn is a bunch of HOG WASH! Do NOT let these EDUCRATS intimidate you with their lingo.  You will hear the words, Rigor, Authentic Learning, Critical Thinking (like that is something new), 21st Century Learning Skills, student centered,  Project Based Learning, Collaborative work (socialism). They have developed their own lingo of what is now and acceptable way to be properly educated according to powers at be. PLEASE DO  NOT BE FOOLED.

On ESC 20’s website you can find a whole page and section about 21st Century Learning. When you run across these words know for sure they are on a path of total transformation, one that is not for the best of the individual student but for the collective good.



ESC 20


Below is a clip from ESC 20’s webpage. I have highlighted the words that should cause every parent to start asking the questions. Not only what you are teaching but how you are teaching my kid?



WARNING: Your children will be online at school more than you like. The dangers they will be exposed to is astronomical.

The ultimate goad of Common core and the whole transformation process is “Centralized Control” and along with this comes data mining. There are numerous online programs that students use at schools that are collecting data on your kids, such as the Khan academy.

Texas has put in place a student data collection. Are parents aware of this?


Share Button
Read More


Share Button



Sadly, the education system in Texas is no longer about educating  children. It is all political and the powers at be are working overtime establishing a progressive/centralized education system throughout the state. During the last legislative session a curriculum used in over 800+ school districts by the name of  CSCOPE/TEKS Resource System Curriculum was exposed, not only for its controversial lessons but concerns in regard to their financials. Senator Dan Patrick then requested a state audit and  Texas State Auditor John Keel released his report this month. The report was telling of how shaky our Texas Education Service Centers (ESC’s) handle our tax money.

The Texas Education Service Centers (ESC’s) that created CSCOPE which has renamed their product TEKS Resource System were found to be incompetent in handling millions of taxpayers dollars and lacked internal and external financial controls. The auditors were not a able to determine the actual revenue and expenditures of the taxpayer funded organization (ESC’s).

CSCOPE has requested that teachers sign a non-disclosure statement stating they would not release the contents or say anything negative about it or face legal action. Seriously!

Despite the controversy and the state auditors report Texas School Boards continue to show irresponsibility in voting to continue leasing the CSCOPE product and funding the entity (ESC’s) deemed incompetent in their accounting practices.

This past week Grand Prairie ISD’s school board voted unanimously to throw more taxpayer funds at this faulty product and incompetent organization. Public input was given at the beginning of the meeting voicing concern in regards to the curriculum and the financials and those concerns were ignored once again.  School Board members no longer represent the people who have put them in office they are brain washed through the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) that is funded with our tax dollars and they have become more of rubber-stampers of the superintendents agenda.

During the Grand Prairie ISD school board member Steve Pryor steve   made final comments insinuating that the concerns surrounding CSCOPE are a myth. So let me get this right. The original CSCOPE lessons are removed, the name is changed to re-brand their image, the managing company disbands and regrouped with a new name, the state auditor releases a bad report in regard to the financials surrounding CSCOPE and Mr. Pryor calls it a myth? Seriously?

Mr. Pryor also made a comment that none of Grand Prairie teachers have used any of the controversial material that was in CSCOPE. 1) Mr. Pryor I am sure isn’t in every classroom monitoring what is and isn’t used 2)  In light of all the controversy Mr. Pryor deems it acceptable to throw money at it none the less.

Parents and taxpayers once again have got to take control of their local schools boards once again. The rubber stamping taken place is unacceptable and it will not change without the involvement of the grassroots.

Share Button
Read More

Ratliff & Whiteker Share a “LOVE” for Education Transformation!

Share Button

Ratliffheart 1

State Board of Education Member Thomas Ratliff and Hudson ISD superintendent Mary Ann Whiteker seem to have a “love” in working together in   promoting a progressive ideology (Type 2 standards) within the Texas School System. Below you find find a press release authored by the two critiqued by Educator Donna Garner.


10-17-2013 A Critique by Donna Garner




October 14, 2013


For several years we have advocated for a public school accountability system that looked at all 180 days of the school year, not just those days that involve a #2 pencil and a bubble sheet when our kids are taking the state’s standardized tests.

We’re proud to say the Texas Legislature, through the passage of House Bill 5, took public school accountability to the next level. Who benefits from this you ask? Parents, students, local communities, school boards, teachers, and taxpayers, just to name a few. How? Let us explain.


House Bill 5 added Section 39.0545 to the Education Code that will create a new LOCAL accountability system that will supplement the STATE accountability system. While the state’s system is still too focused on standardized test results that will grade schools with an over-simplified A-F rating, the local accountability system will look at fine arts, wellness and physical education, community and parental involvement, student participation in community service projects, workforce development, second language acquisition, dropout prevention, gifted and talented programs, and several others. Can you say transparency and accountability?


The results of these two accountability systems working together will better inform parents, local communities, interest groups, taxpayers and policymakers of what is really going on in Texas public schools. These two systems will show how school districts are preparing well-rounded students to have the tools to be good citizens, not just good test takers.

