The Corruption Belt: SPECIAL ELECTION STEAL ALERT: UNKNOWN Group Runs Ads Against Candidates Opposing Fount Holland (CAMP) Clients In The August 23rd Run-Off

Conservative Policy Network is yet another group in a long line of groups which is using money from who knows where (Dark Money) to influence Oklahoma elections.

ROPE Endorses Dr. John Cox for State Superintendent

Every election since 2010, ROPE has announced support for a State Superintendent candidate.  We believe this position to be of paramount importance in the direction of education in our state.  This year is no different.

Four Republican candidates are vying for the State Superintendent’s chair:  Bill Crozier, April Grace, Dr. John Cox and Secretary of Education Ryan Walters.  ROPE held a candidate forum at Randall University on May 9^th.  Mr. Crozier was unable to attend and April Grace backed out of her original commitment to appear.

If You Wouldn't Keep Running Them Out Of The Profession, Teachers Wouldn't Leave

Last month, State Superintendent Hofmeister (who referred to the recent Governor-requested, first ever audit of the OSDE as "yet another attack on public education") happily announced she had gifted Teach For America over four million dollars to fill empty teaching positions. What she NEGLECTED to say however, was major.

Joy Hofmeister - In My Opinion - Jenni White

Seriously, who doesn't love Three Dog Night?  Who doesn't love Jeremiah the Bullfrog?  Yes, I am dating myself, but seriously, you're humming the song right now, I know it!

Though I could wax philosophic about late '60's music, we need to discuss Joy Hofmeister.

In late summer of 2012, ROPE decided that, since our Superintendent had no intention of listening to a word we had to say on Common Core, we would try to speak with each State Board Member.  Consequently, we drove to Enid to see then-member Brian Haden, we traveled to Lawton to speak with General Baxter, I personally drove downtown to Bill Price's law office and met with him and then-ROPE Board member, Danna Foreman and I met Joy Hofmeister at Starbucks in Edmond near one of her Kumon franchises.  (We never seemed to be able to catch up with Bill Shdeed and from our observations at State Board Meetings, we believed a meeting with Amy Ford would simply be a waste of time for all of us.)

Bill Price is as intractable in his opinions of school 'reform' as Amy Ford.  Brian Hayden listened, but we didn't believe he really understood our concerns (he has since left the Board).  General Baxter was a lot of fun to talk to and we thought maybe he was hearing our concerns, but it became obvious he served "at the pleasure of the Governor" and not long after our meeting , it seemed clear he had done his due diligence and moved on.

Joy Hofmeister was another story.  As Danna and I met with her that day, I found her instantly likable.  She listened, took notes and asked questions as we talked.  She took our materials gratefully and warned us she didn't know much about Common Core at all - a fact clear from our chat.  It was also clear she was an independent thinker - she wasn't on the school 'reform' train - she seemed as though she wanted to do what was best for kids, not simply what was expedient or trendy.  We talked about local control of education and how she had seen the effects of parental involvement through her work at Kumon and how important it was to engage parents in their children's education directly.

To me, Joy appeared warm and open and willing to listen.  Consequently, we kept in touch.  She would call or text asking my opinions about various issues the board was addressing or to ask questions about Common Core and other 'reforms'.  Not long after we met, I found our youngest son had a type of mathematical dyslexia.  Among other things, he was reversing his numbers (90 became 09), making it very frustrating for he and I to do math at home.  Knowing Joy owned several Kumon franchises, I called and asked her opinion.  She gave me several ideas, we chatted for a bit and hung up.  Three days later, a learning tool Kumon uses to help kids get their numbers straight appeared in my mailbox.  Sam and I used it, he showed improvement quickly and Joy and I developed a friendship.

Over the course of the last year and a half, I have watched Joy change.  When I met her, she was fairly ignorant of a lot of the new 'reforms' our superintendent, governor and legislature had adopted for our state, but she knew she didn't like the imperious nature of our superintendent or the adversarial feel of the board/superintendent relationship.  She never balked at any education we attempted to give her, but instead read our materials and frequently contacted me with follow-up questions, seeking to broaden her view.

