This Week is Important in the Life Of HB3399 and the Death of Common Core in Oklahoma

*(For purposes of continuity, I will use the term Common Core though in Oklahoma these standards have been renamed Oklahoma Academic Standards)

Now that Senate bills have been cleared from the House calendar, it is time to go back to HB3399.  We must stay on this bill and get it through the process - and there is still process to go.  It still needs to be heard by the House, have the Senate amendments voted down and sent to conference committee.  There, we need to convince the committee of the following things:

BILL ITSELF:

• need 2 years to create standards to prevent copy and paste of Common Core back as happened in Indiana
• legislature must decide upon educational standards during standards re-write period - in Indiana, Gov. Pence hired Sujie Shin - from federally funded WestEd and responsible for assisting states in aligning their standards to Common Core - to oversee the process.  Our Governor and Superintendent both have a history of appointing/hiring those from the organizations responsible for promoting/creating Common Core and other national education reforms.  

STANDARDS DURING INTERIM MUST BE PASS

• Recent analyses of ELA and Mathematics PASS against Common Core show PASS the better set of standards:

• Sandra Stotsky chose 20 attributes across 4 major categories of comparison:  PASS were better than CC for 50%, CC was better than PASS for 15% and PASS and CC tied for 35%.
• Ze've Worman reviewed PASS and CC mathematics standards and concluded, "One can argue whether they are slightly weaker or stronger in specific areas, yet all those who seriously studied both agree they are of similar strength.  The big difference is that Oklahoam can modify and improve its PASS but it cannot modify the Common Core."

• According to school code, 210:15-4-3. Adoption and Implementation of Common Core State standards, Common Core was to be instituted in public schools year 2014-15, however, there is a caveat.  (a) (4) says, "...The Priority Academic Student Skills shall remain as the assessed standards until such time that full implementation of the Common Core State Standards are required and common assessments aligned to those standards are available." 

• Common Core tests are being developed, but have hit snags, causing concern of proper readiness by next school year.  ""Both consortia will have tests in 2014-2015 that will be better than almost all existing state tests, if not all. Neither will be as good as promised in their response to the department's [request for proposals]," said Scott Marion, an associate director at the Dover, N.H.-based National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, which advises both consortia. "But if they can survive until 2018, '19, '20, they actually might have something pretty good that comes close to living up to their promises."

• Oklahoma will not put their Title 1 funding at risk through a loss of their NCLB waiver (though it shouldn't have been sought in the first place if our Governor and Superintendent truly believe their anti-Federal Department of Education rhetoric) by returning to PASS

• If Oklahoma's PASS are as good as they have been graded by the Fordham Institute (paid by the Bill Gates Foundation to institute the study in an effort to push Common Core) - a fact now verified by outside sources - Oklahoma has an excellent argument as to why we would return to our previous standards.  PASS is more 'college and career ready' than CC.
• At this time, the OSDE is currently undergoing modifications to its NCLB waiver.  Obviously, that is an option. 
• Even a cursory review of Oklahoma's NCLB Waiver shows that our waiver was granted based upon an 'assurance' (promise) we would utilize Common Core.  There was another option, however - that of having institutes of higher learning certify the standards as 'college and career ready'.  Seeing as how our standards are better even than the Common Core, it wouldn't appear hard to make this happen. 

TESTING MUST BE CTB/McGRAW HILL PASS TEST BANK WITH PAPER AND PENCIL

• Measured Progress is a subcontractor to Education Testing Services for PARCC - if we continue with MP, we continue with PARCC and the federal strings that come through the RTT funding of PARCC.  Our Governor has issued an Executive Order prohibiting a breach in student privacy with the Common Core.
• Student privacy is a very large issue with computerized tests and federally-funded, Common Core-aligned testing

• MP's contract specifically refers to FERPA when citing student privacy.  FERPA was changed in 2012 at the request of Arne Duncan so that personal student data can be shared at least 11 different ways without parental consent. 
• The other concern is the fact that CC standards have been digitized and uploaded into a database corresponding directly with test questions.  This allows data to be collected down to the exact standard a child missed on a test.  This then, can allow the type of European style education in which students are divided into college and career tracks.
• Certainly the computerized method utilized for this testing has been unsuccessful two years in a row.  Third time's a charm?

