Documentary Reveals Oklahoma Uses Discredited "Whole Word" Reading Instruction in Many Classrooms, Yet the Oklahoma Department of Education Does Nothing

Today I read with interest an article by Jennifer Palmer for Oklahoma Watch, "In Oklahoma, a Discredited Theory of Reading is Widely Used". In her piece, she informs that a documentary by a group called "American Public Media Reports" has found that many schools across the nation are using a type of reading now called "three-cueing", but what has also been called for decades, "whole word language". 

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

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

NO TEACHING FOR YOU! Dr. Barresi and 3rd Grade Retention

I should have put State Superintendent Janet Barresi's face on the Soup Nazi (Seinfeld).  I can just hear her saying, "NO TEACHING FOR YOU!"

Here is her statement on the third grade reading retention act:

Superintendent Barresi comments on bill to weaken third-grade reading law
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 28, 2014) — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi made the following remarks concerning House Bill 2625. Slated for a vote Monday in the state Senate Education Committee, the measure would repeal automatic retention of students who score Unsatisfactory on the third-grade reading test and who don’t meet a good-cause exemption.“To deny children the opportunity to learn how how to read is to deny them an opportunity for success. Reading is the most fundamental aspect of an education. It is unconscionable that anyone would think it’s too much to ask that a school teach a child to read.
“Extensive research shows that moving children forward in school without the ability to read proficiently sets them on a course of falling further and further behind. It condemns them to frustration and failure. But there are also severe consequences for the students who are able to read proficiently, as fourth- and fifth-grade teachers must increasingly spend their time in remediation with the struggling readers.
“The Reading Sufficiency Act has been in existence for 17 years to identify and provide intensive remediation for struggling readers as early as kindergarten. And yet after 17 years and more than $80 million in funding, the percentage of Oklahoma students reading below grade level has remained flat. We cannot allow this to continue. We cannot continue sabotaging the promise of future generations.
“I urge Senate Education Committee members to continue to support high standards by ensuring that our children can read. I would ask that they let the RSA work. There already are good-cause exemptions to address an array of special circumstances. Predictions of catastrophe are simply incorrect. When the State of Oklahoma mandated end-of-instruction exams as a condition for high school graduation, critics made similar predictions that the sky would fall. Instead, Oklahoma’s young people rose to the occasion, with the passage rate at 99 percent.  
“The good news is that RSA already is working. It is igniting attention and innovation in reading instruction. We see school districts in Tulsa, Bartlesville, Putnam City and elsewhere making impressive gains in reducing the numbers of children with reading difficulties. It would be a mistake to start weakening the law just as it begins to show glimmers of its anticipated positive impact.”

No, Dr. Barresi, despite your continued use of Webster-sized, emotionally-charged, finger-pointing words (unconscionable), NO ONE I KNOW WANTS KIDS NOT TO READ.  I mean, NO ONE.  I've never met a person who has said, "Oh, throw kids out in a forest, they'll figure out reading for themselves", or "Shoot, kids don't need to read to get a job."  Obviously, you're thinking of people on some other planet here.

Several things about this statement make me just insane:

1. So the RSA has been around for 17 years and it wasn't going to work until we made the whole thing punitive?  So it's the kids who aren't wanting to read but get passed onto fourth grade?  NO!  I've been a teacher, I know how it works.  You tell the kid they aren't going to pass ______ (fill in the blank - reading, this class, this test...) if they don't do ______.  You then tell the parents and the principal this.  You then don't pass the kid.  You then get called into the carpet in the principals office where he/she says, "The parents are really upset about little Johnny not passing this ______.  I need you to just let him go on."  You say, "Yes sir/ma'am", because you know' they're going to be passed and you move on with your day knowing that at least YOU followed the rules.  So, who's fault is it that kids aren't reading by fourth grade?  I was watching Star Trek again this weekend and I'm always struck by Spock's (in this case Kirk's) line, "The needs of the many out way the needs of the one".  Interestingly, that's how government is SUPPOSED to work.  We just don't work it that way, we punish EVERYONE for the one or two teachers/principals/administrators allowing kids to move to the next grade to save a little grief.  What a giant load.
2. Dr. Barresi urges Senators to support high standards.  What?  I am beginning to think there is nothing more important in the world of education than Accountability.  I mean, who cares about the kids' well being or what the parents want - it's "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead" at our department of Education.  Then, to follow up this statement, she tells us about the "good cause exemptions" that make this bill well worth its salt.  What?  The good cause exemptions are all things teachers and parents were most probably doing anyway to make sure kids are reading appropriately, yet when you put the oneness for a child's passage to the next (elementary!) grade on ONE single test, the teacher has little time create portfolios of student work  in order to make sure they are available if they flunk the ONE test because she/he is too busy trying to beat them to death with reading curricula.  So why the necessity for RSA testing?  Because it's in the NCLB Waiver.  Yes, third grade reading retention is part of the assurances given to the federal government under 1B - "Transition To College and Career Ready Standards".  In effect, we have to have RSA in order to keep with the Common Core State Standards Initiative which is required by our NCLB Waiver.  Again, what a giant load.  Who do we owe for an excellent educational experience - parents/students or the federal government?
3. How in the world could you possibly determine RSA was working?  How?  This program has really only started this year and there have been no results from testing.  How in the world can you say that, although the program has been in existence for 17 years, we are suddenly seeing progress because of a test in the first year?  That has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard of from an organization that told OSU and OU researchers they didn't know what they were talking about when they condemned the Department's A-F grading scale.

In closing, we MUST allow teachers, principals - and most of all parents - to determine the course of students through public education - not our current superintendent!  I have no idea when the Oklahoma Department of Education became the Politburo, but it needs to stop.  The OSDE needs to let teachers teach and parents parent and stay out of the way.

