News Media Complicit With Ed 'Reformers'

I have come to believe all educational policy today is created on the scale of cognitive dissonance.  For example, it never ceases to amaze me that our Governor has said - in no uncertain terms in an Executive Order - that Oklahoma's education should not be federally controlled, yet we go constantly to the feds for money in order to support our spending habits.  

It's not just education policy however, that is full of this psychological theory.  The news media is tasked - ostensibly - with REPORTING news.  Note that report does not mean, "create", "stylize", "censor" - yet, the typical news media of today is doing exactly that, in every area of our lives.  

Take KOCO-TV, for example.  Monday, they added to their website this article, "Oklahoma Seeks Federal Waiver Over Common Core Repeal".  First of all, the title is completely wrong.  We did not seek a waiver because of Common Core's repeal.  Second of all, our state department of education has applied for an EXTENSION of our CURRENT NCLB Waiver, asking the feds to tweak a few of our 'assurances'.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Did ROPE want them to do that?  Of course not.  We prefer to let the waiver go, like the other states across the nation that have or simply didn't apply.

Yet this isn't the point.  The point is that I posted a very cogent, reasoned, retort to this ridiculous post, only to see KOCO censure it from the page.  How's that for excellence in journalism?  Here is the post I made that was censored.  What do you think?  Was there a reason for this to be kept from public view?

This article is very one sided I fear. While the education 'establishment' has an opinion on this topic, so do parents and non-union teacher associations. It seems odd that none of these were contacted for your piece. So that readers know:States were offered "Waivers" so the Obama administration didn't have to reauthorize No Child Left Behind - or, Heaven forbid, repeal the law and leave education to the states. The Waivers were provided to states to prevent them from being fined part of their federally granted education money if 100% of all children were NOT "proficient" (a score somewhere around what we think of as 'passing') in English and Math. It was supposed to provide 'flexibility' from the original law. Here's what most don't know. We had to:1. Adopt College and Career Ready standards aka Common Core2. Create a state longitudinal database to collect personal student information3. Create a grading system for teachers, and4. Adopt a policy for 'turning around" failing schools - this includes several options, one in which the state takes over the school for the districtThese are all the same 'assurances' we had to take to get State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (which Governor Brad Henry did) and for Race to the Top money (for which Oklahoma applied but didn't win). Seems odd, don't you think?Hmmmm...so we were forced to adopt all these things - costing our state 10's of thousands and thousands of dollars by the way - to keep from getting fined a percent of a percent of all our federal dollars? That sounds like a good plan? Really?In fact:* 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.You might consider researching this topic a bit more before reporting further on the subject...just a thought. You can find more information here: http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2012/01/esea-reauthorizationdoes-it-even-matter.html

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.

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.

Is Common Core MEANT to Blow Up the American Educational System?

It is no secret that, for years, public education has suffered poor outcomes.  It is also no real secret as to why, yet this is rarely ever written about.

Let's start by examining ACT scores.  It is easy to see that verbal scores began to plummet during the early 1970's and never recovered.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/CBS%2096%20National.PDF

It's also easy to see the lack of substantial gains in reading during a similar time period according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.asp

Let's think.  What was happening during the early 1970's other than bell bottoms and muttonchops?  Most probably, the falloff of something that happened in 1965 when the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by LBJ.

Because government never shrinks, the ESEA of 1965 that took up only about 30 pages in a typewritten journal and contained 'only' 605 sections, has increased to literally hundreds of electronic web pages and over 9,601 sections today.

What does this situation have to do with education 'reform'?  According to "Federal Compliance Works Against Education Policy Goals"

"...fiscal and administrative requirements often lead to expensive and time-consuming compliance processes that are not related to improving student achievement or school success."

Lindsay Burke reports in "The Dead Hand of Education Reform", that,

"...while the feds provided just 7% of education funding, they accounted for 41% of the paperwork burden imposed on the states..."  

In fact, according to a personal communication from Representative Scott Martin, the House Appropriations and Budget Chair, Oklahoma's federal Title 1 funding amounts to the figures below.

Program Title                                    FY-14 Federal Award

Title I                                                     $148,119,558

Migrant Education                                        13,204

Migrant Education                                  1,507,155

Neglected and Delinquent                      334,901

Migrant Consortium                                    60,000

Title I School Improvement                    247,691

              Total                                                      $150,282,509

And these are just dollars that go to satisfying compliance with ESEA.  What about federal funding applied for and accepted by our State Department of Education (OSDE) for various federal grants and programs - money that grows the OSDE but does not put money into classrooms?  Well, since the State Department of Education is not in compliance with the State's Sunshine Law, it is hard to report a verifiable amount, however I wrote this last year:

The day the A-F rules disapproval passed the Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee, Governor Fallin issued a press release supporting the rules and the SDE touted their receipt of nearly 7 million dollars in School Improvement Grants (SIG) to be used for "turning around" schools graded as 'failing' under the NCLB Waiver-prescribed A-F grading system.

