Oklahoma Republican Legislators Enacted President Obama's Education Agenda During 2010 Creating Many Of The Problems We're Seeing In Public Education TODAY

As a pre-Halloween trick, this article was released in the Tulsa World - Teacher shortage milestone: New record set for nonaccredited teachers given emergency certification in Oklahoma.

HB3399: Why Are We Arguing Over A Percent Of A Percent?

Throughout the process of educating legislators and the public about the necessity to repeal the Common Core State Standards in order for Oklahoma to keep public education local, concerns regarding the loss of Oklahoma's waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) continue to arise.  Now many organizations are calling on Governor Fallin to veto HB3399 - the strongest, most thorough repeal of Common Core in the nation, primarily because of misunderstandings regarding the way Oklahoma's NCLB waiver was written, and the power of the federal government.

How Much Effect Does Oklahoma's NCLB Waiver Have On Public Schools?

Quick review:  Oklahoma assured the Department of Education (DOE) three categories worth of 'reforms' under the state's NCLB waiver:

• Our state would adopt the Common Core State Standards (check)
• Our state would adopt an A-F grading system (check - except that the calculations were horrible and the legislature disapproved the rules for them)
• Our state would adopt a grading scale for teachers - Teacher/Leader Effectiveness - TLE (check - except now we're not going to use quantitative measures)

According to the FAQ page about our state's NCLB Waiver, the second two are considered "accountability" measures.  The state addresses a loss of the NCLB waiver on their FAQ sheet:

Now that the waiver has been approved, what will happen regarding the accountability system if the waiver is rescinded? 

Because both current state law and reforms are now in the implementation phase (such as the new A-F Report Card for Schools), Oklahoma would continue efficiently transitioning to a new accountability system in a timely manner, even if the waiver were not in effect.

Here are a few facts about the NCLB Waiver

* States lose no money if they lose the waiver, they only lose the ability to DIRECT 20% of Title 1 funds, which, in Oklahoma amounts to 0.5% of the total budget

•    $5,250,065,70
            ◦   total funding for K-12 education; local, state and federal sources

•    $646,625,448

◦   total federal education funds; 12.3% of total education funding

•    $148,119,558 

◦   total federal Title I funds; 22.9% of total federal education funding

•    $27,198,000

◦   SDE estimate of the amount of federal Title 1 funds that would be required to be set aside for supplemental education services should the state lose its NCLB waiver; 

◦   approximately 20% of federal Title I funds (20% is actually $29,623,912)  0.5% of total education funding

* States do not get MORE federal government intervention with the loss of the waiver, it's simply a different kind of government intervention - telling the state how to spend a whopping total 0.5% of a FIVE BILLION dollar budget.

*Yes, if we lose the waiver, Title 1 schools labeled as "Priority Schools" under the state's waiver would be subjected to something called "The Turnaround Model" in which the state can:

1. Close the school site, OR 2. Convert the school site to a charter school, OR 3. Fire the principal and half the teaching staff/replace with new staff, OR 4. State takeover of the school." 

Here are a few facts about the "Turnaround Model":

• It was begun in Chicago by Bill Gates while Arne Duncan was still Chicago Superintendent - his association with Gates on school reforms in Chicago is one of the reasons he became national Superintendent
• Bill Gates has funded this effort via millions and millions of dollars only for it not to work - even in Chi-town where it started out
• The DOE has provided SIG (School Improvement) Grants - for which Oklahoma has applied and received 5.6 million dollars to help failing schools in Oklahoma

• The Turnaround Model - like Common Core - has been part of the package offered states for money (State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, Race to the Top, NCLB Waiver, SIG) since President Obama was elected - this is NOTHING new and we've used it in Oklahoma already, NUMEROUS times with schools mentioned in the Waiver
• Because SO MANY Oklahoma schools will be labeled "Priority" under the new 'accountability' system, it is highly implausible that the State Dept. of Education could even enforce this part of the Waiver

What Happens When We Don't Follow The Feds - Early Innovator Grant

• Mary Fallin gave back the 54 million dollar Early Innovator Grant to set up our state's Obamacare Exchange
• Cries that the federal government was going to come in and set up Oklahoma's exchange for them were EVERYWHERE with not only policy people, but legislators parroting this talking point 
• Governor Fallin sent the money back and not only did the federal government NOT come in and set up an exchange for us, many GREAT things have happened:

• Attorney General Scott Pruitt was able to use the argument that Oklahoma didn't have an exchange as a linchpin in his lawsuit against the federal government enforcing national healthcare on Oklahomans
• States like Kansas - and others - followed Governor Fallin's lead and didn't set up their own
• Now we see states that DID kowtow to the feds are struggling with their own insurance exchanges which simply don't function

What Happens When We Don't Follow the Feds - Oklahoma DHS 

In his debate for HB3399 on the floor of the House, Representative Jason Nelson recounted his work providing accountability for Oklahoma DHS, during which, he received several official letters from federal DHS warning him they would intervene in state business if he went too far. Representative Nelson continued his work "too far", and instead of intervening, the federal government backed down.