ROPE Approves Democrat Disapproval

Wednesday morning, May 2, at 9:00am, Representative Mike Shelton will be presenting a "Motion of Disapproval" to the Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee against the grading system proffered by Dr. Janet Barresi and the State Department of Education in order to get the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver (approved by the Department of Education in February of this year and put into law through HB1456 last legislative year). 

According to the report in the Oklahoman, Representative Lee Denney had this to say about her bill (HB1456), 

“This bill will empower them (schools) to either work with the school board and fix the school that their children are in or take their child to a school that will serve their needs.” 

Joel Robison, then head of the Oklahoma Education Association (hired by Dr. Barresi as her Chief of Staff this year) wasn't sure if the grading system was necessary, 

“It makes it easy. A school can get a grade that reflects certain things that is a true grade, but it may not be an accurate representation of everything that's going on at that school.”

Never an NCLB waiver advocate, ROPE now extends our assistance to Representative Shelton and will be at the Wednesday meeting prepared to speak against the grading system.

Should there be accountability in public schools?  Without question.  NO ONE should disagree on that point.  Public schools (including Charter schools) are supported via tax dollars and the people who provide those tax dollars (the public) have a right to know how their money is being spent on the education of future generations.  

We don't even disagree with creating a 'grading system' for schools that is more 'user friendly' than the one in current use.  Don't forget, schools have been continuously graded since President Bush's NCLB went into affect, through something called AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress.  The problems with AYP have been varied and many, however, from parents not understanding what an AYP of 560 means to how the actual AYP for each school is calculated. 

The new A-F grading system was ostensibly created to allow schools to be graded an F rather than a 580, making it easier for parents to understand. 

The new grading system assumes the following model:

A = Reward school

B = ? (We guess the B grade name is a secret)

C = Targeted Intervention

D = Focus School

F = Priority School

HERE'S WHERE WE DISAGREE: (SEA = State Education Authority = State Department of Education.  LEA = Local Education Authority = school and/or district)

According to the Waiver (page 67, 68),

LEAs that are unable to demonstrate capacity and the ability to facilitate improvement will relinquish control of all aspects of a Priority School’s operations that directly or indirectly relate to student achievement to the SEA to be included in a theoretical, geographically-unbound group of schools, known as the C3 Schools (C3S). The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction will assume control of the operations and management for schools designated as C3S as they directly or indirectly relate to student achievement;

In addition, the State Board of Education may choose to reserve a percentage, not to exceed 20% consistent with the requirements listed below, of the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation to allow the SEA to begin or continue implementing the Turnaround Principles in C3S Priority Schools in the LEA.

Each LEA with at least one Title I Priority School will be required to set aside a percentage of its Title I, Part A allocation, which is reasonable and  necessary to implement the Turnaround Principles in the Priority Schools and to provide school choice options for parents/guardians of students in the school, in consultation with the SEA. This percentage will be determined on a sliding scale...

As stated above, LEAs with identified Priority Schools will be required to implement the Turnaround Principles defined in this ESEA waiver package. LEAs that are unable to demonstrate capacity to do so will relinquish control of all aspects of a Priority School’s operations that directly or indirectly relate to student achievement to the SEA to be included in the C3S.

 Also according to the Waiver (page 80),

No teacher or administrator in a Focus School will be exempt from participation in required training or professional development, regardless of the time of day, week, or year; however, the SEA will conscientiously protect instructional time for classroom teachers.

Also according to of the Waiver (Page 86-87),

The SEA’s School Support/School Improvement Team and other SEA staff will provide timely and comprehensive monitoring of, and technical assistance for, LEA implementation of interventions in Priority Schools and Focus Schools.

[Monitoring Structure:] Priority schools will be required to implement one of four United States Department of Education’s SIG models, or implement an intervention that satisfies the Turnaround Principles. Monitoring of Priority and Focus schools will be conducted by the SEA’s School Support/School Improvement Team in collaboration with the Office of Federal Programs, the Office of Student Support, the Office of Instruction, the Office of Special Education, and the Office of Accountability and Assessment.

 And finally (well not really, the waiver is 107 pages) there's page 88:

The SEA has chosen to participate in multi-state consortia and collaborative associations in order to develop its own capacity to serve LEAs and schools. The SEA will continue to participate in these multistate organizations and to seek out additional support from other states implementing similar reform strategies. 

So, let's get this straight:

• The State Department of Education will grade schools based on a formula based on something the federal government likes out of a federal education reform package and
• if they don't like the school's grade, will come in and take it over, using people from a number of different offices and organizations that may or may not even work within the borders of the state
• take up to (and/or over) 20% of the school's designated Title I federal funds to pay for that takeover and then
• implement yet ANOTHER federal program - Turnaround (from the Race To The Top incentive packages funded with ARRA funds - which hasn't even worked in Arne Duncan's OWN Chicago school district, let alone others!) along with the federally funded, Common Core State Standards and the untested, unproven, unseen, PARCC tests
• and force teachers into professional development models (though we keep overlooking the real issue as to why schools don't perform - no more "kill and drill" to learn basic math facts and English parts of speech and too little time to teach mastery of skills when the teacher needs to teach 500 things to get kids to pass the tests and she doesn't get fired).

How do any of these plans (edicts) allow schools to "work with the school board"?  This sounds more like the State Department of Education will come into "Focus" and "Priority" schools, insert their own staff under the guise of "monitoring", take up to 20% of their Title I funds to do it and implement even more unproven education reform nonsense before the ink on the takeover is even dry.

Nearly 6 million dollars in School Improvement Grants (SIG) have been given Oklahoma. Are you going to tell me this whole NCLB Waiver thing is about the kids?

In addition, the SEA has a plan for continuing the model - whether it works or not.  

Check out Page 85 of the Waiver:

Innovating beyond the ESEA Flexibility requirements, Oklahoma will require interventions of all schools that are in the bottom 25% of the State in student achievement that have not been previously identified as Priority schools or Focus Schools.

