Are Parents Rights Political? Should Public Schools Prevent Parental Rights Notification?

Recently, a teacher friend of mine took it upon herself to create a booklet out of the Parents Bill of Rights (posted here on the United Opt Out website - thank you Nikki Jones, Oklahoma Coordinator) passed last year into law due in large part to ParentalRights.org Oklahoma Coordinator Tracey Montgomery. 

So excited was she to impart this information to fellow teachers, staff and parents, she took them to school and began to pass them out. Not long afterward, her principal pulled her out of class, told her it was illegal to pass out the booklets and that she was to stop. 

My teacher friend knew this to be an incorrect interpretation of statute, so she asked her principal to cite the law and provide it to her in writing. That evening she received the following email: 

It has come to my attention that you are distributing political information to other teachers.  A complaint was made.  Please stop distributing the material immediately.  The OKCPS AFT Collective Bargaining Agreement states:

Article XII – Political Activity

Section 1:  Teachers’ political activities shall be individual and personal, and the involvement of teachers in any political activities shall be at the sole discretion of the individual teachers.

Section 2:  Teachers’ political activities shall in no way interfere with their obligations or assigned duties during their workday and shall not in any manner be injected into the educational programs of the District.

Section 3:  No action shall be taken with respect to a teacher’s political activities except in the case of a violation of this article.

Refrain from involving other staff members in any political activity that you are personally involved.

Is there anything in this email that refers to handing out a booklet of LAW covering the rights of parents? No. In fact, this email doesn't say that handing out information regarding a state law is illegal. A state law is NOT political. Political activities refer to such things as campaigning, lobbying and/or voting. The Parents Bill of Rights is a law - my teacher friend wasn't lobbying for the bill - it passed last year - nor was she trying to build a campaign for public office or get anyone to vote for the bill - again, it's a LAW.

I had another friend of mine search Oklahoma Statutes to see if this teacher was in violation of any school code (210:20-29-3. Principle I: Commitment to the students and 210:20-29-4. Principle II: Commitment to the profession). We were unable to find anything that would pertain to passing out a law detailing parents rights to parents, teachers and staff at a public school - where, incidentally, many of these rights exist. 

Looking for further information on the topic of "free speech and public schools" I found a document from the Center for Public Education. It says,

Over the years the courts have ruled that school employees are not always free to express their opinions and beliefs. Employees cannot be disciplined or suffer negative consequences for speaking out on matters of “public concern.” Schools can take action, however, when employees go public with strictly personal concerns.

The main U.S. Supreme Court case is Pickering v. Board of Education, which held that freedom of speech—while not absolute—gives employees Constitutional protection if they are speaking about issues of a public nature, rather than those things about which they have a personal stake. Pickering overturned a school district’s decision to fire a teacher for commenting on school expenditures through letters in a local newspaper.

Certainly, providing parents with a law concerning their rights would be considered a matter of "public concern". 

This certainly is a head-scratcher. Why would a public school administration not want parents and staff to have access to information that could only help parents understand their rights and responsibilities!? 

Sadly, we've found over the years as parents have sent us their concerns/complaints about their school/teacher/principal, that school administrators often either don't know the rights of parents, or misrepresent the rights of parents to the point that parents come away with the idea that school officials have more control over the student (child) than the parent. 

It seems a no-brainer that school officials would WANT parents to know their rights - including the rights they have over their child's education within the confines of the school community - but to be fair, schools are more often attuned to the rights of the student than the parent, so maybe there simply isn't enough training in this area and the principal's ignorance on the topic caused confusion.

In the end, I would hope all Oklahomans could agree that a booklet created to enlighten parents, school officials and others about the rights of parents would be a supported activity, not one deserving of formal reprimand. 

I'M OUTRAGED AND YOU SHOULD BE TOO! Private Student Data On Google Docs For ALL To See!

For years now, ROPE (and others like Kaye Beach) have been warning parents that not only are public schools NOT the place to expect student privacy to be considered sacred, but that public schools are now sharing student data publicly. Just this week, I've become privy to information that absolutely PROVES this to be the case once and for all. Before I continue, I need to thank a current Oklahoma City teacher (who shall remain nameless) for this information - and also Howard Houchen and Kaye Beach - for contributing to this blog. This teacher - as other teachers in the OKC public school system - has been told that she must upload her students' information to Google Docs. She has refused. She, like fellow teacher Nikki Jones from Tulsa, has chosen to stand for children and their privacy and innocence! We thank her very much.

