How the REAC3H Coaches Heard the News

A few hours after I posted Reason #11 last night, a reader forwarded to me a copy of the letter each REAC³H coach received in May, letting them know their jobs were being eliminated. I never liked the DJ who talked over the song, so I’ll post the letter below and then add a few words.

From: Teri Brecheen Subject: Supt. Barresi May 27, 2014 Dear REACH Coaches: I am writing this letter to you with a heavy heart. When I spoke with you earlier this year, I told you that the REACH Coach program would be fully funded for the next fiscal year. At the time we met and I shared this information with you, I had been told that my Activity Fund Budget would be fully funded without any increase. Little did I know that funding for your program would be zeroed out and the money applied to other areas within the Activity Budget. The disappointment and sadness I feel as a result of this decision is palpable. I am truly disappointed because you and your wonderful work became the victim of politics. There are those in and around the state who oppose our work grossly, and they mischaracterized your mission. I am saddened because I wanted to see the remarkable work you are doing continue. As much as I do not want to say this, I must release you from your duties for the next school term. Funding for your program ends with the end of the fiscal year. The contract between you and your districts will expire at that time. Whether you decide to go back to the classroom or take leadership positions within schools, the children at those schools as well as the teachers will be the lucky ones. Needless to say, if you need letters of recommendation, all you need to do is ask. Teri and I have been hard at work trying to plan for the future. Essentially, we are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Although the Legislature eliminated the $5 million REACH Coach line item in the budget, the Department did receive some additional funding for RSA implementation. We are working hard to develop a plan focused on using this additional funding to provide targeted services to the districts most in need. One of the options we are considering is to utilize individuals (former REACH Coaches) in a full-time capacity to focus on low performing districts that have a high number of students who scored unsatisfactory and limited knowledge within certain subgroups. We are also considering making professional development a focus of this plan, offering professional development to schools on weekends, after school, and in the summer, regionally throughout the state. As we finalize this plan, we will be in touch regarding future opportunities within the Department. Obviously, if we move forward in this direction, all applicants for these positions will go through the normal hiring procedures established by Department policy. Certainly, the training you have received as a REACH Coach would serve you well in this capacity, and I hope this is a position some of you will consider once the plan has been finalized. I know this is hard for you, and I want you to know how proud I am of each and every one of you. You are a blessing to teachers and children in Oklahoma. I do not know what God has in store for Oklahoma education, but I remain committed to follow His path and to only work for the good of His will. I will continue to pray for you and to offer thanksgiving for the opportunity to work with you. God bless you, Janet

The first paragraph is self-serving drivel. Barresi asked for funding increases to several line items of the Activities Budget in her October budget request for FY15. She got some. Others were cut. She also asked for $65 million to be added to the funding formula. She got about 2/3 of that. She asked for an increase to the instructional materials budget. She didn’t get it.

She also fails to mention that in 2012 (for FY 13) and in 2014 (for FY15) the legislature assigned the amounts within the Activities Budgets. The commonality is that those are election years. In 2011 and 2013, legislators gave the SDE that fund as a lump sum and allowed Barresi’s people to categorically assign the money.

Barresi states that the REAC³H coaches are a victim of the politics of the people who mischaracterized their mission. The general public really didn’t understand their mission. The SDE threw the REAC³H label onto so many loosely connected initiatives, that the word really lost meaning. Educators, on the other hand, who worked closely with the coaches, understood their purpose. At that point, the characterization probably depended on the quality of the coach. There were 60 of them. I assume some were spectacular and others were in a different range. It happens. We can’t all be the best.

When it comes to shaping education issues for political purposes, nobody is better than Janet Barresi. With the RSA law alone, she has mischaracterized:

• What the 3^rd grade “reading” test actually tells us
• Dr. Seuss and Laura Ingalls Wilder
• The strength of the safety net for special education students and English language learners
• The movement to allow parents to have input in retention decisions
• The efficacy of retention in other states

I’ve probably missed something there. In addition to RSA issues, just off the top of my head, I can think of several more things she has mischaracterized:

• Special education placement
• Poverty
• Teacher preparation programs
• Common Core
• Contracts with testing vendors
• Test results
• The Education Establishment
• “Researchers”

Again, I’m sure that’s not a complete list.

On the other hand, I definitely agree with the second paragraph. The REAC³H coaches have received a tremendous amount of training. Their knowledge base about literacy instruction strategies is without parallel. They have also seen the inner-workings of the machine that has brought us all of the reforms that their boss (or more accurately, their boss’s boss’s boss) has championed.

Whereas the rest of the letter reads like tract literature that someone might have handed you on your porch just as you were about to eat dinner, the second paragraph shows reveals the flaw in the design. As the Rev. Lori Allen Walke stated Sunday at the candidate debate (not attended by Barresi), “the system has no clothes.” The REAC³H coaches have seen that as well as anybody. They’ve had a foot in both worlds for the past two years. They were technically employees of one of the districts they served, but they were selected by the SDE. They received their orders from the SDE. Any decision to keep them (pending funding) would have been made by the SDE. Of the ones I know, none will be voting to retain the current state superintendent.

Based on a comment on last night’s blog post, at least one of the coaches feels like their story is being told correctly.

Thank you for giving a fair and honest opinion of the Reac3h Coaches. When asked what my job was, I always replied, “I serve and honor teachers and schools.” Yes, our focus was pre-k – 3rd literacy; but if a district needed help in other areas, many of us did our very best to get them help. When I was an administrator, all I had to do was ask myself this: IF IT’S BEST FOR KIDS, THEN WE DO IT. Reac3h Coaches were best for students, teachers, administrators, parents, and those who love education. Again, WE SERVED AND HONORED TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS!! Again, thanks for being fair!!

That’s all I’ve ever tried to do when it comes to this group – tell the story right. At first, I was simply trying to figure out what we had and if we really could use it. I tend to follow policy, policy makers, and the highest level officials directed with executing the policies. The REAC³H coaches didn’t fit into any of those categories.

Hopefully all the coaches will find good jobs that satisfy them personally and professionally. Hopefully they’ll also get a chance to put all that training to use in an environment where they don’t have more territory to cover than they possibly can. Hopefully, what we’ve invested in them the last two years will continue helping children.

Third Grade Reading Scores: Lessons in Bad Form

By 10:00 this morning, most Oklahoma school districts were able to log on to CTB’s secure site and view preliminary third grade reading scores. By 10:48, the Oklahoma State Department of Education had released a bulletin proclaiming the addition of high-stakes testing to the Reading Sufficiency Act a success. It’s a long bulletin, so rather than posting it in full as I normally do, I’m going to get to it piece-by-piece.

Nearly 80 percent of state third-graders to be promoted to fourth-grade 16 percent score Unsatisfactory on Oklahoma reading test OKLAHOMA CITY (May 9, 2014) – About 80 percent of Oklahoma third-graders are eligible to be promoted to fourth-grade based on the state’s reading test scores, according to figures released today to Oklahoma school districts and elementary schools. Sixteen percent of third-graders scored Unsatisfactory but will have two additional opportunities to demonstrate basic reading skills through a student portfolio or an alternative reading assessment provided for under the state’s Reading Sufficiency Act (RSA). Under the RSA, schools now will determine which third-grade students qualify for one of the law’s good-cause exemptions to allow promotion to fourth-grade. Students who scored Unsatisfactory will have the summer to take alternate tests and attend summer reading academies. Teachers can provide portfolios of a child’s work to show he or she can read at grade level. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi thanked teachers in pre-kindergarten through third-grade for their tremendous work in helping to ensure every child is able to read. “Nothing is more fundamental to a child’s education than the ability to read, and it is our responsibility to educators to see to it that all children have the resources necessary to gain this vital skill before they slip further and further behind. We are moving in the right direction,” Barresi said. “The strong numbers for proficient readers attest to the hard work and tenacity of our children and their teachers. In the three years since the enactment of the RSA’s retention portion, teachers have devoted countless hours and leant their expertise to improving reading instruction for children. They have done superbly.”

Superintendent Barresi heralds the fact that four-fifths of the state’s third graders are eligible for promotion. She glosses over the fact that one-fifth aren’t. We’ve never collectively held back 20 percent of a grade-level in Oklahoma.

Yes, schools are working through Mother’s Day weekend to figure out how to apply the six good-cause exemptions. Unfortunately, they don’t provide much in the way of relief – not even for special education students or English-language learners.

About those three years, though – if the current incarnation of RSA is so great, then why are unsatisfactory rates climbing? As this graphic from Nate Robson at Oklahoma Watch shows, the unsatisfactory rate has risen during Barresi’s tenure.

