With the primary elections coming up in a little over three weeks, I have been thinking about the best way to remind people how important the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction is. Yesterday, I re-posted my earlier piece on the seven candidates who have filed for the position. Since then, more than 2,000 people have read it. More importantly, quite a few have clicked through to the webpages of the candidates.
- Hofmeister 185 clicks
- Kelly 143 clicks
- Cox 136 clicks
- Herron 108 clicks
- Deskin 91 clicks
- Holmes 77 clicks
- Barresi 70 clicks
If he were in the race, friend-of-the-blog Rob Miller would be in eighth place in this very unscientific straw poll.
I also wrote a short reminder that we all need to be turning up our efforts at raising awareness for whichever candidate we favor. That post generated the following comment from a reader, though one who is obviously not a huge fan:
I’m not voting for Janet Barresi either. But not because you repeated “Koch Brothers,” “Jeb Bush,” and “Foundation” as some sort of shibboleth. As far as I’m concerned, Janet Barresi is no more or less dishonest and one-sided than your own attacks on her have been.
I’m still curious. Where was the outrage when Sandy Garrett had us at #49, seemingly content to remain there forever? Was that OK, as in “Oklahoma values,” because she didn’t rock the boat, didn’t challenge the largely self-serving public education establishment?
As a person who takes constructive feedback seriously, I felt I had to respond.
If your point is that my use of those terms is just as much an attempt to evoke a predictable response from my core readers as it is when Barresi says “liberal” and “education establishment,” I suppose I’m guilty as charged. Yes, I too use loaded language. As for your claims that I have been “dishonest” on this blog, I’d love for you to point out specifically where that has been true. If you think I’m “one-sided” because I don’t criticize Sandy Garrett, please keep in mind that I started this blog a little over a year after she left office. I have been critical of many Oklahoma politicians – not just Barresi. When SG was state superintendent, I often pointed in my professional dealings to things with which I disagreed – just never to this extent.
I have also been critical of President Obama and Secretary Duncan, but on a more limited scale since I tend to focus on the Oklahoma education issues.
Most importantly, though, thank you for reading, and I’m glad to hear you won’t be voting for Barresi.
Surely we can all think back to a time prior to 2010 when we scratched our heads and wondered why Garrett and the SDE were doing things in a particular way. She led a major state agency for 20 years. We questioned many things. We also got answers. We had regular meetings with top SDE staff that included opportunities for meaningful stakeholder input. It was a very different time.
I began this blog in 2012 with a commitment to discussing the present state of public education in Oklahoma and how our elected officials’ decisions impact the future. When appropriate, I also discuss the past. That is why for the next three weeks, I’m going to be counting down the top 20 reasons to vote June 24 – for anybody other than Barresi.
The list is a work in progress, but I have a pretty good idea of what my top three will be. I have also received input from stakeholders, but unlike with reason #20 below, I’m interested in what you think. In any case, I am pretty certain that I will leave out a few of your favorite memories. I may do one a day, but if I know me, I’ll skip a day or two, and then double up somewhere down the line. Let’s get this started!
Reason #20 –Oklahoma’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver
About the time that Barresi took office, those crazy feds were developing a process by which states could request flexibility from the original requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (the title given to Congress’s 2001 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Oklahoma, along with the other states that constitute the Chiefs for Change (C4C) group, relied heavily on Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) in writing their waiver requests. By the time SDE staff met with educators that October, Oklahoma’s request had largely been written.
Fortunately, we have some historical accounting for how that process went. The non-profit group In the Public Interest compiled a database of conversations between state officials and representatives of FEE. One of my favorites includes a discussion, a few months later, between the SDE’s Kerri White and FEE’s Mary Laura Bragg.
[16 Oct 2011]
Thank you for a great conference this past week in San Francisco. The meeting helped provide a nice overview of the reforms that C4C are advocating for across the nation.
Superintendent Barresi asked that I contact you to get a better understanding of how C4C and the Foundation can assist Oklahoma as we are working on our ESEA Flexibility Request. We understand that there will be a lot of work over the next few weeks in determining identification definitions, interventions, and timelines, as well as actually doing the calculations in order to create our list of Reward, Priority, and Focus schools before November 14. Is the Foundation planning to provide general policy assistance to C4C states, or is there also help available in writing, editing, and revising the Request?
