Oklahoma State Department of Education

Peggs, OK, Superintendent Dr. John Cox Runs For Superintendent

Dr. John Cox Runs For State Superintendent

Several weeks ago, we had Peggs Superintendent Dr. John Cox on to talk about his campaign for Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Though I like to make short clips of our interviews, I’ll not be doing that with candidates. ROPE Report will not be endorsing candidates for office, so I fear that creating shorts would run the risk of sounding as though we were attempting to endorse – or knock out – a candidate for office since the clips wouldn’t be seen in the whole context of the video.

Please make sure you watch the video – it’s very instructive. I won’t download the whole video in the blog post, but you can find the full version on either our Rumble or YouTube channels.

Please take the time to watch, comment and share!

August 1, 2025 0

Our Wide-Ranging Interview With Kendra Wesson, Oklahoma State School Board Member

Wednesday, January 8th, Michael and I welcomed OK State Department of Education Board member, Kendra Wesson.

Our chat went all over the place – which was great! We really had the opportunity to delve into a number of issues that parents – and taxpayers alike could appreciate. Find the FULL live video on both our YouTube or our Rumble channels.

In the clip below, after talking a bit about how happy we were that the State Board was beginning to keep students safe by finally pulling the teaching licenses of Oklahoma public school teachers and staff who had been investigated for sexual misconduct, Kendra made some amazing statements about the lives young people have to live today. It’s a short clip, but it’s so important to hear her take on “blurry boundaries”.

In another hit-it-out-of-the-park moment, as we were talking about the controversy surrounding Oklahoma state grade cards and the recent change in testing cut scores, Kendra makes the point that if parents would just have their kids read to them from a book on a regular basis, cut score kerfuffles would be almost meaningless…

Kendra is so right! Parents need to step up instead of letting their schools take over parenting of their kids. A missed education will never be caught up. Our friend, public school teacher/administrator Sandy Harrell taught us that.

January 14, 2025 0

Neither The Oklahoma State Department of Education DEI Rules Or Gov Stitt’s Executive Order Will Stop DEI In Oklahoma Education – Here’s Why

Jenni White – 1.25.24

GOVERNOR STITT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO-31) FOR DEI IN OKLAHOMA HIGHER EDUCATION

December 13, 2023, Governor Stitt signed an Executive Order 2023-31 (EO) that has been referred to as BANNING DEI by the general media. Heritage Foundation (a center-right think tank that also promotes School Choice, but was loudly vocal against Common Core) referred to the Executive Order as “condemning DEI” – a big difference from “banning DEI”.

EO-31 DOES prohibit Oklahoma’s Executive Branches from using “state funds, property or resources” to promote DEI via any of 6 different ways listed, including “(2) Mandate any person to participate in, listen to, or receive any education, training, activities procedures or programming to the extent such education, training, activity or procedure grants preferences based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over another’s”.

It also orders the heads of the Executive Branches to “initiate a review” of any DEI programs or activities under their purview and bring them into compliance with the parameters of EO-31 if not already.

Here is a listing of Oklahoma’s Executive Branches:

Attorney General
Governor
Lieutenant Governor
Oklahoma Secretary of State
Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector
Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction
Oklahoma Treasurer
Oklahoma Agriculture Commission
Oklahoma Insurance Commission
Oklahoma Labor Commission
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission

To be clear, according to EO-31, I can’t be hired by the Insurance Commission and have them give me training out of their budget that includes a DEI component. That is good and I do not want to overlook the GOOD part of this EO.

Now, though, let’s look further down in the Executive Order and note that the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education is NOT an Executive Agency. EO-31 is clear in the first statement of the EO, “Executive state agencies shall not utilize state funds, property or resources to:”. It says NOTHING about anything outside the agencies listed above.

Thinking in that vein, note the underlined in red below:

Let’s stop here. This paragraph says that EO-31 will not apply to COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES or any of the executive agencies SUPPORTING them – INCLUDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – if they apply for a GRANT or to comply with ACCREDITATION requirements. Unfortunately, GRANTS and ACCREDITATION are where so much of the DEI in higher education arises. If you don’t believe me, internet search “DEI in higher ed accreditation” and you will find article after article about how, the only way to really advance DEI principles in higher education is THROUGH ACCREDITATION.

