It's Vitally Important That Oklahoma Get The Standards Re-Write Process Right - Other States Are Watching

Thursday, January 28th, the final draft of Oklahoma's new academic standards were published on the OSDE website and approved by the State Board of Education. We described our thoughts about the process in a press release, but I wanted to take a few more minutes to expound upon that statement.

Once the Common Core State Standards were repealed from law by HB3399 and the direction of the process for creating new standards was revealed, we have tried our best to stay informed about the proceedings and inform you.

Oklahoma State Board of Education Approves Final Draft of New (Non-Common Core) Educational Standards

Unfortunately, ROPE has a good deal of skepticism regarding the new Oklahoma Educational standards approved by the Board of Education today. Let me be clear here, the new standards were approved by the board just today, so none of us (at ROPE) would have had the opportunity to review them at this point. 

It is important to note, however, that while the OSDE press release contained comments in support for the standards from many quarters, none of these were attributed to the experts that were invited by the Standards Steering Committee last February to consult on the standards writing process.

Draft #3 of Oklahoma Educational Standards Released - Neither Stotsky Nor Gray Impressed

Recently, the Oklahoma State Department of Education uploaded draft 3 of the new Oklahoma Educational Standards. There are new things visible on the webpage now besides the standards that appear interesting. Mainly, the inclusion of "external" reviews by several major education reform players: 

The Southern Regional Education Board, The Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the South Central Comprehensive Center. Since the first draft, we have complained that none of the standards reviews have been made public - which is why we began publishing our own - unfortunately, these are all organizations involved in 'education reform' at some level. In fact, we've written papers about the Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the fact that the white papers supporting its mission are steeped in the failed progressive education methods of Dewey. 

The South Central Comprehensive Center has this to say about its funding and mission: The South Central Comprehensive Center (SC3) is part of a national network of centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to support the improvement of educational outcomes. If that's not the definition of the Fox Guarding The Hen House, what exactly is? 

Only the Southern Regional Education Board appears to be moderating away from Common Core, but its white paper on College and Career Readiness indicates the need for states to create a 'default high school CURRICULUM' - something that should concern any local control proponent. At any rate,these reviews should be read by the general public with these facts in mind.

Not long after the release of the 3rd draft, Nate Robson of Oklahoma Watch penned a nice article detailing Dr. Sandra Stotsky's thoughts on the new standards which included the statement,

“You’re close to the bottom of the basement, I am sorry to say, because there is no content in them,” said Stotsky. “These are pious statements of academic goals. These are not standards. A standard is a criterion by which you grade something.”

Ouch. Professor Stotsky is now forced to provide basic educational definitions to the Standards Re-Write Committee - not a sterling commendation to say the least - but there is a question here Robson dances around; Why invite three separate 'experts' to testify to the Standards Writing Committee detailing the process for writing excellent educational standards, yet then invite three different ORGANIZATIONS tied to the education establishment to write reviews for the 3rd revision of the standards? Why not just go back to the original sources? It's what Robson did. Maybe that was the unchosen path for a reason. Maybe the department knew the writing committees hadn't been following the expert advice provided the Standards Committee. Maybe they didn't want the experts coming back to salt the ground they'd originally plowed for the OSDE.

The impetus matters not, actually. What matters is that both Stotsky (English) and Gray (Minnesota math) were not generally complementary of the 3rd standards draft to Robson, and this has sad implications for Oklahoma students.

Below are the specific comments provided by Stotsky (Gray's can be found in the Oklahoma Watch article)

1.  Under "Critical Writing"--Most writing standards do not lead to an assessment of the kind of writing done in college or the real world of work.  OK's draft organizes the writing standards under "narrative," "informative," and "argument."  

The “narratives” (most of which is creative writing) are curriculum-relevant chiefly in the early grades and are not desirable in college or the world of work.   "Informative" is fine, but "argument" should be changed to "persuasion" and "opinion" eliminated in the elementary grades.   Only "informative" prepares kids for college and career writing.

More important, why can’t OK require all local school districts to assign and assess a research paper or senior thesis for English and history or science in grade 11 and/or 12 to prepare students in an authentic way for college and career.  That is precisely where authentic research standards, as in the strand in my 2013 document. should be assessed.

2.  The "Critical Reading" standards should NOT be divided into Literary and Informational.  That is pure Common Core and it is very bad for the English curriculum.  The Critical Reading standards should be divided into (1) Fiction, (2) Nonfiction, (3) Poetry, (4) Dramatic Literature), and (5) Classical and Traditional literature.   That's what English teachers have always taught and been trained to teach.

3.  The OK drafting committee must come up with an example of a literary text that could be used (and how) for every single standard so that teachers understand what reading level is required or desirable at every grad level (and what the standard means).  Make it clear these texts are not required; only examples of reading levels.

4.  Get rid of processes for reading and writing in this document.  They are not standards but pedagogy. 

5.  Get this ELA committee to put in Oklahoma-related reading standards at the high school level--grades 11 and 12.   One standard for texts by major authors born in or who wrote about Oklahoma, and one standard for biographies/autobiographies about famous Oklahomans through history.   

Southeastern Oklahoma State University Professor Says PK-4 Standards Are Generally Appropriate But Lack Play

Review of Proposed Oklahoma Educational Standards by Barbara McClanahan, Associate Professor of Educational Instruction and Leadership, Southeastern Oklahoma State University.

---------------------------------------

I have finished a cursory review of the PK-4 draft standards, and I don't present my thoughts as based on an in-depth review. I find things I like and things I don't like. 

In general, I think the standards for these grades represent an appropriate progression of cognitive skills based on typical child development. I also conferred with a colleague of mine at Southeastern who is more of an early childhood expert than I, and she agrees.

My biggest concern at the PK level, and even K, is a lack of a standard for play. Much recent research suggests strongly that not only is play a critical need for these young students, but pushing the cognitive skills required for early reading may later be found to be detrimental. I think more important than learning letter names or sounds, there should be a standard calling for a substantial portion of the school day to be devoted to both structured and unstructured play. Despite what many people believe, play is a learning strategy and should absolutely have a standard at this level. 

In addition, all of the standards regarding reading skills, even comprehension of texts read aloud, should be applied very flexibly to allow for a wide range of developmental levels in any given PK-2 classroom.

