Answer to Janet Barresi's Interview With Choice Media and Bob Bowdon

A bit over a week ago Superintendent Janet Barresi was video interviewed by Bob Bowdon of Choice Media.  After viewing the interview, I felt it important to discuss the inconsistencies in her interview.

Dr. Barresi begins by discussing the education reform measures she is directing in Oklahoma:

• Implementation of Oklahoma Academic Standards
• A-F grade card 
• Institution of the end of social promotion – children must be reading by 3^rd grade or be held back   
• Continuation of “high stakes” testing out of high school (ACE)

HIGH STAKES TESTING

Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi about her thoughts on testing since the term “high stakes” testing is usually a negative concept.

Dr. Barresi answers by saying she is against “anything that is about drilling and teaching to the test”.  That is why she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “that we’re setting up” which allow teachers to 

”teach in a way to develop student’s application skills…The test will test the student’s application of the knowledge – problem solving – thinking on their feet if you will and so instead of test asking for a correct answer; name the capitols of all of the 8 northeastern states, it’s going to ask a question also of application; of those, which one presents the largest population – or of those, which one of those 8 capitols has shipping – uh, involved – or which – what is a seaport – is any of them a seaport?  And so and that is that application.  Teachers are going to be teaching more then to that application.  And so now the tests become more informative to teachers so they know how to adjust instruction.  Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”

First; Dr. Barresi gives a rather long answer but never addresses Bowdon’s question.  In her reply, she tells us first that she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “we’re setting up”.  Oklahoma’s ‘new’ standards are called “Oklahoma Academic Standards”.  Once at the link for these standards, you find the statement under both math and English L/A standards headings, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for grades K‐12 in June 2010. Pre‐Kindergarten standards are currently undergoing revision. Transitions began in 2010 and will be completed by school districts prior to the 2014‐2015 school year.”

Please note that if you click on the link found for “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under English, L/A you are led to the CommonCore State Standards for English/LA, Literacy in History/Social Studies,Science and Technical Subjects though Dr. Barresi mentions the “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, as though Oklahoma had written individualized, state level standards.  This is also true for the heading “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under the math heading.  When that link is followed, the URL belongs to a PDF labeled, “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”.  So, does Oklahoma have its own “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, or the Common Core?

Secondly; Bowdon’s question about “high stakes” testing came after Dr. Barresi used this same term in application to Oklahoma’s ACE requirements.  Instead of discussing the issue of “high stakes” testing in relation to ACE (which has been a very contentious issue in Oklahoma), Dr. Barresi clearly switches gears and begins discussing the Oklahoma’s Common Core State Standards testing.  Her answer buffs the shine on what she believes are more rigorous tests that will allow a better picture of a student’s ability to apply their knowledge to the questions posed.

Thirdly; Barresi – in her explanation – gives Bowdon a description – NOT of an application process, but a memory skill.  One doesn’t ‘apply’ knowledge to a question that simply asks a student to recall – from memory – which northeastern capitol is a seaport.  Additionally, Oklahoma educators think Dr. Barresi has no concept of how Oklahoma’s tests are actually structured.  In fact, they disagree with her assessment of the state’s current assessments pretty much across the board.

Fourthly; Dr. Barresi then states that ‘high stakes’ tests are ‘more’ informative to teachers – allowing them to better adjust instruction.  As a former teacher, I feel a large majority of teachers would relay the notion that several federated state tests a year will provide no more information (and possibly less) regarding the position of a student in their individual learning arc than many individual classroom level formative tests given after each section of material taught.  

Dr. Barresi finally tilts her head sweetly and lilts, “Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”  Teachers have been testing students inside the walls of their own classrooms since the beginning of classroom instruction.  In recent decades, teachers have dutifully taken 2 weeks or more a year out of classroom instruction time to prepare their students for yearly state examinations.  Testing has been part and parcel of a teacher’s duties since the profession began.  This was a question regarding “high stakes” testing – a different, more intrusive form of testing.  In this case, the ACE testing process can make or break graduation from high school for a student – even those with looming college prospects.  Sadly, teachers will still not be privy to the thoughts explaining Dr. Barresi’s love of “high stakes” testing from this interview.

GETTING OUT OF PARCC

Bowdon tells Dr. Barresi that it seems less expensive to shoulder 1/17^th of the test cost in PARCC than Oklahoma developing their own.  

Barresi explains (eventually) that Oklahoma withdrew from PARCC because of:

• Cost 
• The amount of time students were having to spend on the test
• Federal overreach
• Technology readiness

Essentially Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi how it is less expensive for Oklahoma to develop their own tests.