We will be meeting with LEA representatives all day Tuesday to construct the basic outline of our request based on the principles for which C4C are advocating. We are looking forward to their input and guidance and to put it in the context of the work of the Foundation.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
We also have record of the invitation Ms. White sent to those nominated to serve on the working groups (from a reader – some people save everything).
[6 Oct 2011]
Congratulations! You have been nominated and selected to serve on one of three ESEA Flexibility Working Groups. Please see the attached list to verify which working group you have been selected to participate in. We will need you to participate in two meetings.
The first meeting will be held via webinar (so you can participate from your own computer) on Monday, October 10 at 10:00 a.m. In order to register for this webinar, please go to http://oksdetraining.webex.com; click on the “Upcoming” tab; and click on “Register” next to “ESEA Flexibility” on October 10. You will receive an email confirmation with instructions for how to sign-in to the session. This meeting should last less than one hour.
The second meeting will be in Oklahoma City at the State Department of Education on Tuesday, October 18 from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. You will receive more details about this meeting soon.
I am attaching two documents from USDE’s Flexibility Website that should be beneficial for your review prior to Monday’s webinar.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Congratulations, indeed! As anyone who was there will tell you, very little was on the table for discussion. The major decisions had already been made. Suggestions that were unanimous by the working group were not even considered. Those running the meeting were very direct about this.
Another favorite is this one, which is a general playbook of all the reforms favored by C4C, FEE, as well as Arne Duncan and the USDE. It includes everything that our state has adopted since 2011: A-F Report Cards; tying teacher evaluation to test scores; college and career readiness standards; and third grade retention. In case it is unclear to anyone why Barresi’s entanglements with these groups bother me so much, it’s because she has tied every action of the SDE to what Jeb Bush wants. Oklahomans who occasionally appear in her working groups are usually there only to fulfill a nominal requirement for stakeholder input. It is never meaningful.
Barresi and her top officials at the SDE established this pattern early in their tenure there. It has continued with every major decision. And it is one of the top 20 reasons that I will be voting for someone else June 24.
We in the blogosphere kid Janet Barresi and Mary Fallin about their wild declarations sometimes. They get really excited when they’re letting us know that Oklahoma is Oklahoma and nobody is going to tell us what to do.
The problem is that there’s not an original idea between them. Somebody is always telling us what to do, and they’re letting it happen.
I posted late last week that the Oklahoma State Department of Education is asking for comments from Oklahomans like you on the new OASS (Oklahoma Academic Standards for Science). They want you to know believe that the standards were written by Oklahoma educators.
They weren’t. They were lifted, practically verbatim, from the Next Generation Science Standards. As Jenni White and Rob Miller point out in their analyses (which are eerily similar), reading the OASS side by side with the NGSS shows very little difference. Essentially, Oklahoma has removed references to evolution and climate change. That’s it. While both White and Miller (and I for that matter) like the structure and organization of the standards, we all deserve to be told the truth.
Of course, for six months, the SDE has been passing off the Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Mathematics as the Oklahoma Academic Standards. As with the NGSS, the CCSS were developed by Achieve, Inc. That is the group driving standards, curriculum, and assessment in Oklahoma.
Naturally, because leaders of conservative states like ours pretend to believe in local control, they want to assert the state’s supremacy. That’s why Fallin issued an executive order declaring that those interloping Feds better keep their interloping hands off of our schools – except for special ed and Title I money of course. We need to be mad at the Feds for cutting that!
There are two reasons why her executive order makes me laugh. First is that the US Department of Education may have incentives for adopting CCSS and other poorly researched reforms (VAM, anyone?), but they are not the author, merchant, and carnival barker for them. That responsibility has fallen to the Chief State School Officers – especially the nine who are members of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change. The second is that Fallin didn’t even write the executive order. It’s nearly identical to the one released in October by Iowa’s governor, and it’s nearly identical to the one released this week by Mississippi’s governor. The anti-Fed position is a red herring intended to disguise the fact that these governors are actually embracing the Common Core.
We shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that Oklahoma writes our own standards or executive orders when we don’t even write our own laws. We also shouldn’t believe that the tests that we’re going to pay Measured Progress to write for us are anything terribly different than what PARCC would have written before we pulled out of their tests (while trying to remain on their governing board). As the Request for Proposals issued by the SDE made clear, the tests will be written to PARCC specifications. And they shall be called OCCRA.
Now for the punchline: last week, the SDE released sample responses to the current fifth and eighth grade writing tests. Of note is how the instructions indicate scorers should deal with responses that do not fully cite their sources. Fifth graders will not have to use quotation marks or reference the title and author of sources. Eighth graders will not have to reference the title and author (which I suppose means that they will have to use quotation marks).
