Twitter Rally For HB1622 And End Of EOI Testing!

This legislative session in Oklahoma, there have been numerous bills to reduce testing. We've written about a number of them. Now, as session draws to a close for this year, all the testing bills that have been passed by the House and Senate committees are being funneled to the floor for votes by the full Senate.

Several bills (707, 784) contain language that points directly to ACT. We have written extensively about why ACT is not an option for Oklahoma currently - mainly because ACT has their own set of standards by which students will be tested, while Oklahoma has barely begun the process of writing our own standards as dictated by last year's Common Core repeal bill (HB3399).  ROPE supports the passage of HB1622 by Representative David Derby, which stops EOI testing, while creating a process by which Oklahoma can design one end of year exam using our own Oklahoma standards. HB1622 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY and is thus supported by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma State Representatives. There really is no reason not to use this bill over the others still circulating.

As all the testing bills move to the floor of the Senate THIS WEEK, we are asking you to help us campaign for the passage of HB1622.

FIRST: Right click on one or all of the memes in this blog, then save it to your computer.

NEXT: If you are on Facebook, replace your FB image with one of these memes.

NEXT: If you are on Twitter, Tweet out the memes to your Senator (and others if you wish) using the list below (there are House members included there too, so just pick out your Senator). This list may not be comprehensive, so once you have attached your photo to your Tweet, try typing in the name of your Senator (for example, I'd type in Sen, Ron, Sharp, and if I didn't find anything, I'd use variations of that name - Senator Ron Sharp - until I found the right Twitter handle).

NEXT: Use the hashtag, #YESONHB1622 so we can keep count of the number of Tweets sent.

NEXT: Tweet these to your friends to re-Tweet as well.

Feel free to CALL your Senator as well. You can find their numbers here.

Thanks for your help!

@AnthonySykes

@brecheen4senate

@BrianRenegar

@ClaudiaHD45

@ConnieJ4OK

@davidbrumbaugh

@DavidPerrymanOK

@ecannaday

@FieldsForSenate

@jamesmleewright

@jasonnelsonok

@jdunnington

@jonechols

@JordanOKHouse

@jwmurphey

@Kannady4OK91Rep

@KayFloydOK

@KenWalker4house

@kimdavid

@kimdavid2010

@kyledloveless

@leslieosborn1

@lewismooreok

@MarkDistrict30

@MarkMcBrideHD53

@MazzeiMike

@MontgomeryOK62

@NathanDahm

@Newberry37

@OKHouseofReps

@okrepstrohm

@oksde

@oksenategop

@patownbey

@RandyJGrau

@RepAPittman

@RepCOrtega

@RepEmilyVirgin

@RepHickman

@RepJoshCockroft

@RepMarkMcBride

@RepMikeShelton

@RepScottBiggs

@RepScottInman

@RepTomNewell

@RickBrinkley

@SallyKern

@SE_Pres_Burrage

@Sen_GregTreat

@sen_roger

@Senatorcjohnson

@senatorcrain

@SenatorRandyBas

@SenatorRobS

@SenatorSimpson

@SenatorSparks

@SenCoreyBrooks

@Seneca_Scott

@SenStanislawski

@smalley101

@SoonerRep

@SpkrHickmanOK

@stephaniebice

@ToddThomsen

@VoteEliseHall

@Yen4Senate

Legislative Update As Bills Cross Between House and Senate

I'm sad to say, but, as hard as we tried to stay on top of the education bills this year, we just couldn't do it!  There are ALWAYS too many of them and this year wasn't an exception.  Here is the list of just House Education bills for this year in case you want to peruse them and check me up on my definition of too many!  So please forgive our consistent updates.

At any rate, if you'll remember, we started the 2015 legislative session with the goals of:

1. Trying to stop the grading of teachers via surveys and high stakes testing better known as TLE. 
2. Upgrading school choice in Oklahoma to include ALL those who would like to participate. We believe the way to do this is through the establishment of Education Savings Accounts.
3. Continuing to fight for privacy protection for students from data collection.

1.  Our concern with TLE (beyond the idea that it adds another layer to what teachers are already mandated to do), is that TLE measures were built to test Common Core standards. So far, it appears that the quantitative portion of TLE will be put on hold for at least two years and the qualitative portion will be changed slightly as well.

