Fact Checking the OEA Meme Campaign To Force Teacher Pay Raises

 

Because the OEA has spent significant time and taxpayer resources (Yes, how else do they get their funds? Teachers pay membership and teachers are paid by taxpayers.) creating this elaborate campaign to convince taxpayers it is necessary to tax the public to create a pay raise for teachers, I thought it might be a good idea just to fact check a few of their memes. Let's take the one above. 

Does Our State Superintendent Truly Care About Student Privacy?

Readers of our blog and our research know we have worked very hard to describe the ways in which the state government is working toward feeding the federal government individual student data collected from public schools thanks to our state's love for federal programming (see the bottom of this post for links).  You might remember one of our more nationally popular memes (it was re-tweeted by Anthony Cody of EdWeek) was the Four Pillars of America's Education Takeover:

The Four Pillars show the relationship of the State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) to all other major education 'reforms' endorsed by the Obama Administration since 2009, now being utilized in nearly every state in the Union.

Today, I got an email message from the CEDS (Common Education Data Standards - the group creating the 'common' identifiers that all states can use to share student data across state lines) and I wanted to share it:

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is pleased to announce the release of Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Version 4.  CEDS is a national collaborative effort to develop voluntary, common data standards for a key set of education data elements to streamline the exchange, comparison, and understanding of data within and across P-20W institutions and sectors.  CEDS Version 4 includes a broad scope of elements spanning much of the P-20W spectrum and provides greater context for understanding the standards' interrelationships and practical utility.  Version 4 includes 1,346 unique elements including 236 new elements and 85 updated elements.

A new resource is available with the release of Version 4: CEDS Extend. Now users can view NCES Handbook data elements alongside CEDS elements as part of the CEDS searchable data elements and the Domain Entity Schema.  Also included in this release are 15 tutorials on using CEDS Align and Connect as well as an expanded list of publications describing how to use CEDS (and more examples are coming).

Version 4 of CEDS can be found at the CEDS website:  http://ceds.ed.gov

The CEDS website includes three ways to view and interact with CEDS:

1. By element: Via the Elements page, users can access a searchable glossary of the CEDS "vocabulary," including names, definitions, option sets, technical specifications, and more.
2. By relationship: Through the CEDS Data Model, users can explore the relationships that exist among entities and elements-viewable both through a logical data model.
3. By comparison: Supplemental tools enable users to take the next step and put CEDS into practice. CEDS ALIGN allows a user to load his or her organization's data dictionary and compare it, in detail, to CEDS and the data dictionaries of other users' organizations. This facilitates alignment with CEDS and across systems, paving the way for easier sharing and comparison of data. CEDS CONNECT enables users at different levels to consider "connections" such as metric definitions of data points, policy questions, or federal data reporting requirements by establishing the data elements necessary to answer a given connection, as well as recommend logic and routines for analysis.

Guess what?  All these 'elements' this email lauds so happily, are named fields that can be used to directly identify YOUR public school CHILD in a national database - fields like, "voting status" or "religious affiliation".

Julia and Lynn have gone to nearly all of Oklahoma's P20W (P = PreK, 20 = 20 years, W = workforce) meetings where participants discuss ways in which Oklahoma can comply with the federal government's need for student data.  They have taken notes and have audio recordings of these proceedings to prove these people care not at all about your children, but simply what your children can provide the federal government in terms of information about themselves and your family all to create newer and better (and more restrictive) federal programming none of which is needed to educate children.

Here was the kicker for today.  Just a few hours ago, Lynn sent me a Facebook message with the following link, "Formal Response To The Chief State School Officers' Letter On Student Privacy".  The response was from a group called Education Liberty Watch, run by a woman named Karen Ephraim M.D., whom I have interviewed for School Reform News, and who happens to be a clinical psychiatrist.  I have personally followed Education Liberty Watch for a number of years and have been educated on a much deeper level about the issues inside public education than I have with commercial publications such as EdWeek (who provides education news by taking money from Bill Gates, among others)  Dr. Ephraim took the letter - signed by 34 Chief State School Officers - and dissected it thoroughly - as any good physician would.

