We Don't Need Your Corporatist Or Progressive Education - The MIDDLE'S Here To Play!

Joy Pullmann at the Federalist wrote a GREAT piece today on why Michelle Rhee should NOT be named as theSecretary of Education. I loved it so much, I'm doubling down on it. 

No, neither Rhee nor anyone else of her 'ilk' should be appointed as head of DOE. 

In case you don't know - or are somehow new to education policy (or heck - just governance in the United States) - there is no middle ground. NONE. Yes, there is supposed to be a gradient of governance that tends to rest somewhere near the middle of the ideological spectrum (ideally) in EVERY area over our lives the government has usurped, yet - particularly in education - what you really have is this: 

Agreeing To Disagree Not Disagreeing To The Death

Today, I participated in a "Capacity Review" for the Oklahoma State Department of Education. May I say first, BOY WAS I HAPPY TO BE ASKED! I'm no prognosticator - I can't see ahead to the end of Supt. Hofmeister's term - but I can tell you that as of now, I'm impressed. It feels so good just to be ASKED for input and not stiff-armed or walked out on, or indirectly called a liar. Going into her new position, it is at least apparent that Mrs. Hofmeister understands the rule, "You get more flies with honey than vinegar". She may not hear or take into consideration a word we said, but again, just indicating interest salves a lot of wounds!

The meeting of the group in which I was placed (I assume we were the 'parent' group) was this morning at 8:00am. Other than having to leave the kids Home Alone (insert face of Macaulay Culkin here!) from 7:30am to 10:00am, it was no trouble and the facilitator shepherded the meeting diligently, allowing the seven of us to be excused in just about an hour.

Our group contained representatives from PTA, Oklahoma Central PLAC, Stand For Children, VOICE, Oklahoma Parents/Educators for Public Education and a Sand Springs Teacher also coordinator of Parents and Teachers. Several of these groups clashed with ROPE over Common Core last year and others have been frustrated by our support for Education Savings Accounts/school choice this year. Consequently, I have to admit once the group assembled, I began to hear the Sesame Street classic, "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others" playing in my head while I wondered how and where the conversation would go.

In the end, I appreciated hearing what others had to say in response to the questions posed by the facilitator, and agreed with a number of the opinions provided. In fact, I re-learned a valuable lesson; oftentimes people have more in common than not, it's finding common ground that's often hard.

Sadly, finding common ground has been made more difficult in just the last decade due to many factors culminating in political polarity unseen since possibly the sixties and the Vietnam War. Today, Americans at large seem to believe that even the slightest disagreement should be handled as Gladiators fighting to the death in the Colosseum. In fact, numerous research and articles such as, "Torn Apart: 11 Charts That Show How Americans Are More Divided, Partisan, And Ideological Than Ever Before" by Business Insider, recount this nationwide trend.

There also appears to be a general degradation of basic social skills I blame in large part on social media. In the 'old days' of my youth, until the dawn of 'texting' and email, we'd actually call people on the phone or meet face to face to discuss possibly divisive issues. Voice to ear, or face to face, it's much harder to launch into an emotion-filled, intellectually-deflated tirade, than when you let your fingers do the walking across an impersonal keyboard to a 'send' button.

I've found myself on the receiving end of unpleasant remarks from time to time over politics and opinion. Though I don't enjoy it, I attempt not to go tit-for-tat because I'm a mouth - I freely (and frequently) state my opinion - so it seems fair that if someone somewhere doesn't agree, that person has the same right as I to their own view. It seems at cross purposes to return unpleasantries with someone for their opinion when taking that path will inevitably lead to a dead end. Writing something akin to "Your mother wears combat boots" in all caps in a social media forum - or even within the confines of an email - does nothing but alienate the person on the receiving end, effectively shutting down discussion that could lead to some kind of common understanding on some level.

Everyone who reads this blog knows I self-identify as Conservative. I've very little patience for big government/bureaucratic solutions to any situation that can't be addressed on some level through personal control and/or a non-profit organization. When I first awakened politically, I considered anyone with a "D" after their name on their voter registration, the "enemy". Then I found Pat Caddell. Then I found Dr. John Thompson. Then I began to digest the fact that people are people, not the sum total of their political thought.

I remember meeting Dr. Thompson outside the Committee room at the Capitol where anti-Common Core activists/teachers/parents were testifying against the standards in 2013. He walked over to me and introduced himself as a "liberal Democrat who doesn't like Common Core". I was still in political 'stiff arm' mode with those on the 'other side of the fence' so it took me some time to find listening mode on my hearing aid, but once I did, I realized a number of things: 1. He was a really nice guy 2. He was incredibly knowledgeable about a number of issues and I gained new perspective listening to him 3. We had more things in common than I would have ever thought before actually TALKING to him, and 4. When we don't agree, I think we can do so civilly with the idea we don't dislike each other personally, we just don't agree on a specific issue.

The only cure for my deeply-rooted small government/social values bend will be the shaking off of my mortal coil. I'm not going to suddenly adopt a different internal compass to agree with someone on a point with which I simply can't agree philosophically. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to find common ground where I can with others who don't share my political/social values.