Part of the problem has been the loss of funding for RSA by the legislature. More importantly, the SDE has confused the implementation of every major reform they have supported. While some of their REACH coaches have provided great professional development for the districts they serve, there has been a lack of focus. If we’re grading people on the value they add…

“Doomsday predictions from some critics of RSA had suggested that anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of our third-graders would score Unsatisfactory. But Oklahoma teachers and schoolchildren were, and are, up for the challenge.” Statewide, scores for the third-grade reading Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test (OCCT) were as follows: 1,120 — or 2.2 percent — scored Advanced 32,531 — or 64 percent — scored Proficient 7,070 — or 13.9 percent — scored Limited Knowledge 7,970 — or 15.7 percent — scored Unsatisfactory The RSA includes special exemptions for students with disabilities, English Language Learners and students who have been retained twice. When these good-cause exemptions are factored in, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) anticipates the number of students facing retention to decrease significantly. Four percent did not take the test for various reasons (absent, no longer enrolled, etc.).

I don’t recall seeing the 25 to 40 percent predictions. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there, but I didn’t see them. Next year, when we have an all new test from an all new vendor based on whatever we’re calling the state standards at that time, this will be a reasonable projection.

Barresi also overstates the extent to which IEP and ELL kids will be spared. Yes, in many schools, the majority of students scoring unsatisfactory on the test fall into these two categories. The reality is that the state regulations do little to help. Here are the good cause exemptions relating to those groups:

1. Be identified as Limited-English Proficient (LEP)/English Language Learner (ELL) on a screening tool approved by the Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Bilingual/Migrant Education and have a Language Instruction Educational Plan (LIEP) in place prior to the administration of the third grade criterion referenced test; and the student must have had less than two (2) years of instruction in an English Language Learner (ELL) program.

5. Students with disabilities who participate in the statewide criterion-referenced test and have an IEP may qualify for a good cause exemption. To qualify for this exemption, the student must meet the following criteria: (A) The student must have been previously retained in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, or third grade; (B) The student’s IEP must: (i) Identify Reading as an area of education need for the student or identify some type of special education service in the area of Reading; and; (ii) Reflect that the student has received intensive remediation for more than two years. Intensive remediation may include any type of program offering intensive reading instruction that is identified as appropriate by the IEP team.

Anybody who has ever worked with ELL students knows that language acquisition takes more than two years. And anybody who thinks that retaining special education students who are making gains is a good idea has never worked with them. Then again Janet Barresi thinks that most special education identifications are wrong.

One of the more dramatic successes to emerge from the RSA concerns students on Individualized Education Plans, or IEPs. Although 11.38 percent of third-graders last year scored Unsatisfactory on the reading test, it is important to note that 6.5 percent more students took the exam this year. That’s because this marked Oklahoma’s first year in which first-time test takers on an IEP did not have the option of taking a modified test. Oklahoma is one of the last states to phase out use of modified tests for students on an IEP. Although about 3,000 more students with disabilities took the reading portion of the OCCT than in previous years, the percentage of Unsatisfactory scores rose by only 4 percent. Barresi credited that feat to extraordinary work of teachers. She also praised the efforts of OSDE literacy (or REAC3H) Coaches. The coaches have traveled throughout the state, offering professional development in classrooms and training teachers, administrators and reading specialists to help their students improve reading skills. “I need to give a big pat on the back to our REAC3H coaches,” Barresi said. “They have helped work miracles. I hear nothing but praise for them from educators from all across the state.”

She credits teachers, praises REACH coaches, and more or less blames the increase in unsatisfactory scores on special education students. That’s not all of the increase, however. The 3,000 increase in students taking the test is six percent of the roughly 50,000 total test-takers. So if all the increase is to be explained by more special education students taking the regular test, that means two-thirds of them scored unsatisfactory.

@okeducation @kellianglley @James409Jason How genuine are her words of thanks? I certainly don't feel thanked or appreciated by her. #oklaed

— Ashley Stearns (@the_runnermom) May 9, 2014

It’s nice that Barresi publicly credited teachers. As always, though, praise from her rings hollow.

Challenges face the state’s largest school districts. 32.7 percent of Tulsa third-graders scored Unsatisfactory, while 28.9 percent of Oklahoma City’s third-graders scored Unsatisfactory. “The scores reveal the extent of the considerable work that will be needed in these districts, but great strides are being made,” Barresi said. “Teachers are committed to helping these students. There can be no option but to get these kids on track for literacy.” The superintendent said educators recognize that many students who scored Unsatisfactory and do not meet a good-cause exemption may be anxious about what’s ahead. “We want to reassure these students and their families that we will do everything possible to support the efforts to ensure they can read on grade level so they can have the earliest chance of promotion,” she said. A number of school districts have scheduled summer reading academies, while others have put “transitional” grades in place. Some districts indicate they are considering mid-year promotion. “An individual who isn’t given the opportunity to learn how to read is denied an opportunity to be a fully contributing citizen. Not only is that individual harmed, but our society is made the worse for it. If you cannot read, you cannot be enthralled by Charlotte’s Web. You cannot marvel at the genius of the Declaration of Independence. You cannot read the word of the Lord in the Bible,” said Barresi. “When Gov. Fallin and state legislators strengthened the RSA three years ago, they did so to ensure all our children have the gift of literacy.”

The scores reveal the extent to which abject poverty impacts our urban schools. We’re not talking about students who barely qualify for free/reduced lunch. We’re talking about a majority of students who come to school hungry. We live in a state that refuses to address poverty or properly fund public education, but we want to make sure the kids can read about pigs, spiders, liberty, and Jesus. In addition to school finance and child development, apparently Barresi also needs a basic course on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Third-graders who score Unsatisfactory on state tests and benchmark assessments are reading at about a first-grade level or below. First-graders proficient in reading can read simple words at the rate of about 60 words per minute. Fourth-graders, however, are expected to read 120 to 150 words per minute, and with more difficult text. They must read fluently for comprehension versus just learning to decode words. Established in 1997, the RSA requires districts to conduct benchmark reading assessments at the start of kindergarten, first, second and third grades. A district must implement customized remediation plans for students with reading difficulties. Although the law was in place for 17 years and funded by more than $80 million, the number of third-graders with reading difficulties was not showing improvement. With the 2011 addition of the amendment on third-grade retention, many school districts have redoubled their efforts to help children read on grade level. Starting Monday, Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) literacy staff and REAC3H Coaches will be manning telephone hotlines for educators and parents who have questions concerning the application of the RSA. The RSA Hotlines will be active from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays from Monday through Friday, May 23. Parents and community members can call (405) 521-3774 to leave comments or questions. The line will be monitored, with responses provided in a timely fashion. District personnel who have questions should call (405) 521-3301, the main OSDE helpdesk line. Questions will be answered or calls routed to appropriate staff. Of course, districts and parents are still welcome to contact OSDE for additional help after that period.

Again, Barresi provides misinformation about what the test tell us. They do not diagnose reading level. I enjoyed this response from the Norman Public Schools on Twitter. In what can be described as a great lesson in word choice, they called it the “3^rd grade language arts exam” instead of a reading test. This more accurately explains to their parents and community what the scores represent.

Barresi is also wrong about the impact of the law over 17 years. Third grade reading scores did show improvement. Even fourth grade NAEP scores have improved over that time. ACT scores have improved too.

For months now we’ve heard Janet Barresi complain that 17 years of RSA without high stakes brought little gain. Now, with one year of high stakes, scores drop. Explain. And you don’t get to blame the special education kid. Neither do we, for that matter.

The only reason I care about these test scores is because people with no real investment in the children use them to make bad decisions – decisions that hurt kids. Yet in another show of bad form, the SDE released the scores by district on their website and to the media before many districts even had a chance to log on and look at them – much less contact parents. I’m all for transparency, and I’ve always said that test scores by grade, subject, and score level are a much better snapshot of school performance than A-F Report Cards, but these are only preliminary scores. The top of each score report has the following disclaimer:

Preliminary results pending corrections and SDE-approved status codes

This decision frustrated the Oklahoma City superintendent and the Tulsa superintendent. Rather than giving schools time to review the results and contact parents, they had to answer calls from all parents. The SDE added to the problem by creating unnecessary chaos. There will be updates. There will be status code changes. These things will impact whether students are retained.

But in their haste to make a big splash and somehow proclaim the fact that thousands of Oklahoma students may be retained (and that even more are worried) was somehow a victory, Janet Barresi and the SDE stumbled yet again.

