Are Our Children Getting Left Behind?

Are Our Children
Getting Left Behind?

No one has been a greater supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act than I because it reflects the goals for which many of us have been working for in the Oklahoma State Legislature. However, through the years I have become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with NCLB because of its implementation in Oklahoma. It can be said that even though our plan has met the letter of the law, we have missed the intent by miles.

A 2007 NCLB report stated that Oklahoma is one of four states on its way to achieving its NCLB goal! Of course Oklahoma is on its way to achieving its goal because our goal in reading is equivalent to “Below Basic” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The approval of loopholes big enough for the proverbial Mack Truck to drive through allows Oklahoma exemptions from being responsible for most, if not, all children.

Our own Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) continually uses the term “federally approved” for all NCLB decisions. Here are some examples:

1. The federally approved high school graduation rate goal was 68% through 2014 until that rate was challenged by the Legislature and the media.

2. The federally approved high school graduation data system was ruled arbitrary and capricious in 2007.

3. The federally approved high school graduation formula has allowed Oklahoma to defer transparency and accountability in accurately counting graduates and dropouts.

4. The United States Department of Education is encouraging all states to enter into the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Graduation Formula Compact for the purposes of real accountability and comparison across states. Currently, Oklahoma has at least four different graduation percentages reported in various publications:
a. A state department senior year graduation rate of 97.1%
b. An NCLB graduation rate of 88%
c. A USDE graduation rate of 80%
d. A comparable NGA graduation rate of 70%

5. The federally approved n of 52 in all subgroups excludes approximately 65,000 children (about 20%) from accountability at school sites cross the state. This gives the perception that all students in these schools are performing successfully, when they actually may not be.

6. The OSDE maintains that Oklahoma cannot have its own state accountability system per the requirement of NCLB.

7. OSDE maintains that the state legislature has no control or oversight over NCLB per NCLB requirements. While that may be true, the OSDE failed to say that Oklahoma can submit a request to amend our previously approved plan.

It is unfortunate that in the last few years the USDE has approved loopholes and flexibility which have benefited the bureaucrats and their need to look good, and which at the same time allowed them to cheat our children out of the kind of quality education they deserve. It is time for the deception, obfuscation, and confusion which amount to education malpractice to end. When the facts are transparent, then real reform can begin, and perhaps we will not leave any more children behind.

Senator Kathleen Wilcoxson
Senate District #45

Legislative Leaders Critical of TPS Lawsuit Against Charter Schools

GOP Legislative Leaders Critical of TPS Lawsuit Against Charter Schools

State Capitol, Oklahoma City – Speaker of the House Lance Cargill and Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee today criticized Tulsa Public Schools’ lawsuit against the state’s charter schools law. The lawsuit’s goal is to get the Charter School Act, which allows charter schools to operate in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties, declared unconstitutional.

“Charter schools are an amazing success story in Oklahoma, with many charter schools excelling in areas where traditional, urban school settings have not. It is very disappointing that the Tulsa Public School District is pushing this misguided, anti-student lawsuit,” stated Coffee, R-Oklahoma City. “Charter schools provide a much needed complement to traditional public education, and give parents a choice and an alternative for their children. TPS should be working with the Legislature to expand the successful charter schools program, not attacking charter schools with a lawsuit.”

"The Tulsa School Board is trying to force a one-size-fits-all education system onto Oklahoma students, who all learn in different ways," said House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah. "Instead of imposing a monopoly on education, the board needs to accept that charter schools have been very successful in settings where unique studies and personalized attention have benefited students. After all, this is about getting Oklahoma's children the very best education possible, not nursing bruised egos."

Charter schools are public schools established by contract with sponsors, and are exempt from many state regulations. Oklahoma law authorizes charter schools in 12 school districts: Broken Arrow, Edmond, Jenks, Midwest City/Del City, Moore, Mustang, Oklahoma City, Owasso, Putnam City, Sand Springs, Tulsa and Union Public Schools.

These districts' boards of education, or the area CareerTech school boards serving them, may sponsor a charter school. Oklahoma law also allows a comprehensive or regional institution of Higher Education to sponsor a charter school in certain school districts.

TPS' lawsuit plan is under fire

TPS' lawsuit plan is under fire
By NORA FROESCHLE World Staff Writer
12/20/2007

Lawmakers and charter school officials question the district's motive.

Two Oklahoma legislators say Tulsa Public Schools' planned lawsuit over the state's charter school law reveals the district's dislike for charter schools, not its concerns that the law violates the state's constitution.

The school board voted Monday night to authorize a lawsuit against the state Department of Education regarding the 1999 Oklahoma Charter School Act.

The lawsuit is the only venue through which the law's constitutionality can be determined, according to the school district's attorney, Doug Mann, and school board member Matt Livingood.

