In Oklahoma, Both Legislators AND Citizens Can File To Stop Property Taxes

In our LIVE podcast with Oklahoma Representative Jay Steagall, Michael and Jenni talked about how to remove the scourge of liberty that is property taxes. (YouTube, Rumble) Truly, if your home can be taken from you by the government for non-payment of taxes, the Founders of this country may well have not created a Constitution at all. Our entire system of government is predicated on individual liberty and there is no liberty if a citizen is simply renting his property from the government and cannot own the results of his own industry. In this clip, Jay tells us that both lawmakers and citizens can work to place a question on the ballot that would remove the allowance for collection of property taxes from the Oklahoma Constitution. As was discussed throughout the LIVE video (found under the LIVE tab on this channel) was the fact that, a use tax is a far better tax than the UNCONSTITUTIONAL collection of EITHER property taxes or income taxes and both of these must be removed from Oklahoma citizens as the burden to individual liberty that they are.

What On Earth Could Be Wrong With Student Activism?

Though it definitely frustrated me to see teachers leave their classrooms and picket the legislature for more taxpayer funding of public education - shutting down some schools for as many as two full weeks - the level of activism displayed by high school students on this issue bothered me more.

On A Personal Note....

From 2008 until 2014, I spent huge chunks of time reading, studying, writing, lobbying and posting to social media about issues surrounding government - particularly public education and Common Core. 

Last year, as readers of this blog well remember, Oklahoma legislators were persuaded to STOP Common Core. Following this seeming victory, a large group of educationally-associated organizations (whom you might have thought would have the students/parents best interest in mind) spent tens of thousands of dollars to convince the Governor to veto the bill. Fortunately, the Governor signed the bill, only to have several members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education sue to reinstate Common Core based upon an incorrect interpretation of the Oklahoma Constitution. After the bill was found to be Constitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the next challenge became how to stop individual schools from using Common Core anyway. 

As it turned out, there was no real enforcement mechanism in the original law to stop Common Core in Oklahoma (HB3399), as I have subsequently found is the case with many, many laws written by Oklahoma legislators. This meant that the only way to make schools comply became a convoluted process of involving one's district attorney and the local school board - a labored task the vast majority of disgruntled individuals chose not to pursue. As far as ROPE is aware to date, no district attorney filed charges against any school district in Oklahoma for utilizing Common Core though state law prevented them from doing so. So much for state law being the final word on Common Core. 

Though all of us involved in the stop Common Core fight in Oklahoma knew there was much more to the process of stopping Common Core (and the persistent federal overreach into public education) than passing a single law, it became almost immediately clear how far we still had to go. By October, I had written a blog detailing Seven Reasons Why Common Core Repeal In Oklahoma Isn't. Every day there seemed something new on the horizon to thwart our efforts. It became very discouraging to have worked so hard to seemingly accomplish so much only to find a very small dent had been made in the task of restoring local control of education and putting parents back in charge of their children's educations.

During the years we fought Common Core, I often became discouraged. I would complain bitterly when our efforts seemed futile and all of us threatened to quit more than once, but something always drove my personal efforts forward. As a Christian, I believe that impetus was God. I literally felt compelled to continue the fight no matter how discouraged I/we became and I firmly believe I was right because shortly after our 'win', I began feeling pulled away from ROPE and my work there.

Unlike most of my middle-aged counterparts, my husband David and I not only have a 32-year-old married daughter, but 3 kids (13, almost 13 and 10) still at home who are home-educated. Over the last three years I've not only homeschooled the kids while working ROPE issues, I've added poultry farming and working our homestead's very large garden to the schedule. Unfortunately, it got to the point where something had to give. Also unfortunately, this was most often my time with the kids; dropping them off at Mimi's or various friends homes while I traveled to the Capitol or across the state making presentations. Obviously, this was neither an optimal nor a tenable situation.

Last fall, Lynn (Habluetzel, ROPE's Vice-President) and I made the decision that I would sit back this year while she and our friend Ralph Crawford (now running for State Representative!) took over the lobbying efforts at the Capitol. I would still continue to write and research as I could, but for the most part, I would concentrate on home matters. 

Since that time, I've been astonished at how busy I've been. I've tried valiantly to set aside time for reading, research and writing, but it's been harder and harder as the months go by. In fact, it makes me feel a bit guilty in retrospect. If I've been THIS busy with home matters since November, how much was my family getting shortchanged by my constant physical and mental absences (yes, I was home, but saying, "Just a minute, Sam" 12 times because I 'needed' to finish a blog didn't count as actual mom availability)? 

Now able to look back over several months of 'absence', I can make a number of observations with surety:

