common core, too? Is that right? So much of what are new
textbooks have is common core?
On 8/29/14, 1administrator wrote:
> TEA only jumps when Pearson say how high! Pearson prepares
> the test. Pearson delivers and accounts for the test! Pearson
> grades the test! Pearson prepares the results for
> publication! TEA does nothing without Pearson's directions.
>
> On 8/27/14, to 1 administrator wrote:
>> Can you explain what you mean when you say Pearson already
>> owns TEA? I would like to understand your observation on
>> that.
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/14, 1administrator wrote:
>>> PsyGuy- I have a question. I am not trying to start an
>>> argument, but on C-scope, Curriculum, and such but why
>>> can't Pearson or textbook publisher write a textbook that
>>> covers the TEKS required. We are purchasing textbooks,
>>> hardcopy or online anyway. Just a random thought that
>>> crossed my mind. With the number of purchases, the
>>> publishers should be able to produce the needed books.(I
>>> only mentioned Pearson because they already own TEA!) Let
>>> me hear what you think!
>>>
>>> On 8/26/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>>>> Typical tea party rhetoric. If its not about god, guns,
>>>> taxes
>>> or
>>>> profits, its anti-american and anti-family.
>>>>
>>>> On 8/17/14, Hope wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/14, c-scope is being raised from the dead...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I heard that the Texas Resource System is c-scope
>>>>>> revised. Is this true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but supposedly without the controversial lessons
>>>>> that were anti-American, anti-family, etc. The region
>>>>> service centers are making a killing off this. They're
>>>>> not about to let it die. It's their cash cow. Forget
>>>>> about it being full of numerous errors. Teachers aren't
>>>>> supposed to be smart enough to see that, or stupid
>>>>> enough to point it out to anyone in authority.
Posts on this thread, including this one