As we move into K, the content regarding phonics and phonemic awareness builds, but these standards, along with vocabulary, again may not be reachable for a large percentage of students simply because of developmental issues. Again, the standards must be applied flexibly.

Standard 8 for K says: "Students will demonstrate interest in books..." That seems to me to be an impossible standard because interest must be built on students' affect over which the teacher has minimal control. You cannot command students to be interested in books. Recognizing this, I think it is important for the standard to read "Students will demonstrate growing interest in books..." That is something a teacher could monitor through observation and, with reflection, adjust the teaching approach to move the child along on a continuum of interest.

In both PK and K, the word "With guidance and support" appear frequently, but beginning in first grade, they disappear almost completely. Especially for Standard 5, Language, I believe they need to be used to support sentence writing. And again I think the language should read something like "The student will show growth in the ability to compose..." As long as we are determined to maintain and age/grad system, many students will continue to need "guidance and support" into second grade.

Fluency seems inadequately addressed across the board in the standards. In Grade 2, for example, I think there should be something here to the effect that regularly spelled and previously decoded words will be increasingly recognized automatically in order to build fluency. This is the essence of mature reading but is not mentioned anywhere.

In the Grade 2 Writing standard there is a phrase that makes no sense to me: "include past tense or irregularly past tense verbs".

In 3rd Grade, several standards require a level of abstraction that may not be obtainable by a significant percentage of third graders. For example, while according to the standards, third graders need guidance and support to determine the theme of a story, they are expected to negotiate figurative language on their own. Hmmm....

Beginning in the first grade standards, the reading comprehension strategies are essentially the same across the grade levels up through 4th. One must assume that the differences lie in the level of depth to which the student is required to implement them and the level of text, but that is not spelled out.  In the standards on Critical Reading and Writing, we see a similar progression of requirements up through the grade levels; I would expect that by 4th grade one of the requirements would be to identify how characters change over the course of the plot, but I did not see it. It could reasonably appear as early as 2nd or 3rd.

One other concern that my colleague had was that there should be a glossary; she fears that not all teachers would understand all the terms being used. Another concern I have is that some of the terms have ambiguous meanings. For example, what does grade-specific or grade-appropriate actually mean?

I actually think this is a pretty good beginning. If I had more time, I would like to compare these with other good standards, such as the "old" Massachusetts ones. Alas, I do not have that kind of time.

I hope this is helpful.

Dr. Sandra Stotsky Does Not Believe English Standards First Draft Indicative Of First-Rate ELA Standards

As the October deadline for the finalized Oklahoma educational standards draft looms on the horizon, we've recently published Dr. James Milgram's take on the Oklahoma math standards draft.

Dr. Stotsky, who shared with the Oklahoma Standards Writing Committee her vision of how the Oklahoma standards re-write should begin at the first meeting of the year, February 16, found - like the rest of us who saw her presentation - that the standards re-write process appeared to have deviated from her process by using Oklahoma's original standards as the jumping off point. Though she did not share a comment for each specific standard written, she has shared her overall thoughts about the standards and about the process. Her comments are important and should be taken to heart.

We are aware that Dr. Stotsky sent her comments directly to the State Department of Education, however, we were not made aware of them until recently when I emailed to ask if she'd compiled a file of her comments. This is important information as well. Part of Dr. Stotsky's plan was that all public comment be MADE PUBLICLY so everyone else could see what comments were being made. How many of us have seen any comments other than those we posted by Dr. Milgram? 

Mrs. Hofmeister was good to create a specific transparency policy about the Standards Re-Write Committee meetings, but we've seen no such document pertaining to the draft comments. If everyone who wanted to was able to see the comments made by the public could do so, maybe there would be patterns that emerge that others could see. How could this not be helpful? When the final standards are completed, if one (or more) of the patterns aren't addressed by the committee, it would be good to know why not, if for no other reason than simple public transparency.

Dr. Stotsky's comments follow:

I'm glad to hear that the committee has an English prof from an Oklahoma U and that high school English teachers are on the drafting committee.  I don't think that the first draft it came up with is a helpful start for a first-rate set of ELA standards.  I am told that the blueprint or model the committee began with was the old set of OK ELA standards.   The organization of that draft isn't useful for what needs to be done to provide non-Common Core standards.  Right now, what you have is very close to being compatible with Common Core and a Common Core-based test.  OK kids deserve better.

I strongly recommend that the drafting committee use the original CA (1998) standards or the Indiana 2006 standards, or the 2013 standards I put together based on the first-rate 2001 MA ELA standards.  In math, OK should simply adopt what MN worked out, and use the test that MN uses.
It would not set the committee back in time if it does what I suggested for ELA. I suggested simply going through most of the k-8 standards one by one to accept or leave out for OK.  These other standards have been vetted many times over, are worded properly for standards, and were considered first-rate by many pairs of eyes.  No need to re-invent the wheel or struggle to figure out developmental progressions from grade to grade, which is a problem with the way that the committee is now working.  It is not productive to work in 3 educational level groups, if the basic outline is as weak as the old OK outline was.

The only educational level that OK committee members, especially the high school English teachers and the English professor, might change if my advice were followed would be the literature standards in 9-12.  Here, the only changes to make might be to add one or two standards requiring OK high school students to read historically and culturally important works by authors who lived in Oklahoma or wrote about Oklahoma.   The rest of the ELA standards would give OK a first-rate set of standards that are NOT Common Core, but are demanding and first-rate.  That is what OK wants for its kids.  

Here's the rub: while HB3399 says that Oklahoma's standards should be created by Oklahomans for Oklahomans, that doesn't mean we shouldn't avail ourselves of great standards already in use in another state - as Dr. Stotsky points out. Why, if Oklahoma's standards weren't as good as the ones Stotsky points to, are we not using these as a starting point and then tweaking as needed? Not a single person I know of who worked hard to stop Common Core in Oklahoma ever wanted Oklahoma's standards to be sub par, or somehow not as good as Massachusetts simply because they needed to be crafted in our state.