To conclude our meeting today, our facilitator asked what we could do to support the Department of Ed - how we could support the new Superintendent. I think I voiced the notion that I would when I could and I wouldn't when I couldn't, but that was okay. Disagreeing doesn't mean I 'hate' the Department or the Superintendent, it simply means I don't agree. I also pointed out that most of us in the room wouldn't agree on a number of issues, but that debate was healthy and fostering civil discussion opened doors to understanding. It does. We just need to be sure we're agreeing to disagree, not disagreeing to the death.

PARCC or not to PARCC - That Is The Question?

Since the Common Core has been taken to task in Oklahoma by HB3399 and a number of stellar lawmakers who apparently have the best interests of Oklahoma children at heart, there have been a number of concerns about testing.

Here's a bit of background on the state of Common Core testing from Ed.gov:

ABOUT THE RACE TO THE TOP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The Race to the Top Assessment program was authorized as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In September 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awarded competitive, four-year grants to two consortia of states, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced).

Though Common Core naysayers have been given names the likes of 'misinformed' when it comes to the idea that Common Core is a federal program, it is impossible to argue with these facts:

1. What is tested is taught, thereby creating a situation in which testing drives curricula - especially since Common Core tests are high stakes tests tied, not only to our state's A-F grading system for public schools but teacher 'grading' as well
2. The Common Core tests are federally subsidized via ARRA funds given to PARCC and Smarter Balance
3. The federal government is now reviewing the tests they paid to develop, further entrenching the federal government in the Common Core process

Now, as the state attempts to abandon Common Core, we have explained to lawmakers that Oklahoma should move up to PASS rather than stay with Common Core (Oklahoma Academic Standards) in the interim period while new standards are being written.  We have encountered resistance with this idea however, as Oklahoma's contract with Measured Progress is brought up over and over again as though contracts with state agencies are iron clad and contain no exclusion clause. 

Our main concerns with MP tests follow:

1. Superintendent Barresi made an enormous issue out of removing Oklahoma from PARCC testing (as did many other states) - most probably because the argument provided earlier about the federal government intervention into Common Core, but also because of costs.  PARCC costs were listed as one reason why Dr. Barresi dropped out of the testing consortium.  Evidently, the costs are ever-increasing as PARCC had to reorganize as a C3 (non-profit) organization in order to receive private funding to cover the costs (with help from the National Governor's Association).
2. MP was granted subcontractor status to PARCC through PARCC's contract with Education Testing Services (ETS).  Consequently, any test written or provided by MP would be a PARCC test.

Why get out of PARCC if we're just going to go right back via a different name (like Common Core vs Oklahoma Academic Standards)?  Why disregard Mary Fallin's Executive Order on testing (#2) that states:

The state of Oklahoma will be exclusively responsible for deciding the assessment methodology to be used to measure student performance.

Clearly, if Oklahoma is using MP, we will be unable meet this requirement, as this company is a subcontractor to PARCC and ETS.

Finally, the Common Core state standards are being fully digitized and each standard placed into a database.  This database will then be utilized by the testing companies contracted/subcontracted to PARCC to determine the exact standard/s the student missed during testing because the testing database will align with the standards database.  Truly, this could result in a situation in which career counseling would remove a career opportunity for a student simply because they missed career-similar test questions on the Common Core-aligned testing.  This situation would not only have to violate Governor Fallin's Executive Order on student privacy (#5), but would create a European system of public education expressly frowned on by those who founded our country on the idea that any American could be anything.

We must not only stop Common Core State Standards in Oklahoma, but Common Core testing through Measured Progress as well!

ROPE Approves Democrat Disapproval

Wednesday morning, May 2, at 9:00am, Representative Mike Shelton will be presenting a "Motion of Disapproval" to the Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee against the grading system proffered by Dr. Janet Barresi and the State Department of Education in order to get the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver (approved by the Department of Education in February of this year and put into law through HB1456 last legislative year). 

According to the report in the Oklahoman, Representative Lee Denney had this to say about her bill (HB1456), 

“This bill will empower them (schools) to either work with the school board and fix the school that their children are in or take their child to a school that will serve their needs.” 

Joel Robison, then head of the Oklahoma Education Association (hired by Dr. Barresi as her Chief of Staff this year) wasn't sure if the grading system was necessary, 

“It makes it easy. A school can get a grade that reflects certain things that is a true grade, but it may not be an accurate representation of everything that's going on at that school.”

Never an NCLB waiver advocate, ROPE now extends our assistance to Representative Shelton and will be at the Wednesday meeting prepared to speak against the grading system.

Should there be accountability in public schools?  Without question.  NO ONE should disagree on that point.  Public schools (including Charter schools) are supported via tax dollars and the people who provide those tax dollars (the public) have a right to know how their money is being spent on the education of future generations.  

We don't even disagree with creating a 'grading system' for schools that is more 'user friendly' than the one in current use.  Don't forget, schools have been continuously graded since President Bush's NCLB went into affect, through something called AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress.  The problems with AYP have been varied and many, however, from parents not understanding what an AYP of 560 means to how the actual AYP for each school is calculated. 