• It took HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS to research and piece together information before writing anything of substance about policies, laws or initiatives; I'd wake up scouring my email, Facebook posts and education journals for information and go to bed late into the night writing about what I'd read. It didn't take long to realize that the public education establishment and Federal government are BOMBARDING the public with more and more and more programming, laws, initiatives and policies so hard and so fast that NO ONE CAN KEEP UP. I'm certain it's meant to be this way because it's easy for government to do anything they want when no one can keep watch. This was part of the reason we'd be disheartened so often - we simply COULDN'T KEEP UP with every law and every initiative and every program being churned out by the government and the state education establishment.
• Public Education (in any state) has so much concurrent jurisdiction that there is no way for any school to rise above the reporting required for so many different policies, procedures; regulations and laws. The education of children has long since past being the real reason public schools operate. Now, public schools exist to be arms of the state, recording data on children in order to justify yet another expensive program to cure every ill only destined to fail because the real issue stifling public education and sucking away parental rights and local control - concurrent jurisdiction - was never even considered in the equation. 
• The federal government has ZERO Constitutional authority in state education, yet elected officials and State Department of Education employees either have no clue what the Constitution says, have no backbone to stand against their edicts and/or don't care about the Constitution because they just want whatever money comes with "fill-in-the-blank" program in order to make it sound as though they have the right to force kids to take tests and tell parents they're in charge of their child's education.
• IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, THE STATUS QUO WILL ALWAYS BE THE STATUS QUO. This was a tough one for me and I didn't figure this out until just last year. It doesn't matter for whom you vote, the bureaucracy/staff set up by the predecessor of the office will, many times, still be in place, virtually ensuring the change for which you voted will never come. Here it's important to remember that, many, MANY employees of the state are brought in by department heads or appointed by elected officials. Regular voting taxpayers have absolutely no say in their hiring, yet these people persist in their jobs carrying forward the ideals and programs of elected officials past. Oklahoma's State Longitudinal Database is run by such an individual though our new superintendent is well aware of our concerns.
• It matters not how much you study, how many other researchers or individuals agree, or how much other work has proven you right, statists will always believe they know better than 'the people' how best to run their lives and govern in that direction. If you have the unmitigated gall to object to that philosophy, you'll be called a "tin foil hat", marginalized, ridiculed and/or ignored. The only way to affect real change is to bring hundreds of people to the Capitol with you dressed in big ugly green shirts and even then the results are iffy.
• Parents, for the most part, seem to care less what is happening to their kids. Parents have jobs, they have lives, they are single mothers and dads just scraping by - whatever the reason - by and large, parents let their schools get away with murder without uttering even the slightest whimper. When you try and bring their attention to all the bad stuff happening in public education today, it's NOT IN MY SCHOOL, it's always somewhere else. Even if they do get it and try to do something about it, the layers and layers of bureaucracy tie them up to the point that many finally either just throw up their hands and pull their kids out or give up and take it. 
• Without a large majority of parents willing to educate themselves on the state and central government Constitutions, their parental rights and options outside of public school, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. One or two people can't 'fix it' for everyone else. It takes a long sustained effort by many to create real change in the system and if people aren't interested in affecting their government, NOTHING WILL BE EFFECTED. 

Those were just a few of the things I've learned about public education. These are some things I've learned about life:

• You can't turn back time - the time I have with my kids can't be 'refunded' at an ATM - and who wants to leave middle schoolers without CONSTANT supervision anyway?
• My kids will only be receptive to my leadership for a short amount of time and then I've lost the ability to affect their lives in truly meaningful ways. 
• I didn't realize how much time I actually devoted to ROPE until I started devoting more time to the kids, house and farm. Looking back, I have no idea (other than the hand of God) how I was actually able to keep my home, or farm, or ANYTHING together while working simultaneously.
• You can't 'fix it' for everyone else. There need to be MANY others willing to put in just as much time on a coordinated effort in order to create real change in the system.

And so, there you have it. Sadly, I am fully and completely convinced that our system of public education - in fact our whole system of bloated anti-Constitutional government - will finally, eventually, collapse under its own weight and I'm simply unwilling to sacrifice anymore huge chunks of my family's life to propping up these failed systems. Does that mean I'll quit writing, researching and activism? No, but I'll do what I can fit around my family's schedule now - as should you - but until more people wake up to what's going on, I've got turkeys that need feeding and kids that need learning, first.

Who Says Parents Can't Opt Out?

Today I received a copy of a letter sent to school districts by OSSBA (Oklahoma State School Board Association) entitled "Standardized Testing A Reference Guide For Oklahoma School Districts".

OSSBA is a private organization of education administration officers/officials and to us, it was an evident perspective. There's nothing wrong with this - OSSBA has a job to do. So do we. 

After reading the document, it seemed to us very geared toward having school officials believe that opting out of state tests was not a good idea. To their credit, this document did not at all attempt to pit school officials against parents - the state and federal government are doing that. Let's be VERY CLEAR on that topic. Though we have disagreed with OSSBA on occasion - especially where Common Core was concerned - there is a layer of oversight by the federal government through NCLB and via state law that automatically puts school officials on the opposite side of the fence from parents.

The 'Guide' speaks directly to the new Parents Bill of Rights law passed last year as "complicating" the issue of testing opt out. WE AGREE, but not in the way you might think. Here's the issue.

The state legislature mandates schools follow specific laws. The state school board - according to the Oklahoma State Constitution - has the right to promulgate rules based on the laws the legislature writes (and other items within their control) for schools to follow. Each individual district has a school board that also provides direction for schools. On top of this disastrous education dump cake, the state ALLOWS the federal government to become involved in the manner in which it educates its students by signing up for grants/programs that not only provide money to the state education coffers, but also tells us how to spend that money. 

Are you getting the point? TOO MANY LAYERS - TOO MANY LAWS.

Let me give you a very good example. We are told in the OSSBA document (page 3 Compulsory Attendance)

It is unlawful for a parent, guardian, or other person having custody of a child who is over the age of five (5) years, and under the age of eighteen (18) years, to neglect or refuse to cause or compel such child to attend and comply with the rules of SOME public, private or other school, unless other means of education are provided for the full term the schools of the district are in session.

Now, here's what the Oklahoma Constitution says about Compulsory Attendance: 

The Legislature shall provide for the compulsory attendance at some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided, of all the children in the State who are sound in mind and body, between the ages of eight and sixteen years, for at least three months in each year. 