2.  Education Savings Accounts were represented this session in the form of a bill by Representative Jason Nelson (HB2003) and another by Senator Clark Jolley (SB609).  HB2003 was heard in the Common Education Committee where it received a 9 to 9 vote and was killed.  SB609 was pulled from consideration this session before it reached the floor for a vote by the author, due to pressure to kill the bill in the Senate.  I don't want to get into a discussion about this issue, but I will say that it was very disappointing to see such emotional, untrue and mean/rude commentaries by many in the education establishment.  Though there are many issues to work through, it saddens me to hear people who say they care about the education of children, present such illogical arguments to turn the tide of public opinion.

3.  This year, HB1989 was slightly changed (HB2049) in order to create district-level data protection for students.  The bill has passed the House and has crossed to the Senate.

MOVING FORWARD
Unfortunately, we've had a fight on our hands we didn't expect - that of a repeal (in essence) of HB3399 (the bill to kill Common Core in Oklahoma) by way of SB707, a bill by Senator John Ford.  We've written numerous blogs about this issue so I won't go into detail here, but I will say that the bill is DELIBERATELY being messaged as a bill ONLY to stop End Of Instruction (EOI) exams by such organizations as Stand For Children, the Oklahoma State Chamber, COSSA, the OSSBA, individual school administrators and others.  The only reason I can think this might happen is because there is specific intent to change the wording in HB3399 to untie the tests from the standards in order to bring in an off-the-shelf test - namely ACT - to serve as a single EOI.  Don't forget, these are the same organizations that worked against us so vehemently to keep Common Core and that alone should present a RED FLAG.  It's also interesting here to note that another of Senator Ford's bills - SB708 did the same thing proponents of ditching EOI's wanted, yet it got zero discussion - another RED FLAG.

We've said it before and we'll say it again, we are FINE with removing the EOI's - it wasn't long ago that a high school student had only to complete his course of instruction with C's and above to graduate high school - PERIOD.  The problem comes in when we try to test other than Oklahoma standards - especially when we haven't even gotten them written yet - though we do now have a process to develop these approved by the State Board on Friday (March 12th) and that is very good news.

In fact, in an interesting twist, previous Common Core proponent, Andrew Spiropoulus actually penned an op-ed for the Journal Record pointing the finger at the ACT as a way to bring back Common Core, so if we're wearing tin foil hats over this one, well, you get the picture.

Enter HB1622.  This bill by Representative David Derby, would phase out EOI testing over time, (a very important step simply because education policy of late consists of rushing headlong into situations that later have to be rectified by passing more laws)  substituting them with ONE graduation test that can be both criterion- and norm-referenced as well as include our own Oklahoma standards.  This is a much better plan that doesn't involve gutting the Common Core repeal from last year.

Please stay tuned as we continue to move forward through the legislative process.  We may have to bring out those green shirts again if we can't seem to be heard on this very important issue - dust them off and be ready.  In the meantime we'll let you know something as soon as we know it.

UPDATE: 3/16/15 SB707 was passed by the Common Education Committee 11/4 with an amendment provided by Jason Nelson that puts back INTO the bill the phrase that was taken out. Though there is no record of the amendment at the time of this posting, it should be available by tomorrow morning.

"Common" Sense Questions About EOI's and ACT

One day while visiting with a legislator, I heard words so true I'll ultimately carry them with me for the rest of my life. As I sat talking to this man about a particular bill, he uttered the sentence,

"Jenni, we make laws up here (the Capitol), that's what we do." 

It was then I understood with crystal clarity why I felt as though I was constantly fighting one bill or another every year. It was then I discovered why I sit uneasily on the edge of my chair from February through May. Legislators see it as their job to make laws. 

Okay, we do call them law makers, but really, is that their job? Is their job to MAKE LAWS or to PROTECT MY LIBERTY? According to the Constitution, my liberty is of the utmost importance, yet therein lies the conundrum. If we elect people to represent us in our government, call them law makers and then send them to the Capitol with a certain number of bills they may write every year, how will individual liberty NOT be subverted in at least some way? It's a shoe-in it will. (So far this year we've had a bill to fine me for wearing a hoodie and a bill to fine me for texting while driving though we already have a law on the books for distracted driving - I rest my case.)

Let's look at the latest infringement of liberty in the education category - SB707 - a bill in which key segments of last year's Common Core repeal bill will be, well, repealed.