Barresi responds,

“When you develop a test that’s been in place for decades in Oklahoma that really tests low level questions, it’s very easy and cheap to develop a test like that – when you just ask for answer A,B, C or D.  When you develop a test that has performance items where the student justifies their answer, writes out short answers and…goes…into really showing their understanding, that is a much higher order test – it is much, much more expensive (Bowdon interrupts but Barresi continues) so we knew going to a better test like that that gives better information was gonna cost more.  That’s one of the reasons we participated in this consortium.  Then, after we got in and saw really how the test was being developed in terms of the fine print of the cost of it, we knew then that even with this additional funding – we appreciate that – that really we did not feel responsible for going back to the legislature and asking for another 2 million dollars.  That money needs to be in the classroom.”

First; again Barresi did not answer the question asked.  Dr. Barresi never gives any indication of the differences in cost between ‘state developed’ and PARCC tests – ever.  In fact, after a great deal of searching on the OSDE website, I was unable to come to find any indication of test costs.  So much for accountability.  I saw several articles on the web that discussed PARCC test costs, and though Oklahoma was mentioned in several, none had Oklahoma’s test costs reported.  

Secondly; since Nancy Pelosi uttered her now infamous, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” statement about the Health Care law, many of us have opened our eyes to the fact that this is apparently Standard Operating Procedure for government at all levels.  Most states, for example, passed school code or state law adopting the Common Core Standards before they were even available to read in their final format in order to increase their chances for getting a Race to the Top grant.  Here, we see Barresi admit she jumped into an association with PARCC before she knew what it would cost her state taxpayers.  Certainly all states joined knowing that the federal government had given PARCC an RTT grant to develop the tests and that no tests had been developed at the time they entered their agreement with PARCC.

Thirdly; Page 206 of Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver provides a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Florida Department of Education as the granted PARCC authority and Oklahoma as a Governing member.  Oklahoma received 90K yearly for being a governing member of PARCC – not only that, but according to the MOU, there is NO reason for Oklahoma to have removed itself from PARCC, because Oklahoma’s position in the consortium provided the ability to make changes at any point in the test development progression – ostensibly, that should include costs.  Why leave then, really?

NCLB AND FEDERAL OVERREACH

Dr. Barresi’s admission that PARCC represented too much federal overreach is a head-scratcher.  She says the OSDE was,

“Just getting a little too much push from USDE.  We applied for the waiver (NCLB) and then it’s like, “Look what you asked for” and so we’re pushing back on that, but we thought it was time then that we separated us from that government interaction.  We’re developing an Oklahoma test.”

She then goes on to say she is not too sure,

“Barack Obama - President Obama had the right to do that (create the NCLB waiver) but also, I was in a state dealing with the reality that we had an entire array of reforms we were trying to implement and I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole which was No Child Left Behind accountability.  We needed a better accountability system.”

She continues by saying the feds want to meet with her regarding the tests her state is developing on their own and that there is a possibility the feds will pull back on the waiver.

First; would anyone concerned about federal overreach apply for an NCLB waiver knowing what it said when they applied?  I find this to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.  I’ve read Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver.  It is very specific in its demands and the state is very specific in its complete submission to those demands. 

Page 31 says, “Oklahoma is committed to full implementation of the CCSS and other college and career ready standards, PARCC and other college and career ready assessments…”  Page 32 of the state’s waiver application gives three possibilities for the state in terms of testing 1. Using PARCC tests  2.  Not using PARCC but working on developing own Common Core tests or, 3.  The state isn’t in PARCC but has already developed and begun to “annually administer statewide aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth in reading/language arts and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8…”  The first option was chosen for the waiver.

I would wonder at any possibility of the USDE wanting to meet with Barresi regarding a roll-back of the waiver.  The waiver she signed provided a binding contract between the USDE and the OSDE’s use of PARCC tests.  But then again, who really cares about contracts today anyway?

FYI:  Dr. Barresi has also applied for a RTT Early Learning Challenge grant, several School Improvement Grants, a State Longitudinal Database grant and facilitated statewide 21^st Century Community Learning Center grants.  If you’re not a fan of federal overreach, why keep applying for federal assistance?

Secondly; why say you took an NCLB waiver because the state needed a better accountability system? Oklahoma was already following Jeb Bush down the yellow brick road of the A-F grading system prior to receiving an NCLB waiver.  In fact, the same Jeb Bush that invented the A-F grading system, then got Secretary Duncan to jump on board with using the system as a requirement of an NCLB waiver.  Janet Barresi, as a member of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, is well known for utilizing Jeb Bush’s reforms in Oklahoma on a constant basis – waiver or not.

Thirdly; on page 11 of the NCLB waiver, the OSDE told the USDE they would collaborate with them to evaluate at least one program of 3 required in the waiver to “determine the feasibility and design of the evaluation…[to ensure] the implementation of the chosen program, practice or strategy is consistent with the evaluation design.”  Why do this if you are concerned about federal overreach?  Apparently, as states wishing to apply for a SECOND round of NCLB waivers are finding out, this evaluation – via the collection of data via the state’s own state longitudinal database – is proving to be “mother may I” on steroids.