Did that money go into the classroom?  No, it went to satisfy the mechanics of a program (SIG) demanded by the Obama Administration in the Waiver - one of the Four Pillars of Education reform we have outlined before.  In addition, Dr. Barresi also applied for and accepted a State Longitudinal Database grant in order to satisfy another of the Pillars.

Obviously, our state (like many in the nation) spent a lot of time writing and administrating federal grants to help subscribe to the federal government's notion of what state education should be.  So heavy handed has the federal government become in Education, that U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander recently lamented,

...the United States Department of Education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has actually become, in effect, a national school board.  States must come to Washington for approval of their plans to educate their students.

Part of this phenomena is simply 'big government creep', however, I have begun to believe this is more serious.

Though many do not like to compare Health Care Reform with Education Reform, there are several parallels:

• Health Care Reform was a completely top down, univited usurpation of one's individual right to choose how best to medically care for themselves via a federal law full of moving parts.
• Education Reform (Common Core, School Turnaround, Teacher-Leader Effectiveness, State Longitudinal Database System) was a completely top down usurpation of parental rights to choose the education best for their children via state-invited federal interventions such as No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind Waivers and State Fiscal Stabilization grants.
• Health Care Reform requires lots and lots and lots of data.
• Education Reform requires lots and lots and lots of data.

That said, there are those who believe "ObamaCare" was made to be so difficult to navigate in an effort to crash America's current health care system.  The thought here is that if it becomes too hard to get health insurance, the public will clamor for SINGLE PAYER and just let the government handle the whole ball of wax - none of these silly exchanges - no, we'll just move America over to the same side of the abacus as England and Canada and nationalize health care.  After all, we're of socialist stock (eye roll).

I believe this is exactly what is happening to public education in America today when I look at the recent history of education 'reform'.

• First; you claim America education is failing.
• Second; from the start, you act as the hand of benevolence by reaching out to states in their time of monetary need with 'free' money to keep education programs running (State Fiscal Stabilization Funds) where you hook states into a four pillared education reform system that includes national standards and state longitudinal databases.
• Third; you play on America's competitive spirit by offering states a grant where you can Race to the Top of education accountability and results, providing money through a program that continues to perpetuate the four pillars of education reform.
• Fourth; you do NOT re-authorize the existing ESEA, but instead, go around Congress completely to create waivers for the worst parts of the law (such as the part where ALL children must be 'proficient' in English/LA and Math by 2014).  This, in essences creates your own ala cart law menu that keeps states hooked into the all-important four pillars, but also adds something called "accountability measures" for schools such as Third Grade Reading Retention programs, A-F grading scales and teacher accountability measures.
• Fifth; you spend 6 years selling the plan to legislators while managing the whole scheme from behind the curtain of private, non-profit organizations within which taxpayers have no representation, propping up the system with huge infusions of cash from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and big business such as Exxon/Mobile and 'happy to help' players such as the US Chamber of Commerce.
• Sixth; after you have states on their nationalized educational track through your promoted "pillars", you scare states into keeping all their 'accountability' measures by threatening their Title 1 funding.  Though states/districts have no idea what will really happen to them if they don't go along, states take the waivers and in exacting the instructions, districts self-destruct trying to figure out how to keep pressing the bar for their money like a lab rat for its pellet. *Teachers are afraid of having test scores held against them to the point of losing their jobs so they turn on administration.  *Administrators turn on parents who are told they must implement 'reform' measures and that they can't opt out of state tests the A-F grading system utilizes scores to create school grades (page 9) without forcing complete ruination of their school; 

• Schools are expected to test 100 percent of eligible students enrolled in that school during the testing window for every OSTP exam for which they are eligible, regardless of FAY status. 
• Schools that do not test a sufficient percentage of eligible students will be penalized as follows (all percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number): 
• The school’s Overall Letter Grade will be reduced by one whole letter grade if fewer than 95 percent of all eligible test records have valid scores. 
• The school’s Overall Letter Grade will automatically be reduced to an “F” if fewer than 90 percent of all eligible test records have valid scores.

