Oil and Water and Who Is Mautra Jones? Standards Re-Write Gets Started.

Today was the monthly meeting of the Oklahoma State Board of Education. Today, as with many days since the installment of Dr. Janet Barresi as State Superintendent, a band should have been hired to play the Star Spangled Banner during the fireworks.

OSSBA did an admirable job Tweeting out the most exciting portions, while the Tulsa World chronicled the entire meeting with equally-admirable restraint.

Unfortunately, this Board meeting did not allay concerns about the standards re-write process.

Oklahoma standards writing committee named 

HB3399 was signed June 5th. According to the bill's language, development of new standards must begin "upon the effective date of this act" and new Oklahoma standards must be in place "on or before August 1st, 2016". So far, not only are the standards not being written, but only today - 3 board meetings following signing - has the board acted upon the re-write process and named the majority of members to the Oklahoma Standards Writing Committee. They are:

• Ms. Amy Ford, Steering Committee Chair, Member of the State Board of Education
• General Lee Baxter, Member of the State Board of Education
• Mr. Bill Price, Member of the State Board of Education
• Dr. Glenn Johnson, Chancellor of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
• Mr. Larry Parman, Secretary of the Oklahoma Department of Commerce
• Dr. Marcie Mack, interim Director of the Department of Career and Technology Education
• Ms. Barbara Bayless - Reading Specialist, Choctaw-Nicoma Park Public Schools (Teacher of the Year finalist 2013)
• Ms. Elaine Hutchison - Math instructor, Fairview Public Schools and the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics Regional Center - Teacher of the Year (TOA's must be OEA member - mentions teaching with Common Core)
• Mr. Don Raleigh - Superintendent of Pryor Public Schools (school awarded a Google grant for robotics - has received STEM aid from the Department of Career and Technology Education
• Ms. Mautra Jones - Parent of an Oklahoma City Public Schools student and non-profit professional (apparently a Gubernatorial appointment as Director of Development to the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission and has served as Development Director for The Foundation for Oklahoma City Public Schools. She has also is a member of the OKC Rotary and Leadership Oklahoma City)

Apparently, there is to be a member of the State Department of Education included - and an Executive Director position - but those have yet to be named.

Other than the Board members and Chancellor, I know only what I was able to find on the internet about the other committee members. How these people were selected is unclear. Amy Ford read off the nominations and they were accepted by the Board - apparently there was no discussion regarding any of the appointments at the public meeting - seeming as though this had all been arranged previously, via another process.

Two members are OEA-affiliated and OEA is the arm of the NEA; large Common Core supporters. Mr. Parman was appointed by the Governor and has been/is a member of the Professional Economic Development Council which works closely with the Chamber.  Mr. Raleigh has gotten his school into bed with Google (bad for parents who are concerned about student privacy). 

Jones, however, is the straw that broke the came's back.

Who Is Mautra Jones?

According to the press release concerning the Committee appointments, the only thing mentioned about Jones is that she is a "parent of an Oklahoma City Public Schools Student and non-profit professional". Interestingly, they overlook the fact that this woman is already a gubernatorial appointment (to the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission). She is also listed in Leadership Oklahoma (2010-2011) as having been Development Director for The Foundation for Oklahoma City Public Schools. Certainly, Jones is NOT a 'plain old mom' as she is made to sound - which feels disingenuous. This one committee member - when added to to others makes me feel as though these nominations were preconceived notions.They seem to me like 'echo-chamber' nominations - and by that I mean, nominations taken from a pool of the same nomination pool in the same circle of public/private associations utilized most frequently by those in power - there is nothing 'new' here and that concerns me. Certainly we know that Mr. Parman and Ms. Jones have the DIRECT ear of the Governor. They, as the Board members, will do what the Governor wants - as the General alluded to today. This is disconcerting because I don't trust the Chairman of the National Governor's Association NOT to re-write/re-brand the Common Core and put them back into place. Not only that, but what happened to those of us that filled out applications to serve in this process? Where are THOSE names? 

Politics Trump Reason

Dr. Barresi wanted to add SDE standards process guru,Terri Brecheen to the Committee today, but she was ignored and the slate approved without Brecheen's addition. This situation does not turn the dial on my comfort level to 11. For all Barresi's faults - and she has innumerable of them - the appointment of Terri Brecheen would have been the best thing the Board could have done at this point. But, because Barresi is a lame duck of the highest order who can't stop doing ridiculous stuff (like creating a new Assistant Superintendent position for the husband of her Chief counsel - Kim Richey - 3 months before she relinquishes her office and referring to General Baxter a son-of-a-b*** in public - during the Board meeting), the Board is going to ignore her completely no matter what she says. It also doesn't help that Teri Brecheen is the mother of Senator Josh Brecheen and using her in this role could appear politically one-sided (not that current gubernatorial appointment and teacher's union nominees don't?).

Who Is Sandra Stotsky?

Sandra Stotsky is professor Emerita at the University of Arkansas, but her biggest claim to fame is as the developer of not only the standards themselves, but of the process which created, the best educational standards in the country prior to 2004 - that of Massachusetts. She has many other qualifications provided at the link above, but I want to focus on the standards issue.

Dr. Stotsky Skyped in testimony for Gus Blackwell's interim study on Common Core in 2013 and has written numerous research documents in order to support the pullout of Oklahoma from CC to the point that she is certainly also a credit in our win.

Several months ago, Dr. Stotsky committed her directions for creating the standards-writing process to paper and sent them to me. I sent this process on to General Baxter and Terri Brecheen. Since that time, Terri Brecheen and Dr. Stotsky have spoken numerous times about what was done in Massachusetts. This is why Brecheen would make an excellent addition to the Committee - she has firsthand knowledge of the standards creation process from the horse's mouth. 