Frankly, I could go on, but it’s pointless.  Dr. Barresi has done the sort of things described in this rebuttal since she took office three years ago.  In fact, quashing the right of parents to speak at state board meetings, deflecting questions, spinning facts and filibustering are some of her favorite fallbacks.  

Sadly, people in states all across the country will be able to relate to this situation.  Superintendent Barresi is simply another in a long line of educrats in states all over the country - many with little to no education background - hoping to widen their sphere of political influence by riding Jeb Bush’s coattails down the trail of never tried nor proven education ‘reform’ methods which make guinea pigs of our nation’s students every day.

Liar Liar Pants On Fire - Bringing The OSDE Into Reality About Common Core

October 21st, Julia, Lynn and I went to visit the Carter County Republicans.  Chairman Anna Flat asked us to attend and speak about the Common Core.  She wanted to hear both sides of the issue so she also asked the Oklahoma State Department of Education to appear.  Joel Robison, Chief of Staff for Superintendent Barresi came.

As I've said before, we don't have a problem with Joel - we don't have a reason to - he's never been anything but decent to us - we just don't like the direction in which our State Superintendent is taking Oklahoma education.  We also have a problem with the fact that Dr. Barresi herself frequently embellishes the truth, spins fact, regularly talks around questions without answering them and has a tendency to be unkind to dissenters.

One of the biggest "truth embellishment" of late is the fact that Oklahoma has Oklahoma Academic Standards instead of Common Core - well, at least she doesn't mention Common Core now that it has become a political hot potato - she only chooses to talk about "her" new Oklahoma Academic Standards. 

So, to kill two birds with one stone, I put together a brief slide presentation to cover BOTH the lie that Common Core is "state led" (aka local) and the truth about the Oklahoma Academic Standards.  Below are the slides with captions - almost all are screenshots either from Common Core or OSDE websites. (If you can't read the slides, click on them and they will open to original size).

The Common Core website shows that the CCSS are licensced and copywrited by the NGA and CCSSO.  They also provide a liability waiver in case you hate them so both the NGA and CCSSO can say, "Too bad, so sad, we're not to blame for them."  If, however, you want to sue for damages done by using the standards, you'll have to do it in DC!  very local - VERY Oklahoma!

Our RoadMap To the Common Core showing the "four pillars" of education 'reform'.  1.  Common Core State Standards (in blue), 2.  a State Longitudinal Database System, 3.  Using the Turnaround model on failing schools (created by Bill Gates and used in Chicago while Arne Duncan was superintendent there! - also in blue) and, 4.  Teacher accountability measures (yellow).  All four have been dictated by the USDE to state who took the SFSF funds (all 50), Race to the Top grants and/or a No Child Left Behind Waiver.  Gosh, the feds didn't want states to use them, did they?

 

 

So, business leaders met with state governors to create the standards because businesses were complaining they couldn't find any good workers.  What happened to OJT?  Why pay for OJT yourself, if you can get governors to pay for it FOR you through a series of public/private partnerships, tax breaks and a complete overhaul of the nation's education system from a learning model to a workforce training model?

But aren't we led to believe that the CCSSI movement was an 'organic', 'grassroots' education movement that filtered UP from the states in 2010?  This is not the case, obviously.  The CCSSI were being discussed by governors and business leaders for years!

Here is David Coleman - the 'architect' of the CCSSI.  Yes, he worked 5 years in health care, in financial institutions and did PRO BONO (?) work in education?  HE'S writing educational standards?  Interesting.

Dr. Barresi hired John Kramen out of Achieve.  His CV is available for download in the State's NCLB waiver application which can be found here; http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/ok.pdf.

Just a couple screen shots of Ed.gov showing the four pillars of education reform for the Race to the Top grant.  Consequently, many states adopted the Common Core simply to be competitive for the money.  Oklahoma put CCSSI in state law in 2010 via SB2033, but Brad Henry put English/LA, Math, Social Studies and Science 'common core' standards into state law via executive order to increase the states

Mary Fallin - against the wishes of the Republican Party via a Resolution Against the Common Core State Standards - is advocating for the Common Core as NGA Chair.  The RNC resolution was written by Oklahoma's own State Committeewoman Carolyn McClarty and signed by the State Committeeman and Committeewoman of each state.

So, we've gone from Reading, Writing and Arithmetic to Accountability, Achievement and Alignment?

Here, we're told that the OSDE is using Common Core.  CCSSI is being portrayed as an umbrella covering every aspect of Oklahoma Standards.

Letter from Brad Henry indicating that ALL Common Core State Standards were adopted by Oklahoma in order to get a Race to the Top Grant.  The left screen shot is of the OSDE website where the school code is found.  This is a screenshot of that page.  The right is the letter that can be found in Oklahoma's RTT grant on the Ed.gov website.