Here’s our unsolicited advice for school boards and school district leadership for the 1000+ public school districts. Don’t just tell us what you are doing well. Tell us where you feel you need improvement. Tell us about your shortcomings. Tell us about your successes. We all know public education, like life, can be messy and imperfect sometimes. If the public only sees the positives being reported, we’ll wonder what you’re not telling us. We have have seen countless examples of local communities rallying around their public schools in good times and bad. This will be no exception. Parents, local employers, school board members all stand ready to celebrate with you or roll up our sleeves and work with you, but it starts with open and robust communication.

We believe Texas owes a big THANK YOU to the 83rd Texas Legislature for giving our schools this new tool to inform local communities. We should mention the best part of this new law. It’s implemented and designed by LOCAL communities, without another unfunded mandate being passed by the legislature and implemented by the Texas Education Agency. God Bless Texas.

Here’s our request of the media. Please report the results of BOTH of these systems to our local communities. Please provide your readers/viewers with “The rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say.


Thomas Ratliff Mary Ann Whiteker

Vice-Chair Superintendent

State Board of Education Hudson ISD, Lufkin






Please read what another group of administrators is up to (excerpts from the 10.15.13 DMN article posted further on down the page).


The Texas High Performance Schools Consortium consortium is setting up its own accountability system and will try to “sell” the idea across the state. They are going to base their accountability system on the PSAT, SAT, and AP scores. Remember that all of these are products of The College Board which is now headed by David Coleman, the lead author of the Common Core Standards for English (i.e., ELA & Literacy in History, Social Studies, Science, and Technology). Coleman has already said he is going to align all of these products with the Common Core Standards.


Then, too, these administrators are also going to base scores on students’ portfolios. Do you know what this means? Portfolios are totally scored subjectively and will include techie-produced projects by students (constructivism gone wild). Portfolio assessments were tried in California 15 years ago, and they were a total failure because of their subjectivity. Kentucky also used subjective assessments some years ago. The grade inflation and lack of true accountability have been well documented in both states.

 Do you get it? The push by Ratliff, Whiteker, Texas High Performance Schools Consortium is to have subjective evaluations AND constructivist projects – Type #2 all the way! No “measuring stick” (STAAR/EOC’s) tied to Type #1 standards and tests…

 This is a huge coup for Microsoft, Gates, Pearson, TEKS Resource System, and all of the other big players who will make a fortune from Common Core Standards and techie-based, constructivist accountability systems.


These are the direct results of HB 5, HB 866, and the terrible damage that the 83rd Legislative Session did to our Texas public schools when they disrupted the roll out of the 4 x 4 and the Type #1 TEKS and Type #1 STAAR/EOC’s.

Now schools will take their eyes off the ball (academics) and will be double-minded as they attempt to implement a two-track system. This is the dumbing down of America and the indoctrination of our students.

Donna Garner





Texas school districts plan ratings without STAAR





Published: October 14, 2013 10:56 PM

Updated: October 15, 2013 9:42 AM

Despite the governor’s veto, a coalition of Texas school districts is trying to create an accountability system that doesn’t depend on STAAR.

Members of the Texas High Performance Schools Consortium are set to meet in Dallas on Thursday to consider the framework of the new system. It would be voluntary and run parallel to the state ratings.

Current standards, mostly based on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, “focus on a shame and blame environment to drive school improvement,” said Dawson Orr, superintendent of Highland Park ISD, a consortium member.


The new idea uses other tests already employed by some school districts. It would tailor some ratings and standards locally. It isn’t designed to compare school districts or schools. There’s no set of rewards for success or penalties for failure.


…Northwest is a fast-growing district with about 17,000 students. About 20 percent are Hispanic and 6 percent are black. About a quarter are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The system that Rue has been creating uses information the district is already gathering; no additional testing is needed.

“We’ve had all this data for years,” she said. “Now we’re going to share it.”

The consortium was created by state law in 2011, charged to develop “innovative, next-generation learning standards and assessment and accountability systems.”


The group’s leaders generally share a skepticism about the validity of the state’s tests and a preference for national tests such as the SAT and ACT. They oppose the use of “one-day, high-stakes” state tests as the most important tool of accountability. They want to use non-test techniques — portfolios, for instance — for aspects of education not easily captured on a multiple-choice exam. And they want much greater local control over how districts define success.


Their opponents, including some educators and business leaders, say the state tests are superior to national exams at determining whether students are learning the Texas-mandated curriculum. And that standards not based on tests given statewide are too easily manipulated.


A bill passed without opposition by state legislators this session would have granted the 23 districts in the consortium — with about 5 percent of the state’s students — the right to avoid some STAAR tests and the state’s ratings.


Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill.


“Flexibility and innovation are important, but we will not compromise academic rigor or student outcomes,” Perry wrote in his veto message.


What did that leave for the consortium? Several members have been working on developing an alternate accountability system for several years. So they’re going ahead with it even as they comply with state requirements.


