Kyle Hilbert VS Tom Gann For Oklahoma Speaker Of The House

The information in this video was read from the blog of the same name, found on our website.

Less Than 1% Of Their Districts Donate To Reps Wallace, Pfeiffer, Roe, McBride and Senators Garvin and McCortney – WHAT?

May 20, 2024 0  By JENNI WHITE - EDUCATION DIRECTOR

On our podcast Friday, May 17th, Michael Grande and I took election data that had been provided by former HD31 candidate Karmin Grider, and went through it on air – live. It wasn’t pretty, I can assure you, but you can see the full video for yourself on our Rumble and YouTube channels. If you’ve ever wanted to see how to look up candidates on the Oklahoma Ethics website, you can forward to 1:11:20 on the live video where I walk you through the process.

We began our video with state Senator Jessica Garvin. She was elected to SD43 in 2020. This year, Senator Garvin is being challenged by McClain County Assessor, Kendal Sacchieri. We interviewed her about school financing April 3rd of this year and it was a fascinating interview – if not frustrating as a taxpayer.

Senator Garvin has some very low contribution stats when it comes to donations from her district. So where DOES her money come from if it isn’t coming from people who would elect her in her district? Here is the YouTube link to this short.

We talked briefly about Senator Greg McCortney as well, though we’ve talked about him with Karmin before in February of 2024. McCortney is being challenged this year by fellow Republican Jonathan Wingard.

The Senator was voted Pro Temp by the Senate Caucus in February after a 501C4-funded campaign.

This video is a bit over 2 minutes, but it’s very well worth the watch to see who funds Greg McCortney’s Senate campaigns – very instructive.

Now let’s jump to the Oklahoma House.

We’ll start with Oklahoma Representative Kevin Wallace. Representative Wallace has been in his HD32 chair in the legislature since 2014. He is the head of the Appropriations and Budget Committee in the House – a very important assignment. So important in fact, that over the course of his 10 years in the House, he’s run almost ONE MILLION dollars through his campaigns.

This year he is being challenged by Lincoln County resident Jim Shaw, whom we interviewed on our podcast when we spoke to Jeff and Robbie McCommas about the engineered buy up of private land for wind turbines.

Here’s more:

From there, let’s talk about Representative Mark McBride. He was elected to the Oklahoma Legislature HD53 in 2012. In Oklahoma, Representatives are only allowed to serve 12 years (thank goodness!), so Representative McBride will not return to session in 2025. Four candidates are running for that seat – all Republicans: KATHREN STEHNO (who ran against McBride last term), JASON BLAIR, NICK POKORNY and HEATHER BOSS. HD53 will need to do their DUE DILIGENCE on each candidate.

It might be interesting to know who funded Mark McBride’s campaigns over the course of a dozen years in the legislature because it surely wasn’t people in his district.

Our next House member is John Talley from HD33, who was elected in 2018. Talley has been challenged by fellow Republican Brice Chaffin twice and this year, former ROPE Board member Molly Jenkins is running to take his seat.

Only 1.2% of Talley’s campaign financing comes from INSIDE his own district. Maybe that’s why Jenkin’s campaign motto is NO LOBBYIST MONEY? Find the ROPE Report Short here on YouTube.

Next, we’ll talk about Cynthia Roe from HD42, elected in 2018. Hers is one of the lowest funded campaigns from inside her district. Roe couldn’t even garner a tenth of one percent of her campaign finances from her own district. Why? Maybe the answer explains why she has two challengers this year – Matt Huggins and Tony Bowen.

Find the YouTube link here.

The last House District member we profiled in our Friday’s ROPE Report Live podcast, was Representative John Pfeiffer from HD38, elected in 2014. Representative Pfeiffer had absolutely the worst rating of all the legislators we reviewed for Friday’s podcast for in-district donations. In fact, according to data assimilated by Karmin Grider from Oklahoma Ethics Commission data,

John Pfeiffer had only NINE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DONATE TO HIS CAMPAIGN OVER 10 YEARS

Who in the world could John Pfeiffer serve if for over 10 years, only 9 people financially supported his campaigns?

Interestingly, part of Pfeiffer’s district happens to be Blackwell, a town which our V1SUT Vantage Substack author and podcast regular has hammered numerous times in numerous different articles from allowing drag queens to perform in a public park and associated issues with their city council and city attorney, to GIVING Frank Lloyd Wright’s Price Tower to a group of what look to be BitCoin scammers.