Why in the world, wouldn't Oklahoma want to avail ourselves of the standards writing process used to form the best standards in the country? We get it for FREE. We get it from a woman who knows about which she speaks - she's the foremost authority in fact. Neither Dr. Stotsky nor her plan are joined at the hip to Janet Barresi. There's no political (or otherwise) 'toxicity' associated with this woman and she needs to be heard. She is willing to fly out and discuss her plan with anyone who will listen - she is COMMITTED to making sure that states get excellent standards and if anyone knows what excellent standards are, it's Stotsky.

Where do we go now?

I've spoken to General Baxter - he has been kind enough to take the time to speak with me. I'm not faulting him, nor am I pointing fingers at the Board, nor am I casting aspersions on the new Committee members. Lame ducks make for crummy politics and tend to impede progress. Unfortunately, however, Oklahoma doesn't have eons to get this standards thing right - we, by law, have until August 1st, 2016. We have to get this show on the road. Already the process could be complicated by the fact that - though Stotsky has shared her plan with the General and Brecheen - the process hasn't begun the way Dr. Stotsky suggested. Though the Committee itself doesn't write the standards, they name those that will. The composition of the Board is a very important first step in the getting this process right, and we haven't gotten off on the right foot according to Stotsky's plan.

At this point, I'm going to suggest we send emails/make phone calls to our legislators and ask them to speak with state school board members (general OSDE phone number 405-521-3301) AND ask them:

1. to make sure Stotsky is invited to present her plan to the entire Committee for their consideration.
2. that Terri Brecheen be added to the committee because of her familiarity with Stotsky's plan.
3. to attend the testing interim study, Wednesday, October the 1st from 3:15 to hear Representative Brumbaugh discuss testing options for Oklahoma

Though a bit off point here, another decision at the Board meeting today was NOT to use McGraw/Hill as our source for state testing. There ARE other options that are NOT aligned to Common Core - one of these is the IOWA test. We need to get everyone possible to come and be educated on this topic in order for Oklahoma to make the right choice on testing - and not one, like ACT Aspire, that is aligned with the Common Core. 

As parents - and concerned citizens - we must continue to keep abreast of the standards re-write process. We worked so hard to get Common Core out of Oklahoma, let's continue to participate in the process - to the extent we can - and make sure the result is not only good for kids and parents, but great for Oklahoma as well.

Governor Fallin Appointed Oklahoma State Board of Education Member Publicly Calls Dr. Sandra Stotsky, "...an arrogant miscreant"

      

Oklahoma State Board of Education member General Baxter, in a statement posted to social media and re-posted inside the blog, Oklahoma Education Truths (General Baxter Says It Even Better), said,

Dr. April Grace Should NOT Be Elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction for These Reasons

Unfortunately, Ron Arthur was a coach in the Shawnee Public School system for years while charges of sexually inappropriate behavior with students were alleged but never researched.  In addition, though April Grace will claim to be a Republican, those in the education cartel - dubbed #oklaed on social media -  back Grace.

A-F Grading - Exchanging One Educational Overreach for Another

Moving into 2017 it looks as though our Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) will not attempt to find the "pro-local-control" the Education and Workforce Committee promised of the new ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act - the replacement for No Child Left Behind - in itself a replacement for the reauthorizations of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act by every preceding president).

ROPE Endorses Dr. John Cox for State Superintendent

Every election since 2010, ROPE has announced support for a State Superintendent candidate.  We believe this position to be of paramount importance in the direction of education in our state.  This year is no different.

Four Republican candidates are vying for the State Superintendent’s chair:  Bill Crozier, April Grace, Dr. John Cox and Secretary of Education Ryan Walters.  ROPE held a candidate forum at Randall University on May 9^th.  Mr. Crozier was unable to attend and April Grace backed out of her original commitment to appear.

Senate HHS Committee Votes YES on SB83 - Because, Well, It Supports Parental Choice AFTER Parents Jump Through Hoops

Why am I continually surprised at the lack of knowledge our government officials possess about the principles of good government?

Today, as I watched a live feed, the Senators in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted to PASS SB83 (video from a life Facebook feed below). This bill by Senator Ervin Yen ORIGINALLY revoked the exemption for children to attend public school if their parents didn't want to subscribe to the precise vaccination schedule as dictated by the CDC and Oklahoma State Department of Health. 

Joy Hofmeister - In My Opinion - Jenni White

Seriously, who doesn't love Three Dog Night?  Who doesn't love Jeremiah the Bullfrog?  Yes, I am dating myself, but seriously, you're humming the song right now, I know it!

Though I could wax philosophic about late '60's music, we need to discuss Joy Hofmeister.

In late summer of 2012, ROPE decided that, since our Superintendent had no intention of listening to a word we had to say on Common Core, we would try to speak with each State Board Member.  Consequently, we drove to Enid to see then-member Brian Haden, we traveled to Lawton to speak with General Baxter, I personally drove downtown to Bill Price's law office and met with him and then-ROPE Board member, Danna Foreman and I met Joy Hofmeister at Starbucks in Edmond near one of her Kumon franchises.  (We never seemed to be able to catch up with Bill Shdeed and from our observations at State Board Meetings, we believed a meeting with Amy Ford would simply be a waste of time for all of us.)

Bill Price is as intractable in his opinions of school 'reform' as Amy Ford.  Brian Hayden listened, but we didn't believe he really understood our concerns (he has since left the Board).  General Baxter was a lot of fun to talk to and we thought maybe he was hearing our concerns, but it became obvious he served "at the pleasure of the Governor" and not long after our meeting , it seemed clear he had done his due diligence and moved on.

Joy Hofmeister was another story.  As Danna and I met with her that day, I found her instantly likable.  She listened, took notes and asked questions as we talked.  She took our materials gratefully and warned us she didn't know much about Common Core at all - a fact clear from our chat.  It was also clear she was an independent thinker - she wasn't on the school 'reform' train - she seemed as though she wanted to do what was best for kids, not simply what was expedient or trendy.  We talked about local control of education and how she had seen the effects of parental involvement through her work at Kumon and how important it was to engage parents in their children's education directly.

