Woke Claims About New Texas Traditional Curriculum
By Carole Hornsby Haynes September 23, 2024
Public schools have become online communist indoctrination centers with the majority of students functionally illiterate and unable to perform the 3 Rs. The Texas legislature passed HB 1605 that mandated a state developed open source traditional curriculum free of digital learning, left wing ideology, and whole language. With Bluebonnet Learning, Reading Language Arts, Ed. 1, students are immersed in studies about Western civilization and classic literature with reading lessons about art, history, culture, science and technology; stories about Texas; and stories to teach morality. Students again will learn phonics and cursive writing. A portal is provided for parents to see what their children are learning. District use will be voluntary.
If this curriculum is adopted by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), billions will be lost by bottom feeders preying on children and the public school system including SEL, LGBT, and DEI programs; the medical industry; Big Pharma; EdTech; and teacher unions. With the new curriculum we will see an improvement in academic achievement and students instilled with a love for America and our Western traditional values of family and church. With a return to the teaching of morality, we will see a with far less violence.
As expected, there is a vicious response from those who want the curriculum tossed into the dustbin. This includes not only leftists but self described “conservatives” and “Christians.” Some of these critics have such a deep seated hatred of Texas Education Commissioner Michael Morath -- and his endless work to return public schools to what many of us remember from the past -- that they will attack anything to which he is connected. These “conservatives” are using strategies from Rules for Radicals to try to shut down supporters of the new traditional curriculum. Why are they threatening supporters? Who's paying them?
Further information:
“1 State Could Lead the Way in Returning to Traditional Schooling”
“Texas HB 1605 Kicks Indoctrination Out, Returns Control to SBOE and Parents"
Here are some of the outrageous claims by opponents to stop SBOE approval and shut down support.
CLAIM #1: “Commissioner Mike Morath has exposed children to extremely harmful and pornographic curriculum.”
FACT: How? Where? Nothing suppports this claim. Show proof.
CLAIM #2: “Open Education Resources is a National Security Threat. Here is a video connecting the dots.” “The Texas Legislature and Education Commissioner Mike Morath have been implementing Open Education Resources.” “Open Resources is a backdoor.”
FACT: This is the most bizarre and most far fetched claim yet. Claiming that TEA OER will place our national security at risk, these wokesters posted their video on Twitter. The video (link) shows Tucker Carlson interviewing Pavel Durov, Russian billionaire and founder of Telegram social media company. Durov said his software engineer was contacted secretly by cyber security agents from the U.S. government about integrating certain open source tools into the code to create a backdoor for spying on Telegram users.
-- TEA OER is not a chat app. Explain specifically how pdf lessons can be used to spy on students.
CLAIM #3: UNESCO coined the term Open Education Resources (OER) in 2002 to establish a global curriculum and implement the U.N. Sustainable Goals. OER is listed 65 times in HB1605 which is evidence that the legislation promotes globalism.
FACT: TEA OER is a Texas developed product aligned with Texas standards. Although UNESCO coined the term OER in 2002, open resources is a common tech industry term. Teachers have used open education resources since colonial days. Texas schools have been using unapproved open education resources since the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 6 in 2011. Schools were allowed to spend taxpayer money for non-SBOE approved materials, especially online learning. This began the shift away from textbooks to online learning and wide use of non-SBOE approved open resources that often contained leftwing ideology. NAEP math and reading scores declined in Texas. Extensive research shows digital learning has been a causal factor for the decline, especially in reading. HB 1605 is one of the best pieces of Texas legislation ever becauses it reverses the trend toward online learning and the use of non-SBOE instructional materials and requires 100% alignment with theh TEKS.
-- Show proof that TEA OER is aligned with UNESCO (education arm of the U.N.) or the U.N. Indicate grade, unit/lesson, and page numbers where globalism is promoted.
CLAIM #4: Repeal HB 1605 because it promotes globalism, UNESCO and online open education resources.