This year, Pfeiffer does have a CHALLENGER in Marven Goodman. If you are in the district, look him up. It would certainly appear that HD38 could use a Representative of the PEOPLE and not the corporate.

If you’d like to share the direct YouTube link, click here.

In closing, I’d like to point out – for those who think it’s really no big deal that these elected officials are bought and paid for by corporatists – how the election cycle actually works and how the educated voter gets screwed.

Here’s how it very often works: Campaign consultants (or legislators themselves), find people in districts who they believe can win an election because they have some kind of name recognition – usually they own a business. The candidate then raises money through his/her candidate campaign and their consultant may tap into a direct network of PAC’s funded in great part by 501C4’s (dark money) to buy items like mailers – sometimes two a week at approximately $6 thousand a pop – push polling through text messages, Facebook/social media ads and, if possible, radio and TV.

Because they know that most people have no idea where to get information on voters (even though the thing in their hand they use to watch incessant cat videos on social media uses Google and could pull up a candidate’s website with a basic search) and because they know that most people believe something they read due to personal confirmation biases, they know that putting together slick mailers and ads that stick to specific talking points and misuse, or misinform readers about candidates, will win votes.

So yes, people in their district may elect candidates, but the process is highly suspect and works only because people remain (willfully?) ignorant of how to vet candidates.

So what is the answer to getting representation in the state capitol that care about their district and not their corporate sponsors?

SHARE THE INFORMATION YOU GATHER ABOUT CANDIDATES WITH OTHERS; neighbors and friends are more willing to believe you than an ad. SET THEM STRAIGHT. Post to social media, call, stop by – whatever works. This is really the only way. We’re never going to beat these people with money – they’ll always have more than us. The only way to beat the game is by waking up others and getting information directly to them that they can use to vote – and in turn influence others on their own.

Twitter Rally For HB1622 And End Of EOI Testing!

This legislative session in Oklahoma, there have been numerous bills to reduce testing. We've written about a number of them. Now, as session draws to a close for this year, all the testing bills that have been passed by the House and Senate committees are being funneled to the floor for votes by the full Senate.

Several bills (707, 784) contain language that points directly to ACT. We have written extensively about why ACT is not an option for Oklahoma currently - mainly because ACT has their own set of standards by which students will be tested, while Oklahoma has barely begun the process of writing our own standards as dictated by last year's Common Core repeal bill (HB3399).  ROPE supports the passage of HB1622 by Representative David Derby, which stops EOI testing, while creating a process by which Oklahoma can design one end of year exam using our own Oklahoma standards. HB1622 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY and is thus supported by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma State Representatives. There really is no reason not to use this bill over the others still circulating.

As all the testing bills move to the floor of the Senate THIS WEEK, we are asking you to help us campaign for the passage of HB1622.

FIRST: Right click on one or all of the memes in this blog, then save it to your computer.

NEXT: If you are on Facebook, replace your FB image with one of these memes.

NEXT: If you are on Twitter, Tweet out the memes to your Senator (and others if you wish) using the list below (there are House members included there too, so just pick out your Senator). This list may not be comprehensive, so once you have attached your photo to your Tweet, try typing in the name of your Senator (for example, I'd type in Sen, Ron, Sharp, and if I didn't find anything, I'd use variations of that name - Senator Ron Sharp - until I found the right Twitter handle).

NEXT: Use the hashtag, #YESONHB1622 so we can keep count of the number of Tweets sent.

NEXT: Tweet these to your friends to re-Tweet as well.

Feel free to CALL your Senator as well. You can find their numbers here.

Thanks for your help!