Using this as a reference point, I think we can say that our entire state government is performing pretty well when held to a fifth-grade standard. Another way to say this is that Oklahoma fifth graders who pass the state writing test are pretty much ready to be in charge of this state. Maybe this is why I tend to have so many citations in my posts.
For further reading, please see the following:
Best Month Ever!
Typically, when I blog about my blog, I don’t get a lot of page views. Still, I like to take the time to recap a busy month and preview the next one when I can. And this month I get to brag a little bit. Okeducationtruths is a small operation with a good local following (and a few readers from outside the state). Prior to this month, the best month for page views was April with just over 11,000. I’m on track for 17,000 in July, thanks in no small part to the efforts below. Keep in mind, if the education policy landscape in Oklahoma were better, this blog wouldn’t even exist.
Here are the top five posts from July:
- A well-written letter – The most viewed post all-time on this blog was actually written by someone else. Broken Arrow Public Schools superintendent Dr. Jarod Mendenhall. His letter captures the questions that we all have as Oklahoma educators about the failures of the testing cycle and the SDE response to it.
- Pulling Out of PARCC – Before we learned that we wanted to keep our toes in the pond, we learned that staying in the testing consortium in which we remain a governing state would be like “drinking a milkshake through a cocktail straw.” And that metaphors are strange little rhetorical devices.
- Of Standards and Rules – How would you, if you were Janet Barresi, deal with the Republican backlash over the Common Core while continuing to appease your Chiefs for Change overlords? You would continuing implementing the standards but rename them something else – all without legislative approval.
- We were on a break! – The SDE did have to clarify that while Oklahoma will not be testing with the consortium, we are remaining with PARCC. And since, as of this writing, Oklahoma is still listed on the PARCC website as a governing state, I guess that’s true. What’s not clear is why.
- More Responses to Barresi’s Response to the Testing Debacle – Two groups representing a large number of districts and administrators took the state superintendent to task for blaming the breakdowns in testing on school districts. And rightly so.
Going back to number three, I’ll try to have a post written in a day or two discussing the recently adopted arts standards and the upcoming cycle for science adoption. I also have been working on a glossary of eduspeak to post (and add to continuously). Finally, I’ve been thinking of posting a page on the blog linking to all candidates for state superintendent with the stipulation that I won’t be making any endorsements. Hopefully I’ll have that completed in August too.
Since CTB/McGraw-Hill testing failed in April in both Oklahoma and Indiana, the responses have been very different. Oklahoma’s state superintendent vacillated blame between the testing company and the school districts it failed. Indiana unrelentingly blamed CTB. Oklahoma issued a penalty to the testing company that was really a sweetheart deal bringing them more revenue in the long run. Indiana continues to pursue a steep penalty that actually hurts CTB.
Oklahoma’s deal with CTB allows them to pay for their own study on the impact of the testing disruption. Indiana has already completed theirs. Indiana State Superintendent Glenda Ritz summarized the results:
“I have spent the last several months talking with Hoosiers about the impact these interruptions had in the classroom. Although Dr. Hill’s report found that the statewide average score was not affected by the interruptions, there is no doubt that thousands of Hoosier students were affected. As Dr. Hill stated in his report, ‘We cannot know definitively how students would have scored this spring if the interruptions had not happened.’ Because of this, I have given local schools the flexibility they need to minimize the effect these tests have on various matters, such as teacher evaluation and compensation. I have also instructed CTB McGraw-Hill to conduct enhanced stress and load testing to ensure that their servers are fully prepared for next year’s test and ensure that this never happens again.”
Flexibility? Consideration of the students and teachers? That’s revolutionary talk. My guess is that the CTB report of the Oklahoma disruption will insist that the statewide impact lacks statistical significance, although the impact on individuals will be episodically concerning. With these findings, I expect the Oklahoma SDE to provide no such quarter to students or teachers.
Need an EOI to graduate? Sorry. You should have passed the other ones. Need that value added point in a couple of years (based on a baseline established in 2013) to ensure that you get to keep teaching? Sorry, the disruption wasn’t that big of a deal.
Going back a few months earlier, Indiana voters shocked Jeb Bush by defeating Tony Bennett, one of his Chiefs for Change cronies, in 2012. Do you think there’s a chance we’ll follow Indiana down that road?
