State Board of Education

[bombermwc]

OK so we've probably seen the drama that unfolded at the state board of education meeting. But what do you guys think about it?

Do you think Berresi is trying to act like a "dictator" at the start of her term to show she means business?

Is she maybe taking control back from when her predacesor didn't DO anything?

Regardless of whatever that opinion is, I think we'd all agree that the former state senator had no excuse to make his comment about the pregnant appointee.

And speaking of appointees, do you think an elected official or an appointed one holds more weight? It is true that she was elected, but could political motivation cause her to push some things that shouldn't be? If you're appointed, do you do things without considering how people will react because you aren't elected?

I sort of sitting back on this one. I was never a fan of Mrs. Garret, and I actually didn't vote for Beressi because of her lack of experience in education. But that doesn't mean she can't do a good job. It's just interesting to see something so big come out so soon after the change in office when NOTHING happened for years.

[HewenttoJared]

I heard the npr coverage this morning, but it didn't cover the actual issues at hand, only the drama.

[bombermwc]

yeah, i'm not really as interested in the drama, as the underlying issues that the drama brought up.

[Midtowner]

I'm a big fan of Barresi. Of course, keep in mind that bandnerd (the wife) works at a school Ms. Barresi helped to found.

If you say that Barresi doesn't have experience, really, all due respect, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

[bombermwc]

The one thing Barresi did was help run some charter schools. That's her claim to experience. That's not enough to qualify for me. She might have done a great job there, but a charter school is not representative of the rest of the world of education. They run more like a business than a school. I'd like to see someone that moved through the ranks from a teacher, to a principal, to administration. Someone that has experienced educaton on ALL fronts. That's the only person I feel is qualified to run the state education system. If you don't have a firm grasp on every single aspect and have been down in the trenches on all fronts, then how can you be expected to guide the entire state. Heck, if you really want to look at it, they really need to have taught in both small and large size districts as well....that's night and day itself. There are PLENTY of folks out there that do this exact thing every day by the time they retire from teaching. THEY would make the perfect candidate for the job....and I'm sorry, that's not Barresi. Knowing someone personally makes it hard to look at them from the outside like that, but she's not the best person for the job. We haven't had a good person in that office in decades....hence part of why our education system is so lacking.

[bandnerd]

Okay, I'm a teacher and I don't even think that the State Super needs to have been a teacher or even an administrator. Seriously, what's wrong with running a school in a more business-like manner? Bad teachers would get the boot, just like you would in any other profession. We have major budgets to run, not unlike a business. I manage three budgets (and have managed more in the past) at my current teaching job. Part of what I do is business.

There is no person out there that will meet all the requirements that people seem to think a State Super needs. Seriously--someone who has worked through teaching, admin, in districts of all sizes? If you found someone like that, then people would complain and say that the candidate merely worked through the system, job-hopping, to make their way to the top! It's a no-win for anyone.

Baressi has often been at Harding Charter Prep, visiting classes, meeting students, seeing what's going on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or really even an educator, to tell when education is happening properly. It's kind of obvious, really. Visit a school sometime and you can tell who's doing things right. And I know that HCP openly offers tours to people who want to see what goes on there.

I cannot impress upon anyone how awesome Harding Charter Prep is, and Baressi had a big hand in the focus of the school. It is run more smoothly than the public school where I worked previously, that's for sure.

[urbanity]

Commentaries from Tim Gilpin and Janet Barresi:

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...education.html

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...e-actions.html

[Midtowner]

The one thing Barresi did was help run some charter schools. That's her claim to experience. That's not enough to qualify for me. She might have done a great job there, but a charter school is not representative of the rest of the world of education. They run more like a business than a school. I'd like to see someone that moved through the ranks from a teacher, to a principal, to administration. Someone that has experienced educaton on ALL fronts. That's the only person I feel is qualified to run the state education system. If you don't have a firm grasp on every single aspect and have been down in the trenches on all fronts, then how can you be expected to guide the entire state. Heck, if you really want to look at it, they really need to have taught in both small and large size districts as well....that's night and day itself. There are PLENTY of folks out there that do this exact thing every day by the time they retire from teaching. THEY would make the perfect candidate for the job....and I'm sorry, that's not Barresi. Knowing someone personally makes it hard to look at them from the outside like that, but she's not the best person for the job. We haven't had a good person in that office in decades....hence part of why our education system is so lacking.

The election is over. Barresi is the Superintendent of Public Education.

Nothing about being a teacher qualifies you as being a school administrator. The skills really don't overlap. Just like being a school administrator really doesn't have much in common with being the executive head of a major state agency.

So the heck what if you don't think she's qualified? She's been elected, she has a clear mandate from the people to promote change. The question is not whether she's qualified (and she is, since winning the vote is the only qualification for the job), but whether she the Board is correct in standing in Barresi's way in attempting to appoint her own senior staff members.

