We're Not So Jolly About Common Core Clark - Vote NO For Clark Jolley For State Treasurer

Clark Jolley at the Jeb Bush, Foundation for Education Excellence National Summit on Education Reform in Boston, MA with former Oklahoma State Board of Education member Amy Ford. 

Clark Jolley was the lead author of the bill that adopted Obama-pushed Common Core State Standards throughout Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Origins of Common Core - Adopted By Brad Henry Via Stimulus Funds

As we discuss the findings of our research into Common Core, we find that there are few people who understand the very convoluted and confusing genesis of Common Core here in Oklahoma.  This overview attempts to outline that history. 

In 2009, under Governor Brad Henry, the state took State Fiscal Stabilization Funds from the Obama Administration.  Inside the application for SFSF funds, Governor Henry agreed to  "Take steps to improve State academic content standards ad student academic achievement standards consistent with section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the American COMPETES Act. (Improving Standards Assurance).

Page 98 of the America Competes Act - titled, "Subtitle D - Alignment of Education Programs" - speaks specifically to "Improving Standards Assurance".  This section contains what ROPE has called the Four Pillars Of Education Reform; A State Longitudinal Database, College and Career Ready Standards (Common Core), Turning Around Low Performing Schools and Teacher Accountability Measures.

After the ARRA funds came the Race to the Top application.  Though Oklahoma got no money from that application, we did get Common Core cemented in state law (SB2033) because Oklahoma got 20 points on their RtTT application for providing "A description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards, and the State’s plan, current progress, and time frame for adoption." (pg 53)

Following RtTT, there was the No Child Left Behind Waiver.  Again, in order to get the waiver, Oklahoma had to agree to the Four Pillars of education reform.  You do not have to go any further to see this than page 2 of the Waiver.  Page 2 of 110 begins, "Principle 1:  College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students" followed by "1.A. Adopt college- and career-ready standards".

It should be clear now as to why we have asserted that Governor Fallin's "Executive Order on the Common Core" was essentially useless.  Simply saying that Oklahoma's education plan does not fall under federal control does not make that true.  Until Oklahoma breaks the No Child Left Behind agreement and ceases and desists all efforts at instituting the "Four Pillars of Education Reform" in Oklahoma, we will continue to be dictated to by the Federal Department of Education.

Open Letter to Oklahoma Senators Brian Bingman and John Ford

Dear Senator Bingman and Senator Ford,

I am writing you today because as a former public school teacher (and now a teacher in my own home school) I understand you desire high academic standards for Oklahoma's students.  I understand you desire Oklahoma to be economically competitive.  I understand you desire students stay in school, graduate and go on to be successful in college or a career.  I also understand you to be Republicans.

Republicans are a group of individuals that come together because of a generally shared ideology.  Historically, Republicans have been the party of smaller government and greater self-discipline; economic freedom and lower taxes; individuality over the collective; and state control over federal control.

Republicans have a platform that delineates these shared ideologies at both the state and national levels.  Oklahoma's platform is very specific regarding Education, outlining various methods by which we choose to educate our children.  Among these are;

1. We support curricula that promotes national sovereignty and opposes one-world government and global citizenship.
2. We oppose all un-funded mandates.
3. We believe a public school should protect the privacy of any personal information or data collected by the school on a student or his family and we oppose data mining by a public school.
4. The Federal Department of Education should be eliminated and defunded and its functions transferred to the States. We oppose the imposition of national curricula, testing and teacher certification, Common Core State Standards, and federally mandated programs such as “No Child Left Behind” or “Race to the Top, and PARCC testing.

AND

• We oppose participation by Oklahoma in the Common Core State Standards because it transfers control of local schools, student data and curricula from the local school boards.

So strongly do we as Republicans believe in this last point as documented in our platform, Republican Committee Men and Women from all 50 states came together at their annual meeting and voted for a Resolution repudiating the Common Core State Standards at the national level (April 2013).  Not only was this issue addressed at the national level last spring, but this winter, the State Republican Committee voted for a Resolution repudiating the Common Core State Standards (January 2014).

