Restore Oklahoma Public Education

How do you get a REPUBLICAN to push a LIBERAL EDUCATION AGENDA?

2012-02-24T16:13:00.000-08:00

I wish I had written this, alas, I have not. This is from Suzie Schnell, in Utah. It is absolutely fabulous and I hope you spread it far and wide. She has single-handedly identified why it is that REPUBLICANS are falling IN DROVES for a LIBERAL education agenda! Please, again, post, re-post and send to any legislators to which you feel this could apply!

If you are a Progressive Educator or leader on the National/Federal level and want to get your Education Agenda through quickly to as many states as possible,

you need the support of conservative Republicans.

So...

1. You push this agenda through individual "states" instead of at the "federal" level because conservatives like state's rights.

2. You appeal to their desire for "higher standards" because conservatives believe in an educated populace.

3. You talk about modernizing schools with the latest technology and equipment.

4. You partner with private institutions since it appeals to their sense of capitalism and free enterprise.

5. You talk about college and jobs because this is foremost on their minds in a failing economy with failing schools.

6. You hold national conferences to teach these ideas to state and local school boards and get them to buy into it. You give them all the tools they need to bring this into their own states. You start this process years before you actually bring it into the public's view and then you push it through legislation quickly because "Education is in a crisis".

7. You write the national standards, assessments and curriculum through gov't partnered organizations so it doesn't seem like the govt is writing them directly. After all, you know it's illegal for the federal government to do much of it so you let huge corporations like the Bill Gates Foundation do it for them and fund it.

8. You help each State Office of Education write their own bills for implementing this plan by giving them model legislation so all states are coming up with the same laws throughout the land, using the same language, but think they are being independent. The public will believe that each state wrote them independently of the others.

9. You advertise this as a Governor's and State's program to the general public so no one looks behind the curtain.

10. You get as many Republican and conservative legislators and governors to sign on to your agenda using these key words and phrases of "higher standards" and "state initiated", but the best part is that conservatives won't know till it's too late that they are setting up the foundation for a federal takeover of education. Families and citizens don't question these conservative legislators, but trust they are only after state's rights and what is good for the children. Without realizing it, these good legislators have enacted laws to usher in this progressive agenda.

Problems:

1. This whole idea was set up by the Federal Gov't, USOE and dangerous national interests who are working together, like the Bill Gates Foundation, Pearson, Hewlett Foundation and other large private interests set on making billions by partnering with the federal govt, states and local districts for a guaranteed income for years. These Public Private Partnerships (PPP) threaten not only local control, but also real free enterprise for smaller businesses that have not been chosen by the govt for these contracts. What the Federal Gov't cannot legally do, and visa versa, the other partner can accomplish. We have been tricked into thinking this is a locally grown program in each state using local textbook companies, etc.

In Utah, for example, the Dept of Ed has partnered with BYU's McKay School of Education to come up with online curriculum for the state. They are completely funded by the Hewlett Foundation (http://www.hewlett.org/), a global environmentalist and pro-population control organization based in the Bay Area of California, to write online textbooks for the entire state. Math and Science texts will be coming from C K Foundation (http://about.ck12.org/about/), another Bay Area, CA company which highlights their goals of teaching environmentalism, climate change, and global warming in their Probability and Statistics chapter featured on the home page.

2. The next phase in this federal takeover process is to develop Century 21 Community Schools (http://www.communityschools.org/) which will invite more Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Big corporations contract with federal, state and local school entities to go into these community schools full time, 6-7 days a week, and provide services of free healthcare and dental, PreK-12 education, job placement programs, recreation, daycare, 3 meals a day and every service you can think of for the entire family. This has already started in Ogden School District and Ogden's plan is to make every school in it's district a full service community school. Arne Duncan speaks a lot about this plan and thousands of these schools are popping up all over the nation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuO_nB7WY9w) All of this data (healthcare, psychiatry records, academic scores, meals, recreation, etc) will be a part of the state and national data base because these families go to a one-stop community center with every amenity they need. No need to go home or church or extended family.

3. Right now, we're just talking about collecting school records from Pre-K to college to career. That's bad enough. But by setting up extensive data collecting technology, we are easily setting ourselves up for the next step of education when full-service 21st Century Schools will be the growing phenomenon and all that data from all those extra-curricular programs will be included because all these services will be housed together in one place.

4. FERPA, the 1974 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects your children's school records from being seen by anyone but local school officials and parents, has now been changed as of Jan 2012. State and local education authorities are now allowed to share data with other government agencies that are not under their direct control, as long as those other agencies are involved in federal or state supported education programs. http://www.forumfyi.org/files/First_Look_FERPA.pdf. Arne Duncan said in a 2009 speech that he would "push states" into sharing student's private information with research firms.

5. Utah State Office of Education has chosen global leader, Pearson, to set up the "federally funded" data collecting technology we need to implement longitudinal data systems to collect massive and complicated data from our schools. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1999361/utah_state_office_of_education_partners_with_pearson_for_new/

Please look beyond just the phrases "Common Core", "higher standards", and "state-led program" and compare what is really going on. See how Utah is implementing Obama's National Education Goals. Look to see what these bills in Utah are setting up in the bigger scheme of things for the future.

Simple, local and parent-centered are the answers. We must protect our local control of education, putting parents first in the choices they make for their own children.

Thoughtfully,

Susie Schnell

Why Would Legislators Want Our Kids in Public School MORE?

2012-02-14T19:53:00.000-08:00

Several months ago I wrote a blog, "Please Put My Child In School MORE to Learn Less". I chronicled how I'd read Karl Springer's (Superintendent of Oklahoma City Public Schools) idea to increase the number of hours children should be in school. In fact, Springer wanted the Legislature to mandate a seven-hour school day to improve "education standards".

[Education standards. Is there a definition for this phrase? I haven't really been able to find one as it appears to be nebulous and apply to whatever money-grubbing activity or liberty-stealing legislation the speaker intends.]

In the blog I outlined the many things my two children still in public education do during a day that apply to absolutely NOTHING educational (as would be indicated by my title).

Though I am loathe to finish out the school year with the two (especially since our school adopted the absolutely HORRIFYING math curricula, "Everyday Math" - see below), it is certainly a way to keep tabs on the educational nonsense spewing out of even one the most affluent, well-placed elementary schools in the Oklahoma City Public Schools district. For examples, see my posts, "The Zombies Are Coming" (on the global warming nonsense and how it affected my child), and the Pièce de résistance "One Oklahoma Teacher, "Do I Teach To The Test or Teach for Knowledge" (where my youngest son's teacher basically tries to explain why she can't keep my child on a single task long enough to actually master it - basically, I've found, it's my responsibility to do it AFTER school).

So, can you imagine my glee when I found this while reading through the bills assigned to committees for the week - HB3089; Schools; changing the length of the school day; effective date; emergency. The bill was authored by Representative Jason Nelson of the larger Oklahoma City metro area. Guess who argued FOR the bill? That's right - none other than Superintendent Springer.

Peter J. Rudy at Oklahoma Watchdog provided the blow-by-blow discussion on the bill in the Common Education Committee this morning.

Lynn Habluetzel - ROPE Board member - was watching Watchdog's tweets today and forwarded this tweet to me in a text, "Nelson: we’re trying to make value statement as a legislature that we want a longer school day."

What? A VALUE STATEMENT? Wait a minute. I guess I must be wrong on the whole idea of this Constitution thingy. Apparently, the objective of the legislative process is NOT to create freedom for citizens, but to tie them up with mandates and laws to make VALUE STATEMENTS. The only problem here is that my VALUES are apparently not those of the Oklahoma City Public Schools and Representative Nelson.

I think the final sentences in the debate are important here:

Kern: I think there are more fundamental problems in education. This isn’t increasing time teachers would be working. I don’t think this bill is the answer to what we need.

Nelson: there are some things I’ll never understand. We have people concerned we’re mandating we go 6.5 hours. Well we have a mandate for 6 hours right now. Let’s take that away and give districts billions of dollars to districts and let them do what we want. We’re not talking about creating a standard, it’s increasing the standard. We’re talking about establishing a new base so we’re not the bottom of the barrel. To me this is a common sense approach. We’re not micromanaging any more than we are right now.

Clearly - and according to the first hand knowledge I have of my two children - a longer school day will not solve the issue of the mess that has become public education. How Representative Nelson feels this idea is a "common sense approach", "I'll never understand".

Trapping children longer in a building where - no matter how much many teachers want to make sure their kids leave their classrooms schooled in needed subjects;

the curricula school boards adopt are HORRIBLE - and in some cases hurtful,
there are too many outside hour-eaters (assemblies, plays, field trips, etc.) that take time away from actual teaching and study,
teachers have to 'teach to a test' to the extent that they can't teach their children to the level of mastery or the kids won't score well on the tests, but the test scores have to be good to keep the schools AYP number up and eventually to keep from being fired
kids don't get the support they need at home because the family unit has been destroyed and teachers aren't to be babysitters (and simply can't be) - nor schools a home or substitute for family

Fortunately for us, the bill didn't pass in a 4-11 vote (I would like to know the four that voted yes, but the votes have not been posted on the legislative servers).