Did anyone notice anything odd? The Constitution says that we don't educate children under 8 or over 16, yet the piece of code cited by OSSBA says 5 to 18. Which is correct? The Constitution trumps code and the Constitution can't be changed without a Constitutional amendment process. Why hasn't anyone brought this to court? Why hasn't anyone appeared to even notice this disparity?

Here's the bottom line. Section 1B of HB1384 (The Parents' Bill of Rights) says,

This state, any political subdivision of this state or any other governmental entity shall NOT infringe on the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, EDUCATION, health care and mental health of their children without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.

Section 2A of HB1384 says,

ALL parental rights are reserved to a parent of a minor child WITHOUT obstruction or interference from this state, any political subdivision of this state, or any other institution, including but not limited to, the following rights: 1. The right to direct the EDUCATION of the minor child.

And so it's true. This is not an easy issue - bureaucracy has seen to that - but it's one that must be dealt with and it's one that has been decided by the Oklahoma legislature. No matter how many contracts the state of Oklahoma has entered into with testing companies, the federal government or other entities, the RIGHT OF THE PARENT trumps. Certainly, the state - or private citizens - are welcomed to take any of these issues to court for decision, but I would simply adjure the state to recognize the right of parents and modify existing laws to meet that standard. 

What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You - Accurate US History Must Be Taught

Our first paper was entitled, "Common Core State Standards; An Introduction to Marxism 101". That paper - and our subsequent arguments that Common Core amounted to socialized education - earned us the ire of the Daily Oklahoman (and others).  In fact, ROPE began as an organization devoted to increasing student knowledge of the Constitution and accurate US History, which, quite apparently, we do not have in Oklahoma, as a rule, today.

Recently, the College Board (under the guidance of David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core State Standards) has decided to revise their AP US History curricula and tests.  Fortunately, this has created a furor from many quarters, not the least of those our friends at American Principles Project - Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins who have a new editorial in Daily Caller:

To summarize, the private College Board is rewriting its AP courses, starting with AP U.S. History (APUSH).  The new APUSH framework departs radically from the traditional AP course and now reflects a progressive philosophy and leftist bias. Forget the Founding Fathers and the principles of the Declaration of Independence that proclaimed the natural right of freedom and self-government; concentrate instead on the racist cultural imperialism that supposedly built America.

Why does this matter? Why in the world should we care about David Coleman, Howard Zinn, the Centers for American Progress, or any of the other active, involved, progressive/liberal organizations pushing a 'kinder, gentler view of America' in public schools to color, or even discard, historical truth in favor of something more palatable within the confines of our new Politically Correct society?

Because once we refuse to understand that our rights are granted to us by God (or are inherently our own once we are born if you oppose the 'religious' viewpoint) and not man (via Government), we become SUBJECTS and not FREE MEN. Once we begin to stop reading/studying US History for ourselves - including and mainly our Constitution - we become ignorant of the way our government works and how our rights are to be UPHELD by the government and not usurped. In fact, once individuals become ignorant of our rights, for all intent and purpose, we have none because as the government grows unchecked by the citizenry it is meant to protect (not govern), we can only become less and less free. Once we become ignorant of what the Constitution says, what the Founders meant it to say and the arguments surrounding why it says what it does, we aren't knowledgeable enough to know truth when we're faced with deception.

I'll give you an example. Not long ago I was at a meeting with someone I really admire, when we began to say the Pledge of Allegience to open the meeting. As we began the line, "One nation under God", I was surprised to hear him recite, "One confederacy under God." As soon as the Pledge was over, I asked him why he changed the wording from "nation" to "confederacy". He told me he believed this part of the pledge (added about 50 years ago when Communism was a significant issue worldwide) was included not simply to instill patriotism in the face of Communism, but to break down the notion of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution - to make people feel as though we're all one big country; one big mass of citizenry, not individual persons. 

Because America is a confederacy of states that only come together under the umbrella of the federal government to promote the general welfare of the states through the 20 Enumerated Powers held forth in the Constitution, we can't be a nation. America is simply a group of states, yet how many of us actually know that? Goodness knows our state and federal lawmakers don't appear to. 

Though I've studied up on the Constitution (in fact, the kids and I are to be taking a Constitution class right now), my friend's analysis hit me like a ton of bricks. I'd never thought of that. Why? Because I didn't know enough to consider this idea.

My gosh, I think of all the times I sang "This Land Is Your Land" in Girl Scouts, and though we never sang the really controversial lyrics, it bothers me to this day to know Woody Guthrie's thoughts about America - those to which I don't subscribe. Looking back I wonder how so many of us don't recognize the absolute stunning nature of the development of this country, what it's done for other nations around the world (would Japan have recovered from WWII without us? What about Europe?) and what a stabilizing force it's been in relation to Communism and other threats to liberty all over the world - how it's provided a nation of individuals who can possess and amass more personal goods and wealth than any other two countries put together.

Granted, it's hard to find time to study the Constitution - or even find reputable sources for study - however, it is up to us as individual citizens to know our rights and responsibilities as citizens; and if you believe simply voting covers them, you need knowledge most.

Unfortunately, today, messaging is everything and most people still get their news from main media sources (including FOX news). Because we don't know the Constitution and we aren't sure of the way state and federal governments should work, we get 'suckered' into believing things like national healthcare or national educational standards (Common Core) are good (this article by Bill Evers of the Hoover Institution - part of his testimony to the Ohio state legislature against Common Core - is wonderful in this regard, please read!). These notions are made to sound good - made to influence people who are ignorant of the way American government SHOULD function under the Constitution - so much so, in fact, that those of us who bang the Constitution drum are now called names as part of that messaging campaign.

