A Chronology Of The Oklahoma Academic Standards Review Process

This last week has been an exciting one in the life of the Oklahoma Academic Standards (OAS).  Here's what you need to know.

• The public began making comment on the new OAS after the release of the first draft in June of 2015.  ROPE also began following the process, writing numerous blogs containing reviews and comments of the OAS throughout the process.   

• OSDE released four drafts of the OAS along with standards experts and community reviews through January 8th, 2016.

Surveys Containing Personal Behavioral/Emotional Questions Are Given To Oklahoma Students Through 21st Century Skills Programming

The latest email from the Oklahoma State Department of Education heralds the fact that we took yet MORE MONEY from the federal government in the way of 21st Century Community Center Learning grants (CCLC). This is exciting, we are told, because now, there are 59 total grantees in the state, each getting hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. Thrilling! Or is it? Do we know what the CCLC's do? What are their performance records? What is going on in the course of administration of this program?

As I read the email, I remembered an incident way back in 2011 when I received a call from a friend, regarding a psychological survey his son had been given - without his permission -at his school in Hugo, Oklahoma. After some digging around, we were both able to find out about 21st Century Community Centers and what they did.

Because of the new fabulous grants being handed out this year funding further CCLC's in Oklahoma, I thought I would re-publish our findings. In order to update our research, I attempted to go out to the federal Department of Education and look up the grant information as I had done previously (see figs 2 and 3 below). Unfortunately, I found this message

The 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) has been retired and a new data collection method is currently under development. Please visit this site after April 2015 for updates.

Unfortunately, this is October of 2015 and there was NOTHING on the CCLC page indicating a link to the 'new' data collection. No new performance reports - no nothing.

Apparently, all the CCLC data were moved to the Oklahoma State Department of Education where I found a page that contained a program evaluation report for 2012/2013. Page 30 begins to report the collection of SOCIOEMOTIONAL data for students enrolled in the program. In Oklahoma, it is against the law (HB3399) to collect SOCIOEMOTIONAL data via state testing, yet here it is in four full pages from 30-34. Don't you suppose that if Oklahoma legislators were upset enough about social emotional questions to make them illegal on state tests, they'd be just as concerned about this kind of data collection anywhere in the educational process? I think many would, yes. That is why it's extremely important to let your legislator know what is happening inside the boundaries of this program.

Here are 2 screenshots of some of the questions kids in this program are asked.

The reasons ROPE - and apparently the legislature - are so opposed to this kind of questioning is that it can be very effectively stored and used against kids at a later date, or used to pigeonhole them in programming that is unnecessary and/or costly.

At this point, I will interject our previous study from 2011 regarding CCLC's:

OVERVIEW:

1.  21st CCLC programming includes psychological testing that has been done in Oklahoma – illegally – without parental permission.
2. Due to changes in FERPA laws (governing student privacy rights in public schools), demographic and personal student data may now be collected and shared widely without parental knowledge or consent.
3. Collecting sensitive data such as that provided by psychological evaluations of any kind, creates enormous breaches in the right to privacy of minor children enrolled in public education.
4. 21st CCLC’s cost over 1 billion dollars per year and – according to their own annual reports – have failed every year - not yet once reaching the goals of their assessment descriptors.

BACKGROUND:

21st Century programming was the brainchild of a man named Marc Tucker - an acolyte of Hillary Clinton - the man also behind the Common Core Standards. He believes strongly in the John Dewey progressive education model - most commonly employed among communist countries - where school is to provide students EVERYTHING they need for successful lives. Teachers and parents are simply facilitators in the role of fitting the student in the role of 'worker'. Tucker is the progenitor of the standards-based education reform movement - another name for Outcome Based Education. Marc Tucker's organization is called, National Center for Education and the Economy.

ISSUES:

1. The entire 21st Century program is built upon a series of white papers that explain the above philosophy in great detail.

• Instead of focusing exclusively on math, science, reading/writing, social studies, 21st Century focuses on Global Awareness - Financial, Economic, Business and Entrepreneurial Literacy - Civic Literacy - Health Literacy - Environmental Literacy
• Please note: the P21 Toolkit tells how Common Core and P21 Align, and shows ZERO actual concrete standards or practice of basic skills – relying instead on endless group projects and 'explorations' - very progressive education.
• The Measuring Skills for 21st Century Education on page 1 "Unmet Challenges" of the document begins tying together John Dewey and Marc Tucker and explains that employers need workers to do more than simple procedures - or how the government (public schools) need to prepare students to be workers.

2. The 21st Century program (also called P21 - Partnership for 21st Century Skills) is actually four parts that includes the 21st Century after school programming.

3. 21st Century after school programs are ALL supported by federal grants –

• 86 Oklahoma school districts have been given 21st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) grants since 2006
• FY11, Oklahoma was given $12,482,019 to serve 12,482 children = funding of 1 THOUSAND dollars per child?

