Look Out - Straw Man Falling!

ACK! I'm on a role! Checker Finn over at Fordham posted an opinion piece today called, "The Euro and the Common Core". I realize that Chester Finn is a well-respected education policy guru, however, I completely DISAGREE with his support of the Common Core. I have from the start. Again, any right-leaning organization (person) that does truly concerns me because I realize the thought process behind it. I have called Checker Finn on those below:

As one of the kvetchers, I'll have to call you out on this classic "straw man" argument, I'm afraid.

By pointing to the Common Core as the ONLY way to prevent American education from going the way of the Euro, you've painted yourself into a corner.

This is a Constitutional issue issue whether you like it or not Checker.

While I appreciate that many of you education reformers like to see all roads as a means to an end, there's a silly little thing called the "Constitution" that provides our Country the map on which to draw those roads. The federal government has no business collecting taxes from Americans to fund a Department of Education at the federal level. Once it did, it degenerated into a "carrot and stick" enforcer where, if a state wanted money (obviously, the state's fault for not funding it's own budget - where have we heard that before?), the 'enforcer' could use that carrot to lure them in close enough to thwack them in the head with the stick of "here's what I want you to do now".

I used to hate taking money from my parents when I was in college. I ALWAYS knew that somehow, some way, I would be told how to spend it if I did, and we rarely saw eye-to-eye on the issue. (FYI, in this parable, we see the Federal government as the parents, and the states as the college student.)

I realize you support the Common Core, but the manner in which you do it is so, well, elitist. YOU know what's better for the states than the states themselves (or the parents of the kids in the schools in the states). YOU have the key to creating capable American citizenry through YOUR plan to tie them all together through a COMMON (which also means ORDINARY, by the way - and COMMUNAL and I've had enough of that with OWS thank you very much) standard.

Well, guess what? Your state may want something ordinary that fits all American students (like an oversize - or undersize - sweater, depending upon WHO you are as an INDIVIDUAL), but I don't really want my kids to be communal, or ordinary. I want them to be exceptional individuals who understand that the Constitution is a set of laws and once you break one, you tend to break a lot, and that tends to skew the course of government and nations....hmmmmm nothing like that going on in America right now so what am I worried about?

Occupy Wall Street on Public Education

HOLY COW!

I get a regular email from EdWeek that details various articles posted either on their blogs or the publication itself. A man named Greg Jobin-Leeds had posted a story earlier last week on OWS and education. It so offended me I posted it on our Facebook page.

Today, in my email update, I received a link to the following blog post by Jobin-Leeds, "Occupy Wall Street's Goals and Public Education". Obviously, it was a must-read!

I usually don't take time to comment on articles because, well, frankly, I don't have time! Today, I absolutely could not stop myself. Please read the article when you have a moment. It will make it easier to understand my response:

Greg. One of the websites from which you are pulling information is the planetANARCHY.net site?

Do you know what anarchy is?

"Occupy activists think increasing access to "the commons" (public goods -- starting with the public squares themselves -- that belong to all humanity) is the route to liberty."

It's NOT the route to liberty. The LAW is the route to liberty. What you're describing is the TYRANNY of ANARCHY!

You apparently have nothing more than a textbook definition of the word 'anarchy' - it is clearly not an actualized term to either you or OWS. Can you actually imagine anarchy played out on American soil? I think you THINK you can, but I venture to bet you can't. It's actually a concept full of death and destruction to the tune of Egypt and Iraq and all those "Arab Spring" (read Islamic Fundamentalist Spring) countries we've seen, heard, or read about in recent months.

"The Occupy Movement is creating a future that is being collectively imagined."

What is collectivism? Have you seen Cuba - or RED China - or Russia? THAT'S collectivism at its finest - right there. I can assure you none of those countries will be excepting of a dissident crowd 'collecting' in St. Petersburg Square, let alone sleeping or protesting their government there. Good grief man, do you really not remember Tiananmen Square? Has it been that long in your limited view of history?

I guess that's the difference between you and me Greg, I'm not an intellectual - I'm a reasoner. I study and REASON issues - I don't fantasize or idealize concepts - I research them through to action historically or personally. If you and the rest of the OWS'ers would put books in your "library" like Hayek or Bastiat instead of simply Al Gore, Howard Zinn, and Mother Jones, you might develop a world perspective more akin to that atop my horse than your unicorn.

But then, you don't really want to do that, do you? Reality stinks. It's much more emotionally satisfying to live in a world uncluttered of reality where you can pin your problems on others and force a community to support your desired lifestyle and belief system by stealing what they have earned through hard work.

Phin - you speak of the "eloquence" of Occupy protesters when they speak about their 'engagement'. What is eloquent about a Mic Check? Really? How about public defecation (or rape or theft)? How eloquent is that? Oh wait, maybe a dousing with pepper spray because you refuse to follow local rules is a definition of eloquence?

Just a question, how are you Communitarians going to survive when you can't follow ANYONE'S rules? Even the OWS has rules.

Frankly, I'm glad for OWS. The 'movement' has forced labor unions such as the OEA (and other such irrelevant organizations) out of the SOCIALIST closet into the bright sunlight of truth. No hiding in the shadows anymore! At least the entire country is getting a really good look at your idea of CHANGE in America! Good luck getting those of us who have studied American history - and still believe in the Founder's vision - on board with that!