To me, Joy appeared warm and open and willing to listen.  Consequently, we kept in touch.  She would call or text asking my opinions about various issues the board was addressing or to ask questions about Common Core and other 'reforms'.  Not long after we met, I found our youngest son had a type of mathematical dyslexia.  Among other things, he was reversing his numbers (90 became 09), making it very frustrating for he and I to do math at home.  Knowing Joy owned several Kumon franchises, I called and asked her opinion.  She gave me several ideas, we chatted for a bit and hung up.  Three days later, a learning tool Kumon uses to help kids get their numbers straight appeared in my mailbox.  Sam and I used it, he showed improvement quickly and Joy and I developed a friendship.

Over the course of the last year and a half, I have watched Joy change.  When I met her, she was fairly ignorant of a lot of the new 'reforms' our superintendent, governor and legislature had adopted for our state, but she knew she didn't like the imperious nature of our superintendent or the adversarial feel of the board/superintendent relationship.  She never balked at any education we attempted to give her, but instead read our materials and frequently contacted me with follow-up questions, seeking to broaden her view.

No, Joy did not come out whaling away against Common Core when she began her campaign for superintendent.  This frustrated many of our ROPE friends.  I understand their perspective, but it's important to remember what perspective is and that there are frequently multiple views of the same issue.  As I talked to Joy about Common Core, it became very clear she was not going to move the way a group wanted, she was going to continue researching until she could make the decision on her own.  The implied hypocrisy in the statement "She was for it before she was against it" is completely ridiculous.  I was an atheist at one point in my life.  Now I am a follower of Jesus Christ.  So, I can't grow into a relationship with the Lord?  This argument is sound for anyone who considers themselves to be an educable individual on any issue at any level.

Our current superintendent has shown she is not educable.  She knows what's right and by Hell or high water, she's going to do that/those thing/s.

That is not Joy.  Joy will study, deliberate, debate and discuss before she comes to a conclusion.  In my experience she's not going to be led around by the nose, or decide she has the only solution, she's going to work to find her true north and move in that direction.  This is why I was so disappointed to see Charlie Meadows of OC-PAC repeat misinformation about Joy in his latest "Charlie's Picks" email.  He said the following:

Let me suggest the differences, when Janet ran 4 years ago she was a strong advocate for school choice. Much of her ideas for school choice are charter schools, a form of school choice for which I am not a huge fan. However Janet is also favorable to home schooling and other forms of school choice. On the other hand I believe Joy was encouraged to run by many in the education establishment, especially the Tulsa area school superintendents who most likely despise Janet. I believe Janet is more committed to school choice and thus children, while I believe Joy is more committed to school systems. I have a trust problem with both of them and may not vote in this race. If I decide to vote, I am leaning toward Janet. 

He "believes" Joy was encouraged to run by Tulsa area school superintendents.  So?  As ROPE followers know, I'm not necessarily a fan of administrators (certainly on the Common Core issue), but what difference does that make?  The education of children isn't about ideology, it's about finding practical solutions to help all children learn the most they are able in the best environment we're able to provide as Oklahoma taxpayers.

The ladies of ROPE are not 'school choice' proponents per se.  We don't support charter schools (schools with private boards using public money), but we like Education Savings Accounts - FOR EVERYBODY not just minorities and those below the poverty line.  To us, this is true school choice - choice that will bring about real competitive market results.  I have talked this out with Joy.  Joy is committed to education competition and local control - not school systems or state systems or out-of-state systems.  In fact, she has LOST funding since coming out against the Common Core and a restoration of local control - yes, she has had donors request their funds to be returned.  THOSE would be the 'education establishment'.

When I chose to support her in 2010, I knew  Dr. Barresi was authoritarian and brash - I had worked under her long enough to know that.  I simply hoped those traits would be used to clean up the State Department of Education as she promised during her campaign.  Obviously, the brash authoritarianism turned against us as she strove to implement the programs statist Republicans (the 'education establishment'?) ordained in lockstep with their counterparts in the Obama Administration.

Charlie says he doesn't trust either Republican candidate for state superintendent.  Well, many of us 'trusted' Janet and look where that got us - Common Core, A No Child Left Behind Waiver, 3rd Grade Reading Retention; more and more and more 'edicts' with which state schools can shove parents out of the picture. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.  If you've been unhappy with the last two years, further supporting Dr. Barresi then, seems insane.

If you're a voting Republican in the Oklahoma primary elections on June 24, that leaves Joy Hofmeister.  Joy is not authoritarian or brash - she has shown herself to me to be just the opposite.

Instead of repeating hearsay and 'believing' a candidate to be one thing or another - either talk to the candidate themselves or to someone who knows the candidate - as a person will, at some point, reveal their true selves during the course of a personal relationship.  Joy has revealed nothing to me that indicates she doesn't deserve a stab at the job of State Superintendent, and I for one, am willing to give her the chance.  Wouldn't you rather have a listening, learner than a know-it-all?  I know I would.                                                    

Oklahoma State Department of Education Denies Public Comment At June Monthly Meeting

 

Today (June 27, 2013) was a sad day for the idea of representative government.

Today a number of us showed up at our state school board meeting in order to speak for 3 minutes during the public comment section of the meeting at the very end and were told we could not.

I got to the meeting around 9am.  I had to sign in and indicate the topic on which I desired to speak.  I wrote “Common Core”.  I hadn’t been in my seat 10 minutes when Chief of Staff, Joel Robison asked me to speak with him.  He asked me to enter a conference room where he politely told me we would not be allowed to speak today as the Common Core (or the P20 Council – a subject on which several on the board had planned to speak) was not a subject on the agenda for this particular meeting.  We could only address the board for 3 minutes if we were speaking either about an item on the agenda.  (Agenda’s for this and previousState Board meetings can be found here)

In a very civil manner, I told him I didn’t agree with that decision.  I explained that we are already one step away from representative government by having an appointed and not elected school board – where the board members serve at the pleasure of the governor, not the taxpayers directly – and that not having a time when parents and taxpayers could speak concerns to their school board left us no recourse for concerns.