Quite apparently, the Common Core State Standards are an issue of exceptional interest to Republicans.

Why?  Let's look at the Common Core in direct relation to the pieces of the platform transcribed here, by number.

1.  Please note; on the Common Core State Standards website;

 

Individuals are not only going to compete globally, but whole communities will as well...
 

Quite apparently, American education is bad.  We must look to other countries to tell us how to improve our educational standards, even though no other country in the world has America's unique form of government or level of individual freedom.

2.  The Common Core State Standards were nothing if not an unfunded mandate.  

Agreed to as early as 2009 when Oklahoma took State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF), Common Core entered state law in 2010 in order to make more competitive our application to the federal government for a Race to the Top grant.  Oklahoma received no money from our RtTT application.  Common Core was not removed from law.  Consequently, every RtTT-related legislative item was left unfunded.

3.  From the very beginning, the Common Core initiative has gone hand in hand with the collection of individual student data.   

Shawn Bay, CEO of eScholar, made this fact very clear at last years' Datapalooza - a conference sponsored by the White House and the US Department of Education in Washington, D.C. - when he made the statement that, "Common Core is the glue that actually ties everything (student data collection) together.”  In fact, Mr. Bay created his company in order to use data to 'manage' student data and track children from school to career and college using the Common Core.  There is simply no way to do this without individual student data - tracking individual students from cradle to career, as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is familiar with exclaiming.  All one has to do today, is search the words "education" and "datamining" and pages full of articles and papers documenting the use of data collection as an education tool by our federal government.

Though legislators and educators alike have been told that the unprecedented collection of data on school children is to prevent drop outs by following children longitudinally across their education arc, proponents fail to explain how interwoven into the fabric of educational data collection are President Obama's pollsters of the last election, Nate Silver and Dan Wagner - the men who created a  database the likes of which Maxine Waters has referred to as

“...a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life...[which is] going to be very, very powerful.”

4.   Not only does the Republican party repudiate Common Core, but federal involvement in education as well.

While Governor Fallin's Executive Order addresses federal government intrusion into public education, her statements are equivalent to closing the barn door after the horses have run out.  Why?  Because in 2009, under Governor Brad Henry, the state took State Fiscal Stabilization Funds from the Obama Administration.  Inside the application for SFSF funds, Governor Henry agreed to 

Page 98 of the America Competes Act speaks specifically to what this "Improving Standards Assurance" is.  This is what ROPE calls the Four Pillars Of Education Reform; A State Longitudinal Database, College and Career Ready Standards (Common Core), Turning Around Low Performing Schools and Teacher Accountability Measures.

Essentially, Oklahoma became slave to the federal government for their education 'reform' package for taking millions of dollars in ARRA funds, a great chunk of which simply disappeared.

But that was just the beginning of the Federal strings to Common Core.  After the ARRA funds, there came the Race to the Top (RtTT) application.  Though Oklahoma got no money from that application, we did get Common Core cemented in state law (SB2033) because Oklahoma got 20 points on their RtTT application for providing "A description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards, and the State’s plan, current progress, and time frame for adoption." (pg 53)

Following RtTT, there was the No Child Left Behind Waiver.  Again, in order to get the waiver, Oklahoma had to agree (again) to the Four Pillars of education reform.
Not to be rude, but please, tell me again how Common Core is NOT a federal dictate.  Please tell me again how there are no federal strings, how these standards are 'state led' or how Governor Fallin's EO does anything to actually cut the federal strings to Common Core and Oklahoma's other education 'reforms'.

In closing, it is not too late to stop Common Core in Oklahoma, but any or all of the seven bills currently on file this legislative session must be heard.  Yes, it is true - many districts have spent millions of dollars on Common Core implementation.  This situation isn't untenable.  If Common Core is removed from law (and the testing that supports it put on moratorium until a better alternative than the current, expensive, Common Core aligned tests are decided upon), it would be possible for districts to truly exhibit the local control so many Oklahomans covet.  Some schools would most assuredly move forward with their implementation of Common Core, but others, seeking to please and appease their district parents, could scrap it and find something that worked better for that school, the students, the parents and the district.

