Congressman Lou Gohmert’s Resolution Denouncing Common Core

Dear Friends,

A timely and informative Resolution Against Common Core Co-Sponsored by Congressman Lou Gohmert (R)

Denounce the Common Core State Standards.

Congressional summary:: Strongly denouncing the President’s coercion of States into adopting the Common Core State Standards by conferring preferences in Federal grants:

  • Whereas the development of the Common Core State Standards has transformed into an incentives-based mandate from the Federal Government;
  • Whereas the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 prohibits the establishment of a national curriculum by the Department of Education;
  • Whereas President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced competitive grants through the Race to the Top program to adopt ‘internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace’;

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

  1. States and local educational agencies should maintain the right and responsibility of determining educational curricula;
  2. the Federal Government should not incentivize the adoption of common education standards; and
  3. no application process for any Federal grant funds should provide any preference for the adoption of the Common Core State Standards.

Opponent’s argument against (CoreStandards.org): The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards [not adopted in TX, NE, AK, MN, and VA]. The nation’s governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the initiative. Teachers, parents, school administrators and experts from across the country together with state leaders provided input into the development of the standards.

Source: HRes.476 & SRes.345 14-HR0476 on Feb 11, 2014

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

gtince@aol.com

www.tincymiller.com

Message from Chair of SBOE

Dear Friends,
Sharing a most timely and informative message from our SBOE Chairman.
THE CARGILL CONNECTION, December 2014
UPDATE ON THE VOTE FOR K-12 HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
The State Board of Education voted on the final approval of K-12 history textbooks on Friday, November 21. The approved list of textbooks has been posted on the Texas Education Agency website at http://tea.texas.gov/Curriculum_and_Instructional_Programs/Instructional_Materials/ When you open the link, click on SBOE-Adopted Proclamation 2015 Materials (PDF) under Latest News. I extend heartfelt thanks to those of you who testified in Austin or e-mailed, called, or wrote board members, encouraging them to support textbooks that reflect the values and ideals that we hold dear.
I am pleased with the results of the State Board of Education’s (SBOE) vote. Many of us on the board stood strong against liberal groups who wanted accurate content about our country’s rich religious heritage not only revised but eliminated. As your board member, I fought to ensure that the textbooks are factually correct about our country’s rich religious heritage, patriotism, the military, the Founding Fathers and documents, American exceptionalism, and the benefits of the free enterprise system.
Media Hoopla
Our students must be taught true, factual history, not revisionist history. The textbooks do a fair, balanced job of covering our religious heritage and its influence on our nation’s Founders. You may have heard a lot of negative media hoopla about the textbook coverage of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Read the following TEKS as well as sample textbook content and decide for yourself.
Required TEKS for U.S. Government course:
1. History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by ideas, people, and historical documents.
The student is expected to: 1 (C) identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu.
Required TEKS for World History course:
(20) Government. The student understands how contemporary political systems have developed from earlier systems of government. The student is expected to: (B) identify the impact of political and legal ideas contained in the following documents: Hammurabi’s Code, the Jewish Ten Commandments, Justinian’s Code of Laws, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen;
Sample content from two U.S. Government textbooks:
One textbook accurately claims, “[The] biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”
Another textbook states, “Moses was a lawgiver and a great leader. Like the founders of the United States, he helped establish a legal system to govern his people. The Ten Commandments have been a guide and basis for many legal and moral systems throughout the world.” The annotation to the biography states: “Moses helped establish a legal system, including the Ten Commandments, to govern his people. Similarly, the founders of the United States wrote the Constitution and established a system of laws to govern Americans. They were also part of a tradition that was familiar with the Ten Commandments as a guide for moral behavior.”

I decided to do some more research and learned that this information is historically accurate and is supported on the Library of Congress website under “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.” It is important to note that Moses, a revered figure in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is openly honored as a lawgiver in many of our nation’s most public governmental buildings, including inside the U. S. Supreme Court, the Ronald Reagan Transportation Building, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the U. S. Capitol, among others. In fact, over the gallery doors of the U. S. House Chamber there are twenty-three marble relief portraits of the world’s greatest lawgivers, including Lycurgus, Solon, Maimonides, Hammurabi, Gregory IX, Justinian I, Papinian, Gaius, Innocent III, Tribonian, Suleiman, Alfonso X, Hugo Grotius, Edward I, Simon de Montfort, Sir William Blackstone, Robert Joseph Pothier, Jean Baptiste Colbert, Saint Louis, Napoleon I, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and Moses.
In the eastern half of the chamber, eleven profiles face left and the eleven in the western half face right. This was so that all of them look towards the full-face relief of Moses in the center of the north wall. The Architect of the Capitol website states, “The subjects of the reliefs were chosen by scholars from the University of Pennsylvania and the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., in consultation with authoritative staff members of the Library of Congress. The selection was approved by a special committee of five Members of the House of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol.”
Obviously Moses is given great credit as a lawmaker who influenced the authors of many American founding documents.
Pressure from the Other Side
Here are a couple of examples to show you what we were up against. On November 19, board members received a letter signed by 52 professors (from colleges such as SMU, UT, The University of Mary Washington) that said:

“These and similar passages mislead students about the nature of the religious influence on our founding and directly contradict scholarly consensus in our fields. They distort the legacy of our Founders and major Biblical figures by misrepresenting their ideas and actions. The opportunity to educate our nation’s students comes with a responsibility to treat students and our nation’s past with respect. We take this responsibility seriously. By eliminating the exaggerations and inventions in your textbooks about the influence of religion on our founding, you can demonstrate that you take this responsibility seriously as well. We ask that you revise your proposed materials to make them historically accurate and faithful to mainstream scholarship in our fields.”