The world has become a busy place for people - parents especially - but, as sad as it is to say, baseball practice and soccer games should be taking a backseat to understanding and study of America's form of government. If we don't, America will end as Rome, sure as history repeats itself when forgotten.

Common Core Repeal Is...Political?

Since the repeal of Common Core in Oklahoma, I have noticed a spate of articles/editorials advancing the talking point that its demise was POLITICAL.

Here is a favorite - "Politics Are Crushing The Standards" by Dave Powell, a professor at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania.

My guess is that they fear the common core not because it represents a "federal takeover" of education, but because it might allow us to draw true comparisons between the educational performance of students in different states—comparisons that cannot be so easily explained away....For all their limitations, standards at least hold the promise of bringing real accountability to the people who, for too long, have made rules and regulations about education without ever being held responsible for providing the resources needed to make their endless pronouncements a reality.

And another favorite - this time from the Chamber of Commerce Foundation - "Oklahoma Puts Politics Before Students".  This one is really rich because it is attached to a 'pledge' that you can sign to 'pledge' your support for "college- and career-ready standards".  It's also a perfect example of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.  Yes, Chamber, we realize YOU have not used Bill Gates money to put pressure on the Oklahoma legislature and Governor to get them to PASS AND KEEP Common Core; it's only us poor parents that are engaging in a political battle.

These articles got my blood up and made me want to know exactly how politics is defined.  So what is politics?  I looked up the definition in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary.  The first subset of definitions was:

a :  the art or science of government

b :  the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c :  the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

Though I was surprised at how many forms of politics there have been invented (identity politics, power politics, party politics…), after looking at the entire page of definitions, I began to wonder if something hadn’t been overlooked.  The government of the United States was created by the Constitution.  The first line of the Constitution reads,

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.”

Every shot fired in the “War against the Core” has been fired by regular, plain old, “we the people” citizenry.  The parents crowding into forums on Common Core lead by citizens themselves, or staying up half the night researching the initiative on their own because they are dealing with kids crying over math homework for which they can provide no help, are not power brokers who can afford lobbyists, three color mailers or 30 second spots on CNN.  These are ‘We the People’.  If these are ‘We the People’, how do they become ‘political’ simply for entering the political arena – defined as the art/science of government.

I guess this is where I disagree with good old Mirriam-Webster.  Citizens can’t ‘guide’ or ‘influence’ governmental policy – THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT.  “We the People” ARE the government.  How can you influence yourself or win and/or hold control over a government when you ARE the government.

The Chamber of Commerce is NOT the government.  They, like so many organizations of the same ilk, are a body formed to DILUTE the effect of ‘We the People’.  Instead of accepting that each ‘People’ is the government (through their elected representation) and that individuals have the power of the government as stated in the Constitution, they have found that influencing government ‘People’ through large sums of money provides greater results.  This is the influencing and controlling of government officials that has come to be called politics.

Sadly, because we call a thing something, it becomes that thing it is called.  Today, people truly believe they have no power in their own government because they don’t understand the concept of “We the People”.  In fact, it’s almost bizarre to some folks that individuals can influence their government.

Some months ago I was interviewed by Motoko Rich of the New York Times.  Our initial conversation went something like this:

MR: So, Jenni, how do you support ROPE?

JW: Out of our own pockets.

MR: Oh, so you have corporate sponsors.

JW: No, we use our own personal funds.

MR: Ohhh, so you get grants and loans.

JW: No, whatever we have in our personal bank accounts we spend.

MR: I see, so you have private donors.

JW: Yes, his name is David White.

After I said that, Rich gave a sort of forced laugh and set out on the quest for another answer, but I felt like I’d been waterboarded.  It was entirely clear Motoko Rich had no idea what it meant to be a “We the People”.  She only related to ‘politics’ as the process of money and power influencing the course of government.

I hope that the three very large fights won this year in Oklahoma (passing HB3399 and repealing Common Core, electing a new superintendent and winning a lawsuit against the bill) – not with the help of lobbyists or money or influence other than being “We the People” – will allow people to believe in the concept.  I hope “We the People” will now rise and commit to the jobs we’ve neglected for so long, BEING THE GOVERNMENT.

NATIONALIZATION = HOMOGENIZATION or Common Core Kills School Choice

Today, I hear that Eric Cantor "...Hits Critics of Expanding School Choice".

This was interesting as I was given to understand that school choice was dead.  Hadn't heard that?  Take it from me - it's true!

How exactly are we going to offer students anything different - anything outside of Common Core - at any given public school in America?  How?  Forty-seven states have signed on to the Common Core.  Countless publishers and technology providers are pushing out countless materials all aligned with the Common Core, making it nearly impossible for anyone to find educational materials outside that sphere.  All state tests (at least 47 of them) - and now the ACT - will be geared to the standards.  All curricula is being written to align with the Common Core, essentially forcing all educational outcomes to be more or less the same.  Isn't that what nationalization of anything strives to do?  Where is the choice? 

It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to produce an orange from the union of two pears.  Why is this concept so hard to understand?

Oh, yes, I guess you could CHOOSE to move your kid to a newer school across town - we humans always seem to believe new = better - but I remember hearing about a number of brand new schools built in rough areas of towns (to the tune of several million taxpayer dollars) that not only continue to fight vandalism but still-slumping student performance. 

Yes, sadly, you can change the building, but changing the building doesn't change the kids - good parents and teachers change kids.  Maybe someday taxpayers will recognize that and finally stop voting for bond issues that raise their property taxes to create pretty buildings that still continue to churn out marginally prepared/educated students.