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?

Superintendent Barresi Hires OEA Lobbyist For Chief of Staff

Oh yes. It would seem there isn't a Santa Claus Virginia - at least not for Oklahoma Republicans this year!

With apparently such little fanfare that the office couldn't be bothered to comment on the hire, State Superintendent Janet Barresi has hired Joel Robison, the head lobbyist for the largest Oklahoma teacher's union, the OEA, to replace her embattled Chief of Staff, Jennifer Carter.

Now, Mr. Robison may be an outstanding person, however, as my mom reminded me (sometimes relentlessly) as I was growing up, it's those with whom you associate by which your actions are known.

So, for those that might not know, the OEA is the National Education Assocation's little Oklahoma brother. Yes, that NEA.

• The one that hosted the Drag Queen Caucus at last year's national convention.
• The same NEA that also "spent much of the last 12 months fighting for comprehensive health reform".
  
• The same NEA that prefers revisionist history in textbooks, particularly if Christianity is involved.
  
• The same NEA that suggests Rules For Radicals by America/Christ-hating Saul Alinksy on it's The Activists Library Page.
  
• The same NEA that is front and center on our growing agenda of Class Warfare.
  
• The same NEA that is supporting Barrack Obama's re-election bid.
  
• The same NEA that has aligned itself with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Oh, and let's not forget who sweetened the pot on the effort to pass State Question 744 by 1.5 MILLION DOLLAR's worth (the effort which Janet Barresi said she would NOT support as she campaigned) - yup, the OEA!

Okay, I could go on, but I am becoming exhausted and depressed.

I have discussed my concerns in this blog about the fact that our Republican State Superintendent - who, coincidentally surfed into office on the tidal wave of Republican'ism' backlash created by our current President and his unquestionable desire to recreate America as a bastion of Marxism over Federalism - isn't really a Republican at all, but simply a Democrat in a Republican suit. (I refuse to call these people RHINO's (Republican in Name Only), as I have no intention of slurring the good name of rhinoceri everywhere.)

Sadly, and at this point in her career as Superintendent, I think the State Board of Education should consider gravely a vote of No Confidence. Dr. Barresi, may, be a wonderful lady and an outstanding oral surgeon, but her associations leave little to be desired.

Too Many Cooks, Too Many Kitchens? So, let's at least get rid of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL one!

Read this really good post from Fordham today ("Too many cooks, too many kitchens") in which Finn and Petrilli expound on the idea that, though many of us pine for "local control" in public education we're not only not getting it, we're often not getting ANY control because of the convoluted administration of schools.

Despite America’s romantic attachment to “local control of public education,” the reality is that the way it works today offers a worst-of-both-worlds scenario. On the one hand, district-level power constrains individual schools; its standardizing, bureaucratic, and political force ties the hands of principals, stopping them from doing what’s best for their pupils with regard to budget, staffing, and curriculum. On the other, local control isn’t strong enough to clear the obstacles that state and federal governments place before reform-minded board members and superintendents in the relatively few locales where these can even be observed.

It frustrates me to NO END that people today have apparently lost all touch with the concept of COMMON SENSE! (yes, I am yelling - it's just frustration - sorry - I'm going to put on the Christmas music again...that seems to calm me down...)

I mean, truly, people EVERYWHERE have lost touch with this little beheld phenomenon of the 21st century - common sense. Over and over again we see this concept missing, not only in everyday life (example: those people who literally sleep in tents outside a giant box store just to get $50 bucks off a gaming system they don't really have the money for, that they spend so much time on that they can't really exist in the real world, or hold down a job and as such still have to live in their parents' basement - or a community park) but everywhere in government.

Finn and Petrilli's argument that there is so much movement in the system that the system can't move is simply dead on. You would think it common sense that you don't go to a government that can't pay its bills with your hand out to pay for programming that isn't really needed and that will require so many new employees just to administer, that only a fraction of the actual money received will make it into the classroom to run the program you thought you needed to have in the first place.

ON WHAT PLANET ARE WE LIVING?

Oh, I know. The planet of, "the more money I bring in, and the more programs I am thought to develop/run, the more power over others I gain". In fact, this whole public education thing is nothing more than a game based on money and power anymore. The idea of how to help children learn is really only secondary to an administration that lumps that responsibility primarily on the backs of the poor teachers who are (for the most part) just treading water trying to do what they can to please not only their building administration, but the school board and THAT layer of administration as well in order to keep their jobs.

This fabulous game has always been played out in spades within higher ed and, sadly, it has trickled down (with all the America-hating, work-abhorring, PC-abounding, liberal nonsensical garbage) like slimy, fetid oil from a rusted out grease trap in a Kipps Big Boy, into every nook and cranny of the public school system that is supposed to be educating America's children to love and appreciate their country (according to Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson)!

Finn and Petrilli are right! We must remove the layers of administrative blankets placed on schools - and not just CHARTERS - ALL schools. I say the first place to start is with the Feds!

Until someone can show me the Constitutional justification for that department - get rid of it! Keep Oklahoma's money home in Oklahoma and let us (through our school boards) help our schools use it to help Oklahoma's kids! But then again, this could never work, mainly because, as they say, "common sense isn't "common".