• Seventh; you collect lots and lots of data by digitizing the Common Core State Standards states had to take to get an RTT or Waiver, then, you pay two testing "consortia" to create digital online test questions that will align so perfectly that everyone who looks at the scores will be able to tell which standard the students got right and wrong on their exam.  Since we so admire the European system of everything including schooling, can't you believe this will imagine an end result that sounds like, "Sorry Johnny, you can't be an engineer because you missed several math-related test questions indicating you are not engineer material."  You also collect all kinds of miscellaneous data for federal programming such as the "Safe and Drug Free Schools" that includes very detailed information on discipline incidents (that, by the way, don't just fall off the internet when your child needs a clean record for college and career applications!).  You then use this information against schools when they decide they are dumb enough to come crawling back for more money and or 'waivers' from existing unconstitutional federal education laws to further put the screws on them to get what you want.

Unfortunately, we are now so fully entrenched in the idea that the federal Department of Education has power over the states that the Secretary of Education seems to believe it too - pulling Washington state's NCLB waiver as though he had the power to create a waiver from existing law in the first place - as though he wasn't somehow picking and choosing among states to beat first with his government stick.  

Until enough participants in the House and Senate decide they've had enough of unconstitutional government, this won't change soon.  Maybe that's why homeschool is growing by leaps and bounds.

No Common Core, No Measured Progress During Re-Write of State Standards

There has been great controversy over the Common Core State Standards, but when did this controversy begin?  I think that's a very important question to ask.  Those of us who oppose the standards have been called everything from "conspiracy theorists" to "fringe groups".  Why such name calling?

In 2011, ROPE wrote it's first paper outlining the Common Core State Standards and the history that had lead up to their installation in state law in 2010 through SB2033.  We have learned many things about the initiative since then, but with over 100 citations, there is a lot of information there to provide a corroboration of our concerns.

When we began following the Common Core in 2010, very few parents we spoke with had ever heard of them - they had never even been mentioned in their school.  It's important to point out here that neither had a large number of lawmakers when we went to them to explain our thoughts on the initiative.  ROPE's Facebook page, when started in 2010, had fewer than 200 "likes" and fewer than 100 weekly page views.  Today, we have nearly 4K "likes" with weekly page views exceeding 60K some weeks.  Is that simply because we've been out there since 2010, or is that because parents are finally seeing the fruits of the Common Core as it becomes instituted in their schools and their children have had to navigate this system?

The more parents who see the work their children are doing in school under the Common Core - and the associated testing - the more parents are awakening to the idea that, no matter their protests, teachers and administrators tell them they have no control to address their concerns.  In fact, the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan has ascribed complaints to,

"...white suburban moms who - all of a sudden - their child isn't as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn't quite as good as they thought they were."

I have been a classroom teacher.  So was my mother.  One of the biggest struggles in our careers was the fact that underperforming kids were allowed to move forward by every administration for which we worked.  In fact, I was called a racist (which, if you know me is hysterical!) by a parent because her basketball player son was flunking my Environmental Biology class though the kid put his feet up on the desk and slept nearly the entire class period.  Did the principal stand up for me and force the kid to complete the class with a passing grade?  No.  The child was removed from my class because his mother was upset and he was a star basketball player and the principal didn't want a confrontation with the parent.

There are rare few teachers I've spoken with who haven't had this happen to them.  Classroom teachers - by and large - want kids to learn the material and move on.  Principals and superintendents, however - by and large - seem to be more concerned about rocking the boat with parents and as such, tend to throw teachers under the bus.

Obviously, there is enough blame in the system to go around for ill-prepared high school graduates.

Why do these factors - which could all be addressed separately by the community/district - force the state into an entirely new set of standards meant to be tested to the nth degree in order to keep students and teachers accountable?  Why do principals and superintendents not need such accountability?  Oh, that's right, they have CCOSA. (Yes, and teachers have OEA/NEA/AFT - again, enough blame to go around.)

In the face of the current blame-game environment, why should Oklahoma continue to use PASS during the interim in which new standards are being developed?

• 1.  The CCSS were not to be fully implemented until the 2014-1015 school year.  Some schools have fully integrated with the standards, but many have not.  Why should schools not yet in CCSS alignment continue moving toward CCSS use, if it has been agreed the CCSS will be repealed from law and new standards written?

• 2.  Though districts have spent a good deal of money on teacher training and technology in preparation for the CCSS, these investments will continue to yield benefits to schools and students outside that realm.  How could this be considered wasted effort?

• 3.  Oklahoma has made consistent gains in the number of students graduating high school and in overall math and reading scores from 2003 to 2011 - utilizing PASS, not CCSS.  CCSS were untested and untried prior to adoption in Oklahoma.  Why continue standards with no idea how students will fare when we have many years of data that indicate gains in student achievement under PASS?

