IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED - Help Stop Wind Tax Credits And Put That Money Back Into The Budget For Education And Other Needs

While some are asking where money can be found to fund core government needs in Oklahoma, one simple answer is ending corporate welfare to the Corporate Wind Industry! If we don't do something truly meaningful this session, another $70 million dollars is going to LITERALLY be "Gone with the Wind" when it could have, instead, gone to meet other state needs.

Tyranny Of The Feels: How The Democratic Process is Stifled By Personal Attacks and Threats

As Oklahoma approaches the THIRD day of teacher walkouts across the state, many citizens are finding it’s not so much the actual walkout – although this itself is hard on parents and students so close to the end of the year – it’s the behavior of some of the participants that’s most distressing.

This morning I talked to a legislative assistant I know. I asked her how things were going for her at the Capitol and she told me that her legislator’s office was constantly packed with people and that the noise in the halls was deafening. She said her time was often interrupted by chanting breaking out in the hall.

“A group of teachers came into the office behind a group who was being loud and obnoxious,” she said. “As they walked in, a woman from the group behind leaned over and whispered to me, “We’re not with them”.

I feel for the teachers who don’t really want to be at the capitol – or who want to be there to learn – or because they feel it’s their duty to support their school. It has to be more than a bit frustrating to be lumped together with people for whom the whole experience is an activism exercise.   
 

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

How Do We Know Teachers Need A Raise If We Don't Do Our Homework?

In case you've been under a rock and haven't learned about the West Virginia teachers who have apparently inspired teacher walkouts in Arizona, Kentucky and Oklahoma, I thought it important to make sure anyone who wanted to do more than hear talking points and rhetoric have direct access to OSDE data.

In my next few blogs, I'm going to try and hit some of the talking points pushed by OEA (Oklahoma Education Association - the state arm of the National Teachers Association (NEA) - the UNION pushing the walkout), doing the calculations right in front of you and providing links to check my figures. I want to make sure readers have direct access to some of the more important links I'll be using for fact checking, however, so all this is public.

Money and Education - It's Not Going Where You Think It's Going

By Lynn Habluetzel with Jenni White

Along with budget cuts, the appropriated budget hole for Fiscal Year 2017 is now expected to be $1.3 billion, squarely placing the BUDGET front and center with agencies coming to the realization their budgets will actually be cut this year.  I can imagine this comes as a shock when every year they have asked for increases and every year they have received it, creating a certain amount of disbelief cuts will actually happen.

Former School Board Member Sounds Off On The Concept of Consolidating School Superintendents

Lately the big push in Oklahoma is to save money by removing most of our school superintendents.  I have four points concerning this but basically I am calling on Oklahomans to use common sense to sweep away the legislative complication of the matter and use their minds eye to see a clear picture of what can and should be our simple education system.

1.  Financial 

     The state budget is about                              16,000,000,000.00           100%

     The state school budget is about                     8,000,000,000.00             50%

     The state school administrative
     cost is about                                                     2,800,000,000.00            17.5%

     The total pay to all state
     superintendents is about                                       75,000.000.00          .0047%

It is apparent by these numbers that condensing 550 superintendent down to 77 will make no noticeable difference in the state budget nor the states school budget.

2.  Restriction

If the school superintendents are removed, the legislature will make more laws to take the place of the superintendents which in turn will lesson the people's control of each school district and as always when government is involved, the cost will increase.

3.  Legislative Control  

The end result will be further legislative micromanagement which is the primary reason we have a poor education system that cost far more than is needed for a good education system.

Where is the administrative cost being spent?  At higher education levels, such as our state school chancellor, the highest paid state employee.  Much goes to overpaid professors who lead research groups that are not needed and are duplicated to keep competing state universities happy.  These professors do not teach and such jobs are the goal and achievement of most professors.

Many say if we remove the bulk of state school superintendents we can remove their support staffs, but this is not true because the support staffs primary work is to supply data to the over burdensome bureaucracy the legislature has created in the name of better education.

Without school superintendents, most of our schools would loose the financial oversight that keeps them functioning, not to mention the where with all to seek financing solutions to keep up with the burdens of government concerning facilities, teachers and environment.

4.  Suggestion

The truth is, the legislature and federal government need to be removed from education.  If our schools could spend money as best for their districts without the bureaucratic strings attached, school budgets could actually be decreased and still maintain the same level of infrastructure and instructors.