“We hope to present information to those policymakers that this might be a better way to assess students,” Orr said.

Several North Texas districts are included in the consortium: Coppell, Duncanville, Highland Park, Irving, Lancaster, McKinney, Northwest, Richardson and Prosper.

The idea to be presented Thursday includes two components: one that might be roughly comparable across districts and one that would be intensely local.

The broad standards include checking reading, math and science for elementary and middle school students — but not every year for every grade. STAAR tests might be included. But other assessment tools that already test kids regularly through the school year could be employed.

 For high school students, measures of “postsecondary readiness” could include PSAT, SAT, AP and other national tests that some districts already provide for all students. A fourth category, “postsecondary success,” would use a tracking system that allows districts to follow the college record of graduates.


The local standards, created by each district, could include other ways to check on academic success, as well as assessing the effectiveness of career and technical training, measuring student engagement and determining how connected schools are to the community…


Share Button
Read More


Share Button

cscope FAILURE


I wished I could say the editorial statements below were surprising news but that would be far from the truth. We have been telling parents and the public going on a year now that CSCOPE (aka Teks Resource System) sets students up to fail. Students are not taking TEST as one would expect. They are taking assessments that are being data mined. The Assessments are not sent home for parents to review. A parent according to law can make an appointment and see the assessment once it has been administered. Parental involvement will be the ONLY thing that can change and fix the educational bureaucracy we now have in Texas. WAKE UP! GET INVOLVED AND ASK CAN I SEE!! #CANISEE

Victoria Advocate




Editor, the Advocate:

Have you ever studied hard for a test and were confident that you knew the material, but when you read the test questions, they had little to do with what you studied? This is the feeling many students in Victoria I.S.D. are experiencing.

Teachers are trying their best to teach the students what is expected. Teachers use the textbook, outside materials, etc. But when test time comes, they have to use CSCOPE tests which are not coordinated with textbooks and other materials that have been taught. Vocabulary used on CSCOPE tests is much higher than the grade level in which it is given. Parents can find out their children’s test score, but they cannot look at the test. Why have a test that doesn’t coordinate with what is taught? Besides, the school district is paying big bucks for the CSCOPE tests.

Students used to take either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the California Achievement Test. During the year, teachers used textbooks and supplemental materials. They used tests created by the textbook or the teacher. At the end of the year, students took the ITBS or CAT.

Most states used these tests, so it was easy to rate the states according to achievement. Some states didn’t want their rating to be known, so each state began to make their own tests. It wasn’t long before “testing companies” began to create and sell tests to school districts, and they found out it was quite lucrative.

A “testing company” can’t suit their tests to what a teacher has taught in the classroom. It’s like a doctor examining Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith but giving Mr. Jones’ medicine to Mr. Smith and vice versa.

I know we have competent intelligent teachers in VISD. Aren’t we able to teach and test without all this “outside help?”

I saw a refreshing sight on the marquee at Our Lady of Victory Catholic School. It read, “ITBS tests Sept. 18-20.” They’re still using the tried and true after all these years. Jumping on band wagons has never been a good idea.


Virginia Turner, Victoria

Share Button
Read More

Texas Teachers 2013/2014 CSCOPE.. GAG ORDER!

Share Button

CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL…. Below is what Texas Teachers have to agree to in order to enter the CSCOPE/TEKS Resource System. It is surprising that after all that has transpired over the last year and the controversy behind CSCOPE, the owners, the education service centers still want to control parents and teachers when it comes to viewing or speaking out against CSCOPE.

gag order


TEKS Resource System Terms of Service

Welcome to the TEKS Resource System website. Please review the following Terms of Service carefully. These Terms of Service are a legally binding contract between you, as the user of this website, and the Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative (“Cooperative” or “our” or “we” or “us”). It applies to your use of the Site and all information, media, content, printed materials and electronic documentation accessible from or any of its sub-domains (collectively, the “Site”). An employee of a Texas independent school district, charter school, or private school that has licensed use of the TEKS Resource System (a “LEA”), parents of LEA students who access the Site from a LEA computer on a LEA campus in accordance with the policies and procedures of the LEA, and employees and representatives of regional education service centers or the Cooperative, and any individual who has received TCMPC’s express written consent is an “Authorized User.”

The “Services” available to Authorized Users through the Site are the curriculum system, including assessments and assessment items, answer keys, curriculum components and resources (collectively, the “Components”), and professional development courses on the Site. The Services are designed to facilitate the ability of Authorized Users to provide instruction to children enrolled in LEAs in the State of Texas. We will continue to further develop Services and operate the Site, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, with a view to enhancing the ability of parents and of teachers and of other Authorized Users to provide high quality educational instruction.


1. Acceptance of Terms of Service.

Please review these Terms of Service carefully. By accessing or using the Site, you are agreeing to comply with and be bound by them. If you do not agree to these terms, do not use this Site.


