Showing posts with label oklahoma public education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oklahoma public education. Show all posts

1.13.2020

Is It Time To Allow Oklahoma's Governor To Appoint Oklahoma's State Superintendent of Public Instruction?





EDITORIAL:

This week, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt indicated that he would like to see the State Superintendent of Public Instruction become a gubernatorially appointed position.

Though members of ROPE have consistently advocated for the right of citizens to directly elect their government officials, it might just be time for Oklahomans to revisit the issue of an appointed Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

3.15.2018

Dirty Little Education Secrets Part 3: Administrative and Programming Costs Suck HUGE Amounts From Common Ed Budget

Since teachers have begun to petition taxpayers and the state government for a raise, and since the taxpayers rejected the Step-Up planning proposal including tax increases to fund public education was soundly rejected by legislators, myself and others have been calling for an audit of the OSDE prior to an increased fund allotment to public education.

After reviewing the OSDE budget request for 2018 - and others - two things simply cannot escape the attention of a thinking, taxpaying public

12.08.2016

BREAKING NEWS: Oklahoma Representative Kevin Calvey Requests Resignation from Superintendent Hofmeister


Earlier today, I received a letter released to the press by Representative Kevin Calvey (R-82) requesting State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Joy Hofmeister, resign. Here is the text of the letter (which apparently made the Washington Times):

7.24.2013

States Dumping PARRC Is An ORCHESTRATED Event - NOT "STATE LED"!

I had to write this blog after receiving this letter to Superintendents from Georgia Superintendent John D. Barge, Ed.D.  I will add the exact link to the letter as soon as I am able to find it, but for now, I am copying the entirety of the letter here below, followed by the letter Janet Barresi sent to Superintendents in Oklahoma.

My thesis; Achieve has figured out Common Core opponents have a case for federal involvement in testing with the argument that PARCC received federal funding to create the tests and now the feds want to 'help' decide what will be on the tests.   

What's the best way to nullify the argument?  Have states leave PARCC and 'develop their own state standards'.   

Okay but who will they use for Common Core tests then?  McGraw Hill?  Pearson? Both companies are part of the Common Core machine - both SELL Common Core tests - both are private organizations not having received money from ARRA but that have massive lobbying efforts across the nation.  As I've said before; THIS IS A SHELL GAME and the American public is being played.  When you look at the letters from TWO SEPARATE state superintendents in TWO SEPARATE states and they are so similar you can pick out common themes and wording?  You have an orchestrated event, most probably from Achieve - which has an entire website called the Future Ready Project to help states 'sell' the standards.  States get pushback on the Core, and instead of governors and/or state superintendents meeting the arguments head on in their own states - locally - they go to Achieve to get propaganda to 'sell' their citizenry on their education 'reform' measures (Common Core/Testing/TLE).  The term "state led" is meant to mean "local", but as is obvious, Common Core is not a local phenomena, but a nationally coordinated event geared toward promulgating progressive education and crony capitalism by providing more clients for the private corporations pushing the standards.


Dear Superintendents,

Earlier today, I, along with Governor Deal and our State Board Chair, Barbara Hampton, advised the leadership of the PARCC Governing Board that the state of Georgia is withdrawing from the consortium and as such, we will not administer the PARCC assessments in 2014-2015. Georgia will be pursuing other options for developing our own state assessments in English language arts and math at the elementary, middle and high school levels.  We will continue to work with Georgia educators, as we have in the past, to reconfigure and/or redevelop our state assessments to reflect the instructional focus and expectations inherent in our rigorous state standards in language arts and math.  This is not a suspension of the implementation of the CCGPS in language arts and math.

After talking with district superintendents, administrators, teachers, parents, lawmakers, and members of many communities, I believe this is the best decision for Georgia’s students.  Relative to assessment, our paramount goal is to deliver high-quality instruments.  It is critical that these instruments provide key information about student learning and contribute to the ongoing work of improving the educational opportunities for each student. 

The Georgia Department of Education estimates that several million dollars in savings will be realized, annually, by developing our own assessments. The cost estimates for PARCC will be released later today, and these costs far exceed what Georgia can afford.

As we have discussed the technology requirements for PARCC, we have realized that a majority of our districts are not ready for full-scale, online assessments across all grades.  The state does not currently have the technology infrastructure or sufficient hardware to handle the test administration demands of PARCC, which include technology- enhanced test items.

