By miller727@icloud.com March 17, 2016 Uncategorized 10 Comments
According to its webpage, the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC) is a school service organization dedicated to the development of services for public schools and is “particularly focused on meeting the needs of smaller schools and districts.”
Apparently, OPSRC also has a lobbying arm to advocate for various legislation they believe would benefit their member schools.
A notable piece of legislation they’re pushing this session is Senate Bill 1187, the “Empowered Schools and School District Act,” co-authored by House Speaker Jeff Hickman and Senator Clark Jolley.
On March 16, OPSRC Executive Director, Brent Bushey, posted the following statement regarding this legislation:
We would like to clarify our stance on Senate Bill 1187 (SB 1187). SB 1187 passed out of the Oklahoma Senate last week on Thursday, March 10, with a vote of 25-20. Since its passage, the bill has drawn a great deal of scrutiny. The Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC) requested this bill based on feedback from member schools, and we would like to provide an overview of the legislation, explain why we requested it and address some of the concerns that have been voiced.
I have many concerns about the hidden agenda behind SB1187. Call me a skeptic, but anytime some of our current legislators, especially Jolley and Hickman, say a particular bill will be good for schools, sirens go off in my head.
What troubles me here is the direct connection between SB1187 and model legislation promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
ALEC’s “Innovative Schools and School Districts Act” has been bouncing around in state legislatures across the nation for the past few years.
Anyone who has been paying attention recognizes that our Republican lawmakers have made extensive use of ALEC’s model legislation in crafting numerous education reforms in our state, most recently legislation concerning Education Savings Accounts (vouchers).
Many of these ALEC bills seek to promote greater school choice, vouchers, and charters, to the detriment of public schools.
I appreciate Mr. Bushey’s candor in stating that OPSRC specifically requested this legislation. He and his organization have the right to publicly advocate for whatever legislation they want.
My confusion is why Mr. Bushey feels it necessary to be disingenuous about the origins of this bill?
Farther into his statement about SB1187, in response to concerns from educators that SB1187 is an ALEC sponsored/related bill, Mr. Bushey emphatically states:
“SB1187 is unrelated to ALEC in any fashion. To be clear, nothing in this bill is related to ALEC, nor is the OPSRC affiliated in any shape or fashion with ALEC.”
Unrelated in any fashion? Is that really what you want us to believe, Mr. Bushey?
Luckily, I have my male bovine fecal material detector handy.
Mr. Bushey, I hate to be so blunt, but your statement is either ignorant of the facts or you are purposefully attempting to divert our attention.
This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read both the ALEC model legislation and SB1187 side-by-side.
The portion I’m sharing below is just an excerpt. It is from the section related to requirements for the submission of an Innovation (Empowerment) Plan in both pieces of legislation.
Language from the ALEC legislation is shown in red while Senator Jolley’s SB 1187 (as engrossed) is shown in blue. SB1187 was amended on March 9 and passed the Senate on March 10.
ALEC:
Each innovation plan, whether submitted by a public school or created by a local school board through collaboration between the local school board and a public school, shall include the following information:
(1) A statement of the public school’s mission and why designation as an innovation school would enhance the school’s ability to achieve its mission;
(2) A description of the innovations the public school would implement, which may include, but need not be limited to, innovations in school staffing; curriculum and assessment; class scheduling; use of financial and other resources; and faculty recruitment, employment, evaluation, and compensation;
(3) A listing of the programs, policies, or operational documents within the public school that would be affected by the public school’s identified innovation and the manner in which they would be affected. The programs, policies, or operational documents may include, but need not be limited to:
(a) the research-based educational program the public school would implement;
(b) the length of school day and school year at the public school;
(c) the student promotion and graduation policies to be implemented at the public school;
(d) the public school’s assessment plan;
(e) the proposed budget for the public school; and
(f) the proposed staffing plan for the public school.
SB1187: Each empowerment plan shall include the following information:
(1) A statement of the mission of the school, zone, or district and why designation as an empowered school, zone, or district would enhance the ability of the school, zone, or district to achieve its mission;
(2) A description of the innovations the school, zone, or district would implement, which may include, but not be limited to, innovations in school staffing, curriculum and assessment, class scheduling, use of financial and other resources, and faculty recruitment, employment, evaluation, and compensation;
(3) A listing of the programs, policies, or operational documents within the school, zone, or district that would be affected by the innovations identified by the school, zone, or district and the manner in which they would be affected. The programs, policies, or operational documents may include, but not be limited to:
a. the research-based educational program to be implemented,
b. the length of school day and school year,
c. the student promotion and graduation policies to be implemented,
d. the assessment plan,
e. the proposed budget, and
f. the proposed staffing plan;
This pattern continues for the seven remaining elements of the legislation. With the exception of a few words, SB1187 is a clone of the ALEC model legislation.
Mr. Bushey, how can you possibly state that “SB1187 is unrelated to ALEC in any fashion,” when entire portions of the legislation are copied verbatim from the model legislation?
Did you think that no one would fact check your claim? By making a statement so obviously false, you discredit everything else you have said about this legislation, along with your rationale for supporting it.
The unanswered question here is WHY you chose to provide cover for this particular piece of legislation.
You could have simply ignored the ALEC connection and said nothing in your statement. But you went out of your way to strongly assert (twice) there was absolutely no relation to ALEC.
Which was clearly a lie.
Do you not value your integrity and credibility more than this?
Can we expect an explanation or retraction soon?