How is any of this local?  How is any of this endless bureaucracy going to help schools or students?  It isn't and if you ask Chris Brewster, Superintendent of Santa Fe South, Joel Robison is a prophet.  Because of all the red tape and endless hoops to jump through, his waiver paperwork wasn't done appropriately, putting his school on the list of C3 schools when many others didn't believe it should have been.  His isn't the only school this has happened to.  In fact, it isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, if this program is allowed to continue.  

Layered bureaucracy will NEVER solve problems in education (or anywhere) like locality.  Government closest to the people is always best because it is closest to the needs of the people being served.  Education can only be run by the district for the district of the district...let's hope Oklahoma finds that out before we program ourselves into the 15th century!

What is HUMAN CAPITAL?

This is SUCH an important article, I felt I should create a blog of it immediately. As my friend Howard and I were talking and consoling one another after he read it today, we both realized that this particular article plugs holes in SO many places where ROPE has really been unable to explain what has gone so horribly wrong in public education today.

The article is cited in my latest research on the P20 database - how we are "tracking" kids using different educational data points in the name of education reform. It will by ready to read by the end of the week and I will provide links to it then. The article below, explains the idea of Human Capital so well, it helps us understand why it is SO wrong for our State Superintendent and other "reformers" to use this term. It is extremely apparent that very, very few of our representatives in government have any real clue as to how or WHY they are being manipulated into creating a communist society all under the guise of "education reform".

Sadly, I think the reason why many Americans can't possibly wrap their brain around this concept, stems from the fact that - having worked at it for more than 5 decades - the communists among us have dis-educated us in civics so brilliantly, that we have no idea what role government is to play in our lives and can be led like sheep in any direction they want to point us. In addition, we have lived in this "sweet land of liberty" for so long (whether it was or not) that not only haven't we been able to see it changing before our eyes, but we have told ourselves that it isn't simply because we can't or don't want to believe it. In fact, I wrote an article for a Notre Dame project describing this phenomenon and how it can be rectified through civic education.

The article on Human Capital was written in the mid-90's. Before or after you read it, please, please at least open this article, "Common Core: Preparing Globally Competent Citizens" and read how, the Council of Chief State School Officers are developing student global competence which fits with the new Standards. Please ALSO note that the article refers constantly to the ASIA Society - one of the most globalistic, liberalistic organizations in America today.
 
It would help if we researched organizations involved with "reform" projects of any kind to determine their roots - and therefore their agenda - but we Americans have been dis-educated from that process as well. Please note what ARE considered global competencies:

If you aren't seeing how this is all fitting together yet, I beg you to read, re-read and read it again. It's right here in front of our faces. We must be prepared. It is absolute NECESSITY at this point in this late hour - when we have very little time to wake up those around us - to understand these concepts and make them known to anyone who will possibly listen.

Is Your Child Human Capital?
Yes, According To The Architects Of The New Global Economy
By Cindy Weatherly
12-7-3

