Concerns Regarding SB 1797 By Clark Jolley of the Senate and HB2762 By Lee Denney of the House The bill

changes the name of the Education Oversight Board (EOB) to the Commission for Education, Instruction Quality and Accountability (CEIQA). NOBODY knows how much PARCC tests will cost ($30-50/student?). NOBODY knows what PARCC tests look like. PARCC tests must be administered on computer HOW MUCH WILL TECHNOLOGY COST THE STATE? NOBODY knows what the performance descriptors for the test are. NOBODY knows the cut scores. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE TESTS OTHER THAN WHAT ACHIEVE, PEARSON, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATVE, ARNE DUNCAN AND PRESIDENT OBAMA ARE SAYING ABOUT THEM? OVERVIEW: 1. Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission of 6 appointed members and the Secretary of Education (7) from 5 appointed members and two elected officials (7) 2. The majority of the seven members are members of the BUSINESS community (4) - persons from the business community will oversee nearly all law pertaining to teachers and schools o 2 appointed members from higher ed or public schools (added since introduction) o Accountability for AYP, letter grading of schools, etc. is laudable, but, how can businessmen who most likely know nothing about education practices really be objective? o Ignorance can be an impediment to objectivity. o Is business so overrepresented because they are considered stakeholders in public education Is Oklahoma public education being remade to churn out workers for businesses (as is done in China) so we must make public education accountable to the business sector? o A bill similar to this was proposed in Indiana. Members of PEARSON were placed on the board. http://btownerrant.com/2012/02/16/lessons-learned-pearson-royals-aided-by-indiana-arnolds/ 3. Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission that oversees another appointed office (Office of Education Quality & Accountability) also containing no elected officials. o What does this buy Oklahoma? How is this true consolidation? What is this purpose? 4. Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission authorized to enter into contracts with private vendors o The DOE is supposed to enter into contracts with vendors for services. o Why usurp DOE authority in the name of accountability when there is a school board which is to provide accountability? 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Part C REMOVES NAEP as the baseline for performance level descriptors and changes it to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers - PARCC o The State Superintendent entered Oklahoma as a governing state of PARCC early into her tenure in order to have a seat at the table for producing the assessments for the Common Core State Standards she favors. o PARCC is a nationalized test with costs that have not been identified or budgeted for our state. o NAEP already has TESTED performance descriptors that Oklahoma has used for years. PARCC has NONE they are still in development! o By removing NAEP and inserting PARCC in this legislation, the descriptors will ONLY apply to the PARCC tests. This means we'll HAVE to use the PARCC tests and the PARCC tests are set to measure the Common Core State Standards. PARCC performance level descriptors -----> PARCC tests -------> Common Core State Standards WHY IS NAEP REMOVEAL IMPORTANT? 1. PARCC ASSESSMENTS ARE GENERALLY UNTESTED! a. One of the biggest problems Ive seen with state assessments and national assessments is they are typically not done on a budget and a timeline that allow people to go out and do the pilot testing and tryouts that you would like, said Mark D. Reckase, a professor of measurement and quantitative

methods at the University of Michigan. Experts See Hurdles Ahead For Common Core Tests, Sarah D. Sparks, EdWeek, April, 2011 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/12/28aera.h30.html?tkn=UPOFcmH8A3r0yI7V24Ln%2FSE 7SKR6Bu7TcRC8&cmp=clp-edweek b. Very little is known about the assessments! A Primer on the Common Assessments, Catherine Gewertz, EdWeek, Nov, 2011 http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/11/a_primer_on_the_common_assessm.html?cmp= ENL-EU-NEWS2 c. Tests were devised BEFORE Curricula so teachers MUST teach to the test. Curriculum Should Precede Assessments, Diana Senechal, Core Knowledge Foundation, September, 2010, http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/09/16/curriculum-should-precede-assessments/ 2. HOW MUCH (Common Core) ASSESSMENTS WILL COST? a. State Superintendent Janet Barresi has provided NO figure for the cost of PARCC assessments, saying instead, she anticipates low costs. State Education department spokesman: Barresi anticipates low costs for implementing Common Core. Patrick McGuigan, CapitolBeatOK.com, Dec. 2011 http://capitolbeatok.com/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=4105129 b. While jointly developing tests was intended to save states money, the grants do not include money for administering the new assessments long-term, and it will be harder to make adjustments to the tests once they are completed, because so many states will need to sign off on changes. The cost makes me the most anxious, Mr. Norton said. In todays world if we have a [testing] cost problem, we own that: If we get into a test we cant afford, were really left holding the bag. Experts See Hurdles Ahead For Common Core Tests, Sarah D. Sparks, EdWeek, April, 2011 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/12/28aera.h30.html?tkn=UPOFcmH8A3r0yI7V24Ln% 2FSE7SKR6Bu7TcRC8&cmp=clp-edweek c. Chester Finn of the Fordham Institute (supports Common Core) said the cost per student for assessments in PARCC ranges from $30-$50. Assessing the Common Core, 2010, http://www.pienetwork.org/assessing-the-common-core d. Oklahoma already has a 16.7 million dollar contract with Pearson for student testing which has been the source of GREAT concern. Oklahoma Education Department Reviews Contracts in the wake of standardized testing errors, Megan Rolland, Newsok.com, Sept., 1011 http://newsok.com/oklahoma-education-department-reviews-contracts-in-wake-of-standardizedtesting-errors/article/3601417?custom_click=headlines_widget e. How much will it cost to buy NEW EQUIPMENT to deliver tests? Michael Russell, director of the Nimble Innovation lab at assessment company Measured Progress in Dover, New Hampshire, also warned the consortia that it might not be possible to deliver tests the same way on a tablet computer as a desktop "without measurement effects." That lack of flexibility is likely to increase pressure on districts to base technology purchases on test compatibility rather than a more comprehensive consideration of student and teacher needs. A major concern is whether school districts have the technological capacity to handle large-scale computer-based testing. Common Core Tests Ahead, Education Reporter, May, 2011 http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2011/may11/common-core-tests.html f. Brainchild Launches next generation iPad assessment app for schools, eSchool News, Jan. 2012 http://www.eschoolnews.com/2012/01/05/brainchild-launches-next-generation-ipad-assessmentapp-for-schools/ g. The Hidden Costs of the National Standards Push, Lindsey Burke, The Heritage Foundation http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/09/the-hidden-costs-of-the-national-standards-push/ h. Common Core State Standards Arent Cheap, Education Reporter, January 2012, http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2012/jan12/common-core-standards.html 2. PARCC tests are performance based tests a. Let me quote from the federal Office of Research and Education Improvement (OERI): "Performance assessment is part of a model of schooling which emphasizes a constructivist approach to teaching and learning [that's Whole Language and Whole Math] and cooperative and collaborative learning [that's group learning]." The same document also states, "Performance tests will drive teachers to