This is why we must flood the legislature with phone calls, emails, and in-person visits on Monday. The House will hear HB 2625, which places the decision about retaining students back in the hands of parents and teachers. They will still review the test scores. They will still discuss the application of the good cause exemptions – or if none can be met. In some cases, they will still decide that retention is the best option.

The difference of course is who decides. A year’s worth of evidence will carry more weight than one test. A student’s IEP will carry more weight. A holistic evaluation of what the student knows and can do far outweighs a limited assessment that only arguably tests reading level.

If you’re like me, you’re mad, sickened, frustrated, and sad. Politicians playing with the lives of children will do that.

Calling on the Hotline (in Disco Pants)

All across Oklahoma, schools are approaching Friday with tremendous anticipation. With third grade retention looming, and CTB set to release scores by May 9^th, the SDE is now offering a new service.

Oklahoma State Department of Education offers Reading Hotlines OKLAHOMA CITY (May 6, 2014) – The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) will soon establish telephone hotlines for educators and parents who have questions about the third-grade promotion portion of the Reading Sufficiency Act (RSA). OSDE literacy staff and REAC3H Coaches will answer questions and concerns, provide support for electronic submission of reports and help with communication for parents and citizens. The RSA Hotlines will be active from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, Monday, May 12, through Friday, May 23.  Parents and community members can call (405) 521-3774 to leave comments or questions. The line will be monitored, with responses provided in a timely fashion. District personnel who have questions should call (405) 521-3301, the main OSDE helpdesk line. Questions will be answered or calls routed to appropriate staff. School districts statewide will receive third-grade reading test scores from testing vendor CTB/McGraw Hill by Friday. Only third-graders who score Unsatisfactory on the test and don’t meet one of the state’s good-cause exemptions will be retained. Students who score Unsatisfactory will be able to take an alternate assessment or a teacher may provide a portfolio of the child’s work to demonstrate that he or she reads at appropriate grade level. For a full list of good-cause exemptions and more information about third-grade promotion, visit thirdgradereading.ok.gov.

The first thing I notice is that the SDE insists on calling it anything but a retention policy. I’ve heard people who work there call it third grade graduation Here they call it promotion. Students, parents, and teachers aren’t worried about promotion. They’re worried about retention.

For two weeks, the SDE is going to have REACH coaches providing hotline support. All 60 of them? How many phone calls do they anticipate? Will the first call be to complain that CTB’s data site is down and that schools can’t access the scores?

I also think it’s interesting that there are different numbers to call for school personnel and non-school personnel. I wonder what would happen if someone called the hotline  …

…wait a second. I can’t continue without providing you with this classic 70s earworm from the Sylvers…

Now I’m picturing all the REACH coaches dancing disco-style like the band in that video. And yes, calling that song a classic is a bit of a stretch. Then again, so is providing Q & A support during the last two weeks of the school year (the last week in some places) for the third grade retention law. Where was this outreach to parents during the school year?

Back to the question I began to pose before the musical detour: I wonder what would happen if someone called each hotline with the same question. Would we get the same answer? And what questions should we ask when Oklahoma parents, educators, and community members flood the phones? Please share your ideas in the comments.

Are You With the Media?

Upon further consideration, yesterday’s post, Barresi Holds a Press Conference, should have been titled Barresi Holds a Photo-Op. I suppose it’s accurate to label it a press conference, in the sense that only the press were allowed to ask questions. Apparently, when non-media tried to ask Barresi about the third grade retention law, she put them off and never returned to them.

A quick search of Twitter coverage of today’s event using the hashtag #oklaed shows that Barresi trotted out a few of the REACH Coaches, a superintendent, and Amber England with Stand for Children to stand with her during the press conference.

Press conference kicking off now. REAC3H Coaches, @OklahomaStand are also here. pic.twitter.com/7CEqsk09iZ

— OK State Dept of Ed (@oksde) January 27, 2014

From those reports, here were the press conference’s main points:

1. We need to dispel the myth that retention is about one test given over one day.
2. Some districts are creating a 3^rd to 4^th grade transition year.
3. All interested parties need to make the legislature understand the funds needed to help students meet the provisions of this law.
4. It is time for debate to be over.
5. Schools will have 3^rd grade test scores by May 9^th if they test that grade at the beginning of the testing window.
6. Ten years ago, Florida had lower reading scores than Oklahoma. Now they are higher than we are.

Here are my thoughts on those main points.

1. She’s right and wrong. The state will use the test to generate a list of students in the pool for retention. Then, depending on who can qualify for the good cause exemptions, some will move on. We’re either using the test to override what the teacher knows about the child or using what the teacher knows about the child to override the test. Around the state, most third grade teachers are collecting student work in case they need to build a portfolio. In either case, the test is way too important.
2. I can’t even fathom how this will look, other than the fact that it will vary considerably from school to school. If you’re in a district with one elementary school, and you have five or six children retained under this law, how are you going to pay for that extra teacher? If it is a district with multiple elementary schools, will they centralize that transition class? And how much of a stigma will that create?
3. Right now, many districts have taken RSA funds designated for reading support for students in 3^rd grade and below and prioritized 3^rd grade alone. Tutoring, summer academies, and instructional materials are heavily focused on trying to keep this law from adversely impacting a large number of children. Any help schools, parents, or organizations like Stand for Children can give in educating members of the legislature about the need for targeted funding to support this reform would be appreciated.
4. She’s not trying to stop debate as much as she’s trying to stop dissent. This is a political tactic. There are bodies of research supporting retention and bodies of research that highlight how ineffective and harmful it can be. We know that the state superintendent only likes research supporting her own agenda. Anything else of a scholarly nature she discards with sarcasm.
5. This will be a neat trick. I have to ask how CTB/McGraw-Hill can manage this when they couldn’t handle any part of the testing process last year. And since Measured Progress will be taking over for them in the future, how motivated will CTB be to put a rush on scoring our tests. Another thought is that we might actually do better to test students towards the end of the testing window. That’s 3-4 weeks of additional instruction before a high-stakes test.
6. I’m not sure where Barresi gets her information that Florida’s third graders were reading a grade level behind Oklahoma’s a decade ago. The NAEP scores don’t show this at all. Oklahoma was never ahead of Florida in reading. Since 2003, both states have shown growth, and Florida remains ahead of Oklahoma. I don’t know if that can be attributed to the 3^rd grade retention law, improved funding for K-12 education, another reform, or something altogether different.

The questions that I asked yesterday on my blog and that my readers added in the comments remain unanswered. Unfortunately we learned nothing from today’s side show.

Alert: Funding Priorities and Possible Senate Action

This from a reader (with some emphasis added by me):

At 9:30 today Senator Anderson will attempt to amend the Common Education appropriation bill  to redirect SDE REACH funding and other vendor or non-public school  based appropriations into the State Aid Formula. Please contact your Senator for support. Talking points to share with your Legislator: Year Enrollment State Aid Appropriation Per Pupil 2009 644,777 $2,037,000,000 $3,159.23 2010 654,542 $1,924,000,000 $2,939.46 2011 659,615 $1,894,000,000 $2,871.37 2012 666,150 $1,816,000,000 $2,726.11 2013 676,049 $1,816,000,000 $2,686.20 2014 $1,838,000,000 2014-2009 (199,000,000) Only $21 million out of the $74 million will go to the funding formula to pay for day to day operations. The 2014 funding formula will be $200 million short of what it was in 2009 with approximately 40,000 more students. Over $40 million from the Common Ed budget will go to SDE vendor based programs or special projects. This number will increase by over $10 million in 2014.  These programs include: SDE REACH coaches $4.25 million Teach For America – (Tulsa and Oklahoma City only)  $2.5 million OU K20 Center – 3 line item appropriations $1.2 million SDE student Information – $2 million SDE determined vendor grants – $2.8 million TLE VAM formula for test scores to evaluate teachers – $2 million Think Through Math vendor program $1.8 million Kaiser Foundation 3 year old program  – $10.5 million The 2014 Oklahoma budget will be the largest budget in state history while the common education appropriation will still be  $124 million less than 2009. The SDE Agency budget is at an all-time high with a 30% increase in testing and several new agency determined grant programs. The common education share of the state budget has dropped from 36.1% to 33.8% since 2008. 33.8%  will represent common education’s smallest share of the state budget since before 1991.

Call your state senator early and often. Remind them that when we fail to fund basic services through the formula, the reforms don’t have anywhere to land. Paralyzing district budgets in favor of SDE and vendor-based programs is not better for anyone…except the vendors.

Also, remind them that the biggest vendor of all – CTB/McGraw-Hill – is a colossal failure.