During preparation for a workshop on educational policy in 1982, I was asked by the host organization to prepare a glossary of terms pertaining to my presentation. That request seemed simple enough and a reasonable one, so I set about compiling terms related to CBE (Competency-Based Education) (forerunner of Outcome-Based Education and promulgated by the same man Bill Spady), our fad-of-the-moment in educational reformation toward illiteracy in Georgia.   As I said, the task seemed simple enough. However, while still in the "A's" of the alphabet, I developed an overwhelming respect for professional compilers of glossaries. The first word block I encountered was "assessment". Sure it was familiar; we all knew it meant 'test'; but the longer I struggled to apply that definition to CBE the more elusive "assessment's" definition became.   The latest word for 'test' was "instrument" and that proved easy to explain. But, "assessment" was a broader term, "assessment" was the noun form of the verb "assess". What did "assess" actually mean? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had been in use since its development in the latter 1960's. Had we overlooked a change in emphasis by the Federal level of education implied by the use of the word "assessment" that could be significant?   Receiving no help from my small hill of accumulated state department of education materials relating to assessment, I decided to "read the instruction manual": (Webster's New World Dictionary.) Webster's clearly stated:   "assess": 1. to set an estimated value on (property, etc.) for taxation 2. to set the amount of (a tax, fine, damages, etc.) 3. to impose a fine, tax, or special payment on (a person or property) 4. to impose (an amount) as a fine, tax, etc. 5. to estimate or determine the significance, importance, or value of; evaluate.   "assessment": 1. the act of assessing 2. the amount assessed.   This definition disturbed me a little. I had assumed that "assessment" was just the latest educationese for a broad-based test. Had I missed something somewhere? To accomplish the task at hand -- the glossary -- I crafted a definition that read like this:   "Assessment: an estimation; determination of the significance or value of. As used in education, a general term for measuring student progress. Conflict in definition occurs when considering that this is a measurement process that is used to determine the value or significance of a particular outcome in educational performance. Therefore, it is not a true measurement, but a process of assigning value to specific tasks, creating a cumulative score for performance instead of an accurate measurement against a standard."   It sounded good at the time and spoke to the question of "what are we testing?" which was a growing concern due to the nature of Competency-Based Education's life role skills competencies, which were going to dictate our educational goals -- just like "OBE" does today. Even though satisfied to have introduced the idea that there may be a conflict within the definition of "assessment" as an educational term, I was bothered that I could find no definitions in other dictionaries, including legal ones, which did not have primary meanings related to assigning a value for tax purposes. "Assessment" is primarily a legal term; in fact, the use of the word "instrument" could carry a legal connotation as well. Disturbing.   THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING PROCESS   In March of 1984 I had the privilege of giving testimony supporting stringent regulations for the Pupil Privacy Act (the Hatch Amendment) which amended the General Education Provisions Act to offer protection from intrusive questioning, programs, and the record-keeping for parents and students.   Again, preparation for that testimony caused me to review the National Center for Educational Statistics' handbook series known as the "State Educational Records and Reports Series". Specifically, Handbook IIR - the Financial Accounting Handbook - alluded to a "unified accounting system" based on the process known as Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) which was to be used by all school systems. PPBS involves mandated goals and constant adjustment of resources to ensure that goals are met... the system that is still in use today. In testifying, I drew a projected conclusion:   If our financial resource reporting is going to be unified by such a system, then are we not but a step away from unified goals for our educational outcomes? This is assuredly a step toward mandated national curriculum and interstate and interregional tax and financial management revisions... will we not soon be sharing tax resources from region to region as needed to `equalize' educational opportunities and programs deemed `exemplary` or in the `national interest to produce global- minded citizens?'   The longer I thought of "assessment" being the "value determined for tax purposes" and the possibility of cross-regional/state sharing of tax resources, the more concerned I became over the idea that the record-keeping and information-compiling might become so tied to the individual student that "assessment" might have a more malignant potential. We were talking about our children here.   At that point in time there was a growing emphasis on choice and vouchers/tuition tax credits in education. Since with the money flows the control, could this be part of the "assessment" picture? That would tie an individual student moving about in the "choice market" directly to a federal accounting process both financially and educationally due to national standards being proposed. No one seemed to be too worried about it in the 1980's, but it still bothered me.   Over a period of time I shared my concern with close associates -- if "assess" was to "assign a value for tax purposes", then why were we "assessing" children? A theory began to take root and grow in my mind: somehow we were going to allow children's potential worth to society to be measured, and their future life roles would somehow be measured, and their future life roles would be somehow projected, and they would be limited by that assigned worth. What a thought! Could this be possible in the United States [of America]?   HUMAN CAPITAL DEFINED   Later someone sent me pages from a book entitled Human Capital and America's Future, edited by David W. Hornbeck and Lester M. Salamon. The title itself set off alarm bells because of the connection to education shared by many of the contributors, especially Hornbeck. It was now the early 90's and many disturbing things were happening. David Hornbeck was a highly visible change agent responsible for many radical education reforms in states from Kentucky to Iowa and had been a consultant to many more.   Why was Hornbeck focusing on 'human capital'? That had been primarily used in economic and commercial literature. Hornbeck was also identified with changes in "assessment" in the school systems with which he consulted and worked. The book was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 1991 and contains an enlightening list of contributors in addition to Hornbeck: Ernest Boyer; Nancy Barrett; Anthony Carnavale; Sheldon Danziger; Marian Wright Edelman; Scott Fosler; Daniel Greenberg; Jason Jaffras; Arnold Packer; Isabel Sawhill; Marion Pines; Donald Stewart, and Lester Salamon.   The social and political views of "Human Capitol's" line-up of contributors could be the basis of another whole article, but suffice it to say that most of the radical changes toward a managed populus in this country can be reflected among this group of individuals. Weren't some of them involved in the dis-establishing of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and turning it into the Department of Education?   While references to "human capital" have been the fare of business publications for some time, it has only been in the last few years that this term applied to school children. In Hornbeck's chapter in "Human Capital", 'New Paradigm for Action', he outlined the systemic change which must occur to produce the workforce for the future and fulfill our nation's 'human capital' needs. Hornbeck's "new paradigm of action" looked a lot like old "OBE" -- setting specific performance standards and invoking penalties for schools, teachers and students not meeting them:   "If the new comprehensive system is to be outcome-based, careful attention must be paid to 'assessment' strategies. The selection of outcome indicators will be informed by the availability of sound assessment instruments." [emphasis added]   Now here was Hornbeck using "assessment" and "instrument" together instead of a substitute for one or the other -- and he had selected the two terms which carried legal usage definitions. Hornbeck asserted that while the NAEP might be universally available, and portfolio "assessments" (notice the use of both words together) would become popular, "the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is investing time and funds in developing new approaches to assessment." He further stated that while most of the present 'assessment' observations are "related to academic objectives"...   "Similar sensitivity is required in carefully defining appropriate assessment tools in other areas as well. In citizenship... a method should be developed for expressing qualitative aspects of participation activities... a different 'value' could be placed on 'community service'... physical and mental fitness... problems arise as we confront legal and even constitutional issues (self-incrimination, search and seizure)... Perhaps a school system should plan to have all students undergo a "physical exam" in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades as a health counterpart to the academic testing program. Again, the emphasis must be on carefully determining assessment strategies that measure the outcomes to be achieved."   All of this is structured because "incremental change is insufficient. Systems must be radically altered to produce what the nation's economy demands in a work force."   Weren't we supposed to be concerned about the education of school children? This sounded a lot like literature which proposed "full employment" policies -- much like the billboards and signs plastered on public transportation and public buildings in Grenada -- "Work for everyone; everyone working!" -- before the U.S. invasion to overthrow their communist government.   Was this why the Council of Chief State School Officers accepted a contract from the National Center for Educational Statistics to develop what is known as the "SPEEDE ExPRESS? (The Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically of Students and Schools.) This electronic information track can carry the most diverse and extensive information on a student, delivering it to future employers, places of higher education, training centers, health providers (contraceptive histories will be included), the military and a number of other recipients yet to be designated. Then if employers, government and others have input into what should be the outcome of education in this country -- instead of education being academically and informational-based -- then the concept of "assessment as assigning a value" to a child takes on proportions that are certainly Orwellian.   What if your child's "assessed" worth doesn't meet anyone's projected goal? Proponents of the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) are, in truth, fleshing out the skeleton of assigning a value to a person. Without the CIM/CAM in those states adopting the concept a young person will not be able to apply for a job, drive a car, or do many other things which have never before been predicated on governments' conferring a value on a person's worth to society.   The People's Republic of China, a communist country, uses "no conformity" -- "no job" policies to enforce its "one child" policy. Have we understood the direction of these changes? Is this constitutional or moral?   