Maybe a school across town feels like a safer option for your child.  Great, move him there.  You will get the same type curricula to fulfill the same set of standards with very little wiggle room as everyone has to pass the state tests in order to make sure their schools are graded C or above in order to prevent a state takeover of that school (yes, that is a good question, what IS the function of the local school board anymore?).  Your child will also have countless points of data collected on him as he sits in his seat, which will most probably stored in a 'cloud' somewhere, which will most likely be auctioned off to the highest technology bidder who will then produce educational materials from that data, that will collect even more intrusive data about your child.

Eric Cantor

...chided President Barack Obama for not including new money for the D.C. voucher program in his budget requests. (The administration has generally focused on funding existing slots, not bringing in many new students, despite what the program's supporters see as overwhelming demand.) 

He then said

"School choice is a threat to the status quo," Cantor said. "School choice protects families and children, not bureaucracies."

It is this kind of double-speak - this kind of ignorance of the way education and the Constitution works - that drives those that consider themselves 'conservatives' over the edge.

According to Cantor, Americans must go to the federal government to provide money (mother may I) to create educational programming for the communities found inside our states, and that situation will then create parental choice at the local level.  Seriously?  I can hardly even write that with a straight face!  Cantor must not be familiar with the conservative notion that government functions best closest to those that support and (ostensibly) benefit from it (taxpayers). 

This ignorance is exactly the reason legislators DO create the very bureaucracies they claim to hate that serve us up Common Core (and the other nationalized standards - and the associated data mining) and then feel good about telling parents and taxpayers that this method provides CHOICE in education.  Until legislators (and taxpayers!) themselves become educated about how government works, we will keep getting the same ignorant pontifications about the same ignorant (and liberty-sucking) government we have now, tomorrow. 

More on the Core or Yet Again, Common Core is Not OK!

There seems to be a compunction to continue dissecting the reasons why Common Core is not OK.  This morning, I chose to tackle a few:

STANDARDS DO NOT DRIVE CURRICULA

Yes and no.

Yes.  Teachers are free to pick and choose curricula with the Common Core (just as they were with PASS) for use in their classrooms.

No.  When you have a state test over standards that now determine whether or not a local  school will be managed by the State Department of Education should it fall below a D or F grade on an unproven grading scale - you must be very careful to use specific curricula aligned with the specific standards.  Therefore, there is no way to get around the fact that standards do drive curricula to some extent.  Not only that, but because Common Core is now the law of the land for so many states, curricula (especially in math) has become extremely homogeneous.  Economics drives that issue.  Booksellers can't compete in the marketplace if their books are too very different than what teachers expect to teach to the standards.  There's a great letter written by a book publisher who lives in Oklahoma that can explain this and you can find his written testimony to the Common Core Interim Study here http://www.scribd.com/doc/181696903/Written-Testimony-of-Andrew-Pudewa-to-Common-Core-Interim-OK.

EDUCATION CAN BE MANAGED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

The Founders of this country meant for education to be localized.  In fact, I understand that in order for new states to be admitted to the union after the original 13, incoming states had to present a plan for the education of their citizens.  Students in different Oklahoma counties/districts may not have been all on the same educational path in the past.  Why should they have been, or be so now?  Ada is not Tulsa; Oklahoma City is not Woodward.  District taxpayers support their schools.  School board members are elected by taxpayers from their district/community.  Board members have an obligation - through those they serve - to create schools that reflect the values and needs of that community.  That is not to say we should not have state standards to model or even a yearly state test to assess student progress, but those mechanics are not the micromanagement of education we are seeing today with the Common Core.


ARE COMMON CORE STANDARDS NECESSARY?


It is interesting to note that when the Fordham Institute - a very pro-Common Core organization - chose to examine each state's standards against the Common Core, Oklahoma was given an excellent grade for their existing standards (http://standards.educationgadfly.net/).

So why would we need Common Core?  The answer lies in No Child Left Behind.  This FEDERAL law, forced states who wanted to continue to keep their Title funding (Titles 1-9) to accept the fact that they would have 100% of their state's students proficient (scoring 60 or above) in Mathematics and English/LA by 2014.

I often say this pie-in-the-sky edict that could only have originated with a very far out of touch federal government, only works when riding on a unicorn across a rainbow bridge.  Yet, it was made federal law.  Consequently, states began to dumb down their state tests (which stemmed from their state standards already in place) in order for students to more easily obtain a higher score.  This discrepancy finally came to light (ostensibly one possibility Superintendent Garrett chose not to run again) and upset lawmakers and parents, in Oklahoma and across the nation, alike.  Instead of realizing the real problem lay with a ridiculous, onerous edict in NCLB, a group of elite bureaucrats and businessmen stepped in to say they had the answer to failing schools all across the country.  But how could they?  Is Massachusetts really like Kansas?  What about Florida and Idaho?

Because government tends to favor those with the most money and those with the most money are able to message the loudest, the Common Core was sold to lawmakers as the greatest opportunity for students since the pencil.  That didn't make it so, it simply gave this group a louder voice. 

BUT OKLAHOMANS WERE INCLUDED IN THE WRITING OF THE STANDARDS

By now, many anti-Common Core organizations have shown that not only did the Common Core Standards writers not even have educational backgrounds (save one - Jason Zimba - in math), they did not even utilize comments from the committee they formed to help write the Standards, though we are told that even Oklahomans had a voice in writing the standards.  If several nationally known math and English professors (Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Dr. James Milgram) weren't heard, how were Oklahomans?