2. Limited License; Permitted Uses; Restrictions on Use.

You are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to:

  • permit parents to review the Components and Website in accordance with the policies and procedures of the LEA that is your employer and with Texas Education Code § 26.006;
  • permit parents to view the Site and have access to all Components when present at a school within the child’s LEA in accordance with the policies and procedures of the LEA;
  • access and use the Site, the Services, and all Components strictly in accordance with this Agreement and any other agreement entered into between you, the Cooperative and/or any entity by which you are employed or with which you contract, and in accordance with the policies and procedures of the LEA;
  • use the Site solely for purposes of furthering the educational goals of the public schools that are licensees, either in their own right or through their LEA or the Cooperative, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the policies and procedures of the LEA;
  • print out and modify Components solely for the purposes set forth in the preceding bullet, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and the policies and procedures of the LEA;
  • modify the Components and create derivative works from the Components in accordance with Section 2 of the terms of this Agreement and the policies and procedures of the LEA. All modifications and derivative works of the Components belong to the Cooperative;
  • share the Components you have modified with other Authorized Users in accordance with this Agreement and the policies and procedures of the LEA.

You may not make any other use of the Site or Components. Other than this license, you do not have any license, title, or ownership of/to the TEKS Resource System or any other intellectual property of the Cooperative or any third party.

Your license for access and use of the Site and Components is subject to the following restrictions:

  • You must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as any policies and procedures imposed by the LEA regarding your use of the Site and the Components provided on the Site.
  • Except for access to parents and others as permitted by this Agreement, you may not make any portion of the Components available to someone who is not an Authorized User (including by copying, printing, transmitting, through any current or future technology or otherwise).
  • You may not, other than for the purpose of administering a test to students assigned to you, release any unit test or assessment or answer keys to parents, students, or individuals who are not Authorized Users within the LEA that is your employer (including copying, printing, posting or transmitting, through any current or future technology or otherwise).
  • You may not use the Site to make statements or Components that are defamatory, libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, abusive, tortuous conduct, hateful, discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex or disability, pornographic or obscene.
  • You may not use any Components in any manner that may violate or infringe any rights of the Cooperative or any third party.
  • You may not knowingly distribute viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other harmful or programming routines.
  • You may not impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of the Cooperative’s or other entities’ officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity or commit any fraudulent act.
  • You may not remove, change or obscure any copyright notice or other proprietary notices contained in any portion of the Site.
  • You may not remove, decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer any Site software or use any network monitoring or discovery software to determine the Site architecture or use any automatic or manual process to harvest information from the Site.
  • You may not transfer your right to use any portion of the Site or give your password to any other person.
  • You may not intentionally use the Site to interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment.
  • You may not take any action that would involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Site or interference with the Site or any servers or networks connected to the Site or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Site, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Site (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized).
  • You may not execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Site’s servers or any data not intended for you and you cannot attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any Components, host, network or account (“cracking”) on or from the Site.
  • You may not collect or store personal data about other account users or attempt to gain access to other account users’ accounts or otherwise mine information about other account users or about the Site.
  • You may not forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Site.
  • You may not take any action contrary to the Cooperative’s public image, goodwill, reputation or mission or otherwise not in furtherance of the intended uses of the Site

2. Copyright and Trademark Rights.

The content, curriculum, organization, graphics, design, photographs, images, text, audio/visual clips, sound records, compilations, magnetic translations, digital conversion and other materials located on the Site (the “Components”) are protected under applicable copyright, trademark and other proprietary and intellectual property rights. In addition, “TEKS Resource System” is our common law service mark and trademark. We own this mark and any other trademarks, service marks, slogans and logos (the “Marks”) used and displayed on the Site. Registration of the Marks is pending with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Please note:

  • You do not have any ownership rights to any Components or other materials viewed on or generated by the use of the Site. Your posting of information or materials on the Site does not constitute a waiver by the Cooperative of any right in such information and materials.
  • Posting the Components on other websites is strictly prohibited.
  • If you create any materials based on any portion of the Components, you must give full attribution to the Cooperative and you must include all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in this Agreement or in the Components.

Failure to abide by the Terms of Service will give the Cooperative the right to immediately and automatically terminate this Agreement, and may result in the infringement of the copyrights and trademarks owned by the Cooperative or its licensors.


