Texas standards alignment

• §110.37(c)(11)(G)

  Covered

  examine sources for: (i) credibility and bias, including omission; and (ii) faulty reasoning such as incorrect premise, hasty generalizations, and either-or;

  Covered by

  • Coffee — The Daily Global Connection
  • Tea — The Way of Tea
  • Chocolate — Food of the Gods
  • Sugar — The Sweet Revolution

  • · Ep 1 · Reading a Coffee Ad
  • · Ep 2 · Reading a Tea Ad
  • · Ep 3 · Reading a Chocolate Ad
  • · Ep 4 · Whose Voice Tells the Story (reading a text for what it leaves out)
  • · Ep 11 · Tiki and the Tropical Paradise
  • · Ep 15 · The Language of Doubt
  • · Ep 19 · Peer Review Versus Press Release
  • · Every course's Sources bibliography, with per-claim verification
  • · Ep 8 · Reading a Craft Beer Label
  • · Ep 15 · Torches of Freedom
  • · Ep 16 · Reefer Madness and the Language of Fear
  • · Ep 18 · Just Say No
  • · Ep 15 · Doubt Is Our Product
  • · Ep 20 · The Ban Against the Evidence (the UK banning khat against its own scientific advice)

  Note: Reading a text for bias including omission is the media-literacy method run in every episode, and identifying fallacious reasoning is taught by name (Reefer Madness, Doubt Is Our Product).

• §110.37(c)(8)(G)

  Covered

  analyze the purpose of rhetorical devices such as appeals, antithesis, parallelism, and shifts and the effects of logical fallacies.

  Covered by

  • Sugar — The Sweet Revolution

  • · Ep 4 · Blood-Sweetened Luxury
  • · Ep 15 · Torches of Freedom
  • · Ep 17 · Lin Zexu's Letter
  • · Ep 16 · Three Sentences, Three Policies
  • · Ep 15 · Doubt Is Our Product
  • · Ep 19 · Peer Review Versus Press Release
  • · Ep 20 · The Ban Against the Evidence (the UK banning khat against its own scientific advice)
  • · Ep 16 · Reefer Madness and the Language of Fear

  Note: Rhetorical devices and fallacies are analyzed in real primary texts — Lin Zexu's letter, the abolitionist sugar-boycott pamphlets, Torches of Freedom, and fear-based drug-policy media.

• §110.37(c)(8)(A)

  Covered

  analyze the author's purpose, audience, and message within a text;

  Covered by

  • Sugar — The Sweet Revolution

  • · Ep 4 · Blood-Sweetened Luxury (the abolitionist sugar boycott)
  • · Ep 8 · Selling Prohibition
  • · Ep 15 · Torches of Freedom
  • · Ep 17 · Lin Zexu's Letter (using Britain's own values against its opium policy)

• §110.37(c)(5)(J)

  Covered

  defend or challenge the authors' claims using relevant text evidence.

  Covered by

  • Sugar — The Sweet Revolution
  • Chocolate — Food of the Gods
  • Guayusa & Kola Nut — Forest Wisdom

  • · Ep 15 · Doubt Is Our Product
  • · Ep 19 · Peer Review Versus Press Release
  • · Ep 20 · The Ban Against the Evidence (the UK banning khat against its own scientific advice)
  • · Ep 4 · Whose Voice Tells the Story, Beckford (1790) against Equiano (1789) and Mary Prince (1831) on the same plantation world
  • · Ep 3 · Two Ways of Seeing a Bean
  • · Ep 5 · Two Ways of Knowing
  • · Ep 18 · Whose Voice

  Note: Authors' differing accounts of the same events are put side by side and their evidence assessed — the reader is taught to defend or challenge each claim.