No, Joy did not come out whaling away against Common Core when she began her campaign for superintendent.  This frustrated many of our ROPE friends.  I understand their perspective, but it's important to remember what perspective is and that there are frequently multiple views of the same issue.  As I talked to Joy about Common Core, it became very clear she was not going to move the way a group wanted, she was going to continue researching until she could make the decision on her own.  The implied hypocrisy in the statement "She was for it before she was against it" is completely ridiculous.  I was an atheist at one point in my life.  Now I am a follower of Jesus Christ.  So, I can't grow into a relationship with the Lord?  This argument is sound for anyone who considers themselves to be an educable individual on any issue at any level.

Our current superintendent has shown she is not educable.  She knows what's right and by Hell or high water, she's going to do that/those thing/s.

That is not Joy.  Joy will study, deliberate, debate and discuss before she comes to a conclusion.  In my experience she's not going to be led around by the nose, or decide she has the only solution, she's going to work to find her true north and move in that direction.  This is why I was so disappointed to see Charlie Meadows of OC-PAC repeat misinformation about Joy in his latest "Charlie's Picks" email.  He said the following:

Let me suggest the differences, when Janet ran 4 years ago she was a strong advocate for school choice. Much of her ideas for school choice are charter schools, a form of school choice for which I am not a huge fan. However Janet is also favorable to home schooling and other forms of school choice. On the other hand I believe Joy was encouraged to run by many in the education establishment, especially the Tulsa area school superintendents who most likely despise Janet. I believe Janet is more committed to school choice and thus children, while I believe Joy is more committed to school systems. I have a trust problem with both of them and may not vote in this race. If I decide to vote, I am leaning toward Janet. 

He "believes" Joy was encouraged to run by Tulsa area school superintendents.  So?  As ROPE followers know, I'm not necessarily a fan of administrators (certainly on the Common Core issue), but what difference does that make?  The education of children isn't about ideology, it's about finding practical solutions to help all children learn the most they are able in the best environment we're able to provide as Oklahoma taxpayers.

The ladies of ROPE are not 'school choice' proponents per se.  We don't support charter schools (schools with private boards using public money), but we like Education Savings Accounts - FOR EVERYBODY not just minorities and those below the poverty line.  To us, this is true school choice - choice that will bring about real competitive market results.  I have talked this out with Joy.  Joy is committed to education competition and local control - not school systems or state systems or out-of-state systems.  In fact, she has LOST funding since coming out against the Common Core and a restoration of local control - yes, she has had donors request their funds to be returned.  THOSE would be the 'education establishment'.

When I chose to support her in 2010, I knew  Dr. Barresi was authoritarian and brash - I had worked under her long enough to know that.  I simply hoped those traits would be used to clean up the State Department of Education as she promised during her campaign.  Obviously, the brash authoritarianism turned against us as she strove to implement the programs statist Republicans (the 'education establishment'?) ordained in lockstep with their counterparts in the Obama Administration.

Charlie says he doesn't trust either Republican candidate for state superintendent.  Well, many of us 'trusted' Janet and look where that got us - Common Core, A No Child Left Behind Waiver, 3rd Grade Reading Retention; more and more and more 'edicts' with which state schools can shove parents out of the picture. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.  If you've been unhappy with the last two years, further supporting Dr. Barresi then, seems insane.

If you're a voting Republican in the Oklahoma primary elections on June 24, that leaves Joy Hofmeister.  Joy is not authoritarian or brash - she has shown herself to me to be just the opposite.

Instead of repeating hearsay and 'believing' a candidate to be one thing or another - either talk to the candidate themselves or to someone who knows the candidate - as a person will, at some point, reveal their true selves during the course of a personal relationship.  Joy has revealed nothing to me that indicates she doesn't deserve a stab at the job of State Superintendent, and I for one, am willing to give her the chance.  Wouldn't you rather have a listening, learner than a know-it-all?  I know I would.                                                    

Education and Party Unity - A Jumbo Shrimp Oximoron?

