Ways In Which Oklahoma's New Standards (OAS) Do Not Conform To CC Repeal Law

or Save Our Standards Part 2

After studying the Oklahoma Academic Standards (OAS) reviews posted on the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) website, I produced a document that listed the consistent issues brought up by reviewers over the course of the four draft standards documents produced by the OAS writing teams.

There were 13 separate standards reviewers outside the OSDE that contributed reviews posted to the OSDE website.**  These are as follows:

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.

Dr. James Milgram Has Harsh Words For Oklahoma's New Math Standards Draft

James Milgram is a professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University. He served on the validation committee for the Common Core mathematics where he did not sign off on the standards. ROPE asked the Standards Writing Committee to include Dr. Milgram in the standards writing process in some way, but his expertise went unused.

The following information was sent to us by Dr. Milgram after asking him to comment on the drafts made available online. 

1) From what I can tell, no one on the Oklahoma Mathematics standards writing committee has a college degree in Mathematics, in particular, no one appears to have a PhD in Mathematics; the committee members all appear to have degrees in Education (some in Math Education). I believe that without degrees in the pure subject of Mathematics, the members of the committee are not fully qualified to write Mathematics standards for the state of Oklahoma.

Agreed. I went somewhat further and checked the qualifications of the 4 members identified as university faculty members. One is a specialist in remediation, something worth having but all three of the others show no evidence of any knowledge of actual mathematics beyond the most elementary – and I mean elementary. Their expertise appears to be focused on no more than the first 2 to 3 grades. Also, nobody on the committee appears to even be qualified to handle things at the level of any high school material past a weak Algebra II course. In fact this draft standards cuts off well before the Common Core math standards, which were, as numerous people have pointed out, themselves far below the expected level of high school mathematics necessary for students wishing to major in technical areas including STEM in a solid four year college or university.

2) In the early grades, the Standards do not specify that students learn, practice, memorize, and be able to demonstrate instant, accurate recall of the basic math facts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division up to at least 10s, preferably 12’s or 15’s. This is certainly true. But there are far more problems than just this (as serious as it is). Here is a brief rundown of the first grade standards that were so imprecise - or more likely actually incorrect mathematically - that I couldn’t make sense of them as written.

1.A.1.1, 1.A.1.2: Imprecise to the degree that I can’t understand what they mean. Create and extend repeating or growing patterns etc. On what basis? are the students given rules for how to extend or not. If not, then this has nothing to do with mathematics, and will, later, very negatively impact the liklihood of students being successful in the area.

1.N.1.1 Does this have anything to do with actual mathematics? If so show me the research. Here’s the normal way this goes. One “recognizes” and names the Symbol (e.g., ten frames, arrays, etc) and one might or might not count the number of each, but one does not see the number that these objects are expected to represent.

1.N.1.2 Where did the “in terms of tens and ones” suddenly come from? Students should still be counting, it is almost certainly too early to introduce base ten place value notation.

1.N.1.3 Represent? Come on! Would this committee like to define “represent” and send me a recording of the session. My suspicion is that, at least in mathematical terms, virtually nobody on that committee understands what they are talking about. To be specific, base 2 place value notation is a very natural way of representing numbers, as is base 3 or base 5. Is this what you mean. I hope not! Likewise what do you mean by read and write? I think what you mean is make the English sound for the symbol “5” or the symbol “7”, but this is virtually anti-mathematics. After all, the committee should know that the sounds in Spanish or German for these same symbols are completely different, but mathematically, they represent the same number.

1.N.1.8 Do you really mean “equivalence.” I think not. I think equivalence is far too sophisticated to even talk about before, at earliest, sixth or seventh grade. I think what you really want to say is “equality.” It does not speak well for the competence of this committee to make mistakes like this.

1.N.2.1 – 1.N.2.3: These three standards together are virtually identical to the single most criticized and ridiculed first grade standard in the Common Core. Please look at both John Stewart’s and Steven Colbert’s discussion of the Common Core mathematics standards for clarification.

1.N.3.1 I don’t know what you can mean here. Using physical models it seems very, very difficult to partition. But it is fairly easy to use physical models to construct polygons from equal pieces. There is a vast difference between partitioning and combining.