I will warn you, this is not going to be my typical long, researched to the nth degree blog. I simply want to post the screenshots here and give basic explanations. Frankly, I do NOT want to post this blog as, once I do, all the names of the students in the documents plastered on the web for everyone to see will have an arrow pointed in their direction. For that, I am truly sorry. I don't see any other way to break this story, however.

As many of you know, Teach For America (TFA) has been recruited to a very high degree in Oklahoma in order to make up for the 'teacher shortage'. If you take the time to research TFA, you'll find that many concerns have been raised about the program. This should be an addition to the growing pile.

This is a screenshot of the home page for the Oklahoma Teach for America Corps. It can be found at this address:  http://wechangetheodds.weebly.com/

Please note the tabs at the top. Please notice that Jefferson, Roosevelt and US Grant are not only former US presidents, but current Oklahoma City Public Schools.

For purposes of explanation, I have clicked on the "Jefferson" tab. Here is a screenshot of the partial page under that tab.

These are a portion of the TFA Corps members assigned to Jefferson.

I decided to click on Thomas Joyce - he looks quite colorful. Here is the screenshot resulting from that click.

 

Yes, as a Constitutional Conservative, I'm a bit miffed by the quote, however, please note that his name is in red type. Here's what I found when I clicked on his name.

Yes, that says, "Data" and "Data 2".

This is what I found when I clicked on "Data". Yes, these are spreadsheets of his students with their full names and grades.

This is what came up when I selected "Data 2". I will not show what is behind the green boxes as these often have student ID numbers as well as full names and grades. As a teacher, I was not allowed to have my students switch papers for others to grade as this was a violation of their privacy. WHAT THEN IS THIS? I AM OUTRAGED AND YOU SHOULD BE TOO!

Of course this was the same for TFA teacher after TFA teacher listed on this site for all three schools. Just so you'll know I'm not making this up, here's the tab from Roosevelt:

Going further, here is the screen shot for one of these teachers, Dalton Goodier.

Good news. He knows Tomas Paine. However, when you click on his name, you get this:

And when you click on "Data" you get this:

I'm going to leave this picture very small here, as there are student names, grades and ID numbers visible (since redacted). Not only that, but some are SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS.

There was another TFA participant, Julie who even had phone numbers visible on her documentation:

Now. Do you understand? Is this where you want your child's information - on a Google Doc for ANYONE TO READ (and/or some public education watchdog publishing on her blog)? Please, please immediately find out if your child's teacher is storing your child's data on GOOGLE DOCS and tell them you want this data removed IMMEDIATELY. This is DEFINITELY in violation of our states new Parental Rights law, HB1384 or the OSCN Network Title 25. This should be lawsuit worthy.

ADDENDUM 1/5/2015: We revealed this issue at a private meeting this morning. Soon after, the Google Docs site went black. No one without the original web address will be able to find it - however, if you went to the website to verify our post, you will be able to. So will I and anyone else who did the same thing. In fact, anyone who is a Google user, could have pulled it into their Google Docs account and used it, edited it, or shared it.

Though we didn't delve into much of what is wrong with Google Docs and other 'cloud' based, shareable media in this meeting, one meeting participant added that many schools he knew of used Google Docs and the documents were all offline so no one could see them. I told him Google Docs were easily hacked. He observed that he didn't know anything about that. Unfortunately, just because school officials don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Schools today are using technology at such rapid rates that training and understanding of the media is getting lost in the shuffle. Sadly, so is the privacy of our state's kids.

Education Accountability Must Originate At The Local Level

 

A number of recent Oklahoman editorials have disparaged those NOT backing  ACE tests and the A-F grading system.  Apparently, those of us begging to differ with these complicated, federally-derived, accountability systems want dumbed-down standards that will graduate scores of unemployable public school students all across Oklahoma. 

Not to dodge credit, but that trend likely began in 1965 when the first 31 page, 605 section Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now No Child Left Behind – NCLB) unleashed a tidal wave of federal regulations upon local schools and established the ‘pay for play’ scheme that keeps states towing the line (according to the feds, "Here schools, do what we tell you to do, and if you do, we'll give you back some of the money we steal from your state's taxpayers to make you do what we want you to do.")  

Today’s NCLB is 9,601 sections and an untold number of actual printed pages.   

This in stark contrast to the philosophy of America’s Founders who believed that free public grammar school should be supplied by every township containing 50 families or more to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing, ciphering, history, geography and Bible study, with control and oversight directed by local school boards – a system which by 1776 had produced a higher literacy rate than we have today.