Let's not follow the letter of the law so closely we make the mistake of denying Oklahoma students access to truly great, proven standards just because they're from another state. So long as they aren't the Common Core, or a set of standards pushed by the feds through grant programs or other incentives; so long as parents can petition the state if they find something about them objectionable, there's no reason to be pharisees. Goodness, if we're really concerned about following the law, there wouldn't be schools teaching the Common Core right now, but we've been told there are. 

Oklahoma needs to have really good educational standards, period. Let's, as Dr. Stotsky says, use the ones she wrote, or California's (etc.) and add to them. Let's make providing a floor for academic excellence in Oklahoma our TOP priority.

Does SB707 UNDO HB3399 - The Repeal of Common Core State Standards in Oklahoma?

As readers know, ROPE is not in favor of mandating the use of ACT in law. 

We believe that choosing an exit exam to be mandated for all Oklahoma students is getting the CART BEFORE THE HORSE. Oklahoma has not even created our own standards as specified in HB3399, last year's Common Core Repeal Bill, why would Oklahoma legislators and the State Board of Education decide on an exit exam before Oklahoma's new standards have even been written? 

If HB3399 is to be changed (SB707), how can that be done without deliberately SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Many legislators ran for office in 2014 on their vote to repeal Common Core. Once these legislators are in office, can they simply renege on that vote in order to adopt a specific out-of-state test because it's popular? 

It appears that two very important questions need to be answered before Oklahoma law makers move forward with mandating ANY end of year test. 

1. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO REMOVE LANGUAGE FROM LAST YEAR'S Common Core repeal bill HB3399? Oklahoman's voted to repeal Common Core, why should anyone seek to change the language in that bill and unhook tests from standards? Wasn't the idea to have Oklahoma tests that matched Oklahoma standards? That's what the public said they wanted.
2. Is it good public policy to NAME A SPECIFIC VENDOR in LAW when multiple vendors can meet each Oklahoma's need for an end of year exam? Isn't this why we have a competitive bidding process? If not, then I'm going out to start my own construction company and lobby to have it placed IN LAW as the only construction company that can be used on any job in Oklahoma. Doesn't make much sense when you look at it that way, does it?

ACT is a test with a long history and all students who want to take the ACT should take the ACT. It should not be MANDATED as an end of year exam. Why? Let's do some pro/con, tit/tat, to figure out exactly why, but first, let's get a handle on some basics.

What does HB3399 say about testing in Oklahoma?

Section 11-103.6a B1: The subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education.

Section 11-103.6a C1: On or before the 2017-18 school year, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Career and Technology Education and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, shall direct the process of the development of annual high-quality statewide student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics as provided for in Section 1210.508 of this title that align with the college- and career-ready subject matter standards developed pursuant to subsection B of this section.

Section 11-103.6a D1: The State Board of Education shall not enter into any agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract with any federal agency or private entity which in any way cedes or limits state discretion or control over the process of development, adoption or revision of subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments in the public school system, including, but not limited to, agreements, memoranda of understanding and contracts in exchange for funding for public schools and programs.

Section 11-103.6a D3E: The content of all subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall maintain independence of all subject matter standards referenced in Section 11-103.6 of this title and corresponding statewide student assessments and shall not relinquish authority over Oklahoma subject matter standards and corresponding statewide student assessments. 

Section 1210.508 A. 1. The State Board of Education shall develop and administer a series of criterion-referenced tests designed to indicate whether the state academic content subject matter standards, as defined by the State Board of Education in the Priority Academic Student Skills Curriculum, which Oklahoma public school students are expected to have attained have been achieved. (**See below for definitions of Criterion Referenced and Norm Referenced tests)

Does this language say that no other tests can be used in Oklahoma other than the ones created to match our standards? NO. It simply says that STATEWIDE exams must correspond to our state standards. That is not the ACT or the AP, or any other national exam - all of which are VOLUNTARY.

What does Mary Fallin's Executive Order 2013-40 say about testing in Oklahoma?

2.  The State of Oklahoma will be exclusively responsible for deciding the assessment

methodology to be used to measure student performance.

6.  All assessments will be developed with input by Oklahomans. Further, final adoption of any assessment is the sole responsibility and obligation of Oklahomans, with input from Oklahoma educators, higher education and career technology centers, parents, and the Oklahoma business community.

ACT

When comparing ACT to the above, ACT simply doesn't fit current Oklahoma law as use for a mandated exit test. 

What else about the ACT?

• ACT is a NRT, not a CRT and it can't become one, but other tests on the market can.
• ACT is not as good a predictor of college readiness as high school grades. For some time it has been known that high school grades are a better predictor of college success than the ACT or SAT (1), but a RECENT study (2) echoes this knowledge.
• ACT will NOT raise our ACT scores if we give it to 100% of our kids. In fact, the Southern Regional Education Board has found that once North Carolina began giving ALL their high school juniors the ACT, they went from an average score of 21.9 to 18.7. (3)  How this doesn't make simple common sense I'm unclear. If you have kids forced to take a test they don't want to take, or are not ready to take, these scores are going to DROP the average of those who would have taken it of their own volition.
• ACT is NOT a necessity for college admission. As many as 800 institutions - including University of Central Oklahoma - (4) that traditionally relied on the ACT/SAT for admission, are now utilizing student transcripts to make these decisions. (5) In fact, according to a previous study by FairTest, colleges that do not base admissions on ACT/SAT NRT's (6) "...are widely pleased with the results. Regardless of size or selectivity, these institutions have seen substantial benefits, including increased student diversity, more and better-prepared applicants, and positive reactions from alumni/ae, students, guidance counselors and the public." 
• ACT has never been validated for use as a high school exit exam. Bob Schaeffer of Fair Test says, "The use of the ACT as an exit exam would be bad policy. The test has never been validated for that purpose. (7) Such use violates the Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement, the testing profession's own guidelines". 
• ACT may NOT be able to provide testing results in a timely fashion. Online tests for ACT are provided by Pearson (8). FairTest has an impressive log of Pearson testing failures (9) and Diane Ravich has published information on Pearson failures in Oklahoma specifically (10). How can anyone say that ACT's results are expected in a timely fashion when past experience does not at all support this notion?
• ACT is not a fair test for minorities or the poor. ACT regularly underestimates the abilities of females (11) and the ACT also does a poor job of predicting college performance for students of color. A common sense approach would assume that advantaged families will continue to pay for ACT test prep even when state mandated, while less advantaged students who don't have that opportunity and/or simply don't care about the test may not even try to answer correctly.
• ACT is aligned to Common Core. ACT Aspire is fully aligned to the Common Core (12) and The ACT is aligned in part simply because ACT helped to create the Common Core framework. (13) Why would we want a test that does not reflect STATE standards, but those that the public voted to be rid of just one year ago? 
• ACT as an exit exam will mean nothing if no cut score is provided. What cut score will be used? Why? Using ACT's results from 2013 (14) Dr. John Thompson argues (15) that 28% of students would fail and ACT with a cutoff score of 16. If there is no cutoff score for an ACT exit exam than anyone who took the test would pass. How is there any accountability in that process? Since Oklahoma's standards would not be measured with an ACT, utilizing ACT with no cut score would have no meaning.
• ACT has been touted as be cheaper than EOI's, but where is the bidding process that would provide transparency and finality to this assertion? How can one vendor be placed in law as responsible for something as important as determining college readiness without even following the competitive bidding process?
• ACT has been denounced as an exit exam by 2 of the experts asked for testimony regarding the Oklahoma Standards Re-Write process. (16)

