Daily Oklahoman Finds Reasons For 'Optimism' In New Academic Standards - Predicts "Critics" Will Exhibit Misplaced Criticism

Reason for optimism in drafts of Oklahoma academic standards was published today in the Daily Oklahoman (DO) online. After reading their short assessment, however, I couldn't help but feel the need to comment on just a few things.

The author cites Nate Robson's recent Oklahoma Watch article, "Beyond Common Core: First Drafts Of New Standards" written several days ago as his 'reason for optimism'.

Robson says the drafts, "in some ways go beyond the current standards and the now-repealed Common Core goals". He also remarks they "don't appear to resemble Common Core State Standards" but doesn't explain what reasoning or comparison research provided the basis for this statement. Later in his article, however, he also reports

We've had concerns about the transparency of the standards development process from the beginning. That this issue was reported by Mr. Robson - THAT should have caught the eye of the DO - especially because transparency has been somewhat of a mantra from the OSDE since HB3399 became law.

Another point; not to throw Robson under the bus, but it is important who views the documents. For example, I have seen parts of the standards and I have a few comments, but I was a science teacher. I truly wouldn't know what was appropriate scope and sequence for either math or language arts, consequently, I don't feel qualified to make many specific comments.

Hang on for a shock here! I DO AGREE with the DO that "higher standards tend to have similarities, regardless of authorship". I actually think we here at ROPE (and the teachers we have called on to help us with our review of the standards) are smart enough to discern this for ourselves, yet the DO doesn't see it that way. In fact, the writer asserts that any overlap between Common Core and the re-written Oklahoma standards will "be denounced as a back-door invitation for federal intrusion" by 'critics' we can only assume to be ROPE.

I also STRENUOUSLY disagree with this paragraph:

WHAT?

Yes, there was much opposition centered around the developmental inappropriateness of many Common Core standards. That does NOT in any way mean that these critics - including ROPE - thought the bar was being raised too high! Developmental appropriateness should NEVER be equated to concepts a student has to stretch to reach. No one wants students so bored in the classroom they have but to stare into space like pet rocks! Most educators worth their salt WANT students to be challenged - to have to strain their brain to understand difficult concepts. That is NOT the same as not being able to understand a difficult concept because your brain isn't programmed to be able to assimilate it yet! Suffice it to say, a 6-year-old cannot interpret a Venn diagram, yet new standard K.DP.1 has preK kids applying "mathematical actions and processes to collect and organize data to make it useful for interpreting information". That's not a 'high bar' that's a nonsensical bar.

I'm not going to attempt to further tease out the differences between a high bar and an unattainable goal, however. I'm going to let our friend Donita Brown - an early childhood educator for over 20 years - explain this concept.

As the editorial comes to a close, the DO again unmasks its disdain for democracy when it sneers at legislators who, it says, "can rewrite the standards at will, regardless of what academic experts recommend". The DO writer continues to practice Proverbs 17:28 by announcing that his premise for such a notion is the near-rejection of the Oklahoma science standards by the legislature in 2014.

Just like the other Oklahoma standards about which we've complained, the Oklahoma science standards are simply copies of a national model - in this case, the Next Generation Science Standards. I feel certain legislators appropriately balked due to hesitation over opening another can of 'nationalized standards', especially when theories - such as Global Warming (which in the giant FAIL it became has now been re-named Climate Change in order to continue forcing private change from public offices) - were taught as outright fact.

Certainly, no one who is involved in, or follows ROPE, wants watered-down standards to further dumb-down Oklahoma's student population. Intimating such is simply ridiculous. We join the DO in hoping "this new round of standards-writing increases academic rigor and fuels improved student performance". That said, we know the Oklahoman will join us in our criticisms then - if, once we have reviewed the standards to the fullest extent possible - we determine that the recommendations of the academic experts who testified before the Standards Re-Write Committe (such as Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Dr. Larry Gray) have not been followed to great degree.

Oklahoma deserves better for its students, teachers and parents than a regurgitation of developmentally inappropriate, difficult, vague standards - on that, we can agree.

Does Common Core Repeal Stop Students From Participating in FFA and Prevent ACT/SAT/AP Testing?

I am not  an HB3399 apologist - the bill needs some changes and additions to be a workable solution for teachers (at least) from my perspective - but I also know Governor Fallin is Chairman of the NGA (one of the organizations that owns the copyright for the standards) and an obvious true believer in the Common Core and nationalized education.  I don't see her throwing herself and her NGA agenda under the bus, so I don't know where that leaves those of us that disagree with the Common Core and the hydra it's become within state law, school code and testing contracts.