Robison pointed to the rules for public comment listed on each written agenda:

The State Board of Education shall hear public comment on any item listed on the current Board of Education meeting agenda.  Public comments will be limited to only those subject matters covered in the current meeting agenda.  Public comment will not be taken on issues relating to: (1) pending litigation against OSDE, OSBE, or agency employees, (2) a pending grievance; (3) an employee complaint; (4) complaints against OSDE employees; or (5) disciplinary action, suspension or termination of an OSDE employee.  A sign-up sheet will be posted at least fifteen (15) minutes prior to the scheduled start time of the Board Meeting.  Sign up must be completed prior to the scheduled start time of the meeting.  The individual signing in must select one of the two public comment periods on the agenda to participate in.  Only individuals who have signed up to speak will be recognized during the Public Comment period and will be recognized in the order in which they have signed in.  Each speaker will be allocated three (3) minutes for presentation.  The Board Chairperson may interrupt and/or terminate any presentation during public comment, which does not conform to the procedures outlined under this Section.  The Board Chairperson reserves and retains the right to interrupt, terminate or postpone public comment as necessary to effectuate the management of the public meeting.

I told him I understood his position, but asked when we would be able to address the board on the issue of Common Core.  I respectfully reminded him that the Department of Education – not the legislature – created their meeting rules and if the Department wanted to change them, they certainly could.  Never rude or unpleasant, Robison instead assured me he would find some way for us to address the board and told me he would work on that.  He asked for my contact information and I returned to my seat. 

As I sat through nearly an hour of “Recognitions” at the beginning of the agenda, all I could think of was, “Can’t this information be given to the media in a packet?  Can’t this be posted on the webpage?”  Not to say that recognitions aren’t important and that these things don’t matter, but could they not be dealt with by either a press gathering/release or webpage/email announcement?  Couldn’t this time be used for public comment – as one of the reasons one often gets for silencing public comment is ‘time constraints’.  As it was, the board again had to bring in lunch for themselves.

I sat listening out of one ear to the discussions while Tweeting and Facebooking our dilemma until I saw this

This slide was part of a presentation given by Meridyth McBee related to agenda item 8(c): Discussion and possible action on the standard setting results and performance level descriptors for OCCT and OMAAP Biology I EOI Assessments.

OEA President, Linda Hampton, was also at the meeting today with a desire to speak about testing.  Tuesday, theOEA released a report calling for the 2012-2013 standardized test results to be declared invalid due to the massive number of issues surrounding the ‘new’ computerized testing format.

Assessments = tests.  No, this agenda item was not specifically related to the McGraw/Hill testing debacle, but where do you draw the line?  Why would they not be able to speak about testing if the issue of testing was clearly addressed by this item?

How was Common Core not germane here?  McBee was discussing the Core Curriculum tests – which, as of this year 2012-2013 – contained Common Core testing elements.  In addition, as per GovernorHenry’s Race to the Top Addendum where he installed Common Core standards for English/Language Arts, Math, SCIENCE and SOCIAL STUDIES as the law of the land in Oklahoma, this item – Biology – under the category of ‘Science’ – was a Common Core issue.  Yes, this was about cut scores and not the standards themselves, but again, where do you draw the line?

I left my seat and approached Robison about this.  To his credit, he didn’t deny that my evaluation was right, he simply asked my “forbearance” on the issue, and again assured me that he would work on finding a way to ‘meet our needs’ for a board level discussion on the issue.

I consented and returned to my seat.  I have several more things to say about the meeting, but I will include them at the bottom after I finish this more interesting portion of the story.

At this point I would like to mention that our State Department continually uses obfuscation as a way to stifle public knowledge.  Not only was McBee speaking about cut scores on ASSESSMENTS (an incorrect word for test but used by the Department as interchangeable), but Richard Karam (an Assistant State Superintendent – how many of these do we need?) discussed C3 Partnership Schools.  What is C3?  C3 refers to, “College, Career and Citizenship-ready” – the name Dr. Barresi has given her education ‘reform’ package that includes the College, Career andCitizen ready Common Core State Standards.  She not only also refers to these as C3 and OC3 on the website, but Oklahoma State Standards as well.  Apparently the DOE likes to play the shell game with names.

By 3pm, Chief of Staff Robison had left me a voice mail about the next Board meeting in July (July 25).  Apparently, adoption of the new Art Standards will be discussed and we would be allowed to comment at that meeting on the Common Core.  (Linda Hampton also reports being told the same thing...but she wanted to discuss testing...what?)

I called Robison back so we could discuss the issue more thoroughly, and was told that yes, ROPE and anyone else who wanted to speak about the Common Core, could do so at the next State Board meeting (He wanted to let us know that the P20 is still not germane to that topic and discussion about that would be stopped, however.)  It was an interesting discussion during which I asked why the meetings were held in this manner.  Robison told me it was to “keep meetings orderly and to keep everyone focused on the topics at hand”.  

I explained again that this process, in effect, disenfranchised tax payers, at which point he wondered aloud about the need for the need for us to speak to the board when we are “already organizing the grass roots by speaking across the state and working with legislators”.

I told him that solutions to every disagreement start with the person with whom you have the argument.  When we are invited to speak somewhere, we are often “preaching to the choir” – to those who also do not like the OSDE policies and feel disenfranchised.  Other than rousing these good folks to talk to their legislators, how is that addressing the genesis of the problem?  

I should have reminded him here that, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education on Jan. 26, 2012, adopted a resolution to fully support Superintendent Janet Barresi’s goal of having all students in Oklahoma college, career and citizen ready by the year 2020, known as her C³Plan.” 

Obviously, our concern is with both the legislature and the OSDE.

Robison was always very civil and polite – I have no complaint with the man – just the message.