1.N.4 This is actually a very good section. The failure to handle coinage is one of the most glaring issues with the Common Core in the early grades.

1.GM.1.1: Probably too advanced for first grade. See my comments above.

1.GM.2.2: As written, total nonsense. Length is absolute, it is the measurement of length that depends on the size of the unit. Get it? There is a distinction between the mathematical concept length, and the particular ways in which one might assign a number to that length.

3) Grade 2.

2.A1.1, 2.A1.2 Same issues as with the corresponding first grade standards.

2.A.2.2 What on earth is “number sense?” What does it mean to say “Introduction to properties, but not mastery of vocabulary.” After all, vocabulary is not mathematics. Properties probably are. The test is whether things change in different languages.

2.N.1.1 “Read, write, discuss, and represent.” Read, write and discuss do not have any mathematical significance. And I think that instead of represent a number you mean the reverse, determine the number that represents the cardinality of a small finite set.

2.N.1.5 “emphasis on understanding how to round instead of memorizing the rules for rounding.” How to round is a sequence of (somewhat arbitrary) rules so this completely confuses me.

2.N.2.1 Amazingly like 1.N.2.1 – 1.N.2.3, and it will and should be soundly criticized.

2.N.2.2 is way too low level for second grade. It is more appropriate for Kindergarten or first grade.

2.N.2.4 seems to be a way of suggestion practice with the standard algorithms for addition and subtraction without mentioning the terms. It would really be simpler to just say “Use the standard algorithms to add and subtract two and three digit numbers.”

2.N.3.1 It might be too soon to introduce fractions. Also, as usual, the committee has reversed the meaning of represent.

Much of grade three appears to be too advanced, comprising material that us usually done in the fourth grade, even in the high achieving countries.

4) In the middle grades, the standards do not emphasize the teaching and learning of standard formulas for the computation of area of various geometric shapes, etc. Instead, the standards seem to emphasize students inventing their own formulas. (Inventing formulas may have value for advanced students after they have learned thoroughly the standard formulas).

This does not bother me so much, though it would be helpful if you were to give me examples of specific standards. Then I could comment more accurately. Overall, I felt that the fifth sixth and seventh grade standards were better than average for the states, though the coverage of ratios and rates (particularly rates) was somewhat skimpy. There should have been much more attention paid to problems involving motion at constant speed and flow at constant rates. This is what is done in the high achieving countries. Moreover, these kinds of problems occur much earlier there than in this country and by sixth grade are far more involved than anything our kids will see at least until pre-calculus.

Of course there are still problems in these grades. For example, look at 7.N.2.3. It has already been pointed out that the rational numbers include integers, fractions, terminating decimals, and, moreover, that every rational number expands as an ultimately periodic infinite decimal. Moreover, every ultimately periodic infinite decimal is a rational number, though this is NOT CLEARLY STATED. But assume this early standard has been fixed so students are expected to understand this characterization of rational numbers.

For fractions ONE HAS THE DEFINITION OF ADDITION (SUBTRACTION) 
a/b ± c/d = (ad ± bc)/bd. And the only known “algorithm” is to apply this definition directly. It is also known that for arbitrary infinite decimals there is not and cannot be any efficient and finite algorithm for any of the 4 basic operations. Thus, we must conclude that 7.N.2.3 is simply incorrect and must be entirely revised.

Also, consider 7.GM.3.1. This purports to give definitions of area and volume. But both are incorrect since it is usually impossible to even exactly fill even a reasonably nice three dimensional region such as a triangular prism with cubes without gaps or overlaps.

Indeed, one is virtually forced to talk about limits when discussing volume and area, but limits are far beyond the expectations for seventh grade, even in the high achieving countries. 7.GM.3.1 needs to be completely rethought and revised.

When we get to Algebra, things start to go south again. But most of the issues I’ve found are also present in the Common Core which appears to be very (probably too) similar. For example, look at PA.N.1.3.

It is also important to note that key topics that are even present in Common Core (which is famously devoid of any discussion of pre-calculus, calculus, as well as a lot of standard material in Algebra II, trigonometry and even geometry) are not present at all in these draft standards. Thus, except for one mention of right triangle trigonometry in the introduction to the Oklahoma Standards for Geometry, there is no discussion of trigonometry at all, and there are only two mentions of rational functions (A2,F.1.8 and A2.F.1.9). 