Still and all, I am sick to death of the hysteria (LOVE that picture of the FFA kids, that look so sad as if their state government is set to rip away their beautiful blue jackets) the Daily Oklahoman continues to pump out about a Common Core repeal (Common Core Bills Impact Many Other Programs).  The FFA thing is simply nonsense.  The FFA is a chartered entity - not a federal entity.  I see no way HB3399 would harm the FFA.  Here is the public law on FFA, please read it yourself.  

All officers are members of a CORPORATION, not federal employees.  From the law:  (2) The board consists of the Secretary of Education, four staff members in the Department of education and, four State supervisors of agriculture education.  The Secretary is chairman of the board.  As said in the article, "Significant standards, assessments, and in some cases curriculum are dictated from the National FFA Organization".  So?  These are not state 'subject matter standards', they are standards specific to the program of FFA and as such would fall outside of the state 'subject matter standards' purview.  There is nothing in HB3399 that prevents any school or district from making ADDITIONS to the state standards.

Quite apparently, the editorial staff has simply overlooked the wonderful research engine that is the World Wide Web.  If you (Daily Oklahoman) believe this analysis to be incorrect, please feel free to educate us with FACTS, not mere speculation (likely, may, ).

I also read nothing in the bill that should lead anyone to the conclusion that ACT or SAT or AP testing will be prohibited.  Please, read the bill - you can find it here.

Page 19 line 1 begins, 

"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."  

Do the SAT, ACT or AP tests 'cede or limit state discretion or control' over 'subject matter standards'?  They have nothing to do with 'subject matter standards' (ie; any standards used for k-12 education).  Are SAT, ACT or AP tests related directly to the current "subject matter standards"?  No. They are independent general knowledge tests - becoming aligned to the Common Core, that's true - but they are not tests that correspond directly to the state standards.  Please, Daily Oklahoman, point to the place in this bill that identifies the evil plot to make Oklahoma's students stop taking nationally/internationally benchmarked tests?

I feel the need to point out here that Robert Sommers isn't from Oklahoma, he's from Ohio where he was an education policy adviser to Governor Kasich that helped institutionalize all the education 'reforms' we're institutionalizing here in Oklahoma.  He also worked  for a Charter School (Carpe Diem) that has ties to Jeb Bush and the Foundation for Excellence in Education - an organization that has spawned Chiefs For Change.  Janet Barresi is a Chief For Change.  

In fact, more and more of the upper management positions in the OSDE are becoming simply arms of the Common Core machine - John Kraman, the Student Information Officer (chief data gatherer on students) comes from Achieve, the newest Superintendent over TESTING comes from PEARSON.  Oklahoma has no people skilled enough for these jobs - people that might desire to keep the best interests of Oklahomans in mind?

It seems to me that this entire Education 'Reform' pile of nonsense, is exactly that.  It's not about what's best for students or parents or teachers, it's about what's best for the careers of those involved in the never-ending, revolving door, money-making scheme, Bill Gates grant-receiving, echo chamber that is COMMON CORE.  It has to be, or the Chamber of Commerce would not misrepresent data to push the Common Core and Stand For Children wouldn't present a petition of 7000 names claiming to be FOR the Common Core to the State legislature that appears to be fraudulent. Why does the Pro-Common Core side need to misrepresent itself to press their side of the issue?  It's an important question to ask.

NOTE:  When you read an editorial in the Daily Oklahoman about Common Core, please remember that one of their editorial writers is Ray Carter, husband of Jennifer Carter, former Chief of Staff to the State Superintendent Janet Barresi (http://www.koco.com/Barresi-s-Chief-Of-Staff-Issues-Statement-Regarding-Tweet/10738470). I believe this to be a conflict of interest. Certainly, as the DO mentioned in another Common Core repeal hit piece recently, Stand For Children has met with their editorial board. Restore Oklahoma Public Education has NEVER been asked to meet with their editorial board. I think that says quite a bit as well. (Ray Carter Editorial Writer rcarter@opubco.com ) http://newsok.com/home/nic

Reporting For Duty in the Tinfoil Hat Brigade - Rebuttal to Daily Oklahoman Editorial on Common Core

ROPE Rebuttal to Oklahoman Editorial from May 22, 2013 entitled,

“Oklahoma lawmakers should resist push to repeal Common Core” 

This is the second time an editorialist for the Oklahoman has written an article referring to those of us residing in the Common Core detractor camp as misfits that needn't be heard on any level.  This isn't surprising as Ray Carter, the husband of Dr. Barresi's former Chief of Staff (who left after referring to some Oklahoma Superintendents as "dirt bags" in her Twitter feed), is employed in the editorial department of the newspaper, but really.