change their instructional practices to place greater emphasis upon high order cognitive skills." Every time we hear about higher order thinking skills, we should recognize this is usually code for shifting to a methodology that undermines the teaching of basic academic skills, even after the failures of Performance-Based testing in so many states. Representative Steven Baldwin (R), California State Assembly Education Committee, Education Reporter, February 12, 1997 http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1997/oct97/focus.html b. Also see Parent: Too many tests, not enough term papers, Wendy Lecker, Washington Post, 10/2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/parent-too-many-tests-notenough-term-papers/2011/10/01/gIQAnpteCL_blog.html 3. THIS WILL FURTHER TIE OKLAHOMA TO FEDERAL TESTING AND STANDARDS VIA NCLB. a. In addition, as a condition for getting waivers, states had to make a number of commitments, including to adopt college-and career-ready standards (for most states, this means the Common Core State Standards) and aligned assessments (for most, joining one of the two state consortia working on common exams). Waivers for Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma were conditional, meaning they still must make improvement to their plans. NCLB Waivers: Implications for Testing, Standards Implementation, Erik Robelen, Feb. 10, 2012 http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/02/the_big_education_news_out.html a. Oklahoma Achieves Flexibility from No Child Left Behind: New Waiver Provides Added Urgency to Implementation of State Reforms http://sde.state.ok.us/Services/News/2012/DraftRelease.pdf (all priority new reforms found here) b. The Road to a National Curriculum focuses on all the legal violations perpetrated by the federal government to incentivize state adoption of the Common Core and connected tests. Much is ground we at Cato have periodically covered, but this report goes into much greater depth on specific statutory violations. The War Against The Core. Neal McCluskey, The CATO Institute, Feb. 2012, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-against-the-core/ c. On Education Week blog, curriculum analyst blasts No Child Left Behind waivers, Patrick B. McGuigan and Stacy Martin, Feb. 2012, http://capitolbeatok.com/_webapp_4162323/On_Education_Week_blog,_curriculum_analyst_blasts_N o_Child_Left_Behind_waivers d. Controversy swirls around states acceptance of President Obamas waiver, Patrick B. McGuigan and Stacy martin, Feb. 2012, http://capitolbeatok.com/_webapp_4161435/Controversy_swirls_around_state%E2%80%99s_acceptan ce_of_President_Obama%E2%80%99s_waiver e. The No Child Left Behind waiver for Oklahoma draws both cheers and jeers, Patrick B. McGuigan and Stacy Martin, Feb. 2012. http://capitolbeatok.com/_webapp_4160949/The_No_Child_Left_Behind_waiver_for_Oklahoma_draw s_both_cheers_and_jeers 4. NATIONAL TEST ARE AGAINST FEDERAL LAW: 20 USC 1232j a. Prohibition on federally sponsored testing (a) b. General prohibition - Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law and except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no funds provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable program, may be used to pilot test, field test, implement, administer or distribute in any way any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1232j 5. CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN THINK TANKS AND POLICY ORGANIZATIONS ARE AGAINST THE COMMON CORE WHY ARE REPUBLICANS LEADING THIS CHARGE? a. Heritage Foundation, Friedman Foundation, Goldwater Institute, CATO Institute, Hoover Institute, Pioneer Institute, Eagle Forum, Conservative Teachers of America, American Principles Project, Truth in American Education