I am not going plumb her analysis here because I essentially agree, and you can read it yourself through the link I have provided.  Though this letter really means nothing much at all in reality - in exactly the same way Governor Fallin's Executive Order on Common Core meant nothing in reality - as Dr. Ephraim points out, these Chiefs very stridently inform Secretary Arne Duncan;

We are writing today to confirm that the consortia will not share any personally identifiable information about K–12 students with USED or any federal agency.

As I read over the 34 names, I didn't find Dr. Barresi's name on the list anywhere!

I guess in one way I'm comforted, as I am fairly well exhausted of the OSDE's constant attempts to fool or finesse the facts about Oklahoma's school 'reform' platforms and programs.  However, it sticks in my craw that - even though the governor saw fit to at least try and 'finesse' the facts about data sharing and education reform through her CC Executive Order - Dr. Barresi didn't even BOTHER to try this time.  She just flat didn't sign the letter at all.

But then, after all, she is the one that hired John Kraman, the Executive Director of Student Information who has worked for The American Diploma Project and Achieve - the Washington, DC epicenters of these new federal education programs!  In fact, Mr. Kraman has told Lynn and Julia that he is here to do one job - create Oklahoma's State Longitudinal Database System - giving him little luxury to worry about the students involved.

Truly, this is WORSE than OBNOXIOUS!  This callous disregard for the CHILDREN involved in this massive data sharing 'collaboration' among states and the feds.  Though I advise EVERYONE to become educated on this topic, I certainly don't advise you joining any of the CEDS email strands or other the CEDS 'Sandbox' news alerts.  The disregard for the privacy of children and their families by this group that seems to WORSHIP data as a deity, is truly frightening.

Maybe Dr. Barresi didn't join the other 34 Chiefs because she knew the letter didn't mean much in the real world of state/federal entanglements, but then again, maybe her most expensive OSDE hire (Kraman) tells everything we need to know about where her loyalties lie.


SLDS/STUDENT PRIVACY INFORMATION

The State Longitudinal Database and Child Privacy - YouTube

An Analysis of Recent Education Reforms and the Resulting Impact on Student Privacy http://www.scribd.com/doc/94149078/An-Analysis-of-Recent-Education-Reforms-and-the-Resulting-Impact-on-Student-Privacy

How Much Data is Enough Data; what happens to privacy when bureaucracies exceed their scope?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110458572/How-Much-Data-is-Enough-Data-What-happens-to-privacy-when-bureaucracies-exceed-their-scope

What Oklahomans Need to Know About The P20 Council
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124766370/What-Oklahomans-Need-to-Know-About-the-P20-Council

Feds Use State Databases Against Them - So Why Do States Want Grants to Set Them Up Again?

Recently I wrote an article for School Reform News, "Obama Administration Demands Teacher Redistribution for NCLB Waiver".  Although the administration's newest excuse to use their SOCIAL JUSTICE stick is certainly inappropriate, unfortunately, one of the most incredible, dangerous and unbelievable things in my mind was not able to be included for space.

This was the fact that it CLEARLY stated in the paperwork for the NCLB part deux waivers that the federal government was going to collect state data - collected from district schools and sent to the state level - to judge whether or not a state was worthy of a second waiver.

Here is the part of the article that was not published.

Using Their Own Data Against Them,

The ESEA Guidance document states, “In July 2013, the Department began an analysis of data” from 2010-2012 to determine “the relationship between the following factors” and how schools were identifying outcomes.  Of the six factors used for analysis were student achievement, graduation rate and participation rate on state assessments.  

States wishing to extend their NCLB waiver are told that if data analysis indicates their state has not been identifying low-performing schools and subgroups appropriately or properly, the Department will work with the state to correct any and all issues identified.  Furthermore, the state will not receive a renewal of ESEA flexibility until the issues are corrected to ED’s satisfaction.