I'm sure there are other reasons to look at ACT for appropriateness as an end of year exam, but the point of the matter is that there are enough facts listed here that I would hope legislators would want to take another look at this option. We're not saying we don't want to use the ACT, we're simply saying:

1. HB3399 should be left as is and no language repealed as this was the bill voters wanted
2. Oklahoma shouldn't mandate in law a specific test/vendor to be given statewide 
3. A statewide test should not be chosen BEFORE the standards re-write process is complete
4. The competitive bidding process should not be circumvented for any reason because it protects taxpayer funds

Oklahoma has been here before in 2010, when a large omnibus bill (SB2033) - including Common Core - was passed by the legislature in order to be competitive for federal Race To The Top funds. Since that time, Oklahoma has found that A-F, TLE AND Common Core, were not the bill of goods sold. Let's not make another Common Core mistake. Let's not rush into ANY legislation. Let's take our time and study what is the best course of action - our standards aren't to be completed until 2015-2016 - WE HAVE TIME!

REFERENCES:

(1) https://readingdoc.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/act-vs-eoi-are-we-asking-the-right-question/

(2) http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/nacac-research/Documents/DefiningPromise.pdf

(3) http://publications.sreb.org/2014/2014Policy_brief_ACT_SAT.pdf

(4) http://fairtest.org/university/optional

(5) ibid

(6) http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/optrept.pdf

(7) http://news.yahoo.com/problem-using-act-high-school-exit-exam-191850535.html

(8) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english

(9) http://www.fairtest.org/pearsons-history-testing-problems

(10) http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/22/fairtest-computer-test-failures-are-common/

(11) http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ACT_Biased/

(12) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english
(13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc
(14) http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/Oklahoma.pdf
(15) http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2015/02/guest-post-dr-john-thompson-on-act-cut.html
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc


**What is the difference between a NORM-referenced and a CRITERION-referenced test. 

A NORM-referenced test (NRT) is a test of general knowledge usually based on some kind of national standard (not locally determined standards), that provides a snapshot of how well one student performs on certain items when COMPARED to another. Results are reported as a percentage. Example: John Smith's Algebra scores shows him to be in the 75th percentile - meaning John Smith performed as well or better than 75% of the students taking that specific test. NORM-referenced tests cannot measure the learning achievement or progress of an entire group of students, just the relative performance of individuals within a group. Test questions are carefully worded to accentuate the differences among students, not determine if students have acquired specific knowledge. (ACT/SAT)

A CRITERION-referenced test (CRT) measure student performance in relation to a common set of fixed criteria - or standards. The test measures individual performance on the exam and provides a score specific to the test taker and not in relation to the rest of the group taking the exam. This test is usually given for the purpose of determining whether schools are successfully teaching students what they are expected to know and do (based on local standards). This test can determine if students have learned the standards they were taught

The Student SUCCESS Act or NCLB Lite?

Just recently, I was asked to critique the Student Success Act. The SSA is on track to become the re-authorization of the NCLB - President George W. Bush's re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) installed by LBJ in 1964.  If you'll recall, the Obama Administration has been loathe to re-authorize NCLB as they have found it much easier and more effective to supplant state control of education by creating federal interventions into local public education by means of enticements (Race to the Top, etc.).

Unfortunately, while I believe there are a few good things about the SSA, the upshot is that the federal government apparently still doesn't understand it's Constitutional role. The entire bill is political in nature and wholly unnecessary. The Constitutionally proper thing to do is to repeal NCLB entirely, thereby putting the confederation of states we call the United States, back in charge of educating their own children in the manner their taxpaying citizens see fit. Obviously, the federal government has no Constitutional authority here and the interventions in public education at that level cannot possibly be better than anything a state would choose for its' children, as the state is closer to the voter/taxpayer/parent than any bureaucrat in a chair in Washington, D.C. Any federal level intervention in public K-12 education can do nothing but remove the ability of parents to fully direct their child's education according to their own desires and what is best for each individual child.

I reviewed the floor summary of the bill and as such, will arrange my comments according to the layout of that document.

Returning Responsibility for Student Achievement to States, School Districts, and Parents, While Maintaining High Expectations