@AnthonySykes

@brecheen4senate

@BrianRenegar

@ClaudiaHD45

@ConnieJ4OK

@davidbrumbaugh

@DavidPerrymanOK

@ecannaday

@FieldsForSenate

@jamesmleewright

@jasonnelsonok

@jdunnington

@jonechols

@JordanOKHouse

@jwmurphey

@Kannady4OK91Rep

@KayFloydOK

@KenWalker4house

@kimdavid

@kimdavid2010

@kyledloveless

@leslieosborn1

@lewismooreok

@MarkDistrict30

@MarkMcBrideHD53

@MazzeiMike

@MontgomeryOK62

@NathanDahm

@Newberry37

@OKHouseofReps

@okrepstrohm

@oksde

@oksenategop

@patownbey

@RandyJGrau

@RepAPittman

@RepCOrtega

@RepEmilyVirgin

@RepHickman

@RepJoshCockroft

@RepMarkMcBride

@RepMikeShelton

@RepScottBiggs

@RepScottInman

@RepTomNewell

@RickBrinkley

@SallyKern

@SE_Pres_Burrage

@Sen_GregTreat

@sen_roger

@Senatorcjohnson

@senatorcrain

@SenatorRandyBas

@SenatorRobS

@SenatorSimpson

@SenatorSparks

@SenCoreyBrooks

@Seneca_Scott

@SenStanislawski

@smalley101

@SoonerRep

@SpkrHickmanOK

@stephaniebice

@ToddThomsen

@VoteEliseHall

@Yen4Senate

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. 

Them AGAINST Us; More NCLB nonsense in the Oklahoma legislature

In the last several months, I’ve written about our attempts to stop two bills: SB1797 by Clark Jolley and HB2524 by Lee Denney, that we believe have been written to forward the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waiver that Governor Fallin and Superintendent Barresi wrote applied to receive from our federal government. I’ve written about our concerns, I’ve written about the Legislative Shenanigans that have surrounded the bills.

Finally, I wrote to ask everyone who believes in our cause to call (some legislators aren’t even reading their email because their in-boxes are full to overflowing) and ask committee members to vote no on SB1797 in the Appropriations and Budget Education Subcommittee Monday, April 2.

Guess what? We lost by one vote and the bill will be heard in the A&B Committee in the House and then on to the floor of the House for a vote.   

The vote actually would have been tied, causing the bill to fail, but the Speaker Pro Temp (Representative Jeff Hickman) came down from his office to vote yes. 

Not shockingly, room 432A was filled for the 10:30 meeting. The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) Chief of Staff Joel Robison was there, Secretary of Education Phyllis Hudeki was there, OSDE Legislative Liaison, Jessica Russell was in attendance, the Governor’s policy analyst, Katie Altschuler,  four ROPE board members (Lynn, Danna, Julia and I) - and our friend Nancy - and of course Representative Hickman, who  can attend and vote in any committee meeting on the House side when a bill the Governor wants to see passed needs a little extra help. 

Goodness, why all the heavy hitters there at this meeting? 

Could it be because ROPE had done our (UNPAID, government BY the people) jobs and alerted committee members to our misgivings and many members saw validity in our concerns? 

Though uncertain exactly why SB1797 was placed in Appropriations and Budget, other than one line in the bill (pg 11 line 7; SECTION 5, section 3-117) that says the merger will create a whopping 15% savings (oh, wait, if a bill is placed on the agenda of a committee where the author is the Chair, it will most certainly get a hearing), the bill was addressed.  Oklahoma Watchdog has a near blow-by-blow report of what happened during the bill’s hearing. 

[I am attaching links to ALL the documents we have sourced for this report at the bottom and I will insert links into the text as they apply, however, in order to keep this piece FAIRLY short, I am not going to report on previously hoed ground.]

In the beginning, ROPE objected strenuously to these bills because they were attempting to put more Common Core language into state law by removing NAEP as the baseline for performance level descriptors for Oklahoma tests and inserting PARCC – the testing arm for the Common Core. 

“The State Board of Education Commission shall establish panels to review and revise the performance level descriptors for each subject and grade level, which shall be set by a method and panel composition similar to that used for the National Assessment of Educational Progress Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers performance setting process.”

This language is in BOTH the HB and SB introduced forms.

Once we made Representatives aware of our concerns regarding this issue and they looked further into HB2762, Representative Denney could not get enough votes to pass the bill and had to lay it over on the House floor March 15^th. 

Since ROPE and members of the legislature have made headway with our talking points (PARCC, Common Core) administration has seen fit to CHANGE THE LANGUAGE in the last remaining bill (SB1797) and REMOVE our talking points altogether - not address our objections mind you - but simply CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. Language now states;

“The Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability shall have the authority to set cut scores using any method which the State Board of Education was authorized to use in setting cut scores prior to July 1, 2013.” (Engrossed version, page 24, line 21 or Section 1210.541. B.)