4. Account Set Up and Requirements.

In order for Authorized Users other than a Parent to access the Site, you or your employer must create an account in the following manner:

  • To register for an account, you must provide your first name, last name, and a valid school or organization email address. Account creation will be coordinated by your organization, your Educational Service Center (ESC), or 3rd Learning. Upon creation of your account, you will receive an email with the appropriate login credentials. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and protecting against unauthorized use of your password.
  • · At your initial login, you will be asked whether you have read this Agreement and whether you agree to abide by its terms. If you do not agree to abide by the terms, you will not be permitted to access the Site.
  • You may be asked specific questions if you are seeking to use certain features of the Site, and your answers to those questions will determine whether or not you are eligible to register for those features. If you answer “I agree” and you answer all of the questions posed for each feature and otherwise are eligible, your account may be activated.
  • If you answer “I Do Not Agree” or otherwise do not answer all of the questions or otherwise are not eligible, your account will not be activated and you will not be permitted to access the Site.
  • We reserve the right to decline to activate an account in our reasonable judgment.
  • If your account is activated, you will receive a notification email immediately after you register. You must confirm your email address by clicking on the confirmation link in the notification email. Once you have confirmed your email address, you will be permitted to log in, view, load, and use the specific features of the Site for which you have been registered and which are permitted by the terms of this Agreement.
  • By making such confirmation, you acknowledge that you have read, understand your rights and obligations under, and agree to be bound by this Agreement. You further acknowledge that certain features will be provided subject to additional terms of service (or a separate written agreement) and you agree to abide by such additional terms of service.
  • You are responsible for all activities by you or others that occur under your password and user name. You will immediately notify us if your password is lost, stolen, disclosed to an unauthorized third party or otherwise has been compromised or if there is any other breach of security.
  • You must ensure that you exit from your account at the end of each session.
  • You must provide true, accurate, and complete information about yourself as prompted by our account activation form and promptly update your account information to keep it accurate and complete.

5. Message Boards & Other Public Forums.

The Cooperative may offer certain functionality on the Site, including message boards, blogs, chat rooms, instant messaging and other public forums. Your participation in these items is voluntary. However, any information or content you provide is not private or confidential and you authorize us and our affiliates and licensees to use the content you post, without compensation to you or others. The Cooperative may copy, reproduce, incorporate, distribute, publicly display or otherwise use any information you post as we deem appropriate throughout the world in any format or media. The Cooperative may edit, refuse to post or remove content you submit. To the extent permitted under applicable law, you waive and release and covenant not to assert any moral rights that you may have in any content posted by you. By posting content on the Site, you represent to the Cooperative that you own or have the right to use and permit the Cooperative to use the content as permitted by this Agreement. You agree not to post any content that belongs to any person other than yourself or that contains the name, voice or likeness of any person other than yourself unless you first obtain written permission to do so from that person. The Cooperative has no obligation to delete content that you personally may find objectionable or offensive. We do not control the information posted and we do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such information. We do not endorse or make any warranties or representations with TCMPC Revised 08/21/2013 Page 6 of 10 regard to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of any content posted on any public forum on the Site.


6. Personal Page.

While accessing or using the Site, you may be provided access to a personal web page that can be personalized with your own content (a “Personal Page”). Your Personal Page may have several features, such as a personal URL at a sub-domain or URL as may be designated by the Cooperative, reports and email address book. Your use of the Personal Page may require your agreement and compliance with supplemental terms at the time that you register for a Personal Page.


7. Availability of Site.

The Cooperative reserves the right to establish general practices and limits concerning the Site and user accounts at any time and may modify such practices and limits as it determines appropriate, including without limitation the maximum number of days that your or any third party’s information, pictures, content or email will be retained and the maximum amount of disk space that will be allotted on our or our vendors’ servers on your behalf. The Cooperative has no responsibility or liability for the deletion or failure to deliver or store your Personal Page or any other public forum, or any information, pictures, content or email provided by or stored by you on your Personal Page or any other public forum, regardless of whether the deletion or failure was due to the established practices or as a result of our error, intentional misconduct, or negligence. The Cooperative reserves the right to log off accounts that are inactive for a period of time designated by the Cooperative and reserves the right at any time it determines appropriate, and from time to time, to modify or discontinue, either temporarily or permanently, your access to the Site, or any part thereof, with or without notice. You agree that we shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any such modification, suspension or discontinuance of your access to the Site.


8. Errors, Corrections and Changes.

The Cooperative does not represent or warrant that the Site will be error free, free of viruses or other harmful components, or that defects will be corrected. We may make changes to the features, functionality or Components at any time. We reserve the right to edit or delete any documents, information or other Components as we determine appropriate.


9. Use of Submissions.

We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use and assign all information regarding Site uses by you and all information provided by you in any manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. All remarks, suggestions, ideas, graphics, or other information about the Components or the Site (or any service, information, content or documentation therein) communicated by you to us (collectively, a “Submission”) and all intellectual property rights from the date of creation or inception will forever be our property. We will not be required to treat any Submission as confidential, and will not be liable to you or others for any ideas (including without limitation, Components or ideas) comprising Submissions, all of which may be freely used by us without compensation, accounting or restrictions, and we will not incur any liability as a result of any similarities that may appear in our future products, TCMPC Revised 08/21/2013 Page 7 of 10 services or operations. Without limitation, we will have exclusive ownership of all present and future existing rights to each Submission of every kind and nature everywhere. We will be entitled to use the Submission for any commercial or other purpose whatsoever, without compensation or accounting to you or any other person. You acknowledge that you are responsible for whatever material you submit, and you have sole responsibility for the content thereof, including its legality, reliability, appropriateness, originality, accuracy, and copyright.