4. Page 4 of the Measuring Skills document ties the 21st Century Skills and 21st CCLC's together - how 21st Century uses the CCLC's to promote their agenda

5. Despite an increase in spending every single year, please note the following from the government's own 21st Century Community Learning Centers performance review:

• "The program as a whole continues to fall below the established targeted performance thresholds associated with the GPRA performance indicators for the program. A rigorous study of the program may result in the development of more relevant GPRA measures"
• In other words, taxpayers spend over a BILLION dollars on this program every year so that P21’s own assessments can show they’re having NO impact at all. In response, P21 will lower their assessment cut scores and change indicators to match their program results.

6. Grants are given to schools to institute a wide range of after school activities including the following:

• Drug and violence prevention programs and counseling programs
• Please note the “Glossary of Terms” on pages 40-41 of the Response to Intervention document 4 out of 24 apply specifically to BEHAVIOR issues
• Note all the manners by which children in the program are assessed and how specific data programs utilized by the program, can collect “HUGE” amounts of demographic data on students in the program (under the guise of accountability).
• This website sells psychological tests which are administered to assess behavior in the 21st Century programs.
• Psychological testing of students is PROHIBITED by the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) excepting under specific conditions allowed by the parent.
•  Because of changes in the FERPA regulations that allow a large amount of student data to be collected from public school students AND then SHARED with other organizations WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT (pg 52), it is entirely possible for psychological profiles to be collected and digitized into a database without parental consent by those ignorant of the law.

7. Figure 1 represents a psychological assessment given to the child of parent Howard Houchen, in Hugo Elementary Schools.

8. Hugo Elementary Schools received a 21st CCLC grant in July 2007.

• Since that time, Hugo Public Schools has received $880,000 for the CCLC program (Figure 2) that Hugo Public Schools was providing various forms of counseling services.

9. Figure 3 shows that Hugo Elementary Schools CCLC program was funded in part by Hartsell Psychological Services and that the Hugo CCLC was tasked to provide behavioral counseling to students less than 18 years of age.

10. Appendix 1 contains the letter sent by Hugo parent Howard Houchen to Representative Lee Denney in response to HB2641, explaining his concerns about the 21st Century CCLC program in Hugo.

CONCLUSION: 

Under the 21st Century Skills program – a federal grant program paid for by tax payers – students are being administered psychological tests through public schools without parental consent. Because of the recent changes in FERPA laws, which allow student demographic and other personal ‘data’ to be collected and shared by public schools without parental consent, public education institutions should not offer these kinds of highly sensitive services. In order to protect student/family privacy, minor child counseling programs should be confined to those sought specifically/exclusively by the parent/family of the minor child in need of counseling, administered through private, non-profit organizations or through the Department of Human Services. Public schools should focus solely on educational matters and leave matters of physical and emotional health to parents, families and personal physicians.

Figure 1: Psychological assessment provided by Hugo Elementary Schools to the students in 5^th grade class without parental permission.

Figure 1: Psychological assessment provided by Hugo Elementary Schools
to the students in 5^th grade class without parental permission.

Figure 2: Screen shot of the Grantee Details for Hugo Public Schools’ CCLC grant.

Figure 2: Screen shot of the Grantee Details for
 Hugo Public Schools’ CCLC grant.

Figure 3: Screen shot from the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers website showing that Hartsell Psychological Services was a funding source for Hugo Public Schools 21^st CCLC where behavioral counseling was a part of the program.

Figure 3: Screen shot from the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers website 

showing that Hartsell Psychological Services was a funding source for 

Hugo Public Schools 21^st CCLC where behavioral counseling was a part of the program.

Appendix 1: Letter from Hugo parent Howard Houchen to Representative Lee Denney of the Oklahoma House Common Education Committee – author of HB2641 that all districts have access to individual and group counseling.

Rep. Denney, et al;

I would also ask that HB2641 be tabled and would like to offer some points for clarity purposes.  Both of my children attend Hugo Public schools. The youngest is in 5th Grade at Hugo Elementary, the oldest graduates (with Honors) from Hugo High School in three months.  The 'Durant" reference, I believe, comes from a finding that Hartsell Psychological Services also has an "after school program contract" with Calera Public Schools which is just a few miles away from Durant, OK.

Hartsell Psychological Services (HPS) first appeared on my radar in August 2011 as I was notified that Hugo Elementary had CONTRACTED with HPS (in conjunction with a 21st Century Grant) to provide an after-school program.  I will try and be as succinct as possible here: HPS pays the schools they have contracted with a sum of money that goes to pay for the salaries of the teachers used in the after-school program. 

In return, HPS gets their money from "counseling" children that they basically refer to themselves (in many instances).  This payment appears to range from $400.00 -- $600.00 per week, per student.  Who pays?  You and I do because the charges go to Medicaid and SoonerCare, however, I am unable to find a single SoonerCare payment to HPS.   

I was told, by an administrator, that HPS also has material that some teachers use during regular school sessions.  I was unable to determine what that material is and what it is used for.  Our youngest was given what I consider to be a psych assessment, by HPS, outside of the after-school program (in regular school session) AND he is NOT enrolled in the after-school program.  HPS claims to have these program contracts with many ISD's throughout Oklahoma.  I do know they are contracted with Hugo and Calera. 

