Six Reasons Why The Oklahoma State Legislature Should Ban The Use of SEL - Social Emotional Learning - Through SB1442

 

Last year, the state Legislature - prompted by outcry from parent and taxpayers across the state and the nation - passed HB1775, a rejection of the teaching of tenets tied to Critical Race Theory.

Unfortunately, CRT tenets are still entering classrooms around the state, packaged under the heading of Social Emotional Learning. We are seeking to remove SEL through SB1442 authored by Senator Shane Jett.

Is It Time To Allow Oklahoma's Governor To Appoint Oklahoma's State Superintendent of Public Instruction?

EDITORIAL:

This week, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt indicated that he would like to see the State Superintendent of Public Instruction become a gubernatorially appointed position.

Though members of ROPE have consistently advocated for the right of citizens to directly elect their government officials, it might just be time for Oklahomans to revisit the issue of an appointed Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The Public Education Funding Mess Is The Fault Of EVERY Citizen - So How Do We Fix It?

Since the beginning of this legislative session here in Oklahoma, teachers have been demanding raises. In March, the Oklahoma legislature passed an unprecedented tax to fund teacher raises and other educational needs, raising oil and gas production taxes to 5%, adding a $1 increase per pack on cigarettes, 6 cents on diesel/3 cents gas increases and a $5 tax on hotel motel tax (later repealed). While public education advocates celebrated, taxpayers fretted - and they have good reason to do so.

Dirty Little Education Secrets Part 3: Administrative and Programming Costs Suck HUGE Amounts From Common Ed Budget

Since teachers have begun to petition taxpayers and the state government for a raise, and since the taxpayers rejected the Step-Up planning proposal including tax increases to fund public education was soundly rejected by legislators, myself and others have been calling for an audit of the OSDE prior to an increased fund allotment to public education.

After reviewing the OSDE budget request for 2018 - and others - two things simply cannot escape the attention of a thinking, taxpaying public

Repealing Common Core Means Nothing If Oklahoma’s New Academic Standards Are Not Better than Common Core

Restore Oklahoma Public Education (now Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment) concluded a near five year odyssey dedicated to the task of repealing the Common Core State Standards in our state, when the ink from Governor Fallin’s pen dried on HB3399 in June 2014.  

As directed by the bill, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) was to immediately begin the process of creating new educational standards for English/Language Arts and Mathematics to replace the Common Core Standards adopted by the Oklahoma State Board of Education as directed by SB2033 in 2010. The final drafts of the new standards were to be completed by the OSDE in August of 2016 with copies presented to the Oklahoma legislature prior to the February start of that year’s legislative session.

Draft #3 of Oklahoma Educational Standards Released - Neither Stotsky Nor Gray Impressed

Recently, the Oklahoma State Department of Education uploaded draft 3 of the new Oklahoma Educational Standards. There are new things visible on the webpage now besides the standards that appear interesting. Mainly, the inclusion of "external" reviews by several major education reform players: 

The Southern Regional Education Board, The Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the South Central Comprehensive Center. Since the first draft, we have complained that none of the standards reviews have been made public - which is why we began publishing our own - unfortunately, these are all organizations involved in 'education reform' at some level. In fact, we've written papers about the Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the fact that the white papers supporting its mission are steeped in the failed progressive education methods of Dewey. 

The South Central Comprehensive Center has this to say about its funding and mission: The South Central Comprehensive Center (SC3) is part of a national network of centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to support the improvement of educational outcomes. If that's not the definition of the Fox Guarding The Hen House, what exactly is? 

Only the Southern Regional Education Board appears to be moderating away from Common Core, but its white paper on College and Career Readiness indicates the need for states to create a 'default high school CURRICULUM' - something that should concern any local control proponent. At any rate,these reviews should be read by the general public with these facts in mind.

Not long after the release of the 3rd draft, Nate Robson of Oklahoma Watch penned a nice article detailing Dr. Sandra Stotsky's thoughts on the new standards which included the statement,

“You’re close to the bottom of the basement, I am sorry to say, because there is no content in them,” said Stotsky. “These are pious statements of academic goals. These are not standards. A standard is a criterion by which you grade something.”