(By the way, if you haven’t read about the latest Tony Bennett scandal, you need to. This is one of Barresi’s closest reformer friends.)
If you’d like read the entire 20 page report on Indiana’s testing disruption here.
Nearly three weeks after the Washington Post wrote about the web between Jeb Bush, his Foundation for Education Excellence, Chiefs for Change, and the development of education policy in several states – including Oklahoma – the Oklahoman has finally written about it. This article in the news section discusses the influence of conservative groups – like ALEC – on Oklahoma legislation, with strong denials from state leaders that our laws are being written out of state. The editorial page covered the education controversy more specifically in a post titled, “School change driven by policy; not conspiracies.”
Normally when I link to an editorial, I don’t include the title. This one amused me. The story has been out there for three weeks. The Tulsa World has covered it. I’ve written about it four times, beginning on January 31 with this post. For all the insistence that policy decisions are being made at the local level, the evidence to the contrary is too great to ignore. Officials from out-of-state groups are not only writing the majority of Oklahoma’s education laws; they are also writing the administrative rules for implementing those laws.
The major problem with this is that it all boils down to what happens in Florida. And no matter how much we hear that the Sunshine State is the model for all things great about education reform, the results just don’t back up the rhetoric.
In a desperate ploy to prove – something, I’m not quite sure what – the editorial (again, it’s worth mentioning that Superintendent Barresi’s campaign manager’s husband writes for the editorial staff) tried to compare these entanglements with a scandal involving a former Skiatook superintendent. He’s in jail, so maybe there is something to that. In the end, the paper is critical of the fact that some “gullible souls actually buy into this twaddle.”
(Yes, they called concerns about where Oklahoma policy comes from twaddle. I’m glad the editorial ended there. I think we were headed towards describing something as ballyhooed or interjecting a consarnit if it had continued.)
The problem is not just education, you know. If you’d like to see a list of all legislators on ALEC’s task force, go here. Oklahomans listed include:
- Rep. Jabar Shumate (OK D-73), Alternate
- Rep. Ann Coody (OK R-64), Member
- Rep. Lee R. Denney (OK R-33), Member
- Sen. John W. Ford (OK R-29), State Chairman and Education Task Force Member
- Rep. Sally R. Kern (OK R-84), Alternate
- Sen. Jim Reynolds (OK R-43), Alternate
It should also be mentioned that the Oklahoman’s article today (not the editorial) offers a defense of the parent trigger law and the film Won’t Back Down. Keep in mind that the newspaper’s parent company put up the money for this film – one of the worst-rated films on both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.
Your takeaway from this entire hubbub should be to understand that all of the reforms taking place in Oklahoma schools were not conceived by a single Oklahoman. Among all of our policy makers, there are no new ideas. Our legislators – even our governor and state superintendent – are but a farm team for the national organization. In their attempt to move up from AA to AAA and maybe someday even the show, they’ll do anything to please the national and corporate masters.
To answer the question I asked 17 days ago, that’s where education policy comes from.
The Tulsa World ran a spread Sunday covering the influence of outside organizations on the Oklahoma State Department of Education. Its writers were thorough in highlighting the implications of these connections. They showed that even in the Internet age, there is a place for good journalism. While a number of people read this blog daily to see what is going on in public education, I can’t call state officials and ask questions like newspaper reporters can.
The article cites an extensive pattern of corporations contributing to groups like the Foundation for Educational Excellence and having an inordinate influence on public policy:
Testing companies and for-profit online schools see education as big business,” said In the Public Interest Chair Donald Cohen. “For-profit companies are hiding behind FEE and other business lobby organizations they fund to write laws and promote policies that enrich the companies.
The writers, Andrea Eager and Kim Archer, go on to point out the connection between Superintendent Janet Barresi, Apangea Learning, Inc., Jeb Bush, and former Indiana State Superintendent Tony Bennett. Having been the guest of Apangea on a trip in 2011, Barresi piloted a program with the company in January 2012 for $470,000. Since then, the cost has expanded to $1.5 million per year.
It should be noted that Apangea’s program – Think Through Math – is being provided free to school districts as an online support for math instruction. It should also be noted that the SDE answered questions from the World by saying that Apangea went through a proper RFP process.
The World also discusses the role of FEE in policy development. One email they highlight shows that not only did the Foundation help construct administrative rules; they also provided influence after the fact:
An email from December 2011 indicates that the Bush foundation was heavily involved with the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s writing of the rules used to implement legislation including the new A-F school report cards, changes to the Reading Sufficiency Act intended to end “social promotion,” and online supplemental learning.