The "assessments" which were attempted to be given to  my child were VERY personal in nature and the parents were never asked for consent to having our children take part in either of the assessments.  Approximately 7 weeks ago our youngest son came home and told us the following: "Ms. Harmon handed out another psychological test today."  I asked: "Did you take it?"  He replied: "No, I recognized it from the last one and walked up to her desk and asked, 'Is this from Hartsell?' and she said 'Yes' and I told her I didn't want to do it so she didn't make me." 

I can go on-and-on about this topic but realize you are under restraints of time.  I can tell you that when all of the information is properly analyzed relative to data collection on OUR children...it is my judgment that this MUST end.  I am fed-up with kids being utilized as mines for data and "Guinea-Pigs".

I can tell you that the administrators I talk with about this situation feel as if they are in a  "damned if  you do and damned if you don't" situation.  They see dollars leaving programs, such as the after-school program, and are willing to dance with the devil to recoup those dollars.  I have offered my opinion on this tactic and am unwilling to sell my child’s and my family’s' privacy through data collection.  HB2641 simply adds to this already exploitive and corruptible environment. 

Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions or comments;

Regards,

Howard Houchen

Dr. Sandra Stotsky Does Not Believe English Standards First Draft Indicative Of First-Rate ELA Standards

As the October deadline for the finalized Oklahoma educational standards draft looms on the horizon, we've recently published Dr. James Milgram's take on the Oklahoma math standards draft.

Dr. Stotsky, who shared with the Oklahoma Standards Writing Committee her vision of how the Oklahoma standards re-write should begin at the first meeting of the year, February 16, found - like the rest of us who saw her presentation - that the standards re-write process appeared to have deviated from her process by using Oklahoma's original standards as the jumping off point. Though she did not share a comment for each specific standard written, she has shared her overall thoughts about the standards and about the process. Her comments are important and should be taken to heart.

We are aware that Dr. Stotsky sent her comments directly to the State Department of Education, however, we were not made aware of them until recently when I emailed to ask if she'd compiled a file of her comments. This is important information as well. Part of Dr. Stotsky's plan was that all public comment be MADE PUBLICLY so everyone else could see what comments were being made. How many of us have seen any comments other than those we posted by Dr. Milgram? 

Mrs. Hofmeister was good to create a specific transparency policy about the Standards Re-Write Committee meetings, but we've seen no such document pertaining to the draft comments. If everyone who wanted to was able to see the comments made by the public could do so, maybe there would be patterns that emerge that others could see. How could this not be helpful? When the final standards are completed, if one (or more) of the patterns aren't addressed by the committee, it would be good to know why not, if for no other reason than simple public transparency.

Dr. Stotsky's comments follow:

I'm glad to hear that the committee has an English prof from an Oklahoma U and that high school English teachers are on the drafting committee.  I don't think that the first draft it came up with is a helpful start for a first-rate set of ELA standards.  I am told that the blueprint or model the committee began with was the old set of OK ELA standards.   The organization of that draft isn't useful for what needs to be done to provide non-Common Core standards.  Right now, what you have is very close to being compatible with Common Core and a Common Core-based test.  OK kids deserve better.

I strongly recommend that the drafting committee use the original CA (1998) standards or the Indiana 2006 standards, or the 2013 standards I put together based on the first-rate 2001 MA ELA standards.  In math, OK should simply adopt what MN worked out, and use the test that MN uses.
It would not set the committee back in time if it does what I suggested for ELA. I suggested simply going through most of the k-8 standards one by one to accept or leave out for OK.  These other standards have been vetted many times over, are worded properly for standards, and were considered first-rate by many pairs of eyes.  No need to re-invent the wheel or struggle to figure out developmental progressions from grade to grade, which is a problem with the way that the committee is now working.  It is not productive to work in 3 educational level groups, if the basic outline is as weak as the old OK outline was.

The only educational level that OK committee members, especially the high school English teachers and the English professor, might change if my advice were followed would be the literature standards in 9-12.  Here, the only changes to make might be to add one or two standards requiring OK high school students to read historically and culturally important works by authors who lived in Oklahoma or wrote about Oklahoma.   The rest of the ELA standards would give OK a first-rate set of standards that are NOT Common Core, but are demanding and first-rate.  That is what OK wants for its kids.  

Here's the rub: while HB3399 says that Oklahoma's standards should be created by Oklahomans for Oklahomans, that doesn't mean we shouldn't avail ourselves of great standards already in use in another state - as Dr. Stotsky points out. Why, if Oklahoma's standards weren't as good as the ones Stotsky points to, are we not using these as a starting point and then tweaking as needed? Not a single person I know of who worked hard to stop Common Core in Oklahoma ever wanted Oklahoma's standards to be sub par, or somehow not as good as Massachusetts simply because they needed to be crafted in our state.