FACT: In 2018 I wrote an article, “Fed & EdTech Partnership Pushes Data Mining And Video Games Into Classrooms” (link),
“The USDE launched Online Education Resources and encouraged states, school districts and educators to use open licensed online curriculum and educational games. Through OER, giant corporations are bypassing the state boards of education and controlling the online “personalized” curriculum content that our American students are being taught. Taxpayers are being forced to fund this unapproved content. In Texas, 2011 Senate Bill 6 allowed schools to purchase non-state-approved online instructional materials and hand the bill to the taxpayers. This is how CSCOPE – Texas’ version of Common Core – sneaked into the curriculum.”
HB 1605 moves the classroom away from online, unapproved open education resources and mandates that the state develop an open resources curriculum designed to be printed, 100% aligned with the Texas curriculum standards (TEKS), and free to download and use by anyone, including homeschoolers. Texas school districts will be financially incentivized to use it instead of SB6 funded online materials promoted by the US. Department of Education and widely sold by progressive edtech companies.
A bill is being introduced in the 2025 Texas legislative session to end all taxpayer funding for non-SBOE approved open resources and instructional materials.
CLAIM #5: “HB 1605 is digital Common Core.” OER is aligned with Common Core.
FACT: TEA OER is designed to be used as a print curriculum. There is no online student portal for digital lessons.
– Indicate the grade level, unit, lesson, and page numbers and the specific Common Core Standard to which it is aligned.
CLAIM #6: “TEA concealed a $50 million no-bid contract. They spent another $19M to buy the rights to Amplify Texas. TEA gave another $84 million consulting contract to the Boston-based Public Consulting Group to revise the curriculum. TEA is now taking bids to revise the revisions.”
FACT: In response to the COVID school shutdown, TEA conducted an emergency Request for Proposal (RFP) for instructional materials to be used in print or digital form and either in-person, remotely, or hybrid. Twenty-three vendors responded and contracts were signed with six, who agreed to provide content aligned with the TEKS. Based on feedback during the pilot programs, content was revised and published in editions #2-4 of Amplify ELAR Texas to further perfect the curriculum.
CLAIM #7: “The OER lessons mandated by HB1605 are Amplify which is Common Core aligned.”
FACT: Amplify (CKLA) is a national product over which Texas has no control or connection. However, local districts can select this national product if they wish – using taxpayer funding allocated under SB6 (2011). The SBOE decides WHAT will be taught in Texas public schools but NOT HOW it wiil be taught. The TEA has NO authority over what instructional materials a district uses.
-- Show specific evidence of alignment to Common Core of any lesson from the TEA-OER curriculum.
CLAIM #8: TEA OER is merely a rebranding of the original Amplify -- 70% of original Amplify is still in TEA OER.
FACT: The TEA does not use the national Amplify product. TEA contracted with Amplify along with other providers to create content aligned to the TEKS. Using feedback from pilot programs, the content was revised in editions #2-4. Based on further feedback, TEA determined far greater changes were needed and issued another RFP with the contract going to Florida-based Public Consulting Group (PCG). A vastly different curriculum was provided with very little of previous editions of Amplify Texas. The TEA disclosure at the end of each OER unit states: “….portions of this are adapted from originals created by Amplify Education.” The new curriculum has been named appropriately “Bluebonnet Learning, Edition 1.” This is NOT rebranding.
CLAIM #9: The pilot programs of OER use children as “guinea pigs.”
FACT: Pilot programs are conducted widely and across varied fields, including education; technology (software, equipment); medical (procedures, devices, vaccines, medications, treatments); vehicles of all types; military; machinery; equipment; and millions of other inventions, new methods, et al. What person or organization would be so outrageously incompetent and foolish as to implement a large scale program or invention to be used by many people without small sample testing?
CLAIM #10: OER is obviously a digital curriculum since the word “technology” appears “45 times” in HB 1605.
FACT: There have been separate state funds for “Instructional Materials” and for “Technology”. Now the funds have been combined as “Instructional Materials and Technology.” HB 1605 shows the required deletion and revision markups which cause the word “technology” to be used repeatedly. TEA OER is designed to be printed, not used as digital lessons. Parents and teachers can accesss the digital lesson but there is no online student portal.
CLAIM #11: “Amplify” is a state curriculum and destroys local control.