While any new test Georgia develops will require greater capacity, allowing for online administration, we will be in the position to work with districts to establish the timeline.  This is important, as many districts need greater bandwidth, improved connectivity, and more devices (i.e., hardware) to handle not only assessment administration but day to day instructional requirements.

Developing our own assessments also will allow Georgia to determine the amount of time our students spend testing.  Based on current estimates, PARCC anticipates up to 10 hours of student engagement, through multiple test sessions conducted across two testing windows in language arts and mathematics alone.  I am optimistic that Georgia’s tests will require significantly less time for these two content areas, within a single window, and still provide high-quality information about student learning.

Finally, and arguably the most important consideration, adopting the PARCC assessment would limit the ability of Georgia to make adjustments or changes to our standards as we see fit.  If Georgia educators determine that certain standards need to be shifted or revised, we would run the risk of no longer being aligned with the PARCC assessment.  Such misalignment would put our students at a disadvantage. 

As we begin to build new assessments, please note that our Georgia assessments:
·         will be aligned to the math and English language arts CCGPS;
·         will be of high-quality and rigorous;
·         will be developed for students in grades 3 through 8 and high school;
·         will be reviewed by Georgia teachers;
·         will require significantly less time to administer than the PARCC assessments;
·         will be administered within a single testing window;
·         will be offered in both computer- and paper-based formats; and
·         will include a variety of item types, such as performance-based and multiple-choice items.

I am confident that Georgia can use the information learned from our involvement in PARCC as we develop new tests.  We are grateful to Georgia educators who have worked hard to help develop our standards and assessments.  We look forward to continuing to work with them to develop a new assessment system for our state.

As we continue to prepare our students to be college and career ready by the time they graduate from high school, I believe this approach will benefit them greatly.  As the work continues, I will keep you informed.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  


John D. Barge, Ed.D.
State School Superintendent
Georgia Department of Education
2066 Twin Towers East
205 Jesse Hill Jr. Dr. SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Ofc:  404-657-6165
Fax:  404-651-8737
Follow us on Twitter: @gadoenews and @drjohnbarge
Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gadoe

"Making Education Work for All Georgians"
Now, here is the letter written to Superintendents by Janet Barresi.  No, the wording is not exact - let's not split hairs - but please tell me that not only the formatting, but the message are NOT the same.

MEMORANDUM

TO: District Superintendents

FROM: State Superintendent Janet Barresi

DATE: July 1, 2013

RE: Issuing RFP to Develop Oklahoma Assessments in Math and English Language Arts

Last week, I advised the leadership of the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers) Governing Board that the state of Oklahoma will not be participating in the spring 2015 administration of the PARCC Assessment. Oklahoma will be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop our own state assessments in English language arts and math for grades 3 through 8. We will work with our current testing vendor to align high school end-of-instruction exams to reflect the significant instructional shifts and the new rigorous state standards in English, math and social studies. I want to be clear; this is not a suspension of the implementation timeframe for the Oklahoma Academic Standards that include the Common Core State Standards for English and math.

After talking with and listening to district superintendents, teachers and parents, I believe this is the best decision for Oklahoma's children. Our first priority was to deliver a very high-quality assessment that would provide the type of information our teachers, administrators, parents, the legislature and the public need to continue to support ongoing work in improving educational opportunities for each child. In addition, developing our own assessments will reduce the amount of time children are testing, reduce the risk of technology problems and save money.

The State Department of Education estimates that upwards of $2 million a year in savings will be realized by developing our own assessments. The PARCC cost estimates for the exams will be released at a later date. Those cost estimates will not include formative assessments for teachers or multiple retakes of high school end-of-instruction exams. The Oklahoma assessments will include at least two formative assessments teachers may use on a voluntary basis each year and opportunities for students to retake the EOIs.

The Office of Instructional Technology conducted a speed test in April to determine our technology readiness. The study revealed 85 percent of the districts were not ready for online learning opportunities. The state does not currently have the technological infrastructure to handle the amount of time on task for students as well as the enhanced test items as required by PARCC.