Unfortunately for our kids, the common sense approaches that will work best for them, don't cost enough money, provide enough kick-backs, elevate anyone's political standing enough or rely on yet another 'program'. Taking off the mandates, letting teachers teach, giving them good resources and concentrating on only Math, Science, Reading, Language Arts and Social Studies, will do the trick. When will we find enough legislators and administrators to concentrate on these factors before themselves? I hesitate to guess, which is why my children will never darken the door of a public school again after this year.

Reviews of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (http://nychold.com/em.html)

AnEvaluation of Selected Mathematics Textbooks, by Wayne Bishop (May1997). Prepared at the request of the Core Knowledge Foundation, thisis a review of 2nd and 4th grade mathematics materials from Sadlier,SRA McGraw-Hill (CMC), Saxon, and Everyday Learning Corporation(Everyday Math). Bishop ranks Everyday Mathematics a distant last.About Everyday Math 2nd grade he writes: "In normal classrooms withnormal teachers, I would characterize these materials as `dangerous.'My impression is that it would be very difficult to be sure thatappropriate material has been covered adequately. One can expect avery high degree of teacher variability. Knowledgeable teachers, wellgrounded in the materials, may be able to pull it off; at least it'sclear from the assessment book that there are some things that thechildren are supposed to know. There is almost no routine practice,although a small amount is built into the activities." The samecriticism is amplified for the fourth grade Everyday Math materials.

PS: here is Lynn's letter to Representative Nelson following the meeting:

Dear Representative Nelson,

I was monitoring the Common Ed committee meeting this morning and was glad your bill HB 3089 failed. Once again I think your intentions maybe good, but too many unintended consequences will occur. Please look beyond the surface problem of "not enough time". I want to comment specifically on your statement:

Nelson: why do we have schools? To educate children and the longer we can do that every day is a good thing.

I refer you to Jenni White's blog she wrote about how they ( public schools) do so much except TEACH the basics.

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2011/10/please-put-my-child-in-school-more-to.html

If the schools would go back to the basics our reading and math scores would go up, which is what everyone seems to want.

Thank you,

Lynn Habluetzel

We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!

2012-02-09T15:26:00.000-08:00

And so, with similar words (I imagine, I wasn't there actually), our state superintendent opened her news conference announcing that she had finally wrangled Oklahoma an NCLB waiver. After all, it has been asserted over and over and over again that President Obama has broken the law by detouring Congress to offer this waiver PRIOR to the successful passage of the reauthorization of NCLB. By extension, then, every superintendent to take a waiver for their state, is using ill-gotten 'gains'.

Though ROPE and a number of different conservative organizations have decried this move (you can find all the relevant literature and commentary here), Dr. Barresi has been stalwart in her insistence that Oklahoma must have this waiver - even going so far as to play 'enforcer' of sorts by making her board sign a 'resolution' saying they would not allow the "repeal of any of these reforms" or it "would result in the nullification of Oklahoma’s waiver..." In the event you've been held at gunpoint by the hombres of Sierra Madre for nearly a year, here are the stipulations for the waiver according to EdWeek,

In order to secure waivers from the law, states have to agree to adopt "college- and career-ready" standards, such as the Common Core State Standards approved by 46 states and the District of Columbia; put in place new systems for evaluating teachers and principals; and come up with aggressive plans to improve the performance of low-performing schools.

This situation would be simply fascinating were it not so absolutely maddening. Here we are, witnessing our 'conservative' superintendent apply for (and now collect) federal money imposing more federal mandates while legislators like Representative John Kline, head of the House Education and Workforce Committee is moving AWAY from federal mandates and control. For Heaven's sake, even the National Governor's Association is backing away from federal control of education,

For instance, NGA doesn't want the federal government to dictate how failing schools should be turned around, dealing yet another blow to the department's four School Improvement Grant models, which just about everyone is down on these days.

And it doesn't want the feds pushing any particular set of standards (pretty interesting for the organization that helped make the Common Core State Standards Initiative a reality.)

And so, yet again, ROPE finds ourselves on the other side of 'conservative' while the state superintendent gets her treasure.

For anyone who wants to look through the NCLB waiver request, it can be found here.

Common Core - Yet ANOTHER Link to Progressive, Global, Socialists!

2012-02-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

Today I found this article, "District Leaders Get Dose of Teaching Common Core". I thought - great, I'll get a look at what many teachers are telling me behind the backs of their superintendents - that it's going to be nearly impossible with all the other stuff they have to do!

Yes, the article touched on the difficulties of getting teachers 'ramped up' to teaching in entirely different way, but it was even more surprising when I saw this,

Gathered for a leadership-network meeting facilitated by the Aspen Institute, the chief academic officers of the 14 participating districts expressed praise for the approach, but deep concerns as well, about providing the type of professional development necessary to deliver it well in their districts. To preserve the frank, problem-sharing nature of the meeting, the Aspen Institute asked that Education Week not quote district leaders by name.

Huh? Why would they not want to be quoted? What is the Aspen Institute anyway? What do THEY have to do with Common Core?

Ahh, I love Betty Peters, my friend from the Alabama State School Board who put THIS article in my inbox today, "Aspen Institute Avalanche". This article talks about how the Institute was going to hire Ron Schiller - NPR's (now former) Foundation President - before James O'Keefe caught on him on tape calling conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Party members "racist" and "gun-toting" - among other things. That's not the issue, however. The issue is the following paragraphs,

In August 2004, according to this article in the liberal New Yorker, “a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy” and included five billionaires who “shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.” The wealthiest of these “hard-core partisans” was George Soros, who had been a “leading crusader for campaign-finance reform.

Soros, through his Open Society Institute, provides support for the Aspen Institute, which runs various activities in support of its stated mission of “foster[ing] enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue.” Among these activities are its “Justice and Society Seminars,” which often have federal judges as participants. The Aspen Institute has waived the steep seminar fee (currently up to $6,950) for participating federal judges, and also has covered their expenses for travel, lodging, and meals.

Well sure, in this era of Republicans touting really nothing more than warmed-over PROGRESSIVE education 'reform' nonsense, THIS takes the cake!

In fact, if you really have any illusions that ASPEN Institute might just be misunderstood, please note their project called, "Project New Beginning" or PNB. Please note that the very first member of the project is listed as, "American Charities for Palestine".

Sadly, many of Oklahoma's (and America's) 'conservative' leadership (Sean Burrage, Glenn Coffee) have been recipients of the Rodel Fellowship - our own Mickey Edwards is in fact its Director. Here is what the scholarship claims,

The Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program seeks to enhance our democracy by identifying and bringing together the nation's most promising young political leaders to explore, through study and conversation, the underlying values and principles of western democracy, the relationship between individuals and their community, and the responsibilities of public leadership; to support and inspire political leaders committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue; and to help America's brightest young leaders achieve their fullest potential in public service.

Clearly, yet another effort/organization in which Republicans have tangled themselves without either awareness or care.

Clearly just another reason to STOP THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE!

PS: here's a little bit from one Bible-believing organization on why the Aspen Institute is so insidiously bad.
PSS: here's a little bit from Axiom for Liberty about how Aspen Institute is involved in identifying American citizens as TERRORISTS

One Oklahoma Teacher, "Do I teach to the test, or teach for knowledge?"

2012-02-03T11:34:00.000-08:00

This post stems from the meeting I had with my 7 year-old's teacher on Teacher Conference night. Well, that's not true, it stems from years of research I've done on public education, but it came to a head in NEON LIGHTS for me last night and I had to share.

I have had three children darken the doors of the same public elementary school from kindergarten. From the beginning of the year, when I began to work with Sam (7) on his homework, I was troubled. The math seemed WAY too fast. I mean, he started with addition, but after three or so short weeks, he started subtraction. I couldn't believe it - he in NO WAY had his addition facts down before subtraction began. Consequently, the MINUTE subtraction began, he was lost. It took hours sometimes to sit with him and explain until he could even get the CONCEPT, let alone actually do the problems himself!

But wait! Several weeks later he actually brought home a math paper where he was to ADD THREE NUMBERS IN A ROW!!!! I simply couldn't believe it. I had to show him how to do it and he got it pretty well actually, but I have a Master's Degree in Biology and my husband is an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER!

After weeks of frustration over this situation, we met the teacher and she began to show us Sam's grades.

"Well, Mrs. Jones (not her real name for obvious reasons), I don't really care that Sam's grades are low. I'm going to be taking he and his sister Betty out at the end of the year to home school anyway - and frankly, I am simply disgusted at the nonsensical speed in which your class is going through math. I don't think Sam's grades are necessarily a reflection of his knowledge base, because he keeps moving on to something else before he's really grasped the subject at hand, so he never knows anything well enough to get really good grades."

Mrs. Jones responds,

"Oh, I know Mrs. White. I hate that. I NEVER get to teach for mastery, I can really only teach to the test and NOW I might have to do that to an even greater degree to keep my job!"