Here, in fact is an article from the Chronicle Of Higher Education titled, “The New Accountability: How Accreditors Are Measuring colleges’ diversity, equity and inclusion efforts“.

So what about grants? Well, we ALL know Higher Ed takes federal government grant money. Check this out:

And that’s just FEDERAL grants. There are other grants from non-Federal sources in abundance, like this group.

Now let’s look even FARTHER down in EO-31. It says:

Alright. Let’s think about that. The order says the EO DOESN’T apply if a federal law supersedes. Here’s a Fact Sheet from the Feds that talks about how Title VI law CAN PROMOTE DEI. And not only that, President Biden also has his OWN EO mandating DEI in schools, so NO, EO-31 STILL DOESN’T STOP DEI in higher ed.

We could go on, but EO-31 won’t stop higher ed DEI scholarly research either and a friend just sent this to me. Not only will EO-31 not stop, creepy research, it won’t stop “a student organization registered with or recognized by an institution of higher education”. This research is in conjunction with the BGLTQ+ Student Center and we all now know that the alphabet sex brigade and DEI go together like furries and cat boxes.

RYAN WALTERS PROPOSED DEI RULE FOR K-12 SCHOOLS

Here is the set of rules proposed by Walters to be heard by the Board on Friday, February 16th.

The rules for K-12 actually do more than those for higher ed, but they still do not stop DEI.

Walters’ rules FOLLOW THE GOVERNOR’S EO-31 EXACTLY (with the exception of the removal of #2 and #3 under letter (f) of the Governor’s EO that apply only to higher ed). In point of fact, they would have to, as the OSDE is an Executive Branch and it must follow the Governor’s EO-31.

But herein lies a bit of a problem.

Accreditation of Oklahoma public schools are done by the OSDE using their accreditation standards. So, as long as those standards don’t allow DEI, that window is closed – unlike with higher ed and Oklahoma private schools which can be accredited by the OSDE, or a myriad of other accrediting agencies.

Unfortunately, however, we still have the issue with GRANTS.

Here, Edmond Public Schools Foundation is thanking those donors who are helping to raise OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS for SEL programs inside Edmond schools. Unfortunately, SEL is intricately tied to DEI in a million ways and any grant that comes into a school for SEL will ultimately bring in DEI as well. George Lucas’ educational non-profit Edutopia, has a whole page devoted to ways in which k-12 schools can obtain grants to push out SEL.

Also unfortunately, we still have the problem with FEDERAL LAW being exempted as well as student organizations, with both of those issues similar in K-12 to my discussion on higher ed.

An article from OETA entitled, “D.E.I. In Oklahoma Schools“, quoted OCU’s DEI coordinator as saying:

Yet LGBTQ clubs such as this one from EPIC Charter Schools, is exempted from the new DEI rule because it’s a student organization recognized by the school.

To close out, since data collection is ALSO exempted, DEI also can come in through THAT door. I’ve written numerous times about how horrible some of the surveys being given by Oklahoma public schools are today. Here’s an article about Success Highways and its link to DEI. Here’s another about the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Survey.

And worse, here’s an exchange I had with a teacher on social media that shows that it’s often teacher training and teacher mindset that bring DEI ideals into the classroom on a daily basis without even needing a private or federal grant, or anything else.

Additionally, Oklahoma uses school counselors from the American School Counselor Association an organization DEDICATED to bringing DEI into every school and with every child. So there’s that.