Let's not follow the letter of the law so closely we make the mistake of denying Oklahoma students access to truly great, proven standards just because they're from another state. So long as they aren't the Common Core, or a set of standards pushed by the feds through grant programs or other incentives; so long as parents can petition the state if they find something about them objectionable, there's no reason to be pharisees. Goodness, if we're really concerned about following the law, there wouldn't be schools teaching the Common Core right now, but we've been told there are. 

Oklahoma needs to have really good educational standards, period. Let's, as Dr. Stotsky says, use the ones she wrote, or California's (etc.) and add to them. Let's make providing a floor for academic excellence in Oklahoma our TOP priority.

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.

Does SB707 UNDO HB3399 - The Repeal of Common Core State Standards in Oklahoma?

As readers know, ROPE is not in favor of mandating the use of ACT in law. 

We believe that choosing an exit exam to be mandated for all Oklahoma students is getting the CART BEFORE THE HORSE. Oklahoma has not even created our own standards as specified in HB3399, last year's Common Core Repeal Bill, why would Oklahoma legislators and the State Board of Education decide on an exit exam before Oklahoma's new standards have even been written? 

If HB3399 is to be changed (SB707), how can that be done without deliberately SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Many legislators ran for office in 2014 on their vote to repeal Common Core. Once these legislators are in office, can they simply renege on that vote in order to adopt a specific out-of-state test because it's popular? 

It appears that two very important questions need to be answered before Oklahoma law makers move forward with mandating ANY end of year test. 

1. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO REMOVE LANGUAGE FROM LAST YEAR'S Common Core repeal bill HB3399? Oklahoman's voted to repeal Common Core, why should anyone seek to change the language in that bill and unhook tests from standards? Wasn't the idea to have Oklahoma tests that matched Oklahoma standards? That's what the public said they wanted.
2. Is it good public policy to NAME A SPECIFIC VENDOR in LAW when multiple vendors can meet each Oklahoma's need for an end of year exam? Isn't this why we have a competitive bidding process? If not, then I'm going out to start my own construction company and lobby to have it placed IN LAW as the only construction company that can be used on any job in Oklahoma. Doesn't make much sense when you look at it that way, does it?

ACT is a test with a long history and all students who want to take the ACT should take the ACT. It should not be MANDATED as an end of year exam. Why? Let's do some pro/con, tit/tat, to figure out exactly why, but first, let's get a handle on some basics.

What does HB3399 say about testing in Oklahoma?

Section 11-103.6a B1: 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.

Section 11-103.6a C1: On or before the 2017-18 school year, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Career and Technology Education and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, shall direct the process of the development of annual high-quality statewide student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics as provided for in Section 1210.508 of this title that align with the college- and career-ready subject matter standards developed pursuant to subsection B of this section.

Section 11-103.6a D1: The State Board of Education shall not enter into any agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract with any federal agency or private entity which in any way cedes or limits state discretion or control over the process of development, adoption or revision of subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments in the public school system, including, but not limited to, agreements, memoranda of understanding and contracts in exchange for funding for public schools and programs.

Section 11-103.6a D3E: The content of all subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall maintain independence of all subject matter standards referenced in Section 11-103.6 of this title and corresponding statewide student assessments and shall not relinquish authority over Oklahoma subject matter standards and corresponding statewide student assessments. 

Section 1210.508 A. 1. The State Board of Education shall develop and administer a series of criterion-referenced tests designed to indicate whether the state academic content subject matter standards, as defined by the State Board of Education in the Priority Academic Student Skills Curriculum, which Oklahoma public school students are expected to have attained have been achieved. (**See below for definitions of Criterion Referenced and Norm Referenced tests)

Does this language say that no other tests can be used in Oklahoma other than the ones created to match our standards? NO. It simply says that STATEWIDE exams must correspond to our state standards. That is not the ACT or the AP, or any other national exam - all of which are VOLUNTARY.

What does Mary Fallin's Executive Order 2013-40 say about testing in Oklahoma?

2.  The State of Oklahoma will be exclusively responsible for deciding the assessment

methodology to be used to measure student performance.

6.  All assessments will be developed with input by Oklahomans. Further, final adoption of any assessment is the sole responsibility and obligation of Oklahomans, with input from Oklahoma educators, higher education and career technology centers, parents, and the Oklahoma business community.

ACT

When comparing ACT to the above, ACT simply doesn't fit current Oklahoma law as use for a mandated exit test. 

What else about the ACT?