Clearly frustrated, she continued,

"I have been a teacher in OKCPS nearly 20 years. We teachers are all kind of conditioned to just teaching whatever new fad the district puts out, knowing it won't last and we'll have to spend our summers getting trained on something else as soon as a NEW fad comes along. It's the testing that causes so many problems. They keep telling us we have to teach more and more every year it seems. How in the WORLD can I get my kids to develop MASTERY in a subject when we can't spend but more than three weeks on it before I have to move on to something else. But then, I have to teach what's on the test, or the kids scores go down and we all look bad."

THANK GOODNESS EDUCATION IS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS! Public education today is about nothing more than what administrators - some who have never even set foot in a classroom and have no idea what a teacher can or can not do in a set amount of time - SAY it is. "They" implement new programs at the speed of light and expect things out of children and teachers that could only be possible in some parallel universe made up of Einstein-like scholars!

Yes, we want our kids to be the best they can be, but THIS is not the way! Why do you think test scores haven't risen in decades and kids get so frustrated and hate school so much they drop out!? Every administrator wants the newest, cutting edge approach to learning. The only problem is, studies show that the donkey works better than the racehorse! Why does better equate with NEW? Why don't we seem to understand that tried and true methods become "tried and true" because they have been shown to be!

I get so sick and tired of being told that home school students perform better because they have one one one direction at home and their education is catered to them. Come on! Many of us put our kids on lessons and let them go at their own speed - when they get a concept they move on!

Mrs. Jones said, "I don't worry so much about the higher kids because they tend to get stuff anyway, and I don't worry about the lower end kids because many of them will need remediation of some kind anyway. I worry about the kids in the middle! I can't even seem to serve them because even they can't keep up."

She also went on to tell us that next year, the school would be using Everyday Math - the WORST example of fuzzy math curricula in education today!

Well, I wonder...maybe that's the way "THEY" actually want all this testing, and new Standards, and crummy curricula, and constant meddling. The more the kids are confused and the lower the test scores get, the MORE "they" get to justify spending money and staff on programs that 'might' work to 'fix' it! After all, who cares about the kids when they're just a means to an end.

What is HUMAN CAPITAL?

2012-02-01T15:29:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

The article on Human Capital was written in the mid-90's. Before or after you read it, please, please at least open this article, "Common Core: Preparing Globally Competent Citizens" and read how, the Council of Chief State School Officers are developing student global competence which fits with the new Standards. Please ALSO note that the article refers constantly to the ASIA Society - one of the most globalistic, liberalistic organizations in America today.

It would help if we researched organizations involved with "reform" projects of any kind to determine their roots - and therefore their agenda - but we Americans have been dis-educated from that process as well. Please note what ARE considered global competencies:

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

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

During preparation for a workshop on educational policy in 1982, I was asked by the host organization to prepare a glossary of terms pertaining to my presentation. That request seemed simple enough and a reasonable one, so I set about compiling terms related to CBE (Competency-Based Education) (forerunner of Outcome-Based Education and promulgated by the same man Bill Spady), our fad-of-the-moment in educational reformation toward illiteracy in Georgia.

As I said, the task seemed simple enough. However, while still in the "A's" of the alphabet, I developed an overwhelming respect for professional compilers of glossaries. The first word block I encountered was "assessment". Sure it was familiar; we all knew it meant 'test'; but the longer I struggled to apply that definition to CBE the more elusive "assessment's" definition became.

The latest word for 'test' was "instrument" and that proved easy to explain. But, "assessment" was a broader term, "assessment" was the noun form of the verb "assess". What did "assess" actually mean? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had been in use since its development in the latter 1960's. Had we overlooked a change in emphasis by the Federal level of education implied by the use of the word "assessment" that could be significant?

Receiving no help from my small hill of accumulated state department of education materials relating to assessment, I decided to "read the instruction manual": (Webster's New World Dictionary.) Webster's clearly stated:

"assess": 1. to set an estimated value on (property, etc.) for taxation 2. to set the amount of (a tax, fine, damages, etc.) 3. to impose a fine, tax, or special payment on (a person or property) 4. to impose (an amount) as a fine, tax, etc. 5. to estimate or determine the significance, importance, or value of; evaluate.

"assessment": 1. the act of assessing 2. the amount assessed.

This definition disturbed me a little. I had assumed that "assessment" was just the latest educationese for a broad-based test. Had I missed something somewhere? To accomplish the task at hand -- the glossary -- I crafted a definition that read like this:

"Assessment: an estimation; determination of the significance or value of. As used in education, a general term for measuring student progress. Conflict in definition occurs when considering that this is a measurement process that is used to determine the value or significance of a particular outcome in educational performance. Therefore, it is not a true measurement, but a process of assigning value to specific tasks, creating a cumulative score for performance instead of an accurate measurement against a standard."

It sounded good at the time and spoke to the question of "what are we testing?" which was a growing concern due to the nature of Competency-Based Education's life role skills competencies, which were going to dictate our educational goals -- just like "OBE" does today. Even though satisfied to have introduced the idea that there may be a conflict within the definition of "assessment" as an educational term, I was bothered that I could find no definitions in other dictionaries, including legal ones, which did not have primary meanings related to assigning a value for tax purposes. "Assessment" is primarily a legal term; in fact, the use of the word "instrument" could carry a legal connotation as well. Disturbing.

THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING PROCESS

In March of 1984 I had the privilege of giving testimony supporting stringent regulations for the Pupil Privacy Act (the Hatch Amendment) which amended the General Education Provisions Act to offer protection from intrusive questioning, programs, and the record-keeping for parents and students.

Again, preparation for that testimony caused me to review the National Center for Educational Statistics' handbook series known as the "State Educational Records and Reports Series". Specifically, Handbook IIR - the Financial Accounting Handbook - alluded to a "unified accounting system" based on the process known as Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) which was to be used by all school systems. PPBS involves mandated goals and constant adjustment of resources to ensure that goals are met... the system that is still in use today. In testifying, I drew a projected conclusion:

If our financial resource reporting is going to be unified by such a system, then are we not but a step away from unified goals for our educational outcomes? This is assuredly a step toward mandated national curriculum and interstate and interregional tax and financial management revisions... will we not soon be sharing tax resources from region to region as needed to `equalize' educational opportunities and programs deemed `exemplary` or in the `national interest to produce global- minded citizens?'

The longer I thought of "assessment" being the "value determined for tax purposes" and the possibility of cross-regional/state sharing of tax resources, the more concerned I became over the idea that the record-keeping and information-compiling might become so tied to the individual student that "assessment" might have a more malignant potential. We were talking about our children here.

At that point in time there was a growing emphasis on choice and vouchers/tuition tax credits in education. Since with the money flows the control, could this be part of the "assessment" picture? That would tie an individual student moving about in the "choice market" directly to a federal accounting process both financially and educationally due to national standards being proposed. No one seemed to be too worried about it in the 1980's, but it still bothered me.

Over a period of time I shared my concern with close associates -- if "assess" was to "assign a value for tax purposes", then why were we "assessing" children? A theory began to take root and grow in my mind: somehow we were going to allow children's potential worth to society to be measured, and their future life roles would somehow be measured, and their future life roles would be somehow projected, and they would be limited by that assigned worth. What a thought! Could this be possible in the United States [of America]?

HUMAN CAPITAL DEFINED

Later someone sent me pages from a book entitled Human Capital and America's Future, edited by David W. Hornbeck and Lester M. Salamon. The title itself set off alarm bells because of the connection to education shared by many of the contributors, especially Hornbeck. It was now the early 90's and many disturbing things were happening. David Hornbeck was a highly visible change agent responsible for many radical education reforms in states from Kentucky to Iowa and had been a consultant to many more.

Why was Hornbeck focusing on 'human capital'? That had been primarily used in economic and commercial literature. Hornbeck was also identified with changes in "assessment" in the school systems with which he consulted and worked. The book was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 1991 and contains an enlightening list of contributors in addition to Hornbeck: Ernest Boyer; Nancy Barrett; Anthony Carnavale; Sheldon Danziger; Marian Wright Edelman; Scott Fosler; Daniel Greenberg; Jason Jaffras; Arnold Packer; Isabel Sawhill; Marion Pines; Donald Stewart, and Lester Salamon.

The social and political views of "Human Capitol's" line-up of contributors could be the basis of another whole article, but suffice it to say that most of the radical changes toward a managed populus in this country can be reflected among this group of individuals. Weren't some of them involved in the dis-establishing of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and turning it into the Department of Education?

While references to "human capital" have been the fare of business publications for some time, it has only been in the last few years that this term applied to school children. In Hornbeck's chapter in "Human Capital", 'New Paradigm for Action', he outlined the systemic change which must occur to produce the workforce for the future and fulfill our nation's 'human capital' needs. Hornbeck's "new paradigm of action" looked a lot like old "OBE" -- setting specific performance standards and invoking penalties for schools, teachers and students not meeting them:

"If the new comprehensive system is to be outcome-based, careful attention must be paid to 'assessment' strategies. The selection of outcome indicators will be informed by the availability of sound assessment instruments." [emphasis added]

Now here was Hornbeck using "assessment" and "instrument" together instead of a substitute for one or the other -- and he had selected the two terms which carried legal usage definitions. Hornbeck asserted that while the NAEP might be universally available, and portfolio "assessments" (notice the use of both words together) would become popular, "the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is investing time and funds in developing new approaches to assessment." He further stated that while most of the present 'assessment' observations are "related to academic objectives"...