10. Term & Termination.

This Agreement is effective from the date you first access the Site, and continues in effect until terminated in accordance with this Agreement.

The Cooperative may terminate your access to the Site without prior notice if: (i) you breach this Agreement; (ii) any government agency so directs; (iii) technical or security issues occur; or (iv) the LEA User License Agreement under which you are an Authorized User terminates.

On termination, the Cooperative may immediately deactivate or delete your account and all related information, files or content in your account and bar any access to such information or content by you or others. The Cooperative shall not be obligated to return or provide copies of any information, files or content in your account to you upon deactivation. The Cooperative shall not be liable to any third party for any deactivation of your access to the Site.

Upon termination, neither you nor the Cooperative will have any further obligation to the other under this Agreement except for liability arising prior to the effective date of termination. Also, your obligations under this Agreement, which by their nature are intended to survive termination (such as indemnification) shall survive the termination of your access to the Site.


11. Investigation of Complaints.

We reserve the right to investigate complaints or reported violations of this Agreement and to take appropriate action, in our reasonable judgment. If you wish to submit a complaint or report a violation of this Agreement, please notify the Cooperative at the address stated in Section 11 with a description of the alleged complaint or violation and the person or entity that is the subject of your complaint or of the violation.


12. Notice of Claims of Intellectual Property Violations.

The Components may include pictures, information, testimonials, letters, marks, slogans and other content uploaded or provided by third parties or otherwise received from third parties. The Cooperative does not permit the use of Components that infringes on the copyright or trademarks or rights of publicity of others, and will remove any such content that violates the copyright or trademarks or other rights of others if properly notified of such violation in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Agreement. If you believe that any of the Components infringes your copyright or trademark rights or your rights of publicity, please TCMPC Revised 08/21/2013 Page 8 of 10 provide the Cooperative (whose contact information is provided below) with the following information:

  • a physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;
  • identification of the copyrighted work or mark or publicity right claimed to have been infringed, or, if you believe that multiple works, marks or publicity rights have been infringed, a representative list of such works, marks or publicity rights;
  • identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the Cooperative to locate the material;
  • information reasonably sufficient to permit the Cooperative to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which you may be contacted;
  • a statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the owner, its agent, or the law; and
  • a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of a right that is allegedly infringed.

The Cooperative’s agent for the notice of any claim of infringement of any copyright or trademark or right of publicity is as follows:

By mail:
Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative
Attention: Wade Labay
5701 Springdale Road
Austin, Texas 78723

Please provide all of the information requested above. No specific form is required to provide the Cooperative with notifications of possible infringement. However, it will take the Cooperative longer to process your notice if any of this information is not provided, and in some cases, we may not be able to process your notice.


13. Disclaimer.



14. Limitation of Liability.

  • Neither the Cooperative nor any Affiliated Party shall be liable for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage of any kind resulting in any way from: (i) any errors in or omissions on the Site or in the Components; (ii) the unavailability or interruption of the Site or any features thereof; (iii) your use of the Site; (iv) the Components; or (v) any delay or failure in performance beyond the control of the Cooperative or any Affiliated Party.

15. Governing Law.

This Agreement, and all related matters, shall be governed by Texas law and United States law. Any action arising out of any dispute with respect to this Agreement shall only be brought in the state or federal courts located in Travis County, Texas. You agree that the statute of limitations for any claim against the Cooperative shall be brought within one year from when the claim arose, and any claims not brought within such period of time shall be deemed waived.


16. Equitable Remedies.

You agree that, if the terms of this Agreement are not specifically enforced, we will be irreparably damaged, and therefore you agree that we shall be entitled, without bond, other security or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect any breaches, in addition to any other available remedies.


17. Miscellaneous.

This Agreement shall be interpreted as to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any party. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement and all incorporated agreements and your information may be automatically assigned by us in our sole discretion to a third party in the event of an acquisition, sale or merger. If any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, it shall be replaced, to the extent possible, with a legal, valid, and enforceable provision that is similar in tenor to the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision as is legally possible. To the extent that anything in or associated with the Site is in conflict or inconsistent with this Agreement, this Agreement shall take precedence. Our failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such provision nor of the right to enforce such provision. Our rights under this Agreement shall survive any termination of this Agreement. The captions used in this Agreement are provided for convenience only and shall have no effect on the construction of the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement (and each supplemental agreement referenced in or referencing this Agreement found on the Site) constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Cooperative with respect to the Site, the Components and any related matter.


18. Changes to Terms of Use.

We reserve the right to change the Terms of Service any time by reasonable notice, including without limitation by posting revised Terms of Service on the Site (which shall constitute reasonable notice). All amended Terms of Service shall be binding upon you immediately upon their posting on the Site. Thus, you should consult the most recent version of these Terms of Service each time you view the Site.

Do you agree?