These Oklahoma tests still will require students to fill in the blanks, drag and drop items, and manipulate objects on the screen, and this requires a higher level of technology. Many districts still need more bandwidth to handle these requirements, better connectivity and more devices for taking the examination. I am continuing to work with the governor and legislative leadership to find funding and viable options to increase technological capacity across the state.

The final reason for this decision is the time on task issue. As you know, the PARCC recommendations will call for up to 10 hours of student engagement on test items over two testing windows. Our RFP is calling for about half that amount over one window.

The 2014-2015 Oklahoma assessments:
• Will be aligned to the new math and English language arts Oklahoma Academic Standards that include the Common Core
Will be reviewed by Oklahoma teachers
Will require about half of the time on task as the PARCC assessments and will be administered over one testing window.
• Will be developed for students in grades 3 through 12 but only computerized for grades 6 through 12 as has been in the past
Will offer paper and pencil tests throughout the duration of the contract as opposed to PARCC only allowing paper and pencil for one year
• Will be high-quality and display the same rigor as well as the same type of test items as the PARCC exams are expected to have
Will have performance based items as well as some multiple choice, although fewer multiple choice items than in the past

Lastly, I am pleased the new testing vendor, when chosen, will be able to use the information we learned from participating in PARCC as we commission the new Oklahoma tests. We are grateful to the Oklahoma Educator Leader Cadre that has worked so hard to help prepare educators for the new standards and assessments. We will continue to work with them to support the development of the new Oklahoma assessments.

I look forward to going down this new road of developing Oklahoma assessments for Oklahoma children. As we continue to work to prepare our children to be college, career and citizen ready by the time they graduate, these new Oklahoma grown assessments will greatly benefit them.

As the RFP process continues, I will keep you informed. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you.

Janet C. Barresi

7.03.2013

REAC3H For the Sky Taxpayer!



As I mentioned in my last blog on the June Oklahoma State School Board Meeting where we were not allowed to speak against Common Core, though there were several items on the agenda that fell under that topic, there was a presentation on REAC3H coaching in our state.

According to the Oklahoma State Department of Education website, REAC3H stands for

Regional Educators Advancing College, Career, and Citizenship readiness Higher

In fact, the SDE has an entire page on the website devoted to REAC3H.  You can find that here.   

It’s like a one stop shop of all the programs the SDE has developed, under the leadership of Dr. Barresi, to promote all Race to the Top programs for which Oklahoma never received money.  Yes, you will find Common Core (also called alternatively C3 Standards, or Oklahoma Standards or OC3 Standards – since Common Core is getting a black eye across the country, it doesn’t hurt to change the name and camouflage the problem) there as well as Teacher Leader Effectiveness.

My main concern, after the June Board meeting became the discussion on the agenda of REAC3H Competitive Grants.

Oklahoma has already adopted the Common Core State Standards for not only English/LA and Math, but also Science and Social Studies.  This is troubling because Dr. Barresi has told gatherings of people numerous times that Oklahoma would NOT adopt the Common Core for either Science or Social Studies. 

Beyond that, however, now that Oklahoma will have to train teachers and produce materials to satisfy FOUR sets of standards without any prior study on the cost of ANY of the Common Core initiative to the state of Oklahoma, why create a COMPETITIVE grant to give taxpayer money to private organizations and institutions? 


New to the budget this year is an item for Teach for America, a program that places teachers in high-risk schools to help improve performance among minorities and students in poverty. Also new is a $2.8 million competitive grant program to provide funding to private sector groups that have previously been awarded educational funds and to others that apply.

Yes, we are giving state tax dollars to PRIVATE SECTOR GROUPS.  Yes, we are making these groups vie for tax dollars when we're not even sure the cost to taxpayers of any of the C3 'reforms'.


Please note the vast discrepancy in the amounts; 

Great Expectations           $1,050,00
OK A+ Schools                   $275,000
Science Fair:  ECU                $50,000


As Doctor Barresi promised, we’re spending MORE money on public education than ever before - but wait - I don't seem to remember Dr. Barresi running a campaign based on spending more tax payer dollars on public education.  Oh well, just a minor hiccup I guess.

Don’t forget.  The State House did NOT approve the line item budget for the State Department, indicating lack of support for the SDE's education agenda.    

Maybe many of our Representatives had the same thought as I; Is there a reason we need to give Oklahoma taxpayer money to private third parties when what happens directly between a pupil and a teacher will impact that student more than any other outside source?