CLOSING:

As soon as we know the names of the legislators (both House and Senate) who will be placed on the Conference Committee, we will post their names and contact information.  It will be of ULTIMATE importance to our cause that you read this information, understand it and regurgitate it back to these men and women.  The only way we can STOP Common Core, is to STOP it NOW and not continue on in the interim period while new standards are designed.

Here is the reason we fight:

If Congress… may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union… I would venture to declare it as my opinion… it would subvert the very foundation and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America…James Madison, 1792

LITERATURE CITED:

Pence OKs Education Standards for Indiana; Hit as Common Core Remix, Alicia M. Cohen,

 http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/22/indiana-education-standards-common-core-trojan-horse/

Hoosiers Process Run By DC Insider, Erin Tuttle, http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/hoosier-process-led-dc-insider/

Is Oklahoma Education Being Sold To Out Of State Interests? Jenni White, http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-oklahoma-education-being-sold-to-out.html

Comparison of PASS to Common Core in English Language Arts - Sandra Stotsky.  Sandra Stotsky.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/220284871/Comparison-of-PASS-to-Common-Core-in-English-Language-Arts-Sandra-Stotsky

Comparison of PASS to Common Core in Mathematics - Ze'ev Worman.  Ze'ev Worman. http://www.scribd.com/doc/220283197/Comparison-of-PASS-to-Common-Core-in-Mathematics-Ze-ev-Worman

Oklahoma School Code 210:15-4-3. http://www.oar.state.ok.us/viewhtml/210_15-4-3.htm

Oklahoma's ESEA Flexibility Request. 2012.  http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/ESEA-FlexAmend8-12.pdf

Vision, Reality Collide in Common Core Tests. EdWeek. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/23/29cc-promises.h33.html

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Thomas B. Fordham funding. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/search#q/k=thomas%20fordham%20institute

Accountability and Assessments page. ESEA Accountability Addendum. http://ok.gov/sde/accountability-assessments

To PARCC or Not To PARCC - That Is The Question. Jenni White.  http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/04/parcc-or-not-to-parcc-that-is-question.html

Executive Order 2014-40.  Governor Fallin.  https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/executive/917.pdf

You Can't Always Get What You Want. Jenni White. http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/06/you-cant-always-get-what-you-want.html

Common Core State Standards Developers and Publishers.  Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org/developers-and-publishers/

Track My Progress.  Website.  http://www.trackmyprogress.com/overview/

Glitch shuts down state testing for second time.  KOCO.com  http://www.koco.com/news/Glitch-shuts-down-state-testing-for-second-time/25591396

PARCC or not to PARCC - That Is The Question?

Since the Common Core has been taken to task in Oklahoma by HB3399 and a number of stellar lawmakers who apparently have the best interests of Oklahoma children at heart, there have been a number of concerns about testing.

Here's a bit of background on the state of Common Core testing from Ed.gov:

ABOUT THE RACE TO THE TOP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The Race to the Top Assessment program was authorized as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In September 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awarded competitive, four-year grants to two consortia of states, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced).

Though Common Core naysayers have been given names the likes of 'misinformed' when it comes to the idea that Common Core is a federal program, it is impossible to argue with these facts:

1. What is tested is taught, thereby creating a situation in which testing drives curricula - especially since Common Core tests are high stakes tests tied, not only to our state's A-F grading system for public schools but teacher 'grading' as well
2. The Common Core tests are federally subsidized via ARRA funds given to PARCC and Smarter Balance
3. The federal government is now reviewing the tests they paid to develop, further entrenching the federal government in the Common Core process

Now, as the state attempts to abandon Common Core, we have explained to lawmakers that Oklahoma should move up to PASS rather than stay with Common Core (Oklahoma Academic Standards) in the interim period while new standards are being written.  We have encountered resistance with this idea however, as Oklahoma's contract with Measured Progress is brought up over and over again as though contracts with state agencies are iron clad and contain no exclusion clause. 

Our main concerns with MP tests follow:

1. Superintendent Barresi made an enormous issue out of removing Oklahoma from PARCC testing (as did many other states) - most probably because the argument provided earlier about the federal government intervention into Common Core, but also because of costs.  PARCC costs were listed as one reason why Dr. Barresi dropped out of the testing consortium.  Evidently, the costs are ever-increasing as PARCC had to reorganize as a C3 (non-profit) organization in order to receive private funding to cover the costs (with help from the National Governor's Association).
2. MP was granted subcontractor status to PARCC through PARCC's contract with Education Testing Services (ETS).  Consequently, any test written or provided by MP would be a PARCC test.