Astigmatism 2020: An Eventful Day One

Last night, Rob Miller made it clear that I had to provide daily updates from Vision 2020.

Look forward to the daily updates! RT @okeducation: Preview of the Final Vision 2020 Conference #oklaed #OKVision2020 http://t.co/Pu458VUKa5

— Rob Miller (@BixbyPSSupt) July 14, 2014

Today was so incredible that I could easily break this up into two separate posts. I think I could probably manage several separate 1000-word blogs out of today’s events, but I’ll try to be more focused than that. Here are the things I want to cover:

• Another kick to the REAC³H Coaches while they’re down
• Comments from Superintendent Barresi’s Roundtable
• Standards-writing process, as proposed
• Supreme Court decision upholding HB 3399
• Second annual resignation of Governor Fallin’s Secretary of Education

First I want to explain the title. The definition of astigmatism is an irregular shaped cornea or lens that prevents light from focusing properly on the retina, causing vision to become blurred at any distance. A person who is near-sighted can have it. So can a person who is far-sighted. Even a person with 20/20 vision can have it. Basically, it’s a physical problem with seeing things clearly. I’m no optometrist, but I’ve been to one. Therefore, I’m basically qualified to diagnose Barresi as suffering from this condition.

The conference this morning was just surreal. There were no victory laps from attendees. Nor were there sullen faces from SDE employees. There really weren’t the hordes of people that usually attend this conference at all. I thought the exhibitor hall and arena were fairly empty. Then again, that’s just my perception. The numbers could be very different.

REAC³H Coaches

The first thing I noticed this morning was a sign on a door on the way to the exhibitor hall.

As we learned last month, the REAC³H coaches were unceremoniously let go by the SDE via email. Based on the response I received from that post, many thought – even if it had been necessary – that it could have been handled better. Why, then, would we be surprised that the coaches were asked to bring the things checked out to them back to Oklahoma City and return them to the SDE at a conference. They weren’t even invited back to the office for this. As one person commented on my Facebook wall, “I saw that and had to giggle a little!! That our OSDE had them return it at a workshop with a sign to a door that looks like a janitor closet!!!”

It’s funny, and it’s degrading, all at once. I don’t know how much equipment there was to return, and I don’t know how many of them still had to check that off their to-do list. I just think it shows an ongoing lack of awareness of how decisions impact people.

Janet Barresi, Unplugged

That leads in to the 11:00 roundtable session with Barresi. I promised myself I wouldn’t attend, but fortunately, others did. The reports were jaw-dropping, as usual.

https://twitter.com/thebretthill/status/489078711249932289

In case you’re reading in email and the tweet isn’t showing up clearly, Brett Hill writes, “Q: what are things you did well and you didn’t do well? A: I won’t apologize, and I know I’ve pissed a lot of you off.” I’m quoting the tweet. I also had a reader message me on Facebook to say that since she’s not running for office anymore, she can say things like that. She simply doesn’t understand that her third-place showing in the primary is due to the fact that she’s done this job very badly. The way she sees the world is not at all affixed to reality. But at least she’s true to herself.

Standards for you, Standards for me

This afternoon, Barresi also hosted a breakout session (along with Teri Brecheen) to explain what the process of writing new Math and English/Language Arts standards would look like. She mentioned the long, iterative process that Brecheen had described to the State Board of Education last month. She also explained that though the process has not been technically approved by the SBE, she would be proceeding as if it had. She assured those in attendance that she had spoken individually with each board member and that they were cool with it. The problem with that is that now we’re getting into issues with open meetings. Technically, the Board can’t meet without proper public notice. Still, to say that a decision has been made when it hasn’t officially is at best in the gray area. She’s saying that the SBE has made up their mind. Barresi is either speaking on behalf of people or admitting to a violation.

At the same time that she was meeting with educators, the SDE issued a release about the standards-writing process. Actually, this is from the second release. The first one was incomplete.

CORRECTED: SDE begins inclusive process to develop new academic standardsOK State Dept of Ed sent this bulletin at 07/15/2014 03:18 PM CDT State Education Department begins inclusive process to develop new academic standards  OKLAHOMA CITY (July 15, 2013) – The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) is encouraging Oklahoma educators, parents and others interested in public education to consider taking part in the development of new academic standards for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. Coordinated by OSDE, the standards-creation process is designed to be as inclusive and comprehensive as possible. The process comes after Gov. Mary Fallin earlier this year signed a law repealing Common Core standards and paving the way for new ELA and math standards. According to House Bill 3399, Oklahoma common education will utilize existing Priority Academic Student Skills (P.A.S.S.) standards until August 2016. By that time, schools would begin the transition to new standards. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi said the change presents an opportunity for educators to ensure stronger academic standards. “These new academic standards will be by Oklahomans and for Oklahomans. They will reflect Oklahoma values, principles and commitment to excellence,” Barresi said. “That is why it is vital for the standards-creation process to include the voices of Oklahomans from all walks of life. Educators will write the standards in a collaborative process that encompasses critical input from parents, the business community and anyone else invested in making sure Oklahoma schools are second to none.” An online application form for the various committees and teams involved in the process is available at ok.gov/sde/newstandards , along with other related materials. The draft process is pending approval by the State Board of Education, but the timeline restrictions of HB 3399 require OSDE to begin the process of soliciting applications. A steering committee will oversee the entire process. The executive director of the State Board of Career and Technology, Oklahoma’s chancellor for higher education, the state superintendent of public instruction, the secretary/executive director of the state Department of Commerce and two members of the State Board of Education will have seats on this panel. The steering committee will appoint four executive committees — one each for math and ELA in grades Pre-K-5 and 6-12 — with a maximum of 21 members apiece. These groups will provide input, resources and editing throughout the process and will help facilitate public meetings and comments. The executive committees will provide hands-on oversight from beginning to end, ensuring the consideration of a broad range of perspectives. Any Oklahoman can apply for membership. Examples of groups that might seek representation on the executive committees are parents, educators, organizations for students with disabilities and English Language Learners, higher education, CareerTech, nonprofits, Native American tribes and the business community. At least one member of the Oklahoma State Legislature will serve on each of the four executive committees. These committees also will be in charge of creating a rubric to appoint applicants to three of the other groups in the process: the Standards Creation Teams, the Draft Review Committees and the Regional Advisory Committees. The Standards Creation Teams, comprised mostly of teachers, will draft all the new standards using resources and input from the executive committees. Applications are now being accepted. There will be 28 Standards Creation Teams, one for each grade, from Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade, in ELA and math. These teams are designed to ensure representation of educators from all regions of the state. Additionally, two members of each Standards Creation Team will be selected to serve on a Standards Development Team. This panel will start the process of designing assessments and ensuring that academic standards progress appropriately from grade to grade. All Oklahomans are eligible to apply for Draft Review Committees, which will examine drafts of standards and related materials authored by Standards Creation Teams. Draft Review Committee members will provide feedback for changes before the would-be standards enter a public comment phase. The Draft Review Committees represent one of several entry points for community members at large to provide input while the standards are being developed. Throughout the entire process, 12 Regional Advisory Committees will organize meetings to update the public and gather community input to share with the other committees. There will be one advisory committee in each of 12 regions designated for this process. Each one will meet several times to guarantee that the standards-writing process is enriched by local perspectives from all corners of the state. These committees, open to all Oklahomans, will be appointed by the Executive Committees from applications. Later in the standards-creation process, the State Board of Education will appoint an Assessment Design Committee. This panel will review standards content, alignment from grade to grade, and assessment design and structure. Due to the nature of this committee, it will only be open to educators and those with expertise in assessment design and delivery. Once a draft of the new standards has been approved, it will be made available for 45 days of public comment. The Executive Committees will review submitted comments and recommend changes to the Standards Creation Teams. If a significant amount of changes result, the Executive Committee could call for another window of public comment. Eventually, a final version of the draft will be brought before the State Board of Education for approval. Under HB 3399, the draft would require approval by the Legislature and the governor before full implementation by local school districts.

Do you have all that? It’s simple. And it’ll be all be handled by people at the SDE who have no idea if they’ll have jobs in January. What could go wrong?

HB 3399 – Now and Forever

This morning, about the time Tulakes Elementary School Principal Lee Roland was delivering his inspiring keynote address, lawyers were arguing before the State Supreme Court. I believe it had something to do with the legislative branch overstepping into the executive branch. Fortunately, the Court ruled quickly and decided that no, the Legislature did not get its chocolate in the SDE’s peanut butter.

It’s that simple. And it’s over. Schools will no longer speak of the Common Core standards that shan’t be named. I’ve said all along that if teachers believe they gained improved skills, knowledge, and strategies during the last four years as a result of the transition, nothing in PASS or the convoluted process described above will keep them from utilizing them. We’re just looking for a new framework.