Every year, legislators tell constituents horror stories of what would happen if every bill was read during session.  These are merely excuses, however, for the fact that when legislators get to pick and choose which bills are read, legislators can control the process – can control the will of the people – regulate the voice of the people in whatever manner works for their agenda.  I’m not vilifying legislators; I’m saying that this thought process runs counter to the spirit and definition of “representative government” desired by our founders.

What the OSDE did (does) here is exactly the same thing.  There is no legitimate reason to prevent the public from speaking on whatever educationally-related topic they feel important – in fact; Dr. Barresi is a civil SERVANT.  She serves at the will of the people who pay her salary.  Whether she likes – or agrees with – what we have to say or not, the very LEAST she can do is hear us out.  Many public meetings allow public comment – usually at the end of the meeting after the business of that board/commission is concluded.  If you don’t want to have to sit and listen to what your constituency has to say ONE day a month for as long as it takes, then you needn’t desire to hold PUBLIC office.

It is enough that the meetings are held in a room that PREVENTS attendance by the public – literally there cannot be any more than 50 chairs in this room – most of which are populated by (at various meetings), vendors, state school administrators, OSDE employees.  Where are the seats for “guests”.  Oh, that’s right, there were TWO at this last meeting marked ‘guest’.  How is there a way for taxpayers and parents to attend?  Many have to stand in the hall.

It is enough that the meetings are held at 9am in the morning.  Most people work.  Parents have children for which to find sitters.

It is enough that citizens/taxpayers/parents must get to the meetings well before 9:15 to sign up to speak.

How many gauntlets must a citizenry jump through in order to redress their government?

Yes, Dr. Barresi – and most board members – know our position on Common Core.  You can argue that it is simply not necessary for us to appear before the Board again and again to state our case.  In answer I will use an axiom, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”.  Sometimes government must be addressed countless times in order that the will of the people is not subverted.  

In point of fact, it is in parsing these issues that freedom is lost.

Please, take the time to put the next meeting of the State School Board on your calendar NOW.  Find a sitter, take time off of work because I guarantee you, should the public NOT attend this meeting in DROVES, our cause will be lost and my arguments will be in vain.

OTHER ISSUES:

One of the reasons I personally despise (yes a strong word that I will not soften) government by appointment is that the appointed serves at the pleasure of the one who does the appointing.  This fact is written in state law.  For whom does the appointed hold office?  The citizenry THROUGH the appointing elected official.  Does that appointed official respond first to the level of their appointment or directly to the taxpayer?  I will argue the one by whom they were appointed, and a gubernatorial appointee has told me that much – that the Governor expects her appointees to follow her agenda – which does not necessarily follow the will of the taxpayer.

I believe this idea was in full force during this meeting particularly in respect to discussion on adoption of an emergency rule.

This rule would prevent a school from denying entry to a child desiring to move from another school because of an issue with bullying (a transfer issue).  I will not play-by-play the entire conversation but merely pass on the fact that General Baxter and Member Shdeed did NOT like the rule, while did members Amy Ford and Bill Price.  Quite a discussion occurred among these four members – clearly split in half on the issue – until the time of the vote, with Baxter calling the rule “bad policy” and Amy Ford arguing that the rule must pass even though it’s not a good rule because it can be amended later.  “It’s a process”,  Ford says many times with an apparent understanding as to why she would want to pass a rule that isn’t really going to do what is intended – someone else wants it done.  Bill Price mentions several times that, “We’ll just get Jason Nelson (OK Representative) to amend this bill next session.”

Though arguing vociferously against this rule during discussion, both Baxter and Shdeed voted FOR the rule change.  Don’t forget, this board is TWO members down since the departures of Joy Hoffmeister (to run against Barresi forsuperintendent) and Brian Hayden whoseexit was immediate last month for personal reasons pertaining to new employment.

Sitting next to Dr. Jack Herron (fired by Barresi from the OSDE for no apparent reason), Herron leans over and tells me that the board doesn’t really know what they’re talking about – they don’t apparently even understand the process they’re discussing.   

Which brings me to another complaint; why populate a board with individuals who have no background in education – who are certainly upstanding members of the community – but who have ZERO expertise in education?  Why do we allow those that have no education experience to set rules for those in education to have to follow?  This truly makes no sense to me, leading to my final comment.

Bill Price, during the discussion on the Teacher Leadership Effectiveness report, at one point made mention that, “as a member of the TLE Board”, and then began to illuminate the board and audience about happenings on the TLE Board relating to the topic.  Why is Bill Price on two education Boards?  While I can see communication necessary between many of these board (although I believe 527 Boards and Commissions are excessive here in Oklahoma s this is all leadership through bureaucracy and therefore should be dissolved in my opinion), I do not understand populating these boards with many of the same individuals.  Is there really such a dearth in leadership in Oklahoma that this situation would even be necessary?

In closing, if you do not take time to attend board/commission/city council meetings, you get the government you do deserve.  Long ago, citizens stopped participating in their government.  Long ago, political elitists and government officials with insidious intent understood that the best way to silence the voice of the people (if the sleeping giant was ever to awaken) was to create a bureaucracy of appointed officials that kept taxpayers separated from their ELECTED officials.  They knew that bureaucracies stymie the political process and create government webs that provide no accountability to the people, but entangle them in reams of red tape that stifle liberty while plugging the pockets of the cronies who keep them in power.   WAKE UP.  TAKE ACTION.  RECLAIM YOUR GOVERNMENT.  I have said all I can say.

ARTICLES ON THIS ISSUE:

Commenters turned away at state board of education meeting Tuesday

Why did education panel restrict public comments?

Ed board denies public comments

 

 

Is Senator Ron Sharp Oklahoma's Version of Ron Burgundy?

One to file under the heading of "GOOD GRIEF"! 