ESEA flexibility requirements, such as those for developing and implementing college and career ready standards and testing, generally align with those requirements provided by ED for successful Race to the Top grant (RTTT) application.  One of the RTTT requirements - that of “Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction” – has been duplicated under the National Center for Education Statistics by way of a federal State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant.

Not surprisingly, all but three states have applied for and accepted federal money to create and institute a database within their state to collect educational information on students from kindergarten through 12^th grade as well as develop and link databases for early childhood education data and postsecondary and/or workforce data.  Quite apparently, states have been successful in this endeavor.  States have used their federal SLDS money to provide ED with all the data they need to further manipulate state education reform plans, all the while generating great controversy over student privacy.

Another part of the article that was not published had to do with the fact that schools would ALSO be forced to 'inform' parents of the new reforms.

Informing Or Cheerleading 

Another new requirement for successful waiver extension is the necessity for states to “meaningfully engage and solicit input from diverse stakeholders and communities on its request”.  States must provide evidence for this effort and are given five categories of admissible proof which includes, “copies of parent-friendly information regarding the renewal submission, including accessible formats and translated as necessary.”  

Minus the requirement for evidence, the necessity to include ways in which public comment were solicited were found in the first waiver documentation – “SEA must also provide a description of how the SEA meaningfully engaged and solicited input”. Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver contained approximately 56 pages of community input.  Much of the included commentary was in the form of questions to Oklahoma State Department of Education concerning the waiver, or general comments about the individual requirements.  The only specific comments regarding NCLB were against application for a waiver, yet the waiver was granted.  

It remains to be seen whether requirements to inform the community will result in efforts more akin to cheerleading than actual objective, dispassionate information sharing regarding NCLB waiver application.

Kind of makes you wonder why those of us speaking against Common Core are having such trouble getting a toe hold!  When taxpayer money is used to PROMOTE an AGENDA that has neither been proven or studied and parents (also taxpayers) are not able to hear BOTH sides of this particular AGENDA, is that fair?  Is that honest?  Heck, is that even morally right - considering the fact that many taxpayers NOT being told both sides of the issue might decide they don't like it?  Oh, hmmm...not so hard to figure out after all, is it?

You Can't Always Get What You Want...

After studying the Common Core State Standards as thoroughly as had been widely studied previously in 2010, ROPE came to the conclusion - after even further study - that various and sundry public school entities wanted way too much data on our kids.  

The types of data fields we found (and continue to find) in the two major education data models (InBloom and NEDM - National Education Data Model) was beyond unsettling.  After all, what in the world does blood test type and base salary or wage have to do with education anyway?  Can you - as a teacher - connect better with your student once you know his parents make 50k a year?  What about blood type?  There is a diet marketed to work for specific blood types, but does an O+ student learn the Periodic Table of the Elements better than an AB-?

Of course not.  There is no reason for any kind of data like this to even be attempted to be collected on any child, but yet this is what is happening in school after school across Oklahoma and the rest of the nation every year school is in session.

We have brought this to the attention of several legislators over the course of the last two years without gaining much ground.  This is a hard topic to digest to be sure, but as many as are sure to be thoughtful on the topic, many take the department of education's line, "there's nothing to see here; drive on".

Representative David Brumbaugh is one of the few who saw our concerns and consented to run a bill (HB1989) that would require parental permission (usurped for us by the change in FERPA laws instigated by our federal education secretary Arne Duncan January of 2012) for the State Department of Education to collect data and/or send it across state lines.  It was a simple bill.  He took the bill created in the senate to form the Oklahoma P20 Council (necessary for the 'free money' Race To The Top grant Oklahoma legislators were panting over) SB222, and simply added the phrase "With parental permission" at the end.

We were fine with that and it was heard in the General Government Committee where it passed unanimously.

After its passage, Representative Jason Nelson approached us and informed us he had found model student privacy legislation which he thought would be a wonderful substitute for our simple bill which he thought had no real chance of passing either House.  We looked at it, and other than the fact that Representative Nelson had added language giving the gutted FERPA (which doesn't really help parents at all anymore) too much of the final authority for accountability, we found it palatable and moved forward.