After receiving the waiver, ROPE knew the 2012 legislative session would most probably produce a bill or bills with language assisting Oklahoma in retaining its waiver. As we have reported extensively, NCLB waivers are the mechanism for the federal government to finally take control of STATE and LOCAL (now there are NCLB waivers for DISTRICTS!) public education. For nearly six months now, we’ve outlined all the relevant research and even informed the Governor and Superintendent of our findings and opinions. We’ve notified all the legislators to whom we’ve spoken about our concerns, but it was not until the Committee Meeting Monday morning we realized we would have to do better.

After he exited the committee room (432a), I approached Representative Hickman about his vote on the bill. As we talked, he made two points that need to be addressed and refuted since these will be the NEW talking points used by the administration to (ONCE AGAIN) reduce and/or refute the basis of our argument:

 

1. “This is not about the NCLB waiver.” (Where have we heard that before? Maybe here and here.) And,  
2. “This bill doesn’t have anything to do with the Common Core. The way I understand it, that train’s already left the station and Dr. Barresi can use PARCC without having that codified in law.”

I have now read EVERY SINGLE piece of information searchable on the web regarding the NCLB waiver to Oklahoma. I can tell you that, according to our research, the assertions above are incorrect and Representatives referring to this bill as not being related to the Common Core or the NCLB waiver have been either extraordinarily misinformed, not read the waiver, or misrepresented the facts. 

Secretary Duncan’s letter to Dr. Barresi explains, in part, why the waiver was granted:

“Oklahoma has: (1) demonstrated that it has college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) developed, and has a high-quality plan to implement, a system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support for all Title I districts and schools in the State; (3) committed to developing, adopting, piloting, and implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that support student achievement; and (4) provided an assurance that it will evaluate and, based on that evaluation, revise its administrative requirements to reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on districts and schools.”

Number 1 has been addressed through the states adoption of Common Core State Standards and by becoming a state governing body of PARCC: 

1. Waiver, pg 15-23 explains how PARCC testing will be put in place to test the CCSS 
2. Page 22 specifically discusses how the P20 (the state’s longitudinal database system) will assist in implementing PARCC  
3. SB1797, addressed this issue SPECIFICALLY prior to the language change now seen on page 24, line 21 or Section 1210.541.B., however the allowed change in cut score accountability from NAEP to “whatever” is still present.

Number 2 has been addressed through the A-F grading system passed through state legislature last year (HB1456 from 2011) and adopted by the Board of Education – however:

1. SB1797, “Creating the Commission for Education, Instruction Quality and, Accountability to assume roles of multiple entities.” pulls the Education Oversight Board (currently creates school ‘report cards’) and the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Prep into the Commission under one umbrella – this new commission 
2. SB1797 Page 44, Section 1210.531. A. of the bill states, “Commission for Education, Instruction Quality and Accountability shall establish an Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program.
3. The Oklahoma State Department of Education website under the Office of Testing and Accountability, explains that “After receiving the ESEA Waiver, the state provides School Report Cards based on an A-F system of grading.” It is not a giant leap then, to recognize that this new Commission will be fulfilling that duty once held by the old Education Oversight Board.

Number 3 is addressed throughout the entire document, as much of the document is tied to Teacher Preparation.  Much of the teacher prep is needed for the A-F school grading as the bottom two designations; D = Focus School and F = Priority School – require great deals of teacher professional development.

1. SB1797 Page 21, Section 6-184, F and G outline how the new Commission will deal with “teacher leadership and effectiveness or professional development”
2. Waiver page 71 (Priority Schools), “Prepared Staff” development in both content areas and youth development contribute to staff becoming role models and informal mentors for participating young people.
3. Waiver page 79, (Focus Schools) “Required Resources, Activities, and Interventions”: …and professional development designed to meet the needs of teachers and administrators in Focus Schools.
4. Waiver page 81, (Focus Schools) “The principal of each Focus School, along with a team of teacher leaders, will be required to participate in state-provided training in the Oklahoma Data Review Model.

After reading the NCLB Waiver, ROPE is truly not certain why the new Commission should even exist, as the Oklahoma Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation System (TLE) is touted highly in the WAIVER (Pgs 98-105) and seems to have been created specifically to fulfill this portion of the NCLB Act.

Number 4:  Requires the review and evaluation of State-level administrative and reporting requirements to reduce duplication and unnecessary burden.

1.  Doesn’t RESTRUCTURING TEACHER PREP and THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT BOARD into ONE Commission count?