Share Button
Read More

CSCOPE Assessments Now Posted on Public Website

Share Button

“CSCOPE Assessments Now Posted on Public Website”

by Donna Garner



Kate Alexander, liberal and biased reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, has written an article in today’s paper entitled “Activists publish CSCOPE tests online.” I have posted excerpts further on down the page.



Kate mentions nothing in this article about the fact that the TESCCC (made up of all 20 Education Service Center directors) was the corporate owner of CSCOPE (and all its parts).  TESCCC announced on May 20, 2013, that TESCCC would cease to exist. 


From what has been widely publicized, the TESCCC decided to shut itself down because it was set up originally as a “shell corporation” without the appropriate business mechanisms having been put in place; millions of taxpayers’ dollars are still unaccounted for; and lawsuits may be in the offing because of plagiarism found in the CSCOPE lessons. The Texas State Auditor, John Keel, is presently doing a formal audit of TESCCC/ESC/CSCOPE; and shortly a formal complaint may be filed with the IRS.   


The TESCCC directors signed a letter saying that the CSCOPE lessons would be taken off the website on Aug. 31, 2013, when the yearly school contracts expired.  In the same 5.20.13 letter, the TESCCC also announced that the ESC’s would produce and sell no more lesson plans to Texas schools.



Then up popped Thomas Ratliff who loudly began advising Texas public school administrators to let their teachers download the CSCOPE lessons and to keep using them anyway.  Ratliff is a registered lobbyist for Microsoft and gets richer each time online technology in Texas schools is utilized.  Because of his obvious conflict of interest, Ratliff is an illegal member of the Texas State Board of Education because of the monetary/business ties that the Texas Education Agency and SBOE have with Microsoft.  


Grassroots citizens have generated a petition to have Ratliff impeached by the Texas House  — IMPEACHRATLIFF.COM.



At the July 17-19, 2013 Texas State Board of Education meeting, David Anderson, legal counsel for the Texas Education Agency, verbalized his interpretation of this confusing situation, saying that after Aug. 31, 2013, the CSCOPE lessons would become a part of the public domain and could be utilized by any and all.  On 8.22.13, the Texas Tribune published the CSCOPE lessons on their website.


However, nothing has been decided legally about the ownership of the CSCOPE assessments. The TESCCC owned the CSCOPE lessons and the accompanying assessments; but since the TESCCC has shut itself down and its contracts with districts have ceased to exist, it seems reasonable to assume that the CSCOPE assessments should be in the public domain also.  



On 8.12.13, the former TESCCC members met as a committee at ESC 13 in Austin and suddenly began calling themselves the Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative (TCMPC).  The name CSCOPE has been changed to the TEKS Resource System, and all of the same CSCOPE “parts” are being marketed by the ESC’s except for the CSCOPE lessons (which can now be accessed on the Texas Tribune website).



This week a few of the CSCOPE assessments have been put into the public domain on a public website with more assessments sure to be published soon.  The question remains, “If TESCCC shut itself down, then who owns the CSCOPE assessments?” 



Please go to this link to see how Texas teachers feel about the CSCOPE lessons, assessments, and scope and sequence:



The Texas State Board of Education is supervising the review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons since many schools in Texas have decided to keep using the CSCOPE lessons which are now in the public domain.  The review teams are evaluating whether or not the CSCOPE lessons are aligned with the state-adopted-and-mandated curriculum standards (TEKS) and are free from factual errors.


As a part of the SBOE review of the CSCOPE social studies lessons, a public hearing will be held by the SBOE on Sept. 13 at 9:00 A. M. (changed from an earlier start time of 1:00 P. M.)  Here is the link to the information people need who wish to testify at that meeting:



For those school districts that insist on using CSCOPE lessons (or whatever the new name may be), the “elephant in the room” is still parental access 24/7 to the CSCOPE curriculum.  


Statute established in the Texas Education Code (TEC) states that the school district must “allow the student to take home any instructional materials used by the student…The parent must be allowed to review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent’s child…A school district shall make teaching materials and tests readily available for review by parents.”  (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle E. Students and Parents, Chapter 26. Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Sec. 26.006. Access to Teaching Materials — )


Definition of “instructional materials” – The term includes a book, supplementary materials, a combination of a book, workbook, and supplementary materials, computer software, magnetic media, DVD, CD-ROM, computer courseware, on-line services, or an electronic medium, or other means of conveying information to the student or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means, including open-source instructional material. (Texas Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle F. Curriculum, Programs, and Services, Chapter 31. Instructional Materials, Subchapter A. General Provisions, Sec. 31.002, Definitions, Instructional Material — )



As described by an experienced Texas teacher:


Hypothetically, if a teacher ‘does’ a CSCOPE lesson, the parent will never be able to see it. It will be played out in the classroom. The only thing that will come home is a graphic organizer with a bunch of empty boxes — no explanation at the top, no content to review…


CSCOPE doesn’t provide the content — meaning the informational text for the student. That is why it is so dangerous.  It provides a script for the teacher, which the parent will never see. The teacher is left to scramble for material all over the internet. 