Ouch. Professor Stotsky is now forced to provide basic educational definitions to the Standards Re-Write Committee - not a sterling commendation to say the least - but there is a question here Robson dances around; Why invite three separate 'experts' to testify to the Standards Writing Committee detailing the process for writing excellent educational standards, yet then invite three different ORGANIZATIONS tied to the education establishment to write reviews for the 3rd revision of the standards? Why not just go back to the original sources? It's what Robson did. Maybe that was the unchosen path for a reason. Maybe the department knew the writing committees hadn't been following the expert advice provided the Standards Committee. Maybe they didn't want the experts coming back to salt the ground they'd originally plowed for the OSDE.

The impetus matters not, actually. What matters is that both Stotsky (English) and Gray (Minnesota math) were not generally complementary of the 3rd standards draft to Robson, and this has sad implications for Oklahoma students.

Below are the specific comments provided by Stotsky (Gray's can be found in the Oklahoma Watch article)

1.  Under "Critical Writing"--Most writing standards do not lead to an assessment of the kind of writing done in college or the real world of work.  OK's draft organizes the writing standards under "narrative," "informative," and "argument."  

The “narratives” (most of which is creative writing) are curriculum-relevant chiefly in the early grades and are not desirable in college or the world of work.   "Informative" is fine, but "argument" should be changed to "persuasion" and "opinion" eliminated in the elementary grades.   Only "informative" prepares kids for college and career writing.

More important, why can’t OK require all local school districts to assign and assess a research paper or senior thesis for English and history or science in grade 11 and/or 12 to prepare students in an authentic way for college and career.  That is precisely where authentic research standards, as in the strand in my 2013 document. should be assessed.

2.  The "Critical Reading" standards should NOT be divided into Literary and Informational.  That is pure Common Core and it is very bad for the English curriculum.  The Critical Reading standards should be divided into (1) Fiction, (2) Nonfiction, (3) Poetry, (4) Dramatic Literature), and (5) Classical and Traditional literature.   That's what English teachers have always taught and been trained to teach.

3.  The OK drafting committee must come up with an example of a literary text that could be used (and how) for every single standard so that teachers understand what reading level is required or desirable at every grad level (and what the standard means).  Make it clear these texts are not required; only examples of reading levels.

4.  Get rid of processes for reading and writing in this document.  They are not standards but pedagogy. 

5.  Get this ELA committee to put in Oklahoma-related reading standards at the high school level--grades 11 and 12.   One standard for texts by major authors born in or who wrote about Oklahoma, and one standard for biographies/autobiographies about famous Oklahomans through history.   

Does Our State Want A Museum, Or Education For Oklahoma Children?

In 2002, George W. Bush took Bill Clinton's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (created by Lyndon Banes Johnson in 1964), the Improving America's Schools Act, added a little something called AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) and renamed it No Child Left Behind.  This graphic is wonderful in showing that, although the federal Department of Education has no Constitutional authority to act within states in any capacity, states have spent FIFTY YEARS kowtowing to the federal government on education policy,

all the while American educational performance has plummeted, never to recover.

In December of last year, Governor Mary Fallin issued Executive Order (2014-40) that said, in part,

...in order to safeguard against any threat of federal intrusion

Oklahoma would use Oklahomans to create Oklahoma public education standards and tests.

It is apparent Oklahoma has 'federal intrusion' in Oklahoma education today - No Child Left Behind and Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind Waiver.

NCLB under George W. Bush was simply a re-gift to the American people of Bill Clinton's ESEA with one twist - the addition of something called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  Bush's NCLB said that by 2014, ALL children would be proficient in Math and English as decided by federally mandated yearly testing that would be used to create a 'grade card' for schools.  If schools were labeled failing under AYP (it is estimated that 90% of Oklahoma schools would be thus labeled), and/or if states weren't 'proficient' in Math and English by 2014, schools would be forced to take 20%  of their Title 1 funds (created by the first ESEA) and re-direct it to the federally mandated categories of supplemental educational services (such as reading programs) and school choice efforts.