NCLB Waivers - Like NCLB Itself - Are "Crumbling"

The following excerpt is from an EdWeek article entitled, "Five Key Questions About the Ed. Department's Move on NCLB Waivers"

Margaret Spellings, a key architect of the original NCLB law who served as secretary of education under President George W. Bush, told me two years ago that waivers would be very tough to manage and oversee.
"The waivers were a mistake," she said back in August 2012. "It's a crazy quilt of a system which I think will die [on its] own." 

Because the NCLB Waiver system has been so far reaching, there will be little the DOE can do to keep states in line - there is simply no manpower to undertake a "check and punish" system for states that go their own way.  In addition, there are so many inconsistencies in the program - who gets a waiver, who doesn't - that it leaves states room to be able to argue a DOE decision on that basis alone.

As ROPE has said over and over again, Oklahoma is a sovereign state, and the Constitution of the United States is on our side.  We can talk a good game about local control of education - and Governor Fallin can write all the Executive Orders she wants decrying the hand of FedEd in the education of Oklahoma's kids - but until we put our money where our mouth is, our words are hollow.  Let's be the DO AS I DO state and do what's best for Oklahoma kids on our own turf, in our own way without genuflecting and kissing the ring of a King.

Lobbying Group - National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) - Says HB3399 Unconstitutional?

As hysteria about one state in the union breaking away from the hold of the federal government increases to fevered pitch, NASBE weighs in by sending Governor Fallin a letter detailing how the law (HB3399) is unconstitutional.  Seriously, this is rich.

Here in Oklahoma, I know at least two school board members (one a school board President) that do NOT want Common Core.  Travis Sallee, the President of the Guthrie School Board made news recently with the Board's very public resolution AGAINST Common Core.  Thompson Spier an Oklahoma school board member, recently made post history for views on our Facebook (over 7000) page with a heartfelt letter he penned about his school board's declining role in the education of his community's children in view of the ever-increasing mandates caused by dictates from Washington, D.C.  He is also not a Common Core fan.

In fact, several school board members have told me that they have NEVER been surveyed as to their opinion about Common Core before the state school board association (OSSBA) and NASBE decided to lobby FOR Common Core and against HB3399.  So why is it that Governor Fallin should listen to an organization that gets its lobbying power from the tens of thousands of dollars it collects in dues, over the cries of parents with anguished kids at their kitchen table?

To finish off this post, here is the comment I made to the article just because I simply had to.

Wow. Not surprising however, with all the backing NASBE has gotten from Bill Gates to shove Common Core down the throats of school board members whether they liked it or not. 

Amount: $450,675; to convene regional meetings of policymakers and leaders to increase member knowledge around the common core standards 

Amount: $1,077,960 ;to build the capacity of State Boards of Education to better position them to achieve full implementation of the Common Core standards 

Amount: $800,000; Purpose: to support a development plan for the organization and its efforts to provide training and information to implement Common Core State Standards 

Hmmm...isn't that conflict of interest? NASBE complaining about Oklahoma trying to stop Common Core when it's been paid to implement it?

Additionally, NASBE has no standing to do anything in Oklahoma other than draw attention to their complaint - and by the way, why do they care what Oklahoma does anyway?  Consequently, there is zero reason for Oklahoma to kowtow to NASBE.

It seems only slightly ridiculous that the idea of 'unconstitutionality' is even being broached here considering Oklahoma wouldn't have had need of HB3399 if the federal government didn't keep stomping on the United States Constitution via the unconstitutional nature of the DOE in the first place and the equally unconstitutional nature of the NCLB waivers handed out to states inconsistently, rather than constitutionally modifying existing law.

Wonder if I should have my lawyer write the president?

Does Our State Want A Museum, Or Education For Oklahoma Children?