I've written about this bill a number of different times and so have many many others. Good grief, at this point, just Google the bill number and Oklahoma together in a sentence and you'll get plenty to read.

This morning, I saw the OKEducationTruths blog on why Oklahoma should use ACT instead of our current End of Instruction (EOI) exams. In the blog was this picture the author had taken at a High Stakes Testing Summit in which people from all over the state had come to discuss the issue.

It's a bit hard to read all of the concerns written on this page, but here are a few:

1. Technology
2. If you don't test it it doesn't count
3. Misuse of Results
4. Inaccurately Defines Success
5. Results Don't Return Soon Enough
6. Psychological Impact to Students and IEP students

Let me address just these few - comments are number-matched:

1. Technology - though Oklahoma schools have had to use E-Rate grants to upgrade their internet broadband in order to be ready to provide online exams, broadband isn't the only issue involved with online testing. Pearson will be supplying the technology platform for ACT. Pearson, unfortunately, has a terrible record of testing problems - including here in Oklahoma.
2. The ACT is aligned to the Common Core. Implementing ACT BEFORE Oklahoma creates its own standards (as dictated by the Common Core repeal bill HB3399), will usher in a real possibility where Common Core comes back into the state as teachers begin to teach to the mandated, Common Core aligned ACT.
3. Results of the ACT is college readiness. Will mandating this test be taken by every Oklahoma high school junior tell us anything other than that they are 'college ready'? 
4. The ACT is a test that doesn't tell what a student has learned directly in the classroom, it uses its own standards to generate a general test for college 'readiness'. If we are to use ACT as a high school exit exam when not ALL students are prepared to attend college, though the test has never been validated for that use, what results are we expecting? High school transcripts have long been shown to be a better predictor of college success than the ACT.
5. Online testing in Oklahoma has proved technologically challenging and has produced late or no test results. Paper and pencil tests have not experienced these issues.
6. ACT does have a provision for testing IEP students. Just recently, we were notified of a parent in another state who also mandates the use of ACT as a junior, whose child had their ENTIRE IEP file uploaded to ACT in order to receive modifications. If that isn't a breach of privacy, I'm not sure there's a definition. That's quite an impact for not only that student, but the family as well. Then, of course, there's the stress that comes with taking a test that was once voluntary, but now has become a high stakes test....

In closing, the OkEducationTruths blog spawned a whole list of questions I would love to see answered. In fact, it's my hope Common Sense overrides the necessity to 'make law' up at the state Capitol on a regular basis, but certainly on this issue. Maybe it would help - instead of acting - to answer these questions first...GO!

1. Why should we circumvent the bidding process and put a specific test in law?
2. Why should we name any specific test in law, tying ourselves down to a situation that might possibly have to be rectified with MORE legislation (laws)? Did Common Core teach no one a lesson here about putting specific programs in law before we knew what they would do?
3. Simply moving from 7 EOISs(only 4 are tested, but 7 have to be prepared) to 1 EOI will save great heaps of money, so to say using ACT is THE financial panacea for testing costs is simply a red herring, isn't it?
4. Why is using the ACT the best way to go? Isn't grade point average the better predictor of college success?  If so, can't ANY comprehensive test be used as an EOI?
5. Why commit to using an online test administered by Pearson when Oklahoma has a terrible track record with that business?
6. How can administrators who ordinarily rage against state mandates be so willing to get behind the creation of yet another mandate?

ACT Is Not The Way...

Because there will never be a legislative session begin without some kind of liberty emergency (apparently; see here and here), we're starting right away with a considerable threat to our state sovereignty brought about by a challenge to HB3399 - the bill to stop Common Core in Oklahoma.

The threat results from a kind of two-prong legislative approach. One comes from Senator John Ford through his bill SB707 and Senator Clark Jolley's bill SB784.

Senator Ford's bill says this (Section 2B1, page 4, lines 22-24)

The subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education, and the corresponding student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics shall be solely approved by the state through the State Board of Education.

When reading a bill, understand that crossed-through text is being DELETED and underlined text is being ADDED. So what does this bill now do? The worst possible thing it could do - it puts into place the ability to use Common Core-aligned tests by removing the "corresponding student assessments" language present in the original bill. Now, standards do not have to CORRESPOND to the tests. We specifically asked for this language as whatever is TESTED is TAUGHT. We believed that if we tied the standards to the tests and the standards COULDN'T be Common Core, than neither could the tests. Ford's bill detaches the standards from the tests. This will allow Common Core-aligned tests back into use though the Common Core standards have been removed by law.