Dates:  SB1797 Sections 18, 19 and 20 have dates changed to either 2013 or 2014.  

Secretary Duncan’s letter to Dr. Barresi states, “To receive approval to use its A-F grading system and to implement ESEA flexibility through the end of the 2013-2014 school year, Oklahoma must submit to the Department for review and approval (1) an amended request that incorporates the final administrative rules for its A-F school grading system or demonstrates that Oklahoma will continue to meet the ESEA flexibility principles in the absence of those administrative rules; and (2) a copy of the final administrative rules, if applicable. If Oklahoma does not receive approval of an amended request, the waivers being granted to Oklahoma through ESEA flexibility will expire at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, and Oklahoma and its districts will be required to immediately resume complying with all ESEA requirements.

In closing, two MAJOR issues: 

1. In order to comply with the waiver application (page 8 of the waiver requires, “A description of how the SEA meaningfully engaged and solicited input on its request from teachers and their representatives.), pages 107 through 365 are documents received by the department in response to Dr. Barresi regarding the issue of the state requesting a waiver. 
• After analysis, it was found that out of 15 responses included, only 5 were FOR the waiver while 10 were AGAINST. 
• In addition, the average length of emails in support of the waiver was 5 sentences. Those opposed to the waiver wrote on average 3 pages of detailed explanation as to their reservations.   
2. Jonathan Small of Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs just released an analysis entitled, “State could save millions by reducing duplicative teacher preparation” in which he states that teacher preparation should be returned to the district level – if at all – saving taxpayers 1.5 million dollars a year.

In conclusion, it appears to ROPE that while there are some simply outstanding Oklahoma legislators, there are also a number of Oklahoma legislators that either, a) have not read the bills they have been asked to carry and are woefully ignorant of what is in them, b) listen only to the person who brings them the bills and then plays follow the leader,  c) want their bills to pass so badly they are willing to misrepresent the nature of the bill to colleagues, or d) think they know much more than us silly little taxpayers who can’t possibly be expected to know enough about an issue to make an informed decisions so they feel obliged (and happy) to do it for us.

In any case, the most frustrating and irritating situation is that the Governor of Oklahoma knows who ROPE is (but she will not meet with us so we can discuss our concerns with her) - the Superintendent of Public Instruction certainly knows who we are (she included our NCLB Waiver response in the waiver - yet she holds open contempt for me personally and the organization) - even the Secretary of Education knows who we are.  As the ONLY taxpayer/parent-run education research watchdog in the entire state, you might think any one of these women in their positions of power in education in Oklahoma would be interested in hearing what we have to say - even ask our opinion possibly.  No, I hold no illusions.  I'm not sitting by the phone with bated breath waiting for that call.  We're not important.  We represent only the serfs.  None of us at ROPE imagine we'll hear from our higher ELECTED officials - at least not until RE-ELECTION TIME!

HELPFUL LINKS:

ESEA Flexibility http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

ESEA flexibility requests: http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/requests

Approved Waiver: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/ok.pdf

NCLB waiver executive Summary” http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/ESEA-ExecSummary.pdf

Final NCLB waiver request: http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/FinalRequest.pdf

Duncan’s letter of approval to Dr. Barresi: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/secretary-letters/ok.html

Oklahoma’s Approved ESEA Flexibility Request:  http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/ESEA-FAQ.pdf

Waiver request specifics:  http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/Waivers-AYPRankOrder.pdf

Improvements made by Oklahoma to its NCLB (ESEA) flexibility request: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/improvement-to-state-request/ok.pdf

Power Point on waiver:  http://www.okcps.org/Portals/Okcs/District/docs/Courtney/FINAL%20-%20Waiver%20Capacity%20Board%202-20-12.pdf

State could save millions by reducing duplicative teacher preparation:   http://www.ocpathink.org/articles/1775

Oklahoma educators give new school grading system poor marks at state hearing:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-educators-give-new-school-grading-system-poor-marks-at-state-hearing/article/3659131#ixzz1qxTEhmiE

Oklahoma board adopts A-F School Grading System:  http://newsok.com/oklahoma-board-adopts-a-f-school-grading-system/article/3661817

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):  http://ok.gov/sde/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-esea

Education Oversight Board/ Office of Accountability:  http://www.schoolreportcard.org/law.htm

HB2762: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb2762

SB1797:  http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1797