TPS will contend that the law violates the provision in the Oklahoma Constitution against "special" or "local" laws because it applies only to school districts in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties.

Several lawmakers strongly disagree, however.

Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, chairman of the House Education Committee, said Monday, "I'm extremely disappointed in the Tulsa school board for challenging this bill, especially since it helps address the constitutional concerns that they raised last year."

Supporters of the legislation say the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in a 2006 case -- City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board -- that a population restriction is constitutional.

Rep. Jabar Shumate, D-Tulsa, said he is appalled by the school district's pursuit of litigation to settle a matter on which he and others worked hard to find a compromise.

"TPS is wrong, and their attorneys are not being fair," Shumate said.

"Our Supreme Court stated as early as a year ago that the Legislature can pass laws that are population-oriented and not specific to a particular city."

The change made this year in the law says that counties that contain districts with at least 5,000 students can sponsor charter schools, Shumate said.

Charter schools receive public funding through a sponsoring school district but are governed by an independent board. Tulsa has three charter schools: Deborah Brown Community School, Dove Science Academy and Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences.

Livingood has said those schools are not the intended target of the lawsuit, although they could be affected.

Shumate said the charter schools in Tulsa are making a difference where the public schools have failed.

"The reason why there's a fight here is because those (charter) schools are showing that kids can learn no matter how they look, where they come from," he said. "They can learn if we put the resources into reaching kids where they are."

Harold Roberts, director of development for the Deborah Brown school, said the school wants out of its charter with Tulsa Public Schools and never has received support from the district.

"We think the actions of TPS" on Monday evening "are indicative of their attitude about charter schools," he said. "They have basically been anti-charter schools."

Roberts said Deborah Brown officials have battled repeatedly with TPS on nonsubstantive issues regarding its contract renewal.

The recent change in the original charter school law enables universities to sponsor charter schools, and Roberts said Deborah Brown is eager to end its relationship with TPS and enter a new sponsorship with Langston University.

He said the school sent a letter Oct. 23 to TPS Superintendent Michael Zolkoski asking to be released from its contract. The district has yet to respond, Roberts said.

"The fact that the law allows higher education to consider charter school sponsorship, that's what's giving them heartburn, because we don't have to go to them anymore," he said.

TPS officials said they did not receive the letter, although Roberts said it was sent by certified mail.

Roberts said Tulsa Public Schools receives 5 percent of the state funding for his school, which amounts to about $100,000 a year.

"The response we're now getting is they're obviously not planning to release us from the contract," he said. "If you could get $100,000 a year for doing nothing, (why not) keep getting it?"

Langston University President JoAnn Haysbert said the university wants to sponsor the Deborah Brown school and has told Tulsa district officials of its interest in doing so.

Haysbert said she wrote to Zolkoski in October requesting that the district transfer the Deborah Brown school's charter to Langston.

"The students and the record of the Deborah Brown school speaks for itself," she said. "If we're going to sponsor a school, it would certainly be one that is carrying out the teaching an learning process."

Haysbert said she has not received a response from TPS but continues to be interested in sponsoring the school.

Dove Science Academy Principal Fevzi Simsek said in an e-mail that he has received many inquiries about the issue from parents.

"We believe that the Charter School Act is constitutional," he wrote. "We think it is wasting public money to challenge Charter School Act."

Nora Froeschle 581-8310
nora.froeschle@tulsaworld.com


Charter fight: Can't beat 'em? Sue 'em
Thu December 20, 2007

The Oklahoman Editorial

We don't buy the idea that Tulsa school officials were thinking about Oklahoma children when they decided this week to sue over the state's charter school law. As with many lawsuits, this one's about money and power.

The 1999 law has long bugged a few Tulsa officials. It allows for charter schools at only a few districts in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas. Districts have little authority to say no to schools seeking a charter as long as they meet the state-mandated criteria.

Charter schools receive public funds but are free of much of the red tape common in traditional public schools. Funding has been a major concern in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, with worries from school officials that charter schools are siphoning off too much money. School board members also have complained that they don't have enough authority over charter schools.

The Tulsa school board's primary contention is that the focus on only a few districts makes the law unconstitutional. Those who disagree include two Democratic state lawmakers from Tulsa. Rep. Jabar Shumate said the district is wasting money with a lawsuit; Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre called the litigation a "smoke screen” to hide failures in north Tulsa schools.

The point of charter schools is to offer competition and help take ideas that work and replicate them in traditional public schools. Instead, we hear a lot of complaining about money and grumbling about why tactics that work in charter schools can't be duplicated.

The lawsuit is a shameful waste of taxpayer money — much more shameful than using it for charter schools that are succeeding with ways to make sure all children get a quality education.

Tulsa school officials can keep saying they're concerned about children who don't get a chance at charter schools. But anyone who's been paying attention knows that couldn't be further from the truth.