Daily Oklahoman, the FACTS are in ROPE’S favor.  You have YET to produce any credible evidence for your continued parroting of talking points supplied by the Foundation for Excellence in Education for whom Dr. Barresi as one of their "Chiefs for Change" has allowed this Jeb Bush-backed group to write much of the education 'reform' legislation being used here in Oklahoma.  How is that local?

Though I don't have time or inclination to spend much of my day ruminating over DOK editorials (especially after such a horrific incident for Oklahoma as the recent tornadoes), I feel it more than fair to point out that while there has NEVER been any credible evidence used by the Daily Oklahoman or one of their editorialist to support their position, ROPE has reams and reams and reams of citations that bolster OUR position from such conspiratorial websites as "http://www.edweek.org" and "www.ed.gov".

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was NOT spearheaded by state Governors (through the National Governor's Association (NGA) of which our Governor is Vice-Chair) and state Superintendents (the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)). It was spearheaded by the Bill Gates Foundation, a man named Marc Tucker (and his pet project the National Center for Education and the Economy) and that organization’s spin-off organization, Achieve.  In fact, you can find a timeline for all of this directly on Achieve's website!  But then, maybe that's too conspiratorial!  Yes, the NGA and the CCSSO were brought in, but only AFTER the standards were conceived and partially written!  So, how is that state led again? Because we have a Governor and Chief State School Officer?  How does that mean 'local' again?

Oklahoma did voluntarily 'adopt' the standards I guess you could say. The 'adoption' of the Common Core State Standards were accomplished through one paragraph in a 32 page bill having to do with teacher incentive pay and several other education ‘reform’ issues (SB2033 -2010). Oklahoma HAD to put the CCSS (and other education 'reforms') into law in order to up their points on the Race to the Top grant for which they were applying .

Yes, DOK, I agree; Oklahoma GOT NO MONEY FROM RACE TO THE TOP, but this just makes Common Core and ALL the other education 'reforms' in that bill UNFUNDED MANDATES!

As for the "federal standards" argument; ROPE has never said these are federal standards. They are not. They were devised in a manner - knowing that federalized standards and curricula are against federal law - to prevent that argument by having Achieve 'partner' with the NGA and CCSSO to release them through the states. Please see this article in the VERY, VERY CONSPIRATORIAL Chronicle of Higher Education called, "The Core Conundrum" by Peter Wood. This article outlines this situation beautifully.

One more thing however – found on the controversial website Common Core State Standards Initiative:

Controlling Law; Forum Selection

These Terms shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia, without regard to conflicts principles. A court of competent jurisdiction in Washington, DC shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any dispute between you and NGA Center or CCSSO, and you irrevocably consent to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and venue, of such court. 

Why would you have to sue over the Common Core firstly, and then secondly, why would your lawsuit only be dealt with in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C. - the seat of our FEDERAL government)?

Dr. Barresi joined Oklahoma to an organization called Partnership for College and Career Ready Assessments (note the conspiratorial citation here: PARCC).  Because PARCC was given ARRA (federal stimulus) funds through a Race to the Top grant to develop tests for the Common Core, the federal government has now stepped in and told PARCC that the Department of Education must review the PARCC tests (Look out! This citation from EdWeek is very conspiratorial as well!).   

How is this NOT federal control when you consider that PARCC is to test for the Common Core State Standards and what is in the Standards will be on the test?  If schools don't align their curricula to teach to the Common Core Standards the pupils don't do well on the tests and the schools A-F score decreases.  If a school reaches a D or F in grade, the State Department of Education or one of their contractors can take over the school as per Oklahoma's NCLB waiver the DOK would be so beneficial to students. How is that local control?  For what then is a school board? 

That certainly appears a valid question, but who is answering?  A recent blog written by a ROPE follower highlights well our frustration.  Even when exposed to legitimate questions and points made by parents/taxpayers, all our Superintendent can do is talk in circles and defray answering - and WE'RE the ones in the tinfoil hat zone?  We beg to disagree.