The course of a bill is oftentimes long and convoluted - nothing at all like School House Rock would have you believe.  NO legislation I have ever been involved with has been straightforward or produced in a manner easily understandable by the people the government is creating the law ostensibly to serve.  

Those of you reading this who like to be informed about your government from your easy chair because you simply can't make the time to get involved in the process, let me be clear - THIS IS NOT A PROCESS THAT FAVORS THE LITTLE GUY.  If you as a taxpayer/citizen do not show up to protect your rights, they will be stripped from you in some ad hoc backroom Senate committee meeting by the 'powers that be' (Senator Clark Jolley, for example) in favor of the organization with the most political clout/money, or an agency of the state (Department of Education) where the absolute experts on education reside.

Unfortunately, very late in the process, we learned that John Kraman - (the Executive Director of Student Information for the Department of Education) - the man spearheading the State Longitudinal Database - the man hired from Achieve (where he assisted in forming the Common Core State Standards) at the highest salary paid a Department of Education employee  other than our Supt. - had been brought in to confer on the bill with Reps. Brumbaugh and Nelson.

I'm sure John Kraman is a great friend, father and all around great guy - heck, he said "hi" to me in Best Buy recently while we were both there with our daughters, so he's obviously friendly - but that isn't my business.  My business is the data he's collecting on children in the state through his office, without specific parental permission, to satisfy a 5 million dollar federal State Longitudinal Database Grant to the state of Oklahoma.  None of us at ROPE agree with the notion that "data driven decision making" will create the change in education PARENTS want, but all of us at ROPE agree with the notion that excessive and intrusive data collection will create the change in education the government wants - a change in which every aspect of the system and in turn, our children, are controlled by the state.

We were very clear about our concerns with Reps. Brumbaugh and Nelson from the beginning, providing them with every piece of information we have collected on this issue to help them better understand our reasoning.

When we were finally able to see the bill again after this meeting, we were shocked.  No longer was this piece of legislation about parental consent or student privacy as we had pictured, it was about outlining the methods in which the Department of Education would collect data on children.  This was extraordinarily concerning to us because we had gone to a number of freshman Representatives and asked them to sign onto this bill under the auspices that it would protect student privacy.  This new iteration seemed to provide scant amounts of that.  We didn't want any legislator who had signed onto the bill believing we had led them down some sort of Primrose path about the effects of this bill, so we informed the legislators who had originally signed on with us of our concerns.

After a lengthy discussion with Representative Nelson in his office, I came to understand his perspective on the bill; namely that once the State Department of Education had to produce an inventory of all the data they were collecting and make it available to the legislature and the public, the door on the process would open, allowing parents to see in and establish accountability for the security of their child's/children's data. 

A number of measures were described in the bill toward that end; describing what student data is and isn't (pg 2), creating a data inventory (pg 3), developing policies regarding data (pg 4), notification of parents of their right to privacy (pg 5), prevention of transmission of student data across state lines (pg 5), develop a detailed security plan (pg 5), producing compliance audits (pg 6), protection of outsourced data (pg 6), and notification of the governor and legislature for any new data collection or changes in data collection (pg 6).

This all sounds great.  Really.  But I want to examine this a bit more closely.

Section B7b (defining student data) states, 

"Unless included in a student's educational record, "student data" shall not include:"
(1) juvenile delinquency records,
(2) criminal records,
(3) medical and health records,
(4) student Social Security number, and
(5) student biometric information.

This is troubling.  What does, "Unless included in a student's educational record" mean?  I think the answer to this first question is important before hats fly into the air.  But wait, there's more...