Likewise the only mention of matrices occurs in A2.N.3.1 - A2.N.3.3, and even the weak discussion of matrices in Common Core is far better than this.

6) To answer the argument that not all students desire to enter STEM majors or elite universities, I suggest that Oklahoma high schools offer three diploma tracks for mathematics:

1) Work-Ready Diploma (students not going to college: minimum of Algebra II).
2) General College-Ready Diploma (students going to community or state colleges: minimum of Pre-Calculus/Trigonometry).
3) Elite College/STEM-Ready Diploma (students desiring to attend elite universities or to enter STEM majors: minimum of Calculus I).

Agreed, but where does this argument appear?

UPDATED! Calling All Green T-Shirts! Oklahoma's New State Educational Standards Are Public - Please Comment

Who could forget the heady days of the Green Shirts as we descended upon the state capitol in droves to stomp out Common Core!? As we said then, eventually our new state standards would be finished and we would ask you to read them and respond with your thoughts, ideas and SPECIFIC comments.

Unfortunately, there is no place set up on the State Department of Education website under the page created for the new standards, to write in comments. Therefore, here's what we would like you to do ASAP. 

Please go to the link to the new standards on the OSDE website. Read as many standards as you feel you can possibly comment on reasonably. Come back to this blog and, using the COMMENTS section, write in anything you would like legislators, the OSDE and the public to know about your thoughts on the new standards.

ALSO PLEASE NOTE: There is a place to make comment on the standards through these links:

Math Standards comments click here
ELA Standards comments click here

The more SPECIFIC the comments, the more helpful they'll be. For example:

Regarding standard K.DP.1. (Apply mathematical actions and processes to collect and organize data to make it useful for interpreting information); it seems less than obvious how we're going to direct KINDERGARTEN students to understand a Venn diagram and also understand graphs and data - even at the very smallest categories. This seems a disproportionately hard topic for this age group. This is concerning because there is no map including tested standards. If a teacher doesn't teach her kindergarten students how to read a Venn Diagram, will she be counted down on her Teacher Assessment or will the child miss a similarly rooted question on an exam (the score for which the teacher is responsible)? Jenni White, President, Restore Oklahoma Public Education.

(Please make sure you list your name and your title if you have one, even if that's "parent" or "teacher") 

Donna Garner, former Department of Education employee under George Bush, and education activist, suggests Oklahomans categorize standards into 5 observations. These are:

1. Knowledge-based (fact based) 
2. Academic
3. Specific for each grade level Pre-K through Grade 12
4. Explicit and clearly worded
5. Grows in depth and complexity from one grade level to the next grade level
6. Measurable with mostly objectively scored test questions

Here are some links to help you check the new Oklahoma standards against the Common Core State Standards:

Common Core State Standards for MathCommon Core State Standards for English/Language ArtsKey Shifts in Mathematics (Common Core)

Here's the link to the text of the bill to stop Common Core; HB3399

If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll do my best to direct your efforts in order to make them most helpful to all interested parties; jenni@RestoreOkPublicEducation.com

Thank you for your efforts in this IMPORTANT endeavor!

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

ACT Is Not The Way...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student's Scores Low Under New State Test

College and Career Prep To Start In The Third Grade

Letters To Copy And Paste For Governor Fallin - PLEASE SIGN HB3399

As many of you know, HB3399 (the repeal and replacement of Common Core) passed from both the Oklahoma House and Senate by an overwhelming majority Friday the 23rd.  Shortly thereafter, the legislature went Sine Di.  Governor Fallin has until June 7 to sign HB3399 to sign the bill into law.  If she chooses not to act, the bill will die by pocket veto.

We must begin IMMEDIATELY to ask our Governor to sign this bill into law.  Toward that end, we have written two separate letters. One is for Oklahomans to use and the other may be used by anyone outside the state who would like to participate.