• ACT is a NRT, not a CRT and it can't become one, but other tests on the market can.
• ACT is not as good a predictor of college readiness as high school grades. For some time it has been known that high school grades are a better predictor of college success than the ACT or SAT (1), but a RECENT study (2) echoes this knowledge.
• ACT will NOT raise our ACT scores if we give it to 100% of our kids. In fact, the Southern Regional Education Board has found that once North Carolina began giving ALL their high school juniors the ACT, they went from an average score of 21.9 to 18.7. (3)  How this doesn't make simple common sense I'm unclear. If you have kids forced to take a test they don't want to take, or are not ready to take, these scores are going to DROP the average of those who would have taken it of their own volition.
• ACT is NOT a necessity for college admission. As many as 800 institutions - including University of Central Oklahoma - (4) that traditionally relied on the ACT/SAT for admission, are now utilizing student transcripts to make these decisions. (5) In fact, according to a previous study by FairTest, colleges that do not base admissions on ACT/SAT NRT's (6) "...are widely pleased with the results. Regardless of size or selectivity, these institutions have seen substantial benefits, including increased student diversity, more and better-prepared applicants, and positive reactions from alumni/ae, students, guidance counselors and the public." 
• ACT has never been validated for use as a high school exit exam. Bob Schaeffer of Fair Test says, "The use of the ACT as an exit exam would be bad policy. The test has never been validated for that purpose. (7) Such use violates the Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement, the testing profession's own guidelines". 
• ACT may NOT be able to provide testing results in a timely fashion. Online tests for ACT are provided by Pearson (8). FairTest has an impressive log of Pearson testing failures (9) and Diane Ravich has published information on Pearson failures in Oklahoma specifically (10). How can anyone say that ACT's results are expected in a timely fashion when past experience does not at all support this notion?
• ACT is not a fair test for minorities or the poor. ACT regularly underestimates the abilities of females (11) and the ACT also does a poor job of predicting college performance for students of color. A common sense approach would assume that advantaged families will continue to pay for ACT test prep even when state mandated, while less advantaged students who don't have that opportunity and/or simply don't care about the test may not even try to answer correctly.
• ACT is aligned to Common Core. ACT Aspire is fully aligned to the Common Core (12) and The ACT is aligned in part simply because ACT helped to create the Common Core framework. (13) Why would we want a test that does not reflect STATE standards, but those that the public voted to be rid of just one year ago? 
• ACT as an exit exam will mean nothing if no cut score is provided. What cut score will be used? Why? Using ACT's results from 2013 (14) Dr. John Thompson argues (15) that 28% of students would fail and ACT with a cutoff score of 16. If there is no cutoff score for an ACT exit exam than anyone who took the test would pass. How is there any accountability in that process? Since Oklahoma's standards would not be measured with an ACT, utilizing ACT with no cut score would have no meaning.
• ACT has been touted as be cheaper than EOI's, but where is the bidding process that would provide transparency and finality to this assertion? How can one vendor be placed in law as responsible for something as important as determining college readiness without even following the competitive bidding process?
• ACT has been denounced as an exit exam by 2 of the experts asked for testimony regarding the Oklahoma Standards Re-Write process. (16)

I'm sure there are other reasons to look at ACT for appropriateness as an end of year exam, but the point of the matter is that there are enough facts listed here that I would hope legislators would want to take another look at this option. We're not saying we don't want to use the ACT, we're simply saying:

1. HB3399 should be left as is and no language repealed as this was the bill voters wanted
2. Oklahoma shouldn't mandate in law a specific test/vendor to be given statewide 
3. A statewide test should not be chosen BEFORE the standards re-write process is complete
4. The competitive bidding process should not be circumvented for any reason because it protects taxpayer funds

Oklahoma has been here before in 2010, when a large omnibus bill (SB2033) - including Common Core - was passed by the legislature in order to be competitive for federal Race To The Top funds. Since that time, Oklahoma has found that A-F, TLE AND Common Core, were not the bill of goods sold. Let's not make another Common Core mistake. Let's not rush into ANY legislation. Let's take our time and study what is the best course of action - our standards aren't to be completed until 2015-2016 - WE HAVE TIME!

REFERENCES:

(1) https://readingdoc.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/act-vs-eoi-are-we-asking-the-right-question/

(2) http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/nacac-research/Documents/DefiningPromise.pdf

(3) http://publications.sreb.org/2014/2014Policy_brief_ACT_SAT.pdf

(4) http://fairtest.org/university/optional

(5) ibid

(6) http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/optrept.pdf

(7) http://news.yahoo.com/problem-using-act-high-school-exit-exam-191850535.html

(8) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english

(9) http://www.fairtest.org/pearsons-history-testing-problems

(10) http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/22/fairtest-computer-test-failures-are-common/

(11) http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ACT_Biased/

(12) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english
(13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc
(14) http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/Oklahoma.pdf
(15) http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2015/02/guest-post-dr-john-thompson-on-act-cut.html
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc


**What is the difference between a NORM-referenced and a CRITERION-referenced test. 

A NORM-referenced test (NRT) is a test of general knowledge usually based on some kind of national standard (not locally determined standards), that provides a snapshot of how well one student performs on certain items when COMPARED to another. Results are reported as a percentage. Example: John Smith's Algebra scores shows him to be in the 75th percentile - meaning John Smith performed as well or better than 75% of the students taking that specific test. NORM-referenced tests cannot measure the learning achievement or progress of an entire group of students, just the relative performance of individuals within a group. Test questions are carefully worded to accentuate the differences among students, not determine if students have acquired specific knowledge. (ACT/SAT)

A CRITERION-referenced test (CRT) measure student performance in relation to a common set of fixed criteria - or standards. The test measures individual performance on the exam and provides a score specific to the test taker and not in relation to the rest of the group taking the exam. This test is usually given for the purpose of determining whether schools are successfully teaching students what they are expected to know and do (based on local standards). This test can determine if students have learned the standards they were taught

Seven Reasons Why Common Core Repeal in Oklahoma Isn't

Before I begin this post, please do not misunderstand; ROPE is/was VERY pleased and honored to have been included in so much of the Oklahoma Common Core repeal bill process. We are very grateful to Representative Nelson and Senator Brecheen for all their work and the many times they sought our input when they certainly needn't have.