Could unchecked growth of federal control over public education be why NAEP reading scores for 17-year-olds have increased only one point since 1971 and NAEP math scores for 17-year-olds have increased only two points – over 41 years?  Why have SAT scores in the verbal category dropped 25 points since 1972 and math scores increased by only one?

According to the American Enterprise Institute, who released a paper entitled, 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, writing for the Heritage Foundation in The Dead Hand of Education Reform also reports that, “…while the feds provided just 7% of education funding, they accounted for 41% of the paperwork burden imposed on the states…”

Santa Fe South High School in Oklahoma City personified this thesis recently when they submitted their NCLB waiver (A-F) paperwork to the SDE only to find out that, while their test scores were fine, they were placed on the failing school list because their paperwork wasn’t filled out properly. 

The same day the disapproval of the A-F rules passed the Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee, Governor Fallin issued a press release indicating her support of the rules and the SDE issued a press release touting their receipt of nearly 7 million dollars in School Improvement Grants to be used for “turning around” schools determined to be ‘failing’ under the NCLB-prescribed A-F grading system.  

My son, in first grade at our local public elementary, doesn’t know his basic math facts or parts of speech, but has had week long units on Global Warming and Rainforest Ecology between his 2 days a week of Art (his is an Arts Integration school).  Recently, his teacher told me she just “doesn’t have time to teach [math facts] to mastery” because she has to teach to the test – the results of which will soon determine whether she keeps her job.

Not only are regulations and/or mandates confusing and generally counterproductive, they are expensive.  In a paper just released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the authors show how regulations drive up costs and reduce competition.  In public education, the case can be made that mandates and regulations force money to be spent OUTSIDE the classroom on administrative and compliance processes that do not affect student learning, making it impossible for actual school choice to occur by reducing competition.  Why take your child to another public school when that school will be subjected to all the same federal mandates and regulations as all other public schools?  The authors also discuss the adverse incentives rife at the federal level to continue this trend ad infinitum. 

In the Competitive Enterprise Institute's yearly publication, "Ten Thousand Commandments 2012", the authors put an actual number to the cost of overall federal regulation.  They report, "Regulatory compliance costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $198 billion, and exceed individual income taxes and even pre-tax corporate profits."  We should absolutely take umbrage with this notion - especially when it applies to those institutions supposedly teaching our children the basic skills needed to succeed in life.

Vilifying those of us who believe education is a local issue best dealt with by parents, district school boards and education officials rather than nameless faceless bureaucrats at the federal – or even state level – will not change the fact that a layered, top-down bureaucracy will never solve governance problems like a locality.  Government closest to the people (parents) is always best because it is nearest the needs of the people being served (students/parents) and paying for the services (parents/taxpayers).  

Why Would Legislators Want Our Kids in Public School MORE?

Several months ago I wrote a blog, "Please Put My Child In School MORE to Learn Less". I chronicled how I'd read Karl Springer's (Superintendent of Oklahoma City Public Schools) idea to increase the number of hours children should be in school. In fact, Springer wanted the Legislature to mandate a seven-hour school day to improve "education standards". 

[Education standards. Is there a definition for this phrase? I haven't really been able to find one as it appears to be nebulous and apply to whatever money-grubbing activity or liberty-stealing legislation the speaker intends.]

In the blog I outlined the many things my two children still in public education do during a day that apply to absolutely NOTHING educational (as would be indicated by my title). 

Though I am loathe to finish out the school year with the two (especially since our school adopted the absolutely HORRIFYING math curricula, "Everyday Math" - see below), it is certainly a way to keep tabs on the educational nonsense spewing out of even one the most affluent, well-placed elementary schools in the Oklahoma City Public Schools district. For examples, see my posts, "The Zombies Are Coming" (on the global warming nonsense and how it affected my child), and the Pièce de résistance "One Oklahoma Teacher, "Do I Teach To The Test or Teach for Knowledge" (where my youngest son's teacher basically tries to explain why she can't keep my child on a single task long enough to actually master it - basically, I've found, it's my responsibility to do it AFTER school).

So, can you imagine my glee when I found this while reading through the bills assigned to committees for the week - HB3089; Schools; changing the length of the school day; effective date; emergency. The bill was authored by Representative Jason Nelson of the larger Oklahoma City metro area. Guess who argued FOR the bill? That's right - none other than Superintendent Springer.

Peter J. Rudy at Oklahoma Watchdog provided the blow-by-blow discussion on the bill in the Common Education Committee this morning. 

Lynn Habluetzel - ROPE Board member - was watching Watchdog's tweets today and forwarded this tweet to me in a text, "Nelson: we’re trying to make value statement as a legislature that we want a longer school day."