Thanks for Stopping By

Lastly, I think it should be mentioned that Oklahoma’s Secretary of Education, Bob Sommers, is returning to Ohio. Last year, it was Phyllis Hudecki resigning that post. Sommers, who had just come to our state a few months earlier to lead the Career Tech system, was a surprise replacement. Here is a clip from Fallin’s office on today’s resignation.

Sommers said one of the biggest challenges ahead will be to develop new, higher standards that will replace Common Core.  Legislation was passed and signed earlier this year that replaces the Common Core standards with standards designed by the State Department of Education in Oklahoma.

“Regardless of how you felt about Common Core, it is absolutely essential that Oklahoma now develops better, stronger standards here on the state level,” he said. “We need input and buy-in from everyone. Parents, teachers, administrators, employers, community leaders and lawmakers all need to be involved in developing academic benchmarks that boost classroom rigor and ensure our children are getting the education they deserve.”

Maybe it’s coincidence that he would resign the same day as the Supreme Court decision. It’s no secret that Sommers was all-in for the Comm standards. It could be that family demands truly called him home. If so, then I wish him nothing but the best. Actually, regardless of the root reasons, I wish him well.

If you’re into conspiracy theories, by the way, fellow blogger Brett Dickerson wonders if perhaps Barresi will be Fallin’s choice to replace Sommers. It’s an interesting thought, but I can’t see that happening. Fallin still has an election to win. Our governor may be a lot of things, but never doubt that she’s politically astute. There will be none of that.

So there you have it, Rob. That’s Day One. Hopefully I can write about tomorrow in fewer than 2020 words.

Reason #6 to Pick a New State Superintendent: Learning to Use Reading for Political Gain

In case you’re wondering, the number one reason to vote Janet Barresi out of office in nine days is that she is awful at her job. Furthermore, she’s surrounded herself with people who are awful at their jobs too.

That’s not how the countdown works, however. Apparently, I’m supposed to list specific ways in which she is awful at her job. As I do, feel free to grade this post for each of the five analytical writing traits separately. Hopefully I’ll get a 4.0 for coherence. On the other hand, I’ve written a lot this month in a short period of time. You can just give me a holistic score if you want. Pretend you work for CTB.

#10 – Ignoring Researchers

#9 – The A-F Rollout

#8 – The 2014 Writing Test Debacle

#7 –PASSing Around Our Standards

#6 – Learning to Use Reading for Political Gain

If there’s one thing I think Barresi has right, it’s the fact that reading is the most important skill our children learn. Within that topic, we disagree over everything else. Her mindset regarding reading instruction is that if a student can’t read after four years in the classroom, the school is to blame. Her mind is set. There is no room for argument.

Since the legislature updated the Reading Sufficiency Act in 2011 to include mandatory third grade retention that would take effect this school year, the SDE has made preparing for this moment a primary focus. At the same time, implementing TLE and CCSS were each a major focus, diluting the attention given to this effort. Still she found some federal money for one year and some Activities Budget money a second year to employ 60 REAC³H coaches, who she said were the cornerstone of the state’s efforts to prepare teachers and students for the test.

In the meantime, with a major assist from the Oklahoman, Barresi has taken every opportunity to show that only her opinion matters. She has controlled the narrative with talking points straight out of Florida, faulty research, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the tests in Oklahoma measure.

There are several points in time that would make sense for starting this discussion. For this piece, I’m going to begin with a campaign forum at which Barresi spoke in November, then hit several key moments that have happened since then.

“If you don’t measure it, it doesn’t matter.”

-Janet Barresi (November 2013)

During this forum, Barresi was debating 1994 and 1998 Republican state superintendent candidate Linda Murphy. At the time, Murphy sounded like a potential candidate herself. At one point, a parent asks her a question, and Barresi defends the retention law.

Barresi fields an emotional question from a parent of a stressed out special education student. She responds by digging in on the third grade retention law. Again she blames school districts, claiming that they waited until this year to act. She conveniently forgets two facts. First is that until August, school districts had received no guidance from the SDE about how to take the six good cause exemptions written into the law from statute to action. Once again, here is the process: Statute to Administrative Rule to Guidance for Implementation. For all of the training that school districts have received (or not received, depending on the REAC³H coaches), in assisting third graders, the real trick is knowing how to enact the law. The second fact is that school districts received no RSA funding last year and still wait to receive their notices of funding for this year. Schools continue working with students and waiting endlessly on the SDE.

The first year the SDE had the REAC³H coaches, they were working their way into the schools they served, between periods of receiving training themselves. Not until the beginning of the 2013-14 school year, however, had districts received anything that resembled official guidance from the SDE. This past school year, the coaches probably spent almost as much time helping their districts with paperwork as they did on training.

The mindset of the SDE seems to have been that they would spend a lot of money and hope that what they were buying made its way into schools. As I’ve written previously, the REAC³H coaches turned out to be a big help. The problem is that they could not reach all the teachers in all the schools in a meaningful way. Sixty people can only be in so many places.

By January, the SDE had sent forms for districts to use to predict how many third grade students would score Unsatisfactory on the reading test. Shortly thereafter, she held a press conference and would only let members of the media ask questions. In fact, when a parent tried to have a word with her, she shut that parent down, asking, “Are you with the media?” She also tersely told those in attendance that “the time for debate is over.” That’s the Barresi way – always shut down dissent by putting her fingers in her ears.

This was also the first time I can remember Barresi using the trope about fourth grade being the age when “children transition from learning to read to reading to learn.” It’s a hell of a sound byte, but it’s completely meaningless. As reading guru Claudia Swisher points out all the time, we never quit learning to read. As for children still in the process of learning to read, they are still using their emerging skills to aid in other learning. In truth, every skill you gain in decoding information assists you in every other academic endeavor.

In February, the retention law came up at a parent forum in Owasso:

Seven legislators and Joel Robison, chief of staff for state Superintendent Janet Barresi, took questions from more than 100 people who asked questions and shared concerns about education funding, the Reading Sufficiency Act and other issues…

Several people also spoke about their opposition to the third-grade reading law, which this year requires third-graders to show proficiency on their reading test or be retained in the third grade.

Robison told parents that there are six ways a third-grader could be promoted to fourth grade after failing the reading test. But one parent told him that has backfired in her daughter’s third-grade class.

“What’s happening, sir, is they are taking instruction time from our children to build a portfolio on every single child just in case they don’t pass,” she said.

After a pause, Robison said, “That’s unfortunate,” bringing a chorus of groans from the audience.

With minimal guidance from the SDE, school districts were doing everything they could conceive to help their students succeed. People who don’t understand instruction, measurement, or child development probably also don’t understand the lengths that teachers will go to in order to get their kids where they need to be. A week later, however, Barresi sent schools a condescending letter that made it sound as if she got it. Here is the opening:

Dear educators:

As you are well aware, this is a critical time for the Reading Sufficiency Act’s third-grade reading requirement. I know that those of you teaching K-3 are working hard to give your students the gift of literacy, and I have seen impressive reading plans in districts large and small across Oklahoma. With the OCCT testing window only a month away, I wanted to address some common questions about how to prepare for RSA today and in the months ahead.

As outlined by the RSA, by this point you already have identified struggling readers through benchmark assessments and have notified parents of the children who are struggling. In the coming weeks, keep doing what you do best — explore the fundamentals of reading with those students using whatever the techniques or resources you think will work most effectively. If you need assistance from one of our REAC3H coaches or the literacy department, help is only a phone call away.

Talk to parents or guardians. If you can reach out to families — especially those where education is not a priority — with accurate information about the RSA and the importance of literacy, you could help spark an entirely new future for those children.

I really took issue with that third paragraph. Schools had been reaching out to families, and yes, there are a lot of households where education is not a priority. When it came to having information about the RSA, however, that wasn’t the line of demarcation. I have had many conversations with parents holding advanced degrees in which I had to carefully walk through each of the six Good Cause Exemptions. For many, disappointment in the provisions for special needs students was apparent.

Here’s how the letter ended:

I want to thank those of you who have taken the time to write to me with your thoughts and recommendations. It helps those of us at OSDE make appropriate adjustments in the program and in the supports we provide to you. Also, thank you to all of you who have attended our trainings. I hope you have found them to be of value.

Finally, I want to thank you for the work you do for the children of Oklahoma. Your steadfast commitment and professionalism are a testament to the greatness of teaching. My prayers are with you and for you and the children you faithfully serve.