Section C2 says the State Board of Education will, 

"Develop, publish and make publicly available policies and procedures to comply with the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other relevant privacy laws and policies, including but not limited to: 

a. access to student and de-identified data in the student data system shall be restricted to:"

Number 4 in the list below states, 

"the authorized staff of other state agencies in Oklahoma as required by law and/or defined by interagency data-sharing agreements,"

This one number removed any good this law could have done toward stopping the P20's proclivity to follow your child from birth (P=preK) through the workforce (20=20yrs of age) by sharing information with all the authorized entities in SB222 (pg4).  So, though parents may now be entitled to a list that fully describes what data is being shared, your child's data will be shared with;

the State Department of Education, Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education,Legislature, other policymakers and executive agencies, and the general public 

As always, the only thing missing on that list is my dog Max.

Please note that the wording says, "as required by law AND/OR...".  

Besides the list provided there, we know of interagency data sharing agreements with the Department of Corrections, the Department of Labor and DHS.  How private is ANY data from a child or family shared with Department of Corrections or DHS?  What if your child's data cannot be determined inclusive in its aggregate form and it is decided that it's necessary to attach personal information in order for the data to be usable?

Letter b of that same section provides even more trouble for those concerned with student privacy:

the State Department of Education shall use only aggregate data in public reports or in response to record requests in accordance with paragraph 3 of this subsection,

This would be sweet excepting the fact that Oklahoma has applied for and received a State Longitudinal Database System grant of 5 million dollars.  The grant states (pg13), 

"Resolving discrepencies across such aggregate data collections without sudent-level data places incredible burdens on the data staff at the state and local levels." 

In other words, if we can't figure out aggregate data, we'll just add back in the personal information and move forward.  Yikes.

Section B3 says, 

"Unless otherwise approved by the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education shall not transfer student or de-identified data deemed confidential "

There are two problems here:

1.  The Board can approve the sharing of confidential information.  The Board is an extension of the Governor and the Superintendent.  Though several board members have taken the time to speak with us (one of whom has left her position to take on Janet Barresi in the 2014 elections), neither the Governor nor the Superintendent have been friendly to parents that do not support their education reform measures.

2.  The SLDS grant specifically sets up a School Information Framework (SIF - a Bill Gates idea) based upon the Common Education Data Standards model, (that includes such fields as "dental screening status" so that states can share information back and forth through their computers on exactly the same level.  This was the whole idea and John Kraman explains it beautifully in his grant application.  The grant WILL trump what the state legislature says because we are on the hook to the feds (YET AGAIN) for taking money and having to provide a service (our children's data) in return.  Consequently, this whole section is meaningless.

Finally, there is section E:  

E. Upon the effective date of this act, any existing collection of student data by the State Department of Education shall not be considered a new student data collection in accordance with subparagraph a of paragraph 7 of subsection C of this section.

Just to be clear, any data being collected BEFORE this act is not included in the act.  John Kraman has been employed with the Department of Education and collecting data on kids over 2 years now with access to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE from his past life as a Marc Tucker acolyte working at Achieve.  

Again, whether or not this person is a nice man is not at issue.  Our concerns focus on his actions in the areas of education and government.  We here at ROPE all feel quite certain that Mr. Kraman has done a stellar job piecing together what data fields are needed by the feds (using the CEDS as described in the grant) and has done his darned-level-best to put these in place BEFORE HB1989 was even a thought in anyone's head.

We appreciate that Reps. Brumbaugh and Nelson have acted in good faith and have done what they believed to be right.  We appreciate their efforts this last session.  We just don't believe that the myriad legislators/employees written up in this press release should lead parents astray by trumpeting the notion that this bill protects student privacy.  

Yes, it is better than the zero amount of protection we had before and yes, there are processes that once put in place will allow parents to determine the kind of data being collected on their child, but for now, this bill should NOT be considered (nor certainly lauded as) a 'student privacy' bill.

In closing, ROPE believes education should be local - that government itself is always best at the level closest the people - none of the education reforms instituted by Dr. Janet Barresi fall into that category.  This fact in and of itself is a reason to stop data collection on students, but it is this quote from a P20 meeting about following kids throughout their lives as described by John Kraman himself that invokes the greatest concern:

“… trying to find a way to follow, to help data follow the kids across state lines and allow us to find data and bring to them. If they are so we are moving in the direction, so that in a few years we might be, or in a couple of years, able to tell you where they went to college, but I can tell you where they went to high school, so where they grew up, where their parents are , when they left … the goal now you have the data follow the kids, the K-12 system where they were living in every state and once you know that, of course, you can go backward and ask questions.“

This thought process represents a clear and present danger to student privacy over a long period of time.  