At the board’s September public hearing, a disgruntled testifier from a Texas university said that information in some of the textbooks made Moses sound like he was a “Founding Father.” That phrase was picked up in the press and before you know it, the SBOE was being accused of requiring that Moses be taught as a Founding Father. Falsehoods like that are very frustrating but it is up to me, as your elected official, to stay focused on the real issues at hand. While gossip and rumors swirled, I continued to review comments from dedicated volunteers who were diligently reviewing the books and had been doing so for months. These volunteers found hundreds of errors. Amazingly, publishers corrected many of them although there were others that the publishers did not agree were errors.

Texans Rose Up to Take a Stand

Knowing that the board was being pressured by liberal groups and by mostly inaccurate media coverage, citizens across Texas rose up to take a stand to help us! After receiving thousands of e-mails and calls from moms, dads, grandparents, teachers, and other citizens, it was obvious how they wanted accurate history in our children’s textbooks. As one parent put it, “History and our religious heritage should not be deleted. Important lessons are learned from these core values that our country was founded on and will help to teach our children about moral excellence which our society greatly needs. History is history!”

Allow me a moment to comment. We must continue to fight for our students to learn the truth about our country’s founding as a constitutional republic. They must learn about its victories and struggles to achieve and maintain freedom. Has it always been pretty? Of course not, and our students must learn about those parts of our history as well. Hopefully we can all learn from past mistakes. With that said, the students in classrooms today are our future citizens and leaders. If we don’t stand up against those in academia who promote anti-American sentiments, how will our students be equipped to lead our country in the future? Will they be willing to courageously unite together in times of trouble? Will they love their country enough to fight for its ideals and for the common good? Will they remember the heroic sacrifices made by their forefathers for the freedoms they enjoy? These are thought provoking questions but we must face them head-on and be ever watchful about what is taught in our nation’s classrooms, including college classrooms.
Thank You!
Thank you for your interest and passion for the education of our children. By working together, we have brought about positive change in the approved history textbooks that will be purchased in the great state of Texas! (*Note, I must remind you that in 2011 the legislature passed SB 6 which lifted the requirement that all publishers submit their textbooks to the state review process in order to be purchased with state funds. The SBOE approved over 80 history textbooks but many others bypassed the review process. Those publishers are selling their unvetted textbooks directly to school districts. With your help, we may be able to address some of that in the upcoming legislative session.)
For those of you who either prayed for me or testified or sent a message to the board, your help was needed and appreciated! I cannot do this alone. It is a privilege to work with you in the fight to ensure that accurate accounts of our country’s history are preserved and passed down to future generations.
Have a joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year!
For our children,
Barbara Cargill
Chair, State Board of Education
sboecargill@sbcglobal.net
Please forward this e-mail to parents, teachers, administrators, and others who have an interest in education.

Respectfully,
Tincy Miller
SBOE District 12

Spring 2015 Testing Date Changing for STAAR Grades 5 and 8 Mathematics

Dear Friends,

Below is a new release by the TEA Spring 2015 testing date changing for STAAR grades 5 and 8 mathematics.

TEA News Releases Dec. 9, 2014
Spring 2015 testing date changing for
STAAR grades 5 and 8 mathematics

AUSTIN – Commissioner of Education Michael Williams has notified Texas school districts and charters that the spring testing date for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) grades 5 and 8 mathematics will be shifted for the 2014–2015 school year.

The spring testing date for STAAR grades 5 and 8 mathematics will shift from March 30, 2015, to April 20, 2015.

Superintendents, math educators and members of the State Board of Education had asked the Commissioner to consider a potential shift in the testing date due to the ongoing transition to revised statewide curriculum standards in mathematics. The revised math curriculum standards were adopted by the State Board in April 2012 and are being implemented in classrooms this school year.

“Teachers across our state continue the transition to the more rigorous math standards that are now in place,” said Commissioner Williams. “After visiting with superintendents, teachers, parent representatives and district testing coordinators, it is apparent that shifting the math testing date provides a bit more time to better prepare our students in grades 5 and 8.”

Earlier this year, Commissioner Williams announced that the Student Success Initiative (SSI) requirement that students in grades 5 and 8 must pass the STAAR mathematics assessment in order to move on to the next grade level is suspended for this school year. Suspension of the 5th and 8th grade mathematics requirement applies only for the 2014–2015 school year. The STAAR mathematics assessments in grades 5 and 8 will only be administered one time this school year.

State law requiring students in grades 5 and 8 to pass the STAAR reading exam in order to proceed to the next grade level is still in effect.
Commissioner Williams had also received requests to consider shifting the test dates for STAAR grades 5 and 8 science and grade 8 social studies. These test dates will remain unchanged for the 2014–2015 school year.
However, the Texas Education Agency will post a draft testing calendar for the 2015–2016 school year that reflects a proposed change to the testing dates for STAAR grades 5 and 8 science and grade 8 social studies from late April to mid-May beginning in 2016. The draft testing calendar will be posted later in December for public comment.
To learn more about STAAR mathematics, please visit the Texas Education Agency’s STAAR Mathematics Resources webpage at:
http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/staar/math/.

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller
SBOE District 12

Public Testimony at SBOE Meeting: Factual Errors in Social Studies Textbooks

November 19, 2014

Dear Friends,

During the public testimony on November 18th “factual errors” in 6th grade social studies textbooks were brought to our attention by retired Lt. Colonel Roy White, Chairman of the Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT), and the TTT Coalition volunteers.   Colonel White and these volunteers have expended thousands of hours on conference calls, reading training newsletters, going through “mock reviews” and finally conducting the actual reviews on the textbooks. The goal is to have as many social studies textbook reviews posted in one place that will give parents, teachers and Board of Education members a single source to find these reviews to insure the publishers are held accountable for producing factual and honest social studies textbooks.  This will be an ongoing process handled by volunteers.

Following their testimony I continued the dialogue with the board members and encouraged the corrections.   I am sharing with you how important the process is in reviewing our textbooks. We merely want to have the most factual and intelligently honest textbooks possible for our children.

Below is the letter written by the publisher National Geographic Learning, Cengage Learning, Marcie Goodale, regarding the “factual errors.”