These are the same teachers she blames in the letter. These are the same teachers who fought for changes to the RSA law that Barresi would later call outrageous. Yes, teachers, you’re both a disappointment and an inspiration. That’s how this works.

In April, this campaign (not the election – the PR campaign for the retention law) turned even more bizarre. While debating Joy Hofmeister, Barresi said the following:

A child who scores unsatisfactory on a third-grade assessment can’t read and comprehend ‘Horton Hears A Who.’ But they’re being sent into fourth grade where they are expected to read and understand “Little House on the Prairie.

The pairing of these two books seemed bizarre to most educators (but not to Rep. Jason Nelson, one of the few legislators who still sometimes has Barresi’s back). Claudia had this to add:

Back to Horton and Ma and Pa Ingalls. She identifies Horton as a first grade level, and Little House as a fourth. Jason James, who has written extensively about the third grade reading-language arts test, points out DDS Baressi’s two examples are really closer in grade level than she realized. Not a surprise…she is a dentist, not an educator.

Moving ahead to May, the SDE announced that a hotline would be established to help parents, teachers, or anyone else who called to understand the test scores when they were released. Then, inexplicably, the SDE released the scores to the media before schools could get onto the CTB server and pull them. Worse yet, parents could see that their child’s school had a certain percentage of students who received an Unsatisfactory score long before the school could notify them of their child’s status.

We were just getting going. Next came the legislature passing HB 2625, which allows for committees to decide whether students should be retained. Then came the governor’s veto. Then came the overwhelming override (without debate) by both the House and the Senate. Finally, we had another occasion for one of Barresi’s petulant outbursts. When interviewed about the override, she called it pathetic and outrageous.

Since November, we’ve watched and fought as the state superintendent has made crazy statements about the most important thing we teach children. She still thinks our third grade reading test (which is really more of a language arts assessment) can detect grade level. It can’t. She thinks giving parents a say in retention decisions completely guts the law. It doesn’t. She has spent every day of this campaign stomping her feet about the importance of reading. Sometimes, when the light is just right, you can even see the steam coming out of her ears. She blames the education establishment, when really, it was parents who provided the momentum for HB 2625.

As a side note, I’m still curious as to why overwhelming support for this bill held no sway over the governor as it did with HB 3399.

Barresi, when it comes to any education issue, digs in completely. There is no compromise. If a great number of teachers who cumulatively have thousands of years of experience tell her that their time in the classroom has shown them something that she doesn’t believe, she falls completely deaf. She is an ideologue first, a politician second, and an educator never.

The only thing her drive for mandatory retention has accomplished is that it brought fear into the classroom. Now that I look at that statement, I probably had this a couple of spots too low at six.

Reason #11 to Pick a New State Superintendent: Evolution of the REAC3H Network

One of the fun things about this countdown is how much it reminds me of high-stakes testing. We spend all this time learning new material, and then we spend a few weeks reviewing for the test. As we reach the halfway point, maybe we should spend some time reviewing how to properly mark your ballot on in 15 days.

The line goes all the way across, y’all. No stray marks. And they’ll be looking for irregular erasure patterns.

#15 – Pulling out of PARCC

#14 – Value-added Measurements

#13 – Being Damned

#12 – Holding Back State Aid

#11- Evolution of the REAC³H Network

Beginning in 2010 with the adoption of the Common Core by the Oklahoma Legislature, schools in our state have faced a rapid onslaught of reforms. Most (TLE, A-F, RSA, Virtual Instruction) were enacted in 2011, but as a group, this represented the most significant education reforms in a generation. Together, they were going to help us have College, Career, and Citizenship readiness schools – C³ for short. It was natural, then, that the SDE would create a network of support (and fabulous logo) that somehow included this acronym.

Thus was born the Regional Educators Advancing College, Career, and Citizen Readiness Higher – REAC³H – network. Late in the summer of 2011, the state organized its 500+ school districts into 70 regions. Each region had a lead district, as this two page reference sheet shows. Each region would work together overcoming obstacles as they transitioned from PASS to CCSS. There would be statewide conferences for the lead districts. The first of these included something of an altar call in which district representatives came forward with their signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) vowing to do everything possible to help their fellow school districts.

The SDE was also developing toolkits that we could use together as we set forth on this productive struggle as partners. Toolkit #1 was named Making the Case for the Common Core State Standards. The PowerPoint for the meeting lists the goals as:

• Understand the reasons for adopting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Oklahoma
• Know what the CCSS encompass
• Know the timeline for implementation of the CCSS and assessments

The toolkit included timelines and transition planning tools. All districts, large and small, rural and urban, would create four year transition plans that would be completed by…June 2014 – hey, that’s right now!

Soon, the scope of REAC³H would begin to drift. The term was used to describe the working groups that convened that fall to “help” the SDE work on Oklahoma’s waiver to No Child Left Behind. As we have learned, most of that work had been done in advance. The SDE just wanted high-level school district officials to sign off that they had contributed to the process. Here’s how they recruited participation:

With those ambitious goals in mind, I am asking for volunteers from districts within the REAC³H Network to participate in working groups toward this effort to develop a plan that the REAC³H Network can recommend for OSDE to take to the State Board of Education for approval.

As a grassroots effort, the REAC³H Network can be most effective as the larger group of volunteer coordinating districts divides into smaller working groups, each with a specific area of the application that they will address. After we’ve had the opportunity to review specific waiver guidelines provided by USDE, I will disseminate additional guidance on the path forward. Much of the working groups’ efforts on a waiver request can be accomplished digitally or via conference call, so I do not expect this to be an additional burden or a significant time commitment.

This is an exciting opportunity for all of us and one that will allow us to assure that we are empowered to focus more on what works for children.

Exciting opportunity indeed! You too can rubber stamp bureaucratic jibber-jabber!

After the April 2012 summit, the SDE sent out the following communication to those in attendance seeking input. In it, you can see the beginnings of dissent and confusion from SDE staff in how to deal with it:

I know that each of you is busy but if you have a moment I need your help with a few things. I have attached the Network Partnership handout that was distributed during this last summit (in your folders). Please look over all information related to you as a Coordinating District and let me know if there is any incorrect information listed under your district’s local network. I tried to communicate with each of you regarding this information before this document was created, but I am sure that there is information that has either changed or that I simply missed. I received a lot of feedback about the summit through the evaluations, but if you did not get a chance to complete the evaluation or if you have additional feedback please feel free to email me. I hope you were able to see that I listened to your comments from evaluations I received at Summit #2 and used that feedback to create Summit #3. I desire to continue this two-way communication with you and provide summits that are helpful and worthy of your time.  I would like to hear about the things you liked as well as the things you disliked about Summit #3.  I have attached the evaluations that were handed out at the summit. I want the REAC3H program to work successfully for the entire Network, which includes you as a Coordinating District, all participating districts, Career Techs., Higher Education, and OSDE. I ask that you communicate with your participating districts, and the Career Tech and Higher Education entity (if applicable). During this communication I need you to find out if the participating districts currently in your local network are satisfied with being in your local network or if they would like to move to another network. If they want to move, why? Is it because they already have a working relationship with a certain Coordinating District? Is it because of geography? Do they not feel they are getting what they need from you as a Coordinating District? Etc. Once you have the chance to gather this information (before school is out), please email the results to me. The REAC3H program has endless possibilities and benefits for all of us, but I do not want any of us to move forward with blinders on if there are certain things in the network that are not working. If we need to move districts around and adjust, let’s adjust.  In order to be transparent I want to let you know I will soon start conducting random telephone surveys of participating districts from each local network to get a better feel for how things are going. I will keep a log of all information I gather and if you are interested I will share the feedback with you, but I will keep the district names anonymous.

While most districts simply signed their MOUs at the first summit, many chose to amend their partnership agreements the second time around. As the toolkits became less helpful, the networks had begun to unravel. We weren’t realizing our endless possibilities and benefits. Unquestioned loyalty to the agency or the process was becoming unrealistic. Plus the coffee was cold.

Later that spring, we received word that the SDE was set to hire 60 REAC³H coaches to help us with the transition to Common Core – all grades, reading and math. They were to be paid with federal jobs money. My first thought was that I didn’t understand how they were getting 60 coaches into 70 districts. Then I realized they were going to task these people with working with all grade levels and all subjects. None of this seemed realistic.