I just read an article by Jay Chilton who was apparently in the Senate Education Committee hearing when Senator Sharp - Vice-Chair of the Senate Education Committee - opined about Rob Standridge's bill (SB560) on school choice. Chilton quotes Sharp as saying,

 I have told other senators I call this bill the "Dr. Josef Mengele bill" because it is intended to kill public education," 

To Fire or Not To Fire, That Is The Question...

Following the filing of the lawsuit against HB3399, a number of questions could be raised about the fact that four individuals responsible for overseeing public education in Oklahoma were plaintiffs; Leo Baxter, Amy Anne Ford, William F. Shdeed and Daniel Keating.

As I've reported numerous times, the law regarding Oklahoma school board appointees has changed. During the first year of Dr.Barresi's term, our school board was changed from a board appointed by the governor on a rolling six year term to members appointed by the current sitting governor to serve at her/his "pleasure" (Senate Bill 435, 2011).  It seems odd then, that four board members would choose to go against the will of the governor (certainly displeasing one would think) following her signing of the repeal of Common Core in Oklahoma and file a lawsuit that asked the court to throw out, not just the part regarding legislative oversight of the standards to which they objected, but the ENTIRE bill.  Would this not be grounds for their removal? Why has this topic not been broached?

The state Board of Education is comprised of seven members.  According to Open Records law in Oklahoma, members of a body such as the state School Board may not meet together as a majority of the board without posting the meeting and taking minutes.  It is unclear how the lawsuit may have been discussed among the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but if at any time these four board members 'met' on a conference call or physically together in order to discuss the suit, Open Records laws were broken.  If I'm asking this question - did they meet - does this not constitute a level of impropriety?  What about trust?  How do the people of Oklahoma trust this Board to do the state's business when it appears as though they could have broken laws which provide transparency to citizens?

After the Board meeting in June, behavioral impropriety should also be at issue in my mind.  The first hand reports I received of the unprofessional manner in which the school board members on the lawsuit behaved, creates further issues of trust in my mind.  I know we don't live in the 50's and we're not all wearing white gloves and hats to meetings anymore, but truly, a state School Board meeting should be held with an amount of decorum to allow the public trust.  The loud, dismissive manner with which some acted, does not make me feel good about holding them up as representatives for myself or Oklahoma.

According to HB3399, the entire education standards re-write is overseen by a Steering Committee which consists of at least two board members:

• The Chancellor of Higher Education, or a Designee: 
• The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, or a Designee:
• Secretary/Executive Director of the Department of Commerce, or a Designee:
• Two State Board of Education Members

There are only two Board members who did not sign on to the lawsuit - Cathryn Franks and Bill Price.  Mrs. Franks is new and none of us have had the chance to make her acquaintance, but Bill Price is well known within the Republican Party as a sincere supporter of Common Core.

How can we have any confidence that those of us that spoke out against the Common Core will be considered for Committee membership?  How can we believe any of the four Board Members listed as Plaintiffs on the lawsuit will be fair in overseeing the standards re-write process? 

I think these concerns are valid and should be addressed by our Governor at her earliest convenience.  If indeed, as the law says, these individuals serve at her pleasure, why are they still serving?  I must say, if these Board members served at my pleasure, they would be serving no more.

Education in the Digital Age

By Jo Joyce

Restore Oklahoma Public Education

After spending nearly five hours listening to propaganda promoting policy changes and proponents of post-modern professional pedagogy, I’m pooped. An older woman summed it up best when she asked the panel at the end: If digital education is so great, why did all of you (presenters) have to come here in person rather than have a Skype conference? Amen, Sister.

Friday, July 29^th, 2011, I attended the conference, “Education in the Digital Age” (McGuigan) sponsored by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). The following is a short synopsis of this venerable event which served to only create more questions for me than it proposed.

General Lee Baxter (Ret.) opened the conference with the goal of “broadening public thinking.”

Michael Horn of Innosight Institute (InnoSight Institute), who wrote the book, “Disrupting Class; How Disruptive Innovation Will Change The Way the World Learns” (Johnson) spoke on “disrupting innovation,” a theory that whatever is currently provided (service/product) will eventually be replaced by innovation/discovery. He gave several examples in the shopping industry, car industry, and military industry. Education is lagging behind, although higher education has been “disrupted” by community colleges and on-line colleges like Phoenix.

Horn cites several examples of current uses of digital: to assist a “graduate” with that last class, to offer AP to areas that do not provide it, and when it is “a necessity” i.e. homeschool and homebound. He foresees a greater need in our current budget crisis.

He insists innovation will happen, but he does ask the question, “Is it a good thing?” He sees the positive as a cheaper version of customized education plan (CEP), with something much more exciting than Phoenix’s original “power points,” including video games. He knows teachers will resist for fear of being replaced, but said instead they will have to change from “sage on the stage” to a monitor—which he feels is liberating. He is also aware many schools will not be ready for this, especially the funding.

Andrew Coulson (Andrew Coulson) of CATO Institute quoted statistics on the use of Khan Academy (Khan Academy) which in his opinion confirms the need for digital learning. He questions why education is not “market progressive” when it employs six million people and has a budget of $600 billion a year. He sees engineers as innovators who implement policies from their successes, even though he admits unions do not like competition. He cited other countries that allow competition in education, especially Japan, Sweden, and Britain. He is sure if education were treated as a free enterprise we will see plummeting prices, although we will also face legal and regulatory threats, as well as a demand for universality.

Coulson quoted Thomas Jefferson, “It is tyranny to compel people to disseminate what is objectionable,” knowing we cannot have state funding (or subsidizing) for morally objectionable ideas. Tax credits would avoid this (as opposed to scholarships).

He had a very interesting slide presentation that showed that the more regulations a state had for education, the more “blue” or Democrat the politics of that state were. It also showed that more vouchers/school choice legislation had passed in red states.

J. Rufus Fears (J. Rufus Fears) is a professor at OU. He said that to reform education is the most difficult challenge in the world and is abhorrent to many. He believes when technology takes the lead, then learning can transform, but, he asked, in what direction? He also asked if technology is the greatest tool for freedom, or its cheap cousin.