Consequently, since we still have DEI coming into schools through data, teachers and counselors, whether or not Walters’ new rule on DEI is passed by the Oklahoma State School Board members or not

the bottom line here is this: BOTH THE HIGHER ED EO and the K-12 RULES ARE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE – WHICH WAS NOTHING – but it’s important to remember that NEITHER STOP DEI. Really, the surest way to keep your child from being influenced by DEI ideology is to:

Educate your child/children at home – not even private schools are ‘sure things’ in terms of rational, classical, non-ideological education anymore
Monitor your child’s social media and internet access closely and lock down problem apps and sites
Talk to your children constantly about your moral values and ethics – your worldview
Make sure you’re clear with your children about what you as a parent – or guardian – expect from them in terms of their behavior
Prevent as much government entanglement as possible, including the use of tax credits or vouchers for private school as these have strings that can bring unwanted influences in through the regulation

January 28, 2024 0

A List – With Commentary – Of The Newest Rules Added To The Oklahoma State Department Of Education Website For Review

Jenni White

I have simply copied and pasted much of the information from the OSDE website’s Administrative Rules page into this document, so please pay attention to the PUBLIC HEARING DATES in BOLD. Also, if you’d like to provide any commentary on these rules to the state prior to the hearing, you may do so here: rules@sde.ok.gov, or through their address:

Office of Legal Services
State Department of Education
Hodge Education Building
2500 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599

A public hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2024, in Room 1-20 (State Board Room) at the Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, in Oklahoma City for the following rules.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and
Technology Schools
Part 22. Standard XII: Academic Performance
210:35-3-210. Purpose. [NEW]
210:35-3-211. Applicability of the Standard. [NEW]
210:35-3-212. Metrics for Academic Deficiencies. [NEW]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

These appear to be reasonable rules to specifically address schools with low academic proficiencies. The only question here is, upon what tests will the school year district data assessment be predicated? Oklahoma’s state tests, NAEP, or something else. Without knowing from what assessment tool the data to be considered will be culled, how can the rule be enforced? That issue needs to be addressed.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and
Technology Schools
Part 9. Standard V: The School Staff
210:35-3-86. Qualifications; personnel records; health and safety. [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This rule appears to be addressing the issue at Western Hills Elementary School exposed by ROPE Report Regular V1SUT.

These rules, under the NEW heading of Health and Safety, require all administrative assistants in a school building overseeing staff or an education program to have appropriate teaching certification for the job they hold. Same for staff. All certifications must be filed in the school of employment throughout the school year.

Additional PROPOSED rules say:

(g) Health and safety regarding certified employees. If a district maintains the active employment or contract of, or renews a contract of, a certified employee currently under investigation for certificate revocation, and that employee’s certificate is revoked at the conclusion of that investigation, the district shall be given a health and safety deficiency.

(h) Health and safety regarding non-certified employees. If a district maintains the active employment or contract, or renews a contract, of a non-certified employee currently under investigation by law enforcement for a felony; and that employee is convicted of a felony, pleads guilty to a felony, or pleads nolo contendere to a felony at the conclusion of that investigation; the district shall be given a health and safety deficiency.

The problem to me here is the word CURRENT. It appears to be a grandfather clause. If there are staff or teachers with a felony record in the past, there is no provision for that. This is an absolutely REQUIRED rule to protect the safety of children in public schools, but – in my mind – it should include ALL CURRENT employees regardless of whether they are ‘currently’ under investigation. If a teacher or employee in a public school has a felony record, they should – more than likely – not be around children.

Also, what impact is a “health and safety deficiency” in a school’s accreditation? If it is a slap on the wrist, why even create the rule? This question speaks to the rule below.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and
Technology Schools
Part 21. Standard XI: Accreditation Status
210:35-3-201. Statement of the standard. [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

I’m unclear how specific are these rules. Here’s an example of the 3^rd accreditation standard:

3. Accredited With Deficiencies: A school site or district fails to meet one or more of the standards but the deficiency does not seriously detract from the quality of the school’s educational program.

Question: We learned above that a “Health and Safety” deficiency will be added if schools continue employment of certified or non-certified personnel under current investigation for a felony or found to have a current felony. One could argue that employees under investigation of a felony do “not seriously detract from the quality of the school’s educational program”. Consequently, this needs to be tighter language – or it should at least be made clear that the State School Board retains the right to use recorded deficiencies based on the evidence at hand for each school. Even that doesn’t work, however, because that kind of language will be construed in whatever way an Administration decides to use it – for good or for evil.