Furthermore, if we could remove the teachers union pay scale for teachers and allow teachers to individually negotiate their employment package, we could begin to heal the education system with the free enterprise system.  This will truly reward good teachers and weed out sub-standard teachers. Free enterprise, left to it's own, will result in the finest product for the least money.  The people of each district through their vote, lobbying school superintendents and electing school board members will create the school system that best fits each district.  Finally, if after the strings of government have been cut, we allow the money to follow the student and allow true open transfer, the competition will flow between school districts as they vie for more money through more students, our schools will once again become the best in the world.  With such a school system our superintendents would become more necessary and worth every dime.

I believe one more thing is needed to complete our schools in the spirit of free enterprise and that is the ability to solicit private funding.  This funding could support athletic programs, extracurricular programs, school to work programs, meals, transportation or even the entire school.  Likewise the school work take on the look of the provider(s) of the funding just like they have already become with government funding......inefficient and expensive.

The string attachment of private funding within a competitive atmosphere is beneficial to both the producer and the consumer.  In order for the school to get funding from a private source, it most likely will have to submit to certain guidelines and in turn take on the reflection of the funding source or the sources intentions.  In a similar fashion, the supplier of the resources will be required to fulfill the needs of the school or risk replacement.  Therefore supply and demand each have control with the ability for either party to cut the string.

To compare with funding of our schools today by the government, schools become bureaucratic failures, insufficient institutions and unable to respond to the needs of the public.  The current system gives the producer all of  the control and the consumer has no control.  With a true free enterprise system the consumer doesn't have to buy the product and if enough consumers don't buy the product the producer will either need to change the product or go out of business.

As a former school board member I have seen the control wither away from the public and the government burden the schools with so much bureaucracy in the name of improving education, that the schools can neither function properly nor be financially responsible.

The only problem with our superintendents is they are teachers thrust into a situation that requires a businessman.  To make matters worse, superintendents are expected  to fix a problem within the bounds created by men whose recourse is law and money.  The education system is not broken, it is simply drowning on good intentions.

Sincerely,

Thompson E. Speir

HB3399: Why Are We Arguing Over A Percent Of A Percent?

Throughout the process of educating legislators and the public about the necessity to repeal the Common Core State Standards in order for Oklahoma to keep public education local, concerns regarding the loss of Oklahoma's waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) continue to arise.  Now many organizations are calling on Governor Fallin to veto HB3399 - the strongest, most thorough repeal of Common Core in the nation, primarily because of misunderstandings regarding the way Oklahoma's NCLB waiver was written, and the power of the federal government.

How Much Effect Does Oklahoma's NCLB Waiver Have On Public Schools?

Quick review:  Oklahoma assured the Department of Education (DOE) three categories worth of 'reforms' under the state's NCLB waiver:

• Our state would adopt the Common Core State Standards (check)
• Our state would adopt an A-F grading system (check - except that the calculations were horrible and the legislature disapproved the rules for them)
• Our state would adopt a grading scale for teachers - Teacher/Leader Effectiveness - TLE (check - except now we're not going to use quantitative measures)

According to the FAQ page about our state's NCLB Waiver, the second two are considered "accountability" measures.  The state addresses a loss of the NCLB waiver on their FAQ sheet:

Now that the waiver has been approved, what will happen regarding the accountability system if the waiver is rescinded? 

Because both current state law and reforms are now in the implementation phase (such as the new A-F Report Card for Schools), Oklahoma would continue efficiently transitioning to a new accountability system in a timely manner, even if the waiver were not in effect.

Here are a few facts about the NCLB Waiver

* States lose no money if they lose the waiver, they only lose the ability to DIRECT 20% of Title 1 funds, which, in Oklahoma amounts to 0.5% of the total budget

•    $5,250,065,70
            ◦   total funding for K-12 education; local, state and federal sources

•    $646,625,448

◦   total federal education funds; 12.3% of total education funding

•    $148,119,558 

◦   total federal Title I funds; 22.9% of total federal education funding

•    $27,198,000

◦   SDE estimate of the amount of federal Title 1 funds that would be required to be set aside for supplemental education services should the state lose its NCLB waiver; 

◦   approximately 20% of federal Title I funds (20% is actually $29,623,912)  0.5% of total education funding

* States do not get MORE federal government intervention with the loss of the waiver, it's simply a different kind of government intervention - telling the state how to spend a whopping total 0.5% of a FIVE BILLION dollar budget.

*Yes, if we lose the waiver, Title 1 schools labeled as "Priority Schools" under the state's waiver would be subjected to something called "The Turnaround Model" in which the state can:

1. Close the school site, OR 2. Convert the school site to a charter school, OR 3. Fire the principal and half the teaching staff/replace with new staff, OR 4. State takeover of the school." 