Dear Chairwoman Cargill:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address comments made during the November 18th State Board of Education meeting regarding Proclamation 2015 instructional resources, specifically regarding Cengage Learning’s World Cultures and Geography for grade 6.

Two comments were made yesterday regarding “factual errors” in Cengage Learning’s World Cultures and Geography textbook for 6th grade which we would like to address.  One had to do with the text’s description of the United States as a democracy.  The second was a suggestion that Jesus be identified as Jesus Christ in a Christian context.

In response to the first comment, on page 65 there is a sentence that reads, “The United States was the first modern country to establish a representative democracy.”  The Truth in Textbooks group said that the United States is a “constitutional republic.”   We had suggested the following edit: “The United States was the first modern country to establish a federal republic. The government is often referred to as a representative democracy.”  In response to yesterday’s comment, we will delete the second sentence and use the term “constitutional” instead of federal.

In response to the second comment, on page R52 in the World Religions Handbook, the first sentence under “Historical Origins” reads: “Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, also called Jesus Christ by Christians.”  This is nearly verbatim to the language requested by the speaker in the meeting today.  In addition on page 60 in the text, Jesus is referred to as Jesus Christ in the description of Christianity.

A second area of concern was the question of Common Core State Standards and the role of these standards within this sixth grade social studies program.  Cengage Learning wishes to reassure the State Board of Education and the TEA that nowhere within World Cultures and Geography is instruction regarding Common Core State Standards mentioned, encouraged, or promoted.   World Cultures and Geography for Texas focuses solely on the TEKS and ELPS to which the program aligns 100%.  The program is infused with TEKS projects and TEKS assessment.

We appreciate the opportunity to address a third area of concern and that is the link to external websites from myNGconnect.com for Texas, the program’s instructional portal.  Cengage Learning commits to removing any links to external websites, such as National Geographic, no later than Thursday, November 20.   National Geographic Learning is wholly owned by Cengage Learning; while there are resources within World Cultures and Geography from National Geographic, the instruction and pedagogy has been developed independently of the National Geographic Society.  In no way does National Geographic Learning | Cengage Learning influence the content selected for the National Geographic website.  All web links to National Geographic will be permanently discontinued.

It is our sincere intent to participate in Proclamation 2015 to be part of the education of grade 6 students in Texas. We believe our curriculum conforms to the high standards of the Texas State Board of Education and the citizens of the state of Texas.

We respectfully present this information for your consideration, and appreciate the opportunity.

Marcie Goodale

Publisher, Social Studies

Hector Morales

Sales Manager – Southwest

National Geographic Learning

Cengage Learning

 

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

SBOE, District 12

www.tincymiller.com

gtince@aol.com

An Interview with Jane Robbins: Common Core and the Contents are not so Common

Dear Friends,

 

A very important and informational interview with Jane Robbins by Michael F Shaughnessy, Education Views Senior Columnist.

 

                   “An Interview with Jane Robbins: Common Core and the Contents are not so Common.”

 

QUESTION:  Jane, first of all, tell us a bit about yourself, your background, experience and involvement in Common Core.

 ANSWER: I am an attorney and senior fellow with the American Principles Project, which was founded by a law-school classmate of mine (Prof. Robert George of Princeton). My bio follows:

 Jane Robbins is an attorney and a senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington, DC. In that position she has crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. Her essays on these topics have been published in various print and online media. With Emmett McGroarty she co-authored the APP/Pioneer Institute report, Controlling Education From the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America, and with McGroarty and Joy Pullmann the Pioneer Institute report, Cogs in the Machine: Big Data, Common Core, and National Testing. She has written numerous articles about the problems with Common Core, threats to student privacy, and usurpation of state sovereignty over education and has testified about these issues before the legislatures of nine states. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.

 

 

 QUESTION: This is an old question- but your fresh perspective is welcomed. Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal government can tell the states what curriculum to follow?

 ANSWER: It doesn’t. The Constitution gives the federal government no role at all in any aspect of education. Regarding curriculum specifically, the Common Core proponents claim that CC is “just standards, not curriculum,” but they and we know that the point of standards is to drive curriculum. The Pioneer Institute has published a report showing exactly how the federal government will, illegally, dictate curriculum through Common Core:http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/the-road-to-a-national-curriculum/. And some of the pedagogy of Common Core, particularly in math, is so prescriptive that teachers are told exactly how they must teach. Being allowed to choose one Common Core textbook over another Common Core textbook isn’t much of a choice.

 

QUESTION: What does Common Core have to do with privacy?

 ANSWER:  Common Core is part of a much larger scheme that requires states to implement CC standards and aligned curriculum, administer CC-aligned assessments, and build out their state longitudinal databases (financed substantially by the federal government through the Stimulus bill and Race to the Top). The state data systems must be built to identical specifications to facilitate sharing data across state lines. A direct connection to CC is through the CC-aligned assessments (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium), each of which has a cooperative agreement with the US Department of Education requiring the consortium to allow student-level data to be made available to the US Department “on an ongoing basis.”

 

Another, more nebulous but equally dangerous, connection: CC is essentially a recycling of the discredited Outcome-Based Education from years ago. That is, it diminishes academic knowledge in favor of instilling the “correct” mindsets, attitudes, and behaviors in children. It thus is perfect for ushering in the interactive “digital learning” platforms, which are focused on exactly the same thing. These platforms can compile essentially personal profiles on students through the “fine-grained” information the students give off as they interact with the platforms. My testimony on all this is attached to the email. Also see a thorough discussion in this report:http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/cogs-in-the-machine-big-data-common-core-and-national-testing/.

 

QUESTION: Let’s get to some common ground here. We have states as disparate as Alaska and Hawaii. Should these states have exactly the same curriculum?

 ANSWER: Only if you believe, as Bill Gates does, that every child in every school in every state should be trained (not to be confused with “educated”) in exactly the same way, because that would be much more efficient. Why not have a Common Core Operating System? Why do we have 50 states anyway? That’s so inefficient!

 

QUESTION: Has anyone in the Common Core movement thought that perhaps we need to increase the school day or school year in order to assist students with this new approach?