Please allow any or all of these bills a hearing in committee and permit them to be moved to the Senate floor. One of the beauties of America's truly unique government is that Representatives, chosen by the people, have the voice of the people in their seat of government.  The people can't have a voice, if their representatives do not give them one by blocking bills from committees hence further discussion and vote.  Please allow the Oklahoma State Senate to represent its people.

Thank you for your time and patience

Blessings,
Jenni White
President
Restore Oklahoma Public Education



IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE:

America Competes Act:  http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PL-110-69.pdf

Oklahoma's SFSF Application:  http://www2.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/stateapps/ok.pdf

Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind Waiver Application:  http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/ESEA-FlexAmend8-12.pdf

Oklahoma's Race to The Top Application:  http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/oklahoma.pdf

Governor Fallin's Executive Order 2013-40:  http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PL-110-69.pdf

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.

Oklahoma History Standards Could Very Well Be Common Core History Standards

For the most part, the Oklahoma media has been squarely in the Common Core camp through editorials that often blast dissenters as Tin Foil Hat Wearing Conspiracy Theorists.  Ok.  Name calling may be the only way to sell those papers, I'm not sure, but that doesn't make us any less RIGHT on the issue of Common Core.

In fact, I think it important to point out here that it appears Superintendent Barresi has been untruthful with Oklahomans and certainly Republicans, because I believe it speaks to the issue of credibility of Dr. Barresi and other Common Core supporters.

Dr. Barresi has told Oklahomans over and over and over that Oklahoma would NOT be adopting the Common Core State Standards in History and Science.  On the very conspiratorial website www2.ed.gov, I found Oklahoma's addendumto their original Race To The Top application.   

Page 7 of this application has a letter from Governor Henry sent to the FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION saying that Oklahoma, through an emergency rules process, DID adopt the Common Core English/Language Arts and Math Standards, as well as Social Studies and Science as of July, 2010! 

210:15-4-3. Adoption and implementation.
(a) The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science, and Mathematics shall be adopted and implemented as follows:
(1) Effective immediately, the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science, and Mathematics are adopted by the State of Oklahoma;
(2) Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the school districts of the state shall develop and begin implementing a plan for transitioning from the Priority Academic Student Skills to full implementation of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science, and Mathematics as described in (b) of this rule by the 2014-2015 school year or the school year in which common assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards will be available, whichever is later;
(3) Beginning with FY 2011, the Oklahoma State Department of Education shall pursue participation in consortia of states, as appropriate, to develop common assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards; and
(4) The Priority Academic Student Skills shall remain as the assessed standards until such time that full implementation of the Common Core State Standards are required and common assessments aligned to those standards are available.

Dr. Barresi has made quite a public show (the most recent at a meeting of OCPAC May 15th where she waxed so fondly of Oklahoma's social studies standards being Oklahoman I thought she would cry) of having David Barton come out and sit in on the gathering of social studies teachers assembled to write Oklahoma's 'new' social studies standards (DavidBarton did not agree with her assessment).   I have read the new social studies standards and commentedon them.  They DEFINITELY contain the Common Core English/LA standards which have trimmed down the actual history students will learn.

It is certain that Dr. Barresi gathered input from Oklahomans for the History standards.  But how much of this input was used to formulate these standards and how much was simply 'lip service' to placate teachers/taxpayers?  It certainly does appear that the new Social Studies/History Standards for Oklahoma follow those outlined in the RTT agreement with the federal Department of Education.