He thinks languages can be taught more efficiently and better with Rosetta Stone, especially if the teacher has a poor accent. He also states that education, especially higher ed, is an economic enterprise. Dr. Fears pointed out that the regional and state universities provide financial support for small towns, and if they closed the campus, it would result in massive unemployment. He also sees Digital Learning bringing about a loss of the Socratic method of learning, where there are questions asked and ideas freely exchanged.

Dan Lips wrote the paper “Education in the Digital Age: Policy Reforms to Improve Learning Options in Oklahoma” (Lips) (Some of the below questions refer to this document.) He admitted to being a pessimist and sees Digital Education as the glass waiting to spill. He sees strong opposition from the unions and special interests. He also sees in ten years there will be incredible change and progress. Current trends show a decline in support of unions and blue state politics, and a legislature willing to stand up to unions. It has become obvious to the public and politicians that the kids are not the focus - the money is.

A new trend of the left supports school choice. Mr. Lips hopes it continues and creates the possibility of Oklahoma being the next state to lead the country in quality education. The many examples of digital education in states like Florida and Utah making progress encourages Mr. Lips. The obvious advantages of free online learning for universities would help all learners.

After taking copious notes from the often long-winded, technologically excited “salesmen and women,” I’m not sold. In fact, after reading Mr. Lip’s paper, I have many more questions than answers about the trend toward digital education.

Questions About Money

1. Is the sole purpose of pushing digital education to the masses for the benefit of profits to the computer industry? (There are special circumstances where digital can and is being used.)
2. Are there “power” proponents that are pushing for this “progress” and if so, who and why?
3. Will competitive bids for contracts be used for all the services/purchases? This will be an on-going job requiring many more employees, not less.
4. Will teachers be involved in choosing the hardware/software, or will they get it assigned to them by “buyers” in the education department? Will this take a lot of teacher time away from “teaching?”
5. Coulson said free enterprise brings about innovation and will do so in the education industry as well. This can be good, but when the various book publishers buy out the smaller “competition” they form monopolies eventually, and then there is no competition. Big states, with their own political agendas, have undue influence on textbooks. Like any other industry, the market becomes full of lobbyists and then the only talk about “success” is the profits the companies make—not the number of graduates or what they learned (improved scores?) or successful careers.
6. Page 12 of Lips’ “Digital Age” – “State-funded ESAs (education savings account) would offer some significant improvements over traditional student-centered education initiatives like pubic school choice and scholarships or education tax credits…spurring innovation among education service providers, including virtual and online learning programs.” But what regulations would they create that would place limits and restrictions on our education?
1. I bet the internet providers are drooling.
2. I bet the software salesmen are drooling.
3. I bet the hardware salesmen are drooling.
4. I bet the electricity companies are drooling (with rates that will “necessarily skyrocket”).
7. Currently many states play the blame game with unionized teachers; will this reduce the number of teachers and will this be a problem with the unions? Or will there be more unionized technical employees to replace them? Is digital really cheaper or more effective than “live” teachers?

Questions About Education Theory

1. Will it not be easier to “indoctrinate” children with a facts-only instruction method, rather than a presenter/discussion method?
2. In a classroom setting children can immediately raise their hand when questions arise. In a digital setting they may not have a chance to ask questions, or at least they will be delayed until the session is over. Again, a chance for indoctrination, and also confusion and frustration.
3. The presenters promised a “customized” learning where each family can choose which school, which program works best for his child. This would entail a lot of time with parents investigating the options and meeting the facilitators and sampling programs before making a decision. I can see this being difficult for the average family, and for some it would be an extreme hardship (single parents, for example).
4. Supposedly working at his own pace, a student could graduate early. Is this always an advantage? Is the child obtaining knowledge and learning how to think for himself; or is he accumulating facts and learning how to follow instructions?
5. Presenters said digital learning initiatives should be funded only if successful. Would this not lead to shoving off students who have difficulties to other schools or systems to avoid “failures?” Similar to the desperate cheating in Atlanta most likely due, in part, to NCLB’s model of perfection. If we base funding on success, then who wants to accept potential failures?
6. Teacher’s colleges will have to drastically change their training methods to make teachers more “facilitators” of data, managers of systems, experts at computer repairs (because realistically who can wait on a tech to show up when there will never be enough to go around, and time will be even more valuable.)
7. Andrew Coulson talked about Khan Academy and (Kumon) after-school tutoring program, and how they are a necessary outcome of a real need. Yes they are a necessity because parents don’t take the time to help their children, many families have two career parents, and since teachers know Kumon and Khan are out there to help, they don’t have to do anything but refer the parents to the “necessary” step.
8. One suggestion (p. 10 “Digital Learning”) was to “flip” traditional lecture with the digital lesson, so that the lesson is watched at home, and the teacher has “help” time in class. If the kid doesn’t get it at all at home, won’t he return frustrated and the teacher would have to “instruct” any way? I do not see this as an advantage.
9. Who buys another computer when the kids drop it, lose it, barf on it, step on it, or someone steals it? And who pays for the “Carbonite” back-up system so when they “lose” their homework, it can be recovered from the system?
10. In the spirit of “green” and saving trees, will we stop at one laptop, or should we have one for the classroom, one on the bus, and one at home. Maybe the students also should have a Kindle, an I-pod, a cell phone—all with internet access and unlimited texting in case they have to text their teacher, if they have a teacher.
11. Will the free computers, software, internet, repair service, and tech support be paid for by the school system, welfare, homeland security, or a school car wash?
12. Page 12 (“Digital Learning”) – “Oklahoma policymakers should consider new strategies to provide families with the flexibility to give their children quality in changing the landscape of K-12 education.” Shouldn’t we already be doing everything we can to provide the best education possible for our children, at home, at school, and at policy level?
13. Coulson offered examples of “choices” in education in Chile, Sweden, England and Japan. Aren’t all of those countries further down the road to serfdom than we are? What they offer is not nearly as important as the overall outcome or lifestyle improvements these “choices” offer.
14. Coulson really pushed for vouchers or scholarships; however, he did not mention what was in their “Digital…” report concerning the “Blaine Amendment.” This is a law Oklahoma (and 36 other states) passed in the latter half of the 19^th century to prevent any state funds going to any religious institution. According to some law groups and think tanks, this would specifically apply to school vouchers if they were to use them at private religious schools.
15. Bottom of page 4 (“Digital Learning”), stating benefits for teachers as “a more flexible and potentially rewarding career.” Most teachers are in the business because they love children and I fail to see how seeing less of them, but having to work with computer technology, can fulfill teachers’ needs.
16. Top of page 5 states (“Digital Learning”) “…reduce the number of teachers who are needed, and pay remaining teachers, presumably the most effective ones, significantly more than they otherwise could…” as well as purports to attract highly talented ones because of the flexibility or higher pay. If this is to save money overall, I think that is completely false given the extra tech people required. I also fail to see how teachers will be happier or more satisfied when their creativity will not be needed unless opening packages of software and installing it is satisfying.
17. Bottom of page 5 (“Digital Learning”) pushes Florida’s Virtual School (FLVS) as a model for Oklahoma to follow. Their motto is “any time, any place, any path, any pace.” Perhaps they mean this as something good, but I think “any pace” could mean as slow as Christmas (Oops, I mean as slow as Winter Break…). If everyone is working at a different pace, how could they possibly do group projects, which the presenters said would still be a part of the socializing in a brick and mortar school.
18. Bottom of page 10 (“Digital Learning”) suggests that opening Oklahoma’s higher education to “free” on-line learning would “enable motivated students to pursue self-instruction opportunities…like AP…and CLEP.” Don’t the students who are motivated already pursue opportunities?
19. Would digital learning eventually discontinue the degree programs, fire the faculty, enroll few students, buy no paper books, close facilities, and consolidate disciplines into compact units of learning? All colleges would look like University of Phoenix, a for-profit entity? A McEducation? At least Phoenix requires their students to provide their own computers and modem.