 ANSWER:  This issue hasn’t come up much in connection with Common Core, but the Obama administration advocates increased school time: http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2009/03/obama-proposes-longer-school-days-extended-school-year/. Arne Duncan also wants schools to become “community centers” that will be the hub of students’ lives all the time (instead of students’ being with their families, or involved in church or other activities):

http://teach1776.ning.com/video/secretary-arne-duncan-says-schools-should-be-the-center-of-americ

      

QUESTION:  Teachers already have quite a full agenda every day. Who is providing support for this apparently massive change in curriculum?

 ANSWER:  The states will have to shoulder the responsibility of providing costly professional development, which they are doing with varying degrees of success (or failure). Of course, no amount of PD can add hours to the day. I know a Georgia teacher of gifted math students who recently retired, partly because she was overwhelmed by the new requirements – for example, having to spend 2-3 hours each night inputting student data.

 

QUESTION:  Jane, this entire issue reminds me of the fight between states regarding slavery. While some may see this as a stretch, is the issue surrounding Common Core one of “states’ rights” to provide their own perspective on education?

 ANSWER:  The Constitution certainly contemplates that each state will control its education system. By centralizing control in both the federal government and unaccountable private interests, Common Core is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme. The difference is that in the slavery situation, some states were trying to retain power to deny fundamental rights to certain human beings. With Common Core, by contrast, parents in individual states are objecting to the denial of their fundamental right to control their children’s education.

 

QUESTION:  Let’s also face some facts- taxpayers pay for books, teacher’s salaries, indirectly, the buildings. Have taxpayers been assessed as to anything about Common Core?

 ANSWER:  Taxpayers haven’t yet experienced the full weight of the costs that will be imposed by Common Core. The testing hasn’t gone into effect – testing that will require enormous expenditures for technology infrastructure. See this report for an overview: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pioneer+institute+costs+common+core.

 

The only other thing I would add is that Common Core doubles down on all the progressive policies that have damaged public education over the last 50 years – centralization, standardization, outcome-based education, fuzzy math, diminished study of classic literature, etc. I don’t think doing more of what manifestly doesn’t work will result in success this time.

 

 http://www.educationviews.org/jane-robbins-common-core-contents-common/

 

 Respectfully,

 Tincy Miller

SBOE, District 12

APUSH Provides Contempt for America in Texas High Schools

Dear Friends,

 

A very informative and important article from the Texasinside.org, under ‘The Scoop’, written by Bill Ames.  Bill is an education activist and author who lives in Dallas, Texas. His book, “TEXAS TROUNCES THE LEFT’S WAR ON HISTORY” (WNAenterprises.com) tells the story of his experience in developing Texas’ U. S. history standard in 2009-2010. In 2013, he reviewed CSCOPE U. S. history lessons as part of the State Board of Education’s Ad Hoc Committee Project, and is now involved with the new College Board AP U.S. history framework.  He welcomes reader comments at billames@prodigy.net.

 

APUSH Provides Contempt for America in Texas High Schools

College Board Partners with Leftist Academia

 

AUSTIN, Texas (Texas Insider Report) — The recent implementation of a totally reworked Advanced Placement U. S. History (APUSH) framework has given rise to contentious debate. Mainstream American critics challenge APUSH as being anti-American. The private, unaccountable College Board APUSH creators retaliate by claiming that the new framework provides more flexibility to teachers, while addressing an alleged “whitewashing” of U. S. history.

The debate has raged on, and does not need to be repeated here. Suffice to say that the APUSH framework, compared with most state and local standards, is like mixing oil and water.

It is time to end this debate charade, and reveal the bottom-line truth. Time to call a spade a spade. Time to cut to the chase.

During the 1960s, liberal professors began to revise how history is taught in America’s colleges and universities. These liberal professors have demonstrated a solid track record of contempt for American values, while indoctrinating students with their warped ideology.

There has been a long-term desire on the part of these professors to extend their indoctrination to America’s public schools. One egregious example:

In the early 1990s, UCLA professor Gary Nash (right,) along with the National Council for Social Studies, released new United States history standards. These standards, like APUSH, focused on Native- and African-American history while de-emphasizing the contributions of western civilization.

The standards were rejected by none other than the United States Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, by a vote of 99 to 1.

The Senate’s condemnation concluded with the words, “Any recipient of federal funds … for standards and curriculum development … should have a decent respect for United States history’s roots in western civilization.”

 In order to promote leftist academics’ agenda, the College Board has provided its APUSH framework, to give liberal academia yet another opportunity to extend its contempt for America to public schools.

A contentious statement, you say? Let us develop the story.

In 1973, author and journalist John LeBoutillier (right,) was a sophomore at Harvard University. His instructor in History 97 class was one Barry Schmidt, an admitted radical who sported a full-length beard and a pony tail tied with a red ribbon.

LeBoutillier wrote about his introduction to the class in his best-selling book, Harvard Hates America.  Schmidt began:

“I don’t give a s— about American history. I don’t give a damn about facts or dates or any of that other traditional crap.  Hell, I don’t even know what year the Civil War began. 

“As far as I’m concerned, that type of history just plays along with the right-wing fascists who run this country…..the very people I’m dedicated to overthrowing….”

Fast forward to 2014. The college blog Campus Reform posted a video of interviews it conducted of Harvard students, just a couple of weeks ago.

The single question was straightforward: “What is the greater threat to world peace, ISIS or America?”

One student answered, “I think American imperialism and our protection of oil interests in the Middle East are destabilizing the region and allowing groups like ISIS to gain power….We are, at some level, the cause of it.”

Another student answered: “As a Western civilization, we’re to blame for a lot of the problems that we’re facing now.  I don’t think anyone would argue that we didn’t create the problem of ISIS ourselves…. (Middle Easterners) have a skewed view of us, just as a lot of Americans have a skewed view of them, of ISIS.”