Maybe we need to STOP this convoluted C3 program and get back to basics of taxpayer funding of IN CLASSROOM spending to give those closest to the students the tools they need to make the difference they can.

3.29.2013

Common Core Is NOT OK Rally Summary


And so it was that Wednesday, March 27, somewhere between 150 and 200 people came to the Oklahoma State Capitol to rally against the Common Core State Standards!  We were so grateful to look out and see such a fabulous crowd!  We know the time and energy it takes to leave your home and put aside your day to do something like this and we truly appreciate your willingness to work with us to stop the de-humanization and de-localization of public education.

I'm not going to take the time today to rehash all the reasons why we object to the Common Core in this post, but I will make sure that those of you who wish to have ammunition to give your friends, family members and neighbors, can get that here - in a one stop shop of sorts!

A brief list of Common Core educational materials

Here is a link to our one page information sheet called, "What Oklahomans Need To Know About Common Core State Standards".  If you're not in Oklahoma and wish to have something more generic, please use this handout from our friends at the Truth in American Education website.

Here is the paper that really helped to spread the word about CCSS, "Common Core State Standards, An Introduction To Marxism 101"  This should help you put the background together on where the Common Core came from - it's political background and who's behind the push.

For those of you interested also in the data collection aspect, our paper, "How Much Data Is Enough Data? What happens to privacy when bureaucracies exceed their scope?" might be of interest.  We also have another one page information sheet called, "What Oklahomans Need To Know About The P20 Council" that you can hand out to those seeking information.

A number of media outlets were represented at the Rally.  Below, are posted the links to the stories the rally generated.


Educators Protest New Guidelines At State House (added 4/1) - I totally forgot to post this video/story from NewsChannel 4.  I thought their reporting was absolutely great!  Both sides, no spin.  Two thumbs up!

Lawmakers Urged To Reject Proposed Nationwide Academic Standards - this was a video from our Daily Oklahoman.  We thought this video - and the news story - very fair.

Protestors Rally Against New School Curriculum - this was from our FOX affiliate.  Not bad, but didn't really get to the meat of the matter, just more about 'federal takeover'.  Also, in this story, I lost 3 of my children!  My husband, who watched the story with me said, "Do we get to pick which ones we lose?" (David and I have 5 children, not the 2 depicted in the story!)

Opponents of 'Common Core Standards' Education Rally At State Capitol.  This was from the AP and instead of doing their own reporting, LOCALLY OWNED KWTV-Channel 9 picked up the AP report.  So did Glenn Beck!  The reporting in this 'article' (if you can call it that) was SO atrocious that Glenn Beck picked it up off the wire and skewered it on the radio!  This was HORRIBLE.  I imagine News9 will lose a number of viewers over this - they lost me!  It was so bad in fact, that I penned this reply:
Hunter (a very liberal hate-speak blogger), you might get some sleep...that might help your disposition a bit. This 'loon' would like to ask you a question, "Would you buy a car sight unseen?" These standards were put into Oklahoma law before they were even available to read. So, you're all for making school kids Guinea Pigs in an education experiment that could affect them for the rest of their lives? You must not like kids very much! Here's another question for you, "Would you show up to buy a car without knowing how much it cost?" I wouldn't. I research that kind of stuff pretty thoroughly. We had no idea how much the Common Core would cost before they were enacted into law and two years later, our superintendent simply said she anticipated low costs. Since that time schools have had to apply for eRate grants and raise school bonds to pay for the technology costs to give the tests tied to the Standards. You must not care about your property taxes much, or the fact that the superintendent just asked for about 140 MILLION dollars more for education spending. Will that go to teachers? No. Will that go to kids? NO. It will go to buying computer and testing software and wiring. You must not be for more money in the classroom are you? I do hope you don't call yourself an advocate for Public Schools or education or children. We at ROPE care about teachers and students - that's why we say COMMON CORE IS NOT OK!
Here are the videos from the rally in order of speaker appearance, if you would like to watch and/or pass around:

Jenni White and Representative Gus Blackwell 

Representative David Brumbaugh

Reverend Paul Blair 

Tracey Montgomery (Oklahoma Coordinator - ParentalRights.org) 

Linda Murphy (longtime educator and owner of Education and Training Services)

Rally effects:

All Rally attendees were asked to write their name, address and phone number on three red postcards with our anti-Common Core logo on the other side.  They were then, at the rally, asked to take those postcards and deliver them to the offices of their Senator and Representative and the office of Governor Mary Fallin.  At the end of the rally, Lynn, Danna and Julia and I went to the Governor's office to drop off our cards.  We were met by the very unhappy office assistant who gruffly took the cards, timestamped them and plopped them onto a stack about 1 1/2 to 2 inches high.

