Of Standards and Rules
In case you missed it, Oklahoma’s Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) have become the Oklahoma Academic Standards (OAS). Though this transition has gone largely unnoticed, evidence is everywhere at the Vision 2020 Conference.
The standards known as PASS have been codified in law and administrative rules for more than 20 years. After the standards were introduced in the early 1990s, they were revised multiple times, usually coinciding with the year ahead of the textbook adoption cycle. For example, if the state was going to adopt new textbooks in science, the previous year would see committees of state employees, school teachers, and college professors working in committees to update the standards. The process has always been organic and powered by the teachers in this state. Yes, the state drove the process, but it was always teachers providing the energy from their experiences in the classroom to make changes.
In 2010, by legislative action, Oklahoma adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These standards would replace PASS, at least for reading/language arts and math. They hadn’t been written yet, but they were on the way. This decision, supported by a Democrat in the Governor’s Mansion and one at the SDE, has been supported time and again by their replacements, both Republicans. In fact, across the country, the drive to standardize the curriculum has been bi-partisan.
In 2011, after taking office, Superintendent Barresi quickly renamed all of Oklahoma’s standards the College, Career, and Citizenship (C3) readiness standards. This was the national trend…getting all three of these words into everything education. We’re not just preparing kids for college; we’re preparing them for careers and citizenship! Lately, all things trending national in education are being blamed on the President. Whether it be CCSS or C3, we can’t risk looking like we agree with Obama on anything! It might cost us the election ruin the children!
Earlier this year, the State Board of Education adopted rules that both eliminated PASS and all references to it from the administrative code. The rules also took the legislature out of the approval process. You see, under PASS, any changes to the state standards had to be ratified by the legislature. Accordingly, the SBE changes were rejected by the legislature. Or more accurately, the SDE pulled the changes before they could be rejected.
Then last week, when the SDE finally released the program for Vision 2020, just about every session somehow had the OAS worked into the description, in many cases, to the surprise of the presenters. We’re taking the CCSS and calling them the OAS without changing a word. There’s even a campaign for the re-brand. Check out their website: For the Road Ahead, which proclaims, “Oklahoma Academic Standards are custom-built for PreK-12 students in Oklahoma.”
Except they aren’t. Again, we’ve adopted the CCSS and relabeled them the OAS. There’s nothing custom about it.
We’re pulling out of PARCC testing, but remaining in the consortium – as a governing member – so we can take what we’re learning from the process and work with a testing company to make our own tests. You know, that company that screwed up all the tests this year? Yeah, that one.
(Oh, wait, there’s going to be a request for proposals. I forgot.)
Remember as you attend day two of the conference, in spite of the appearances, you’re not in a professional learning environment. You’re smack dab in the middle of a political infomercial. Reality is elusive.
As of one minute ago
- 851,393 informed readers and counting!
Follow okeducationtruths on Twitter
My TweetsRecent Posts
- Reason #1 to pick Dr. Grace over Mr. Walters: The future we’ve already seen
- Reason #2 to pick Dr. Grace over Mr. Walters: The why and the how
- Reason #3 to pick Dr. Grace over Mr. Walters: Bibliophilia
- Reason #4 to pick Dr. Grace over Mr. Walters: Respect for the profession
- Reason #5 to pick Dr. Grace over Mr. Walters: Fiscal management
Archives
- August 2022 (10)
- July 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (1)
- April 2021 (4)
- March 2021 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- October 2018 (1)
- September 2018 (1)
- August 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (1)
- April 2018 (2)
- March 2018 (3)
- November 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (5)
- March 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (3)
- January 2017 (10)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (6)
- September 2016 (5)
- August 2016 (3)
- July 2016 (5)
- June 2016 (15)
- May 2016 (11)
- April 2016 (11)
- March 2016 (19)
- February 2016 (13)
- January 2016 (14)
- December 2015 (13)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (8)
- April 2015 (5)
- March 2015 (11)
- February 2015 (8)
- January 2015 (8)
- December 2014 (7)
- November 2014 (4)
- October 2014 (5)
- September 2014 (7)
- August 2014 (8)
- July 2014 (10)
- June 2014 (35)
- May 2014 (15)
- April 2014 (23)
- March 2014 (15)
- February 2014 (15)
- January 2014 (13)
- December 2013 (11)
- November 2013 (19)
- October 2013 (22)
- September 2013 (10)
- August 2013 (13)
- July 2013 (15)
- June 2013 (10)
- May 2013 (24)
- April 2013 (21)
- March 2013 (22)
- February 2013 (24)
- January 2013 (24)
- December 2012 (11)
- November 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (37)
- September 2012 (19)
- August 2012 (13)
- July 2012 (14)
- June 2012 (20)
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (3)
Thank you for summarizing the chronology of the rebranding of the curriculum goals. However, as you know curriculum changing and rebranding is one thing, and its another to attach an unbearable testing component and teacher pay with the curriculum goals. The curriculum name changes, etc. are not horrible in and of themselves, but when combined with dozens of tests taking up millions of dollars and used to discourage and punish teachers, that’s another matter entirely.
LikeLike
In a word…..STUPID!!!!
LikeLike