What? A VALUE STATEMENT? Wait a minute. I guess I must be wrong on the whole idea of this Constitution thingy. Apparently, the objective of the legislative process is NOT to create freedom for citizens, but to tie them up with mandates and laws to make VALUE STATEMENTS. The only problem here is that my VALUES are apparently not those of the Oklahoma City Public Schools and Representative Nelson.

I think the final sentences in the debate are important here:

Kern: I think there are more fundamental problems in education. This isn’t increasing time teachers would be working. I don’t think this bill is the answer to what we need.

Nelson: there are some things I’ll never understand. We have people concerned we’re mandating we go 6.5 hours. Well we have a mandate for 6 hours right now. Let’s take that away and give districts billions of dollars to districts and let them do what we want. We’re not talking about creating a standard, it’s increasing the standard. We’re talking about establishing a new base so we’re not the bottom of the barrel. To me this is a common sense approach. We’re not micromanaging any more than we are right now.

Clearly - and according to the first hand knowledge I have of my two children - a longer school day will not solve the issue of the mess that has become public education. How Representative Nelson feels this idea is a "common sense approach", "I'll never understand". 

Trapping children longer in a building where - no matter how much many teachers want to make sure their kids leave their classrooms schooled in needed subjects;

• the curricula school boards adopt are HORRIBLE - and in some cases hurtful, 
• there are too many outside hour-eaters (assemblies, plays, field trips, etc.) that take time away from actual teaching and study,
• teachers have to 'teach to a test' to the extent that they can't teach their children to the level of mastery or the kids won't score well on the tests, but the test scores have to be good to keep the schools AYP number up and eventually to keep from being fired
• kids don't get the support they need at home because the family unit has been destroyed and teachers aren't to be babysitters (and simply can't be) - nor schools a home or substitute for family

Fortunately for us, the bill didn't pass in a 4-11 vote (I would like to know the four that voted yes, but the votes have not been posted on the legislative servers). 

Unfortunately for our kids, the common sense approaches that will work best for them, don't cost enough money, provide enough kick-backs, elevate anyone's political standing enough or rely on yet another 'program'. Taking off the mandates, letting teachers teach, giving them good resources and concentrating on only Math, Science, Reading, Language Arts and Social Studies, will do the trick. When will we find enough legislators and administrators to concentrate on these factors before themselves? I hesitate to guess, which is why my children will never darken the door of a public school again after this year. 

Reviews of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (http://nychold.com/em.html)

An Evaluation of Selected Mathematics Textbooks, by Wayne Bishop (May 1997). Prepared at the request of the Core Knowledge Foundation, this is a review of 2nd and 4th grade mathematics materials from Sadlier, SRA McGraw-Hill (CMC), Saxon, and Everyday Learning Corporation (Everyday Math). Bishop ranks Everyday Mathematics a distant last. About Everyday Math 2nd grade he writes: "In normal classrooms with normal teachers, I would characterize these materials as `dangerous.' My impression is that it would be very difficult to be sure that appropriate material has been covered adequately. One can expect a very high degree of teacher variability. Knowledgeable teachers, well grounded in the materials, may be able to pull it off; at least it's clear from the assessment book that there are some things that the children are supposed to know. There is almost no routine practice, although a small amount is built into the activities." The same criticism is amplified for the fourth grade Everyday Math materials.

PS: here is Lynn's letter to Representative Nelson following the meeting:

Dear Representative Nelson,

I was monitoring the Common Ed committee meeting this morning and was glad your bill HB 3089 failed. Once again I think your intentions maybe good, but too many unintended consequences will occur.  Please look beyond the surface problem of "not enough time".   I want to comment specifically on your statement:

Nelson: why do we have schools? To educate children and the longer we can do that every day is a good thing.

I refer you to Jenni White's blog she wrote about how they ( public schools) do so much except TEACH the basics.  

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2011/10/please-put-my-child-in-school-more-to.html

If the schools would go back to the basics  our reading and math scores would go up, which is what everyone seems to want.  

Thank you,

Lynn Habluetzel

One Oklahoma Teacher, "Do I teach to the test, or teach for knowledge?"

This post stems from the meeting I had with my 7 year-old's teacher on Teacher Conference night. Well, that's not true, it stems from years of research I've done on public education, but it came to a head in NEON LIGHTS for me last night and I had to share.

