Go Tell It On The Mountain...

I stumbled across this post from Eagle Forum today and was SO excited I just had to republish the whole thing here in its entirety.

ROPE has an outstanding legislator ready to run a bill this next session preventing Oklahoma from using the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Basically, the bill will use the language presented to ALEC by their education task force during last summer's session. This issue was to be discussed at that meeting, but 'conservatives' such as Jeb Bush forced the issue to be tabled. There is currently no word on the status of the task force's legislative package on the Common Core, however, we still believe Oklahoma should have no part in the initiative.

This article outlines much of the reasoning behind our concerns. Please read. We will need you to be educated so you can contact both Representative Ann Coody, Chairman of the Common Education Committee and Senator John Ford, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee - NEITHER of whom would allow last year's bill to even BE HEARD in their respective committees last year - and tell them to HEAR THE BILL.

One would hope that after our interim presentation to the House in October, our legislators have done further research and realize that the potential for massive unfunded budgetary outlays is real and concerning - notwithstanding the loss of control for the parent, the taxpayer and the legislator over much of public education's brass tacks (kinda hard to legislate something you can't touch because it's owned over your head).

Enjoy.

Empower Parents: Restore the Constitution
by Returning Educational Policy to the States by Jane Robbins

Presidential candidates in the 2012 election must be prepared to protect the interests of parents and children nationwide by rolling back the progressive education agenda and returning to the states their constitutional power to make decisions about education.

The federal government's most extensive foray into control of education, No Child Left Behind, is a failure. Not only has it had little effect on educational outcomes, but it is widely despised by administrators, teachers, parents, and students. This general disgust with the status quo has created an opportunity for President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to push a "reform" agenda that pays lip service to the concept of local and parental control but that actually promotes classic "progressive" policies. To protect our constitutional values and the rights of parents to exercise final authority over their children's education, this progressive agenda must be stopped.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. For most of our nation's history, education was considered preeminent among those reserved powers, and for good reason. Teaching and learning are quintessentially local activities — the thought never would have occurred to our founders that a bureaucrat in Washington is more capable than parents or teachers of creating an educational plan appropriate for an individual child.

But President Obama seems to reject America's founding principles and embraces instead the belief that people must be managed, for the good of the country, by elites in government and other institutions. This was the philosophy of the early-20th-century progressives, and it is pervasive in the Obama administration. A prime example is the complete transformation of the American health-care system in a manner that has proven to be ill-founded everywhere it has been tried.

The progressive view of health care — that the system should be managed by "experts" for the good of the economy and society in general — is identical to the progressive view of education: the education of children is simply too important to be left, as the Founders intended, to parents, localities, and the states. This view is far more entrenched than most people realize. The progressive agenda threatens our constitutional system and parents' right to transmit their values to their children through education. It is an ongoing effort that predates the Obama administration and has been infiltrating American culture for decades. With a renewed effort in the current administration, it is no exaggeration to say that we are now at a critical point in the battle for the soul of America.

Progressive educators have long advocated sweeping national control of education. One prominent progressive reformist, Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), fleshed out this view in a now-famous letter he wrote to Hillary Clinton (then a member of NCEE's Board of Trustees) shortly after the 1992 election. Tucker laid out his vision, which, to conservatives, describes a dystopia of authoritarian control: "remold the entire American system for human resources development . . . [into a] seamless system of unending skill development that begins in the home with the very young and continues through school, postsecondary education and the workplace." Beginning with the creation of national standards of curricula and assessment, and then solidifying control of education from preschool through the workforce, this vision is being implemented by the Obama Department of Education (DOE).

The first step in this process is the imposition on the states of common educational content standards, so that every child in every locality will be taught content decided upon by "experts" affiliated with the federal government and special interests. Presidential efforts to develop such "voluntary" national standards in the 1990s collapsed under scrutiny, so this time around, the "common standards" advocates have realized the political necessity of presenting standards as generated by the states, not the federal government.

The result is the Common Core Standards (CCS), created and propagated under the auspices of the National Governors Association, with tens of millions of dollars in funding from the Gates Foundation and other corporate interests. The Obama DOE is determined to force these standards on all the states — not by direct diktat, which is forbidden by federal statute, but by showering federal funds on states that adopt the standards and withholding, and threatening to withhold, funds from those that balk. Not surprisingly, most states have fallen in line. And because the deadline for deciding on the CCS was carefully timed by DOE to fall when most state legislatures were not in session, the decision had to be made, in most cases, by state education officials without input from the people's representatives in the legislature. So much for parental control, or even parental notification.

CCS currently encompasses only English language arts and mathematics but in time will include science, history, and other subjects. But even these current standards have been criticized as deeply flawed: the math standards would put U.S. students two years behind students in other high-performing countries, and the language-arts curriculum radically departs from traditional literature, steeped in the classics, that equips young minds to appreciate and follow in the footsteps of the citizen-leaders who founded our country.