• 4.  The Thomas B. Fordham Institute graded every state's standards against CCSS.  Oklahoma received nearly identical grades for PASS as Common Core(English/LA B+/Common Core B+:  Math B+/Common Core A-).  It is important to note that Thomas B. Fordham was given millions of dollars by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support the Common Core.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky has testified that, because of this, Fordham altered its evaluation scheme to make the Common Core look better.  What then does that say about the rigor of PASS?

• 5.  The testing company, Measured Progress, contracted by the State Department of Education to test for next year's implementation of the CCSS is a sub-contractor to PARCC - the testing consortia given federal (ARRA) funds to develop CCSS assessments.  Why would we continue a 35 million dollar testing contract to assess CCSS when we will not be using CCSS in the classroom?

• 6.  It is our understanding that Oklahoma owns the PASS-aligned test bank created by the previous vendor, CTB/McGraw Hill.  Returning to these tests (with PAPER AND PENCIL not computers) in the interim could only be substantially cheaper than creating an entirely new test for two years during which new standards would be written which would also require new tests.  If implementation of CCSS will be halted, why not return a substantial portion of the 35 million to the classroom where it is better utilized?

• 7.  Individual student results collected from CCSS-aligned assessments are mapped with the digital CCSS database creating a personally identifiable record of each individual student's abilities in each tested Common Core standard.  Without tracking each individual student via a longitudinal database, Oklahoma has been gaining ground over the last 10 years.  Why collect such specific data for each individual student predicated on the notion it will improve student readiness for college and career?  How can this notion be corroborated? 

• 8.  When Oklahoma applied for its No Child Left Behind Waiver, we took the option of CCSS because the standards had been placed into state law and adopted by the state School Board in 2010/2011.  There was a second option (B); that of creating our own standards and having them certified by a "network of institutions of higher education (IHE)" in the state (page 15).  In fact, the Waiver itself tells us (page 17),

• "As our State transitions to the CCSS, our generational commitment to the 1991 Administrative Code can serve as a legacy to remind us that college-, career-, and citizen-ready learning standards have long been at the core of what Oklahomans expect for their children." (210:35-3-61, effective 5-17-9)

• The Waiver acknowledges the PASS (present in 1991) were college and career ready standards.  It would be easy, therefore, to negotiate Oklahoma's waiver retention based on this, and the Thomas B. Fordham PASS/CCSS comparison.  If PASS/CCSS are really not substantially different, how could they not qualify as "college and career ready" per the Waiver?

I will be writing more on this topic later, but please, study up.  We'll need your help soon.

The Way I See HB3399 And The Common Core Fight In Oklahoma

That's it.  Right there in that box.  That's how I see HB3399 and the Common Core fight in Oklahoma.

I see nothing but red.  

When I started trying to fight Common Core years ago, I remember being gullible enough to believe that because Common Core wasn't right, it was stoppable.  I remember being looked over, ignored and shut out by parents, legislators, the State Department of Education (SDE) and taxpayers, but I remember believing the truth would somehow win out.  

I don't believe that anymore.

I do believe Josh Brecheen and Jason Nelson have worked longer and harder on HB3399 this session than any of their other bills - and that both men genuinely want to stop Common Core and give Oklahoma excellent standards of our own without federal control.  I have no doubt about that anymore.  I also DON'T DOUBT the following facts:

Brad Henry took State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF) from the Obama administration and when he did, he began the process of handing over Oklahoma's public education to the federal government.  He didn't stop there, though, he continued the process by applying for a Race to the Top (RTT) grant.  For every education 'reform' Oklahoma put into LAW, Oklahoma got more 'points' on their RTT grant. Consequently: 

• the Common Core State Standards were instituted into law before they were ever even available to read in final form, 
• the underpinnings of the P20/W Council (Prek-20 years and Workforce) were cemented in place to collect massive amounts of data on public school children without consent of their parents thanks to the changes in FERPA laws under Arne Duncan and the Obama administration
• A-F grading system and teacher 'accountability' systems were begun

Once Governor Mary Fallin and Superintendent Barresi took office, it only got worse.  As I have said numerous times, these women have spoken out of both sides of their mouths with forked tongues for as long as they have been in office: 

Superintendent Barresi has - on innumerable occasions - spoken with great forcefulness against the intrusion of the federal government into education all the while applying for a FEDERAL Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant, a No Child Left Behind Waiver and a State Longitudinal Database grant enmeshing Oklahoma in a veritable web of FEDERAL CONTROL all while ceding control of the Department of Education to employees from Achieve (John Kramen - Executive Director of Student Information - or as I call him - Executive Director of Stealing Student Privacy) by way of the American Diploma Project and former employees of the Jeb Bush Excellence in Education/Chiefs for Change circle.