THE COMMON CORE ARE NOT FEDERAL IN NATURE

No, the Common Core were NOT federal in nature.  They were created by using private, dues-paid organizations unresponsive to the people to create and push the standards out.  However, the Obama Administration has taken the standards  (along with 3 other educational 'reform' ideas - here under Program Description http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html) and made them necessity for states to get State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, Race to the Top funding and the whole series of No Child Left Behind Waivers.  It would seem historically apparent (although completely incompatible with the US Constitution) that whatever Washington values, states become coerced in some way to adopt.  Consequently, this makes Common Core an historically unprecedented take over of education at the local level, generally incompatible with our Constitution.

So, to sum up, there are certainly good things about the Common Core - including many of the people involved - unfortunately, it is not appropriate for use in America today and certainly not Oklahoma.



*(See our previous blog for more citations and further reading http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/12/rope-response-to-gov-fallins-executive.html)

Liberty, Not Common Core; Liberty, Not Education Reform

I knew my post of yesterday would create a stir - I meant for it to. 

I believe without a doubt that Americans today do very little deep thinking on any topic other than who will win The Voice this season, sadly.  How can I say such a thing?  Look at the arts for example.  How many seats does a theater sell for a play versus the number of seats the a major league sports team sells for a single game?  How did we end up with 500 channels of television and yet the number of books being sold in a year has declined nearly exponentially over the course of the last 10 years.

As I showed my husband my previous post, he shook his head and said, "Yeah, well no one's gonna get it."

I figured as much when I began the post, but that doesn't mean I won't try.  He actually went on to wax philosophic on the topic with such excellent elocution I was embarrassed at my own oratory skills (that sentence was for my English teacher mom!).  What he said, in a nutshell, was that schools need only teach the Constitution, civics and the key concepts of LIBERTY to create a populace capable of throwing off the cloak of tyranny wherever and whenever it should rear its ugly head.  I got to thinking about that and I could not deny the absolute truth of that statement.  People who understand the concepts of liberty have thriving economies where the cream rises to the top and mediocrity is soon pushed down to the bottom of the barrel.  

Unfortunately, we don't have that anymore, and that is mostly because our liberal colleges warp history at all levels.  I saw this post this morning about how liberal college professors call Hitler (of all people) a member of the right wing.  How odd.  Who would even believe that nonsense?  I mean, he was the CREATOR of the National SOCIALIST Workers Party (NAZI).

I also saw this today.  A very short (1:48) YouTube of a professor from Hillsdale College talking about just this very warping of history and how it is happening under the Common Core.  We don't STUDY the Constitution, we just compare parts of it to other documents.  We don't expect kids to understand what it means, we simply want to pay it lip service as we slide down the slippery slope of government controlled education into the sea of socialism where everyone is COMMON yet no one understands the problem with this fact.

Then you have another article I read today about how the State Longitudinal Database basis - the Data Quality Campaign (an organization created and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to make sure that states are collected information on all American students) is going to have yet a new arm.  Yes, instead of just collecting information on all STUDENTS we will now start collecting data on all students in the WORKFORCE.  Gosh.  Have we really gone so far in America that we don't understand the ramifications of that?  Do we NOT understand anymore that we DON'T educate students for jobs?

After my post yesterday, I received an email from a dear friend of mine - Howard Houchen - a fellow political activist.  Though I've known him for years, I did NOT know that his Bachelor's degree was actually in Political Science with a major in Communist Studies.

I am closing this blog with his words because they were echoed by my husband and because they mean something.  I desperately hope they mean something to you:

If others don't get it, its not your fault -- you can't MAKE them understand the history nor its magnitude.  That's a big struggle for many of us.  I've said it a thousand time -- Face it, we're nerds!

To 99% of the every day average folks, communism died around 1991.  Communism, to them, was a set of countries, not a lasting ideology.  When these countries fell, these folks believed it was THAT act which spelled the demise of an ideology and so what if N.Korea and Cuba held on -- Weirdos.

Now, we (The good ole U.S. of A.) were the victors over Communism so why would anyone contemplate America EVER adopting any policy(s) which equaled communist policy(s)?  That would be "insane"!!!  Its how people think because of the inherent trust of government Americans have evolved to have.  In two generations, Americans have accepted government as protector and provider over self-sufficiency and reliance.  Maybe a bit reluctantly but, they've accepted it nonetheless.  

Those that have could care less about history or future consequences.  The media (the 4th Branch of Government) and government itself, possesses the ability to get to people EVERY day and EVERY hour with the message (twisted as it is) THEY want to spread -- by nature, Americans have become informationally lazy and despise having to work (search) for truth.   The average American mind has been conditioned to soak up the 'institutionalized' (ABC, NBC, CBS) information, not the alternative information.  

Its not your fault or my fault the masses are unable to see truth...it's their fault combined with a centralized effort to keep them in the dark and those centralized forces have ALL the really good cards to play with!

Do We Really Know What It Means to "Privatize" Education and Other Government Services?

The following is a commentary I wrote for my Facebook page this morning.  Last weekend I took part in an absolutely excellent workshop for a number of researchers, researching a number of different areas. It was very eye-opening to see how ANTI-REPUBLICAN governance is occurring across all spectra of government and how few people (including me!) really understand how pervasive this phenomenon is.

I will be writing some more well-researched (with links) blog posts on such topics as Technocracy, but today's post is more of a down-and-dirty, opinion piece.  I urge you, however, to "google" or "bing" or whatever you do - some of the topics and ideas I present here and see what you find.  We MUST begin to see our government as it is rapidly becoming - essentially Marxist, with rising Fascism components - or we will most certainly be lost.

--------------------------

Many national Republicans - (including Oklahoma Senator Clark Jolley) - want to privatize government services such as education and DHS.

Is privatizing public services BAD?  If so, how?