Maybe we should keep the number of ‘deficiencies’ very small and very meaningful and then make the accreditation based on the number of deficiencies alone.

A public hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 16, 2024, in Room 1-20 (State Board Room) at the Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, in Oklahoma City for the following rules.

Subchapter 1. General Provisions
210:25-1-2. Equal Protection [NEW]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This is the highly anticipated DEI rule that our Superintendent has been talking about. I see no reason for this rule. What the rule states in a-d is effectively wiped out by e-f. Here’s what I mean:

(e) Nothing in this rule prohibits the Department or any recipient of funds from the Department from applying for a grant or complying with the accreditation requirements by an accrediting or licensing agency, including, but not limited to, submitting to the grantor or accreditation agency a statement that:

And then it goes on to specify services for poor and underserved populations. Following this, the rule exempts situations:

(f) This rule shall not be construed to apply to the Department or any recipient of funds from the Department with respect to the following:

Included under (f) is this specification:

a policy, practice, procedure, program, class, or activity required for compliance with state or federal laws, rules, or regulations for obtaining or retaining institutional, academic, or discipline-specific accreditation or licensure;

Here’s an example of an accreditation organization for K-12 institutions including Catholic schools;

“Standard 1 Leaders cultivate and sustain a culture that demonstrates respect, fairness, equity, and inclusion, and is free from bias.”

So, if the OSDE is going to exempt accreditation organizations, you’re gonna get DEI. There are other exemptions in this list. I’m not going to list them all here, but I’ve pasted in the URL, please look at it yourself and let me know your thoughts, but if these rules DON’T APPLY to any of the items listed under (f) – THEY ARE COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF STOPPING DEI.

A public hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 16, 2024, in Room 1-20 (State Board Room) at the Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, in Oklahoma City for the following rules.

Subchapter 29. Standards of Performance and Conduct for Teachers
210:20-29-5. Principle III [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Here is the text of the rule:

(e) A teacher may be dismissed, refused employment, or not reemployed after a finding that such person has, either in the presence of a minor or in a manner available to a minor online, engaged in sexual acts, acts that appeal to the prurient interest in sex as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards, or acts that excessively promote sexuality in light of the educational value of the material and in light of the youngest age of any student with access to said material.

Again, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable rule that SHOULD stop predators from being around public school kids. HOWEVER: here are some concerns:

This is similar language to that used by many parents to try and remove sexually inappropriate library books from school libraries – this has only worked in isolated incidences. Sexually inappropriate library books are still littering the shelves of libraries across the campuses of Oklahoma public k-12 schools.
The left will argue until they turn blue in the face that whatever sexually disgusting nonsense they’ve brought into the classroom “has educational value”.
In addition, they MAY be dismissed etc? What does THAT mean? That means that no one could be removed from the classroom.

This rule basically needs to say that ANY STAFF MEMBER OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL WILL be dismissed if – after a law enforcement investigation AND/OR a school inquiry of the individual – has found that they engaged in ANY sex act with a minor student – including inappropriate online communications.

So much of this stuff ends up being useless because the wording doesn’t say what it needs to say (not that mine is perfect either, just saying what’s written is NOT good)

A public hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2024, in Room 1-20 (State Board Room) at the Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, in Oklahoma City for the following rules.

Subchapter 3. Departmental Precepts
210:1-3-4. Annuities contracts. [REVOKED]
Subchapter 5. Due Process
210:1-5-7. Teacher evaluation, dismissal, and nonreemployment. [REVOKED]
Subchapter 9. Interlocal Cooperative Agreements [REVOKED]
210:1-9-1. Purpose. [REVOKED]
210:1-9-2. Definitions. [REVOKED]
210:1-9-3. Enabling provisions/restrictions. [REVOKED]
210:1-9-4. Conditions applicable to interlocal cooperative agreements. [REVOKED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Not sure why all these are being revoked, but nothing much to say about revoked law. The more revoked laws we can get, the happier I’ll be!