A third student proclaimed: “The amount of spending that America has on causes of potential destruction in the world is really outlandish.  We’ve been learning about this recently, how much America spends on defense mechanisms alone, and it’s really quite astonishing compared to any other country in the world, really.”

All students claimed that America was the larger threat to world peace.

History 97 instructor Barry Schmidt and his successors at Harvard can be proud.

Columnist David Limbaugh, covering the interviews in his October 10, 2014 TownHall.com article “Harvard Students Parade Their Academic Poison”, wrote,

“I wouldn’t be nearly so troubled by Harvard University students identifying America as a bigger threat to world peace than the Islamic State if it weren’t representative of the thinking of so many students throughout the nation. But it is.”

David Limbaugh (at right,) is correct. One needs to look no further for the potential for student indoctrination, than the likes of two controversial university professors, 911 terrorists sympathizer Ward Churchill and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.  Both enjoyed enthusiastic peer acceptance in the academic cocktail party circuit during their presence at the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of Illinois-Chicago, respectively.

There are many more examples.

Liberal professors on America’s college and university campuses make up an overwhelming majority. A 2010-2011 survey of 23,824 full-time faculty members at 417 American colleges and universities, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, reveals that over 65% of professors in public and private universities self-identify as liberal or far left. Less than 10% identify as conservative or far right.

And those liberal professors doggedly impose their ideology on immature, impressionable students.

What do the liberal professors and their allies hold in contempt? Start with the U. S. Constitution.  Last week, fawning, gadfly movie star Gwyneth Paltrow, at yet another Hollywood Democrat fundraiser, introduced President Barack Obama with the words,  “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

Yeah Gwyneth, let’s just forget the Constitution!

Liberals also loathe the Bill of Rights: First Amendment free speech (unless one agrees with leftist dogma), the 2nd Amendment, and the pesky 9th and 10th Amendments that reserve undesignated rights to the people and the states rather than to the federal government.

Liberals hate the achievements of Western Civilization. They hate Christianity, American exceptionalism, the free enterprise system, personal responsibility, patriotism, and love of country.

Witness the academic movers and shakers who influenced the College Board APUSH framework….. APUSH critic Stanley Kurtz profiled key APUSH contributors in his National Review online article, August 25, 2014.

Thomas Bender(right, New York University) … Bender is a thoroughgoing critic of American Exceptionalism … he is the leading spokesman for the movement to internationalize U. S. history curriculum at every educational level …

Francesca Lopez Civeira (University of Havana) … American power is an object of fear … urges American students be exposed to evidence of the controversial power and presence of the United States beyond our borders…

Suzanne Sinke (Florida State University) … Downplayed the desire of immigrants to find a better life in America … referred to immigrants as migrants …

Penny Von Eschen (University of Michigan) … Relentlessly critical of America’s “cultural imperialism”, and its economic and military presence in the world …

The profiles of this group of hard-core liberal college professors, along with others involved in creating the original framework, provide ample evidence that the College Board is complicit in providing leftist academia with a platform at the high school level to extend its contempt for America.

Further, the College Board has demonstrated that it has no interest in “allowing” locally elected and state school boards to challenge its nationalized curriculum….

The conservative-majority Jefferson County, Colorado school board, concerned about the indoctrination of students taking the APUSH course, created a proposal that would:

  1. Force the College Board to include “instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage.”
  2. Create a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with APUSH, to make sure materials “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights”, instead of “encouraging or condoning civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law.”

Citizenship, patriotism, free enterprise?   The College Board indoctrination machine would have none of this. In a terse, “my-way-or-the-highway” response, the CB admonished the JeffCo board, warning that schools and districts must do as they’re told. If they dare to disagree with any “essential concepts” of an AP course (for example, if they insist on teaching America the Exceptional rather than America the Evil), the College Board will strip its “AP” designation from the course.

So much for highly-touted “local control”! Going forward, NO ONE who supports APUSH can honestly claim to be for local control of state and school district curricula.

So where does this leave us?

 The College Board can no longer pretend that it cares about mainstream America’s best interests. Rather, it has become a complicit supporter of America-hating leftist academia, bent on turning America’s public schools into indoctrination centers that major in oppression, imperialism, exploitation, victimization, and racism.

Columnist Walter Williams proposes a solution:

“Parents should become more involved with their children’s education. They should look at the textbooks used and examine their children’s homework.

“Parents should show up en mass at PTA and board of education meetings to ensure that teachers confine their lessons to reading, writing and arithmetic and leave indoctrination to parents.

“The most promising tool in the fight against teacher indoctrination and classroom misconduct is the micro-technology that enables students to secretly record and expose academic misconduct by teachers.”

And the aforementioned David Limbaugh adds:

“We are looking at the next generation, …. who will be leading this nation into the future.

“It is time that responsible parents got off their clueless, apathetic duffs and started doing a better job of educating their kids and inoculating them against the infernal indoctrination that academia and our culture are serving to them in mentally lethal doses.”

In Texas, I believe legislation is required to force school districts to certify TEKS compliance. Our public schools graduate some 300,000 kids into Texas society each year, year after year.

If the College Board and its allies in academia are allowed a platform to teach their radical contempt for America’s greatness, the CB agenda will succeed, and Texas will forever change.

 

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

gtince@aol.com

www.tincymiller.com

Why Students Need Strong Standards (And Not Common Core)

 

Dear Friends,

A very important and informative article on why students need strong standards (and not Common Core), written by Ze’ev Wurman, a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution. Between 2007 and 2009 he served as a senior policy adviser with the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Education. Wurman served as a commissioner on the California Academic Content Standards Commission that in 2010 evaluated the Common Core’s suitability for California adoption.

 

                NEW WHITE PAPER:

“why students need strong standards [and not common core]”

 

The new American Principles Project white paper entitled “Why Students Need Strong Standards (and not Common Core)” dispels the myth that the Common Core math standards are better standards and shows that the new standards actually slow down American students’ math progression. 