I have had three children darken the doors of the same public elementary school from kindergarten. From the beginning of the year, when I began to work with Sam (7) on his homework, I was troubled. The math seemed WAY too fast. I mean, he started with addition, but after three or so short weeks, he started subtraction. I couldn't believe it - he in NO WAY had his addition facts down before subtraction began. Consequently, the MINUTE subtraction began, he was lost. It took hours sometimes to sit with him and explain until he could even get the CONCEPT, let alone actually do the problems himself!

But wait! Several weeks later he actually brought home a math paper where he was to ADD THREE NUMBERS IN A ROW!!!! I simply couldn't believe it. I had to show him how to do it and he got it pretty well actually, but I have a Master's Degree in Biology and my husband is an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER!

After weeks of frustration over this situation, we met the teacher and she began to show us Sam's grades.

"Well, Mrs. Jones (not her real name for obvious reasons), I don't really care that Sam's grades are low. I'm going to be taking he and his sister Betty out at the end of the year to home school anyway - and frankly, I am simply disgusted at the nonsensical speed in which your class is going through math. I don't think Sam's grades are necessarily a reflection of his knowledge base, because he keeps moving on to something else before he's really grasped the subject at hand, so he never knows anything well enough to get really good grades."

Mrs. Jones responds,

"Oh, I know Mrs. White. I hate that. I NEVER get to teach for mastery, I can really only teach to the test and NOW I might have to do that to an even greater degree to keep my job!"

Clearly frustrated, she continued,

"I have been a teacher in OKCPS nearly 20 years. We teachers are all kind of conditioned to just teaching whatever new fad the district puts out, knowing it won't last and we'll have to spend our summers getting trained on something else as soon as a NEW fad comes along. It's the testing that causes so many problems. They keep telling us we have to teach more and more every year it seems. How in the WORLD can I get my kids to develop MASTERY in a subject when we can't spend but more than three weeks on it before I have to move on to something else. But then, I have to teach what's on the test, or the kids scores go down and we all look bad."

THANK GOODNESS EDUCATION IS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS! Public education today is about nothing more than what administrators - some who have never even set foot in a classroom and have no idea what a teacher can or can not do in a set amount of time - SAY it is. "They" implement new programs at the speed of light and expect things out of children and teachers that could only be possible in some parallel universe made up of Einstein-like scholars!

Yes, we want our kids to be the best they can be, but THIS is not the way! Why do you think test scores haven't risen in decades and kids get so frustrated and hate school so much they drop out!? Every administrator wants the newest, cutting edge approach to learning. The only problem is, studies show that the donkey works better than the racehorse! Why does better equate with NEW? Why don't we seem to understand that tried and true methods become "tried and true" because they have been shown to be!

I get so sick and tired of being told that home school students perform better because they have one one one direction at home and their education is catered to them. Come on! Many of us put our kids on lessons and let them go at their own speed - when they get a concept they move on!

Mrs. Jones said, "I don't worry so much about the higher kids because they tend to get stuff anyway, and I don't worry about the lower end kids because many of them will need remediation of some kind anyway. I worry about the kids in the middle! I can't even seem to serve them because even they can't keep up."

She also went on to tell us that next year, the school would be using Everyday Math - the WORST example of fuzzy math curricula in education today!

Well, I wonder...maybe that's the way "THEY" actually want all this testing, and new Standards, and crummy curricula, and constant meddling. The more the kids are confused and the lower the test scores get, the MORE "they" get to justify spending money and staff on programs that 'might' work to 'fix' it! After all, who cares about the kids when they're just a means to an end.

Deception, NOT Excellence in Oklahoma Education

Or…Short Memories Allow Business As Usual in Public School ‘Reform’

How would you feel if I told you that taxpayers are paying the salary for a man at the Department of Education who committed voter fraud in a school board election? 

Many conservatives were astounded when our new REPUBLICAN State Superintendent of Education, Janet Barresi hired the lobbyist for the OklahomaEducation Association (OEA – Oklahoma’s branch of national NEA) as her chief of staff.  In fact, while I have written many a blog detailing ROPE’s disagreements and frustrations with Dr. Barresi’spolicies from a Conservative perspective, even we Conservatives understand public education MUST be a particularly bi-partisan issue. The move to hire Mr. Robison, however, simply didn’t pass the smell test. 

What I found recently, is simply MIND BOGGLING, and explains why.

April 12^th, 1988 framed a particularly divisive school board election in Oklahoma City Public Schools.  Arthur Stellar, then-OKC Public Schools (OKCPS) Superintendent, had recently been given a $6,200 annual pay and benefits increase by existing school board members.