Questions About Education Technology

1. Technology always has glitches—there will be frustration when technology fails, especially during tests or at times when there is no one around to fix it.
2. It is supposed to make it easier to move from school to school, but what if different states have different requirements, different programs, or do not allow it at all? Consistency would be paramount for the advantage to exist. Kids have moved from state to state and it does not harm them academically—it exposes them to variety. It could work either way—if they hate their classes in one location, they could improve in the next. If they love their classes, they might be disappointed in the new location. That’s life.
3. Why are current on-line academies (Oklahoma Virtual School) (Oklahoma Virtual Academy) only accepting students if they sign on for the entire program rather than accept students for only a few classes (stated by the presenters as “a la carte” or blended learning)?
4. If we can’t fix or manage consistent education with the current constraints and federal/state/local requirements and regulations, why would we think this could improve things? It will make education much more complicated to “manage.”

Questions About the Children

1. Will this method of teaching actually teach children to THINK, or just how to operate their equipment, and perhaps memorize some of the lessons if they are interesting enough?
2. Teachers currently are specially trained to be around children. Will it potentially endanger the health and welfare for children to be around so many technical people who are not trained to be around children?
3. I bet the kids will smile when the system fails, just like they do when a fire drill occurs during an exam. What then? Dust off real books?

Final Question – The Bottom Line:

Is the bottom line improved education (haven’t seen that in 50 years) or is the bottom line how much the local/state/federal governments can save, another way government can distribute the spoils to their cronies, or how much the private businesses that implement the digital plan can profit?

OCPA’s conclusion: “…initial empirical evidence suggests that learning online is an effective medium for instruction that, importantly, can be delivered at a lower cost than traditional schooling.”

I do not buy into this at all. I have four children, all in a home school setting, and we seem to have at least one computer or printer that is giving us trouble at any given time, or we need to update something, or the internet is down or frozen. I can only imagine the nightmares involved with maintaining and updating hundreds or thousands of computers, much less the inventory control system.

My conclusion: all the newfangled ideas can bring education to different people in different ways, but it cannot transmit love, or touch, or that special twinkle of the eye, or hugs or gift of freshly picked flowers or all the other intimate moments a teacher-student relation brings. Facebook allows us to see a person’s thoughts instantly from what they miss to what they are tasting, seeing and feeling—more intimate than many people are willing to share, but they cannot send that feeling of touch, and the sympathy tears bring, or the ability to wrap one’s arms around a friend or loved one, and no amount of technology will ever be able to replicate that.

As Dr. Fears mentioned, Socrates established his tradition of inquiry by asking questions and discussing ideas. Today’s teachers still do this because it works, it is enjoyable, and it teaches children to think and formulate ideas by sharing ideas, while being respectful even when they disagree.

Despite all the fabulous new ‘reforms’ imbued into the public education system since 1965 with their excessive rules and regulations, overly ergonomic environment, expensive equipment, flashy textbooks, “green” buildings and buses, healthy school meals – none of it has resulted in actually improving educational outcomes. Teachers who see children day to day know when something is bothering a child and are able to cut them a little slack. When they look upset or angry a teacher can take the time to see if they need a little extra help. Human capacity for caring will benefit children far more than the gadgets that line the pocket protector of someone who doesn’t care about much more than the joys of technology.

Electronic devices may speed up learning for some kids, but the cutting edge of every society’s technological advancements will have little effect on furthering society if children aren’t also ‘learning’ to become stable, mature, reasoned transmitters of knowledge to future generations.

While electronic devices can add to, or even supplement, the human mind, they cannot replace the humanity of the educational process. I don’t think Socrates would approve of a totally Digital Education, and neither do I.

***For a file that includes Bibliography and further resources for study, click here.