• Academic Standards: By dictating FROM the federal government that states MUST use standards, this bill opens the door to Common Core (1). As we have found under RTT, states will most often use the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE and choose a set of standards being pushed by either private vendors or the feds. Either way homogeneity in standards is the likely outcome. * I am most often offended by this bill's often use of the phrase, "States are ALLOWED". WRONG. States have ALL the power. Period. Reading the Constitution comes in handy here.
• Academic Assessments: By dictating FROM the federal government that states MUST test students over their standards - even going so far as to dictate the grades in which students should be tested - you have changed NOTHING under the current NCLB law. In fact, the last sentence of the paragraph dictates that 95% of students must be tested. Again, no different than NCLB. This one prevision in NCLB PREVENTED PARENTS (2) from opting their children out of state testing if they so desired. Schools made the argument that it was a federal mandate to test their student, therefore, opting out was not an available option - TO PARENTS - the people who have ALL CONTROL over their children in every legal sense of the word. How is this NOT egregious? ("states retain the OPTION", "states...are ALLOWED")
• Accountability: Removing AYP is a GOOD THING. However, the bill still dictates a system be used by which to grade school performance. This is the A-F metric used here in Oklahoma. As we have shown previously, the metrics in ANY school grading effort are ill-defined at best and excessively punitive at worst. If students take a national proficiency test like IOWA (4), parents will know how well THEIR child is doing in relationship to other students of the same age. Parents don't need to know how well their school is doing, just how well their individual CHILD is doing. The grading system can't help but open the door to cheating as surely as did the AYP score. A composite or average score of IOWA test scores could be used for each grade for parents wishing to identify schools with high performing students - which is the issue.
• School Improvement: Though SIG grants are eliminated (a GOOD THING) and the legislation mandating school improvement mechanisms is repealed (a GOOD THING), the bill still dictates states use a system of school improvement interventions for poorly performing schools. This is ridiculous to continue at any federal level for two reasons: School turnaround efforts have been shown NOT TO WORK (5) and open enrollment and school choice would likely eliminate the issue of poorly performing schools altogether. In addition, set-asides were a hotly contested item in Oklahoma's Common Core repeal by administrators who often use this money for uses other than that outlined for the set-aside, schools become dependent upon the money and then use it as an excuse for why laws (in this case the NCLB waiver) must be kept.
• Parent Information:  Parent information should not be dictated at the federal level. This is a BAD THING. This entire paragraph supports the State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) which is pulling TONS of personal, private data from individual students through individual district schools through the state to the federal government (6).  ALL personal, private student data  (7) should be kept at the STATE level only. The DOE has access to NAEP (8) scores and that's all they should have under the guise of 'protecting' students and 'informing parents'.
• State Laws On Parent Authority: reiterating that federal law cannot impact state laws dictating parental rights is a GOOD THING.
• Funding Flexibility:  Again, the feds ALLOW states? At any rate, it appears that there will be block funding for "special population" programming.  While block granting is a good thing (though not better than not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place!) 'special population' programming is a BAD THING. Again, this supports the SLDS and collects information on groups the federal government gets through the Census and only serves to collect MORE data on students (9) at the personal level without providing states anything they shouldn't already know more about and be more prepared to deal with.
• Schoolwide Programs:  This eliminates the 40% poverty threshold...anytime the federal government DIVESTS itself of public control it is a GOOD THING.

Eliminating Ineffective Federal Programs and Investing Limited Taxpayer Dollars Wisely

• Authorization Levels:  Unless I know specific numbers, all this section says is that the feds won't give the states back some of the money it takes from taxpayers to apply to the education of their children. Baloney - leave the money in the pocket of the taxpayer so they can decide which SCHOOL/DISTRICT/STATE can provide the best education for their child. Leaving money with the taxpayer provides SCHOOL CHOICE.
• Eliminated Program:  GOOD THING.
• State and Local Innovation:  Creates a NEW Local Academic Flexible Grant. BAD THING. This GROWS GOVERNMENT. Again, leave thee money in the hands of the taxpayer - don't take it from him and give it back with strings attached. After school activities are for PRIVATE and COMMUNITY organizations - including churches - to take on. *In addition, the grants will can be used for "efforts to protect student safety". BAD THING.  Protecting student safety is a program called Safe and Drug Free Schools. Among other issues, it comes complete with a database that tracks bullying - including LGBT (10). The Safe and Drug Free Schools initiative is responsible for collecting data at the federal level from LOCAL districts. Oklahoma has hundreds of fields in our SLDS devoted to Safe and Drug Free Schools data. Many of these fields are subjective and include BEHAVIORS which then go onto a student's permanent record, harming their ability to be a success in the future when electronic transcripts are easily shared among schools and, thanks to the holes in FERPA (11), with anyone who can be identified as school-associated, including volunteers.
• Private Sector Initiatives: Dictates that states must reserve 10% grant monies to use in private sector, but again, leave money with the taxpayer.
• State and Local Spending Decisions:  This looks as though it amounts to a block grant in essence. This is a GOOD THING, but not as good as leaving the money with the taxpayer. The section the goes on to say that to 'protect the traditional federal role in education' federal money 'supplements' state money. First of all THERE IS NO TRADITIONAL FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION. Secondly, state money has always come first - except in Title 1 - so that part makes little sense.
• Department Bureaucracy: GOOD THING because it reduces employee positions associated with eliminated or consolidated programs.
• Program Evaluations:  BAD THING.  Directs Secretary of Ed to work with Institute or Education Sciences (IES) to perform evaluations on federal education initiatives. This portion of the bill absolutely ENSURES the further collection of student level data (12) in the name of 'accountability'. The only data collected at the federal level - until we rid ourselves of the DOE altogether - should be the NAEP.
• Earmarks:  Stops earmarks to comply with House earmark ban. GOOD THING.

Strengthening Programs for Schools and Targeted Populations

• Education of Migratory Children
• Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected Delinquent, or At-Risk
• English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement
• Rural Education
• Indian Education
• BAD THING.  NONE of these categories should be addressed at the federal level. Look at the wording used, "TARGETED". The federal government should not be targeting any "population" or "category" for any kind of data collection. Separating people into groups and then providing separate funding streams to facilitate the collection of data is completely wrong. The Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth...is the worst because of the individual, personal student data collected - information about guns, weapons and very subjective categories of behavior (see citation #9) - do not belong on a personal, electronic, shareable, record at the federal level when all information is best left to states to collect IF NECESSARY. In 2010, Congressman John Kline sent a letter to Arne Duncan (13) accusing him of creating a De Facto national database (establishment of which is against federal law). If Chairman Kline felt that way in 2010, this continued data collection should have stopped at that point and definitely should not be continued at the federal level. In fact, there is a Federal Law that prohibits the collection of data (14) that could be considered a national database.