Well guys, the challengers for Janet Barresi's State Superintendent perch are already out of the gate!  In a very sad state of affairs, Oklahoma's own OCPA at once cast a very hard line on the candidacy of newly-announced State Superintendent challenger Donna Anderson, calling her the "Status Quo" educator.  I can only assume this is in part because not only is she, well…uh… a 'democrat', but also because she is not an acolyte of the coveted Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship. 

It doesn't seem obvious to me how we can find the best person for the job of producing education policy for all Oklahoma children by distilling that office down to a single-issue party-line, created and promoted in part, by the same folks that signed the Common Core State Standards into Oklahoma law without reading them.  

Unfortunately, ROPE learned the hard way after supporting Janet Barresi in her bid as State Superintendent - EDUCATION IS NOT A PARTISAN MATTER!  We voted with our party registrations and got slapped hard enough on the face to make us cry - for four whole years!

ROPE's Board is populated with very conservative, God-fearing, Republican women.  None of us could conceive of ever becoming card-carrying Democrats ourselves - especially after last year's Democratic convention when attendees voted to throw God under the bus and continue to embrace the killing of unborn babies en mass.  Clearly, it would seem we have nothing of substance in common with these kinds of ideals. 

I think I speak for the entire board, however, when I say that we wouldn't hesitate to vote for a Democrat for State Superintendent if we thought he or she would actually put education first in in their commission of this office in Oklahoma - and not the Foundation for Educational Excellence out of Florida.  

Pat McGuigan, in his article on Anderson's candidacy says, "Anderson believes the ACT would be a preferable method for evaluating students leaving high schools, rather than the End-of-Instruction tests that have been controversial in recent years. In response to a question from CapitolBeatOK, Anderson said she believes – even without a legislative mandate – counselors should encourage more students to take the ACT. She said the ACT would make a good exit test for all students." 

ROPE has been saying this for years!  This simply makes good policy and fiscal sense since we already pay to administer the tests! 

Why pick a candidate apart for not supporting the Henry scholarship when that doesn't apparently fully characterize her thoughts on choice in education?

McGuigan reports, "In response to another question from CapitolBeatOK, Anderson said she that although she opposes the Henry Scholarships and use of “public dollars for private schools” she did not agree with targeting parents of special needs children in a lawsuit seeking to strike down the scholarships.  Although she opposes recent moves toward choice that includes private schools, she said “there is a place” for private schools, home schools and online education in the educational system".  

Anderson’s website contains the following quote, “Currently in Oklahoma, we are trying to make our schools and students into something they are not,” Anderson said. “The methods currently being promoted have no research based success. We do not need to model education after any other state. We need to be Oklahomans who do the hard work to find our path to success, not run frantically toward unproven methods because of a political agenda.”  

Seriously, how do you oppose that thought? That's a point taken from fact (Janet Barresi's association with Jeb Bush's Foundation for Educational Excellence) and something we actively would support - as we oppose Dr. Barresi's desire to craft Oklahoma education policy from outside the state's borders.  Neither the Common Core nor the PARCC tests they are supposed to assess were tested or studied prior to implementation in Oklahoma.  

Every year, Oklahoma Republicans reinforce the concept of LOCAL CONTROL of education in the state platform.  Every year Janet Barresi has been employed as our State Superintendent, she has forced this concept farther and farther out toward the margins of the Oklahoma Republican political fabric.  Why have a platform for Republicans to stand on if elected Republicans aren’t going to govern on that foundation – and beyond that, why support Republicans if they do not personify Republican ideals just because they have an “R” behind their name?

ROPE knows nothing about Donna Anderson and certainly this is not a campaign endorsement of any kind, just a missive to make us think.  

Why would conservative Republicans even be drawn to voting for a Democrat?  How broken is the system when we can't agree with our Republican State Superintendent on education policy, but the party that was taken over by the hard left Progressives can spawn a candidate with ideals more Republican than those our own Republicans espouse?  

What is education really about?  What's best for adults, or what's best for kids?