In Oklahoma, our State Department of Education has said this figure would amount to $27,198 million dollars plus $3.8 million dollars for additional staff to administer the red tape associated with becoming a 'failure'.

We are also told by the OSDE that if we don't test students as required in grades 3-8 and 10-12, we will lose ALL federal funds from the USDE totaling $361,396,105 so the loss of the Waiver only amounts to 8% of all the federal funds we currently take.

Currently, many in our state legislature are concerned about losing our NCLB Waiver and providing the extra money necessary to perform federally mandated services that Oklahoma has already said - through our Governor - we don't recognize.

Why not use the state Unclaimed Property Funds designated to complete the Indian Cultural Center (40 million) to offset any loss of flexibility in spending Title 1 funding? 

Though Oklahomans have been clearly reticent to complete what has become another improperly funded project, the Governor has pushed for its completion.  Despite what Oklahomans want, Mary Fallin wants BOTH Common Core and the Indian Cultural Center.

Clearly she should prioritize CHILDREN over a museum.

Our Governor also needs to follow her own Executive Order and tell the federal government to take a long walk off a short pier. In fact, our Governor and legislature should be on the same page on this issue.  What in would happen if we lost the waiver?  What would happen if we just stopped following NCLB in the first place?

1.  Texas has an account (the Permanent School Fund) they use to offset the need for federal funds, allowing them (when they desire to) hold the federal government at bay and stand on the 10th Amendment. Oklahoma can and should work toward doing the same - now.  The unclaimed property money could seed that account.
2.  Washington State has lost their waiver over TLE.  In a recent blog post, Washington's Policy Center (similar in nature to Oklahoma's OCPA) has said this opens the door to another program that could allow for better implementation of school choice.  How can the argument be Oklahoma will have greater federal control if we throw off federal control?
3.  Indiana is at risk of losing its waiver now that they have attempted to redesign their 'College and Career Ready' standards.  So are Kansas, Arizona and Oregon, according to EdWeek's analysis.  How can Common Core be state led then? Doesn't that invalidate that entire argument?
4.  Gosh, if parents decided they were going to finally take back their parental rights and stop subjecting their kids to unnecessary and punitive testing, our state would break NCLB altogether.  What does that say about federal intrusion into Oklahoma education?
5. The federal government only has the powers the STATES allot it.  Why is it that when we bring up this fact with many legislators, there is eye-rolling (ostensibly, "nobody cares about that", "that's just silly") and/or a discussion about all the federal money we could lose for other projects like roads - again, all unconstitutional.
6.  Oklahoma is already adjusting our NCLB waiver for other issues, if we must pretend the Constitution doesn't exist, we can always amend/adjust the Waiver further.
7.  Much anecdotal evidence exists to indicate that Title 1 monies are not spent as required.  Maybe a loss of Oklahoma's waiver would actually provide desperately needed financial accountability.

It is apparent; NCLB is not appropriate for states, schools, parents, or kids. Why would Oklahoma continue to attempt to support NCLB when there are ways to circumvent it and our Governor indicates her disdain for federal involvement?  These are important questions to ask that should be clearly delineated election items in November.

Polly Want A Cracker?

While writing my last blog, I found something so interesting I thought it was worth sharing. Earlier this week I had a class on propaganda. Propaganda is the method in which people are lead to believe something desired via specific methods.

Repetition is but one instance of propaganda (unfortunately, there are many!). In this case, the propagandizer simply says something over and over and over again ad nauseam until it becomes unconscious truth. No one knows where the "truth" came from or whether or not it's accurate, but they've heard it so often it simply becomes fact.

Since the Common Core initiative began, I have been simply fascinated by the fact that ALL proponents seem to utter nearly the exact same words and phrases every time you hear one opine on their fabulousness.