That being said, I'm sure no one who contributed to HB3399 expected it to serve as a panacea for all things Common Core in the state. In fact, there were "wish list" items unquestionably discarded during the writing and amending stages due to concerns the bill wouldn't pass or be signed by the Governor - a majority jettisoned due to consternation over the possible loss of Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind Waiver. Though every effort was made to due diligence, without the gift of omniscience, no one could have known the effect of every aspect of the bill's mandates.

HB3399 had a rocky start. The bill wasn't passed by the House and Senate until the last day of the 2014 legislative session. It took 11 days for the Governor to sign the bill, yet the ink from the Governor's pen hadn't dried before a lawsuit was filed over its agreement with the Oklahoma Constitution. Once ruled Constitutionally sound by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma's State Regents for Higher Education began the process of certifying Oklahoma's previous PASS (Priority Academic Student Skills) standards - those mandated for use by the bill - as college and career ready. This action was prescribed in order for Oklahoma to keep its NCLB Waiver by allowing for option "B" (state institutions of higher education must certify state standards as college and career ready, page 14), option "A" having been our original choice = Common Core.

Simultaneously, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, began issuing threats regarding the security of Oklahoma's NCLB Waiver. In the end, the Regents weren't fast enough for Duncan, and our Waiver was pulled, sparking a veritable mountain of ill-informed media meting out pronouncements of economic and educational ruin for our state. October l7 - approximately 6 weeks after the loss of our NCLB Waiver - the Oklahoma State Regents certify Oklahoma PASS as college and career ready. Following quickly behind this decision, now-deposed State Superintendent Janet Barresi announced the State Department of Education's effort to re-apply for a new NCLB Waiver, with the caveat that a new Waiver could not take effect until the 2015-2016 school year.

Since the beginning of the 2014-15 school year, ROPE has been inundated with emails and messages complaining their schools were continuing to use Common Core despite HB3399. In fact, we received so many messages, we spoke with the bills' authors and our Amicus brief attorneys to create a plan to help empower parents to stop schools from its continued use. Unfortunately, when you have the second largest school district in Oklahoma (Tulsa Public Schools) poking its finger in the eye of parents and the state by proudly proclaiming their use of Common Core, follow the leader becomes an issue. Oklahoma City Public Schools (the largest district in Oklahoma) says they are using a Common Core/PASS hybrid but at least their Kindergarten rubric is based solely on Common Core. Some outlying districts, such as Yukon Public Schools, have just told parents they could care less about their issues with Common Core, they've put the money into training and preparation, and they will continue using Common Core.

So, with all the effort so many of us put into repealing Common Core in Oklahoma, why then has it continued to persist? I think there are at least 7 factors that have thwarted the will of Oklahoma citizens and prevented a full repeal.

1. TEACHER LEADER EFFECTIVENESS (TLE) MODELS (NCLB WAIVER)
For those of you unacquainted with the finer points of the NCLB Waiver, you will note on page 76, the section marked 3a - Develop and Adopt Guidelines for Local Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support Systems. I could provide a dissertation on this particular issue, but I do not have time here.

Suffice it to say, this is one of four pillars of the federal government's plan to re-make government education utilizing the carrot and stick method provided via the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund grants to states (stimulus dollars 2009), Race To The Top grant applications to states (2010) and the No Child Left Behind Waivers (2011) granted to states to counter the 'emergency' created when Congress refused to re-authorize No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, the three other pillars (TLE, State Longitudinal Database System and Turning Around Low Performing Schools) work to reinforce Common Core while the grants and waivers urge states to cement each in place.

In Oklahoma, our Teacher Leader Effectiveness Commission (because government never shrinks) met and decided to use the Tulsa model and the Marzano model for grading our teachers as specified in our Waiver (if we're going to make them get a teaching degree and then make them take a test to be certified to teach and then make them re-certify to teach every five years at a cost of $50.00, and if building principals must observe teachers yearly as part of their building evaluations for continuous employment, is this not a form of overkill?). Both models were to begin use 2014-15 - and they have.

While I have no intimate knowledge of the Tulsa model, I can tell you without question that you cannot possibly score passing on the Marzano model IF YOU DO NOT TEACH COMMON CORE. I received screen shots from the Marzano model - plus an in depth training on the way it works - from an Oklahoma City Public School teacher now on a Plan of Improvement pending firing for not teaching the Common Core and not entering private personal student information into Google Docs (Google has been singled out as direct violators of student privacy) as directed by her Principal.