In 2002, George W. Bush took Bill Clinton's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (created by Lyndon Banes Johnson in 1964), the Improving America's Schools Act, added a little something called AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) and renamed it No Child Left Behind.  This graphic is wonderful in showing that, although the federal Department of Education has no Constitutional authority to act within states in any capacity, states have spent FIFTY YEARS kowtowing to the federal government on education policy,

all the while American educational performance has plummeted, never to recover.

In December of last year, Governor Mary Fallin issued Executive Order (2014-40) that said, in part,

...in order to safeguard against any threat of federal intrusion

Oklahoma would use Oklahomans to create Oklahoma public education standards and tests.

It is apparent Oklahoma has 'federal intrusion' in Oklahoma education today - No Child Left Behind and Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind Waiver.

NCLB under George W. Bush was simply a re-gift to the American people of Bill Clinton's ESEA with one twist - the addition of something called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  Bush's NCLB said that by 2014, ALL children would be proficient in Math and English as decided by federally mandated yearly testing that would be used to create a 'grade card' for schools.  If schools were labeled failing under AYP (it is estimated that 90% of Oklahoma schools would be thus labeled), and/or if states weren't 'proficient' in Math and English by 2014, schools would be forced to take 20%  of their Title 1 funds (created by the first ESEA) and re-direct it to the federally mandated categories of supplemental educational services (such as reading programs) and school choice efforts.

In Oklahoma, our State Department of Education has said this figure would amount to $27,198 million dollars plus $3.8 million dollars for additional staff to administer the red tape associated with becoming a 'failure'.

We are also told by the OSDE that if we don't test students as required in grades 3-8 and 10-12, we will lose ALL federal funds from the USDE totaling $361,396,105 so the loss of the Waiver only amounts to 8% of all the federal funds we currently take.

Currently, many in our state legislature are concerned about losing our NCLB Waiver and providing the extra money necessary to perform federally mandated services that Oklahoma has already said - through our Governor - we don't recognize.

Why not use the state Unclaimed Property Funds designated to complete the Indian Cultural Center (40 million) to offset any loss of flexibility in spending Title 1 funding? 

Though Oklahomans have been clearly reticent to complete what has become another improperly funded project, the Governor has pushed for its completion.  Despite what Oklahomans want, Mary Fallin wants BOTH Common Core and the Indian Cultural Center.

Clearly she should prioritize CHILDREN over a museum.

Our Governor also needs to follow her own Executive Order and tell the federal government to take a long walk off a short pier. In fact, our Governor and legislature should be on the same page on this issue.  What in would happen if we lost the waiver?  What would happen if we just stopped following NCLB in the first place?

1.  Texas has an account (the Permanent School Fund) they use to offset the need for federal funds, allowing them (when they desire to) hold the federal government at bay and stand on the 10th Amendment. Oklahoma can and should work toward doing the same - now.  The unclaimed property money could seed that account.
2.  Washington State has lost their waiver over TLE.  In a recent blog post, Washington's Policy Center (similar in nature to Oklahoma's OCPA) has said this opens the door to another program that could allow for better implementation of school choice.  How can the argument be Oklahoma will have greater federal control if we throw off federal control?
3.  Indiana is at risk of losing its waiver now that they have attempted to redesign their 'College and Career Ready' standards.  So are Kansas, Arizona and Oregon, according to EdWeek's analysis.  How can Common Core be state led then? Doesn't that invalidate that entire argument?
4.  Gosh, if parents decided they were going to finally take back their parental rights and stop subjecting their kids to unnecessary and punitive testing, our state would break NCLB altogether.  What does that say about federal intrusion into Oklahoma education?
5. The federal government only has the powers the STATES allot it.  Why is it that when we bring up this fact with many legislators, there is eye-rolling (ostensibly, "nobody cares about that", "that's just silly") and/or a discussion about all the federal money we could lose for other projects like roads - again, all unconstitutional.
6.  Oklahoma is already adjusting our NCLB waiver for other issues, if we must pretend the Constitution doesn't exist, we can always amend/adjust the Waiver further.
7.  Much anecdotal evidence exists to indicate that Title 1 monies are not spent as required.  Maybe a loss of Oklahoma's waiver would actually provide desperately needed financial accountability.

It is apparent; NCLB is not appropriate for states, schools, parents, or kids. Why would Oklahoma continue to attempt to support NCLB when there are ways to circumvent it and our Governor indicates her disdain for federal involvement?  These are important questions to ask that should be clearly delineated election items in November.

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

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

STANDARDS DO NOT DRIVE CURRICULA

Yes and no.

