Information on Opting Out Of Standardized Testing in Oklahoma

With many Oklahoma teachers out of their classrooms during the testing window for administration of Oklahoma standardized tests, there have been questions from parents who now wish to simply opt their child out of testing altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No CREATIVITY For You!

I couldn't help it when I read Yong Zhao's post entitled, "Doublethink:  The Creativity-Testing Conflict".  All I could think of was Seinfeld's Soup Nazi screaming, "No creativity for you!"

I am going to post a portion of the blog below (apologies to Edweek for posting it in its entirety previously, apparently breaking a number of copyright laws!) but here are the words I simply HAD to pen in response the Zhao's question, "I don't know how policymakers can hold, simultaneously, these two ideas, creative entrepreneurship and test-driven curriculum standardization, that both research and common sense recognize as contradictory..."?

It's called Cognitive Dissonance...welcome to the Republican Party.

As an education researcher from OKLAHOMA I truly appreciate your post!

The minute our governor stepped out to make a glowing comment on the sham of "testing to creativity", I knew I was going to have to find some specific research to point her bloodhound nose - so keen on sniffing out further little nuggets for her 'education reform' agenda - in another direction.

You have exceeded my expectations here. If she and her 'reformer' pack can't digest the specificity and truth here...well...she's only got 'til 2014!

Doublethink: The Creativity-Testing Conflict

By Yong Zhao

Premium article access courtesy of Edweek.org.

...California, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma have begun exploring the development of measures to gauge the extent to which schools foster creative and entrepreneurial qualities in their students, according to a Feb. 1, 2012, article in Education Week. "What brings great test scores may hamper entrepreneurial qualities.".........

Standardized testing rewards the ability to find the "correct answer" and thus discourages creativity, which is about asking questions and challenging the status quo. A narrow and uniform curriculum deprives children of opportunities to explore and experiment with their interest and passion, which is the foundation of entrepreneurship. Constantly testing children and telling them they are not good enough depletes their confidence, which is the fuel of innovation. So, by any account, what policymakers have put in place in American schools is precisely what is needed to cancel out their desire for creative and entrepreneurial talents......


I don't know how policymakers can hold, simultaneously, these two ideas, creative entrepreneurship and test-driven curriculum standardization, that both research and common sense recognize as contradictory unless they change the slogans of 1984's Oceania, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength" into "Standardization is Innovation, Uniformity is Creativity, and Testing is Enterprising" for education today.

 So, just to follow up here, I thought it might be fun to pull some of the articles I've been saving in my "Creativity Nonsense" folder.  The ones below are all those generated just in Bible-belt, Red-state, Conservative OKLAHOMA!  How's that for cognitive dissonance?

First of all, did you know that Oklahoma has not only has a CREATIVITY website, but an annual Creativity Forum?  Here is the picture of the website... VERY CREATIVE!!!  Black and white is very artsy!  Please note, lucky us, we can make a donation (for what?), become a member or even "like" them on Facebook!

This, is more troubling...Did you know that we have a South Korean researcher who will develop an Oklahoma Innovation Index?

Yup!  Here's what you can't read from the screenshot of the article...

Flora Hyunjung Cho has joined the Creative Oklahoma team as an intern for the summer of 2012. She is a M. Ed. student in interdisciplinary studies in Educational Administration and Early Childhood Education at Idaho State University. Cho is originally from Ulsan, South Korea and researches creativity in education around the globe with the goal to make a difference in education as an education consultant in a world organization. 

Cho is helping to develop the Oklahoma Innovation Index that will create a public measurement of the number of opportunities for creative work in schools.

The Oklahoma Innovation Index will be created by a Task Force, a public/private partnership established by the Oklahoma Governor’s Office in partnership with Creative Oklahoma. The Task Force  will include teachers, business and community leaders. Through the Oklahoma Innovation Index, in addition to the standardized tests, the ability to measure schools by how many opportunities they create for creative and critical thinking will be available.  Currently, Oklahoma uses individual achievement (measured by the standardized test) to determine school-wide success.  Through a creative opportunity index, the overall environment of a school will be measured.

What?  WHAT???  Our tax dollars are going to support an effort that will attempt to assess the CREATIVE INDEX of a school - through further testing, DONE ON STUDENTS? 

Let's put this into context even OUTSIDE Dr. Zhao's article (which is, in itself a massive indictment of a Creative Index).  Did you know that

"If we could identify a gene for creativity, let's call it the "creativity gene", you would be hard pressed to find very many people who would consider it a "negative gene" or a hazard to possess or carry, but the very traits that make someone creative, passionate, and likely to achieve a high degree of success in their domain, are the same traits that define psychological disorders such as Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and ADHD."