Yes, privatization of public government is BAD.  A Republic is governance of the people through members of the people elected to represent the populace using the force of law to protect them from their government.

When you PRIVATIZE government, you remove (shut out/eliminate) the voice of the people in the process. When government services are privatized, citizens PAY for services which exist in a private sector sphere, thereby eliminating 'free market' principles from working. A 'privatized' government agency can't fail because tax payers prop up it up to prevent that from happening. This produces ZERO oversight or accountability to the taxpayers who pay for the 'services'. This, a process directly akin to Fascism in many ways.

Senator Jolley wants to privatize DHS. Okay, let's say a DHS head is paid via public money, but is 'elected' to that position by a PRIVATE BOARD through what is called an appointment. Now, tax-payers little to no ability to call for his/her dismissal because he/she is under PRIVATE contract with an essentially private board.

Additionally, education in America according to the Founders, was to be PUBLIC so that ALL people - whether rich or poor - could take advantage of the ability to learn to read and to write in order to understand the Bible and the Constitution. Latin American (and many African) countries have PRIVATE education, which results in a situation in which much of the poor populace is never even able to be taught how to read and write.

This shift in 'consent of the governed' to 'governance' is completely antithetical to the Constitution. Those suggesting we should privatize government services in order for it to become more efficient are simply attempting to take complete control of government moving it from "consent of the governed" to "consent of the APPOINTED". Americans should NEVER consent to PRIVATIZED government, yet we have been lied to and told that this is better for all. I say NO to Fascism! How about you!?

--------------------------------------

 Here are a couple of examples I found in my inbox just today:

Politicians and Team Owners Snooker Sports Fans and Taxpayers

vouchers boo hiss

Bill Gates: Selling Bad Advice to the Public Schools

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution Not about education, but about exactly the idea we explain here.

Parents Need To Take A Greater Role in the Education of Your Children, But You Can't Because _______ (fill in the blank)

I've been meaning to write a post for a number of months now on a favorite soapbox topic of mine - Education Reform and the Role of the Parent.

When I first set out to try and 'right' perceived wrongs perpetrated on decent taxpaying citizens and parents through the public school system, I thought I was going to make quick headway.  I thought, if I talked long and hard enough (I guess), I could make people see how easily and simply all today's educational issues could be solved by moving education back to the local level.  Who, after all, more than a parent would want to see their student thrive in their education? 

I have been wrong about myriad things in my life, but about fewer things have I been more wrong.

I remember one of the first times I discussed a bill with a legislator and said something akin to, "Parents don't want that.", and I was told, "Parents don't know what they want."

I've also been told, "Too many parents out there today are doing a terrible job - someone has to take care of those kids."  "We all talk about local control - but local school boards are doing a terrible job." 

There was even a legislator this session who wanted to make ALL home schoolers provide their lesson plans and curricula to the state because she knew A family who was 'home schooling' their children because they couldn't manage to get the kids to school on time due to the fact that their crack habit created somewhat irregular hours. 

There is an old Chinese proverb that says, "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.  If you TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." 

Sadly, we have no idea how in the world to decipher this proverb anymore because humans have finally come to the point in history where legislation is written at EVERY level about EVERYTHING to protect EVERYONE from THEMSELVES.

No, there are no responsible home schoolers out there home schooling because there is ONE that isn't.  No, there are no school boards out there doing the right thing because there are a number that AREN'T.

We don't write legislation, regulations and mandates TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE doing the right thing in society anymore, we create laws to try and force those that aren't into doing so.  This ideology exists in direct opposition to that of the Constitution and the Founders' vision of our Republic.  According to the Founders, government wasn't instituted among men to protect men from THEMSELVES, but to protect THEM from the government (over-regulation).

Yes, I feel that MANY parents today (maybe even a majority) have abandoned their children on a number of levels (emotionally, physically, economically, behaviorally).

I know good Christian parents who just can't bear to be honest with their children and reproach them for bad behavior because "We must speak life" into our children and "shaming or confronting" them will only make them feel worse about themselves.  They 'helicopter' around their children's activities and schools because they never want to be out of the picture, but their eyes remain blissfully closed to anything other than perfection.

I know parents who need to have a house in Oak Tree but can only afford it on two incomes so they drop their kids off at school in the morning, allow them to let themselves into the house after school and remain unsupervised until they come home from work, pick them up and then cart them to 20 or 30 after school activities because they feel guilty about not spending time with them.

I know parents who have been left by a spouse (or whose other half is serving overseas in the military) and are having to be two people all the time and are simply too worn out to do as much as they'd like and as much as their children need.

I know parents who simply don't care a whit about their kids excepting the gubbmt check they get to feed and clothe them.

But let's "what if" a minute....
What if there weren't gubbmt checks to provide a 'safety net' for those who simply don't know how to survive because they've been getting a gubbmt check all their lives?
What if, instead of in-house suspension, a parent had to come up to the school and babysit their own misbehaving child, or be forced to take them to work with them?
What if a child was humanely and calmly given a swat with a paddle on their back end when they created an issue in the classroom that prevented others from learning? (I had a NUMBER of those and I turned out okay with no lasting emotional or physical scars!)
What if churches actually taught Biblical parenting, accountability and responsibility from their pews instead of the "speaking life" to "prosperity" gospel?
What if principals backed up teachers and told parents they had better make their kid tow the line or they'd get tossed into the street?

.....What if the federal, state and local governments, schools and districts, weren't providing a MYRIAD of ways for parents to avoid having to take personal responsibility for their kids?
.....What if the federal and state government stayed out of the mechanics of education entirely and schools and districts simply gave parents no choice but to have the responsibility for their children they should have assumed once they gave birth to them?