ASSESSING HUMAN VALUE   The next piece to the puzzle of assessment fell into place when my suspicions were confirmed that we really were assessing "value". The August 1993 issue of "Visions", the newsletter of the Education for the Future Initiative sponsored by Pacific Telesis Foundation, was given out at a legislative committee meeting as part of a packet of information on technology in the classroom and school-to-work transition activities. The lead article was Beyond the Bubble with a blurb reading: "Educators are finding that new ways of teaching require new forms of 'assessment'."   On page three there was a column entitled 'Authentic Definitions'. Finally, I thought, I have found an educational publication that will define this word and allay my fears. Sure enough, there was the word: "Assessment - The act or result of judging the 'worth' or 'value' of something or 'someone'.   The worth or value of something or someone?! This was confirmation that educational testing had taken an extreme left turn. It was not comforting to realize that our children were going to be assigned a value based on "acceptable performance behaviors in life-role applications" as proposed in PacTelesis Foundation's 'Authentic Definitions'.   Knowing that   1) Our children would be tracked and that extensively detailed would be electronically compiled and transmitted to select file-users;   2) Information would include or be based on a value level assigned to them contingent upon performance - as a child - of life-role competencies;   3) Value levels could reflect the scale of achievement outlined in the United States Labor Department's 1993 "Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills" [SCANS] -- which encompasses personality traits and private preferences, and   4) The purpose of education has documentably been diverted into workforce training, led me ultimately to the conclusion that indeed the future holds a less than bright prospect for our young people. To be formally assigned a "worth" to society based on your ability as a child to demonstrate that you can perform an "essential skill" should be a foreign concept in a constitutional republic like the one in which we live -- these United States of America.   An example of how these efforts at "assessment" have been perverted to the ends outlined above is given in "Crucial Issues In Testing", edited by Ralph W. Tyler and Richard M. Wolf. This book is one in a series prepared under the auspices of the National Society for the Study of Education, which in 1974 included names like William Spady, John Goodlad, and Robert Havighurst on its governing committee.   On page 98, within an article by Carmen J. Finley (of the American Institute for Research) is a section entitled "Defining Goals versus Comparison With an Average:"   "In the National Assessment program specific objectives or goals are defined and exercises are written which determine how well these goals are being met. For example, in citizenship a major objective is to `Support Rights and Freedoms of All Individuals.' One specific way in which a person might meet this goal is to defend the right of a person with very unpopular views to express his opinion and support the right of `extreme' (political or religious) groups to express their views in public."   One exercise which was written to try to tell whether or not this objective was being met is as follows:   "Below are three statements which make some people angry. Mark each statement as to whether you think a person on radio or TV should or should not be allowed to make these statements: * = Russia is better than the United States. * = Some races of people are better than others. * = It is not necessary to believe in God."   This is the goal-oriented approach. The objectives or goals represent a kind of standard which is considered desirable to achieve. The exercises, if they are good measures, tell to what extent the goals are being achieved. This approach tells very specifically what a person knows or can do.              Jenni's Note: [THIS IS THE WORDING USED BY THE COMMON CORE TODAY] This article is PRIOR to the Common Core. I submit that the goals-oriented/performance-based /OBE/assessment approach just outlined tells more than what a child knows or can do. This approach very specifically reveals what a child feels and believes. Remember that "assessments" measure toward predetermined outcomes. Those outcomes represent the judged "worth" or "value" of your children and mine!   With the last election cycle (during the Clinton years) hope swept the country that a conservative majority had exerted itself; changes would be made. As a country we'd be snatched from the brink of economic socialism and potential corporate fascism; and sanity would be restored to the halls of government. Right?   WHEN RIGHT IS LEFT   It just happens that the October 1992 edition of Visions (PacTelesis Foundation newsletter) contained an article entitled "Why Technology?" It began,   "Alvin Toffler, the author of such influential books as "Future Shock" and "The Third Wave", has written that the spread of personal computers is the single most important change in the field of knowledge since the invention of movable type in the 15th century. He goes on to state that knowledge is the key to power in the 21st century -- not mineral rights or military force."   This was the same publication that carried the definitive definition of "assessment". And wasn't this the same Alvin Toffler who wrote "Creating A New American Civilization", which heralds the coming third wave of global culture, published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation and introduced at their 'Cyberspace and the New American Dream' conference in Atlanta last year?   Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, introduced Toffler as his longtime friend and then sat quietly by to hear Toffler say that national sovereignty was a thing of the past and that he was an avowed secularist. These are the stripes of our new "conservative" future?   At the same Cyberspace conference, an array of professionals from many areas of cultural life paraded their contributions to leadership toward the much-touted Third Wave. The spokesperson for education in Progress and Freedom Foundation's lineup was -- and still is -- Lewis J. Perelman, author of "School's Out: A Radical New Formula for the Revitalization of America's Educational System". Perelman advocates what he calls just-in-time learning, privatized public schools, total quality applications, hyperlearning, and many other catchy concepts which are now, of course, getting much attention in the policy debate.   It should be noted that in the Preface to his book Perelman cites Wassily Leontief and B.F. Skinner among those from whom he particularly benefited during his years at Harvard in the 70's. Most interesting since Leontief is the acknowledged expert on management by objectives (MBO) -- the forerunner and companion to PPBS. And Skinner was the American father of behavioral psychology, and mastery learning/operant conditioning -- the foundation for OBE.   These relationships of Perelman's are important because he supplied the connecting piece to complete the puzzle picture of our children's future. Perelman states on page 316 that. . .   "Nostalgic mythology about `local control' should not mask the reality that the state governments have the constitutional authority, call the shots, and pay most of the bill for education. But government, local or otherwise, no longer needs to own and operate school systems or academic institutions."   TAXING HUMAN WORTH   Now, to the heart of Perelman's alternative proposal which forms the future of "conservative" educational policy and expresses "assessment's" future use:   "One possibility would be a 'human capital tax'. The human capital tax might be simply the same as a personal income tax, or might be calculated or ear-marked in a more limited way. Technicalities aside, it's logical that if the government is going to help fund investments in the development of the community's human capital, taking back a share of the resulting gains is a good way to pay for it. In effect, each generation of beneficiaries of such investment pays back some of the benefits it received to the next generation" [value-added tax, ed.] (p. 317) "We should deal with parents who are 'starving their children's minds' with the same legal remedies we use to deal with parents who are starving their children's bodies. The... media through which a microchoice [voucher] system is provided will give public authorities more accurate information on what individual families and kids are doing than is currently available, making it easier to identify instances of negligence or misuse." (page 318 [emphasis added] "...there's no good reason why the learner should not be able to purchase services or products from any provider -- whether public or private, in-state or out-of-state." (p. 319)   A VALUE ADDED TAX FOR HUMAN WORTH   There is the framework. A value-added tax process that will "deduct" from a services/education super-voucher a tax for every level of achievement/skill a student achieves -- true 'assessment'. Standards will be rigid and penalties for non-achievement will be enforceable against the student, his parents, and providers of educational services in order to achieve a trained workforce."   The implications for families being disrupted by accusations and prosecutions for Perelman's implied abuse and neglect over "parental starving of children's minds" are startling in their flagrancy. An elaborate and accurate system will track families and students, leaving privacy and confidentiality in the dust. The tax/voucher will follow the student across state and regional boundaries, necessitating a reformulation of tax bases; this could even be extended to foreign sources -- Facilitated by choice and charter school initiatives. (Remember Toffler asserts that national sovereignty is or will soon be a thing of the past. And what about GATT's education provision?)   The World Bank has just announced (Associated Press, "The Des Moines Register", 9/15/95) its new formula for estimating a nation's worth. Ismael Serageldin, World Bank vice president for environmentally sustainable development, stated in 'Monitoring Environmental Progress: A Report on Work in Progress' that the system "for the first time folds a country's people and its natural resources into its overall balance sheet."   While the World Bank projects that its new system of measuring wealth which "attempts to go beyond traditional gauges" and lists "Human Resources: value represented by people's productive capacity" (e.g. education, nutrition) will take years to perfect, I submit that our process of 'assessment' is a giant step in that direction.   I am reminded that in May of 1984 the "Washington Post" published an article entitled "Industrial Policy Urged for GOP." The Institute for Contemporary Studies, "founded by Edwin Meese, Caspar Weinberger and other Reagan Supporters", issued a report that advocated "Republicans shed some of their deep-rooted antipathy to a planned economy." All signals seem to point to the fact that this has indeed happened.   Somewhere in all of this is lost the ability to communicate our culture in an organized way and to teach basic skills that can be used whether cyberspace technology is available or not. Didn't we used to call this "education"? Didn't we believe that our children had some choice in their futures?   When is 'assessment' really 'assessment'? Ernest Boyer, former Director of the Office of Education and Carnegie Foundation director, once said, "To be fully human one must serve   In the future to be fully assessed may mean our Children's worth as a "servant" of the state will be "assigned a value for tax purposes."   America, where are you?