"Similar sensitivity is required in carefully defining appropriate assessment tools in other areas as well. In citizenship... a method should be developed for expressing qualitative aspects of participation activities... a different 'value' could be placed on 'community service'... physical and mental fitness... problems arise as we confront legal and even constitutional issues (self-incrimination, search and seizure)... Perhaps a school system should plan to have all students undergo a "physical exam" in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades as a health counterpart to the academic testing program. Again, the emphasis must be on carefully determining assessment strategies that measure the outcomes to be achieved."

All of this is structured because "incremental change is insufficient. Systems must be radically altered to produce what the nation's economy demands in a work force."

Weren't we supposed to be concerned about the education of school children? This sounded a lot like literature which proposed "full employment" policies -- much like the billboards and signs plastered on public transportation and public buildings in Grenada -- "Work for everyone; everyone working!" -- before the U.S. invasion to overthrow their communist government.

Was this why the Council of Chief State School Officers accepted a contract from the National Center for Educational Statistics to develop what is known as the "SPEEDE ExPRESS? (The Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically of Students and Schools.) This electronic information track can carry the most diverse and extensive information on a student, delivering it to future employers, places of higher education, training centers, health providers (contraceptive histories will be included), the military and a number of other recipients yet to be designated. Then if employers, government and others have input into what should be the outcome of education in this country -- instead of education being academically and informational-based -- then the concept of "assessment as assigning a value" to a child takes on proportions that are certainly Orwellian.

What if your child's "assessed" worth doesn't meet anyone's projected goal? Proponents of the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) are, in truth, fleshing out the skeleton of assigning a value to a person. Without the CIM/CAM in those states adopting the concept a young person will not be able to apply for a job, drive a car, or do many other things which have never before been predicated on governments' conferring a value on a person's worth to society.

The People's Republic of China, a communist country, uses "no conformity" -- "no job" policies to enforce its "one child" policy. Have we understood the direction of these changes? Is this constitutional or moral?

ASSESSING HUMAN VALUE

The next piece to the puzzle of assessment fell into place when my suspicions were confirmed that we really were assessing "value". The August 1993 issue of "Visions", the newsletter of the Education for the Future Initiative sponsored by Pacific Telesis Foundation, was given out at a legislative committee meeting as part of a packet of information on technology in the classroom and school-to-work transition activities. The lead article was Beyond the Bubble with a blurb reading: "Educators are finding that new ways of teaching require new forms of 'assessment'."

On page three there was a column entitled 'Authentic Definitions'. Finally, I thought, I have found an educational publication that will define this word and allay my fears. Sure enough, there was the word: "Assessment - The act or result of judging the 'worth' or 'value' of something or 'someone'.

The worth or value of something or someone?! This was confirmation that educational testing had taken an extreme left turn. It was not comforting to realize that our children were going to be assigned a value based on "acceptable performance behaviors in life-role applications" as proposed in PacTelesis Foundation's 'Authentic Definitions'.

Knowing that

1) Our children would be tracked and that extensively detailed would be electronically compiled and transmitted to select file-users;

2) Information would include or be based on a value level assigned to them contingent upon performance - as a child - of life-role competencies;

3) Value levels could reflect the scale of achievement outlined in the United States Labor Department's 1993 "Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills" [SCANS] -- which encompasses personality traits and private preferences, and

4) The purpose of education has documentably been diverted into workforce training, led me ultimately to the conclusion that indeed the future holds a less than bright prospect for our young people. To be formally assigned a "worth" to society based on your ability as a child to demonstrate that you can perform an "essential skill" should be a foreign concept in a constitutional republic like the one in which we live -- these United States of America.

An example of how these efforts at "assessment" have been perverted to the ends outlined above is given in "Crucial Issues In Testing", edited by Ralph W. Tyler and Richard M. Wolf. This book is one in a series prepared under the auspices of the National Society for the Study of Education, which in 1974 included names like William Spady, John Goodlad, and Robert Havighurst on its governing committee.

On page 98, within an article by Carmen J. Finley (of the American Institute for Research) is a section entitled "Defining Goals versus Comparison With an Average:"

"In the National Assessment program specific objectives or goals are defined and exercises are written which determine how well these goals are being met. For example, in citizenship a major objective is to `Support Rights and Freedoms of All Individuals.' One specific way in which a person might meet this goal is to defend the right of a person with very unpopular views to express his opinion and support the right of `extreme' (political or religious) groups to express their views in public."

One exercise which was written to try to tell whether or not this objective was being met is as follows:

"Below are three statements which make some people angry. Mark each statement as to whether you think a person on radio or TV should or should not be allowed to make these statements: * = Russia is better than the United States. * = Some races of people are better than others. * = It is not necessary to believe in God."

This is the goal-oriented approach. The objectives or goals represent a kind of standard which is considered desirable to achieve. The exercises, if they are good measures, tell to what extent the goals are being achieved. This approach tells very specifically what a person knows or can do.

Jenni's Note:
[THIS IS THE WORDING USED BY THE COMMON CORE TODAY] This article is PRIOR to the Common Core.

I submit that the goals-oriented/performance-based /OBE/assessment approach just outlined tells more than what a child knows or can do. This approach very specifically reveals what a child feels and believes. Remember that "assessments" measure toward predetermined outcomes. Those outcomes represent the judged "worth" or "value" of your children and mine!

With the last election cycle (during the Clinton years) hope swept the country that a conservative majority had exerted itself; changes would be made. As a country we'd be snatched from the brink of economic socialism and potential corporate fascism; and sanity would be restored to the halls of government. Right?

WHEN RIGHT IS LEFT

It just happens that the October 1992 edition of Visions (PacTelesis Foundation newsletter) contained an article entitled "Why Technology?" It began,

"Alvin Toffler, the author of such influential books as "Future Shock" and "The Third Wave", has written that the spread of personal computers is the single most important change in the field of knowledge since the invention of movable type in the 15th century. He goes on to state that knowledge is the key to power in the 21st century -- not mineral rights or military force."

This was the same publication that carried the definitive definition of "assessment". And wasn't this the same Alvin Toffler who wrote "Creating A New American Civilization", which heralds the coming third wave of global culture, published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation and introduced at their 'Cyberspace and the New American Dream' conference in Atlanta last year?

Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, introduced Toffler as his longtime friend and then sat quietly by to hear Toffler say that national sovereignty was a thing of the past and that he was an avowed secularist. These are the stripes of our new "conservative" future?

At the same Cyberspace conference, an array of professionals from many areas of cultural life paraded their contributions to leadership toward the much-touted Third Wave. The spokesperson for education in Progress and Freedom Foundation's lineup was -- and still is -- Lewis J. Perelman, author of "School's Out: A Radical New Formula for the Revitalization of America's Educational System". Perelman advocates what he calls just-in-time learning, privatized public schools, total quality applications, hyperlearning, and many other catchy concepts which are now, of course, getting much attention in the policy debate.

It should be noted that in the Preface to his book Perelman cites Wassily Leontief and B.F. Skinner among those from whom he particularly benefited during his years at Harvard in the 70's. Most interesting since Leontief is the acknowledged expert on management by objectives (MBO) -- the forerunner and companion to PPBS. And Skinner was the American father of behavioral psychology, and mastery learning/operant conditioning -- the foundation for OBE.

These relationships of Perelman's are important because he supplied the connecting piece to complete the puzzle picture of our children's future. Perelman states on page 316 that. . .

"Nostalgic mythology about `local control' should not mask the reality that the state governments have the constitutional authority, call the shots, and pay most of the bill for education. But government, local or otherwise, no longer needs to own and operate school systems or academic institutions."

TAXING HUMAN WORTH

Now, to the heart of Perelman's alternative proposal which forms the future of "conservative" educational policy and expresses "assessment's" future use:

"One possibility would be a 'human capital tax'. The human capital tax might be simply the same as a personal income tax, or might be calculated or ear-marked in a more limited way. Technicalities aside, it's logical that if the government is going to help fund investments in the development of the community's human capital, taking back a share of the resulting gains is a good way to pay for it. In effect, each generation of beneficiaries of such investment pays back some of the benefits it received to the next generation" [value-added tax, ed.] (p. 317)
"We should deal with parents who are 'starving their children's minds' with the same legal remedies we use to deal with parents who are starving their children's bodies. The... media through which a microchoice [voucher] system is provided will give public authorities more accurate information on what individual families and kids are doing than is currently available, making it easier to identify instances of negligence or misuse." (page 318 [emphasis added]
"...there's no good reason why the learner should not be able to purchase services or products from any provider -- whether public or private, in-state or out-of-state." (p. 319)

A VALUE ADDED TAX FOR HUMAN WORTH

There is the framework. A value-added tax process that will "deduct" from a services/education super-voucher a tax for every level of achievement/skill a student achieves -- true 'assessment'. Standards will be rigid and penalties for non-achievement will be enforceable against the student, his parents, and providers of educational services in order to achieve a trained workforce."