Wow!  So we are allowing our Governor - using our tax dollars through yet another TASK FORCE - to determine the Creative Index of schools, while the traits of human "creativity" in and of itself could mirror PSYCHOSIS?  Does that make anyone a bit CRAZY (sorry) but me?  

Apparently, this is nothing new here in Oklahoma.  Yup, last year (2011) we had TWO, count 'em TWO Creativity Conferences here in the state.  One took place at the illustrious Center for Studies in Democracy and Culture (Democracy being the new progressive code word for "new world order"*) held the "Creativity Summit".  There was quite the gathering there.  The other, was the aforementioned Creativity Forum.  Here is part of a GLOWING review of last year's event:

Oklahoma has followed on from its wildly successful 2010 World Creativity Forum with a one-day creativity forum this past November 1, 2011 in Norman, Oklahoma. Over 1200 participants attended, dominantly from Oklahoma (great turnout from lots of students) but good representation from around North America. Thank Creative Oklahoma for their membership in the International Districts of Creativity, uniting 14 creative and innovative regions around the world, and their dedication to fostering creativity in education, commerce and culture.

 What?  INTERNATIONAL DISTRICTS OF CREATIVITY!??  How Agenda 21 does this sound?

Not only that, but we are implementing this tripe in our classrooms apparently - though we can't get our kids to even master the basics of READING AND MATH!  Get a load of the HP Catalyst Project Showcase!  Please note the video of the 5 year-olds banging away on a computer while the voice over talks about how we're creating DEEPER LEARNING apparently one can only reach this Nirvana while on an Ipad or Iphone!  Hooray!!!!  Just what kids need!  More useless nonsense in lieu of actual learning promulgated by actual teachers!  Here's what they said about the program:

MindLink is a digital learning environment designed to promote and assess creativity and other higher order thinking skills in Oklahoma classrooms. The digital tools are currently being piloted in 12 Oklahoma A+ Schools in Oklahoma and will be used to help assess student problem solving, collaboration, communication skills, and creative and critical thinking. Through our participation in the Catalyst Network, we have developed a set of digital tools to identify, track, and assess creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, and other 21st century skills. The tools allow students to work as teams on projects created by teachers, program administrators, or students themselves.

Hello!  This is CLASSIC progressive socialism in the educational form we call Constructivism.  If you don't know about Constructivism, it's basically John Dewey's approach to education in which the child learns everything for themselves together in groups performing endless group projects.  Constructivism has been shown over and over and over again NOT to work - yet we keep 'reworking' it and vomiting it back up to unsuspecting politicians and parents!

Here's the most hilarious thing of the ENTIRE HP Catalyst Showcase's MindLink dealio...

Our first finding: creativity can be measured using online technologies, supporting seminal research into creativity assessments

DUH!  You're HP!  You SELL technology solutions!  How HANDY for you! 

Truly, this creativity crap needs to STOP!  Especially when ANYONE even sort of thinks they are going to ASSESS something as absolutely nebulous as CREATIVITY.  Think about it, one of the definitions of ASSESS is to determine the importance, size, or value of.  So, if you ASSESS my child to have creativity, he is VALUABLE?  What if he is ASSESSED not to have the coveted creativity?  Does he cease to be VALUABLE?

Let's not forget the movie Logan's Run... probably a good foreshadowing of exactly what America will get from this kind of creativity/test/assessment model.  Don't forget, once the crystal in your hand indicated you were over 21 - you lost your VALUE to society and you were sent to the SleepShop for your dirt nap.  Assessing ANY form of unassessable, GOD GIVEN, human attribute is bound to turn out badly for everyone involved...mainly, because none of us are God.

* If you don't believe me, go to the link for the "Center" and read the following nonsense at the top of the page; 


"Tulsa is experiencing a resurgence of creative energy ...and experts tell us that 21st Century cities will succeed or fail based on the dynamic quality of their creative environments. This summit is intended to begin a community dialog about how we can further strengthen the climate for creativity in Tulsa."  

Those of us plugged into Agenda 21 will recognize ALL the buzzwords!

Legislative Shenanigans - A Lesson in Civics From House Bill 2762 by Lee Denney

From the day House Bill 2762 by Lee Denney and its mirror bill SB1797 by Clark Jolley were placed on committee calendars, ROPE has been warning about these bills.

As you know, ROPE does not support the Common Core State Standards for numerous reasons. From the day we found out they had been added to Oklahoma's copious education laws in 2010, we have attempted to generate awareness regarding the federal overreach of education this 'initiative' represents. Recently, we launched our campaign called, "ObamaEd", in order to educate even more citizens and legislators about the lack of control they will have over OKLAHOMA education as these standards become fully entrenched in our state's educational system by 2014.