Here are a few facts about the "Turnaround Model":

• It was begun in Chicago by Bill Gates while Arne Duncan was still Chicago Superintendent - his association with Gates on school reforms in Chicago is one of the reasons he became national Superintendent
• Bill Gates has funded this effort via millions and millions of dollars only for it not to work - even in Chi-town where it started out
• The DOE has provided SIG (School Improvement) Grants - for which Oklahoma has applied and received 5.6 million dollars to help failing schools in Oklahoma

• The Turnaround Model - like Common Core - has been part of the package offered states for money (State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, Race to the Top, NCLB Waiver, SIG) since President Obama was elected - this is NOTHING new and we've used it in Oklahoma already, NUMEROUS times with schools mentioned in the Waiver
• Because SO MANY Oklahoma schools will be labeled "Priority" under the new 'accountability' system, it is highly implausible that the State Dept. of Education could even enforce this part of the Waiver

What Happens When We Don't Follow The Feds - Early Innovator Grant

• Mary Fallin gave back the 54 million dollar Early Innovator Grant to set up our state's Obamacare Exchange
• Cries that the federal government was going to come in and set up Oklahoma's exchange for them were EVERYWHERE with not only policy people, but legislators parroting this talking point 
• Governor Fallin sent the money back and not only did the federal government NOT come in and set up an exchange for us, many GREAT things have happened:

• Attorney General Scott Pruitt was able to use the argument that Oklahoma didn't have an exchange as a linchpin in his lawsuit against the federal government enforcing national healthcare on Oklahomans
• States like Kansas - and others - followed Governor Fallin's lead and didn't set up their own
• Now we see states that DID kowtow to the feds are struggling with their own insurance exchanges which simply don't function

What Happens When We Don't Follow the Feds - Oklahoma DHS 

In his debate for HB3399 on the floor of the House, Representative Jason Nelson recounted his work providing accountability for Oklahoma DHS, during which, he received several official letters from federal DHS warning him they would intervene in state business if he went too far. Representative Nelson continued his work "too far", and instead of intervening, the federal government backed down.

NCLB Waivers - Like NCLB Itself - Are "Crumbling"

The following excerpt is from an EdWeek article entitled, "Five Key Questions About the Ed. Department's Move on NCLB Waivers"

Margaret Spellings, a key architect of the original NCLB law who served as secretary of education under President George W. Bush, told me two years ago that waivers would be very tough to manage and oversee.
"The waivers were a mistake," she said back in August 2012. "It's a crazy quilt of a system which I think will die [on its] own." 

Because the NCLB Waiver system has been so far reaching, there will be little the DOE can do to keep states in line - there is simply no manpower to undertake a "check and punish" system for states that go their own way.  In addition, there are so many inconsistencies in the program - who gets a waiver, who doesn't - that it leaves states room to be able to argue a DOE decision on that basis alone.

As ROPE has said over and over again, Oklahoma is a sovereign state, and the Constitution of the United States is on our side.  We can talk a good game about local control of education - and Governor Fallin can write all the Executive Orders she wants decrying the hand of FedEd in the education of Oklahoma's kids - but until we put our money where our mouth is, our words are hollow.  Let's be the DO AS I DO state and do what's best for Oklahoma kids on our own turf, in our own way without genuflecting and kissing the ring of a King.

Mo Money

Last week, one of the bloggers I follow, okeducationtruths, released a blog about vouchers and, more specifically, Jason Nelson's bill on vouchers.  I added my two cents because, even though we don't always agree, the writer is a great listener and quite accommodating of opinions, and I LOVE that!  

I'm not going to get into the voucher thing here (if you're interested, you can find my comments at the link above) but I am going to paste my answer here to okeducationtruths last post.  It's a post I've wanted to do here on our blog for quite a long time, so it just seemed the right time to make this happen. 

I've had very definite opinions on money in public education for quite a long time and I would like people to hear them.  If you don't agree, that's fine, tell me why not.  I truly do LOVE hearing peoples thoughts.  In fact, the first line of response to okeducationtruths is:

First, I actually love that we don't always agree.  As I've told Nicole a number of times, if we always agreed the world would be a very dull place AND we'd have learned nothing to expand our horizons!

I think your points are excellent and well taken here - especially the point about not being able to add up tax dollars like chits.  True, however, there is an actual proportionality of tax dollars required by each tax payer that goes toward public education (your property tax bill has that fully delineated).  This is the amount of money I was referencing in this case.

Your comment, "I do have a problem with the mentality that everything can be done better when left to private markets", is also interesting to me.