The implications for families being disrupted by accusations and prosecutions for Perelman's implied abuse and neglect over "parental starving of children's minds" are startling in their flagrancy. An elaborate and accurate system will track families and students, leaving privacy and confidentiality in the dust. The tax/voucher will follow the student across state and regional boundaries, necessitating a reformulation of tax bases; this could even be extended to foreign sources -- Facilitated by choice and charter school initiatives. (Remember Toffler asserts that national sovereignty is or will soon be a thing of the past. And what about GATT's education provision?)

The World Bank has just announced (Associated Press, "The Des Moines Register", 9/15/95) its new formula for estimating a nation's worth. Ismael Serageldin, World Bank vice president for environmentally sustainable development, stated in 'Monitoring Environmental Progress: A Report on Work in Progress' that the system "for the first time folds a country's people and its natural resources into its overall balance sheet."

While the World Bank projects that its new system of measuring wealth which "attempts to go beyond traditional gauges" and lists "Human Resources: value represented by people's productive capacity" (e.g. education, nutrition) will take years to perfect, I submit that our process of 'assessment' is a giant step in that direction.

I am reminded that in May of 1984 the "Washington Post" published an article entitled "Industrial Policy Urged for GOP." The Institute for Contemporary Studies, "founded by Edwin Meese, Caspar Weinberger and other Reagan Supporters", issued a report that advocated "Republicans shed some of their deep-rooted antipathy to a planned economy." All signals seem to point to the fact that this has indeed happened.

Somewhere in all of this is lost the ability to communicate our culture in an organized way and to teach basic skills that can be used whether cyberspace technology is available or not. Didn't we used to call this "education"? Didn't we believe that our children had some choice in their futures?

When is 'assessment' really 'assessment'? Ernest Boyer, former Director of the Office of Education and Carnegie Foundation director, once said, "To be fully human one must serve

In the future to be fully assessed may mean our Children's worth as a "servant" of the state will be "assigned a value for tax purposes."

America, where are you?

Disclaimer
Email This Article

Open Letter to Rep. Janine Nollan On Common Core and HB 2543

2012-01-27T12:51:00.001-08:00

Rep. Nollan,

We have talked on many occasions about our interest in public education. I know you missed our interim study on the Common Core. I am attaching it here. I ask you to review it carefully and contact me with any questions as we will be attempting to have the Common Core repealed again this year and would appreciate your assistance.

It is important to remember that as Conservatives, we want LESS government, not more. The CCSS will REDUCE our options and choices, not broaden them and ALL public education reform today should be about broadening our choices and giving parents and our state the opportunity to manage education for Oklahoma's children and not have that decided by others who do not live in our beautiful state and do not know our way of life!

In this vein, your bill HB 2543 which forces home school parents such as myself to 'register' my children with the state. Having discussed this with you on a passing basis one time, I know you have personal concerns about home schooling, but I reminded you at that time that what you were describing was a deviant, not the norm. I urge you to read my blog where I recount Charlie Meadows experience as a judge for the Oklahoma Home School Speech and Debate contest.

I ask you to please look further and deeper into home school. Do NOT penalize those of us who want to educate our children at home because there are some that take advantage of our freedoms but do not. Reducing the freedoms of others is NOT the way to insure the safety of children. Once government begins to oversee EVERY aspect of our lives - and we are well on our way toward that situation today - ALL freedom will be lost. You must, as did our Founders, believe in the resilience and autonomy of our families in the face of government and allow those to fail who would fail and those who would succeed to do so.

God bless your efforts and thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you on this issue. OCHEC has already warned their membership of your bill. Please assure us all that you will drop this bill and work outside the system of government, inside the home school movement, to advocate for best practices in home school environments.

Very Sincerely,

Jenni White

President, Restore Oklahoma Public Education

Deception, NOT Excellence in Oklahoma Education

2012-01-27T10:14:00.000-08:00

Or…Short MemoriesAllow Business As Usual in Public School ‘Reform’

How would you feel if I told you that taxpayers are payingthe salary for a man at the Department of Education who committed voter fraudin a school board election?

Many conservatives were astounded when our new REPUBLICANState Superintendent of Education, Janet Barresi hired the lobbyist for the OklahomaEducation Association (OEA – Oklahoma’s branch of national NEA) as her chief ofstaff. In fact, while I have writtenmany a blog detailing ROPE’s disagreements and frustrations with Dr. Barresi’spolicies from a Conservative perspective, even we Conservatives understandpublic education MUST be a particularly bi-partisan issue. The move to hire Mr.Robison, however, simply didn’t pass the smell test.

What I found recently, issimply MIND BOGGLING, and explains why.

April 12^th, 1988 framed a particularly divisiveschool board election in Oklahoma City Public Schools. Arthur Stellar, then-OKC Public Schools (OKCPS)Superintendent, had recently been given a $6,200 annual pay and benefitsincrease by existing school board members.

This did not sit well with the OCFT (Oklahoma CityFederation of Teachers – local arm of the American Federation of Teachers) whovowed to defeat the three incumbent board members up for reelection thatyear. In addition, the OKCPS teachers wouldbe deciding their union of representation May 18. The OCFT had held bargainingrights for teachers since 1977, surviving four previous challenges from rivalunion OEA-OKC, and teachers would once again be deciding their fate in mereweeks.

Betty Hill, sitting President of the Board (general managerof Jim Hill Heating and Cooling Co. at the time), was the only one of the threewho chose to run under these conditions. Her opponent was OCFT-endorsed, JesseIsbell, a Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Employee.

Isbell received 437 district votes. Hill’s total was 305.This forced a runoff election which was to be held on May 3, 1988.

Elections for districts 4 and 5 resulted in elections forOCFT-endorsed candidates, indicating little more than a planned union takeoverof the board.

BUT WAIT! Ted Metscher, president of the OCFT and JoelRobison, president of the state AFT (and a physical education teacher withinthe system) were BOTH found to have voted in the April election while LIVINGOUTSIDE THE OKC public school district! Both men were listed on the pollingrecord for Mark Twain Elementary School. Both men listed the business office ofthe OKFT as their addresses, though Metscher lived in Norman and Robison inBethany.

Oklahoma law requires that voters list their home addresses,and the Oklahoma County prosecutor at the time (), publically stated that usinga business address to register a vote was a violation of both misdemeanor and felony laws.

Both men actually admitted to voting ILLEGALLY, citing theirvoter fraud as simple “mistake”.

Metscher was quoted as saying, “My statement is it is amistake and it’s been corrected. I’m reregistered and I’m sorry.”

Robison said, “I’mnot going to say I didn’t realize. It was just a mistake.”

Union members ALSO committing voter fraud in the electionwere Joel Robison’s wife, Donna (aspecial education teacher at Classen Fifth-Grade Center), and Georgia Ianello,the former head of the OCFT (who lived in the Putnam City School district).

Though the OCFT placed information in teachers’ schoolmailboxes BEFORE the election including individual district maps, 35 people wholived outside the boundary lines for District 3 voted in that election,including 8 Oklahoma City schoolteachers, and one principal.

As one commentary in the Oklahoman stated (April 28, 1988), “…itis incredible that people involved in educating children should demonstrateignorance of, or perhaps disdain for, such a fundamental principle of thedemocratic process as the sanctity of the vote. With that caliber of unionleadership, it is not hard to imagine the kind of school board Oklahoma Citywould have if it should come totally under union control.”

By April 30^th, Both Metscher and Robison had resignedtheir AFT posts and lost their union salaries as the OSBI began to investigate “voterregistration fraud”.

Betty Hill won re-election to her post in District 3, May 3with 53% of the vote.

May 18^th, OKCPS teachers elected OEA-OKC torepresent them as their bargaining agent.

In early June, a more than 230-page OSBI report focused onthe actions of Robison and his wife, Donna, Metscher and Ianello was deliveredto the district attorney’s office allowing OK County DA Robert Macy to filecriminal charges. Though all four were found to have fraudulently cast theirvotes in the April 12^th election, all were accused only of themisdemeanor charge of “willfully and knowingly” voting illegally in an OKCPSelection. The maximum punishment was to be 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.Arthur Stellar, OKCPS then-Superintendent explained that OKCPS actions “couldrun the gamut from an oral reprimand to termination,” but also indicated thatno action would be taken against the teachers until the outcome of the case hadbeen determined.

Macy’s decision frustrated many, including Hill and then-OKCPSboard President Kay Floyd who said, “I worry about the message that sends tokids, the public, everybody…I have a problem with them being in the classroom.”

The second week of July, Robison, his wife Donna, andIanello faced their first court appearances on their misdemeanor charges.

In August, both Joel and Donna Robison had resigned theirteaching positions and moved to Wichita, Kansas.

By October 18, 1988, the Robisons were given each a 30-daysuspended sentence and fined $1,000 (the maximum fine allowed) after reachingan agreement with prosecutors. Each wrote in a court affidavit: “I voted in aschool election in a district or precinct in which I did not reside.”