• Then there's the Common Core testing.  Barresi got out of PARCC the organization granted millions of federal funds (from stimulus money) to create the tests associated with the Common Core.  She moved, however, to a contract with Measured Progress whose website says, "We assist both the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership to Assess Resdiness for College and Career - the multi-state consortia formed through the Race to the Top initiatve and charged with developing Common Core assessments."  So how'd we get out of PARCC again?  How'd we think that the Federal Government was just going to throw away all those hard earned ARRA funds (stimulus) they'd plunked down to PARCC and Smarter Balance for creating the tests (the word "assessment" is not 'test' - please look it up).  Did we REALLY think our big government superintendent would do that?

• We've all been told by Dr. Baressi and others that the Common Core State Standards are not a vehicle for collecting data.  WRONG!  Here's a sentence found on the Common Core State Standards website (the website has been newly-redesigned but the information here has stayed the same as the screenshots I took last year for my presentation to the CC Interim Study in October) "The project offers a more fine-grained digital mapping that is needed to fulfill the goals and objectives of the multi-state assessment consortia as well as for other purposes including the digital alignment of instructional materials and professional development resources." I just asked my data-base developer husband who told me that this project will create a map that will allow the CCSS to be reduced to data points that can be linked together in a database.  This may not mean much, but when you add the fact that the website goes on to say, "The corestandards.org XML file follows the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) schema, also used by Schools Interoperatbility Framework Association (SIF)", you're in trouble.  The CEDS is the creation that names every conceivable piece of data that can be collected on children in public education so all schools/districts/state/feds can collect individual pieces of data using the same terminology, allowing all schools to "seamlessly" share and understand the same data points.  When you add in the fact that these data points are moving along something called the SIF (created by Microsoft) and this SIF is the common track that connects all schools to the OSDE and the OSDE to the Federal Government, you've just discovered that yes, the Common Core State Standards are not only data points on which to create Common Core tests, but also a mechanism for collecting data via the hundreds of programs being developed for use in classrooms today such as that created by eScholar which tracks kids from the moment they enter the school room until...well, we're not sure when the tracking stops!

Governor Fallin has gone so far as to create an Executive Order decrying federal involvement in public education all the while SIGNING OFF on every single federal grant generated at the State Department of Education including the NCLB waiver which she says, "Oklahoma passed several landmark education reforms last year, and we expect those improvements to our educational system to continue to improve the quality of our schools raise performance levels among students and ultimately lead to a better educated and more highly skilled workforce."

• Then there is her America Works initiative for the NGA where she reinforces the need for Common Core (nationalized) standards in order to prepare students for jobs - not life, but JOBS by saying, "As demand for skilled workers continues to rise, governors are playing an increasingly pivotal role in aligning state's education and training resources with the needs of their growing economies."  Yes, Governor Fallin believes in the Communist notion of Human Capital (Governor Mary Fallin Oklahoma schools such as Oklahoma City University are providing the energy industry with the human capital needed to support rapid industry growth ‪#‎GEC2013‬). 

• In fact, Governor Fallin "...Comes to Common Core's Defense in NGA Speech" just as recently as January 15th of this year!

Does any of this sound like these two women want to REPEAL anything they've either continued from Brad Henry's administration or developed themselves in conjunction with the federal government?  IT DOESN'T TO ME, so let's just follow this to its logical conclusion:

After reading this, does anyone believe a bill will be passed that actually stops Common Core this session/year?  Yes, it might repeal it from law, but our Governor and Superintendent will find a way to continue the process, I feel sure.  They HAVE to!  Think of all the tentacles these women have let into the state through their federal grant/waiver grabbing!

1. If Oklahoma goes back to PASS, the state will lose their waiver because PASS is not "college and career ready" (according to what we've been told).  Of course there is absolutely no precedent for losing the waiver - and, since the waiver was based on 'assurances' in the first place, they could be traded out with another set of standards so long as we were being shown to be working on them - but neither Fallin nor Baressi have the gumption to challenge this on the grounds that protecting Oklahoma's children from the feds is best.  I don't believe they don't believe that - they may say one thing but they do another.
2. Oklahoma already has a 34.45 MILLION dollar contract with NON-PROFIT Measured Progress to test Common Core State Standards set for school year 2014-15.  If the tests don't align with the standards, we lose the waiver.  Plus, no one seems to know if the testing contract can even be broken.  Just out of curiosity how can MP be a not for profit and make that much off one testing contract?  
3. If the tests aren't ready to go, they can't be used for the school's A-F grade, which is part of the 'accountability' measures in the waiver, so again, you bust the waiver.
4. Eventually, the tests are to be used with the teacher accountability system - also a part of the waiver conditions - so again, we'd bust the waiver.
5. We have to set up a State Longitudinal Database System, if we stop that, we lose the waiver, but also may have to send money back to the feds because this was also part of the SFSF grant for which Henry applied.