Subchapter 1. General Provisions
210:1-1-1. Purpose Declaration of Foundational Values [AMENDED]
210:1-1-7. Purpose [NEW]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Oh my goodness. So much of this is completely unnecessary. While I agree with many of the sentiments, this is a Department of Public Education supported by the tax dollars of ALL Oklahomans. This entire document should be scrapped excepting the BASICS contained in (a), (b) – I suppose, (e), (f), (i) and (j). Because it’s been said in many of the other rules that the Department of Education of the State of Oklahoma follows that State and Federal Constitutions, there is no reason to take up space banging that ideal on the head. It simply serves to put liberals into spasms and why should we use tax dollars for that? We must educate kids properly as asserted in letter (e) and move on. The more strife this department stirs up with the Left, the harder it becomes to get business done.

Subchapter 5. Due Process
210:1-5-6. Suspension and/or revocation of certificates [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This rule inserts a single paragraph that states the number of days in which the OSDE must be notified if contesting the revocation of a teaching certificate. Nothing here out of the ordinary.

Subchapter 1. General Provisions
210:10-1-6. Computer assisted pupil accounting [REVOKED]
210:10-1-10. Accreditation rating [REVOKED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

It appears the accreditation rating was revoked in favor of the language submitted under 210:35-3-201. Statement of the standard.

Subchapter 1. General Provisions
210:10-1-16. Oklahoma Academic Scholar and other student recognitions [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This is VERY HELPFUL. It adds language including the CLT (Classic Learning Test) – a test that is being used by some universities now instead of the SAT and ACT (or at least in conjunction with). My kids took the CLT as 8^th graders and while there was still some iffy gunk on it about global warming for example (according to my kids), there was nothing at all as just downright confusing and indoctrinating as some of the ACT and/or SAT language.

But again, this goes back to my question about Metrics for Academic Standards at the beginning of this document. What test will the state use to make those determinations? We can’t have some kids tested with the state test, but then include ACT/SAT or CLT scores. We need to pick a test and we have long advocated for an independent testing service like CLT or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills as the ACT is HORRID.

Subchapter 2. Parental Rights
210:10-2-2. Definitions [AMENDED]
210:10-2-3. Requirements [AMENDED]
210:10-2-4. Noncompliance [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This language has been added to the existing rule:

“Independent Contractor” means an individual, organization, or entity that is engaged by and/or contracted by a school district to provide services or instruction, whether directly or indirectly, to students or within a school district on a temporary or contractual basis and is not an employee of the school district.

Does this person have to be certified? The school is responsible for them ultimately, but it makes me uncomfortable. I’m not sure exactly what this might be. If it’s a health coordinator, what information could they bring in the parent might not be aware of. It’s a tricky business. We have always wanted the public schools to have more ability to be flexible, but with all that has been going on in the last 10 years, one could argue that many are already way more flexible with education providers than we want them to.

Subchapter 13. Student Assessment and School Accountability
210:10-13-2. Oklahoma School Testing Program (OSTP) scope and general administration [AMENDED]
210:10-13-18. Oklahoma School Accountability System [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

I couldn’t really find anything that was problematic in either of these rules. Basically it’s allowing for remediation for schools who do not score at least satisfactory on the state criterion-referenced tests (very specific test, thankfully). The only problem is that the school only gets remediation if there’s funding.

The second rule gives schools a way to challenge their A-F score and makes it clear that F schools must get comprehensive support and show improvement – but then it doesn’t say here what will happen if they don’t. It’s always the follow-up that kills the best rules/laws/plans…

Subchapter 17. Federal Programs complaint procedures
210:10-17-1. Complaint Procedures [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This is HUGE! So huge in fact, that I wrote a whole blog just about that. Please read it.