 

Disclaimer

Email This Article

Marveling At The Nuclear Fallout Of Partisan Politics

Last year (2010) was an exciting one in Oklahoma.

It was our first chance in TWENTY YEARS to elect a new State Superintendent of Public Instruction. For 20 years, incumbent Sandy Garrett (D) managed to keep her seat through the turmoil of House Bill 1017 and the rise and fall of no less than FIVE governors in a 3:2 ratio Democrat to Republican (counting the tail end of the Bellmon administration).

Unfortunately for Mrs. Garrett, during the fight over State Question 744 that year, a very large discrepancy was found between the scores of state administered tests and nationally administered tests, indicating that while Oklahoma's test scores had been reported as rising, the phenomenon was nearly solely due to a systematic dumbing down of the state tests by Garrett's office. Not surprisingly, and shortly afterward, Mrs. Garrett announced her retirement.

The 2010 general election gave Oklahoman's the chance to vote for either Susan Paddack (D), Janet Barresi (R) or Richard Cooper (I) as our new State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Janet Barresi won with 56% of the vote (pages 13, 14).

As Republicans everywhere breathed a sigh of relief, they also gave in to their audacity of hope that public education in Oklahoma would change. Truly change. After all, Dr. Barresi had billed herself as a 'reformer' during the campaign.

Immediately, voters were not disappointed. Changes came fast and furiously. Big changes.

During her first state school board meeting, a war of sorts broke out between school board members and incoming Superintendent Barresi regarding her choice of hires for her Chief of Staff and Communications Director positions. Conservative sympathies ran high for Dr. Barresi with even Stuart Jolly of Americans for Prosperity putting out a call for members to come to the second board meeting to show support for the embattled chief. After all, the Board of Education was made up of 5:1 Democrats with an incoming REPUBLICAN Superintendent.

Barresi commented to the Tulsa World,

"It was a well-planned and concerted effort to thwart" her work as superintendent.

Board member Tim Gilpin told a different story,

"The board found some improper things going on and shined a bright light on it. When politicians see that, they don't like it."

As Governor Fallin rebuked the board for their comments - even before the meeting was over - - Dr. Barresi continued to assert that, because she would be unable to get anything accomplished in such an atmosphere, she would need to have full control over hiring and firing. After all, that is how she had been able to accomplish the levels of success she had with her charter schools.