Today, after serving many years as the Chief Lobbyist forOEA, Joel Robison, a man convicted of voter fraud in a school board electiontainted by overt union dealings, is the Chief of Staff for the Oklahoma StateSuperintendent.

Yes, all of us have made/will make mistakes in our lives.Yes, certainly as a Christian one should extend grace and forgiveness. Yes,those who make mistakes must go on to lead their lives in a fruitful,meaningful way and we must allow them to do so.

Mr. Robison could have continued anywhere as a physicaleducation teacher, yet he came back to Oklahoma, switched union allegiance,continued on in union employ and was then put in a position to lobby on behalfof ALL Oklahoma taxpayers for issues affecting our children in public school. Mr. Robison broke the public trust and is now helping to oversee the agency charged with KEEPING the public trust.

We think THAT is stepping over the line.

Resources available from the NewsOk archives under thefollowing titles:

Teachers’ Union Officials Crash School Election, Chris Brawley,April 27, 1988

Records Show 35 Crossed School Election Boundaries, ChrisBrawley, Chip Minty, April 27, 1988

Bad Omen for School Board, Editorial, April 28, 1988

OSBI Opens City School Vote Probe, Chris Brawley, April 28, 1988

Oklahoma School Board Candidate Undaunted by Suspect Votes,Chris Casteel, April 29, 1988

More Ineligible School Voters Named, Chris Brawley, April 30,1988

Runoff Vote to End Hot School Contest, Chris Brawley, May 2,1988

Union Blameless, Leader Claims, Chris Brawley, May3, 1988

School Board President Re-Elected, Chris Brawley, May 4, 1988

State Official Urges Revision of School Election Laws, ChrisBrawley, May 9, 1988

Unions Seeking Backers in City’s School System Teachers, SupportPersonnel to Choose, Chris Brawley, May 15, 1988

Teacher Union Presidents Quit After Probe Starts, Chris Brawley,April 30, 1988

OSBI Files Report on Possible Fraud, Chris Brawley, June 12, 1988

Criminal Charges Planned in School Election Fraud Probe, NolanClay, July 6, 1988

Illegal Voting Charge Filed on Teachers, Chris Brawley, NolanClay, July 8, 1988

3 Teachers in Court on Election Charges, Editorial, July 12,1988

Vote Fraud Suspect Unaware of Restrictions, Attorney Says, July16, 1988

Board Member Concerned Over Teachers’ Jobs, Chris Brawley,September 1, 1988

Jury to Hear Case Against City Teachers, Nolan Clay, September23, 1988

Teachers Enter Pleas of Guilty in Voting Case, Nolan Clay,October 18, 1988

Ex-Teachers Fined for Illegal Voting, Nolan Clay, October 14,1988

Teachers Should Accept Blame, Editorial, October 21, 1988

Teachers Disciplined Confidentially, Chris Brawley, November 1, 1988

ESEA Reauthorization...Does It Even Matter When Obama Can Go Around Congress?

2012-01-22T16:01:00.000-08:00

Because Congress is to renew the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) every five (5) years (ostensibly), there has been recent debate in Congress surrounding this issue. Well, no, I lied.

There really has been very little debate because, as many of you know, our President governs by Executive Order (translated through quotes by Veruca Salt, "I want it NOW!" and Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king!") and does whatever he wants without the bother of consulting the Congress of the People.

The ESEA is no different.

The roots of the ESEA begin with Lyndon Baines Johnson's War On Poverty in 1965. LBJ - a presidential usurper with no real aspirations for the country but his own (and as such created Devil Deals with every liberal Democrat and Progressive he could find to get himself into office) was so pleased with himself over the first five Titles, he added two more in 1967.

Still and all, the law giving us the now infamous first ESEA numbered only 31 pages, and contained these words in the second to the last paragraph,

Federal Control of Education Prohibited
Sec. 604. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construedto authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United Statesto exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, programof instruction, administration or personnel of any educational institution orschool system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or otherprinted or published instructional materials by any educational institution orschool system.

Other than Ronald Reagan, who actually upset critics and supporters alike by threatening to do away with the newly-formed federal Department of Education, every president since LBJ has considered the ESEA nothing more than part and parcel of the fabric of America, re-constructing and re-naming it as though part of their job description. Historically, even Republican presidents - supposedly to be more of the Reaganesque view that, "Education is the principal responsibility of local school systems, teachers, parents, citizen boards, and state governments" - have added more federal regulations to the ESEA, giving it an ever-increasing role over the states in a near shattering of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

In fact, it is the contention of one of Oklahoma's Constitutional attorneys, after considerable study, that Congress has spent the decades since inception of the ESEA, eroding the rights of the states once upheld in school law, leaving citizens, school boards, and state legislatures, with little to do now but kowtow to FEDERAL school law.

Wow, have we come a long way in American education reform. Today's ESEA - termed by George W. Bush as the No Child Left Behind Act - has it's OWN webpage on the White House servers where it has over nine THOUSAND more sections than the original. My how government does grow when watered by those with little to no knowledge, or regard, of the Constitution.

Though apparently everybody hates NCLB, it was supposed to have been re-authorized by President Bush in 2007. Due to a number of factors, including the 2008 presidential election, the passing of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman, Ted Kennedy, in 2009, and the Republican rout of the House in 2010, NCLB re-authorization has found itself continually put 'on hold'.

Though Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, began telling the nation in late 2009,

More than any other issue, education is the civil rights issue of our generation and it can't wait—because tomorrow won't wait—the world won't wait—and our children won't wait.

it wasn't until February, 2010, that NCLB moved back to the national radar screen when President Obama called for its re-authorization, indicating he would integrate at least six new policies of his own, including continued Race to the Top incentives.

Since then, our president - given his propensity to give away the hard earned cash of Americans - has had to concern himself more with the more pressing "George-Bush-Caused" issue of national economic failure, and a deeply divided Congress not particularly interested in coming into agreement on any NCLB action.

These months of inaction have not sat well with our President, however, and he finally stepped beyond "can't wait" to "won't wait" in September of 2011, when he elevated himself from President to King with the words,

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.”

And so was born, the recipe for a little Arne Duncan/Barrack Obama confection called the "NCLB Waiver".

This "Waiver" allows states to:

escape the 2014 100% proficiency standard,
receive relief from the accountability standards for "failing" schools
receive flexibility in using federal funds to meet their needs under NCLB

In return, the states who take a waiver will be "strong armed" into:

transitioning to College- and Career-Ready Standards and Assessments (Common Core State Standards)
establishing a differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system that gives credit for progress towards college- and career-readiness
setting basic guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems

Aren't these the SAME exact reforms the administration has been pushing with their taxpayer-money-fueled-giveaway-bonanza Race to The Top?

Why the rush? Why can't the President wait for Congress to act?

One major reason, really; at the centerpiece of the NCLB legislation was that little pie-in-the-sky notion that ALL children in ALL states would, after essentially being coached to respond to a series of tests, become 100% proficient in math and reading by the year 2014 (as deemed by NCLB's measuring stick, AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress).

Though probably readily obvious to you and I that no state would be able to meet those kinds of standards - ever - what happens to states when 2014 comes WITHOUT 100% proficiency? A whole range of 'sanctions' can occur, from getting less money to more money to a complete takeover of the school by the state. No beheadings, no draw-and-quarterings - just a whole lot of bureaucratic nonsense based on bureaucratic nonsense.

So why, then, would the President choose to go around a "do nothing" Congress in what essentially amounts to an NCLB "statutory bypass" - a re-write of existing law without the law-making body of the United States present in the room?

Many have pondered that notion and many are concerned.

First of all, the argument advanced FOR waivers seem particularly disingenuous. In support of the necessity of a waiver - over waiting for Congress to reform the law - Arne Duncan has (or Arnius Duncanus as he has been called by Checker Finn) told the media that 80% of all schools in the US could miss AYP, illusorily indicating the havoc this would wreak in Departments of Education all over the union.

Though the number of schools missing AYP has been steadily increasing since the beginning of NCLB, Duncan's figure has since not only been called into question, but even been referred to as an "estimate as hype intended to scare Congress into embracing Obama's (waiver) plan".

Second of all, there is a legitimate question about the legality of this waiver process. It is true that waivers have been granted by presidential administrations a number of times for a number of different reasons. There is a big difference, however, among waivers given to states to advance Medicaid and welfare reform, and Duncan's waiver which grants state waivers conditional on compliance with a particular reform agenda that is dramatically different from EXISTING law.

Senator Marco Rubio, in a letter to Arne Duncan, has said the following,

“Our principal concern is that the Executive branch does not possess the authority to force states into compliance with administration-backed reforms instituted through the issuance of waivers."

“We acknowledge that NCLB allows the Secretary to grant waivers for existing provisions under the law, but nowhere does the law authorize waivers in exchange for the adoption of administration-preferred policies.”

“This initiative is an overstep of authority that undermines exiting law, and violates the constitutional separation of powers. The responsibility for legislating lies with Congress, and forcing policy reforms through NCLB waivers violates this most basic of constitutional structures.”

Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, Rubio is not the only one making these assertions. (Look Out Volunteerism! Here They Come Again, Duncan's Backdoor Blueprint Strategy, President Obama Mistakes Bi-Partisan Distaste for NCLB for a Mandate to Rewrite,)

Could it be that the reason for the rush - for "scaring" Congress into accepting NCLB waivers instead of a re-write of the law - is just another way to get states to adopt national curriculum and testing (originally illegal by the first ESEA) before Congress can act to re-write the existing law to stipulate against that?

It is interesting that only ONE document read for this paper mentions that allowing each state to simply amend their existing ESEA accountability plans would not necessitate a waiver request, or require the states to meet any new requirements associated with the NCLB waivers.

Additionally, not only has the administration proposed NCLB waivers, but now WAIVERS for the WAIVERS! So, if you're a state that can't get all your ducks in a row to apply for a waiver, you can apply for a waiver from meeting the deadline to apply for a waiver. It certainly does seem as though the administration is offering ALL possible 'voluntary' routes to their end game of Common Core, teacher evaluation and accountability.

Representatives John Kline (R) of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Tom Harkin (D) of the Senate Education Committee have both indicated concerns about NCLB waivers being "premature" and a tact that "bypasses the legislative process". Additionally, Representative Kline has expressed concern over the need to revamp current school law and allow states to command their own educational destiny.

Toward this end, Kline has produced draft legislation for an NCLB re-write, made up of two bills:

The Student Success Act effectively counters many of the concerns raised with the Duncan/Obama centralization of education by returning power and money back to the states to administer in the way they best see fit - scaling back the federal role in education. (Summary here)
The Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act; which, while increasing school choice and eliminating unnecessary and ineffective federal programs, also delves into the area of teacher 'effectiveness', an issue best left to local districts/schools. (Summary here)

It seems readily apparent from this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink examination of NCLB, citizens must become EXTREMELY well-versed in this issue if the federal footprint on our children's education is to be reduced. Fortunately, ALL Republican candidates for president have indicated their desire to scrap or severely reduce the influence of the federal government on education once elected. This year, we must make it our duty as taxpayers and voters to support and vote for those candidates best prepared to usher in a new era of public education funded by the state and managed locally by the parents that support them.

Here in Oklahoma, Superintendent of Schools, Janet Barresi not only applied for an NCLB waiver but indicated she would do so nearly immediately after Duncan's announcement. Recently she has received a "positive response" from the Department of Education for her effort, though ROPE has asked both she and our Governor, Mary Fallin, not to apply based on our research.

It is a constant frustration for ROPE to know that while both women (Barresi and Fallin), ran under the banner of "Conservative" (and in fact supported them based on their assertions) both have been willing to run to the Federal government with their hands out time and time and time again. Those of us who are actual Conservatives, and who know the Oklahoma Republican platform regarding education, must hold our Governor and our Superintendent accountable for their actions. If we can not - if we do not - our control over what our kids are supposed to "learn and know" will be held above our heads at the federal level where we can't possibly influence it, while they jam their hands in our pockets to pay for it.

Further review of the NCLB literature can be found here.

Home School Speech and Debate Contest - A Review

2012-01-16T13:27:00.000-08:00

Below is the unadulterated post made in Charlie Meadow's OCPAC email for the week of 1/16.

I wanted to re-post his post simply because of the fact that - even when I speak about home schooling to Republican lawmakers - I am often greeted with some form of horror story. It seems - just as with most things I suppose - people are only willing to (or do) remember the 1% of ANY subject and that's usually the 1% that made them upset/mad/uncomfortable, etc.

In fact, I remember speaking with Representative Janine Noland at the Capitol one day. Home school was mentioned in that conversation somehow, and she proceeded to tell me that she isn't sure about home schooling because she knows of a child who has been taken out of school by his crack-addicted parents and receives no schooling at all at home now and how awful that is. It frustrates her that this child could ultimately fail in life and land on the public dole.

Well sure that's awful and I feel sorry for that kid - and his parents - and I understand her frustration, but isn't it ultimately a PARENT'S prerogative as to how their child/children is/are schooled? If we are truly Conservative (and/or Republican) we must, ultimately, fight for the rights of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit. I would, in fact, have to argue that because of the amount of welfare, and other subsidies, available to struggling people/families today, there's no actual impetus for a parent to attempt to really parent their children. I mean, why should they if the state is going to step in and provide willing support at any stage of the process?

Why don't we quit subsidizing failure and give parents ultimate REPONSIBILILITY for their children and see how quickly they assume that job. It's amazing how fast the prospect and/or actuality of failure causes changes in human nature. We just don't see that much anymore because we quit allowing failure. Today, failure is a bad word and ultimately unavailable as an option for those that TRULY need to understand its lessons.

At any rate, I digress as I mainly wanted to make Charlie's commentary available for even more public consumption. If you know of anyone who seems squeamish about the prospect of home schooling/home schoolers, please, pass this blog on!

++ HOME SCHOOL DEBATE AND SPEECH CONTEST

I had the opportunity and privilege to be a judge this past Thursday
and Friday evenings as well as Saturday morning for the Oklahoma-Texas
regional qualifier round for a national home school speech and debate
tournament. With somewhere over 200 students entered, it was an
amazing experience.

Thursday evening I was judging biographical speeches. These speeches
had a maximum time limit of 10 minutes with the speeches having to be
prepared and memorized by the students. The first student did a 9
minute speech about Karl Marx and the effects that his ideas have had
upon the world over the past 160 years. I was particularly impressed
as I would guess 7 out of 10 people 25 and under who were educated in
the government schools have never heard of Marx, and then of the 3 who
might have heard of him, they couldn’t tell you much about him. Don’t
believe me? Start asking anyone you see 25 and under if they have ever
heard of Marx. Other speeches were about Sigmund Freud, Al Capone, one
young lady gave a compelling speech about her great grandfather who
was a heavy bomber pilot in WW II.

On Friday evening I was judging impromptu speeches which had a maximum
time limit of 7 minutes. The young people were given a list of topics
then they had 30 minutes to research and prepare a speech. They were
allowed to use notes on a 3X5 index card, but no electronic devices.
What were some of the topics chosen? One speech was about the question
of whether or not Japan was decommissioning their nuclear power
capabilities too quickly? Another was about Iran’s capabilities to
prohibit the flow of crude out of the Arabian Sea? Then there was a
speech about the possibilities of Iraq being able to prevent sectarian
violence without outside help? This is just a sampling of the type of
difficult speeches which had to be delivered. These kids did an
incredible job.

Then on Saturday, I had a brief orientation for judging debates.
Having never been a contestant or trained regarding formal debate
contests, my only hope is that the team I didn’t pick as a winner were
not thrown to the lions! Having been active in Toastmasters for about
3 years, I was very comfortable judging speeches, but a formal debate
was a challenge for me to accurately score such an event.

Bottom line, these young home schooled kids, I would guess they were
between 12 and 18, were an outstanding example of the good job their
parents are doing in the training-up of their children. Most of these
young people will go on the accomplish a great deal in life and make
outstanding parents and citizens. This was the first time this
tournament has been held in Oklahoma. Several OCPAC members served as
judges, if we are fortunate enough to have it in OKC again, I would
suggest as many folks as possible serve as judges. It will give you
real hope for the future.

ROPE Endorses Crystal Hodges for OKC School Board District 4 - Here's WHY!

2012-01-12T16:22:00.001-08:00

February 14th, Oklahoma will vote on school board races across the state. February you say? Isn't that a fairly cold month here in Oklahoma - making any but the firmly ideological and/or patriotic sure NOT to go to the polls? Of course! Partly because of this factor, school board races tend to suffer from lack of turnout, at times causing school board seats to turn on less than 60 votes.

Unfortunately, school board races aren't deemed ‘sexy’ by the media. School board elections rarely gain much media attention and usually fly so far under the radar that many citizens have no idea a school board race is even ensuing in their neighborhood (district) at all - ever.

ROPE has recognized these frustrations from our beginnings. Last year we assisted both Piedmont and Edmond with school board candidate forums, in attempt to bring light to the process.

This year, we would like you to be aware of a particular school board race here in Oklahoma City. It is the Oklahoma City School Board seat in district number 4 previously held by Steve Schafer. Here is the map you can use to determine whether or not you reside in district 4.

As you can read in this article from the Oklahoman covering a recent candidate forum held by Friends of Egemere, there are three candidates running for this particular seat; Patrick Gaines, Laura A. Massenat and Crystal Hodges. As you can imagine, we have done a bit of research on these three candidates and we are happy to share that information with you.

All three candidates are registered with the County Election Board as "Republican", so this should be a very difficult race to judge, right? Well, not so fast. There are, some could say, EXTREME differences among the three Republican candidates in this race.

Let's start with Patrick Gaines.