I can come into agreement on that as well for the most part.  In fact, I think the most nefarious thing about this whole latest 'reform' package is the fact that it IS private companies/philanthropists (without any educational expertise on any level in a whole lot of instances - the Chamber of Commerce?  Come the heck on!) making these pronouncements instead of ideas unfolding in a more 'democratic' style.  "He with the gold makes the rules" as it were.  That is NOT American if you ask me.

Here's where I think I get the most frustrated.  I was not for state question 744.  I am not for pouring more money into schools.  The idea that we should somehow be equating money with educational 'rigor' (ack, I can't believe I said that word in a sentence!) or outcomes of any kind is a red herring.  (PS I totally appreciated hearing the definitions provided for both Red Herring and Straw Man!)

I am constantly attacked for what I'm about to say, but I think it speaks to my conviction (or stupidity!) that I keep on message: we put men on the moon when computers took up rooms and rooms, most advanced mathematical computations were done on slide rules and the federal government had yet to really sink their hooks into the educational system.  There are home schooling families out there that use little more than books and flashcards to give their kids a well-rounded, classical education, that has been shown to produce better overall results than public education. 

I studied lots of ins and outs of spending as I researched my arguments against 744 and here is what I found (in general terms).  It takes a HUGE amount of money at the state level to administer federal grants for which we get - after administration costs - pennies on the dollar, yet our state goes running to FedEd constantly for all kinds of programming.  Much of this programming has never been tested or tried - or has been proven NOT to provide much, if any benefit (Head Start, for example) yet we do it because we get 'free' money.

Oklahoma legislators are very fond of riding public education with a heavy hand.  A very large number of education laws are passed because someone in a district needs/wants that very thing they ask of the entire state.  Most laws won't/don't translate well to another district, but suddenly, all districts must fall under the edict.  We have mandated public schools into near complete commonality and the poor house, as most state education laws end up in the unfunded category.

That said, there can be no way that the largest (well second now behind health care I understand) budgeted item in the state needs MORE money to succeed.  (Yes, as a teacher, I DID buy a number of my own things and as a science teacher I was often begging for supplies, just for the record.)  What we do need, however, is an enormous AUDIT of programming, unfunded mandates and job descriptions at the state education level.  We MUST return money to classrooms from the administrative level so science teachers can buy microscopes (instead of watching online videos about Paramecium, the novel idea would be that kids actually get to see them for themselves!) and any other amount and/or kind of tool necessary to teach kids.  There is money in the system, it just needs to be reapportioned and why shouldn't we demand that this happen?  Why must we use federal money when it comes with strings and gives us only pittance for our beseeching?  Why must districts go to the state for money when their 'customers' are right in their own backyards?  Our cities are run in this fashion.  If schools were administered at the district level instead of the state level, it would certainly be a lot easier to reapportion unnecessary funds and redirect money into classrooms...but then do the powers that be really want that? 

Educational Equity doesn't always come wrapped up in a perfect little box labeled "money".  We need to get out of this rut, expand our horizons and realize that few things in life are ever really 'equal' and that equal education is really a subjective term - for parents and even communities.  The only reason we love the word 'equality' in education is because it happens to be the only thing we can use to make that label mean the same thing to everyone - the objective quantity of dollars and cents.  Sadly, true equality in education is only going to come when schools/districts can do for their 'customers' what is actually best for them and NOT best for the state.

REAC3H For the Sky Taxpayer!

As I mentioned in my last blog on the June Oklahoma State School Board Meeting where we were not allowed to speak against Common Core, though there were several items on the agenda that fell under that topic, there was a presentation on REAC3H coaching in our state.

According to the Oklahoma State Department of Education website, REAC3H stands for

Regional Educators Advancing College, Career, and Citizenship readiness Higher

In fact, the SDE has an entire page on the website devoted to REAC3H.  You can find that here.   

It’s like a one stop shop of all the programs the SDE has developed, under the leadership of Dr. Barresi, to promote all Race to the Top programs for which Oklahoma never received money.  Yes, you will find Common Core (also called alternatively C3 Standards, or Oklahoma Standards or OC3 Standards – since Common Core is getting a black eye across the country, it doesn’t hurt to change the name and camouflage the problem) there as well as Teacher Leader Effectiveness.

My main concern, after the June Board meeting became the discussion on the agenda of REAC3H Competitive Grants.

Oklahoma has already adopted the Common Core State Standards for not only English/LA and Math, but also Science and Social Studies.  This is troubling because Dr. Barresi has told gatherings of people numerous times that Oklahoma would NOT adopt the Common Core for either Science or Social Studies. 