Again, according to Oklahoma’s Race to the Top addendum: 

(b) By the 2014-2015 school year or the school year in which common assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards will be available, whichever is later, the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science, and Mathematics shall be fully implemented by replacing or being added to the Priority Academic Student Skills as follows
(1) English Language Arts for grades K-12 shall replace the Priority Academic Student Skills in Language Arts for grades K-12 with the provision that the State Board of Education reserves the right to add up to 15 percent additional standards to the Common Core State Standards as appropriate;
(2) Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science for grades 6-12 shall be added to the Priority Academic Student Skills in:
(A) World studies for grade 6, world geography for grade 7, and United States History 1760-1877 for grade 8;
(B) Economics for high school, Oklahoma history for high school, United States government for high school, United States History 1850 to the Present for high school, world geography for high school, and World History for high school;
(C) Inquiry, physical, life, and earth/space science for grades 6-8; and
(D) Biology I, Chemistry, and Physics

Please, go to the History/Social Studies standards.  You can also find them through the main Oklahoma C3 standards page.   

Interestingly, these also correspond nearly exactly to the C3 Standards produced by the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Though not found at this link, the standards themselves can be found here.  Please note the agreement of one central theme between both sets of standards.  Both indicate that America is a Constitutional Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic.  It is also important to note that the Oklahoma document is arranged in the same manner as the C3 standards and that our department calls these standards also C3.

Compare these standards by going to Oklahoma’s RTT Addendum opening it and opening Oklahoma’s History/Social Studies Standards and comparing them side by side.  Does Oklahoma’s document NOT follow the addendum nearly* exactly? 

• Page 38 of Grade 6 says, "Literacy Skills Standard 2: The student will develop and demonstrate Common Core Social Studies writing literacy skills" and "Grade 6 WORLD GEOGRAPHY".
• Page 42 of Grade 7 says, "Grade 7 WORLD GEOGRAPHY"
• Page 46 of Grade 8 says, "Grade 8 UNITED STATES HISTORY"
• Page 51 of High School says, "High School ECONOMICS"
• Page 55 of High School says, "High School OKLAHOMA HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT"
• Page 67 of High School says, "High School UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT"
• Page 78 "High School WORLD HISTORY" 
• Page 82 "High School WORLD HUMAN GEOGRAPHY"

*I say ‘nearly’ exactly because Oklahoma has added Psychology (pg 59) and Sociology (pg 63) to our History Standards.  This must represent the 15% over the written Common Core State Standards we're allowed to use under the RTT grant (Pg 12).

Of course there is nothing controversial introduced in Psychology and/or Sociology.  In fact, why are these not separate courses OUTSIDE History/Social Studies Standards?  When I was in high school in the 70's/80's, I had Oklahoma History, US History and Psychology as a separate class.  Sociology was never brought into the mix.

Wikipedia explains the foci of sociology as including:

social stratification, social class, culture, race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, social mobility, religion, secularization, law, and deviance.

As a parent, I'm uncomfortable with the thought of my kids being taught many of these in public school because so many can be politicized in a manner not akin to our family's world view.

Other issues of concern surround quotes from several historical figures placed into the standards document itself, such as this one on page 66, 

“Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand” by Karl Marx   

- and this quote on page 62, 

“Dreams are often most profound when they seem the most crazy” by Sigmund Freud.  

Why pick two of the most controversial people in history from which to use quotes?

There is also the issue that Oklahoma's HistoryStandards cite the Southern Poverty Law Center, as one of its supporting documents on page 96 and the fact that the document refers to America as a Constitutional Democracy onpage 11.

Unless there is some document of which we are unaware that nullifies Governor Henry's edict, Oklahoma already HAS Common Core State Standards for History.  Then again, even with the discovery of such a document, this examination of the standards doesn't lend itself to such an interpretation.  It certainly appears that Dr. Barresi either has not been forthcoming with the truth on the issue, or is so incompetent as to not be privy to law created by the previous administration.  Neither answer seems palatable to us.

CITATIONS:

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/amendments/oklahoma.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp33Ko-x3Vo

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/04/oklahoma-history-standards-and-southern.html

http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/C3-SocialStudies.pdf

http://ok.gov/sde/oklahoma-c3-priority-academic-student-skills

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/04/oklahoma-history-standards-and-southern.htm
http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-republic-maam-if-you-can-keep-it.html