Subchapter 9. Professional Standards: Teacher Education and Certification
Part 1. General Teaching Certificate Requirements
210:20-9-12. General education requirements of individuals who already hold baccalaureate
degrees [REVOKED]
210:20-9-14. Alternative plan for student teaching requirements [REVOKED]
Subchapter 11. Professional Standards: Accreditation Standards for Approved Teacher Education Programs
210:20-11-1. Evaluation process [REVOKED]
210:20-11-2. Specific Standards for Program Approval [REVOKED]
210:20-11-3. General education and professional education [REVOKED]
210:20-11-4. Specialization standards [REVOKED]
210:20-11-6. NCATE/State joint visits [REVOKED]
Subchapter 15: Residency Program
210:20-15-3. Residency committee [REVOKED]
210:20-15-4. Variations to the residency program regulations [REVOKED]
Subchapter 24. Science and Mathematics Advanced Recruiting Technique (SMART) Program
210:20-24-1. Purpose [REVOKED]
210:20-24-2. Science and Mathematics Advanced Recruiting Technique (SMART) Program [REVOKED]
Subchapter 26. Academic Achievement Award Program
210:20-26-1. Purpose [REVOKED]
210:20-26-2. Selection and payment criteria [REVOKED]
210:20-26-3. Qualified employees [REVOKED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Again, not sure why, but happy to revoke any laws, rules or regulations. LOL

Subchapter 23. School Board Members
210:20-23-3. Requirements for new and incumbent school board member training [AMENDED]
210:20-23-4. Requirements for continuing education; certificates; costs [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Interesting; the only thing changed about this rule is that the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) has been removed from the wording of the rule under training. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how this will help anything because state law has not been changed. We tried to get it changed, but we were not successful. Several times in the rules I’ve read today it says that if the rule disagrees with state law, state law prevails, so I’m not sure how this will do anything. If you’d like to see why I say that, please read this article.

SB1447 STOPS MANDATORY SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING and SB1445 REDUCES ALL SCHOOL BOARD TERMS TO TWO YEARS

Subchapter 5. Budgeting and Business Management
Part 1. Implementation
210:25-5-4. Accounting [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Apparently this removes the ability of a charter school to appeal any changes in the data they’ve sent the OSDE regarding their financial reporting and accounting. They can show cause that changes are warranted before the data is locked, but the appeal process no longer would exist.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and Technology Schools
Part 5. Standard III: Administration and Organization
210:35-3-48. Local board responsibilities/staff relationships [AMENDED]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

Nothing really much to say about this. These look to be changes required by reorganizing the text after removing this statement:

(3) The local board and its individual members shall refrain from involvement in or interference with the administrative functions of the school.

I’m surprised that was in the rules, but then I was also surprised that THIS was in the rules previously:

(B) Lack of harmony in the teaching staff, board, or community, when such conditions affect the quality and effectiveness of instruction and climate of the school, shall be considered sufficient cause for not accrediting a school. Political and special interest groups or individuals shall not interfere in the operation of the schools.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and Technology Schools
Part 17. Standard IX: Financial Support
210:35-3-167. School District Transparency Act [NEW]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

This is a new section of rules that basically say that if a school’s website does not comply with accountability law they’ll get a deficiency on their accreditation if they don’t fix it within 30 days.

A public hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2024, in Room 1-20 (State Board Room) at the Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, in Oklahoma City for the following rules.

Subchapter 3. Standards for Elementary, Middle Level, Secondary, and Career and Technology Schools
Part 25. Standard XIV: Freedom of Religion [NEW]
210:35-3-251. Voluntary prayer [NEW]
210:35-3-252. Minute of silence in public schools [NEW]

Text of proposed rule
Rule Impact Statement

I’ll be honest. I think this is nonsense. I think it’s detracting from the REAL issues which are that our kids can’t read or do math proficiently, and while I love Jesus personally, I don’t think adding one minute of quiet time to their school day will affect a single thing about that. Making teachers teach properly and schools follow the law will do more for that than a single silent minute.

In fact, I don’t see anything different in this section of ‘new’ law than what has already been happening in public schools for many years.

The only thing different about this ‘new’ rule is that it provides for a complaints process if the school isn’t following the law and:

(c) The State Department of Education shall annually verify that districts have adopted policies that comply with this rule and shall recommend an accreditation deficiency to the State Board of Education for any school district that fails to comply.

Getting an accreditation deficiency for not enforcing a single silent minute is way over the top to me. Now, if a school is not allowing a coach to say a prayer before a game, or teachers to keep Bibles on their desks – I think there’s a problem, as those are personal issues, not state issues – but those situations aren’t addressed in this rule, most probably because they’ve been adjudicated frequently at numerous levels of the judiciary.