When dangerous links in the CSCOPE lessons were made public by concerned citizens, the TESCCC (corporate owner of CSCOPE) pulled those links. This is the big danger of CSCOPE and other online materials.  Links and other content can be taken out or put back in ‘at the click of a mouse’ without parental knowledge.  



Another expert on CSCOPE has stated:


We also need to keep going back to the fact that the TESCCC was never forced to provide actual access for parents  – a requirement of the Texas Education Code. TESCCC skirted by on pledges to create a new website with total access, which turned out to be a sham since parents did not have genuine access to the lessons being used in CLASSROOMS, only samples (as was the case with the original CSCOPE domain)…


No access was ever truly granted.  Therefore, the question of access is still a valid one for the courts and should be the primary focus of legal efforts. 


For success in court, parents need to seek injunctive relief on the basis of being denied access to the lessons used by both the District and TESCCC. Injury on the basis of ACCESS will give all parents standing. And standing, is what judges care about.  




9.5.13 – “Activists Publish CSCOPE Tests Online” – by Kate Alexander, Austin American-Statesman —


Excerpts from this article:

A conservative blogger has published online the questions and answers for social studies tests available to hundreds of Texas school districts because she maintains they reflect a pro-Islam and anti-American bias.

The public release of the tests could render them unusable and is the latest development in an ongoing saga over a curriculum system, formerly known as CSCOPE, that has inflamed conservative and tea party activists over the past year.

Ginger Russell, half of the mother-daughter duo that sparked the CSCOPE controversy, posted the 10 tests on her website — — on Wednesday. Russell said she believed that parents needed to see the tests, which had been provided to her by teachers

It will be left up to the school districts whether to continue using the tests, but many teachers and administrators have already expressed concern that the integrity of the assessments had been compromised, said Mason Moses, a spokesman for the state-funded Education Service Centers that developed the assessments.

“We take this very seriously. … This may be just 10 or so now, but there is concern that moving forward it could multiply significantly,” Moses said.

Posting the tests online harms the schools that have found them to be a useful resource, said State Board of Education member Thomas Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant.

“Clearly, what she’s trying to do is destroy the whole program,” Ratliff said of Russell


Donna Garner


Share Button
Read More

“21st Century Learning” is Dangerous!

Share Button





Jerry Maze is the director of Texas Education Service Center XII (ESC 12) and is also the chairman of the new CSCOPE management team, “Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative” (TCMPC).  Those responsible for CSCOPE are working frantically to salvage it’s reputation by giving it the new name of  “TEKS Resource System. Don’t be fooled, CSCOPE’s radical agenda is still in play working on implementing 21st Century Learning in Texas Schools, Project Based Learning (PBL).  

You maybe wondering what is wrong with 21st Century Learning? 21 Century Learning is based on the premise of totally transforming our world to a more diverse, globalized society. 21 Century Learning is not based on absolute truth, American Sovereignty is not taught.  Greater focus is placed on “Feelings and Emotions” in a modern “21 Century classroom”  than the core subjects of Math, English, Science, and History.

Framework for 21st Century Learning 

21 Century Learning Vocabulary 


21st vocabulary


I found the following post below on ESC 12’s FACEBOOK Page,  Empathy: the Most Important Back-to-School Supply. Being fully aware that the US is transforming how and what students are taught, the post grabbed my attention. It is shocking to say the least to see that TEXAS has fallen into line with this soft “feel good” “we are all going to love everyone” education philosophy in hopes of creating diversity and globalization.

Christian families who have taught their children the scripture as in John 14:6  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me”, that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is murder, unfortunately will be under under pressure to compromise their values with 21st Century Learning for the desired result of creating diversity and globalization. 21st Century Learning is Dangerous!



The article links to the following poster for teachers to hang in their classroom.

diversity poster

Share Button
Read More

CSCOPE Gets New Name… TEKS Resource System

Share Button

8-29-2013 1-30-27 PM



The directors of the Texas Education Service Centers who created CSCOPE are jumping through hoops trying to salvage  CSCOPE’s well deserved tainted image. The fact that you have individuals create a non profit within a state agency, fund it with tax dollars to create a product and in turn sell the product back to the tax payers is ludicrous if not illegal.

This week the director of ESC 12, Jerry Maze sent out the letter below stating that CSCOPE will now be referred to as TEKS RESOURCE SYSTEM. It has been said “you can run but you can’t hide & a “rose by any other name is still a rose”.. CSCOPE is still the implementation of a progressive ideology in our Texas schools, no matter what they call it. Nothing about CSCOPE has changed except for the fact that through  grassroots involvement the Exemplar lessons are now (after revisions from exposure) have been put in the public domain. The governing board originally called Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) is getting a face lift as well. Their new name is Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative.


TESCCC Original Formation for the Secretary of State

TESCCC Public Information Report


jerry maze



Share Button
Read More

Hit Counter provided by Skylight