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

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

EDUCATION CAN BE MANAGED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

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


ARE COMMON CORE STANDARDS NECESSARY?


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

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

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

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

BUT OKLAHOMANS WERE INCLUDED IN THE WRITING OF THE STANDARDS

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

THE COMMON CORE ARE NOT FEDERAL IN NATURE

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

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



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

Oklahoma's A-F Grading System Get's An "F"

Recently I read, “An Examination of the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s A-F Report Card”, commissioned by the two largest professional school organizations in the state:  the Oklahoma School Boards Association (OSBA) and the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA).  If you kiddos out there haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet, don’t worry, I’ll bet it will show up on the Common Core State Standards reading list with all those other exciting non-fiction reads kids are going to enjoy so much, but that’s another story.

I read the paper after reading the Daily Oklahoman editorial “Oklahoma Policymakers Shouldn’t Retreat From A-F grading System”, because it seemed a very partisan assessment.  Now don’t get me wrong, I have an opinion on this issue as well, in opposition.  After much study of the No Child Left Behind waiver (first request, final request) for which our state applied, our organization sent the offices of the State Superintendent and the Governor letters explaining why we were in disagreement.  

Our concerns stemmed from a number of sources.  As a Conservative organization, we objected to President Obama’s notion that he could ignore the Constitution and go around Congress to make his own law (waiver) simply because he believed Congress would not act to reauthorize the NCLB.   We also highly objected to the fact that results of the A-F system would cause districts to lose control of their schools to the State Department of Education and whatever contractor they saw fit to administrate those ‘failing’ schools.

It should be said, however, that after years of writing and researching education issues, I have become a near-complete cynic of either political party’s actual interest in education for the sake of educating children.  Consequently, I began to assess the article by first researching its authors.  

This gave me no sense of satisfaction as both were clearly entrenched in the University system and one is currently employed by an organization with clear Progressive leanings.  I moved on to research the origins of the citations made by the authors in support of their thesis.  Yuck.  Linda Darling-Hammond.  Darling-Hammond is a close friend of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, so anything she says is suspect to me.  Truly, from the beginning it didn’t seem as though I would find anything we could support in this assessment.

I have a Master’s Degree in Biology. In order to conclude my degree I was FORCED to take at least one statistics course.  Not only am I no statistician, I don’t even play one on TV, so reading the paper in its entirety was daunting.  Yet, once I began, I found most statistical jargon had been replaced by or supplemented with understandable correlations that could make sense to readers with even a basic understanding of statistical theory.

I was frustrated by my takeaway and here it is:  Any time authors of a research paper examining a particular statistical method articulate phrases such as, “perhaps a decision was made”, “no clear justification”, “basis undocumented”, “nonlinear relationship”, “basis assumes” and/or “threats to validity”, there is a problem – and not with the examiner, but the examinee.

It seems shocking, given the emphasis on STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) initiatives as a way for the Obama administration to pump more money into schools, that our own SDE doesn’t seem to understand the concepts of validity and replicability as part of scientific inquiry in any form – certainly in the creation of a statistical rubric the use of which can mean life or death of a school.

The rubric that determines the A-F letter category for each school is broken into four components; Student Achievement (33%), Individual Student Growth (17%), Growth of Bottom Quartile (17%) and Whole School Performance (33%). 

Let’s look at some of the most central concerns.

Calculation of Student Achievement

“The scores assigned to represent proficiency levels…do not seem to correspond to any recognizable metric”.  This goes to the necessity for a study to be replicable.  If a study cannot be replicated, it can’t be reliable.  In this case it was impossible for the authors to decide how the categories of Proficiency Levels were determined because there was “no clear justification” for why these categories were assigned.  This alone should be the nail in the coffin of this A-F system as categories used to assign specific value are apparently arbitrary. 

In addition, the “basis for letter grade conversion is undocumented”.  How is it that an “A” is designated as having the Performance Index Range of 90-120, but all other letter designations merit a 10 point range?  Again the sense of arbitrariness challenges the concept of validity.

       Individual Growth

      Proficiency Levels (Limited Knowledge, Satisfactory, Proficient and Advanced) are introduced into the metric to allow parents to make assumptions about student academic Growth within the school.  Proficiency Levels are assigned a numerical value and the subsequent changes in numerical value determine the degree of student academic Growth.  Because of the way Proficiency Levels are assigned in the rubric, there is no way to determine student grown within a proficiency level - “no change and negative change are accorded the same zero point value”.  