After the hiring was done, the SDE quickly had the coaches focus on literacy and spend most of their time with the elementary grades. Here’s how the SDE presented them to us formally in August 2012:

REAC3H Coaches Assist State Teachers with Literacy Goals OKLAHOMA CITY (Aug. 28, 2012) – As they undergo intensive training this week, a front line of 60 professional educators is preparing to assist Oklahoma schools with the implementation of new education reforms such as third-grade reading sufficiency and the transition to Oklahoma C3 Standards, which include Common Core standards in reading and math and new state standards in social studies. After undergoing their second full week of intensive training this week at the State Department of Education, 60 REAC3H Coaches will be dispersed throughout the state to help train classroom teachers in the foundations for reading. “These are highly trained professionals whose main focus will be job-imbedded professional development,” State Superintendent Janet Barresi said. “The overall goal will be training in Oklahoma C3 Standards to increase proficiency and rigor in schools. Their primary assignment is in the area of prekindergarten to 3rd-grade literacy to assure that all children are successful on the third-grade assessment. It will be very difficult to be successful in our new standards if children at the earliest ages are not proficient in literacy” REAC3H, Regional Educators Advancing College, Career, and Citizenship readiness Higher, is part of Superintendent Barresi’s overall C3 Plan, which will ensure each Oklahoma student graduates college, career and citizen ready. The plan is built on a number of reforms being implemented over the next few years, including the new curriculum standards, third-grade graduation requirements, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness evaluations, the A-F School Grading System, and a new Student Longitudinal Data System. Deputy Superintendent Chris Caram said the REAC3H Coaches have an amazing amount of energy and practical resources to share with Oklahoma classroom teachers. She said the coaches – all former classroom teachers or reading specialists, and some with administrative experience – will be the most highly trained teachers on Oklahoma C3 Standards. They will be the first to receive training on the next generation of assessments under the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). The 60 coaches will train one week each month at the State Department of Education and then will offer training through workshops and one-on-one visits to classrooms to the more than 60,000 teachers in the state. The state has been segmented into thirty regional districts, with 30 school districts agreeing to employ two of the coaches. The coaches will be housed at Career Technology Centers in their home region. Federal Ed Jobs funds from the U.S. Department of Education have been awarded to 30 Oklahoma school districts as a grant to offset the cost of salaries plus benefits of the 60 coaches, a total of about $4.1 million. REAC3H Coaches will communicate with districts in their regions to offer before-, during and after-school training based on best times and dates available for teachers, substitutes and administrators. The coaches also will offer training to career technology teachers and higher education instructors.

By October, I had formed my own opinion:

Over the summer, REAC³H took on another meaning as 60 instructional coaches were hired to work with schools around the state. They are being paid this year with federal money that is set to expire, and Superintendent Barresi has included $5 million in funding in next year’s budget request to maintain the program.

Interestingly, the coverage areas for these coaches are not aligned at all with the REAC³H consortium. They operate in pairs, and for the most part, use office space in Career Tech centers around the state. Some serve only one or two districts.  Other pairs serve more than 20. They have been well-received in some places and kept at arm’s length in others.

At first, REAC³H coaches were going to help with every reform initiative. Now they are focusing on K-2 reading. Since many of the coaches were secondary teachers and may not even be certified in English/Language Arts, their impact may be questionable. (Though to be clear – many schools are reporting satisfaction with their REAC³H Coaches at this time.)

In all honesty, the REAC³H coaches haven’t been bad. I’ve attended training presented by several. I’ve worked day-to-day with some as well. The imbalance, however, is in what they’ve had the ability to learn versus what they’ve had the ability to teach. These individuals are professional educators who have had extensive training in methods for helping struggling readers. As they have worked with their assigned schools (amid heavy SDE interference from what they have told me) coaches have often found themselves to be simultaneously training and learning. As we have learned in the last few weeks, they’re out of a job now. Fortunately, the best of the REAC³H coaches will have no problems finding good work.

As for the original network with the 70 lead districts? We haven’t heard from that for a while. It’s not really a thing anymore. There was also a short period of time when the SDE was inviting district-level administrators to the Hodge Building for monthly, then quarterly REAC³H Checkpoint meetings. If I remember correctly, though, more were cancelled than weren’t. I think they just didn’t want to develop another acronym.

The SDE has even quit using the term C³ all the time. That used to be the piece of string holding our standards together. Then came the umbrella term Oklahoma Academic Standards (which gets its own top ten entry on the countdown).

The REAC³H concept at one point was the key to Common Core. Then literacy. Now nothing. It’s another big push – an all the expense that goes with it – straight down the drain.

About the FBA Redistribution

Once again yesterday, we caught a glimpse of what happens when the state superintendent of public instruction doesn’t understand school finance…or schools for that matter.

Supt. Barresi directs OSDE to use remainder of activities funds  for teachers’ health insurance OKLAHOMA CITY (May 14, 2014) – As the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) has not yet received a supplemental appropriation for teachers’ health insurance premiums, known as the Flexible Benefit Allowance (FBA), state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi has directed OSDE to use what remains in the schools’ activities funds to pay for the health insurance of Oklahoma’s fulltime district employees. “This action effectively depletes available funds left in the schools’ activities fund for the current fiscal year, but we must take care of our teachers,” Barresi said. “On top of everything else, our school districts must cover health insurance for their fulltime employees. These increased costs, which are in part a consequence of Obamacare, needed to be addressed.” The distribution of funds for FBA means that for the remainder of FY 2014 there will be a marginal reduction in funds for alternative education, Oklahoma Parents as Teachers (OPAT) program and professional development. Districts have the budgetary flexibility to move dollars to these programs, Barresi said. Districts today are being notified of the situation, but the action is pending final approval by the State Board of Education at its May 22 meeting. The FBA provides funding to districts to cover the cost of insuring eligible certified and support personnel. Based on data certified Jan. 1, districts have had an increase of more than 1,300 teachers and other fulltime employees eligible for state-funded insurance since January 2013. FY 2014 funds for the Reading Sufficiency Act and the ACE initiative, both critical education reforms, were provided in full to school districts earlier this year.

There are multiple issues at play here, but before I get to those, I should probably explain a couple of terms:

Flex Benefit Allowance (FBA) – Part of the funding school districts receive each year is designated to cover the health insurance costs of teachers and other school employees. Most school years, the SDE asks for a supplemental appropriation to cover the cost of premium increases.

Activities Budget – On this spreadsheet explaining the SDE’s budget request for the 2014-15 school year, the third bold line is the total of the activities budget. This includes a number of programs, such as the ones mentioned in the SDE bulletin. The three specifically that she’s cutting (Alternative Education, Oklahoma Parents as Teachers, and Staff Development) account for about $19.2 million of the activities budget. For some programs, such as ACE and RSA, districts receive their entire allocation in one lump sum near the beginning of the school year (more towards the middle this year). For these three, however, districts receive four equal allocations.

This decision by Superintendent Barresi means that districts won’t get their fourth payment for these three activities. Essentially, she is saying that districts can take the money they haven’t spent and move it into the FBA line to cover unmet expenses there.

There are three fundamental problems with this.

1. This gives the legislature a free pass on taking care of a shortfall, amounting to a last-minute budget cut to districts.
2. Some districts may have already spent or encumbered their entire allocations for these activities.
3. This may not be legal.

With the first concern, Barresi doesn’t see the problem. She thinks that districts can just move money around to cover any overages from these budgets. That’s just a budget cut from a different category. If District A is $250,000 short on the FBA line for the remainder of this fiscal year, and they lose $250,000 in funding from the state for other activities, they have to make it up somewhere. If the SDE doesn’t reposition the deck chairs, as Barresi has suggested, the district is still short $250,000 that they have to take from somewhere else. This is sleight of hand, nothing more.

The second shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how schools work. Alternative education and professional development run on a shoestring budget. School districts have already spent the money they’re going to use on these activities and are mostly just waiting on the reimbursement now. Those funds pay for teacher salaries, among other expenses. Districts made plans based on the amount they were allocated, not 75% of that amount.

As an example, Tulsa Public Schools projects more than $477,000 in cuts from this decision:

Tulsa Public Schools would be hit hard by a last-minute cut to the school activities fund proposed by State Superintendent Janet Barresi.

The Oklahoma State Department of Education announced late Wednesday that Barresi has directed $6.54 million budgeted for a variety of school activities to instead be used to cover a deficit in health insurance premiums for school employees.

TPS Chief Financial Officer Trish Williams said Thursday that TPS alone would lose more than $477,000 it was counting on to cover costs incurred during the school year that ends in two weeks.

The school district said it would lose $394,236 for alternative education programs, $21,000 for the Oklahoma Parents as Teachers parent education program and $61,896 for professional development.

It’s not just the programs named in the SDE’s bulletin, either.