HB2762 and SB1797 were bills penned by the Governor's office (Representative Lee Denney admits this much on the floor during debate of the bill, Thursday, March 15, 2012) in order to put into law requirements from the Obama Administration's NCLB waiver our Governor and Superintendent requested. In fact, Oklahoma's NCLB waiver was CONDITIONAL on instituting a number of different reforms to our current system

As she noted, many proposed large-scale efforts to train their educators in the new academic standards, create or oversee development of new instructional resources, and redesign their testing systems.

though few Oklahoma administrators/educators appear to happy about the lack of local control NCLB waivers represent

“I am in favor of local control, and while I think this waiver takes a step toward that, it still does not offer local school districts local control. I believe that no one knows the needs of Broken Arrow students better than the citizens of Broken Arrow. Educators, parents and citizens should be allowed to determine what’s best for their community school, and the waiver does not allow for that,” Mendenhall said.

and organizations like Heritage Foundation and the Pioneer Institute have called an illegal and unconstitutional federal overreach into education.

Yet, our 'conservative' Governor and Superintendent have persisted, culminating their efforts in these two bills which address a number of different NCLB waiver factors including "teacher preparation" and "redesign of testing systems". The latter has been of great concern to us, as the Superintendent (Governor) needs to change the manner in which Oklahoma tests students. She needs to move Oklahoma tests from being locally developed (as has historically been done) to being developed by PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of College and Careers), the tests which are designed to specifically test for the Common Core Standards. All of the reasons we have elucidated as to why we disagree with this change can be found here, so I will not reiterate those here.

ROPE wants to make you aware of the process in legislating these bills, as not only does this serve as a valuable lesson in civics, but it shows you the kind of activities one could only describe as shenanigans, that our legislative process seems to invite.

SENATE BILL:

• Once we found out about the bill and specifically the change from NAEP to PARCC accountability for testing, we contacted Clark Jolley, author of the senate bill and told him our concerns.
• The bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee and into the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Senator Jolley filed an amendment in Appropriations to remove the new language and keep the bill's existing language (PARCC not added, NAEP kept). 
• The bill then passed the Senate 39 to 0.

 HOUSE BILL:

• Once we found the language in the House bill, we contacted Rep. Denney and explained our concerns. 
• The bill was heard in the Higher Education and Career Tech committee which Denney chairs (as a side note, request bills are often authored by committee chairs in order for the bill to be heard in committee - our bill repealing the Common Core from state law - HB1714 - authored by Rep. Sally Kern, was NOT heard in the Common Ed Committee for two years in a row.)
• The bill passed out of Committee as a 29 page bill on February 16.
• After passage, Representative Denney told us the bill was being 'worked on' by the Governor's office and she couldn't do anything to it until that process was over.
• March 13th, the bill was placed on the Floor Calendar (to be considered by vote of the House) as a 182 page bill labeled as a FLOOR AMENDMENT.
• ROPE began sending out Legislative Alerts asking for citizens to contact their Representative and ask them to vote NO on the bill, based upon our analysis. We also lobbied the House Wed., March 13 and asked for their NO vote.
• Though the bill was not able to be heard until after 3:15 - due to the presence of the Floor Amendment on the bill (allowing members 'time' to read it - 'time' because how does one READ a 180-something page bill in 48 hours with all the others they have to read?), yet the bill was brought up for a vote around 9am! This, is a tactic - though illegal according to rules - to get legislators to vote for something before they have a chance to read it and discuss it! Thank you to Representative Mike Reynolds for bringing this to the attention of the Pro Temp!
• Thursday, March 15, the bill came to the floor. When it became clear that Rep. Denney was NOT going to have the votes for her bill - due to EXCELLENT and SUSTAINED questioning by Representatives Kern, Holland and Blackwell - and EXCELLENT debate by Holland and Blackwell - Denney was apparently told (lots of activity at her desk - visits by the Pro Temp, Jeff Hickman and lots of texting) to "lay over" the bill.
• If a bill is laid over, the language can be taken from that bill and put into another bill  - as in the one authored by Clark Jolley that has ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE.
• If the bill had been voted on and voted down, the bill - including all that 150 pages of new language - would be DEAD.

We urge you to take the time to watch the full presentation of Rep. Denney's bill. Though Representative Denney has been very good to take time to listen to our arguments surrounding the bill and our objections to Common Core, she misrepresents the change from NAEP to PARCC on several occasions during her portion of the debate before the bill was laid over.

It is also well worth the time to listen to Representatives Holland and Blackwell debate AGAINST this bill. These men truly understand the damage which can be inflicted upon Oklahoma by voting to change from testing descriptors (and tests) we have used for decades and which we have developed locally to tests that have YET TO BE DEVELOPED.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please continue to watch SB1797. You can do that by joining the LENS bill tracker, typing in bill number SB1797 and reading the emails the tracker sends you as the bill moves through the legislative process. You can also join our email list and we will send out Legislative Action Alerts for this and other bills that will inevitably crop up before May 25 when our legislature adjourns.