Supporting Local Efforts to Measure Teacher Effectiveness

• Highly Qualified Teachers: GOOD THING. Repeals federal requirements for teacher certification.
• Teacher Evaluations:  BAD THING. Teacher evaluations KEEP COMMON CORE ENTRENCHED (15) because the data collection models often point back to specific ways of teaching CC. Also, these systems include the collection of behavioral data on students which compromises student privacy (16). This kind of data is also subjective and can be used by school administrators as an excuse to fire teachers for ideology. There is no reason for the federal government to prescribe this action for states. Principles are hired by local school boards. These individuals are trained/certified to conduct evaluations on teachers in order to make employment decisions. This kind of law REMOVES LOCAL CONTROL by circumventing the school board process made up of local parents and community members.
• Uses of Funds:  Frees up existing  funds to be spent on whatever system the state imposed for teacher evaluations. Evaluation same as above - money needs to go back to the state and let local school boards make decisions on teacher employment.
• Teacher and School Leader Innovation:  Consolidates remaining teacher quality programs into a new grant - Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant. BAD THING. As with the previous grant program creation evaluated (Local Academic Flexible Grant), this grant will also GROW GOVERNMENT and cut out local control. States will apply, feds will say what to do with the money and parents will get caught in the middle. As Lindsey Burke of Heritage Foundation writes in "The Dead Hand of Federal Education Reform" (17),
• Completing grant applications, monitoring the federal program notices and complying with reporting requirements siphons away huge amounts of educators' time and money - resources THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER DEVOTED TO THE CLASSROOM.
• Teacher and School Leader Academies:  The U.S. already has enough issues with teacher preparation not being rigorous enough (18) while charging students a pretty penny for tuition. All that is really needed is a long-term (one school year?) on-the-job-training (student teacher) assignment. No money is required for this kind of preparation.
• Teacher Liability:  Anything included under this category would be unnecessary as this is a state matter provided for by individual state law.

Engaging Parents in their Child's Education

• Charter Schools
• Direct Student Services
• Magnet Schools
• Family Engagement Centers
• BAD THING. None of the above are needed as what parents demand/expect of/for their children's education is SOLELY A LOCAL MATTER. Again the federal government  is going to dictate to states that they set aside money for competitive grants which are better off left to private organizations or churches in the community. (19) Again, the federal government should not be taking taxpayer money and then doling it back out to them through another state tax-supported government office. *The Family Engagement Centers are particularly noxious as these are the kinds of places where excessive data collection is occurring (20). The school is not and should not be the center of the family (21) - the FAMILY (or the church) - is the center of the family. 

Supporting Impact Aid

• Payments for Federal Property
• Payments for Federally-Connected Children
• Timely Payments
• The only one here I have an issue with (though, again, Constitutionally, all the money collected for education at the federal level should be returned to the state and ultimately taxpayers in order that they may be better able to educate their children) is the Payments for Federally Connected Children. Again, the reason is personal data collection on children. My goodness, just read the verbiage used in this paragraph..."count children", "counting children".

Maintaining and Strengthening Long-Standing Protections for State and Local Autonomy

• Secretary's Authority. It would have been best to scrap ALL of the current NCLB law and simply enact this section as law.  GOOD THING.
• Private School Students: BAD THING. The Blaine Amendment (22) is the exact reason why the federal government should have absolutely NO SAY in PRIVATE EDUCATION ever. This is a local/parent/state matter. The Blaine Amendment has caused considerable issues with school choice - federal intervention in state matters often causes similar ills - therefore this section should be left out completely and all references to private education repealed.
• Military Recruiters: Germane?

Providing Services for Homeless Students

• Improved Collaborations
• School Stability
• This portion of the bill refers to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. BAD THING. This section should be removed. Data collection on the homeless is provided by the Census. Allowing the federal government to collect data on homeless children, is again, providing the federal government with more data than they need on individual children and states. This is a STATE/LOCAL issue best addressed through local private charities and churches and state-run facilities. See citation #9 for all the information on M-V data collection. For the money states get for this particular grant, schools must take time and resources away from classroom activities in order to collect the data required. Associations with organizations at the local level are in the best position to help with the least amount of red-tape, providing better services, faster.

CITATIONS

(1)  Is Common Core Meant To Blow Up The American Educational System? 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-common-core-meant-to-blow-up.html

(2)  FairTest.org - How NCLB Relates To Opting Out Of Tests: 

http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Federal_law_related_to_opting_out_-final.pdf

(3)  Oklahoma's A-F Grading System Gets An "F"

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/01/oklahomas-f-grading-system-gets-f.html

(4)  Seton Testing services including IOWA tests: http://www.setontesting.com/iowa-tests/

(5)  School Turnaround Doesn't Work: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/study-school-turnarounds-dont-work/

(6)  An Analysis Of Recent Education Reforms and The Resulting Impact On Student Privacy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94149078/An-Analysis-of-Recent-Education-Reforms-and-the-Resulting-Impact-on-Student-Privacy

(7)  Does Our State Superintendent Truly Care About Student Privacy? 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-our-state-superintendent-truly.html

(8)  National Assessment of Educational Progress:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assessment_of_Educational_Progress

(9)  EdFacts Overview: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/edfacts-overview.pdf

(10)  Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools database in EdFacts:  http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/edfacts-overview.pdf

(11)  Federal Register; FERPA

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/02/2011-30683/family-educational-rights-and-privacy

(12)  Surveys and Programs Listed under National Center for Educational Statistics;

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SurveyGroups.asp?group=1

(13) Letter from Congressman John Kline to Arne Duncan

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/CLIP/Letter_from_House_Committee_on_Education_and_Labor.pdf

(14)  ESEA laws. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html#sec9531

(15)  Seven Reasons Why Common Core Repeal in Oklahoma Isn't. 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/10/seven-reasons-why-common-core-repeal-in.html

(16)  I'm Outraged and You Should Be Too - Private Student Data On Google Docs For All To See

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2015/01/im-outraged-and-you-should-be-too.html

(17)  The Dead Hand of Federal Education Reform: 

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/06/the-dead-hand-of-federal-education-reform

(18)  Training Our Future Teachers:  http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/EasyAs

(19)  Whiz Kids: http://www.whiz-kids.org/

(20)  21st Century After School Programming: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105519107/21st-Century-After-School-Programming

(21)  A Review of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills White Papers

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2011/08/review-of-partnership-for-21st-century.html

(22)  The Blaine Amendment: http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_11.asp

Written Remarks From The Common Core Chaos Debate With Michael Petrilli

For those that would like to see the entire debate, please see this link on our YouTube channel.