January 22, 2024 1

Oklahoma Government Schools Give 6- 12 Grade Students Surveys To ‘RAT OUT’ Friends, Neighbors and Parents For Grant Funds – HELP US PASS SB1448 TO HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE

These are just a few representative questions from the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Survey for 6th grade which can be found here. Questions for the 8, 10 and 12th grade survey is found here. These questions are being asked of students as young as SIXTH GRADE.

But not only are 6th grade students asked to ‘RAT OUT’ their friends, this survey asks similar questions about PARENTS and NEIGHBORS!

This was forwarded through a parent in Edmond Public Schools. The school sent a letter out via email to parents to inform them of the survey and their right to opt out.

THERE WAS NO LINK IN THE LETTER TO THE DIRECT SURVEY, just descriptions of a few of the more minor questions and a notice that parents could DROP EVERYTHING AND COME TO THE SCHOOL TO VIEW THE SURVEY.

Of course I believe that every parent should do just that, but why not make it easy to access the survey questions online? Everything else – including learning – has been shuttled online, why not a link to these INVASIVE surveys?

WHAT ARE THE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS WITH THIS SURVEY?

1. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment protects students from being given surveys paid for with Federal funds that ask the following type questions:

Please note how many of the questions in the screenshot above VIOLATE THE PPRA!

Ahhh, but herein lies the kicker – it doesn’t protect children from invasive surveys given at the state level – including this one!

This is why ROPE worked with author, Senator Shane Jett, to create a bill (SB1448) that would force school Administrators to sign an affidavit that a survey does NOT violate the PPRA. Please ask your legislator to Co-Author this bill with Shane Jett, to protect our children from these invasive surveys.

2. If a parent got interested at all from the letter sent by the school they could internet search “Oklahoma Prevention Needs Survey” and they would find this – on the Oklahoma State Department of Education website:

Please note – you are to contact an “EPIDEMIOLOGIST” for information. According to Wikipedia: Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution, patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. It is a cornerstone of public health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare.

Why in the world would we be using class time to assess student populations for reasons of ‘SHAPING POLICY DECISIONS”? Schools appear to be having a terrible time making sure a majority of their students can read at grade level.

Because results of the surveys will be used to “collect school-level data needed for grant program eligibility”! Our kids are being given invasive surveys asking them to tattle on friends and family members FOR MONEY.

3. Edmond public schools assures parents that these are ANONYMOUS surveys and that no personal data will be attached to the surveys. This is a bald-faced lie. No school can guarantee that student data will be kept anonymous – especially if surveys are to be given by a THIRD PARTY. The Oklahoma Prevention Needs Survey is being given through the OSDE by Oklahoma State University researchers. How many people will handle that data? How can the school prevent a name or id from being attached to the survey?

ROPE has written a great deal about the dangers of student data collection that came with the Common Core. All one needs to do is use the search engine to search the word “data” on our blogspot and find numerous well-researched articles that explain the nature of data collection and why data can never really be anonymous. Or, if you don’t trust us – internet search the terms “student privacy”. That should provide plenty of information indicating the LACK of privacy for students when data is collected through government schools.

FYI: If a parent found the page on the OSDE website and tried to “click for more information” they would find that the page goes NOWHERE.

Using the Way Back Machine found a page that went directly to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) website. This page gives more information about the surveys and says,

The survey also includes risk and protective factors, which are attitudes, behaviors, and opinions that research has shown to be highly correlated with these health risk behaviors.

Exactly the things that schools should not be giving to children according to the PPRA.

These are not the only surveys being given to students in our public schools. This blog talks a bit about the Youth Risk Behavior surveys which ask – not only questions about drug use – but ask very personal questions about sexual behavior – another taboo topic according to the PPRA.

HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE: PARENTS! DO NOT ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN TO TAKE ANY SURVEYS OR FILL OUT ANY QUESTIONNAIRES AT SCHOOL – and help us pass SB1448 this 2022 session!

February 4, 2022 0

ROPE Report

Tag