[Midtowner]

The rules in this case are arguably, very arguably, not actually rules pertaining to the qualifications of the Chief of Staff. Regulation 8139, which is what all the hubbub is about re: Ms. Jennifer Carter, is a Regulation which referred to a person who used to have that particular job, and was more for budgetary identification purposes than anything else. If you think about what the Chief of Staff of a major Department does, requiring that same person to have 8 years experience administering schools and a M.Ed in Administration serves no rational purpose whatsoever.

Barresi, in her op-ed published on The McCarville Reprot wrote this re: Carter's qualifications:

Sadly, those comments were the rule and not the exception to both men’s behavior throughout the meeting. The board refused to hire Jennifer Carter as my chief of staff, even though Carter is an attorney with a solid background in education. She previously worked as an Assistant Insurance Commissioner for Democrat Kim Holland and as Director of Legal Services/Government Relations for the Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators (APOE), where she was active in passing Oklahoma’s Achieving Classroom Excellence law. In that position, Carter also mediated and filed grievances on behalf of teachers and represented educators at board hearings and in lawsuits.

Frankly, she sounds MORE qualified than the individual she is replacing (who resigned), so she's probably worth the 10K pay bump. Sid, you're probably more in tune with the law, so let me explain to lay people what these "rules" are and just how far down the totem pole Regulation 8139 is.

It's not the U.S. Constitution.

It's not the State Constitution.

Nowhere is Regulation 8139 referred to in the Statutes.

Nope... not even in the Department of Education section of the Administrative Code.

Reg. 8139 is so obscure it's not even available on the DOE's own website, and as I said, it can be interpreted to either not apply to Jennifer Carter, or it could be changed by a simple majority vote of the School Board, assuming, of course, they comply with the correct procedures. It should also be mentioned that these folks, while standing pat and saying "rules are rules" had no problem violating the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act (those are statutes, they matter) when they made and passed floor motions, which were not on the posted meeting agenda, pertaining to Barresi's hires and requesting an AG's opinion as to the legality of a 501(c)(3) paying the salaries of her designees.

I disagree with your characterization of politics and the rules. Rules are often subject to interpretation, and as long as you're willing to stand by a particular interpretation, and you believe those who matter will agree with you, you're pretty much home free. I'm guessing that the next Board meeting will be a lot more civil, the Board will be a little more compliant with Barresi's agenda, and her three refused employees will be retained. If that doesn't happen, look for the legislature to rewrite the rules in Barresi's favor. Right now, we have 70 Republican State Reps who are going to be on-hand for the next meeting. If that doesn't send a clear enough message, then I imagine Barresi will have a lot of items (such as the hiring of senior staff) placed under her sole discretion, or Board members' roles and terms will be altered so that they serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

Now, of course, rules being "subject to interpretation" can backfire if the District Attorney disagrees with your interpretation. Just ask Rep. Terrill. That said, Jennifer Carter is a hell of a smart lawyer, and no doubt, she's done the work to ensure that she's going to come out of this thing on top.

[Midtowner]

Legality often boils down to semantic games, i.e., Does Reg 8139 mean THE Chief of Staff (the office) or does it mean THAT Chief of Staff (the person); and I see neither interpretation as being more correct than the other. I do see where the smart money is at the end of the fight though, and that's on Barresi.

As far as your Council/Mayor positions were concerned, remember that you were ALL elected. I think that counts for something here if we're wanting to make a determination as to who should have the most power. The Board wasn't really set up to function under a Superintendent who was in a different party than the Board, so we're kind of charting new territory here.

[bombermwc]

Hey, she may have been elected, but since when does being elected equate to qualification? I can think of soooo many politicians that were't qualified but they got elected.

I'm not really interested in that last board meeting to be honest. They're going to have battles and we happen to get some good sound bites from some folks that spoke before they thought. Welcome to politics.

And if you think I should just stop complaining because she's elected, then you need to get over that right now. I can piss and moan all day long if I want to...it's call freedom of expression. But whatever....hey if she ends up doing a better job than Garrett did (which wouldn't take much), then i'll get on her wagon. It's way to early to make that decision...it's been a month and how many meetings? I'm not a "snapshot" decision maker on something like that. You can't look at one point in time and be done, it's a long-term thing. But again, just because she's there, doesn't mean I am going to magically like her.

And as for crappy teachers, the best thing she can do there is toss tenure. I do think a performance-based system would do wonders as well. As long as you don't just tie it to grades (and especially NOT on a semester or yearly basis). You can get a good year and bad year of kids that are the product of the previous teachers and you have to clean up the mess. You can create a system of averages basing performance on the trends of previous semesters/years and evaluate it over, say a 3-5 year period. I think that would be much more reflective of skills than a single year. There are a million different things you can do here without making it overly complex and pointless. But toss tenure and you're making a good deal of progress. Why should you not be able to be fired? Everyone else in the world has the possibility of being fired any day they walk into their job. Difference with a teacher is, at least you would know you're going at the semseter or the end of the year.

[MustangGT]

Hey, she may have been elected, but since when does being elected equate to qualification? I can think of soooo many politicians that were't qualified but they got elected.

Amen. And I agree in the dumping of tenure up to and including collegiate tenure. Get rid of it all.

[Double Edge]

Here we go with the Republican's throat ramming, full speed ahead...