Now that you know what ROPE knows, what are you going to do about it?

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND WEBSITES THAT AFFECT YOUR CHILD'S EDUCATIONAL PRIVACY:

CEDS Data Model:  https://ceds.ed.gov/elements.aspx?v=3&ex=

Oklahoma State Longitudinal Database System grant:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/135509962/Oklahoma-State-Longitudinal-Database-Grant

What Oklahomans Need to Know About The P20 Council:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/124766370/What-Oklahomans-Need-to-Know-About-the-P20-Council

How Much Data Is Enough Data (ROPE's interim study document): http://www.scribd.com/doc/110458572/How-Much-Data-is-Enough-Data-What-happens-to-privacy-when-bureaucracies-exceed-their-scope


Data, Data Everywhere:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/110361334/Data-Data-Everywhere-CCSSO-Presentation-at-National-Conference-on-Student-Assessment


*I was working very fast when I posted this today, so I went back to correct some misspellings and difficult passages (6/13/2013 pm)
*Removed a line of text (6/14/2013 pm)

Why I Have NO CHOICE But To Support Paul Blair for Senate

This morning I saw a very slick, very expensive-looking ad on FOX News channel for current Edmond Senator Clark Jolley, extolling his virtues and cajoling viewers to vote for this very CONSERVATIVE legislator.

Fair enough.  Anyone who can afford to spend money on advertising should CERTAINLY be allowed to do so.  The thing I'm most concerned about here is the word "Conservative".  To be fair, Senator Jolley's ad was not the actual impetus for my reverie - no, that came in the 2010 election cycle when Governor Fallin and a host of other Republicans with accessible voting records, applied the term to themselves ad nauseum.  (This recent assessment of what Oklahoma Republicans say and what they actually do, might help you understand my confusion.)

So, what exactly does the term "Conservative" mean?  Let's do a little etymological study here.  According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary for children, the primary definition appears to be, "believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society".  In the adult section, we see that the word originated somewhere in the 14th century and is today given the definition, "of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism".  So what is "Conservatism"?  Webster says,

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage). [emphasis mine]

Alright.  Agreeing to apply Merriam-Webster's definition from the standpoint that America has been using a Webster's dictionary since 1806, we can then make assessment of Senator Jolley's claims of "conservative".

I am going to use the mailer that was sent out to district 41 on behalf of Clark Jolley by the State Chamber of Oklahoma ("not authorized or approved by any candidate", but a contribution to the campaign by the Chamber as an 'in kind' donation, so it is definitely 'fair game' for use as a measure of his campaign).  Also, it is important to note that according to our State Chamber, "Strong public schools provide quality educations for our children, as well as prepare a qualified workforce for our city’s future."  Not only that, but the Chamber appears to haven't met an education reform they DON'T like!  Good grief, they want the state involved in EVERY aspect of education.  Color me stupid here, but I could have thought that it was the Communists that used their education system to educate 'workers'.  I thought we had public education in America to, as our Founders stated, teach American children the joys of our Republic and to learn our Constitution and impart it to the next generations.

This mailer, "Senator Clark Jolley - Champion for Education", "Promoting Common-Sense, Conservative Reforms", lists five bills referred to as conservative reforms for which Senator Clark Jolley has pushed.