Beyond that, however, now that Oklahoma will have to train teachers and produce materials to satisfy FOUR sets of standards without any prior study on the cost of ANY of the Common Core initiative to the state of Oklahoma, why create a COMPETITIVE grant to give taxpayer money to private organizations and institutions? 

From the Departments June 12, 2013 Board meeting:

New to the budget this year is an item for Teach for America, a program that places teachers in high-risk schools to help improve performance among minorities and students in poverty. Also new is a $2.8 million competitive grant program to provide funding to private sector groups that have previously been awarded educational funds and to others that apply.

Yes, we are giving state tax dollars to PRIVATE SECTOR GROUPS.  Yes, we are making these groups vie for tax dollars when we're not even sure the cost to taxpayers of any of the C3 'reforms'.

Click here to find the grants awarded.

Please note the vast discrepancy in the amounts; 

Great Expectations           $1,050,00

OK A+ Schools                   $275,000

Science Fair:  ECU                $50,000

Just FYI:  Here’s the proposed 2014 budget.   

As Doctor Barresi promised, we’re spending MORE money on public education than ever before - but wait - I don't seem to remember Dr. Barresi running a campaign based on spending more tax payer dollars on public education.  Oh well, just a minor hiccup I guess.

Don’t forget.  The State House did NOT approve the line item budget for the State Department, indicating lack of support for the SDE's education agenda.    

Maybe many of our Representatives had the same thought as I; Is there a reason we need to give Oklahoma taxpayer money to private third parties when what happens directly between a pupil and a teacher will impact that student more than any other outside source?

Maybe we need to STOP this convoluted C3 program and get back to basics of taxpayer funding of IN CLASSROOM spending to give those closest to the students the tools they need to make the difference they can.

Still Not On Board the Crazy Train

Well, I think this was a very responsible article by CapitolBeatOK.com about a very controversial hire by the State Department of Education (Consensus Building Vital to Fixing Common Education, Says New Barresi Chief of Staff).

I think Mr. Robison sounds sensible.

I believe that public education is a bi-partisan issue.

The only problem with the whole thing then, here, I guess, is the fact that ROPE does NOT AGREE with C3, the NCLB Waiver, Common Core, or the fact that our superintendent is not doing a great job doing what she said she would as CANDIDATE Barresi.

So, nothing personal Joel, but until the REFORM train turns around into positive territory by negatively impacting the budget AND federal entanglements in order to save the pocketbooks of the taxpayer, follow the Constitution and really provide children with opportunities for learning that provide results and not just test scores, we're not on board.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

Obviously, ROPE is beyond ecstatic that Oklahoma was NOT granted a Race to the Top grant for Early Childhood Education. As opposed to Governor Fallin, I do not feel ANY disappointment that Oklahoma was not chosen for the grant.

In fact, I STILL can't even conceive of the fact that Oklahoma would go begging to the ABSOLUTELY BROKE (meaning 'in debt', 'no working capital', 'owned by China', etc.) federal government (who takes money from the pockets of Oklahomans and then makes us beg to get it back) for money to fund programs that should absolutely, unquestionably be funded by private organizations and churches.

Interestingly, though Dr. Barresi made large cuts to her budget earlier this year, she must have climbed aboard her Unicorn and trotted out onto the rainbow bridge. Apparently, from there she discovered a money tree that can be accessed at will by the State of Oklahoma, because she has now asked for 158 million more dollars to be added to the State Department of Education in her first ever budget.

Of course, some of this will go to fund the things she UN-funded from the previously-mentioned activities budget. Interesting. They weren't necessary in June, but after significant public outcry, they are in December?

It is interesting to note that Dr. Barresi had this to say on her campaign blog,

“We must restructure Oklahoma’s State Department of Education to ensure that dollars are getting into the classroom, rather than concentrating critical funds on administrative overhead. I intend to transform the State Department of Education from being primarily a regulatory agency into a service organization for parents and children. I’ll also move quickly to conduct a financial and performance audit of the department.”

Was the promised audit conducted?

If so, why weren't the results presented before the budget was prepared?

If an audit was not accomplished, why move forward with the budget?

Upon what data were the figures originated?

Why is the department now asking the state to fund specific functions that the Superintendent chose to do away with in the OSDE activities budget?

Was an RTT application made because Oklahoma didn’t have enough money to fund the desired programs or was it simply because the grant was seen as “free” money for which Oklahoma could find a use? Either way, can Oklahoman's believe that our current state administrators have any kind of a grip on Oklahoma's part in this country's entirely real and looming economic Armageddon? I don't and that truly concerns me.

In fact, there are way too many unanswered questions here that I see Oklahoma taxpayers having to eventually answer out of their pockets - and no one I know has a Unicorn.

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.