In fact, so incensed was she over the actions of the board, that she requested an opinion from Attorney General Scott Pruitt as to whether or not the meeting violated Open Meetings laws. (As an aside, AG Pruitt did make a pronouncement on the issue of her hires - concluding that the Chief of Staff and Communications Director were "usurpers" in their offices - an opinion which garnered little fanfare or news in the world of the WWF-like matches between Barresi and her board.)

Surfing the Republican tsunami of 2010 in the Oklahoma legislature, law makers ran in droves to Dr. Barresi's defense. Invariably, House Bill 2139, crafted by Speaker of the House Kris Steele and Senator Brian Bingman, was created to assist the new Superintendent in her duties by providing her with a whole new slate of powers, including the hiring and firing of employees in the Department of Education.

Unfortunately, this move also brought dissension. Some felt it improper to do away with board control over hiring and firing decisions and that the action represented nothing more than partisan backlash. What in fact, then, was to be the role of the board? Why create laws based solely on politics? Putting such power in the hands of one elected official, Democrats countered, could produce results unintended in the end.

Still and all, though an emergency clause could not be managed (though Republican Steele forced a nearly unprecedented call of the House to try and get one), House Bill 2139 passed along party lines in both the Oklahoma House and Senate.

Governor Fallin signed it into law in April saying,

"In Oklahoma, the superintendent of public instruction is elected based upon the ideas and agenda they present to voters. And the superintendent, not the unelected Board of Education, should have the power to run the education department. This legislation will help to make the department more accountable and responsive to the will of the people."

Dr. Barresi said,

"This is allowing me to run the department," Barresi said. "I think the public will see absolutely no difference."

In May, though lack of passage of it's emergency clause meant HB 2139 would have to wait until August to become law, the state school board voted it become immediately effective. Only ONE member of the state board, Sue Arn voted no, explaining her belief that it was not a good idea to concentrate so much power in one individual. Phil Lakin, the newest Fallin-appointed member of the board (replacing Tim Gilpin) seconded the motion, just minutes after taking the oath of office from Barresi.

Following her humble acceptance of the keys to the employment security of the entire education department, Dr. Barresi set about to 'clean house', firing a number of employees in order to restore lagging morale in the agency caused by employment issues. Several of those released shared their concerns regarding lack of continuity of information within the department following the dismissals. Now-former board member Gayle Miles-Scott, had this to say,

“We've lost the whole top structure of people who have backgrounds in education and are well qualified, and they are being replaced by people who did well on the campaign.”

Jack Herron, the former assistant state superintendent for financial services, was told Dr. Barresi would have a place for him in her administration, only to be called before the board for his credentials soon after she received power of employment.

Since being gifted the keys to the kingdom by the Oklahoma legislature, ROPE has become obviously disenchanted with the manner in which Dr. Barresi is governing the SDE's affairs. Much of the concerns have arisen due to the great number of inconsistencies in Dr. Barresi's statements and actions.

For example:

• "This is not going to be focused on people and power and keeping a kingdom up," Dr. Barresi told Megan Rolland of the Oklahoman during the campaign, yet evidence exists which make plausible the idea that Dr. Barresi dramatized the situation with the board in order to create sympathy from the legislature to change the level of power given to her elected office.
• Barresi said innumerable times during her campaign that she wanted education to remain a local issue, unencumbered by mandates that could otherwise thwart local control and yet she has applied for a Race To The Top Early Learning Challenge grant and has announced her decision to apply for an NCLB waiver and a grant to establish a far-reaching longitudinal database. She has also continued the Common Core State Standards initiative with great aplomb. All of these programs are NATIONAL in origin and ALL will impose mandates and other infringements upon local control.
• Dr. Barresi also made an issue of testing reform during her campaign, yet her insistence on using Common Core in the state of Oklahoma will necessarily increase the amount of testing students will have to endure.
  
• Pat McGuigan wrote in an article for CapitolBeatOk during her campaign, "Barresi is no fan of the dominant state labor union, the Oklahoma Education Association. She told CapitolBeatOK, "When it comes to teachers, I've found there are really two groups: teachers and union bosses. That's blunt but it's the truth....". Last Friday (12/2/11), Barresi hired non other than Joel Robison, the head lobbyist for the OEA as non other than her Chief of Staff (replacing the embattled Jennifer Carter).
• Though Dr. Barresi has also said a number of times that accountability for the department is one of her main goals, she has been unable to consistently adhere to the Open Meeting Act during state board meetings, and board members have grumbled about not only the large number of meeting notes provided for the meetings, but the late hour at which they are received prior to meetings (personal observation corroborated via voice recording made at meetings available through Open Records Request).

Although we would all like to agree that public education should not be partisan in nature, the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for Oklahoma is an elected position. Therefore, as with ANY elected position, the person who campaigns for the office necessarily MUST keep campaign promises and adhere to the spirit and ideals of the political party with which they identified during their campaign.

It doesn't appear Janet Barresi has done much of either since her inauguration. Yes, there are issues she said she would tackle during the campaign that she has attempted (trim the budget at the OSDE for example), yet the manner in which she has done that stymies me.

Worse yet, it appears that Dr. Barresi holds a certain amount of contempt for those she serves. This is not only obvious in her response to ROPE during the interim study on Common Core State Standards, but evident in numerous undocumented conversations and interactions with everyone from parents and taxpayers to legislators.

[I will never forget sitting in front of her desk (during an appointment scheduled by a legislator to discuss ROPE's bill to repeal the Common Core State Standards), having her gesture to her computer screen and say with great exasperation, "Why are you having these people email me? You are not even giving them correct information. They don't even know what they're talking about.]

It is never a happy situation to learn that your confidence in a public figure is misplaced - especially when you personally endorsed that candidate, but that is where many Oklahomans now find themselves.

I certainly hope and pray that Dr. Barresi will reflect on her missteps and realize a vision to correct them. Until then, the needle on my confidence meter points to NO. What about you?