Mr. Gaines is the owner and proprietor of Gaines Government Services, LLC - a local lobbying firm. Mr. Gaines is a registered lobbyist in Oklahoma for medical and insurance providers. He has a candidate Facebook page where he can be seen with Representative (and candidate for SENATE) Al McAffrey. Mr. Gaines also has an Al McAffrey For Senate sign in his front yard as can be evidenced here:

Here is a screen shot from the Al McAffrey For Senate webpage:

While Al is "FIGHTING EVERYDAY FOR OUR PROGRESSIVE VALUES", ROPE continues to fight AGAINST his progressive values – particularly in education.

Please also note McAffrey’s voting history, where he voted AGAINST preventing the use of Sharia law in Oklahoma court cases (against the will of 70% of Oklahoma voters) and the repeal of collective bargaining requirements for cities (which continue to cost Oklahoma taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars OUTSIDE what we pay for public services themselves.)

I don’t know about you, but my momma used to tell me, "You are known by your associates".

Yes, we should be cordial to all people and definitely attempt to hear all sides of an issue. Yes, school board races are considered non-partisan (which is how Progressives took control of school boards under the radar long ago). However, when one person says one thing, “I’m a Republican”, and acts another way by promoting the candidacy of a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, (outside his job as lobbyist which requires him to elicit support from both sides of the isle) while also publicly appreciating that PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT’S support for his campaign, ALL voters should be concerned.

In that case, we can glean the following about Patrick Gaines:

He is a registered Republican backing a Progressive Democrat for Senate.
He has had this self-same Progressive Democrat at one of his fundraisers as evidenced on his school board candidate Facebook page where he is happy to tell the world that this Progressive Democrat supports his school board candidacy.
Patrick Gaines is a lobbyist. “To lobby”, according to Merriam-Webster, is: to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action.

Thus, we could conclude that Patrick Gaines will lobby the Oklahoma City School Board (as a board member) toward more Progressive Democrat ideals.

Let's now turn our attention to Laura A. Massenat:

Mrs. Massenat has, to her credit, been very active at the Oklahoma City School Board meetings where she frequently “lobbies” for more nutritious lunches. Mrs. Massenat is also registered with the County Election Board as a Republican and also has a candidate Facebook page where she appears with Al McAffrey AND Oklahoma City Councilman Ed Shadid at a recent campaign fund raiser.

For the uninitiated, Ed Shadid has been one of the more ‘controversial’ councilmen on the Oklahoma City Council. Though he has thankfully attempted to stand firm in the face of the cronyism that IS the Oklahoma City Council, he is also on record as a supporter of Agenda 21-based incentives such as “preventing urban sprawl”. In a blog written last June, he states,

“As social beings we are designed to function “as part of a herd” as my mentor, Dr. Billy Stout, frequently reminds me.”

WHAT?! Sorry, I don’t baaaa during any part of my day thank you, and I am – like a lot of you – more likely to kick the sheepdog as run with the pack away from him!

What about Mrs. Massenat’s ideas on school function or programming? A recent poll posted to her Facebook page can give us some idea of her thoughts.

Granted, the poll was peopled with votes from Facebook ‘friends’ and certainly can’t be construed as a statistical poll of any kind, but if her constituents are more concerned about school lunch choices than how often kids are tested and to what/for what result, how will actual issues dealing with the education (or un-education) of Oklahoma City district 4 kids fit into her agenda?

This question, combined with the issue of her political supporters, certainly raises a lot of concerns. Thus, we would be unable to consider Laura Massanat’s candidacy for the position of school board member.

This leads me to Crystal Hodges, who, as you might imagine, ROPE endorses wholeheartedly for this seat.

Crystal is a former Navy Nuclear Electronic technician who received a degree in Elementary Education following her honorable discharge from service. She and her husband Peter have 3 children whom Crystal schools at home. You can read more about Crystal’s thoughts and qualifications on the “about me” section of her candidate Facebook page.

Not unbelievably, concerns have been expressed about the legitimacy of Crystal’s candidacy simply because of the fact that Crystal chooses to school her children at home. In fact, it has even been posited that Crystal should not be ALLOWED to sit on the school board in her district for this reason. Please, allow me to make a few points here:

· Home schoolers (such as me) often choose to opt their children out of public school for religious reasons. Many of us prefer to school our children using a Biblical world view which, sadly, has not been available in public schools since 1965.

· Many home schoolers (such as Crystal and I) often either have education backgrounds themselves, or take part in a co-op or other program to assist in the schooling of their children (our family, for example, participates in a local Classical Conversations program).

· Many home schoolers (such as Crystal and I) have advanced degrees - as evidenced in a very large study done on nearly 12 thousand home school families in 1998.

· Like my own sister, and others who choose parochial and/or private schooling, home schooler’s PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO FUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS in their neighborhood and across the state of Oklahoma though they do not use the services for which they pay. To say that a home schooler can NOT occupy a school board seat in their district is tantamount to consigning these individuals to TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

· Home schoolers are often more aware of the issues surrounding public education than those parents whose children attend public school simply because we have studied the issue prior to choosing a method of schooling for our children.

Consequently, due to Crystal’s outstanding qualifications and experience – and the obvious concerns about her opponents – ROPE has chosen to endorse Crystal Hodges for the Oklahoma City Public Schools District #4 Board of Education seat.

We ask YOU to do whatever you can to support her as well!

Who's Really Oppressing OWSers?

2012-01-04T08:13:00.000-08:00

By the way, I hope everyone had a very happy and enjoyable Christmas holiday. I certainly did, but it sped by at an unimaginable - breakneck, even - pace. Now, with my husband back at work and my kids back at their schooling, I can again, think my thoughts out loud.

Today, I received an email from a man who has been a college professor. He was commenting on an article, "Queer and Then?" published in the Chronicles of Higher Education.

After commenting on how generally awful today's colleges are, he says,

You do not fix academia by bashing academics in general. You fix it by getting society to work right.

I tend to agree.

My father is a journalism professor at a big state college. He is a WONDERFUL professor and, at 77 years of age, gets better reviews than any of the younger profs! He is no pushover and certainly in no way puts up, or commiserates with, the liberal/progressive profs on campus, which puts him in the DEFINITE MINORITY!

For the record, I'm neither horrified by this article, nor the journal in which it was published.

I AM horrified that this garbage is allowed on campuses paid for by unsuspecting taxpayers and parents who choose to pay for their student's education without continuing to parent that student dependent.

If I were to pay for my kids' college education (and I haven't the older and won't the younger) I would DARN sure make sure I knew, A) what courses my dependent was taking and B) what exactly that dependent intended upon doing with the education I was proffering up for them.

To parents who feel their child is OWED a higher education, God bless you, but you are either a Progressive/Democrat or woefully ignorant of the world of today and unbearably indulgent. The courses they teach in PUBLIC universities are, generally, as dumbed-down as they are in public secondary schools and as irrelevant as the Progressive/Democrats who teach them. If you don't believe me, PLEASE get the book, One Party Classroom by David Horowitz and read about some of the classes offered on PUBLIC college campuses today.

I don't care WHAT they teach at private universities! I don't pay for that. It's the PUBLIC institutions that bear intense scrutiny today, as they churn out more and more liberal graduates using MY money to pay for classes that in no way resemble my world view.

I hope, when the Occupy Wall Street'ers have finally been robbed and raped enough by their own, they will realize they are not ultimately fighting big corporations, but BIG EDUCATION who has lied to them and stolen from them (and/or their parents) by telling them if they paid for classes in Women's Studies they would even SORT of be employable and enjoy any kind of well-paying job in the real world.

Costly Slight of Hand

2011-12-21T07:31:00.000-08:00

I have been reading about this issue for some time - and this article actually presents one of the more 'conservative' numbers on the overestimation - but this article made me really feel the need to comment.

Please read, "Duncan's NCLB Failure Prediction Wrong, Overestimated by 30%" (it's short!), and then sit and digest my comment below. I'm sure you've heard me spout off about it before, but I felt the need to again, simply because there are some cold, hard figures out there now to support my 'opinion'. So, what do YOU want to be, MAN or SHEEP?

So, the government LIES about the way things are in order to FOOL legislators and the public into the "FACT" that there's an EMERGENCY at hand and therefore dispense with much of the hard earned cash and liberty of the citizenry in order to "fix it"! When caught at their game, they simply 'spin' it ("Whether it’s 50 percent, 80 percent, or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken,” he said. “That’s why we’re moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that drive student success.") to fit their agenda!

Still Not On Board the Crazy Train

2011-12-20T07:59:00.000-08:00

Well, I think this was a very responsible article by CapitolBeatOK.com about a very controversial hire by the State Department of Education (Consensus Building Vital to Fixing Common Education, Says New Barresi Chief of Staff).

I think Mr. Robison sounds sensible.

I believe that public education is a bi-partisan issue.

The only problem with the whole thing then, here, I guess, is the fact that ROPE does NOT AGREE with C3, the NCLB Waiver, Common Core, or the fact that our superintendent is not doing a great job doing what she said she would as CANDIDATE Barresi.

So, nothing personal Joel, but until the REFORM train turns around into positive territory by negatively impacting the budget AND federal entanglements in order to save the pocketbooks of the taxpayer, follow the Constitution and really provide children with opportunities for learning that provide results and not just test scores, we're not on board.