“Based on my work with your team, I don’t anticipate any issues getting approval from your board, but we are happy to provide any kind of air cover – op eds, tweets, letters to the editor, and even expert testimony at the board meeting if you need it,” wrote Mary Laura Bragg, director of state policy implementation at the Foundation for Excellence in Education, in an email to Barresi.
Other emails show that Assistant State Superintendent Kerri White sought assistance with Oklahoma’s application for a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act from Chiefs for Change and the Jeb Bush foundation and Bragg responded with a referral to John Bailey, whom she called, “our federal policy superstar.”
That “superstar” influenced Oklahoma policy on A-F Report Cards, third-grade retention, mandates for online instruction, and probably most significantly, the state waiver to No Child Left Behind. The waiver was so poorly constructed, it left the state with three separate accountability systems. Explain that to school patrons.
Governor Fallin is also linked to Bush and FEE, though her spokesperson takes a “so what” attitude towards it:
“I don’t have any direct knowledge of corporations or individuals who promote Jeb Bush or his group,” said Alex Weintz. “Our involvement with him is as a fellow governor who knows Gov. Fallin personally. Jeb Bush has a perspective when it comes to education. He believes accountability measures such as A-F work; so does Gov. Fallin. The results in Florida were obviously successful. We hope we can achieve the same kind of results in Oklahoma.”
Oklahoma involvement with FEE extends to the legislature as well. This is instructive because it provides context for the coming voucher push in the legislature:
In late November, Barresi organized a large delegation – 12 state Education Department employees, legislators and several state board of education members – to attend the foundation’s national summit, an annual event, which was held in Washington, D.C.
An agenda for the event lists Barresi as a panelist at a session called “Transforming Education for the Digital Age,” and state Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, as a panelist at a session titled “Reaching More Students with Vouchers and Tax-credit Scholarships.”
(By the way, in the past, Nelson has shied away from the term voucher in Twitter conversations. When he is in state, he sticks with the euphemism scholarship).
The World also showed the link between Barresi and the Carpe Diem charter school in Arizona, which adds to the intrigue of the selection of Oklahoma’s new Career Tech head: Bob Sommers, the chief executive officer and managing partner of Carpe Diem.
Finally, the article points out the folly of following Florida in the first place. Their education system isn’t better than ours. That claim is as false as the constructs on which all this reform is predicated. Public education is not broken. It does not need to be fixed by corporations.
So thank you, Tulsa World, for continuing to ask questions and making people uncomfortable. I wish there were two major papers in the state operating that way.
In Part One, I gave as brief an overview as I could of the key entities involved in the email database. Here I am going to link to seven specific emails that collectively show a pattern of hypocrisy, entanglement, and disregard for Oklahoma’s voters and schools. Obviously, there are other selections that could further support my point, and upon your own reading, you may find some that better support it. But Part One was already over 900 words, so I wanted to be selective.
These five sample emails are arranged in a way to make a point. They are not in chronological order. As emails are customarily informal, I have not corrected them or imposed a [sic] notation where convention might otherwise dictate I do so.
August 10, 2011 – Superintendent Barresi asks the Foundation for Excellence in Education for guidance in developing Oklahoma’s NCLB Waiver.
Sec. Duncan called the governor and asked that Oklahoma send a framework document to him next week prior to USDE releasing guidelines. I assume other C4C folks received the same call. I have a meeting tomorrow with gov staff to discuss. I am putting together my ideas but want to bounce some things off of your or anyone working on this.
This email is important for at least two reasons. First is that it establishes a pattern of the SDE running important ideas through FEE before making them public. This was two months before the Department asked for volunteers and nominations to serve on the three committees that were convened to provide input on writing the waiver.
January 31, 2012 – Three FEE staff members describe the waiver process alternately as “strong-arming” and “bribing.”
Jeremy Ayers, Senior Education Policy Analyst:
…there is appetite among states for a strong, but more flexible, federal role in accountability. … 11 states have already signed up for adopting state-defined performance targets, within federal parameters specified by the waiver package. 27 states propose to do so in February.”
Mike Petrilli, Executive Vice President:
Excuse the conversation folks but this is incredible. The federal government forces states into certain “parameters” in order to get flexibility, and the fact they many are willing to go along means they don’t actually want (or need) more flexibility? What choice do they have? And what I’m hearing from states is that what you call “a constructive back and forth” amounts to strong-arming by Uncle Sam.”