1. HB1456 "increase(d) accountability to parents".  This bill was signed into law by the governor last year and contains no less than TWENTY-FOUR (24) requirements (mandates) for the State Department of Education (SDE) and local schools and districts.  The majority of the requirements satisfied the requirements of the federal government in order for Superintendent Barresi and Governor Fallin to apply for a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waiver.  HB1456 provides the BACKBONE of the NCLB Waiver with its prescription for a report card - to be issued by the SDE - for each individual school in the state using the familiar A-F nomenclature.  May 2, 2012, a Motion of Disapproval was submitted to the Rules Committee in the House for the A-F grading rules, which allowed for an inordinate amount of failing schools which would then be taken over by the SDE and out of the hands of local education officials as per the Waiver's specifications.  The fruits of the A-F grading also allowed Superintendent Barresi and Governor Fallin to collect nearly 7 million dollars in federal grants to "turnaround" D and F schools.
[FAIL: increases size of government, prevents local control, creates abrupt change]

2.  HB1380 "save(d) money for the classroom".  This bill was signed into law by the governor also last year.  Senator Jolley is not an author of record for the bill so I do not know why this was included.  1380 was a bill to remove Trial DeNovo for teachers, ostensibly saving money by prohibiting fired teachers wanting recourse from the courts to drag out a determination.  Yes, I'm sure this will save money for the state for those teachers who wanted to take their dismissal through higher levels of adjudication, but it also allows districts to more easily fire teachers who might want to add Intelligent Design to discussions of Evolution, or those who did not want to teach sex/health classes, for example.
[DRAW; considering a case could be made for usurpation of local control]

3.  HB2115 "strengthen(s) local control".  This bill was also signed into law last year.  Again, this is not an example of Senator Jolley's legislative hand, as he is not an author on the bill.  This bill allows the SDE to financially assist school districts who voluntarily consolidate.  Yes, this does provide incentive, if you will, for schools to consolidate, but the SDE still is able to consolidate schools by their own authority involuntarily, so how this amounts to strengthening "local control", I see not.
[DRAW; considering ANY further laws added rather than repealed creates more government]

4.  HB346 "ensure(s) quality education".  Another 2011 bill now law.  Senator Jolley is the lead author.  This is the much-lauded bill to prevent social promotion and requires children to be reading by 3rd grade.  Yes, ALL of us want Oklahoma children to be functionally literate and beyond, but it is ultimately the parent who must take responsibility for their children's education - not the school system.  Additionally, simply retaining non-readers by 3rd grade does not "ensure" a quality education.  What it DOES do is put more strain on teachers and schools who must constantly train to learn new teaching methods forced on them by continued mandates like the Common Core State Standards.  This phenomenon causes children to be taught to state tests, the results of which can help determine if the teacher is fired or not (SB2033).  It also opens the door to reasons for federal grant application such as the Race To The Top Early Learning Challenge under the argument that children need to be exposed to reading methods before public education starts at 8 (according to the Oklahoma Constitution).  My own daughter came home from public school last year in April crying because her teacher told her if she didn't pass her state tests this year, she would be left in third grade.  Yup, that worked out as planned!  Thanks Senator Jolley for creating at least one scared teacher and one equally scared child!
[FAIL; increases size of government, takes oneness off parent, opens the door to bigger government, creates abrupt (and painful) change]

5. SB969 "enhance(d) school choice". This is, again, not a Jolley bill, it was a bill by Dan Newberry in the Senate and Lee Denney of the house.  This provides a tax credit for individuals and/or businesses who donate money to "an eligible scholarship granting institution" for the purposes of providing an alternative education to disadvantaged (poor) and disabled students in failing school districts.  Yes, this does allow choice for a number of 'classes' of students, but not for ALL students.  No matter your opinion of the bill, it did force LOCAL school districts to yet again come under a mandate from the state and created a gargantuan controversy simply because of that fact.
[FAIL; increases size of government, usurps local control - actual choice can only be allowed when ALL mandates are removed from ALL public schools and they are allowed to operate as they should, through the jurisdiction of their boards]

I am adding SB2033 from 2010 and SB222 from 2009.