In the event people don't remember, our bill (HB1907), run by Representative Gus Blackwell, to create a task force simply to study the cost of the Common Core, passed its committee hearing unanimously.  It was blocked from a hearing on the floor by Speaker T.W. Shannon at the behest of our Governor who is the Vice-Chair of the NGA.  After all, it wouldn't look good for the Vice Chair of the National Governor's Association to start trying to kill the Common Core when the NGA was one of two private, non-governmental trade organizations developing and pushing out the standards?  Oh, Representative Shannon offered Representative Blackwell an interim study to study all aspects of the Common Core in return, so we should have been happy with that and moved on to 'more important' topics, apparently, but of course, we don't quit that easily.  We immediately began setting up the rally and taking to Twitter and Facebook, calling the politics of our Governor and Speaker out into the open.

Representative Blackwell began authoring a House Joint Resolution against the Common Core - HJR1011 - which is a truly excellent piece of legislation.  As soon as it is written onto the Oklahoma State Legislature webpage, we'll provide the link.  Currently, we are attempting to get as many House authors on the bill as possible.  We are even attempting to get an SJR.  We have an author, my State Senator Ron Sharp and even a few Senators to sign on with him, but our Oklahoma Senate seems to be the toughest place to get good, conservative, liberty-minded legislation passed - ever.

Yesterday, Representative Blackwell called me to tell me he had heard from "a number" of legislators who stopped by to the rally to listen.  They expressed their concerns over Common Core and asked him for more information on the topic.  Not only that, but Rep. Blackwell visited with T.W. Shannon (who, we found out, will be a GUEST on the GLENN BECK program in the near future!) who told him he would make sure our HJR got to the floor.  This is great because our SJR says that implementation of Common Core will STOP until we have satisfied at least 6 different categories of inquiry on the topic!  

In closing, we are extraordinarily happy about the rally and expect that God will multiply our efforts toward restoring local public education!  We are grateful for all speakers and participants and suggest that, as many of us know, legislators will only see the light when they feel the heat.  We MUST continue to push this issue out there as often as possible - into the media and with our elected representatives bypassed by the initial legislation!  Let's not rest until Common Core is gone because COMMON CORE IS NOT OK!

1.28.2013

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the “basis for letter grade conversion is undocumented”.  How is it that an “A” is designated as having the Performance Index Range of 90-120, but all other letter designations merit a 10 point range?  Again the sense of arbitrariness challenges the concept of validity.
       Individual Growth
      Proficiency Levels (Limited Knowledge, Satisfactory, Proficient and Advanced) are introduced into the metric to allow parents to make assumptions about student academic Growth within the school.  Proficiency Levels are assigned a numerical value and the subsequent changes in numerical value determine the degree of student academic Growth.  Because of the way Proficiency Levels are assigned in the rubric, there is no way to determine student grown within a proficiency level - “no change and negative change are accorded the same zero point value”.  
Students could go from the top of the Advanced category to the bottom, or from the bottom of the Limited Knowledge category to the top, yet no change would be reflected in the actual letter designation for the school.   Not only that, but because academic growth and proficiency levels are non-linear in nature, there can be no extrapolation from individual student to school or even classroom.  There is no way to make scientific conclusions about data that have no real cause and effect relationship.
Growth of Bottom Quartile
      Since this is a very small category, small sample size can introduce bias that may not be able to be corrected away by calculating a confidence interval, making the measure unreliable.
      Whole School Performance 
      Attendance alone determines this component in elementary schools.  This component is a full third of the entire rubric, yet there is absolutely no scientific study which shows that students learn simply by benefit of being present in a school.  How is this measure relevant?

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

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





BIBLIOGRAPHY (in order of use)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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