Senator Jolley's bill says this (Section 1B, lines 14-22)

Prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the State Board of Education shall consider and review a standards-based system of assessment that monitors progress toward college and career readiness for grades three through ten. Should the system of assessments align with eighty percent (80%) of the standards adopted pursuant to Section 11-103.6a of this title, the State Board of Education shall be authorized to use the system of assessments in lieu of the assessments otherwise required by this section. 

This is a problem for this reason: if Ford's bill passes, any Common Core-aligned test may be used by the state to test students. If it doesn't pass, Jolley's bill says that tests only have to be 80% aligned to standards.

So?

Enter the ACT. For months and months we have heard school administrators (and a few legislators) say they wanted to do away with EOI's and use the ACT. The argument has extended to the notion that we should do away with other K-12 tests and use the ACT because it is "college and career ready" and could be used to make sure students are on track to graduate as early as 3rd grade. Obviously, the high school tests could be used as an exit exam of sorts as it is taken by thousands of students prior to graduation in order to use the results on college entrance applications.

Here's the problem with ACT. It is Common Core aligned. Yes, ACT has a number of products - not just one test - but apparently, they are if not fully aligned, somewhat aligned to Common Core. I have done all kinds of internet searches on "ACT Common Core Aligned" and found numerous articles substantiating this claim.

ACT says, about its ACT Aspire product (under features),

• Alignment with Common Core State Standards and ACT College Readiness Benchmarks

Now, again, there are many other ACT products, but from researching their website and from reading articles about their new 'direction', it is clear that ACT products are either fully aligned or somewhat aligned.

ACT reviews the ACT College and Career Readiness Standards regularly as part of an ongoing validity process. That process, which includes analysis of the results of the 2012 ACT National Curriculum Survey^®, showed us there was a need to reformat our standards to reflect more of the language of the many sets of college and career readiness standards being used by states (of which the Common Core State Standards are one).

It's nearly impossible to say how much aligned ACT is with Common Core anymore, because the URL on their website that addresses Common Core (https://www.act.org/commoncore/) is not viewable. I found it inside an article, (HB5 and The Path To Common Core) while searching (as I mentioned above) and was surprised when I couldn't view it in my web browser.

Thank goodness I take LOTS of screenshots since all of these pages have been scrubbed from the ACT website:

 In addition, an article in the Daily Signal (Common Core: Homeschoolers Face New Questions on College Admissions) says,

In 2010, the ACT also released "The Alignment of Common Core and ACT's College and Career Readiness System" which offers assurance that the "ACT pledges to work with other stakeholders to develop strategies and solutions that maximize the coverage of the Common Core State Standards to meet the needs of states, districts, schools and students."

Please note, when you click on the link provided in the article, it goes to a broken link on the ACT website.

Bob Lang, the Director of the Wisconson Legislative Fiscal Bureau, in a document the subject of which was tagged, "2013 Act 20 Fiscal Estimate of Implementation or Rejection of Common Core Standards" writes,

According to ACT and the College Board, both the ACT and SAT, as well as the PSAT and Advanced Placement tests, align to a large degree with the common core.

And so it goes. ACT - just like SAT - will now test Common Core Standards. Certainly, this was one reason ROPE opposed the Common Core in the FIRST place - alignment of states to one set of standards tends to (and does) restrict heterogeneity so that everything from curricula to tests become sodden with "Common Core State Standards"-aligned material.

It seems reasonable here to assume that, as David Coleman (the author of Common Core) moved to the College Board from Student Achievement Partners (a division of Achieve) and began aligning the SAT (and AP courses) with the Common Core, ACT felt it had to "Join Or Die". It began diligently aligning the ACT to the Common Core to keep pace with its competitor. Once the roar of parental voices against Common Core became a din, ACT began re-thinking its move to alignment. Unable to completely re-write their tests again (a very expensive proposition) they simply, quietly, removed many of the red arrows pointing to the change in test structure for those looking at their product.

Consequently, while ACT may not appear as aligned to Common Core as SAT, the signs, statements and indications are all there that alignment has been made. This may be the exact reason for the wording of Senator Jolley's bill - 20% alignment to Common Core may be all that's necessary to pull Common Core back into Oklahoma. After all, we've not yet created Oklahoma's standards. Having the ability to use a Common Core aligned test already in STATE LAW, could it be out of the realm of possibility that Oklahoma's new standards could fall in line?