 

excerpts from this short and easy-to –understand report:

from page 4:

In other words, the rallying cry for the establishment of a common core of content standards in 2008 explicitly acknowledged that for the U.S. to be benchmarked against top-performing countries, we should teach algebra in the 8th grade. Yet ironically, when the Common Core standards were published a little more than a year later, in the early summer of 2010, they firmly placed the first algebra course in … high school!

 

from page 10:

…preparation of all K-7 students to take an Algebra 1 class in grade 8 benefits the minority and disadvantaged students the most. The explanation seems pretty obvious. When grade 8 Algebra is considered an accelerated course, students that get the required acceleration—tutoring, home support—come mostly from advantaged households.  Only when everyone is prepared in grades K to 7 to reach algebra in grade 8 do the disadvantaged students get their chance to shine. The second lesson is no less important: …..early Algebra-taking translates directly into increased successful taking of advanced mathematics in high school—not only Geometry and Algebra 2 but even Advanced Placement Calculus AB and BC courses.

 

from page 12:

But the true travesty of the Common Core is its failure to deliver on its promise of a genuine Algebra course in grade 8, and the devastating impact that failure is bound to have on the achievement of minorities and disadvantaged students. Although politicians and administrators in many states promise to allow “acceleration” and to retain the 8th grade Algebra courses they currently have, these are empty promises. Few, if any, schools will offer acceleration beyond the Common Core in the early grades, because the national Common Core tests will assess only the grade-level Common Core content at each grade in grades 3-8.

 

from page 13:

The result? Most grade 8 Algebra 1 classes in poor schools will soon close, when the pipeline of prepared students coming out of K-7 dries up, and STEM-bound students will come almost exclusively from advantaged backgrounds, whether in private or public schools. This will be the legacy of Common Core.

 

from page 13:

But the cruelest irony of the Common Core mathematics is in the huge negative impact it is bound to have on the achievement of minority and disadvantaged students. Those are precisely the students who need rigorous expectations from early elementary grades within their regular curriculum, as they are less likely to get family or paid extra-curricular support.

 

Massive and robust data from the California experiment over the last 15 years clearly demonstrates this fact. Yet despite its soaring rhetoric of college-readiness for all, the Common Core has abandoned precisely these students.

 

To read the entire article please go to:

http://americanprinciplesproject.org/app-education/new-white-paper-why-students-need-strong-standards-and-not-common-core/

 

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

gtince@aol.com

www.tincymiller.com

College Board’s AP U.S. History – 2 UPDATES

Dear friends,

Two very important and informative articles written by Jane Robbins, co-authored by Larry Krieger. Jane Robbins is the senior fellow of APP education of the American Principles Project, a conservative advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Larry Krieger, the founder of InsiderTest Prep. He taught SAT classes for over 20 years and AP classes for over 35 years…a scholar, author and historian.

“College Board’s AP U.S. History Ignores Valor and Sacrifices
 of America’s Military”

On June 6, 1984, President Ronald Reagan stood at the very spot on the northern coast of France where forty years before Allied soldiers had stormed ashore to liberate Europe from the long night of Nazi tyranny.

As an audience of D-Day veterans and world leaders listened, President Reagan introduced the American Rangers who captured the cliffs as “champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.”

But starting this year, many of our best students won’t learn about the “boys of Pointe du Hoc.” Although state and local U.S. history standards recognize and honor the heroism and contributions of American military commanders, servicemen and women, and Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, the College Board’s redesigned Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) Framework ignores them. In fact, it essentially ignores all of American military history from the Revolutionary War to the present day.

About 500,000 of our nation’s most academically talented high school sophomores and juniors take APUSH. The College Board’s new Framework completely omits all American military commanders and notes just two battles – Gettysburg and Sherman’s March to the Sea. It totally neglects the valor and sacrifices of the American servicemen and women. Veterans and their families will be dismayed to learn that Washington does not cross the Delaware, William Travis (a South Carolina hero) does not defend the Alamo, and the GI’s do not liberate Europe.

Instead, our students will learn that the American Expeditionary Force in World War I “played a relatively limited role in the war” (yes, it states that even though American casualties totaled almost 321,000) and that during World War II the “atomic bomb raised questions about American values.” In addition, the Framework reduces both the Korean War and the Vietnam War to just one sentence, while completely omitting the GI Bill, the Berlin Airlift, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Although the (APUSH) Framework largely passes over American military history, it does devote extensive coverage to conflicts with Native Americans. For example, the Framework notes five major wars between Native Americans and the colonists and two major battles between Plains Indians and the U.S. Cavalry. Indeed, the Framework devotes more space to diplomatic relations with Native American tribes following the French and Indian War than it does to both World War I and World War II combined. It is also shocking to learn that the Framework omits all mention of General Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the D-Day Invasion, yet sees the need to note Chief Little Turtle — whose warriors killed 600 U. S. soldiers in America’s worse military disaster against Native American forces.

The College Board insists that the APUSH Framework offers a “balanced” presentation of the American story. However, the imbalance between its minimal coverage of traditional American military history and its enhanced coverage of the conflicts with Native Americans strongly supports the conclusion that the authors of the Framework had other objectives.

The nine professors and high school teachers who wrote the APUSH Framework adopted a consistent revisionist interpretation of American history. In a penetrating analysis of the roots of the Framework, Stanley Kurtz explains that, from the revisionist point of view, “the heart of our country’s history lies in the pursuit of empire, the dominion over others.” Given this focus on America as a rising imperialist power, “the formative American moment was the colonial assault on the Indians… This is why the Framers and the principles of our Constitutional system receive short shrift in the new AP guidelines, and why the conflict between the settlers and the Indians has taken center stage.”

The Framework’s neglect of American military history is also closely tied to the document’s aversion to the concept of American Exceptionalism. According to this traditional concept, America has a historic mission to be a model and defender of freedom and democracy. American forces thus do not go into battle because they hate the enemy or to seize new territories. Rather, like “the boys of Pointe du Hoc,” they risk their lives to defend freedom at home and around the world.

One must wonder how, in a few years, APUSH will describe the heroics of today’s military. Or will the College Board just ignore them altogether?