SB2033 was written by Coffee, Jolley, Ford, Rice and Leftwich of the Senate.  This bill was created as a vehicle by which to apply for federal Race To The Top funds.  The bill is 34 pages and codified into law the Teacher Leader Effectiveness Evaluation System (as mentioned in #4), the Race To The Top Commission, The Common Core State Standards Initiative, and failing school intervention program - three of the four aspects of the Obama Administration's Race To The Top grant paid for with ARRA funds.
[HUGE FAIL; massively increases size (and cost - taxes) of government, usurps local control, opens doors for more federal control and federal money through at least 13 different grant application possibilities] 

Clark Jolley was the principle author on SB222.  This bill was 26 pages long.  It covered the fourth aspect of the RTT grant necessity - development of the P20 Council (and P20 Council REVOLVING FUND) to run the longitudinal database that collects educational 'data' from students Pre-K through 20 years of age.  The P20 database has resulted in egregious violations of student privacy and is becoming vilified in a number of states as parents catch on.  SB222 also created the Educational Quality and Accountability Board (and REVOLVING FUND), Quality Assessment and Accountability Task Force and many other provisions.  I won't go into all of these since I have provided a copy of the bill for all to read, but I will say that the Educational Quality and Accountability Board never met.  This created another gargantuan controversy because of the fact that state public school tests were never actually "properly assessed and calibrated according to law", making it legally impossible for the SDE to force ACE regulations.
[MASSIVE FAIL; enormous increase in size of government to the point that it effects privacy of students and families, usurps local control, opens doors for more federal control and more federal money through SLDS grant programs]

Now, since I have covered specific bills, I am going to take a minute to impart a personal story.  

During 2011, there was a bill of Senator Jolley's (SB264) with which we had issue.  It was advertised as a deregulation bill for schools, but there were an additional number of components - including a reference to the SLDS we didn't like - and we didn't want it passed.  Unfortunately, we found it late in its legislative cycle - after it was going back to the House a second time.  Three of us (Lynn Habluetzel, Danna Foreman and I - you can read about our board here if you don't know who we are), were walking the halls talking to Representatives, sharing our concerns about the bill, when Clark Jolley strides by us at a ferocious clip, points a finger at us and says, "I want to see you in my office" and marches off.  We felt as though we were to follow, so we shrugged our shoulders at one another not knowing what was going on, and followed dutifully. 


Senator Jolley strode into his office directly behind his desk, told us to sit down, sat down himself and immediately launched into a very thorough berating, replete with pointed finger.  Now, mind you, Danna Foreman is actually a constituent of the Senator and NONE of us on the ROPE board are paid in any way - we are all mothers and housewives (Danna and Lynn also run their own businesses) who take it upon ourselves to study the legislative process and become involved.  This fact, however, did not stop Senator Jolley from taking the time to tell us exactly how the cow ate the cabbage.  


We were NOT to go around behind his back, he explained vociferously.  If we had a problem with one of HIS bills, we needed to come to him first and not let him hear about it from someone else.  He wanted to make sure HIS bills get passed and he would work with us but he was not going to have us going around him taking matters into our own hands.


I have NEVER been such a combination of flabbergasted, annoyed and angry all at the same time.  I thought Senators were supposed to be public SERVANTS.  At one point I finally decided I'd had enough and told him that we weren't paid lobbyists and didn't know the system inside and out - heck one of us was even a constituent - we were simply doing what we felt was right.  It didn't require a lecture.


I have never forgotten that incident - and neither have Danna or Lynn. 


None of us can understand why a man who can berate three housewives over an education bill really needs to continue as a Senator as this behavior simply doesn't seem consistent with that of a 'servant'.  In fact, it makes me wonder if that's how he gets so many of his bills passed.  Well, who wants to stand up to a bully?


In closing, while I feel certain that many people will see this as a HIT piece (which it is not, as every assertion in this blog can be corroborated or is backed up by a direct citation) it might help to hear Senator Jolley talk about the legislative process in his own words as recorded during a visit to the High Noon Club last year during a celebration of Milton Friedman's birthday. 


I can believe that Senator Jolley (and the Chamber of Commerce) believes that he is conservative.  We don't, and we hope we have made a direct enough case for you to agree.  


Paul Blair is ROPE's choice for Senate.  We hope he'll be yours as well.