Yes, unfortunately for all of society, Leave It To Beaver is basically only a television show providing a glimpse of what family used to be and may never be again here in America as American values and morals drift further and further outside the scope of those of the '50's.

That doesn't negate the fact that, today, the education establishment, and government at all levels, take power away from parents on a long term and DAILY basis, only to then attack them for not doing 'enough'.

Guess what?  Prophesies are often self-fulfilling and your straw man is on fire.

Look Out - Straw Man Falling!

ACK! I'm on a role! Checker Finn over at Fordham posted an opinion piece today called, "The Euro and the Common Core". I realize that Chester Finn is a well-respected education policy guru, however, I completely DISAGREE with his support of the Common Core. I have from the start. Again, any right-leaning organization (person) that does truly concerns me because I realize the thought process behind it. I have called Checker Finn on those below:

As one of the kvetchers, I'll have to call you out on this classic "straw man" argument, I'm afraid.

By pointing to the Common Core as the ONLY way to prevent American education from going the way of the Euro, you've painted yourself into a corner.

This is a Constitutional issue issue whether you like it or not Checker.

While I appreciate that many of you education reformers like to see all roads as a means to an end, there's a silly little thing called the "Constitution" that provides our Country the map on which to draw those roads. The federal government has no business collecting taxes from Americans to fund a Department of Education at the federal level. Once it did, it degenerated into a "carrot and stick" enforcer where, if a state wanted money (obviously, the state's fault for not funding it's own budget - where have we heard that before?), the 'enforcer' could use that carrot to lure them in close enough to thwack them in the head with the stick of "here's what I want you to do now".

I used to hate taking money from my parents when I was in college. I ALWAYS knew that somehow, some way, I would be told how to spend it if I did, and we rarely saw eye-to-eye on the issue. (FYI, in this parable, we see the Federal government as the parents, and the states as the college student.)

I realize you support the Common Core, but the manner in which you do it is so, well, elitist. YOU know what's better for the states than the states themselves (or the parents of the kids in the schools in the states). YOU have the key to creating capable American citizenry through YOUR plan to tie them all together through a COMMON (which also means ORDINARY, by the way - and COMMUNAL and I've had enough of that with OWS thank you very much) standard.

Well, guess what? Your state may want something ordinary that fits all American students (like an oversize - or undersize - sweater, depending upon WHO you are as an INDIVIDUAL), but I don't really want my kids to be communal, or ordinary. I want them to be exceptional individuals who understand that the Constitution is a set of laws and once you break one, you tend to break a lot, and that tends to skew the course of government and nations....hmmmmm nothing like that going on in America right now so what am I worried about?

Too Many Cooks, Too Many Kitchens? So, let's at least get rid of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL one!

Read this really good post from Fordham today ("Too many cooks, too many kitchens") in which Finn and Petrilli expound on the idea that, though many of us pine for "local control" in public education we're not only not getting it, we're often not getting ANY control because of the convoluted administration of schools.

Despite America’s romantic attachment to “local control of public education,” the reality is that the way it works today offers a worst-of-both-worlds scenario. On the one hand, district-level power constrains individual schools; its standardizing, bureaucratic, and political force ties the hands of principals, stopping them from doing what’s best for their pupils with regard to budget, staffing, and curriculum. On the other, local control isn’t strong enough to clear the obstacles that state and federal governments place before reform-minded board members and superintendents in the relatively few locales where these can even be observed.

It frustrates me to NO END that people today have apparently lost all touch with the concept of COMMON SENSE! (yes, I am yelling - it's just frustration - sorry - I'm going to put on the Christmas music again...that seems to calm me down...)

I mean, truly, people EVERYWHERE have lost touch with this little beheld phenomenon of the 21st century - common sense. Over and over again we see this concept missing, not only in everyday life (example: those people who literally sleep in tents outside a giant box store just to get $50 bucks off a gaming system they don't really have the money for, that they spend so much time on that they can't really exist in the real world, or hold down a job and as such still have to live in their parents' basement - or a community park) but everywhere in government.

Finn and Petrilli's argument that there is so much movement in the system that the system can't move is simply dead on. You would think it common sense that you don't go to a government that can't pay its bills with your hand out to pay for programming that isn't really needed and that will require so many new employees just to administer, that only a fraction of the actual money received will make it into the classroom to run the program you thought you needed to have in the first place.

ON WHAT PLANET ARE WE LIVING?

Oh, I know. The planet of, "the more money I bring in, and the more programs I am thought to develop/run, the more power over others I gain". In fact, this whole public education thing is nothing more than a game based on money and power anymore. The idea of how to help children learn is really only secondary to an administration that lumps that responsibility primarily on the backs of the poor teachers who are (for the most part) just treading water trying to do what they can to please not only their building administration, but the school board and THAT layer of administration as well in order to keep their jobs.

This fabulous game has always been played out in spades within higher ed and, sadly, it has trickled down (with all the America-hating, work-abhorring, PC-abounding, liberal nonsensical garbage) like slimy, fetid oil from a rusted out grease trap in a Kipps Big Boy, into every nook and cranny of the public school system that is supposed to be educating America's children to love and appreciate their country (according to Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson)!

Finn and Petrilli are right! We must remove the layers of administrative blankets placed on schools - and not just CHARTERS - ALL schools. I say the first place to start is with the Feds!

Until someone can show me the Constitutional justification for that department - get rid of it! Keep Oklahoma's money home in Oklahoma and let us (through our school boards) help our schools use it to help Oklahoma's kids! But then again, this could never work, mainly because, as they say, "common sense isn't "common".