The Framework’s neglect of the valor and contributions of America’s military forces is unacceptable. During the initial assault on Omaha Beach, the American commander called on his troops to demonstrate extraordinary valor with this legendary command: “Rangers lead the way!” No such inspirational stories appear in the APUSH Framework.

We urge veterans and their families to lead the way in demanding that the College Board withdraw the APUSH Framework and return to a curriculum that rightly honors their bravery and sacrifice, and that reaffirms our founding principles as something worthy of the good fight.

“College Board Attacks Local School Board”
Co-authored by: Larry Krieger and Jane Robbins

http://townhall.com/columnists/janerobbins/2014/10/06/college-board-attacks-local-school-board-n1901388/page/full

High-school students in Jefferson County, Colorado, are outraged about censorship of their history curriculum. In a recent protest, one student carried a sign reading, “Teaching Partial History is a lie.”

One might conclude that these students are upset over the College Board’s recent rewrite of the Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) course, which excludes reams of information about their country that they would have learned under the previous APUSH course. But no – they’re upset that some adults want to return to the more accurate and complete course. And the College Board is cheering them on in their adolescent confusion.

What’s going on here?

This is merely the next step in the College Board’s attempt to undermine the constitutional authority of state and local officials to determine curriculum for their states and districts.

The unelected, unaccountable College Board endorses a radical leftist view of the world, beginning with U.S. history, and has no qualms about using naive schoolchildren as pawns to promote its vision.

With its new APUSH course, the College Board has decreed that there should be a national history curriculum, and that the leftist professors and teachers on its committees should dictate what that curriculum will be. Gone is the previous APUSH course, which relied on state history standards for its content. In its place is an APUSH Framework that, in the words of James Madison scholar Ralph Ketcham, paints “a portrait of America as a dystopian society – one riddled with racism, violence, hypocrisy, greed, imperialism, and injustice.”

This course does not meet with the approval of the school board of Jefferson County. Apparently the school board believes a course in American history should at least mention the Founders, including the legendary American after whom their county was named. But this view grates on the teenaged protestors who, egged on by a teachers’ union with its own agenda, are loudly asserting their right to historical ignorance.

Amid this tempest rises the College Board which, in an unprecedented and quite astonishing turn of events, has weighed in on the side of the protestors and against the elected school board. “The College Board’s Advanced Placement Program,” it intones, “supports the actions taken by students in Jefferson County, Colorado to protest a school board member’s request to censor aspects of the AP U.S. History course.” A school board’s action to uphold its state history standards against usurpation by unelected, unaccountable outsiders is now considered “censorship.” Presumably it’s not “censorship” to banish from an American history course the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, military heroes, Thomas Edison, Martin Luther King, Jr., and on and on.

Who anointed the College Board the arbiter of what students should learn about American history? Under what authority does the College Board presume to dictate to elected officials what shall be taught in their schools? If parents and other taxpayers had any doubts that the College Board wants to replace state and local control with its own agenda, those doubts are now resolved.

Flexing the muscle it has developed during its century-plus of monopoly, the College Board warns darkly that schools and districts must do as they’re told. If they dare to disagree with any “essential concepts” of an AP course (for example, if they insist on teaching America the Exceptional rather than America the Ordinary), the College Board will strip its “AP” designation from the course.

Fine. It should be crystal clear now that the College Board monopoly must be broken. There is no reason one company – especially one populated by apparent ideologues who oppose the constitutional structure concerning authority over education – should have an iron grip over college advanced-placement credit. State boards of education must act to empower competitors to develop their own courses and tests. Such initiatives may acquaint the arrogant mandarins of the College Board with a truly American concept “censored” from the APUSH Framework – the free market.

Respectfully,
Tincy Miller
gtince@aol.com
www.tincymiller.com

Larry Krieger Testimony on Mercer APUSH Resolution

Dear Friends,

A very informative Testimony by Larry Krieger during the SBOE meeting on September 19, 2014 regarding Mercer APUSH Resolution. Larry is the founder of InsiderTest Prep. He has taught SAT classes for over 20 years and AP classes for over 35 years…a scholar, author and historian.
A proud American Patriot!

“This is a story of two very different documents, the TEKS written to the duly elected members of the Texas SBOE versus the APUSH Framework written by a committee of 9 people selected by the College Board, a private organization that is accountable to no one! The vision and purposes of the two documents could not be more different. TEKS (Tx. Curriculum Standards) celebrates our nation’s Founders, the benefits of the free enter-
prise system and the values embodied in the concept of American exceptionalism. The APUSH Framework ignores most of the Founders, fails to discuss free enterprise and totally omits American exceptionalism.

Early this morning I drove across the Delaware River at the spot where Washington and the Continental Army crossed on Christmas Eve 1776. I have not come to Austin as a Democrat or a Republican. I have not come to Austin as a liberal or as a conservative. I have come to Austin as a proud American. My message is clear and timeless. Principles are enduring. From William Travis at the Alamo to Roy Benevidez in Vietnam to Marcus Luttrell in Afghaniatan, Texans have always defended American values. Now it is your turn. I call upon this committee to say YES to Mr. Mercer’s Resolution and NO to the College Board’s attempt to nationalize American history and circumvent both the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and TEKS Standard. As always, if Texans lead other will follow!”