Following are my prepared remarks from the Common Core Chaos debate. I have not transcribed any of the 4 or so extemporaneous questions, but I wanted to make the answers to the first four available, along with my opening remarks in the event they would be helpful.

OPENING REMARKS:

Before I begin, as the wife and daughter of men who served in the Armed Forces, I’d like to thank all Veterans for their service on this Veteran’s Day.

Next – I want to thank Dr. Piper very much for his gracious hospitality in extending the use of the Lyon Performance Hall for this event. Thanks to you as well Mr. Dutcher for loaning us your very capable moderating skills. Thank you also to those here in attendance and those watching via internet.

Finally, I’d like to thank you Mr. Petrilli for coming all the way from Maryland to debate this ordinary Oklahoma mom on the state of chaos you assigned Oklahoma public education during the recent Intelligence Squared; Embrace the Common Core debate in New York, following Oklahoma’s repeal of the Common Core State Standards and the loss of our NCLB Waiver.  I’m hoping you’ll come away from your short stay in Bartlesville convinced that it’s not the loss of our waiver, but Common Core itself that’s quite an excellent example of the butterfly effect.

In a way, I agree; there has been much chaos surrounding the repeal of the Common Core from Oklahoma and the loss of our Waiver.

First, however, we must consider the general chaos resulting from the Oklahoma state department of education taking billions of dollars from the pockets of taxpaying Oklahomans for public education, only to focus zealously on meeting the desires of the federal department of education, though their monetary contribution hovers at somewhere around 10% of Oklahoma’s entire education budget. Why should Oklahoma –or any state for that matter – give up any part of their control over education to the federal government for such an insignificant investment? I seem to recall an adage about a silk purse and a sow’s ear…

Then, we must consider the specific chaos resulting from state policymakers remaking Oklahoma education – tailoring it to fit a federal government blueprint including Common Core State Standards, Teacher Accountability measures and a State Longitudinal Database System (all which reinforce the Standards) in order for school administrators to receive ‘flexibility’ from essentially meaningless 100% student proficiency standards in English and Math prescribed by a law Congress refuses to reauthorize. What about flexibility for students, parents and teachers to have standards and resulting curricula that works best for them? After all, is public education about serving administrators or kids?

Finally, there’s the orchestrated chaos designed to fit the narrative that schools will lose money as a result of the loss of our Waiver. In truth, Oklahoma lost no money at all as a result of losing the waiver. Once the waiver was lost, we moved back under NCLB regulations that prescribe the redirection – not removal – of 20% of Title 1 funds only IF the state fails to meet adequate yearly progress. Considering this amounts to a mere half a percent of the total state education budget why suggest chaos?

Of course, there is definitely more chaos to be found in the system;

• Legislation enacting Common Core in Oklahoma was completed before the standards were even ready to read in final draft. People don’t buy cars without a test drive or chaos is sure to ensue – states shouldn’t buy standards sight unseen for the same reason.
• Attempting to align all schools across the nation to one set of untested, unproven standards based upon unsubstantiated claims they’re higher or college ready has created testing and teacher training chaos for states.
• Emphasizing college readiness has created chaos for elementary kids who now struggle through developmentally inappropriate material all in the name of higher standards.
• Emphasizing college access is creating job market chaos as tens of thousands of skilled labor jobs in Oklahoma go unfilled because students are funneled toward college over job training.
• Writing, enacting and facilitating education policy on the back of checks written by a billionaire computer entrepreneur non-educator can do nothing but cause chaos as educators scramble to enact policies in actual classrooms that were written in a vacuum.
• Some Oklahoma administrators have created chaos in the lives of teachers by forcing them to teach Common Core under a different name though it’s against the law via mandate of the people, because students need to be taught to a Common Core-aligned SAT, ACT or AP, or because “we just bought Common Core-aligned books”, or “we’ve already spent too much money on Common Core teacher training”, etc.
• Because Common Core has been tied into a neat little ball with nearly every other federally-offered education ‘reform’, we’ll have to endure the chaos of resurrecting Heracles to cut off all its’ heads.
• Though national educational tests and standards are contrary to federal law, chaos has resulted from the federal government paying testing companies to write a national Common Core test which costs too much, is hard to grade, and takes too many days out of classroom instruction.
• The high stakes test and punish cycle meant to provide Common Core with its rigorous accountability has become chaos for parents, kids and district IT employees, many of whom would rather sit in the unemployment line than go to work on McGraw/Hill online test day.
• The definition of chaos is frustrated students who can’t understand overly complicated, confusing Common Core math lessons - and frustrated parents who can’t help because they don’t understand it either
• Parents and families reordering their lives – and budgets – to pull kids into private or homeschools because their neighborhood public school is no longer working for them, is obviously, chaotic.
• And finally, chaos is the result in countless families as countless mothers (and dads) in countless states have set aside their primary duties of children, home and office to spend countless hours researching why their kids suddenly hate school, or math, or reading, only then to spend countless hours educating fellow parents and government officials that enacted Common Core legislation, about the chaotic nightmare that is the Common Core.

So, in conclusion, yes Mr. Petrilli, there is chaos here in Oklahoma, but it’s chaos that arrived on the heels of Common Core – long before the loss of any federal carrot and stick mandate – and I’ll be happy when we’ve driven a stake through all its hearts and ensured it never comes back to cause chaos in the lives of Oklahoma parents, kids or taxpayers again.

QUESTION 1
One of the most effective arguments against Common Core is that it represents a “federalization” or a “nationalization” of education. (Indeed, once the phrase “ObamaCore” started making the rounds in Oklahoma, it was game over.) But are those concerns legitimate? Is it fair to characterize Common Core as “Fed Ed”?

It’s absolutely a fair cop. As I’ve written frequently, there were four separate but overlapping programs established under the Obama Administration’s Department of Education that make up what I like to call the FOUR PILLARS OF EDUCATION REFORM: These are Common Core State Standards, Teacher Accountability Measures, Turning Around Failing Schools and instituting a State Longitudinal Database System to track children across all ages and stages of the educational spectrum and into the workforce.

States had to sign on to all four of these foundational programs at some level in order to get State Fiscal Stabilization funds in 2009, be competitive for Race to the Top grant dollars and/or qualify for Waivers from provisions of the No Child Left Behind law.