Terry Ryan, Vice President for Ohio Programs & Policy, Fordham Institute (but with FEE email account):
It is not so much strong-arming as bribing. Ohio has largely kept its state department of education functioning on federal grant dollars, and this is apt to continue for at least the next biennium. Bet it is similar in other states.
State education agencies couldn’t do their work without the support of federal dollars. That is both unfortunate and true. At the same time, the reformers couldn’t do their job without entities such as FEE to clear the political underbrush. I find it ironic that FEE staffers complained about having to deal with the USDE’s demands when states were simultaneously begging for approval of their plans. Lesson: Be careful what you wish for.
February 8, 2012 – The Oklahoma SDE Assistant General Counsel circulates draft rules of the A-F Report Cards.
Attached for your review is a revised draft of the A-F rule – which incorporates all of the edits we made today. We will pick up tomorrow morning at 9:00 am with section (f).
On this one, it’s not as important what was said, but who received it. In addition to Superintendent Barresi, eleven other people at the SDE were recipients. There were also two FEE staff members on the recipient list. The final person listed was somebody using a meridianstrategiesllc.com email account. A Google search for Meridian Strategies, LLC, comes up with this web front with no links to content. The website corporitionwiki.com indicates that this is a Tallahassee firm with one active officer – Patricia W. Levesque (also the CEO of FEE). Meridian was founded in 2007, about the same time as FEE and Chiefs For Change.
That means there is another affiliate of this Florida-based group influencing Oklahoma policy, and we know next-to-nothing about them. The pattern continues…
August 28, 2011 –Teri Brecheen of the SDE and Mary Laura Bragg with FEE discuss draft rules for Oklahoma’s newly-written 3rd Grade Retention law.
Good Morning, Mary Laura,
I hope you had a wonderful Weekend…
I have these 2 Rules and Technical Document to finish. I want your input to finish them… we will have to work with what Oklahoma has in place at this time and add in the future those pieces that are making Florida Reading the model it is…
Do you have some time today?
And in response:
I’m really concerned, as you are, about the “other” on the good cause piece – as the rule reads, it allows any kid to be promoted – which would negate the entire law. So I’m trying to work on ways to close that loophole with my legislative person.
In the meantime, it would be helpful if you could get a decision on where the legislature was going with paragraph L – and is the portfolio they mention in L DIFFERENT from the one set up in K(4)? We would recommend that it be the same, which would allow some control over the subjectivity of the teacher/principal. We are worried that creating a list for the “other cause” is too prescribed and if you leave something out, you’ll be stuck, and also you give an excuse to promote anyone, which goes against the intent of the law. I’ve cc’d Jessica, hoping she can shed some light.
This exchange shows that going back at least to 2011, the SDE has valued the opinion of FEE staff more than teachers and principals, who clearly need to be controlled. Keep in mind that we’ve often heard a narrative of distance from policy decisions in the 2+ years Barresi has been in office. Well, the legislature wrote the A-F laws. The legislature passed the 3rd Grade Retention law. The State Board requested a budget of…
It’s nonsense. No reform has passed through the legislature that didn’t emanate from the SDE. And nothing began there; it all started in Florida.
June 8, 2011 – Patricia Levesque introduces Superintendent Barresi to Scott Laband.
I want to introduce you to Scott Laband the vice president of Colorado Succeeds an education advocacy group in Colorado.
In conjunction with Stand for Children Colorado, they would like to host a 3rd grade literacy forum to influence the literacy task force created by Gov. Hickenlooper. One of the goals is to get the task force to adopt an Oklahoma style test based promotion policy in 3rd grade.
They would like to invite you to speak on a panel. I will be speaking on the panel as well.
After the 2011 legislative session, Superintendent Barresi was a hot commodity on the speaker circuit. She had a triumphant first few months in office in the sense that she had orchestrated the passage of several game-changing reforms. The “Oklahoma style” 3rd Grade law Levesque references is really a “Florida style” law. But it had a new messenger.
This is a good place to cut myself off. There are other gems in there, if you’re willing to dive in and search. In a way, it’s like art. We all can look and see different things, based on our own experiences. Cumulatively, the emails make two key points:
- Barresi and her staff knew what laws they wanted before they had any idea how they would implement them.
- The SDE’s reliance upon “policy by think tank” is a slap in the face to local control.
What a tangled web we weave.