Students could go from the top of the Advanced category to the bottom, or from the bottom of the Limited Knowledge category to the top, yet no change would be reflected in the actual letter designation for the school.   Not only that, but because academic growth and proficiency levels are non-linear in nature, there can be no extrapolation from individual student to school or even classroom.  There is no way to make scientific conclusions about data that have no real cause and effect relationship.

Growth of Bottom Quartile

      Since this is a very small category, small sample size can introduce bias that may not be able to be corrected away by calculating a confidence interval, making the measure unreliable.

      Whole School Performance 

      Attendance alone determines this component in elementary schools.  This component is a full third of the entire rubric, yet there is absolutely no scientific study which shows that students learn simply by benefit of being present in a school.  How is this measure relevant?

I could continue critiquing the author’s critique, but frankly there is no reason.  As I said previously, the entire system should go the way of the Porcelain God based upon the fact that the majority of the categories and values assigned are neither replicable nor valid.

Though every informed citizen has (or should have!) an opinion about the practice of public education –education isn’t, nor should it be, a partisan issue.  It saddens us here at ROPE, however, that state establishment Republicans continually circle the wagons around our Superintendent and Governor as they push the big government ideals of the Obama Administration while marginalizing those of us who dare to contest this phenomenon.  Interesting, isn’t it?  One can only be educated by learning, and one can only learn by opening one’s mind to possibilities outside one’s own orthodoxy, yet, we see very little of that from Republican bureaucrats in Oklahoma dedicated to “education reform”.  We here at ROPE look forward to the day we are able to witness the Republican “education reform” establishment practice what they preach.  We can only ‘hope’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (in order of use)

Linn, Robert Lee and Sternberg, Robert J.   (January 2013) 32 pp.  An Examination of the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s A-F Report Card. http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/items/AFreportresearchstudy.pdf

Ravitch, Diane (Dec. 31, 2012)  Common Core And The Fiction Non-Fiction Question. http://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/31/common-core-and-the-fictionnon-fiction-question/

Editor, Daily Oklahoman Online. (Jan. 22, 2013) http://newsok.com/oklahoma-policymakers-shouldnt-retreat-from-a-f-grading-system/article/3747866

White, Jenni.   Bibliography, Literature List for NCLB Research http://www.scribd.com/doc/79042750/WebNotes-Literature-List-for-NCLB-NEW

Department of Education.  (Feb. 8, 2012) WWW2.Ed.Gov. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/ok.pdf

Oklahoma State Department of Education website.  (Feb. 8, 2012) Ok.Gov. http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/FinalRequest.pdf

Restore Oklahoma Public Education.   (Sept. 8, 2011) Letter to Education Officials – Please Do NOT Apply For An NCLB Waiver For Oklahoma.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/64376597/Letter-to-Education-Officials-Please-Do-NOT-Apply-for-an-NCLB-Waiver-for-Oklahoma

Kelsey, Mike and Grimard, Leslie.  (Sept. 27, 2011)  Obama Waives Congress Away.  Heritage Foundation.  http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/27/obama-waives-congress-away/

Restore Oklahoma Public Education.  (May 2, 2012) A-F Grading System Disapproval. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92729432/Disapproval-of-a-F-Grading-System

Chumley, CC.  (May 1, 2007)  No Shock, Just Facts: Liberal Indoctrination on Campus.  Human Events.  http://www.humanevents.com/2007/05/01/no-shock-just-facts-liberal-indoctrination-on-campus/

Garner, Donna.  (January 6, 2013)  Linda Darling-Hammond and Bill Ayers are closely associated with Columbia Teachers’ College where the social justice agenda is heavily enmeshed throughout the College.  Education News online.  http://educationviews.org/linda-darling-hammond-bill-ayers-cscope-lucy-calkins-ccs/

www.WhiteHouse.gov.  (Nov. 23, 2009)  President Obama Launches “Educate to Innovate” Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM) Education. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en

Shuttleworth, Martyn.  (2008)  The Principles of Validity and Reliability are Fundamental Cornerstones of the Scientific Method.  Explorable.com  http://explorable.com/validity-and-reliability.html

White, Michael.  (Dec. 29, 2010)  Scientific Method in Decline?  Science2.0.com  http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/scientific_method_decline

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!

Oh What A Tangled Web Oklahoma Weaves When First the Federal Government Practices to Deceive

It has come to our attention that our state's superintendent Dr. Janet Barresi and Governor Fallin are very interested in accepting No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers granted by the Obama administration.