The DOE is also pumping money into developing assessments that will track the CCS. By the time these tests are finalized, probably in 2014, and the additional standards are imposed, states will find themselves locked into a rigid educational scheme that most legislatures never approved. Additionally, given the makeup and philosophy of the federal bureaucrats who will oversee the system, and their alliances with interest groups pushing radical agendas such as (to cite only one example) complete normalization of LGBT activity, the danger is very real that parents will see their children taught principles in conflict with their own. This is what inevitably happens when local control, as envisioned by the Founders, gives way to national control influenced by special interests.

Curriculum standards are only one aspect of the progressive effort to control education for the good of a managed national economy. Other activity by DOE reveals an intent to expand the concept of "education" to permit government oversight and tracking of a multitude of human endeavors, from cradle to grave, that might affect the national economy.

This intent is reflected in DOE's recently proposed amendments to the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), a statute that strictly limits the dissemination of a student's Personally Identifiable Information (PII). For example, the amendments would redefine "education program" under FERPA to include any program that could marginally be considered "educational," even if not conducted by an educational authority such as a public school or college. This radical change would allow nonconsensual access to PII compiled as part of practically any program, whether truly educational or otherwise.

It gets worse. DOE proposes to allow transmission of students' PII-without parental consent — to any governmental or private entity designated by DOE and others as an "authorized representative." If this amendment takes effect, DOE could share a student's PII with, for example, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Labor (DOL). The student's parents would have no right to object; indeed, they would probably never know that such disclosure had occurred. HHS and DOL then would have access to all manner of personal data that would be invaluable in managing a planned economy.

What kinds of personal data might be included? According to the National Data Education Model, a myriad of information such as blood type, health-care history, birthmarks, family income range, and family voting status would be available. And DOE is encouraging and lavishly funding the development of statewide longitudinal data systems intended "to capture, analyze, and use student data from preschool to high school, college, and the workforce." Imagine how a progressive statist, armed with such technology and information, could manage a society for the good of its grateful citizenry.

In its proposed rulemaking, DOE asserts that "there is no reason why a State health and human services or labor department. should be precluded from. receiving non-consensual disclosures of [PII] to link education, workforce, health, family services, and other data" for the purpose of auditing or evaluating education programs. But there is reason, not least that it runs counter to our founding principles that aimed to protect privacy, limit government intrusion, and allow for local autonomy. The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which is expert on FERPA compliance, describes this proposal as "a very radical policy shift" that overturns decades of settled interpretation.

The DOE rejects even the basic requirement that it demonstrate legal authority for its data disclosure. The proposed changes would expand the government's right to disclose personal data for purposes of research studies, audits, or evaluations, without having to identify express legal authority for that action.

What to do? The obvious answer is to abolish the Department of Education. This is a worthy goal; there is no Constitutional, and little practical, justification for DOE's existence. But given the deeply entrenched interests of the education bureaucracy, and the power of the special interests that created and continue to benefit from it, DOE may be impregnable for now. Even President Reagan, who campaigned on the issue, was unable to abolish it. Moreover, as illustrated by the willingness of leftist politicians and bureaucrats to evade the legislative process by stealth (see the attempted rewriting of FERPA by regulation), the objectionable functions of DOE might simply be transferred to a different department, where they can be exercised with even less transparency. (The discredited Head Start program, for example, is administered by HHS rather than DOE.)

Rather than stake everything on an immediate battle to abolish DOE, a more achievable and effective course would be to enervate the agency so that it can no longer impose its will on the states. The most pressing concern at this time is to roll back DOE's attempts to mandate acceptance of the Common Core Standards. The following steps could be taken to achieve this goal and prevent future mischief by DOE:

1. Pass federal legislation releasing states from their commitment to adopt the Common Core Standards. In keeping with the Constitution and federal law, states should be free to devise and implement standards that satisfy the parents of the children they educate.
2. Pass federal legislation prohibiting DOE from conditioning the grant of federal funds on a state's commitment to certain actions. Instead, to the extent that federal funds are spent on education, they should be awarded in block grants on an equitable basis. This reform would end the sly tyranny of DOE, which uses its considerable power of the purse to evade the current federal prohibition on directing curriculum.
3. Withdraw the proposed amendments to FERPA, so that the statute will continue to protect students' Personally Identifiable Information from nonconsensual disclosure.
4. Reauthorize the provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that prohibits the creation of a national database of student information.
5. End all federal funding of development of curricula and assessments. Allow states to choose the curricula and assessment schemes that are best for them and acceptable to parents.

These proposals are designed to restore the vision of the Founders: that in all matters not properly delegated to the federal government, including education, the states should be free to craft and implement their own policies. Freedom works, in education as in most things. Allowed to choose what is best for their children, parents will gravitate to good public schools or private schools or charter schools or homeschooling: to whatever produces the best outcomes for their children. Competition among the states to maximize educational freedom — unencumbered by the federal government — will yield results far superior to those from top-down mandates imposed by "experts" in Washington. The best thing the federal government can do to facilitate this process is to get out of the way.