This did not sit well with the OCFT (Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers – local arm of the American Federation of Teachers) who vowed to defeat the three incumbent board members up for reelection that year.  In addition, the OKCPS teachers would be deciding their union of representation May 18. The OCFT had held bargaining rights for teachers since 1977, surviving four previous challenges from rival union OEA-OKC, and teachers would once again be deciding their fate in mere weeks.

Betty Hill, sitting President of the Board (general manager of Jim Hill Heating and Cooling Co. at the time), was the only one of the three who chose to run under these conditions. Her opponent was OCFT-endorsed, Jesse Isbell, a Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Employee. 

Isbell received 437 district votes. Hill’s total was 305. This forced a runoff election which was to be held on May 3, 1988.

Elections for districts 4 and 5 resulted in elections for OCFT-endorsed candidates, indicating little more than a planned union takeover of the board.

BUT WAIT! Ted Metscher, president of the OCFT and Joel Robison, president of the state AFT (and a physical education teacher within the system) were BOTH found to have voted in the April election while LIVING OUTSIDE THE OKC public school district! Both men were listed on the polling record for Mark Twain Elementary School. Both men listed the business office of the OKFT as their addresses, though Metscher lived in Norman and Robison in Bethany. 

Oklahoma law requires that voters list their home addresses, and the Oklahoma County prosecutor at the time (), publically stated that using a business address to register a vote was a violation of both misdemeanor and felony laws.

Both men actually admitted to voting ILLEGALLY, citing their voter fraud as simple “mistake”.

Metscher was quoted as saying, “My statement is it is a mistake and it’s been corrected. I’m reregistered and I’m sorry.”

Robison said, “I’m not going to say I didn’t realize. It was just a mistake.”

Union members ALSO committing voter fraud in the election were Joel Robison’s wife, Donna (a special education teacher at Classen Fifth-Grade Center), and Georgia Ianello, the former head of the OCFT (who lived in the Putnam City School district).

Though the OCFT placed information in teachers’ school mailboxes BEFORE the election including individual district maps, 35 people who lived outside the boundary lines for District 3 voted in that election, including 8 Oklahoma City schoolteachers, and one principal.

As one commentary in the Oklahoman stated (April 28, 1988), “…it is incredible that people involved in educating children should demonstrate ignorance of, or perhaps disdain for, such a fundamental principle of the democratic process as the sanctity of the vote. With that caliber of union leadership, it is not hard to imagine the kind of school board Oklahoma City would have if it should come totally under union control.”

By April 30^th, Both Metscher and Robison had resigned their AFT posts and lost their union salaries as the OSBI began to investigate “voter registration fraud”. 

Betty Hill won re-election to her post in District 3, May 3 with 53% of the vote. 

May 18^th, OKCPS teachers elected OEA-OKC to represent them as their bargaining agent.

In early June, a more than 230-page OSBI report focused on the actions of Robison and his wife, Donna, Metscher and Ianello was delivered to the district attorney’s office allowing OK County DA Robert Macy to file criminal charges. Though all four were found to have fraudulently cast their votes in the April 12^th election, all were accused only of the misdemeanor charge of “willfully and knowingly” voting illegally in an OKCPS election. The maximum punishment was to be 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Arthur Stellar, OKCPS then-Superintendent explained that OKCPS actions “could run the gamut from an oral reprimand to termination,” but also indicated that no action would be taken against the teachers until the outcome of the case had been determined.

Macy’s decision frustrated many, including Hill and then-OKCPS board President Kay Floyd who said, “I worry about the message that sends to kids, the public, everybody…I have a problem with them being in the classroom.”

The second week of July, Robison, his wife Donna, and Ianello faced their first court appearances on their misdemeanor charges.

In August, both Joel and Donna Robison had resigned their teaching positions and moved to Wichita, Kansas.

By October 18, 1988, the Robisons were given each a 30-day suspended sentence and fined $1,000 (the maximum fine allowed) after reaching an agreement with prosecutors. Each wrote in a court affidavit: “I voted in a school election in a district or precinct in which I did not reside.”

Today, after serving many years as the Chief Lobbyist for OEA, Joel Robison, a man convicted of voter fraud in a school board election tainted by overt union dealings, is the Chief of Staff for the Oklahoma State Superintendent.

Yes, all of us have made/will make mistakes in our lives. Yes, certainly as a Christian one should extend grace and forgiveness. Yes, those who make mistakes must go on to lead their lives in a fruitful, meaningful way and we must allow them to do so.

Mr. Robison could have continued anywhere as a physical education teacher, yet he came back to Oklahoma, switched union allegiance, continued on in union employ and was then put in a position to lobby on behalf of ALL Oklahoma taxpayers for issues affecting our children in public school. Mr. Robison broke the public trust and is now helping to oversee the agency charged with KEEPING the public trust.