Please note the following quote taken from the Missouri Education Watchdog,

"No additional costs are anticipated for revising and maintaining the standards in Missouri. The current department budget and staff have been involved in ongoing activities related to standards, assessments and support for schools since the first adoption of the ShowMe Standards in 1996."

Also,

"The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led, not federal-led effort. The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce."

Now, compare Damon Gardenhire's remarks on the Common Core found in the article, "State education department spokesman: Barresi anticipates low costs for implementing "Common Core" and this quote from the Common Core State Standards initiative website "About" page first paragraph,

"The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce."

Truly, I don't think I can say anything now, other than, "Polly wanna cracker?"

Janet Barresi Channels Scarlett O'Hara

Capitol Beat OK just released a great article, "State Education department spokesman Barresi anticipates low costs for implementing "Common Core".

Since ROPE's interim study for the House in October, ROPE, and others, have asked over and over again about the costs of implementing Common Core in Oklahoma. Thank goodness we now know what they are! They are "anticipated" to be low! As a taxpayer, I feel a great sigh of relief, since big government programs tend to cause tax increases for poor little taxpayers like me.

According to Mirriam-Webster, the definition for "anticipate" (verbatim) is; to speak or write in knowledge or expectation of later matter such as "The cost turned out to be higher than anticipated."

Is Janet Barresi channeling Scarlett O'Hara through her Communications Director? I can't help but see a parallel between his comments on the topic here and Scarlett's famous line, "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow." Is the OSDE 'anticipating' in order to avoid 'thinking'?

Though I could counter Gardenhire in Capitol Beat OK's article point by point, I will simply ask the reader to acknowledge the fact that there are absolutely no solid figures even alluded to by the Department of Education in answer to the question posed by McGuigan. None. According to Mr. Gardenhire, everything's cool - they've got it covered and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about the cost of the Common Core to the state.

Awe inspiring. Did the OSDE let all their number crunchers go with their first round of firings? Even the Federal Government has the GAO. Why are no concrete numbers available? Other states have them.

After reading “TPS: New teacher-evaluation system cost estimates misrepresented”, in the Tulsa World this morning, Gardenhire’s pat answers to McGuigan are off-putting.

The article addresses concerns by the Tulsa Public Schools that Dr. Barresi and the OSDE misrepresented the amount of money it would take to implement Tulsa's teacher evaluation system. In fact, Jana Burk of TPS has this to say,

"We are willing to give them everything we have free of charge, and Marzano (the company the Superintendent favors) has all kinds of things that would need to be developed, which would cost something. That's the way they make money is that they give away their evaluation framework but then they sell the professional development services, video libraries, on-demand technical assistance, software and hand-held devices for principals to use."

Well, that doesn't sound good. Did Dr. Barresi inflate the cost of the TPS system in order to make the system she preferred to use seem less expensive? Who knows, but the article didn’t particularly inspire confidence in Dr. Barresi's ability to ride the Common Core horse through the gate of "anticipated low" costs (or effectively evaluate programming).

Adding to our concern is an incident that occurred after Dr. Barresi publicly called into question our research at the Common Core Interim study. Frustrated by several of Dr. Barresi's remarks following the study, Representative Kern asked the Superintendent to specifically inform her as to which of our facts were incorrect.

Several weeks later, the department provided a paper critiquing our slide presentation, not the 21 page research paper with 9 pages of citations, given to herself and members at the study.

Consequently, not only had the OSDE questioned issues answered in our paper, but they provided absolutely zero references as documentation of their 'critiques', outside those to the Common Core website or Common Core-associated organizations such as Achieve.

This lack of academic rigor in the OSDE (does this fall under the category of supreme irony?) could end up costing tax payers millions of dollars. As with Marzano, the Superintendent favors Common Core. It certainly makes one wonder if she might then underplay Common Core's costs...

Although I'd rather she didn't, Dr. Barresi and company can continue to parrot the contents of the Common Core website until the budgetary cows come home, but by then, Oklahoma's taxpayers will be gone with the wind.