Why get out of PARCC if we're just going to go right back via a different name (like Common Core vs Oklahoma Academic Standards)?  Why disregard Mary Fallin's Executive Order on testing (#2) that states:

The state of Oklahoma will be exclusively responsible for deciding the assessment methodology to be used to measure student performance.

Clearly, if Oklahoma is using MP, we will be unable meet this requirement, as this company is a subcontractor to PARCC and ETS.

Finally, the Common Core state standards are being fully digitized and each standard placed into a database.  This database will then be utilized by the testing companies contracted/subcontracted to PARCC to determine the exact standard/s the student missed during testing because the testing database will align with the standards database.  Truly, this could result in a situation in which career counseling would remove a career opportunity for a student simply because they missed career-similar test questions on the Common Core-aligned testing.  This situation would not only have to violate Governor Fallin's Executive Order on student privacy (#5), but would create a European system of public education expressly frowned on by those who founded our country on the idea that any American could be anything.

We must not only stop Common Core State Standards in Oklahoma, but Common Core testing through Measured Progress as well!

Answer to Janet Barresi's Interview With Choice Media and Bob Bowdon

A bit over a week ago Superintendent Janet Barresi was video interviewed by Bob Bowdon of Choice Media.  After viewing the interview, I felt it important to discuss the inconsistencies in her interview.

Dr. Barresi begins by discussing the education reform measures she is directing in Oklahoma:

• Implementation of Oklahoma Academic Standards
• A-F grade card 
• Institution of the end of social promotion – children must be reading by 3^rd grade or be held back   
• Continuation of “high stakes” testing out of high school (ACE)

HIGH STAKES TESTING

Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi about her thoughts on testing since the term “high stakes” testing is usually a negative concept.

Dr. Barresi answers by saying she is against “anything that is about drilling and teaching to the test”.  That is why she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “that we’re setting up” which allow teachers to 

”teach in a way to develop student’s application skills…The test will test the student’s application of the knowledge – problem solving – thinking on their feet if you will and so instead of test asking for a correct answer; name the capitols of all of the 8 northeastern states, it’s going to ask a question also of application; of those, which one presents the largest population – or of those, which one of those 8 capitols has shipping – uh, involved – or which – what is a seaport – is any of them a seaport?  And so and that is that application.  Teachers are going to be teaching more then to that application.  And so now the tests become more informative to teachers so they know how to adjust instruction.  Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”

First; Dr. Barresi gives a rather long answer but never addresses Bowdon’s question.  In her reply, she tells us first that she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “we’re setting up”.  Oklahoma’s ‘new’ standards are called “Oklahoma Academic Standards”.  Once at the link for these standards, you find the statement under both math and English L/A standards headings, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for grades K‐12 in June 2010. Pre‐Kindergarten standards are currently undergoing revision. Transitions began in 2010 and will be completed by school districts prior to the 2014‐2015 school year.”

Please note that if you click on the link found for “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under English, L/A you are led to the CommonCore State Standards for English/LA, Literacy in History/Social Studies,Science and Technical Subjects though Dr. Barresi mentions the “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, as though Oklahoma had written individualized, state level standards.  This is also true for the heading “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under the math heading.  When that link is followed, the URL belongs to a PDF labeled, “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”.  So, does Oklahoma have its own “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, or the Common Core?

Secondly; Bowdon’s question about “high stakes” testing came after Dr. Barresi used this same term in application to Oklahoma’s ACE requirements.  Instead of discussing the issue of “high stakes” testing in relation to ACE (which has been a very contentious issue in Oklahoma), Dr. Barresi clearly switches gears and begins discussing the Oklahoma’s Common Core State Standards testing.  Her answer buffs the shine on what she believes are more rigorous tests that will allow a better picture of a student’s ability to apply their knowledge to the questions posed.

Thirdly; Barresi – in her explanation – gives Bowdon a description – NOT of an application process, but a memory skill.  One doesn’t ‘apply’ knowledge to a question that simply asks a student to recall – from memory – which northeastern capitol is a seaport.  Additionally, Oklahoma educators think Dr. Barresi has no concept of how Oklahoma’s tests are actually structured.  In fact, they disagree with her assessment of the state’s current assessments pretty much across the board.