Of Possoms and NCLB Waivers...

I received this from a friend in the Tulsa area week before last.

Melissa Abdo is a very hard working wife and mom in the Jenks school district. She and other parents in the district have an organization called, PLAC (Parent Legislative Action Committee - ((I hope that's right!)).

This group actually goes and lobbies the legislature during session and keeps in touch with the administration and teachers in their district as a way to stay educated and involved in their children's education.

This piece was sent to Melissa by the site Principal at Jenks Middle School. He has given me permission to repost his comments below.

I learned a lesson from a backyard possum a few weeks ago.

This possum had been rooting around in our back yard for several weeks and making a mess of things. He had to go. So, I borrowed a large (non-lethal) metal trap to catch the varmint so I could release him in someone’s else back yard a few miles away! I set the trap on our back patio and placed a delectable piece of raw chicken in the holding area. How could the possum possibly resist? I waited only a few hours until I watched him come onto the patio and began examining the trap that would soon change the course of his life. He seemed to know something was wrong. He walked around the trap very cautiously as if he was thinking to himself, “it just has to be a trap---no one would just leave a piece of delicious chicken sitting around!” He should have listened to his instincts.

It took about five minutes for his hunger to get the best of him and to finally succumb to the aroma of the chicken. The lure of something that I assume tastes infinitely better than road kill and insects (no firsthand experience here) was too much for him to resist and he walked with trepidation into the cage. The door snapped down behind him. He was trapped. When I went out to examine the cage, he looked up at me as if to say, “I feel so dumb, I just knew it was too good to be true.” Then he rolled over and played dead! For the animal lovers reading this, I did release Mr. Possum in a beautiful open area about two miles away from my house and he lived to fight another day – this time anyway!

Here’s the lesson I learned: I think we need to be very careful to follow our instincts when it comes to the NCLB waiver that is moving with alacrity through our SDE. NCLB is road kill. It is rancid and sure doesn’t taste very good. At the same time, it is the law of the land. There has been no action on the part of the US Congress to repeal or reauthorize this legislation. Who gave the executive branch the absolute power to circumvent established federal law? What happened to balance of powers? Are not Arne Duncan and the President overreaching on this point? Are we (the states) all just so tired of eating road kill that we ignore the trap into which we are about to walk?

We have to be careful that our hunger for something “different” doesn’t cause us to accept a result which we may find more repugnant. In other words, the chicken in the cage may be laced with poison. There may be things that are toxic to the effective and efficient management of public schools. I urge all of us to look closely at what is being put into this waiver request: TLE, letter grades for schools, more carrots and sticks, and the coup-de-grace for me--- more testing. The middle school alone already gives 6500 OCCTs and EOIs a year. To test students three times a year would bring us to 19,500 tests and up to 12-15 weeks of disrupted instruction. This would be a death knell for teaching and learning and we would simply turn to testing factories focused on achieving a new set of goals. Teacher morale will suffer as they will be forced to follow a rigid and narrow instructional path designed solely to have students perform well on tests, while losing a emphasis on student engagement and love of learning.

Is this a situation when the medicine (and its many side effects) may be worse than living with the disease of NCLB? Why is there such a big push for states to take this medicine in the first place when the people with the cure (the US House and Senate) are failing to make the cure available to those who need it? Maybe the pressure needs to be placed on our legislators to stop playing partisan politics (both sides) and do what is right which is to fix or repeal NCLB.

What is the worst case scenario of not making AYP? More sanctions? A state takeover? Not likely. What is likely is that as every school in the state and country gets placed on the improvement list, people in those communities will finally stand up and say “enough is enough.” They will see that the NCLB law as written is ridiculous and unattainable. They will demand action (ok, I’m being a little hopeful here).

I will admit I have not had the time to read through the entire draft of the state’s waiver request. Like the possum, I’m not sure I should come up on the porch at all. The smell of the chicken might be too strong to resist! Maybe I should just accept the fact that road kill and insects are the only items on the menu right now, hold my nose, and keep on going!

Wow. First of all, the guy can write! What a great piece! Secondly, it follows eerily a post I made on the Oklahoman website to the article, "Oklahoma request for NCLB waiver should benefit students". Here it is:

Editorialist, could you please tell me what would happen should our schools go on the Needs Improvement List?

I wonder wonder, have you read for yourself what would happen? Various things would in fact happen should a school go on the NIL from getting federal funding yanked to getting MORE federal funding.

So, what is the NIL all about? Money. Money from where? The Federal government. According to studies, a very large percentage (sometimes as high as 40%) of the money we get from the federal government for public eduction goes to hire staff to manage the money, or to filling out paperwork, or other some such mindnumbing activity that has nothing to do with children in classrooms.

There is such a gasp at the thought of the NIL, but the fact of the matter is, we've had an NCLB in one form or another since LBJ! It's called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Every president since LBJ has amped it up, put their name on it and forwarded it on like it was a Christmas re-gift!

It is an absolute fact that public education simply will not improve until we get all the government MONEY out of the system. So, you can parrot what the 'education establishment' is saying, or you can research the idea for yourself. A waiver from NCLB mandates will do nothing but remove more liberty from Oklahoma legislators and educators and put more power into the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

Oklahomans know better how to educate Oklahoma children...but then, if you abdicate responsibility for Oklahoma children to someone else (the feds), then I guess it's not Oklahoma's (Governor, Superintendent, etc.) fault should we 'fail'. Interesting concept, just not one from which Oklahoma's children will benefit.

So, as I start out my day readying the kids to go to the Port of Catoosa to see faithful 'copies' of Christopher Columbus' ships the Nena and Pinta, I go with the knowledge that not all those in the public school system are supportive of the tact taken by our Superintendent and Governor.

I just hope we can find more of them out there before it's too late.