It appears to me that no matter what, Janet Baressi and Mary Fallin have entangled Oklahoma in such a web of federal intrusion (all the while saying they hate federal intrusion) that it's going to be difficult to stop ANYTHING at this point if we don't get rid of these women come election time.  We can sign all the bills and write all the bills we want, but if those in power aren't interested in solving the actual problems created by all the federal government red tape they've created, I don't see anything changing - NOTHING.

As for HB3399, I completely agree with Linda Murphy who listed among her desires:

• keeping PASS in the interim
• stretching out the interim from 1 year to 2 (it was originally 2, I actually missed the change apparently)
• establish a task force or committee of some kind BEFORE the standards are devised in in order to make the process more transparent (however, if we leave this up to the candidates to tell us what they would do, it could certainly become a campaign issue!)
• stop the contract with Measured Progress and go back to the tests given under the CTB/McGraw/Hill contract

(Unfortunately, her two other desires - removing the American Diploma Project (ADP) and ACT testing are not found in HB3399, but existing school law included in the bill due to the presence of PASS references which were removed - and as such would require a separate bill altogether.  Also, until colleges and universities do away with ACT testing, I don't see that as viable, sadly, and Janet Baressi employed John Kraman who is from both ADP and Achieve, so again, I think you have to remove our current Superintendent and replace her with someone who is interested in removing Oklahoma from these associations for that to happen.)

Also sadly, I don't see keeping PASS as an option - again because of what we have heard about the process.  I think the interim can be stretched and possibly the task force and I would LOVE to see us dump Measured Progress and stop testing over Common Core but I have no idea how likely that actually is - we'll just have to keep pushing the issue.

Fortunately, there are some really good things in HB3399 that never get talked about for some reason.  You can find them in my earlier blog with my talking points, but none the least of these are that it prevents the State School Board (SSB) from 'ceding' authority of state standards to any outside entity - meaning we can't use Common Core (or OAS) in the future because they have a national origin and were created outside our state.  In addition TESTS must be designed, owned and controlled by the SSB.

Again, until we decide we want to have political leaders with the political will to extricate Oklahoma from the federal government - not by word but by DEED - we will continue to get the same thing over and over and over.  We MUST think on these issues as we go to the ballot box in June and November and we MUST show up there with a well-educated decision or just get used to same ol' same ol' all over again.

Bottom line:  If we will be forced to use OAS (Common Core) tests and standards for two years while we create new standards, I won't be able to support the 'repeal' portion of the bill (I like several of the other issues addressed by/in the bill and would hope we could keep the bill alive and move forward with those).  There will be little reason to have a "Common Core repeal" bill because the standards will have been so ingrained and imbedded with all the stuff I've already mentioned in two years, if it isn't too late now, it will be by then.  At that point, we'll simply have to leave the consequences in the laps of our Governor and State Superintendent a election time. 

ADENDUM:  After I wrote my blog this morning low and behold Lynn found an (addendum) to our FIRST No Child Left Behind Waiver. 

"The Oklahoma State Department of Education is in the process of amending Oklahoma’s ESEA flexibility waiver. The documents listed here highlight the contents of this amendment. Some of the major changes include the definition of Full Academic Year (FAY) status and the new Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) calculations. This replaces the NCLB Accountability Workbook that was in place before Oklahoma’s request for ESEA Flexibility."

This was up for public comment before March 25. I guess you just have to check the OSDE website each and every day to see what exactly is up for public comment. Here is the information.  It looks as though there are a number of calculations the OSDE is asking to change. Gosh, I wonder how much more money could go into the classroom if we weren't spending all the money to make sure we're appropriately kowtowing to the feds?  

Answer to Janet Barresi's Interview With Choice Media and Bob Bowdon

A bit over a week ago Superintendent Janet Barresi was video interviewed by Bob Bowdon of Choice Media.  After viewing the interview, I felt it important to discuss the inconsistencies in her interview.

Dr. Barresi begins by discussing the education reform measures she is directing in Oklahoma:

• Implementation of Oklahoma Academic Standards
• A-F grade card 
• Institution of the end of social promotion – children must be reading by 3^rd grade or be held back   
• Continuation of “high stakes” testing out of high school (ACE)

HIGH STAKES TESTING

Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi about her thoughts on testing since the term “high stakes” testing is usually a negative concept.