Screen shot showing that when you click on the URL for the English/LA standards, they go directly to the CCSSI document.

Here are some combined screenshots showing where every link to the English/LA standards go on the OSDE OAS page.

Here are the links to the OAS math standards page.  Note that the link to the Math standards themselves go directly to the CCSSI document.

Here is the screenshot for the OAS Social Studies.  The underlined language and the box in the lower left shows that the Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies include the Common Core State Standards.

This is a comparison of the National Council for Social Studies webpage about the national Social Studies standards and the FAQ page of the CCSSI webpage showing that the CCSSO worked on both standards and they are "state led".

The left is a screen shot from the Oklahoma Academic (C3) Standards Implementation Guide that shows that the OSDE is teaching our Oklahoma children that we live in an "American Constitutional Democracy".  I have asked Constitutional scholars about this term - they do not know what it means.  We live in a Republic - as I have written before.  The right side are screen shots from the National Social Studies standards.  Please note that they ALSO refer to America as a Constitutional Democracy. 

The left side of this slide contains screen shots from the National History Standards.  The right side contains screen shots from the Oklahoma Academic Standards for History.  Please NOTE:  C3 is the same (one c is Citizen, the other is Civic Life), they BOTH have the four main areas as shown.  The national standards have something called an Inquiry Arc and the OAS have something called a 'coherency storyline' - these are essentially the same thing. 

Common Core - An Exercise in Government Expansion

I wrote the following editorial two years ago now, but I feel it still applies. No matter how the Oklahoma Department of Education likes to spin it - Common Core was NOT local at its inception, and will NEVER serve taxpayers and parents at a local level.  It is a construct of business leaders and the nation's governors who felt that schools were creating a crisis in education for the nation simply because business leaders did not want to pay for on the job training - they wanted STATES to pay for it for them in public/private partnership deals and tax credits.  These people did not believe - nor will they ever believe - that parents and communities can solve education issues on their own.  They will always believe they know better than those being served by the institutions they desire to usurp from local control and run for themselves.  To them, taxpayers, parents and education officials are the little people - too stooopid to do it themselves. Sadly, many of us have decided this is the case and simply abdicate our personal and parental authority to the government now on a regular basis - acting like the babies the elites believe we are.

The longer we go into this Common Core exercise, the more we realize how right Thomas Jefferson was when he penned, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."  And so in that spirit...

A number of recent Oklahoman editorials have disparaged those NOT backing  ACE tests and the A-F grading system.  Apparently, those of us begging to differ with these complicated, federally-derived, accountability systems want dumbed down standards that will graduate scores of unemployable public school students all across Oklahoma. 

Not to dodge credit, but that trend likely began in 1965 when the first 31 page, 605 section Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now No Child Left Behind – NCLB) unleashed a tidal wave of federal regulations upon local schools and established the ‘pay for play’ scheme that keeps states towing the line.  Today’s NCLB is 9,601 sections and an untold number of actual printed pages.

Could unchecked growth of federal control over public education be why NAEP reading scores for 17-year olds have increased only one point since 1971 and NAEP math scores for 17-year-olds have increased only two points – over 41 years?  Why have SAT scores in the verbal category dropped 25 points since 1972 and math scores increased by only one?

According to Federal Compliance Works Against Education Policy Goals, “…fiscal and administrative requirements often lead to expensive and time-consuming compliance processes that are not related to improving student achievement or school success.”  Lindsay Burke reports in The Dead Hand of Education Reform that, “…while the feds provided just 7% of education funding, they accounted for 41% of the paperwork burden imposed on the states…”

Santa Fe South High School in Oklahoma City personified this thesis recently when they submitted their NCLB waiver (A-F) paperwork to the SDE only to find out that, while their test scores were fine, they were placed on the failing school list because their paperwork wasn’t filled out properly. 

The day the A-F rules disapproval passed the Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee, Governor Fallin issued a press release supporting the rules and the SDE touted their receipt of nearly 7 million dollars in School Improvement Grants to be used for “turning around” schools graded as ‘failing’ under the NCLB-prescribed A-F grading system.  

My son, in first grade at our local public elementary, doesn’t know his basic math facts or parts of speech, but has had week long units on Global Warming and Rainforest Ecology between his 2 days a week of Art (his is an Arts Integration school).  Recently, his teacher told me she just “doesn’t have time to teach [math facts] to mastery” because she has to teach to the test – the results of which will soon determine whether she keeps her job.

Vilifying those of us who believe education is a local issue best dealt with by parents, district school boards and education officials rather than nameless faceless bureaucrats at the federal – or even state level – will not change the fact that a layered top down bureaucracy will never solve governance problems like a locality.  Government closest to the people (parents) is always best because it is nearest the needs of the people (students/parents) being served and paying for the services (parents).