Here's the most important part of this post (possibly!). There are OTHER testing companies out there that provide tests geared toward state specifications - as well as out-of-the-box tests - that are NOT aligned to Common Core. Two of these are the Iowa Tests and the Stanford Tests. Both of these companies should be solicited to present their products before the state board. It could only serve to educate Board members, administrators and parents as to the other possibilities in the testing world.

Superintendent Hofmeister has started off her tenure well. We certainly intend to continue supporting her and working with her to the best of our abilities, we just believe research isn't a bad thing, and providing that research in order to help inform decisions can't be a bad thing either.

MORE:
Adding a few more links with information indicating ACT is Common Core aligned.

Standardized Testing in Alabama and Nationwide Thomas Rains, Policy Director December 2013

Student's Scores Low Under New State Test

College and Career Prep To Start In The Third Grade

Setting the Record Straight On Janet Barresi - OK Supt. Of Public Schools

During the local KFOR-TV show, FlashPoint (approx. minute 2) which aired on Father's Day, Dr. Barresi clearly uses me personally (Jenni White) as a pawn in her political game of tall tale telling by explaining to the audience that she has met with me/us (ROPE) to hear our concerns.  This made me angry enough to respond.  In the following blog, you will find the history of Jenni/ROPE and Superintendent Janet Barresi.  I hope you will come away with a clear understanding of why ROPE could never support her as State Superintendent again.

In the spring of 1999, I accepted a job at Independence Charter Middle school teaching 7th grade science on the same team where my mother taught 7th grade English.  Dr. Barresi had created the school and maintained a supervisory capacity, having worked very hard to create an environment where students (including her two sons) would be provided a rigorous curricula (we used E.D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge curriculum - not Common Core) and parents would be accountable for their children's behavior.

By the time we left in 2002 (my mother formally retired after decades of teaching and I left to stay home with our first son), we believed our voices no longer appreciated in the present and future plans of Independence.  Nevertheless, I was impressed Dr. Barresi could work so hard and organize so well as to create an entire school.  ROPE fully backed Dr. Barresi believing she could provide the accountability our former Superintendent had not seemed to do.  I personally staked out campaign signs, wrote blogs, marched in parades and spoke across the state to help Dr. Barresi's campaign for election.

My thought process changed immediately after Dr. Barresi won her election and by December 2011, I had written the following blog,  Marveling at The Nuclear Fallout Of Partisan Politics.  I urge you to read this post.  It details how Dr. Barresi used partisan politics and her friendship with Governor Mary Fallin to create a situation in which she could gain complete control over the Department of Education - neutering the State Board.  

Here are specific reasons ROPE will NOT support Dr. Barresi again:

1. The week (or so) after her election in November 2010, I was granted an appointment with Dr. Barresi at her campaign headquarters.  At that time, I told we needed her help to stop Common Core.  In a very domineering tone, she told me she was moving forward with Common Core (begun under DEMOCRAT Brad Henry).  I shouldn't worry because she could "control it".  She would control the Feds.
2. Though I tried to engage her via email, continuing to make my case against Common Core - even after she took office - I got the same 'assurances' for a few exchanges and then no further correspondence.
3. In 2011, Representative Sally Kern wrote the first bill to stop Common Core in Oklahoma, which was blocked by both the Senate and House Education Committees.  ROPE engaged in a letter writing campaign to Dr. Barresi asking her to help give the bill a hearing.  In attempt to solicit the superintendent's aid, Representative Kern made an appointment to see Dr. Barresi and took me along because she had not responded to my requests for a meeting.  I clearly remember sitting across her desk from her as she gestured to her computer screen and said with great exasperation, "Why are you having these people email me? You are not even giving them correct information. They don't even know what they're talking about."  That was followed by further assurances she had it covered - she knew what she was doing when it came to implementing Common Core.
4. That fall (2011) Representative Kern was allowed an Interim Study on the Common Core.  She asked ROPE and Lindsay Burke of the Heritage Foundation to speak.  Dr. Barresi and a Senator from Arizona were allowed to speak following our presentations.  As she took the microphone, the first words out of her mouth were, "We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts."  A clear insult aimed at moms - moms with advanced degrees there on their own dime and their own time.
5. Dr. Barresi was asked to refute our comments to the Interim Committee after the 2011 study.  Representative Kern had to ask repeatedly for the response. 