The new A-F grading system was ostensibly created to allow schools to be graded an F rather than a 580, making it easier for parents to understand. 

The new grading system assumes the following model:

A = Reward school

B = ? (We guess the B grade name is a secret)

C = Targeted Intervention

D = Focus School

F = Priority School

HERE'S WHERE WE DISAGREE: (SEA = State Education Authority = State Department of Education.  LEA = Local Education Authority = school and/or district)

According to the Waiver (page 67, 68),

LEAs that are unable to demonstrate capacity and the ability to facilitate improvement will relinquish control of all aspects of a Priority School’s operations that directly or indirectly relate to student achievement to the SEA to be included in a theoretical, geographically-unbound group of schools, known as the C3 Schools (C3S). The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction will assume control of the operations and management for schools designated as C3S as they directly or indirectly relate to student achievement;

In addition, the State Board of Education may choose to reserve a percentage, not to exceed 20% consistent with the requirements listed below, of the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation to allow the SEA to begin or continue implementing the Turnaround Principles in C3S Priority Schools in the LEA.

Each LEA with at least one Title I Priority School will be required to set aside a percentage of its Title I, Part A allocation, which is reasonable and  necessary to implement the Turnaround Principles in the Priority Schools and to provide school choice options for parents/guardians of students in the school, in consultation with the SEA. This percentage will be determined on a sliding scale...

As stated above, LEAs with identified Priority Schools will be required to implement the Turnaround Principles defined in this ESEA waiver package. LEAs that are unable to demonstrate capacity to do so will relinquish control of all aspects of a Priority School’s operations that directly or indirectly relate to student achievement to the SEA to be included in the C3S.

 Also according to the Waiver (page 80),

No teacher or administrator in a Focus School will be exempt from participation in required training or professional development, regardless of the time of day, week, or year; however, the SEA will conscientiously protect instructional time for classroom teachers.

Also according to of the Waiver (Page 86-87),

The SEA’s School Support/School Improvement Team and other SEA staff will provide timely and comprehensive monitoring of, and technical assistance for, LEA implementation of interventions in Priority Schools and Focus Schools.

[Monitoring Structure:] Priority schools will be required to implement one of four United States Department of Education’s SIG models, or implement an intervention that satisfies the Turnaround Principles. Monitoring of Priority and Focus schools will be conducted by the SEA’s School Support/School Improvement Team in collaboration with the Office of Federal Programs, the Office of Student Support, the Office of Instruction, the Office of Special Education, and the Office of Accountability and Assessment.

 And finally (well not really, the waiver is 107 pages) there's page 88:

The SEA has chosen to participate in multi-state consortia and collaborative associations in order to develop its own capacity to serve LEAs and schools. The SEA will continue to participate in these multistate organizations and to seek out additional support from other states implementing similar reform strategies. 

So, let's get this straight:

• The State Department of Education will grade schools based on a formula based on something the federal government likes out of a federal education reform package and
• if they don't like the school's grade, will come in and take it over, using people from a number of different offices and organizations that may or may not even work within the borders of the state
• take up to (and/or over) 20% of the school's designated Title I federal funds to pay for that takeover and then
• implement yet ANOTHER federal program - Turnaround (from the Race To The Top incentive packages funded with ARRA funds - which hasn't even worked in Arne Duncan's OWN Chicago school district, let alone others!) along with the federally funded, Common Core State Standards and the untested, unproven, unseen, PARCC tests
• and force teachers into professional development models (though we keep overlooking the real issue as to why schools don't perform - no more "kill and drill" to learn basic math facts and English parts of speech and too little time to teach mastery of skills when the teacher needs to teach 500 things to get kids to pass the tests and she doesn't get fired).

How do any of these plans (edicts) allow schools to "work with the school board"?  This sounds more like the State Department of Education will come into "Focus" and "Priority" schools, insert their own staff under the guise of "monitoring", take up to 20% of their Title I funds to do it and implement even more unproven education reform nonsense before the ink on the takeover is even dry.

Nearly 6 million dollars in School Improvement Grants (SIG) have been given Oklahoma. Are you going to tell me this whole NCLB Waiver thing is about the kids?

In addition, the SEA has a plan for continuing the model - whether it works or not.  

Check out Page 85 of the Waiver:

Innovating beyond the ESEA Flexibility requirements, Oklahoma will require interventions of all schools that are in the bottom 25% of the State in student achievement that have not been previously identified as Priority schools or Focus Schools.

How is any of this local?  How is any of this endless bureaucracy going to help schools or students?  It isn't and if you ask Chris Brewster, Superintendent of Santa Fe South, Joel Robison is a prophet.  Because of all the red tape and endless hoops to jump through, his waiver paperwork wasn't done appropriately, putting his school on the list of C3 schools when many others didn't believe it should have been.  His isn't the only school this has happened to.  In fact, it isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, if this program is allowed to continue.  

Layered bureaucracy will NEVER solve problems in education (or anywhere) like locality.  Government closest to the people is always best because it is closest to the needs of the people being served.  Education can only be run by the district for the district of the district...let's hope Oklahoma finds that out before we program ourselves into the 15th century!