What we don't claim

A standards page is only worth reading if the omissions are honest too. We looked at these and left them out:

• Mathematics and Personal Financial Literacy — nothing. This catalog does no mathematics instruction, so it meets no Texas mathematics TEKS. It also does no personal-finance instruction, so the Personal Financial Literacy strands of Economics (§113.31(d)(15)-(20)) and the standalone Personal Financial Literacy course (§113.49) are not claimed.
• Science — Texas is NOT an NGSS state, and we did not fetch its science TEKS. Texas writes its own science TEKS (19 TAC Chapter 112), not the Next Generation Science Standards. This catalog has no laboratory work, investigations, or modelling, and we did not fetch the Texas science standards this pass. Our rule is fetch-or-don't-cite, so Texas gets no science claim — unlike Arizona, where we fetched the document and found two Earth-science partials.
• Grade 7 Texas History (§113.20) — where the flagship's fullest home lives, not yet fetched. Texas's dedicated instruction on the Texas Constitution, the plural executive, Texas's courts, and Texas local government sits in Grade 7 Texas History (§113.20, Subchapter B, middle school). That is the natural 1:1 home for Texas Civics. We mapped the flagship into the high-school United States Government course's national/state/local comparison standards ((d)(7)(H), (d)(9)(A)) this pass, honestly as partial, and defer §113.20 to a later pass rather than cite standards we have not read.
• Texas has no citizen-initiative standard, because Texas has no citizen initiative. A distinctive flagship lesson is that Texas has NO statewide citizen initiative — only the Legislature may propose constitutional amendments. Arizona's and California's standards reward teaching their direct-democracy tools; Texas's do not, because there is nothing of the kind to teach. So that lesson, though central to understanding Texas, maps to no TEKS and we claim none for it. The gap is in Texas's government, correctly reflected in its standards.
• Most of the United States Government federal-heavy standards. §113.44(d)(1) (founding philosophy and individuals as named content), (d)(2) (parties, interest groups, and media affecting public policy — our media-literacy work is consumer protection, not political-media analysis), (d)(3) (geography of districts, gerrymandering, Baker v. Carr), (d)(4)-(5) (government and the free enterprise economy, fiscal policy, international trade set by the branches), (d)(10) (political parties and the two-party system), (d)(11) (comparing the U.S. to other political systems as named content), (d)(16)-(18) (government policy and culture; science, technology, and government) — the courses do not genuinely teach these as the standard requires, so we do not claim them.
• The landmark-cases overlap is thin, and we say so. Our Know Your Rights course teaches Tinker, Brandenburg, Mapp, Terry, T.L.O., Riley, and Carpenter as applicable rules. The US Government standard §113.44(d)(12)(E) enumerates Engel, Schenck, Texas v. Johnson, Miranda, Gideon, Mapp, and Roe — Mapp is the only direct overlap (Tinker appears separately in US History §113.41(d)(20)(A)). We claim the case-application skill as partial and do not pretend to cover this standard's specific case list.
• The rest of World History, US History, World Geography, and Economics we checked. We read the full knowledge-and-skills of each social studies course and claim only the standards the catalog genuinely teaches. The surveys of Renaissance/Reformation, the World Wars, the Cold War as a whole, the American political eras, monetary and fiscal policy, market structures, and the many social studies skills sub-standards not listed above are not claimed. The reject list is the evidence the map was not padded.
• English I, III, and IV; and the ELA composition strand as a programme. We mapped English II (§110.37) as the representative course; English I (§110.36), III (§110.38), and IV (§110.39) carry parallel author's-craft, response, and inquiry standards we did not separately transcribe. And the composition strand's sustained writing expectations are met only by the Coffee project — one optional project in one episode — so we claim the argument and research standards as partial, never a full writing programme.
• Health strands beyond health literacy and decision-making. Health I (§115.38) mental- and social-emotional health, healthy eating and physical activity as named content, injury and violence prevention, alcohol/tobacco/other drugs, and reproductive and sexual health were checked and are not genuinely taught by these courses. We claim only the two health-literacy standards and the decision-making standard, all partial.
• Physical Education motor-demonstration outcomes. Every PE outcome that asks a student to DEMONSTRATE or PARTICIPATE in physical activity (competency in target, striking/fielding, fitness, rhythmic, and innovative activities; officiating; skill performance) is out of reach of an online course. We claim only the technology, personal-fitness-planning, consumer-evaluation, and sport-strategy KNOWLEDGE outcomes, and say so on each.