First of all, the Marzano model is clearly aligned to CCSS:

http://www.marzanocenter.com/Teacher-Evaluation/2014-model/

Secondly, though the entire platform seems endlessly...well...mindless, once you understand how the whole scheme fits together, there is no way this isn't all about Common Core. For example, here is a screenshot of one of the evaluation screens for the way a teacher organizes her classroom.

This looks pretty antiseptic really, until you realize that most books - this teacher must use McGraw Hill Common Core aligned books to teach math - show exactly how to teach Common Core and then dictate specifically what must go on the board in the classroom to make sure the kids are absorbing all their Common Core content concepts. If you don't have the Common Core objective on the board for the day, you are marked down on your evaluations.

Here is an example of the same thing from Yukon Public Schools. 

2. COLLEGE PLACEMENT EXAMS: ACT/SAT

David Coleman, writer of the Common Core, is now the head of the College Board where he is aligning the SAT to the Common Core. The ACT has spent the last several years re-aligning its tests to the Common Core. Here is their statement of support for the Common Core.

https://www.act.org/commoncore/

The New America Foundation (established by George Soros) has said the following about the ACT:

"Despite the PARCC and SmarterBalance hysteria, the SAT and ACT - along with their remedial placement cousins, ACCUPLACER and COMPASS - are likely to continue to serve as the de facto performance standard for college entry. These assessments are already accepted within higher education, for better or worse, while the Common Core will be greeted with scrutiny and suspicion at many institutions."

So, in other words, "We know Common Core is being discovered and repudiated by the American public, but we must continue to indoctrinate and dumb down American children via the concept that everyone should be exactly the same. We'll just have to do it in backdoor ways to get around them." The ACT/SAT will help do just that. After all, one thing Coleman et al. do apparently understand well, is that seemingly inherent 'necessity' to teach to the test. If the tests that can help you get a college degree have been aligned to Common Core, how can you get into college without learning the Common Core? 

3. ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES (AP)

To be filed under the same category as above. You've likely been in a cave if you haven't heard about the push to re-write the US AP History Standards by David Coleman and the College Board. Now, not only will the College Board (David Coleman) continue down the road with their alignment of the SAT to Common Core, but AP courses will also be aligned as well. If we can judge this effort from the new APUSH standards, this will provide a decidedly anti-American spin on coursework along with providing the already identified Common Core shifts from classic literature and study.

4. TESTING VENDORS

As we worked to stop Common Core this year, we were very concerned about language in the bill specifying testing companies. Why? Two reasons: because the amount of personal student data collected by testing vendors is outrageous and because nearly every testing vendor in the known universe is Common Core aligned.

Measured Progress was discussed as a specified testing vendor during the standards re-write period while HB3399 was being amended. This concerned us greatly. Though Oklahoma had excused itself from its seat at the table with Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) ostensibly because the tests were too expensive, ROPE knew that PARCC was a vendor to Educational Testing Service (ETS), the company that received Race to the Top funds from the federal government to contract for the writing of Common Core tests. Measured Progress is in the exact same boat, it's just tied to Smarter Balanced Assessment Corporation (SBAC) as well as PARCC.

Of course, at its last special session, our State School Board gave the contract for our winter tests to MP. Yes, their website states they can help with "item creation" and "test construction" for "current programs", but their main emphasis is Common Core aligned testing. They were given money by the federal government to do just that. 

A recent EdWeek article outlines how all the large testing vendors are being paid to create Common Core aligned tests. What State School Board is going to take the time to root around for the smaller companies that haven't gotten federal money to create Common Core tests like Iowa? The sheer size and scope of the online testing market works against non-Common Core states.

5. TECHNOLOGY AND THE INTERNET

The largest textbook provider in the world (Pearson) is also one of the largest providers of online Common Core aligned programs. If you're in need of anything related to the Common Core, you have but to go to their one-stop shop - Common Core Solutions - to find solutions to any and ALL your Common Core issues from Professional Development to "Research and Innovation".  Of course there are also Pearson Common Core Webinars for those days when you just want to sit in a chair in your PJ's and learn how to better prepare yourself to teach and learn all things Common Core.

Just for fun, I searched the internet for "Common Core apps" (to use via cell phones and tablets). I came up with at least 26 individual apps aligned to Common Core from Common Core Rap to Common Core Look-fors - which allows teachers to integrate the Common Core State Standards into their classrooms. 

Also for fun, I searched the internet for "Common Core Worksheets". I wound up with pages and pages and pages such as those from Help Teaching and Internet4Classrooms and the super precious, Common Core Kids. Virtually anything you would want Common Core aligned from ELA to Math, can be found in worksheet form from a veritable plethora of education-related websites. 

This is a huge issue for the few states that didn't take Common Core and Oklahoma, who has repealed Common Core. Any teacher at any school, or any administrator at any school, can troll the web and pull down any sort of information for use classrooms on any given day.  For teachers in a pinch - or teachers wanting to teach Common Core and/or being forced to teach Common Core by administrators such as those in Tulsa and Yukon government schools - the supply of classroom materials toward that end is, well, endless.