FACT: Mislabeling is purposely used to confuse the public. Amplify is a national product – not a Texas product – over which Texas has no control. The TEA OER is a state curriculum devoid of leftwing ideology, LGBT, DEI, Critical Race Theory, Social and Emotional Learning, and Common Core and is voluntary for district use. TEA has no authority over what curriculum or instructional materials districts select.
CLAIM #12: OER can be changed easily at local level.
FACT: Such a claim shows a profound ignorance – or maybe just plain lying – about how a technology operating platform works. TEA OER can be revised only in minor ways at the local level since the materials are downloaded in pdf format. To be make changes locally as opponents imply, someone would have to access the backend and change the coding. Are opponents implying that districts will be given operational access to the system? Substantive changes can be made only by the SBOE.
CLAIM #13: “Teachers are burdened by printing manuals locally and begging for printer paper and limited printing rights. Bound printed materials are wasterful, a charade. Just go back to textbooks.”
FACT: Printing and binding for the textbooks will be done by the school district through an SBOE contracted provider at a discouted rate. The curriculum will continue to be improved for excellence so hardback text printing is wasteful spending.
Why are a few woke ladies in such a tizzy over the type of binding for the textbook? What does it matter? A good teacher does not need pricey hardback textbooks, computers, overhead projectors, or any other expensive classroom materials or gadgets to provide an outstanding education for children. A fifth-grade math or rhetoric textbook from 1850 would be considered college level material today. What did the teachers have to work with then? And what type of school books did children have? My mother’s 12th grade math book was small and thin with a pliable binding and fits inside my handbag. In contrast, Texas second grade math book is a hardback with over 700 pages! What could possibly be included in such a massive book? Can a 7-year-old carry it home?
CLAIM #14: Teachers will be relegated to digital facilitators and purveyors of printed manuals with scripted lesson plans, undermining the experience and knowledge of professional educators.
FACT: No longer will students teach themselves through collaborative project-based learning. Teachers will resume the traditional role of leading academic instruction. Lessons are ready to use, thus saving a teacher many extra hours of gathering materials and creating lessons that align with the TEKS. Scripts are provided so that even novice teachers can teach exemplary lessons. Those with weak backgrounds in unrevised history and Western civilization, as well as training in Whole Language – three cueing – instead of phonics, will benefit greatly. Students will be the real winners.
CLAIM #15: Districts will be forced to use OER because of the incentive. “Based on how districts are funded and grants issued for use of Amplify, schools cannot afford to opt out.”
FACT: The woke crowd continues to use the term Amplify to confuse the public. TEA OER is NOT the same as Amplify and continuing to mislabel is willful lying by woke opponents. The new traditional curriculum is devoid of leftwing ideology and focuses on teaching Western values with strong positive character traits that foster a healthy mental attitude. The alphabet soup of Marxist SEL, LGBT, and DEI programs with bloated, six-figure staffs will be eliminated which frees up far more than enough funding for the Bluebonnet Learning curriculum.
CLAIM #16: “TEA OER are not high quality if they align to the TEKS.” “The TEA is fully aware” that the TEKS are “aligned to the Common Core National Standards which are federally mandated. They had to be in order for the State to get a waiver from the federal government.”
FACT: This claim is garbled; the information is false and shows a lack of understanding of the federal policy. Let’s break it down. Common Core State Standards is a term used interchangeably with “college and career readiness standards.” CC was NEVER A FEDERAL MANDATE and was never adopted by Texas and three other states. In an effort to force all states to comply, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) codified the CC Standards and required states to implement the act or lose billions in federal funding. ESSA is a federal law that unconstitutionally requires states to “demonstrate” they have adopted state curriculum standards aligned with “college and career standards.” Opponents seem to assume that since Texas implemented ESSA, its standards are aligned, specifically line by line, to CC Standards, yet ESSA does not specify that. Rather it is a broad requirement that a state must show it has adopted “challenging state academic standards” that prepare students either for college or for a career. Because ESSA is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which leaves education to local control, the federal government has no authority to pass or enforce this bill or to approve or disapprove a state’s curriculum standards.
-- Indicate grade, lesson, unit and page numbers in OER and the specific Common Core Standard to which it is aligned.