Fourthly; Dr. Barresi then states that ‘high stakes’ tests are ‘more’ informative to teachers – allowing them to better adjust instruction.  As a former teacher, I feel a large majority of teachers would relay the notion that several federated state tests a year will provide no more information (and possibly less) regarding the position of a student in their individual learning arc than many individual classroom level formative tests given after each section of material taught.  

Dr. Barresi finally tilts her head sweetly and lilts, “Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”  Teachers have been testing students inside the walls of their own classrooms since the beginning of classroom instruction.  In recent decades, teachers have dutifully taken 2 weeks or more a year out of classroom instruction time to prepare their students for yearly state examinations.  Testing has been part and parcel of a teacher’s duties since the profession began.  This was a question regarding “high stakes” testing – a different, more intrusive form of testing.  In this case, the ACE testing process can make or break graduation from high school for a student – even those with looming college prospects.  Sadly, teachers will still not be privy to the thoughts explaining Dr. Barresi’s love of “high stakes” testing from this interview.

GETTING OUT OF PARCC

Bowdon tells Dr. Barresi that it seems less expensive to shoulder 1/17^th of the test cost in PARCC than Oklahoma developing their own.  

Barresi explains (eventually) that Oklahoma withdrew from PARCC because of:

• Cost 
• The amount of time students were having to spend on the test
• Federal overreach
• Technology readiness

Essentially Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi how it is less expensive for Oklahoma to develop their own tests.

Barresi responds,

“When you develop a test that’s been in place for decades in Oklahoma that really tests low level questions, it’s very easy and cheap to develop a test like that – when you just ask for answer A,B, C or D.  When you develop a test that has performance items where the student justifies their answer, writes out short answers and…goes…into really showing their understanding, that is a much higher order test – it is much, much more expensive (Bowdon interrupts but Barresi continues) so we knew going to a better test like that that gives better information was gonna cost more.  That’s one of the reasons we participated in this consortium.  Then, after we got in and saw really how the test was being developed in terms of the fine print of the cost of it, we knew then that even with this additional funding – we appreciate that – that really we did not feel responsible for going back to the legislature and asking for another 2 million dollars.  That money needs to be in the classroom.”

First; again Barresi did not answer the question asked.  Dr. Barresi never gives any indication of the differences in cost between ‘state developed’ and PARCC tests – ever.  In fact, after a great deal of searching on the OSDE website, I was unable to come to find any indication of test costs.  So much for accountability.  I saw several articles on the web that discussed PARCC test costs, and though Oklahoma was mentioned in several, none had Oklahoma’s test costs reported.  

Secondly; since Nancy Pelosi uttered her now infamous, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” statement about the Health Care law, many of us have opened our eyes to the fact that this is apparently Standard Operating Procedure for government at all levels.  Most states, for example, passed school code or state law adopting the Common Core Standards before they were even available to read in their final format in order to increase their chances for getting a Race to the Top grant.  Here, we see Barresi admit she jumped into an association with PARCC before she knew what it would cost her state taxpayers.  Certainly all states joined knowing that the federal government had given PARCC an RTT grant to develop the tests and that no tests had been developed at the time they entered their agreement with PARCC.

Thirdly; Page 206 of Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver provides a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Florida Department of Education as the granted PARCC authority and Oklahoma as a Governing member.  Oklahoma received 90K yearly for being a governing member of PARCC – not only that, but according to the MOU, there is NO reason for Oklahoma to have removed itself from PARCC, because Oklahoma’s position in the consortium provided the ability to make changes at any point in the test development progression – ostensibly, that should include costs.  Why leave then, really?

NCLB AND FEDERAL OVERREACH

Dr. Barresi’s admission that PARCC represented too much federal overreach is a head-scratcher.  She says the OSDE was,

“Just getting a little too much push from USDE.  We applied for the waiver (NCLB) and then it’s like, “Look what you asked for” and so we’re pushing back on that, but we thought it was time then that we separated us from that government interaction.  We’re developing an Oklahoma test.”

She then goes on to say she is not too sure,

“Barack Obama - President Obama had the right to do that (create the NCLB waiver) but also, I was in a state dealing with the reality that we had an entire array of reforms we were trying to implement and I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole which was No Child Left Behind accountability.  We needed a better accountability system.”