Here's what we would like for you to do:

1. Copy and paste the letter of your choice (you can modify them or write your own as well) into an email.
2. Send it to Mary.Fallin@gov.ok.gov
3. CC it to this address pleasesignHB3399@mail.com so that we can keep track of the number of emails sent
4. If you live in Oklahoma, please also CC your state Representative and Senator so there is a record of the correspondence
5. If you live outside the state, please identify your state in your correspondence

Please pass this information on.  The more letters we can get to her, the better off we'll be. Also, please send your emails prior to WED. MAY 28th if possible, so we have time to print them out and give them to her if need be.

If you have any trouble with the email listed, you can also contact Governor Fallin through the Contact page on the state website.  There is a place into which you can copy and paste your email.

Thank you so very much for helping us with this mission!  We truly must prevail!
*If you have trouble copying and pasting from this blog, try this page on our website.

IN STATE LETTER:

Dear Governor Fallin,

No matter how disparate their circumstances or ideologies, parents across the state of Oklahoma come into agreement over the desire for their children to receive an excellent education.  A truly excellent education must include high standards and expectations, as these factors allow students to develop knowledge and habits to carry them into their adult lives possessing an ability to do anything – be anything – they want to be. 

Study after study has shown a truly excellent education to be that provided at the most local level to the student.  Beyond a child’s parent, no one knows their educational strengths and weaknesses better than their teacher and no one is more equipped to provide a child the tools they need to succeed than their classroom educator working in tandem with parents.

December of last year, you restated your desire for all Oklahoma children to have just that kind of excellent education through Executive Order 2013-40.  As Governor of our great state, you recognize the ingenuity, wisdom and resourcefulness Oklahomans possess, as these traits are the pistons in one of the strongest economic engines in the nation.  Clearly, Oklahomans have the aptitude for creating educational standards and tests to mirror our great economic success. 

Unfortunately, Oklahoma succumbed to federal overreach of our standards and tests once we chose to accept a No Child Left Behind waiver and with it, standards and tests created outside the state, promoted by the Department of Education.

May 23^rd, HB3399 passed the House and Senate with wide majorities.  This bill echoes your desire for all Oklahoma students to have an education utilizing high educational standards and tests developed here in Oklahoma.  HB3399 recognizes that without developmentally appropriate standards utilizing the best, most widely recognized educational methods, Oklahoma’s students cannot succeed.  Beyond returning control of educational standards and testing to the local level, HB3399 also places the review and approval of new state-derived standards in the hands of the legislature and as such, back into the hands of the people of Oklahoma who know best how to serve and guide Oklahoma’s public education system.

Please sign HB3399.  Please allow Oklahoma the opportunity to lead the nation in development of the best, most comprehensive set of educational standards; standards by which we can educate Oklahoma students at the highest level in the country. 

Thank you for your time and immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

OUT OF STATE LETTER:

Dear Governor Fallin,

Oklahoma has the opportunity to set a national precedent – that of breaking the hold over local education exhibited by the Common Core State Standards Initiative.  Please do so by signing HB3399.

Since the federal Department of Education began promoting the Common Core via State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top grants, as well as the No Child Left Behind waivers, it has been virtually impossible for individual states who accepted any of these programs to retain local control over their educational standards and tests.  This has translated into, not only parental confusion and frustration over testing and assignments, but isolation from their ability to control and direct the education of their child.

While nearly all parents desire and expect educational excellence for their children, this cannot come without parental input and parent/teacher interaction.  When teachers spend more time on testing than classroom instruction, students flounder and the bond between teacher, student and parent becomes fragile.  Learning is not imparted via testing, but teaching.  The desire for their children to exhibit critical thinking is also nearly universal among parents, yet critical thinking skills are not mastered during protracted periods at a computer that better judges how well a child has mastered the use of electronics than has been educated by their own local teacher inside their local classroom.

Though my family does not reside in Oklahoma, like Oklahoma, our state adopted the Common Core State Standards.   As many Oklahoma families, our family has experienced the frustration of isolation from our children’s educational process set into motion by implementation of the Common Core.

With your signature on HB3399, you not only allow Oklahoma to create those standards and tests best suited for Oklahoma parents and children, but you set a precedent for our state to follow in creating and adopting our own local standards; those best for our state.   By signing HB3399 you not only become a hero to Oklahoma parents and educators, but you provide hope for those in my state as well. 

Please sign HB3399.  Put public education back into the hands of those whom best it serves – parents and students.

Sincerely,

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