Redistributing the $5.1 million in unencumbered funds means less will be available to schools for bonuses for National Board Certified Teachers; Advanced Placement teacher training; test fee assistance for students; the Oklahoma Student Information System; development of a component of the new Teacher Leader Effectiveness evaluations; the REACH literacy coaches who travel throughout the state; and third-grade reading readiness, according to Tricia Pemberton, an Education Department spokeswoman.

These are critical programs, and the impact on school districts will be significant, though varied. Once again, Barresi treats a nuanced problem with zero understanding of that nuance.

As to the legality of this decision, it is critical to remember that Barresi has tried this before – two years ago.

Early Friday, District 9 Rep. Marty Quinn stated as others were expressing frustration over the SDE’s intent to divert textbook funding that if it happened with the stopgap they were proposing, that he would vote against every education bill moving forward. District 2 Rep. John Bennett explained that a superintendent from his district had called him to explain that the SDE was keeping one-third of the textbook money. He then reminded the body that last year, the legislature trusted the SDE with a lump sum of funds and that the agency then failed to pay school employees’ flex benefits as legislated (requiring a supplemental appropriation this session). District 61 Rep. Gus Blackwell pointed out that the SDE has a history of ignoring legislative dictates. He followed up by threatening to deplete the agency’s budget if that happens again. District 64 Rep. Ann Coody mentioned that the Senate’s removal of line items in the SDE’s budget the last couple of years has led to unfunded mandates on schools.

Members of Superintendent Barresi’s own party were on the floor of the legislature saying that in a little over a year, she has already established a pattern of neglecting their will. Democrats like Joe Dorman, Ed Cannaday, Scott Inman, and Jerry McPeak were also vocal in their frustration over how she has performed. The fact that textbook funding was both restored and protected is huge. This means schools will not have their ability to pay for critical instructional materials depleted any further. It also means that the legislature will likely be more careful in the future when it tells the SDE what to do.

That’s from my post dated May 26, 2012, titled A Stern Rebuke. It seems that legislators didn’t like Barresi moving money from fund to fund and they wanted to proscribe how the SDE was to spend its allocation. They restored line items to the education budget, and that was that.

Additionally, this issue has come up before and was discussed at length in a ruling from the Attorney General’s office – in April 2003 (found using this search engine and entering the term Flexible Benefit).

You next ask whether a school district’s statutory obligation to pay a percentage of the cost of certified employees’ health care premiums is dependent upon the amount of funding the district receives from the State Board of Education. School districts receive State funds appropriated to the State Department of Education based on a State aid formula (see 70 O.S. 18-200.1 (A) (2002)), as well as State funds appropriated for specific purposes, such as the flexible benefit allowance. 2002 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 388, sec 11. Since a school district’s obligation to pay 75% of the health care cost is reduced or offset by the amount of the legislatively-funded flexible benefit allowance, the question that arises is how the district’s obligation is calculated if a State revenue shortfall reduces the flexible benefit allowance funds that are allocated to school districts by the State Department of Education.

To refresh your memory, the 2002-03 school year was one of the worst in recent memory for the state budget. School districts laid off a lot of personnel. This is a long AG opinion (over 2,800 words), but the gist is that there is a limit to how low school districts can go in funding FBA for employees, and that they can only dip below 75 percent if there is a state revenue shortfall. What I’m not seeing is the shortfall. The state has the money, and the legislature has chosen not to allocate it to school districts. The state superintendent thinks she can just whip money from line to line in violation of legislative intent.

I’m not sure what the strategy is here. Maybe it’s another attempt to prove to teachers that she’s looking out for them. Maybe she is just trying to work Obamacare into the conversation because it plays to her base. I’ll give her credit for repeatedly asking the legislature to fund the shortage, but I’ll also consider that their reticence has something to do with the miasma I discussed a few days ago. At this point, I think the legislature is ready to repudiate anything she does – or look at it skeptically.

As should we all.

June 24^th can’t come soon enough.

Answers on Third Grade Reading

Janet Barresi and the SDE really, really want us to be ok with the third grade retention law. That explains this message that came to inboxes across the state today:

Dear educators:As you are well aware, this is a critical time for the Reading Sufficiency Act’s third-grade reading requirement. I know that those of you teaching K-3 are working hard to give your students the gift of literacy, and I have seen impressive reading plans in districts large and small across Oklahoma. With the OCCT testing window only a month away, I wanted to address some common questions about how to prepare for RSA today and in the months ahead. As outlined by the RSA, by this point you already have identified struggling readers through benchmark assessments and have notified parents of the children who are struggling. In the coming weeks, keep doing what you do best — explore the fundamentals of reading with those students using whatever the techniques or resources you think will work most effectively. If you need assistance from one of our REAC3H coaches or the literacy department, help is only a phone call away. Talk to parents or guardians. If you can reach out to families — especially those where education is not a priority — with accurate information about the RSA and the importance of literacy, you could help spark an entirely new future for those children. Many of you have been assembling portfolios of work from your struggling readers. Please continue to do so. By no means are you required to create portfolios for all your students, but if you would like to assemble one for each child, that is up to you, your district or your local board. Remember, however, that a portfolio must clearly demonstrate that a student has mastered state standards beyond the retention level and that he or she is reading at least on grade level. A listing of specific elements required for a portfolio can be found here. If you have questions about what to include, please don’t hesitate to ask the OSDE. Of course, the portfolio is just one of six good-cause exemptions in the reading law. While the specific structure and language of the exemptions are set by state law, you will work directly with your own districts to determine if a student qualifies for one. If you believe a student has met an exemption, take that evidence to your principal. Your school district will accept or reject the recommendation of your principal. I have received some questions about the “alternative standardized reading test” exemption. This allows a student who scored Unsatisfactory on the reading portion of the OCCT to move on to fourth grade by passing a different assessment approved by the OSDE. If you are concerned about a student’s chances on the OCCT, you do not have to wait until the scores are returned to administer an alternative assessment. Districts may begin offering alternative tests immediately after they administer the OCCT. Districts also choose which alternative tests to use. I hope any of your students who score Unsatisfactory on the OCCT will have an opportunity to attend a summer reading academy. If those students are close to showing reading proficiency, intensive instruction over the summer may be enough to advance them to fourth-grade immediately. If they reach proficiency by Nov. 1, they could be promoted mid-year. That latter option would best serve students enrolled in a transitional grade that combines intensive reading remediation with the content of fourth-grade classes. Retention is absolutely a last resort. Reading is essential. This law, established in 1997, is intended to lift kids up, not hold them back. The instructional model and retention opportunity was inserted in RSA nine years ago but became mandatory in the 2011 amendment. It sets long-term goals of catching troubled readers with benchmark tests long before they risk retention in the third grade. If they are retained, it should not be a repeat of what they already have learned but an opportunity to ensure they have the skills necessary to succeed for the rest of their lives. I want to thank those of you who have taken the time to write to me with your thoughts and recommendations. It helps those of us at OSDE make appropriate adjustments in the program and in the supports we provide to you. Also, thank you to all of you who have attended our trainings. I hope you have found them to be of value. Finally, I want to thank you for the work you do for the children of Oklahoma. Your steadfast commitment and professionalism are a testament to the greatness of teaching. My prayers are with you and for you and the children you faithfully serve. Warmest regards, Janet Barresi Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction

Three quick thoughts:

1. Barresi appears to blame schools for the retention law being necessary in the first place. She states in the third-to-last paragraph that the “instructional model and retention opportunity was [sic] inserted in RSA nine years ago but became mandatory in the 2011 amendment.” In other words, if you had been meeting this unfunded mandate for the first six years, it wouldn’t have come to this! Except, of course, that Florida does it. And we love Florida! She turns this into praise for teachers in the final paragraph, however, with all of the “steadfast commitment and professionalism.”
2. Apparently, Barresi – or whoever writes these letters for her – believes that a lot of Oklahoma schools are going to create transitional fourth grade classes.  They’re not. At most schools, we would be talking about a handful of students (probably between 0-5). The funding for classes that small just isn’t available. Additionally, in an ideal world, all of these students will ascend to fourth grade on Nov. 1 (which is a month after they would be considered Full Academic Year students, which is an altogether different rant).
3. In the second-to-last paragraph, she thanks those of us who have made recommendations. This is a far cry from declaring that the time for debate is over. At most, when we contact the SDE, after a lengthy delay, we receive a response that essentially parrots back the FAQs listed on their website. Allow me to list in the following box all the changes that have been made to RSA implementation by the SDE following feedback from educators:

While I do agree that literacy is a gift, and I appreciate her prayers, I won’t pretend this email left me with the intended level of warmth. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would guess it’s not just me.