She continues by saying the feds want to meet with her regarding the tests her state is developing on their own and that there is a possibility the feds will pull back on the waiver.

First; would anyone concerned about federal overreach apply for an NCLB waiver knowing what it said when they applied?  I find this to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.  I’ve read Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver.  It is very specific in its demands and the state is very specific in its complete submission to those demands. 

Page 31 says, “Oklahoma is committed to full implementation of the CCSS and other college and career ready standards, PARCC and other college and career ready assessments…”  Page 32 of the state’s waiver application gives three possibilities for the state in terms of testing 1. Using PARCC tests  2.  Not using PARCC but working on developing own Common Core tests or, 3.  The state isn’t in PARCC but has already developed and begun to “annually administer statewide aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth in reading/language arts and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8…”  The first option was chosen for the waiver.

I would wonder at any possibility of the USDE wanting to meet with Barresi regarding a roll-back of the waiver.  The waiver she signed provided a binding contract between the USDE and the OSDE’s use of PARCC tests.  But then again, who really cares about contracts today anyway?

FYI:  Dr. Barresi has also applied for a RTT Early Learning Challenge grant, several School Improvement Grants, a State Longitudinal Database grant and facilitated statewide 21^st Century Community Learning Center grants.  If you’re not a fan of federal overreach, why keep applying for federal assistance?

Secondly; why say you took an NCLB waiver because the state needed a better accountability system? Oklahoma was already following Jeb Bush down the yellow brick road of the A-F grading system prior to receiving an NCLB waiver.  In fact, the same Jeb Bush that invented the A-F grading system, then got Secretary Duncan to jump on board with using the system as a requirement of an NCLB waiver.  Janet Barresi, as a member of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, is well known for utilizing Jeb Bush’s reforms in Oklahoma on a constant basis – waiver or not.

Thirdly; on page 11 of the NCLB waiver, the OSDE told the USDE they would collaborate with them to evaluate at least one program of 3 required in the waiver to “determine the feasibility and design of the evaluation…[to ensure] the implementation of the chosen program, practice or strategy is consistent with the evaluation design.”  Why do this if you are concerned about federal overreach?  Apparently, as states wishing to apply for a SECOND round of NCLB waivers are finding out, this evaluation – via the collection of data via the state’s own state longitudinal database – is proving to be “mother may I” on steroids.

Frankly, I could go on, but it’s pointless.  Dr. Barresi has done the sort of things described in this rebuttal since she took office three years ago.  In fact, quashing the right of parents to speak at state board meetings, deflecting questions, spinning facts and filibustering are some of her favorite fallbacks.  

Sadly, people in states all across the country will be able to relate to this situation.  Superintendent Barresi is simply another in a long line of educrats in states all over the country - many with little to no education background - hoping to widen their sphere of political influence by riding Jeb Bush’s coattails down the trail of never tried nor proven education ‘reform’ methods which make guinea pigs of our nation’s students every day.

Legislative Shenanigans - A Lesson in Civics From House Bill 2762 by Lee Denney

From the day House Bill 2762 by Lee Denney and its mirror bill SB1797 by Clark Jolley were placed on committee calendars, ROPE has been warning about these bills.

As you know, ROPE does not support the Common Core State Standards for numerous reasons. From the day we found out they had been added to Oklahoma's copious education laws in 2010, we have attempted to generate awareness regarding the federal overreach of education this 'initiative' represents. Recently, we launched our campaign called, "ObamaEd", in order to educate even more citizens and legislators about the lack of control they will have over OKLAHOMA education as these standards become fully entrenched in our state's educational system by 2014.

HB2762 and SB1797 were bills penned by the Governor's office (Representative Lee Denney admits this much on the floor during debate of the bill, Thursday, March 15, 2012) in order to put into law requirements from the Obama Administration's NCLB waiver our Governor and Superintendent requested. In fact, Oklahoma's NCLB waiver was CONDITIONAL on instituting a number of different reforms to our current system

As she noted, many proposed large-scale efforts to train their educators in the new academic standards, create or oversee development of new instructional resources, and redesign their testing systems.

though few Oklahoma administrators/educators appear to happy about the lack of local control NCLB waivers represent

“I am in favor of local control, and while I think this waiver takes a step toward that, it still does not offer local school districts local control. I believe that no one knows the needs of Broken Arrow students better than the citizens of Broken Arrow. Educators, parents and citizens should be allowed to determine what’s best for their community school, and the waiver does not allow for that,” Mendenhall said.

and organizations like Heritage Foundation and the Pioneer Institute have called an illegal and unconstitutional federal overreach into education.