Dr. Barresi answers by saying she is against “anything that is about drilling and teaching to the test”.  That is why she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “that we’re setting up” which allow teachers to 

”teach in a way to develop student’s application skills…The test will test the student’s application of the knowledge – problem solving – thinking on their feet if you will and so instead of test asking for a correct answer; name the capitols of all of the 8 northeastern states, it’s going to ask a question also of application; of those, which one presents the largest population – or of those, which one of those 8 capitols has shipping – uh, involved – or which – what is a seaport – is any of them a seaport?  And so and that is that application.  Teachers are going to be teaching more then to that application.  And so now the tests become more informative to teachers so they know how to adjust instruction.  Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”

First; Dr. Barresi gives a rather long answer but never addresses Bowdon’s question.  In her reply, she tells us first that she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “we’re setting up”.  Oklahoma’s ‘new’ standards are called “Oklahoma Academic Standards”.  Once at the link for these standards, you find the statement under both math and English L/A standards headings, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for grades K‐12 in June 2010. Pre‐Kindergarten standards are currently undergoing revision. Transitions began in 2010 and will be completed by school districts prior to the 2014‐2015 school year.”

Please note that if you click on the link found for “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under English, L/A you are led to the CommonCore State Standards for English/LA, Literacy in History/Social Studies,Science and Technical Subjects though Dr. Barresi mentions the “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, as though Oklahoma had written individualized, state level standards.  This is also true for the heading “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under the math heading.  When that link is followed, the URL belongs to a PDF labeled, “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”.  So, does Oklahoma have its own “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, or the Common Core?

Secondly; Bowdon’s question about “high stakes” testing came after Dr. Barresi used this same term in application to Oklahoma’s ACE requirements.  Instead of discussing the issue of “high stakes” testing in relation to ACE (which has been a very contentious issue in Oklahoma), Dr. Barresi clearly switches gears and begins discussing the Oklahoma’s Common Core State Standards testing.  Her answer buffs the shine on what she believes are more rigorous tests that will allow a better picture of a student’s ability to apply their knowledge to the questions posed.

Thirdly; Barresi – in her explanation – gives Bowdon a description – NOT of an application process, but a memory skill.  One doesn’t ‘apply’ knowledge to a question that simply asks a student to recall – from memory – which northeastern capitol is a seaport.  Additionally, Oklahoma educators think Dr. Barresi has no concept of how Oklahoma’s tests are actually structured.  In fact, they disagree with her assessment of the state’s current assessments pretty much across the board.

Fourthly; Dr. Barresi then states that ‘high stakes’ tests are ‘more’ informative to teachers – allowing them to better adjust instruction.  As a former teacher, I feel a large majority of teachers would relay the notion that several federated state tests a year will provide no more information (and possibly less) regarding the position of a student in their individual learning arc than many individual classroom level formative tests given after each section of material taught.  

Dr. Barresi finally tilts her head sweetly and lilts, “Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”  Teachers have been testing students inside the walls of their own classrooms since the beginning of classroom instruction.  In recent decades, teachers have dutifully taken 2 weeks or more a year out of classroom instruction time to prepare their students for yearly state examinations.  Testing has been part and parcel of a teacher’s duties since the profession began.  This was a question regarding “high stakes” testing – a different, more intrusive form of testing.  In this case, the ACE testing process can make or break graduation from high school for a student – even those with looming college prospects.  Sadly, teachers will still not be privy to the thoughts explaining Dr. Barresi’s love of “high stakes” testing from this interview.

GETTING OUT OF PARCC

Bowdon tells Dr. Barresi that it seems less expensive to shoulder 1/17^th of the test cost in PARCC than Oklahoma developing their own.  

Barresi explains (eventually) that Oklahoma withdrew from PARCC because of:

• Cost 
• The amount of time students were having to spend on the test
• Federal overreach
• Technology readiness

Essentially Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi how it is less expensive for Oklahoma to develop their own tests.

Barresi responds,

“When you develop a test that’s been in place for decades in Oklahoma that really tests low level questions, it’s very easy and cheap to develop a test like that – when you just ask for answer A,B, C or D.  When you develop a test that has performance items where the student justifies their answer, writes out short answers and…goes…into really showing their understanding, that is a much higher order test – it is much, much more expensive (Bowdon interrupts but Barresi continues) so we knew going to a better test like that that gives better information was gonna cost more.  That’s one of the reasons we participated in this consortium.  Then, after we got in and saw really how the test was being developed in terms of the fine print of the cost of it, we knew then that even with this additional funding – we appreciate that – that really we did not feel responsible for going back to the legislature and asking for another 2 million dollars.  That money needs to be in the classroom.”

First; again Barresi did not answer the question asked.  Dr. Barresi never gives any indication of the differences in cost between ‘state developed’ and PARCC tests – ever.  In fact, after a great deal of searching on the OSDE website, I was unable to come to find any indication of test costs.  So much for accountability.  I saw several articles on the web that discussed PARCC test costs, and though Oklahoma was mentioned in several, none had Oklahoma’s test costs reported.  

