Our ROPE ladies need our help:
Please consider taking action.
A national organization threatened suit if our Governor signed the repeal of Common Core State Standards, as we worked so hard to get our legislature to do.
This national organization has made good on its threat by cajoling our state board and a handful of others to file the suit here in Oklahoma.
Power grab! Don’t let them.
Sure, it is in the hands of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, but let your voice be heard. Contact your local Representative and your State Senator.
Point out that this law suit has no grounds. Here is the statement in our constitution:
Section XIII-5: Board of Education.
The supervision of instruction in the public schools shall be
vested in a Board of Education, whose powers and duties shall be
prescribed by law. The Superintendent of Public Instruction
shall be President of the Board. Until otherwise provided by
law, the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General shall
be ex-officio members, and with the Superintendent, compose said
Board of Education.
Emphasis added. That is it. The whole Constitutional statement. It clearly says the board shall be ruled by law. The legislature writes the laws as we see fit, and that is that. This is the law now. It CANNOT be unconstitutional. The constitution says this is the way it is supposed to be.
I just saw an ad (a welcome one) that touted some curriculum as intentionally “not aligned with common core.” Okay, but there isn’t much point in trying to steer clear of any and every aspect of common core, per se. What we need to avoid is the soul-killing progressivism built into the agenda held by the pushers of the Common Core State Standards.
We also need to avoid the “new math” category of failed ideas that try to make something of mathematics that it is not.
The present danger of CCSS is not inherent. We don’t need to scrutinize everything we work with in educating our children to see if it has a scent of CCSS, we just need to ensure we are thoughtfully individualizing what we teach every individual. We must remember that our students are our partners, walking with us. We are helping them learn what they need to fulfill their own desires and achieve their own successes. Our students are not some resource of the state, not some retirement investment for ourselves.
The biggest problem of CCSS was the statism inherent in it. It also pushed the same “new” ideas and teaching philosophies that have failed over and over since the sixties. That is, we just need to avoid what we know has failed in education over the last few decades. The practical badness of CCSS simply resulted from the repackaging of these failed notions about teaching, notions predicated on control of large classrooms and notions of “model citizens”, which translates to Borg-drones in my opinion. The group of people who push the CCSS are mostly in it for the money, but some of them are driven by notions articulated by the late George Carlin. Such people don’t want a truly educated populace, they want compliant people only smart enough to run the machines.
They are closing the News9 debate as I begin this post.
Fundamentally, James Lankford is right. We cannot cut enough to stop increasing our debt as a nation quickly. Look at the numbers. We are not JUST talking dollars. We are talking about lives. Cutting defense hurts military families immediately. It hurts all kinds of contractors and government-related workers slowly but very significantly. Cutting welfare programs is necessary, but we have to do it slowly and sensibly, or people will literally be killed by the cuts. (As a consequence of the effects necessitated by the cuts.) The same for all the rest. The numbers are practically incomprehensible. James Lankford has about as great a grasp of the problem and how hard it is to get where we need to go as anyone I can think of.
James Lankford is right.
My respect for Mr. Lankford increased throughout the debate. I am confident that Senator Lankford will have an enduring and positive role in the history of the United States Senate.
Note, my respect for Mr. Shannon increased also.
However, I cannot support Mr. Shannon for Senate. I do not believe he will fit there. I do believe Mr. Shannon will make a good President of our United States. I believe his life experience and his political experience both suit him well for excelling as leader of the free world.
TW Shannon, perhaps you will never see this, but I am addressing you specifically:
You said we need a President with a correct vision. Please, sir, put your money where your mouth is. Declare your candidacy for the President of The United States.
Mr. Shannon, you show yourself a visionary in your presentation during the debate. I don’t really think you will make a good foot-soldier. You lead well as Speaker. I don’t think you are the right “cut” for the US Senate. I do think you can lead from the front.
I challenge you to get up there. Run for Commander-in-Chief.
I really mean it. I will support you as I am able.
I’m watching the debate on News9 between James Lankford and TW Shannon.
The question asked was what each considered the greatest threat to the USA.
Both said the US debt. Shannon qualified that slightly.
I disagree. The greatest threat to the USA as we know it today is federal regulation. Specifically, the EPA is the greatest threat to the United States of America and what we are.
I applaud TW Shannon for actually stating (later) that we need to abolish the EPA. Yes. We must.
I’ll be voting for James Lankford in the upcoming primary for Oklahoma US Senate.
I record here my story of why.
I grew up in southeast Kansas, and I consider the Tri-States my home. That is, I consider myself a native of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Oklahoma has been our residence for several years now, and Kevin Calvey was the first politician I came to know personally. I found him to be, above all, a good man. Read the rest of this entry »
These comments, http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/06/joy-hoffmeister-in-my-opinion-jenni.html, by Jenni White of Restore Oklahoma Public Education, are reassuring.
I will support Joy Hoffmeister in this primary. However, it is clear in my mind that Janet Barresi has proven a failure. She is dangerous, and I cannot support her. If Janet Barresi is on the ballot, I will vote for another name, even if that name has D behind it. Being a registered Republican, I cannot vote in the other party election, but from what little I know of that side of things, Freda Deskin seems a reasonable and responsible person for the job.
I expect that the Democrat Party leadership knows that Janet Barresi is vulnerable. I suspect the plans are moving forward to win this statewide office and put it back in the D column. I honestly expect that is what will happen if Barresi wins the primary.
That is okay with me. It isn’t a game. I can support good candidates from any party. While I cannot stand behind him on everything he says publicly, I support my local Representative Scott Inman. He is a good man. He will side with the Democratic Party in general, but he will stand for what is right when his party is crosswise of it.