CITATIONS

http://blog.newsok.com/scissortales/about-2/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/jennifer-carter-oklahoma-_n_988260.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/30/e-mails-link-bush-foundation-corporations-and-education-officials/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/138645897/Common-Core-State-Standards-Are-They-Right-for-Oklahoma

http://achieve.org/history-achieve

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-cunundrum/31719?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

http://www.corestandards.org/terms-of-use  

http://www.ok.gov/sde/parcc

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/04/common_assessment_groups_to_undergo_new_federal_review_process.html?qs=review+parcc+tests

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/ok.pdf

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-request-for-nclb-waiver-should-benefit-students/article/3625644

Daily Oklahoman Calls Common Core Detractors "Conspiracy Theorists"

Sunday (3/31), while many of us were enjoying Easter at church, with our families, one Daily Oklahoman editorial writer (see PS) was VERY busy doing damage control after the COMMON CORE IS NOT OK rally ROPE had last Wednesday.  His article, "Conspiracy theories about Common Core should be ignored", was full of nonsense and name calling.  Just like some of the 'research' that comes out of the State Department of Education, this essay had absolutely no legitimate, non-spun truth anywhere inside.  In fact, it was so ridiculous, I penned the following response:

WINNING!  Now that we're in the "ridicule" stage (we've been through the "ignore" stage) WINNING is next! 

Here are some fundamental questions to ask yourself and FACTS to research to see who the "Conspiracy Theorists" really are: 

"Would you buy a car sight unseen?" These standards were put into Oklahoma law before they were even available for review in order to get a Race To The Top grant funded by stimulus monies. So, if you're all for making school kids Guinea Pigs in an education experiment that could affect them (and private and home schooled students) for the rest of their lives just to get money from the feds, you're all for the Core!  

"Would you show up to buy a car without knowing how much it cost?"  The legislature never studied the cost Common Core would place on the state before enacting them into law in 2009/2010.  The Superintendent never answered that question when asked by legislators at a 2011 Interim Study, or when asked by Pat McGuigan of Capitol Beat that same year.  Since that time schools have had to apply for eRate grants and raise school bonds to pay for the technology costs associated with giving students the tests tied to the Standards. If you're all for having your property taxes raised and the superintendent asking for another140 MILLION dollars more for education spending, you're all for the Core! Sadly, that money won't go to students or teachers, but to buy computer and testing software and wiring.  If you're all for having less money in the classroom, you're all for the Core!  

As for Gus Blackwell and his voting record on the bill (SB2033 - 2010) that placed the Common Core into Oklahoma state law, read it.  You will find that the bill died the first time it went to the floor of the House 60 to 36.  Also, you will find that this was a 34 page bill titled "Schools; relating to teacher incentive pay plans; modifying requirements. Effective dates. Emergency."  The part about Common Core equals exactly one paragraph on page 30 in Section 11-103.6a  B.  WOW!  I can totally see how Gus Blackwell and all other legislators that signed on to the bill THE SECOND TIME it came to the floor, missed it.  Oh, but that's probably a conspiracy theory!  What am I thinking?  So, if you're all for a set of standards based on zero transparency to the people of Oklahoma, you're all for the Core!  

This editorial indicates that the Common Core is voluntary.  That is correct.  Now you know the process by which they were adopted in Oklahoma.  Voluntary for whom exactly?  Because the STATE adopted the standards, all state school boards now have to follow the Common Core without any input into their adoption, or risk getting poor grades on state tests aligned to the Common Core.  What happens if a district school board doesn't adopt the standards for their schools?  They do poorly on their Common Core-aligned state tests.  What happens if that brings down their school grade (calculated through the very controversial A-F gradingsystem) to a D or an F?  According to the No Child Left Behind waiver for which Governor Fallin and Dr. Barresi applied (against 10 out of 15 comments made on the process), the state can take over the school and either administrate it through the Department of Ed or hire a contractor to do so.  So if you're NOT for local education, you're all for the Core and if you're NOT for voluntary standards, you're all for the Core! 

What about state led?  I guess, if you consider either the National Governor's Association (NGA) or Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSO) NOT private, dues-supported, trade organizations not subject to Open Records, that works.  

I definitely hope the writer of this editorial doesn't call himself an advocate for Public Schools, or education, or children. We at Restore Oklahoma Public Education care about teachers and students - that's why we say COMMON CORE IS NOT OK!  

PS: The husband of Superintendent Barresi's ex-chief of staff (Jennifer Carter left the department after a tenure in which she referredto Jenks administrators as "dirtbags" in a Twitter post - and a stink was raised by state board members over the fact that her salarywas paid by a private donor prior to acceptance of her employment by the state board) is a writer for the Oklahoman.  This editorial certainly argues a connection...yet I don't know that matters so much as the time-worn notion that when you have no evidence to stand on to make your case, you just call others names!