We think THAT is stepping over the line.

Resources available from the NewsOk archives under the following titles:

Teachers’ Union Officials Crash School Election, Chris Brawley, April 27, 1988

Records Show 35 Crossed School Election Boundaries, Chris Brawley, Chip Minty, April 27, 1988

Bad Omen for School Board, Editorial, April 28, 1988

OSBI Opens City School Vote Probe, Chris Brawley, April 28, 1988

Oklahoma School Board Candidate Undaunted by Suspect Votes, Chris Casteel, April 29, 1988

More Ineligible School Voters Named, Chris Brawley, April 30, 1988

Runoff Vote to End Hot School Contest, Chris Brawley, May 2, 1988

Union Blameless, Leader Claims, Chris Brawley, May3, 1988

School Board President Re-Elected, Chris Brawley, May 4, 1988

State Official Urges Revision of School Election Laws, Chris Brawley, May 9, 1988

Unions Seeking Backers in City’s School System Teachers, Support Personnel to Choose, Chris Brawley, May 15, 1988

Teacher Union Presidents Quit After Probe Starts, Chris Brawley, April 30, 1988

OSBI Files Report on Possible Fraud, Chris Brawley, June 12, 1988

Criminal Charges Planned in School Election Fraud Probe, Nolan Clay, July 6, 1988

Illegal Voting Charge Filed on Teachers, Chris Brawley, Nolan Clay, July 8, 1988

3 Teachers in Court on Election Charges, Editorial, July 12, 1988

Vote Fraud Suspect Unaware of Restrictions, Attorney Says, July 16, 1988

Board Member Concerned Over Teachers’ Jobs, Chris Brawley, September 1, 1988

Jury to Hear Case Against City Teachers, Nolan Clay, September 23, 1988

Teachers Enter Pleas of Guilty in Voting Case, Nolan Clay, October 18, 1988

Ex-Teachers Fined for Illegal Voting, Nolan Clay, October 14, 1988

Teachers Should Accept Blame, Editorial, October 21, 1988

Teachers Disciplined Confidentially, Chris Brawley, November 1, 1988

ROPE Endorses Crystal Hodges for OKC School Board District 4 - Here's WHY!

February 14th, Oklahoma will vote on school board races across the state. February you say? Isn't that a fairly cold month here in Oklahoma - making any but the firmly ideological and/or patriotic sure NOT to go to the polls? Of course! Partly because of this factor, school board races tend to suffer from lack of turnout, at times causing school board seats to turn on less than 60 votes.

Unfortunately, school board races aren't deemed ‘sexy’ by the media. School board elections rarely gain much media attention and usually fly so far under the radar that many citizens have no idea a school board race is even ensuing in their neighborhood (district) at all - ever.

ROPE has recognized these frustrations from our beginnings. Last year we assisted both Piedmont and Edmond with school board candidate forums, in attempt to bring light to the process.

This year, we would like you to be aware of a particular school board race here in Oklahoma City. It is the Oklahoma City School Board seat in district number 4 previously held by Steve Schafer. Here is the map you can use to determine whether or not you reside in district 4.

As you can read in this article from the Oklahoman covering a recent candidate forum held by Friends of Egemere, there are three candidates running for this particular seat; Patrick Gaines, Laura A. Massenat and Crystal Hodges. As you can imagine, we have done a bit of research on these three candidates and we are happy to share that information with you.

All three candidates are registered with the County Election Board as "Republican", so this should be a very difficult race to judge, right? Well, not so fast. There are, some could say, EXTREME differences among the three Republican candidates in this race.

Let's start with Patrick Gaines.

Mr. Gaines is the owner and proprietor of Gaines Government Services, LLC - a local lobbying firm. Mr. Gaines is a registered lobbyist in Oklahoma for medical and insurance providers. He has a candidate Facebook page where he can be seen with Representative (and candidate for SENATE) Al McAffrey. Mr. Gaines also has an Al McAffrey For Senate sign in his front yard as can be evidenced here:

Here is a screen shot from the Al McAffrey For Senate webpage:

While Al is "FIGHTING EVERYDAY FOR OUR PROGRESSIVE VALUES", ROPE continues to fight AGAINST his progressive values – particularly in education.

Please also note McAffrey’s voting history, where he voted AGAINST preventing the use of Sharia law in Oklahoma court cases (against the will of 70% of Oklahoma voters) and the repeal of collective bargaining requirements for cities (which continue to cost Oklahoma taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars OUTSIDE what we pay for public services themselves.)