---

Jane Robbins is a Senior Fellow with American Principles in Action. This essay originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ, and is reprinted here by permission.

Out of the Mouths of Oklahoma Superintendents

Frequently, when we go to the Capitol to 'lobby' (I put that in quotes since we receive NO compensation from ANYONE to do anything at the Capitol), legislators will ask, "What does the Superintendent think about this?" or, "What do teachers/administrators think about this?".

Here's the rub. VERY few teachers and/or administrators who don't view the world through the rose colored glasses of the party line, want to speak out. It's dangerous for their economic health to do so - teachers get fired, administrators get replaced - it's just the way of the world.

Consequently, we have to say something like, "Well, we've heard that teachers/administrators don't like this...", but we can NEVER really produce evidence to back up our claims.

Out in Bois City, however, is a Superintendent who has the gumption to stand up against the 'reformers' and say what needs to be said. Dr. Ira Harris sent this letter to his Representative, Gus Blackwell (another man full of gumption!) and then gave us permission to re-post.

Please take the time to read this and understand that Dr. Harris isn't the ONLY administrator out there with the same feelings! We simply need to spread that word. Once a few intrepid nay-sayers stand out in front to take the initial ammunition rounds, others will line up behind!

Honorable Gus Blackwell,

I would first draw your attention to page 13 of the attachment under the paragraph titled High-Quality Digital Learning where it is written, “Oklahoma is working toward fully embracing the ‘Ten Elements of High Quality Digital Learning’ unveiled by the bipartisan Digital Learning Council…” but where there is no mention as to how detrimental the ‘Ten Elements of High Quality Digital Learning’ will be to local school districts nor of the agenda of former governors Jeb Bush (R-FL) and Bob Wise (D-W.VA) who founded the Digital Learning Council and their focus of funding private for gain enterprises with public education monies.

Under the recent SDE Board of Education passage of emergency rule of 210:15-34-1 that was subsequently rescinded on the 17^th of November so,

“the Board and State Department of Education personnel will draft new rules through the permanent rule making process. Using the routine rule making process, SDE will collaborate with multiple stakeholders — including CCOSA, OSSBA, other educational organizations, legislators, school district leaders and educators across the state”.

This rescinding is due in part to the flood of concerns to the Governor and legislators such as yourself. However local school districts are not without concern because the notice of action to rescind also states,

“The new permanent rules will provide clarification and definitions of supplemental online courses and educational appropriateness as well as guidance and answers to questions regarding local board control, staffing decisions and funding. Because today's action by the board does not delay the requirements of SB 280, SDE will distribute a guidance package to school districts — including the redraft of proposed rules, fact sheets and frequently asked questions.”

The direction of going toward the elements outlined in Digital Learning Now as cited in the attached document seems to be a move away from public education and local control.

Additionally, it appears that our state’s educational leadership is about placing the agendas of Florida, the Bushes, for profit companies, and advocates of public tax dollars funding private schools into the laps of Oklahomans.

In analogous appearance, it seems that an asp is being placed in our laps when we are being led to believe by SDE leadership we are getting a puppy that will grow into a guide dog. When will the hidden agenda of Superintendent Barresi and others be brought to light? When will local control be returned to the communities?

I cannot and will not argue that all school districts in Oklahoma are at their level best, but I strongly believe that our parents and communities are not as ignorant as the SDE purports them to be. Dr. Barresi is on video record before the Oklahoma House Interim Committee on Common Core State Standards that people are not entitled to their own facts. However, throughout her application for waiver from NCLB and many of her other statements are significant statements of facts without supporting data.

For example before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce she states, “Most Oklahomans recognize we’re in crisis in education in our state.” How are and why are we who disagree with the way in which we’re being led not entitled to make statements in disagreement and yet our state leadership can state what so ever they desire? The voice of the populace being heard is one of the greatest fundamentals of our democracy. Because someone is elected by a 4% majority should not make for a policy of absolutism under a cloak of deception.

As taxpayers, as members of a society of separation of church and state, as men and women who are concerned for our children and their future, we must pause and consider the rhetoric and actions of Dr. Barresi and the SDE. Upon taking the necessary reflections, we must begin to take appropriate actions. Actions that are not the agenda of a few but an agenda of the people, for the people, of Oklahoma.

In closing, I ask you to carefully consider another of Dr. Barresi’s statements before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce of April 7, 2011. “And let’s consider the simple reform of tuition tax credits." Federal law offers parents in low-performing schools the opportunity to transfer to another public school. This isn’t true choice. Oklahoma’s reforms will offer parents an array of more choices rather than only the option of transferring from one public school to another.”

Let us strive for openness with two-way communication in providing the greatest opportunities for our children. Let us seek a path toward high achievement where we walk arm-in-arm toward our goals, not being dragged along by the collar and leash of private rules and hidden agendas or prodded by the rod of legislative intimidation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ira Harris, Superintendent

Boise City Public Schools

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?