Yet, our 'conservative' Governor and Superintendent have persisted, culminating their efforts in these two bills which address a number of different NCLB waiver factors including "teacher preparation" and "redesign of testing systems". The latter has been of great concern to us, as the Superintendent (Governor) needs to change the manner in which Oklahoma tests students. She needs to move Oklahoma tests from being locally developed (as has historically been done) to being developed by PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of College and Careers), the tests which are designed to specifically test for the Common Core Standards. All of the reasons we have elucidated as to why we disagree with this change can be found here, so I will not reiterate those here.

ROPE wants to make you aware of the process in legislating these bills, as not only does this serve as a valuable lesson in civics, but it shows you the kind of activities one could only describe as shenanigans, that our legislative process seems to invite.

SENATE BILL:

• Once we found out about the bill and specifically the change from NAEP to PARCC accountability for testing, we contacted Clark Jolley, author of the senate bill and told him our concerns.
• The bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee and into the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Senator Jolley filed an amendment in Appropriations to remove the new language and keep the bill's existing language (PARCC not added, NAEP kept). 
• The bill then passed the Senate 39 to 0.

 HOUSE BILL:

• Once we found the language in the House bill, we contacted Rep. Denney and explained our concerns. 
• The bill was heard in the Higher Education and Career Tech committee which Denney chairs (as a side note, request bills are often authored by committee chairs in order for the bill to be heard in committee - our bill repealing the Common Core from state law - HB1714 - authored by Rep. Sally Kern, was NOT heard in the Common Ed Committee for two years in a row.)
• The bill passed out of Committee as a 29 page bill on February 16.
• After passage, Representative Denney told us the bill was being 'worked on' by the Governor's office and she couldn't do anything to it until that process was over.
• March 13th, the bill was placed on the Floor Calendar (to be considered by vote of the House) as a 182 page bill labeled as a FLOOR AMENDMENT.
• ROPE began sending out Legislative Alerts asking for citizens to contact their Representative and ask them to vote NO on the bill, based upon our analysis. We also lobbied the House Wed., March 13 and asked for their NO vote.
• Though the bill was not able to be heard until after 3:15 - due to the presence of the Floor Amendment on the bill (allowing members 'time' to read it - 'time' because how does one READ a 180-something page bill in 48 hours with all the others they have to read?), yet the bill was brought up for a vote around 9am! This, is a tactic - though illegal according to rules - to get legislators to vote for something before they have a chance to read it and discuss it! Thank you to Representative Mike Reynolds for bringing this to the attention of the Pro Temp!
• Thursday, March 15, the bill came to the floor. When it became clear that Rep. Denney was NOT going to have the votes for her bill - due to EXCELLENT and SUSTAINED questioning by Representatives Kern, Holland and Blackwell - and EXCELLENT debate by Holland and Blackwell - Denney was apparently told (lots of activity at her desk - visits by the Pro Temp, Jeff Hickman and lots of texting) to "lay over" the bill.
• If a bill is laid over, the language can be taken from that bill and put into another bill  - as in the one authored by Clark Jolley that has ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE.
• If the bill had been voted on and voted down, the bill - including all that 150 pages of new language - would be DEAD.

We urge you to take the time to watch the full presentation of Rep. Denney's bill. Though Representative Denney has been very good to take time to listen to our arguments surrounding the bill and our objections to Common Core, she misrepresents the change from NAEP to PARCC on several occasions during her portion of the debate before the bill was laid over.

It is also well worth the time to listen to Representatives Holland and Blackwell debate AGAINST this bill. These men truly understand the damage which can be inflicted upon Oklahoma by voting to change from testing descriptors (and tests) we have used for decades and which we have developed locally to tests that have YET TO BE DEVELOPED.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please continue to watch SB1797. You can do that by joining the LENS bill tracker, typing in bill number SB1797 and reading the emails the tracker sends you as the bill moves through the legislative process. You can also join our email list and we will send out Legislative Action Alerts for this and other bills that will inevitably crop up before May 25 when our legislature adjourns.