Since that time, there have been continuing efforts to belittle our organization and demean mothers and others interested in public education, making nearly every battle partisan - as though she personally represents every Republican in the state and we all want exactly what she wants.  While Joel Robison, Barresi's Chief of Staff, has made several attempts to stay in contact over the last several years, Dr. Barresi herself has gone out of her way NOT to.

1. During the March 2013 Board Meeting, several of us went to speak against the A-F grading system. I was cut off rudely though I was finishing a sentence.
2. During the June 2013 Board Meeting, we were told we couldn't speak at all - we were not even allowed our 3 minutes because we wanted to address the board on Common Core and it wasn't on the agenda - though Common Core testing was addressed in the meeting.
3. During the July 2013 Board Meeting, I began to give my thoughts on Common Core and Dr. Barresi left the room.
4. During the August 2013 Common Core Forum in Tulsa, Dr. Barresi stopped taking questions as soon as I got to the mic. 
5. Dr. Barresi has had any number of times made available to her in which to debate me if she had really wanted to 'listen' or engage our concerns.  She has never taken one.   True, there are scheduling issues, but if she really wanted to debate me, she could have made time in four years to do it.

In closing I would like to create a list of reasons why ROPE asks you to vote AGAINST Dr. Barresi June 24th.*

• Though seemingly determined to frame every argument about education in a partisan issue where she is a "conservative" and everyone who does not agree with her is a "liberal":

• Barresi determined to push the CCSS - originally enacted by Democrat Governor Brad Henry, embraced by Sandy Garret, the previous Democratic Superintendent and utilized by the Obama Administration via no less than three separate federal programs

• Hires John Kraman - a previous employee of Achieve (the offspring organization of parent National Centers on Education and the Economy started by known liberal Marc Tucker - which produced "Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-class Education" - the precursor to the CCSS), further cementing into place a 'liberal' agenda

• Hires Joel Robison, former chief lobbyist for the Oklahoma Education Association - the organization Barresi touts as "liberal"

• Actively, personally fought allowing parents to voluntarily put their kids into kindergarten two months later in the year. Barresi fought such a change based on the perennial liberal argument that such legislation, "would discriminate against low-income families 

• Chose to remove a $5,000 per year stipend for teachers with National Board Certification while allotting 10 million dollars for pre-k programming to be matched with a grant from the very liberal Kaiser Family Foundation 

• Though telling voters she wants the federal government out of education, Barresi has applied for no less than 3 major (and administers many others such as the 21st Century Skills grants) federal programs including, No Child Left Behind Waiver, Race To The Top Early Childhood Grant and State Longitudinal Database Grant.

• Joins Jeb Bush's group Chiefs For Change from his Foundation for Educational Excellence. The Chiefs for Change has published their manifesto of what they want seen in the re-authorization of the ESEA. Please note how it is nearly exclusively dictating MORE federal control.

• Instead of working with parents, has fought parents

• Fought changes to the Reading Sufficiency Act that would bring parents into the graduation decision from 3rd to 4th grady by saying,  "It is unconscionable that anyone would think it’s too much to ask that a school teach a child to read", implying that government knew better than parents as to whether a child was prepared to read. 

• During the End of Instruction Exam appeals in 2012, Dr. Barresi opened the private records of those students requesting an appeal to public scrutiny over the State Department of Education's website.  In addition, the entire EOI process - Dr. Barresi's requested legislation - cuts out the role of parent, reducing graduation from high school to a series of tests.

• Made excuses for her Chief of Staff, Jennifer Carter, calling superintendents in Union and Jenks, "dirtbags". Carter, though possessing no experience in classroom education on any level, was instrumental in state Department of Education budgetary issues such as the removal of National Board Certification as alleged by the Oklahoma Truth Council.

Honestly and sadly, I could go on.  I feel like one of the Founding Fathers enumerating the various acts of tyranny by King George.  No public official is 'perfect'.  That's not the issue.  The issue here is, does the candidate respect the authority of those she serves?  In this case, I believe the facts show the answer to be NO.  

*Though ROPE can not endorse candidates for public office or support their campaigns, I personally will be voting for Joy Hoffmeister for State Superintendent on June 24th.