Republican leaders in the House and Senate say they will unveil a bill Monday to strip power from the state Board of Education.

House Speaker Kris Steele and Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman said Friday the bill would transfer authority to run the Department of Education from the board to the state schools superintendent.

Read more: http://newsok.com/legislators-look-t...#ixzz1DDFnyGhL

For the record, I voted for Barresi and support her.

[rcjunkie]

Here we go with the Republican's throat ramming, full speed ahead...

Republican leaders in the House and Senate say they will unveil a bill Monday to strip power from the state Board of Education.

House Speaker Kris Steele and Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman said Friday the bill would transfer authority to run the Department of Education from the board to the state schools superintendent.Read more: http://newsok.com/legislators-look-t...#ixzz1DDFnyGhL

For the record, I voted for Barresi and support her.

As it should be, that's what the person is selected to do. (irregardless of Political Party).

[rcjunkie]

Are you suggesting that oversight committees/or boards are simply not needed so long as the person is elected?

Never said that, and your correct about them being the "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE/BOARD, in this case, the board is trying to tell the elected person who to hire and how to run the department.

[Midtowner]

(irregardless of Political Party).

People who use irregardless [sic] as a word are not allowed to comment on public education.

[rcjunkie]

People who use irregardless [sic] as a word are not allowed to comment on public education.

People who think they must correct every single mistake ae not allowed to comment on any thread, REGARDLESS of how much better they think they are.

[Midtowner]

Are you suggesting that oversight committees/or boards are simply not needed so long as the person is elected?

No, but should an unelected Board, which is by design impervious to outside influences, aside from the annual appointments by the Governor, be in charge of the state's largest budget?

[bandnerd]

Irregardless = nails on a chalkboard.

[Midtowner]

People who think they must correct every single mistake ae not allowed to comment on any thread, REGARDLESS of how much better they think they are.

I only feel compelled to correct the egregious ones, i.e., the use of non-words or the use of apostrophe s to indicate a plural. Think of it as a teachable moment rather than an excuse to become upset. We can only judge your intellect and thoughtfulness by your written words. If you're using non-words such as "irregardless," and not in an intentional, ironic way, then you are not making a favorable impression on many of us.

[bandnerd]

People who think they must correct every single mistake ae not allowed to comment on any thread, REGARDLESS of how much better they think they are.

Is it bad that I feel compelled to correct this mistake?

[flintysooner]

ir·re·gard·less (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Midtowner]

It's just like wearing a fanny pack. It may seem to meet a need, but people are going to judge you for it.

[bandnerd]

ir·re·gard·less (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Oh come on, they put Rachael Ray's "EVOO" in the dictionary.

[Midtowner]

The position I take, i.e., that the Board should defer to the policy objectives of the elected official, is I think supported by the design of the system. Historically, remember that Oklahoma's Constitution and Statutes were defined in a period of and for use in a single-party rule system with a permanent minority party. Recall that the Democrats controlled absolutely everything and in the Department of Education, they have had absolute and uncontested control since statehood, with the exception of a few Board members who were appointed by Republican governors, who seemed to be along for the ride, this has always been the case.

Additionally, we have a Superintendent of Public Instruction who took the rather irregular step of running on an actual platform with some legislative agenda sorts of goals in mind. Certainly--no question--having a legislative agenda is absolutely outside of the job described in the law (which I'll use to refer to anything in the Constitution, statute, administrative rule or regulation). However, she is a public official, and unless you want to buy the argument that she was only elected because she was the one with an (R) next to her name, which I'd agree is a completely tenable position, she was elected in large part due to the legislative agenda the public wants to see pursued and implemented.

Let's look at this not from a legalistic position, but a policy position. Education in this state has been in a holding pattern since HB1017 passed back in the 90s. About the biggest change we've seen has been the introduction of a handful of charter schools serving probably <1% of the students. The people clearly are not happy with the status quo. From administrative bloating to school choice, the people have voiced that they are in favor of sweeping reform. From a legalistic standpoint, the Board can only hinder this process for three years (on the 3rd year of Barresi's term, Fallin appointees and the Chairwoman will have an effective majority on the Board). The legislature is not going to switch majority parties within the next four years. The only possible policy objectives those currently on the Board can pursue are hindering the implementation of the Republican education agenda for three years.

From a legislative standpoint, why would you think the legislature wouldn't brush this Board aside if 1) it is within its power to do so; and 2) it appears that the Board will be filling a solely obstructionist role for at least three more years?

The Republicans are a much more vertically integrated party than the Democrats ever were. They had integrated policies, themes and agenda. They campaigned with a strong party message. Why would you expect them to govern any differently than they campaigned?

Another take on this is that the Board has never in history been asked to promote or even discuss such a radical agenda. Maybe it's just not set up to do that?

Another take is that the legislature really ought to leave the appointment of close advisors to the Superintendent, such as the Chief of Staff, completely up to the Superintendent.

I think I share some of your concerns about this legislature going too far too fast, and that is probably a bad thing as unintended consequences often take time to surface and are often not addressable after change has occurred (and a whole host of other concerns).