Secondly; since Nancy Pelosi uttered her now infamous, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” statement about the Health Care law, many of us have opened our eyes to the fact that this is apparently Standard Operating Procedure for government at all levels.  Most states, for example, passed school code or state law adopting the Common Core Standards before they were even available to read in their final format in order to increase their chances for getting a Race to the Top grant.  Here, we see Barresi admit she jumped into an association with PARCC before she knew what it would cost her state taxpayers.  Certainly all states joined knowing that the federal government had given PARCC an RTT grant to develop the tests and that no tests had been developed at the time they entered their agreement with PARCC.

Thirdly; Page 206 of Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver provides a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Florida Department of Education as the granted PARCC authority and Oklahoma as a Governing member.  Oklahoma received 90K yearly for being a governing member of PARCC – not only that, but according to the MOU, there is NO reason for Oklahoma to have removed itself from PARCC, because Oklahoma’s position in the consortium provided the ability to make changes at any point in the test development progression – ostensibly, that should include costs.  Why leave then, really?

NCLB AND FEDERAL OVERREACH

Dr. Barresi’s admission that PARCC represented too much federal overreach is a head-scratcher.  She says the OSDE was,

“Just getting a little too much push from USDE.  We applied for the waiver (NCLB) and then it’s like, “Look what you asked for” and so we’re pushing back on that, but we thought it was time then that we separated us from that government interaction.  We’re developing an Oklahoma test.”

She then goes on to say she is not too sure,

“Barack Obama - President Obama had the right to do that (create the NCLB waiver) but also, I was in a state dealing with the reality that we had an entire array of reforms we were trying to implement and I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole which was No Child Left Behind accountability.  We needed a better accountability system.”

She continues by saying the feds want to meet with her regarding the tests her state is developing on their own and that there is a possibility the feds will pull back on the waiver.

First; would anyone concerned about federal overreach apply for an NCLB waiver knowing what it said when they applied?  I find this to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.  I’ve read Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver.  It is very specific in its demands and the state is very specific in its complete submission to those demands. 

Page 31 says, “Oklahoma is committed to full implementation of the CCSS and other college and career ready standards, PARCC and other college and career ready assessments…”  Page 32 of the state’s waiver application gives three possibilities for the state in terms of testing 1. Using PARCC tests  2.  Not using PARCC but working on developing own Common Core tests or, 3.  The state isn’t in PARCC but has already developed and begun to “annually administer statewide aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth in reading/language arts and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8…”  The first option was chosen for the waiver.

I would wonder at any possibility of the USDE wanting to meet with Barresi regarding a roll-back of the waiver.  The waiver she signed provided a binding contract between the USDE and the OSDE’s use of PARCC tests.  But then again, who really cares about contracts today anyway?

FYI:  Dr. Barresi has also applied for a RTT Early Learning Challenge grant, several School Improvement Grants, a State Longitudinal Database grant and facilitated statewide 21^st Century Community Learning Center grants.  If you’re not a fan of federal overreach, why keep applying for federal assistance?

Secondly; why say you took an NCLB waiver because the state needed a better accountability system? Oklahoma was already following Jeb Bush down the yellow brick road of the A-F grading system prior to receiving an NCLB waiver.  In fact, the same Jeb Bush that invented the A-F grading system, then got Secretary Duncan to jump on board with using the system as a requirement of an NCLB waiver.  Janet Barresi, as a member of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, is well known for utilizing Jeb Bush’s reforms in Oklahoma on a constant basis – waiver or not.

Thirdly; on page 11 of the NCLB waiver, the OSDE told the USDE they would collaborate with them to evaluate at least one program of 3 required in the waiver to “determine the feasibility and design of the evaluation…[to ensure] the implementation of the chosen program, practice or strategy is consistent with the evaluation design.”  Why do this if you are concerned about federal overreach?  Apparently, as states wishing to apply for a SECOND round of NCLB waivers are finding out, this evaluation – via the collection of data via the state’s own state longitudinal database – is proving to be “mother may I” on steroids.

Frankly, I could go on, but it’s pointless.  Dr. Barresi has done the sort of things described in this rebuttal since she took office three years ago.  In fact, quashing the right of parents to speak at state board meetings, deflecting questions, spinning facts and filibustering are some of her favorite fallbacks.  

Sadly, people in states all across the country will be able to relate to this situation.  Superintendent Barresi is simply another in a long line of educrats in states all over the country - many with little to no education background - hoping to widen their sphere of political influence by riding Jeb Bush’s coattails down the trail of never tried nor proven education ‘reform’ methods which make guinea pigs of our nation’s students every day.