Though states could substitute their own standards as long as they were deemed College and Career ready by state institutions of higher learning, it’s no secret that entropy favors the easy road – why would states reinvent the wheel when they could simply take what was offered and move on to the teller? Doesn’t the fact that a vast majority of states have signed on to Common Core since 2009 say something about the veracity of that statement?

Consequently, as state standards were cast aside in favor of standards favored at the federal level as part of a federal government extortion exchange rate for money or flexibility, the Common Core state standards predominated across the nation. If the standards predominate across the nation and were an integral part of federal government programming, what other definition for the Common Core State Standards can there be but ‘nationalized education standards’?

In the final analysis, it matters not whether the Standards were penned by a private source or inside the walls of the Department of Education if the federal government adopts them as their own and uses them as a fulcrum for moving education policy in America from a local endeavor to a more centralized locus.

QUESTION 2
Some people who choose nonpublic educational options worry that Common Core will limit options for students. They say that the alignment of certain exams ( SAT, ACT, GED, Advanced Placement, etc.) to the Common Core will increase the likelihood that private-school students and home-schooled students will have to follow the Common Core. Are these concerns legitimate? Will private schools and homeschooled students be compelled to accept national standards and tests?

Unfortunately, there are instances in which privately schooled students are being compelled to accept Common Core tests. In some states, private schools are required to administer state tests for accreditation purposes. These assessments require more than students being able to answer questions correctly to receive full credit. To get full credit students are required to show the Common Core instructional process used to arrive at their answer. In this way, private schools become coerced into teaching to the test to maintain accreditation and how does a school teach to the test without aligning their curricula – at least in part – to the Common Core? In a solid example of the overlap I mentioned among the four pillars, State Longitudinal Database Systems are used to collect private school test scores in order to provide verification to the accreditation board that the school is worthy of continued endorsement.

In states such as Indiana Ohio and Wisconsin, private schools can’t participate in voucher programs without a record of student outcomes on state tests.  If the private school wants to participate in a state voucher program, they must weigh the advantages of increased enrollment against the prospect of teaching to a Common Core-aligned state exam and possibly losing existing students.

Because homeschools most often use traditional educational methodology, the possibility for student success on Common Core-aligned college entrance exams doesn’t erode drastically due to a well-rounded educational foundation. The difficulty, however, comes when answering Common Core-aligned questions in math, for example, which utilize a confusing multi-step constructivist approach as opposed to the more straight forward traditional style. Consequently, homeschools – as private schools – must count the cost of attempting possibly confusing curricula in order to increase their chances of college admission.

In states requiring homeschool students to submit to state testing, parents have the option of either including Common Core-aligned curricula in order to increase their odds of providing the state a passing grade, or dealing with the fallout should their student be labeled less than proficient. Either way, the Common Core State Standards became impelled upon students via state testing policy.

QUESTION 3
The promotional materials for this debate were headlined “Common Core Chaos?” What is the state of play in Oklahoma now that we have rejected Common Core? Can the case be made that Oklahoma is actually worse off with all the uncertainty about standards and tests than if we had just stuck with the Common Core?

Can the case be made that there is anything certain about Common Core? What evidence is there that Common Core will improve student achievement? What data show Common Core will reduce college remediation rates? What students have graduated college following a steady diet of Common Core State Standards based curricula? None. There is no evidence, no data, no students because this whole experiment has been, well, experimental.

There is a case to be made for the converse, however. We know that the process of creating Common Core tests has been chaotic and the process of administering even the practice tests has created chaos in schools all across Oklahoma. We’ve seen the chaos created when parents with advanced degrees are unable to help even their elementary students with Common Core math homework, not because they are mathematically challenged, but because the problem solving methods make no sense. We’ve heard early childhood experts testify to the chaos in their classrooms created by the unhealthy levels of stress exhibited in younger kids as a result of classroom work based on developmentally inappropriate standards.

Additionally, states further along in the Common Core process than Oklahoma, like New York, are trying to get out of Common Core because of the chaos its causing in their state. Why would Oklahoma NOT want to avoid something that has become a colossal waste of money and frustration for others? Oklahoma needs to chart its own path – a successful one based upon excellent local standards that will build on the resiliency, tenacity and ingenuity of Oklahomans – traits that have created one of the most successful economies in the nation currently. We have a new State Superintendent and a springboard forward into educational freedom off the back of Common Core repeal – we need to take this opportunity and run with it.

QUESTION 4
A house editorial in the Washington Examiner made the point that “Common Core combatants likely agree on few things, but there is one point on which they do agree — America's public schools are failing and have been for many years.” Do you two agree on that point? If so, Jenni, what solutions do you propose in lieu of Common Core? And Mike, are there any solutions you favor in addition to Common Core?

Schools aren’t failing – public school policy is failing and taking education down with it. In fact, we’re seeing systemic failure as one ineffective/unproductive law is replaced or augmented by another and then another – in attempt to bring about results largely unattainable by legislative means. Education legislation and programming features a paucity of education history and research, focusing instead on the newest ‘trends’ in education such as ‘flipped classrooms’ where teachers basically help kids with their homework after they have been ‘taught’ the material via video at home.

Today’s education focus is entirely wrong-headed. Students should not be educated ‘for’ college or ‘for’ the workforce – they shouldn’t be subjected to the latest fads. Students should be educated broadly in the arts and sciences, history and classical literature – not subjected to restrictive curricula that emphasizes mainly math and English which are then taught as skills and not for the love and joy of learning and knowing.

Students are arm-twisted and mercilessly forced into education submission by a test and punish system that robs them of their personal responsibility for their own learning. Parents are held at arm’s length and often treated as adversaries by school administration instead of the responsible party for their child’s education.

The only way to solve the majority of these issues is educational freedom. Freedom that allows parents to choose the school with the curricula and set of standards best in line with their children’s unique and individual needs. Instead of funding flowing to the school, funds should flow from the parents to the school in the ultimate act of educational accountability.

For decades, public education has moved farther and farther away from the ones it directly serves – it’s time to put the responsibility for education back in the hands of parents. As Einstein said, Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” It’s time for a paradigm shift toward personal responsibility and control of local education with parents at the helm.