6. DOE/GATES END-AROUNDING STATES WITH GRANTS TO INSTITUTE/CONTINUE COMMON CORE

Another situation that has stimulated concern, is the fact that the Federal Government is such a willing accomplice in the Common Core re-education plan. For example, the Department of Education began to give Race to the Top grants to school districts in 2013 - outside the pervue of state education departments. 

Bill Gates has given a number of government schools - including Oklahoma's own Tulsa Public Schools - large grants for creating "college and career readiness" (Common Core). In this case, TPS was given a grant last year of nearly 4.5 million dollars to be used over the course of the next five years for the generically termed cause of "Professional Development" - and we now know about that, don't we? 

Then, there's the newest federal government carrot, the "Future Ready District Pledge", which 

"establishes a framework for districts to achieve the goals laid out in President Obama's ConectED Initiative and commits districts to move as quickly as possible toward our shared vision of preparing students for success in college, careers and citizenship."

Correct. The last bit sounds exactly like....Common Core. So, if the feds can get districts - via their superintendents - hooked into this nice new pay for play scheme, they can get money, or re-direct funds, as they need to create this wonderful 'shared vision', that Oklahoma citizens don't really share.

7. TEXTBOOKS

I became a homeschooling mom after my kids started experiencing the effects of Common Core in their classrooms. One of the arguments I made against Common Core early on, was very well stated by small book publisher (Institute For Excellence in Writing), Andrew Pudwa in his testimony before the Oklahoma House Rules Committee.

Additionally, because of the virtual monopoly of textbook publishers (Pearson, McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin), schools required to conform to the Common Core standards will have little choice when it comes to curricula, and the publishers’ largest customers (California, New York, Florida, and Texas) do have a great input on textbook content. In fact, CCSSI is a huge windfall for education publishers, since most districts in most states are being forced to replace their existing texts with CCSSI conforming texts, and any differentiations by state standards have been superseded by the Common Core standards. Consequently, the big publishers can now sell the same or very similar books to all the states, further increasing profitability. This, of course, makes it even harder for small publishers such as myself to keep a toehold in the public education market. 

How, I posited, can those of us not using Common Core find non-Common Core textbooks? The answer is, "It will be much harder", and for the reasons stated above. 

While individuals can simply utilize online sources to purchase textbooks for home/individual use, government schools require government contracts for such purchases. Smaller book companies cannot sell books at the reduced price sustainable by huge publishers. Districts who frequently howl about lack of funding, are not going to authorize the use of even more of their 'precious' resources on arguably better books. In fact, this is one of the reasons cited by both the TPS Superintendent and the Yukon Public Schools Superintendent (and others) as to why they simply can't 'stop teaching Common Core' - switching to Common Core cost them too much to turn back now.

SOLUTIONS

Let's face it, David Coleman and his Common Core buddies knew what they were doing. They knew if they got enough organizations/education sectors to buy in on the idea of 'national standards' - including the seated administration of the federal government - they could essentially stage a coup over government education in America. And they did just that. 

Today, it appears the future of Common Core must reside in the hands of the parent. Large school districts could simply care less what parents have to say about how their children are educated - and they don't have to. Government schools get government money no matter whether they follow the law or not and no matter whether or not they provide an excellent education for children or not. We MUST break this cycle. We must stop districts from simply being granted taxpayer money from both the federal and state level for no other reason than they claim to be institutions of education, when these dollars are clearly being used to build and defend fiefdoms without care for the public they serve. How else do you explain the fact that government schools have consumed more money while exhibiting diminishing return on investment even here in Oklahoma?

There are several ways to accomplish this task: 

1. Parents who can, should remove their children from government schools and either put them in private schools or educate them at home or by co-op, removing their child's education funding from the system.
2. Parents who can't remove their children from government schools should become civilly disobedient and begin to OBJECT to every single program/test/book/questionnaire that offends them, to the point of removing their child on days the offensive material is used/taught and requesting substitute educational materials. Government schools get taxpayer funds from the state when children are in class - they do not when they are not. Parents, use your powers here and don't be bullied by your school YOU are the parent, YOU have the control. Refer to Oklahoma's Parental Bill of Rights should you feel week-kneed in your resolve because of a shaky foundational knowledge.
3. Legislators should remove the free money supporting government education by allowing the creation of Educational Savings Accounts. ESA's put the funds spent on a child to be educated in the government system back into the hands of the parents to use in the way best for that child. This could be home school, private school or a neighborhood government school. It matters not where the money goes so long as it is used to the benefit of the child's education. The point is that the government school no longer gets a chunk of 'free money' to do with as THEY choose, forcing them, instead to actually have to compete for education dollars.
4. States currently creating anti-Common Core legislation should take heed of these issues and attempt to address as many of them as possible within.

Until/unless parents/legislators choose to draw clear lines in the sand, government schools will continue to run roughshod over parents, the law and what's best for the education of our children. There is no impetus for them to do otherwise.