I don’t know about you, but my momma used to tell me, "You are known by your associates".

Yes, we should be cordial to all people and definitely attempt to hear all sides of an issue. Yes, school board races are considered non-partisan (which is how Progressives took control of school boards under the radar long ago). However, when one person says one thing, “I’m a Republican”, and acts another way by promoting the candidacy of a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, (outside his job as lobbyist which requires him to elicit support from both sides of the isle) while also publicly appreciating that PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT’S support for his campaign, ALL voters should be concerned.

In that case, we can glean the following about Patrick Gaines:

• He is a registered Republican backing a Progressive Democrat for Senate.
• He has had this self-same Progressive Democrat at one of his fundraisers as evidenced on his school board candidate Facebook page where he is happy to tell the world that this Progressive Democrat supports his school board candidacy.
• Patrick Gaines is a lobbyist. “To lobby”, according to Merriam-Webster, is: to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action.

Thus, we could conclude that Patrick Gaines will lobby the Oklahoma City School Board (as a board member) toward more Progressive Democrat ideals.

Let's now turn our attention to Laura A. Massenat:

Mrs. Massenat has, to her credit, been very active at the Oklahoma City School Board meetings where she frequently “lobbies” for more nutritious lunches. Mrs. Massenat is also registered with the County Election Board as a Republican and also has a candidate Facebook page where she appears with Al McAffrey AND Oklahoma City Councilman Ed Shadid at a recent campaign fund raiser.

For the uninitiated, Ed Shadid has been one of the more ‘controversial’ councilmen on the Oklahoma City Council. Though he has thankfully attempted to stand firm in the face of the cronyism that IS the Oklahoma City Council, he is also on record as a supporter of Agenda 21-based incentives such as “preventing urban sprawl”. In a blog written last June, he states,

“As social beings we are designed to function “as part of a herd” as my mentor, Dr. Billy Stout, frequently reminds me.”

WHAT?! Sorry, I don’t baaaa during any part of my day thank you, and I am – like a lot of you – more likely to kick the sheepdog as run with the pack away from him!

What about Mrs. Massenat’s ideas on school function or programming? A recent poll posted to her Facebook page can give us some idea of her thoughts.

Granted, the poll was peopled with votes from Facebook ‘friends’ and certainly can’t be construed as a statistical poll of any kind, but if her constituents are more concerned about school lunch choices than how often kids are tested and to what/for what result, how will actual issues dealing with the education (or un-education) of Oklahoma City district 4 kids fit into her agenda?

This question, combined with the issue of her political supporters, certainly raises a lot of concerns. Thus, we would be unable to consider Laura Massanat’s candidacy for the position of school board member.

This leads me to Crystal Hodges, who, as you might imagine, ROPE endorses wholeheartedly for this seat.

Crystal is a former Navy Nuclear Electronic technician who received a degree in Elementary Education following her honorable discharge from service. She and her husband Peter have 3 children whom Crystal schools at home. You can read more about Crystal’s thoughts and qualifications on the “about me” section of her candidate Facebook page.

Not unbelievably, concerns have been expressed about the legitimacy of Crystal’s candidacy simply because of the fact that Crystal chooses to school her children at home. In fact, it has even been posited that Crystal should not be ALLOWED to sit on the school board in her district for this reason. Please, allow me to make a few points here:

· Home schoolers (such as me) often choose to opt their children out of public school for religious reasons. Many of us prefer to school our children using a Biblical world view which, sadly, has not been available in public schools since 1965.

· Many home schoolers (such as Crystal and I) often either have education backgrounds themselves, or take part in a co-op or other program to assist in the schooling of their children (our family, for example, participates in a local Classical Conversations program).

· Many home schoolers (such as Crystal and I) have advanced degrees - as evidenced in a very large study done on nearly 12 thousand home school families in 1998.

· Like my own sister, and others who choose parochial and/or private schooling, home schooler’s PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO FUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS in their neighborhood and across the state of Oklahoma though they do not use the services for which they pay. To say that a home schooler can NOT occupy a school board seat in their district is tantamount to consigning these individuals to TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

· Home schoolers are often more aware of the issues surrounding public education than those parents whose children attend public school simply because we have studied the issue prior to choosing a method of schooling for our children.

Consequently, due to Crystal’s outstanding qualifications and experience – and the obvious concerns about her opponents – ROPE has chosen to endorse Crystal Hodges for the Oklahoma City Public Schools District #4 Board of Education seat.

We ask YOU to do whatever you can to support her as well!