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

R E S O L U T I O N

WHEREAS the State Board of Education (SBOE) is in no way attempting to restrict access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses in public schools; and

WHEREAS the purpose of College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) and advanced high school courses is to develop key cognitive skills that include intellectual curiosity, the ability to analyze conflicting points of view, the capability to construct arguments based on valid evidence, and effective problem-solving strategies; and

WHEREAS the omission of multiple points of view within the scope of any curriculum framework undermines the basic tenets of our society and education system; and

WHEREAS the Texas Education Code (TEC) Section 28.002(h) states: “The State Board of Education and each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas history and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of instructional materials. A primary purpose of the public school curriculum is to prepare thoughtful, active citizens who understand the importance of patriotism and can function productively in a free enterprise society with appreciation for the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage.”; and

WHEREAS almost 500,000 U.S. students, including approximately 46,000 in Texas, take the College Board’s Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) course each year, which may be the final and only U.S. History class for these high school students; and

WHEREAS in 2013, $16 million in tuition was saved by those Texas students who attained the required level of achievement on the APUSH exam; and

WHEREAS the SBOE is elected by the citizens of Texas and empowered by statute to establish courses of study, and has rulemaking authority related to the AP coursework and to the use of the AP exam in performance acknowledgments; and

WHEREAS traditionally APUSH has presented a more balanced view of American history in concert with CCRS; and

WHEREAS the College Board, a private, non-elected organization, recently released the APUSH Curriculum Framework that moved away from a balanced approach with regard to many important events in American history; and

WHEREAS the Framework reflects a view of American history that is critical of American exceptionalism, the free enterprise system, and emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while minimizing positive aspects; and

WHEREAS Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States is recommended as supplementary material in the four model syllabi originally presented at the APUSH 2014 Summer Institute and online; and

WHEREAS the Framework omits discussion of various critical topics, including the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, constitutional principles, significant religious influences, military history, commanders and heroes, as well as individuals who have traditionally been part of APUSH; and

WHEREAS the College Board describes the Framework and its learning objectives as the “required knowledge” for measuring student mastery of APUSH, thereby minimizing the teaching of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) mandated by the SBOE for high school graduation and necessary for college and career readiness; and

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing and in response to the efforts of Texas citizens, parents, educators, and members of the SBOE, the College Board has indicated that it will take remedial action, including the following:

 

  • Reformatting the requirements so that teachers are encouraged to use local content and the TEKS in teaching the APUSH course.

 

  • Creating and maintaining a vehicle by which public comments and input may be provided, said vehicle also to include a compilation of comments and a response to same by the College Board,

 

  • Reducing the emphasis on Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, and

 

  • Increasing the amount of resources available to teachers so as to clarify that alternative perspectives are encouraged, so long as they are supported by historical evidence;

 

THEREFORE, be it

RESOLVED, That the SBOE strongly recommends that the College Board revise the APUSH Framework so that it is consistent both with the course’s traditional mission and with the shared purpose of the CCRS, the TEKS and the Texas Education Code; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the SBOE respectfully requests that the College Board revise the key concepts of the APUSH Framework and examination in a transparent manner that accurately reflects U.S. history without an ideological bias and that restores and encourages flexibility to states, school districts and teachers in how to teach the course; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the SBOE will diligently monitor the proposed actions of the College Board to ensure that the remedial measures set out above are implemented in an effective and meaningful manner; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That upon approval of this resolution the Texas State Board of Education shall deliver a copy to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

WITNESS our signatures this nineteenth day of September, two thousand and fourteen, in Austin, Texas.

This resolution is the result of the SBOE’s work last week…
Vote: 8 members voted YES. 4 members voted NO
2 members were absent. Ratliff was a NOT VOTED.

__________________________________
Barbara Cargill, Chair

____________________________________
Mavis B. Knight, Secretary

Respectfully,
Tincy Miller
gtince@aol.com
www.tincymiller.com

Bill Ames Testimony to SBOE on APUSH

Dear Friends, a very informative follow-up testimony to the SBOE on APUSH, written by Bill Ames a former member of the Writing Committee for the Texas History Curriculum Standards.
September 21, 2014

SBOE Members,

This email is a follow-up to my SBOE testimony on September 19, 2014.

I am pleased and confident that the passage of Mr. Mercer’s resolution will send a powerful message to the College Board. Larry Krieger’s articles and subsequent expert testimony revealed the anti-American tone of the APUSH framework.

I hope the College Board takes the SBOE’s rebuttal seriously, and responds with a revised framework that reflects not only a balanced view of U. S. history, but also is consistent with the views of mainstream Texas citizens.

After all, the ultimate responsibility for our education policy resides in the hands of Texas’ overwhelmingly conservative parents and citizens, rather than with education bureaucrats.

However, there is still great cause for concern. Although Mr. Mercer’s resolution calls for ongoing review of the College Board’s response to the SBOE, it is problematic, given the negative ideological bias in the original APUSH framework, that the framework writers are disposed or even able to provide the necessary balance to make the course acceptable to Texas.

Those of you on the Board who were members during 2010, and involved with that year’s adoption of U. S. history standards, remember well, that as amendment after amendment was added to the standards to achieve balance, anguished cries from leftist educators and their media allies called for the updated standards to be sent back to the review panels for finalization.

The Board wisely refused, understanding that doing so would simply allow the fox to revisit the chicken coop.

Yet that may be exactly what the Board is doing now, by agreeing for the College Board to revise its own work.

Perhaps the SBOE should insist that the revision committee be balanced, by including such as Larry Krieger, Jane Robbins, Ralph Ketcham, Sandra Stotsky, and Peter Wood as participants to balance the revision process. Such inclusion would certainly demonstrate good faith on the part of the College Board.

In my testimony, I chose to elevate the concern, from APUSH content to the broader issue of liberal takeover of academia in the United States.

Denish D’Souza’s recent comments on national television signal that America’s education establishment has been taken over by leftist professors.

The negative tone of the APUSH framework convinces me that the College Board APUSH creators are fully part of this agenda.

During my presentation, Ms. Knight and Mr. Ratliff challenged my assertion of leftist domination. Attached to this email is the 2010-2011 survey of 23,824 full time faculty members at 417 American colleges and universities, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.

The data reveals that over 65% of professors in public and private universities self-identify as liberal or far left. Less that 10% identify as conservative or far right.

The left has taken over academia. Our work has just begun.

Going forward, the SBOE, and Texas citizens, need to keep a watchful eye on the APUSH revisions. Bill Ames

Below is a survey of responses from our College Professors, liberals vs. conservatives

Respectfully,
Tincy Miller
gtince@aol.com
www.tincymiller.com

HERI Survey